Playing funk on the Squier Jazzmaster and Yamaha RBX170EW bass
The Jazzmaster is not the first guitar that comes to mind when wanting to play funk. I did it anyway.
I decided to try an experiment to see if my Jazzmaster could actually get a funk sound out of it. This is a style of tone that's usually Strat-only territory, but I gave it a try anyway. The result is here. Not too bad, especially since I don't ordinarily play funk.
However, the real thing that makes funk work isn't the guitar. It's the bass. Without a good bass line, the funk just doesn't happen.
Ever since I put the GHS Round Core Bass Boomers on my Yamaha RBX170EW, that's allowed me to get more funky on the bass guitar. While true the strings are still new and have a bit of that "sounds like a piano" thing going on, I'm really liking the GHS set, and over time they will lose a bit of their brightness (desirable in this case) so they don't sound so "pingy" when playing them.
As for the Jazzmaster, yes I can play funk with it, but I'll have to experiment with some techniques and tone adjustment to make it sound better.
As for the bass, I've a little more to say about that.
My journey with bass guitar strings
Originally, I used generic roundwound stainless steel bass strings. These are strings you could literally put on a bass guitar and keep them there for 10 or even 20 years because they never rust. All you have to do is boil the strings in water every few months to clean off the finger grime and that's about it (yes, you can do that with stainless steel strings.)
The tradeoff for me is that bass strings typically wreck my fingers, so I needed something else.
I tried flatwound strings. It was a La Bella set. An example of a specific set that many players like is the "Jamerson size" 52-110 Original 1954 set. What I didn't know about flatwound then but do now is that they are really tight when tuned up to pitch. That, and I missed the feel of the grooves of the string, so that didn't work out for me. Yes, there is such a thing as "low tension" flats, but I really wanted to feel the actual grooves of the string winds again.
Next up I tried D'Addario Half Round, which is a set with a semi-compressed wind on it. You can still feel the grooves, but it has the feel of a flatwound, sort of. I didn't like these for a few reasons. First, it's a roundwound sound with a flatwound feel. Weird. Second, every set comes out of the box feeling sticky. They all do this. There's some kind of coating on the string. Eventually it wears off and feels normal, but again, weird. Third, I didn't like the tension of the string. Still a bit on the tight side, and the 1 string just felt really thin even though it's physically thicker than a normal stainless set.
After that, I went with the Dunlop DBN45105 set. I went back to regular roundwound steel strings, but this time used one with a slightly looser tension. This I liked. This felt right. It also sounded right. However, something was missing but I didn't know exactly what.
Then I went to NAMM, and while there went by the GHS booth. While there talking with the sales guy for GHS, he spoke about the round core set for bass. That sounded interesting, so he gave me a pack of them. After I got home, I put the strings on, and...
...that was the string I was looking for. It's a nickel plated roundwound string with a round core in the center, which to me has the right tension I was looking for, that being a bit bendy and loose. And it sounded correct.
How will they react once they stay on the bass a while? I don't know that yet. What I do know is that my fingers don't get nearly as wrecked on them as they do with regular stainless steel strings.
Hexagonal core a.k.a. hex-core strings are stiff by nature, and it's also used as a selling point because a stiffer string at pitch rings out longer. But it's the stiffness that turns me off from it on the bass guitar.
On 6-string electric, I use Dunlop DEN0942 exclusively, which I believe are hex-core. That set has a feel to it I like, a sound I like, and a very fast break-in time.
On the bass however, the round core from GHS is far better than any hex-core I've tried. For light plucking with fingers, it just has a way better feel to it.
Does this mean more funk/disco style tracks in the future from me? Maybe.
Do 3-pickup guitars suck?
Sometimes, yeah they do.
Take the "Black Beauty" Custom Les Paul Custom. Epiphone only makes this currently. If you want one in a Gibson flavor, prepare to shell out some serious cash. And in all honesty, the Epiphone version isn't exactly cheap either. But then again, it is a Black Beauty model and you don't see them very often.
