Is Sarod picking worth learning to pick fast?
For some guitar players, picking as fast as possible with the most accuracy (meaning as little missed notes as possible) is important. And when you talk about fast picking, one technique is called sarod picking.
A sarod is an instrument used mainly in Indian classical music, and it's arguably the second-most-known stringed instrument in that genre of music next to the sitar.
The most famous electric guitar rock player you know who uses sarod picking is Eddie Van Halen. When you watch him pick fast, you will see him doing it.
Before I tell you how sarod picking is actually done, there's a few things you should know about it.
1. You cannot (traditionally) mute with the picking hand when sarod picking.
When sarod picking, your hand is "floating" above the strings so there is no opportunity to mute, and the reason for that is that the swinging motion of this picking style doesn't really permit it. You'll understand what I mean by that in a moment when I explain how to sarod pick below.
2. Sarod picking is all about the wrist.
Very little of your forearm or anywhere beyond that is used when picking this way; it is a very different style compared to what you're used to. Should you decide to try this picking technique, your wrist in the beginning is going to get one heck of a workout.
3. You absolutely cannot learn fast sarod picking in a day no matter what your skill level is.
For most electric guitar players, learning to sarod pick is like learning how to play the guitar all over again. Some of you on attempt to learn this may get so frustrated with it that you won't bother. But if you do learn how to do it, you can pick insanely fast and for a very long time once you get the motion right.
How do you sarod pick?
The key to knowing how to sarod pick is to understand it is a stirring motion. And fortunately this stirring motion is really easy to understand.
Fill up a glass of water. Take a spoon, start stirring the water, and watch your wrist while doing it. Notice how you're not using your forearm at all to stir that water. Now you understand the stirring motion.
On the guitar, take your pick, arch your wrist above the strings just as if you were going to stir water like you did a moment ago. You'll notice that the way you hold your pick will be angled instead of flat like you normally have it. Start picking in that circular stirring motion. Now you're sarod picking.
You are technically tremolo picking ("up-and-down" picking), but with sarod you've got the circular stirring motion going on in addition to that.
While you're doing this, you'll understand fully why I said this is like learning how to pick all over again; it's totally different than how you normally pick.
You also now understand why I said it's very difficult to mute with the picking hand while sarod picking, because if you try to mute, it's far more difficult to keep that stirring motion going.
Why is sarod picking good for playing fast?
Once you get your stirring motion up to speed, it is the most effortless way to tremolo-pick very quickly. Your wrist basically never gets tired because the circular stirring motion "throws the weight" continually. Much less exertion is needed to sarod pick compared to other tremolo-picking methods.
How long does it take to start sarod picking fast?
It takes a while. Like I said, it's like learning picking all over again, and it can be frustrating to learn it. But once you've got it, you'll be able to fast-pick very easily.
Do I sarod pick?
Rarely. I will somewhat-sarod pick chords on the low end of the fingerboard when playing Spanish-style guitar.
At times I will sarod pick on the upper frets, but not that often because I lean more towards hammer-ons and pull-offs for speedy notes.
On a final note, no two people sarod pick the same, because it greatly depends on your arm and finger length. So when you watch Eddie Van Halen do it, your way of sarod picking will not be the same, as it will be custom to you. In other words, don't take the way he picks as the exact way you should do it. Develop your own way of sarod picking and it will work out much better for you.
Do you hate reverb?
There are more than a few guitar players out there who absolutely hate reverb. And I mean hate it with a passion. They want absolutely nothing to do with it whatsoever.
How I feel about reverb is that it depends what you're using it for, and what type you're using.
The BOSS RV-5 to the right is a good example of some of the reverb types out there. It can do gated, room, hall, plate and even emulate a Fender spring reverb.
I think reverb hate stems from the fact that in some instances you just hear it way too much.
Here's a really condensed history of reverb:
"The sound" of surf music was largely in part due to the Fender's "Reverb Unit", originally making its appearance in 1961. That thing was a real-deal tube-driven spring reverb device; a licensed design from Hammond. Yes, as in the Hammond Organ Company. (I bet you didn't know that one!)
Okay so anyway, there were a lot of songs produced in the 1960s that had reverb plastered all over the place.
