I haven't actually begun recording my music yet (though I am nearing it) and I'd just like some opinion on the "rhythm guitarist records all rhythm technique."

Right now, it's looking like it'd be better if I recorded all of the guitars, minus the solos; me playing two rhythm guitars throughout, the lead guitarist just playing solos when needed. We don't not lock in when playing together, it would just sound a bit tighter with me playing all of the rhythm. Not to mention it'd just be more practical to record demos at the moment since I have all of the equipment. Thoughts?
Quote by supersac
i think practicing lockign in toghether would be a bette ridea since it will also do for a better live show

While I certainly agree with this - It's common for the person who is best at playing the riff to record both parts.
Quote by Dave_Mc
I've had tube amps for a while now, but never actually had any go down on me
Quote by jj1565
maybe you're not saying the right things? an amp likes to know you care.

As far as I'm aware it's common for a rhythm guitarist to track all the rhythm parts in the studio, and the lead guitarist to do the solos. Obviously live it's a different thing, because obviously one guitarist can only do one thing at a time, but in studio the person who's best at a part should play that part.
Quote by Andron17
Go away, I have an erection.

Bassist for Half My Kingdom.
Quote by sanjinator17
im really confused dude, can you re-word this, i think i know what you're talking about though

Basically what I asked was, what does everybody think of one guitarist recording all guitars on a song, and another (the lead guitarist) playing JUST the solos and nothing else.

So when there's two guitars playing just rhythm, panned left and right, it's actually just one of the guitarists. I think Metallica did it..? I'm not entirely sure.
Quote by MatrixClaw
While I certainly agree with this - It's common for the person who is best at playing the riff to record both parts.

We lock in fine, but with just me playing rhythm, it sounds dead on. I just didn't know how common this practice actually is, and if anybody thinks it takes a bit away from the feel of music recorded this way.
When I've been recording we try to find something else for the soloist. There's no point for two people to record exactly the same thing although the subtle style differences can create interesting variations. Usually the soloist has been recording some alternative stuff on top of my rhythm parts. That's also the way we play live. We try to write different stuff for all the players.
It would probably be best for you to do all the rhythm yourself. But if you wanted to mess around then have him do some as well. Like someone said before me, the subtle differences can make it sound interesting. Especially since two people can play the same thing but their playing styles are different. Plus then you get into recording with a different guitar/amp setup, but you could pretty much do that yourself. I could be off, but maybe one guy sounds better on one setup than the other and vice-versa?

It just comes down to how much time you really want to put into it. You could record all the rhythm parts yourself. Then have him come lay down some rhythm tracks and mix n match. Or like TrailOfMe said, you could have him do something a little different on top of what you're doing to open it up. It just comes down to whatever you think sounds best at the end of the day. Good luck.
Depends on how good you both are at nailing the rhythm parts - these days it's all too common, but if both guitarists are competent enough as they should be live then it is perfectly feasible to get great rhythm tracks without one person playing them all. I guess it's less common in more modern metal, and certainly more technical styles (the oldest I know of doing this is Hetfield in Metallica, though not from the start of their career) but back in the 70's and 80's this was nearly unheard of and bands like Guns n Roses and Iron Maiden managed to play with rock solid rhythm sections but completely different guitar styles.

Part of it is preference, but I think these days far fewer bands are actually able to perform at the top level and play all their parts themselves without help that didn't exist back a few decades - though I'm not saying I prefer the recordings or the music back then, more a comment on modern acts that make it big, many of whom make it by jumping on a scene rather than doing anything original or what you imagine they would really want to play etc.

Try out both, unless you're certain one way it best, and see how you feel about it - sometimes having something a bit different going on down each side can sound more real and interesting though, in my opinion.
Hey, look. Sigs are back.
I'd say do whatever gets you the best quality recording. If it's not as tight when you both play the rhythm parts, just have you record them. Sure, a little pride might get hurt, but ultimately the quality of the recording is more important.