The Three Fishes Of Music

Mike Delaney · Post by **Mike Delaney** » 11 Nov 2002 5:43 am

I have been hesitant to post this because of controversies that might be stirred up. I have decided to do it anyway, at the risk of personal abuse, because of an idea that I have for the future.

Before anybody rips in to me, please be sure that you have read and understood what I'm trying to say.

The Three Fishes Of Music-

1) Technical Proficiency On The Instrument. Examples for steel would be knowing the functions of pedals and knee levers, picking, blocking, vibrato, etc. I'm not speaking of how fast you can play; I mean a good working knowledge of the axe, and being able to execute musical phrases cleanly.

2) A Well Trained Ear. This means playing in tune, being able to recognize intervals, triads, inversions, chord progressions, and the like.

3) A Good Working Knowledge Of Music Theory. This is where you learn the names of musical components and how they work. This is also where you will need to learn the basics of reading music, because this is how the subject is taught. I am NOT talking about being able to play ONLY what is on the paper, just leaning the basics. (Before posting anything about whether or not my parents were married, please read on.)

Here is how the chain links together. If you can't play, it doesn't matter what you can hear, you'll be fumbling around. If you can't hear, it doesn't matter what you can play, it won't fit. If you don't know what it is, everything you can hear or play becomes situational. Every time you learn a new song, you have to sit down and figure out what you'll play here and there and then end up playing something that is memorized before hand. (Not a whole lot different than somebody who memorized a piece of sheet music is it?)

The goal is, I can hear it, I know what it is, and I can play it.

OK, now we get to the fireworks part. I know there are a good many players who wear the fact that they don't read music like a badge of honor. Before we get to the "fly specs on paper" comments, think about what written music is. It is a tool of communication. Period. Learning to speak German will not hinder your ability to speak English. It WILL, however, increase your ability to communicate with German's.

Once again, I am not speaking of sight reading like an orchestral musician, or playing only what is written. But to study Harmony and Theory, understanding the basics will be necessary, because the rest of the world does not live in the realm of TAB, and it is taught in standard music notation.

Obviously, there will be plenty of opinions to follow, and I am interested in hearing them. I ask only that you refrain from profanity and personal insults.

Leonard G. Robertson · Post by **Leonard G. Robertson** » 11 Nov 2002 7:12 am

Mike, I realize what you're saying is right on. I am reluctant to publicly say that one of my best friends has been a big help to me learning the psg. After taking my 2 1st lessons from him, I realize he knows the steel guitar in and out. He sits up copedents for locals several times, and knows music very well. He has constucted stacks of tabulated scales and chords using the computer. On occasions I have seen him pass out instuctor cards, when introduced to other performing steel players. He has a huge collection of steel info.(LPs,tapes equipment) and always learns new songs from tab. Since I've known him, he has been fired from 3 bands and even one jam session. He is the finest individual you will ever meet. He just can,t put it all together when it counts.

Johan Jansen · Post by **Johan Jansen** » 11 Nov 2002 7:15 am

Mike, good thread!!
I think you just mentioned the BASIC SKILLS, that should work for every musician, wether you play steel, bass, drums or mouthharp.
What sets you apart from the crowd is the abillity of creating music. The skills you mentioned are perfect for being a musician that will back-up a singer, while the steeler copies the parts on the original tracks. But finding something new, without putting up a lick out of a big experience-bag, is the next frontier, and only a few will come up with some original stuff. Sometimes it's just not fair that musicians that come up with a hook that makes a song a big hit, don't get the credits as a co- writer. Like: Gerry Garcia- teach y... , like Lloyd Green- D.I.V.O.R.C.E. , Paul Franklin- That don't impress me much, Buddy Emmons- Burn the roashouse down. John Hughey- Look at us, and on and on.........
That's the big hunt for me, wish I had the talent to ever reach that!
Thanks, Johan

Roger Rettig · Post by **Roger Rettig** » 11 Nov 2002 7:40 am

Excellent points, Mike...

If I were a fluent sight reader, I think I'd wear THAT as a 'badge of honor'!

I'm not, but I can figure out notation at my own pace, which I've had to do for my current 'gig' ('guitar chair' on the 'Evita' show); the inabilty to 'read' carries a certain stigma in these circles, but my musicianship has got me through.

If one has the 'ears' to figure out 'changes' then, as this abilty develops, the logic of music theory will become apparent.

