The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
Borrowed, Sus and secondary dom chord function
Old 23rd July 2019
  #31
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by 12tone View Post
Being a Rahsaan Roland Kirk devotee, god I despise Ian Anderson...
Not sure how that would be a transitive property!
Old 23rd July 2019
  #32
Lives for gear
 
Poopypants's Avatar
 

Theory is all about knowing what you are hearing. Theory and playing by ear are not somehow mutually exclusive. When you learn to play by ear, you're learning theory, whether you know it or not. Theory is going the extra step and naming things, and recognizing patterns.

There are classes in Stevie Wonder (https://www.berklee.edu/courses/hr-365) and lots of other artists. I think in that Stevie Wonder class, you'd learn "rules" of his writing style just as you would with any other writer from any time and place. Certain things would not be allowed.

I've seen music school stiffs who "understand" theory but can't play, some even with virtuosic chops on their instrument. Theory isn't why they suck. They suck because they suck. And all the theory and chops couldn't help them. I guess that's my overall point here: Don't blame theory. Don't blame knowledge. Learning what it is that you're hearing is only a positive.
Old 23rd July 2019
  #33
Lives for gear
 
12tone's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by creegstor View Post
Not sure how that would be a transitive property!
I guess I'm crestfallen at the lack of recognition of RRK, in that Ian Anderson got his flute thing directly from Rahsaan, couldn't carry Rahsaan's jock strap even on his best day, yet he's the flute god...

nothing personal against Ian Anderson per se, but the general unawareness of Kirk's genius.

I'd say it would be something like if someone heard John Lee Hooker for the first time and they were to say, "hey, he sounds like George Thorogood!" That might upset some folks.
Old 23rd July 2019
  #34
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by 12tone View Post
I guess I'm crestfallen at the lack of recognition of RRK, in that Ian Anderson got his flute thing directly from Rahsaan, couldn't carry Rahsaan's jock strap even on his best day, yet he's the flute god...

nothing personal against Ian Anderson per se, but the general unawareness of Kirk's genius.

I'd say it would be something like if someone heard John Lee Hooker for the first time and they were to say, "hey, he sounds like George Thorogood!" That might upset some folks.
The best song wins the recognition game, and those who perform on it. Not the best player. The best player still needs the best song if general public recognition is what they’re after.
Old 23rd July 2019
  #35
Lives for gear
 
12tone's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by newguy1 View Post
The best song wins the recognition game, and those who perform on it. Not the best player. The best player still needs the best song if general public recognition is what they’re after.
Not in jazz.

Playing ability kinda matters...
Old 23rd July 2019
  #36
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by 12tone View Post
Not in jazz.

Playing ability kinda matters...
You were lamenting the fact that Ian Anderson got more recognition.
Old 23rd July 2019
  #37
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopypants View Post
Theory is all about knowing what you are hearing. Theory and playing by ear are not somehow mutually exclusive.
To me yes and no...In my view there is music as a language and music as a concept. A great example is transposition on piano for instance. A person can transpose by thinking "Eb is a m3rd higher than C" and then swapping in each note based on moving it up a m3rd. This gets the job done, but it IS NOT music as a language. If someone can do this on the fly, then can probably pust the right keys down at the right time, but they will not be activating the music as a language part of their mind, and this is critical.

On the other hand there is transposing by ear, where you are able to play the piece in a new key activating only the "music as a language" part of your brain. This is a musical experience, not a conceptual experience. The listener will know, the performer will know and the entire thing will feel different.

While the depth of vocabulary varies greatly, and there can always be some degree of conceptualization it the writing process, I would argue that every notable author in in the entire history of music, across all genres is able to experience and write from a "music as language" place. And to take it a step further, many have had little to no knowledge at all of "music as concept".

While it's true that the 2 arent mutually exclusive per se, it's also true that if someone is learning to spend time in their "music as concept" part of their brain, and not learning to spend time in their "music as language" part, it then can be in practice mutually exclusive...
Old 23rd July 2019
  #38
Lives for gear
 
12tone's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by newguy1 View Post
You were lamenting the fact that Ian Anderson got more recognition.
Yeah - you'd expect recognition for something that was inferiorly appropriated that then gets viewed as the apotheosis of that particular playing style.
Old 23rd July 2019
  #39
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by 12tone View Post
Yeah - you'd expect recognition for something that was inferiorly appropriated that then gets viewed as the apotheosis of that particular playing style.
One played on smash hits that 30-40 years later still get daily radio plays. The other didn’t.

