calling guitar experts...

[Brwn_eyes0511]

What type of guitar is Amy playing in this photo?

<img src="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/1003/p3chrmd/amy_tw4.gif" alt="Image hosted by Photobucket.com">

[HomerMcvie]

What type of guitar is Amy playing in this photo?

<img src="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/1003/p3chrmd/amy_tw4.gif" alt="Image hosted by Photobucket.com">
It kinda looks like a Taylor, although my eyes can't make out the headstock. This IS Amy Grant, right? Married to Vince Gill. Here's a yahoo'd quote from Vince, on Amy and a Taylor:"Gill is also especially enamored of a small-body cutaway custom Taylor "with a little tiny neck that plays great" given to him by Amy Grant."
http://www.acousticguitar.com/issues/ag50/gear50.html
I didn't know Taylor made an acoustic without a soundhole though(unless her hand is covering a small one), but........long story short, my guess is Taylor.
Your mileage may vary.

[Brwn_eyes0511]

It kinda looks like a Taylor, although my eyes can't make out the headstock. This IS Amy Grant, right? Married to Vince Gill. Here's a yahoo'd quote from Vince, on Amy and a Taylor:"Gill is also especially enamored of a small-body cutaway custom Taylor "with a little tiny neck that plays great" given to him by Amy Grant."
http://www.acousticguitar.com/issues/ag50/gear50.html
I didn't know Taylor made an acoustic without a soundhole though(unless her hand is covering a small one), but........long story short, my guess is Taylor.
Your mileage may vary.

Yes that is Amy Grant and I don't think there is a soundhole...here is another pic with her hand in a slightly different place...

<img src="http://www.nbc.com/Three_Wishes/photos/three_wishes_p10.jpg">

[mylittledemon]

Hmm...hard to say. It looks like a couple different models. For a second I thought it was the Chet Atkins acoustic by Gibson, but the body looks way too large to be that. The headstock does look like a Taylor. The top looks slightly quilted, so, it may be a custom made instrument.

[chiliD]

In that first photo, it looks like there's a sound hole just above her right hand. In that case, it could be a Tacoma (don't know the model though)...since Tacoma makes their guitars with the sound hole off center like that...but, then upon further review, that might just be her sleeve or a shadow of her wrist and not a soundhole at all. I tried blowing up the photo to read the headstock, but it just becomes too blurry & unreadable.

So...after all that... :shrug:...Beats me.


One thing I DO know...it's NOT a Turner. :nod: :lol:

[HomerMcvie]

Okay, nobody(me) calls me anal retentive, and doesn't get away with it! :rolleyes:
I just got off the phone with Taylor, and they (although they didn't see the pic), say it's NOT a Taylor. The only non soundhole guitar(a T-5) they make still has F holes, and they really don't make any "one-off" artist guitars. So, it's not a Taylor, according to Taylor. Although she is listed on their artist's list of players. :confused:
Anally retentively yours(boy, that sounds bad),
Homie

[Brwn_eyes0511]

Okay, nobody(me) calls me anal retentive, and doesn't get away with it! :rolleyes:
I just got off the phone with Taylor, and they (although they didn't see the pic), say it's NOT a Taylor. The only non soundhole guitar(a T-5) they make still has F holes, and they really don't make any "one-off" artist guitars. So, it's not a Taylor, according to Taylor. Although she is listed on their artist's list of players. :confused:
Anally retentively yours(boy, that sounds bad),
Homie

Hmmm...she played it during the first and second episode of the new show "Three Wishes"...when it comes on next Friday...I will to see (if they give another outdoor concert)...this is killing me now... :nod: :laugh:

[bikerchic]

Since we're on the topic of guitar's, this might sound like a stupid question but it has always bothered me, is it just me or does Sheryl Crow's guitar(s) look big on her because she's so skinny or does she play big guitar's?

