Technique

My definition of instrumental 'technique' is simply our physical interface with an instrument. 'no technique = no music'. In fact it's even simpler than that...'no technique = no sound'.

The quality of our physical interaction is a whole study in itself. 'Good technique' is the ease with which we have a physical interaction with an instrument. Good technique would also have to encompass that we have the physical ability to execute, ideally with as much ease as possible, whatever we want to express on an instrument. Now that's a tall order to say the least.

In the spirit of my definition I give you the guy who I think is the living embodiment of 'good technique' by the highest standards possible. He blows my mind constantly with the amazing physical gymnastics he performs and the ease with which he does it. The range of techniques he has at his command is mind blowing and most importantly he always sounds musical to me. He can shred which turns off a lot of people but he shreds beautiful phrases and complex harmonic movements with subtleties and nuances that most of us can't manage at less than half the tempos he sometimes plays at.

Regardless whether you appreciate his personal take on what's musical you gotta admire his technique.

I mean just think, what if you could have Scotty's level of technical proficiency but use it to play the music you like to play and how you like to play it. Are you going to tell me you wouldn't want that.


If you haven't heard Scotty before do yourself a solid and listen to all 8 minutes of it to see what I'm ranting on about. If you do already know Scotty well I have the same advice for you. :cool:

YDtoP9yv1Ho&feature=autoplay&list=PL20FB859D3A8850E0&lf=results_main&playnext=4

At the beginning (around 1 minute in) I am curious why he calls the G# an Ab in the E7 chord. Yes, I am aware that they enharmonic, but it seems that someone with his technique and ability would just call it E G# B D, or I am just so out of my league that I missed his reasons for calling it Ab?

At any rate, I agree that his technique and ability are incredible and I would be overjoyed just to have half of it.

At the beginning (around 1 minute in) I am curious why he calls the G# an Ab in the E7 chord. Yes, I am aware that they enharmonic, but it seems that someone with his technique and ability would just call it E G# B D, or I am just so out of my league that I missed his reasons for calling it Ab?

At any rate, I agree that his technique and ability are incredible and I would be overjoyed just to have half of it.

Yes he should have said 'G#' but, hey, when you can play like that.....

Scotty, is amazing. I'm sure he would tell you that technique is more than just
physically interfacing with the instrument (it's how you go about doing that), and there is more to music than technique.

Scotty, is amazing. I'm sure he would tell you that technique is more than just
physically interfacing with the instrument (it's how you go about doing that), and there is more to music than technique.

There is nothing in my OP that disagrees with what you are saying. You seem to have interpreted my OP in a way that doesn't represent what I've actually said.

I did state in my OP that the quality of the interface, the "how" of it, is what takes countless hours of study.

Can you name something that you feel doesn't involve technique?

I get where you're coming from.
Most of the musicians that I know who have what we would refer to as a certain amount of technique definitely worked on it long and hard - especially when they were in their formative years of musical striving lets say. As you get older/better I think you meld your technique practice with your 'musical' practice. Or actually it melds itself - ? As an example: one of my best friends is a symphony clarinetist. Listening to him play a C major scale and all the various patterns he'll do with it (articulation and dynamic variants) is as beautiful as listening to a Bill Evans solo.

I guess it all comes down to what you need to accomplish on your instrument.
Scotty Anderson obviously hears it that fast. He's done the work to get where he thinks it's supposed to be. Personally I'd love to have that guys chops. Sometimes I'd use em like that, sometimes I wouldn't - shrug.

I get where you're coming from.
Most of the musicians that I know who have what we would refer to as a certain amount of technique definitely worked on it long and hard - especially when they were in their formative years of musical striving lets say. As you get older/better I think you meld your technique practice with your 'musical' practice. Or actually it melds itself - ? As an example: one of my best friends is a symphony clarinetist. Listening to him play a C major scale and all the various patterns he'll do with it (articulation and dynamic variants) is as beautiful as listening to a Bill Evans solo.

I guess it all comes down to what you need to accomplish on your instrument.
Scotty Anderson obviously hears it that fast. He's done the work to get where he thinks it's supposed to be. Personally I'd love to have that guys chops. Sometimes I'd use em like that, sometimes I wouldn't - shrug.

Sometimes I'd use em like that, sometimes I wouldn't

Exactly.

