The audio CD turns 30

On 1-Oct-1982, Billy Joel's 52nd Street was the first commercial compact disc, released in Japan. Now while true CD technology is several years older than 1982 (prototypes were around as early as the mid-1970s), the "music CD", if you will, started in '82, meaning the CD as we know it is 30 years old.

Should a band sell CDs at all anymore?

Ordinarily I'd say no because nobody wants them - BUT - you can at least produce them very cheaply for those that do if you go about it the right way.

If I were selling CDs (and I might try that in the future), I would only make LightScribe discs. LightScribe is a disc-etching technology.

To make LightScribe discs, all you need is a LightScribe-capable DVD burner (about 20 bucks) and LightScribe-friendly blank discs (also about 20 bucks).

If I were going the LightScribe way, it means I can make them on-demand. When someone places an order (I'd probably use PayPal), I can burn the disc specifically for that order, use software for to make the cool LightScribe-etched artwork, test the disc to make sure it works properly, then ship it out. Or, if I were going to play a gig that night, I could burn 10 discs to give away at the show. For the jewel case I'd just use clear slim cases.

The point to doing it this way is that it requires a minimal investment of about 40 to 50 bucks, and that's it. That's sure a hell of a lot cheaper than the several-hundred-dollars I'd have to spend for disc replication + artwork, which by the way would require a minimum order count of at least 100 to 500 discs!

If you're insistent on selling discs, do it the LightScribe way. The drive is cheap, the discs are cheap, the total investment is very minimal and the end product is still custom-to-your-band and looks cool.

So if you're going to go the CD route, don't spend a bunch of money on it. Get the LightScribe drive and discs, save a bunch of money by doing that instead of using traditional disc replication, and you've got yourself a nice little on-demand disc-maker setup.

This is what happens when I break my own rules

I bought a 12-pack box of Dean Markley Vintage 1972 reissue strings. As I've said in previous blogs, you should never buy this many packs of strings at once because what happens is that you'll never get through half the box without some of the strings rusting on you.

Well, that's exactly what happened to me even though I change strings roughly once every 3 weeks to a month. When I got to the 7th pack of strings, either the G or B string was rusted in any new pack I opened. I was able to get maybe 2 more sets of strings out of those 7 remaining packs, having to throw out the rusted G or B strings I found from the other sets.

Dean Markley should really offer the 1972 reissues in 3-packs, but unfortunately they don't.

D'Addario EXL120 strings on the other hand are offered in 3-set packs, so today I bought those instead.

I basically lost about 20 bucks for not following my own rules. Don't make the same mistake.

d.c. cab

D.C. Cab is yet another one of those movies I saw when I was a little kid, had absolutely no idea what it was about, found it again and watched it.

Glad I did, because it's funny - and for me seriously nostalgic.

To get this out of the way up front, this is your typical 1980s almost-no-plot comedy movie. The comedy is similar in style to Police Academy; that's what you can expect from this.

The cast of this movie is a group of actors you would NEVER expect to be in the same film together, including Mr. T, Gary Busey, Bill Maher, Paul Rodriguez, and Adam Baldwin among others. Heck, even Irene Cara appears in this movie for a few minutes.

I was happy to watch this movie again for both old and new reasons.

For the old reasons, first I was glad as an adult to see what this movie was actually about. Second, I like seeing cars at a time when gas was really cheap and people just beat the crap out of them and didn't care. Cars in this movie had real steel bumpers, got knocked around a lot and of course it was cool seeing all those real-deal Checker cabs. Third, it was really cool seeing a bunch of TV stars and comedians from the 80s I remembered in a movie.

For the new reasons, the first thing I noticed about this movie is how well it was shot. For whatever reason the color is amazing. I don't know what film tech was used to shoot D.C. Cab, but all the colors popped out in a really good way and is much better than most early-80s movies - even the good ones. The audio was well-mixed as well. I'll put it this way: The shots are done so well that in driving scenes you can easily see the outline and even the textures of the headlight lenses.

