Guitar of the week #48 - Danelectro "The 64"
Weird, wacky and cool. But not cheap.
The last time I saw a Mosrite clone was the Jay Turser Mosman, which evidently is now called the Venture Mach 1. That guitar has a mid-tier price.
The Danelectro The 64 has an upper-mid-tier price tag, currently sitting between the price of a Mexico Strat and and an American Strat.
So the question is basically this: Is the Danelectro made better than the Jay Turser?
I don't know for sure - but I can tell you this: The Danelectro does use better parts. Right up front you can see a true Bigsby vibrato on the Dan. It might be a "licensed" Bigsby (meaning imported), but still, it's a Bigsby. That's a step in the right direction.
The color choices are also better with Danelectro and do look more period correct.
My only knock against the Dan is the pickup covers. The rear is a double-lipstick tube and the front is a P90-style. Personally, I would prefer it if both pickups were the P90 style.
Why is the double-lipstick humbucker in the rear? That's a Danelectro thing as they use lipstick tubes often in their electric guitars.
Other than the rear pickup styling, the Dan looks real nice for what it is. The guitar appears to have been designed with care, and I even like the "64" circled number on the headstock. Nice touch. (It's right after the "o" in "Danelectro").
In photos, it would appear the Danelectro The 64 has the edge in several places over the Jay Turser Mosman. When you compare them side by side, you'll start to see things that warrant the Dan's higher price tag.
I think for a Mosrite clone, Danelectro appears to have done a fine job.
The quest for the right day-date watch continues
You would not believe the crapola I've been through in trying to find an analog wristwatch I can get along with. This is the latest on my search.
Recently, I bought a Casio F-91W. Two of them, actually. (I liked it so much I bought a second as a backup shortly after buying the first, since it was cheap enough to do.)
Now although the F-91W has an alarm, stopwatch and hourly chime, it's the main timekeeping screen that matters most. On that screen is a digital version of a traditional day-date watch. Hour, minute, second, weekday, day of month. Yes, there are a few other things besides that, but it's the traditional day-date stuff that matters.
Something I've come to learn from wearing the F-91W is that I really, really like a watch that tells me the day of the month and what day or the week it is in addition to the time. I'd like to have that in an analog, so I ordered something (which I'll talk about in a moment) in my latest attempt to find one I actually like.
Guitar player wrists
It is true that many, many guitar players have small wrists. I think my wrist is about 6.75 inches around on the left wrist. Maybe slightly larger. I am left-handed but the left wrist is in fact the traditional watch wearer's wrist for right-handed folk. In comparison, the "standard" men's size wrist is usually between 7 to 7.25-inch.
You don't have to look far to find guitar players with really "bony" wrists. The hands and wrists obviously get a good workout fairly often, so seeing a guitar player with skinny little wrists isn't uncommon. This is not to say that all guitar players have skinny wrists, but many do.
What I've learned so far
Since wearing the F-91W regularly, I not only know I really like a day-date, but I also like a small watch, and the F-91W is quite small. 38.2mm length x 35.2mm width (including pushers) x 8.5mm thick.
I tried a larger watch, the Casio MTP-1314. Very nice timepiece, but way too large for my wrist. That has a measurement of 50mm x 44.9mm x 9.4mm. It did not fit and had to be sent back. But even if it did fit correct, there was another problem. The 1314 is a date and not a day-date watch. And I want that day-date, damn it.
Another one I tried in Walmart was the Casio MRW-200H. That is a day-date, and believe it or not, the bezel actually turns like a proper diver's watch should. What I didn't like about that one however was the strap. Too long. True, I could have cut it to size myself since it is resin, but ultimately I passed on this because I wanted an analog that would go nicely with a button-down shirt. I will give the MRW-200H credit however in that it felt quite solid, meaning it feels more expensive than its price.
Yet another I bought and had to send back was the Casio MTP-1370. That watch was so frickin' close to being the right one, but it had two problems. First, the hands were absolutely unreadable even with the slightest glare, and second, I could not get used to a watch with no numbers on the face. Some guys can read watches with no numbers easily, but not me. It's not that I can't read a watch without numbers on the face (I could tell time with a Movado watch if I had to, as many of those have almost no hour nor minute markers at all,) but I just have to look at it longer to figure it out. That's annoying.
There are not many day-date analog watches under $50 that actually look good
When shopping for an analog watch that just tells time or has basic time and date, there are plenty under $50 that look nice.
But finding one under $50 that is a day-date, fits a 6.75-inch wrist and looks nice? Yeah, that's a bit of a challenge.
All the Timex brand options are out because they all tick too loud. That's a Timex thing. I wish it wasn't, because otherwise there are actually several day-date models they make that I would buy in heartbeat.
I have searched, searched, and searched again to find an analog that will suit. In the end, Casio is pretty much the only brand that makes an analog day-date that is affordable and isn't giant-sized...
