I am a non musician, I watch and listen to my DVD's, attend concerts, and listen to my CD's, and to my ear the Stones sound nothing short of fantastic, I am never disappointed. That being said, I wouldn't recognize good playing from bad playing, or great playing from mediocre playing, etc., etc., so when I hear many on this list question Keith's playing ability I really have no clue as to whether their analysis of his playing is valid, or invalid. With that in mind would you please be so kind to take the time to answer the following questions I have prepared as I would very much appreciate your input on this subject. I am here to learn, not challenge.

#1. What exactly did Keith mean on the 'Shine A Light' DVD when he said that both he and Ronnie were lousy guitar players, but together they were better than ten others?

#2. What specifically has changed with Keith's guitar playing over the last five to ten years? Do you feel his playing has declined significantly during this time frame? If so, do you feel his playing is significantly affecting the overall performance of the band?

#3. How much of a factor is his arthritis in his overall playing ability?

#4. What advice (if any) would you give him to improve his playing at this late stage of his career?

#5. What are your plans as far as attending future concerts, or purchasing a new album, as it relates to his playing?

#6. What exactly would you like to see him do? Continue with the band? Retire? Take a lesser role with the band?

#3 It's not his hands it's his brain.

#6. An even lesser role on stage would kill the band...they need to be more guitar driven...and they definitely need less Leavell...

#1 I think he means that him and Ron aren't virtuosos(technically limited) but
when both of them play together, they sound better than a lot of other guitar players.
#2 I believe that during some of the shows(2007) he did after he injured his head, he seemed to have some troubles on stage. Now because he is older he doesn't have the amount of energy that he used to have which may influence the way he sounds.
#3 I have no answer for that one.
#4. Rest, which I believe he has. Less alchool, less drugs.
#5 My plans are and remain the same: I buy the stuff.
#6. I wish that Keith plays his guitars, get rid of the rust. I wish that he writes new songs and that he does more backing vocals while Mick sings lead.I also wish him the best of everything.
Rock and Roll,
Mops

Quote
stones78
#6. An even lesser role on stage would kill the band...they need to be more guitar driven...and they definitely need less Leavell...

So how do they go about achieving what you have suggested here? Please explain further?

Quote
More Hot Rocks
#3 It's not his hands it's his brain.

His memory? Not able to remember his guitar parts? Please explain.

#1 Both of 'em aren't the fast, virtuoso, fancy chords kinda guitarists.
they weave their playing between them like no others can.

only guitar players can answer these questions? so not fair....

Quote
rollmops
#1 I think he means that him and Ron aren't virtuosos(technically limited) but
when both of them play together, they sound better than a lot of other guitar players.
#2 I believe that during some of the shows(2007) he did after he injured his head, he seemed to have some troubles on stage. Now because he is older he doesn't have the amount of energy that he used to have which may influence the way he sounds.
#3 I have no answer for that one.
#4. Rest, which I believe he has. Less alchool, less drugs.
#5 My plans are and remain the same: I buy the stuff.
#6. I wish that Keith plays his guitars, get rid of the rust. I wish that he writes new songs and that he does more backing vocals while Mick sings lead.I also wish him the best of everything.
Rock and Roll,
Mops

My brother (a former bass player) answered #1 almost exactly the same (just about word for word) as your reply. Thanks for the input.

Quote
StonesTod
only guitar players can answer these questions? so not fair....

No problem, we set the rules, we can bend them a little bit.

Quote
open-g
#1 Both of 'em aren't the fast, virtuoso, fancy chords kinda guitarists.
they weave their playing between them like no others can.

So would this style of play (I am assuming the ancient art of weaving style) tend to cover up any individual mistakes? For example if Keith messed up, would Ronnie's playing cover up the mistake?

Quote
stonescrow
I am a non musician, I watch and listen to my DVD's, attend concerts, and listen to my CD's, and to my ear the Stones sound nothing short of fantastic, I am never disappointed. That being said, I wouldn't recognize good playing from bad playing, or great playing from mediocre playing, etc., etc., so when I hear many on this list question Keith's playing ability I really have no clue as to whether their analysis of his playing is valid, or invalid. With that in mind would you please be so kind to take the time to answer the following questions I have prepared as I would very much appreciate your input on this subject. I am here to learn, not challenge.

