I love that Motown stuff. Not only was guitar often so well done, but so was the bass. Those bass lines were usually prominent, sometimes quite busy, and yet never stomping on anyone else. IMO, I always found Motown to be a great example of well put together music.
Enjoy the benefits of a premium membership!
Upgrade Account
-
TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
Join free Log in
Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.
how many guitars (is too many)?
- Thread starter the yeti
- Start date
True, but with the right guitar player and drummer in a trio, it's possible to pull off arrangements of songs that you wouldn't ordinarily think a trio could pull off. I know, I've done it with a band I used to front. Sometimes the bass winds up playing the guitar hook, and sometimes, you just modify the hook to suggest it while playing something else.
We have 2 guitars, keys, drums & me on bass. Our guitar players have been at it long enough that they know to stay out of the others' way.
If we're playing the "Abbey Road" medley, our keyboardist will switch back & forth from keys to third guitar. Since we're recreating a sound (not playing originals), we don't have the "dig me" syndrome going on where everybody's gotta be all flash. Yeah, we enjoy what we do, but the bottom line is that each of us have a job to do.
I don't see the kid working the electronics department at Walmart running up front to cashier, then jumping in at the snack bar, because management wouldn't tolerate it unless they asked him to. Why? Because at some point, he won't be where he's supposed to be. Same thing here...
Just a matter of everyone knowing their role.
If we're playing the "Abbey Road" medley, our keyboardist will switch back & forth from keys to third guitar. Since we're recreating a sound (not playing originals), we don't have the "dig me" syndrome going on where everybody's gotta be all flash. Yeah, we enjoy what we do, but the bottom line is that each of us have a job to do.
I don't see the kid working the electronics department at Walmart running up front to cashier, then jumping in at the snack bar, because management wouldn't tolerate it unless they asked him to. Why? Because at some point, he won't be where he's supposed to be. Same thing here...
Just a matter of everyone knowing their role.
It depends on how well the music is arranged. 3 guitars is fine as long as the parts are
well defined.
well defined.
I love two guitars, but only if they complement each other rather than duplicating or battling for space.
It's all challenging, but in different ways. Once you go beyond a typical 4 or 5 piece band, to a more ensemble style, everything has to be carefully written and put together, regardless of the instruments involved. Otherwise it's a mess.
Not that 4 or 5 can't make a mess, if they're awful, but it's generally less of a concern, if they're reasonably good players/writers.
A trio, on the other hand, opens up more possibilities for each individual to explore their instrument and find creative ways to fill up their space. Do that well, and a trio can really kill it. Do it badly, and it can come off as thin and wimpy.
I do often favor the trio format, myself.
Not that 4 or 5 can't make a mess, if they're awful, but it's generally less of a concern, if they're reasonably good players/writers.
A trio, on the other hand, opens up more possibilities for each individual to explore their instrument and find creative ways to fill up their space. Do that well, and a trio can really kill it. Do it badly, and it can come off as thin and wimpy.
I do often favor the trio format, myself.
Did the trio thing a while back and loved it because my role in the band was to fill the room a bit more then usual I guess.
That being said, the band I play with now has two awesome guitarists and I wouldn't change a thing about it. The two guitarists work really well for this band but for other stuff I may prefer a trio.
That being said, the band I play with now has two awesome guitarists and I wouldn't change a thing about it. The two guitarists work really well for this band but for other stuff I may prefer a trio.
Our set drummer also doubles on hand percussion and all the toys, it's served us well to change up the feel of a show now and again and it's proved very beneficial on recordings.
Check out the acoustic versions in the videos at http://www.reverbnation.com/buffalomakemusic to get an idea of the difference the hand drums can make.
I prefer the fullness of two guitars. As long as the players are all on the same page and know their roles, it's a good thing. Three guitarists is redundant and not adding anything to the sound.
