Chili Peppers?

I can't understand why people think Frusciante is such a good guitarist! Can someone please explain? Guitar solos are designed for two things:
1. To show off.
2. To add a new melody/develop the song.
Very few Frusciante solos actually do anything like this. They usually consist of him bending one note for about 20 seconds whilst grimacing. Hardly virtuosic like every seems to think he is. I actually know people who have hated Chili Pepper gigs because of how awful his solos were (admittedly they were guitarists).

Mike_Muse_Rage wrote:

I can't understand why people think Frusciante is such a good guitarist! Can someone please explain? Guitar solos are designed for two things:
1. To show off.
2. To add a new melody/develop the song.
Very few Frusciante solos actually do anything like this. They usually consist of him bending one note for about 20 seconds whilst grimacing. Hardly virtuosic like every seems to think he is. I actually know people who have hated Chili Pepper gigs because of how awful his solos were (admittedly they were guitarists).

I'm a guitarist - have been for 14 years and I can play. Frusciante is a great guitarist. Anyone who thinks his solos are awful has no sense of creating drama or musical tension with a solo. His improvisations with flea are mind blowing. He can play damn fast as well, although he's not the cleanest player out there. That doesn't bother me, because I like players who have a looser style.

Most live Frusciante solos I've heard do both of the things you list as reasons for a solo, but they do more. They take the song in new directions. I disagree with what you say solos are designed for, though. To me a solo is for the individual player to explore the groove of the song and to play off his band mates. To me, the best solos sound almost like a musical conversation between the band members, with each musician reacting spontaneously to what the other is doing. Frusciante is a master of this.

clairenordon wrote:

this is exactly what i was thinking and kiedis knows it too.

they had a bust up on stage at reading.

now that hes getting older, the looks dont do it anymore and people realised he cant sing very well...

bring on frusciante.

he's awesome, check this out:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-3Q_6I0018c

yes, yes, yes!!!

the only good moment at reading for the chilis was when kiedis shut the fuck up and John did his solo song. beautiful.

Oh, Jimmy wrote:

Why do people bash them so much? I understand they have turned down the funk and turned up the pop. But its not like their music isn't original. There is nobody that sounds like them. And the only songs that sound similar are the funkier ones. Now they have almost a beatlesish sound. Their last 2 albums are amazing. You can't touch Frusciante's backup vocals.

because they
s
u
c
k

in the

u
s
a

LukinFan wrote:

Jeff can

The fuck he cant, and jeff he only has a few songs he does. I just think of Low Light and Do The Evolution in where he has a part. plus i cant even notice jeff doing backup vocals on anything whereas John is noticibly singing background on a majority of the songs on Stadium Arcadium.

Mike_Muse_Rage wrote:

I can't understand why people think Frusciante is such a good guitarist! Can someone please explain? Guitar solos are designed for two things:
1. To show off.
2. To add a new melody/develop the song.
Very few Frusciante solos actually do anything like this. They usually consist of him bending one note for about 20 seconds whilst grimacing. Hardly virtuosic like every seems to think he is. I actually know people who have hated Chili Pepper gigs because of how awful his solos were (admittedly they were guitarists).

No one is calling him a virtuoso, and anyone who does would be wrong to.

I like him because i like his style, that loose style that Hendrix78 is talking bout. He puts so much feel and love into his playing that it comes across with every note and chord he plays.

He could play fast solo's up and down the guitar for every song... if he wanted to, but thats not his way.

hendrix78 wrote:

Most live Frusciante solos I've heard do both of the things you list as reasons for a solo, but they do more. They take the song in new directions. I disagree with what you say solos are designed for, though. To me a solo is for the individual player to explore the groove of the song and to play off his band mates. To me, the best solos sound almost like a musical conversation between the band members, with each musician reacting spontaneously to what the other is doing. Frusciante is a master of this.

Frusciante can do some great live solos sure, but he is inconsistent. He has too many nights off. I never saw them live but all the videos I have seen really show two frusciantes : he nails some solos really really well and he sometimes (not half of the time but regularly enough for it to be irritating) does some horrible horrible stuff. The kind of thing you expect from a drunk who just had his first pentatonic lesson. It's too bad, he writes some really good music but damn it try to focus when you play live!

I also think by the way and stadium arcadium were really boring albums. It may come off as snob but I think they regressed in their sound and do not have much to offer other than 1 or 2 spins if you're not discovering puberty or rock.

but there is only so far you can go with a shitty singer...

true, vocals are hm...:rolleyes:...weak!

Sorry, but I just don't get the Chilli's.