Four-piece bands... am I right?

[Axstar]

A bit of a shower thought, but every four piece band I've been in has been two overlapping three-piece bands, subtly duking it out.

I answered a 'bassist wanted' add recently, from a guy trying to put a psychedelic band together. After we all met together last night for the first time, I noticed something that I've noticed many times before...

Drummer goes out for a smoke, so one guitarist jumps on drums. Nice, pleasant guitar + bass + jam develops.

Drummer comes back, so guitarist gets back on guitar. Immediately the two guitarists are playing all over each other, trying to copy each other's riffs and licks, trampling around and vying for attention.

Guitarist goes out for a smoke and nice, pleasant guitar + bass + jam develops.


Every band I've been in with two guitarists has wound up like this. If one guitarist is sick/broke/stuck in traffic then a nice time is had by all. In all cases the guitarists have both had strong ideas for what direction the band should be going in, musically, and often there is a conflict there. One guy wants to play lighter poppier stuff, and the other guy wants to get heavier, for example. Take one guitarist, any guitarist, out the equation and calmness descends.

Imagine if Rush had another guitarist who stamped around all over Alex Lifeson's solos and then told them they should be going in a more Folkie direction...

Imagine if Cream had a guy strumming a Telecaster in the opposite corner to Clapton and telling them they should be playing more Beatles covers...

And of course you get guitarist volume wars developing as well, and the time spent setting up all their pedals and trying to work out which patch cable is dead...

Is one guitarist enough? Surely one is enough!

 

[ArtechnikA]

...Is one guitarist enough? Surely one is enough!

I usually think so.
Current projects are a blues power trio (a la Cream) and guitar/bass/drum + singer who occasionally fills on acoustic (a la Who & Zeppelin).
I did a couple of two-guitar projects for a while. One guy split guitar and keys so that mostly worked OK.
In the other project one guy mostly did comping and the other guy mostly did lead lines. That sorta worked but I think it could have been covered by one good guy. They didn't care that there was more baggage than necessary because there was never any money to split. Last I heard they're still a basement jam band.
I could imagine two guitars working if both can sing - ideally, together. Or it's an acoustic/12-string and electric duo.
I just left a two guitar project where _neither_ could sing. Three people doing the work of one seemed overweight.

 

[Axstar]

I could imagine two guitars working if both can sing - ideally, together. Or it's an acoustic/12-string and electric duo.

My main band has electric 12-string and six string, and that works quite well. The 12-er guy tends to go for bright, jangling Byrds tone, though he is notionally the rhythm player. The lead guitarist is also the lead singer, and prefers a darker Gibson-family tone. When it works it blends a bit like '60s Jefferson Airplane, but when it doesn't it sounds really lopsided.

Two guitarists who are both singers, who compliment each other's vocal parts and who neatly fall into 'rhythm' and 'lead' roles? Do you take a cattle prod to rehearsals at that point?

I was amused that these guys last night are total strangers to me, yet they fell into the same guitarist behaviors that I've seen many times before. I guess they are like dogs; there is some variance within a given breed but a Terrier is always a Terrier.

 

[Lobster11]

I play in two bands, one with two guitarists and one with three. Trust me, it can work great if they have the right attitude. All of the guitarists involved can play both lead and rhythm, and make a conscious effort to stay out of each others' way.

 

[40Hz]

I’ve been in several “two guitar plus bass and drums with vocals” bands.

Never once ran into the scenario you’re describing. We all stayed within our roles in the band. And there was no competition between the two guitars since (in my bands) the duties of the guitarists didn’t break down between lead and rhythm. Each guitarist had an individual part in the every song. And those parts interwove and supported each other. So there was no “superior guitarist” position in our music to complete for.

The only friendly rivalry, such as there was, was with songwriting. Each band member constantly tried to write a better song than the rest of the gang.

 

[buldog5151bass]

It depends on the music you play, and the people who play it. I like having two melody instruments, whether it is guitar and keys, or two guitars. Some music sounds good as a trio - others sound empty.

Good musicians know that playing a supporting role to the lead is just as important as that lead. It's a lot more than "a guy strumming a Telecaster in the opposite corner to Clapton".

 

[Bodeanly]

Then there are bands like Foo Fighters, et al. Three guitarists! When I see bands set up like this, severe anxiety washes over me. I must have ptsd or something. What is the freakin point when it’s straight up rock and roll? If I see an ad for drums and three guitars seeking a bassist, I shake my head, close my laptop, and thank God that don’t have to deal with that ish.

 

[ArtechnikA]

Then there are bands like Foo Fighters, et al....

Night Ranger sold a lot of records...
It just seems like a lot of overhead, but if the whole pie is big enough, your cut might net out more even if you're getting 20% rather than 25...
This is a point I can't convince the lead guy in our blues trio, which could arguably use a harp. He won't pay a whole share to a guy playing on only half the songs, even if the project could bill at twice the rate...

 

[LBS-bass]

The moral of this story is "don't smoke."

Seriously, though, there is a lot of potential for ego-pain when you put two guitarists in a room together. If one of them is noticeably better as a player, the other one is going to feel outclassed. If both of them are good but one is more aggressive or a stronger personality, that one is going to step up front more, get louder, and try to take center stage. Sometimes, though, you get guys who know exactly what their limitations are and are perfectly willing to let someone else do the heavy lifting. Those guys will be bringing something else to the table: songwriting, lead vocals, or something.

I find it works best when the mix of player doesn't have any redundancy. Bring in a keyboard player, if you can. But sometimes you need a second guitar player if your first guy is weak. One of my bands is going through this right now. We had to bring in a second guitarist because our songwriter just doesn't have great solo chops. I think, though, that the new guy is challenging him to work harder. So sometimes it's good.

