Just curious, Am I the only one that.....

[PraiseCaster]

..... utilizes different chord progressions? What I mean is, My P&W leader will Capo on the 2nd fret, and play an open D and G chords, but I'll play without a Capo, and I'm playing a E barre chord, and an A2, the rest of the song I've transposed to mostly barre chords. Or, if he is finger picking a segment, I will try something like a mellow volume swell, or a warm power chord, rather than an open chord.

The reason I ask is, that too me, if I capo at the 2nd fret, and play the same chord progressions, too me, it starts sounding all cluttered up, and like I'm intruding on my Acoustic guitarists (P&W Leader) territory. Is that just me over thinking it, or am I actually adding more depth and breadth to the arrangement like I think I am? Cause I want his acoustic guitar work to stand out seperate from what I'm doing; I dont want to play over top of him and drown him out, playing the same thing basicaly.

Maybe I'm just kinda thinkin too much on what one gentleman mentioned too me. He only play's acoustic guitar, but he is an excelent guitarist. His opinion is that the guitars (both electric and acoustic) should play the same exact progressions, and just let your technique be the sepration mark, and everyone will hear the difference.

I'm not too sure about that. Whenever I think of playing the exact same chord progressions as the other guitarists, I cant help but think back to a band (that I cant recall the name of right now), that had a big hit back in the 70's with "Ghost Rider's In The Sky". A big Country rock band, with I believe (at least) four guitarists blazing out front. What I couldnt get past though, was that they all played the same chord progressions, the same exact barre chords, and just about the same strumming technique. And to my ears it just sounded like the same guitar over dubbed 4X.

Now I wanna apologize right now, cause I dont want to offend anyones taste, so, If I just unknbowingly bagged on one of your favorite bands, I am sorry. That one song is the only song I know them by, and maybe I'm judging them unfairly on that one song, but I am only using them as an example here, not a put down.

So what do you all do, and what do you all think? Am I just Grandstanding without realizing it, and I should fall into line, and play exactly what my other guitarist is playing? Or, should I continue to add layers to the songs as it seems fit, and comlpiment rather than play ontop of my other guitarist?

Oh, and just to let you know, my P&W Leader loves the way I add fills, volume swells, and power chords throughout the song(s)

[mjaames520]

I also use some different Passing chords to add depth and variety to whats being played.. I think it all depends on taste and having the ability to not overplay.

[Honga Man]

Originally Posted by PraiseCaster

..... Or, should I continue to add layers to the songs as it seems fit, and comlpiment rather than play ontop of my other guitarist?

Oh, and just to let you know, my P&W Leader loves the way I add fills, volume swells, and power chords throughout the song(s)

Just my opinion, and therefore worth what you paid for it, but I think your answer is right here. :D

BTW, I agree with you. I'm a blues-country-classic rock guy and I prefer to hear two guitars playing different things, like in the Stones or the Allman Bros. for example.

[Wahwax]

If you can play along without a capo that's great. Sometimes a capo is used so people can use cowboy chords, sometimes it's used to change the sound / voicing of the chords.

[Tim Swartz]

I can't think of any reason why 2 guitarists would want to double the same part? It seems like an inefficient use of resources to me. I'd rather hear one of the guitarists double an octave above the bass, or comp the chords w/ the piano, or play some fills.

[tom grossheider]

I rarely double what the other guitarist(s) are doing. Need to find some space in there among the piano and keys players too. Octaves and arpeggios are good, experimenting with different inversion, and you are already doing some cool fills that are recognized and liked. Keep up the good work. God is a creative God, and there is a beauty in expressing worship in musical forms.

[Tylercaster]

I think it was either Molly Hatchet or The Outlaws that had that song out. Both groups had at least 3 guitars in addition to a bass player. Lynyrd Skynyrd was the only ones that ever pulled off 3 guitars right. I had 3 guitars in my southern rock band a few years back and it worked really well. I had 3 guys (I played bass) that really knew how to stay out of each other's way. We did alot Allman Brothers, Skynyrd-type dual leads stuff. That third guitar holding down the rhythm was great. And none of the guys EVER played the same thing another was doing. Kinda defeats the purpose if having 2 guitars. Sorry for the long post, but I know Southern Rock and its not often I get to spout off my "expertise!"

