El Dangerouso

I know I might be in the minority with this one, but for all your case studies, why not just look at a place where it might not be legal, but at least tolerated: The Netherlands. Now I know we have some folks from the land of rain, wooden shoes, tulips, windmills, etc. on the board, and I would really like to hear what they have to say. I could have my story wrong because of my perspective. All I know is the Netherlands is not an economic powerhouse. The United States is. My wife did an exchange semester in Maastricht (help me out with the spelling if I've blown it). Parks were full of folks strung the hell out on pot and herion, and there was pretty much no chance of them contributing to the economic situation of their country (anyone ever heard of GDP?). It was just a fact of life. My parks are not like that, and I want them to stay that way. That said, none of this sociological stuff is a science. I suppose that experience does not mean that if you did legalize pot here, the exact same thing would happen. You might see no connection between drug legalization and a downhill economic spiral, I see one. I would rather have more people working in industries that do things other than provide a chemical substance that alters your reality through controlling you mood. I'm sure this would be a profitable industry, and many folks would flock to it were it legal (I know there are people already working in illegal pot for a living, but let's face it, if it's legal, there will be many more), we are a capitalist country, and I love the fact we are. I'm not okay with supporting that industry on the grounds that it is an industry that will have ill effects on overall productivity. You can make the same arguments about tobacco, alcohol, etc. Guess what? They're already legal, and we have to deal with the reality of today. I'm taking about something we can keep from possibly changing for the worse. I'm okay with spam, because it may not be natural for some 80 year old to have an erection, but he can still drive with no imparment (assuming he has no other health problems that would limit his driving). Hell, it wasn't natural for the majority of the population to live past 65 not too long ago. Should we halt or remove all the drugs that have improved the quality of life for our family members into their later years because they come from a non-organic compound? The fact that it is organic does not make it okay or good. Would you like for me to list plenty of organic poisons? Again, I have no way of seeing the future, and neither does anyone else (I don't care what Miss Cleo said). I realize I could be wrong, guess what, so could you. I choose to speak with my vote until asked, and since you asked I would vote "no."

Boss DR670 would be my choice. They should be around 100 bucks or so on ebay. You don't even need a bass player, it has built in patterns just like the 123. You can can tell the low end loonies, "all your bass are belong to us."

Dave, I feel you on that point. It's just some point of connection with the artist. "Oh, well he's a tube driver guy, maybe we think alike, I might have to check him out." I did the same with Ty Tabor. He's got a Wilkinson on his signature model, since I love the Wilkinson, I thought, "maybe I need to check out some more King's X or Ty Tabor solo." I checked it out, and it was hit or miss, but I did it at all just because I felt like there was that point of connection. I saw a Satriani/Dream Theater/King's X show here in Dallas a year or two ago. I went almost entirely to see Satch, but I was a minor fan of DT and KX. I liked King's X, but I have to tell you that Dream Theater really did nothing for me live. I was ready to go get a coke during their set. However, I could net help but notice the sizeable contingent of hardcore DT fans just totally rocking out. So I guess for me it is clear that they have talent in abundance, but maybe I'm just not as into the whole style of music. Clearly, they are making a connection with lots of folks other than me, and won't miss my support.

I didn't get to see this the first time around, but I will put a B.S. in Physics from a fairly top school and M.S. in Engineering from a slighty lesser school on the line here. If you hang a guitar in the manner talked about, it should go sharp (Only while hanging) if anything. The tension of the strings will cause some bow or relief in the neck. Gravity pulling on the body will increase that tension and will want to "straighten" the neck. This adds tension. Think of it like this: Take a bow you would use for hunting. Try to straighten the wood/fiberglass part. Tough, huh? That's because you're increasing tension. Now bow it more. Easier? Heck yeah, it's lowering the tension. Lower tension=Lower pitch=flat. Higher tension=higher pitch=sharp. If you can bend a string flat, let me know. I know you can't. Not possible. There might be an exception. If you caused the guitar to swing when you plucked the string to test the tuning while hanging, at the motion at the two furthest points of travel will reduce this tension. However, just from gut feel, it would surprise me very much if it reduced the tension enough to actually go flat. If anything, I would think it would return to normal. As for the heat gradient argument, I'm not really seeing that either. Guitars, hung vertically will occupy three feet of wall. Was this wall to ceiling distance measured over a ten foot wall, like I have in my house, a normal eight foot wall, or a 20 foot wall in a two story house where the second floor is open to the first? To know if that info is even worth noting, you would have to know that. Also, I would need to know the placement of the room, basement, first floor, second? Location of vents? Is your head ever hot, while your feet are cold in your house? If they are, remember you are probably about twice the height of your guitar. Come on. I would safely conclude that most of the arguements against hanging are weak at best, and can be completely debunked at worst. That's some scientific fact. No personal high-fiving or putting anyone down. Those are just the facts.

