cvilleira - I forget but is my '08 MIM standard HSS have a 7.25 radius? I have big hands and trying to work the fretboard is not easy...is it due to the neck radius?[/quote]
That should be a 9.5 radius with med. jumbo frets.. Having large hands has more to do with the neck shape (the back) then a fretboard radius. Be it a modern C, soft V, regular V, or a D.
The D shape to most people is the hardest to play but some will say the extra wood adds sustain. You just have to find what is comfortable to you.[/quote]

You are right 9.5.......practice, practice, practice....the neck on my '08 Takamine is perfect....just have to learn to embrace the differences....

_________________
Your Fender HSS Standard Stratocaster in Electron Blue was made at the Fender Ensenada Plant in Mexico in the Year: 2008.
Final Assembly Date: July 30th, 2008
Model Number: 013 4700 587
Serial # MZ8031252

This is very interesting reading. Cvillerra knows his stuff!

Maybe the entire neck is actually a 9.5. I measured it quickly myself before giving it to him and it looked closer to a 9.5. I'll measure it again when I get it back.

You shouldnt need to measure. The difference between a 7.25 and 9.5 is plainly visible. Now, i'm by no means knowledgable when it comes to specs on vintage strats, but a 62 should have a 7.25 radius. All of that aside, Congrats on scoring a fine piece of Fender heritage!

_________________
"I started out with nothing, and still have most of it"

I dunno about the difference touching the fretboard when ground down. I once read that claptons blackie had worn to a 9.5R. whether that was board and frets or frets alone i dont know. Some weeks back i measured my 14 year old MIM and found the board measuring 9.5 and the fret measuring just over 10" No doubt because i favour middle strings. The idea of grinding the middle of a fret to create a different radius isnt a new one. It is however a serice that i think is questionable to say the least.
I've always found the difference between 7.25 and 9.5 to be next to unnoticable, i certainly have no trouble bending on a 7.25. I believe half this easier to bend stuff came about in the late 70's early to mid 80's. When small companies were offering something that the big boys weren't. I truely believe it doesnt matter unless your EVH, Vai or Malmsteen. After all you never hear that the real greats struggled on 7.25's do you.

_________________
No no and no

Granted it's been awhile since I've played a 7.25 but from what I remember I had a hard time bending on it. And it will fret out earlier than a flatter radius will. Professional guitarists like the ones you mentioned are often prodigies born with tremendous talent. So we can't compare the average player to those guys.

Malmsteen's Strat is a 9.5 by the way.

Yeah but they dont have some kind of magic aura that changes the laws of guitar string physics in their presence do they. A bend that chokes on one guitar will choke no matter who plays it. Guitar gods aren't really gods, their just humans like all of us, thats why lots of them are dead. No one is born with a natural talent, you only get in this life by work and luck. If clapton didnt practice all the time as a kid, he'd be signing on now and trying to avoid muggers on his way back from the post office.

_________________
No no and no

And where would he be with out a good tech? It is all practice as you said Niki

_________________
The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.

Thomas Jefferson

You are mistaken. Look up the word prodigy. Ever hear of Mozart? Beethoven? Liszt? Professional world class musicians like Van Halen and Rhoads and Malmsteen and these guys were born with tremendous natural talent. They were. This cannot be disputed.

Sure they practiced a lot too. I'm not saying they didn't. But they were also born with tremendous talent.

Utter rubbish. I cant believe that anyone came from the womb fiddle in hand composing opus's.
Thats the kind of belief that keeps the average musician down.

No musician EVER in history was born with a natural talent to play music. Its something you learn, end of story. If you can irrefutably show me that physicaly one grain of natural talent exists i'll buy the fairytale. Theres absolutely no evidence of natural talent anywhere in the world. Theres plenty of evidence of greats practicing though.

Look at the stories of hendrix wandering round everywhere (even the toilet) with his guitar, practicing. You think that wasnt the way for Rhodes (mum pushed him into it from a early age), EVH (well documented hours of practice with his brother) Clapton (still sits practicing nothing but bends today), god knows what malmsteens formative practicing years were like. Something akin to chinese water torture if his songwriting is anything to go by.

Cant be disputed? preposterous.

_________________
No no and no

Interesting argument.... so, if guitar talent is something that is developed solely by practicing, anyone who puts in the time can eventually play like Clapton, etc.? I'm not sure that's true -- seems like there is an inherent talent combined with lots of practice to get to the "guitar god" level... plus lucky breaks along the way (being in the right place at the right time, etc.). Still, I hope all it takes is practice -- that would mean there's hope for us all... I think practice will get anyone to a high level of proficiency but the greats seem to have something extra going on...

Obviously you didn't heed my suggestion about looking up the word prodigy. We all know the great composers had huge talents. Especially Mozart who could compose effortlessly and improvise brilliantly right on the spot. It's strange you don't seem to think there is such a thing as talent. Instead it's all how hard you practice you say?

If what you say is true then all of us who practice extremely hard should be able to achieve the level of Malmsteen and Rhoads. But that is not the case. It's simply not going to happen. This is why we have different levels of skill and musicianship. We are all not in the same league.

God broke the mold when he created Malmsteen for instance. He is a rarity. He has an unparalleled technique that is practically flawless.

Why don't you practice really hard and then show us that you are just as good as Malmsteen?

Didn't happen without pics. Congrats on the purchase.

There is a difference between musicaly understanding and this mystical talent that you harp on about. Motzart may well have had a good understanding of music but that would have got him absolutely nowhere without practice. Infact without practice it would never have been realized at all. So yeah i'm down to earth and correct and dont seek some lame excuse of talent to justify my failings through not practicing enough.
Btw wangay is a great guitarist for sure but his songwriting is very subpar. Hardy what YOU would deem a talent and a prime case of practice making the musician much the same as rhodes and van halen (their nothing outside of the guitar community). Whereas a understanding of music is demonstrated by the likes of motzart. Would he have been as good without ever learning the relation between notes by developing his ear? Not a chance. The word prodigy means nothing compared to hard work.

_________________
No no and no

Yngwie's compositions are hardly sub-par. If you bothered to listen to what the man is doing you would realize his vast knowledge of chord progressions and modulations. Nobody can do what he can do. He is strongly influenced by works from the classical masters. My degree is actually in classical piano so I would know.

Talent doesn't just exist in music. It exists in sports, medicine, computers and other fields as well. You can sit there and deny it but it's demonstrated every day.

Since you can't even spell Mozart's name correctly I can hardly take you seriously.