SHOULD I STOP PLAYING GUITAR?

HillgrassBluebillyFTW · Thu Aug 30, 2007 5:40 pm

conley should never be WITHOUT his guitar.

seriously.

conley · Post by **conley** » Thu Aug 30, 2007 6:55 pm

True, very true.

I tend to unleash the "Travolta" when I don't have a guitar.

HillgrassBluebillyFTW · Thu Aug 30, 2007 8:46 pm

conley wrote:True, very true.

I tend to unleash the "Travolta" when I don't have a guitar.

that's what you it?

i think john should sue you for defimation of character.

=^-..-^= · Post by **=^-..-^=** » Thu Aug 30, 2007 10:14 pm

Probably should do the Springstein thing and always wear the guitar, even if you're not always playing it.

I think if you make the jump to just being frontman, the criteria on which you'll be judged: voice, looks, sexuality, movement, and just plain rock & roll attitude will be much stricter than if you are a guitar player that just happens to be out front.

traumaqueen · Post by **traumaqueen** » Fri Aug 31, 2007 9:51 am

The_Dude wrote:From a fan of live music's standpoint (and a non-musician)...keep the 2nd guitar. It drives me crazy when the lead singer of a band doesn't play an instrument.

absolutely. it looks ridiculous. word.

Silencio · Post by **Silencio** » Fri Aug 31, 2007 9:58 am

traumaqueen wrote:
The_Dude wrote:From a fan of live music's standpoint (and a non-musician)...keep the 2nd guitar. It drives me crazy when the lead singer of a band doesn't play an instrument.
absolutely. it looks ridiculous. word.

Yep. That's why The Who were so damn lame.

Seriously, I wish there was a forum for local musicians and fans of music (the stuff that comes in through your ears), instead of this fashionista thing you all seem to be into (about the stuff that comes in through your eyes).

G Fresh · Post by **G Fresh** » Fri Aug 31, 2007 10:02 am

traumaqueen wrote:
The_Dude wrote:From a fan of live music's standpoint (and a non-musician)...keep the 2nd guitar. It drives me crazy when the lead singer of a band doesn't play an instrument.
absolutely. it looks ridiculous. word.

I'm gonna have to disagree with you both on this one. Homeless J, anyone? I like the fact that Chad only needs to pick up his acoustic for a couple of songs. He's a great showman and his on-stage persona would be diminished if he held a guitar for the whole show. Plus they've already got 2 guitarists besides Chad so what's the point?

The_Dude · Post by **The_Dude** » Fri Aug 31, 2007 10:10 am

Silencio wrote:
traumaqueen wrote: absolutely. it looks ridiculous. word.
Yep. That's why The Who were so damn lame.

As a matter of fact, I'm not a fan of the Who.

For the record...opinions vary.

The_Dude · Post by **The_Dude** » Fri Aug 31, 2007 10:47 am

I'm gonna have to disagree with you both on this one. Homeless J, anyone? I like the fact that Chad only needs to pick up his acoustic for a couple of songs. He's a great showman and his on-stage persona would be diminished if he held a guitar for the whole show. Plus they've already got 2 guitarists besides Chad so what's the point?

This is different to me. I'm talking more in terms of bands in which the lead singer doesn't play an instrument at all.

Sue me for thinking that way but that's just the way I've always felt. I'm just not a fan of it and having a few people responding to me on a messageboard about it sure as hell is going to change my mind about it.

Steel String Bender · Fri Aug 31, 2007 11:29 am

Silencio wrote:Seriously, I wish there was a forum for local musicians and fans of music (the stuff that comes in through your ears), instead of this fashionista thing you all seem to be into (about the stuff that comes in through your eyes).

I agree. The actual discussion of music is in very short supply around here.

How about this; Shawn keeps his guitar strapped on, and we have a discussion about how two guitar players in a rock band can work together to make things more musically interesting.

Oliver's Army · Post by **Oliver's Army** » Fri Aug 31, 2007 11:55 am

Anyone is welcome to start a thread on any topic they wish.

Including *music* if you feel the need.

Silencio · Post by **Silencio** » Fri Aug 31, 2007 11:55 am

Steel String Bender wrote:
Silencio wrote:How about this; Shawn keeps his guitar strapped on, and we have a discussion about how two guitar players in a rock band can work together to make things more musically interesting.

Heretic!

Oliver's Army · Post by **Oliver's Army** » Fri Aug 31, 2007 1:10 pm

[quote="Steel String Bender"How about this; Shawn keeps his guitar strapped on, and we have a discussion about how two guitar players in a rock band can work together to make things more musically interesting.[/quote]

I thought I did that.

http://fortwaynemusic.com/boards/viewto ... 935#185935

Steel String Bender · Post by **Steel String Bender** » Fri Aug 31, 2007 5:00 pm

Oliver's Army wrote:Speaking from a purely technical point?

That extra guitar adds another aural layer the would be missed.

Be it either a crunchy rhythm or a finessed acoustic.

It's not like you suck at it either.

Keep it. You can always set it down on the songs that dont *need* it.

I was speaking from a purely musical point. I would encourage open discussion of how two guitar players can complement each other to make better, and more interesting music. These things might include some of the following:

1) Chord substitutions and/or alternate chord voicing.
2) Playing in different registers.
3) Combining block chords with arpeggios, or other rhythmic figures.
4) Playing melody lines in counterpoint.

This is just a start. Anybody want to add to this list, or open the channels of discussion?

GoDownProductions · Post by **GoDownProductions** » Fri Aug 31, 2007 9:53 pm

I really respect singers who can play and sing at the same time. I just don't see how it doesn't take at least a LITTLE bit away from your singing. I've tried to do both at the same time, just to try it, and failed miserably.

I don't think what you look like on stage should have anything to do with it. (that's pretty ridiculous actually)