I was looking at Bennett Music Labs "Insane Gain", and I was liking the idea of the pedal, but I would really prefer the same thing in rack form. Bennett says that the thing is really just three EH LPB-1s in a row with true bypass on each. Well, the LPB-1's circuit is easy enough, but in a rack form, I would no longer be able to use the 3PDT stomp switches. Is there any way to control it remotely with a pedal like the Digitech FS300 and a TRS jack? Also, how difficult would it be to use MIDI with relays to control the circuit? This project may be beyond my ability, ultimately, so quotes are also welcome. The following links might help: Bennett Labs (Insane Gain second from right) EH Booster Schematics

Can't believe it. Found my own answer. Should have done this first, but at least anyone that didn't know this will benefit. All of the factory presets on the G-major have a preset output leve of -6db. This is so if you kick in the "boost" for a solo it goes to 0db. Well, I used a factory preset as a foundation for my tweeked user preset, and never changed this. I was hearing the -6db difference. If you want to use a factory preset without this, you would have to copy it into a user slot, and then mod it. Remember, if you don't want this "boost" functionality, to mod your user settings! Good luck and happy shredding brethren of the G-major!

For those of you who use a G-major: I was playing with my rig the last couple of nights, and found that if I hit the "bypass all" switch (the one in the lower far right) there is a significant level change. Working with the input and output level knobs did me no good as this effects the unit in bypass as well. I breezed through the manual, and there seemed to be a reference to level settings for each preset, but I thought I'd ask the question here first. I suppose I never noticed since I had a preset I employed in conjunction with every setting of the preamp, but this time, I wanted to just hear the pre and power and I got worried that if I was playing and didn't want to use the G-major, I would have a big level jump when I sent a MIDI CC change to bypass it. Any help would be greatly appreciated.

Let me know when you start the new thread. I would recommend starting with FCB, Pre and g-major (using presets). You may not get the sound dialed in right away, but you'll get the hang of how to program the FCB and set up the pre and g-major to change from sound to sound with the slap of a footswitch!

Thanks Drak, I was just cruising the 'bay after the Furman discussion fired up(my G.A.S. was kicking again), and found that auction. Since it seemed like it had a fair amount of the stuff you were looking for at a reasonable price, I checked to see if you were on PG and cut and pasted the link in a PM. Not a whole lot of effort on my part; I'm glad it worked out for you. I'm, as always, with Dave on the G-Major; it is my favorite. The effects are first rate, and the MIDI implementation is both powerful and very flexible. In short, it will rock. My rack is actually my only amp. With my VHT GP3 preamp, I'm able to cover a lot of territory. Good idea on splitting everything to two racks. I've got one eight spacer, and it's heavy as a mutha. I picked it up once, before I put the Echo Pro in it, and didn't ever want to pick it up again. Just to the truck and back, let alone truck to stage, almost killed me. It only had preamp, poweramp (the real satan as far as weight is concerned) and the G-Major for a long time. That wasn't so bad, but now, it's killing me.

I'm still with Dave, for the money, the G-Major cannot be beat. I'll have to check into the 'verb ability. It wasn't one of my major factors when I got it. I just listened, and said, "sounds good enough for government work" where the 'verb was concerned. It is too late for most of us, but for what it's worth, the other day I played through a used Carvin TN100 at GC, and was pretty impressed. Not too expensive, and although not tube, didn't sound half bad. Did preamp and effects duty in one rack space. Now, on to my question. I don't have a power conditioner, and all eight spaces of my rack are taken up. Without me putting out any effort on looking it up for myself (like I should) could someone give me the short answer on what it does/prevents for you? I've been trying to get rid of my G.A.S. for years, and every time I think I'm there, something pulls me back into the warm womb again. ("You know what, I bet that X is just what I've been looking for to get that X2 sound"). Just wanted you guys to know, you're my enablers. (My wife hates you.)

