Re: Psychology of rhythm


"Steve Latham" <llatham@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:_tX4f.5992$oy3.4210@xxxxxxxxxxx
>
> "Jon Slaughter" <Jon_Slaughter@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:11l6i95hcunsc14@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [snip]
>>
>> It seems that another large problem I have is not being able to express
>> what I want which I'm pretty sure comes from not having an "intimate"
>> knowledge of the keyboard.
>
> I think the intimacy needs to be with "music" not any particular
> instrument.
>

Supposing that the only way to express music is through an instrument then
if the instrument is a weak point you cannot express music completely. It
maybe true that you also have to have an "intimacy" with music you also need
a way to express that and if you do it through an instrument(how else?) then
if you suck at that instrument you will not be able to express your music
completely.

I suppose one can compose without an instrument but how many composers have
never played used an instrument to get a better understanding of music? Of
those, how many are good? I would imagine it is very difficult to be a great
composer and not be able to play any instrument fluently. An example is, A
friend of mine is always telling me he can hear great music in his head but
he cannot get it out... if he had no problems playing an instrument the it
should flow easily out of his head and we could hear that "great" music too.


> When I get a real piano that I am confident will not
>> hinder my developement then I will do my best to learn every aspect I
>> can.
>
> Well, sometimes composers tend to rely on an instrument as a crutch - for
> instance, when I pick up my guitar my hands a likely to fall on a D chord,
> or play a pentatonic riff. I really actively have to forve myself not to
> play what's "comfortable".
>

It is because you don' t complete mastery of the instrument. I have the
same problem with the piano as I almost always play in C# maj/A# min...
usually when I force myself to goto a different key I end up comming up with
different ideas. Ofcourse I am not even close to mastering the keyboard but
its just an example. To me, complete mastery is where the keyboard does not
hinder the flow of music in your mind... it is a "gateway" from your musical
mind into the "real" world so others can experience what is in your mind.
If you happen to know how to score what you hear then you don't need an
instrument(rather your instrument is a pen and paper) but most people are
not good at that because, I think, they don't have a strong "ear"(i.e. they
don't really know what they hear in the sense they don't know the interval
names and such... else it would be easy for anyone to write it down).

> [snip]
>>
>> Normally what happens is that I "stumble" on something that I really like
>> then I'm able to extend it just a little but when its time to change into
>> something new(instead of basicaly repeating the idea almost exactly) then
>> I get stuck. Its probably just not having confidence and also from my
>> limited knowledge of the keyboard, amoung other things. Eventually with
>> pratice I'm sure that I'll get there.
>
> I think it's more likely a case of thinking in a "free verse" style (like
> we're writing here) rather than having a "closed" idea (i.e. beginning
> middle end, argument, etc.)
>

Yeah, those restrictions seem to reduce the number of possibilities... I've
always found them to seem to box me in though... but I suppose its a good
thing after you get used to it because its much quicker to create something
that is limited than something that you basicaly have to start from thin
air.

> [snip]
>
>> To me, it is exactly the same in music but in a more complicated way(not
>> really but we just see it as that). Different styles of music "extend"
>> and possibly change the basic fundamental set of features that we call
>> music. But I do believe there is a fundamental set of features that all
>> music has(an overlap).
>
> Well, I would say that blues, rock, rock and roll, jazz, ragtime and so on
> share very similar characteristics, so there are elements in them that are
> much more universal. But when you compare this to Japenese No music,
> they're no longer human.
>

Depends on what level you look at. All music deals with sound, hence that
is a characteristic of music. I do believe there are other characteristics
of "pitched" music that are very important that we do not have any real
understanding of(one might simply be the overtone series but I don't know).

For example, you might say that apples are completely different from oranges
but the way I see it is that they are all made up of the same stuff in just
different arrangements... hence they are very similar... just as similar as
an apple with an orangutang... ofcourse it depends on the level I am looking
at though. But there seems to be a fundamental unit that all objects in the
universe are made up of... we might call it the atom, but when look at the
atom we see that it is not so fundamental but it seems there are fundamental
principles behind it such as the strong and weak nuclear forces, etc... I
see music as a similar thing but much more complicated to understand because
of the "human" factor that distorts things.