Then the 1970s came around; I call that "the dry decade" because while reverb was frickin' everywhere in the 60s, in the 70s it was almost completely shut off. A lot of this was due to disco and funk, where a no-reverb dry sound makes the drums and bass heard a whole lot clearer.
In the late 1970s however, reverb came back with a vengeance in the rock guitar world..
Oh, yeah.
However, when the 80s rolled around, not all was well in Reverb Land. In all music genres across the board, everyone was dousing their recording in super-washy reverb. And a lot of it was awful.
The biggest "offender" for reverb in the 1980s was undoubtedly the snare drum. Instead of an acoustic snare, it was replaced with a digital snare that had crazy amounts of reverb on it, as evidenced with Pour Some Sugar On Me by Def Leppard.
Now I know the drummer for Def Leppard is one-armed due to a car accident, and I know that playing drums one-armed isn't exactly easy - but - you can't deny that there is just way too much reverb on that digital snare sample. The song is cool, but every time I hear it, all I hear is that frickin' snare. And I think it's the loudest thing heard in the song.
Then the 90s rolled around, and I call this the "digital reverb" era, because that's when all this crazy new digital gear started going into studios all over the place.
During this decade the reverb, thankfully, was rolled down quite a bit - but with a tradeoff. Instead of it being bonging and washy, now it "snapped" and "whooshed". Losing My Religion by R.E.M. is a good example of this.
...and that's pretty much where reverb has stayed ever since. Sure, there have been minor (and I mean minor) variations over the years, but more often than not, "studio reverb" is considered that snappy/whooshy sound.
What about now?
Today we have the best of all worlds. In a single pedal like the RV-5 above, you can more or less get every reverb type that's ever existed. No, it doesn't reproduce all of them perfectly (no multi-effect reverb pedal can), but the point is that with some simple knob tweaking, you've got it all in a little box.
But should you use it?
Here's how I feel about that:
I personally believe the best reverb types for guitar are "room", "hall" and "spring".
A good reverb sound that pretty much everyone likes is the "sounds like it was recorded in a studio room" thing. And that's room reverb. As long as you don't overdo it, you get that classic blaring-humbucker-through-a-Marshall-in-a-small-room thing going on.
Hall reverb is good for classic 70s and 80s rock sounds like Runnin' With The Devil by Van Halen. Definitely a hall 'verb type.
Spring reverb is when you want to go old-school to the 60s sound because, well, that's what they used and it sounds cool.
In a live situation, my opinion changes.
I am 100% anti-reverb and 100% pro-delay for a live rig. Reverb on a live rig is annoying to control because it will sound different even with the exact same settings at each different place you play.
The delay effect works a whole lot better for a live rig because a) in the audience it does sound like reverb, b) you can hear it a whole lot better and it's much easier to tweak it on a per-location basis, and c) you're not fighting against the natural reverb that's around you when you use delay.
In the studio, sure I'll use reverb and will readily admit that. But not live.
Studio Rats vs. Guitar Players
I got a lot of flak because of my last post, mainly because something happened that I totally didn't expect - I actually caught the ear (pun intended) of the audio engineering community and unintentionally hit them right where they live.
The article I wrote was for guitar players and not audio engineering dudes. First I got a load of crap thrown at me on Facebook, lost a few fans (boo-hoo), then comments came in on the blog and blah blah blah. All "amateur audio enthusiasts" (their words; not mine) and pro-level dudes.
To an audio engineer, hearing things like "PCs are dying", "The DAW is doomed" and things of that ilk are heresy. Why? Because they've pretty much spent all their lives working with big-box PCs and Macs, probably went to school for their craft (or are attending right now), and here comes me, this guy with a blog, with a jugular punch right to their livelihood (again, unintentionally), by saying the stuff they use won't be necessary in the near future. Whether it's a student studying this stuff or a 20-year veteran in the recording industry, they interpreted what I wrote as a kick in the face.
I've known a lot of studio rats over the years. And yeah, I call audio engineers who record music studio rats. If you're an engineer and insulted by that, don't be, because it's a term of affection. I don't get offended by being called "guitarded", which is way more insulting than "studio rat" ever could be. Consider that being offensive on an equal opportunity level. I'm guitarded; you're a studio rat; let's move on.
