Gorecki

Richie blackmore from deep purple used scalloped fingerboards too. Some other guy did it even earlier but I cant remember his name. And...Yngwie was a huge Blackmore fan as a youth, oooh how ironic. John McLaughlin made some work of it and let's not forget India whose music is based on the exact same idea and the ability to bend a string hard. It's been around a very long time, but for many applications it's not practical. I'd like to see someone play a Maj6 , dom7#5#9 chord shapes on a scalloped board and keep it in tune.

In a nutshell, they're cheap. Setup well will play but I suspect they won't last a long time. The quilts are a material finish (not real wood) and I saw one with a ding in it, looked like peeling wallpaper. Don't get me wrong, I think they *look* okay but looks is pretty much a temporary thing if the guitar isn't made to last.

I have some trees on my property WOD could go to town on, would be a good sized binge and purge if needed.

I agree as well, this is a common jazz player technique. Pick & three fingers is all you need, the tune never uses more than four notes/strings during the intro.

That's interesting - when I was (a lot) younger, we were always told that the original switch from pine to ash was because ash was cheaper (at the time) and looked better under the translucent finishes - since the impetus for the first rosewood fretboards was the fact that maple looked "dirty" under TV lighting, I wasn't surprised. I wonder which is actually true. Didn't Gibson make their guitars from mahogany because they had a ton of it available? I would suspect in part, yes, and in part because mahogany's a very traditional guitar wood, and Gibson was always a traditional company (mahogany back/sides/necks, even tops, are very common in acoustics). Alder and Ash...not s'much. Maple is/was also a readily available wood in Michigan, Alder and Ash...not much of that around there.

So I take it you're not interesting in building a tele with hums and putting .011 flat's on it either. Bummer. Thought that could make a mello combo.

The phrase that comes to mind, "Don't judge a book by its cover".

I'd have to be honest and say go for the 2x12, you'll get really tired of hauling around 4x12. Here's my rig after I sold off the bottoms and the puppy still doesn't move now.

Yeah, I presume he means sound pressure level. The only thing I would add is 1. It may not sound better. It may incorporate resonance points because of the enclosure that don't sound 'good'. 2. It is possible to 'resonate' a poorly constructed enclosure to the point of falling apart but I highly doubt it.

Washburn has made one that are still around. WG-587V I have one, after a refret and some Dimarzio blaze pickups, it turned out pretty okay. They feel IMO much like a lower-end Jackson.

I really depends on what you want as results and what you have to work with. If your amp has a direct out, modeling 'stuff', what have you...give it a try. Simple way to get decent results (no worries about environmental noise, mic'g..etc). Sometimes you may want the sound of a collective environment, the sound of a room, the reasonance of speaker cabinets, the tone produced through those speakers...etc...these things are more difficult to achieve because what you hear standing in that room vs what you get recorded will possibly differ greatly. Take's some time and patience but often produces super results if handled well.

Sorry but that is pretty much one of the least exprienced expressions I've heard in a while. Pretty much every Behringer mixer or pre made has cheap pots and cheap faders and if you get one that all channels still work after 3 years, you're lucky. When it comes to mixer's or pre-amp units (especially pre-amp units), you get what you pay for! I'd suggest the Mackie 1202-VLZ PRO or Mackie 1604-VLZ PRO (this one's over budget a bit). Really depends on application, how many buses you'll need...etc. The pre's are very clean, the pots, faders and switches on both are the same quality. Just go to a music store, move a fader up and down on a Behringer then go do the same on a Mackie. You'll see.

I want to say it's a DX400 series but I'm guessing.

I have to agree with Robert_the_damned, I've been using a tiny SpiderII 30 in a Jazz club ever week. I expected the little guy to explode but people really like it and the reason I got it had nothing to do with Jazz! Also, I like my GuitarPort a lot, the TonePort is great as well!

pfft..didn't even think of using a super short cable to test it out..duh. Not worried at all in balancing out with the bridge pickup, actually don't ever expect to use the bridge pickup so figured I'd leave the stock in, no one would know. The stock pickup isn't aweful but doesn't seem very defined so I started thinking of options! Thanks dude!