My priority has always been to actually learn to play in the physical sense. My knowledge of theory, and my reading skills (basic though they might be), has been an incalculable asset over the years, and the older I get, the more I regret not having had the discipline to apply myself to it in my earlier years; if I had, it would be 'second nature' by now.

In my opinion it's ridiculous to suggest that reading and theory can have an adverse effect on one's powers of improvisation - the reverse is true! The more 'doors' that are open to you, the more options you have - 'reading' allows you to access more complex material that you might otherwise shy away from, and the comprehension of this more profound music can only make you a better musician.

(That's what I think, anyway

)

------------------
Roger Rettig

David Weaver · Post by **David Weaver** » 11 Nov 2002 7:42 am

I'm still pretty new and looking at ways to try to advance and improve.

I went to Jeff Newman's Seminar in St. Louis and he said something that struck me...He admonished us to know the scales, then he said "write them down".

I started writing down some of the things I want to do such as chord progressions and scales and it does help.

I have Newman's "Play What you Hear, Hear What You Play" book and tape. I diddled around with it, but now that I have started to write down what the progressions are and study them as I listen, then go to the guitar and work them out, it really pushes the learning experience.

Sitting at the guitar is the obvious thing to do. Sitting at a desk with a pencil and pad and writing down chord progressions or scale tab is not very intuitive, but it seems to me to be time well spent.

It takes a lot of discipline to keep moving on all fronts.

Donny Hinson · Post by **Donny Hinson** » 11 Nov 2002 8:43 am

...think about what written music is. It is a tool of communication...

Quite true. However, it is a "tool" that developed hundreds of years ago when there was nothing else...no other way to communicate musical ideas across a distance, or to save them for posterity. Today, we have other forms of media (records, tapes, and CD's) that do the same thing, so it is not nearly as important to learn to read music as it once was. I compare reading music and "playing by ear" to speaking a foreign language and being able to read and write that language, as well. Many people can speak various languages by rote, but they can't read that language, nor can they write it. If all they need is the ability to speak and understand what they hear, then learning the alphabet, the grammer, and the reading and writing is no so important.

Obviously, being able to read music, and knowing theory is quite beneficial, but it certainly isn't necessary...unless you plan to use music as a career. Then, it becomes almost mandatory (at least, for us musicians). Think about what you want to do with your music, and then tailor what you learn, or try to learn, accordingly.

Also keep in mind that being "good" at music and being "sucessful" are often not one in the same. "Popularity and fame" is not proportional to skill...that's because this is still an artform, and not a science.

Who is the "best player" of any instrument? Is it the most popular, the most soulful, the most technically proficient, or the most innovative?

Each of us must decide what's important to us. I wish I could read music, and knew a little about theory, but it has caused me more lost sleep than it has lost wages.

Roger Rettig · Post by **Roger Rettig** » 11 Nov 2002 9:23 am

".....ALMOST mandatory..."

I agree.

I DO earn my living as a musician, and have done for over forty years. When I started (just guitar back then) I got by on flair alone, but there were plenty of detractors (middle-aged guys seeing their living being hi-jacked by rock'n'rollers!) ready to point out my shortcomings! Despite this, I failed to apply myself to that particular task, and made whatever reputation I had as an 'ear' player.

I did a lot of studio work back in England, and occasionally my 'limited reading' would create a problem, but not often - and, as time's gone on, there's no doubt that it's less of a priority - it's the nature of a lot of the music of the last forty years. A sizable chunk of my work in the last twenty-five years, though, has been in theatrical shows. While I'll agree that "Always - Patsy Cline" only has (and only requires!) chord charts, "Best Little Whorehouse..." is a different story! Some of the fills can be 'free' but there are a lot of 'twin' parts with the fiddle - how much easier would my job have been if I'd have been able to just read it, rather than the two weeks of 'woodshedding' I had to do for the '81 West End production BEFORE the first rehearsal? Same with this "Evita" thing I'm doing....

Like you, Donny, this has caused me more '...lost sleep than lost wages', but if I'd learned to read better, I could have stayed in bed a bit longer

!

------------------
Roger Rettig

Rex Thomas · Post by **Rex Thomas** » 11 Nov 2002 10:10 am

Having said that I hold a position of telling the musician what notes to play & a good night's sleep can be determined on how good or bad my last arrangement was...
Once again, my man Donny has said it all.
Major point - Yes; it's an art form, not a science.

