Musician Forum - Band Discussion Board - BandMix

These guys came over to listen to our band, they are friends of the singers. They want to team up and form a huge metal band. It would be 3 guitarists, 2 bass players, a singer, and a drummer and a midi man.

Is that crazy or am I just narrow-minded?

It could be done but would require a lot of organization and communication. Many bands have three (or even four) guitarists these days; two bass players might be too many.

Lynyrd Skynyrd, Iron Maiden, Thin Lizzy, Little Feat...


All these groups have used three lead guitars before, along with many others I'm sure. It's not all that uncommon.

The trick is working out parts well, so it is not cluttered and just noise.

Sounds like the remaking of ELO, lmao. I guess it could work, personally I think though it is too cluttered. I would not be too happy if I had that many band members. I think when I start a band it should be about two guitarist, a lead, a drummer, and a bass. But no more than that.

Peace out, GuitarAnatomy.

Guitaranatomy wrote:Sounds like the remaking of ELO, lmao. I guess it could work, personally I think though it is too cluttered. I would not be too happy if I had that many band members. I think when I start a band it should be about two guitarist, a lead, a drummer, and a bass. But no more than that.

Peace out, GuitarAnatomy.

Well thats my take on it. When getting paid comes around thats alot of people to split pocket change with.

FastFret wrote:

Guitaranatomy wrote:Sounds like the remaking of ELO, lmao. I guess it could work, personally I think though it is too cluttered. I would not be too happy if I had that many band members. I think when I start a band it should be about two guitarist, a lead, a drummer, and a bass. But no more than that.

Peace out, GuitarAnatomy.

Well thats my take on it. When getting paid comes around thats alot of people to split pocket change with.

Yeah, man. That is a ton of people to split with, even if you make $1000 for the gig, it is like pocket change after a while. Plus, I would get fed up when it comes time to play a solo, who solos? Lmao. I mean at least with just 2 guitarist you can choose, but with 3 or even 4, it becomes combative.

Peace out, GuitarAnatomy.

I think 2 guitarist is enough if they can play.
Really the only way a third guitarist is needed if your doing an acoustic set
and even they like i said if they can play 2 is good enough.

I only have 1 guitarist (me) 1 bassist and 1 drummer.... We do just fine and the pay is much better!

While I understand most of the sentiments here - I've usually been the lone guitarist in most of my bands - you really need to see a band successfully pull this off. For example, check out www.myspace.com/cokedickmotorcycleawesome - I've seen these guys live several times and it's like a tidal wave of sound washing over you. Also try www.myspace.com/chapstik for another band that uses 3 or 4 guitarists. A lot of bands have realized that they couldn't get that layered guitar sound live that they could get in the studio so this is a solution.

Oh and if you're taking short cuts for money it will show. Make sure the sound is there and compensation will come. Do you think a 15-piece band with horns is initially worried about whether they're making $50 or $100? They know that if they're good the money will come.

Jimmy,

Good points. It all really depends on what you are looking to accomplish.

My band just got it's 2nd lead guitarist, and I don't see us needing anything after that, guitar wise. We have a really full sound with the 5 of us. But some genres, Southern Rock is famous for this, use 2 lead, 3 lead and sometimes even more. But like Jimmy alluded to, it takes alot of crafting, so that everyone has their place and is not walking over one another. Good arranging, is in short supply in most of the bands I hear these days.

In "MOONALICE", everbody plays bass,(even "Jack Cassidy"when he aint "swimmin' with the Tuna!")

anyways,

"All's fair in "love and bands", so give it a shot, Fastman !

"J"

if it's organized and you've got CONTROL OVER YOUR SOUND. If everyone's playing whatever they want as loud as they want to then you'll end up with a clusterfu*k. Having that many could be REAL EFFECTIVE if you figure out where everybody's talent level is. Maybe one of the guitarists is very good at straight rhythm, another may be good at slide, another may be good at scorching lead. A lot of guitarists can't play rhythm to save their life. You've just got to get it organized. And for heaven's sake make sure that no matter what you do when the singer is singing be able TO UNDERSTAND THE WORDS. That means everybody cut back on their volume during the vocals. One of my number one pet peaves is not having the vocals OUT FRONT IN THE MIX. Otherwise why even bother having a vocalist? Good luck...

fisherman bob wrote:
And for heaven's sake make sure that no matter what you do when the singer is singing be able TO UNDERSTAND THE WORDS. That means everybody cut back on their volume during the vocals. One of my number one pet peaves is not having the vocals OUT FRONT IN THE MIX. Otherwise why even bother having a vocalist? Good luck...

Good point Bob!

It seems that almost every band I have been in, I have had to educate some of the other members about what makes a good arrangement. You've got guys that want to play lead over everything going on in the song, rather than having a flow, where everything has it's place and shines at different times in the song. That's what keeps a song interesting the whole way through, and that's what takes the audience on a journey.

I don't know how many lead guitarists I have told "Bro, you gotta lay back where the vocals are, and save your best stuff for the space reserved for your solo. Otherwise, there is nothing magical about the solo. You're just playing what you played throughout the whole song, and then there's nothing special about it when your spotlight comes around. The crowd thinks - Ok, I've heard this. They are immune to your playing, because you have already been doing those licks throughout the song. Not to be crass, but don't shoot your load before it's time. Craft the music. Play supporting, background licks, and then when the solo comes, it blows people away! It becomes special. You have built the anticipation to climax!"

But some of these guys learn slow. I tell them "Look, I'm telling you what is professional, what makes a song great, as opposed to mediocre."

I warn them "We're gonna go into the studio, and the engineer is going to tell you, almost word for word, everything I have tried to explain to you. Watch and see"

It never fails. We go into a studio, and sure as hell, just like I told them. Then they'll look over at me while the engineer is saying everything I have told them, with that "Damn, you were right" look.

One of my number one pet peaves is not having the vocals OUT FRONT IN THE MIX. Otherwise why even bother having a vocalist?

Probably my number one pet peeve. And my most common complaint when I go see other bands play, you can't hear the vocals 90% of the time. That makes your band pretty much suck out loud...

I usually try to avoid multiple guitar bands because it's so hard to get other players to TURN DOWN when they need to for vocals, the other player taking a lead, or just plain dynamics. I use a volume pedal so I have excellent control over my volume, very few guitar players use them and I think all should. I also like to use dynamics, which is probably the hardest thing I've found to get bands to do.

Mostly it's really difficult to get two or three guitar players to cooperate, if you can it's great but if you have one guy that just insists on playing craked to the max, or plays lead on top of the vocals you're dead in the water. The vocals absolutely must be heard and understood.