Deep Purple sound on a Casio SA-46 kid's keyboard
A few months back I bought a Casio SA-46, for the reason I wanted a small, dirt simple synth with some cool sounds in it. My reason for getting it originally was because of one sound, a square wave like you'd hear on those old synths of the 1970s. But of course it has organ sounds in it, too. What multi-sound synth wouldn't?
Something like one or two weeks ago I fed the SA-46 through the ZOOM R8's distortion patch. Good, but I couldn't do much with adjusting how much distortion via the keyboard's volume slider.
This time around I tried plugging it direct into my DigiTech GSP 1101, amp simulator on, cabinet simulator on, etc. All of that stuff - meant for guitar, mind you - on.
Me likey. :)
While it was a little "whiny" on the top end, yeah I got a decent Deep Purple sound. I added in some hall reverb for that Made In Japan album sound.
Accurate? I can best answer that with "as well as can be expected", meaning I wasn't expecting a perfect Jon Lord sound from a cheap keyboard. Combine that with the fact I'm limited to just 32 mini-sized keys (you can see me struggle with that in the video) made it a bit of a challenge. But I made it work.
"You play keyboards?"
I've been playing keyboards ever since I was 6. Way longer than I've been playing guitar, which I didn't start on until I was 15.
Quick info on why I don't do keys very often
Modern synth workstations for the most part suck. Very few make synths with keys that feel right, fewer make workstations with interfaces that actually make sense, and even fewer can operate on their own successfully without being connected to a computer...
...which is part of the reason I decided to buy an SA-46. It connects to nothing. No memory card slot, no MIDI. It doesn't even have stereo sound. When you play one, you are forced to deal with it as-is, so you have to come up with ways on your own outside of the synth to make it sound better.
Things keyboard players don't want to hear
The Jon Lord "beast" tone is nothing but a straight Hammond B-3 organ signal into a Marshall guitar amp. That's it. No magic involved. No special whiz-bang crapola involved. You take the raw signal, wire it to a guitar amp (preferably with a Celestion speaker), juice it up, and that's it. After that, it's all in the fingers...
...which is where most keyboard players fail and fail hard.
A lot of synth guys fall into the same trap guitar guys do, where they think if one throws enough money at technology, they will magically get that Deep Purple Jon Lord tone.
Wrong.
Synths have been able to accurately recreate Hammond organ tone since the 1990s. Digital technology made that possible. Everything after that is all just useless bells and whistles.
Yeah, that does mean you can take an Ensoniq SQ-1 or Korg M1 or Yamaha SY99 from the 1990s, run it through a Marshall or just about any other guitar amp, and ta-da, "beast" tone with a plain ol' digital organ patch.
It also means you could get a new Casio CTK-2300 (it has full-size keys) and do the same thing.
When you want Jon Lord beast tone, you have to think like a guitar player. An electric guitar on its own sounds like crap. Plug it into an amp and add a few effects, and it sounds great. With distorted organ tone, same frickin' thing. It's not rocket science.
After tone is achieved, it's about expression
Give a crappy guitar player a brand new, perfectly-set-up Gibson Les Paul USA Standard, and guess what you end up with? A crappy guitar player with an expensive guitar that still sounds like a crappy guitar player.
Give a crappy keyboard player a brand new Roland Jupiter-80 (which by the way is one amazing badass synth), and he'll still be a crappy keyboard player with an expensive synth that sounds like a crappy keyboard player.
It's very common to see keyboard guys dump many thousands of dollars into synth gear. I did the same back in the 90s. My Ensoniq SQ-1 Plus was three grand when new. Yes, really. I know what it means to spend big money on expensive gear, so it's not like I haven't done it. The last big purchase I made was for the Alesis Fusion 6HD, which I still have. That cost me a cool grand. It has a nice big ol' layer of dust on it now from being unused and sitting in a corner.
No matter what big money is spent, it means nothing without the ability to express yourself on the keys. If you tighten up when you play, can't get loose and can't express notes with fluidity, no amount of money spent on gear will fix that. Not now and not ever.
I can express notes even on a dinky little Casio SA-46 run through an amp simulator, and pull off one seriously big, in-your-face sound...
...and so can you. If you play keys, it's not about the tech and hasn't been for a very long time. It's about the expression. You learn that, and you'll find you can get "beast" tone out of just about any synth, even with one that has little mini-keys on it that runs off 6 AA batteries.
Why I don't like PRS guitars
There are certain guitar companies out there who have very little concerning a guitar I'd actually want to own, and PRS is one of them.
One of the very few models PRS offers I'd consider owning is the S2 Mira in Tobacco sunburst with dot inlays on the neck.
