What are the best cheap 7-string guitars?
While 7-string guitars aren't really my thing, there are a lot of other players out there who like them, but are looking for something cheap and good, and that is what this article is about.
The guitars I'm going to list range from $200 to $500 USD, such as the Schecter Omen Extreme-7. I'll talk more about that in a moment, but for now, let's start with the cheapest first and go from there.
The M-17 is pretty much as low as you can go in price while still getting a good guitar. I've never seen them in any other color but black, which for keeping a "metal look" is just fine. Bolt-on neck, chrome hardware, and a 5-way switch which would indicate coil-split pickup selections are available without the need for a push/pull knob.
The only bad part is that all strings are angled after the nut, which can cause strings to go out-of-tune more often. However, if you keep the nut clean, that shouldn't be an issue.
This guitar is the same price as the M-17. The advantages over the M-17 is that it has high-output humbuckers, strings that are only slightly angled after the nut for better tuning stability and an arched top which some players really like.
Yes, it is a bolt-on, but is best described as a "slim bolt" of sorts, as there is a contour cut at the heel for really fast high-fret access. If you play up on the high frets often, this one feels better than the M-17 will. While it may only be a 3-way toggle instead of the M-17's 5-way, the saddle style (Fender Strat-ish) is a lot easier to deal with.
Oh, and the best part. The guitar looks expensive, especially with that modernized Jackson headstock.
I can say easily that this Jackson is the best value 7-string on the list, mainly because it's a player's guitar. It's cheap, nothing fancy, plays fast, looks good, looks expensive but isn't, and sounds good. And if you don't like the sound of it, swapping out the pickups and putting in a set of 500K CTS pots (best for humbuckers) is easy to really make this a screamer.
Once again, this guitar is the same price as the above two. Think of this one as what would happen if you combined the above two guitars.
You get a 5-way toggle here, great neck, hot-output humbuckers, proper bridge saddles, and the big advantage is that every string is straight after the nut, meaning it will hold tuning very nicely with minimal string "kinking".
The only downside? It doesn't look as good as the Jackson does. However, if you want that fast-neck Ibanez feel on a budget 7-string, you can't really do better than this.
Now we're getting into more expensive territory. Looks-wise, this guitar totally nails it with it's carved top in Walnut Satin finish. Other colors are available, but the walnut just looks really good. The custom inlays also add to the "looks expensive" look as well.
Schecter is well known to build some seriously good guitars, and even though the Omen-7 is on the lower end of the price spectrum, you definitely get more than your money's worth.
But is it better than what's listed above? That's debatable, because a lot of what you're paying for here is appearance.
This guitar is a signature Michael Angelo Batio signature series, hence "MAB" in its model name. Whether you know who that is isn't important, because this is about the guitar.
On this axe, there is a Floyd-Rose tremolo system on it, namely a Floyd-Rose Special. So if you want a good 7-string with FR, this is it. The other huge advantage of this guitar is the block inlays on the neck. If you play with a band in dark stage environments, this will come in really helpful to know where you are on the neck under low-light conditions.
Another big advantage is the larger top horn, which helps a lot to prevent neck dive. If you've had problems with 7-string neck dive with other guitars, this one will stay put. While the extended top horn may look a bit odd to some, it's there specifically to prevent diving.
If you took a JS22-7 noted above, added on a look-at-me finish and better electronics, put extra contours on the body and put binding on the neck, you get the JS32-7Q.
I can't say this guitar is really any better than the JS22-7 other than the fact you get some minor upgrades. If you absolutely have to have that bound neck, then yes, get the JS32-7. But if you can live without it, the JS22-7 has the goods where it counts and can be upgraded easily (and cheaply) to JS32-7 status. It just won't look as cool as the JS32 does.
This the guitar listed at the very top of this article.
Bound body and neck, proper inlays that can be seen in low-light environments easily, great look, great finish, great sound.
Electronics include a toggle with a push/pull for coil tap, so as far as versatility goes, you can basically get any kind of sound you want out of this guitar. All strings go straight after the nut which promotes better tuning stability, and the tuners have super-smooth operation.
The only problem with this guitar is that like the regular Omen-7, it has a Tune-O-Matic style bridge that may dig into your palm while playing, depending on where you rest it.
This is the priciest guitar on this list before it starts going into "too expensive" territory for most people.
Looks-wise, Ibanez is one of the very few who can produce a white guitar and have it look amazing. Most electric guitars look terrible in white, but the shape of the Ibanez RG really makes it work.
The two things about this guitar that make it great is the "Edge" system (Ibanez's version of a Floyd-Rose) and that oh-so awesome Wizard II neck.
For those who like to solo a lot, the Wizard II makes you realize instantly why this guitar costs a few extra bucks to get. In addition, this is one of those "nothing needs to be upgraded" guitars, even though it's reasonably priced. Out of the box, you just set it up to your liking, plug in and go.
