#1
I am starting a band with a few mates and i was wondering, how many guitarists should there be, what are the pros and cons of one guitarist vs two. By the way, the music were going to play is like blues, classic and acid rock kind of thing
#3
it helps when one can play the rhythm part while one solos or when you can harmonize.
Quote by Jaymz_515
I pretend I'm a huge spider laying eggs, then when I flush the toilet I fall to floor screaming "MY CHILLLDRENN!! NOOOO!"


If you're flammable and have legs, you are never blocking a fire exit.
- Mitch Hedberg
#5
Almost every band suffers from 'another guitarist could be useful here' syndrome so theoretically it's better to have two guitars - one to fill out the empty space and one to play licks over it.

BUT.

Writing music for two guitars is harder, much harder, and if you just make 'em play the same notes with the exception of the solo, it'll sound downright stupid. Furthermore, two guitars = more tweaking your amps during the practice, it's pretty easy to sound good with bass and drums alone, but add another guitar and bam! - you gotta change your tone to fit in the mix correctly.
#6
Quote by zombiak
Almost every band suffers from 'another guitarist could be useful here' syndrome so theoretically it's better to have two guitars - one to fill out the empty space and one to play licks over it.



I'd like to question that statement, there are quite a lot of one guitar bands that do just fine without another guitarist
#7
I know, but it doesn't mean that they don't have some moments when they think that a second guitarist could come in handy. Red Hot Chili Peppers, for example, had two guitarist on their last tour - Frusciante and Josh Klinghoffer who stood in the background and played some rhythm. Same with Nirvana and their second guitarist during live concerts. Sometimes you come up with some really cool harmonic part and while you can record it by yourself, you can't manage to play it without another guitarist.

Some guitarists find their way to fill the empty space, like The Edge and his (over)usage of delay but they've found their way while the TS is still searching, I guess.
#8
Neither is better than the other if the band works well together to create great songs.

Two guitarists obviously have more of a chance to put together unique intertwining melodies/harmonies but single guitarists can do that too, within the recording process and using session musicians live.
404: Sig not found.
#9
Well i'm the rhythm guitarist in a band, and i gotta say it's pretty hard to even jam with two guitarists.
Of course, if you're going to play covers then use 2 guitarists.

Then again, they have to be real tight when playing, especially the lead guitarist must be familiar with the rhythm parts. But in your case, there's nothing too hard to play, so the chemistry will be there, it's just a matter of time.

I say go with two guitarists, and with a lot of practicing you'll have a great 5-way ^_^
#10
My favorite band has two guitarists so I choose two. But yeah like someone mentioned you both can't be playing lead at the same time or it will be too harsh on the ears and brain.
#11
If you have synths and 2 guitars, that's pretty sketchy as the sound is going to be full/busy. If not, 2 guitars is a great way to fill out the sound.
#12
Quote by Oldmonkeys
I'd like to question that statement, there are quite a lot of one guitar bands that do just fine without another guitarist


Sure, they get along fine, but in most cases another guitarist would be useful, especially live, as they usually need to use tracks to fill out the sound. For example, when I went to see D'espairsRay, they only have one guitarist, but have at least 2 guitar parts in each song, and they had to use tracks and it just didn't sound right at all.

One thing I would say is, don't have 2 guitarists just for the sake of having 2, especially if one is not as good as the other, there's nothing worse in a band than having to babysit someone else with their playing as well as focusing on your own. If the songs you play need 2 guitars, get 2 guitarists. If not, don't.

Personally, I like the more stripped back sound of just one guitar, but when it comes to songwriting it definately gives you more options to have 2, having both lead and rhythm parts makes songs much more interesting I think...
#13
You should be fine with a power trio or power trio + singer/guitarist (I always want my singer to play an instrument, but that's completely subjective). It will be easier to manage a smaller band and if you find that you need another guitarist, you can always go find another musician.
#14
I guess it depends on what you want to play and like to play. I can't imagine playing 99% of Beatles without 2 guitarists... rhythm and lead/fill. I play and practice only for myself, so I play with the recordings and do the rhythm.
Look, it's not like John Lennon is going to come back, whack you with a guitar and say "You're playing the fookin' thing all bloody wrong, ya fookin' arsehole." - My teacher on the many ways of playing any song.
#15
Quote by esp 4 life
I am starting a band with a few mates and i was wondering, how many guitarists should there be,


Well, how many of you play guitar?

That should answer your question.
shred is gaudy music
#16
Definitely two. I hate hearing guitar lead with just a bass supporting it (assuming you don't have a keyboardist or something.)
#17
Here's my insight.. Two guitars helps some, and hurts some... I am the guitar player in my band but the singer can play simple stuff when need be so we can do good covers of 80's songs. But at the same time we are blessed with an amazing bass player who can make the rhythm sound solid without another guitarist... comes down to the talent of your band... can you make it work or not? Chickenfoot is a 1 guitar band but there are many guitar parts in their songs, and Joe mentions how its his job to takes those parts and make it sound like the recording..


like I said can you make it work...?
#18
Quote by Macabre_Turtle
Definitely two. I hate hearing guitar lead with just a bass supporting it (assuming you don't have a keyboardist or something.)
So, you don't like any power trios?

You're missing out if you ask me.
Only play what you hear. If you don’t hear anything, don’t play anything.
-Chick Corea
#19
I agree you are missng out. Iron Maiden is a perfect example of trio guitars, and they are a Great band!


------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
#20
Quote by food1010
So, you don't like any power trios?

You're missing out if you ask me.


+1


2 guitars, 1 guitar.... doesn't really matter IMO. It's who's playing those guitars that matters.
shred is gaudy music
#21
Quote by GuitarMunky
+1


2 guitars, 1 guitar.... doesn't really matter IMO. It's who's playing those guitars that matters.


yeah if the trio is made up of kick ass guitarists like adrian smith of I. Maiden, its a Great combination
#22
Quote by XcreepingdethX
yeah if the trio is made up of kick ass guitarists like adrian smith of I. Maiden, its a Great combination


Yup, if you count Steve Harris, you'd have a trio. And yeah, personally I like those guys alot. Definitely a great combination!
shred is gaudy music
#23
Quote by GuitarMunky
Yup, if you count Steve Harris, you'd have a trio. And yeah, personally I like those guys alot. Definitely a great combination!
I want to forget about Janick's Hallowed be thy Name solo as much as anyone else, but...

Maiden's Trio:
Adrian Smith
Dave Murray
Janick Gers
#26
over all i think u should go with 3 if ur going to have dual lead gitarists(one rhythm two lead), but if u want rhythm+lead, 2
#27
ONLY consder a lone guitarist if the Bass and Drums are up to providing enough fill during solos. Actually solos is a bad word 'cos in a trio its when everyone has to play at 150% and stop hiding behind the vocals.
I pick up my guitar and play
Just like Yesterday

T C Ellis Series 2 LP w/Skatterbrane Quiescence pups
Cort EVL-K6
Yamaha RGX211 modded
H&S Electric 12-string
Shaftsbury Ricki 4001
'84 Fender Yale
Roland Cube 15x