The only bad thing was that yeah, this flick made me feel old because the film was made just shy of 30 years ago. It's getting to the point in my life now where several movies I remember watching as a kid are past the quarter-century mark in age now. Films like Ghostbusters, Ferris Bueller's Day Off, Back to the Future, the aforementioned Police Academy, and so on.. all those films are over 25 years old.

D.C. Cab is R-rated and I didn't see it in the theater originally in '83 (I was only 8 years old then). What I do remember is renting it. I saw Mr. T on the cover, figured it was a funny flick to rent and so either I rented it and the clerk at the rental store didn't care I was renting an R-rated movie, or my dad rented it for me if I asked him to. There were certain movies I'd rent just to watch by myself because I knew nobody in the family would be interested in them except me, and this movie was one of those.

The only reason this movie got the R rating was because there's breasts in it and one scene where a naked stripper runs out in the street. And yeah there's a few scenes where the ni**er word is used.. but just barely. Had it not been for the less-than-a-minute screen time combined of breasts and the even-less-screen-time of the ni**er word, this flick would have got a PG rating fairly easily. I'm thinking the director purposely put the breasts and barely-there n-word to get the R rating thinking it would sell the movie better. He was probably right.

I was glad to rewatch this.

The 12 things that affect guitar tuning stability

I'll probably do a video on this later because it really needs to be shown (and heard) to fully understand why there is a very specific way to tune certain electrics.

These are the 12 things that affect a guitar when tuning it.

1. Type of string used
2. String gauge (as in thickness or thinness of string)
3. Scale length
4. Pick
5. Strength of picking/strumming
6. Type of tuner used
7. Position of guitar when tuning
8. Nut
9. Angle of string after the nut
10. Bridge instability
11. Neck instability
12. Pickup pole piece positioning (flat or staggered)

Do you have to go through a 12-step checklist every time you tune? No. But as you read through this, you'll understand why tuning up can at times be difficult, and what you can do about it to make the process easier.

Here's why the above 12 matter:

Type of string used

This is very easy to understand. The more flexible ("stretchy") the string is, the more difficult it will be to tune to pitch and stay there.

Nickel-plated steel strings like D'Addario EXL120 have average flex to them because of the nickel content.

"Pure nickel" strings like the D'Addario EPN110 take the longest to tune because it has the "stretchiest" metal.

String gauge

Generally speaking, thicker strings can hold tune better than thinner ones for two reasons.

1. You don't bend them as much as you would a thinner string.
2. Thicker strings can't bend as much as thinner ones can.

Scale length

I wrote a whole thing about the differences between scale lengths here, but when it comes to tuning, shorter scale typically holds its tune better than longer scale; the reason is because the strings aren't vibrating as much.

Bear in mind the advantage of a shorter scale guitar concerning tuning is negated if the neck or bridge has tuning instability to it, and I'll get to that in a moment.

Pick

The best pick to use for tuning purposes is the hardest one you can find with absolutely no flex to it, because when tuning that will most accurately represent how you're playing when picking or strumming normally with your normal pick.

If you don't have a super-hard pick to use when tuning, use a coin.

Strength of picking/strumming

The pitch of a string changes depending on how hard you strum or pick. For example, if you pick the 6 (low E) string really hard, you hear that "beeeeeyoooowwwww" sound. During the "beeee" part, the 6 string is slightly above pitch, then in the "yowwww" part the vibration is subsiding and the string goes back to normal pitch.

If you bang your lower strings really hard, you may have to tune the 6 (and possibly the 5) slightly flat to accommodate for super-hard picking.

Type of tuner used

The two major types of guitar tuners are ones that tune by sound and ones that tune by vibration.

Ones that tune by sound where you have to plug into it are very familiar to players; an example of one is the BOSS TU-3.

Ones that tune by vibration are clip-on-to-headstock style where no plugging in is required. Many of these are avaliable.

What dictates which you should use depends on the type of pickups you have. For humbuckers and flat-pole single-coil pickups, the sound-based tuner is the proper choice. For staggered-pole single-coil pickups (Strats, Teles and other Fender electrics), the vibration-based tuner is better, and I'll explain why in a moment. Keep reading.

