Welcome!
Just a few a ground rules first...

Promotion, advertising and link building is not permitted.

If you are keen to learn, get to grips with something with the willing help of one of the net's original musician forums
or possess a genuine willingness to contribute knowledge - you've come to the right place!

Register >

- Close -
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 41

Thread: Want to learn to play blues guitar …..Online?

  1. #1
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    3

    Want to learn to play blues guitar …..Online?

    Hi people, I need to learn to play the blues guitar and the thing being that its not as easy as it seems cause I cannot find a good teacher to make me learn this and the second thing being the cost of private lessons…. so I am looking for online classes. I have an acoustic guitar with strings made from other than nylon in standard tuning.



    I have some basic knowledge and know to play a few chords. But what I need is a crash course or something for beginners to get on going. Please do drop in your ideas to help me. (Hail the great William Christopher Handy who wrote the first blues song “Memphis Blues”)



    Thanks in advance!

  2. #2
    Modally Challenged!!!! mattblack850's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    At the bottom of another Bottle of Brown Ale.
    Posts
    1,598
    Do a search for 'Blues Lesson' on Youtube, there's absolutely loads of Video Lessons there. There's also a plethora of lesson material available online.

    Remember:- Google is your friend!!!!

  3. #3
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    485
    Yea. You will find various free lessons on youtube. Google 'blues guitar' as well and you should find stacks of information.

    Check out infiniteguitar.com while your at it though. We do charge for premium memberships, its much cheaper than private tuition though. There are 10 free lessons for you to check out while you visit. If you do sign up we, will be more than happy to tailor lessons to your needs.

  4. #4
    Registered User JonR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    Twickenham, UK
    Posts
    4,959
    Don't forget to listen to old blues recordings and try and copy/play along. That's how all the great players learned.
    All you really need is a few basic chords (C, G, D, A, E, B, F and their 7th versions), the 12-bar I-IV-V format of standard blues, and a reasonable ear.

    Online lessons can be a great resource, no doubt, but they can only ever give partial information (and in very small chunks), they can be unreliable, and you always need to listen to real blues in the end.

    Make sure you have at least a few tracks by each of the following in your collection. Listen in chronological order (or at least be aware of the historical development and overview):

    1920s
    BLIND LEMON JEFFERSON
    BLIND BLAKE
    CHARLIE PATTON
    BLIND WILLIE JOHNSON
    LONNIE JOHNSON and EDDIE LANG (instrumental jazz-blues duets. Eddie Lang also played for BESSIE SMITH, under the name Blind Willie Dunn.)

    1930s
    BIG BILL BROONZY
    ROBERT JOHNSON
    SKIP JAMES

    1940s
    BIG BILL (again)
    T-BONE WALKER
    MUDDY WATERS (his best guitar work was done in this decade, IMO)
    JOHN LEE HOOKER

    1950S
    JOHN LEE H (continued)
    B B KING (his 50s work is superior to his later stuff, IMO)
    FREDDIE KING
    ELMORE JAMES
    HUBERT SUMLIN (HOWLIN' WOLF's guitarist)

    1960s/70s
    BUDDY GUY
    ALBERT KING

    Don't bother with anything later.... Nothing new of any significance happened in blues beyond the 1960s (in fact little after the 1950s). Lots of great players after then, of course - but the motherlode was before 1960. EVERY great player beyond 1960 looked to this history for inspiration.

    I've left out lots of other great originals, of course, but most of the above are absolutely central figures. You need to know their work intimately to understand the blues language.

    Remember to listen to the vocals. Blues guitar is always a response to the singer (often by the singer himself of course); singing by other means, if you like.

    (When trying to play along, remember that many players sometimes used open tunings - usually open E or D - and not only when playing slide - and may have used capos. Otherwise most of the above worked from basic chord shapes in open position, constructing solo phrases in between.)

  5. #5
    Moderator
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    London, England
    Posts
    1,657
    Not much to add to JonR's post (of course), but I just note that Edwards says he has an Acoustic, so I wonder if he's thinking mainly of early acoustic blues styles such Robert Johnson & Bill Broonzy (as opposed to 1950's onward, where electric became the main choice)?