#1. What exactly did Keith mean on the 'Shine A Light' DVD when he said that both he and Ronnie were lousy guitar players, but together they were better than ten others?

not sure exactly, but it's probable it's like others have said here...talkin' technique-wise, they pretty much suck...but it's like hound dog taylor opined about his own playing: "i can't play shit, but i can sure make it sound good."

#2. What specifically has changed with Keith's guitar playing over the last five to ten years? Do you feel his playing has declined significantly during this time frame? If so, do you feel his playing is significantly affecting the overall performance of the band?

he's lost his dexterity which has severely impacted his ability to play some of the simple figures that he played easily for years. his playing took a bigtime nosedive between the '99 and '02 tours, and then another precipitous drop between '03 and '05...anyone paying a scintilla of attention should have noticed. and yes, his chops-dropoff had a big impact on the band in several ways...among them, which songs they chose to play, especially covers.

#3. How much of a factor is his arthritis in his overall playing ability?

probably much more significant than his head injury - given that the decline pre-dated his fall.

#4. What advice (if any) would you give him to improve his playing at this late stage of his career?

practice would be the expected response, but playing would also aggravate his condition, so he's basically in a no-win sitch.

#5. What are your plans as far as attending future concerts, or purchasing a new album, as it relates to his playing?

don't expect to pay money to see them anymore, like many others. hard to watch one of your heroes in a state like this. i'm sure it's no fun for him nor the band, either.... album? if it's any good, maybe - and whether it is or not is not completely dependent on his playing ability....

#6. What exactly would you like to see him do? Continue with the band? Retire? Take a lesser role with the band?

i'd like to see him in 1972....but i'm not holding my breath....

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-11-26 22:04 by StonesTod.

Quote
stonescrow

Quote
stones78
#6. An even lesser role on stage would kill the band...they need to be more guitar driven...and they definitely need less Leavell...

So how do they go about achieving what you have suggested here? Please explain further?

Well..they should put more focus on the guitars...not so much 5 horns and Chuck being the "musical director" and all the backing vocals..sort of like the B-stage but for the whole show...of course they'll never do that.

Quote
stonescrow

Quote
More Hot Rocks
#3 It's not his hands it's his brain.

His memory? Not able to remember his guitar parts? Please explain.

How can anyone play an entire solo in the wrong key after playing the same songs for decades. It's like not remembering a family members name. Alcohol and drugs effect your body and also damage your brain. yeah i sound like an anti drug commercial but it's true. Keith should never play a lead again. let Ronnie play all of them. (or maybe Wady W...hint hint)

Quote
StonesTod

Quote
stonescrow
I am a non musician, I watch and listen to my DVD's, attend concerts, and listen to my CD's, and to my ear the Stones sound nothing short of fantastic, I am never disappointed. That being said, I wouldn't recognize good playing from bad playing, or great playing from mediocre playing, etc., etc., so when I hear many on this list question Keith's playing ability I really have no clue as to whether their analysis of his playing is valid, or invalid. With that in mind would you please be so kind to take the time to answer the following questions I have prepared as I would very much appreciate your input on this subject. I am here to learn, not challenge.

#1. What exactly did Keith mean on the 'Shine A Light' DVD when he said that both he and Ronnie were lousy guitar players, but together they were better than ten others?

not sure exactly, but it's probable it's like others have said here...talkin' technique-wise, they pretty much suck...but it's like hound dog taylor opined about his own playing: "i can't play shit, but i can sure make it sound good."

#2. What specifically has changed with Keith's guitar playing over the last five to ten years? Do you feel his playing has declined significantly during this time frame? If so, do you feel his playing is significantly affecting the overall performance of the band?

he's lost his dexterity which has severely impacted his ability to play some of the simple figures that he played easily for years. his playing took a bigtime nosedive between the '99 and '02 tours, and then another precipitous drop between '03 and '05...anyone paying a scintilla of attention should have noticed. and yes, his chops-dropoff had a big impact on the band in several ways...among them, which songs they chose to play, especially covers.

#3. How much of a factor is his arthritis in his overall playing ability?

probably much more significant than his head injury - given that the decline pre-dated his fall.

#4. What advice (if any) would you give him to improve his playing at this late stage of his career?

practice would be the expected response, but playing would also aggravate his condition, so he's basically in a no-win sitch.