[Matt Plescher]

everything should be in the service of dynamics. beyond that there shouldn't be any rules.

I think usually different guitars should be playing different inversions of the same progression, but whatever works in the service of the song is what's right.

Sometimes I'll play inversions against another guitar's open chords, and then hit the same chords on the chorus to give the Ghost Riders sound you describe.

I rarely play open chords on the electric, but sometimes I'll play inversions up the neck on the acoustic to stay out of the way of the keys on keyboard songs.

I'll also syncopate rhythm on the same progression against another guitar if thats what works in the song.

One thing we have been working on is keeping the keys from overplaying on guitar based songs, because you can get the same thing going on- overlapping parts making mud. Often now the keys will do sustained fills on the guitar songs. Then, on keyboard oriented songs I'll try to stay out of the way, often playing just on the chorus.

BTW, Radiohead is great at multiple guitar arranging.

Cheers
Matt

[ashtray]

And now I can contribute - played with a church group for the first time last week - but not in church. We do a monthly sing a long, and we had over 20 people come out last time. Anyhow - I was the 4th acoustic guitar, and everyone was playing the same thing! I didn't know the songs beforehand, and had missed practice, so I just followed along. There's supposed to be another guitarist that plays too - so 5 guys all strumming the same thing - that can't be productive.

I tried doing barre chords and getting higher notes in there than standard strumming, and doing a little something here and there, but acoustic isn't my forte - so I'm kinda on new ground all over.

I've thought about introducing a bass guitar to the group, but I wonder how that would sound with 4 acoustics?

We're going to work on it - should be interested if nothing else.

To answer your question - I think each guitar should compliment the other, but not duplicate - ala Hotel California.

[Matt Plescher]

Originally Posted by ashtray

And now I can contribute - played with a church group for the first time last week - but not in church. We do a monthly sing a long, and we had over 20 people come out last time. Anyhow - I was the 4th acoustic guitar, and everyone was playing the same thing! I didn't know the songs beforehand, and had missed practice, so I just followed along. There's supposed to be another guitarist that plays too - so 5 guys all strumming the same thing - that can't be productive.

It does have the potential to sound muddy, but if nobody's amplified it helps to have more guitars to compete with 20 singers-especially if they are good singers. Could also give the guitars a cool chorus effect.

In the end if you're making a joyful noise to God, overlapping parts or distinct parts are irrelevant!

Cheers
Matt

[reverbbb]

I think that it is best to have all intruments playing different parts to help develop complexity to the song. The exception is if you are attempting to get a natural chorusing effect by playing in unison, such as several violins playing or a 12 string guitar.

This should be an intentioanl effort so that all instruments can work off of each other to create the effect. If it is not intentional, then I would agree, that the mix can sound muddy and out of time.

[PVTele]

and I do it just the same way you do, PraiseCaster. That combination of open chords on the acoustic with barre chords, esp picked rather than strummed, on the electric, is just unbeatable. We play Randy & Terry Butler's 'At the Cross' that way, with the Bm played barre at the 7th fret, on a rippled downstroke and then picked back up, and it sounds so beautiful. And running the verses together with fill-ins and mini-solos gives you such tonal opportunities.

The whole issue of acoustic + electric playing fascinates me - IMHO the best secular album to demonstrate the possibilities, and one I've learned so much from, is Al Stewart's 'Love Chronicles' with Jimmy Page on electric (Tele mostly) and Al on acoustic. Page's fill-ins are a model of restraint and fluidity, without losing any of the bite and passion.

Restraint can sound like a bad word - but when the focus is meant to be on the Lord, not on the musicians, it's one of the greatest tools at our disposal as electric guitarists!

[daddyo]

is the spice of music . me and my co -guitarist never play the same chord shapes or in the same position. it just opens up the music so much and gives the ear soming interesting to listen to. by the way he's the smart one so he allways comes up with the gravy chords for my meat and potato progessions and it works very well. i played punky style rock for years where the idea was to hammer out the biggest toughest chords possiable by everyone playing the same thing in unison, but this new approach of blendig different voices to form chords is really cool and more satisfying. peace