Epiphone "Union Jack" Sheraton Outfit Review
Note up front: Some sellers may mistakenly list this as an Epiphone Casino, so examine those too and you might find they're actually selling a Sheraton.
(This is a reader requested review. If you would like me to review a specific guitar, piece of gear or talk about a certain topic, email me.)
I am a fan of "true" Epiphone guitars, but am not a fan of something so garish in appearance.
With that said, let's talk about the Epiphone "Union Jack" Sheraton Outfit.
It's not that I don't like the Union Jack, a.k.a. "flag of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland". I like the flag just fine and it has a very nice appearance to it. However, slapping that on a guitar is the same as slapping the stars and stripes, a.k.a. "flag of the United States", on a guitar. This look is just kitsch, as in tacky.
Aside from the appearance, this is one of those guitars from Epiphone that while a "true" Epiphone model, is hit-or-miss concerning whether you get a good one or not.
On paper, this guitar sounds awesome. It has 5-layer laminated maple body and top, mahogany neck, fast-and-easy 24.75-inch scale "SlimTaper" neck with set-neck joint, 12" fingerboard radius, pearloid/abalone inlays, 22 medium jumbo frets and a pair of Gibson USA mini-humbuckers. The tuners are also Grover Rotomatic 18:1 style (very smooth), HOWEVER...
...it's like I said, getting a good one is luck of the draw.
My suggestion to anyone intending to buy this guitar is to make sure and buy it from somewhere that has a good return policy (like Amazon) in case it arrives with defects. This is a specialty semi-hollow body guitar, therefore it's more expensive, therefore you should be mighty careful where you purchase this from. This guitar is not like a Strat or a Tele where it can be banged around during shipment and handle it fairly easily.
If all goes well and you do get a good one of these, then yes, you will love this guitar and I have no doubt of that. Some guys and gals really like the "British Invasion" look of a loud-and-proud Union Jack on the body, and when you get a good one of these models with all the fancy hardware bits, oh yes, this is a killer of a guitar.
Cheap guitar of the week #42 - Yamaha APX500
Ordinarily I would never recommend a thin-body acoustic, but this is a rare exception.
The Yamaha APX500 acoustic-electric is one of the very few thin-bodied acoustics that I would actually recommend buying.
A thin-body acoustic is not like a parlor guitar. This guitar actually has the same dimensions as a full-size acoustic, save for that the body is thinner.
It's usually the case that full-size acoustics with a thin body have an awful acoustic sound to them, best described as very "boxy" with barely any projection. The APX500 however actually as a full-bodied sound. I don't know how Yamaha is able to do it, but they somehow manage to get a full sound out of a thin body.
Is the sound as big as a full-size with the same projection? No. But it's pretty darned close.
The APX500 is actually a nice guitar to have because it serves well both in studio and on stage. It has the electric bits to handle mixers and so on, and also has a full-size look to it, which to some is important. Yamaha also knows how to build an acoustic guitar correctly that can take a knock or two.
It's a good guitar overall. Easy to play, easy to plug in, predictable, and won't break the bank.
Will there ever be another rock music scene?
Tampa Florida has no rock music scene. But then again, neither does the rest of America.
Someone emailed me recently about an article I wrote back in 2012 about how the rock music scene in Tampa Bay Florida completely sucks (and still does). The guy basically agreed with me and said that while he was living in Florida (he's since moved away to some other US state), there was a small but vibrant rock scene here. But then it just seemed to up and vanish like a fart in the wind.
I replied to his email and said the same thing to him that I've said to others. In order for a guitar player to make any money these days, you have to play country music because that genre needs guitars in order to sound like it should. Electric guitars, bass guitars, steel guitars, acoustic guitars, resonator guitars and so on...
...but that doesn't answer the question of whether there will ever be another rock music scene not just in Tampa but pretty much anywhere.
Will there ever be another rock scene?
Yes, I think so. But the approach has to be modernized.
Things can't go back to the pre-internet ways of the '80s, nor should anyone want them to.
Things also can't be 100% online-only like it is now, because that doesn't work either.
What I believe is going to be the next big thing for smaller rock bands actually depends on a clever use of local and mobile technology:
Streaming every single live show.
It is possible, and easy, to use 4G LTE connectivity from a smartphone or tablet to broadcast a gig from YouTube or other live stream service. The only problem is getting the audio to sound correct, because everything has to be fed to a mixer, then to the mobile device, then out to the internet. The hardware to do all this already exists.