> [snip]
>>
>> Just because it meant "nothing" to him doesn't mean it is not
>> fundamental(which I'm not saying it is). Quarks, Photons, etc.. ment
>> nothing to Newton but it doesn't mean they don't have some sorta
>> fundamental relation to our relatity.
>
> Yes, but we don't need to worry about the quarks when we're sculpting from
> a piece of clay.
>
>>
>> Possibly the reason Palestrina didn't know about the deceptive cadence is
>> because he didn't discover it yet or perhaps because it required
>> something else to have it make sense... something that Palestrina didn't
>> have.
>
> It didn't exist to Palestrina.
>
> But
>> surely it does mean something because we have it now...
>
> No, it meant something to some people at some time. It meant nothing to
> the Chinese at the same time, or the Africans, etc.
>


But just because it didn't mean anything to them doesn't mean it is not
fundamental(which I'm not saying a DC is fundamental in this case). If that
was the case we would have no fundamental laws(and maybe we don't but we
might call a fundamental law something that is at the limit of our knowledge
and seems fundamental). I'm sure the overtone series wasn't known 10000
years ago but yet it seems like a fundamental thing now. Surely it was
fundamental back then too but no one knew about it... ofcourse you can
argument then it wasn't fundamental because no one knew but then I think we
get into epistemology.

> just like we will
>> have something in the future that we don't have now(else we would never
>> have anything)... the point is how fundamental is it.
>
> No, the point is, if it hasn't been discovered yet, it won't impact our
> art-making.
>

it won't huh? I look at it completely different... since it hasn't been
discovered it means it does impact us...

I use a similar argument that "If you aren't helping then you are hurting".
You can say that if you aren't helping then you simply are not helping but
to me since you CAN help and you are not then it is the same as hurting.
Don't you think all those unknowns that CAN help us make better music would
help us make better music RIGHT now if we knew about them. The reason I use
those arguments(which might be slightly illogical) is because if think like
your reasoning then it means we will never try to discover things and
learn(because it doesn't impact us so why do it?). So I'd rather say it WILL
impact us just so we should feel that we should try and do something about
it.

Its kinda like saying that a rice farmer in china that just picks rice all
day is not impacted by all the technological advances that he/she could be
taking advantage for whatever reasons... sure, that might be true on a
philosophical level but I do believe that on a pratical level that person
has a right to know about those things to they can make there own decisions.



> Not all things are
>> fundamental but all things derived from the fundamentals are
>> related(which is circular ofcourse).
>>
> [snip]
>
> maybe an analogy is a picture. You can zoom in and for a long
>> time you get more detailed view but eventually everything just becomes
>> crud(Red, blue, green, and gray(or whatever) dots) and makes no sense any
>> more.
>
> Right. So it doesn't matter whether the picture is made up of dots or
> squares at that fundamental level, becuase it's no longer a picture. Just
> like, a C is a C, it's only one factor in a billion that makes up a piece
> of music.
>

It is a picture because it is part of a picture. A picture is an abstract
concept that doesn't mean anything physically(well, maybe it does but its
mainly some psychological thing(which might be physical)). Without the dots
do we have pictures? which out the atoms that make up the dots do we have
pictures? without pictures do we have memories(kinda stretching it
ofcourse)... I'm not saying that the dots are fundamental, but the more we
"zoom in" the more we get to the fundamental things. We used to call atoms
the fundamental units of matter because all matter seemed to consist of them
but we learned that there were "more" fundamental units of matter... we will
probably learn that those are not so fundamental as we think. Music theory
needs to have the same principle... we declare something to be
fundamental(something that makes sense ofcourse) and then hopefully someone
will find something more fundamental and eventually we will reach a point
that we have a very good understanding of what is going on with music.
Ofcourse if you don't care about what music is then theres no need to want
to understand it and can't argue with you about that because its each
persons choice to do what they want.

>>
>> Anyways, didn't mean for that to turn into a lecture ;) I'm sure you
>> already know all that stuff but just trying to show you where I am
>> comming from and my approach to music which I happen to think is
>> completely right.
>
> Then why are you having so much trouble???

trouble with what? I didn't say I had any theories about music composition,
just about what music is made up of(not notes, scales, chords, etc... but
the things we do not know yet...). Why should music be any different than
anything else? Why would it be special and different in its ways than
anything else? Again, I'm not talking about what you think music is... I am
talking about the deep down nitty gritty of music that probably no one even
has a clue about... just like god, reality, etc... These things that are
what makes the world what it is. I can explain exactly what I'm talking
about cause I don't know... I'm just saying that I don't think music is very
different in its processes as compared to other things and there
processes(I'm not saying the processes are the same just that how they work
are similar). Basicaly when you abstract everything eventually everything
becomes the same... if "music" was different then when you "completely"
abstracted music you would arrive at something different... which I don't
think is true.


