2 Pages V  < 1 2  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> Creation Of Generic Radio Music :(
fkalich
post Jun 12 2007, 05:43 AM
Post #21


GMC:er
*

Group: Members
Posts: 2.752
Joined: 12-February 07
From: People's Republic of Lawrence Kansas
Member No.: 1.189



QUOTE (JVM @ Jun 11 2007, 11:18 PM) *
Sad state of affairs.


you play a tele? nice guitar. and they really have nice sustain. i have one. ipage played one in the early zeppelin era.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
JVM
post Jun 12 2007, 05:50 AM
Post #22


Learning Roadie
*

Group: Members
Posts: 2.878
Joined: 2-June 07
From: Raleigh-Durham, NC
Member No.: 1.984



I prefer it to the strat actually. A lot of greats have played the tele! Keith Richards, Joe Strummer, Danny Gatton, John 5, Springsteen, etc.


--------------------
Gear: Fender American Deluxe Stratocaster, Gibson '67 RI Flying V, Mesa Boogie F-30 112 combo, crazy pedals.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
spdalton
post Jun 12 2007, 06:02 AM
Post #23


GMC:er
*

Group: Members
Posts: 192
Joined: 28-January 07
From: Auckland
Member No.: 1.125



I would have to agree that just because you have a guitar hero it doesn't mean you will sound like them. I would consider Randy Rhoads to be my guitar hero, but the music I come up with, along with the band, is very different to anything Randy ever did. He is more the source of inspiration.

There certainly are some great bands of our generation, such as Muse and the chillis, but there has certainly been a decline of bands like those that came from the 60/70/80s. Music created from feeling and a love of music, rather than as a means to get rich or famous.


--------------------
IPB Image
Ticking away the moments that make up a dull day. Fritter and waste the hours in an offhand way

http://www.myspace.com/cashnz
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
fkalich
post Jun 12 2007, 06:31 AM
Post #24


GMC:er
*

Group: Members
Posts: 2.752
Joined: 12-February 07
From: People's Republic of Lawrence Kansas
Member No.: 1.189



QUOTE (spdalton @ Jun 12 2007, 12:02 AM) *
There certainly are some great bands of our generation, such as Muse and the chillis, but there has certainly been a decline of bands like those that came from the 60/70/80s. Music created from feeling and a love of music, rather than as a means to get rich or famous.


always the best. hopefully what you do makes you rich, but a person should always do something they enjoy, just do it well.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Kaneda
post Jun 12 2007, 10:36 AM
Post #25


Other side of the coin
*

Group: Members
Posts: 266
Joined: 3-May 07
From: CPH, Denmark
Member No.: 1.754



QUOTE (JVM @ Jun 12 2007, 03:32 AM) *
I disagree once again! You're correct about our culture becoming more diverse and therefore we can't please everyone, but take a look at hendrix.


We agree, really. When I say "appeal to an entire generation", I don't mean "please everyone", I mean "capture the 'zeitgeist' of that generation". It will never please everyone - never did in the entirety of human history.

QUOTE
So I think it's possible to cross genre boundaries.


Subcultures doesn't equal genres, though. Of course you can (mostly "should") cross genre boundaries. What you mostly can't do is make a sound that tries to capture the culture/spirit of all subcultures at once. If you do that, that's when it becomes generic - and defines nothing.

QUOTE
I would also have to say there's been a fair amount of good bands to come about since the millenium.


Good bands, sure. Bands I'll remember in 10 years? Can't come up with any at the moment smile.gif

As for the discussion of "everything repeats", you spared me a lot of writing there, JVM smile.gif We totally agree. I'd just add that it's a popular belief that "everything repeats over and over", but taken to the extreme of "nothing is original", it's turned into something so simplistic as to be total and utter nonsense (and I say that, having been saturated with postmodernist thought over the course of 5 years of film/media studies). You've already explained why it's nonsense smile.gif

And as for "being yourself", there's plenty of examples of people so bent on "being themselves" that they end up not being anyone at all. Mistaking "being yourself" for "being totally and utterly different from everyone else". That's not the way to define the human condition - won't make you an artist, just a self-observing hermit isolated from your species smile.gif

In a more general perspective, I don't believe in "being yourself", but rather "molding yourself" - you're not a rock formed and finished at birth.

