Larrivee Guitar Forum

Main Forums => Technical Discussion => Topic started by: ST on July 02, 2013, 10:33:31 PM



Title: Generalizations about Guitars
Post by: ST on July 02, 2013, 10:33:31 PM
Reading through posts here it is really easy to find generalizations about body styles and tonewoods. And like the internet, this forum is like an echo chamber.

The more guitars I have, the more convinced I am that the generalizations are meaningless. Attempts to describe tone are futile attempts to put words to sounds that we all perceive through our own uniquely imperfect lenses.



Title: Re: Generalizations about Guitars
Post by: tuffythepug on July 02, 2013, 11:26:37 PM
ST, I admit I am stumped when someone asks me to describe the the tone of a particular guitar or how one guitar's tone differs from another one.   I can say that one has great sustain or is "loud" compared to another one but that's about as far as I'm prepared to go usually.


Title: Re: Generalizations about Guitars
Post by: ST on July 03, 2013, 02:03:09 AM
I think that it may be part of the human condition to seek to describe, qualify, quantify, and justify differences particularly when the differences are small and when talking to others. But all of that talking means nothing when actually playing.


Title: Re: Generalizations about Guitars
Post by: Barefoot Rob on July 03, 2013, 03:32:07 AM
All descriptions of tone are just one person's opinion.General discriptions are about the best anyone can do.Larrivee's in mahogany are different sounding from Martin,Gibson,Guild and so on.For me it boil's down too what it sound like to me.I was never a rosewood fan until Larrivee and as a maple fan I love my OM03PA which is maple ,yet an LS09FM I had just didn't do anything for me.


Title: Re: Generalizations about Guitars
Post by: Riverbend on July 03, 2013, 01:11:10 PM
Interesting subject here. My feelings are similar and I would add that much of it comes down to language and expression, complicated by efforts to translate between the senses. We see, we hear, we feel, we try and speak of it, and it's colored mostly with nouns and verbs and adjectives and adverbs, depending on the individual's abilities with language and their very own unique perceptions. It often gives birth to some interesting metaphors and analogies, as well, as we humans seek to describe those perceptions. Comments often teeter between objective and subjective depending on the individual and their intentions and abilities with language. Guitars being the subject here, and that we try and relate how sound waves affect our unique ear mechanisms as being the authoritative and universal description, is silly. The sounds of my guitars are personal experiences. They may or may not sound the same way to someone else. As tuffythepug mentioned, volume is far more quantifiable than tone, and is much easier to characterize with language.
Bottom line: I don't pay a whole lot of attention to such things beyond what my own ears tell me.
And yes, I've had way too much coffee already this morning... :coffee :coffee :coffee :coffee  


Title: Re: Generalizations about Guitars
Post by: headsup on July 03, 2013, 01:50:29 PM
Interesting thread, I must be old, I can't be so objective about such matters.
Just yesterday, I brought home a C-05, primarily for the sole reason of it's  sweetness, and "sparkle" that none of my other non hog guitars have.
Am I missing something here?
 Are tone-woods and their inherent differences all to do with highly subjective rhetoric?


Title: Re: Generalizations about Guitars
Post by: Danny on July 03, 2013, 01:53:24 PM
      I think I better have another  :coffee


Title: Re: Generalizations about Guitars
Post by: Riverbend on July 03, 2013, 03:21:58 PM
My own comments weren't intended to deprive anyone of subjective license, that's part of what makes the world go 'round. But even my two ears hear things differently left and right, thank you tinnitus. I was just trying to express the individuality of the subjective rhetorical interpretation. Tonal qualities/tendencies of wood are what they are. What can get confusing is the applied language.


Title: Re: Generalizations about Guitars
Post by: Barefoot Rob on July 03, 2013, 03:25:26 PM
My own comments weren't intended to deprive anyone of subjective license, that's part of what makes the world go 'round. But even my two ears hear things differently left and right, thank you tinnitus. I was just trying to express the individuality of the subjective rhetorical interpretation. Tonal qualities/tendencies of wood are what they are. What can get confusing is the applied language.