The players on the biggest songs win the recognition game. Playing for playing’s sake just doesn’t have the mass appeal of playing to support something bigger than playing ability.
Old 23rd July 2019
  #40
Lives for gear
 
12tone's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by newguy1 View Post
One played on smash hits that 30-40 years later still get daily radio plays. The other didn’t.
The general public's awareness is one kind of barometer.

There's another awareness that is more objective, and one that comes from a greater understanding of the matter. One can only hope that within the vast ignorance that exists in the how the hoi polloi views things, that somehow credit goes to those that rightfully deserves it.

It might be quixotic, but so be it.
Old 23rd July 2019
  #41
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by 12tone View Post
Yeah - you'd expect recognition for something that was inferiorly appropriated that then gets viewed as the apotheosis of that particular playing style.
Vocalizing into a flute on some songs was only one component part of what Anderson did. He was a singer/writer/arranger/frontman and accomplished multi-instrumentalist with a penchant for genre-hopping and the ability to pull it all off in style. I'm not the biggest Tull fan but I think it's fair to say Anderson was pretty much in a class of one at that time given the range and level of his skills.

But I get it. It's always aggravating to see an originator/innovator being looked over.
Old 23rd July 2019
  #42
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by 12tone View Post
The general public's awareness is one kind of barometer.

There's another awareness that is more objective, and one that comes from a greater understanding of the matter. One can only hope that within the vast ignorance that exists in the how the hoi polloi views things, that somehow credit goes to those that rightfully deserves it.

It might be quixotic, but so be it.
You brought up general recognition and awareness. I was speaking to your terms.

If you wish to change the terms now that’s an entirely different discussion.
Old 23rd July 2019
  #43
Lives for gear
 
12tone's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by newguy1 View Post
You brought up general recognition and awareness. I was speaking to your terms.

If you wish to change the terms now that’s an entirely different discussion.
It's simple: Ian Anderson is considered a flute god. No?

Well, he got his schtick from Rahssan (something which Anderson himself acknowledges), and the disparity in ability is abundantly clear.

It's just a wish that more people realized this.

I don't know what 'terms' has anything to do with it. At this point, Ron Burgundy has more recognition as a jazz flute player than Kirk...come on man.
Old 23rd July 2019
  #44
Lives for gear
 
12tone's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by creegstor View Post
Vocalizing into a flute on some songs was only one component part of what Anderson did. He was a singer/writer/arranger/frontman and accomplished multi-instrumentalist with a penchant for genre-hopping and the ability to pull it all off in style. I'm not the biggest Tull fan but I think it's fair to say Anderson was pretty much in a class of one at that time given the range and level of his skills.

But I get it. It's always aggravating to see an originator/innovator being looked over.
You didn't mention the Capt Morgan one legged thing that he was doing long before it was a thing...
Old 23rd July 2019
  #45
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by 12tone View Post
You didn't mention the Capt Morgan one legged thing that he was doing long before it was a thing...
Covered here:

"...and the ability to pull it all off in style."
Old 24th July 2019
  #46
Lives for gear
 
Poopypants's Avatar
 

I don't know, RyanC. I've heard similar criticisms of theory before, mostly from people who haven't really had formal education. I've yet to see anyone stunted because they spent too much time learning theory. I do know people who are fantastic musicians who've never had formal training, but I've never seen formal training hold anyone back. And the people who haven't had formal training still understand a LOT of theory, especially as it applies to what they do. So, yeah, they know nothing of parallel fourths in choral style, and an argument could be made that they don't need to know it, but that doesn't mean that learning it would hold any decent musician back at all. Theory gets a bad rap. It does not take away your feel. It does not narrow your choices (I think it expands them.)

