Should every guitarist start on an acoustic, even bound for electric?

[texred]

I have an evil tutor who asks me every week if I've bought an acoustic yet, instead of drooling at, uh, others. Didn't tell him about Dean.
Do ya'll think starting with an acoustic gives you a more solid foundation??

 

[Demanic]

Re: Should every guitarist start on an acoustic, even bound for electric?

It does if that's what you want to play. I started on a classical acoustic and had difficulty switching to electric for a variety of reasons.

Sent from my Alcatel_5044C using Tapatalk

 

[stratguy23]

Re: Should every guitarist start on an acoustic, even bound for electric?

That's an interesting question. Generally I would say that playing well on steel-string acoustic translates to playing well on electric, because electric is less physically demanding.

If you start with a acoustic, you'll probably get a firm foundation in cowboy chords and rhythm. You can get that foundation on electric, but there might be more temptation to noodle around.

Speaking for myself, I'm pretty sure I would improve on electric if I got an acoustic, because there's no processing/amp to hide behind. You have to produce good tone and hit notes cleanly and with power.

For a beginner, though, another consideration, as Demanic stated, is if you *want* to play acoustic. It's no good if you lose interest in guitar altogether because you started with something uninteresting to you.

I started with nylon-string acoustic b/c that's what my dad had around the house. In the 80s, lots of pop music had clean guitar intros, so I started figuring those out on acoustic. I ultimately wanted to play the rockin' parts of songs, which led to electric guitar.

 

[Niloy63]

Re: Should every guitarist start on an acoustic, even bound for electric?

Personally, I went down the route of acoustic first, electric later, because that is what I was told to do. Something about developing stronger fingers. While I can understand that point of view, and see nothing wrong with the route that I took, I don't think it's necessary at all to begin on acoustic.

 

[Chistopher]

Re: Should every guitarist start on an acoustic, even bound for electric?

If you want to start off right playing soley electric you need two electric guitars, one that has big strings and requires force to play, and one that has little strings so that you learn how to control your expressive force.

But it's always a good idea to play an acoustic so you can become more rounded.

 

[Little Pigbacon]

Re: Should every guitarist start on an acoustic, even bound for electric?

I think you should start on what you most want to play. Playing an electric guitar through an amp is as much a skill as playing a straight-up acoustic. They have different perils and different rewards, but one isn’t superior or prerequisite to the other. If you want to play both, start out with both.

 

[PS412]

Re: Should every guitarist start on an acoustic, even bound for electric?

^^^agreed^^^ I kinda did both at the sametime. I turned out terrible

 

[texred]

Re: Should every guitarist start on an acoustic, even bound for electric?

It does if that's what you want to play. I started on a classical acoustic and had difficulty switching to electric for a variety of reasons.

Sent from my Alcatel_5044C using Tapatalk

Well, he is a conservative 75.

 

[Demanic]

Re: Should every guitarist start on an acoustic, even bound for electric?

What's a conservative 75?

Sent from my Alcatel_5044C using Tapatalk

 

[texred]

Re: Should every guitarist start on an acoustic, even bound for electric?

^^^agreed^^^ I kinda did both at the sametime. I turned out terrible

I doubt it.

 

[Little Pigbacon]

Re: Should every guitarist start on an acoustic, even bound for electric?

I find I get better at whatever I’m spending real time with — acoustic, electric, clean amp, high gain, bass, single-coils, humbuckers. I tend to dial in on the peculiarities of whatever it is and change my approach to suit it. I don’t have a lot of universal skills that I can just apply to anything.

 

[texred]

Re: Should every guitarist start on an acoustic, even bound for electric?

OK, the dude's fired. I was just giving him something to do anyway. He said he knew every guitar in the universe, but he can't name that green thing I was going on about "because he can't see the name". Oh well. He keeps asking me every week if I bought an acoustic yet! I just don't have the heart. . .

 

[texred]

Re: Should every guitarist start on an acoustic, even bound for electric?

I find I get better at whatever I’m spending real time with — acoustic, electric, clean amp, high gain, bass, single-coils, humbuckers. I tend to dial in on the peculiarities of whatever it is and change my approach to suit it. I don’t have a lot of universal skills that I can just apply to anything.

Don't you think most guys/girls w/ experience would agree with you? Makes sense to me.