I agree with some others. This would be tough to do with only ten options. My choice: Bogner Extacy. When I win the lottery, I might buy one.

The easiest way to memorize key signatures is to memorize the circle of fifths. If you drew the following in a circle with "C" at the 12 o'clock position you would have the circle. C, G, D, A, E, B, F#/Gb, C#/Db, G#/Ab, F. Going clockwise around the circle, you add one sharp to the key signature each time you move. G will have one sharp in the key signature, D will have two, etc. Going counterclockwise each will have one additional flat. The key signature for F is one flat, etc. Hope that helps. You can just look at the key signature to determine which notes are sharp or flat using the "Every Good Boy Does Fine" (or whatever variation you've picked up).

Drak, brother, you're killing me. Buy the G-major and be done with it. I've carried mine around with no ill result so far. Granted, it was no major North American tour or anything, but the G-major made it there and back to multiple gigs and was fine. No, you probably don't want to drop your rack from the back of the truck. Mine always goes in a special safe spot. Anyway, yes the G-major comes with a compressor. If you go to the T.C. Electronic website, and check you the G-major they have a great video demo you can download. It's hosted by Marc Cooper (Coop De'Ville). I've never heard of the guy, but he seems to know what he's talking about. Check it out, it is well worth the download; the next best thing to trying it in person.

I know I'm very late to this, but here goes..... My rig Guitar to VHT GP3 preamp (with Chandler tube driver in the FX loop) to G Major to BBE 362NR to Peavy Classic 50/50 to a Fender Stereo closed back straight 4x12 cabinet All controlled by a 1010. The VHT is a three channel, can do it all kind of preamp. Without going into too much manual talk/hype, I like it and I do some genre jumping (mostly I play Eric Johnson/Satch). The Chandler is to push the preamp a little harder (I used to use a Rocktron Austin Gold (initially before the preamp, and after I read more the GP3 manual, in the FX loop) which was also very good). Dave and everyone else is right; the G-Major is the best effects unit in the world at that price range, hands down. BTW, you can use the expression pedal on the 1010 to do real time whammy effects with it (who needs a WH-1? Just kidding for all the WH-1 fans). It will also do all the harmony stuff of the WH-1 as well. Based on Drak's Rivera purchase, I would also like to add that the G-Major will also switch channels on an amp for you (no, the amp does not have to be Midi), and you can control those channel switches with the 1010. I think the 1010 can also channel switch a non-Midi amp, but I would have to check on this. I'm going to add a Line 6 Echo Pro for its sampling (so I can play with myself...haha), although I do like the tube echo sound on the Echo Pro as well. I used to use a Boss RC-20 for the sampling, but wanted everything rack mounted and midi controllable. I also love my BBE 362NR. The rig would probably sound fine without it, but I've had it for so long, my ears would feel like they lost something. The Classic 50/50 is a great tube power amp, middle of the road, not too costly. I am surprised by the hatred of the 1010 manual. Frankly, none of it is really that hard, you don't need much of a manual. The programing and switching thing is easy, and again, for the price/versitility, the 1010 can't be beat. For all those wanting a primer on Midi switching, PM me, I've learned it all the hard way, and I think I can break it down pretty simply.

BP, Not only am I in your boat, (although I have only worked two jobs for a very short time now; mostly since I figured out I couldn't get where I wanted two with one), but I feel the same; it sickens me that I work for .65 cent dollars. How much better could my life be if I had that money back? Not only that, how much better would the economy be if I (underline underline) decided where that money went? I'm a big, big fan of Adam Smith's, and I think many have lost the perspective on the difference between "free trade" and "fair trade". America, as you, through example, have shown, should be the land of equal opportunity, not the land of equal outcome. I still believe that if you are willing to work, America's system of government / economics will let you achieve. What you have achieved should not be taken away to allow others to come closer to "equality of outcome." All, The thing that hurts me most (and this is directed at no one, just something I've noticed in the media) is the "this is so irrevocably screwed up / I hate my own country" mentality. It is not even close to irrevocable, folks. You still live in the greatest country known to man (sorry for my bias to the U.S.). We need to make things better, and we need to work together to do it. Starting out with an "I hate you and everything you stand for; the only things we can expect to come out of your mouth are lies" attitude will just make those positive changes come more slowly. That goes for both sides of the aisle. I think we need to confront the economic and security threats of OUR time, and not turn them into the worsened problems of the next generation. I think we could make more progress if we were all a little less of the ideologes we love to be (especially me). Whether you lean left or right, the problems should be taken seriously and decisive action taken NOW. The right plan agreed upon and followed through by both sides. If that takes some quick comprimise, so be it. I'll take an 80% right plan now over a 100% right plan too late. For me, I'm coming to a point where I believe the devisive and diometric opposition of the two parties is a big enough problem to override my feeling of supporting who is "right", I would rather have someone who can get enough done to move us, even more or less, toward solutions.