I got what you were saying but I think you might need more coffee,I know I do. :coffee


Title: Re: Generalizations about Guitars
Post by: Riverbend on July 03, 2013, 04:50:35 PM
I've got a big bottle of beer waiting for me for consumption this evening after volunteering at our Community Dinner. And the brewer...
"Right Brain Brewery" of Traverse City, MI. This particular one is CEO Stout, made with real coffee beans. I'm not planning on trying to describe how it tastes... :whistling: :cheers


Title: Re: Generalizations about Guitars
Post by: jeremy3220 on July 03, 2013, 05:28:47 PM
Timbre is hard to describe with words however objective tonal generalizations of certain aspects of guitars do exist. Wood species have general characteristics that affect tone (stiffness, damping,etc) these properties can and have be measured.


Title: Re: Generalizations about Guitars
Post by: Three-Dz on July 06, 2013, 01:26:12 PM
I think it's all subjective! You can take any brand you choice Martin, Collings, Larrivee, etc.................. at your local guitar shop; same body style and tone woods and they will all sound a little different. Try 4 or 5 Martin dreads made with same woods and they will not all sound just alike! There are to many variables in the construction, strings, action and even the wood. If it plays good and sounds great to you, then that's what it's all about! :donut :donut :donut


Title: Re: Generalizations about Guitars
Post by: headsup on July 06, 2013, 02:42:22 PM
Technically timbre is defined by harmonic content - that's why you can usually tell an oboe (with a conical bore) from a clarinet (a cylindrical bore).

The parallels to guitar aren't strict, but they are there. Different body structures definitely affect harmonic resonances and frequency response. Within a given body shape, changes in tonewood tend to generate predictable changes in timbre.




I always thought I could tell the difference between and oboe and a clarinet because of the reed difference...


Title: Re: Generalizations about Guitars
Post by: headsup on July 06, 2013, 03:53:17 PM
Maybe some-one on this thread can help me.
 I almost started a new topic about this.

I recently acquired a 20 year old CS-05.
(pic below), my experience with mahogany guitars has been dubious at best. Always love the "sweetness" of tone, but always found something lacking in other aspects as far as live work.

In the past I have owned, and sold, a larrivee OMV-50, a Martin M3SC (Shawn Colvin), a couple Guilds, a 1953 J-50, as well as a 1941 Martin OM 18. (this is over 40 plus years of touring folks).

The current foray in to hog territory has me somewhat excited as to the actual depth and richness of tone my most recent acquisition has, compared to what was always lacking in previous mahogany guitars.
 Yes I concur, it could be a host of other things, including body size and style.

For the same reason, always looking for a nice Flame Maple guitar, has proved fruitless, (doesn't mean I'll stop looking).
having different tone woods and tonal response from acoustic guitars, to me, is as important as having different electric guitars and pick-up configurations, on the gig, in the studio, or just for the joy of it.

We're all different, we have different needs, perceptions, and budgets, AND, from my 50 years of playing, that too, is always changing...
Some of us, are always in search of the perfect holy grail of guitar.
Some of us find it, or think we do, but it can be fleeting, just look at the for sale forum.

My original question, was going to be around other's experience with mahogany guitars.
 And why, after my own lifetime of having them come and go, why this particular Larrivee guitar seems to have tone, depth and character none others have had, including the OMV-50.


Title: Re: Generalizations about Guitars
Post by: Riverbend on July 06, 2013, 05:40:53 PM
My own experience over the past 45 years of owning many different wooden stringed instruments has led me to believe that some guitars are simply "blessed" beyond the wood combinations. Going back to the tonal qualities of different woods, combined with body shapes and scale lengths, and every once in a while something magical happens beyond what we might expect. The wooden parts of a guitar, having at one time been living organisms, opens up a lot of possibilities for variation, even between similar species grown in different parts of the world. I've got a 40 year old cedar/mahogany classical guitar that's got a mojo like I've never heard in a cedar/hog nylon string guitar. Happy for you that you found a special sound you like. Sounds like you might be hanging on to this one, eh?


Title: Re: Generalizations about Guitars
Post by: ewalling on July 06, 2013, 06:16:21 PM
Some of you may have read that article that gets produced on acoustic guitar forums from time to time called something like "The Heretics' Guide to Tonewoods". The writer, a respected luthier himself, debunks what he calls the "tonewood myth", arguing that it's a bunch of marketing you-know-what, and that within the range of functionally suitable woods, differences largely come down to how easy they are to work with and how pretty they look. I really have little to say about that because when I like the tone of a guitar, I really have no way of knowing to what degrees the tonewoods and/or the construction created that sound. Does my Seagull Mini Jumbo have great trebles because the back and side woods are solid mahogany or because of the body shape or because of the internal structure? And if it's all three, what proportion of each produced the sweet ring it has?

