how many guitars (is too many)?

[N.F.A.]

It was an evolution for me. I started as a rhythm guitarist and played in bands. When I moved to bass my group associations all became 3 pieces; drums, guitar, bass. I much prefer that now. If you had asked 10 years ago, I would've said 2 guitars. Now I prefer 1.

[p-lo]

Originally Posted by the yeti

this brings to mind another question: how do you feel about guitar players who are "strictly rhythm, they don't wanna make it cry or sing..."? does that make a difference in how you see them? or to the audience?

asked because i can't even conceive of a guitarist that doesn't want to play loud. i mean lead.

I think rhythm only players are great to play with when they are the singer/front person of the band (many times the songwriter in original projects) and paired with an additional guitarist who is a strong lead player.

I think I would struggle to find the value of a rhythm only player who was not one of the main vocalists in a cover band setting.

[SquierJazz72]

I think rhythm guitar is definitely under appreciated, and undervalued. Being a good rhythm player is an art, as much as good lead guitar or bass is.

Keith Richards makes a good example. I'm not the biggest Stones fan, but I like a lot of their stuff, and his approach, and the way he works it with everyone else, really makes those songs.

I think rhythm only players are great to play with when they are the singer/front person of the band (many times the songwriter in original projects) and paired with an additional guitarist who is a strong lead player.

That does seem to work well and be common with many bands. If the vocalist also plays guitar, they can do a lot of that rhythm guitar work and let the other guitarist be the lead.

[jive1]

Originally Posted by Biggbass

It depends on how well the music is arranged. 3 guitars is fine as long as the parts are
well defined.

That's the truth. You can have a single guitar player hog alot of sonic space, while three guitar players weave together while still creating space. Motown had 3 guitarists on their roster, and it wasn't uncommon for all 3 to play on a recording. But, it was tasteful and uncluttered. It's not like that was considered 'guitar rock'. The Dixie Chicks travel with 3 or more guitarists on tour, with each adding their own texture while keeping things uncluttered so the vocals can shine through. As long as the guitards can give each other and the rest of the instruments space, there's no reason it can't work.

[jive1]

Originally Posted by SquierJazz72

I think rhythm guitar is definitely under appreciated, and undervalued. Being a good rhythm player is an art, as much as good lead guitar or bass is.

To me, to be a complete guitarist, you have to be able to play rhythm. Many of the great lead players were also excellent on rhythm. Jimi Hendrix had some soaring leads, but I'm just as impressed with the chord voicings and rhythms he uses. EVH did cool stuff with suspensions, chord voicings, and picking styles. Richie Blackmore and Tony Iommi not only played killer leads, but they came up with classic riffs.

The thing about a great rhythm player is that they can chug a band along, and spell out the basic structure of the song.

[the yeti]

Originally Posted by Eric_71

This is interesting. I've been a guitarist for many years, and I usually just wanted to play rhythm. I liked the hero aspect of leads and solos, but I never really spent much time on them.

I think the reason you do not see guitarists who don't want to play lead (sorry, double negative) is because it's not a respected thing in the musician community. What band do you know who would hire a guitarist who won't (or can't) play leads? "Rhythm guitar" is a pejorative term, one that I've just come to accept.

My point is that the strictly-rhythm guitar people are not in short supply; it's that they have nowhere to play because the assumption is that rhythm guitarists suck.

while i don't know that i agree (that rhythm guitarists suck), that's sort of what i was getting at i guess.

[the yeti]

Originally Posted by jive1

The thing about a great rhythm player is that they can chug a band along, and spell out the basic structure of the song.

but that can also be the bassists role.

[SquierJazz72]

Many of the great lead players were also excellent on rhythm.

Definitely, and that's why many notable player,for me, were those ones that understood and could apply both.

When I talk about strictly "rhythm guitar" I'm just looking at how many different ways a guitarist can choose to play. Chord variations, inversions,strum patterns, etc... Just because you have six strings doesn't mean you have to go across all of them all of the time. A guitarist who makes the right choices on rhythm can really support the music. One who makes the wrong choices can wreck it. Same, of course, can be said of bass.

[DwaynieAD]

my band had 2 guitarists when I joined. guitarist 2 chose to not show up to my first show with them and was fired. Been doing it with just 1 since then. we're happy that way for the most part, meaning the singer wants 2 guitarists but can never communicate why. meanwhile the rest of us can communicate why we don't want 2 pretty well.

[jaywa]

Two electrics and an acoustic is the most I want going at one time.

And the two electrics had better each be pulling their weight, not just doubling.

I logged a few years in a 3-guitar band (all electrics, all the time) and it got pretty sloppy at times.

[mellowinman]

It depends how good they are. The more guitar players you have, the better they need to be. You could have TEN guitar players, if every single one of them knew how to only cover a certain part of the sound spectrum; everyone had dynamics; people were willing to sit out; they were using very different guitars, etc. (steel string acoustic, nylon string, lap steel, pedal steel, resonator belly, Les Paul, Strat, super modern shriek machine...)

We have one electric player, and have a hard time using that second electric guitar. We are actually about to make a change, that will have my wife playing second electric on some songs, but not enough to make it worth doing all the time. I play acoustic on some songs, and she does sometimes, too.

We went out with two dedicated electric guitars, and we were too noisy, and I blame one of the guitar players for that. He just wanted to always crank it up and be a star, and that just bugged.

[Kmonk]

You have too many guitars when buying them takes priority over other financial obligations.

[hrodbert696]

Like a lot of guys here, I prefer having just one guitarist, because it means I can be more free and not have to worry about cluttering the sound too much. Two makes sense, and blue's right, there are some songs you really need two guitars to cover properly. Three guitars (or more) I think are too much unless the band really has a concept and does its arrangements carefully to give each one a defined role.

[templar0707]

I think it depends on the music. We just added a smokin' lead guitarist to our country band (2 guitars, bass, drums, singer). I like it better than just one guitar in that situation because he knows how to tastefully layer on top of the rhythm guitar and even when not to play. For a weekend warrior band I don't want to have to figure out 3 guitars in a song.

[JohnMCA72]

As long as they're all playing something different, you can have as many as will fit in the space for them. As soon as 2 or more start playing the same thing, you've got 1 too many.

I know a band that has 5 guitars! When they're not soloing (a couple of them never solo) they hammer on the same barre chords as all the others, & don't even cut their volume. I'm sure you can imagine what that sounds like...

[Mr_Music90]

Depends on the style they play, I guess. Most bands I've listened to have 2 guitars, some have 1 others had 3. Not sure in what way an extra third guitar would add, but that's me.

And even worse : I saw a band one time that had a bass, drum, keyboard, 3 guitars and 6 vocals! (lol wut) And all 6 sang a part of a song, individual..

That's what I call too much.

[IngerAlb]

I prefer to work with just 1 guitar. More room for both of us. I've played with 2 guitars, keyboards and so on, and everyone was trying to hog the sonic space while the bass was squeezed like poop between butt chicks

[the yeti]

Originally Posted by IngerAlb

I prefer to work with just 1 guitar. More room for both of us. I've played with 2 guitars, keyboards and so on, and everyone was trying to hog the sonic space while the bass was squeezed like poop between butt chicks

that's sort of how i arrived at my conclusion.

[lettsbasses]

1!

[jmattbassplaya]

I prefer one with keys/synth. I feel like two guitarists will just limit my options, and since I'm a notey player I'd rather have the sonic space to do my thing.