In other words, every band needs a "tech roadie", as in the guy or girl whose job is getting that stream looking and sounding proper.
Now when I say stream every single live show, I don't care if the gig is in someone's basement or backyard with an audience of less than 10 people. Every single show gets streamed, and then afterward published as a regular video once the show is complete for people to view that missed the stream.
Why aren't bands streaming live more?
Mobile technology limitations in the US. Limitations that will soon be gone, mind you.
The situation is either:
- Can't afford 4G LTE data plan
- Coverage sucks
- Price of phone powerful enough to stream too expensive
- All of the above
Smartphones are continuing to dive in price, as are the data plans. What once cost $100/month just a year ago is now $60/month for unlimited full-speed 4G LTE on some carriers in the US. And I'm certain that when the unlimited data plan prices drop to $50 and then $40/month or lower, oh yes, rock bands will do well with their live streaming...
...IF THEY DON'T SUCK.
Yeah, there's that thing called talent. That's still required. While the band doesn't have to be insanely good, they can't suck, either.
What is the point of streaming every live show?
Reason #1: It's live
People like watching live video on the internet because it gives one a sense of participating in something special. There's no rewind nor fast-forward because it's all live. And that's cool.
Reason #2: Really easy way to get a following
With each new live show broadcasted and then published afterward, word will spread (again, presuming the band doesn't suck) and the audience will grow because the band is tackling both the local and internet audiences at the same time.
Reason #3: What other course of action is there?
It's like I said a moment ago. You can't go back to the '80s way of doing things, and you can't do everything solely online, so the proper smart thing to do is combine local + online by streaming every gig.
If you can't afford it or the connectivity isn't there, you're not alone
A lot of small rock bands exist that would love to stream all the gigs they play, but can't due to cost and/or connectivity concerns.
If you happen to be in one of those bands and really like the stream-it-all idea, my suggestion to you is to start doing research. Find out about every mobile carrier that's available in your area. Find out what phones they have. Find out how much the unlimited data plans cost. Find out what software/apps you can use to stream with. Find out what audio hardware you can connect to the phone/tablet for feeding out to the stream.
The moment you find a way to afford the tech and get the right hardware to stream, go for it.
Whoever gets the jump on this early is sure to do well, and possibly create a new rock scene...
...if, again, the band doesn't suck.
Smaller proper acoustic guitars for small hands
This is a reader requested article.
Adrian writes:
There are a lot of shorter guys like me and women who have a difficult time playing the bulky-bodied dreadnoughts and jumbos, especially when playing fingerstyle, and of course, I'd like to know which would be the most versatile body sizes and brands.
(Want to make a request for an article like Adrian did? Email me.)
The full-size dreadnought shape acoustic is, whether a cutaway version or not, just too big for some people. The guitar is lightweight, to be sure, but thick, and that's where the problem lies.
What some players want is a smaller acoustic that is not a classical acoustic guitar. While that guitar is smaller and thinner, it uses nylon strings. There's nothing wrong with nylon strings, but that string type is not meant to be used with a pick, nor can you use a slide on it, nor will an add-in pickup work with it (no vibrating steel = pickup won't work).
Players who want smaller acoustic guitars are specifically looking for the steel stringed variety.
The easiest choice for a smaller steel string acoustic is the parlor acoustic guitar, such as the Fender CP-100. That guitar is cheap, good and has a nice look to it.
Things to know about parlor acoustic guitars
Before I list off some other parlor acoustic guitar models to check out, there are a few things you need to know about them.
Quiet projection
The standard dreadnought acoustic has a loud sound when strummed while the parlor body is significantly quieter. Why? Smaller body. There's less wood vibrating, and no matter how hard you strum the strings, it will never project as loudly as a full-size dreadnought will.
No front-side strap button (on most)
The traditional way a parlor acoustic guitar is worn with strap in use is from a strap button at the back and looped around the neck near the nut at the front. It pretty much has to be done this way, else you will encounter neck dive.
Featherweight
A parlor acoustic is by its very nature very lightweight. Most are light enough to where you can even play one standing without a strap, similar to a ukulele.
Best recorded with a microphone
If you plan on recording your parlor acoustic guitar, the best way to do it is with a microphone on a stand. Adding in a pickup really doesn't work that well.