My personal pick?
The Jackson JS22-7 Dinky. If I were in the market for a 7-string, I'd consider the Jackson. It's cheap, good, has the string saddle type I like better than Tune-O-Matic and would be easy to work on if I wanted to change anything about it.
My only knock against that guitar is that it only comes in Satin Black. I wish there were others colors offered. Other than that, the JS22-7 would be the one I'd get.
Top 5 ways for guitar players and bands to get better YouTube video views
A common complaint by many is that YouTube doesn't deliver video views like it used to.
True? Yes. There are three major reasons why.
Reason 1: A lot more people use it now compared to before.
The number of users on YouTube now compared to 2006 is obviously a lot higher, and that means you're competing against a lot more people.
Reason 2: Using the wrong way to promote yourself.
The worst thing you could ever do is use "Support Local Music". I've talked about this before at length, but all you need to know is that phrase is the calling card of any band that sucks. If you say "Support Local Music", you suck, plain and simple. If you don't want to suck, don't say it. Use other ways of promo. I'll mention those ways in a moment.
Reason 3: A complete disregard by the user (you) of proper video titles, proper video keywords and proper video descriptions.
This is the biggie that everyone gets wrong.
The first thing YouTube indexes for searching is titles, keywords and descriptions. While I'm sure YouTube has speech-to-text technologies that can recognize certain words being said in videos, the main thing they fall back on is the manually typed text by the video uploader.
Here are the 5 ways to get more views fast.
1. List your location
The format of the video title should be this:
Artist Name - Song Name - Location
If I were to do this myself:
Menga - Hurricane - Tampa Florida
Whenever you post a song, use that title format, and also use it for video keywords. As for the description, list HOW to contact you. Put an email address there or Twitter address or whatever you have.
Why list location? Because people search for the location of where they live on YouTube all the time. If you list yours in the title and keywords, other people in and near your area will find your videos faster. Remember, the goal is to be found. Listing your location helps out quite a bit in that respect.
2. Make music videos and not filmed live performances
It's most likely true that when creating your songs, a lot of takes happen, along with multitracking and so on.
Don't film every take. In fact, don't even bother. Get the song done first.
For your video, play along with the song, just like music videos have always been made. These are way easier and faster to make, and since you're using your finalized audio for the sound, it will sound just like you want it to.
3. Share everywhere
It amazes me how many guitar players and bands don't do this.
For any video you upload, go to the video page once it's live, click Share and then share the video out.
How many should you share to? As many as you can. You most likely already have Facebook and Twitter. Use those. Share out to your G+ page since you already have one with your YouTube channel. For Blogger, Tumblr, Pinterest and others, just use as many of those as you can, and do this for every video you upload.
4. Periodically make "talking head" videos
You or another member of your band sits in front of a camera, records what's known as a vlog (that's video and log combined, the video version of blog) that's 2 to 3 minutes long, and you post it. The video does not have to be of good quality since it's just a talking thing. Use your smartphone to record it if you have one.
Why do these? Because fans like seeing members of the band talking about stuff. What stuff should you talk about? Whatever you want. Doesn't matter. Just do it.
5. Link your other videos within your videos
YouTube has this thing called annotations. Go to your YouTube Video Manager, edit a video in the YouTube site, and you'll see it there. It's the thing where you can put little pieces of text on screen in a box and have that box link somewhere if you want.
Learn how to use annotations and link to your other videos. It really works.
"Wow... that's, like... easy?"
Yeah, it is easy and it works. It's only been difficult because you've been making it difficult. Now you know the easy way, so get to it.
What's considered an oldie in music these days?
We're at the point now where any music released with a year starting in 19 is considered an oldie.
What's a music oldie?
The oldies music format didn't come into existence until around the mid-1970s. Nobody knows the exact date of when that format came about, but we'll just say it started in 1975.
When American Graffiti was released in 1973, that obviously featured a ton of older music, and it was those kinds of films that gave radio stations the idea to launch programs (and ultimately entire stations) to only feature older music.
What qualifies as an oldie?
Any piece of music that was released at least 15 years ago at bare minimum.
This is something that makes people feel old really quick, because at the time I write this, 1999 was 15 years ago.
This means that Vertical Horizon's Everything You Want, released in August '99, is an oldie.
People who know that song don't handle that fact very well.
I personally don't have a problem with pre-2000 music being labeled as old, but some do because it reminds them too much of their age.
On YouTube, if you look up old songs of the '90s specifically, you will see arguments in the comment area (of course) between people of whether the music is actually old or not. Well, it is, and that's just how things are.
There is a weird factor however. A good chunk of '90s music could easily pass as new songs today.
Take the Everything You Want song for example. If you did not know of that song, and I told you it was something new and not from '99, you would probably believe me.
Certain songs from certain decades "sound old" because of the limits of recording technology at the time it was made.
