BEAD tuning for bass, the easiest way for tuning down
Go low or go home.
Tuning a bass this way, such as I do, has several advantages to it. But before getting into that, I'll describe what this actually is.
B-E-A-D tuning is exactly like tuning a 5-string bass without the 5th string. It is very easy to get used to B-E-A-D tuning because you don't have to relearn how to play at all. Your fret positions on the 3, 2 and 1 strings will be exactly the same because that's E, A and D. The only new thing is the 4 string with the low B on top.
There are two distinct advantages to B-E-A-D tuning.
First, you get to hear what a 5-string would sound like without actually having to buy one. Just use your existing 4-string, tune to B-E-A-D, and ta-da, there you go.
Second, it is much easier to play in B-E-A-D. Holding down strings will be oh-so easy. You might even want to raise the action higher, or possibly even use thicker strings.
And that's leads me to...
Using B-E-A-D requires the right string type
I'll explain the wrong string type first. It's any standard roundwound set. What will happen is that your 4 string tuned to be will be "farty" sounding.
If you have a standard roundwound set on your bass now, don't let that stop you from trying B-E-A-D. But don't be surprised if that 4 string flops around too much.
The right type of string is something with even tension, greater tension, or both.
D'Addario Balanced Tension bass strings handle B-E-A-D very well on a 4-string. More often than not you will only require a slight truss rod adjustment to accommodate for the tension loss (when compared to E-A-D-G) and maybe a small adjustment of the string saddle height. You're pretty much good to go after that. The BT sets when tuned down aren't necessary louder in B-E-A-D, but they are punchier and vibrate longer. Where regular roundwound poofs right out, the BT's stay in the game, so to speak.
On top-loader basses, flatwound is the easy way to get greater tension. I say top-loader because if you try to load flats on a through-body bass, that usually doesn't work very well (the bend over the saddle will destroy the string quick).
Although I've not tried this, the D'Addario Half-Round may work on a through-body bass, but I can't confirm that. I have used Half-Rounds before. They do have greater tension but nowhere near as much as flats do. And by that I mean when comparing to something like the La Bella "1954 Original" set, made the very-old-school way, tightness and all. You want tight flats? Get those - if you have a top-loader.
Fingerstyle, yes. Slap? Not-so much.
This is probably something where I'll eat my words later, because some lunatic will probably find a way to slap on a 4-string with B-E-A-D tuning. If that's you, tell me and I'll gladly update this article to say yes, it can be done.
But until that happens, I think slap with B-E-A-D tuning on a 4-string can't really work. I don't play that style of bass myself, but if I did I'm certain the strings would be clacking too much on the slap down, and pulling out-of-tune too much on the pluck up.
If you can prove me wrong there, go right ahead. I just don't think it's doable.
Yes, this is one of those "Gee, why didn't I think of that before?" things
When most bass players (or guitar players pretending to play bass, such as yours truly) want the low B, the first thought is, "I need a 5-string". No. There's no rule that says you have to play a 4-string in E-A-D-G. You want that B? Save your money and tune to B-E-A-D.
The only cash you'll really have to spend is on strings that can handle the lowered tuning to your liking. And that's certainly cheaper than buying a new bass.
Best electric guitars to play with fingers
Pluck and snap. Snap and pluck. Repeat.
As I continue on with my guitar journey, I've started to play more with just fingers. A lot. From that, I've come to know there are two very specific electric guitar types suited best for finger-only play.
What I found that doesn't work
I'll divide this between the Stratocaster and Les Paul side since those are the guitars people are most familiar with.
Stratocaster:
Only 60% of the positions work for finger-only, that being 2, 3 and 4. The bridge-only position is too thin and doesn't have enough punch, and the neck-only position has too much midrange. But when staying near the middle with the 1+2, 3 and 4+5 pickup positions, that works out a whole lot better for finger-only play.
The problem here is that you only get one no-quack middle position which works but isn't anything to write home about.
Les Paul:
This only works for finger play if a very specific pickup is used, that being a PAF style set with alnico II magnets in them. The reason? Brightness. Using pickups with stronger magnets ends up in things "mudding" right out. Works a treat if you play with a pick, but with fingers only, not-so much.
Having split-coil alnico V humbuckers doesn't help because splitting to single throws out way too much treble through a 500K volume potentiometer. And while one would think having P90's might work, going with those means you lose the articulation of the humbuckers. You just can't win here when going fingers-only.
