Every guitar is on sale for Black Friday - except the Squier guitars
This is just a quickie reminder to guitar shoppers out there that if you were waiting for good Black Friday deals on Squier guitars, it's not going to happen.
I've been watching the big guitar retailers, and of course they're discounting all the really expensive stuff from Fender. Or to be more specific, American Fender and Fender Custom Shop. As for the deals on the Mexico Fenders? Not really much to save there.
And as for the Squier guitars, their prices aren't being touched.
What this means is that if you've been eyeing a Squier guitar and waiting for a big price drop this Friday, it's not happening.
You're better off buying it now while the guitars are in stock, because they're already priced as low as they can go.
Fans don't care what brand of guitar you play
In the end, from a fan's point of view, the brand of the guitar absolutely does not matter.
Something a lot of guitar players forget is that when it comes to what other people - as in NON-MUSICIANS - think of the gear you own, only two things matter. The shape and the color. That's it.
The two most recognizable solid-body guitar shapes are the Stratocaster and the Les Paul. As long as the guitar is one of those two shapes and has a color that looks cool, nothing else matters in the eyes of a fan.
And if you want to complete the package, so to speak, you can use any amplifier that says "Marshall" on the front with the gold-color control plate like this one, or any silver-face Fender amplifier.
The cheapest way to get that guitar look is to buy a Squier and a low-cost Fender amp. The total cost is between $500 to $600 USD if you bought everything all at once.
In reality, nobody cares what the amp looks like either, so you could probably slim the total cost down to $400 or maybe even less - again if you bought everything all at once.
What is a guitar that "looks cool" to a non-musician?
Answer: Any guitar that doesn't look like a children's toy and appears expensive.
If the guitar is of a standard adult size, the shape is correct, logos are correct, colors are correct and it appears upscale, that's a winning formula.
A guitar that absolutely nails it is the Squier Vintage Modified Stratocaster in "vintage blonde", which I did own at one point.
The only reason I parted with this guitar was because of finish issues (it had a few chips in the paint, and the paint on the back of the body looked iffy). However, I may pick up another one of these because I'm sure those QC issues have been addressed by this point.
This Strat is something non-musicians are easily impressed by. Very cool look, very cool color, proper black-and-gold logo, "swoop" STRATOCASTER logo, 3-ply pick guard, and so on. It's all there. It's also a fantastic sounding, fantastic playing guitar.
Believe me, Squier really nailed it right with this particular axe. And as far as non-musicians are concerned, this guitar is 100% coolness defined. If I weren't so much into Jazzmaster guitars, I would have bought another one of these already.
And speaking of the Jazzmaster, While I prefer the red one I currently own, if I was going to buy one specifically to impress non-musician types, I'd get the sunburst version.
The Jazz isn't recognized like the Strat and Les Paul are, but in sunburst it looks like something that came straight out of 1964 - and that's not a bad thing. It has a big, leaning body shape that's very curvy and almost has a "fast" appearance to it. It's just a cool shape all around, and quite the comfortable player.
I don't recommend the Jazzmaster nor the Jaguar (available in the same sunburst color) to beginner players because the guitar has a lot going on with it. But if you're willing to sit down and figure the guitar out, it's a great looker and great player.
On a final note, let's talk about the Les Paul.
Now although I'm not into Les Pauls (I traded mine out), and not really into Epiphone brand either, there is one Les Paul they make that absolutely nails the vintage vibe, and that's the "Collection" Les Paul in a finish called Honeyburst.
Now you might be thinking that the classic Les Paul look is to get one in Heritage Cherry Sunburst - and you'd be right, as that is the classic Paul look.
However, the mid-priced Les Paul in Honeyburst has more vintage flavor going on with it. There's no obvious red in this finish, giving the guitar more of a gold color. As such, it has a more upscale look.
Not my kind of guitar, but it's gorgeous. And to the non-musician, it's the kind of axe they would look at and say "Wow!" because yeah, it looks that good.
Another thing I should mention is that while Heritage Cherry Sunburst is a classic look for a Paul, the way Epiphone does it doesn't really look that great in person. I know this because I've seen and played one personally. The best way I can describe the color is that it's almost orange-like. Gibson's red actually looks red on a burst. Epiphone's doesn't.
Honeyburst on the other hand has the gold look to it, and that's a finish Epiphone totally gets correct. If it's gold or gold-like, Epiphone is good. If it's red with a burst, I've not seen an Epiphone yet (not on a solid-body anyway) that really made it work.
The "safer" of the colors, and the better one in my opinion, is the Honeyburst over Heritage Cherry Sunburst.
My take on Rondo electric guitars
I sometimes get asked on what I think of Rondo guitars.
That answer depends on the kind of Rondo guitars you're talking about, because they basically make, well, everything.
Rondo has several brands of guitars they make, such as SX, Agile, Hadean and Sprite. As far as where Rondo guitars are made, my guess is that they probably use a few different guitar factories across the world. As far as build country of origin, that I don't know. But it wouldn't surprise me if they used Korean and Indonesian factories.