...which leads me to the watch pictured at top, the Casio MTP-V003L. The "L" means it has a leather strap. And to note, there are several V003 models. Some have numbers on the face, some have sticks, some have a white face, some a black face, some a silver face, some are steel colored, some are gold-tone, etc. The one I have on order is the one pictured at top.
The V003 is not a watch I could find at Walmart, so it had to be yet another one of those buy-it-to-try-it things.
I do not know if the V003 will have the same sun glare problem the 1370 did. I am also hoping there is enough contrast between the hands and the dial.
If I felt like spending over $100...
...nobody does a smaller easy-read day-date better than Seiko.
Namely, the SGG711 titanium model.
I don't have $100 to blow on a watch, but if I did, the SGG711 is what I consider to be a perfect day-date. It's easy to read, it's lightweight thanks to the use of titanium, the hands are just the right thickness, and there's plenty of contrast between the hands and the dial.
Some listings state the case diameter is 37.5mm while others state it's 37mm. And that would fit my wrist just fine...
...but like I said, I don't have $100 to blow on it.
While the Casio V003 doesn't look anywhere near as good as the Seiko does, I'll be happy if the V003 actually fits and functions correctly. That will be a step in the right direction.
If the V003 works out and I keep it, does that mean I'll stop wearing the F-91W? Heck no. It just means I'll have an analog day-date watch that I can finally feel comfortable wearing. Sometimes it's just nice to wear an analog watch on the wrist, what can I say.
Can't play a Stratocaster because you keep hitting the volume knob?
There are some players who can't own a Strat, or at least not one in stock condition, because of the volume knob placement.
Charles recently emailed with this:
Hey Rich
I'm looking to replace my Ibanez guitar. I have grown to really dislike the 16" radius and want a change. I played a Squier Bullet Strat HSS and really liked the way it felt with one exception. The volume knob. I hate the placement of the volume knob. I'm thinking about picking one up and modding it to relocate the volume know to the forward most tone knob, and making the remaining tone pot a master tone pot. Can you think of any guitars that would have a similar control layout without mods? They don't have to look like a strat, just have similar neck profile that is HSS or HH.
Thanks for any input.
Whether you play an Asian made Squier or an American made Fender, all of them have the volume knob directly below the rear pickup. Many guitar players literally whack the volume knob when playing, so much to the point where it makes the instrument almost unplayable.
The first guitar that comes to mind which is lower in cost, has a similar pickup layout to a Squier Bullet Strat HSS and has a volume knob that's further away from the rear pickup is the Yamaha Pacifica PAC112V.
To note: This particular guitar does come in HSS and HH versions.
The Pacifica PAC112V has a volume knob placement that is further down and further pushed back compared to a Strat, while still pretty much looking and functioning like a Strat does.
The neck on the PAC112V is a 25.5-inch scale with 13.75-inch fingerboard radius. While that is flatter than the Squier's 9.5-inch, it's the back of the neck that counts here, and yes, it definitely does have more roundness and chunk compared to a super-flat Ibanez board, no question about that.
Another guitar that's similar is the Kramer Striker 211.
To note: This guitar comes in hardtail and Floyd-Rose equipped versions.
This guitar has no pick guard at all, but does have the volume knob down and away from the rear pickup, and has a blade selector like a Strat does. The hardtail version is about the same price as the Pacifica PAC112V is.
Unlike the Pacifica, the 211 hardtail has no vibrato system on it whatsoever. If you absolutely must have vibrato, get the Pacifica instead or just get the Striker with the Floyd.
The neck on this one is flatter than the PAC112V. It is a 25.5-inch scale like a regular Strat, but has more of a Gibson SlimTaper feel on it, similar to what you would find on an Epiphone G-400 SG guitar. It is unknown what the fingerboard radius is, but it would be safe to say it's probably 12 to 14-inch and no flatter than that.
(Got a guitar or gear related question? Email me and I may post the answer as an article here.)
Guitar of the week #47 - B.C. Rich Villain
When you dig around a little, you'll find B.C. Rich actually makes some pretty good stuff.
B.C. Rich is a guitar brand I don't mention too often because in all honesty, they don't have much I consider genuinely good - but the B.C. Rich Villain is an exception.
The Villain has mid-tier to upper-tier pricing, depending on model.
I characterize this guitar as your typical "shredder" axe. I think shredding totally sucks, but if that's your thing, the Villain is the guitar for it, given its super-flat 16-inch radius fingerboard on a bolt-on maple neck.
If you've played a Schecter Hellraiser C-1 but thought, "I really wish this guitar had a Floyd-Rose on it", you want the Villain. Similar price, similar look, nice feel, good tone (for what it is).
You might be saying now, "What about the Schecter Hellraiser with Floyd?" Good option, but it's over $900. You can get a Villain for way less than that and still get your Floyd system. Schecters typically remain in the affordable range until you attach a Floyd, and then the price just spikes out of control.
In the end, the Villain is good for its price (at least for mid-tier models), beats out the competition and you get a lot of guitar for the money. And I admit I do like the shapes. The body has a very modern look as does the headstock. I can assure you that the guitar looks just as good in person as it does in photos.
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.