I think the people who are quick to criticize players like Scotty because 'they play too many notes' etc. don't fully get what the 'freedom' of that level of technique has to offer. Maybe if some of those people had that level of technique they just might start hearing (and enjoying) flurries of notes and finding ways of doing it musically that would suit them.


I don't often have the opportunity to hear classically trained players practice. In fact it's probably been quite a while since I have but I can easily recall how mezmorized I was to hear how deep the music was when they were just 'running scales'.

My basic definition of 'technique' is physically interfacing with an instrument. How we do that, the quality of that interface, is the difference that makes the difference.

All musical expression is fundamentally dependent on technique because in order to produce sound from an instrument you must be in physical contact with it. Simply holding a guitar is 'technique'. In fact how to hold a guitar so you can get from it what you want may just be the most fundamental technique a guitarist can explore. If Jeff Healey, for example, didn't explore that facet of technique we never would have heard the music we did from him.

So even the highest order of musical expression (dynamics, articulation, emotion, feel, personality etc) could not even exist without technique. And that is why I say no technique = no music

Great clip! I really like Scotty. I frequently watch his You Tube videos and end up either grinning so widely my jaw hurts, or having it hit the floor so hard it hurts. So impressed was I that I bought a CD, and... hardly ever play it. There's just something lacking on the album - it all feels a little sterile to me. It's not his playing on the album, that's absolutely awesome, but the CD doesn't ever get me emotionally the way sometimes, say a simple Tom Russell song does or, at the other extreme, a Sonny Rollins album can. I get exactly the same thing from a couple of Albert Lee albums from way back. Like Scotty, Albert has the kind of ability I can only dream off, yet on these solo albums it sounds like some arrangements have been quickly put together to showcase his technique. Whereas I'll probably be listening to Luxury Liner till the day I die.

But, can't disagree with the principle that one needs to achieve these levels (or as a high a level as individually we can) of technique to enable one to then makes one's musical ideas real.

I guess it all comes down to what you need to accomplish on your instrument.

This is really the crux of the matter, isn't it?


The quality of our physical interaction is a whole study in itself. 'Good technique' is the ease with which we have a physical interaction with an instrument. Good technique would also have to encompass that we have the physical ability to execute, ideally with as much ease as possible, whatever we want to express on an instrument. Now that's a tall order to say the least.

Okay, I'll go ahead and play devil's advocate..

Let's say a player plays with 'poor' technique. He cannot get his fretting fingers or picking 'in time'; he wants to, but cannot; consequently, he's always a little ahead or behind the beat. Yet, that 'imperfection'; that leading and lagging of the beat is not only musical, but distinguishes himself from other players. He recognizes this..He has a style of his own.

What if this hypothetical player started with 'good' technique? Could he have developed that unique style had he not been hindered by his 'poor' technique? Would he have learned how to lead and lag with 'good' technique? Would he have developed as a "better" player, or just a different player?

Just some hypothetical questions.

I don't think that BG is talking necessarily about 'good/proper' technique specifically.
He says, "interface with the instrument". That's totally personal.
I think he's talking about ANY technique at all - whatever gets you around the instrument. Scotty Anderson does possess (loads of) fairly traditional guitar technique ... and that's what he plays - hot rod country, jazz guitar. Nothing revolutionary there. Just really f'n fast and clean! The tech he developed facilitates what he wants to play. And probably a little vice/versa(?).

There are of course tons of players on all instruments that seemingly don't possess what the general musical community would consider to be proper/good actual technical facility but somehow make great music. Frankly, that applies to ALL of us in a relative way. I feel that I can 'get around my instrument' pretty good. Al Dimeola, Steve Vai, Julian Bream or Christopher Parkening would say otherwise. I also feel that I have a pretty good grasp of harmony and how to play over changes ... until I compare myself with Pat Metheny or Jerry Bergonzie.
Again, it's the technique one 'needs' to accomplish what one 'hears'.
And nobody is on the quest to suck. Most artists, even when they start off with what a certain sector of the musical/critical community would classify as 'poor technique' i.e., John Lee Hooker and the Beatles through Phillip Glass, Nick Drake, Jeff Buckley and Kurt Cobain strive to get better (if they live long enough) and usually do (in a traditional way as I see it). Ironically then alienating many of their core fans because they've sold out or wimped out or just plain evolved.