And yes, I totally agree with JVM's philosophy that limitation => creativity. When Arnold Schönberg decided to make all 12 tones in western music equal, he still enforced a new set of rules. As did his pupils - different sets of rules, but still rules.

This post has been edited by Kaneda: Jun 12 2007, 10:39 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Ryan
post Jun 12 2007, 11:24 AM
Post #26


GMC:er
*

Group: Members
Posts: 1.286
Joined: 14-March 07
From: Hutchinson, Kansas, USA
Member No.: 1.345



but i still like the freedom of no scales..and just play what appeals to you adn everything....i can get quite creative like that..but never when i use scales..it jst limits my abilities...to bcome an accomplished guitarist!!


--------------------
“Obey the principles without being bound by them.”
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
fkalich
post Jun 12 2007, 12:06 PM
Post #27


GMC:er
*

Group: Members
Posts: 2.752
Joined: 12-February 07
From: People's Republic of Lawrence Kansas
Member No.: 1.189



QUOTE (Kaneda @ Jun 12 2007, 04:36 AM) *
And as for "being yourself", there's plenty of examples of people so bent on "being themselves" that they end up not being anyone at all. Mistaking "being yourself" for "being totally and utterly different from everyone else". That's not the way to define the human condition - won't make you an artist, just a self-observing hermit isolated from your species smile.gif


you are describing people who are not individuals in the sense i think it. these are people are are still adapting themselves in a way that they feel gives them a sense of comfort. they are just as socialized as anyone else, just taking it from a different angle. rather than doing what others are doing, they look at what others are doing, and do something that is contrary. But they still are not being individuals. they are still trying to fit in, but fitting in by being oblong.

Real individuals really don't care. They don't give a shit. They may look as normal as anyone else. They might not stand out on the street, you might never notice them. In fact, i think that is very common, people who really think for themselves often try to really blend in in a general public sense, not stand out. But they really don't give a shit what you think. It does not matter a rat's ass to them. They understand the basic fact of reality, we came in alone, we go out alone.

This post has been edited by fkalich: Jun 12 2007, 12:10 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Andrew Cockburn
post Jun 12 2007, 02:07 PM
Post #28


Moderation Policy Director
Group Icon

Group: GMC Instructor
Posts: 10.459
Joined: 6-February 07
From: CT, USA
Member No.: 1.167



QUOTE (Kaneda @ Jun 12 2007, 05:36 AM) *
And yes, I totally agree with JVM's philosophy that limitation => creativity. When Arnold Schönberg decided to make all 12 tones in western music equal, he still enforced a new set of rules. As did his pupils - different sets of rules, but still rules.


I also have to chime in for limitation being a useful tool (but a tool nonetheless).

All of music theory is a limitation of course, or we would end up with a mishmash of random notes that pleased noone - music theory has evolved over the years to put in place a framework (set of limitations) that generally speaking produce pleasant results, althouth it is also true that we grow up with this framework and apply the reverse reasoning that anything in the framework must be pleasant by definition.

However, I would advocate going further than that - try and build a tune around 4 or 5 notes only. Limit the lengths and timing of notes you use, or the number of chords. What that does is really focus your creativity, so that you are forced to work with what you have and really make it count. If you can make someone cry with only 5 notes, image what you could do with 10, or more.

I would liken this to food (since we have so many food professionals on this site, second only to the computer guys!). A number of the great cuisines have come from very simple peasant cooking in which the cooks didn't have access to many or good quality ingredients, and were forced to make the simplest ingredients taste good - you can do the same by limiting your options and forcing yourself to excel within narrow limits.


--------------------
Check out my Instructor profile
Live long and prosper ...

My Stuff:

Electric Guitars : Ibanez Jem7v, Line6 Variax 700, Fender Plus Strat with 57/62 Pickups, Line6 Variax 705 Bass
Acoustic Guitars : Taylor 816ce, Martin D-15, Line6 Variax Acoustic 300 Nylon
Effects : Line6 Helix, Keeley Modded Boss DS1, Keeley Modded Boss BD2, Keeley 4 knob compressor, Keeley OxBlood
Amps : Epiphone Valve Jnr & Head, Cockburn A.C.1, Cockburn A.C.2, Blackstar Club 50 Head & 4x12 Cab
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
fkalich
post Jun 12 2007, 02:41 PM
Post #29


GMC:er
*

Group: Members
Posts: 2.752
Joined: 12-February 07
From: People's Republic of Lawrence Kansas
Member No.: 1.189



QUOTE (Andrew Cockburn @ Jun 12 2007, 08:07 AM) *
I also have to chime in for limitation being a useful tool (but a tool nonetheless).