It's a mystery to me!    :winkin:


Title: Re: Re: Generalizations about Guitars
Post by: Strings4Him on July 06, 2013, 07:09:27 PM
I think I recall reading that as a person ages, his ears prefer the quicker decay and less reverby sound of mahogany compared to rosewood.


Title: Re: Generalizations about Guitars
Post by: ewalling on July 06, 2013, 07:30:48 PM
Me too, and the realization that I spent my youth playing non-age appropriate guitars is a bitter pill to swallow!    :crying:


Title: Re: Generalizations about Guitars
Post by: ST on July 06, 2013, 07:58:25 PM
Hi ewalling,

Thanks for this.

The Heretic's Guide to Alternative Lutherie Woods, by John Calkin. (http://www.guitarnation.com/articles/calkin.htm)

Some of you may have read that article that gets produced on acoustic guitar forums from time to time called something like "The Heretics' Guide to Tonewoods". The writer, a respected luthier himself, debunks what he calls the "tonewood myth", arguing that it's a bunch of marketing you-know-what, and that within the range of functionally suitable woods, differences largely come down to how easy they are to work with and how pretty they look. I really have little to say about that because when I like the tone of a guitar, I really have no way of knowing to what degrees the tonewoods and/or the construction created that sound. Does my Seagull Mini Jumbo have great trebles because the back and side woods are solid mahogany or because of the body shape or because of the internal structure? And if it's all three, what proportion of each produced the sweet ring it has?

It's a mystery to me!    :winkin:


Title: Re: Generalizations about Guitars
Post by: ewalling on July 06, 2013, 08:24:30 PM
You're welcome, ST. It makes an interesting read, doesn't it?


Title: Re: Generalizations about Guitars
Post by: ST on July 06, 2013, 08:29:58 PM
Hi headsup,

...
My original question, was going to be around other's experience with mahogany guitars.
 And why, after my own lifetime of having them come and go, why this particular Larrivee guitar seems to have tone, depth and character none others have had, including the OMV-50.

Perhaps because generalizations are meaningless.


Title: Re: Generalizations about Guitars
Post by: jeremy3220 on July 07, 2013, 01:27:05 AM
Hi ewalling,

Thanks for this.

The Heretic's Guide to Alternative Lutherie Woods, by John Calkin. (http://www.guitarnation.com/articles/calkin.htm)


It's a really poor opinion piece. There's real information out there if you look.

This could be called The Scientist's Guide to Lutherie Woods.
Quote
The unique mechanical and acoustical properties of wood and its aesthetic appeal still make it the material of choice for musical instruments and the interior of concert halls. Worldwide, several hundred wood species are available for making wind, string, or percussion instruments. Over generations, first by trial and error and more recently by scientific approach, the most appropriate species were found for each instrument and application. Using material property charts on which acoustic properties such as the speed of sound, the characteristic impedance, the sound radiation coefficient, and the loss coefficient are plotted against one another for woods. We analyze and explain why spruce is the preferred choice for soundboards, why tropical species are favored for xylophone bars and woodwind instruments, why violinists still prefer pernambuco over other species as a bow material, and why hornbeam and birch are used in piano actions.
Max-Planck-Institut für Metallforschung, Heisenbergstr. 3, D-70569 Stuttgart, Germany; and Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Materials Sciences Division, Berkeley, California 94720 USA
http://www.amjbot.org/content/93/10/1439.full


Title: Re: Generalizations about Guitars
Post by: Barefoot Rob on July 07, 2013, 03:41:25 AM
Heads I'll just say that sometime's a guitar has a "Kinda Magic" and all you can do is go with it.


Title: Re: Re: Generalizations about Guitars
Post by: headsup on July 07, 2013, 04:15:55 AM
I think I recall reading that as a person ages, his ears prefer the quicker decay and less reverby sound of mahogany compared to rosewood.




um that's an interesting statement, if it wasn't preceded by "I think, I recall"
bringing age, and aging ears into the theory is pushing things into less objective, or even subjective turf.
 again you folks have baffled me.......
 what do i know, I get paid to play guitar, 4-5 times every week-end-some where in there I have a sonic brain that is fussier than most, and simply tries to make sense of the tonal properties of well made guitars- knowing full well, "it's all in the fingertips" .... :mad:


Title: Re: Generalizations about Guitars
Post by: ST on July 07, 2013, 04:51:25 AM
Just came across this - haven't had a chance to watch all of it - but it seems on topic.