*My personal belief in regard to (the standard definition of) technique ... the more you possess the more music you hear and the better equipped you are to deal with what you're hearing.

*My personal belief in regard to (the standard definition of) technique ... the more you possess the more music you hear and the better equipped you are to deal with what you're hearing.

I experienced this up close. When I started playing again after a 25-year layoff, I found the oddest thing. If there was a certain kind of move involving the left and right hand, it was only until I could make that move that I then imagined or heard ideas that were now open to me being able to play.

I experienced this up close. When I started playing again after a 25-year layoff, I found the oddest thing. If there was a certain kind of move involving the left and right hand, it was only until I could make that move that I then imagined or heard ideas that were now open to me being able to play.


This is a good example of what I was getting at when I said.........

Maybe if some of those people had that level of technique they just might start hearing (and enjoying) flurries of notes and finding ways of doing it musically that would suit them.

Information flows both ways in our nervous system. Hearing influences/creates technique and technique influences/creates what we hear.

This is really the crux of the matter, isn't it?



Okay, I'll go ahead and play devil's advocate..

Let's say a player plays with 'poor' technique. He cannot get his fretting fingers or picking 'in time'; he wants to, but cannot; consequently, he's always a little ahead or behind the beat. Yet, that 'imperfection'; that leading and lagging of the beat is not only musical, but distinguishes himself from other players. He recognizes this..He has a style of his own.

What if this hypothetical player started with 'good' technique? Could he have developed that unique style had he not been hindered by his 'poor' technique? Would he have learned how to lead and lag with 'good' technique? Would he have developed as a "better" player, or just a different player?

Just some hypothetical questions.

Here are my 'off the top of my head' thoughts on the scenario you've created.

It's very unlikely that sort of lack of physical control would play out in only a musical way by accident as you're suggesting. What you're actually saying is this is something he does with absolute consistency and consistency of technique is not something that happens by default.

If he had the kind of poor technique you describe his playing would actually be all over the place. Sometimes he would be on the beat, sometimes ahead or behind but not always in a musical fashion. You see what I'm getting at.

In other words in your imaginary scenario you're actually giving this player a lot of control which implies some level of skillful technique.

Technique is the way to destination;music.

I think you nailed it at the get - go BG. I've always linked technique to desire.Because music is the thing I desire to do - and throughout my life I'm always confronted with music that is beyond my reach. I simply desired a way to get there.
There of course, becomes by definition something individual.

I didn't become Wes Montgomery - dont sound remotely like - or one iota as good as he is, even though I spent endless hours with his music, trying to play with my thumb, stealing his licks. I ended up somewhere else on that journey - we always do - and I wouldnt have done it any differently.
Technique books - videos, even some teachers sometimes fail to mention the blatantly obvious. That the 'interface' BG mentions between our bodies - (those endlessly complex and pernickety psychmotor machines(lol)) - and the instrument - also complex and diverse - but less so than the human body - means that if you and I performed the same simple action (F on the 1st E string) - same gear , same everything - it still wont sound the same. As our desires demand more - our techniques become more individual and complex - and so while we keep working at it - we just never quite know where we will end up.
Its not a race - but some of us can move faster than others along our individual way. The journey certainly moves faster and more dramatically for some of my colleagues.
But then again - I'm going somewhere else anyway - we all are.

what a great thread! thanks for the video, I've listened thrice now! what a shame that scotty doesn't play out often, I'd love to go see him....

I've been struck lately by things that were once difficult for me are now no big deal... and how new mtns appear every time I pick up the guitar.

Technique is the way to destination;music.

I think you nailed it at the get - go BG. I've always linked technique to desire.Because music is the thing I desire to do - and throughout my life I'm always confronted with music that is beyond my reach. I simply desired a way to get there.
There of course, becomes by definition something individual.

I didn't become Wes Montgomery - dont sound remotely like - or one iota as good as he is, even though I spent endless hours with his music, trying to play with my thumb, stealing his licks. I ended up somewhere else on that journey - we always do - and I wouldnt have done it any differently.
Technique books - videos, even some teachers sometimes fail to mention the blatantly obvious. That the 'interface' BG mentions between our bodies - (those endlessly complex and pernickety psychmotor machines(lol)) - and the instrument - also complex and diverse - but less so than the human body - means that if you and I performed the same simple action (F on the 1st E string) - same gear , same everything - it still wont sound the same. As our desires demand more - our techniques become more individual and complex - and so while we keep working at it - we just never quite know where we will end up.
Its not a race - but some of us can move faster than others along our individual way. The journey certainly moves faster and more dramatically for some of my colleagues.
But then again - I'm going somewhere else anyway - we all are.