And fellas, on the topic of Ian Anderson, he did credit Roland Kirk way back, but he also sings and plays guitar and writes songs in Blues, Rock N Roll, and Folk formats. If all he did was rip off Roland Kirk, we'd not know who he is. It's all the other stuff that makes him original.
Old 24th July 2019
  #47
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopypants View Post
I don't know, RyanC. I've heard similar criticisms of theory before, mostly from people who haven't really had formal education. I've yet to see anyone stunted because they spent too much time learning theory. I do know people who are fantastic musicians who've never had formal training, but I've never seen formal training hold anyone back. And the people who haven't had formal training still understand a LOT of theory, especially as it applies to what they do. So, yeah, they know nothing of parallel fourths in choral style, and an argument could be made that they don't need to know it, but that doesn't mean that learning it would hold any decent musician back at all. Theory gets a bad rap. It does not take away your feel. It does not narrow your choices (I think it expands them.)
I've seen tons of great musicians never get past mediocrity as writers specifically because they are hung up on theory. It's a common phenomenon. Likewise I've never, and I mean not once, seen formal training turn a bad writer into a good writer.

RyanC is bang on the money imo.
Old 24th July 2019
  #48
Lives for gear
 
Poopypants's Avatar
 

Don't blame theory. Blame the fact that those people were never going to be good at music. Theory is finite and quantifiable, so they were able to put effort into it, but it didn't cause their problems.
Old 24th July 2019
  #49
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopypants View Post
Don't blame theory. Blame the fact that those people were never going to be good at music. Theory is finite and quantifiable, so they were able to put effort into it, but it didn't cause their problems.
I never said they "weren't good at music". Many are excellent musicians, just not good writers. Two different skill-sets. Getting bound up in theory as a be-all/end-all and misapplying it indeed creates problems for musicians trying to write. Theory doesn't magically help you write better and in fact can lead you to think incorrectly if you fall into the trap of using it prescriptively or as as a set of rules as a default. Noting that phenomenon is not "blaming theory".

Bottom line: Having more theory does not help you write good songs if you can't already write good songs.
Old 24th July 2019
  #50
Lives for gear
 
Poopypants's Avatar
 

If you suck at playing, theory won't help you. If you suck at writing, theory won't help you. Theory is not the reason someone sucks. On paper, theory is easily mastered by anyone who puts in a little effort. That's why you see talent deficient music theorists.

I constantly increase my knowledge about recording, production techniques, acoustics, and even electronics. With some of these things, I'm a complete neophyte. Other things, I have a bit more experience and education. Should I instead remain pure and untainted by this information?

Perhaps I shouldn't trust my doctors? They spent WAY too much time studying theory, some of it outdated ancient Greek stuff...

Theory gets a bad rap. We all know people who can understand theory but suck at music. We all know people who can spew a thousand notes a second and say nothing. Perhaps we should look down on practicing our instruments the same way we look down on theory?

I'm looking at 12 tone's name and avatar. There's two things that would not have existed without a vast understanding of music theory. If you're not aware of that, you'd not only need to study theory, but also history, which is yet another endeavor that is valuable to anyone who considers themselves to be a musician or aspires to improve, or, gawd forbid, is just plain curious.

To be clear: The word "you" in this post is directed at any and all of us, but specifically NOT anyone in this thread in particular, even though I'm responding to particular people. I'm not here to insult. I rarely post here, but I care that people are not steered away from any kind of curiosity or any kind of search for deeper understanding of anything. I'm a nerd who initially taught himself how to play the drums while also having formal education on trumpet and I've learned extensive bits of music theory in "legit" and "jazz" and whatever other styles. I found theory to be interesting and fun (I told you: nerd.) But maybe I had good teachers. I think I had some bit of innate talent. My experience with theory was not merely lines and brackets and numbers on a page. It was the ability to hear and recognize sounds; pitches, chords, but also rhythms and FORM. Theory is ultimately about what you HEAR. When you cite examples of someone who understands brackets and arrows but not sounds, or has an inability to combine noises into a pleasing (or deliberately unpleasing) sequence, you are blaming the wrong thing.
Old 24th July 2019
  #51
Lives for gear
 
12tone's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by creegstor View Post
Bottom line: Having more theory does not help you write good songs if you can't already write good songs.
So true.