This is my take on studio rats: They have their place in the world; they are needed. But they're not the kind that encourage creativity in a recording environment.
Do you honestly think a studio rat would allow "ugly" to be recorded as-is on a Tascam 488?
Nope. The studio rat would take the recording, "clean it", and do other nasty things that would take away from the ugly that gives the sound actual character.
I am a huge fan of doing more with less, and of course that's the exact opposite of the way a studio rat thinks.
The studio rat would reply with, "No, I like things to be small and compact, too!" True, but only in the physical sense. Ultimately what the studio rat wants is as much control as possible, and because of that they wouldn't be caught dead with a Tascam 488. Why? "Too limiting."
The 488 (which I did own at one point) is a great example of doing more with less because the limitations of the machine force you to be creative. If there's something the 488 can't do, you can't load in some software plugin that will magically fix everything. Whatever problem you encounter, you just deal with it and find a workaround. And that's where things get creative and, y'know, fun.
No, I am not saying to dump DAWs or digital. But I am saying that a good studio rat should be able to record with any machine that can record audio no matter what the platform is. To be limited to just one way of recording is just... bad. I mean, studio rats do go to school for this stuff, and they're telling me that the school only teaches one way of recording and that's it? I should hope not. I can record with a DAW, digital multitracker, analog multitrack or reels, but the modern studio rat can't?
I would challenge any studio rat to buy a DP-008, or heck, even a DP-004 (or if you've got really big set of balls, a 424) and record something cool with it. Did you just say, "NO WAY"? Why? You've got mountains of recording knowledge; you know how to wield one. You do know how to wield one, right? Can you accept a restrictive recording environment of a small-sized multitracker? It would be interesting to see if you could, or watch you squirm trying.
Remember, studio rat, you're supposed to be the smart recording guy, so the multitrack recorder should be easy for you... right? If I can wield one easily, you obviously should be able to do the same... right?
To my guitar player peoples, keep buying your multitrackers, keep recording, keep rocking; you're doing all right. And oh yeah, keep posting vids too. We still need more players on YouTube. Yes, I will bug you about it until more videos start getting out there. :)
To you studio rats, get off my nuts. Or if you're going to continue stomping on my nuts, take the restrictive-recording-environment challenge. I'll bet that you'll find recording creativity you never knew you had. Why? Art from adversity.
Is the DAW doomed?
"DAW" is an abbreviation for digital audio workstation; it's basically defined as any computer that can record audio digitally and has features to edit that audio, such as cutting/pasting, EQ, nominalization and so on. And yes, this technically means any PC or laptop can be a DAW as long as it has the right software such as Audacity.
The traditional definition of a DAW heavily leans towards software. I've always thought that odd because "workstation" has always meant multi-function hardware, but for some strange reason everyone thinks DAW = software now when it doesn't and never did.
For example, a "synthesizer workstation" literally means a synth that can perform on-board editing and sequencing functions. The modern Korg Krome-61 is a great example of this, and is in fact called a "workstation" right in its product description.
But of course everyone now thinks workstation means software, i.e. Pro Tools or like software title.
That being said, the real question is...
Is the PC-based software DAW doomed?
Yeah, I think this is true for three reasons.
First, the PC is dying, and anyone who thinks otherwise is just fooling themselves.
With self-contained multitrack recorders like the Tascam DP-008 that have direct-in 1/4-inch and XLR inputs (which is something the PC definitely does not have), this makes the PC-type DAW inconvenient at best.
Third - and this is the biggie - DAW software is way too difficult for most people to operate (it's so complicated that even seasoned pros hate them) and you can't justify the cost for a software DAW either.
Here's what that means in plain English:
To run Avid Pro Tools, you need a really fast PC or a really fast Mac, so that's at least $1,300 right there (regardless of whether it's Mac or PC). Then after that you need the Pro Tools software and interface. That's another $1,000...
...and that's before you even spent anything on guitar effects.
So yeah, you've spent $2,300 even before recording your first track.