> Though it
>> doesn't mean my hypothesis are right, just that my logic on how things
>> progress seem to be universal and I don't doubt that music is any
>> different, just more "complicated" than our sciences.
>
> Maybe you're making it more complicated then it needs to be. Forest for
> the trees.
>

Maybe.

>>
>> (I think ultimately it comes down to how you view the world. Since I
>> believe in determinism and from a physical stand point such as "quantum
>> mechanics"(actually, whatever the true laws are, if there are any)
>> governing the motions of all particles which then go on to do amazing
>> things that we call life by acting in very complicated ways I see music
>> as just one of these "complicated" things governed by very simple laws.
>> If you believe in free will then ofcourse it changes things drastically.)
>
> Here's the distinction Jon, it really doesn't matter if it's free will or
> not - it matters whether we think it's free will or not.
>

heh, I don't believe that. Its like if you imagine you are a horse.. you
can believe 100% that you are a horse but you are not a horse. Maybe if you
could imagine 100% you were a horse then you would turn into one... but I
doubt it.

Though I'm not saying you are necessarily wrong. But we are talking about
different levels(atleast i think). On a pratical basis I do think I have
free will, but ultimately on a "philosophical" basis I don't think I have
any free will. In my life, ofcourse I act like I have free will as every
one does because what else can you do? But what is really going on? do we
really have free will or what? I don't think so, maybe it doesn't matter, or
is absurd, to even ask those questions but I do it anyways(maybe its free
will or maybe it was determined).

> [snip]
>>
>> Yeah, ofcourse... this is the category stuff I was talking about earlier.
>> Its like comparing roses to lilies to peaches. Even though each one is
>> different and there are degree's between them there is a common process
>> that produce each of them... a fundamental if you will, having to do with
>> cells, chemical reactions, and all that crap. Not to mention there is
>> probably a common ancestor between them.
>
> Well, they are all steps on an evolutionary process. They share notes,
> they use rhythms, they are "music" and so on. But it's on the levels at
> which they differ that the artistic impetus becomes important, becuase
> otherwise, they'd all be peaches. They're not, they might all be pitted
> fruits, but one's a cherry, one's a peach, one's a plum, etc.
>

yeah, but you don't think its important to know what makes them all a fruit?
The things that make them different are just as important as the things that
make them the same.

>>
>> Palestrina's music maybe more different to Bachs music than Beethovens
>> but its a lot closer to Bachs music than to the jug of water sitting
>> beside me ;) (though I don't doubt there is some fundamental processes
>> that produced them all)
>
> Of course. That's why we call it music - to lump similar things together.
> But what do you want to write "generic" music, or music of a praticular
> style?
>

First I want to write music, hence I have to know what the difference is
between music and non-music... which is an extremely complex thing which I
will probably never know completely but if I had some idea(which I do I
think) then I could then make sure that I am writing music and non-music....
secondly I'd have to know what is the difference between good music and bad
music(because I want to write good music)... this maybe just as complicated
because good depends on so many things... It maybe much easier to approach
it from the very specific and goto the general but I think that way is to
restrictive and causes some theoretical problems.



> [snip]
>>
>> Yes, but just think if you knew the main ones? Wouldn't that help in
>> your ability to potentially make better music? Theres surely a huge
>> difference between "all" and significant. I'd just like to know the
>> significant ones.
>
> Umm. Most music has Pitch and Rhythm. There's your fundamentals. It's like
> art. Paint and canvas. That's it. What makes the Mona Lisa different from
> Starry Night is not ath the "fundamental" level. It's at a much higher
> level.


Yeah, but can you tell me what makes a note? if you say a frequency of
something vibrating then it leads to the overtones... can you tell me are
overtones particular to "music" or independent? (i.e., can I artificially
make a note with some different type of overtone series and arrive and just
as pleasing music?) if the overtones are fundamental then what is there
role? are they simply used to derive chords and tendencies? surely there are
more to them? What about rhythm? why do some rhythmic patterns seem to
"flip" the beat when combined with pitch while others don't? etc... etc...
etc.. (there could be thousands of questions I could ask similar to these).
These are not even fundamental things really but I believe that there is
probably fundamental processes that underline all the answers but I would
have to know all the answers to first to try and find something fundamental
going on.