The price range of Rondo goes all over the place. They make cheap kids guitars for under $50 all the way to pro-level guitars like the Pendulum Pro that are just under $1,000.
On top of all that, Rondo even offers what they call "Semi-Custom" Agile guitars, which is their version of a guitar custom shop.
Now as far as my personal opinion of Rondo guitars, I don't know them all, but I know some, so here's my take on them.
Solid-body classic designs
The only two good brands Rondo has here are SX and Agile.
SX brand
The Furrian Tele copy and the Hawk Strat copy in full-scale models are at the same quality level as Squier Vintage Modified and sometimes exceeds it. When you go above the $200 range, you start seeing some really good stuff.
On the Strat side, the best SX model is any LEO model, and the best Tele is the Furrian "MN Ash NA", which means "Maple neck with North American Ash body." The SX LEO is the better looking of the two.
Agile brand
For most people, this is the only brand from Rondo worth checking out.
When you go above the $300 range for Agile axes, you start getting into pretty-darned-good territory.
When you go over $400, you see Agile Les Paul copies that have a Floyd-Rose tremolo system on it. Yes, Agile does that. On a Les Paul.
When you go over $500, which is Agile AL-3200 model territory, you get things like 5-piece neck-through design, contour "belly" cuts in the body for easier play, AlNiCo magnet humbuckers, mahogany body (arched), binding everywhere, flame top, nickel-plated hardware, graph tech nut, ebony fretboard, real mother-of-pearl inlays (not pearloid), the works.
The AL-3200 model in particular is, without question, the most Les Paul copy for the money you can buy. Feature-wise, nobody else makes a Paul that even comes close for the price it sells for.
What about Strats and Teles that are Agile-branded?
There are no Teles that Agile makes, and only a handful of Strats which are nice, but not all that better than the SX models. I would only get an Agile-branded Strat if you specifically want a baritone guitar in a Strat shape, which Agile does make. It's a 30-inch scale and weird, but yeah, they make it.
Multi-scale guitars (8-string and above)
I'm not into multi-scale guitars and have no use for them. But I do know one thing. For players that are into multi-scale guitars, it's Agile or nothing because it's the most affordable brand that actually delivers the goods.
The question is not "Why buy one?" for multi-scale players, but rather "How could you not buy one?", given it is such an obviously good choice for multi-scale players on a tight budget.
At the time I write this, these are the lowest-priced offerings per each string configuration:
8-string: Starts at $399
9-string: Starts at $699 (although can be had for under $600 with "B stock")
10-string: Starts at $995
If you think the prices are high, they're not.
The lower-cost 8-string Agile makes (Septor 827) is the same price as an Ibanez RG8, and is arguably the better guitar.
The 9-string Agile makes is slightly more affordable than the Ibanez RG9.
In the 10-string department, that's pretty much Agile-only territory. I'm sure there must be other makers who build 10-string guitars, but Agile makes one that's readily available right now at a price that's below custom shop level.
Is Rondo better than Fender, Squier, Gibson or Epiphone?
I'll split this into separate questions and answers.
Better than Fender?
No. At best, what Rondo makes is on par with Squier Classic Vibe Series as far as Fender copy guitars are concerned.
Better than Squier?
Yes and no. Yes, in the respect you get more choice and more configurations. No, in the respect that there's nothing Rondo makes that captures what I call "Fender essence."
What I mean by that is that if you bought a Squier Classic Vibe Telecaster '50s, that's one awesome Telecaster that totally feels and sounds like a Fender Telecaster should be. You're not going to get that kind of Fender essence out of a Rondo.
Better than Gibson?
Yes and no. Yes, in the respect you save tons of money and get all the goodies. No, in the respect the neck feel is different. Agile Paul copies use a very-flat fingerboard radius, and the neck isn't asymmetrical like on a Gibson.
However...
For the player that likes to solo a lot, the Agile is the better guitar because you fret out less on a flatter fingerboard. One could arguably say the Agile Paul copy is the "best shredder Paul" that exists. I don't shred, but if that's your thing, the Agile Paul copy is the better guitar for that sort of thing.
Also, for the player that likes a Paul "how they used to make 'em", most of Agile's Pauls are solid-body, as in no chambering, just like Gibson used to make them.
Better than Epiphone?
Concerning the Les Paul guitar, yes, Agile is better than Epiphone.
Epiphone makes nothing that comes even close to the goodies and features you get on an Agile Paul copy for the price it sells for. Epiphone simply cannot match the price point of an Agile AL-3200 and never will because they don't sell direct like Rondo does.
Concerning the SG model, Epiphone is still top dog for "correct low-cost SG guitar".
Concerning the Explorer model, Epiphone makes the better guitar - when they're in production, that is. The most recent two models were the Epiphone Explorer Pro and the 1984 Explorer model. Both are now out of production, but can still be bought new at the time I write this until the remaining stock is all sold out.
Final notes
Rondo makes good stuff. They make the best Les Paul copy and for multi-scale guitarists, Rondo's Agile brand is basically the only game in town.