Acoustic Addicts - comparing tonewoods (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UHbXJ69K8b0&feature=related)

Acoustic Addicts Episode #2 - The Martin Show


Title: Re: Generalizations about Guitars
Post by: Three-Dz on July 07, 2013, 11:46:52 AM
I totally agree with unclrob, some guitars have it and some don't. If you have one that does - KEEP IT, LOVE IT, PLAY IT !  :guitar


Title: Re: Generalizations about Guitars
Post by: Barefoot Rob on July 07, 2013, 04:15:52 PM
I totally agree with unclrob, some guitars have it and some don't. If you have one that does - KEEP IT, LOVE IT, PLAY IT !  :guitar



 :+1:

I was never a rosewood fan and now my main guitar is an LS10,its backup is an OM03PA which is a maple. :?


Title: Re: Re: Generalizations about Guitars
Post by: Strings4Him on July 07, 2013, 07:05:20 PM



um that's an interesting statement, if it wasn't preceded by "I think, I recall"
bringing age, and aging ears into the theory is pushing things into less objective, or even subjective turf.
 again you folks have baffled me.......
 what do i know, I get paid to play guitar, 4-5 times every week-end-some where in there I have a sonic brain that is fussier than most, and simply tries to make sense of the tonal properties of well made guitars- knowing full well, "it's all in the fingertips" .... :mad:

Here's the link where I read this statement.  Personally, I never met a tonewood I did not like--as long as the wood is part of a well-made guitar.  A well-made guitar played by someone skilled on the instrument will generally sound good  :winkin:

http://www.acousticguitarforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=296475



Title: Re: Re: Generalizations about Guitars
Post by: ducktrapper on July 07, 2013, 07:34:56 PM
Here's the link where I read this statement.  Personally, I never met a tonewood I did not like--as long as the wood is part of a well-made guitar.  A well-made guitar played by someone skilled on the instrument will generally sound good  :winkin:

http://www.acousticguitarforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=296475



 :thumb


Title: Re: Generalizations about Guitars
Post by: ST on July 07, 2013, 08:11:00 PM
More writing on the subject
Tapping Tonewoods by Dana Bourgeois (http://www.pantheonguitars.com/tonewoods.htm)


Title: Re: Generalizations about Guitars
Post by: rockstar_not on July 16, 2013, 05:29:18 PM
Great thread.

There are ways to tie subjective terminology, to objective measures of sound.  This was my job for nearly 15 years in the automotive industry, tying objective measures of sound to what people called 'powerful', 'luxurious', 'smooth', 'rough', 'sporty' etc. for powertrain sound, and 'solid', 'cheap', 'safe', etc. for door closing and other compartment closure sounds.  The science exists.  It is a little bit fuzzy, but less so than one would imagine.  There are sound analysis techniques which can be mapped to the subjective terms (those terms that had good general agreement amongst test persons) with enough precision that for some subjective terms, you can specify what quantity of quality 'x' is needed for a product, and go design the product to that specification.

Here's the difficulty in applying it to musical instruments:  In the automotive world, we had standardized test operating conditions which were repeatable.  I can drive a Camaro SS in a Wide-Open-Throttle acceleration, time and again in a similar fashion and have a smile on my face while doing that!  I can then hop into a Mustang GT and do the same and drive that the same pretty much time and again, and have a smile again.  I can train someone to drive it in such a fashion and the resulting sound is going to be very similar for the both of us driving the vehicle.

Try playing 'Sweet Baby James' the same way amongst different players, or even the same player the same way time and again.  Much more difficult task.

When I met Jean L. in Oxnard on a very lucky chance when he was there on a Saturday, we got a great tour from him.  At the end of the tour, I basically offered to come work for him, at least on a consulting basis, to do what I was doing in the automotive industry, for Larrivée guitars.  His short answer was something along the lines of: " If that could be done, someone would be doing it already."