Is there a "bird" inlay version? Yes, unfortunately. Why unfortunately? Because PRS overuses bird inlays and they're just not cool anymore.
The Mira is one the very few PRS designs that does not look like a bad copy of something else, nor does it look generic. Mira has some good flavor to it. It's not overdone nor underdone and strikes that just-right balance to it. I think it's good even though the blade selector looks like a tacked-on afterthought (it should've been a toggle).
But I wouldn't buy one. Why? That leads me to my first point.
Everything PRS makes is too expensive for what it is
The cheapest non-signature model is the SE 245, which is nothing more than a boring, different-looking Les Paul.
If I wanted a Les Paul copy, I'd buy an Agile AL. That guitar is under $250, has better colors and full binding on the body and neck. And even if I put $200 worth of upgrades into it, it's still cheaper than the SE 245.
To concentrate on a different model with a Floyd tremolo system on it, there's the SE Custom 24, which is over $700. Also, just so you know, if you buy one without the Floyd, it's still over $700. That's not exactly a good deal.
Why would anyone bother with that nonsense when the Jackson SLX Soloist X can be had for $100 less is beyond me. Heck, you could even go under $400 new with a Dean Custom 380 Floyd. Or if that's not your thing, with Schecter you can stay just under the $450 mark and still get your Floyd-Rose system.
My point is that there are many guitars under the PRS price point where you get way more for your money.
And for anyone that says "you get what you pay for", do you really with PRS? I don't think so. Not with SE models, anyway.
PRS guitars have no distinctive tone to them?
Two terms describe PRS tone better than anything else. Either the guitar is voiced flat, meaning as if an EQ was set dead middle (all sliders flat, which is where the term comes from), or voiced "vintage", similar to the Seymour Duncan Vintage Blues humbucker set.
Flat does not mean "bad", but rather generic. Many guitars are voiced that way in an attempt to appeal to the widest amount of players possible. The problem by doing that however is that you end up with a guitar that has no tonal personality to it whatsoever, as in you end up with something sounding generic and boring.
"Vintage" is a very overused term to describe guitar tone, but it basically means a lower-output pickup with higher treble, higher midrange and less bass response.
I've never heard any recording of a guitar in my life where I thought, "Yep, that's definitely a PRS."
Many PRS guitars are borderline kitschy in the way they look
Take a Paul Reed Smith P22 model. Color options include Lemonburst, Grayburst, Charcoal, Whale Blue, Orange Tiger and several others.
Almost none of the finish options fit the guitar correctly. A lot of "almost there" colors, but not quite, because the finishes were purposely made to look expensive. To achieve that look, PRS went all stripey, put the stupid birds on the fingerboard (of course), stuck a dark headstock on the end, did not color match the back and then called it a day.
When guitar companies do that "try to look expensive" thing, you end up with kitsch. If you don't know what that word means, it means questionable aesthetic value.
What PRS does with certain guitar models of theirs is ride the fine line between looking totally awesome and totally stupid.
The Mira is one of the few instances where PRS didn't go stupid, and instead created a functional, well-designed, elegant guitar - even if it is overpriced.
The P22 on the other hand is where things get real stupid; the guitar panders to those who feel that if something looks expensive, it must be good. As any guitar player worth his salt knows, that's rarely the case.
My best way of describing the P22 is PRS "pulling a Gibson", where they concentrated more on appears-to-be-exotic crapola rather than just making a proper guitar that doesn't look like ugly furniture.
And no, not all P22 finishes are kitschy. The three that aren't stupid are Antique White, Black and Gold Top. But of course, those colors are the most difficult to come by.
The burst finishes look like a cheesy zoo brochure, again with the whole "pulling a Gibson" shtick.
What finish would make the P22 really pop, so to speak? A non-striped, non-flame, no-quilt 2-color sunburst, as in the same 2TSB finish that's on the '56 American Vintage Strat reissue. The P22 would take to that finish very well and make it look like the high-end instrument it's supposed to be.
PRS does know how to do a burst correct when they don't do all that flamey/stripey/quilty crapola.
Is PRS dead weight?
Some believe the brand is past its prime as the go-to guitar that players want.
The largest indicator I'm seeing that PRS doesn't have much of an impact on players anymore is from the lack of YouTube videos on them.
Oh sure, you'll find videos aplenty of stores selling the guitar with their demo videos. But how many player videos are you seeing with PRS these days? Not many. You'll see tons of player videos with Fender, Squier, Gibson, Epiphone, Jackson, Schecter and so on... but PRS? Not really.