The guitar that comes up when you ask players to name a 3-pickup solid-body electric guitar is of course the Fender Stratocaster.
When I used to play a Strat as my main guitar, what I would always do is set the middle pickup as low as I possibly could where the pickup pole pieces were just barely above the pick guard. Why? So I wouldn't keep whacking the middle pickup with my pick...
...and that is the reason why a 3-pickup guitar can suck.
For most players, the middle pickup area of a 3-pickup guitar is exactly where you pick the most. Going back to the Black Beauty above for a moment, while it looks great, the 2-pickup version Custom Pro is something most players would rather have (and is quite a bit less in price as a nice bonus) because it's just a better player's guitar since it doesn't have that annoying middle pickup that gets in the way.
What about the Strat?
Any Strat that does not have 3 skinny single-coil pickups in it looks weird to most people.
For example, the Fender Blacktop Stratocaster HSH, which is a fine guitar with fine electronics, just looks odd. It doesn't "look like a Fender Strat", even though it totally is.
No matter what, a Strat with 3 skinny single-coils is always the most desirable. Not only must it have 3 skinny single-coils, but also have exposed pickup pole pieces to complete the proper Strat look.
And yes, that means if you want the traditional Strat look, you will have to deal with that middle pickup by doing one of the following:
- Play around the pickup
- Lower it flush to the pick guard so it stays out of the way when you pick/strum.
- Lower only the top part of the pickup as that's where you would whack it with the pick.
Some players will do the "lower the top half" on both the middle and front (as in neck) pickup to avoid bashing into them when playing. You'll notice on a lot of vintage Strats that the pickups are set up exactly like that by the player. Now you know why.
Strat quack
For many Strat players, the two most-favorite pickup selector positions are 2 and 4, meaning rear + middle and front + middle. Not only are they the positions that cancel the hum since the middle pickup is reverse-wound, but they also create a sound that Strat players affectionately call "Strat quack".
If you give up playing Strats, you give up that quack sound that only Strats can do. So if that quack is a distinctive part of your sound, you'll need a Strat to get it.
I, however, was willing to give up that quack sound because I find 2-pickup solid-body electrics much easier to get along with.
Do I miss Strat quack?
While the Strat quack that the middle pickup provides is a very distinctive part of the Stratocaster sound, I found that it was something I didn't really miss at all when I switched over to the 2-pickup Jazzmaster. Once I went to the Jazz, I was just fine leaving the Strat behind.
I like the 2-pickup layout so much that for future electric guitar purchases, I'm only considering 2-pickup guitars like the Telecaster.
"Versatile" really isn't a selling point if that versatility gets in your way
Take the Ibanez JEM/UV Steve Vai Signature. While I'm sure the neck on it is wonderful, the electronics are perfect and the pickups are voiced correctly for what it is, this is also a guitar where you will constantly be bashing into the 3-pickup layout with your pick.
Most guitar players can't play this thing. It's not due to "lack of ability", but rather due to the fact there is absolutely no room to pick or strum without whacking a pickup. The neck has 24 frets, meaning the neck-side pickup had to be pushed back to accommodate that, pushing the HSH layout even closer together than usual. Were this guitar a 22-fret, there could be proper pickup spacing, but not here.
The JEM, in all honesty, would be better off as an H/S instead of an HSH because at least then you'd have some room to pick and strum.
In comparison...
The Music Man Axis is a far better, far superior design. It has a proper 22-fret neck, 2 pickups and plenty of space between the pickups for all the room you'd ever want so you don't whack them when playing.
In other words, while the JEM restricts, the Axis allows for more freedom of play.
Should you never buy a 3-pickup guitar?
You can buy any kind of guitar you want because I'm not the boss of you. If you like Strats, get a Strat. If you like Black Beauty Les Pauls, get one. If you like the JEM, get one...