    Although, perhaps it would be surprising if Edwards really is mainly interested in early acoustic blues, because that's a fairly purist form which many people find hard work to listen to nowadays. I doubt if many young aspiring guitarists want to dedicate time to that stuff now. That's a generalisation, I know .....(& of course I don't know if Edwards is a young player or not).

    Just re. Jon's list I'd add Otis Rush in 1950's. And of course I'd strongly recommend Clapton's seminal 1966 Bluesbreakers album, ie if guys are interested in that more high-energy electric blues style (which I love). True, on that record Clapton is interpreting various earlier classic stuff from Freddie King & Otis Rush etc., but Clapton did put a very different complexion on it, & created what is perhaps the most famous electric blues guitar sound ever recorded (other songs on that LP were penned by John Mayal, ie original to Mayal/Clapton).

    I agree it's vital to listen to lots of classic blues records, because you have to get all those sounds into your head. It has to become a part of you, sort-of second nature. But also I think it's very tricky trying to learn that stuff just from listening to records, especially for new players. I couldn't do that. You can of course get lots of instructional stuff covering almost all the players JonR mentions (and I've previously listed titles for a dozen or more blues songbooks, video's and DVD's...several of them in a current thread). A good teacher is even better of course, and no doubt the quickest & easiest way, though teachers and DVD's etc. do cost money.

    Just 2:cent’s on that stuff, just chatting about it.

    Ian.


  6. #6
    Registered User JonR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    Twickenham, UK
    Posts
    4,959
    Quote Originally Posted by Crossroads
    [size=2]Not much to add to JonR's post (of course), but I just note that Edwards says he has an Acoustic, so I wonder if he's thinking mainly of early acoustic blues styles such Robert Johnson & Bill Broonzy (as opposed to 1950's onward, where electric became the main choice)?

    Although, perhaps it would be surprising if Edwards really is mainly interested in early acoustic blues, because that's a fairly purist form which many people find hard work to listen to nowadays.
    'Twas ever thus! In fact, that was the appeal of it back in the 1906s! The more raw and scratchy the recording, the more "authentic", man! (I'm only half-joking...)
    Quote Originally Posted by Crossroads
    I doubt if many young aspiring guitarists want to dedicate time to that stuff now.
    If that's true, I think it's very sad. It'd be like a new jazz fan saying he wasn't interested in Louis Armstrong or Duke Ellington or Charlie Parker.
    Quite simply, any pro blues musician of any stature recognises the value of the pre-war originals - whether or not they want to play like that, respect is paid and influence drawn.
    Quote Originally Posted by Crossroads
    Just re. Jon's list I'd add Otis Rush in 1950's. And of course I'd strongly recommend Clapton's seminal 1966 Bluesbreakers album, ie if guys are interested in that more high-energy electric blues style (which I love). True, on that record Clapton is interpreting various earlier classic stuff from Freddie King & Otis Rush etc., but Clapton did put a very different complexion on it, & created what is perhaps the most famous electric blues guitar sound ever recorded (other songs on that LP were penned by John Mayal, ie original to Mayal/Clapton).
    True. I'd argue that that was a seminal album in the invention of rock music, in the conscientious attempt to push amplification where it hadn't been designed to go (something the original blues guys weren't much interested in).
    Clapton, of course, is well-known for his purism and love of pre-war blues, but equally he put a foot firmly in the modernist camp with those experiments with overdrive/distortion (helped by his work with Jim Marshall). Page, Townshend and Beck were exploring similar areas then, of course, but less tied to blues - and aguably with less sensitivity about tone than Clapton.
    Quote Originally Posted by Crossroads
    I agree it's vital to listen to lots of classic blues records, because you have to get all those sounds into your head. It has to become a part of you, sort-of second nature. But also I think it's very tricky trying to learn that stuff just from listening to records, especially for new players. I couldn't do that.
    Well, I was just saying that's how everyone used to do it! Sure you need some basics (the chord knowledge I mentioned, the basic 12-bar sequence). But I learned my blues from transcribing records in the 1960s. There were no books. I guess it was hard, and took a while, but it was tremendous fun.
    I wouldn't want to suggest that kids today should deprive themselves of easily available aids (I'd have jumped on them if they'd been around then - and I bet Clapton at al would have too). There's no virtue in hard work for its own sake. But with blues (more than most other music) there really is an essence, subtle nuances, that can't be written down, or even explained very well, but are crucial.

