Can't play a Stratocaster because you keep hitting the volume knob?
There are some players who can't own a Strat, or at least not one in stock condition, because of the volume knob placement.
Charles recently emailed with this:
Hey Rich
I'm looking to replace my Ibanez guitar. I have grown to really dislike the 16" radius and want a change. I played a Squier Bullet Strat HSS and really liked the way it felt with one exception. The volume knob. I hate the placement of the volume knob. I'm thinking about picking one up and modding it to relocate the volume know to the forward most tone knob, and making the remaining tone pot a master tone pot. Can you think of any guitars that would have a similar control layout without mods? They don't have to look like a strat, just have similar neck profile that is HSS or HH.
Thanks for any input.
Whether you play an Asian made Squier or an American made Fender, all of them have the volume knob directly below the rear pickup. Many guitar players literally whack the volume knob when playing, so much to the point where it makes the instrument almost unplayable.
The first guitar that comes to mind which is lower in cost, has a similar pickup layout to a Squier Bullet Strat HSS and has a volume knob that's further away from the rear pickup is the Yamaha Pacifica PAC112V.
To note: This particular guitar does come in HSS and HH versions.
The Pacifica PAC112V has a volume knob placement that is further down and further pushed back compared to a Strat, while still pretty much looking and functioning like a Strat does.
The neck on the PAC112V is a 25.5-inch scale with 13.75-inch fingerboard radius. While that is flatter than the Squier's 9.5-inch, it's the back of the neck that counts here, and yes, it definitely does have more roundness and chunk compared to a super-flat Ibanez board, no question about that.
Another guitar that's similar is the Kramer Striker 211.
To note: This guitar comes in hardtail and Floyd-Rose equipped versions.
This guitar has no pick guard at all, but does have the volume knob down and away from the rear pickup, and has a blade selector like a Strat does. The hardtail version is about the same price as the Pacifica PAC112V is.
Unlike the Pacifica, the 211 hardtail has no vibrato system on it whatsoever. If you absolutely must have vibrato, get the Pacifica instead or just get the Striker with the Floyd.
The neck on this one is flatter than the PAC112V. It is a 25.5-inch scale like a regular Strat, but has more of a Gibson SlimTaper feel on it, similar to what you would find on an Epiphone G-400 SG guitar. It is unknown what the fingerboard radius is, but it would be safe to say it's probably 12 to 14-inch and no flatter than that.
(Got a guitar or gear related question? Email me and I may post the answer as an article here.)
Guitar of the week #47 - B.C. Rich Villain
When you dig around a little, you'll find B.C. Rich actually makes some pretty good stuff.
B.C. Rich is a guitar brand I don't mention too often because in all honesty, they don't have much I consider genuinely good - but the B.C. Rich Villain is an exception.
The Villain has mid-tier to upper-tier pricing, depending on model.
I characterize this guitar as your typical "shredder" axe. I think shredding totally sucks, but if that's your thing, the Villain is the guitar for it, given its super-flat 16-inch radius fingerboard on a bolt-on maple neck.
If you've played a Schecter Hellraiser C-1 but thought, "I really wish this guitar had a Floyd-Rose on it", you want the Villain. Similar price, similar look, nice feel, good tone (for what it is).
You might be saying now, "What about the Schecter Hellraiser with Floyd?" Good option, but it's over $900. You can get a Villain for way less than that and still get your Floyd system. Schecters typically remain in the affordable range until you attach a Floyd, and then the price just spikes out of control.
In the end, the Villain is good for its price (at least for mid-tier models), beats out the competition and you get a lot of guitar for the money. And I admit I do like the shapes. The body has a very modern look as does the headstock. I can assure you that the guitar looks just as good in person as it does in photos.
How does a band get known today for no cost?
Being I just talked about how MTV is a total waste of time, I figured it would be good to explain what bands can do these days to get known using a very specific free service mentioned in that article.
What is the best no-cost thing bands should use for a web presence?
Answer: Twitter.
For publishing songs, there's YouTube, BandCamp, SoundCloud, iTunes and others. But for the band's primary web presence, Twitter is the best one.
What should a band tweet out?
Photos and quips posted on a regular basis. Music is secondary at best because people don't go to Twitter to listen to music.
In other words, post photos of stuff, post links to things and maybe an opinion every now and then.
I'll talk about the music stuff in a moment.
Tweeted photos
This does not mean "music related photos only". For example, you could snap a photo of a bowl of mashed potatoes and post that with the tweet, "EATING BORING-ASS TATERS TONIGHT". You will get likes from that and maybe even a retweet or two. Seriously, you will.
Stupid? Yes. But it's entertaining and that's the whole point.
Goofy stuff is 10 times better than any stupid band photo or stupid music gear photo. It's entertaining; that's why it works. Remember that. Sure, sometimes you do have to post stupid band/gear photos, but don't forget the entertainment stuff.
Tweeted links to things and/or opinions on stuff
Here's an example of a link to something that I tweeted an opinion on:
The Jackson Monarkh is a cool guitar but I just can't get past that headstock. Doesn't work on this body shape.
I did get a couple of replies to this. While it wasn't wasn't groundbreaking conversation or anything like that, the point is I got a couple of replies, and that was cool because it's engagement. Getting likes, retweets or replies is always good.
What's the goal of all this?
To build a following.
Tweet photos, links and opinions often. Do it every day if you can.
After a while, you'll have a good following going on, and then you can start posting links to songs that will actually get noticed, heard and hopefully bought.
Should a band go to the "next level" and get a paid dot-com web site after Twitter?
Getting a dot-com these days is pretty cheap. I suggest NameCheap for both the domain registration and web hosting. Yes, the two things are separate but both required, and it's altogether easier just to have it managed all through one company, hence why I suggest NameCheap to do it.
