by Carrie Brownstein

"There is something magic about a trio." I concur. However, I will say that there are examples of bigger being better, even live, and Blitzen Trapper comes to my mind first.

Sent by Meagan | 4:35 PM ET | 06-27-2008

Less is more for me - we keep commenting that every time we see a band perform on tv, there are 100 people on stage. It's just too much. And when you see the power your White Stripes, your Kills can generate with 2 or 3 members, you are more impressed with them musically.

Sent by Rachel | 4:59 PM ET | 06-27-2008

I don't care how big the band is. If they play their hearts out and it sounds real I'll love it. Arcade Fire put on one of the best shows I've ever seen and the whole event had a circus feel to it, an absolute spectacle that drew in every last member of the audience. There were nine or ten of them and the energy of each member added megatons to the blast.

On the flip side, I saw Viva Voce play last fall. It's forty-five minutes of my life I want back. I spent the entire set waiting for the next band, and that's a bad thing. It had nothing to do with there being only two of them. There was no energy, nothing to grab me and change me. I've seen duos perform better, but they were completely off target.

So I want to be entertained? Yes, I do. Two people. Three. Five. Ten. It doesn't matter to me. As long as every cylinder fires and we make 0 to 60 right on time I'm happy. Give me a reason to spend 15 bucks on a ticket, 80 bucks on gas, and to drive 250 miles to and from the show in one day. The end result is all that matters to me.

Sent by Nick L. | 5:05 PM ET | 06-27-2008

I agree that smaller bands have a greater ability to retain the essentials. Wilco as a four-piece, in 2002-2003, made excellent use of silence and space. In 2001, when Jay was sick enough he was playing for about five additional members, and 2004, before they learned how to channel the energy of 6 members, their sound was a little bloated. Still is, mind you, but since that's what they're going for it kind of works.

Three-piece and four-piece groups can make the most use of all their members without sounding like a marching band. Keep it clean, keep it focused, keep it small.

Sent by ljc | 5:13 PM ET | 06-27-2008

I prefer smaller bands for several reasons:

1. I don't have a good ear so I like it when I can visualize what each band member is doing when I hear the music.
2. I don't like when people are hanging out on stage. If they're on stage they should be playing an instrument or singing full time.
3. It's easier to fall in love with a smaller band and have a personal relationship with; then it is with crowd and I don't like crowds.

But being a duo is really hard to pull off. The guitarist has to be a really great guitar player and signer and be almost one with the drummer.

By the way my favorite duo are the Spinanes.

Sent by xavier | 5:38 PM ET | 06-27-2008

I think 5 is the perfect number, based on the Radiohead model. They have the foundational trio of the Bass, Guitar, and Drums, supplemented by two multi-instrumentalists -- Thom playing guitar and piano and Jonny who can shred on guitar or play any of a dozen electronic devices. The number of different permutations of instrumentation keeps the 5-piece sound from becoming stale. And, it seems that most 3- or 4-piece bands tour with additional members as a 5-piece.

Sent by Justin | 6:11 PM ET | 06-27-2008

Um, I think Yo La Tengo and Sleater-Kinney were mysteriously missing from the great trios list.
BTS and Modest Mouse were both MUCH better as trios. Same thing with YLT. They sound great when they beef up their live performances with extra musicians (like David Kilgour and Mac McCaughan during the ATNTISIO tour), but it doesn't compare to their normal trio.
On the other hand, there is a LOT to be said for the classic VU lineup of one drummer, one bassist, and two guitarists. There is something about the interplay of two guitars that makes life worth living (see also: Television).
On the other hand, my girlfriend has the "two-drummers" theory, that bands with two drummers are always great live (Feelies, Dirtbombs, etc...).

Sent by BTH | 6:57 PM ET | 06-27-2008

Or do you mean "Rock the Vote?" Because, last I heard, Dwayne "the Rock" Johnson wasn't running for office." :)

Sent by Mali | 7:00 PM ET | 06-27-2008

It feels like it has to be four:

John, Paul, George, Ringo
Joe, Mick, Paul, Topper
John, Exene, DJ, Billy
Larry, Adam, Edge, Bono
Ian, Will, Pete, Les
Morrissey, Johnny, Andy, Mike
Mike, Bill, Peter, Micheal
Ian, Joe, Guy, Brendan

Sent by Tim F. | 7:23 PM ET | 06-27-2008

I can only appreciate a large band if they utilize their various members to achieve subtle dynamics within their sound. Too often these large, Arcade Fire-ish bands have everyone playing the same note at the same time to create music that could effectively be performed by a much smaller band. It's annoying when so many instruments are on stage and yet none of them make a bold impression.

