Four-piece bands... am I right?

[Methaneman]

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!

I prefer just one guitarist. The band I'm in 2 guitars, but one of them sings some songs and plays rhythm on some. He's got a good voice but doesn't know all the songs. Doesn't practice, but that's a whole story on it's own. But most of the bands I like have one guitarist.

 

[Hounddog409]

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.

Yup. Never seen this personally

In a 4 piece now. No issues

 

[Lance Bunyon]

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.

Sometimes empty space is ok. Listen to some Little Feat.

 

[LBS-bass]

Sometimes empty space is ok. Listen to some Little Feat.

Of course it is. I saw Little Feat live when Lowell George was still alive; what a great show that was. But that's not the kind of space I'm talking about. I'm talking about the complete lack of anything chordally rhythmic every single time a solo occurs, where something vital to the music is suddenly notably missing once the solo begins. It's boring and dull. I like to feel a bit more rhythmic interplay under a solo, at least most of the time. Just my personal preference, after having played as a three-piece for the past few years. Don't like it, not going back.

 

[Axstar]

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.

This was happening last night as well. Older guitarist has toured the US a bunch, toured other parts of the world a bunch, played on a bunch of albums...

Younger guitarist is some college kid with a Crafter Cruiser guitar, who spent a bit of time telling the other guitarist what to do, which was basically provide a rhythm part for him to solo over.

 

[LBS-bass]

This was happening last night as well. Older guitarist has toured the US a bunch, toured other parts of the world a bunch, played on a bunch of albums...

Younger guitarist is some college kid with a Crafter Cruiser guitar, who spent a bit of time telling the other guitarist what to do, which was basically provide a rhythm part for him to solo over.

Yeah, and people who know their stuff don't have to put up with that. I already had one keyboard player decline to join this band a few years ago because of similar antics and I'm determined I'm not going to let anyone in this band squash the creative abilities of this new guy. He has so much to bring to this table but they need to let him loose to do it.

 

[JRA]

Is one guitarist enough? Surely one is enough!

 

[40Hz]

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".

^This!

For me, five is the magic number.

My favorite lineup is a rock style quintet: two guitars (or one guitar plus some other melody instrument), bass, keys (preferably a Hammond rocked by someone who knows how to work the drawbars and Leslie), drums - everybody sings.

I consider that to be “the smallest symphony orchestra” in the world. You can handle any type of music imaginable with that staffing. It worked for the Moody Blues and Tom Petty. It worked for me. And it can work for you.

 

[Axstar]

Man, I'm in a snobby mood today.

I think I'm a good guitarist. I've often played with guitarists who I think are less good than I am. Guitarists with less developed ears, with less knowledge of what makes for good tone or good musicianship. I don't play guitar 'out' because it doesn't fit my temperament or personality.

The entry level for acceptable guitar is astonishingly low. You don't need any musical skill to learn a few chords. Purely learning chords is a bit like learning to assemble furniture. You follow some diagrams and you get results, but you shouldn't confuse assembling Ikea book cases with actual carpentry. Likewise I've played with far more guitarists than musicians who happen to play guitar. That reward stimulus is triggered as soon as you stumble through Wonderwall, and that is enough for a hefty chunk of guitarists. It appeals to a sort of core ego.

So many times I've played with badged "great guitarists" with no vibrato technique, or a sort of one-size-fits-all feverish vibrato technique they've learned out the back of a magazine. Good vibrato is that wibbly thing you do to every long note, right? Again, they've just learned to do set a procedure by rote, without any real thought process involved. No art is being created. Nothing is being communicated or conveyed. Electric guitars sound ugly quickly when every note is bashed out at the same velocity, and the same hackneyed blues scales are dragged out again and again.

Speaking of scales, one time we were recording and the guitarist said, proudly, "I used three different scales in that solo". Do you want a cookie, my man? Granted his solo actually followed the changes reasonably well, but at times I've been left wondering 'does this guy think we are still back there playing in A?'.

Weedle weedle weedle, weedle, weedle... all at 120 db through a solid state Marshall halfstack.

And that "great guitarist" is usually just the best guitarist in their college dorm or drunk on the beach at 1 am.