  7. #7
    Moderator
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    London, England
    Posts
    1,657
    Quote Originally Posted by JonR
    If that's true, I think it's very sad.
    Yeah, I think it is a shame. But I think it is true.


    I remember a few months back I replied here to a guy asking for recommendations on learning blues guitar. After my usual suggestions, his subsequent replies showed that his idea of blues was Joe Satrianai and the bloke out of Alice in Chains. I don't even know if I have the will to explain that lol!

    You could hardly find a bigger blues guitar fan than me, but even I find much of the early stuff somewhat inaccessible. I know that may sound like heresy ... and I did once delve back into loads of that stuff when I first got interested in guitar...but I guess electric styles were always my first love...and my last too.

    YouTube has some surprising early clips, even inc. Blind Lemon Jefferson (d.1929 ). I know Jon will be familiar with all these guys, but others may not be so familiar ... anyway here's a clip of Son House http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MDCNbacVt5w

    And just in the spirit of chatting about early blues guitar, or rather moving into the electric styles of the 1950's/60's, here's a late 1950's clip of Otis Rush - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uy2tEP3I3DM

    And slightly later, a nice example of the raw electric style of Buddy Guy from the 1960's - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k_rd8y8A2oE

    Quote Originally Posted by JonR
    I'd argue that that was a seminal album in the invention of rock music, in the conscientious attempt to push amplification where it hadn't been designed to go (something the original blues guys weren't much interested in).
    Of course I agree on the amp tone etc. Though I do regard that as solidly in the electric Blues genre (for me that's not rock). But of course I'm biased, because that's by far my favourite guitar record ever. He never played like that again imho.


    Just chatting ... none of it's set in stone .

    Ian.


  8. #8
    It's Da Blues I Tell You! sad_fingers's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Manchester UK
    Posts
    8
    http://www.justinguitar.com/

    This is a great resource His practice materials are quite inexpensive. And his teaching techniques are conducive to Prolonged learning.

    Hope this helps? I know it is helping me.
    Quote

    "The way to learn to do things is to do things."

    - Benjamin FranklinHidden Content

  9. #9
    Moderator
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    London, England
    Posts
    1,657
    I don't know if Edwards is still with us, but just as a specific suggestion, leading on from Jon's list ... I like the Bill Broonzy song Key to the Highway.

    Again, that’s a song Clapton learnt on acoustic when he first started playing guitar, and he's continued to play various versions of it ever since, both acoustic & electric.

    If you want to hear it, there's a lovely extended electric version on the Layla LP. If you listen to that you'll see why I found it difficult to pick up this sort of thing just from listening to records, ie sounds difficult.

    But after much searching I found the full notation & tab in Hal Leonard's Play Along series Eric Clapton Vol.34. That's given as the electric version, but it works great on acoustic too.

    Anyway, point is - imho that's a very nice piece of real classic blues guitar, and probably a good one to learn (I don't know if Jon would agree with that?).

    Ian.

    Last edited by Crossroads; 03-24-2008 at 11:33 AM.

  10. #10
    Artistically Bankrupt
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    U.S.A.
    Posts
    869
    Oh my goodness, I have to be the one to disagree with JonR? If he and I get started, you'll scroll an hour thorugh three posts...

    Nothing new of any significance happened in blues beyond the 1960s (in fact little after the 1950s). <snip> EVERY great player beyond 1960 looked to this history for inspiration.
    If John Doesmith in 1979 has subsumed and is barfing out all the stuff from the 30's, then one can learn from emulating John Doesmith as easily as they can Broonzy.

    But I suspect that you were speaking less of who to emulate, and more of honoring those who introduced new stylings. You are surely aware that a man named "Blind Mickey JonR" back in 1970 told other posters that nothing new had been added after 1960? The same can be said for any point in the past you name. In the 50's, one could have claimed that nothing after 1940 counted as "blues" since acoustic delta had already been plumbed as far as it would go.