Terry Edwards · Post by **Terry Edwards** » 11 Nov 2002 11:27 am

Mike,

The three fishes of music you describe mostly deal with the technical aspect of learning and execution side of musicianship. Mostly "left brain" activity - math, science, technical stuff, etc.

What you have omitted is the "right brain" activity - intuition, creativity, art, soul, etc..

The best artists and players of the steel guitar or any instrument utilize both sides of the brain. You have to know the math and science of music and you have to have the "soul" and feeling along with the dexterity to execute it. If you could monitor Buddy Emmons brain waves while he was creating a new steel ride you would see a "storm" of activity going from one side to the other!! You gotta do both to be a total "whole" steel player. Books and theory lessons are easy to come by and take some some work, however, the art and soul of music isn't as easy to quantify. The best we can all do is play and experience the music as much as we can without trying to analyze it and soon you will start to get the feeling or "soul" of music. Good Blues musicians have an abundance of soul. Country music has a wonderful "soul" too!!

Terry

Roger Rettig · Post by **Roger Rettig** » 11 Nov 2002 12:20 pm

Mike's point related, I think, to the possible benefits that some formal study might bring - I think we'd all be in agreement that the 'soul', or the inspiration is music's most vital element.

Rex says it's an 'art form, not a science' - I say it's an art form first, but with an element of science.

I think Mike was correct in his original 'post' - some seem to be proud that they don't read. While I love nothing more than playing as the spirit moves me, I'm simply acknowledging that 'sight-reading' is an area that I've neglected, and one in which I could improve my overall abilities.

At a seminar in England in the mid-80s, Buddy Emmons said that knowledge of theory might not make you a better player, but it would enable you to understand your instrument better and to communicate with other musicians; if Buddy were to 'post' the sentiments he expressed back then on this 'thread', you'd all be agreeing with him....

------------------
Roger Rettig

Rex Thomas · Post by **Rex Thomas** » 11 Nov 2002 1:34 pm

Although I think this is headed for some time waisting hair splitting, I'm sticking with what I said which is actually an agreement to what Donny said; "Popularity & fame" is not proportional to skill. My take on Donny's thread is that you can't take some talent, add chemicals X, Y, & Z and poof; Buddy Emmons. You may get a nice batch of Tennessee Pride Country Sausage, but it's not an exact thing. Do I believe there's scientific elements in what we do? GOODNESS YES! Especially steel. But I think we're losing sight of that third fish Mike speaks of; the importance of music theory.
Being a classically trained musician, & the fact that I deal with "bugs on the page" EVERYDAY, I guess in agreeing with Donny I didn't make myself clear as to my take; which is there's NO EXACT NUTHIN' to it. That's why I'm in agreement with Donny. A complete understanding of music theory & even being a whizbang in application does not guarantee "Popularity & Fame".
Here's something to think about; there are guys in this town that command anywhere from $700 to $1000 & more AN HOUR guys, not 3-hr. session, AN HOUR. And I do know from experience that I can out sight read a couple of them for sure. Are they better players than me? ABSOLUTELY! Just because I can blow out notes quicker doesn't mean I deserve to get the gig. I myself understand why this is, but once again, I feel Donny said it best; that there's no exact measurement.
So my 2 cents worth; fish 1 & 2, absolutely. Fish 3; not necessarily.
Carry on...[This message was edited by Rex Thomas on 11 November 2002 at 04:48 PM.]

Stephen Gambrell · Post by **Stephen Gambrell** » 11 Nov 2002 1:36 pm

Mike, you make several interesting points, all very valid. I would add that a working knowledge, at least, of the keyboard is an excellent tool in t the learning of advanced theory. The intervals are all uniform, and laid right out there in the open. And sure, a lot of great musicians have risen to great heights without being able to read music. They relied on endless hours of experimentation, repitition, and just plain work, to attain mastery. BUT, could B.B. King have ever sat in with the Benny Goodman band, for instance? B. has more soul than most of us, but his technical skills ARE limited. And don't turn on the flame throwers, I'd rather hear B.B. than just about anybody. But, by his own acknowledgement, he doesn't even play chords!
I don't want to sound like I'm picking on B., though. I've heard for forty+ years about guitar players not reading. Horn players, piano players, even DRUMMERS, get to read, but we guitar players don't want to lose our "soul" by learning what them notes mean! If you're gonna be a writer, learn the alphabet, and then some words! If you're gonna be a cook, buy some spices, learn what they taste like, and the go pop some grease!
By the way, I can't read music.(

:

Mike Delaney · Post by **Mike Delaney** » 11 Nov 2002 3:04 pm

Several very good points made, gentlemen. There are a couple of things that I now realize that I have omitted.