What I found that does work
Same two brands, different models.
All 3 positions work great for finger-only play, whether it's a pair of two singles or a single + humbucker in the neck. On the bridge side, the punch is there. On the neck side the midrange response is much easier to work with. And the middle has far better articulation for better expression.
Many, many fingers-only players go straight for the ES-335 first and I can totally understand why. It's basically the ultimate for having total control with just your fingers. Snappier, brighter, and you literally feel the notes from vibration due to the semi-acoustic construction. When using fingers-only, you don't fight with this guitar at all like you would with a Les Paul. And like the Telecaster, all positions work great for finger-only play.
Which is better?
Neither is better than the other. The answer for which to get depends on whether you prefer solid-body twang or semi-hollow ring. Telecaster has the twang and ES-335 has the ring.
Some would argue that the answer to everything is to get the ES-335 with the Vari-Tone six position switch circuitry. I disagree with this. While true a couple of positions on a Gibson ES-335 Vari-Tone do get twangy, the only way to get that bridge pickup Telecaster twang is to get a Telecaster.
In other words, if you want it all, you need both guitars.
Do you need Fender and Gibson specifically?
Well, that's what we all want, isn't it? Of course. But few of use can afford both. To get both guitars in American flavor you're going to spend over $6,500. I'm not kidding. And that's not even Custom Shop prices.
Fortunately, you can get Tele copies and ES-335 copies for real cheap. You'll find Telecaster type guitars for under $150 and a generic search for semi-hollow guitar quickly brings up ES-335 style guitars for the same price. This literally means you can get both a Tele and ES-335 guitar for around $300. That's certainly better than $6,500.
My suggestion is that if you've been playing nothing but Strats and Les Pauls and want to try Tele and ES-335 type guitars, purposely go cheap just to see what they're all about. One or both may be your go-to for playing with just your fingers, and if so, then you can consider putting some more cash towards more expensive guitars later.
The easiest way to get a fat guitar neck
If you want a fat guitar neck, you can't get it from the guitar store, so you have to find it elsewhere.
Before telling you where to get one, hold on there, buckaroo, because there are some things you really need to know first.
Why go fat with a neck?
Easier grip and better ergonomics.
Having more wood means more for your hand to grab, which for many makes it easier to hold chords.
Where ergonomics are concerned, a thicker neck follows the natural shape of your grip better than a thin neck would - as long as you don't go too thick.
How fat is too fat?
This is fortunately a simple answer for 6-string electric guitars. One inch or greater. But it's where that one inch is measured that matters.
Electric guitar necks mainly have their thickness measured in two places, the 1st fret and 12th fret.
A "baseball bat" neck has a 1" thickness at the 1st and the 12th. You don't see necks on electrics carved like this these very often, and there's a reason for that. This is a thickness most players would consider to be too fat - but only at the first fret.
It is much more common to find necks where the 12th fret neck thickness measures at or close to 1" and the 1st fret neck thickness is thinner.
In the Fender guitar realm, where you find the 1" thickness at the 1st and 12th fret are on '52 reissue Telecasters. It is commonly known as a "boatneck" profile or sometimes just "boat". Is that the biggest? Surprisingly, no, because the boatneck profile has slimmed shoulders even though it feels huge. A "fatback" neck has the same thickness but with even larger shoulders on it.
Sensible fatness
Boatneck and fatback profiles are too big for many, so what's the next best option? You get a neck with a 1st fret neck thickness greater than 0.75" (3/4") and 12th fret neck thickness as close to 1" as you can get it.
1st fret optimum thickness: Between 0.84" (21/25") and 0.875" (7/8")
12th fret optimum thickness: Between 0.94" (47/50") and 1.0".
Getting a neck with a 12th fret neck thickness of 0.94" or greater isn't the problem. It's the 1st fret neck thickness where so many guitars in the store are way too thin. The bulk of them will be 0.75" or slimmer.
Where to get a fat neck the easy way
Squier Bullet Stratocaster. Yes, really. The cheapest guitar Squier makes has a neck with actual thickness and shoulder to it.
True, the tuners will suck and you'll have to switch them over to something better. And you'll have to knock out the nut and put in something better there too. And maybe you'll have to perform a small amount of fret dressing. But it is absolutely worth it.
I went with a fat neck and won't play anything else
I play two Telecaster copies, both of which have necks that measure 22mm (0.866") neck thickness at the 1st fret and 25mm (0.984") at the 12th.