It should be no wonder why so many people illegally download DAW software via torrent to save anywhere from $300 to $600, but... could you use it? Doubtful. You would think that "pro" software would mean "easy-to-use". Wrong. "Pro" means "powerful", meaning "insanely difficult to use".
Let's just say for the moment you have a fast PC, and illegally downloaded pro-grade DAW software to do your recording stuff. You're feeling good because you just saved a ton of money by stealing the software, but then you go to actually use that software, and.. whoa.. you're presented with this ridiculous amount of options when all you want to do is mash the RECORD button and, you know, RECORD SOMETHING.
Let's compare this to the DP-008 I mentioned above.
Yeah, you have to spend the money to get the DP-008, however it's well under 300 bucks. And even if you didn't get the DP-008 specifically, there are plenty of other multitrack recorders out there that are available for cheap. The older Fostex MR-8 for example is well under $200 new. I personally don't recommend that one because it uses CompactFlash cards, but the point it that it's out there and cheap.
Here's the difference between the standalone multitrack recorder and a PC DAW:
With the DAW, it will take you at least 3 days if not a week before you can figure out how to lay down a few tracks in one of those with any sort of effectiveness (meaning quickly and easily with no nonsense involved).
With the standalone recorder, you're recording music easily the day you get it. Plug in, arm a track, record, finish, disarm track 1, arm track 2, record, finish, etc. You're doing the recording thing and getting it done with no problem at all and with very little learning curve.
What about the tablet?
That's an option, but it hasn't matured enough to the point where it's as easy as a multitrack recorder...
...but it is getting cheaper.
A good example of this is the Alesis iO Dock. The price is fair for what it is, and it can turn an iPad into a pretty good audio workstation. But of course it's not compatible with iPads that have a "Lightning" connector...
...and that brings up another point I want to make concerning tablets. Every time a tablet design change comes along, something in your audio workstation setup will then suddenly be obsolete and totally incompatible with newer hardware.
Difficulty level ruined the PC/Mac-based DAW
Using a PC or Mac based DAW was at one point not that difficult to use. I'll admit they've never been totally easy as they were always designed for audio professionals, but the deal is that DAWs these days are difficult for the sake of being difficult just to make a sale.
The best example of how much a PC/Mac-based DAW sucks is what happens when you throw one in front of a 16-year-old kid. And bear in mind that teens today are very technically adept, meaning they know a lot about computers, so it's not like today's teens don't know their way around computer environments.
Let's say I took a brand new Mac loaded with Pro Tools and the proper audio interface, plopped it in front of a 16-year-old, provided him nothing but the owner's manual and said, "Record a few tracks with this." That teen wouldn't have the first clue what to do and be very intimidated by that setup. And even if that kid was the nerdiest of teenage guitar players, it would take him a good 2 to 4 hours before he actually got the thing figured out on a very basic level.
Now take the same situation, but instead of the Mac and Pro Tools, I plopped a DP-008 in front of him, its owner's manual and a set of headphones (you'd need that to hear the 008's output). How long it would take for him to lay down a few tracks? About 15 minutes. Maybe less.
Here's why: The 008 or like multitrack recorder makes it very obvious how to actually record something. Arm a track and a red light illuminates. Disarm a track, the light goes out. How to adjust levels? There are physical knobs right in front of you which makes that super-easy to do. That teen would very easily be able to figure out the 008, get stuff done and done fast. In fact, it would get done so fast that he'd probably say, "Yeah, that expensive Mac with Pro Tools is nice and all that, but... the Tascam is just way easier to use. And I can use it at band rehearsal too which is pretty cool."
When you compare digital to what was around before it...
The point of digital audio recording is simply this: To record audio in the "cleanest" and most convenient way possible.
But the only way to actually do that is with a little digital multitrack recorder.
I'll explain.
Imagine for a moment it's 1975 and you have absolutely no options to record anything digitally because the technology wasn't available yet. So how do you record anything that would sound any good? You would use a reel-to-reel machine like the Ampex 354 using 1/2-inch tape; this was a huge, bulky unit.
To use something like the Ampex 354 required a good amount of knowledge. You had to know how to load the tape properly, know how to have your levels set absolutely right before laying down a track (remember, no "undo" here!), and so on.