Lots of good and accurate viewpoints posted so far. I play in two bands right now, one is a trio with a single guitar player and one has two guitar players. In the past I've played in a band with two guitar players plus keys. Pluses and minuses to all.
The trio is easier to manage. Musically, arrangements are easier to agree on. There is more "space" to do your thing. Not to mention that the fewer members in the band, the easier it is to reach band decisions, schedule practices and gigs, etc. That to me is a big advantage. Disagreements break up a band more than anything else, and fewer people is better. It can also be more "work" musically for the bass player to fill the space, especially while your one guitar player is playing a lead. This may not be exactly the right description, but often I have to play a line that carries the rhythm and chord sequence in addition to the bass line under a solo. A lot of fun and I love it, but more work.
Two guitar players can be nice if they communicate well and understand the entire lead/rythym concept and stick to it. If they don't, it's a mess.
Three or more guitars or multiple guitars plus keys only works well IMO if there is serious musical planning of the arrangement, or if you are all musical wizards who can make it work magically on the fly (like perhaps Allman Brothers). I'm not a wizard and neither are most people I know at my level -- bar/club cover band player.
The trio is easier to manage. Musically, arrangements are easier to agree on. There is more "space" to do your thing. Not to mention that the fewer members in the band, the easier it is to reach band decisions, schedule practices and gigs, etc. That to me is a big advantage. Disagreements break up a band more than anything else, and fewer people is better. It can also be more "work" musically for the bass player to fill the space, especially while your one guitar player is playing a lead. This may not be exactly the right description, but often I have to play a line that carries the rhythm and chord sequence in addition to the bass line under a solo. A lot of fun and I love it, but more work.
Two guitar players can be nice if they communicate well and understand the entire lead/rythym concept and stick to it. If they don't, it's a mess.
Three or more guitars or multiple guitars plus keys only works well IMO if there is serious musical planning of the arrangement, or if you are all musical wizards who can make it work magically on the fly (like perhaps Allman Brothers). I'm not a wizard and neither are most people I know at my level -- bar/club cover band player.
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've never really played conventional lead guitar, myself. I usually left that to the other guitarist. I always had more fun as a rhythm guitarist, looking for interesting things to do with that and I often locked in with our bass player.
Of course, a lot of my original upbringing,musically, was not in rock or metal, but old time bluegrass and country/western, which my great aunt and uncle played. Lead and rhythm were sometimes very fluid, picking and rolling one moment, strumming the next, or alternating both in the same section. So that influenced my approach a lot, even after I moved on to other styles. Probably influences some of my perspectives on bass too. I always liked most those players who could blend rhythm and lead really well.
Of course, a lot of my original upbringing,musically, was not in rock or metal, but old time bluegrass and country/western, which my great aunt and uncle played. Lead and rhythm were sometimes very fluid, picking and rolling one moment, strumming the next, or alternating both in the same section. So that influenced my approach a lot, even after I moved on to other styles. Probably influences some of my perspectives on bass too. I always liked most those players who could blend rhythm and lead really well.
We just got a second guitarist in our group for a few specific songs. He's also a synth player and can set up MIDI triggers, so he's a good investment. Plus, all of us minus the drummer can play keys if we need.
Any number, as log as everyone has a good ear, and the group has good arrangements that everyone is on board with. Otherwise, one very good guitarist who can switch between creative comping and interesting little melody/harmony fills.
I play with a guitarist like that, strictly rhythm. He knows his role: fills out the sound, especially during lead solos, and he doesn't stomp on the other musicians. How do I see him? I've never thought about it, I just accept him for the musician he is. As far as the audience, I suspect most people don't listen critically enough to care.
I think two guitars is good, one rhythm one lead, like AC/DC for example. Three guitars is okay so long as they know their role and they each carve out their own sonic space. Problems start when somebody doesn't know what to play and they look at one of the other players and try to double them but their timing suffers because they are reacting instead of anticipating. The sound of the band can get pretty screwed up when that happens.
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.