[chiliD]

Since we're on the topic of guitar's, this might sound like a stupid question but it has always bothered me, is it just me or does Sheryl Crow's guitar(s) look big on her because she's so skinny or does she play big guitar's?

Both. She's skinny AND plays big guitars. :thumbsup:

[bikerchic]

Both. She's skinny AND plays big guitars. :thumbsup:
:laugh: No really, I know nothing about guitars, are there really bigger ones and why? and why have I only noticed this on her? Come to think of it though, Natalie Maines from the Dixie Chicks, her guitar looks big, is it the same type?

[Brwn_eyes0511]

In that first photo, it looks like there's a sound hole just above her right hand. In that case, it could be a Tacoma (don't know the model though)...since Tacoma makes their guitars with the sound hole off center like that...but, then upon further review, that might just be her sleeve or a shadow of her wrist and not a soundhole at all. I tried blowing up the photo to read the headstock, but it just becomes too blurry & unreadable.

So...after all that... :shrug:...Beats me.


One thing I DO know...it's NOT a Turner. :nod: :lol:

What does it do to the sound of a guitar if there is no soundhole, like the one Amy is playing?

[HomerMcvie]

What does it do to the sound of a guitar if there is no soundhole, like the one Amy is playing?
Volume resonates from the soundhole. But, with today's "stage" acoustic guitars, where a pickup is installed for the PA system, you would only notice her guitar was pretty darned quiet, if she was playing it unplugged, say, in your living room.
Actually, with alot of acoustics/electric(plug-in acoustic guitars), bass feedback is a problem, so they make rubber stoppers for the soundhole, which lessens feedback. So, you'd really only need the soundhole if you DID want to play it in an acoustic setting.
I have two Takemine acoustic/electric guitars, and don't need the rubber stopper for feedback control.

[mylittledemon]

What does it do to the sound of a guitar if there is no soundhole, like the one Amy is playing?

It's similar to the way Lindsey plays his Chet Atkins on "Big Love"...without the amplification you probably wouldnt hear that guitar except in a small room. Those Chet Atkins guitars are very slim and meant to be run thru a board.

[chiliD]

What does it do to the sound of a guitar if there is no soundhole, like the one Amy is playing?

You're 100% positive that there's no soundhole? That first photo looks like there's one under her forearm. (as illogical of a design as that seems)


Those Chet Atkins guitars are very slim and meant to be run thru a board.

...or amplifier (a Fender Acousti-sonic SFX works wonders! :thumbsup: )

[HomerMcvie]

You're 100% positive that there's no soundhole? That first photo looks like there's one under her forearm. (as illogical of a design as that seems)

Maybe that's where she got drunk, and smashed an empty fifth of Jack into it. :p

[chiliD]

Maybe that's where she got drunk, and smashed an empty fifth of Jack into it. :p

Or, she used the guitar to block the flying Jack bottle heaved by Vince's first wife when she found out that Vince was seeing Amy before the divorce was final. :laugh:

[HomerMcvie]

Or, she used the guitar to block the flying Jack bottle heaved by Vince's first wife when she found out that Vince was seeing Amy before the divorce was final. :laugh:
Speaking of Vince, he's pretty cool. Have you seen him? I went to his show to see the opening act, and stayed for his show, too. Man, he can play guitar!!! Although I'm not a huge fan, he sure can sing and play with the best of them!
BTW, I'm all about EMG active pickups! EMG makes a Vince Gill drop in system(everything on pickguard, ready to go!), I've got one on one of my Strats. Instead of two tone knobs, the bottom one is a midrange boost, making it sound very humbucker-like!

[Brwn_eyes0511]

Or, she used the guitar to block the flying Jack bottle heaved by Vince's first wife when she found out that Vince was seeing Amy before the divorce was final. :laugh:

hey now...haha :laugh:

[mylittledemon]

Or, she used the guitar to block the flying Jack bottle heaved by Vince's first wife when she found out that Vince was seeing Amy before the divorce was final. :laugh:

HAHA

yeah that was a pretty scumbag move. Especially someone who is out there portraying a "christian" lifestyle. I lost a smidgen of respect for her after that. Then again, she is human.

