For churches with contemporary style services is there a greater need for keyboardists or guitarists

[justme6272]

Chime in now. Thanks in advance.

 

[vinsight4u]

/nvm

 

[vinsight4u]

/nvm

 

[Tolworth John]

The need is for worship leaders and musicansto recognise the need is to have a balanced music group that can lead worship.

And for those in the group to realise they are serving the whole church and not just a musical elite.

 

[aog17]

There’s more demand for guitarists because it requires more dedication and knowledge of the genre. You want a guitarist who actually follows contemporary worship music. You can put a professional pianist in a Hillsong band without any experience in contemporary worship music.

 

[dysert]

I am no longer in the worship music scene, but at our church there has never seemed to be a shortage of keyboardists or guitarists. Maybe we're just lucky?

 

[justme6272]

I am no longer in the worship music scene, but at our church there has never seemed to be a shortage of keyboardists or guitarists. Maybe we're just lucky?

How would you rank the demand, from greatest to least, when it comes to acoustic vs electric vs bass guitar?

 

[dysert]

How would you rank the demand, from greatest to least, when it comes to acoustic vs electric vs bass guitar?

I have no idea.

 

[nonaeroterraqueous]

How would you rank the demand, from greatest to least, when it comes to acoustic vs electric vs bass guitar?

Acoustic strikes me as being most difficult, and it's the one most often used to lead. It seems to be the most important.

Electric guitar can be used to lead the band, also, but I tend to think of it more as as an embellishment, when mastered. Riffing and finger-picking can add a lot to the over-all quality of the music, but the role is not what I would call essential to a worship band, even though that's what I play. Usually, it's just icing on the cake. However, the electric guitar is the most versatile, because it can be used instead of either the acoustic or the bass guitar, as long as the correct pedals and settings are used. In the absence of a bass guitarist, I flip a switch and stomp a pedal, and I'm ready to thunk out the bass part.

Bass guitar is somewhere in the middle, in terms of importance. It gives depth and rhythm to the sound. It also happens to be the very easiest guitar part to learn. It's the one role you can hand to a non-musician and have a glimmer of hope that they might be proficient in only a few days.

As for keyboardists, I would say that it's the most versatile instrument of all, being capable of imitating almost anything. As the old church organists have been displaced by contemporary bands, I'm finding that this position has been filled by those former organists. Right now, there's no shortage, but I don't expect this happy situation to last. Keyboard is theoretically less technical to learn than guitar, by virtue of the engineering behind it: keys are designed to be the easiest interface for the human hand. Guitar strings are what they are, and the hand must adapt.

 

[justme6272]

It's the one role you can hand to a non-musician and have a glimmer of hope that they might be proficient in only a few days.

You must not consider someone to be a musician unless they can sight-read a part immediately.

 

[nonaeroterraqueous]

You must not consider someone to be a musician unless they can sight-read a part immediately.

I wouldn't say that, not as a general rule, but for the bass guitar part, I find that as an electric guitarist I can sight-read bass parts immediately for most songs. Classical songs, like the old Christmas hymns are another matter, but the contemporary stuff is usually around three or four chords, only, and for the bass guitar part that can mean three or four notes, only, if one sticks to the root notes for simplicity. I use power chords to get at the tonic and dominant notes if I need syncopation, and that's enough to get by in a pinch. Walking between notes/chords is a little more advanced and requires some understanding of scales, but it isn't wholly necessary.

 

[rapturefish]

There is a greater need for true worshippers. I don't care if a person is very skilled in any form of guitar or bass or keyboard, if they aren't there out of the heart of God in them, they shouldn't be there leading. However, I would encourage taking them aside, cultivating their hearts until they are because it is good to see each person as a person of God in the making.

As for importance of the instruments, you need someone to be the foundation. It's flexible. I believe you can have that person be the guitarist, electric guitarist, electric bassist, keyboardist, even drums and percussion. They just have to be reliable, know the song well, and lead. If everyone else can follow them, it'll work.

They don't have to sight read, they have to know the song, be it by ear or by sight reading. There are jazz musicians who cannot sight read for their lives and they are definitely musicians because they know music.

Every worship team is different, and they have to go with their strengths. If the best musician to lead is a bassist they have to adapt somehow. Guitars and keyboards are easier because they have range of highs and lows and versatility, as well as allow the leader who plays them to sing. Basses are limited to lower notes overall, but they can also play some mid-notes too. Find a way to make it work, have a clear leader, give clear instructions, everyone be on the same page, and above all, be ready in heart to worship.

 

[phydaux]

"I am no longer in the worship music scene, but at our church there has never
seemed to be a shortage of keyboardists or guitarists. Maybe we're just lucky?"

You are.

 

[WoshipWarrior]

A keyboardist who knows how to work a motif/nord3/kronos with synths and a midi controller is WAY more versatile (to the overall presence of music) than a guitarist with a Helix. The reason is the modern keyboard can swell mutliple sounds in and out, add drum pads, clicks, or ANYTHING - most of what you hear on the more popular worship albums (Jesus culture/Elevation/Bethel/Gateway) is keyboard produced. You rarely hear straight up hammers hitting strings but more of the ambiance audio scenery.

I lead our team with vocals and rhythm. I play a PRS electric guitar with varying levels of crunch and delay/reverb unless one of our two acoustic players is out, then I'll grab the Taylor acoustic.

Oh, and Bass is absolutely NOT the simplest guitar to learn. BASS is the key with rhythm and ties to percussion so succinctly that when it's missing it hurts. I'd rather play without keys/lead guitar EVERY SINGLE DAY than without drums or bass. But that's me.

 

[nonaeroterraqueous]

Oh, and Bass is absolutely NOT the simplest guitar to learn...I'd rather play without keys/lead guitar EVERY SINGLE DAY than without drums or bass. But that's me.

I understand the importance of bass, and you make that case, but I don't see how the importance of it makes it not the simplest to learn.

Bass: one note at a time, most often the root, played on rhythm.

Rhythm: several notes at once, played on rhythm, and usually while leading singing, too.

Lead: complex and sometimes fast arpeggios or lead lines along an entire chord, often straying off-chord but in-key.

Incidentally, while I was learning to pick lead with my first two fingers, I learned to simultaneously play the bass part with my thumb, so I don't see how bass could be more difficult than either of the other two, when they very often include the same elements (one octave higher), and then some. Most of the online reading I've encountered suggests bass as the easiest part to play. It's certainly not less important, and I know it ranks above lead in importance, but it can't be more complex.

 

[WoshipWarrior]

If you are only playing the root, then yes, super easy, super boring. Same with lead - if you are only playing the melody, easy and boring. I just don't think bass is the easiest to learn. Honestly, rhythm guitar is the easiest. Learn about 6 to 8 chord shapes, slap a capo on and Bob's your uncle. It's all a matter of opinion though, either way.

 

[nonaeroterraqueous]

If you are only playing the root, then yes, super easy, super boring.

No, not only playing root. Mostly playing root. If the bassist isn't doing that, then it's not being played right. Also, the bassist shouldn't be getting too fancy (1 to 2 times the complexity of the rhythm). If he played like a lead, then he'd ruin the song.

Learn about 6 to 8 chord shapes, slap a capo on and Bob's your uncle.

Not if you want to play hymns, and play them correctly.

That brings to mind some people I've worked with who overuse the capo (rhythm), mainly on hymns. I'd be playing lead. Here I am, playing along all of the nuanced chords that flood the sheet of music, and the leader boils it down to basic chords and a capo. It makes me sound like I was the one who played the wrong note.

Same with lead - if you are only playing the melody, easy and boring.

If you're doing that, then you're technically not playing lead. There's a reason they call them "lead lines." Melody lines don't lead into a song.

Anyway, I appreciate that you're attempting to compare the best bassist with the worst of the other two, but I'm not talking about performers. I'm talking about roles. I'm looking at the number of things going on at once for each player, and the rate of playing relative to the pace of the music. In terms of complexity, the bassist is supposed to have the simplest role. If that's not the case, then he's muddling the music.

That's not just my own opinion. I also learned it from reading up on the subject. I had to, because I'm just a beginner, myself.

 

[WoshipWarrior]

Great video on the versatility of keyboardists who KNOW their tools.

 

[WoshipWarrior]

No, not only playing root. Mostly playing root. If the bassist isn't doing that, then it's not being played right. Also, the bassist shouldn't be getting too fancy (1 to 2 times the complexity of the rhythm). If he played like a lead, then he'd ruin the song.

Lol that's a matter of opinion and direction of the song and music director. I have had bassists play the lead parts of songs before ( intros or interludes and such) and it sounds amazings and adds so much depth. Not on every song, but some.

Not if you want to play hymns, and play them correctly.

You were talking about being easy to play, not easy to play correctly. Huge difference.

That brings to mind some people I've worked with who overuse the capo (rhythm), mainly on hymns. I'd be playing lead. Here I am, playing along all of the nuanced chords that flood the sheet of music, and the leader boils it down to basic chords and a capo. It makes me sound like I was the one who played the wrong note.

This is also your chance to mould the song into something unique. Who cares if the leader dumbs the song down, you job is to play lead in the mix, adding with your talent and gift, extra sauce to the song. That should be exciting!

Anyway, I appreciate that you're attempting to compare the best bassist with the worst of the other two, but I'm not talking about performers. I'm talking about roles. I'm looking at the number of things going on at once for each player, and the rate of playing relative to the pace of the music. In terms of complexity, the bassist is supposed to have the simplest role. If that's not the case, then he's muddling the music.

That's not just my own opinion. I also learned it from reading up on the subject. I had to, because I'm just a beginner, myself.

That's still all your opinion and that's ok. The more bands you play in and experience you get with other musicians. Reading up on a subject doesn't qualify these statements. Be open minded, be willing to learn, and be willing to grow. And by all means, KEEP WORSHIPPING!

 

[Techo]

I would say, in putting a band together for Worship, a pianist would have to be first priority. Worship could be led by one person with a guitar, if absolutely necessary, but a competent person on a piano would carry it much better. Next a reasonable drummer to carry the beat. A good pianist could carry a average rhythm guitarist and base guitarist but I'd rather not see an average player on lead. You could throw synth or organ in there too but it's probably not required. It's real nice when you've got trumpet/trombone, sax, a decent string section and flutes... or even a whole bunch of other instruments (like we have in our largest fellowship).

But it's all just wasted effort if all they want to do is blast out their music and grandstand on whatever it is they play. Their purpose is to lead the worship... not overpower it. I've seen that happen... at a church I was visiting. The skill in playing an instrument, in worship, is to listen to every other source of music and blend in with it. To bring one sound... together. By 'source of music' I also include singers and the congregation. This is especially important when the Lord puts a new song on the heart of a singer and the instruments have to follow something for which no score has been written. Where I fellowship generally most of the other instruments drop out and piano, maybe one or two others, carry the support for the singer.