> [snip]
>
>>>
>>
>> Ofcourse. I'm not saying we should try to understand it completely. Just
>> try and get some idea whats going on. There are people out there that
>> are a lot smarter than me that I'm sure if they were interested in
>> spending a lot of time trying to understand some of the significant
>> aspects of music they could come up with something better than we have.
>> This may or may not be true but my feeling is that music hasn't been
>> treated in a scientific way in any serious sense.
>
> The quantifiable things have - all of acoustics, harmonic progression in
> tonal music, counterpoint in pre-tonal music, set theory in post tonal
> music.
>

Not really. Atleast not in any rigorous way. They all seem to just state
things without giving any proof. Its kinda about 50/50 or so. The only book
that I have read that attemps to approach it in a scientific way is the
harmony book by Ramaeu. He does his best to give reason to why things do
what they do, but it slightly falls short IMO.

>
> If it was we would have come concrete theory that makes
>> a lot more sense and has more pratical value.
>
> The problem is, the art exists before the theory. Just like Gravity. It
> was there, then Newton explained it (in his way).
>

I know... but again, one must pursue understanding so it will turn into a
theory... theories are not bad IMO but actually allow you to do much more
and more efficiently than without it. Its the difference between guessing
and knowing.

> By using the "excuse" that
>> music is an art pretty much says one can't approach it from a scientific
>> view point.
>
> That's pretty much true.
>
> If one said music deserves to be a science then many people
>> will try to theorize about it and someone may eventually get it right.
>
> They've been trying for a very long time.
>
>>
>> This might happen too. Physics used to not be a science either but an
>> art... along with chemistry, biology, etc... These subjects became
>> science when we "made" them into a science.
>
> Well, that's just different terminolgy. You can't put too much stock in
> the Trivium and Quadrivium. We have a different perspective.
>
> Look what we have been able to do with them,
>> just think what we could do with music if it was a science. (Also notice
>> that our present day sciences have only increased "creativity" rather
>> than squash it as compared to when they were not a science)
>
> Like what? Go to the moon?
>
> [snip]
>
>> true ;) But theres a reason ofcourse ;)
>
> Yes, but the reason lay in the human's choices. There's no other way to
> explain why I think Brahms is generally crap, but other people like him.
> They must find something in it that's worthwhile.
>

sure there is... but to explain it would require knowning all the variables.
Just because its complex doesn't mean its not explainable. There is some
reason you don't like him, else you would like him... hence we would just
have to find that reason... but it exists no matter how complex(maybe to
complex to even try ofcourse).

>
>
> Though I don't think we should look
>> at it on that small of a level but try to look at it more broadly.
>> Because as it turns out most peoples crap are crap and most treasures are
>> treasures and we should be asking why most crap is crap and why most
>> treasures are treasures and not why some crap are treasures and some
>> treasures crap ;) lol
>
> Ok. I think I got that!
>
> You're right, and I said this before - there are , oh here it is:
>>
>>> However, there are generally accepted guidelines that tell us why some
>>> things work for a lot of people, and other things don't.
>
> So I agree with you on that level. There is something about Beethoven's
> 5th that seems to connect with people. But, it wouldn't necessarily
> connect with people in Africa in its day. Also remember that there have
> been pieces that were dismal failures, panned by critics, almost trashed
> by the composer, etc. that have become favorites now, and of course, the
> reverse. The only way to explain this is different, and changing tastes.
>


But I explain those as psychological factors... not because there is
something that is not universal about the music. We can like a piece of
music because it "connects" with us while someone else can hate it simply
because it doesn't connect with them... the point is, why does it connect?
maybe simply because the music resonates with some neurons in our brain that
are in the "happy" part... we happen to have more there than the other
person cause of some even in our life that created more... maybe the other
person was hit in the head with a baseball bat and it damaged that part of
the brain that would normally respond to the music... who knows... but
surely there are reasons.