    That's because we are free to decide what is "blues music" and what we want to include as a new advent. From this thread, one would imagine that instruments, indeed a guitar, is required. (My personal yardstick is "relatively impoverished black man before WWII who played itinerant gigs bordering on busking who was exploited by a record label." So yeah, we view it similarly, but what fun is there in agreement?) To exclude every advent of style and technology after 1970 is a little odd. Just as electric guitar added a new dimension, effects processing added as much. Why include Chicago Blues if one won't include British Blues from the late 60's/early 70's?

    I've left out lots of other great originals, of course, but most of the above are absolutely central figures. You need to know their work intimately to understand the blues language.
    ...or know the work of someone who has copied their work. Some people learn to play blues without ever hearing Lightning Hopkins, of course. I am not sure reverence for an originator includes a stipulation that you use them as the source. They aren't even usually the best source.

    Remember to listen to the vocals. Blues guitar is always a response to the singer (often by the singer himself of course); singing by other means, if you like.
    This is key. From field cadence call-outs to the 60's, the lyrics were the thing. At some point, 25-minute distorted solos were introduced, but we're not calling that "blues."

    All of this borders on some sort of odd elitism and notion that there is some sort of value in musical "purism." Purists are an odd lot.
    "If a child learns which is jay and which is sparrow, he'll no longer see birds nor hear them sing."

  11. #11
    Registered User JonR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    Twickenham, UK
    Posts
    4,959
    Quote Originally Posted by Crossroads
    I remember a few months back I replied here to a guy asking for recommendations on learning blues guitar. After my usual suggestions, his subsequent replies showed that his idea of blues was Joe Satrianai and the bloke out of Alice in Chains. I don't even know if I have the will to explain that lol!
    did you try and put him right?
    Quote Originally Posted by Crossroads
    And slightly later, a nice example of the raw electric style of Buddy Guy from the 1960's - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k_rd8y8A2oE
    Actually, that's 1970, broadcast in 1971, when I first saw it. Still the best guitar playing (at least in the blues genre) I've heard in my life. I've heard no one (not even Buddy himself) equal that since. (Lots close, but nothing quite tops it.)
    The whole track (a 6.22 masterclass) is available on the Chicago Blues soundtrack CD. Essential purchase for anyone who doesn't have it.
    http://shopping.yahoo.com/p:Chicago%...%5D:1921214921
    Quote Originally Posted by Crossroads
    Of course I agree on the amp tone etc. Though I do regard that as solidly in the electric Blues genre (for me that's not rock). But of course I'm biased, because that's by far my favourite guitar record ever. He never played like that again imho.
    I wouldn't disagree. You're right it would be perverse to describe that album as anything but blues.
    When I said "rock", I meant the things he did with guitar and amp (the controlled use of overdrive) became the foundation of rock playing.
    I also liked his playing with the Yardbirds - although you didn't get much of it on record.
    By the time Cream came round, he did nothing for me. I liked the group, for its songs and its overall vibe. But the guitar-playing went in one ear and out the other. When a player never puts a foot wrong (like Clapton) it can end up bland, somehow. No risks being taken, no surprise. I've warmed to it a bit more since.

    Now, Hendrix...! There's a blues player who DID take it somewhere else . It wasn't really blues any more by the time he finished with it, but so what!

