Should every guitar player own an acoustic?

VimFuego

I do think a cranked electric guitar is one of the finest sounds on earth and proof that god loves us and wants us to be happy, but there is something about a delicately fingerpicked little ballad or a big, openhearted strum that fills the soul with joy.

bobblehat

VimFuego said:

I do think a cranked electric guitar is one of the finest sounds on earth and proof that god loves us and wants us to be happy, but there is something about a delicately fingerpicked little ballad or a big, openhearted strum that fills the soul with joy.

+1

RaymondLin

Philly_Q said:

Hmmm, I'm not sure about the T5 or T5z models... if it was possible to make something with those kind of ergonomics which actually sounded great as an acoustic, rather than being designed primarily as an amplified acoustic-electric... then yes, I'd be interested for sure.

Not play to an auidence as an acoustic but sitting by yourself in the living room and practice on, as an acoustic, it does the job very well.  The ergonomic of the guitar is more close to an electric so more comfortable, you get that acoustic tone as well.  It certainly sounds closer to a true acoustic than any electric or semi hollow electric.

Back on topic

I don't have a full size acoustic, I may do at some point, just have a GS Mini and a Taylor T5 at the moment.

An acoustic is more fun if you have friends round and just want to show off a few tunes, no need for an amp and you can forget any effects.  Just you and the guitar, it is also good to plug around on the sofa...although a bit awkward with a full size acoustic, compare to an unplugged electric.

Do you NEED one?  not really but I do think you ought to have one.

Which I think why the GS mini is the perfect guitar for this.

lustycourtier

Acoustics are like moustaches. Most need neither.

Sassafras

I find it's so much easier just to grab an acoustic for songwriting, it feels more spontaneous,richer,fuller and somehow more inspiring than an electric. Then again, I don't play with a load of effects which I believe some people find better for inspiration.

For people who don't like the shape and size of a dreadnought or super jumbo try a parlour size guitar. They're great for just picking up and noodling in a confined space (bathroom,natural reverb)

Planet18

lustycourtier said:

Acoustics are like moustaches.

IanSavage

VimFuego said:

I do think a cranked electric guitar is one of the finest sounds on earth and proof that god loves us and wants us to be happy, but there is something about a delicately fingerpicked little ballad or a big, openhearted strum that fills the soul with joy.

If I could 'wisdom' thrice I would.

IanSavage

Planet18 said:

lustycourtier said:

Acoustics are like moustaches.

Vital, then?

Tickly, manly and prone to catching dribbles of tea.

Philly_Q

Evilmags said:

For people who find them to big, how are you holding it?

Behind my back, usually.  Sometimes I pick it with my teeth but that's just showing off.  And I don't like that phosphor bronze taste.

Neil

I thought I needed one  back in the '90's so I bought an Ovation, which was trendy then,  played it half a dozen times, replaced it in the case where it has remained to this day, still with the original strings. :-S

So the answer is, in my case, no.

ICBM

p90fool said:
Although learning diverse musical instruments or styles is always healthy IMO, nobody would tell an acoustic guitarist that they really should have at least one electric guitar.

That's an interesting viewpoint and probably true. It's a bit like keyboard players and pianists - piano is perceived as requiring a greater skill level, whereas really it's probably just a different skill set.

I certainly don't think it's true that an acoustic requires more skilled technique or control, either - compared to some styles of electric playing yes, but certainly not all. "It takes great sensitivity to play an electric guitar at high volume" - Andy Summers.

Neil said:

I thought I needed one  back in the '90's so I bought an Ovation, which was trendy then,  played it half a dozen times, replaced it in the case where it has remained to this day, still with the original strings. :-S

So the answer is, in my case, no.

The problem is that you bought an Ovation, thinking it was an acoustic guitar.

VimFuego

ICBM said:

p90fool said:
Although learning diverse musical instruments or styles is always healthy IMO, nobody would tell an acoustic guitarist that they really should have at least one electric guitar.

That's an interesting viewpoint and probably true. It's a bit like keyboard players and pianists - piano is perceived as requiring a greater skill level, whereas really it's probably just a different skill set.

I certainly don't think it's true that an acoustic requires more skilled technique or control, either - compared to some styles of electric playing yes, but certainly not all. "It takes great sensitivity to play an electric guitar at high volume" - Andy Summers.

I find that, when I play electric (being almost purely and always an acoustic player) I play with too heavy a pick attack. I also find acoustics are far more forgiving of heavy strumming. Now, a lot of this is just down to the fact that I rarely play electric, so I haven't learnt the muscle memory required for a lighter touch, but I think it does bear up what you're saying (one day I'll have a proper stab at some electric playing).

Dave_Mc

p90fool said:

If you don't need yours just sell it. Although learning diverse musical instruments or styles is always healthy IMO, nobody would tell an acoustic guitarist that they really should have at least one electric guitar.

That's a very good point. There seems to be a kind of sniffy attitude among some people (not just guitarists, even among people in general who don't play) that, as ICBM said, acoustic is somehow more proper or whatever- it's not, it's just different.

I actually do have an acoustic, fwiw. A fairly cheap yamaha, though. Electric's what I like the best (and I probably prefer bass to acoustic... actually I probably prefer drums to acoustic too, drums are awesome fun except I have no room for a kit ) ).

Just to clarify, I have nothing against acoustic either, I enjoy it as well. And if you like acoustic more, that's your prerogative.

ICBM

I remember an old BBC documentary about Burns guitars that was made in the 1960s, and the narrator said something in that typical posh BBC tone of the time that they were "being assembled and finished as carefully as real musical instruments" or something like that!

I absolutely think they're simply different, not better or worse. I am probably a bit odd in that in some ways I play an electric guitar like and acoustic and an acoustic like an electric - there are different skills which are important for each, and some that work as well on both. I do think it's useful to have a feel for both, but only because I think it can improve what you can do with either of them.

p90fool

ICBM said:

I certainly don't think it's true that an acoustic requires more skilled technique or control, either - compared to some styles of electric playing yes, but certainly not all.

Neither do I. You won't hear much tuneless caterwauling on acoustic guitars, but terrible electric players are everywhere. As an instrument it's up there with the violin when it comes to the control and skill required when learning.

Non-musicians think that adding electricity to a guitar is like adding power steering to a car, it MUST be easier, right?
Er, no, it's more like adding a thousand horsepower to a car with skinny bald tyres.

Dave_Mc

^ Yeah exactly. In some ways electric is easier, but in others it's harder.

Funnily enough most (laypeople) would say the opposite when it comes to, say, motorbikes versus bicycles. I don't ride a motorbike (and only rode a bike (badly) when younger) but I'd figure a motorbike is more difficult to control (at least at a basic level, obviously if you're competing internationally they're both going to be difficult!).

ICBM said:

I remember an old BBC documentary about Burns guitars that was made in the 1960s, and the narrator said something in that typical posh BBC tone of the time that they were "being assembled and finished as carefully as real musical instruments" or something like that!

I absolutely think they're simply different, not better or worse. I am probably a bit odd in that in some ways I play an electric guitar like and acoustic and an acoustic like an electric - there are different skills which are important for each, and some that work as well on both. I do think it's useful to have a feel for both, but only because I think it can improve what you can do with either of them.

That's ridiculous (the BBC thing).

Agreed about the fact they're different, I don't think either is better. I probably play everything like an electric (bass as well ) ), but I agree playing both can help inform your playing. I suspect even playing drums and piano before guitar informed my playing. Not necessarily in a good way

Nunogilberto

I've had mine for years and rarely play it, but I dont want to get rid as I'll end up missing it...

Skipped

Does anyone here think that your Rhythm playing would not have developed in the same way if you had not had an acoustic?

Does anyone remember the thread on MR when a guitar teacher said he was encountering "accomplished" pupils who were desperately poor strumming a guitar?

ICBM

Skipped said:

Does anyone here think that your Rhythm playing would not have developed in the same way if you had not had an acoustic?

Yes, me.

Sassafras

Can't we have both?