SP I always get something worthwhile from your thoughts and this post is no exception. There's lots of great stuff in what you've detailed here but in this moment this in particular has a lot of meaning for me:

Its not a race - but some of us can move faster than others along our individual way. The journey certainly moves faster and more dramatically for some of my colleagues.
But then again - I'm going somewhere else anyway - we all are

Thanks.

Here are my 'off the top of my head' thoughts on the scenario you've created.

It's very unlikely that sort of lack of physical control would play out in only a musical way by accident as you're suggesting. What you're actually saying is this is something he does with absolute consistency and consistency of technique is not something that happens by default.

If he had the kind of poor technique you describe his playing would actually be all over the place. Sometimes he would be on the beat, sometimes ahead or behind but not always in a musical fashion. You see what I'm getting at.

In other words in your imaginary scenario you're actually giving this player a lot of control which implies some level of skillful technique.

I disagree (referencing my hypothetical): I was thinking of a self-taught player, not one who initially learned 'good', or maybe a better term: efficient technique from a knowledgeable teacher. In this scenario, 'happy' musical accidents occur.

Not so with a well trained musician with a focus on the music he intends to play.

I disagree (referencing my hypothetical): I was thinking of a self-taught player, not one who initially learned 'good', or maybe a better term: efficient technique from a knowledgeable teacher. In this scenario, 'happy' musical accidents occur.

Not so with a well trained musician with a focus on the music he intends to play.

Lots of players intuitively develop or naturally have 'good' technique without the benefit of a teacher. Being self taught definitely does not rule out having skilled technique.

Happy musical accidents do occur thankfully (I rely on it:lol:) but the scenario you created does not describe something that is occuring accidentally. What you described is someone who consistently plays with a particular time feel and that describes technique.

The first time or two may have been 'accidental' but at the point that it becomes consistently repeatable then it becomes technique regardless of whether it was learned deliberately and formally from a teacher or it was something that was self taught and regardless of whether the individual can describe to himself or others the mechanics of what exactly they are doing.

If it's consistently repeatable then it's technique (regardless if the results are desireable or not).

Lots of players intuitively develop or naturally have 'good' technique without the benefit of a teacher. Being self taught definitely does not rule out having skilled technique.

Happy musical accidents do occur thankfully (I rely on it:lol:) but the scenario you created does not describe something that is occuring accidentally. What you described is someone who consistently plays with a particular time feel and that describes technique.

The first time or two may have been 'accidental' but at the point that it becomes repeatable then it becomes technique regardless of whether it was learned deliberately and formally from a teacher or it was something that was self taught and regardless of whether the individual can describe to himself or others the mechanics of what exactly they are doing.

If it's consistenly repeatable then it's technique.

I respect you boney. Since this is just an intellectual exercise anyway, let's go further.. :wink:

Since you can acknowledge the existence and the value of 'happy' accidents, we can agree that this imaginary player may have accidentally stumbled upon a (musically pleasing) style of his own; initially. Who said anything about repeatability at this point? :wink:

Now; let's say, years later, that this instrumentalist (having recognized his unique musical style as mentioned) wants to revisit his technique but not sacrifice that style..Facilitation is the goal, repeatability, etc..but secondary to the primary goal..

Does he stay with his 'poor' or inefficient technique, or change to a 'good' or efficient technique?

It's his choice, with the primary goal in mind.

I disagree (referencing my hypothetical): I was thinking of a self-taught player, not one who initially learned 'good', or maybe a better term: efficient technique from a knowledgeable teacher. In this scenario, 'happy' musical accidents occur.

Not so with a well trained musician with a focus on the music he intends to play.

That's not true at all. Well trained and disciplined players can reshape music history.
I'll cite a few players - all with 'good' technique and well trained: Mozart, Chet Atkins, Eric Dolphy, Les Paul, Charles Mingus.
Un-trained but with well developed as well as very consistent technique: Hendrix, Dylan, J. Beck and Wes Montgomery.
A good musician - 'traditionally trained' or not - knows when to let the muse take the reigns and just 'let $hite happen'. Accidents, inspiration - whatever you want to call it. I know I make mistakes ALL THE TIME that sound good. In practice and in performance. I don't let those get away - are you kidding? That's where there's a lot of 'gold'.
And IMO, one of the great byproducts of being at least a little trained, is that you can know what you just 'discovered' and do it again.

