how many guitars (is too many)? - Page 4

Jim Nazium · #61 02-04-2013, 08:44 AM

I think we all pretty much agree that, musically speaking, it depends on how good the arrangements are.

Another ascpect no one has mentioned yet, is money. If a second guitar means having to divide the already meager pay by 6 instead of 5, well, it better sound really good.

scorpionldr · #62 02-04-2013, 09:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by the yeti

i've felt for most of my life that i prefer a single guitar in a band. i know a lot of bands have 2 or sometimes 3 guitars even if there's a keyboard or other instruments. that got me thinking, from a bass perspective how many guitars? how about from a listeners perspective?

One is way too many IMO. I just don't see how ppl haven't gotten sick of the same sounds done ad infinitum

kanonfodr · #63 02-04-2013, 09:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by scorpionldr

One is way too many IMO. I just don't see how ppl haven't gotten sick of the same sounds done ad infinitum

Well the last time we tried chugging on drop-tuned power chords by running a viola through a Mesa half stack...dogs began committing suicide.

Peace,
Greg

levonrocks · #64 02-04-2013, 09:41 AM

If you only have one guitar player, you definitely have more space in the music which is fun as a bass player. You can play busier bass lines when there is more space in the music. However, two guitar players is really ideal. One rhythm and one lead. On the other hand; if you want the bass to really shine through, you're better off with one.

RustyAxe · #65 02-04-2013, 10:52 AM

Three is too many. One lead, one rhythm ... that's it.

scorpionldr · #66 02-04-2013, 10:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kanonfodr

Well the last time we tried chugging on drop-tuned power chords by running a viola through a Mesa half stack...dogs began committing suicide.

Peace,
Greg

Keytar ftw. But honestly with all the distorted wobble bass and everything going on I can see rock evolving rather than it just being known as a "dubstep thing".

Check "broken rulz" by Borgore. We aren't that far.

And it's not anger towards guitar for existing its just ALL THE SAME. I mean we had Roland develop v-pickups to incorporate midi. Effects processors for making myriads of beautiful sounds, and new approaches. Does the modern music world ever look with its peripheral vision? Nooooooooo

Jools4001 · #67 02-04-2013, 11:17 AM

My band has two guitarists. One plays Lead/Rhythm, the other plays Rhythm/Lead. So one majors on lead the other majors on rhythm, but they both swap roles as required and they both play lead on stuff like Thin Lizzy tunes or Iron Maiden's 'The Trooper'. They never tread on each others toes and it works well.

JimmyM · #68 02-04-2013, 11:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cica

It depends how good the guitarist is. When Lyndsey Buckingham didn't want to tour with Fleetwood Mac, it took 2 guitarists to replace him.

Not really. They liked both Dave Mason and Billy Burnette and decided to hire them both. Definitely not a question of replacing one guy with two. Peter Green and Jeremy Spencer were replaced in the Mac by one guy...Bob Welch. Now I always liked Bob (RIP) but do we really think he was as good in the Mac as Peter Green?

NWB · #69 02-04-2013, 06:02 PM

How many guitars are too many?

Well, I have a Les Paul and an acoustic/electric and am thinking that maybe a strat would be nice. So, would three be too many?

EricF · #70 02-06-2013, 12:26 PM

Three is too many...except in very rare circunstances (i.e. Built to Spill)
Two is sometimes perfect, and sometimes too many.
One is sometimes perfect, and sometimes not enough.

the yeti · #71 02-06-2013, 01:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NWB

How many guitars are too many?

Well, I have a Les Paul and an acoustic/eletric and am thinking that maybe a strat would be nice. So, would three be too many?

in that context "too many" is "not enough", so yes.

Raymeous · #72 02-06-2013, 01:09 PM

Come on! Everybody knows that the correct answer is: One more than however many you already own.

Seriously it all depends. What types of sounds are you after: classic or modern, solidbody or hollowbody, fretted or fretless, is a 4 string enough, or do you like the versatility of a 6?

Generally at least one, but having a back up is a great idea for the gigging musician.

the yeti · #73 02-06-2013, 01:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Raymeous

Come on! Everybody knows that the correct answer is: One more than however many you already own.

Generally at least one, but having a back up is a great idea for the gigging musician.

Right. But really the question is about how many guitar players is too many in your band.

obimark · #74 02-06-2013, 06:11 PM

I have 2 in my band, and they play well together, i.e. switch off for leads, and the main singer, doesn't always play his all the time. Sounds good, sometimes I lay back on bass sometimes I step out. It can work with 1 or 2, I never want to play in a band with more than 2 however.

treekiller · #75 02-06-2013, 06:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BryanM

I love two guitars, but only if they complement each other rather than duplicating or battling for space.

+1 !!! Unfortunately, this is pretty rare. Usually one is a really good player and the other isn't, which wouldn't be so bad if the one that isn't understood that fact....... what ends up happening is Mr. Suck plays too loud & steps all over everybody else's parts!

I'm considering starting another band, but I want to take the time to find one GOOD guitar player instead of settling for whoever is available. I'd much rather have one good guitar player and a keyboard player instead of 2 guitards!!!

wideload · #76 02-06-2013, 06:50 PM

We had three guitars, but everyone knew their place. Acoustic rhythm, rock lead, pedal steel guitar. When we tried to add a keyboard player, somebody always got their feelings hurt, so we ditched the idea. Its all about space and distinct sound, IMO.

Chromer · #77 02-06-2013, 07:53 PM

The last track I worked on had five guitar parts... But three of them were single or two note lines with clean tones, the acoustic rhythm part had the bottom savagely EQ'd off of it, and the dirty rhythm part had a lot of the bottom taken off to leave room for baritone vocals.

It's all about keeping the parts very separated both tonally, and spatially (both left to right, and front to back via predelay/early reflections/reverb).

That said, I'm not sure I could find enough guitar players I could trust to lay back enough to do it live. Probably two guitarists if done live, the dirty chugger and the clean FX parts played, with the acoustic rhythm being from backing track/sequencer/triggered...

Mr_Music90 · #78 02-07-2013, 05:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EricF

Three is too many...except in very rare circunstances (i.e. Built to Spill)
Two is sometimes perfect, and sometimes too many.
One is sometimes perfect, and sometimes not enough.

^ ^

THIS

BayStateBass · #79 02-07-2013, 06:25 AM

At one time our band had 4 guitarists; lead, alternate lead/rhythm, rhythm, and a pedal steel.

It was auditory destruction 99.9% of the time. I hated it.

Now we are down to mainly two guitarists, lead and rhythm. The other rhythm player only does a few things in a few songs, mostly he doesn't play at all, but he's the BL so there's not much we can do about it.

For me my ideal setup is lead, rhythm, bass, and drums.

I would also enjoy a trio for the right kind of music.

the yeti · #80 02-07-2013, 07:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chromer

That said, I'm not sure I could find enough guitar players I could trust to lay back enough to do it live.

this is really what drove me to ask the question.

it seems that lots of times guitarists are competitive to the point of being detrimental to the overall, or they're the guy who isn't really adding much (maybe he owns the pa?). but lots of times even the most attention desperate guitarist will be more attuned to the rest of the band when there's no direct competition.

either that or i just have a bad attitude about guitarists.