> [snip]
>>
>> It maybe that the theory of music is much more complete and scientific
>> than I understand but I haven't enough knowledge about these things.
>
> I do think there's more out there that you don't know about that may
> satisfy those inclinations, but, it's also not as far-reaching as math.
>
> I just feel
>> that, I guess, it hasn't been presented in a "scientific" way so it feels
>> kinda amateurish.
>
> Read Jeppesen's Counterpoint ot Allen Forte's Structure of Atonal Music.
> You wan't to see science. Rameau's treatise is also very scientific. But
> none of these has much to do with how Jazz works.
>
> This might be because "most" musicians are stupid(in a
>> scientific way IMO)
>
> Well, you don't need to understand acoustics to play a note off the page.
> But, you will find that the really top notch performers are quite educated
> (academically or streetwise).
>

yes, but they are in the minority.

> and if you start making things rigourous or complicated
>> they want to run away.
>
> That's because they don't want anyone to know that what they're doing is a
> lot of bull*** :-).
>

exactly... and bull*** doesn't belong in a science ;)

> I've seen many instruction music videos where the
>> guy has said/acted like very simple stuff is very complicated and kinda
>> skirted around it as to not confused the viewer.
>
> Most of these are made by not very educated people though.
>
> Most music theory that I
>> know is simply a theory of communication and more of learning a language
>> than anything else. Learning how to name intervals, recognize chords,
>> etc... seems, IMO, almost to completely parallel learning a
>> language(learn the vocab, grammar, spoken aspects, etc...). Maybe a
>> better term than music theory would be muscal language?
>
> Exactly. Musical Grammar. It's very similar to language in that respect.
> But knowing grammar will not help you write a novel. There's no formula
> that says, night must follow stormy must follow and must follow dark must
> follow a must follow was must follow it to get "it was a dark and stormy
> night". (turnabout is fair play :-)
>

how do you know this? ;) Maybe there is a perfectly good reason why but the
"rule" why is hidden under a bunch of crap that makes it extremly
complicated. It might be simply that there is some rhythmic reason why
because it sounds better(which we would eventually have to explain why) if
the number of syllables increase through the sentence than decrease(this is
surely wrong but just an example). Just because there is no formula now
doesn't mean there isn't a formula... just means we don't know the formula..
There used to not be a "formula" for gravitation but gravity still existed
hence I believe there was a formula but just not discovered until
newton(ofcourse he just made it up but there is a correspondence between the
formula and gravity... maybe not an exact one but it doesn't matter if it is
exact as long as it corresponds enough)

> So don't get up in the word "theory". Notes are letters, chords are words,
> motives are identifiable fragments, phrases are, well, phrases, cadences
> are punctuation, periods are stanzas, sections are paragraphs, movements
> are chapters, and so on. It is very much like writing, except you can use
> Elizabethan English, Modern English, Slang, etc.
>
>
> [snip]
>>
>> Ofcourse since psychological factures are not well defined as math it
>> would be extremely hard to find the important psychological variables in
>> music but I do think we have to try(someone needs to and I'm sure there
>> are people that are working on it).
>
> Oh yes. All of the time. They keep getting disproven though. The inkblots
> look different to everyone.
>

But there is a reason why ;) I cannot believe there exists things that have
no reason.

> [snip]
>>
>> So what I'm trying to get at is that It would be nice to have a very
>> thorough understand of all the signficant variables in all musical
>> factors, or some approximation to this. To me, present "music theory" is
>> full of holes and those holes are pretty important. And those holes are
>> what bother me the most cause I feel that no one even attemps to explain
>> them but yet they seem very important and might actually open up new
>> doors if we had them "patched".
>
> That's because you're reading not a theory text, but a "musical
> fundamentals" text. It's very easy to make rules in grammar like "you
> can't split an infinitive" or "don't end a sentence with a preposition".
> And that's proper grammar (which people are evolving away from) (did you
> get it?)
>
> When you crack open a theory text and it says, we use 7 letter names
> ABCDEFG. That's like when you're in pre-school and they hit you with the
> alphabet. When they show you intervals, they're telling you how to spell
> AT, UP, NO, etc. Triads are like CAT, CUP, NOT, etc. A Neapolitan is like
> a word from different language you use and has becom accepted in your
> language, but still shows its origins (like finale), and chords like C Db
> F A are like new words, like Bytes.
>

But theory books, atleast math books, have theorems. Things that you know to
hold true with out a doubt... you have a set of hypothesis that if
fullfilled then you know the conclusion will be true with out a doubt so you
can apply it blindly if you want to.... I have not seen anything like this
at all in music... the closest being stuff about parallels which have so
many exceptions to it that it seems to be wrong in many contexts.