  12. #12
    Registered User JonR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    Twickenham, UK
    Posts
    4,959
    Quote Originally Posted by Blutwulf
    Oh my goodness, I have to be the one to disagree with JonR? If he and I get started, you'll scroll an hour thorugh three posts...
    hehe...
    Quote Originally Posted by Blutwulf
    If John Doesmith in 1979 has subsumed and is barfing out all the stuff from the 30's, then one can learn from emulating John Doesmith as easily as they can Broonzy.
    OK, I need to check him out...
    Stefan Grossman has also made a career out of preserving (and teaching) the styles of Broonzy, Bilnd Blake, etc.
    Which doesn't mean it's as good to learn from the new guys as from the originals. OK, their recordings are better quality, but why not go to the sources? They're all easily available.
    Quote Originally Posted by Blutwulf
    But I suspect that you were speaking less of who to emulate, and more of honoring those who introduced new stylings. You are surely aware that a man named "Blind Mickey JonR" back in 1970 told other posters that nothing new had been added after 1960? The same can be said for any point in the past you name. In the 50's, one could have claimed that nothing after 1940 counted as "blues" since acoustic delta had already been plumbed as far as it would go.
    My argument is that blues lived (and progressed/grew/developed) for as long as it connected with its original core audience: black America (or particular strands thereof). The 1960s saw black musicians (and audiences) moving away from blues into soul and funk.
    From that point (it was a slow proces, beginning before 1960 and dragging on for a few years beyond), blues became frozen as a "vintage" genre - just as bebop and Dixeland jazz had - largely thanks to adoption by white culture.
    Blues had been a black "pop" music - throwing away the old when something new and better came along (like electric guitars).
    The veteran blues artists (like Muddy Waters, B B King) etc, began playing to white audiences, not black ones. Nothing wrong with that, except that white blues aficionados always wanted the old stuff, generally to the dismay of the performers.
    Quote Originally Posted by Blutwulf
    That's because we are free to decide what is "blues music" and what we want to include as a new advent. From this thread, one would imagine that instruments, indeed a guitar, is required. (My personal yardstick is "relatively impoverished black man before WWII who played itinerant gigs bordering on busking who was exploited by a record label." So yeah, we view it similarly, but what fun is there in agreement?) To exclude every advent of style and technology after 1970 is a little odd. Just as electric guitar added a new dimension, effects processing added as much. Why include Chicago Blues if one won't include British Blues from the late 60's/early 70's?
    Well, I would. I would simply say that British Blues was revivalist - purist, with a conscious realisation it was a "foreign" genre - while the earlier Chicago stuff was a living culture of the present.
    British blues became a living culture when it morphed into Rock, which did (at least for a few years) constantly re-invent itself, just as blues had done up to the 1960s (very approximately...).
    Quote Originally Posted by Blutwulf
    Some people learn to play blues without ever hearing Lightning Hopkins, of course. I am not sure reverence for an originator includes a stipulation that you use them as the source. They aren't even usually the best source.
    Well, they're clearly the best source if they're the people you're interested in! That's not to say that someone like Grossman doesn't provide a clearer, friendlier route into actually playing like that.
    (It make no sense to say Stefan Grossman is better at playing Blind Blake than Blind Blake was... )
    Quote Originally Posted by Blutwulf
    This [vocal-instrumental call-and-response] is key. From field cadence call-outs to the 60's, the lyrics were the thing. At some point, 25-minute distorted solos were introduced, but we're not calling that "blues."
    Right. But see Crossroads comment above about the Joe Satriani fan...
    Quote Originally Posted by Blutwulf
    All of this borders on some sort of odd elitism and notion that there is some sort of value in musical "purism." Purists are an odd lot.
    Agreed. I'm fully aware of my own awkward position, as someone who loves blues - of all periods between 1920-1970 (approx) - and loves playing it, despite knowing that's it an artificially preserved vintage genre, created (originally) by people whose lives and culture have no connection with my own.

    But then so is classical music...

    IOW, I would like to have been hearing and playing blues at least 50 years ago, when it was "alive" - but the way it is now will have to do...

  13. #13
    Moderator
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    London, England
    Posts
    1,657
    Quote Originally Posted by JonR
    did you try and put him right?
    No ... I temporarily lost the will to live .

    Quote Originally Posted by JonR
    Actually, that's 1970, broadcast in 1971, when I first saw it. Still the best guitar playing (at least in the blues genre) I've heard in my life. I've heard no one (not even Buddy himself) equal that since. (Lots close, but nothing quite tops it.)
    Ahh, yes...I was just guessing the dates. But I'm pleasantly surprised you like the very raw energetic style on that track. I thought you might regard it as a "squawky" mess lol.

    Quote Originally Posted by JonR
    I wouldn't disagree. You're right it would be perverse to describe that album as anything but blues. When I said "rock", I meant the things he did with guitar and amp (the controlled use of overdrive) became the foundation of rock playing.

    I also liked his playing with the Yardbirds - although you didn't get much of it on record.
    Yeah, I didn't really think you regarded it as rock. I knew what you meant.