Sent by Geoff | 7:41 PM ET | 06-27-2008

I don't particularly care about the size of the original band, but it seems that as classic rockers grow ever older, their touring bands grow ever larger.

Except, of course, for the purity that is Rush.

Sent by john | 9:18 PM ET | 06-27-2008

One.
Bands with base drum and electric guitar are last century retro generic rock. They give vanilla personality.
Time for anything new. And time for the Zombie generation to stop trying to ape the ancients after 50 years of bands.

Sent by Tom Hendricks | 11:33 PM ET | 06-27-2008

Having played in a 2 piece, 3 piece, and 4 piece I prefer a 4 piece. Sure, the dynamic of the 2 piece is unbeatable, the 3 piece gives you a sound that is a bit more full, but the 4 piece can actually reproduce the important parts of a record. Don't get me wrong, there are several duos and trios I love - just for me personally I am most satisfied with the 4 piece band. The only band I feel like ever really used their touring musicians to the fullest was The Delgados. Keep in mind that I'm not into Arcade Fire, Decemberists, Bright Eyes, etc etc etc.

Sent by Gage | 11:56 PM ET | 06-27-2008

My preference is for 4 members. Hey, it worked for the Beatles, Zeppelin, the Kinks, and the Clash. But it depends on the lead singer. The more musically gifted the guy/gal in front, the fewer people you need (i.e. Jack White). Beck performing solo is more interesting musically than most larger bands.

Anything more than 5 is too much, especially because when you get beyond that you invariably have band members who do nothing but play the tambourine.

Sent by Laura E. | 1:59 AM ET | 06-28-2008

3's company:
-the ronettes
-shangri-las
-jimi hedrix experience
-the jam
-tvp's
-beat happening
-the pastels (classic line-up)
-galaxie 500
-and those two 90s bands which released that Youth On Fire split 45

Sent by david | 4:41 AM ET | 06-28-2008

I saw The White Stripes for the first time last year, at that point my interest/respect for them had definitely waned due to overexposure. What impressed me, however, is that they played as a two piece; I had expected a bunch of back up musicians to handle the albums' guitar, piano, and organ combinations, not to mention horns. I have no problem with overdubbing or horns on recorded tracks (provided its done right) but there is something honest about playing a live show as the band that you claim to be.

Sent by Jason | 10:33 AM ET | 06-28-2008

This, is a GREAT Question...
With NO perfect answer...

I would say, for me, I would want (if I were to get back in a band)

Lead Guitar
Rythem Guitar
Bass Guitar
Keyboard/Piano
Drums

so 5

But if you look at some of my all time fav bands? The White Stripes, doors, and Sleater Kinney, dont feature a bass player at all? (And im a bass player mind you) Granted the doors used a bass on most albums, and Ray played the parts live on the keyboard, and with Sleater-Kinney Corin played bass-type lines on her guitar... But theyre still a bass guitar less band.

Some bands can get away without the rythem guitar... like say the Jimi Hendrix Expreince, because Jimi, is just so freaking good he can do the lead and rythem at the same time (along with playing all 8 over dubbed parts)

But after long thought...

Hendrix, Zeppelin, Cream, the Who...
all might have had it right... 1 bass, 1 guitar, 1 drummer... everything else is just background after that...

Sent by Kramer | 1:56 PM ET | 06-28-2008

A few more trio's that rock and who ranked among my greatest concerts I've witnessed: Violent Femmes UWM 1982, firehose 1990 Sun Club, Meat Puppets many times, always great.

I also appreciate someone who can pull off it off solo. Recently saw Stanley Jordan and he was a one man band that blew me away.

Sent by dk | 3:50 PM ET | 06-28-2008

2 is perfect for a truly innovative band. -White Stripes
3 for crafting and performing the perfect song. Gossip
4 for more movement, versatility, and longevity. -Led Zeppelin, Beatles
5 to complete the easiest rock band setup: drummer, bassist, rhythm guitar, lead guitar, and singer. -Pearl Jam, Rolling Stones
6 or more for more of the same, just on a louder level.

I've been working my way down from the quintet to quartet, and now I'm in a duo, my favorite of the three.
I enjoy the rock n' roll simplicity of the duo, but as the singer/guitarist I know that it can be hard to handle at times. It's a challenge to perfectly execute interesting guitar and vocal parts by oneself. I sometimes wrestle with the idea of adding a second guitar player to help lighten the load and add the possibility for killer riff exchanges, but then I worry I might be trying too hard to be like sleater kinney.

Sent by meg ruddick | 5:39 PM ET | 06-28-2008

Power trio definitely. lmao @ "children's choir".... hey wassup w/ a summer mix?? As hot as it is now i need one bad.

Sent by Marissa Dailey | 7:01 PM ET | 06-28-2008

BASS. DRUMS. GUITAR. KEYS. (with one of these people singing) so, 4. It's all covered. Although, my favourite line-up of The Cure circa '85 was best (5 piece), I always loved when it was just Robert, Simon, and Lol.

Sent by Edgar | 9:20 PM ET | 06-28-2008

I was thinking of this yesterday, in relation to Gillian Welch and David Rawlings - on the albums always augmented by many players and sounds, on the road always stripped down to the two of them, filling in the gaps with more vocal harmony, and Dave's spellbinding guitar solos.

Sent by schlep | 8:18 AM ET | 06-29-2008

how can anyone be for or against one particular number? it depends on the players + the sound they want to create, at least in the live setting. having witnessed the Broken Social Scene wheel on fire, I'm definitely a member of the "sometimes more is definitely better" camp. their shows + recordings would be nothing without the 10+piece collaboration they've (re)defined so brilliantly -- a shining example of a whole greater than the sum of its parts (as some of its members' solo work does attest). I even saw J Mascis unexpectedly hop on stage with them at a hometown show, and it more than just "worked" in the moment -- it was one of those Top 10 life-changing spiritual moments. for everyone in the room. and I think that's how you know something is right in the universe. same thing with Chan Marshall backed by the Memphis Rhythm Band. or The Go! Team, whose stripped-down live showcase set doesn't even hold a candle to their full-on live formation of 2 drum kits and 5+ members swapping musical instruments all night.

Sent by bz | 11:19 AM ET | 06-29-2008

a fascinating question. i saw iron & wine recently. i had fallen in love with his early albums, but so had many other people. so now, a large theater was needed to hold all of us.

i was intensely curious to see how he would fill out his sound for the bigger crowd. it turns out with marimba, steel guitar, string bass, another slide guitar, violin, percussion, and piano. i strained my ears through the entire show to pick out, say, the piano, without luck. a mix issue? perhaps. but i wonder, fundamentally, what all those accompanists were adding. his music is beautiful in its minimalism.

just the same, in that venue, if he had played the lonely low-fi stuff i first fell in love with, i probably would have been bored. so i guess the venue has a lot to do with it.

bon iver slaughtered at sxsw with only three, but in a much more intimate space.

i'd say 3-pieces and small venues are probably my favorites. lean and mean.

-PL-

Sent by phil | 8:50 PM ET | 06-29-2008

Three is vital. My band (Snake Suspenderz) is currently at three and looking to go to four or five.

Sent by Howlin' Hobbit | 12:00 AM ET | 06-30-2008

Band size is tricky. I think the perfect band size depends on the venue, music and personalities. And I think you can have more then one right answer.

I have always loved the minimalist sound of Morphine. But when the remaining band toured with a bunch of the band's friends under the name Orchestra Morphine as a tribute to Mark Sandman, I was blown away by the full gorgeous wall of sound they created. It really showed how expansive Sandman's songs could be.

Field Music to me was the perfect 3-piece that somehow seemed to sound like a 5-piece live, but I also love the massive guitar sound of bands like Trail of Dead (especially when they toured around "Source Tags & Codes") which can only be experienced with a whole lot of guitars on stage.

If I had to choose a format, I guess it would be something like They Might Be Giants and eels where you have 1 or 2 creative permanent songwriters/musicians and then the rest of the band shrinks and grows depending on the song or venue or general sound the band wants for a tour or single show. Logistically, however, that's probably not the most cost effective or efficient way to tour.