Some parlor acoustic guitars to choose from
Again, I will mention the Fender CP-100 before continuing, because if you want a parlor acoustic with the "just right" voicing to it, the Fender is the go-to instrument.
Very cool that Gretsch offers this. Has a nice old-school look to it. Best used for fingerpicking. Works for strumming with a pick, but sounds best with fingers.
This is one of the better parlor acoustics, as it does not have the typical "boxy" sound most parlor acoustic guitars do. The projection of sound is still on the light side, but the fullness is more pronounced. As such, it has a mid-tier price tag on it.
This is priced less than the Alavarez, but may for some may be the parlor acoustic they're looking for. If you've said to yourself, "I want a Martin, but I don't want to pay the Martin price tag", you want this Washburn as it pretty much has equal character.
For those with deep pockets...
...a few more models to check out:
...but in all honesty, I strongly suggest checking out the Fender CP-100 first, and if after that you want to spend more on something more ritzy and voiced with more fullness, try the Alvarez or Washburn above.
Or, if you want just a nice, simple beat-around parlor acoustic, the Gretsch really delivers.
Do all guitar forums suck?
Forums are forums are forums. Some are good. Most are bad.
I've seen a lot of forums come and go on the internet. I remember when people still used newsgroups (if you don't know what those are, don't ask). On the world wide web, I've seen several different forum software types like YaBB, phpBB, vBulletin and so on. Heck, I've even operated a few forums.
I personally think most guitar forums just plain suck, and here's why:
Fact: Most don't work on mobile
Some (but damned few) forum operators have been smart enough to get their forums working on mobile web browsers, and I applaud those that have done that because they will be the ones that survive in 2016 and beyond. For those that don't, their user base will continue to get older and crustier, readership will continue to dwindle and the forum will eventually shut down.
Oh, and guess what, forum owners? Even for those that can view your forum on a mobile browser, mobile ad blocking is quickly becoming the norm. You'd best start monetizing those links.
Fact: The same cliques and same stupid arguments still exist
In every single internet forum, there's a clique. This clique is comprised of three tiers of users. Administrators, moderators and regulars. If you say anything that even remotely disagrees with an admin, mod or regular, you are banned because you rustled someone's jimmies.
In addition, most forums have a list of rules that's about a mile long. You can't swear, you can't speak your mind, you can't do anything.
This same crapola that happened with pre-internet BBSes back in the '80s and '90s is still happening today. Same cliques, same flame wars, same stupid arguments, same everything. The only thing that changed is that it's now on the internet.
I think the best word that describes the way a forum operates is Draconian. You will not disagree with the admin or mods, and you will think happy thoughts. Big Brother is watching you.
Want to know how bad it can get? Some don't even allow you to say something "sucks", because someone's jimmies might get rustled from that (gasp!)
Are guitar forums good for ANY usable information?
I answer that one with a conditional yes, with the condition being that if you're willing to wade through page after page after page of worthless s--tposts, eventually you will come across some information that is actually useful to you as a player.
It is par for the course that forums are dead last when it comes to being a trusted information resource. What dictates this? Google. Whenever you search for something on Google, forums are rarely the first thing to show up.
The only time forums show up first in a Google search result is when you have an ultra-specific thing you need information on that only the forums have. But, of course, when you go to that guitar forum, it's most likely true the thread will be really old, and if there are any images accompanying the post, they probably won't work.
I don't hate all guitar forums (just most of them).
Most guitar forums just plain suck because of the Draconian rules. Sometimes it's for stuff not even related to what you post, such as the rules for what you are allowed to have for a forum signature. You can have a signature, but can't be more than X number of characters long, cannot contain links of any kind, no images, no colorization, no bold, no italic, no underline, no swear words, no mention of breasts, butts, etc.
A forum moderator would probably get a bug up his backside if you had your forum signature just as "butt" and nothing else. If you frequent a guitar forum or two, try that and see how long it takes before a mod 'disciplines' or outright bans you just for your one-word signature.
For the few guitar forums I do like, a few have asked me to participate and be a regular, but since I have my site here, I really don't see the point.
What I notice is that for whatever reason, guitar forums with with the word talk in their name are usually the better ones, said sincerely. If you frequent guitar forums at all, you know the ones I'm referring to.
butt