...but just know you'll probably be whacking the middle pickup constantly in any of those guitars unless you move it out of the way by lowering it. Or if it's a guitar like the Black Beauty Les Paul where you literally cannot adjust the middle pickup out of the way, it will get all scuffed up by whacking it constantly while playing.
On a final note, you will notice that on many older 3-pickup Gibson solid-body electrics with gold covers that the middle pickup is all scuffed up and discolored. The reason for the scuffs and scratches is because of the player hitting it constantly with his pick. The discoloration comes from the fact the player cleaned the middle pickup cover twice as much in an attempt to smooth out the scratches on each string change. All that extra cleaning on just that cover caused the gold finish to wear off quicker compared to the other two pickups, which is why it's discolored in the first place. Gibson didn't use a different gold pickup cover for the middle pickup. The discoloration over time is due to player making it that way.
5 good, cheap acoustic guitars
Acoustic guitars are fun. Buy the right one, and it's a great songwriting guitar.
I'm going to state two things about this list up front.
- If you like any of these and want to electrify it, get a Seymour Duncan "Woody" pickup. It goes right in the sound hole. Simple and easy.
- The price range of the guitars below starts at $82 and ends at $200. Yes, that means every single guitar you see below at the time I write this is between $82 to $200. And they're all good.
With that said, here we go.
Epiphone really knows how to build a good, cheap acoustic, and it doesn't get much better than the DR-100. While most who play solid-body electric guitars scoff at the design of the headstock ordinarily, it looks right at home on an acoustic body.
The only really bad part about the guitar is that "E" logo on the pick guard. But that's nothing you can't replace or put a black sticker over to cover it up.
While not your typical dreadnought shape (it is a bit squared off,) this is a very comfortable player when sitting. Also take notice of where the strap buttons are, as this is a very easy guitar to play standing up as well.
When it comes to "looks expensive", the F335 from Yamaha nails it. Very nice acoustic that projects well and looks upscale, especially with the "Y flower" graphic on the headstock. This is one you'd be proud to have on your guitar stand.
This particular Fender comes in 3 colors, but the best of the lot is the sunburst. It's not the same as the FA-100 as you'll notice it has a slightly more curvy shape to it, and for the price, you really can't get a better sunburst on an acoustic.
I list this for only one reason. It has a cutaway body shape. Some players like having the cutaway to get easy access to the higher frets. The best part about this guitar is its price. This is the $82 acoustic at the time I write this. And surprisingly, it gets really good reviews for an acoustic that sells for this low.
Rich's picks
My first pick is the DR-100. While it may have that dopey "E" on the pick guard, it's a traditional dreadnought, easy-to-play and has very predictable playing characteristics. I like the fact this is cheap enough to be a "throwaway" acoustic, meaning you can bang the crap out of it and not care. It may only last 4 or 5 years, but that's fine.
My second pick is F335. It's more than the Epiphone is, but a great looker, and Yamaha builds some darned fine acoustic guitars. This is the guitar that could last you 10 years or more easily, which is a pretty sweet deal considering how low in cost it is.
Is there that much of a difference between the way Epiphone and Yamaha make acoustic guitars? In my experience, yes. The reason Yamaha acoustics last longer isn't because of wood choice but rather how their acoustics are made.
Does Yamaha use more glue or some kind of bracing that makes their acoustics last longer? I don't know. What I do know is that the only thing on Yamaha acoustics that usually breaks down first are the bridge pins (easily replaceable and dirt cheap) and the frets after years of play. So after something like 7 years, you can level the frets, get the guitar refretted or just buy another acoustic at that point. Either way, you get a lot of guitar for the money.
Maple vs. mahogany electric guitar necks
Is maple (like such as on a neck like this) better than mahogany or is the reverse true? Let's find out.
When guitarists debate maple vs. mahogany, generally speaking they're referring to Fender vs. Gibson, as most Fender electrics use necks made of maple and most Gibson electrics use necks made of mahogany.