One is "the gift", that certain intangible something that sets a select few players above the rest. This is not something that you can learn from someone else, and not all of us can be the Big E.

I also agree that basic keyboard knowledge is a good thing. You can see music theory at work right in front of your eyes.

Once again, I say that I am not talking about sight reading per se, just the ability to figure it out in a reasonable amount of time. A communication tool. Personally, I like books such as DeWitt Scott's "Anthology" that have the music notated above the TAB. Then I can catch the rhythm from the music, and the how to do it from the TAB.

Good job everyone of not letting this digress in to a hair splitting arguement. It has been a good exchange of information up to this point, let's keep it that way.

Bobby Lee · Post by **Bobby Lee** » 11 Nov 2002 3:27 pm

Knowing how to read music has never helped me in the understanding of music theory. I learned theory by the numbers, and I understand it by the numbers.

Similarly, my knowledge of steel helps me understand music more than the piano ever did. Maybe I approach things the wrong way, but it's worked so far!

Written music, the piano keyboard, the guitar and the steel are all embodiments of an abstract concept, in my mind. That concept is the theory of western music. I would never say that any particular model is required to learn music theory.

I knew how to read music on piano and guitar before I took up steel. I didn't come to understand music theory until I had to figure things out for myself on the steel guitar.

I put reading aside to learn the steel and the music theory that makes it work (by the numbers). Now that I understand it, reading makes more sense to me, but learning to read taught me very little about music theory. I learned a lot more about it just sitting in a bar playing country songs.

------------------
<img align=right src="http://b0b.com/b0b.gif" width="64" height="64">Bobby Lee - email: quasar@b0b.com - gigs - CDs
Sierra Session 12 (E9), Williams 400X (Emaj9, D6), Sierra Olympic 12 (F Diatonic), Sierra Laptop 8 (D13), Fender Stringmaster (E13, A6), Roland Handsonic

Donny Hinson · Post by **Donny Hinson** » 11 Nov 2002 6:16 pm

...about music theory. I learned a lot more about it just sitting in a bar playing country songs.

Hmmmm...guess I might just know something about "theory" after all, since "sitting in a bar playing country songs" is exactly what I did for almost 40 years/

(LOL!)

Thanks Bobby!

Mike Delaney · Post by **Mike Delaney** » 12 Nov 2002 5:45 am

I guess I didn't do a very good job of explaining myself on fish number three, let me try once more.

Being able to read music will not make you any better or worse at Theory. What I meant to get across is that if you go to your local community college to take a course in Theory, they ain't gonna TAB it out for you. You'll have to be able to handle the basics of notation.

That being said, what we need to do as musicians is to work on our weakest links. In my case, that is fish number one. Steel isn't my primary axe, and I need to learn the technique of it to get better. I recently went to St. Louis and took a lesson from Don Curtis. This was money well spent, to have somebody who plays really well tell me what was wrong with my technique.

I have had more fun with the steel than ought to be legal in the few years that I've had one, and I have learned a great deal here on the Forum. If I can help others with fish number three, I certainly will, as this is one of my strong area's. I think the average person who participates in the Forum knows a whole lot more Theory than they realise, they just don't know the names sometimes.

Let's go fishin'!

CrowBear Schmitt · Post by **CrowBear Schmitt** » 12 Nov 2002 6:33 am

Many fish bite if ya' got good bait...
in my case it's the Ears, the Heart and the Brain.
"the improvisor's Basic Tools:
Intuition,Intellect,Emotion,Sense of Pitch, and Habit." (Jerry Coker/Improvising Jazz)
i learned by Ear first, understanding basic theory did'nt take me too long to understand
but once i got that far then i was Hooked !
Thank Goodness Musik is a language that many can share.
(Beats havin' to talk in so many tongues too)
i'm a goin' Fishin, Mama's goin' Fishin,
and my Baby's goin' Fishin' too

------------------
Steel what?

[This message was edited by CrowBear Schmitt on 12 November 2002 at 09:51 AM.]

