Members peckhart Posted January 19, 2006 Members Share Posted January 19, 2006 Our 2nd guitar player had to leave the band for personal reasons. He is the brother of our singer. Our singer can play rhythm guitar and he actually wrote the guitar parts on a lot of our originals. Right now the plan is to get a guitar back in his hands and see if he can take care of rhythm. That way the door is still somewhat open if the other guitar player can make the commitment again. I think the singer can carry the load on most of them, but I am more concerned with trying to get him playing on covers. So two questions I would like some opinions on.1. Is it bad if he picks up the guitar and plays on some songs, but then doesn't play at all on others? -He seemed concerned about it, but to me it doesn't matter. I see professional bands do it on occassion.2. Take a song like Are You Gonna Go My Way. I don't think he will be able to play the lick and sing. Not too big of a deal, but when it comes time for the flanged rhythm part behind the lead....would it be bad if he only plays the guitar during that part? Just trying to figure out if it is better to do it that way or just not have a second guitar at all if he can't do it. Thanks,Pete Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators BATCAT Posted January 19, 2006 Moderators Share Posted January 19, 2006 No, I don't see anything weird about him only playing where needed. I fact, I think it can be sonically and visually more interesting to not just have two guitars chugging along constantly through every song. I have always liked the thing Robert Smith (from the Cure) does sometimes... he'll sling the guitar over onto his back and really focus on the vocals, letting the other guitar handle things, then when he had a lead part or whatever he'll turn it back around and play. Or he'll just hold the mike with both hands and let the guitar hang in front of him... but the point is, if you make it look natural, or even use it as a bit of a prop while it's not being played, nobodys going to think it's odd. But if it's stuck in his mind that it's weird, then he'll probably seem awkward. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members dazed1 Posted January 19, 2006 Members Share Posted January 19, 2006 Here is my take- I sing and play rythm guitar but on some songs its actually easier to play lead (since most of the lead work happens when I aint singing) - I guess it just depends on how competent he is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members B. Adams Posted January 20, 2006 Members Share Posted January 20, 2006 There's nothing strange about that at all, it happens all the time. I've seen bands where the singer won't even pick up the guitar until just before the solo is supposed to start, so they can play rhythm behind it. There's also nothing wrong with just letting the guitar hang there while you sing, and then only playing during certain parts. In fact, many country artists that you see playing a guitar on stage aren't even plugged in, they just play the guitar so they have something to do. The last country band I worked with the guy did exactly what you're describing, some songs he'd pick up a guitar, some he'd just grab his mic and sing, sometimes he'd even switch guitars in the middle of a song. And none of them were plugged in. Not even the electric with a wireless bodypack on the strap. And this is not an isolated incident, this happens all the time in country music. If country artists can do that, your singer can certainly play the way you're describing without people thinking anything of it. I think when I saw Pearl Jam, Eddie Vedder played guitar on only a few songs. Nobody seemed to think that was weird... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members BlueStrat Posted January 20, 2006 Members Share Posted January 20, 2006 The issue isn't whether it's a good or bad thing. It's whether it works or doesn't. Since when did music become what's acceptable by committee? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members martingibson70 Posted January 20, 2006 Members Share Posted January 20, 2006 I agree that it is visually and sonically interesting to have him jump in before the solos. Don't get me wrong, I think rhythm guitar is important but sometimes 2 guitars "chugging along" sounds muddy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members flip333 Posted January 20, 2006 Members Share Posted January 20, 2006 I've wondered if our new addition to the band should play more guitar. He sets it down on quite a few songs and does percussion stuff or just sings. I watched him do this in his last band, and it never looked bad though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members dughaze Posted January 20, 2006 Members Share Posted January 20, 2006 I don't see any problem with someone in the band coming in and out of songs with guitar as needed or even picking up and putting down guitars or any instruments as needed in certain songs or even parts of songs. But I do have a problem with people playing a guitar unplugged. That just seems wrong to me as a musician even though I can understand why it might be appealing to people in the audience and they are the customer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Guitar Centaur Posted January 20, 2006 Members Share Posted January 20, 2006 Originally posted by martingibson70 I agree that it is visually and sonically interesting to have him jump in before the solos. Don't get me wrong, I think rhythm guitar is important but sometimes 2 guitars "chugging along" sounds muddy. I sing and play in our band, and during the verse I usually try to play a very stripped down, spartan version of the rhythm because: A) it keeps things from getting muddy and.. B) It's a little easier to sing and play at the same time. I was initially slated as the "singer" in this band, and didn't plan on playing anything other than some of the strummy acoustic stuff on some songs, but it seems I'm finding myself with a guitar in my hands more often than not. I have no qualms about putting it down. It'll give me a chance to REALLY work the crowd. Singing and playing is like anything else. One half of it has to be on "autopilot". I find that learning the guitar parts so I can do them in my sleep allows me to focus on the singing more, which is more important because if you clam a chord or a riff, most audience members won't notice. Hit a singing note wrong, and the whole place cringes! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members FlogRock Posted January 20, 2006 Members Share Posted January 20, 2006 It's a great idea to do it like that. That's why I prefer to be in bands where the lead singer also plays some guitar. It gives more variety and dynamics if you switch between one and two guitar parts. But most of all, the other guitarist will love it: it allows him to do long solos with a rhythm guitar behind it, and without the lead singer getting bored and cutting it short. But on the other hand, if the song has only one guitar part, there is no other guitarist to compete with. Just make sure you account for this when making the set lists: it's annoying if he has to strap on/off a guitar between every two songs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members RupertB Posted January 20, 2006 Members Share Posted January 20, 2006 Originally posted by FlogRock Just make sure you account for this when making the set lists: it's annoying if he has to strap on/off a guitar between every two songs. Agreed. I switch between acoustic & electric quite a bit. Times we haven't accounted for this, it has gotten a little riddiculous. You'll want to make sure your singer (as guitarist) is a "pocket player". Keep his guitar parts well within his ability. You don't want his focus shifting away from nailing vocal cadences & connecting with your audience. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members way2fat Posted January 20, 2006 Members Share Posted January 20, 2006 The less guitar, the better. Especially from the singer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members zookie Posted January 20, 2006 Members Share Posted January 20, 2006 Originally posted by BlueStrat The issue isn't whether it's a good or bad thing. It's whether it works or doesn't. Since when did music become what's acceptable by committee? Amen, brother! Personally, I would think playing guitar would help a singer match pitch, but that's me. Your guy may be different. Just do what works. And sell it while you're doing it! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members worthyjoe Posted January 20, 2006 Members Share Posted January 20, 2006 Nope, not wierd at all. Lots of singers play guitar for some songs, parts of songs, only choruses, etc. I actually kinda like the dynamic. But definitely tell him not to worry about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members babyfrank Posted January 20, 2006 Members Share Posted January 20, 2006 I'm a guitarist first, singer second, so I do like to be playing at least something on each tune. That may in some cases just be rhythm during the solo, but in most cases I'm playing some complementary rhythm to what our other guitarist is playing, or maybe some acoustic - just whatever suits the song. Sometimes less is more.... I always have a guitar, always plugged in - I need something to hide behind! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Singin' Dave Posted January 20, 2006 Members Share Posted January 20, 2006 I prefer to be in bands where the lead singer also plays some guitar. It gives more variety and dynamics if you switch between one and two guitar parts That's a BIG 10-4!! I'm the lead singer in one of my bands and do quite a bit of laying off guitar wise so my main guitarist can carry the groove unde my vocals. Then I'll come in with rhythm under his solos or at times when we want the song to kick dynamically. Works great, sounds better, looks cool -- it's all good!! I pretty much keep my guitar strapped on and ready to roll at all times, but I do tuen it around and wear it slung over my back for a few tunes on which i paly no guitar at all (SRV/Black Crowes type 3-part bluesy stuff) Your singer is probably just a little scared that he doesn't have the chops to sing and play at the same time, but the advice above about him staying within his limits is good. It is better for him/your band to really rehearse this way a bit and determine exactly where he will play and not play. IMO, a big part of playing guitar is knowing when NOT to play. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members PBBPaul Posted January 20, 2006 Members Share Posted January 20, 2006 I remember Frank Zappa keeping his guitar on a stand next to him. In the middle of any given tune, and while singing, he would pick up the guitar, strap it on, play some unbelievable stuff, take it off, put it on the stand, and keep singing without missing a beat. I thought it was a very cool effect. Bono straps on guitars for some tunes too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members peckhart Posted January 21, 2006 Author Members Share Posted January 21, 2006 Thanks for all the great feedback. We are going to start working on the songs in this new format next week. I believe it will work - it will just take some practice and trial and error to see what fits and what doesn't. Thanks again! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.