#1
Me and soem friends want to start a band - or at least play together. we have a drummer, a bass guitar player and three guitar. is it really a good idea to start a band with so many guitarists? we don't want to play metal, but are there any othere genres where a third guitar does not seem to be dispensable?
hopy you understand what my problem is.
#2
Well you can have one rhythm and 2 play interchanging leads?

Really, you don't need more than 2 guitarists.
Breaking stereotypes by playing indie on a metal guitar.

Current Gear
- Epiphone Les Paul Standard (Plus Top)
- Crappy Strat Copy (Redecorated, looks snazzy)
- Ibanez Acoustic/Electric Guitar
- Ibanez RG1570 Mirage Blue
- Peavey Vypyr 30 Watt
#3
Bang Camaro did it for a while, and it worked really well. Especially live. I'd say if you don't lan on doing harmonies or interchanging leads it might be a little unnecessary. But really all you can do to know is to try it out and see how it works for you guys. It might make for nice stage presence.
#4
a lot of boston stuff had 3 guitars. dont let the "rules" tell u what to do. if u want 3 guitars in a band, then u put 3 guitars in a band.
In speed versus emotional playing, i think of an M16 versus an M24. You can have 650 rounds per minute, or one round, one kill. Both should be in your arsenal.

PSN and XBL: xxWONDERxxBOYxx
Leave a message that you're from UG with your username
#5
the thing is: we are all very good friends, so you can't dismiss on. is there a way to make it seem less dispensable?
we were thinking about a lead guitar, a rhytm guitar an one of us only singing (changing from song to song)
#6
That would be much easier than 1 rhythm and 2 leads.
Breaking stereotypes by playing indie on a metal guitar.

Current Gear
- Epiphone Les Paul Standard (Plus Top)
- Crappy Strat Copy (Redecorated, looks snazzy)
- Ibanez Acoustic/Electric Guitar
- Ibanez RG1570 Mirage Blue
- Peavey Vypyr 30 Watt
#7
Quote by conka
the thing is: we are all very good friends, so you can't dismiss on. is there a way to make it seem less dispensable?
we were thinking about a lead guitar, a rhytm guitar an one of us only singing (changing from song to song)


It depends what you want to play. I'm in a post rock/experimental band, and we have three guitarists. In addition to that though, I also play trumpet and sing vocals, and one of the other guitarist doubles as a synth player when we need it.

Just whatever feels natural.
#9
three guitars are hard to incorporate ,but its always a nice little twist. im not completly sure but doesnt lynyrd skynyrd have 3 guitarists?
#10
dont think of it as rhythm and lead. its a group of instruments harmonizing together. 2 guitars and a piano would seem to some ppl normal; why cant u just replace the piano with a guitar? i like to think of it more as melody and harmony parts. u could have 3 guitars play separate melodies that still harmonize together. now mind u this will take a knowledge of theory, but im betting it will pay off in the end
In speed versus emotional playing, i think of an M16 versus an M24. You can have 650 rounds per minute, or one round, one kill. Both should be in your arsenal.

PSN and XBL: xxWONDERxxBOYxx
Leave a message that you're from UG with your username
#11
Quote by conka
the thing is: we are all very good friends, so you can't dismiss on. is there a way to make it seem less dispensable?
we were thinking about a lead guitar, a rhytm guitar an one of us only singing (changing from song to song)

I don't think that's a good idea, if people (for example) only like 1 of the vocalists then they're likely to only like songs with that particular vocalist. That would lead to people being less inclined to support the band, e.g. do you go to a show where you know you'll only like 1/3 of the songs? Do you buy an album where you only like 1/3 of the songs?
Also if someone's first impression of the band is with a vocalist that they don't like they're unlikely to bother listening to the other vocalists (or even know you switch vocalists).

I'd suggest that you have two lead guitars and harmonize them.
#12
its a good way to get a very full sound even if you don't have the best equipment.

and bad religion has three guitarists now and even on the old songs (simple punk ones) it sounds good.
#13
Quote by Aleksi
I don't think that's a good idea, if people (for example) only like 1 of the vocalists then they're likely to only like songs with that particular vocalist. That would lead to people being less inclined to support the band, e.g. do you go to a show where you know you'll only like 1/3 of the songs? Do you buy an album where you only like 1/3 of the songs?
Also if someone's first impression of the band is with a vocalist that they don't like they're unlikely to bother listening to the other vocalists (or even know you switch vocalists).

I'd suggest that you have two lead guitars and harmonize them.


It can be argued that with only one vocalist, if people don't like that one vocalist they won't like ANY of the songs.

I'd say have set roles, 2 specific people playing guitars and a designated singer.
Breaking stereotypes by playing indie on a metal guitar.