[Brwn_eyes0511]

HAHA

yeah that was a pretty scumbag move. Especially someone who is out there portraying a "christian" lifestyle. I lost a smidgen of respect for her after that. Then again, she is human.

Yea, I think it is important to realize that she is human and she will be the first to admit to you that she has made many mistakes in her past, but who hasn't? The important thing is to embrace the mercy of God, a passage from shame to forgiveness...compassion - and not judgment - brings about healing! :nod:

[mylittledemon]

Yea, I think it is important to realize that she is human and she will be the first to admit to you that she has made many mistakes in her past, but who hasn't? The important thing is to embrace the mercy of God, a passage from shame to forgiveness...compassion - and not judgment - brings about healing! :nod:

Yeah, well my mother did exactly the same to us and our family so I have little tolerance for things like that.

[Brwn_eyes0511]

Sorry to hear that. :(

However I think everyone’s situation is different. We can never hold a single set of rules to define a group of people, because no two people are the same. We can never know the depths of each human soul and the struggles it goes through, which is why I think we must look at each other with an eye of mercy.

[HomerMcvie]

Oh lord, it's hard to be humble, when you're perfect in every way. ;)

[Brwn_eyes0511]

Oh lord, it's hard to be humble, when you're perfect in every way. ;)

No one is perfect now! haha (except of course for Jesus...and if your Catholic like I am...Mary) ;)

[mylittledemon]

No one is perfect now! haha (except of course for Jesus...and if your Catholic like I am...Mary) ;)

Odd...wasnt Mary a sinner?

[Brwn_eyes0511]

Odd...wasnt Mary a sinner?
Not in Catholic view. She was preserved from the stain of original sin through the merits of her Son, Jesus Christ, not by anything she did herself.

[strandinthewind]

Odd...wasnt Mary a sinner?

Mary was "full of grace" and remained sinless throughout her life and her body was assumed into heavan. She also remained a virgin despite giving birth.

Here is some cool info. on Mary, Mother of God:

Immaculate Conception and Assumption


The Marian doctrines are, for Fundamentalists, among the most bothersome of the Catholic Church’s teachings. In this tract we’ll examine briefly two Marian doctrines that Fundamentalist writers frequently object to—the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption.


The Immaculate Conception



It’s important to understand what the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception is and what it is not. Some people think the term refers to Christ’s conception in Mary’s womb without the intervention of a human father; but that is the Virgin Birth. Others think the Immaculate Conception means Mary was conceived "by the power of the Holy Spirit," in the way Jesus was, but that, too, is incorrect. The Immaculate Conception means that Mary, whose conception was brought about the normal way, was conceived without original sin or its stain—that’s what "immaculate" means: without stain. The essence of original sin consists in the deprivation of sanctifying grace, and its stain is a corrupt nature. Mary was preserved from these defects by God’s grace; from the first instant of her existence she was in the state of sanctifying grace and was free from the corrupt nature original sin brings.

When discussing the Immaculate Conception, an implicit reference may be found in the angel’s greeting to Mary. The angel Gabriel said, "Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with you" (Luke 1:28). The phrase "full of grace" is a translation of the Greek word kecharitomene. It therefore expresses a characteristic quality of Mary.

The traditional translation, "full of grace," is better than the one found in many recent versions of the New Testament, which give something along the lines of "highly favored daughter." Mary was indeed a highly favored daughter of God, but the Greek implies more than that (and it never mentions the word for "daughter"). The grace given to Mary is at once permanent and of a unique kind. Kecharitomene is a perfect passive participle of charitoo, meaning "to fill or endow with grace." Since this term is in the perfect tense, it indicates that Mary was graced in the past but with continuing effects in the present. So, the grace Mary enjoyed was not a result of the angel’s visit. In fact, Catholics hold, it extended over the whole of her life, from conception onward. She was in a state of sanctifying grace from the first moment of her existence.