#5. What are your plans as far as attending future concerts, or purchasing a new album, as it relates to his playing?

don't expect to pay money to see them anymore, like many others. hard to watch one of your heroes in a state like this. i'm sure it's no fun for him nor the band, either.... album? if it's any good, maybe - and whether it is or not is not completely dependent on his playing ability....

#6. What exactly would you like to see him do? Continue with the band? Retire? Take a lesser role with the band?

i'd like to see him in 1972....but i'm not holding my breath....

Thanks for the input, fascinating responses. I just have one further question. Do you think his decline is pretty much normal for guitarists his age?

Quote
More Hot Rocks

Quote
stonescrow

Quote
More Hot Rocks
#3 It's not his hands it's his brain.

His memory? Not able to remember his guitar parts? Please explain.

How can anyone play an entire solo in the wrong key after playing the same songs for decades. It's like not remembering a family members name. Alcohol and drugs effect your body and also damage your brain. yeah i sound like an anti drug commercial but it's true. Keith should never play a lead again. let Ronnie play all of them. (or maybe Wady W...hint hint)

Does his decline absolutely kill it for you in regards to ever being able to enjoy the band anymore or is it just too much to overcome?

Quote
stones78

Quote
stonescrow

Quote
stones78
#6. An even lesser role on stage would kill the band...they need to be more guitar driven...and they definitely need less Leavell...

So how do they go about achieving what you have suggested here? Please explain further?

Well..they should put more focus on the guitars...not so much 5 horns and Chuck being the "musical director" and all the backing vocals..sort of like the B-stage but for the whole show...of course they'll never do that.

But is Keith up to the task if they did put more focus on the guitars or would they have to bring in someone like Mick Taylor to pull it off?

#1.
Roolmops answered that one wery well. The thing is that Keith's playing is absolutely unique. First his sence of timing, second his extensive use of open-G tuning. Not that he would invent it, not at all, but he built an absolutely unique and recognisable style around it. When you hear a song, you can usually recognise Keith's playing after the first bar (you don't have to be a guitarplayer to hear that, right?). And it has nothing to do with technique, speed or anything like that, it is all about feeling. And Ronnie? He just fits in. It is simple as that for me.

#2.
Keith has always had on and off nights. I think we all somehow romanticize the golden period of the first half of the seventies, but I believe he had worse nights back then too. If I should be perfectly honest, I also think that his playing had declined a bit, but no way in the extent that is often suggested here. I think it is mostly caused by the fact that Keith is getting older, which is somehow natural, right? :-). I would only point out the year 2007, where the "decline" was more obvious, especially during some shows, but there were objective reasons connected with his head-injury, taking medicaments... Won't go into details, there are threads about this subject here.

#3. Only Keith can tell. It has been discussed here quite recently and someone posted the name of the actual desease of Keith's knuckles. If that was correct, then the desease progresses only to certain point, then it is stabilised. The pain gets better then. It was suggested, that Keith has probably reached that stage. But take it as a speculation, please, I know pretty much nothing about it.

#4. Hmm...I think about his interview for New York Public Library, I will repeat what I wrote in that topic - Keith appears to behave slightly differently than what we were used to. Much more focussed, not "acting as Keith," but rather naturaly as an aging man who has been through a lot and who wants to share what he has learned...I really liked the interview and the way Keith spoke. I hope he will apply that approach to his playing. It seems to me like a good direction to go

#5. We are lucky that we live in the times when we can go and see the Rolling Stones live.

#6. The good thing is that the music of The Stones is deeply rooted in blues. That kind of music can be played at any age (look at B.B. King - I saw him the last year, when he was 84 and the music was perfect), so I hope that Keith will hold to what he said once, that he will play as long as there will be anybody who would listen. Then he will sit on the stairs in his backyard and play for himself...

2] This is ofcourse linked with the arthritis, in that condition your hands needs rest not the stress of trying the impossible. It is all just to much for him, at least that is what i see when he is walking up to Charlie again standing with his back to the audience as if he is trying to squeeze energy out of Charlie towards his tired and unwilling hands, or if Darryll subtlely nods at him whilest showing the speed and chords to be played, as if Darryll tries to pull Keith through the song. and yes ofcourse that effects the whole bands performance, that's why the back-up team is needed to cover it up, or fill in the sound. If you actually look and listen to what Keef actually plays you'll notice that he mostly only strikes just a few chords on most songs, that's it, if more it becomes painfully obvious that his hands can't keep it up anymore.

