How does a band get known today for no cost?
Being I just talked about how MTV is a total waste of time, I figured it would be good to explain what bands can do these days to get known using a very specific free service mentioned in that article.
What is the best no-cost thing bands should use for a web presence?
Answer: Twitter.
For publishing songs, there's YouTube, BandCamp, SoundCloud, iTunes and others. But for the band's primary web presence, Twitter is the best one.
What should a band tweet out?
Photos and quips posted on a regular basis. Music is secondary at best because people don't go to Twitter to listen to music.
In other words, post photos of stuff, post links to things and maybe an opinion every now and then.
I'll talk about the music stuff in a moment.
Tweeted photos
This does not mean "music related photos only". For example, you could snap a photo of a bowl of mashed potatoes and post that with the tweet, "EATING BORING-ASS TATERS TONIGHT". You will get likes from that and maybe even a retweet or two. Seriously, you will.
Stupid? Yes. But it's entertaining and that's the whole point.
Goofy stuff is 10 times better than any stupid band photo or stupid music gear photo. It's entertaining; that's why it works. Remember that. Sure, sometimes you do have to post stupid band/gear photos, but don't forget the entertainment stuff.
Tweeted links to things and/or opinions on stuff
Here's an example of a link to something that I tweeted an opinion on:
The Jackson Monarkh is a cool guitar but I just can't get past that headstock. Doesn't work on this body shape.
I did get a couple of replies to this. While it wasn't wasn't groundbreaking conversation or anything like that, the point is I got a couple of replies, and that was cool because it's engagement. Getting likes, retweets or replies is always good.
What's the goal of all this?
To build a following.
Tweet photos, links and opinions often. Do it every day if you can.
After a while, you'll have a good following going on, and then you can start posting links to songs that will actually get noticed, heard and hopefully bought.
Should a band go to the "next level" and get a paid dot-com web site after Twitter?
Getting a dot-com these days is pretty cheap. I suggest NameCheap for both the domain registration and web hosting. Yes, the two things are separate but both required, and it's altogether easier just to have it managed all through one company, hence why I suggest NameCheap to do it.
What's the reason to even bother with a dot-com web site?
Answer: Forum.
The core of any band web site is the forum, because that's where everything happens. That's where fans engage with the band. That's where fans can talk about stuff in a longer-than-Twitter way. You can also set up special private access areas on a self-hosted forum easily.
Is it worth paying domain and hosting fees just to have a forum? Yes, because free forums royally suck, and Facebook's version of a forum (fan page or group) is really restrictive.
Start with Twitter first. If after that you need something bigger and better, don't go to Facebook. Host a dot-com and get a forum. NameCheap makes it ridiculously easy to install a forum with just a few clicks when you host with them.
One final thing concerning a band dot-com web site: It is not a bad thing to have your band dot-com site be only the forum. Lots of bands like that because it's easy to use once set up.
My experience on jumping back in with Twitter
Even though I said this just recently, here's a quick refresher: Prior to 10 Feb 2016 I had "blanked" my Twitter account where I deleted all tweets and removed all followers. I started, or rather restarted my account from absolute zero. This means at present my Twitter audience is very small. I don't have a problem with this since I just recently began using Twitter again.
So far, yeah, I'm liking it.
Now granted, my Twitter profile isn't for a band but rather just me. And that's fine.
Will I stick with Twitter? Although it's a bit early to say this, I believe I will. Twitter, even with its limitations, is something I've found enjoyable to use even in the short time I've been using it.
My favorite part of Twitter is that they don't suddenly change around stuff, which is something Facebook is notorious for.
Yes, you can do band self-promo for free with Twitter
It takes some effort to do things the free way, but hey, that's the way it works. But remember you can opt to use promoted tweets with Twitter as a paid advertising option. There's also the dot-com site as mentioned above as a way to "go long" without breaking the bank.
In a band and want to get known? Don't even bother with MTV
I saw a particular release on the front of Amazon, and while I have no interest in buying it, the point is I did see it on the front of Amazon; this is why I'm aware it exists.
Now although I'm not in that magic 18-34 market, I know that since I saw the above on the front of Amazon, so did millions of others.
Advertising online is a much better choice compared to television ads. And while it probably costs a pretty penny to get an ad placed on the front of Amazon, I'm 100% sure it's cheaper than getting an ad placed on something like, say, any popular daytime talk show. It's probably true that a week's worth of national spots where a single 30-second ad ran once on that show for 7 days would easily cost 6 figures. I'm not kidding.