Fundamentalists’ Objections



Fundamentalists’ chief reason for objecting to the Immaculate Conception and Mary’s consequent sinlessness is that we are told that "all have sinned" (Rom. 3:23). Besides, they say, Mary said her "spirit rejoices in God my Savior" (Luke 1:47), and only a sinner needs a Savior.

Let’s take the second citation first. Mary, too, required a Savior. Like all other descendants of Adam, she was subject to the necessity of contracting original sin. But by a special intervention of God, undertaken at the instant she was conceived, she was preserved from the stain of original sin and its consequences. She was therefore redeemed by the grace of Christ, but in a special way—by anticipation.

Consider an analogy: Suppose a man falls into a deep pit, and someone reaches down to pull him out. The man has been "saved" from the pit. Now imagine a woman walking along, and she too is about to topple into the pit, but at the very moment that she is to fall in, someone holds her back and prevents her. She too has been saved from the pit, but in an even better way: She was not simply taken out of the pit, she was prevented from getting stained by the mud in the first place. This is the illustration Christians have used for a thousand years to explain how Mary was saved by Christ. By receiving Christ’s grace at her conception, she had his grace applied to her before she was able to become mired in original sin and its stain.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church states that she was "redeemed in a more exalted fashion, by reason of the merits of her Son" (CCC 492). She has more reason to call God her Savior than we do, because he saved her in an even more glorious manner!

But what about Romans 3:23, "all have sinned"? Have all people committed actual sins? Consider a child below the age of reason. By definition he can’t sin, since sinning requires the ability to reason and the ability to intend to sin. This is indicated by Paul later in the letter to the Romans when he speaks of the time when Jacob and Esau were unborn babies as a time when they "had done nothing either good or bad" (Rom. 9:11).

We also know of another very prominent exception to the rule: Jesus (Heb. 4:15). So if Paul’s statement in Romans 3 includes an exception for the New Adam (Jesus), one may argue that an exception for the New Eve (Mary) can also be made.

Paul’s comment seems to have one of two meanings. It might be that it refers not to absolutely everyone, but just to the mass of mankind (which means young children and other special cases, like Jesus and Mary, would be excluded without having to be singled out). If not that, then it would mean that everyone, without exception, is subject to original sin, which is true for a young child, for the unborn, even for Mary—but she, though due to be subject to it, was preserved by God from it and its stain.

The objection is also raised that if Mary were without sin, she would be equal to God. In the beginning, God created Adam, Eve, and the angels without sin, but none were equal to God. Most of the angels never sinned, and all souls in heaven are without sin. This does not detract from the glory of God, but manifests it by the work he has done in sanctifying his creation. Sinning does not make one human. On the contrary, it is when man is without sin that he is most fully what God intends him to be.

The doctrine of the Immaculate Conception was officially defined by Pope Pius IX in 1854. When Fundamentalists claim that the doctrine was "invented" at this time, they misunderstand both the history of dogmas and what prompts the Church to issue, from time to time, definitive pronouncements regarding faith or morals. They are under the impression that no doctrine is believed until the pope or an ecumenical council issues a formal statement about it.

Actually, doctrines are defined formally only when there is a controversy that needs to be cleared up or when the magisterium (the Church in its office as teacher; cf. Matt. 28:18–20; 1 Tim. 3:15, 4:11) thinks the faithful can be helped by particular emphasis being drawn to some already-existing belief. The definition of the Immaculate Conception was prompted by the latter motive; it did not come about because there were widespread doubts about the doctrine. In fact, the Vatican was deluged with requests from people desiring the doctrine to be officially proclaimed. Pope Pius IX, who was highly devoted to the Blessed Virgin, hoped the definition would inspire others in their devotion to her.


The Assumption



The doctrine of the Assumption says that at the end of her life on earth Mary was assumed, body and soul, into heaven, just as Enoch, Elijah, and perhaps others had been before her. It’s also necessary to keep in mind what the Assumption is not. Some people think Catholics believe Mary "ascended" into heaven. That’s not correct. Christ, by his own power, ascended into heaven. Mary was assumed or taken up into heaven by God. She didn’t do it under her own power.

The Church has never formally defined whether she died or not, and the integrity of the doctrine of the Assumption would not be impaired if she did not in fact die, but the almost universal consensus is that she did die. Pope Pius XII, in Munificentissimus Deus (1950), defined that Mary, "after the completion of her earthly life" (note the silence regarding her death), "was assumed body and soul into the glory of heaven."

The possibility of a bodily assumption before the Second Coming is suggested by Matthew 27:52–53: "[T]he tombs also were opened, and many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised, and coming out of the tombs after his resurrection they went into the holy city and appeared to many." Did all these Old Testament saints die and have to be buried all over again? There is no record of that, but it is recorded by early Church writers that they were assumed into heaven, or at least into that temporary state of rest and happiness often called "paradise," where the righteous people from the Old Testament era waited until Christ’s resurrection (cf. Luke 16:22, 23:43; Heb. 11:1–40; 1 Pet. 4:6), after which they were brought into the eternal bliss of heaven.


No Remains



There is also what might be called the negative historical proof for Mary’s Assumption. It is easy to document that, from the first, Christians gave homage to saints, including many about whom we now know little or nothing. Cities vied for the title of the last resting place of the most famous saints. Rome, for example, houses the tombs of Peter and Paul, Peter’s tomb being under the high altar of St. Peter’s Basilica in Rome. In the early Christian centuries relics of saints were zealously guarded and highly prized. The bones of those martyred in the Coliseum, for instance, were quickly gathered up and preserved—there are many accounts of this in the biographies of those who gave their lives for the faith.

It is agreed upon that Mary ended her life in Jerusalem, or perhaps in Ephesus. However, neither those cities nor any other claimed her remains, though there are claims about possessing her (temporary) tomb. And why did no city claim the bones of Mary? Apparently because there weren’t any bones to claim, and people knew it. Here was Mary, certainly the most privileged of all the saints, certainly the most saintly, but we have no record of her bodily remains being venerated anywhere.


Complement to the Immaculate Conception



Over the centuries, the Fathers and the Doctors of the Church spoke often about the fittingness of the privilege of Mary’s Assumption. The speculative grounds considered include Mary’s freedom from sin, her Motherhood of God, her perpetual virginity, and—the key—her union with the salvific work of Christ.

The dogma is especially fitting when one examines the honor that was given to the ark of the covenant. It contained the manna (bread from heaven), stone tablets of the ten commandments (the word of God), and the staff of Aaron (a symbol of Israel’s high priesthood). Because of its contents, it was made of incorruptible wood, and Psalm 132:8 said, "Arise, O Lord, and go to thy resting place, thou and the ark of thy might." If this vessel was given such honor, how much more should Mary be kept from corruption, since she is the new ark—who carried the real bread from heaven, the Word of God, and the high priest of the New Covenant, Jesus Christ.

Some argue that the new ark is not Mary, but the body of Jesus. Even if this were the case, it is worth noting that 1 Chronicles 15:14 records that the persons who bore the ark were to be sanctified. There would be no sense in sanctifying men who carried a box, and not sanctifying the womb who carried God himself! After all, wisdom will not dwell "in a body under debt of sin" (Wis. 1:4 NAB).

But there is more than just fittingness. After all, if Mary is immaculately conceived, then it would follow that she would not suffer the corruption in the grave, which is a consequence of sin [Gen. 3:17, 19].