Before I started playing on these necks, I had pain in my fret hand from playing guitar. Had. The pain is totally gone now.
I had my pain start when I switched over to an electric guitar with a thin neck. The pain wasn't immediate but developed over a period of a few months. I thought it was a string tension issue. Nope. I thought it was the scale length. Nope. I thought I was having a bad reaction to the metal in the strings. Nope.
After basically trying everything I could think of, that's when I sought out a guitar with a thicker neck. After getting one, the pain started going away. In a few months, my hand healed up and the pain is now gone.
Should you decide to go with a thicker neck yourself, I'll end this on two notes:
Don't think about brand. The neck you get will most likely have no famous brand label on it. In fact, it not have a label on it at all, depending on what you get. Your goal is comfort of play first and foremost. Remember this when you're shopping for that thick neck.
Buy it for you. Lots of guys buy guitars just to show off what they bought. Don't do that when it comes to this purchase. As long as the neck looks decent enough, what matters is, again, the comfort. After you get something comfortable, then concentrate on prettying it up if so desired.
Best acoustic guitar for under $500 might be the Guild DS-240
When it comes to the best you can get for just under $500, Guild is really nailing it right now.
I'm a hard believer that the dreadnought shape is the best there is for an acoustic. And by that I mean one that has full shoulders with no cutaway - and that's where this Guild gets really interesting.
The Guild DS-240 has sloped shoulders, which really lends to its very old-timey look, and does so in all the right ways.
Guild knows how to do an acoustic, so yes, this will sound good and will project properly. But the fact you get something that looks so nice (that vintage sunburst... wow) for a decent price just really works here.
Think of an old vintage Philco radio, and that's the look the Guild DS-240 has. Very woody in appearance, nice script for the logo on the headstock, really simple design and some seriously deep colors to bring out that top. It's a total 1920's look.
Speaking of woods, the DS-240 has a spruce top with mahogany back and sides. The back and sides has some nice mahogany stripe going on there, but the top is what really steals the show.
You would be hard pressed to find something this nice for the same price from anybody else. Good showing from Guild here with the DS-240 model.
How to get the reverse guitar sound
This type of sound is mainly associated with two very specific songs.
I'll describe what this sound is, where most people heard it first, how this sound used to be made, then how it's made now using modern digital recording.
What this is: A single track of audio played backwards.
Where most people heard it first: Strawberry Fields Forever by The Beatles (released February 1967) and Castles Made of Sand by Jimi Hendrix (released December 1967). In guitar circles, the Hendrix song is given more attention.
How this sound used to be made
This is where things get interesting.
In the old days of multitrack audio recording, reel-to-reel tape systems were used, and recording backwards required flipping the reels around. In later years when the technology got smaller, this could be done with compact cassette recorders like the Tascam 424, and that's how I used to do it.
My process on the 424, a 4-track machine, was to always put my reversed audio on track 4 just to keep things simpler. I would record stuff to tracks 1, 2 and 3 first. Then I find the section where I went the reversed audio to be recorded, go to the end of that section, stop, flip the tape over so track 4 is now track 1, record my stuff, stop, flip the tape back over, adjust levels, done.
I make it sound easy, but it really wasn't.
How this sound is made now
Software can reverse the playback of audio very easily, but that doesn't mean the process is simple because there is still the multitrack environment to take into consideration.
You'll notice in a video I made about this that, thankfully, when you do a select-all of a track in Audacity and reverse it, the software "mirrors" where both the audio is reversed and placement of the audio itself is flipped, almost like reversing a photo in an image editor.
I can't adequately describe in words how nice this is. When both the audio and the placement of audio is reversed, there is no need to worry about timestamps. You reverse, record, reverse again to bring it back to normal, and all the timestamps line up. This is simply lovely.
How to reverse guitar in Audacity
Step 1. Generate a rhythm track on track 1.
Step 2. Record your primary rhythm guitar to track 2.
Step 3. Count the number of peaks in the rhythm track from left-to-right and remember this number. You'll need it in a moment.
Step 4. Select-all track 2.
Step 5. Effect > Reverse
Step 6. That number you remembered from step 3? Now you need it. Count the number of peaks from right-to-left so you know when to stop recording. That is your end point.
Step 7. Pick a spot before that end point and record a second guitar (this is the one which will be reversed) to track 3.
Step 8. Select-all tracks 2 and 3.
Step 9. Effect > Reverse. This reverses track 2 to normal and track 3 to reverse.
Done.