Using a stock guitar
Fun fact: Most of the guitars I've owned are 100% stock, including the two SX Furrians I own now.
A question I've been asked on YouTube more times than I can remember is whether I use my guitars stock or not.
I'll explain what that means before continuing.
A stock guitar means one which has not been modified in any way. The only thing that is ever changed are the strings and nothing else.
If whatever guitar I'm using works and doesn't need anything, I don't mod it.
However, this doesn't stop people from thinking, "If the guitar sounds good, the guy must have modified it because there's no way that thing could sound like that in stock form."
Here's what I have to say about that.
If you take any electric guitar and plug it direct into a mixer, it will sound terrible. It doesn't matter what guitar it is. Even a 1959 Gibson Les Paul will sound awful plugged in direct.
Where I do my modding, so to speak, is not on a guitar hardware level but a tone level. Again, if the guitar works and isn't doing anything weird or wrong, I use it as-is. The tone shaping is where the mods happen.
For those not in the know, all I use is a Line 6 Spider V 60 amplifier. That's it. But I certainly don't use stock presets. All the ones I use are custom made where I sat down with the amp, customized certain presets to my liking and saved them. I have something like 10 or 15 presets saved but only use 2 or 3 regularly.
After the tone shaping, it's all about the chording, because that counts for a whole lot.
You've most likely heard the phrase "it's all in the fingers". True? Yes. But that doesn't refer to soloing. Rather, it's about getting more sonic goodness from playing more than just generic power chords, a.k.a. fifth chords.
Go on YouTube and search "6/9 guitar chord". Start there. Yes, most of the videos will be labeled as that being a jazz chord. Use it anyway. Also look up "maj9 guitar chord", "maj11 guitar chord" and so on.
Break out of that power chord crap and that's an easy way to make your guitar sound better for $0 dollars.
Fender Player Lead II is awful (get the III instead)
I tried one of these recently. It was not good.
I recently went to Guitar Center because I was thinking about buying new guitar. While there, I spotted a Fender Lead II on the rack and tried it out.
The one I tried was in a color Fender calls Crimson Red Transparent.
The only three things I can say positively about the guitar is that it looks cool, the body felt right, and the neck felt nice. The red is deep and the black guard works well with it. Overall, it's a very nice look. The body does feel correct and is easy to get used to. The neck has the "Modern C" profile and that also felt nice.
Everything else, however... bad.
The deal with this guitar is that it has special switching on it which is guaranteed to confuse most players. Volume and tone, you know those. One of the 3-way switches is a pickup selector and you know that one too. It's that other toggle where there weirdness starts.
If you have both pickups selected and flick that switch, the pickups are put out-of-phase and "honk" right out. And the reason it only works when both pickups are on is because that's required to do the out-of-phase thing. Yes, that means the switch only does one thing on one pickup setting.
But the weirdness continues, because there is not a single pickup setting on this guitar that sounds good at all.
I'll start with the out-of-phase thing first. This is absolutely not the same out-of-phase sound you get from a traditional build Fender Mustang with single-coils in it, like the Fender Vintera '60s Mustang. That Mustang's out-of-phase tone sounds great. But the Lead II's version of that just sounds so ridiculously choked. Everything about it is just wrong.
The other 3 pickup positions all have a sound I can only describe as plastic. It basically sounds like a bad attempt at a Strat copy.
Lead II also has period correct '70s "F" tuners on it. I've played other Fenders with these and they worked fine, but not on this guitar. On the one I played, the wound strings barely held their tuning even after stretching them out. I had played a brand new dirt cheap Squier Bullet Strat HT just before I picked up the Lead II. The Bullet Strat held tuning with no problem and it too was also a hardtail with 25.5" scale length just like the Lead II.
This is one of those rare instances where I think the guitar would be better off with modern Fender sealed tuners. I very much like slotted tuners and always prefer them first, but on the Lead II they just don't work.
It is rare I come across a Fender that disagrees with me this much
An example of a Fender design that puts me off instantly is the Duo-Sonic, but only for one reason - the bottom middle curve. I talk about in detail here. I can't play a Duo-Sonic in the seated position because of where the neck sits when the guitar is resting on my leg. The Mustang however with its bottom middle curve set back further puts the neck in just the right spot.
