a bit of a dilemma


PDA

View Full Version : a bit of a dilemma


stradivari310
12-08-2007, 11:11 PM
OK so I've been lead guitarist in my band for about a year now. I started it along with the lead singer/bassist who I'm really good friends with and we added my brother as the drummer and my other good friend as rhythm guitar. Problem is, I got bored pretty quickly of playing pop-punk, but our rhythm guitarist and our lead singer have had a hard time exploring other genres. We haven't been able to write more than 10 or so decent songs, and we really haven't made much progress.

So to satisfy my creative urges I met up with some other friends of mine who had offered me a spot in their new indie band so I could have a bit more freedom. We have honestly the best drummer in my high school of 2000+ people, as well as my friend who plays bass well and is a good lyricist, and my other friend who is one of the best male singers in our school as well as a decent guitarist with a good ear for melodies. We've only had a couple rehearsals, and I can definitely say that after just one practice we sounded tighter than my other band ever sounded.

But here's a problem: the lead singer/guitarist has commitment issues. He's wanted by a melodic hardcore band in town who isn't too great but he seems to want to sing with them instead of sing and play guitar for us (although I'm not sure what he ever wants to do). We're great friends with those guys, but we really want them to get their own lead singer. And then there's my old band. The other guys aren't much of a problem, but I really want the bassist/lead singer to join as a guitarist because he's much better at guitar than bass and would also make a great backup vocalist, but at the same time I'm not to keen on having 3 guitarists. Of course, the lead singer doesn't mind not playing guitar, but I thank a 5-piece is a bit unwieldly.

...so yeah, it's a bit crazy. Suggestions?

geetar78963
12-09-2007, 01:07 AM
Dude, a five-piece would be awesome. My current band is a six piece with vocals, guitar, guitar, bass, violin (dist), and drums. And if you do it right, a three-guitar thing would not be bad. When the band first started I was thinking the same thing about a five-or-more-piece band. But the larger a band is, the more possibilities. Just try not to exceed seven.

JMDavis07
12-09-2007, 01:29 AM
More band members = less pay for gigs

That's how I look at it. Trios for the win!

stradivari310
12-09-2007, 09:25 AM
hah.. well how about that for contradiction.
But the 5-piece seems like the way to go IMO, because one of the guitarists can play keyboard. I didn't think about that before, and my favorite setup is 2 guitars/bass/keyboard/drums anyway.

axemanchris
12-09-2007, 01:35 PM
For economic reasons, I wouldn't go with three guitars. It's a bit overkill for what you get out of it. One more person to pay, one more person to worry about not making it to practice, etc.

Exception: guitar #3 can add keys, backing vocals, etc. that will make a meaningful and worthwhile addition to the presentation

OR: Bands like April Wine that have two guitar players already, but the lead singer also plays guitar and can add more texture, etc.

CT

lolmnt
12-09-2007, 02:18 PM
I wouldn't worry about 3 guitarists. The singer can play acoustic while the other two are electric. Also one can play keyboards, if needed.

If you have the time, there's nothing wrong with playing in multiple bands

pigmaggots
12-10-2007, 05:38 AM
More band members = less pay for gigs

That's how I look at it. Trios for the win!

Aww man, its all about being solo....2 tops!

JMDavis07
12-10-2007, 05:14 PM
Aww man, its all about being solo....2 tops!
Yeah... nah.

Drum and bass doesn't work for classic rock. Guitar and drums sounds like crap.

We'll stick with the trio, thanks for playing though.