6] Well i guess you know what i'll say, he should retire, and give his hands who have served him so well a deserved rest from the stress of those nasty tide metal strings. And give the remaining Stones with a new guitarplayer (Taylor if he could, but that's doubtfull) his blessings for a final album and farewell tour. A last album and tour of a band with this name should not be with worrie and agony over playing in the wrong key again or in the wrong tempo. It should be a delight to watch and listen to. And it should end with a final album and tour that will write history, and not just fading away, that great name deserves a better ending.

Quote
stonescrow

Quote
StonesTod

Quote
stonescrow
I am a non musician, I watch and listen to my DVD's, attend concerts, and listen to my CD's, and to my ear the Stones sound nothing short of fantastic, I am never disappointed. That being said, I wouldn't recognize good playing from bad playing, or great playing from mediocre playing, etc., etc., so when I hear many on this list question Keith's playing ability I really have no clue as to whether their analysis of his playing is valid, or invalid. With that in mind would you please be so kind to take the time to answer the following questions I have prepared as I would very much appreciate your input on this subject. I am here to learn, not challenge.

#1. What exactly did Keith mean on the 'Shine A Light' DVD when he said that both he and Ronnie were lousy guitar players, but together they were better than ten others?

not sure exactly, but it's probable it's like others have said here...talkin' technique-wise, they pretty much suck...but it's like hound dog taylor opined about his own playing: "i can't play shit, but i can sure make it sound good."

#2. What specifically has changed with Keith's guitar playing over the last five to ten years? Do you feel his playing has declined significantly during this time frame? If so, do you feel his playing is significantly affecting the overall performance of the band?

he's lost his dexterity which has severely impacted his ability to play some of the simple figures that he played easily for years. his playing took a bigtime nosedive between the '99 and '02 tours, and then another precipitous drop between '03 and '05...anyone paying a scintilla of attention should have noticed. and yes, his chops-dropoff had a big impact on the band in several ways...among them, which songs they chose to play, especially covers.

#3. How much of a factor is his arthritis in his overall playing ability?

probably much more significant than his head injury - given that the decline pre-dated his fall.

#4. What advice (if any) would you give him to improve his playing at this late stage of his career?

practice would be the expected response, but playing would also aggravate his condition, so he's basically in a no-win sitch.

#5. What are your plans as far as attending future concerts, or purchasing a new album, as it relates to his playing?

don't expect to pay money to see them anymore, like many others. hard to watch one of your heroes in a state like this. i'm sure it's no fun for him nor the band, either.... album? if it's any good, maybe - and whether it is or not is not completely dependent on his playing ability....

#6. What exactly would you like to see him do? Continue with the band? Retire? Take a lesser role with the band?

i'd like to see him in 1972....but i'm not holding my breath....

Thanks for the input, fascinating responses. I just have one further question. Do you think his decline is pretty much normal for guitarists his age?

i do not. there are countless guitarists of a similar age who've showed no such decline.

Quote
stonescrow

Quote
stones78

Quote
stonescrow

Quote
stones78
#6. An even lesser role on stage would kill the band...they need to be more guitar driven...and they definitely need less Leavell...

So how do they go about achieving what you have suggested here? Please explain further?

Well..they should put more focus on the guitars...not so much 5 horns and Chuck being the "musical director" and all the backing vocals..sort of like the B-stage but for the whole show...of course they'll never do that.

But is Keith up to the task if they did put more focus on the guitars or would they have to bring in someone like Mick Taylor to pull it off?

No, sadly I don't Keith is up to the task anymore...I don't know if bringing Mick Taylor would be useful...probably yes, with Ron Wood playing Keith's parts...but I don't think this is even remotely possible to happen.

Heberden's nodes is what you are wondering about and it is a form of arthritis. I have it too but nothing like Keith.

And it does hurt to play guitar with it, it can hurt to play guitar with it and, surprise surprise, it hurts less to not at all if one does not drink alcohol the day of a gig yet alone during a gig.

It got so bad for me that I'd have to stop playing in the middle of songs. And I just drank BEER.

I'll stab at the questions:

#1. What exactly did Keith mean on the 'Shine A Light' DVD when he said that both he and Ronnie were lousy guitar players, but together they were better than ten others?