Lead II is a different story. For the tuning issues, maybe a change of the nut and using my string of choice would fix that. But for the sound, I seriously doubt I could ever wrangle a good tone out of it.
Unfortunately, I did not spot a Lead III in stock, so I couldn't try one. That one has dual humbucker pickups instead of dual single-coils.
I'm confident that the Lead III has none of the tone issues the Lead II has, and I'll tell you exactly why. Alnico II magnet humbuckers. This is a lower output humbucker that (usually) has more treble response and would suit the Lead very well.
It should also be noted there is no out-of-phase on the Lead III. The second toggle acts as a coil split instead. Much more usable for the Lead overall.
I'm 100% certain that had I tried a Lead III instead of the II, I would have liked the guitar a whole lot better. And bear in mind this is coming from a guy who prefers single-coil pickups.
The Lead III could also really use a set of chrome cover humbuckers. It's solely for appearance, but wow would it look nice with those - especially the ones with the "Fender" logo stamped on them.
State of my watch collection 2021
Downsizing has occurred.
In the latter half of 2020 I decided to sell off a few watches and may sell a few more. What I own is nothing expensive (most are in fact quite cheap), but I've come to learn a few lessons over the course of my watch journey thus far.
What I wear now
Nothing but Casio. Specifically, you'll see me wearing model F-91W, A158 or AQ230. I don't wear anything else.
The two reasons I wear these is because they're lightweight and legible. To date, the F-91W and it's steel "brother" A158 have the most legible displays of any digital watch I've ever owned. Both have the most crisp, clear displays, and do not wash out when tilted. And while you wouldn't think the small AQ230 isn't legible, it is because it has fantastic contrast.
Here are the watch lessons I've learned.
Lesson #1: I can't do G-SHOCK.
I measured my wrist recently, and it's 6.5", which is small. Because of this, there is not a single G-SHOCK watch out there that fits my wrist.
Size of watch is not the issue and never has been.
It's the strap.
If a resin strap, the watch won't rest flush to my wrist and a huge tail sticks out.
If a fabric strap, the tail isn't as bad but still sticks out quite a bit.
You might say, "Why not get one on metal bracelet?" I've not done this because they're too expensive and all too heavy. The lightest one is about 73g. By comparison, a GWM5610, one of the smaller G-SHOCK squares, is 52g.
And speaking of which, on paper the GWM5610 looks like a perfect fit even for the small-wristed as it measures 46.7mm lug-to-lug, 43.2mm case size and 12.7mm thickness. But strap it on and whammo, there's the strap tail sticking out like crazy. Totally ruins it.
Yes, I know there are strap adapters for G-SHOCK watches. I don't like the look of any of them.
Lesson #2: If the watch has a snap back case, I don't want it.
I prefer quartz movement watches because it's much cheaper and easier to change a battery yourself compared to bringing a mechanical watch in to be serviced every few years.
Generally speaking, there are four ways to get to the battery of a quartz watch. A screw-down case back that can be removed with the appropriate inexpensive tool, four little screws (which is most Casio digital watches), a flathead style button battery you can remove with a coin (many Swatch watches use this), or the dreaded snap back case.
The snap back case is pure evil. On the back of the case you will find a little slot where you stick in a very thin screwdriver, use as a lever, apply a little pressure and the case back pops off. That's easy. Getting the case snapped back is where the nightmare happens.
Only twice have I ever changed the battery on a watch with a snap back case. The first time I did it, I shattered the crystal and had to throw out the watch. The second time I just got lucky, and was genuinely surprised I was able to do it. And then I never did it again.
The only proper way to get a snap back case properly reinstalled is with a watch press. Yeah, getting one is cheap, but for me it's just not worth the bother.
Lesson #3: I don't like round watches - yet
Someday I may find a round watch that I actually like, but that day hasn't come yet.
Most new round watches are either way too big or way too small. And for the scant few I've found that are the right size where I like the style and don't weigh a ton, they end up being really loud tickers. I'm looking at you, Swatch and Timex.