Current Gear
- Epiphone Les Paul Standard (Plus Top)
- Crappy Strat Copy (Redecorated, looks snazzy)
- Ibanez Acoustic/Electric Guitar
- Ibanez RG1570 Mirage Blue
- Peavey Vypyr 30 Watt
#14
I've been in bands with 3 guitars, it's not so bad. One rhythm, two lead. Either playing melody and counter melody or a harmonized melody. Done right, it sounds so good you'll never go back.


Done wrong it's a train wreck.
#15
don't conform to conventional wisdom. play with what feels right, be it one, two, three, or ten guitars. if it sounds good and you all like it, then its perfect.
Main Gear List:
Guitars:
Jackson RR7
Agile AL-3100 Double Bound
1977 Fender Jazz Bass
Amp:
Blackstar HT-5
peavey bass amp
Effects:
EHX Metal Muff
Ibanez Weeping Demon Wah
Danelectro 7-band EQ
#16
Sonic Youth uses 3 guitars pretty often. Also Pearl Jam has been known to throw in a 3rd guitar occasionally.

It can really layer the sound and give the band a lot more opportunities. The idea of having only 2 plays and one sing can work, sure, but if the song would sound better with 3 guitars then go for it. Do what's best for the song.

Best of luck
#17
I think interchanging people is fine. Slightly Stoopid has 2 people that switch between bass/guitar/vocals. One does guitar/vocals, the other bass, and they can switch.

I think it's fine with 3 guitarists if you write/cover music accordingly. If one or two is a singer also, and say one can play keyboard or another instrument in some songs and just use 3 guitar parts when you need it, I find nothing wrong with it at all.
#18
Quote by Guitar2theface
It can be argued that with only one vocalist, if people don't like that one vocalist they won't like ANY of the songs.

True but there's a higher chance of someone liking 1 vocalist than there is of them liking 3. Also I'd rather have a lot of people liking my band and a lot of people disliking my band than some liking it, some disliking it and a lot thinking it's alright.
#21
Radiohead, as said above, have three guitarists playing quite a lot of the time. How they appear to do it, however, is for all of them to be prepared not to play where you don't need more guitars.

I'd suggest finding a 'lead' singer, whichever of you is best (doesn't mean they can't play guitar, just that they should consider that as their primary role), and have the other two sing backup. Switch guitar parts around, make sure you all get a chance to have fun, but don't obsess about having parts for all three of you at once. If a song doesn't need an extra guitar, don't put it in.
#22
make one of them play keys. and one guitarist sing. so u have 1 singer guitarist 1 lead guitarist 1 keys
#23
My first band had a song with one clean, one distortion, one extra lead. So full chords, a riff, and some improv addition to the riff. The song was awesome. So just try it out.
#24
Don't think of it so black and white as rhythm and lead. Let your ideas go crazy.

Listen to the Recieving End of Sirens. They are a 3 guitar band always, that should give some ideas.
#26
That's what I'm currently doing. If you have creative guitarists its not crowded. Right now I'm playing rhythm and singing with two others playing other guitar parts. It all depends on how people can serve the song. In some cases 3 guitars might detract from a song, in which case you might want your singer just to sing, or have one of the guitarists play a different instrument.
Quote by cakeandpiemofo
Of course I don't wanna go in the woods. There's bears in there.


Quote by Deliriumbassist
Jeff Ament is a sexy sexy beast.



Quote by Karvid
Yes. Chest hair = automatic awesome. Even if you're a woman.
#27
Glenn Branca- guitar symphony
Oct. 20th, 2009: New guitar AND front row for Mars Volta.

Quote by denizenz
Is that a ukulele in your pants, or did you just rip ass to the tune of "Aloha Oi"?


I met Sonic Youth on June 30th, and Mars Volta on Oct 20th.
#28
I'd like to throw CSNY into the discussion. They had 4 guitarists, even if they didn't all play all the time. Also, a lot of classic acts shared lead singing duties - CSNY, The Band, etc.
#30
A rhythm, a lead and an overdub.

The overdub (as I call it) guitar player just plays small fill etc. that completes the sound and adds a layer on
Quote by AlanHB
Yeah well in special UG land chords = noob, scales = intermediate and modes = advanced. Most users are trying to finish the game on hard because then you get the trophies for noob and intermediate difficulties upon completion anyway.
#31
Quote by ajreciever14
dont think of it as rhythm and lead. its a group of instruments harmonizing together. 2 guitars and a piano would seem to some ppl normal; why cant u just replace the piano with a guitar? i like to think of it more as melody and harmony parts. u could have 3 guitars play separate melodies that still harmonize together. now mind u this will take a knowledge of theory, but im betting it will pay off in the end


This.

Seriously, dont think of them as defined roles. 3 guitars, if anything, opens up your options.