 

[Kro]

I have experienced this in the past, but I've found the key is to assemble a band of musicians (that goes for all instruments), and not use the more ego driven breed of guitar players whenever possible.

I currently have 3 musicians who play guitar (and sing, along with me) full-time in my band, but they're all mature enough to play parts that compliment each other, rather than fight for space. I don't think we've ever once had to address issues of anybody stepping on anybody else's toes.

It also helps to have defined rules, either by band, or by song. Example: Acoustic, rhythm, and lead duties.

With that being said, when one of them started discussing the addition of a piano part to a song, I did preemptively threaten to cut off his left hand... You know the saying: an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure and all. One can't be too careful.

 

[Axstar]

The moral of this story is "don't smoke."

I don't! Doctors' orders and everything.

A drummer buddy roped me into a band a few months back. Half way into the first rehearsal they all decamped to the back alley to smoke a joint. Been there, done that, I find it pretty depressing in all honesty. Dirty rehearsal rooms, back alley smoko, rinse repeat.


Maybe my biggest error is not really moving in musical circles, socially. If I'm getting into bands through obscure friendships and Facebook 'bassist wanted' adverts then I'm not going to strike gold very often.

 

[TNCreature]

Sometimes One Guitarist is one too many...

 

[LBS-bass]

With that being said, when one of them started discussing the addition of a piano part to a song, I did preemptively threaten to cut off his left hand... You know the saying: an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure and all. One can't be too careful.

My biggest gripe right now is with people who insist on telling other people what to play without giving them a chance to do what they're good at.

The new guitar player is absolutely brilliant with a good, fast ear, and at our last rehearsal I had the other guitar player trying to give him lots of direction. I finally spoke up and told the new guy that I would really prefer to hear what he can bring to the table on his own.

Then the singer was giving him vocal parts which resolved by doubling the lead vocal at the very end of the line. This is being done to a guy who can hear and sing any harmony on the fly. I had a few words to say about that. Singer: "But doubling is fine! People do it all the time." Me: "Yes, when the goal is to double the vocal and achieve that specific sound. But when you're singing three-part harmony and then someone ends on the same note as someone else? It just sounds like that person couldn't hear where to go any better than that, which is lame."

For the most part this is a pretty good band, but these control-freak issues rear their ugly head from time to time.

 

[Kmonk]

It depends on the band and the egos of the band members. Aerosmith doesn't have a problem with 2 guitarists. Brad Whitford and Joe Perry compliment each other very well. Lynyrd Skynyrd had 3 guitarists. I've been in bands with 2 guitarists, keys and drums, bands with one guitarist, keys and drums and a 3 piece. They all sounded good because everyone understood their role.

 

[two fingers]

I have played with dozens of bands. Most of them had two guitar players. The ones that "worked" had a lead guitar and a rhythm guitar.

There was only one exception. Both of those guys were mature enough to literally stand there and play NOTHING if there was no need for more guitar at that point. They enjoyed each other's work. They knew their own strengths and weaknesses and played to them. Where one was weak, the other was strong. And that was OK to them.

One band in thirty plus years.

The rest either had a rhythm and lead, or didn't work.

 

[hennessybass]

Think about the Allman Brothers where the two guitar players were a perfect team.
One would solo, the other would turn down an comp, then they would trade. And a lot of times, they would double the part, playing harmony lines together. Almost like a horn section in a jazz group.

It's a bit of an ego thing I think. It's about those particular guys and their larger music sensibilities and not so much about the fact that there are two guitars. Serving yourself, not the music. Same as a bass player (or whoever) overplaying.

IME, guitar players (in modern times) don't know how to comp very well. Probably as a result of the guitar hero culture created by superstars of the 60s and 70s that change the nature of guitar. You can see the same with some bass players where the bass is becoming more of a solo instrument instead of a support instrument largely because of guys like Jaco who changed the paradigm.

 

[Spidey2112]

Imagine if Rush had another guitarist who stamped around all over Alex Lifeson's solos and then told them they should be going in a more Folkie direction...

 

[Lance Bunyon]

Power trio for the win.
I've been in 10 piece horn bands all the way down to my current acoustic trio.
The trio was a quatro last weekend. Two percussionists.
Too loud. Three musicians is perfect.

 

[Axstar]

Think about the Allman Brothers where the two guitar players were a perfect team.
One would solo, the other would turn down an comp, then they would trade. And a lot of times, they would double the part, playing harmony lines together. Almost like a horn section in a jazz group.

This isn't taught to guitarists. Most guitarists I've played with, and a fair chunk I've seen at gigs, get away with having a fairly rudimentary rhythmic sense. Comping, dynamics, knowing inversions so you aren't blurring the low frequencies; a lost art!

Jimi Hendrix was a master rhythm player. So was Eddie Van Halen. That is what separates those guys out from Vai, Satriani and co. When Jimi and EVH rolled back the volume knob and played these brilliant rhythm parts the magic happened. Those guys could do the fireworks as well, but their rhythm work wasn't just finding the barre chord in the right key and hammering away.

I think non-master-volume amps helped, because all those guys got tasty rhythm tones by dialing back. The Allmans will have done the same.



As for skipping guitarists entirely, I would love to form an organ trio like Madeski Martin and Wood, or even ELP or my beloved Quatermass. Give the organist a mountain of room to do whatever they want to do, and find a really tight drummer to lock in with.

 

[LBS-bass]

Power trio for the win.
I've been in 10 piece horn bands all the way down to my current acoustic trio.
The trio was a quatro last weekend. Two percussionists.
Too loud. Three musicians is perfect.

Ugh. I really dislike a single guitar trio because the guitarist always wants to solo and there are no other chording chops unless that guitarist is brilliant enough to figure out a way to do both. Not many are. Too much empty space and I'm not going to be the one to fill it.