1 or 2 guitars?

[ChiLlBeserker]

Hi,
I have just recently created a band with a few friends. We have one guitarrist, one bassist and a drummer. We play Jazz, Blues, Rock'n'Roll, we don't want to fixate ourselves to a certain direction of music.
My question is:
Is it in this kind of band better to have 1 or 2 guitarrists? I've been told by people that if you have to guitarrist, one, usually the less skilled one, goes down if you have 2 guitars. But I wouldn't trust any of these people's judgement so I hope some experts here can help me. Should we let a second guitarrist join us or is it bound to go wrong, or is a 2nd guitar mostly useless most of the time?

Thanks,
Jeremy

[Classical Exile]

A second guitar wouldn't be a bad thing, each guitarist can hide or compensate the other's weaknesses and the sound is fuller and louder and you can still keep the rhythm going during a solo.
On the other hand, many bands do just fine with only one guitarist, Led Zeppelin, Deep Purple and Black Sabbath among them.

I'm inclined to say two guitars because there's less work for one person and it allows a bit more flexibility in your sound.

[smfulla]

Well, I wouldn't suggest either, because I think either way its fine.
If your bass is following the rhythm guitar, then you don't NEED a second guitarist, but it could be useful anyway. There's no real bad sides to it as long as both guitarists have their egos in check

[Pezcore]

Both of my bands have 2 guitarists, i prefer a 2 guitar setup - allows for much more flexibility.

[Mr B]

I was once in a band with 1, 2, 3, 4 guitarists and a potential 2 bassists. Unsurprisingly, it didn't work out. A twin lead guitar setup is very difficult to get going. But a rhythm and lead setup is essential, I would argue.

Look at ACDC, Oasis, Radiohead, Pearl Jam, Mr Big, Aerosmith, Lynryrd Skynyrd, Metallica.