GregP

This is, indeed, a pentatonic scale. The "Blues" scale uses blue notes, too, which are the flat 3rd. In the case of The A blues, this is Eb: --------------------------5 8 -----------------------5 8--- -----------------5 7 8------- -------------5 7------------- -------5 6 7----------------- ---5 8-----------------------

Well, if you look down a bit, you'll see that I had it correct the second time, and by looking at the example TAB, it's clear that I start off with two tones... no need to roll your eyes. I already reinforced what has been said about the scale being shifted. I agree, that IS the beauty of it. But it still doesn't answer my question about the chords. I could have sworn either you or Ki would have had an answer! <chuckle> Greg

Yes, that's correct-- but the 'steps' you take to get there are different, depending on the mode of the scale. An 'A major scale' (whatever the name of the mode is) starts off on the root note (A) and then goes up by a tone, tone, then a semitone, and then tone, tone, tone, and another semitone. Since each fret is a semitone, when you go up by a tone you have to go by 2 frets. So an A major scale for one octave: e----------------------------- B----------------------------- G----------------------1--2-- D------------0--2--4--------- A--0--2--4------------------- E----------------------------- It'll help a bit to remember that when I go from the fourth fret on the A string (and then from the 4th on the D) to the next open string, it's as though I'm moving up to the 5th fret on the original string. So fifth fret on A is the same as open on D. But if you wanted to do an A MINOR scale (dunno the mode's name) you wouldn't follow the tone-tone-semitone-tone-tone-tone-semitone sequence. You would still start on A, but the tones and semitones would be in a different order. Ditto for any other mode. The key is remembering or figuring out what the order is. (I haven't done so just yet). Greg

That's sweeter than... well... something that's really VERY sweet, indeed. Nice work so far.

Sure, that's a scale... But not a standard one. ;-) It doesn't follow Chi Swordsman's lesson on modes, and doesn't have standard intervals. It's a 'scale' all right, but I still don't think you've made the connection of how to construct them in the way explained by Chi and Ruskie. Greg

Welcome to the forum! That's some seriously sick carving you have going on there. Twisted.

Guys, it's kind of a moot point... it's been cut. Why is this thread still getting bumped? <laff>

Of established companies, my choice is Godin. My runner-up is Yamaha.

The could have had a classic in 'pointy guitar' design, had they not f'd up the headstock.

One thing about scale theory that you might be able to help me out with here or in a separate thread-- None of it means anything to me unless I know which chords to put underneath. How can I choose chords that have more of the scale's flavour? Or in general, how do the two relate? What I'm getting out of this so far is that for the 8 (or was it 7... I'm a good teacher but a crap student. <laff>) basic modes, the 'shape' is basically the same, except 'shifted' by varying degrees. For example, a major scale is: tone, tone, semitone, tone, tone, tone, semitone. Let's say the first note is a C, just to make things easy. Now we have a C-major scale: C, D, E, F, G, A, B, C and one of the modes (dunno which... just throwing this out there) might be starting on the SECOND tone-- resulting in tone, semitone, tone, tone, tone, semitone, tone D, E, F, G, A, B, C, D so that everything's just shifted along. I dunno what the resulting scale would be, but it would be called "D something", no? Both of those scales will still be in the same key-- C major (or its relative minor, A minor) (NOW, at this point in time, I may have messed it all up and gotten it 'wrong', in which case the crux of this post is off the mark and should be disregarded:) So if it's the same key... what the hell is the point of it all? <laff> Sorry, but I've never ever studied modes before, so I just haven't had that "epiphanic" moment where suddenly I make that first connection that creates the snowball effect that results in learning and understanding it. If you can make the first connection, which for me MUST be the relationship between the key, the chords, and the scales-- then I'll be set.

I think it looks sweet. When Litch builds one, he can always beef up the lower horn a bit.