Mary’s Cooperation



Mary freely and actively cooperated in a unique way with God’s plan of salvation (Luke 1:38; Gal. 4:4). Like any mother, she was never separated from the suffering of her Son (Luke 2:35), and Scripture promises that those who share in the sufferings of Christ will share in his glory (Rom. 8:17). Since she suffered a unique interior martyrdom, it is appropriate that Jesus would honor her with a unique glory.

All Christians believe that one day we will all be raised in a glorious form and then caught up and rendered immaculate to be with Jesus forever (1 Thess. 4:17; Rev. 21:27). As the first person to say "yes" to the good news of Jesus (Luke 1:38), Mary is in a sense the prototypical Christian, and received early the blessings we will all one day be given.


The Bible Only?



Since the Immaculate Conception and Assumption are not explicit in Scripture, Fundamentalists conclude that the doctrines are false. Here, of course, we get into an entirely separate matter, the question of sola scriptura, or the Protestant "Bible only" theory. There is no room in this tract to consider that idea. Let it just be said that if the position of the Catholic Church is true, then the notion of sola scriptura is false. There is then no problem with the Church officially defining a doctrine which is not explicitly in Scripture, so long as it is not in contradiction to Scripture.

The Catholic Church was commissioned by Christ to teach all nations and to teach them infallibly—guided, as he promised, by the Holy Spirit until the end of the world (John 14:26, 16:13). The mere fact that the Church teaches that something is definitely true is a guarantee that it is true (cf. Matt. 28:18-20, Luke 10:16, 1 Tim. 3:15).

http://www.catholic.com/library/Immaculate_Conception_and_Assum.asp

[Brwn_eyes0511]

Thanks, I was only going to post all that stuff if he continued to ask! :laugh: :wavey:

[mylittledemon]

I think the Bible also says the "wages of sin is death" and Mary did die. She is not without sin, Christ is the only one without sin, and I believe only he can forgive us of those sins.

[Brwn_eyes0511]

I think the Bible also says the "wages of sin is death" and Mary did die. She is not without sin, Christ is the only one without sin, and I believe only he can forgive us of those sins.

Catholics do not believe that Mary can forgive sins!!!!

But if you would have read all of what he posted you would see that Mary only went into a "slumber" when her life on earth was finished, and then she was taken up body and soul into heaven, sort of a "rapture". Mary, being the perfect disciple of Christ proceeded us all by joining her Son in the Heavenly Kingdom.

[strandinthewind]

I think the Bible also says the "wages of sin is death" and Mary did die. She is not without sin, Christ is the only one without sin, and I believe only he can forgive us of those sins.

Me too - and that is the big issue I have with these religious idiots who imply or directly state that they know what God thinks or what He will do. Who are they to put themselves in the place of God. I mean Christ said we should not judge each other when he said

Do not judge lest you be judged. For in the way you judge, you will be judged; and by your standard of measure, it will be measured to you. And why do you look at the speck that is in your brother's eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? Or how can you say to your brother, Let me take the speck out of your eye, and behold, the log is in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother's eye (Matthew 7:1-5)

I mean we will, according to all Christian dogma, always have a speck in our own eye in that we all sin everyday no matter how hard we try not to. So, according to Christ, until we are sinless (a situation not possible) we should not judge.

Yet, without the power to judge and condemn our fellow man, the organized religions of the world would have no power, which is I am sure a point not lost on them.

[chiliD]

Speaking of Vince, he's pretty cool. Have you seen him? I went to his show to see the opening act, and stayed for his show, too. Man, he can play guitar!!! Although I'm not a huge fan, he sure can sing and play with the best of them!
BTW, I'm all about EMG active pickups! EMG makes a Vince Gill drop in system(everything on pickguard, ready to go!), I've got one on one of my Strats. Instead of two tone knobs, the bottom one is a midrange boost, making it sound very humbucker-like!

That's how the original Fender Eric Clapton signature Strats were configured.

[Brwn_eyes0511]

<img src="http://insanebydesign.com/images/lj/cm-07.jpg">


here is a better pic of the same guitar...any clue now?