That's from the No Security tour, right? That footage. It means pretty much what the other responses have been and just exactly what Keith said. That together, doing what THEY do as the string section of The Rolling Stones they are a unique team. Solo wise they are not so good. Which I personally don't believe but I think Keith is going strictly by technical ability - they know a lot about playing the guitar but there's probably a lot of it technically that they know nothing or very little about.

#2. What specifically has changed with Keith's guitar playing over the last five to ten years? Do you feel his playing has declined significantly during this time frame? If so, do you feel his playing is significantly affecting the overall performance of the band?

I tend to lean towards the alcohol and drug abuse has caught up with him combined with the arthritis. I don't think it's strictly age. The overall sound of the band suffers because of it. I'm not sure if the band performance suffers because of it. It does, yes, but as far as it hinging on Keith? Well, it helps if he is playing good...

#3. How much of a factor is his arthritis in his overall playing ability?

It has hindered it. How much? I dunno number wise but a good bit.

#4. What advice (if any) would you give him to improve his playing at this late stage of his career?

Stop drinking alcohol!

#5. What are your plans as far as attending future concerts, or purchasing a new album, as it relates to his playing?

New record I will get regardless of his playing - how will I know he stinks if I haven't heard it all the way through? I do have Dirty Work after all. I will not be attending any future shows - and that has nothing to do with his arthritis.

#6. What exactly would you like to see him do? Continue with the band? Retire? Take a lesser role with the band?

It wouldn't hurt my feelings if he called it quits. Goddamn. They've done way more than any other band and all they have to offer now is just the fact that they're getting old and it's truly only about the money and mostly songs from the 1960s. They have taken over The Beach Boys position as the biggest nostalgia band on tour. They offer nothing and contribute nothing as far as being musicians and artists that are "moving forward" and actually being creative. Their last ambitious album as a band was Undercover. They've been on cruise control ever since Steel Wheels - whenever they can bothered. There have been moments, yes, but overall they probably should have stopped after a tour of Rewind had they bothered to do that. Their legacy essentially stops with Start Me Up and Waiting On A Friend and their last actual NEW big hit song was Emotional Rescue. I admire their tenacity of continuing but it stops there. As a fan I will buy anything new and probably like most of it. But that's because I'm a fan. I liked A Bigger Bang and still do, even though it's not really very good. We take what we can get nowadays and keep quiet about it...especially when it's compared to Some Girls or remotely close to Exile etc.

The absence of Brian Jones and Mick Taylor got the best out of him.
And the other way around, regarding to Taylor.
Enough said.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-11-27 09:26 by Amsterdamned.

I had a theory that many Stones fans were frustrated musicians who were in many ways envious of Keith's guitar virtuoso. Since I seem to have inadvertently offended everyone, I will not pursue that line of reasoning again.

I think we need to make a firm distinction between Keith's latter day STUDIO work versus the latter day LIVE CONCERT work. Since I have only attended five Stones concerts, I am not too concerned with his playing at concerts. I go to concerts to have a blast, not to obsess on every note he plays. I listen chiefly to the STUDIO work, because this is where I know I will get Keith at his very best. Listen to this song. Someone please tell me why the guitar work stinks, is unlistenable, or otherwise sucks. If you cannot tell me in words why this piece of music is terrible, then you probably do not know or are just going trolling.





I think the guitar work is jazzy, shows great rhythm, and is vintage Stones. The song is not my favorite but that is not the point. I am not a musician and do not know the difference between an Open G or an Open F or H. I just like the sound of this song and appreciate that Keith is doing much of the playing and wrote the song with Jagger. Not bad for a musician whom some think is brain dead from a fall from a tree or is so horribly crippled from arthritis that he has difficulty picking up a guitar pick. Not bad from a man who has been giving a large number of intelligent interviews lately and who just wrote a book.

Quote
flilflam
I had a theory that many Stones fans were frustrated musicians who were in many ways envious of Keith's guitar virtuoso. Since I seem to have inadvertently offended everyone, I will not pursue that line of reasoning again.

I think we need to make a firm distinction between Keith's latter day STUDIO work versus the latter day LIVE CONCERT work. Since I have only attended five Stones concerts, I am not too concerned with his playing at concerts. I go to concerts to have a blast, not to obsess on every note he plays. I listen chiefly to the STUDIO work, because this is where I know I will get Keith at his very best. Listen to this song. Someone please tell me why the guitar work stinks, is unlistenable, or otherwise sucks. If you cannot tell me in words why this piece of music is terrible, then you probably do not know or are just going trolling.