> You can only take that so far though becuase eventually artistic choices
> come into play: Do I say cat, or feline, trot or prance, groom or primp,
> satisfy or satiate, etc. There are no rules for that.
>

Sure there are... atleast to some degree. cat and feline are not always
interchangable and in some context they are(if you know where they are then
you know where they are not)... if the words cat and feline are completely
interchangable then it doesnt' matter and either choice is right... there is
a rule "feline is equivilent to cat". Rules are everywhere and you can't
get away from them. Every choice is from a rule(but the rule may not be a
simple logic statement but something more complex and perhaps "fuzzy"(fuzzy
logic stuff)).

Our brain makes choices... you have to have some reason to make a choice...
almost always it comes from making a probabilistic judement from some set of
rules. But our brain doesn't just randomly guess at anything(even if we try
it will not)... there are no completely random events in reality(IMO). This
means everything is a rule(and a rule isn't always something that is on/off,
true/false, etc...)

> [snip]
>>
>> For example, I have a nephew that is very creative yet is has no where to
>> start. If was given a place to start(i.e. proper guidence) then he could
>> apply is creativity.
>
> Very good point. He needs that "paradigm" that I was speaking of before.
> He needs some restrictions to avoid overload.
>
> [snip]
>
>> Not sure. I should probably goto the doctor just to see. I don't think
>> its allergies though... maybe ear wax though. I used to listen to music
>> very very loud and I might have damaged my ear or something. Guess I
>> need to find out.
>
> Probably better to know.
>
> [snip]
>>>
>>
>> I'll try to see the doctor. Its strange though.. I feel I hear fine but
>> then when I ears "open" everything sounds much clearer.
>
> That's the way mine was.
>
> Last time I remember
>> this happening was about a week ago when I got out the shower... So I'm
>> thinking it might be some type of blockage.
>
> That's how mine began, then it escalated into dizzy spells!
>
> [snip]
>>
>> I can't hear overtones like that! ;/ Thats gotta be good hearing? Or
>> maybe its just learning to recognize what you hear?
>
> The latter. It's good listening, and knowledge of what you're listening
> for. And this is EXACTLY what I'm telling you about theory. It's not
> fundamental that I hear that way; others don't even know to listen for it.
> So that knowledge makes my perception different from other peoples. It's
> the knowledge (via experience) that you need, not some fundamental law!
>

They are equivilent to me. Experience is just a subconcious understanding of
the fundamental laws that exist. If you repeat something over and over and
over and over your brain will figure out the fundamental laws that are at
work on a sub concious level... sometimes you can make it conscious too by
simply paying attention. The problem is that Experience can take a very
long time and isn't always perfect as an explicit knowledge of the
fundamentals though its usually much faster because it has been ingrained in
your brain by repetition. I think that both are actually needed though.


> [snip]
>
>> What is a real guitar shop? A place that sales guitar? Cause the place
>> around here sales both pianos and guitar ;/
>
> Like Guitar Center or Sam Ash (although they can vary wildly in quality).
> Also, smaller mom and pop businesses that sell things like Fender Strats,
> Gibsons, Paul Reed Smiths, Martins and Taylors - high end guitars. If
> they're not selling guitars in the 1,000 to 2,000+ range, and only selling
> things like 100 - 800 Yamahas, Alvarez's or Jasmines by Takamine (although
> the high end shops will often carry these cheap ones too), then it's not a
> "real" guitar shop. And if they don't have a certified guitar tech on
> site, or someone they contract out to (i.e., not the piano salesman that
> also plays a little guitar and they call him the "tech"), then it's not a
> real shop. There are luthiers associations and people can go and get
> accreditations (though it's not required). If the person takes your guitar
> and says they can set it up for you , but they're backed up for a week or
> two, then, if they're that busy, they're good. If they can do it while you
> wait, it's probably not gonna be so good. You should pay about 35 to 50
> bucks for a full set up, plus the cost of whatever strings you put on (and
> the tech should set up your guitar to those strings). They can do a
> "factory spec", or you can tell them other things like, the action is too
> high, and they should be able to offer suggestions on how to fix it.
>

I'll see what I can find. I haven't look in a while since I ran into that
one tech who just sucked.... since there are only 2 music stores in my area
I might have to go somewhere else.

> Best,
> Steve

Thanks,
Jon
>
>


.

Loading