 

[Demanic]

Re: Should every guitarist start on an acoustic, even bound for electric?

I find I get better at whatever I’m spending real time with — acoustic, electric, clean amp, high gain, bass, single-coils, humbuckers. I tend to dial in on the peculiarities of whatever it is and change my approach to suit it. I don’t have a lot of universal skills that I can just apply to anything.

Being able to dial in on the peculiarities is the definition of a universal skill in my book.

Sent from my Alcatel_5044C using Tapatalk

 

[Little Pigbacon]

Re: Should every guitarist start on an acoustic, even bound for electric?

Don't you think most guys/girls w/ experience would agree with you? Makes sense to me.

No idea.

 

[ItsaBass]

Re: Should every guitarist start on an acoustic, even bound for electric?

I think everyone should have an acoustic, and learn to play it well...but that doesn't necessarily mean that they need to start on one. I think people should start on whatever keeps them coming back to practice the instrument and learn about music. Then, once they've established a solid technical foundation for the instrument in general, they'll likely branch into other variations of the guitar all on their own.

I started on electric for bass, then learned upright within a few years. My order on other stringed instruments was: acoustic guitar, electric guitar, banjo, dulcimer, mandolin, tenor guitar, nylon stringed guitar. Picked up a trombone not long after learning bass, which led to me learning to play every other brass instrument, and sax, in short order. Started playing drum kit somewhere in there too. I had lots of formal training on bass and trombone, but my only formal training on another instrument was nylon stringed guitar, for which I took just a few college classes (though I've completely forgot how to read treble clef by now). Learned basic harmonica in my 20's. Pretty much the only common instrument that I really can't grasp that well is piano...and that's really just because I never bothered to put the time in to feel "at home" on a keyboard.

Anyhow, all that came from playing electric bass. The point is, if you're motivated and interested, it doesn't matter what you start on.

 

[texred]

Re: Should every guitarist start on an acoustic, even bound for electric?

What's a conservative 75?

Sent from my Alcatel_5044C using Tapatalk

Old school, meaning what he says is the only thing that is correct and he knows more than anyone else. These are his words, so I try to respect that, but he also says he's an old curmudgeon, and he's damn sure right about that!

 

[texred]

Re: Should every guitarist start on an acoustic, even bound for electric?

I think everyone should have an acoustic, and learn to play it well...but that doesn't necessarily mean that they need to start on one. I think people should start on whatever keeps them coming back to practice the instrument and learn about music. Then, once they've established a solid technical foundation for the instrument in general, they'll likely branch into other variations of the guitar all on their own.

I started on electric for bass, then learned upright within a few years. My order on other stringed instruments was: acoustic guitar, electric guitar, banjo, dulcimer, mandolin, tenor guitar, nylon stringed guitar. Picked up a trombone not long after learning bass, which led to me learning to play every other brass instrument, and sax, in short order. Started playing drum kit somewhere in there too. I had lots of formal training on bass and trombone, but my only formal training on another instrument was nylon stringed guitar, for which I took just a few college classes (though I've completely forgot how to read treble clef by now). Learned basic harmonica in my 20's. Pretty much the only common instrument that I really can't grasp that well is piano...and that's really just because I never bothered to put the time in to feel "at home" on a keyboard.

Anyhow, all that came from playing electric bass. The point is, if you're motivated and interested, it doesn't matter what you start on.

Very cool. Squeezebox? I love accordions.

 

[Demanic]

Re: Should every guitarist start on an acoustic, even bound for electric?

Old school, meaning what he says is the only thing that is correct and he knows more than anyone else. These are his words, so I try to respect that, but he also says he's an old curmudgeon, and he's damn sure right about that!

Well, if that's in reference to me, I'm proud to be a curmudgeon in training. I say the only things that I know to be correct, indeed. Which is not to say that there are other things which are also correct, but at this time I am unaware of.
But still, the "75" confuses me. I was born in '67.

Sent from my Alcatel_5044C using Tapatalk

 

[justFred]

Re: Should every guitarist start on an acoustic, even bound for electric?

every guitar is an acoustic until you plug it into a fired up amp. My first guitar was an electric and in order not to drive my parents crazy I would put the headstock against a door and it sounded just fine for starters.