That's why literature professors don't necessarily a great writer make.

FWIW, as to "don't blame theory...", not trying to sound harsh, but I think it's generally weak to blame anything for anything, other than oneself, as it pertains to personal goals and achievements.
Old 24th July 2019
  #52
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopypants View Post
If you suck at playing, theory won't help you. If you suck at writing, theory won't help you. Theory is not the reason someone sucks. On paper, theory is easily mastered by anyone who puts in a little effort. That's why you see talent deficient music theorists.

I constantly increase my knowledge about recording, production techniques, acoustics, and even electronics. With some of these things, I'm a complete neophyte. Other things, I have a bit more experience and education. Should I instead remain pure and untainted by this information?

Perhaps I shouldn't trust my doctors? They spent WAY too much time studying theory, some of it outdated ancient Greek stuff...

Theory gets a bad rap. We all know people who can understand theory but suck at music. We all know people who can spew a thousand notes a second and say nothing. Perhaps we should look down on practicing our instruments the same way we look down on theory?

I'm looking at 12 tone's name and avatar. There's two things that would not have existed without a vast understanding of music theory. If you're not aware of that, you'd not only need to study theory, but also history, which is yet another endeavor that is valuable to anyone who considers themselves to be a musician or aspires to improve, or, gawd forbid, is just plain curious.

To be clear: The word "you" in this post is directed at any and all of us, but specifically NOT anyone in this thread in particular, even though I'm responding to particular people. I'm not here to insult. I rarely post here, but I care that people are not steered away from any kind of curiosity or any kind of search for deeper understanding of anything. I'm a nerd who initially taught himself how to play the drums while also having formal education on trumpet and I've learned extensive bits of music theory in "legit" and "jazz" and whatever other styles. I found theory to be interesting and fun (I told you: nerd.) But maybe I had good teachers. I think I had some bit of innate talent. My experience with theory was not merely lines and brackets and numbers on a page. It was the ability to hear and recognize sounds; pitches, chords, but also rhythms and FORM. Theory is ultimately about what you HEAR. When you cite examples of someone who understands brackets and arrows but not sounds, or has an inability to combine noises into a pleasing (or deliberately unpleasing) sequence, you are blaming the wrong thing.
You're projecting that I'm saying something I'm not. I'm not, and neither has anyone here, decried learning or "blamed theory". I can reharmonize a composition like a mofo.

You don't need to know the theory of a language to be able to speak it well or tell a great story and knowing it will not improve your ability to do so. Many English teachers are ****ty writers/orators. Many unschooled people are great writers/orators. Same goes for music.

People get hung up on rules and nomenclature and often throw the baby out with the bathwater. It's a common pitfall that can lead to a lot of dead ends. That's all anyone here is saying. You can say that "theory is just information and more info can't hurt" but that's not how human beings work. We misapply/misunderstand things all the time. Learning has to be ordered correctly to really work or you get serious problems. For many people, deference to/reliance on information/knowledge/"rules" can be creatively detrimental if their intuition isn't sufficiently developed beforehand.

Theory is severely overestimated by the formally educated and severely underestimated by the ignorant and its proper utility is often misunderstood by both.
Old 24th July 2019
  #53
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by 12tone View Post
FWIW, as to "don't blame theory...", not trying to sound harsh, but I think it's generally weak to blame anything for anything, other than oneself, as it pertains to personal goals and achievements.
It depends on the age. By age 15 I was able to fight hard enough to call my own shots, but as a kid an extremely strong interest in popular music was redirected into rigorous academic classical music instruction which nearly drove the music out of me. All I wanted to do was devour every song that interested me but I "wasn't allowed" by parents and teachers. Its insane in hindsight. I'd start playing Elton John and my mom would call out "that doesn't sound like Bach to me, your teacher David says you're supposed to be playing Bach." It really sucked.

Before the early to mid 1900s when recorded music took off, the classical music training model used to train people for JOBS. Classcial music pieces were the hit songs of the times, they were modern and current and relevant to the times. It was PRACTICAL in the same way getting a law degree is practical: it qualified you for real jobs in the real world that payed a living wage. Musicians reading sheet music written by Beethoven or whoever were essentially playback devices like a CD player. You put in the CD of Beethoven's latest hit record (sheet music in front of a piano player) and the guy with the 2nd story department store playback job would play it as written for the shopping customers (now replaced by Musak or whatever).