Position of guitar when tuning

A guitar should either be tuned when in the seated position or the standing position.

If you're just playing your guitar at home or in the studio, tune the guitar when in the seated position. If you're going to play a gig that night, tune it in the standing (as in wearing the guitar while standing) position.

The difference between seated and standing position is that the guitar body is leaned slightly either forward or backward; this does affect tuning slightly.

For example, if when sitting you strum a chord, then stand up while that chord is still ringing, you'll hear a "neeaarrow" sound as the guitar goes slightly out of tune while standing up. Then when standing, certain strings will be out-of-tune. This is totally normal, and that's why you tune the guitar either in seated or standing position, depending on how you plan to play your guitar that day.

Nut

If you hear "chinking" noises when tuning, on your next string change, grab a pencil and a razor, then scrape some graphite filings (the "lead" part) from the pencil into the nut grooves. Then install the strings and tune up. Most if not all of the chinking noises should go away.

The chinking noise you hear is the string physically skipping in the nut groove. The graphite filings act as a "hard lubricant" of sorts to smooth out the travel of the string in the nut.

Angle of string after the nut

Most Fender electrics have string direction go straight to the tuning post after the nut. Most Gibson electrics have string direction at an angle after the nut to the post.

Any electric that has a string on an angle after the nut will not hold its tune as well as strings that have a straight path to the tuning post - assuming the guitar doesn't have a locking nut (if it's locked down at the nut, any tuning instability would be from the bridge side and not the nut side).

Bridge instability

Both Strats and Les Pauls have bridge instability when it comes to the guitar keeping its tune.

On a Strat, if the bridge isn't "decked" where the tremolo claw on the back of the guitar isn't screwed down tight so the bridge isn't "floating" on the top of the guitar, this causes tuning instability.

On a Les Paul, the stock bridge "waggles", causing tuning instability. This is easily fixed by replacing the bridge a TonePros Tune-O-Matic bridge set which won't waggle.

Neck instability

Most electrics do not have neck instability which would affect tuning...

...except the Les Paul.

On a Les Paul neck, there is tuning instability where the headstock meets the neck. Les Pauls have almost always been like this and still are to this day; it is very well-known as a point of tuning instability on the guitar.

The only thing you can do when playing your Les Paul to avoid "wavering" out of tune because of the weak point of the neck is not to move around too much. This is incidentally why Les Paul players (including Slash) stand really, really still on stage when playing solos.

Pickup pole piece positioning

This only affects tuning depending on what tuner you use.

Most Fender electrics use pickups with staggered pole pieces in them, meaning the G string will always be louder than the rest.

With a sound-based tuner, it's very likely your G string will always be out-of-tune slightly because of the staggered pickup poles that's sending a stronger audio signal to the tuner.

A vibration-based tuner is more often than not the better choice for tuning up Fender electrics because it doesn't tune based on sound; this means it doesn't matter what the sound output of the pickup is since the pickups aren't being used to tune the instrument.

In the next blog I'll list some additional tips and tricks for tuning Fender electrics.

Gibson's "Norlin era" electric guitars

Gibson electrics produced during the "Norlin era" are units produced from 1970 through 1983; these are considered by many Gibson fans to be the worst guitars Gibson ever made, and for good reason - they were in fact awful.

The main reason why Gibson was churning out turd after turd during the 70s was because of corporate bean counters. During this time the corporate mucky-mucks running the Gibson show were blasting out that they wanted "NEW! NEW! NEW!" guitars. The end result is that Gibson delivered some seriously wacky junk the bean counters loved but guitar players absolutely hated. That's what happens when you let corporate idiots who aren't luthiers (or at least musicians) that know nothing about guitars run things.

After the near-total failure of the Norlin era, Gibson was put up for sale in 1984, and nobody wanted to buy the company for two years. Finally in 1986, the company was sold to Henry Juszkiewicz and David Berryman who bought Gibson for $5 million.

One more thing before continuing: Not all Norlin-era produced Gibsons are bad. Right before Gibson went into complete financial ruin in the early 80s, there were some good Les Pauls made, particularly from '78 to '81. However the vast majority of the rest of the line was just junk.