Sent by Mac Coldwell | 8:41 AM ET | 06-30-2008

Though I think Carrie's post is quite thoughtful and generally correct in its position, I still wonder whether or not it confuses success of sound and vision with one characteristic (instead of many), that being the number of people in a band. Personally, I think she's right, that a rock band tends to be best with somewhere between 2 to 5 musicians, but to me that is due to the requirements of the genre. When people had to play rhythm and blues with no electrical wiring or stage production, the music required a certain number of people just to make it work properly. True, there are always variants, different genres, and new artists changing this mold ever so slightly, but really, the song remains the same.

Im glad Bright Eyes was brought up. Conor Oberst's band itself, for me, sucks. Its just too much, and tends to get weird and disjointed as he adds more musicians to a song. On the other hand, Oberst himself, performing alone or with minimal support on a song (as he does in that Jay Leno appearance, or on "First Day Of My Life,") can be a touching and impressive musician.

Personally, I've always felt that if you are "cheating" your audience by overproducing your music to the point of simply pressing buttons, or having your music run through so many computers and soundboards that its almost impossible to make a mistake, well then you've essentially stopped playing real music. This is why I've never really enjoyed the whole "DJ culture" and the people that think a guy who presses buttons and spins a record is a genius (though sometimes a really talented person emerges from this).

Be that as it may, there is always room for expanding a band's size just to give it a neat touch or unique sound. For example, now-defunct nerd rock/hip hop band 2 Skinnee J's used to have a guy who's sole job was to stand by the speaker cabinets, arms folded, and nod his head as the band played (sort of an homage to the old New York hip hop style). Tilly and the Wall, another band from Omaha, NE, utilizes 1-2 extra girls who both sing and tap dance on platforms as a form of precussion. Gogol Bordello has gypsy-dancers who dance around and scream, and a very old Russian violinist. Then on the flip side, the Black Keys and White Stripes (anyone else think of a piano keyboard when those two bands are mentioned in the same sentence?) have exactly 2 people and get a hell of a lot of sound out of them. Personally, I think it has a lot more to do with the decisions of the musicians themselves rather than the number of people in the band.

-R

Sent by Ryan | 9:26 AM ET | 06-30-2008

I love a live show where you can see where (who) the sounds are coming from. Really 4 is the perfect size for this - Devotchka for instance. I recently saw them here in NYC and they played their first few songs just the 4 of them before bringing in the extra trumpets/strings, and it gives the viewer a sense for just how talented they are as individuals. A huge group like Arcade Fire can be visually interesting live, but the effect is just a lot of movement with indistinct sounds coming from all directions.
www.myspace.com/thisreporter

Sent by This Reporter | 2:29 PM ET | 06-30-2008

i think for the kind of music they make, camera obscura's size is perfect. they are 6 and each member really has an important role in the band's sound. i saw them live the summer before last and it seemed like every one of them was really necessary, even though it seemed like there were alot of people up on stage.

Sent by ld | 3:19 PM ET | 06-30-2008

Here is my two cents on this:

Examples of successful two-piece groups are:

White Stripes (of course)
Spinanes
Quasi( who have lately been adding extra members to flesh out the sound)
Black Keys
Fiery Furnaces
Tu Fawning (Corrina Repp and Joe Haege from 31 Knots)
Nice Nice
Lighnting Bolt
Hammer and Hathor (free jazz duo from Portland, OR)
Suicide

Just to name a few of the fantastic 3-piece bands- Minutemen, Firehose, Primus, Blue Cheer, Grand Funk Railroad, Dinosaur Jr, Sebadoh, Built to Spill (pre- Perfect From Now On)Galaxie 500, Low, Don Caballero, Shellac, Cream, Dirty Three, Big Star, Modest Mouse(before the switch to a major label and mass popularity), Silkworm and last, but definitely not least, Sleater Kinney.