In other words, using a reel-to-reel multitrack system back in the day was difficult, expensive and you really had to know what you were doing so you didn't waste a bunch of time and money.
Fast-forward 25 years to 2000.
Digital recording has been around since the 1990s by this point, and is now available and dirt cheap compared to the old reel-to-reel method. Anyone with a moderately-powered PC or Mac can now use a "virtual studio" to do the same stuff the reels could, plus a whole lot more. Now you can punch-in/out of tracks with ease, directly edit audio after being recorded since it was all data and not on physical slack, and even write your finalized mixdowns to MP3 or CD. Things were going great.
Fast-forward to the late 2000s (around 2008).
Software DAWs have been around for a while, but they have "progressed" to the point where any sense of it being easy-to-use is gone. The companies who make DAW software titles realized that they are running out of reasons to release new versions, so they keep adding in crap that nobody needs, labeling it as "innovative" and then selling it to the masses. Those that didn't know any better kept buying this crap.
Now in 2013:
There is no such thing as a pro-grade DAW software title that's easy-to-use anymore. Every one of them is - by design, mind you - insanely difficult to use. One of the only software DAWs left that's not a total pain in the ass to use is a "consumer-grade" title called GarageBand for the Mac. But of course the Mac doesn't have anything on it to plug a guitar into, so you either have to spend extra for a proper audio interface, or optionally use a USB-equipped guitar like the Epiphone Les Paul Ultra III - assuming you even like that guitar.
Taking all of the above into consideration concerning DAWs, ask yourself this question:
Are we better off now compared to what we had before?
Concerning the software DAW, no we're not. Concerning the standalone recorder, yes we are.
When you talk about progress, you have to compare what we have now to what we had before.
Is a PC/Mac-based DAW easier to use than reel-to-reel? No.
Can you record more quickly with a PC/Mac-based DAW compared to reel-to-reel? No.
Is the cost of a modern pro-grade PC/Mac-based DAW cheaper and better (keyword there) than reel-to-reel was? No.
The only place for a PC/Mac-based DAW these days is in a professional studio, because the guys and gals running one of those are the only ones who can use it properly (they probably went to school and took classes on it) and make their money back (maybe) for what they spent on the stupid thing.
Conversely, the standalone digital multitrack recorder is exactly where we should be with modern digital multitrack audio recording. It's small, easy, quick to learn and most importantly your recordings sound good, which is to say they sound better than they would with the old analog rigs.
Any guitar player can learn a DP-008 or like recorder in a few minutes and record to it easily; that is progress; that is the promise of modern technology working for us and not us for it. We went from the big, bulky, difficult-to-use reel-to-reel machines of before and condensed that into a small super-lightweight rectangle with buttons and knobs on it and can even run that rectangle off AA batteries.
As for the PC/Mac-based DAW, leave that to the guys in the pro studios. They can afford it and moreover actually know how to use those things. For the rest of us, stick to the little digital multitrack recorders; you'll be glad you did.
death race 2000
Death Race 2000 is something I watched for two reasons. First, the title of the movie is just plain cool, and second, it was made in 1975. I have a thing about movies from the '70s. For some reason, there's a lot of movies from that era that I really like.
DR2000 is a B movie, but not your typical kind where it's just shy of a soft adult movie. This flick is a B because it's low-budget. Very little nudity. And yeah, it's got some, but nothing really risqué. Not by today's standards, anyway.
I had absolutely no idea Sylvester Stallone was in this movie until I watched it. When I saw him suddenly as one of the lead characters, that surprised me. I did not expect that. And he acts exactly as you would expect him to.
So anyway, this flick is about a dystopian future where the national pastime is a cross-country race where racers can actually score points for hitting and killing citizens. While watching this, I thought it was just going to be totally stupid all the way through, but the funny thing is that I actually started getting into the plot. And strangely enough, it wasn't really that bad. For some reason this flick strikes the right balance between being totally dumb yet keeping just enough twists in the storyline so you keep watching to find out what happens.
I think what I liked best is that every time you think you know who the bad guy is, in comes a twist, things change, and you're kept guessing, but in a good way. And then at the end it actually all works out in a satisfying way.
I liked DR2000. I mean, it's not great or anything like that. But I liked it.