All of music theory is a limitation of course, or we would end up with a mishmash of random notes that pleased noone - music theory has evolved over the years to put in place a framework (set of limitations) that generally speaking produce pleasant results, althouth it is also true that we grow up with this framework and apply the reverse reasoning that anything in the framework must be pleasant by definition.

However, I would advocate going further than that - try and build a tune around 4 or 5 notes only. Limit the lengths and timing of notes you use, or the number of chords. What that does is really focus your creativity, so that you are forced to work with what you have and really make it count. If you can make someone cry with only 5 notes, image what you could do with 10, or more.

I would liken this to food (since we have so many food professionals on this site, second only to the computer guys!). A number of the great cuisines have come from very simple peasant cooking in which the cooks didn't have access to many or good quality ingredients, and were forced to make the simplest ingredients taste good - you can do the same by limiting your options and forcing yourself to excel within narrow limits.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
fkalich
post Jun 12 2007, 02:59 PM
Post #30


GMC:er
*

Group: Members
Posts: 2.752
Joined: 12-February 07
From: People's Republic of Lawrence Kansas
Member No.: 1.189



QUOTE (Andrew Cockburn @ Jun 12 2007, 08:07 AM) *
I also have to chime in for limitation being a useful tool (but a tool nonetheless).

All of music theory is a limitation of course, or we would end up with a mishmash of random notes that pleased noone - music theory has evolved over the years to put in place a framework (set of limitations) that generally speaking produce pleasant results, althouth it is also true that we grow up with this framework and apply the reverse reasoning that anything in the framework must be pleasant by definition.

However, I would advocate going further than that - try and build a tune around 4 or 5 notes only. Limit the lengths and timing of notes you use, or the number of chords. What that does is really focus your creativity, so that you are forced to work with what you have and really make it count. If you can make someone cry with only 5 notes, image what you could do with 10, or more.

I would liken this to food (since we have so many food professionals on this site, second only to the computer guys!). A number of the great cuisines have come from very simple peasant cooking in which the cooks didn't have access to many or good quality ingredients, and were forced to make the simplest ingredients taste good - you can do the same by limiting your options and forcing yourself to excel within narrow limits.


again, as always, very sensible response Andrew. All good stuff.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Kaneda
post Jun 12 2007, 07:34 PM
Post #31


Other side of the coin
*

Group: Members
Posts: 266
Joined: 3-May 07
From: CPH, Denmark
Member No.: 1.754



QUOTE (fkalich @ Jun 12 2007, 01:06 PM) *
you are describing people who are not individuals in the sense i think it. these are people are are still adapting themselves in a way that they feel gives them a sense of comfort. they are just as socialized as anyone else, just taking it from a different angle. rather than doing what others are doing, they look at what others are doing, and do something that is contrary. But they still are not being individuals. they are still trying to fit in, but fitting in by being oblong.


Exactly. The problem is, a huge amount of people who say "be yourself" do just what I - and you - describe. When I say "hermits" I don't mean socially. I mean, some people will get so bent on being different that they stop relating to anyone. Their art becomes solely about, by, and for themselves.

QUOTE (Andrew Cockburn)
All of music theory is a limitation of course [snip] However, I would advocate going further than that...


Yes, I guess I changed the point from one sentence to the next. The point of the first sentence of that paragraph was just to agree with JVM on limitation without expanding on it (I'm trying to make my posts short wink.gif). The point of the following sentences was mainly that even when breaking traditional tonality completely, the extremely insightful musician (that Schönberg was) still knew that art is nothing without limitation. I completely agree that we can - and should - go much further than those limits.

QUOTE (Ryan)
but i still like the freedom of no scales..and just play what appeals to you adn everything....i can get quite creative like that..but never when i use scales..it jst limits my abilities...to bcome an accomplished guitarist!!


