Moderators: rickenbrother, ajish4
but the forum has been quiet lately so here goes.
(chorus, delay, reverb, etc)
fabandgear wrote:You need six more strings!
Agreed but I got hands that sweat acid or something!!....usually have to replace my strings every 2-3 weeks and it's bad enough with 6 strings let alone 12 
Would have to go for a 660 as well and that would cost $$££One of the reasons Peter Buck can handle such heavy strings is that, at least on the early R.E.M. stuff, he doesn't do much string-bending. I'm curious as to how you can possibly play "Pretty Persuasion" with skinny strings. I've found that to do that string-skipping really rapidly as Peter does, I need stiff strings and a stiff pick. As for Roger McGuinn's string gauge choices vs. Peter's, we're talking apples and oranges, 12-string and 6-string. (I doubt Peter ever used anything heavier than a .10 set on his 360/12. My advice just refers to his ubiquitous Jetglo 360/6.)david/wales/u.k wrote:I find the opposite to be true. I have 12's on my acoustic and I find it hard to appregio with them and have to stick to strumming. On the 10's I find running the pick through the strings much easier. Peter Buck is a big strong guy with big hands and probably finds using the 13's better for him. I wouldn't say it's essential for his sound though.... John Hall once said that he found Peter Bucks guitar very difficult to play as it had a very high action as well as the heavier strings. On the other hand, Roger McGuinn likes the action to be as low as possible and uses 10's. These are preferences for ease of playability and not sound. My ease of playability (and 95% of my style is appregio/picking) is to use the lighter string gauge