#1
hi
i am want to know if it is weird to not want another guitarist in my band, my band is sorta post hardcore i guess i'm 16 and really don't want to have another guitarist in my band.
is this normal?
am i jealous of other guitarist?
is it because i want to be independent from my friends/band mates by being the guitar guy?
do we need another guitarist?
#3
You already made this thread. This is a duplicate. Hence, consider it reported.
Marshall amplifiers are the truest purveyors of rock and roll known to man.

"And give a man an amplifier and a synthesizer, and he doesn't become whoever, you know. He doesn't become us."

Holy crap, check this out!
#4
It all depends on the sound you're after. If one guitarist suits the required sound, then no, it's not unusual.

Having just one guitar, although it's limiting sound wise, can also be a major advantage. It simplifies the line up, there's no arguments over which guitarist plays the solo, it means a bigger split wages wise for the rest of the band and it also often causes the single guitarist to improvise more to cover for the missing guitarist, thus improving his playing ability.
#5
i re posted this because it was closed for being posted in the wrong category
#6
Quote by MalZenen
hi
i am want to know if it is weird to not want another guitarist in my band, my band is sorta post hardcore i guess i'm 16 and really don't want to have another guitarist in my band.
is this normal?
am i jealous of other guitarist?
is it because i want to be independent from my friends/band mates by being the guitar guy?
do we need another guitarist?

lol i think you just answered all of your own questions...
<3 u
#7
I have an easy solution to this.
its called a loop pedal.
that is if you want a duel guitar sound.
or your bassest can back you more.
be creative just cause you play a specific genre does not mean you need to have this or that in it.
A painter paints pictures on canvas. But musicians paint their pictures on silence.
#8
Having played in bands where I was the only guitarist as well as bands where I shared guitar duties, I must say I prefer the latter. It takes a lot of the pressure off of having to fill all the sonic space. I also really enjoy the give-and-take that comes from playing with a guitarist whose style compliments mine. When it was just me, I found the music lacked the extra 'punch' that a complimentary guitar part brings, and I hated having to constantly be filling space - I like to lay back a lot and play simpler, atmospheric parts, so always having to be goin full-on wasn't really up my alley.
But if those things don't bother you, then there's nothing wrong with being the only guitarist.
#9
I would say it's very normal to have one guitarist, I could probably name as many good one guitar bands as good ones who have two.

You will, however, have to work a lot harder as the only guitarist to fill up the space and your guitar parts will have to be more interesting. Your bassist will also need to work harder and play more interesting parts.

It's definitely not unusual to want to be the only guitarist, though, as long as you're comfortable with it, and if not you can always find a second guitarist, they're pretty much a dime a dozen, compared with singers and drummers.
#10
For that genre, 2 is ALWAYS better than one.
Audio Ecstasy Productions!

Guitar/Backline Tech in the Los Angeles area and on tour!
Custom guitar pedals and cabling for stage and studio!

I set up DAWs and tweak computers to record audio. Hit me up @ audioecstasyproductions[at}gmail.com
#11
I think it depends on the talent of the group overall, a lot of bands aren't that great, so they need more people to fill the sound out. Look at any classic power trio, and they really excel because they're all very strong musicians. A three-piece band's only as strong as its weakest member.

So I'd say that yeah, if you can pull it off then there's no reason to bother with extra members.
#12
basic rule: it can never hurt to have two.

but if you REALLY don't want another one and you can make it work with just you, go for it
Quote by asator
YOU'RE A CUNT AND STUFF LESPAUL1216.


It's okay because whatever, forever
#13
Quote by lespaul1216
basic rule: it can never hurt to have two.
I disagree. I think in any genre of music, you can end up having trouble avoiding sounding too busy/muddy when you add a second guitarist.

On the other hand, it does open up a lot more options, particularly with writing. I love collaborating with as many people as possible when writing music. I love jamming as just a trio, but the writing process is awesome with upwards of 5 or 6 people who all know what they're doing.
Only play what you hear. If you don’t hear anything, don’t play anything.
-Chick Corea
#14
My band were considering a second guitarist, they ultimately left the decision up to me, and I didn't go for it.
One of the singers we tried insisted he also played guitar, he had a Marshall MG100DFX, I had a Laney LC15. While I was cranking my amp (obviously a 15 watt valve can get some great cranked sounds) he imitated this by sticking his highest gain on...it sounded terrible and when my amp was cutting through more (the secret that is EQ! ) he kept turning his amp up.

This sort of thing is why I never like a second guitarist in personal projects, cos almost all the time there will be some kind of alpha male shit that goes on.
The worst is when a project has two guitarists and when one of which isn't a singer, then you have the whole "So you're gonna play rhythm yeah?" shit when the person doesn't understand that rhythm and lead are two different things and don't just mean "better and worse".


So yeah your decision is fine. Unless you're planning on covering songs which need two guitars you'll never really think "damn we need a second guitarist". Hell my band covers a song or two which have second guitars on the record and we make it sound alright with just the one.

Also livemixing might be a bit annoying with two guitarists!
Guitarists are a douche-like breed! They can't bare to see themselves turned down.