For the PRS player videos I do see, most are older PRS models and not newer ones, because those are the only ones players can actually afford.
What really strikes me as odd is that PRS is a brand sold in Guitar Center. According to the GC web site, there are 136 different kinds of solid-body PRS guitars being sold there right now. I can assume from that the brand is selling, but YouTube tells a different story because I am simply not seeing player videos there anywhere near as much as other brands.
Player videos on YouTube, as in guitar playing videos by regular people, will tell you real fast whether people are buying a certain brand or not. PRS doesn't exactly make a good showing.
Dirt cheap clip-on lapel microphone
In a few days I'll be receiving two dirt cheap lapel microphones; the total cost for both is 5 bucks. The price lists for $0.01 + $4.99 shipping. 5 bucks. Yes, there is a listing where you can buy just 1 instead of 2, but it's not even worth it because the cost comes to almost 4 bucks, so for 1 extra buck you get 2. It's smarter to do that anyway just to have a backup if the first one fails.
Why am I mentioning this? Because I'm considering starting back up the vlog again. That, and my laptop does have a microphone port on it, so I can use the 3.5mm plug.
A periodic complaint, or rather insult, I would receive in YouTube comments for the vlogs is that wearing a headset in a video was stupid. The insult didn't say "stupid" but rather other colorful words. I figured if I'm going to give the vlog a go again, I might as well use a lapel microphone so it's one less thing YouTube commenter idiots will complain about.
Just about every commenter who complained about the headset was some dopey gamer who wears a headset w/microphone themselves when gaming. Irony at its finest. Whaaaaatever.
I got a couple of cheap mics on the way. Hopefully they'll work out. I'm not expecting awesome sound quality. But I'm quite certain it will be far better than my laptop's internal microphone, which is absolutely awful.
Affordable vintage Fender electric guitars
Certain Fender guitars that are over 25 years old (generally speaking, if it's over 25, it's vintage) are actually fairly affordable. At the time I write this, that means anything made from 1989 or earlier. But you have to watch yourself with vintage so you don't end up with a piece of junk.
The 1980s
Strats of the 1980s are easy to come by and fairly cheap. For example, I saw a 1987 Strat online recently for just 500 bucks. That's a mostly-guaranteed USA model because Fender did not start producing Mexico-made guitars until 1990. Why so cheap? Because in all honesty, late-80s Strats aren't that good. In fact, most of the models from the 80s have a maximum price tag - as in a reasonable price tag - of a top price of $2,000 currently. And that's only if the guitar is in absolutely perfect condition without a single ding on it with everything in perfect working order. Otherwise, 80s Strats can be had for between $500 to $1,500 quite easily.
When I say Strats of the 80s "aren't that good", I am saying that a brand new Classic Vibe Series Squier Strat is built better in every way. Modern machining, proper fit, proper electrics, proper everything. Or if you gotta have the Fender logo, the Standard that's made in Mexico is far and above a much better guitar.
Did everything from Fender suck in the 80s?
No, not everything, but most of it. Remember that in the early 80s, Fender was owned by CBS until they decided to get out of the guitar business in 1984. There was some shuffling about until Fender got back on its feet. During that time, some really crappy guitars were made...
...with one exception. Japan-made Fender guitars of the 80s were spot-on, including the Squier "JV" series; this is why I said Fender guitars of the 80s were mostly-guaranteed to be American. Some weren't. Some even had "Made in USA" on them when they were in fact made in Japan... not that that's a bad thing, because Japan was making them better at the time.
Is it worth it to seek out a Japan-made Fender from the 80s? Not really, because like I said above, today's Squier Strats and Mexico Strats fit the bill nicely - at a much nicer price.
The 1970s
Basically put, nothing from Fender made in the 70s is cheap...
...and I honestly don't understand why.
Okay, actually that's not true. I do understand why for certain models.
For the bass guitars, yes, Fender did some of their best basses in the 70s, and there is no arguing that point.
Regular 6-string guitars on the other hand started getting a lot of cost-cutting, starting in '71 with the infamous 3-bolt neck. Along with that came bodies that were less contoured, cheaper electronics and a whole host of other cost-cutter maneuvers.
The only attraction I see in a 70s model is the larger CBS headstock. On Strats in particular, there was that headstock with the "bullet" truss rod cover, completing a very cool look.
But being you can buy a reissue built better in every way... I just don't see the point of getting the real vintage because it would be a clunky, creaky mess, whereas the new one will be perfect.
Or better yet, if you want to save even more cash and get that total 70s look, get a Roadhouse Strat.
And if you really want to save money, get the Squier version.
ANY one of those guitars is better than a real-deal 70s Fender Strat.