Where MTV is concerned, this is what I know about that crappy channel:
Firstly, cable advertising on MTV is cheap for the reason ads on that channel never perform well. You might as well be flushing money down the toilet with advertising on MTV because the effect is the same. Back in the day, MTV was considered a "tier 6" in cable advertising because it was that bad. That literally means there were 5 tiers better than MTV. The only ones that were worse were those little ticker-style ads you could get on stock trader cable channels.
Second, MTV as far as I can tell has zero influence on the music industry. How do I know this? I never see them mentioned anywhere anymore. They used to be mentioned everywhere, but those days are long gone.
Third, thankfully, more young people are saying to hell with cable television and television in general. Why? Easy answer: TV is boring. And kids hate being bored. Television is not where things happen anymore. Internet is. Whether it's Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, Amazon, eBay or whatever it is, things are happening online and not from TV.
What does this mean if you're in a band?
It means if you want to "make it" as a band, you have to advertise, but not on television. Not on MTV nor anywhere else on that medium. It doesn't matter how little or how much you spend there because your band will never get known that way. Don't do it.
Fortunately, you can try out online advertising for fairly cheap. I think the easiest of the easy is Twitter's promoted tweets, described by Twitter as, "ordinary Tweets purchased by advertisers who want to reach a wider group of users or to spark engagement from their existing followers".
With Twitter, all you have to do is just type up a tweet, flip over a few bucks for promotion, set your reach and see what happens. No graphic art skills required. Type and go.
Will your promoted tweet work? Maybe it will, maybe not. You'll have to experiment to see what works best. But at least it won't cost much to try it out, and the point is that it is accessible to you. Far more accessible than ridiculous TV advertising, that's for sure.
As for how much it will cost, there is no set price because it depends how you want to set your reach. The further reach you set, the more expensive it gets.
If Twitter isn't robust enough to handle how you want to advertise, there's also Google AdSense where you can advertise using text, image, text + image and so on. Many more options compared to Twitter. And, of course, there is Facebook advertising. You need a fan page to start advertising on Facebook, so if you want to go that route, get a fan page first (which is free,) then start exploring options.
In the end, if you're in a band and are ready to spend some money on promo, concentrate on online promo. Use the one you feel most comfortable with that you can afford, be it Twitter Ads, Facebook Ads, Google AdSense, Amazon Advertising or maybe something else...
...but not television. Leave that one behind.
Guitar of the week #46 - Ibanez Talman TM302
The Ibanez Talman TM302 comes in several flavors. There are both maple and rosewood fingerboard versions, and also the choice between solid-body and semi-hollow.
Some specs:
- "Talman Classic-Plus Neck". 25.5-inch scale, C shape, 305mm (12-inch) fingerboard radius.
- 22 frets, medium jumbo size
- Alder body
- AlNiCo pickups, both of them
- Nickel hardware
Basically put, this is a modern interpretation of a bunch of Fender designs put into a single guitar.
Is it any good? I'd have to say yes, however I don't know how well or not well Ibanez does a Tele-style pair of pickups. From what I can tell, what Ibanez put together should work quite nicely.
In the end however, it all comes down to the styling. Is this guitar worth its price tag for this kind of look that is not a Fender? That's your call.
I personally think Ibanez did a fine job here. The guitar is not overstyled yet not understyled either. My only style complaint is the output jack. I'm not fond of that, but I do like the rest of it.
How to get good tone from an unmodded Stratocaster
Some guitar players are all about modifying the Strat. But what about keeping the guitar totally unmodified?
Getting good tone out of an unmodified Stratocaster is easy once you understand traditional Strat tone.
A traditional Strat is the Fender Standard model. Not the American Standard. The Standard, as in the one made in Mexico. It has the mostly-old-school design with the exception the neck is a modern "C" shape with 9.5-inch fingerboard radius, modern medium jumbo frets, truss rod adjustment at the pegboard and not the heel, and the selector blade has 5 positions instead of the original 3. The guitar is a plain 21-fret with SSS pickup layout and no tone control wired to the rear (bridge) pickup by design because that was Leo Fender's original wiring setup.
Rule #1 and the only rule you need to know about traditional Strat wiring
Everyone hates the fact that traditional Strat wiring has no tone control wired to the rear (as in the bridge) pickup, so you have to work around it.
Because the rear pickup has no tone control wired to it, that means the vast majority of distortion pedals don't work well with the Strat. Only a very select few can actually deal with those super-trebly Strat pickups properly while still delivering proper sounding distortion.
Namely, the DigiTech Grunge and the Big Muff Pi.
The "secret" of the Grunge pedal is the HIGH knob. You can turn that down and use that to cut off the super-trebly sound while still getting great distorted tones.
The Big Muff Pi (or nano version for a smaller package) is fuzz. Strats love fuzz. Big time. Fuzz establishes a ceiling that sounds great for solos. It may not crunch all that well (that's what Grunge is for), but for solo tone, it works wonderfully.
Two other pedals I would add in would be a MXR Dyna Comp and a BOSS DD-7.
"I have little money and I need this sound for cheap"
The Grunge is cheap already. Get that. For everything else, go all Behringer. Behringer Super Fuzz, Behringer CS400 Compressor/Sustainer, Behringer DD400 Digital Delay.
If you want an alternative all-in-one that has everything plus more, use what I use, the DigiTech RP360. The version of it with an expression pedal attached for wah and so on is the RP360XP.
Whether you use separate pedals or an all-in-one, you need the Grunge distortion, good fuzz, good compression, good delay.
What order of effects should the chain be?
- Compressor
- Grunge
- Fuzz
- Delay
"Do I absolutely need fuzz for my solo tone?"
No. You can get a similar sound by switching to the front side (as in neck side) pickup and turning the tone knob down using just Grunge...
...but I would suggest at least trying a fuzz effect. Believe me, it really has a good sound to it. Eric Johnson is a heavy fuzz user, so it's not just for hippie rock. Far from it.
"Do I absolutely need a compressor?"
For an unmodded Strat, yes. The pickups are low-output by design, and to punch up the response without installing new pickups, a compressor is the answer.
Whether it's the MXR Dyna Comp or a cheap Behringer, yes you need one. In fact, you probably even need one even if you decide to switch pickups later.
"Do I absolutely need delay?"
For any Strat or any electric guitar for that matter, yes. Yes, yes, yes and yes again.
Reverb sucks. Well, it sucks for everything except surf music. But chances are you don't play surf.
Delay is the electric guitar player's indispensable tool. Use it, love it. Whether you choose analog or digital delay, get it.
Final tip: WORK with it
If keeping your Strat unmodified, expect to encounter some "tone challenges" of sorts. That's just the way it is with Strats. Don't expect the guitar to sound perfect even if you get all the stuff mentioned above.
Work with your tone. Shape it and experiment. You'll find your sound, but it may take a little effort.
Remember, Strats are not "automatic" guitars and never have been. But when you do finally get that sound out of it, it's truly a magical moment.
Do maple fretboards sound different compared to rosewood?
Are there tonal differences between the two? Let's find out.
Take the Fender Deluxe Players Strat, which does have an all-maple neck option.
My first guitar, the '89 Squier II Stratocaster, does have that traditional one-piece all-maple neck.
In all honesty, I've always preferred electrics with one-piece maple necks. To me, they just feel correct. Yes, it's totally true that I have owned guitars with rosewood fingerboards, which includes my Jazzmaster, but I've always liked the maple best.
At some point, possibly this year, I will be picking up another all-maple-neck electric.
Do all-maple necks sound different on an electric compared to rosewood?
No, and they never have. Why? Because the neck is not where the pickups are.
It's my honest belief that the reason some players think these two fingerboard materials sound different from each other is because of the visual and not the physical.
I'll explain.
Rosewood fingerboards have open grain while maple fingerboards do not. The maple board is sealed because as I've said here before several times, if it weren't, the wood would quickly discolor, turn green and look like total crap in short order.
I have seen some guitar players drastically change their playing styles after switching from a guitar with a rosewood fingerboard to one with maple. The guitars could be brand new, identical to each other and have everything be exactly the same save for that the fingeboard material is different, and the player significantly changes the way he plays on switch from one fingerboard wood to the other.
Why does the player's style change so drastically from one fingerboard material to the other? It's the visual. The maple board is not only lighter in color but also shinier because it's sealed. For many players, that visual will send a message to the brain to play differently. The neck is grabbed more tightly or loosely. Picking becomes harder or softer. Notes are bent more or less.
Take away the visual however, and the player's style does not change.
If you don't believe me, go with a friend to the guitar store, pick up 3 Strats with 1 maple and 2 rosewood and perform a blind test. I guarantee all 3 guitars will sound the same, provided they all have the same electronics.
Why 3 guitars? Because it makes the player think more about it. If you only use 2, that's not enough of a sample.
In the end, go with what you think looks best
Fingerboard material alone does not dictate what an electric guitar will sound like. You're not going to get a "lighter" or "darker" or "cooler" or "warmer" sound based on the fingerboard wood.
Choose a neck that feels right in the hand and looks good to your eye.
Maple fingerboards work on any electric, even for "metal" guitars like this Jackson Pro Soloist SL2M.
The Soloist, a guitar obviously built for rock soloist players, does the job with maple just as well as it would with rosewood.
Similarly, a Strat with a rosewood board would get just as much "jangle" or "chime" as it would with a maple board.
There is no tonal difference between the two fingerboard materials.