I dunno guys, don't think I'd use the word 'Amazing'. This young man had the nerve to transcribe and play an Oscar Peterson solo..now that's balls! http://tinyurl.com/mbg5z

Dudes!! I've looked everywhere I could think of trying to find the spec's for the Ibanez ACH1 neck humbucker. I'm trying to get a sense if replacing it with something like a Benedetto A-6 would be worth my while. Ibanez parts catalog doesn't list resistances or anything.

Well if you look into the spec's of the Nady, I'll be willing to bet its 300w is at 10% THD (total harmonic distortion) or something and when broken down to a REAL power rating (.05%) will probably be more like 50w-75w. Amplification spec's can be twisted heavily so knowing *what* that rating is based on is the *truth teller*.

Holy cow! Guessing Google doesn't know it's offering this stuff up. Just for clarification, the act of piracy is bi-directional, giving away of commercial material and receiving of commercial material without payment, is theft. I know, I'm a buzz kill.

Sounds like you got a dud, I'd just return or exchange it.

The most practical way of creating melody is to sing it. If you can't sing it, it's probably not a melody. Music doesn't care what the instrument is, only the notes that are expressed. The guys you mentioned are good technical players and do play the correct structure over their changes but ARE NOT the greatest examples of melody. Take things to the simplest level, Mary had a little lamb. Now what just went through your head? A melody. Twinkle twinkle little star.....again, what did you hear in your head? Melody comes from the head, not the hands. It takes practice, and lots of it. A good simple start, play a major scale and sing along with that major scale. Now play twinkle, twinkle little star, and sing it while playing it. You don't have to sing like Jeff Tate! Just enough to find pitch.

what i think...i need to work on songwriting and phrasing, which is what i said. i posted the link to see what the "general" guitar playing community would think. not just the shred heads, when i posted in a shred forum i didnt get one bad comment, so i posted here to see what the general consensus would be so i could see what other people thought. what exactly do you mean? Okay, songwriting and phrasing. It sounds as though you have a good idea of what you're emulating but it's been done and been done more correctly. Regardless of that, you're lacking correct theory behind those changes. I've heard you play straight major over suggested dominants, minor scale like phrasing over major suggested chords, minor penta's is fine, but would turn what you're doing into basic blues, not your intention would be my guess, suggesting you need theory work. Just because you're not playing the 3rd doesn't mean the listener doesn't hear it! Harmonically you've already decided harmonic scope by the key signature you're playing inside. The ear expects it, especially a trained one. The thing that is otherwise lacking in songwriting is the key number one required element that constitutes a song. Melody! Not just flailing over changes. Melody! Especially in the style you've chosen, melody has a higher requirement of technical correctness with correct embellishment. Listen to Bach, Mozart, Gorecki , you'll hear Melody! If your intended listener likes what you're doing, at least you're getting that result. And when presenting to a "general" guitar crowd, don't expect to get "exprienced" responses. Cool?

Rob, what do you feel is your short coming? Really! Some things will make us work harder than others, but what do YOU feel you are lacking? Song writing when the ball falls is up to the listener. What point do you feel your communication with the listener fall's short? What do I hear? The same thing that others have fell short of, plastering harmonic, melodic minor play over and over again, it get's boring quickly? What do you think?

hey the fact that i was searching for a blues saraceno tab doesnt have anything to do with me learning to be a good musician. i just wanna have the music sheet of that certain track. thats all. and another thing, it will help you a lot in understanding it easier if you analyze other player's style.. i.e. analyzing how saraceno approached the blues music then comparing it to another artist, while learning the blues fundamental itself... BUT, i still wanna have that tab! Okay, okay. Just so you understand, Some of us are not that remedial of players! What you're looking for sounds like a commercial product http://www.sheetmusicplus.com/store/smp_de...88&item=7204191

I'm trying to figure this out, theory isn't acoustic/electric specific. Most often acoustic play is associated to cowboy chords and strummin. Granted some 'method' or 'style' can be involved but I can't seem to see what you're looking for. Is there something specific you're looking to learn?