70s Strats are bad, and I'm not kidding. Get a reissue or a Roadhouse or a Squier instead. Believe me, you'll enjoy any one of those new offerings much better. You totally do not want to deal with a 70s Strat that was built on Fender's strangled budget of the time.
The 1960s
This is the last decade I'll mention, because it's the one that's still accessible to regular players. Anything from Fender made in the 1950s commands sky-high prices to the point of being totally inaccessible, so that decade isn't even worth bothering with.
Strats of the 60s: All priced too high and totally over-inflated in value. Don't bother.
Telecasters of the 60s: Same problem. Overpriced. Don't bother.
Jaguars of the 60s: Affordable. Certain models can be had for between $2,000 to $3,000.
Jazzmasters of the 60s: Also affordable. I love the Jazzmaster, but most people don't because they think it's "too complicated". They run about the same as Jags in the $2,000 to $3,000 range. Sometimes they sell for less when enough potential buyers realize that no, a Jazzmaster is not the frickin' Jaguar Kurt Cobain played.
Mustangs of the 60s: This is the most affordable vintage Fender of the 60s you can get. Fender Mustangs are easy to come by and are routinely found selling for under $2,000. For a Fender built in the 60s, that's about as good as it is for a complete, working electric guitar.
To note, the Mustang did not start production until 1965. Also, A WARNING: Some Mustangs are a 3/4 scale with only a 22.5-inch scale length. Thankfully, not many of the 3/4-scale Mustangs exist (trust me, that's a good thing), but if you're entertaining the idea of buying a real-deal Fender Mustang of the 60s, check that scale length. If it's the 22.5-inch scale, you will hate it because it feels and plays like a toy guitar. The scale length to look for is 24-inch (same as the Jaguar).
Jags and Jazzes are the "safest" vintage 1960's Fenders you could buy
Strats, Teles and Mustangs had the ever-lovin' crap beat out of them. Not so with the Jaguars and Jazzmasters.
People who bought Jazzes and Jags in the 60s usually didn't beat on them, and this is why you can easily find them even to this day in near-mint or mint condition. That being the case, it's probably true the only thing you'll find wrong on either of those guitars is that the electronics will have disintegrated either a little or a lot due to age. Remember, something made in 1964 is HALF A CENTURY OLD at the time I write this. You can't expect 50-year-old guitar electronics to last that long, so it's probably true you'll have to gut the thing and have it redone.
While the Mustang is the most accessible and most affordable, if you get one, it will probably be wrecked. Jags and Jazzes on the other hand will most likely be not wrecked and only need minor restoration (with the electronics more than anything else) to get it back to tip-top shape.
Is it worth it to own the real vintage?
For some it is, but not for me.
I could, if I wanted to, order up a '67 Fender Mustang right now. As in a real one. The price is $1,400, and it's even in a color I like. But I won't buy it, nor will I ever.
I don't see "Wow... cool... vintage..." when I see that '67 Mustang. What I do see is a 47-year-old guitar that's barely playable and probably needs another $1,400 worth of work just to get it in semi-good condition.
The age of an instrument does nothing for me. And why would I bother with something 47 years old and beat to crap when Fender makes one new, as does Squier, with both being complete, working, properly-made and ready-to-rock?
Some guys are all about the vintage. If you are, that's fine. I'm not. But at least now you know which vintage Fender solid-body axes are still in the affordable range.
Poor man's guitar pick fixer
My guitar pick of choice these days is the Fender 351 Premium Celluloid in medium thickness, "Ocean Turquoise" color. It's a great pick, but the problem is that celluloid wears out real fast.
I repair my own picks. How? I use an emery board, commonly known as nail files.
I purposely buy Revlon emery boards to shape guitar picks with for two reasons. First, they are available in a 24-pack where most other packs are of a much lower count. Second, Revlon boards are very consistent. With other boards, at least half the pack will have grit that's too coarse or too smooth. Every Revlon board on the other hand is almost exactly the same, with only very minor grit variations.
You may see the price of those Revlon boards and say, "Whoa! Expensive!" Trust me, they're not. Remember, there are 24 of them in the pack. Divide the price by 24 (remember, free shipping) and you'll quickly realize you get a lot for cheap.
If you use picks that are .88mm or thinner, periodically filing the point with an emery board will make them last longer so you don't have to replace as often.
I call this a "poor man's" guitar pick fix because it is so cheap to do. In reality, there really is no better way to go about it. Using a machine like a Dremel rotary would file off way too much way too fast. When you want to make picks last longer, you have to file them down by hand. Fortunately, this usually only takes under a minute to do. Definitely an easy repair.