Now the only jobs that model provides are largely teaching jobs, which requires convincing new (ignorant) students that classical training is the "correct" way to learn music. Which it isn't at all. Its one method that used to steer students towards jobs which no longer exist. A cyclical misinformation campaign now exists with no practicality to it at all, outside the fact that its one (completely unessential) way to learn musical basics.

A huge amount of the music learning industry is about taking one set of interests and re-directing them towards the interests of the teachers, who's interests are largely driven by their desire to make more money for themselves, they themselves being duped into putting all their musical training time into areas which no longer provide work outside of teaching. Its kinda messed up, the whole musical education system.
Old 24th July 2019
  #54
Lives for gear
 
12tone's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by newguy1 View Post
It depends on the age. By age 15 I was able to fight hard enough to call my own shots, but as a kid an extremely strong interest in popular music was redirected into rigorous academic classical music instruction which nearly drove the music out of me. All I wanted to do was devour every song that interested me but I "wasn't allowed" by parents and teachers. Its insane in hindsight. I'd start playing Elton John and my mom would call out "that doesn't sound like Bach to me, your teacher David says you're supposed to be playing Bach." It really sucked.
You should have rebelled...
Old 24th July 2019
  #55
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by 12tone View Post
You should have rebelled...
Right, the same way minorities in the hood should all study hard to get a scholarship and thus end the cycle of poverty. Systems often overpower the ignorant individual who isn't even aware. I rebelled as soon as I was aware that was an option.

The word "should" is usually an ugly one.
Old 24th July 2019
  #56
Lives for gear
 
Poopypants's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by creegstor View Post
You're projecting that I'm saying something I'm not. I'm not, and neither has anyone here, decried learning or "blamed theory". I can reharmonize a composition like a mofo.

You don't need to know the theory of a language to be able to speak it well or tell a great story and knowing it will not improve your ability to do so. Many English teachers are ****ty writers/orators. Many unschooled people are great writers/orators. Same goes for music.

People get hung up on rules and nomenclature and often throw the baby out with the bathwater. It's a common pitfall that can lead to a lot of dead ends. That's all anyone here is saying. You can say that "theory is just information and more info can't hurt" but that's not how human beings work. We misapply/misunderstand things all the time. Learning has to be ordered correctly to really work or you get serious problems. For many people, deference to/reliance on information/knowledge/"rules" can be creatively detrimental if their intuition isn't sufficiently developed beforehand.

Theory is severely overestimated by the formally educated and severely underestimated by the ignorant and its proper utility is often misunderstood by both.
If you understand that theory is a description of something after the fact, and that it's useless if you can't hear it, then you understand what theory is and how it works and you'd NEVER be bound by rules. Any suggestion that learning theory is a limitation is another form of anti intellectualism.
Old 24th July 2019
  #57
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopypants View Post
If you understand that theory is a description of something after the fact, and that it's useless if you can't hear it, then you understand what theory is and how it works and you'd NEVER be bound by rules. Any suggestion that learning theory is a limitation is another form of anti intellectualism.
I think someone can be musically intellectual (musical?) without knowing any theory at all...and can then have a musically intellectual conversation entirely within the language of music. Not needing english or any other language to describe it. You can learn new musical vocabulary entirely without words to describe it.

Music theory, to me, would be a sort of meta-intellectualism.

I went to college for music and in my world there are a lot of people who agree, years later, that they had to sortof 'recover' from an overly academic/meta/not-in-their-musical-mind approach. That said, all the best teachers I've ever had always emphasised the importance of developing the understand by ear...

Again I'm not saying it's inherently bad, but I think it's completely fair to say that it's often a distraction for people, and compared to putting in the hard work on aural skills, it can be an easy way out. IE if you write harmonies based on 4 part choral theory, vs by ear. If you get good at doing it by ear (which is A LOT more work), you and your music will be better for it.