And now, on to the junk:

Gibson Marauder

Take a Les Paul Junior body shape, stick a pointy Flying V headstock on it, replace the better trapezoid inlays with cheap dots, whack off two knobs, move the output jack stupidly to the front, apply a crappy finish (or no finish resulting in "natural" just to save a buck on manufacturing costs), put in pickups that have a sound that do not sound like a Gibson at all, and you've got yourself a Marauder.

Pointy headstocks just don't go with the Les Paul single-cutaway shape design and never did. This turns an otherwise classic design into something that looks like a children's toy. The whole thing is just cheap looking.

Some Marauders did in fact have the trapezoid neck inlays, but not many. Most of them look like what you see above with the dots. There's also a very "woody" appearance, a weird leaning pickup in the bridge position that doesn't even match the pick guard's curve... it's like this guitar can't decide whether it wants to be a Les Paul or a Telecaster Custom, so it tried both and failed at both.

Depending on which year of Marauder you get, you're either going to get a 3-way toggle switch or a 6-way toggle/blend knob.

Worth owning as a player?

No. Those Bill Lawrence epoxy-sealed pickups are going to throw you for a loop because this guitar was specifically designed to compete with Fender, so the pickups have for lack of a better term have a much more "Fendery" sound to them. You'll never get Les Paul or SG growl out of the Marauder. Not happening. And no, it's not worth it to gut the guitar either because of the lack of controls that a Les Paul or SG would have.

Worth owning as a collector?

Somewhat. From a numbers perspective it's in the collector's favor as less than 1,400 Marauders were ever made. However, even with that low unit production count, these guitars are easy to come by and aren't scarce because even to this day, nobody wants them.

On the low end you can get a Marauder for $500 and on the high end around $1,100. In 10 years the guitar will probably be worth around $2,500 at most. Assuming the pickups aren't stone dead by the time you sell the thing, it's a safe bet you'll get double your money for what you paid for it - but it will take a long time to get there.

It's pretty much mandatory that if picking this guitar up for collector's value, all the electronics will need to be redone to overcome that oh-so-crappy build quality of the 1970s. When the wiring is replaced with modern proper braided wire with proper shielding, and the pots are cleaned out proper, she'll sound like she's supposed to. It's not a good sound mind you because it's that weird "dunno if I wanna be a Fender or a Gibson" tone, but at least it will work correctly.

Gibson S-1

We're doing a little (but not much) better here as the S-1 does look more proper than the Marauder does. On most models the headstock color matches the pick guard, the shape of the pick guard works much better with the all-vertical 3-pickup configuration and things just seem to have more symmetry to them. However, you've still got that Les Paul shape with a dopey pointy Flying V headstock on the other side and the crappy dots on the neck instead of trapezoid inlays on most models.

What makes this guitar a nightmare is what you don't see - the circuitry. Once again, this guitar was Gibson's attempt to compete with Fender by using single-coil pickups to specifically sound like a Fender, but at the same time trying to keep traditional Gibson humbucking tones, and that's where the nightmare circuitry is involved in an attempt to make all that work. Anyone who has to work on the guitar under the pick guard without a schematic is in for a rough time trying to figure out how this thing does what it does.

In this instance, you've got a Gibson that can't decide whether it's a Les Paul or a Stratocaster. The answer is that it's neither - BUT - to my ears it does sound better than the Marauder does. The Bill Lawrence singles in the S-1 at least give the guitar some character, tone-wise. Can't say that about the Marauder, but it can be said about the S-1.

Worth owning as a player?

No - but only for the reason the circuitry is a nightmare to work on. If you're good with electronics and can grab yourself an S-1 schematic, then you're fine and can work on the guitar should it decide to screw up on you. Otherwise, this guitar is one to avoid because of its underpinnings.

Worth owning as a collector?

Not really. Strangely enough, it doesn't command as good of a price as the Marauder does. You'd think it would but it doesn't. Why? I've no idea.

For the collector, given the choice between the S-1 and the Marauder, the Marauder seems to be the better investment - however I could understand if a collector wanted both the Marauder and the S-1 "just to have the set", so to speak.