Over here, it is compulsory for everyone over the age of 18 to enrol and vote. If you do not, you can be fined. Why don't you all have to vote and what do you all think about it.. I agree with what's been said on this one already. Compulsory voting would be distinctly un-American. Why is your health care system privatised? Is that really the best option? Shouldn't basic human rights be controlled by the government? Is health care a right? I must have missed that one. Access to health care might be a right, but that's about as far, as an American, as I would be willing to take it. Having been a government employee, I agree that most government does not run anywhere close to effecient. I would always rather have Adam Smith's "Invisible Hand" guiding my health care industry. Of course, there was no way for him to have been able to consider the runaway litigation.... What is the general concensus on the war? over here, everyone thinks it's bad, we had no right to go into Iraq, and that it's a blind, knee jerk reaction by the USA at a sneaky attack that they didn't see coming. I'll throw out one point of view that I think a very few Americans have access to. I spent six years in the Army after having graduated from the United States Military Academy (West Point). I consider Iraq a battlefield masterstroke on what would be considered, in U.S. military doctrine, the "strategic" level of war. Terror, previously, was a fight that took place at the time and place of the enemies' (terrorists') choosing. Now, it has been given a battlefield of our choosing. All the folks still in the Army, and in Iraq, that I have contact with, say that 40% or so of the insurgents they capture are from Syria, Jordan, Egypt, etc. They are being recruited, usually for drugs and money, to fight in Iraq. I would much rather that happen, and have those of the U.S., namely the Army, who are most capable of dealing with them, deal with them, than have them be recruited and show up in Dallas. Everyone agreed that the intel that every country (Russia, United States, Great Britain, etc.) had pointed to Saddam's possession and use of WMD. If you look at MSNBC today, you will see that maybe they did manage to sneak them out of the country to Syria or somewhere. The charge that there was no plan to win the peace is false, trust me, this is a part of every Army plan. Of course, the Army also has a catchphrase that "no plan survives contact with the enemy." I, in my infinitely biased, personal view find the "no plan to win the peace" and "WMD" arguments to be nothing more than excellent Monday morning quarterbacking. Is Michael Moore's movies/docos/shows even close to the truth? or is he full of ****? I think folks here on the board have already hit this nail on the head. Why should everyone have the right to carry a gun! There has been some pretty good commentary on this one as well. Suffice it to say that it is a right protected by the Constitution. You would have a tough time changing that. That is why most of the gun control advocates in the U.S. have focused around waiting periods, background checks, etc. I would also agree with the statement that a gun is an inanimate(sp?) object and is only harmful in a person's hands (in other words "guns don't kill people, people kill people"). Don't restrict my rights because someone else is a murderer. Until my government can guarantee me that no criminal will have a gun, I deserve to protect myself with the same. To end it all, I ran across this Churchill quote, which I though might have a nugget of truth: "If you are not a liberal at 20, then you don't have a heart. If you are not a conservative at 40, then you don't have a brain."