As for the Paul, I think the best way I can describe this is that most Epiphone Les Pauls have a nasty habit of feeling toy-like, whereas an Agile AL-3200 goes up so many levels above what Epiphone can make. The AL-3200 is the kind of guitar where you don't feel like you settled for less.
For multi-scale stuff, it's like I said, for most players who like axes of that kind, it's Agile or nothing. Rondo has the balls to produce relatively low-cost multi-scale guitars that are available right now.
How come more people aren't releasing songs?
In the early days of multitrack audio recording, it was ridiculously expensive and time-consuming to record pretty much anything. The cheapest way was from using compact cassette, but you only had 1 stereo track of audio and that was it.
It wasn't until the very-late 1970s - 1979, to be exact - where home recording finally became affordable with the Tascam PortaStudio 144. And by affordable I mean sort of affordable, as it was still about $1,000 USD to buy one - in 1979!
Fast-forward to present, 35 years later.
It's 2014. For less than $200, you can buy an 8-track digital multitrack recorder. And that recorder absolutely obliterates what the old 144 could do in every single way. Perfect, whisper-quiet recording, "undo" function, effects, and many, many hours of record time on a memory card just slightly larger than a postage stamp.
Or heck, you can use free software to do the same damned thing and not spend a dime.
And yet, incredibly, we're not seeing any significant increase in new songs posted by musicians or bands.
You would think that with all this wonderful, cheap (or free) tech we have, places like YouTube and SoundCloud would have at least 10,000 new, original songs posted every day.
But that's not happening.
Why isn't it happening? I don't know. But there is one positive to this.
Because of the lack of music being released, you have more of a chance of your music getting noticed.
Follow this advice
You have the recording technology. It's cheap, it sounds "clean," and it works. Use it. Do not let anyone convince you that you need thousands of dollars of crap just to record a song, because it's not necessary.
You don't need expensive recording gear, expensive microphones or expensive guitars. Purposely buy cheap, get your songs recorded and get them out there. Don't think about it. Just do it.
Even if your music sucks, post it anyway
Yeah, I know that people are morons on the internet, and I know you're afraid of being judged negatively from internet commenters.
If you feel your music sucks and you'll be made fun of for it, post your songs anyway. People complain in internet comments because it's easy and takes no real effort to do.
Any song you post is better than some stupid comment someone says about it. Remember that.
We're not in the stone age of Stereo 8 carts anymore. Everything is digital now, and you already have all the tech you need to get songs finished. So finish and release them. Get on with it.
Are you better off with a non-electric acoustic?
Take the Seymour Duncan SC SA-3SC acoustic guitar pickup. The cost of it is reasonable for what it is, and for some is a better option compared to buying an electric-acoustic guitar.
It is possible to get an acoustic guitar pickup for cheaper, so it's not like you have to spend big to electrify an acoustic guitar. However, what I'm going to concentrate on here is whether or not having a non-electric acoustic is worth it or not.
Short answer: Yes.
Long answer:
Owning an electric-acoustic is nice because you can plug it in and send the signal through a mixer or amplifier. However, you may find more often than not that it wrecks the tone of lower-cost acoustic guitars.
I'll explain.
Low-cost electric-acoustic guitars don't really sound that good electrified for three reasons. First, the preamp (the thing that makes it electrified) has electronics that really aren't that great. Second, the pickup used isn't that great. Third, the preamp is a bit of a tone-wrecker.
In proper electric-acoustic guitar construction, where the preamp sits is not supposed to affect the tone, and in most instances, it doesn't. However, on low-cost construction, the preamp can wreck the body resonance and cause the overall sound to be "tinny" at best where full-bodied chords really don't ring out that well.
A cheap spruce-top acoustic with an add-in pickup is a good combo
(Side note: Why a spruce top? Because it projects well. And fortunately, spruce top acoustics can be had for cheap.)
Let's take a standard cheap dreadnought-shape acoustic with a spruce top, such as the Epiphone DR-100 - which by the way is a great acoustic guitar.
If you take that guitar and add in the Seymour Duncan pickup from above into it, believe me, you will love the recorded sound you get.
The best part however is that this kind of combo can work with any standard dreadnought-shape acoustic with a standard round sound hole.
You're going to EQ it anyway...
The tradeoff to using an add-in pickup is that it's passive and you have no volume or tone controls...
...but being you're going to set EQ while recording to get the best sound of it anyway, you won't miss those controls. And the fact you don't have to fumble around with 9-volt batteries is a huge plus.
Go ahead and get that non-electric acoustic
If the only thing stopping you from buying a non-electric acoustic was the fact it doesn't have a preamp, but you loved it otherwise, buy it anyway.
There are many acoustics out there with no electronics in them that sound wonderful. If you find one you like in the guitar store that plays great and sounds right, just buy the thing and don't think twice about it.
When you record, use an add-in pickup. Or, if you're daring, try a microphone on a stand (although the add-in pickup is a lot easier to deal with).