    Musically I think the Yardbirds stuff was pretty straightforward (ie even more so than Bluesbreakers), but tracks like I Aint Got You and Got to Hurry, brought Clapton to some minor public attention (on the underground art school circuit at least). I loved Jeff Beck’s playing with Yardbirds too.

    Quote Originally Posted by JonR
    By the time Cream came round, he did nothing for me. I liked the group, for its songs and its overall vibe. But the guitar-playing went in one ear and out the other. When a player never puts a foot wrong (like Clapton) it can end up bland, somehow. No risks being taken, no surprise. I've warmed to it a bit more since.
    I had the same reaction to Cream. I think many of Clapton’s fans were confused/disappointed by that change of style. The trademark hard driving blues had disappeared, and it was replaced by the emerging fashion for more psychedelic sounds at ultra high volume.

    As an example - if you play through Clapton’s version of Crossroads from the notation/tab, it's fantastic, just quite brilliant (imho). But if you listen to Cream playing Crossroads it's just a thunderously loud mess lol!

    Quote Originally Posted by JonR
    Now, Hendrix...! There's a blues player who DID take it somewhere else . It wasn't really blues any more by the time he finished with it, but so what!
    I have mixed views on Hendrix. I think he was a great writer and very creative. But as a guitarist I’m not so impressed ... whoops, now I have to duck lol!

    Roy Buchanan is another name I should have mentioned.

    Ian.
    Last edited by Crossroads; 03-24-2008 at 06:09 PM.

  14. #14

    Re:Want to learn to play blues guitar …..Online?

    I believe that it’s good to learn online as I have the example of my friend who has really made himself good on guitar by learning from the net. He used to learn blues guitar by online lessons and it did him good. It was hotstrings.

    An easy introduction to the most important techniques and styles of blues guitar playing. 100 exercises and tracks for your first solo and rhythm guitar playing. Direct downloadable to your pc.


  15. #15
    Artistically Bankrupt
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    U.S.A.
    Posts
    869
    AH, Hell, I have lost my will to even play Devil's Advocate. So instead of disagreeing with JonR, I will take what he says even further... More fun anyway.

    There hasn't been a genuine blues player since the days of a soloist and his acoustic guitar busking at train depots and juke joints. An amplifier plugged into a wall outlet hooked to the local electric company is lightyears departed from the actual blues music one could hear on a business's porch before the war.

    Starting on the day that those with capital (even if that capital was only an amplifier and steady bus fare) realized profitability in milking the folk genre, Blues music died a commercialized death. The recording industry labeled various stylings as "blues," using a rather loose definition.

    Pretty outrageous comment, eh, to eliminate B.B. King and John Lee Hooker from the list of Blues Players? Hmmm. What to do? I have rather ourtageously removed Muddy Waters because of percussion and an amp... no way can I be right...

    Well, why would we call an acoustic Delta slide song "blues" as WELL as an electric, single-note soloist song "blues?" There obviously is something that ties the two together, causing us to call them both "blues." We use SOMETHING to define both Robert Johnson and Muddy Waters as "blues." Whatever you use to tie them together had better be carefully worded, or else you will have to call a lot of modern country and rock pickers "blues artists" as well...

    What ties the various styles together? Why was "Big Boss Man" by Jimmy Reed a blues song? Or was it? If so, then why isn't any of 100 songs released last year?

    Oh, wait... I am arguing that they aren't. It would help if we had an objective definition. But like I say, it would need to be carefully worded to eliminate tons of songs.
    "If a child learns which is jay and which is sparrow, he'll no longer see birds nor hear them sing."

Similar Threads

  1. typical blues chords?
    By LarryJ in forum Getting Started
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: 06-16-2010, 05:02 AM
  2. Don't want to play anymore.....
    By zoso in forum Mental Stuff
    Replies: 23
    Last Post: 03-13-2006, 07:12 AM
  3. bluesy... for me, not easy!
    By cybermessiah in forum Improvisation
    Replies: 94
    Last Post: 10-10-2005, 08:34 AM
  4. beat it solo
    By vanhalen in forum Guitar Technique
    Replies: 81
    Last Post: 12-02-2004, 09:33 PM
  5. Concept: Playing a Song
    By Bongo Boy in forum Guitar Technique
    Replies: 122
    Last Post: 10-16-2004, 09:59 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •