Why I use nickel-plated strings
Fender electric guitars do typically work best with .009 to .042 gauge string. Both Squier and Fender do ship electric guitars from the factory with that size string installed on the Stratocaster and Telecaster. In addition, the string is always nickel-plated, commonly abbreviated as NPS (nickel-plated steel).
My string of choice for my Stratocaster guitars is the Dean Markley 1972 Vintage Reissue, and I have very specific reasons why I use that string.
They bend easier. A big reason I'm able to do the crazy bends I do on a Strat is because of NPS strings.
They don't break as often. Because they can bend more, they don't break as much. At least not for me.
The "semi-bright" tone sounds better for barre chords. NPS strings aren't known for being super-bright (as in 'trebly'), but when playing chords they have what I best describe as a "more even" sound to them.
I can "ring out" notes better with NPS strings. On the neck position I can get the classic "blue tones" I love, the bridge/mid and mid/neck "quack" pickup selector positions sound proper, and my bridge position setting "growls" like I want it to with NPS. With plain steel the tone to my ear is just too "tinny".
I'm not interested at all in special strings that will "last forever"
This is my most important point and I have a few things to say about this one.
Here's what happens with each type of 'special' string:
Cryogenic
These are strings that were frozen (usually by being dipped in liquid nitrogen) during the manufacturing process. Supposedly, the cryogenic process adds "brightness" to the string and extends the life of it.
Are they "brighter"? Yes, but only for about 2 weeks and then they dull right out.
Do cryogenic treated strings last longer? Yes, but there's a few tradeoffs to this. No matter how often you clean them, the sheen will dull out. In addition, as the steel gets older it will dent. Regular strings will just snap. Cryogenic treated strings usually don't and will instead keep working, but dent in the places where it would have snapped. You'll see this happen on the 1 and 2 strings the most where a portion of the string will have a little "squiggle" to it over time. The string is still there and while it didn't bust, it will dent. There's nothing wrong with this, but it just looks weird.
Stainless Steel
These will never rust, and that's a fact. However over time what happens to them (particularly on the 1, 2 and 3 strings) is that they turn black from all the gunk that gets on them. It doesn't matter how much you clean your strings as the blackness will happen. Stainless steel may not rust, but it does tarnish, and that's where the blackness comes from. It can happen even with the guitar just sitting there on a stand and not being played.
Note: Stainless steel strings do have a legitimate purpose. If you play slide guitar using a steel slide, stainless strings work very well with that. Consider that with a steel slide you're dragging steel-on-steel which will get strings rusty real quick. Use the stainless kind and rust isn't an issue at all since it won't occur.
Coated
These are the type of special strings I'm going to talk about the most.
Coated strings are only good for as long as the coating holds out. Once the coating starts to wear off - and it will - it dulls right out.
Changing strings regularly beats any coated string
You may have heard some people on YouTube lately touting that the Elixir Polyweb string "with anti-rust plain steels" is supposedly the best string ever.
Well, that's debatable.
Elixir says that their coatings prevent gunk from getting into the wound strings.
Is this true?
Yes, but only to a point.
It's like I said above, as long as the coating holds out, it will keep the gunk out. But once that coating starts to wear off, in comes the gunk, dead goes the tone and there's not a thing you can do about it.
Is it true Polyweb strings last longer?
Yes and no.
Yes in the respect they won't rust as quickly or collect as much gunk. No in the respect that they will snap in the same amount of time an NPS string would. Why? Because the coating is what it is - a coating. It doesn't strengthen the steel whatsoever. Some players say the coating "bonds" the steel, but I totally do not buy that at all because I can bust through a set of Polywebs in the same amount of time as I would an NPS set.
How long does a coating last?
Depends on the player. The more you play, the faster the coating wears off.
Do the math and you probably won't buy coated strings for your electric guitar ever again
The Dean Markley 1972 strings can be bought in a box of 12 for $35, which is roughly $3 per pack of strings. Coated strings are always more expensive and usually more than triple the price of NPS. Using the Elixir Polyweb example, you will spend a bare minimum of $113 for 12 sets, meaning each set cost you roughly $10. You're literally paying $1.60 per string with Polywebs.
If you play your electric guitar regularly, coated strings do almost nothing for you since you're going to change them out on a regular basis anyway. The only advantage you'll get is that they'll feel smoother and I'll talk about that more in a moment.
On acoustic guitars, coated strings do actually serve a legitimate tonal purpose as they do not "screech" nearly as much when you drag your hand across the strings when playing chords; this is absolutely true.
On electric bass guitars, coated strings are also very good for the exact same reason you'd put them on an acoustic guitar. Less drag "screeching", more tone.
If the intent with your electric guitar is to display it as a showpiece, such as hanging it on the wall and rarely if ever playing it, or maybe prepping it for sale as a collector's item later, coated strings will serve you well since you'll probably never wear off the coating. The coating will work better than stainless steel because it won't tarnish, only require a periodic wipe-down to keep the strings shiny and playable, and last for years. And when I say "rarely if ever playing it", that means you play the instrument less than 2 hours total over the course of a year, and when you do play it you never do any crazy bends or anything else that would decrease the life of the coating.
The smooth touch of coated strings is negated by the fact most have no nickel in them, requiring you to bend harder. Yes, coated strings are smoother to the touch, no question. But for the ones with no nickel content in them, what's the end result? Fingertip soreness from having to fight against the fact the string doesn't bend as easily. So sure, when not bending the strings feel great, but when you are, you'll be in a world of hurt when you're done playing.
The old way is still the best way for players
Traditional NPS strings have the same problems they've always had. They're only good for a few weeks before they need to be changed out and rust easily. I don't deny that at all. However they still are the best choice for most players. A new, fresh set of strings always looks and sounds the best, and part of being an electric guitar player is that you have to change your strings a lot, and that's just the way it is.
Guitar collectors just love-love-love the coated strings because it allows them to not have to change the strings as often, and that's fine. As for the rest of us who actually play our electrics a lot and know we have to change out strings regularly, coated strings don't do a thing for tone or sustain on electric guitars.
On a final note, I don't use the 1972s for any "vintage" reason, but rather because to my fingers they have the smoothest touch for NPS, have the right tension for how I play, bend correctly on a Strat-style guitar as far as my preference is concerned, and sound right to my ears. Nobody ever recommended to me to use Dean Markley strings. I ultimately decided on using them for everything just from good old trial-and-error. I tried a bunch of different brands, and the 1972s suit me best.
Star Trek: The Animated Series review
I said before that I've watched every single Star Trek show there is in its entirety. I lied. Unintentionally. There's also Star Trek: The Animated Series, a.k.a. the Star Trek Cartoon.
I have a confession to make about TAS.
It's actually pretty frickin' good.
No, really. Not joking here.
For a cartoon this is actually very well done and hits a lot of home runs.
Before, I said that that TOS doesn't give me any nostalgia mojo, so to speak. Well, TAS does for several reasons.
First, this cartoon aired from September 1973 to October 1974. I was born in the '70s, and in my preteen days watching cartoons as a kid in the early 1980s, there were a lot of cartoon reruns from the 1970s because at the time they weren't really that old. I barely saw any episodes of TAS as a kid, but in my head I do remember catching a few glimpses of the show. The one that sticks out in my mind that I instantly recognized when I saw it again is The Terratin Incident. That's the one where all the crew members get shrunk down to tiny size. Totally remembered that one and was so happy I got to see it again.
Second, this is a Filmation cartoon and there were tons of cartoons I saw as a kid that were produced by them. Fat Albert and The Cosby Kids, He-Man and the Masters of the Universe, Shazam!, etc. All that is Filmation.
Filmation had a very distinct style and you could tell when you were watching a cartoon produced by that company. And as I just found out, TAS was largely responsible for establishing that classic Filmation look.
Third, the stories - shockingly - are really good. TOS translated so well in TAS that it feels totally natural to go from one to the other and feel like you're watching the exact same show. TAS totally "feels like 'Trek" and you really have a blast watching it. Yeah, it's true that you see the same ship animations and hear the same music over and over again, but it doesn't matter because the whole thing just works.
Fourth - and this surprised me - were the voice actors. They're almost all TOS cast members. You hear Shatner, Nimoy, Nichols, Takei, Doohan and Barrett (Nurse Chapel). In fact, the only one you don't hear is Koenig (Chekov). But even with Koenig not voice acting, he did write the episode The Infinite Vulcan. The point is that with almost all the original voices, this adds in even more TOS-to-TAS goodness.
Even better is the fact that with Shatner as just a voice actor in TAS, there's none of his annoying pausing with his live acting. Scripts are read precisely and to-the-point with almost no embellishments anywhere.
The only "weirdo" characters on the crew are Arex and M'Ress. Arex was where Chekov would have been as navigator, and M'Ress was the communications officer when Uhura wasn't around. Yes, there were plenty of aliens in TAS, but these two were specifically Enterprise crew members. They were also for lack of a better word very 'cartoony'.
It seriously blew me away how good TAS is. And, wouldn't you know it, at the time it aired, it was a hit on NBC! So what was the problem? Kids couldn't get into it, and I know exactly why - because it's not "stupid enough". TAS is not your typical ridiculously stupid cartoon that appeals to kids age 12 and under. It was, however, good enough to warrant a barely-there second season.
Cartoons of the 70s and early-80s typically got shoved out real quick, only made enough episodes for a single season and then moved on to the next show regardless of how popular the program was because, well, that's just how things worked back then (and is also why reruns of the same stuff happened over and over again because there was literally nothing else there). The fact TAS got brought back for a very short second season was a rarity for any cartoon at the time.
Season 1 is just 16 episodes, and season 2 only had 6, for a total of 22 episodes.
TAS like any 'Trek series has some weirdness to it. While Roddenberry was alive, after the series was over his office instructed everyone (novel writers, comic writers, etc.) to completely ignore what went on in TAS. After Roddenberry died, some references to TAS were slipped in - particularly in DS9. If you've watched DS9 and then watch TAS, you'll see all stuff DS9 slipped in later on, like the Klingon Kor's ship the Klothos as well as several other things lifted from TAS.
Even if you're not into 'Trek at all, if you remember those old Filmation classics, you've GOT to watch this one. Absolutely awesome Filmation goodness.
Star Trek TOS review
For those not familiar with common Star Trek abbreviations, TOS means The Original Series, TNG is The Next Generation, DS9 is Deep Space Nine, VOY is Voyager, and I believe Enterprise is either ENT or STE (for "Star Trek: Enterprise").
TOS was the absolute last Star Trek I ever watched in its near-entirety. And I'll explain what I mean by near-entirety in a moment.
The first 'Trek I ever got heavily into was TNG. That's my 'Trek. In my opinion it's the best one out of all the 'Trek franchises. It had a fantastic beginning, a great run and arguably the best final episode out of all of them. The whole thing was done very well.
I have watched all of DS9. Very good all around and much better characters. The only problem is that it turned into a bit of a soap opera after a while. But it did have the absolute best space battle scenes out of any 'Trek television series.
I have also watched all of VOY and STE. They both sucked. In VOY there's maybe a few episodes that are good but the bulk of it is just plain bad and you just don't buy what's going on most of the time. STE was a colossal failure. A lot of people expected this to be the next TNG. It wasn't. Instead it was just a whole lot of nostalgic schlock mixed in with bad characters - save for one - Thy'lek Shran. That character is so awesome I can't even begin to describe how cool he is. If you were to watch only the STE episodes featuring this character, you'd love the show; he's that good.
Okay so anyway back to TOS.
I skipped several episodes based on the Netflix description of them alone. One thing that every single 'Trek television series has done are the dreaded "back to Earth" episodes.
The only reason back-to-Earth episodes were made was to save money. That's it. It is far cheaper and easier to film an episode using regular sets in regular locations periodically than to fabricate everything to be space-looking all the time. So whenever a back-to-Earth thing happens, it was done solely to save cash and that's an absolute truth.
The reason anyone watches 'Trek is to see stuff in space. Yes, the crew often beams down to other planets to check out other stuff, but the point is it's not Earth, so at least the idea is upheld that you're watching the crew do stuff on some distant not-of-this-Earth location.
TOS fortunately did not have that many back-to-Earth episodes, although there is one that was so obviously done to save cash it isn't even funny - Spectre of the Gun. Almost the entire episode was shot on a very small set with half-built crappy Old West scenery, and the reason given in the story for the crappy set is that aliens built it that way. Seriously. This episode has such bad production that you can actually see the shadows of the actors from the "lightning" on the studio walls. They didn't even TRY to hide it. Pathetic.
Another back-to-Earth that I watched the first 5 minutes of and then skipped the rest was A Piece of the Action. Mob-style thing. Stupid. Skipped. TNG did this too with The Big Goodbye.
So anyway, any back-to-Earth episodes I either muddled through or just skipped over completely.
The seasons
Season 1 of TOS is the best of the 3 seasons. You will find almost all the classic 'Trek moments in those 29 episodes plus the 2 pilot episodes. There are no episodes in season 1 you need to skip. If I had to pick a favorite, it would probably be Balance of Terror. The story in that one is spot-on, the ending very good and I got a genuine feeling of, "Geez, I hope these guys don't get caught by the Romulans" when watching it, so there was some genuinely good tension.
In season 2, the biggies worth watching are Amok Time, The Doomsday Machine, I, Mudd and The Trouble With Tribbles.
In season 3, the good ones are Is There in Truth No Beauty?, Day of the Dove, For the World is Hollow and I Have Touched the Sky, The Tholian Web, Wink of an Eye, Whom Gods Destroy, Let That Be Your Last Battlefield, The Mark of Gideon, The Lights of Zetar, and All Our Yesterdays.
Needed more Mudd
A character that TOS should have used WAY more is Harry Mudd. He was only seen in two episodes, Mudd's Women and I, Mudd mentioned above, but what a character. He's just flat-out entertaining and very memorable. I am 100% sure that TNG's Q character was based off Mudd's persona or at least served as a huge inspiration.
Nobody has any clue what's going on at Starfleet
The Starfleet organization, the UFP (United Federation of Planets) or whatever it's called is barely mentioned in TOS. And when it is mentioned, its role is just plain weird because half the time you don't even know what their purpose is.
In TNG, it is very clearly defined what Starfleet is, its purpose and how it goes about doing things. Not so in TOS. At best you're just given little bits and pieces of information that really don't amount to much. In fact there are a few instances where Kirk and Spock complain about how Starfleet has no idea what the hell they're doing and should just butt out of everyone's business - yet this is the organization they work for.
In contrast, in TNG you actually see the crew of the Enterprise working with Starfleet to actually get things done, so they're not just this distant disconnected government-type thing in the background as portrayed in TOS.
I'm pretty sure Starfleet had a weird role in TOS only because the writers at the time had no clue what the organization was supposed to represent.
Would I watch it again?
I watched TOS because heck, I'd seen all the other 'Trek shows and it was there on Netflix, but I can't say I'd watch it again. All I see for the most part is 1960s sci-fi on a shoestring budget even with the computer enhancements of the remastered versions. The show also aired before my time so I don't get any "remember when" value out of it either.
I've said this before, but TOS is good for what it is. The makers of the show did the best they could with what they had. Many of the stories told were pretty good. Care was taken for the most part not to have any plot holes (except for the whole Starfleet thing) since the story was the only thing really driving the series.
The big thing for me is this however: With TNG, I get the sense I'm watching a real crew navigating a real ship in real space and having real adventures. With TOS I don't get that, and that's pretty much the downer for me. Yeah, I totally understand TOS isn't anywhere near the production quality of 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968), but I just hate the "I know this is a set built on a cheap budget" feeling, and that's ultimately what bugs me about TOS the most, and is also why I won't be re-watching it.
the gif is 25 years old
The GIF (which I will always pronounce with a hard G, thank you very much), is 25 years old today.
I have seen animated GIF images since I first started using the internet in 1996. It was always there and have never known internet without it.
One would assume that a better image format would have appeared by now for short animations. Nope. The animated GIF, only limited to 256 colors and usually stays on the small side to keep the file size down, still reigns supreme.
Nobody uses GIFs for photos, and hardly anyone ever did. They're only used these days to make small animations with. The PNG format can in fact animate and display more than 256 colors (well more than that actually), but it never took off.
When someone gets an animated GIF just right, it's the funniest thing you've seen all day. It just takes capturing that right moment, or getting that right badly-drawn MS Paint thing going on and making a few frames, and you've got comic gold.
GIF for all intents and purposes is an internet-born thing. It's one of the very old throwbacks to late-1990s internetting that has still survived to this day because it's fun and easy for the most part.
The GIF is also very much a PC thing; it's best appreciated while on a laptop or a desktop computer because it's just not the same on a smartphone. Yes, those phones have animations all over the place, but they're done by corporations and not funny at all.
The thing about the GIF is that anyone who makes one will never see profit, never get popular (not in real life anyway) and it's done solely because it's there.
What you can take from that is that the best things on the internet are never profit-motivated and will work on any computer. This is why the GIF, IRC and forums (the free ones that is) survive. If it's free, fast and fun, it gets used and enjoyed. If not, it dies.
The stigma of an HH Strat
As most who read this are aware, I recently purchased a Squier Bullet HH. Technically it's not a Stratocaster or even a "Strat" because that name is stated nowhere on the guitar. However since it looks and feels almost identical to a Strat, people think it is and that's fine, so I'm calling it a Strat.
I got some minor backlash from the fact I own a Strat with an HH (humbucker-humbucker) pickup configuration in it now. There are some who believe that all Strats should be SSS (single-coil, single-coil, single-coil) only. I'm not one of those people. My belief is that you should play whatever type of guitar you want that gets the sound you want.
I bought the Bullet HH for two reasons.
First, I specifically wanted a Strat with the HH configuration or at bare minimum a humbucker in the bridge position, like an HSS. Why? Because there are certain rock sounds I wanted it for. Single-coils can do low and high frequencies very well, but lack a little in the midrange department. Humbuckers lack on the high end, have a decent low end and much more midrange. It's the midrange I specifically wanted, and the humbucker delivers very well there.
Second, the Strat body shape is my favorite. Not Telecaster. Not Les Paul. Strat. I am most comfortable playing with a true-to-tradition Strat body. For those of you who know my gear, yes I have a Schecter C-1 Classic with an HH setup, and while that guitar is Strat-like, it's just not the same. This isn't to say the C-1 is a bad guitar because it certainly isn't, but the body shape is "very Schecter", meaning not Fender-like at all. It might look similar to a Fender but feels totally different.
There were a few that thought I was abandoning single-coil Squier Strats altogether because of my HH purchase. Not true. I just wanted a humbucker-equipped Strat guitar in my setup, and now I have one.
I've said before that I believe all guitar players should own two guitars with the classic pickup configurations. One in SSS and the other in HH. Even if you get the exact same guitar (which I more or less did) and the only real difference is the pickup type and layout, each guitar will sound distinctively different from each other. Or even if you own two totally different guitars by different companies, that's fine too. Having both to get those different tones is just a cool thing, and that's why I did it.