I respect you boney. Since this is just an intellectual exercise anyway, let's go further.. :wink:

Since you can acknowledge the existence and the value of 'happy' accidents, we can agree that this imaginary player may have accidentally stumbled upon a (musically pleasing) style of his own; initially. Who said anything about repeatability at this point? :wink:


Okay, let's play!!

Style is by it's vey nature dependent on repeatability. How can you have 'a style' without repeatablility? The things that are repeated are the things that people note as creating 'a style'. The probability of the exact same happy accident occuring over and over again is just not very likely.

And let's bring up a really crucial aspect of all this. A person does not have to be conciously aware of what they are doing. In fact it's much better if they aren't. Technique is most effective when it's completely assigned to unconcious processes for it's execution. So....what may, to the concious mind, seem like a series of happy accidents, is very likely in fact a very organized unconcious mind that is carrying out these behaviours with consistent repeatability. The part of our brain that likes to talk doesn't need to know anything about it.



Now; let's say, years later, that this instrumentalist (having recognized his unique musical style as mentioned) wants to revisit his technique but not sacrifice that style..Facilitation is the goal, repeatability, etc..but secondary to the primary goal..

Does he stay with his 'poor' or inefficient technique, or change to a 'good' or efficient technique?

It's his choice, with the primary goal in mind.


I would argue that if he already has a recognizable style (consistent repeatability) then that implies his technique is already effective, doesn't it? It may be useful for him to revisit his technique to make it more efficient but it is already effective.

To my mind 'good' technique embodies at the very least two interrelated aspects; efficiency and effectivness. If this guy's technique is already effective (it gives him 'a style') then all he needs to address is how efficient it is and that's probably the easier of the two aspects to address and in all likelihood is not going to negatively impact his style which is already solidly in place. So I say "go for it imaginary dood."

Interestingly both Miles Davis and Ernest Hemingway bemoaned the fact that both fans and critics focused on elements of their individual 'styles' that they (Davis and Hemingway) considered to be the unperfected and still-in-developement aspects of their respective arts. In other words the part of their art that was still striving/reaching to achieve.
Miles: the sometimes sloppy/out-of-tune (he definitely wasn't trying to play out of tune or hit 'new' notes).
Poppa: economic understatement and his shunning of the comma - generally regarded to be a reaction against tradition and fundamentally shaped by his experiences during WWI.

Interestingly both Miles Davis and Ernest Hemingway bemoaned the fact that both fans and critics focused on elements of their individual 'styles' that they (Davis and Hemingway) considered to be the unperfected and still-in-developement aspects of their respective arts. In other words the part of their art that was still striving/reaching to achieve.
Miles: the sometimes sloppy/out-of-tune (he definitely wasn't trying to play out of tune or hit 'new' notes).
Poppa: economic understatement and his shunning of the comma - generally regarded to be a reaction against tradition and fundamentally shaped by his experiences during WWI.

That's interesting. I'm thinking about how this would fit (or not fit) into the definition of technique that I've been yammering on about. So, maybe we could say that whatever technique they needed to accomplish their desired outcome was not yet effective or efficient enough to actually do that but was developed enough to at least have an identifiable pattern to it that the critics and fans could point to.

maybe we could say that whatever technique they needed to accomplish their desired outcome was not yet effective or efficient enough to actually do that but was developed enough to at least have an identifiable pattern to it that the critics and fans could point to.

I think Ken is implying that whatever a critic or outsider thinks is actually irrelevant in the long run - People hurled abuse and other objects at Stravinsky and Diaghalev after the first airing of the Rite of Spring - because it seemed primitive and uncouth to many of them. Do we say that about Igor now? Of course not.

In music there is so much baggage that goes with European and classical notions of tone production - and that has heavily influenced aspects of technique into other music as well - not the least of which is the sacrifice of an individual voice to the greater good - i.e. the Orchestra! Its interesting for instance that Jazz programmes around the world seem based on large ensembles that dont really encourage highly individual sounds from its members - great musicianship skills and working routines sure - but in reality , it is small group music which encourages an individual technique and from where the vast majority of innovative voices in the music come from.
But philosophically - the 'vowel' sound was invested with superior spiritual significance in the performance of classical music. The consonant - "the sound of the body'" was considered only partially formed and impure(lol). It comes up time and time again in music philosophy centered on the 19th century in particular.For most of us its the 'consonant' that signifies the individual - allows us to tell one player apart from another right at the point of attack.

That's not true at all. Well trained and disciplined players can reshape music history.
I'll cite a few players - all with 'good' technique and well trained: Mozart, Chet Atkins, Eric Dolphy, Les Paul, Charles Mingus.
Un-trained but with well developed as well as very consistent technique: Hendrix, Dylan, J. Beck and Wes Montgomery.
A good musician - 'traditionally trained' or not - knows when to let the muse take the reigns and just 'let $hite happen'. Accidents, inspiration - whatever you want to call it. I know I make mistakes ALL THE TIME that sound good. In practice and in performance. I don't let those get away - are you kidding? That's where there's a lot of 'gold'.
And IMO, one of the great byproducts of being at least a little trained, is that you can know what you just 'discovered' and do it again.

I knew I'd get myself in trouble by generalizing. I agree with you on each example you mentioned and point you've made..but, here's a specific example to my point:

A well trained violin player sitting in the third row playing a Mozart symphony. He is most definitely not there to follow his muse and let stuff happen. He is required to play the notes on paper and in a way that fulfills the vision of the conductor.

No 'happy accidents'. And if there is more than one performance, he is to play that same predetermined way each and every time.

A well trained violin player sitting in the third row playing a Mozart symphony. He is most definitely not there to follow his muse and let stuff happen. He is required to play the notes on paper and in a way that fulfills the vision of the conductor.

No 'happy accidents'. And if there is more than one performance, he is to play that same predetermined way each and every time.

True dat! Scat (I love rhymes!).
But for better or for worse, even for the 'innovative mavericks' so much of making 'art' is in the busy, work-a-day stuff. (And one doesn't join an orchestra to 'be original' - the art is in ensemble playing.)

A lot of the really arty guys and gals can't deal with HAVING to play the same thing or at least approximately the same thing day in and day out. A lot can't deal with the fact that their fans don't ever want them to change/grow. And consequently a lot - at best - over medicate or at worst - blow their own brains out due to all that. The 2nd violist may not be so 'creative' in the section but who knows what he or she does in modern quintet they play in?

Style is by it's vey nature dependent on repeatability. How can you have 'a style' without repeatablility? The things that are repeated are the things that people note as creating 'a style'. The probability of the exact same happy accident occuring over and over again is just not very likely.


Remember, we're talking only about this imaginary guy's timing, which is not precise. Not his harmonic or melodic sense or whatever notes he chooses to play. Just timing.

Think about his hand and timing as if it is a machine with a tolerance: +/- some percentage of a time duration.

Zero milliseconds would be precisely on time ( 0% ) and let's say +/- 50ms is when things start sounding off-time ( 100%).

Now, let's say 1000 guitar players (all other things being equal), can play within +/- 15%. This guy plays consistently within +/- 25%, which gives him his unique style.

So yes, he is playing with some repeatability but also randomly within that tolerance.

So, random and not precisely repeatable 'happy' timing accidents are happening all the time with this guy.

Remember, we're talking only about this imaginary guy's timing, which is not precise. Not his harmonic or melodic sense or whatever notes he chooses to play. Just timing.

Think about his hand and timing as if it is a machine with a tolerance: +/- some percentage of a time duration.

Zero milliseconds would be precisely on time ( 0% ) and let's say +/- 50ms is when things start sounding off-time ( 100%).

Now, let's say 1000 guitar players (all other things being equal), can play within +/- 15%. This guy plays consistently within +/- 25%, which gives him his unique style.

So yes, he is playing with some repeatability but also randomly within that tolerance.

So, random and not precisely repeatable 'happy' timing accidents are happening all the time with this guy.

Okay but that just describes having 'good' technique for even the most accomplished musicians. We aren't robots so there's always going to be that level of impreciseness.

I have to admit I'm not even sure what we're talking about anymore. :lol:

..I have to admit I'm not even sure what we're talking about anymore. :lol:

We're talking about a nonexistent guitar player whose nonexistent ears are probably burning right about now. :smile: