LucSulla

It's also for sale on the Heritage Owners Club site. The friend price is better, and I'm pretty sure he'd prefer not dealing with the Bay in the end. http://www.heritageownersclub.com/forums/topic/21754-h-357-korina/

And done!

Steve Jobs actually sprung fully formed from my head, whereas Gates was created after I took the form of a bull in order to bang Charles Babbage's great niece.

Actually, we would have to start with Larry Roberts if we are going to start thanking people for the Internet. There is my bit for geekdom.

Oh, don't get me wrong, I love that clip. His playing blows my mind. At the same time, it always makes me chuckle.

I like Al di Meola, but he has recorded some of the sleaziest sounding fusion ever. Case in point, a video that I both wonder at due to the playing and laugh at... due to the playing and everything else. If cocaine had a sound, I imagine it would sound like this. http://youtu.be/vGWfDkx4zyY

But, but *Dumble* blah, blah, blah, *Perfect Tone* blah, blah, blah. TGP completely ruined Ford for me. He went from someone I found pleasantly interesting to hating because of those guys.

I have no idea what to think of him either, but Blow By Blow was the album that popped into my head when I saw the thread.

Nope! Straight to the gypsum mines they will go! They can learn about holding a pocket to the rhythm of a pick ax.

There are definitely some interesting ethical issues, particularly online, these days.

I never said you were incorrect in the first place. I actually agree with that part of it, only that I don't think that it encompasses the entirety of the situation and that the other parts are equally important. The only thing I will say is that serving up meaningless crap can be pretty hard work, especially when you can get scooped on twitter and the like these days, and there are many journalists who would love to get back to hard news themselves. Some of these people do work incredibly hard to serve what is ultimately no purpose in the progression of humanity, and they know it. There is a lot of time and effort spent on trying to get news back the way it was, but the problem is that too most researchers and professionals, "the way it was" means a scenario where there are three national television stations, PBS, and everyone reads a newspaper. Very few people seem to be looking at how to connect hard news to today's audience. Most spend their energy trying to figure out how to make today's audience play fair and behave like it is 1980 still. They fail, we get watered down nightly news, and TMZ makes gobs of money. You figure out how to solve that disconnect from either direction, and you will have more than enough money to buy everyone here a standard. I do believe the solution is out there, but I don't know what shape it will take.

Not sure what you mean here, "they" as in my opinions or the audience? If you mean that you are sure my opinions have nothing to do with the issues you brought up, "media ignores more deserving subjects, resorts to hyperbole and doesn't work harder...," then you would be incorrect in that assumption. However, I also feel there is another side to that story that has shaped the current state of the media. I think the consumer is just as much at fault when it comes to news media offerings as the companies that develop the programming. There are decades of surveys that show the vast majority of those who want hard news, Uncle Walt back prefer to watch Entertainment Tonight-esq programming (and now TMZ) rather than news programming. Media corporations aren't going to shoot themselves in the foot by offering something they know almost no one will watch just because it is a superior product. The audience research on the Internet shows a lean toward entertainment news among a great deal of the audience as well, plus there are pretty huge issues with filtering, both structurally and by consumers themselves. Anyway, I am way, way off topic for this and the whole forum, but I would be more than happy to continue this dialog in PMs.

No, they weren't. I have my opinions, and I can tell you the arguments, but it is much more interesting to know what the audience believes. As far a the television aspect, I'll admit to being more familiar with the camp itself than the series, but it was my understanding that there were only two seasons but that the fantasy camp itself is not a part of VH-1 but several different camps with the initial being founded in 1997. If they are bringing the series back for a third season after missing 2012, then it would certainly make sense.

Chris, I'm not criticizing the kid. I think he's great and wish I had gotten off to a start that early, nor do I expect him to have his own voice at 9. That takes a long time if it ever happens at all. I am more critiquing this story's positioning him as a phenomenon. KROQ's story calls him a "face-melting guitar shredder." Is that not a bit of hyperbole, especially when there truly are 9-year-old, face-melting shredders? My only question is that if these news outlets want to do a human interest piece on young virtuosos, are there more deserving subjects out there that could be found with a little more work? None of that falls back on the kid, and I don't blame him at all for taking advantage of the buzz or that he is clearly a rare talent. I research media for a living; I can't help that I speculate about circumstances and motivations around some stories, particularly when they intersect with another strong interest of mine.