In order to find the right round watch, I may have to go vintage. In the 1970's and 1980's there were several watch companies that put out genuinely decent proper men's quartz watches that were just the right size, right weight and looked great. And more often than not, as long as the quartz movement still works and the battery terminals aren't oxidized/corroded, the watch should keep good time even if it's over 30 years old.
Lesson #4: Obsessing over accuracy is stupid
There was a point where I was synchronizing my watch to time.gov several times a week. With a quartz movement watch - especially a Casio - this is totally unnecessary.
A plain non-atomic Casio quartz watch (like the F-91W) will only be off by 30 seconds in a given month. And in reality it probably won't even be off even by that much.
Realistically speaking, it's only required to sync a plain quartz Casio watch once every 60 days where at worst the time will only be off by 1 minute.
With mechanical watches, yes, those must be synchronized way more often because you can lose anywhere from 15 to 30 seconds a day. But for quartz on a Casio? Sync it once every other month and you're good to go.
Lesson #5: Thick watches are terrible
I can understand that a G-SHOCK needs to be thicker because of the suspension system inside that helps it withstand shocks. I can also understand why many mechanical watches need to be thicker so they can house the movements they use. And I also understand that certified dive watches need to be thick so they can achieve proper 200m or greater water resistance.
For the vast majority of other quartz movement watches out there, there is absolutely no good reason at all why so many are so thick.
Quartz movements can be made to fit in ridiculously thin watch cases. The Casio A700W (which I own) is a good example of this as it's just 6mm thick. Yes, really.
The A700W has 30m water resistance. The W59 has 50m, and that only has an 8.7mm thick case. The HDD600 has 100m of water resistance and is just 11mm thick.
Any time I put on a watch over 12mm thick, I notice it. For example, I have an AE1000W which, while very lightweight, has a beefy 13.77mm thickness. Any time I put on a coat or long sleeve shirt, the watch catches on the cuff every time. Very annoying. The AE1000W is definitely for short sleeve wear only.
The future?
For now, I'm sticking with my F-91W, A158 and AQ230. Small, thin, light, legible, comfortable.
But I do still scan around for new models out there, and old ones too. My biggest gripe about the F-91W/A158 is that it doesn't show month/day at the same time. Wish it did, but it doesn't. I do have a vintage F-28W that does show that, but it has no stopwatch nor alarm function, and I use both.
Where I really missed the boat is that I should have bought a W-71 back when they were still being made. That sorta/kinda looks like the famed DW200 "Marlin" watch but without the 200m water resistance. Vintage examples are available on eBay and of course are all overpriced, so I won't be getting one of those.
But maybe Casio will release an F-91W style with month/day on the main display. That would be amazing if they did that and I'd buy it in a hot minute.
All guitar companies need to start listing 1st and 12th fret measurements
Since it's more difficult than ever to go in a guitar store and actually try guitars, 1st and 12th fret measurements should always be listed.
Take the Yamaha Revstar. Now while true Yamaha buries the information on 1st and 12th fret neck thickness measurements very deep in their web site, they do list that info for all their electric guitars. The only thing not listed is weight, but there are other places to get that info, so I'll give Yamaha a pass on that.
The way Yamaha lists info for their guitars should be a standard model for all guitar companies, because you get all the info you want to be better informed when going to buy. It is VERY nice...
...but I'd be happy enough if guitar companies at least followed what Yamaha does for stating neck thickness. It's stupidly easy. The column is called "Thickness @1st fret/12th fret", and right after that under each model, the 1st/12th thickness is plainly stated.
There are many guitars I won't buy because of the lack of this info
Yamaha, Schecter and Ibanez all list 1st/12th fret neck thickness. Some others do too. But Fender, Squier, Gibson and Epiphone don't. All they tell you is the neck shape and maybe one word like "thin" or nothing at all which implies "not-so thin"? That's all you get.
If for example I go to the Epiphone web site, look up info on the SG Standard and scroll down to the neck,the only info I get for any sense of what the neck thickness is comes from the profile listed as "60s SlimTaper". No mention of neck shape or thickness whatsoever. You're just supposed to magically know what 60s SlimTaper actually means. And I guarantee if you asked five different guitar players what that is, you'd get five different answers since the SG model has been around for so long.