Whip Lashaway · Post by **Whip Lashaway** » 13 Nov 2002 8:19 am

Mike
I think I know what your saying. One of the best lead guitar players I know explained it this way. "I can look at a sheet of music and pick it out with one finger on the piano. I just do that in my head with the guitar and play what I hear in my head".
I don't read music but wished at times I could do what my friend does. I keep telling myself I'll learn when I get more time. I've got a piano in my music room that I don't know how to play!!
Whip

------------------
Whip Lashaway
Sierra E9/B6 12 string
Sierra E9/B6 14 string

Bob Smith · Post by **Bob Smith** » 13 Nov 2002 9:09 am

The 4TH Fish -Genentics, The great guys (and gals) are born with ability, and musical insight, that separates them from the general pool of players! From what i can see this comes to surface at an early age. I wholeheartedly agree with you post. Bob

Al Marcus · Post by **Al Marcus** » 13 Nov 2002 10:50 am

Great post! I can see a lot of good thinking on all of the posts.

Bob Smith brought up the 4th fish. Very true, some guys are blessed at an early age with special talents.

Reading notes is not all there is to it. Sure I could read notes since I was 9 years old. But it was not that important to me.

The only time I needed it was playing a song I never heard before or Big band arrangemenst.
They were usually the lead line with a chord symbol.
You had to know every note in the chord and where it is on the fretboard.

I had to read them. But otherwise if I hear the song, if I can whistle or sing it, I can play it on the steel guitar. Just plain lucky, I guess........al

Kenny Dail · Post by **Kenny Dail** » 13 Nov 2002 1:23 pm

It doesn't matter how many "fish" you study or use, the way you use it is what counts. In other words, it isn't what you say that counts but, the way you say it. Can anybody put their feelings or "soul" on paper?

------------------
kd...and the beat goes on...

Roger Rettig · Post by **Roger Rettig** » 13 Nov 2002 3:43 pm

Isn't this discussion about the benefits of having a greater understanding of theory, and maybe a grasp of elementary reading?

OF COURSE making music is primarily about heart, soul, imagination and originality - I'm trying vainly to suggest that there's always room for improvement, whoever you are, and that taking a formal approach to one's studies couldn't possibly hurt!

Mike, I think your meaning in the original post was perfectly clear.

I'm pretty sure that Chet Atkins' line about "...Not enough to hurt my playing!" was uttered with his tongue firmly in his cheek....

------------------
Roger Rettig

Eric West · Post by **Eric West** » 13 Nov 2002 5:31 pm

I think you might have missed the largest Fish.

Determination.

You can have all three of the fish you mention and not "make it".

You have to be able to play what you know you want to play, know you should play, and know you can play in the face of things you'll never face in an enviroment that will allow all your fish to swim perfectly.

You'll need to ignore an entire rythym section. A terminally out of tune Yamaha or Helpenstil piano. A rythmically and pitch challenged vocalist. You'll have to play half your intro in total darkness. Add to that, emotional badgering, poverty, fear, and a dozen other devils that never bother a person whose Three Fish swim perfectly in the bowl with BIAB.

Then after you learn how to "fight", you learn how to passively, or should I say calmly control as much of your "band environment" as you can.

I believe the Big Fish, the First Fish, is Determination.

People will look at it and say it looks like Patience. They'll say it looks like Dedication. They'll say it looks like Talent. They'll say it looks like Confidence. They will say it looks like Musical Proficiency, or possibly Technical Ability. Maybe even Artistry.

Only if your First Fish is really

DETERMINATION.

At least that's my take on it.

------------------
EJL63FLH
'78 Pro III Sho-Bud
'63FLH 90"Stroker
'80 Gold Wing
-Peavey: When it's *not* about "The Sound"-
"You can Smart Yourself Dumb.
Why Can't you Dumb yourself Smart?"-Me
"There are only so many ways to fry cat food."- Buster
"At my age, sometimes I run out of Adrenaline, but I've still got plenty of Gall.." -Me-
[This message was edited by Eric West on 13 November 2002 at 05:32 PM.][This message was edited by Eric West on 13 November 2002 at 05:35 PM.]

Ken Lang · Post by **Ken Lang** » 14 Nov 2002 9:13 pm

If someone says, "Here is a new song we need to learn, tell me what you think" and hands you the sheet music, which response might be better and more satisfying on your part?

1. You take the sheet, read the notes and play the song.

2. You say, "Um, could you play it for me?"

Eric West · Post by **Eric West** » 14 Nov 2002 10:48 pm

You know, I feel rather stupid after re-reading the last part of your post.

I do maintain though that it is Determination that will get you all three.

You first have to be able to ACCURATELY remember what you hear.