The point is, scales - and theory in general - are tools for musical understanding, not tools for guiding your expression. You should understand the theory, not follow it as if it's the One Way. That being said, if a person feels scales limits his/her abilities, it's usually because his/her abilities are limited in the first place. If you can't write a good, original tune in straight C major, then leaving C major is just a way to compensate for your lack of ability, rather than working on improving it.

It's totally fine to not think in scales when composing/improvising - most accomplished musicians don't. But the theory will never limit your expression if you actually understand it. On the contrary, in addition to telling you what you "can't" do (which is never a rule set in stone), more importantly it tells you those things you can do which would rarely occur to you if you just went with "instinct". It should inform your creativity, not limit it.

And finally, a succesful example of musical limitation:

Some guy sits down at the piano. He picks the A minor pentatonic scale, writes an entire melodic line for a modern aria in it, adds a single note outside of it knowing for certain that he couldn't possibly get the effect he needs by sticking to the 5 notes of the pentatonic all the way through - actually knowing that sticking to those 5 notes for the rest of the song makes the effect.

70 years later, that severely "limited" song is probably the most covered song in modern music history - with more than 10000 recordings made in those 70 years. "Summertime" by George Gershwin.

This post has been edited by Kaneda: Jun 12 2007, 07:37 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Ryan
post Jun 12 2007, 07:50 PM
Post #32


GMC:er
*

Group: Members
Posts: 1.286
Joined: 14-March 07
From: Hutchinson, Kansas, USA
Member No.: 1.345



QUOTE (Kaneda @ Jun 12 2007, 01:34 PM) *
Exactly. The problem is, a huge amount of people who say "be yourself" do just what I - and you - describe. When I say "hermits" I don't mean socially. I mean, some people will get so bent on being different that they stop relating to anyone. Their art becomes solely about, by, and for themselves.
Yes, I guess I changed the point from one sentence to the next. The point of the first sentence of that paragraph was just to agree with JVM on limitation without expanding on it (I'm trying to make my posts short wink.gif). The point of the following sentences was mainly that even when breaking traditional tonality completely, the extremely insightful musician (that Schönberg was) still knew that art is nothing without limitation. I completely agree that we can - and should - go much further than those limits.
The point is, scales - and theory in general - are tools for musical understanding, not tools for guiding your expression. You should understand the theory, not follow it as if it's the One Way. That being said, if a person feels scales limits his/her abilities, it's usually because his/her abilities are limited in the first place. If you can't write a good, original tune in straight C major, then leaving C major is just a way to compensate for your lack of ability, rather than working on improving it.

It's totally fine to not think in scales when composing/improvising - most accomplished musicians don't. But the theory will never limit your expression if you actually understand it. On the contrary, in addition to telling you what you "can't" do (which is never a rule set in stone), more importantly it tells you those things you can do which would rarely occur to you if you just went with "instinct". It should inform your creativity, not limit it.

And finally, a succesful example of musical limitation:

Some guy sits down at the piano. He picks the A minor pentatonic scale, writes an entire melodic line for a modern aria in it, adds a single note outside of it knowing for certain that he couldn't possibly get the effect he needs by sticking to the 5 notes of the pentatonic all the way through - actually knowing that sticking to those 5 notes for the rest of the song makes the effect.

70 years later, that severely "limited" song is probably the most covered song in modern music history - with more than 10000 recordings made in those 70 years. "Summertime" by George Gershwin.


you kwno i typed 6 or 7 different things on here..to try and find somethign to say......and i couldnt other than this..but well.....theory...does open up possibilitys..like say modal pentatonics....or modes....but well....if you do it that way..it still gives you guidlines to follow..now if you didnt think of scales..ro theoretical..then you have the whole fretboard..and if you have good ears..adn can look at the 6th fret..ont he high E string..and know what that sound is gonna be before playing it...then you ont need the scales adn everythign....you already have all you need!!!

should i explain further on what im tryign to say??

This post has been edited by Ryan: Jun 12 2007, 07:57 PM


--------------------
“Obey the principles without being bound by them.”
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
JVM
post Jun 12 2007, 08:31 PM
Post #33


Learning Roadie
*

Group: Members
Posts: 2.878
Joined: 2-June 07
From: Raleigh-Durham, NC
Member No.: 1.984



QUOTE (Ryan @ Jun 12 2007, 12:50 PM) *
you kwno i typed 6 or 7 different things on here..to try and find somethign to say......and i couldnt other than this..but well.....theory...does open up possibilitys..like say modal pentatonics....or modes....but well....if you do it that way..it still gives you guidlines to follow..now if you didnt think of scales..ro theoretical..then you have the whole fretboard..and if you have good ears..adn can look at the 6th fret..ont he high E string..and know what that sound is gonna be before playing it...then you ont need the scales adn everythign....you already have all you need!!!

should i explain further on what im tryign to say??


I agree with you there, it's just that knowing the scales etc is just a tool to make that easier. Theory is a means to an end, but not the end itself, it's something to help you get there.

It's kind of like having a bunch of legos, and building whatever you want out of them. Or, with theory, the legos are divided into different groups based on their shape so that it makes it easier for you to find the exact piece you need at any given time.

This post has been edited by JVM: Jun 12 2007, 10:37 PM


--------------------
Gear: Fender American Deluxe Stratocaster, Gibson '67 RI Flying V, Mesa Boogie F-30 112 combo, crazy pedals.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Ryan
post Jun 12 2007, 08:41 PM
Post #34


GMC:er
*

Group: Members
Posts: 1.286
Joined: 14-March 07
From: Hutchinson, Kansas, USA
Member No.: 1.345



QUOTE (JVM @ Jun 12 2007, 02:31 PM) *
I agree with you there, it's just that knowing the scales etc is just a tool to make that easier. Theory isn't a means to an end in itself, it's something to help you accomplish that.

It's kind of like having a bunch of legos, and building whatever you want out of them. Or, with theory, the legos are divided into different groups based on their shape so that it makes it easier for you to find the exact piece you need at any given time.

and i agree with yoyu on that also....


--------------------
“Obey the principles without being bound by them.”
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Andrew Cockburn
post Jun 12 2007, 09:26 PM
Post #35


Moderation Policy Director
Group Icon

Group: GMC Instructor
Posts: 10.459
Joined: 6-February 07
From: CT, USA
Member No.: 1.167



QUOTE (Kaneda @ Jun 12 2007, 02:34 PM) *
The point of the first sentence of that paragraph was just to agree with JVM on limitation without expanding on it (I'm trying to make my posts short wink.gif). The point of the following sentences was mainly that even when breaking traditional tonality completely, the extremely insightful musician (that Schönberg was) still knew that art is nothing without limitation. I completely agree that we can - and should - go much further than those limits.


Yes, I was sure you got that, I was expanding the point on your behalf, because it mirrored the exact point I was trying to make wink.gif (Maybe you didn't write enough this time!). And as usual you came up with a great example to drive the point home.

@Ryan, I get where you are coming from - and would reiterate Kanedas other point - theory (scales and everything else) is a set of guidelines. The genius is in breaking the rules and getting away with it. The risk is that you break the rules and don't. Be like Gershwin smile.gif

This post has been edited by Andrew Cockburn: Jun 12 2007, 09:27 PM


--------------------
Check out my Instructor profile
Live long and prosper ...

My Stuff:

Electric Guitars : Ibanez Jem7v, Line6 Variax 700, Fender Plus Strat with 57/62 Pickups, Line6 Variax 705 Bass
Acoustic Guitars : Taylor 816ce, Martin D-15, Line6 Variax Acoustic 300 Nylon
Effects : Line6 Helix, Keeley Modded Boss DS1, Keeley Modded Boss BD2, Keeley 4 knob compressor, Keeley OxBlood
Amps : Epiphone Valve Jnr & Head, Cockburn A.C.1, Cockburn A.C.2, Blackstar Club 50 Head & 4x12 Cab
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Ryan
post Jun 12 2007, 09:36 PM
Post #36


GMC:er
*

Group: Members
Posts: 1.286
Joined: 14-March 07
From: Hutchinson, Kansas, USA
Member No.: 1.345



QUOTE (Andrew Cockburn @ Jun 12 2007, 03:26 PM) *
Yes, I was sure you got that, I was expanding the point on your behalf, because it mirrored the exact point I was trying to make wink.gif (Maybe you didn't write enough this time!). And as usual you came up with a great example to drive the point home.