If Epiphone simply listed the 1st and 12th fret depth measurements (and listing the neck shape would be nice too), that would at least give me some sense of how the neck feels on this thing.
But nope, you don't get that. You want that info? You're gonna have to go to guitar forums and hope somebody actually bought the model from this year, was kind enough to measure the neck, and actually post the measurements.
To guitar companies: LIST ALL THE INFO
By "all the info", I mean all of it. In addition to what is already there, list the neck shape, 1st fret neck depth, 12th fret neck depth, string-to-string distance, average overall weight of the guitar, pickup output in DCR (follow what Seymour Duncan does).
No web pages have to be redesigned. No massive effort needs to be done to get this info. All a guitar company has to do is get an intern, sit him or her down with a line of guitars, have the intern take measurements, weigh them, measure pickup output, then send the info to the web guy and update the product pages. Yes, it's that easy. It would take one day to do this for current run models.
And no, listing that info would not confuse potential customers. Not at all. Guys who play guitar not only want this info but need it.
Want more sales, guitar companies? Yeah, you do. List all the info and you'll get more sales.
BEAD tuning for bass, the easiest way for tuning down
Go low or go home.
Tuning a bass this way, such as I do, has several advantages to it. But before getting into that, I'll describe what this actually is.
B-E-A-D tuning is exactly like tuning a 5-string bass without the 5th string. It is very easy to get used to B-E-A-D tuning because you don't have to relearn how to play at all. Your fret positions on the 3, 2 and 1 strings will be exactly the same because that's E, A and D. The only new thing is the 4 string with the low B on top.
There are two distinct advantages to B-E-A-D tuning.
First, you get to hear what a 5-string would sound like without actually having to buy one. Just use your existing 4-string, tune to B-E-A-D, and ta-da, there you go.
Second, it is much easier to play in B-E-A-D. Holding down strings will be oh-so easy. You might even want to raise the action higher, or possibly even use thicker strings.
And that's leads me to...
Using B-E-A-D requires the right string type
I'll explain the wrong string type first. It's any standard roundwound set. What will happen is that your 4 string tuned to be will be "farty" sounding.
If you have a standard roundwound set on your bass now, don't let that stop you from trying B-E-A-D. But don't be surprised if that 4 string flops around too much.
The right type of string is something with even tension, greater tension, or both.
D'Addario Balanced Tension bass strings handle B-E-A-D very well on a 4-string. More often than not you will only require a slight truss rod adjustment to accommodate for the tension loss (when compared to E-A-D-G) and maybe a small adjustment of the string saddle height. You're pretty much good to go after that. The BT sets when tuned down aren't necessary louder in B-E-A-D, but they are punchier and vibrate longer. Where regular roundwound poofs right out, the BT's stay in the game, so to speak.
On top-loader basses, flatwound is the easy way to get greater tension. I say top-loader because if you try to load flats on a through-body bass, that usually doesn't work very well (the bend over the saddle will destroy the string quick).
Although I've not tried this, the D'Addario Half-Round may work on a through-body bass, but I can't confirm that. I have used Half-Rounds before. They do have greater tension but nowhere near as much as flats do. And by that I mean when comparing to something like the La Bella "1954 Original" set, made the very-old-school way, tightness and all. You want tight flats? Get those - if you have a top-loader.
Fingerstyle, yes. Slap? Not-so much.
This is probably something where I'll eat my words later, because some lunatic will probably find a way to slap on a 4-string with B-E-A-D tuning. If that's you, tell me and I'll gladly update this article to say yes, it can be done.
But until that happens, I think slap with B-E-A-D tuning on a 4-string can't really work. I don't play that style of bass myself, but if I did I'm certain the strings would be clacking too much on the slap down, and pulling out-of-tune too much on the pluck up.
If you can prove me wrong there, go right ahead. I just don't think it's doable.
Yes, this is one of those "Gee, why didn't I think of that before?" things
When most bass players (or guitar players pretending to play bass, such as yours truly) want the low B, the first thought is, "I need a 5-string". No. There's no rule that says you have to play a 4-string in E-A-D-G. You want that B? Save your money and tune to B-E-A-D.
The only cash you'll really have to spend is on strings that can handle the lowered tuning to your liking. And that's certainly cheaper than buying a new bass.