Do I like the new album From Hendrix?
A new Hendrix album People, Hell And Angels has just been released, including a vinyl option (which is cool).
The entire album is currently being hosted by NPR.
I am not a Hendrix fan. I consider his work "okay" at best. Not groundbreaking. Not incredible. And certainly not perfect. Just "okay".
I also believe Hendrix's work wasn't anything life-changing. Why? Because when I hear it, I hear 1960s psychedelic rock combined with some 1970s jazz/funk, but mostly 1960s guitar tone. I also hear his guitar being out of tune a lot (even in the studio recordings) and also hear tons of mistakes.
I have seriously tried to like Hendrix's music. But I can't. It just doesn't do anything for me and never did.
It's interesting to note that while that the album Electric Ladyland did go #1 in the US, absolutely none of his singles ever charted high.
Only one song, All Along The Watchtower, charted decently and peaked at #20 in the US. After that, the next-best was Crosstown Traffic which peaked at #52. Nothing after that charted well. For example, Hey Joe and The Wind Cries Mary didn't even chart at all in the US.
Hendrix's peak popularity was always in the UK and that's where he had his most top 10 hit singles (five of them). But never once did he have a top 10 single in the US. A #1 album, yes, but never a single. And the singles are what matter most.
Like I said, Hendrix to me is just okay. Meh.
Creating a from-scratch beat on the BOSS Dr. Rhythm DR-3, plus other notes
In this video below I show how to create a rhythm using a custom kit on the BOSS DR-3, and show how to do something almost nobody does (only because they don't know how), that being to record a swing-style beat.
Creating rhythm patterns using a standalone drum pattern sequencer like the DR-3, Akai XR20 or like machine is easy as long as you understand how a pattern sequencer works.
There are those of the belief that a PC is a requirement for pattern sequencing. Nope. Pattern sequencers have been around a very long time, and the vast majority of them can be controlled via MIDI if you want to use a separate controller (which is optional but not required).
Those who complain about a standalone pattern sequencer as being "too hard to use" only do so because they're already used to the utterly broken-beyond-belief interface that is the PC.
In other words, this whole "too hard to use" thing.. um.. no. The pattern sequencer was always easier and still is.
How to "convert" a P90 to sound like a Stratocaster single-coil pickup
In this video, I show how to get a P90 single-coil pickup to have "Stratocaster characteristics" by adjusting the pickup pole piece heights.
Obviously, the P90 can't sound exactly like a Strat single-coil because it doesn't have the same treble response, but the point is that you can get a Strat-like sound out of one if you want to.
A video really doesn't give you what it actually sounds like when you do this minor modification. I had to describe it as "subtle" because on video, it is subtle. But when you hear it in person, it's much more obvious. Sometimes the audio from a video really doesn't give you the complete picture, so to speak, and this is one of those times.
The entire reason there are pickups with adjustable pole pieces is so you can, y'know, actually adjust them. But nobody does even though it's an easy feature to get even on cheap guitars like the Les Paul I own seen in the video above.
I do plan on keeping the poles for the rhythm pickup on my Les Paul in staggered formation, because it really does bring out a Strat tone I'm more familiar with.
If you don't hear the difference between flat-pole and staggered-pole in the above video, that's fine because like I said, in the video it's a very subtle change in sound. But I like it and plan on keeping the guitar configured that way.
You may not like vintage-spec Stratocaster guitars
If you buy a Squier CV '50s Stratocaster, what are you getting? Other than the fact the fingerboard radius is a modern 9.5-inch instead of the old-style 7.25-inch curve, you are getting something "built like they used to make them", for all intents and purposes.
A lot of players don't take into consideration that vintage-spec a.k.a. "retro" is the simpler build of guitar and not the fancy stuff. On a Strat in particular, that means no noiseless pickups, no rolled fret ends, 6-screw bridge and not 2-post, 21-fret and not 22 or 24, open-style tuning machines with the top slot and so on. In other words, the same type of Strat you would have been able to buy back in the 50s and 60s.
Modern American Strats aren't vintage-spec whatsoever and are totally modernized. Different nut width, different truss rod, different bridge, 22-fret neck, sealed tuners and so on.
If you wanted to go "total vintage", you could pony up over 2 grand and get the Fender American Vintage '56 Stratocaster, where you do get the "thick soft V" neck shape instead of the modern "C", and the 7.25-inch fingerboard radius. But at the same time you get skinny little frets that many players absolutely hate because they "fret out" so easily.
If you've never played a Strat with the 7.25-inch radius fingerboard, I strongly suggest you sit down with one and play it first before handing over a bunch of money for a 100% vintage-spec guitar. You'll probably hand it right back after a few minutes after literally buzzing all over the place, because a super-round fingerboard with skinny frets is for most players just not a good combination - especially if you're not used to it.
The modern 9.5-inch with medium jumbo frets is much, much better compared to "true" vintage-spec. Far less string buzz, and far less fretting out. That's why the modern Strat and Tele uses 9.5 and not 7.25.
Can I personally play on a 7.25 with skinny frets? Yes I can, and I know how to make it sound good - but that's only because I understand the nature of how vintage-spec necks like that play. I totally expect a neck with a 7.25-inch radius and skinny frets to buzz and fret out even if it was perfectly set up by a luthier because, well, that's how those vintage-spec Fender necks are.
I have heard from a few players that bought a Squier CV '50s Strat, didn't like it and decided on getting another type of Strat guitar. When I asked them why they didn't like the CV '50s, they couldn't give a straight answer other than, "I just didn't like it."