Here's what you can do - you can train people to hear certain timbres that are 'signatures' for some electric guitar/amp combinations.  For example, if I say to you - imagine the sound of a bolt-on neck guitar, with 3 single coil pickups in their classic locations, with pickup selector in the neck-middle position, played into a Fender Twin Reverb with very little overdrive - any of you that are electric guitar fans can hear that sound in your head.  It's got a characteristic round-yet-thin 'Strat' timbre, no matter what type of wood is used in the body, and no matter what single-coil pickups are used, so long as they are functioning, and all other factors are held constant.

I recall the experience I had listening blind to Larrivée endorsee, and 2002 Winfield winner John Standefer playing my L-03 (spruce top, some type of hog sides and back) back to back with the killer L-10 he has with rosewood back and sides, bling all over.  He played the same song, switching back and forth between guitars (his action was set lower than mine) and I swear I could barely hear any difference at all.  Both of us had new strings, but mine were Elixirs and his something else.  His buzzed ever so lightly more than mine.  I was listening hard to hear tonal differences, but the thing which stood out the most was fret buzz, and just a slight difference there.

-Scott



Title: Re: Generalizations about Guitars
Post by: ST on July 16, 2013, 11:47:40 PM
Hi Scott,

Thanks for adding your interesting (and likely unique) perspect here.

I'd like to provide a little insight into the motive for the lead post.

I was hosting an event and quite unusual for me, this was to be an all acoustic (no amplifiers or PA) event.  Just voices and guitars and unfortunately as it turned out, some hand-percussion.
   
The room is about 2500 square feet with a vaulted ceiling that rises up about 25 feet. The room is quite reverberant.

In preparation for this I pulled out several guitars and asked a volunteer tell me which was the loudest. She sat about 15 feet from me, listening, not watching.
   
At one point she said, "that one's louder, but it's because you are playing it harder". To my surprise, I realized that she was right.

For the rest, her comments were basically,

"They all sound about the same"

"That one (the Martin D41) is loudest, but I don't like it as much as the others".

She was able to tell (without looking) that the Taylors were Taylors. The Martin was different from the others.

She also said that all the Larrivées & the Morgan sounded so similar that there was no reason to choose one over another.  She singled out the OMV-KK (all Koa) as sounding slightly but noticeably different from the rest.

So here's the thing... between all the guitars I had a jumbo, couple of dreadnaughts, L bodies, an OM, an LS, different tonewoods, different tops.


My volunteer does not play guitar, but is an avid listener. I am certain that she has spent more time listening intently to acoustic guitar music than I have.

She was far enough away that she could probably not hear the sound as I was hearing it while playing. But I think she was hearing the sound in much the way anyone would hear it in an acoustic environment several feet in front of it.

At the end of the exercise, she asked me simply, "Why do you have so many guitars that sound the same?"





Title: Re: Generalizations about Guitars
Post by: Danny on July 16, 2013, 11:55:41 PM
        At the end of the exercise, she asked me simply, "Why do you have so many guitars that sound the same?"



                                      That is the question it seems.


Title: Re: Generalizations about Guitars
Post by: flatlander on July 17, 2013, 12:02:37 AM
Technically timbre is defined by harmonic content - that's why you can usually tell an oboe (with a conical bore) from a clarinet (a cylindrical bore).

The parallels to guitar aren't strict, but they are there. Different body structures definitely affect harmonic resonances and frequency response. Within a given body shape, changes in tonewood tend to generate predictable changes in timbre.
I think this best sums up my thoughts on it. Yes the woods make a difference but until you put the guitars properties together in their entirety, you can't just say Hog gonna do this, Rosewood that etc. All parts work together, Wood, Braces, Bridge, Saddle, density of neck, headstock, all of it. I do think some can describe accurately, High-, volume and sustain. Beyond that can get mushy.


Title: Re: Generalizations about Guitars
Post by: flatlander on July 17, 2013, 12:07:33 AM
        At the end of the exercise, she asked me simply, "Why do you have so many guitars that sound the same?"



                                      That is the question it seems.
Well I will say I have 3 Flattop acoustics and they definitely sound different. L-10, 000-60 and Gallagher Dread.