I used to spend most of my hours with Bud Charleton in lessons trying to play back to him the last five or six notes that I just heard. That's mainly why the lessons were taped. Much like peoples' memory at a "crime scene" it is faulty beyond belief. It's embarrassing to listen to them, even today.

That part definitely needs to be honed.

It's a VERY deceptive part of the game.

Technique is just as demanding. Learning to cross over and block after EVERY NOTE. not just playing something that "sounds like" what you *think* you heard.

I've heard it said and said it a hundred times. Unless you can play something exactly like somebody else does, you will never be able to differentiate YOUR style of playing.

I liked watching and hearing Mr Charleton sit and painstakingly reproduce a lick that Mr Emmons played. For Hours. Now I know why he used to do it.

Reading Sheet music:

I took a couple years of music in a local Comm College. I wrote out all kinds of things. I wrote sliding glissandos, sliding triads with raise lower changes on the way, trills, "muted" percussive , pizzicato, ( which I use for rythym chunking,) and all kinds of stuff.

Sorry to say, it would mean almost nothing to any other steel player, except on a "hit or miss" basis. Oh, you could recognize a major scale I suppose, and maybe as in Guitar notation use a "position notation", but it would get really complicated unless you somehow "color coded" or established other parameters for which strings, pedal/lever groups, etc.

Tablature seems to be the tried and true method that has evolved. I don't think it is real easy to sight read though, and time signatures pose a unique problem. That's why it "must" be accompanied by a recording for the most part.

A piano is the perfect sight reading instrument. Only ONE place to hit any note. With a guitar it is more dificult, adding, what, a half dozen. Many more with a Steel.

Also, when I studied Classical Guitar in High School, I used the "Carcassi Method". Ever increasingly difficult songs.I learned muh faster than most. My Teacher, in the second year of my studies asked me how my "sight reading was doing" I said fine, and asked which piece he wanted me to play. At that, he plopped down a Fernando Sor sheet. Simple enough, except I COULDN'T PLAY IT. I had merely memorized all my lessons and used the sheet music, which I indeed could decipher, as a memory aid. That's NOT reading Music.

I suppose Mr Emmons could write music that Mr Franklin could play, but I doubt if it would be a very complicated piece, before Paul asked Buddy whether say he slanted the bar for the counterpoint sections of "At E's" or whether he used the major seventh pedals.

I would think that a good working knowledge of the Circle of Fifths is basic. Also being able to INSTANTLY relay to another musician The Key of any song by holding up fingers for the nuber of sharps or flats. I.E. four fingers for E, Three for A two for D one down for F, 2 Down for Bb Etc. Maybe most bands dont know this, but it's a good one to practice in case you can't hear or be heard yelling "DOG" or "BOY".

I liked Tony Tedescos series he used to run in Guitar Player about writing and reading parts.

Other than that, it is, like I said, IMHO, Determination.

Also, playing in front of an audience is the best way to drill any lick into your head. I dunno why. I try my best to think up even ONE lick I haven't played in a while, or a trill I'd like to try, and then actually do it in a song.

Also with the "theory" part, some progression you'd like to try substituting things on. Parts of a harmonised scale that would fit over the verse of "Rocky Top".

I do reccommend asking older players what they think of things as.

I spent many a break asking Don West just how he framed a run up the neck or a bunch of ascending triplets over a chord progression. Sometimes he didn't express it in chord function, notes, or "theory", he just showed me what he did. He'd laugh sometimes, and say "Hell, I don't know what you'd call it." Those ones were the best of all.

I think the Steel defies a lot of categorization, and sometimes "fly specs" would be nice, but I don't think they'd be of much help on a screaming slide up to the 5 chord. Also it's be kind of hard to dot all those 16th notes on the Bakersfield stuff.

I don't regret in the least that it doesn't make more rational sense. That doesn't stop me from trying to make some sense out of it tho..

Nor should it stop you.

Be Determined.

Swim On.

------------------
EJL63FLH
'78 Pro III Sho-Bud
'63FLH 90"Stroker
'80 Gold Wing
-Peavey: When it's *not* about "The Sound"-
"You can Smart Yourself Dumb.
Why Can't you Dumb yourself Smart?"-Me
"There are only so many ways to fry cat food."- Buster
"At my age, sometimes I run out of Adrenaline, but I've still got plenty of Gall.." -Me-
[This message was edited by Eric West on 14 November 2002 at 10:55 PM.]