I can guarantee you these same people wouldn't take a liking to the '56 American Vintage either simply because they prefer a more modernized Strat.
What makes a modern Strat truly modern?
Some players greatly prefer the Mexican-made Standard Strat or even the low-cost Squier Bullet Strat over the Squier Classic Vibe series or even the ritzy Fender American Vintage series.
But why?
There are several reasons, but I'll list 3.
First is vintage-style open tuners vs. modern sealed tuners.
I can work with either tuner type easily, but some players despise the vintage-style open-slot tuners with a passion and will happily take the tall-post sealed style any day of the week.
Second is 22-fret instead of 21-fret.
I personally prefer 21-fret, but I understand that many don't and want that high D on the 1 string so they can bend up to a high E easily.
Neither the Mexican nor the Squier Bullet has 22-fret, but the Fender Modern Player HSS (which I own) along with the American Standard does, as well as a few other models.
Third is weight.
"True" vintage-spec Strat bodies are really light. So light that it actually bothers some players who would rather prefer a body that "feels more there", so to speak.
To the best of my knowledge, the most heavy-bodied Strat is the Mexican Standard, which is at or close to 8lbs/3.6kg. The American Strat is usually slightly lighter at somewhere between 7.5 and 8lbs. Vintage-spec bodies are usually between 7 and 7.25lbs.
Squier Strat guitars are typically heavier, even with a slim-profile body like the Squier Bullet Strat. They're not as heavy as the Mexican Standard, but close.
Am I saying most players prefer the heavier-bodied Strats with sealed tuners, 22 frets and a modern "C" shape neck with 9.5-inch radius? Usually, yes.
Remember, "vintage" doesn't automatically mean "good". With vintage-spec, you really have to know what you're buying into before you do it.
How to get a "pro" audio sound
I get asked a lot how I get the sound I do when I record, and moreover how I do it with such a small setup.
Before answering that question, I've decided to take a bunch of the knowledge I've acquired over the years and put it into a book. The book is not ready yet, but soon will be, so what you'll read below is a small taste of the knowledge you'll gain from my experience.
Short answer:
Getting a "pro" sound has nothing to do with recording gear and everything to do with recording technique, sometimes known as "studio tricks" (which really aren't 'tricks' at all but rather just methods).
Long answer:
It doesn't matter whether you have $300 worth of recording gear or $30,000 worth, because without knowing recording techniques, even the guy with a ton of expensive gear will still make recordings that sound awful.
How do I know this? Because I've seen guys build "pro"-level recording studios, only to produce recordings that sound like they were recorded inside a garbage can. Fancy expensive gear has not, nor will ever magically make any recording sound "pro".
Here's an example of a recording technique I call the "Ozzy Osbourne" method of recording a vocal. It's stupidly easy and will make a vocal sound good even with cheapest microphone.
We'll use two examples here, that being an "okay" singer and a good singer. We'll start with the "okay" singer first.
An "okay" singer is someone who can sing but wavers whenever he or she sings a long note, meaning when they try to hold a note, it's held but goes slightly sharp or flat and that's the best they can do.
The "trick" to fixing this is to have them sing the exact same thing twice on two separate tracks. What this will do is create a natural chorus effect based on the singer's own vocal range. After the tracks are recorded, you pan one 10% to 25% to the left, and the other 10% to 25% to the right. And ta-da, you've got yourself a great-sounding vocal. The only annoying thing about doing this is that the singer absolutely must sing the same thing twice exactly. Every "puh" for words that start with P, every "tuh" with words that start with T and so on must exactly match up for this to work. When you get those two vocal tracks matched up just right, you've got a stereo vocal track that sounds great.
Now let's take the same situation for someone who's a good singer.
When you record a single vocal track, more often than not you will run into the problem where a vocal "sounds flat", and no matter what you do, you just can't seem to get that vocal track "alive" - even if you recorded it with a super-expensive AKG C414. No amount of EQ, reverb or fancy microphone can fix it no matter how many times it's recorded.
In this scenario, have the singer record the exact same vocal twice, but mix it differently. Instead of the pan left-and-right like you would with the "okay" singer, have the first lead track dead center at normal volume, and the second track only at 10% volume (or edge it up so that you can just barely hear it under the lead vocal), panned a tiny bit to the left (humans like left-to-right consistency with audio and not right-to-left); the louder vocal will fill up the center and right-side space.
What this does is create a barely-there "fill" for an otherwise "flat" vocal. As far as anyone listening is concerned, all they hear is one vocal. But, like magic, with the barely-there second vocal, it no longer sounds "flat" and now sounds "round" like it's supposed to.
Of course, no magic is involved, but rather recording technique. The doubling of vocals is a time-honored recording technique that's been used for a long, long time.
Technique always trumps gear. Always. When you develop technique, you can record absolutely amazing stuff with even the cheapest of recording gear. And furthermore, you can finally get your money's worth out of the expensive recording gear you bought.
And to note, doubling your guitar tracks works great too! In the latest song I wrote, you can hear the doubling during the slower guitar parts, played octave-style.
Anyway, the "Ozzy Osbourne" method of recording vocals or guitars works wonders. Yes, you do have to mix afterward because with a doubled track, the volume goes up, so edging that down is required along with a few minor EQ tweaks.
And yes, I'll mention all the stuff about mixing volume, tweaking EQ and so on in the completed book when I get it finished; it's going to have a ton of information in it.