That being said, let's get this out of the way first:
"They don't make 'em like they used to."
Fact or Fiction? FACT.
But it's why that counts here.
Where Gibson electrics are concerned, the necks used to be made of Honduran mahogany. Gibson doesn't use that species of wood anymore and hasn't for a long time now. The current wood type they use is African mahogany.
What this means is that Gibson literally cannot build 'em like they used to because there's no way to do it. The Honduran mahogany supply was depleted and Gibson had to go elsewhere to get another mahogany type similar to the Honduran stuff. They did, and that's what is used to make them now.
Where Fender electrics are concerned, the maple they use today is basically the same as it was years ago - with one rather important exception. The vast majority of Fender electrics made now use flatsawn maple instead of quartersawn. Why? Because flatsawn boards are far cheaper to source. You can visually see the difference just by looking. With quartersawn you will see the straight grain lines on the back of the neck (in the direction of headstock/pegboard-to-heel,) whereas with most flatsawn boards you won't. Why "most?" Because some flatsawn boards come from the middle of the log and those will have straight grain lines; this is why some Squier guitars do in fact have straight grain on the neck.
Fender does offer certain guitars with quartersawn boards, such as the Eric Johnson Stratocaster model. That neck type is considered a premium option, and it is because it costs more to source.
Gibson had to get a different mahogany source. Fender decided to use a cheaper way of getting maple. The end result is that it is totally true that both Fender and Gibson don't build like they used to. This is not to say they build bad guitars. But it is to say that the way both companies source wood has changed significantly.
Maple is harder. Mahogany is softer. How does that affect your guitar?
In the world of woodworking, there's this thing called the Janka hardness test; this is a test to determine how resistant a species of wood is to denting and general wear and tear. Obviously, some woods are harder than others.
Honduran mahogany has a Janka hardness rating of 800. African mahogany of the Khaya variety is slightly harder at 845. The type used on Gibson guitars is most likely the Khaya type, or a species close to it that has a hardness between 800 and 900.
Hard North American Maple has a hardness of 1450. There is also ivory maple with a hardness of 1500, and soft maple with a hardness of about 1000.
What does all this mean to you?
It means that the guitar string tension when tuned to pitch is different between maple and mahogany guitar necks, and it also means maple will require less periodic truss rod adjustment while mahogany will require truss rod adjustment more often.
Where new string installations are concerned, some guitarists state to not play the guitar until a new set of strings has been on the instrument for 24 hours. Some even say to only change one string at a time so no significant tension on the neck is lost while performing a string change.
Do you need to follow this advice? You can if you wish. I don't recommend doing the one-string-at-a-time thing, solely for the reason that you'll never be able to clean your fretboard properly by doing that. At some point, you're going to have to take off all the strings to get all your finger grime off the fretboard. It doesn't matter how many times you wash your hands before playing, because the grime will get in there and it does have to be cleaned out periodically.
With hard maple necks, you can get away with a lot more compared to mahogany. Maple is harder and ordinarily doesn't require anywhere near the same amount of settling time that mahogany does. Maple allows to slap on a new set of strings, stretch, and in minutes you're ready-to-play instead of waiting for the wood to settle back into its proper bowed shape.
How does this apply to vintage electric guitars?
Over time, when a guitar neck is flexed back and forth enough, it gets to the point where strings, even for brand new ones, won't stay in tune anymore. The mahogany neck will be the first to become unplayable because it will flex out too much. The maple neck will have a different problem as it will be very difficult to get a truss rod turn out of it without a loud CRACK, possibly cracking the neck in the process.
If you have a vintage electric, see a luthier and have him perform neck stress tests. Trust me, he knows what he's doing. And he'll be honest with you as to whether the instrument is still playable or not.
If it's decided the instrument isn't playable, keep it for showpiece reasons, or sell the thing. (I suggest selling it, because what's the point of owning the vintage electric if you can't play it?)