Gibson Corvus

I saved the "best" for last - the Corvus.

The first question on your mind is probably, "What in tarnation is up with that body shape?" Oh, there was a reason for it. A bad one, but a reason nonetheless.

Corvus in this instance is Latin for crow, and the guitar's shape is supposed to look like a crow in flight with the head up and the wing down.

Nobody sees the bird in the design unless it's pointed out to them. For everyone else, this guitar is referred to as Gibson's "can opener" design.

What really gets me about the Corvus is that in the way guitars are designed, one guy doesn't make all the decisions for finalized shapes. Body shapes go through many people before they're actually made, meaning an entire committee at Gibson thought a bird-shaped guitar where nobody could see the bird in it was just a wonderful idea.

To add insult to injury, the part of the body at the bottom before the neck begins makes it look like the bird is taking a huge dump.

To add even further insult to injury, the Corvus looks even worse when hanging on a wall, because then it looks like a dead bird.

Now here's the truly ironic part: As awful as this guitar looks, it is the best of the Norlin-era new-design Gibsons as an instrument. It plays the best and sounds the best no matter what configuration you get it in, and does so for several reasons.

First is how the tuners are set up. The strings go straight from the nut to the tuning posts. This helps the guitar stay in tune a whole lot better compared to the pointy headstock where all the strings are at an angle after the nut to the post.

Second, the pickups are "the most normal". There's none of that epoxy see-through crapola here. As a result, Corvuses with singles sound "Stratty" and ones with humbuckers sound "Gibsony". There's no surprises as to the tone you'd expect, and that's good.

Third, and most important, the electronics are simple on just about all Corvus models. On top, the controls are easy to operate and there's no learning curve. When under the pick guard, there's no nightmare to be found, as the layout is the model of functional, well-designed simplicity.

Out of all the Norlin-era new-design Gibsons, the Corvus was truly the only new guitar made and not some rehashed Les Paul or Les Paul Junior made into something that couldn't decide what it wanted to be.

Unfortunately, the Corvus was dead even before the first one got delivered just from that unbelievably ugly body shape. Had Gibson been a little more reserved in the design for the Corvus, it probably would have done quite well.

Worth owning as a player?

If you can get past the body shape, yes. The Corvus is a good "workhorse" guitar. It's built well, can withstand gigging easily, plays easily and sounds proper.

Worth owning as a collector?

Also a yes - depending on color. White/Yellow and brown finish Corvuses command the most money. Basically speaking, the "more natural" colors (meaning not blue or orange) command the bigger bucks. However, pretty much any Corvus in good working order should double in value similar to the Marauder in 10 years. Right now a mint Corvus commands anywhere from $750 to $1,200, so it's probably safe to say it'll be worth the same as a mint Marauder in 10 years at around $2,500 if it's in one of the more desirable colors.

Will any of the Norlin-era guitars ever be worth more than traditional Gibson electric models?

That's an easy answer: No.

Guitar companies have hits and misses when it comes to electrics. All the new-design Norlin era Gibsons are misses. While Gibson tried like hell to get players to take notice of the new designs, nobody bought it. Gibson even had Paul Stanley and Ace Frehley of KISS fame endorse the Marauder in 1975 and that still didn't work. New-design Norlin Gibsons were just doomed from the start.

If you want something different from Gibson that might be worth something in the future, I suggest looking towards their "lower line" Epiphone brand for guitars that are made well and have good, usable features, such as the Epiphone Wilshire PRO. Good finish options available, great features (particularly the coil-tapping), and very affordable.

As far as Gibson-USA models are concerned, they're almost all overpriced to an extreme level, and you won't get back your investment until a significant amount of time has passed.

Note that I said "almost", as there are a few models new right now worth going for which aren't too bad, price-wise. One such model is the Melody Maker Special. For a USA-built, it's priced very well. Hang on to that for 10 years and you'll easily get more than double what you paid for it. It's certainly a better buy than any new-model Norlin era Gibson, that's for sure.

Gibson still has a few good gems that are decent investments, but you have to shop carefully and wisely to find them.