@Ryan, I get where you are coming from - and would reiterate Kanedas other point - theory (scales and everything else) is a set of guidelines. The genius is in breaking the rules and getting away with it. The risk is that you break the rules and don't. Be like Gershwin smile.gif



but see thats where practicing comes in handy tongue.gif...and after a while..just using the whole fretboard..you get used to it..and then..you have no risks..because you know how to use it....PRACTICE PRACTICE PRACTICE!!!


--------------------
“Obey the principles without being bound by them.”
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Kaneda
post Jun 12 2007, 10:07 PM
Post #37


Other side of the coin
*

Group: Members
Posts: 266
Joined: 3-May 07
From: CPH, Denmark
Member No.: 1.754



Theory is a means to an end, as JVM says, but that end isn't just "finding the notes you need" or "sticking to rules" (which you should never do at the expense of expression).

Just as listening closely to/analyzing your guitar "hero" isn't about emulating him.

It's about expanding your possibilities and ideas beyond what you think sounds "right" at this moment. It's about evolving as musician, rather than sticking with preconceived ideas, which are rarely (whether you believe it or not) expanded by way of "experimenting on the fretboard".

What sounds "wrong" will sound "wrong" until you hear someone do it right (in some cases, you even have to hear it countless times to "get it"). And/or until you understand why it sounds right. After that, it's just another word in your vocabulary.

After 20 years of playing and meeting musicians from all over the world, the most generic players have been ones who think they'll be more "unique" by steering clear of listening closely to what others did before them. Those who just do "what feels right", because they heard Keith Richards say that in an interview once. Some of them are great musicians, but that's much MUCH rarer than the ones who aren't.

Yet both the great and the mediocre will generally agree that they're sooooo much better than the ones who "have to be taught and stick by rules". They rarely even consider that neither is true. I could play the piano before anyone taught me; I hated music theory with a vengeance for the first five years of my classical education and yet played fairly well; and I never consider rules (except self-imposed limitations at times, like the ones Andrew mentioned) when composing or improvising.

In the meantime, the "natural elitists" are sticking by unwritten rules "taught" through years of superficial listening - without even realizing it.

Personally, I prefer the freedom of knowing what I'm doing, even if I don't think about it when doing it smile.gif In other terms, learn and understand the physics and technique of controlling a motorcycle, and the point where things turn "risky" goes up - meaning you can push yourself and the bike a good deal further. Not talking about just speed here - neither on the bike, nor the guitar.

To be fair, the most boring players I've heard are "theory nuts" who never got what music is about either. Who think they can "mathematically" churn out a great work of art, but really have nothing to say. Don't let those give theory a bad name smile.gif

QUOTE
and after a while..just using the whole fretboard..you get used to it..and then..you have no risks..because you know how to use it....PRACTICE PRACTICE PRACTICE!!!


And the moment you have no risks, you stop making music and turn into predictable sound machine repeating yourself over and over again. I know that's not exactly how you meant it, sorry. I couldn't resist smile.gif

This post has been edited by Kaneda: Jun 12 2007, 10:07 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Ryan
post Jun 12 2007, 10:16 PM
Post #38


GMC:er
*

Group: Members
Posts: 1.286
Joined: 14-March 07
From: Hutchinson, Kansas, USA
Member No.: 1.345



hahahhahaa no prob dude....i get what your saying.but..see i love music...with MORE THAN..a passion..i woudl die w/out it.....snd repeating..well...no....welll..i hope not lol tongue.gif.


--------------------
“Obey the principles without being bound by them.”
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
JVM
post Jun 12 2007, 10:37 PM
Post #39


Learning Roadie
*

Group: Members
Posts: 2.878
Joined: 2-June 07
From: Raleigh-Durham, NC
Member No.: 1.984



Yeah, lemme edit that, I meant that as: Theory IS a means to and end, but not the end itself.


--------------------
Gear: Fender American Deluxe Stratocaster, Gibson '67 RI Flying V, Mesa Boogie F-30 112 combo, crazy pedals.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

2 Pages V  < 1 2
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 


RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 17th October 2017 - 12:46 PM