I'm not a pro by any means. Just using my personal aesthetic that I've gained more from OTHER life experience than from building guitars. I've taken the liberty of modifying your picture, using a crap-tastic bit of freehand and absolutely no precision. However, it was pretty close to the line you drew. I also took away the heel block so that people can better imagine how it would look: Now, I see two main problems-- 1. With the new line--as already mentioned--the upper bit now looks too small. But by using the lines as guides, you can see that it's not the 'overall' size that's too small so much as the fact that the upper horn goes further out than the 'hips' of the body! If I've seen a guitar with a larger horn than hips, I can't recall it. That means to me that if you want to reduce the 'hips', you'll also have to reduce the horn, and then you'll be left with very little of your original design. 2. If you check the 'hips', this goes back to what I was saying before. The one the right is fairly round, and the one on the left is a little skewed. I think having the left one skewed is just fine, but it's not skewed enough to produce an effect. It just makes people instinctively know that something's 'wrong' and then they stare at the guitar not for its beauty but because they're trying to sort out in their heads why they don't quite like it. Be cautious, though-- if you make it round (at this size) like the right one, you will only accentuate how 'off' the upper horn is. I was going to point out the offset nature of the waist-- but if you look closely you can see that your original line is pretty good, and it's only my crap-tastic non-graphic-artistry that makes it look off. Ultimately, I think the solution still lies somewhere in-between. And the more I imagine the in-between solution, the more I just see a generic 'superstrat' body shape and want to encourage you to just use an existing plan for a superstrat. I wonder how one would line up over top of the existing body, and how putting a full-sized printout over top might at least influence your next revision should you choose to maintain a bit of your own 'flavour'. In the end, it's still your decision to make, and I don't recommend scrapping the body. In any case, you still have a LEGION of options, only ONE of which is to shelve it.

Answer: a cool one.

Use the headstock as a jumping off point-- aggressive back-angled curves... the bass wants to look like it's moving forward, judging by that headstock. That's about all I'll say for my opinion, as I don't want to jump all over your personal creativity. And now that I've looked at the headstock again, I agree with the above post. It's already slick, but even MORE pronunciation on the curves would be sweet!

Good eye for the lower horn, you're absolutely right that it's too far forward. My personal opinion is that since it's so much like a tele already, why not use a tele for A/B comparisons for the curves and so forth? It's either that, or move further away from the tele shape, because it-between (the way it is now) makes it look 'wrong' to our brains. The tele shape is etched deep into our subconsiousness..es.. Edit: on second thought, go completely different-- a tele body won't look good with that wicked headstock

I'm of two minds about this issue-- On one hand, I wish I had build from parts for my first one. Mostly just so that I could go through a 'build' very quickly and end up with an end product quickly, as well. That way I could have a guitar that was 'mine' and the urge to rush a 'from scratch' build wouldn't be as pressing. However, as long as the kit's manufactured right, I can imagine it's no more of a challenge than putting together a piece of Ikea furniture. I took apart a Mexi strat once , refinished the body (poorly) and put it back together. The putting it back together part was a no-brainer. The moral of the story? It depends on how much you're concerned with the process, and how much you just want to have a decent guitar that fits your specs. There's little doubt in my mind that the necks and bodies you get from WD or Warmoth are top-shelf in quality, and will LIKELY (hey, miracles can happen) be superior to anything you could make from scratch as a first build. Greg

The body I could do without entirely, but the headstock is genius. You're one up in the race, so far! Greg

Bickity-BAM. That's about all I got.

If it's sucking batteries like mad, make is able to use and transform phantom power so that we can use standard XLR as a power source.

Sweet functionality. Ugly like a baboon's ass, though. Alright, that's an exaggeration. It's actually quite cool looking in an industrial way. Looks good for metal. Dunno if I like it as much as the hipshot hardtail for elegance, though.

I dunno much, but I can wager a guess at least: The fly headstock has that carbon fibre laminate crap on its underside, lending it some serious structural support. Plain old wood would not likely be a safe bet, though someone more experienced can refute or confirm this. A reverse Nuno would be cool, depending on what the rest of the guitar will be! I have to admit, I'm a big fan of 3+3 or 4+2, but that's just me. What about the Nuno shape, reversed as a 2+4? Anyhow, with a name like "Headless Phil", I get the feeling you're the man I should talk to when I get around to doing my Steinberger-type project. Greg

Unbelievable!!!! Drool-tastic!!! Did you use 250K or 500K pots on that? Greg

Tearing down anything during summer hours is mighty hot work. I worked seasonal for a construction/renovation company 2 summers ago. Except, I didn't get to do any of the 'renovation' part (understandably, as I'm not a skilled tradesman)-- my job was actually in the "destruction" part, ripping down walls, turning up lawns, pulling fences and flagstones... whatever they needed. It's fun destroying things for a few days, and then when the heat gets to you, it loses its charm. $12/hr pays the bills, though, and right now I'm living below the poverty line so I'd jump at THAT chance. Greg

I think the white bits look slick. Cream also would have looked nice, though. Greg

I'm glad to hear you didn't burn it. The unfortunate thing is that your response, therefore, was a sarcastic one-- to a guy who was the first one to be brave enough to be honest. I wouldn't be surprised if other people have withheld their opinion simply because they don't want to bother looking like assholes. I took the risk for the sake of helping you out. Don't worry, though, I'm not pissed off or anything like that-- on the contrary, I still wish you the best of luck with each and every build that you do. I just don't think that starting with a foundation like this particular body is going to net you a faboloos (sic) guitar. Cheers, Greg