I love election time. Let's just say that no system of government is perfect. To the point, a favorite quote of mine: "Democarcy is the worst system of government, except for every other system." - Winston Churchill I may have butchered it slighty, since it's off the top of head, but it's pretty close. There are demcratic/republic governments with many parties(and would concievably offer more "choice"), but they tend to have the problem of never getting anything done because you have to build a coalition to get the majority required to pass anything through a legislature. I personally like the two party system, and I know not everyone shares my sentiments. The good news is, some of us are of age to vote, so vote. It matters, and it always has, especially in the states (which are the vast majority of states) with winner take all electoral collage processes. The electoral college does work, I again refer you to the quote above. I would rather have the problems we have than live in say, Cambodia (I'm sure there are plenty of people in Cambodia who think I'm crazy for saying that, and maybe I am). Anyway, how the electoral college works: 1) Each state in the U.S. is alloted a certain number of slots in the electoral college. This is determined by adding the number of representivies in the House(determined by how populous your state is) and the number of seats in the Senate(each state has two of these). A small state, population wise, like Wyoming will have three electoral votes and California will have, I think, 55. California is the most populous state, followed by New York and then Texas. 2) Each state determines how to split these electoral votes. The vast majority (including California, New York and Texas) use winner take all systems. That means that the winner of the majority of the popular vote within that state gets all of that states electoral votes. Some states do split their electoral college votes to reflect the percentage of the popular vote. Colorado does sound like it has yet another system proposed, but as of today (I think) is still winner take all. Anyway, the general feeling is that it is best to stay with a winner take all system. This is because it guarantees that issues important to your state will get more attention during an election. If you split your electoral college votes by percentage, a candidate knows that he will give some electoral votes away to his opponent, even if he wins the state, therefore, he might as well concentrate his effort where he is guaranteed all of the electoral college votes if he wins the popular vote in the state. 3) State legislatures, after the election, "choose" electors to physically go to the electoral college and cast ballots. Now, they don't actually have to cast their ballot for the guy the state legislature "chose" them to cast for. There have been cases where electors have switched their vote. The cases have been very, very few and far between (like two or three in 200+ years). This casting of ballots in the electoral college is largely a formality now. As you can see, based on the vast majority of states being winner take all, if a candidate wins say California, New York and Texas (and maybe a few other states) and loses all the others (but the races were tight), he might win the popular vote (as compiled across the U.S.), but not be elected President, because electoral college votes are determined on a state by state basis. For those who are a fan of states having more power/states' rights this is a good thing. For those in favor of lining up votes with national population / direct demcracy this is a bad thing. There are legitimate arguements both ways, obviously. End Civics lesson. Beat Navy.

Well, it will pretty much have to be luthite, based on the well documented problems with chroming wood, but I'll bet you they will cost an arm and a leg. Anything more than about $1200 would pretty much take me immediately out of the running for a purchase. More to the topic: I saw Joe in '91 on the Flying in a Blue Dream tour w/Eric Johnson and the Riverdogs(with Viv Campbell). It totally rocked. Then I saw him in '03 with Dream Theater and King's X. He was even better. The best, I would have to say was at the Dallas Guitar Show in '04. It was just him with some backing tracks, and he stopped between songs to talk about equipment, etc. He finished by jamming some with Andy Timmons (who had just played before him). I had to change my pants afterwards.

My only suggestion would have been to drill the baseplate of the bridge and route the graphtec saddle wires through there. They would have been totally hidden by the saddles (I did this on mine, even with a trem). Otherwise, looks sweet!

Fender Japan Strat....good riddance.

The thumb sounds like a solid plan to me. Keep in mind we're talking about the fretting hand here. Now that it's out there, in fact, I think the thumb might be the BEST option for fretting the low notes on the E. This is hardly "new" or even "poor technique" for that matter. Some chords you can only finger this way, others it just makes it a heck of a lot easier. Nice that somebody had a good reference, thanks Reaper!

Not to be a prick, but practice up, I'm willing to bet a fairly large sum o' cash that EC does it one of the ways I outlined above. Not an easy song to play first time through, but a little practice on the technique, and you'll have it forever. Look for the vid, and play it like EC, can't be wrong that way, you won't have to deal with my Nazi technique suggestions.

You mean left hand wise? You can barre. I wouldn't recommend it based on getting unwanted notes from the A and D strings. I have to admit, I've never seen the unplugged vid, so I don't know how EC does it. I would play the E with my index, G with middle and B with ring.

You play this tune fingerstyle. Thumb for the bass notes, in this case the E string, fourth fret, and either index and middle or middle and ring for the G and B strings. You CAN play it using hybrid picking (pick on the bass notes, and middle/ring for the treble, but it won't quite sound right, unless you have an incredible amount of control over your pick when using hybrid).

And to clarify to you lucky, the pentatonic minor is NOT the blues scale. Although pentatonic minor might be the most prevelent scale in the blues what is commonly refered to as the "Blues" scale is a hexatonic scale, consisting of minor pentatonic plus the b5. By degrees: 1, b3, 4, b5, 5, b7.