That's how I see it at least...OTOH as a working engineer these days it doesn't hurt to be able to set autotune to the right key.
Old 24th July 2019
  #58
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopypants View Post
If you understand that theory is a description of something after the fact, and that it's useless if you can't hear it, then you understand what theory is and how it works and you'd NEVER be bound by rules.
Idealization is great but real people are flawed and internalize things incorrectly all the time. Creative people are particularly susceptible to self-doubt and seek crutches in all sorts of places and all sorts of ways.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopypants View Post
Any suggestion that learning theory is a limitation is another form of anti intellectualism.
I don't think anyone suggested that learning theory is, by definition, a limitation.
Old 25th July 2019
  #59
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by RyanC View Post
if you write harmonies based on 4 part choral theory, vs by ear. If you get good at doing it by ear (which is A LOT more work), you and your music will be better for it.
This is a really good example. Like in horn parts these days I typically hear a lot of impressive vertical stacking but the musicality is just not there. When you break it down into horizontal lines there's nothing of substance. It's bloody weird. It comes from people thinking in momentary snapshots of harmony rather than actually using their ears and intuition to just write some good lines that work together.
Old 25th July 2019
  #60
Lives for gear
 
Poopypants's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by newguy1 View Post
It depends on the age. By age 15 I was able to fight hard enough to call my own shots, but as a kid an extremely strong interest in popular music was redirected into rigorous academic classical music instruction which nearly drove the music out of me. All I wanted to do was devour every song that interested me but I "wasn't allowed" by parents and teachers. Its insane in hindsight. I'd start playing Elton John and my mom would call out "that doesn't sound like Bach to me, your teacher David says you're supposed to be playing Bach." It really sucked.

Before the early to mid 1900s when recorded music took off, the classical music training model used to train people for JOBS. Classcial music pieces were the hit songs of the times, they were modern and current and relevant to the times. It was PRACTICAL in the same way getting a law degree is practical: it qualified you for real jobs in the real world that payed a living wage. Musicians reading sheet music written by Beethoven or whoever were essentially playback devices like a CD player. You put in the CD of Beethoven's latest hit record (sheet music in front of a piano player) and the guy with the 2nd story department store playback job would play it as written for the shopping customers (now replaced by Musak or whatever).

Now the only jobs that model provides are largely teaching jobs, which requires convincing new (ignorant) students that classical training is the "correct" way to learn music. Which it isn't at all. Its one method that used to steer students towards jobs which no longer exist. A cyclical misinformation campaign now exists with no practicality to it at all, outside the fact that its one (completely unessential) way to learn musical basics.

A huge amount of the music learning industry is about taking one set of interests and re-directing them towards the interests of the teachers, who's interests are largely driven by their desire to make more money for themselves, they themselves being duped into putting all their musical training time into areas which no longer provide work outside of teaching. Its kinda messed up, the whole musical education system.

Wow. There's a lot here that goes way counter to my experiences. How many jazz schools exist at this point? Has non classical formal music education been rare for even the past fifty years? You can major in Bluegrass or Gospel. Or Recording Engineering... I've studied music with people who had gigs with the New York Philharmonic. This is back in the 70's. And none of them ever gave any hint of seeing Classical Music or theory as "correct" compared to anything else. A cynical misinformation campaign? I have no idea how you could get there.

I find it interesting that the OP hasn't been back to this thread. I hope he, and others like him, continue to educate themselves, even just for sheer curiosity, and aren't discouraged by claims of music theory teacher conspiracies or the talent sucking effects of education.

Last edited by Poopypants; 25th July 2019 at 07:34 AM..
Post Reply

Welcome to the Gearslutz Pro Audio Community!

Registration benefits include:
  • The ability to reply to and create new discussions
  • Access to members-only giveaways & competitions
  • Interact with VIP industry experts in our guest Q&As
  • Access to members-only sub forum discussions
  • Access to members-only Chat Room
  • Get INSTANT ACCESS to the world's best private pro audio Classifieds for only USD $20/year
  • Promote your eBay auctions and Reverb.com listings for free
  • Remove this message!
You need an account to post a reply. Create a username and password below and an account will be created and your post entered.


 
 
Slide to join now Processing…
Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Forum Jump
Forum Jump