In all honesty, I've been around a couple of kids his age in the last 20 years that would smoke him. Not taking away from what he was doing; great start for two years into playing! Getting the ball rolling at 7 means he could be a total monster in another few years and just barely in high school. But are "Crazy Train" and "Eruption" really that weird for a kid learning electric after two years, especially considering this kid is being made a news story? I can remember being in a music store checking out an SG about 2-3 years after I started playing and was just starting to feel that I might actually be pretty damned good at this guitar business. Some kid - couldn't have been older than ten - sits down next to me and starts blasting through "For the Love of God." This was the mid-90s, so it was weird to see anybody my age or younger playing Vai tunes - but this kid just barely taller than his guitar? My ego was so bruised that I just left disgusted with myself.

I was thinking about giving it a shot as I like the way my special sounds more than my studio. A solid hog, LP style guitar would be cool to try out I think. However, the crappy pics and lack of case make me not want to give this one a go.

That GT P-90 is soaring. I think it is beyond my interest, but I hope you snag it if you are still after it.

The other guitarist in my first band had one, and I just didn't dig it. It didn't feel right, and it didn't even come close to sounding like a real LP (which I had). They are all chambered to my knowledge with the possible exception of a special run Gibby did for Guitar Center back in 2007 I believe. I've seen a few people say they were solid, but I can't confirm. You can tell them from the newer ones because they had three control knobs instead of two like you usually see and have a plain top. If it is actually solid, I would imagine it sounds somewhat different than my friend's. Here is an example: http://www.ebay.com/itm/Gibson-Les-Paul-DC-Ebony-/281066440251?pt=Guitar&hash=item4170dd863b

Watching that one too, lol. I am talking to a guy with a tobacco burst special in Chicago as well.

I'm watching that one too.

Saw this and thought of your post. First one on the list - Dinged up P-90 Special for $599 at a GC. http://used.guitarcenter.com/usedgear/index.cfm Just seach for "Hamer Special," and it should pop up first.

I was unfamiliar. Then when I was getting familiar, I thought at first I was watching one of those joke clips where someone laid funny sounding, off key playing over a video clip. And then I realized... and am now familiar.

I'll start by admitting that I just had to 'youtube' Mastodon, and made it through about 30 seconds of the first song I clicked on, called "Oblivion" That said, like Santana, or the song 'Smooth', or not, what does this turds opinion mean, bearing in mind what I just heard his band playing? Talk about a carrot peeler in your ear! Since this came up, I would take Brent Hinds' tone on numerous songs off Crack the Skye over Santana on "Smooth." For the distorted stuff, it's all a 78 JMP MK II and a JMP 2303, with a 69 JMP 100 on one tune and numerous pedals from Brendan O'Brien's stash of ridiculous vintage stuff. I happen to like the sound of a loud ass, old school Marshall with a touch of weird phase and what not in the signal chain. Different strokes, but there is something I personally dig about that sound. The guy isn't bagging on Santana, just that song, which I have to admit also hating myself. As far as an $85k amp, never. Even if I had a trillion dollars. For one thing, one of the best things that ever happened to me was buying an amp that didn't quite do what I thought it would (60 watt Marshall TSL), but not having enough money to play on anything else for years. Learning how to pull something out of that amp made me a much better player. I learned a lot about tubes, pedals, speakers, mics, and mic placement from trying to make that amp sound good that has served me well since. Currently, I have a Mesa Mark V, which gets pretty mixed reviews. I love it personally, but it took a good year to start understanding how to work with it to sound like me, if that makes sense. Had I had more funds to chase the tone in my head, I might have flipped it and moved on when I first got the amp and it didn't instantly do what I wanted. I'm glad that didn't happen as I am now getting some of the best tones out of it that I've managed on an amp. What I am getting at (and this is not directed at anyone here who posted, but in general) is that I think a lot of people with the means to chase that elusive tone in their head more often than not spend a lot of money and time on increasingly boutique, expensive gear that gets hyped as the panacea for all things sound when, as cmathes said, it's all in your hands. I agree that it really is where most of your sound comes from. I read an interview with Alan Parsons once where he said David Gilmour could pick up a $20 acoustic and make it sound like a Stradivarius. After reading that, I noticed that he really does pretty much always sound like David Gilmour whether he is playing a Strat, Tele, LP, or a Gibson acoustic. The gear changes, the touch stays the same. I have no doubt that the same is true for Larry Carlton, Robben Ford, and everyone else known for having amazing tone. Now, I don't have that level of "voice" in my own playing, but I have developed something I think that sounds like me over the years, and I think a large part of that is having to work with what was available and still learning to express myself. If you have that kind of scratch to drop almost six figures on a piece of gear, I won't think less of you for it. However, I do thoroughly believe that it is unnecessary to finding your voice. Plus, you don't end up handcuffed to your own gear to feel comfortable. I don't know how many good players I know that just go to pieces when they get into a situation without their guitar through their pedals and amp, and it is all in their head. Anyway, my $2. My keyboard really should be taken away after 2 a.m.

Hmm, I got nothing smart ass for this one