Which is the easier of the two to live with?
Mahogany-neck guitars are more prone to having "off days." What this means is that you'll pick up the guitar and for some reason it just plays awful that day. But then on the next day, like magic, it starts playing wonderfully again.
What happened there? Probably a significant shift in the humidity in the air (like a rainstorm) that caused the neck to bow in a way that made your guitar buzz all over the place. The next day, the weather returned to normal, and as such, your guitar played normally again.
Maple typically handles humidity shifts better because it won't "flex out" as much. It still will flex, make no mistake about that, but not so much to the point where the whole guitar plays like crap and you have to wait a day until you can play it again.
Which is the better of the two for stage use?
Easy answer here: Maple.
The best for stage use is the quartersawn maple neck - if you can get along with its playing characteristics. The next best thing is a neck made from aluminum or carbon fiber.
Is there a sound difference between the two?
The only thing the neck material does on a solid-body guitar concerning how it sounds is how much it affects the string tension. Strings that are tighter at pitch sound different than strings that are looser at pitch.
This is how I can answer this question:
Does neck wood itself affect the tone? No.
Does the string tension at pitch affect the tone? Yes.
Does scale length affect the tone? Yes (shorter scale = looser string tension at pitch).
The point is that neck material, on its own, doesn't affect the sound for one simple reason. It's not where the pickups are.
You can hem and haw all day about "warmth" (a stupid argument because sound is not defined by temperature) and "sustain" (also a stupid argument because nobody needs a 13-second note decay.) But at the end of it all, it's the string tension at pitch and scale length that are things that actually affect the sound in a way that you can hear when it comes to comparing one electric guitar neck material to another.
On a final note, am I saying not to buy guitars that have a neck made of mahogany? No. What I am saying is that it's good to know mahogany's particular quirks, and that generally speaking, maple-necked electrics are easier to deal with.
Can you make an entire song using just one riff?
Writing songs truly is easy, and yes, it is possible to construct an entire song and have it sound good just using one riff.
Guitar players in particular have a really difficult time completing songs, and one of the main reasons for that is because they keep wanting to add in unnecessary crap. Since guitarists have all these notes and chords available to them, they feel they should stuff in ridiculous amounts of phrasing, melodies and so on. Why? Because of the thought "that's what people want to hear", when in fact the exact opposite is true.
In the guitar player's mind, simple = amateur. Guitar guys see all these other guitarists that know every part of the fretboard and play fantastically complicated stuff, so they in turn get fooled into the belief of, "If those other guys play complicated stuff, I should too if I want to get any respect".
If it were true that playing complicated crap did "get you respect," guitar shredders would be the most-listened-to musicians, right? Well, they're not. In fact, they're at the bottom of the barrel and absolutely none of them have any songs that anyone listens to other than other guitar players. Remember how I said a while back to not play for other guitar players?
An example of a song that uses just one riff
Okay, technically, this example is one-and-a-half riffs (just barely). But the point is that the song Shut Up and Let Me Go by The Ting Tings is just one riff the whole way through. All you have here is a simple bass guitar line with accompanying guitar on top, drums, simple keyboard accompaniment and not much else.
When the song needed to separate into a different section, the riff was just changed around slightly but still essentially played the same way. It was either shortened, lengthened, stopped and started again, and so on. But it's all still the same riff.
I've given the tip before that you should try songwriting with a bass guitar, for the reason the restrictions of the 4-string bass (i.e. no soloing or other needless crap) make for a better songwriting tool. And you'll notice with Shut Up and Let Me Go, the main guitar heard more than any other is actually the bass, indicating the song was probably crafted originally on the bass guitar.
So yes, you can craft a whole song using just one riff. Take that one riff and just change it around a bit to establish verses/choruses/breaks and that's pretty much all there is to it.
Do you have to write songs this way? No, of course not. But if you've been struggling with songwriting, if you have just one riff, now you know how to take that and make an entire song out of it.