I think the guitar work is jazzy, shows great rhythm, and is vintage Stones. The song is not my favorite but that is not the point. I am not a musician and do not know the difference between an Open G or an Open F or H. I just like the sound of this song and appreciate that Keith is doing much of the playing and wrote the song with Jagger. Not bad for a musician whom some think is brain dead from a fall from a tree or is so horribly crippled from arthritis that he has difficulty picking up a guitar pick. Not bad from a man who has been giving a large number of intelligent interviews lately and who just wrote a book.

Different post but same shit from you.
Can't you stop that? It's getting more than boring.
Your "arguments" don't get better just by repeating them over and over again.

I was hoping for an intelligent response from you, Roadster 32, but instead I get obscenities. Is this how you typically react when someone offers an opinion that is different from yours?

I think it is rude to curse fellow fans. What are you mad at?

I believe you owe all of us an apology.

Quote
flilflam
I had a theory that many Stones fans were frustrated musicians who were in many ways envious of Keith's guitar virtuoso. Since I seem to have inadvertently offended everyone, I will not pursue that line of reasoning again.

I think we need to make a firm distinction between Keith's latter day STUDIO work versus the latter day LIVE CONCERT work. Since I have only attended five Stones concerts, I am not too concerned with his playing at concerts. I go to concerts to have a blast, not to obsess on every note he plays. I listen chiefly to the STUDIO work, because this is where I know I will get Keith at his very best. Listen to this song. Someone please tell me why the guitar work stinks, is unlistenable, or otherwise sucks. If you cannot tell me in words why this piece of music is terrible, then you probably do not know or are just going trolling.





I think the guitar work is jazzy, shows great rhythm, and is vintage Stones. The song is not my favorite but that is not the point. I am not a musician and do not know the difference between an Open G or an Open F or H. I just like the sound of this song and appreciate that Keith is doing much of the playing and wrote the song with Jagger. Not bad for a musician whom some think is brain dead from a fall from a tree or is so horribly crippled from arthritis that he has difficulty picking up a guitar pick. Not bad from a man who has been giving a large number of intelligent interviews lately and who just wrote a book.

For me this song sucks. A generic Stones "rocker". There is no melody in the vocals. The guitar work is ok, but Keith Richards can probably come up with riffs like this in his sleep. He could have developed this one a bit more. A good solo though.
Listen to So Divine in the Exile remaster to hear how Keith's doing these days in the studio.

Dangerous Beauty is fine, there's nothing wrong with it. It's an average Stones song, yes, the kind they can just toss off. Keith's playing is what I would consider to be normal, as in, it's fine. There is no "bad" playing from Keith on A Bigger Bang. And it sticks with some theme he came up with that features big chunky riffs that started with One Hit and on to Wicked As It Seems, Love Is Strong and Low Down and It Won't Take Long - the key ingredient to those songs being that they are all in open G and based in the key of A basically.

Now what he did on So Divine is pretty bad - they should have used Ronnie (ha ha).

Quote
flilflam
I was hoping for an intelligent response from you, Roadster 32, but instead I get obscenities. Is this how you typically react when someone offers an opinion that is different from yours?

I think it is rude to curse fellow fans. What are you mad at?

I believe you owe all of us an apology.

This was just adressed to you and nobody else.
Seems that you got the thin skin that you were critizising on other people in your other post. So no apology neccessary.

Quote
flilflam
I agree. The rhythm playing is great. The rare solos are fine but not Keith's strong suit.

When I started this thread, I had no idea so many people would be offended. I just hate to hear some people making flippant and unsubstantiated remarks about a very great musician. Some of you need to stop being so sensitive.

The Stones are tough. They have gone to jail, experienced rough economic times, were jilted by at least one manager, and have been addicted to alcohol and drugs. They have made several come backs in their career. I am just as tough as the next person. You need to stop having your feelings hurt so easily.

The thread should have been entitled

Some Keith Bashers are Frustrated Musicians

Thanks to each and every one of you that took the time to respond to this post. I really enjoyed reading the various opinions about a real sensitive and hot topic here at IORR. I have learned a great deal since joining this forum four months ago, probably more than I ever cared to know! Thanks again, and have a wonderful holiday season.