Four-piece bands worth mentioning:

Chavez, Polvo, Afghan Whigs, Breeders, Can, US Maple, Animal Collective, Sonic Youth, Superchunk, The Feelies, Buzzcocks, Gang of Four, Wire, Gun Club

Five piece and beyond:

Pavement, Pere Ubu, Antibalas, The Ex, March Fourth Marching Band, Guided By Voices

I'm sure there are more worth mentioning, but my head is tired now. This is an interesting question, because certain bands have gone through massive transformations throughout their career, starting out with three members and then adding two or three members to flesh out their sound.

Slint, for instance, is listed as only having three original members but they have a bass player listed as an additional member on each album. Calexico is primarily the work of John Convertino and Joey Burns, however they usually feature a full mariachi horn section in their live performances. Even Nirvana, who started out as a three-pice, added Pat Smear as an additional guitarist towards the end of their career. Then there are the studio geniuses like Beck, Beirut and the Microphones who sculpt their sound in the studio using a dazzling array of instruments, samplers, and ground-breaking recording techniques to make it sound like a full band.

My favorite bands tend to be either three or four piece bands, because I like to see bands that can say more with less accompaniment.

Kevin

Sent by Kevin | 4:56 PM ET | 06-30-2008

It's all about Power Trios (period).

Sent by a.r. | 5:09 PM ET | 06-30-2008

A friend of mine (another music critic) took me to see the Dresden Dolls and I was amazed at how kinetic the show was. It was just two people and I couldn't stop looking back and forth at both of them.

It really is about economy for me, the fewer people onstage, the more my eyes dart around and appreciate every nuance. Having said that, I'm a trio enthusiast.

Sent by Gina V | 9:37 PM ET | 06-30-2008

Usually 2 guitars are better than one, unless the guitarist is Jimmy Page, Pete Townsend, or Carrie Brownstein.

I remember seeing Modest Mouse play as a trio and walking out after 2 songs. Worst show I ever saw. The fact that he was drunk and berating the audience was only part of the problem. With one guitar, they sounded thin and weak. Years later I was dragged back to see them as a 4 piece, and the extra guitar made all the difference in the world.

Sent by Rick | 12:21 PM ET | 07-01-2008

Three is the magic number. I've had a soft spot for trios ever since I saw The Muffs blow Veruca Salt off the stage in Memphis a million years ago. Every band I've been in since then has been a three piece. It's enough people to fill the sound on stage but few enough to make scheduling practice easy. Whenever I see a band with more than four people I wonder at how they're able to 1) get everyone together at the same time, and 2) hear each other talk between songs at practice.

Sent by John McAteer | 4:54 PM ET | 07-01-2008

How about one?

Many have done it very well. The jury's still out on me, but you can see judge for yourself here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ud4GHxN2u1A&feature=user

The point is that live music be "live" - you know, emotion, conection, there. If thirty people can connect on stage, great, if one can, awesome as well.

Sent by Frank | 8:19 PM ET | 07-09-2008

3 is the number. Start with Buddy Holly and the Crickets or Elvis, Scotty, and Bill. I think those trios effectively framed rock and roll.

2 will always sound bare or experimental. And at the times when it doesn't, we make note of the fact that it's the exception.

I like plenty of bands with more than 3 members. There's a strange phenomenon where some member becomes a mystery member that I can never think of. I can always think of 3 members of the following bands, but pause before thinking of more: The Kinks, AC/DC, The Clash, Pere Ubu, Metallica, Pink Floyd, and the Monkees. Not so with 3. Either I know all or none.
It seems that when there are exactly 3, there's a feeling ya get where you are assured that everybody's giving it their all. Nobody's along for the ride and everybody's efforts get noticed.

Sent by Nick | 2:02 AM ET | 07-10-2008

Your comment about Modest Mouse was the most interesting thing to me. Modest Mouse's earlier albums (Lonesome Crowded West, This is a Long Drive...) are by far their better work I think - it seemed as though they could jam on some of their songs (like "Styrofoam Boots) for 30 minutes straight.

However, seeing them live with their now-lineup of six, is truly one of the most entertaining things I've ever seen. I think I dozed off and gawked at their drumming duo for a good twenty minutes. They still jammed, too! And for quite some time!

So to respond to your comment - though i do hold Lonesome Crowded West as my favorite album of all time, whether their band has 3 members or 6, I'm pretty sure as long as Isaac is holding everything together, they'll always entertain me.

Sent by Tyler | 11:57 PM ET | 07-16-2008