Have you ever seen a band like ZZ-Top where there are 3 people on a huge stage making sound like thunder and a thousand Hot Rods? Sure, they do overdubs on their guitars in the studio, and have taken their share of flack for using synths and other technology, but they really put on one hell of a live show with just a rock-solid drummer and bass player, and Billy rockin' his guitar.
On the other hand, there are acts like Lynyrd Skynyrd (a personal favorite of mine) who have 3 guitarists, a bass player, a drummer, a piano/keyboardist a lead singer and backup singers. Their sound is huge, too. But how do you know the right number of instruments for your band? Is more always better?
This topic comes up often as bands are forming, and come up from time to time when a new musician enters the fold who might actually bring something to the table. Is there a right answer? No. Bands, like many things in life, go through stages and alter their forms with an ebb and flow like the oceans. The only right question is 'Is it working for us right now?!'...
With adding guitar players, will they provide something that isn't already there? If you have a guy doing rhythm and lead work, you might want to add a rhythm guitar or an acoustic to fatten things up when he goes up for the big solos. If you have a soulful sound, you might want to add that beautiful Hammod B-3 with a leslie sound (and pray to GOD the guy is using a modern keyboard to get those sounds, as the real deal is HEAVY and takes up a lot of room). If you have a worldly flavour, you might think about adding a guy to do 'extra percussion'. If you are a band that is playing gigs for little-to-no $cratch and are finding yourselves on tight stages as a 3 or 4-piece, then you might want to hold off.
You see, like a good Scotch, sometimes you have all you'll need right there in your glass already. For me, a Scotch is something you enjoy as it is, you don't overindulge and you don't mix it with unnecessary elements.
If you have a good sound, good crowd reactions, good overall vibe and you are making some extra $cratch here and there, adding a member may not actually prove to be 'adding' much in the way of value. We won't even go over how a $500 payout splits to 7 or 8 people, but lets just say, all that time spent dodging headstocks to cover your gas money is not at all enticing. Working bands know this pain moreso than original bands - since you should consider it an expensive hobby unless you are working at it most days a week (just my opinion).
Additional members (I should say...'each member') bring with them another cog that has to be aligned with and calibrated with the rest of the machine. Booking rehearsals now becomes THAT MUCH more time consuming, not to mention your stage setup time increases, and the possibilities of personalities clashing goes way up. Remember when I compared playing in a band with being in a romantic relationship? You do now, because you clicked the link... Well, imaging trying to juggle two romantic relationships at once, now you add a third, a fourth, a fifth - and you expect them to all get along with each other (come on, we've all seen that show about the polygamists and know that it isn't all daisies and puppy dogs!) and to actually be in cross-relationships with each other all at the same time - not even a soap opera could pull that one off without a murder occurring...
I'm not here to say that horn sections are bad, or keyboard players are useless - I would love to have a classic show band with a 4-5 piece horn section, a piano player/keyboardist, and extra percussionist and 3 hot backup singers (who wouldn't!) in addition to the standard 2-guitars, bass, drums and everyone who is singing leads, but I do want to remind you that sometimes adding another player is just adding another player. You really have to look at the overall goal and big picture of what your band is doing and wants to do and make that call for your own situation. Neil Young's 'Heart of Gold' show at the Ryman Auditorium, which is definitely worth a watch even if you aren't a huge NY fan, has a moment when all of the guests are on stage and Young looks down at 9 or 10 guitarists and asks the audience 'I think we need another guitar...' or something to that effect - he gets a laugh and they play a song. Did it sound 'better' because all of these great guests were playing? No, because sometimes more is just 'More'...
P.S. this post is a result of my asking fellow musicians what topic I could share my thoughts on. If you have a topic you'd like to hear my personal opinion on (for what it's worth), let me know in the comments or on Facebook
On the other hand, there are acts like Lynyrd Skynyrd (a personal favorite of mine) who have 3 guitarists, a bass player, a drummer, a piano/keyboardist a lead singer and backup singers. Their sound is huge, too. But how do you know the right number of instruments for your band? Is more always better?
This topic comes up often as bands are forming, and come up from time to time when a new musician enters the fold who might actually bring something to the table. Is there a right answer? No. Bands, like many things in life, go through stages and alter their forms with an ebb and flow like the oceans. The only right question is 'Is it working for us right now?!'...
With adding guitar players, will they provide something that isn't already there? If you have a guy doing rhythm and lead work, you might want to add a rhythm guitar or an acoustic to fatten things up when he goes up for the big solos. If you have a soulful sound, you might want to add that beautiful Hammod B-3 with a leslie sound (and pray to GOD the guy is using a modern keyboard to get those sounds, as the real deal is HEAVY and takes up a lot of room). If you have a worldly flavour, you might think about adding a guy to do 'extra percussion'. If you are a band that is playing gigs for little-to-no $cratch and are finding yourselves on tight stages as a 3 or 4-piece, then you might want to hold off.
You see, like a good Scotch, sometimes you have all you'll need right there in your glass already. For me, a Scotch is something you enjoy as it is, you don't overindulge and you don't mix it with unnecessary elements.
If you have a good sound, good crowd reactions, good overall vibe and you are making some extra $cratch here and there, adding a member may not actually prove to be 'adding' much in the way of value. We won't even go over how a $500 payout splits to 7 or 8 people, but lets just say, all that time spent dodging headstocks to cover your gas money is not at all enticing. Working bands know this pain moreso than original bands - since you should consider it an expensive hobby unless you are working at it most days a week (just my opinion).
Additional members (I should say...'each member') bring with them another cog that has to be aligned with and calibrated with the rest of the machine. Booking rehearsals now becomes THAT MUCH more time consuming, not to mention your stage setup time increases, and the possibilities of personalities clashing goes way up. Remember when I compared playing in a band with being in a romantic relationship? You do now, because you clicked the link... Well, imaging trying to juggle two romantic relationships at once, now you add a third, a fourth, a fifth - and you expect them to all get along with each other (come on, we've all seen that show about the polygamists and know that it isn't all daisies and puppy dogs!) and to actually be in cross-relationships with each other all at the same time - not even a soap opera could pull that one off without a murder occurring...
I'm not here to say that horn sections are bad, or keyboard players are useless - I would love to have a classic show band with a 4-5 piece horn section, a piano player/keyboardist, and extra percussionist and 3 hot backup singers (who wouldn't!) in addition to the standard 2-guitars, bass, drums and everyone who is singing leads, but I do want to remind you that sometimes adding another player is just adding another player. You really have to look at the overall goal and big picture of what your band is doing and wants to do and make that call for your own situation. Neil Young's 'Heart of Gold' show at the Ryman Auditorium, which is definitely worth a watch even if you aren't a huge NY fan, has a moment when all of the guests are on stage and Young looks down at 9 or 10 guitarists and asks the audience 'I think we need another guitar...' or something to that effect - he gets a laugh and they play a song. Did it sound 'better' because all of these great guests were playing? No, because sometimes more is just 'More'...
P.S. this post is a result of my asking fellow musicians what topic I could share my thoughts on. If you have a topic you'd like to hear my personal opinion on (for what it's worth), let me know in the comments or on Facebook