 

[ArtechnikA]

Of course it is. I saw Little Feat live when Lowell George was still alive; what a great show that was. But that's not the kind of space I'm talking about. I'm talking about the complete lack of anything chordally rhythmic every single time a solo occurs, where something vital to the music is suddenly notably missing once the solo begins. It's boring and dull. I like to feel a bit more rhythmic interplay under a solo, at least most of the time. Just my personal preference, after having played as a three-piece for the past few years. Don't like it, not going back.

I play a lot more double-stops in a trio environment, and a little bit busier (but not at the same time...) A little bit of drive most of the time, and light chorus sometimes.

 

[Ric5]

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!

These guys make it work … 2 guitars, bass drums, keyboards, and backup singers and even some horns

 

[LBS-bass]

I play a lot more double-stops in a trio environment, and a little bit busier (but not at the same time...) A little bit of drive most of the time, and light chorus sometimes.

Yeah, I do that too. But even while trying to make up for what drops out, I still miss having the full voice of the chords there. Maybe it's just that I played that way for a long while, and I'm enjoying having that back again.

 

[buldog5151bass]

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.

Go back to the 70s, and there were a lot of rock bands that regularly has three guitars (or two guitars and keyboards) - Styx, REO Speedwagon, Springsteen, Billy Joel, Skynyrd, Allman Brothers, Eagles, Kansas, not to mention Motown - it was the norm. Takes some discipline and organization, it can produce some fantastic music.

 

[Ric5]

 

[Bodeanly]

Go back to the 70s, and there were a lot of rock bands that regularly has three guitars (or two guitars and keyboards) - Styx, REO Speedwagon, Springsteen, Billy Joel, Skynyrd, Allman Brothers, Eagles, Kansas, not to mention Motown - it was the norm. Takes some discipline and organization, it can produce some fantastic music.

I’ve been in too many bands where it was just a constant, three-way volume war. Plus, it’s not the 70’s anymore. You don’t need three guitars for most modern music, especially if one of them is just doubling the power chords during the chorus.

 

[pbassnut]

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!

Agreed ... one good one will do in most cases. In fact, I would venture to say the same thing goes for drums and keys. The thing is, most guitar players (at least, in my circles) seem to think that whatever parts they would've played by themselves in a given musical scenario will work perfectly fine with whatever parts the other guitar player chooses to play. Maybe ... but not necessarily. They really have to work things out in order to sound good and not step on each other's parts. The worst possible scenario is where they are both playing _almost_ the same thing in which case it sounds like one guitarist playing sloppily.

 

[buldog5151bass]

I’ve been in too many bands where it was just a constant, three-way volume war. Plus, it’s not the 70’s anymore. You don’t need three guitars for most modern music, especially if one of them is just doubling the power chords during the chorus.

That's the issue. You have to USE all the instruments. I'll bet most bands today have multiple guitar tracks on their recordings, as well as keys. It isn't a matter of just playing what another instrument is playing.

Look at the classic Motown recordings. Three guitars, each playing different lines, usually on different parts of the neck. Bass. Piano, organ, three percussion players (not to mention horns). None of those tunes sounded busy or crowded, and no one was just doubling another part.

Springsteen had at least two guitars (sometimes an acoustic as well). Bass, piano, organ, sax, drums. Also not crowded or busy.

I grew up on bands like Styx and REO. I figured that was the way to make music.

It's called making music. Put your ego and your excessive volume in your back pocket and contribute.

 

[micguy]

Right now, there's a thread by a bassist demeaning all "simple bassists". Although the disease more often infects guitarists, it can spread to other musicians as well. There are (I work with many of them) guitarists that can work with others, that don't have to be the center of attention, and that don't have to run the show.

Music is a cooperative venture. If you're not a cooperative person, try something like painting scenery, where you don't have to work with other people.

 

[40Hz]

it’s not the 70’s anymore. You don’t need three guitars for most modern music,

Agree. You have chorus and various modulation effects plus good affordable compression options that come in a stompbox. You don’t need three guitars to get that texture and fullness when playing live these days. You can now dial in as much thickening as you need.

 

[gumbynotpokey]

It's not the instruments, it's the people. Knowing how to play is not what's needed. Knowing how to play in a BAND is what's needed.

bass, guitar, drums, keys -- the keys player needs to not play with left hand all over the bass register.

and so on

carry on