Title: Re: Generalizations about Guitars
Post by: Riverbend on July 17, 2013, 01:52:04 AM
Played at a gathering tonight with several different guitars, as well as two fiddles, a stand up bass and a mountain dulcimer. Lots of fun and many different sounds. The guitars, though not all playing at the same time, were 2 Martin dreads, 1 Collings dread, 1 Epiphone dread and a Washburn dread. One particular tune had me playing between the Collings and one of the Martins. I couldn't tell them apart, really, both sounded nice but certainly different than my LV-03 with rosewood and Italian spruce. I wouldn't have traded either one (both spruce over rosewood, by the way) for mine, but I am somewhat prejudiced these days. The other guitars didn't come close. I only offer this up because they were so different sounding and it's very fresh in my mind as I just got home from two hours of playing in this mix.   


Title: Re: Generalizations about Guitars
Post by: flatlander on July 17, 2013, 12:12:03 PM
Bluegrass dread city. When I'm in that kinda of jam, if no one else is doing it, I'll play up the neck to separate. Maybe add some mandolin chop if not a mando there.


Title: Re: Generalizations about Guitars
Post by: sutton on July 24, 2013, 06:33:52 PM
Guitars can sound different on different days, and can vary with what kind of pick you're using,  and your strings...I've been playing acoustic for almost 50 years and wouldn't know how to describe how "it" sounds.  My Larrivees always sound "good"  sometimes "great"


Title: Re: Generalizations about Guitars
Post by: headsup on July 27, 2013, 06:14:58 AM
Wonderful reading here.
 we could all just cut to the chase and simply state the obvious.

 Ok everybody,

 ah ONE

 ah TWO

ah THREE  and

all together now!

MY GUITAR IS THE BEST SOUNDING GUITAR IN THE ROOM!!!


 Damn that felt GOOD!!!


Title: Re: Generalizations about Guitars
Post by: hadden on July 27, 2013, 12:52:14 PM
I've always worn a tin foil hat when playing. My guitars have changed and like a dummy I realized all this time I've added another variable to account for.


Title: Re: Generalizations about Guitars
Post by: SMixon on September 13, 2013, 02:57:04 PM
Anyone think the descriptive word "organic" is overused when describing tone? :mad:
Everyone now says " oh it's got a very organic sound". 
Really...... Thanks I think I'll stick to food being organic.......(smart remark ended)


Title: Re: Generalizations about Guitars
Post by: Queequeg on September 13, 2013, 03:17:36 PM
And mahogany sounds "woody".
mmkay.

And I just coundn't make this up. But the corksniffers have moved into the bottled water arena, using these descripters:


 A water taster's glossary

There are many words to describe the taste of water! Discover below a selection that will give you a taste of water...

Crisp
Gentle
Smooth
Soft *
Refreshing
Well-balanced *

Round *
Lively
Rejuvenating
Sweet *
Savory
Decisive

Intense
Rich
Expressive *
Invigorating
Structured *
Consistent

Appetizing
Subtle
Lively
Fresh *
Tickling
Prickling

Intense
Fresh *
Reviving
Energizing
Delicate
Harmonious

Bold *
Fleshy
Voluptuous
Explosive
Peppery
Prickling



(If my water tasted intense or explosive or prickling I am pretty sure I would set it down and dial 911.)


Title: Re: Generalizations about Guitars
Post by: Danny on September 13, 2013, 04:03:01 PM
 :roll


Title: Re: Generalizations about Guitars
Post by: tuffythepug on September 13, 2013, 04:59:15 PM
And mahogany sounds "woody".
mmkay.

And I just coundn't make this up. But the corksniffers have moved into the bottled water arena, using these descripters:


 A water taster's glossary

There are many words to describe the taste of water! Discover below a selection that will give you a taste of water...

Crisp
Gentle
Smooth
Soft *
Refreshing
Well-balanced *

Round *
Lively
Rejuvenating
Sweet *
Savory
Decisive

Intense
Rich
Expressive *
Invigorating
Structured *
Consistent

Appetizing
Subtle
Lively
Fresh *
Tickling
Prickling

Intense
Fresh *
Reviving
Energizing
Delicate
Harmonious

Bold *
Fleshy
Voluptuous
Explosive
Peppery
Prickling



(If my water tasted intense or explosive or prickling I am pretty sure I would set it down and dial 911.)



How about just, you know...    Wet ?


Title: Re: Generalizations about Guitars
Post by: Barefoot Rob on September 13, 2013, 06:41:44 PM
Lynn you forgot better then sex. :beer


Title: Re: Generalizations about Guitars
Post by: SMixon on September 17, 2013, 06:12:51 PM
I love that "organic" tasting water :roll