Should every guitar player own an acoustic?

thomasross20

My first guitar was a nylon cheapo from Argos. Since then I've always had an acoustic + several electrics. 

I rarely play acoustic these days. I'm wondering if I should offload. It always felt to me like every guitar player should have an acoustic and an electric... would it be really weird not to have an acoustic?

jd0272

I've never owned one, and have always (some 20+ years) felt that I should.

Trouble is, I like costly stuff and keep looking at expensive shit. Though I did see a compromise offered for a trade in the Classifieds of late that very much appealed. A National Resoelectrc. I currently have a Right One On for one of them.

Evilmags

Yes. A decent one at that. PRS Angelus would suit you Thom.

thomasross20

I tried an ANgelus but honestly, the Larrivee I got is the best I've played - better than some of the top-end Martins I tried! 

I live in a flat so it's noisy, plus I rarely play it - all my recordings are with electrics, I play electric in the band... just wondering if I should bite the bullet and sell. Maybe if I had a house with no neighbours and enough money for a new car I wouldn't mind lol...

blueskunk

Id say do but doesn't have to be expensive. I got a second hand Alvarez folk sized acoustic for about 150.

Anyone who plays always says how nice it is.

Jalapeno

"Should every guitar player own an acoustic?"

At the risk of repeating myself .....

Stupid Boy !

thomasross20

richardhomer

I own three - even if I 'give up' eventually, I'm sure I'd keep one of them.

guitarfishbay

Honestly if you don't enjoy playing acoustic you don't have to.  I don't own a nylon and I'm not interested in doing so, I play my jumbo all the time though.

But I will say this - 'you get what you pay for' means a lot more for acoustic instruments IMO.  You can get nice instruments cheap but the difference between good and excellent in acoustics is bigger than the same quality gap in electrics IMO, if that makes sense/can be quantified.

beed84

Play what you want.  It's not obligatory to own and play an acoustic if you play electric and, mutatis mutandis, the same for acoustic players and electric guitars.

usedtobe

Yes!

Dave_Mc

^ Yeah, do what you want, basically.

Danny1969

I don't own one and I'm crap at playing other peoples. It's a lot of work, you need like strong fingers and stuff. Legato doesn't really work, you can't get em to squeal with pinched harmonics, mmmmm there's other stuff they don't do as well

TonyR

I recently asked myself the same question and decided "Yes" was the answer! I've got a "special" birthday this year and have primed Mrs R to get saving for a nice acoustic for me!

xSkarloey

Only you can answer that question really.

If you don't want one, don't have one.

If you want a hundred, have a hundred.

It's a free country.

ThePrettyDamned

I've recently gotten one, I like it but the volume means I don't play it much.  It's, ironically, quieter to practice thrash metal through an 80 watt amp...

I do enjoy it a lot, though.  And wimminz like 'em. 

ICBM

thomasross20 said:

I tried an ANgelus but honestly, the Larrivee I got is the best I've played - better than some of the top-end Martins I tried!

Don't undervalue a Larrivée or be surprised that it's that good. They are some of the best acoustics made anywhere. If you like the particular type of tone they have - although I admit it's not my thing really - you won't do much or any better.

You don't "need" an acoustic, but it doesn't hurt to play one even if you mainly play electric. It teaches you different things.

guitarfishbay

ICBM said:

You don't "need" an acoustic, but it doesn't hurt to play one even if you mainly play electric. It teaches you different things.

Touch and tone is one thing it makes you aware of, even if the exact same technique doesn't translate 1:1.

On an acoustic, depending on the style, it is possible to play too hard and make it sound worse.  Especially if you're a rock rhythm guitarist it can be easy to mash the strings by default - doing that on a lighter braced acoustic, especially with a heavier pick, can make for a less than ideal tone, IMO.

I feel I have better awareness of control because of playing acoustic.  I don't think it is necessary to play the acoustic to get that awareness but I feel it helped me.

TTony

I find that playing acoustic is less forgiving than playing electric,

You have to be more accurate with left hand finger placement, and I tend to pick when playing acoustic rather than strum, so it's good for a right hand workout too.

At least, that's my experience??

So, I play mine to tighten up my technique a bit and to play "properly".

CHRISB50

If you don't use it get rid. If you'll just pine for another if it goes don't get rid. Only you can answer the question.

You don't seem to buy stuff without making sure you want it. Didn't you try quite a few acoustics before you went for the Larivee? So you must be happy with it for what it is.

The only plus point of getting rid, then deciding you should have an acoustic again is the GAS experience and going shopping.

stimpsonslostson

I'd never be without my acoustic. I'd probably sell my electrics first! 

I love feeling the guitar come alive when you strum it and get the air moving. I write all my songs on the acoustic before transferring to electric too.

I agree that an acoustic forces you to play in a different way- to get dymanics of volume and tone you are forced to alter your attack etc... I think that's why I like playing my SG Jr, the approach is similar.