What's the reason to even bother with a dot-com web site?
Answer: Forum.
The core of any band web site is the forum, because that's where everything happens. That's where fans engage with the band. That's where fans can talk about stuff in a longer-than-Twitter way. You can also set up special private access areas on a self-hosted forum easily.
Is it worth paying domain and hosting fees just to have a forum? Yes, because free forums royally suck, and Facebook's version of a forum (fan page or group) is really restrictive.
Start with Twitter first. If after that you need something bigger and better, don't go to Facebook. Host a dot-com and get a forum. NameCheap makes it ridiculously easy to install a forum with just a few clicks when you host with them.
One final thing concerning a band dot-com web site: It is not a bad thing to have your band dot-com site be only the forum. Lots of bands like that because it's easy to use once set up.
My experience on jumping back in with Twitter
Even though I said this just recently, here's a quick refresher: Prior to 10 Feb 2016 I had "blanked" my Twitter account where I deleted all tweets and removed all followers. I started, or rather restarted my account from absolute zero. This means at present my Twitter audience is very small. I don't have a problem with this since I just recently began using Twitter again.
So far, yeah, I'm liking it.
Now granted, my Twitter profile isn't for a band but rather just me. And that's fine.
Will I stick with Twitter? Although it's a bit early to say this, I believe I will. Twitter, even with its limitations, is something I've found enjoyable to use even in the short time I've been using it.
My favorite part of Twitter is that they don't suddenly change around stuff, which is something Facebook is notorious for.
Yes, you can do band self-promo for free with Twitter
It takes some effort to do things the free way, but hey, that's the way it works. But remember you can opt to use promoted tweets with Twitter as a paid advertising option. There's also the dot-com site as mentioned above as a way to "go long" without breaking the bank.
In a band and want to get known? Don't even bother with MTV
I saw a particular release on the front of Amazon, and while I have no interest in buying it, the point is I did see it on the front of Amazon; this is why I'm aware it exists.
Now although I'm not in that magic 18-34 market, I know that since I saw the above on the front of Amazon, so did millions of others.
Advertising online is a much better choice compared to television ads. And while it probably costs a pretty penny to get an ad placed on the front of Amazon, I'm 100% sure it's cheaper than getting an ad placed on something like, say, any popular daytime talk show. It's probably true that a week's worth of national spots where a single 30-second ad ran once on that show for 7 days would easily cost 6 figures. I'm not kidding.
Where MTV is concerned, this is what I know about that crappy channel:
Firstly, cable advertising on MTV is cheap for the reason ads on that channel never perform well. You might as well be flushing money down the toilet with advertising on MTV because the effect is the same. Back in the day, MTV was considered a "tier 6" in cable advertising because it was that bad. That literally means there were 5 tiers better than MTV. The only ones that were worse were those little ticker-style ads you could get on stock trader cable channels.
Second, MTV as far as I can tell has zero influence on the music industry. How do I know this? I never see them mentioned anywhere anymore. They used to be mentioned everywhere, but those days are long gone.
Third, thankfully, more young people are saying to hell with cable television and television in general. Why? Easy answer: TV is boring. And kids hate being bored. Television is not where things happen anymore. Internet is. Whether it's Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, Amazon, eBay or whatever it is, things are happening online and not from TV.
What does this mean if you're in a band?
It means if you want to "make it" as a band, you have to advertise, but not on television. Not on MTV nor anywhere else on that medium. It doesn't matter how little or how much you spend there because your band will never get known that way. Don't do it.
Fortunately, you can try out online advertising for fairly cheap. I think the easiest of the easy is Twitter's promoted tweets, described by Twitter as, "ordinary Tweets purchased by advertisers who want to reach a wider group of users or to spark engagement from their existing followers".
With Twitter, all you have to do is just type up a tweet, flip over a few bucks for promotion, set your reach and see what happens. No graphic art skills required. Type and go.
Will your promoted tweet work? Maybe it will, maybe not. You'll have to experiment to see what works best. But at least it won't cost much to try it out, and the point is that it is accessible to you. Far more accessible than ridiculous TV advertising, that's for sure.
As for how much it will cost, there is no set price because it depends how you want to set your reach. The further reach you set, the more expensive it gets.
If Twitter isn't robust enough to handle how you want to advertise, there's also Google AdSense where you can advertise using text, image, text + image and so on. Many more options compared to Twitter. And, of course, there is Facebook advertising. You need a fan page to start advertising on Facebook, so if you want to go that route, get a fan page first (which is free,) then start exploring options.
In the end, if you're in a band and are ready to spend some money on promo, concentrate on online promo. Use the one you feel most comfortable with that you can afford, be it Twitter Ads, Facebook Ads, Google AdSense, Amazon Advertising or maybe something else...
...but not television. Leave that one behind.
Guitar of the week #46 - Ibanez Talman TM302
The Ibanez Talman TM302 comes in several flavors. There are both maple and rosewood fingerboard versions, and also the choice between solid-body and semi-hollow.
Some specs:
- "Talman Classic-Plus Neck". 25.5-inch scale, C shape, 305mm (12-inch) fingerboard radius.
- 22 frets, medium jumbo size
- Alder body
- AlNiCo pickups, both of them
- Nickel hardware
Basically put, this is a modern interpretation of a bunch of Fender designs put into a single guitar.
Is it any good? I'd have to say yes, however I don't know how well or not well Ibanez does a Tele-style pair of pickups. From what I can tell, what Ibanez put together should work quite nicely.
In the end however, it all comes down to the styling. Is this guitar worth its price tag for this kind of look that is not a Fender? That's your call.
I personally think Ibanez did a fine job here. The guitar is not overstyled yet not understyled either. My only style complaint is the output jack. I'm not fond of that, but I do like the rest of it.