But then there are others that sound just as fresh now as when they were released, like this song (listen to the song first, then look up its origin year).
Yep, that song is an oldie.
"Doesn't sound like an oldie to me!", you might say.
That's exactly my point.
From around 1995 all the way up to present, you really can't tell what music is new and what's old. In fact, the only way to know a song's age would be if you knew of the song or band beforehand, or knew up front the release date before hearing the song.
If a song is good, it will always be found again
Good music doesn't die, but rather just loses popularity for a time until it's discovered by new ears, then becomes popular again.
What I notice kids doing this days quite often is searching for music outside of mainstream channels. Why? Because they don't like music being made currently, so they seek out older stuff.
I find it weird (in a good way) whenever I see teenagers commenting about how much they dig music of the 1950s and 1960s. All the classics. The Beatles, The Beach Boys, Buddy Holly, Jerry Lee Lewis, Elvis Presley, Frank Sinatra... you name it, and they're listening to it.
These same kids also listen to a lot of 80s and 90s stuff too... but strangely skirt around the 70s for some reason. Maybe they just haven't gotten around to that decade yet? Not sure on that one.
If a style is good, it will be made again
Speaking of the 70s, people thought when that decade ended and when disco died that it wouldn't come back. Ever.
They were wrong.
Get Lucky from 2013 is absolutely a 100% disco song.
And it sounds very similar to this song released in 1978, not a coincidence.
"Oldie" is a badge of honor
When music can still be remembered 15 years later and beyond where it's classified as an oldie, that's not a bad thing.
Kids dig the old stuff, and if they give it the OK, you know that's a genuinely honest opinion.
Embrace the older stuff. The kids do, and so should you.
Every documentary on heavy metal sucks
Above is a two-and-a-half hour documentary called Heavy: The Story of Metal, which originally aired in 2006 on a cable channel here in America called VH-1. I don't know how long it's going to stay online, so watch it while you can before it gets pulled. (ETA: Yep, it got pulled, sorry, but I still got stuff to say about this.)
Is it any good?
No, it sucks.
There are a lot of reasons why it sucks, but here are a few that immediately stick out:
- Not a single mention of Deep Purple, as if Machine Head never happened.
- Zero mention of how American southern rock was just as heavy and at times much heavier (e.g. Mississippi Queen from Mountain) than whatever was on the radio at the time.
- Stone Cold Crazy from Queen not mentioned at all, a ridiculously heavy song.
- No mention of The Who. At all. The documentary labels Steppenwolf as heavy, so The Who definitely counts.
Ultimately, the documentary ends up being nothing but a sales pitch for Ozzfest, which at the time was still going until it ended in 2008, skipped a year, came back in 2010, skipped two years, then came back in 2013. Anything going on since then? Not a thing. Ozzfest.com hasn't been updated since November 2013. Will there be any more updates? Who the hell knows.
Even if the documentary is offline by the time you read this, believe me, you're not missing much.
Why does every metal documentary suck?
Over the years I have watched several metal music documentaries. They're all terrible because whoever is directing the stupid thing has to decide on a slant to take, and it's always the wrong one. Is there a right one? Probably not.
However, there is one and only one thing the VH-1 documentary gets right. At the beginning of the presentation, several mainstream metal musicians are asked to define what heavy metal is. None of them knew the answer...
...and that's why all metal documentaries suck. How the hell can you put together a documentary about a particular subject when you can't even define what the subject is?
So what's happened to metal in the 8 years since the documentary was made?
Quite a bit, all negative. The worst of it is that what little there was of a metal community has now all but completely died.
In other parts of the world like Germany, Romania and United Kingdom, metal still has a fairly strong presence. But in America? Metal now only exists as a bunch of kids posting YouTube videos. There is no scene, no community and everyone basically gave up on metal altogether.
Does that mean metal in America is dead? For the time being, yes it is...
...but it's not totally the music industry's fault.
Metal bands have had the ability for a while now to forge their own path via means of internet and promote themselves independently, yet still don't get anywhere. If a metal band is of the attitude of, "Screw the music industry, we can make it on our own", that is a totally doable thing.
So what's the problem? Really crappy metal songs. Plenty of metal musicians, but few who know how to really write a good song with good, headbanging riffs that contains lyrics that people can actually relate to.
And of course it doesn't help that YouTube is full of moron guitar shredders that couldn't carry a tune even if it had handles on it.
Will things change?
If metal bands ever figure out how to write good metal songs again, yes. But that doesn't look likely.
What do I mean by "good metal songs"? Listen to old Judas Priest, Iron Maiden and Dio. Listen to how straightforward the riffs were. Listen to how every song has a proper beginning, middle and end. Listen how each song has a good hook to it. Listen to how huge each song sounded. That's what I'm talking about.
No, I'm not saying metal bands have to sound exactly like Priest, Maiden and Dio. What I'm saying is to listen to the method of how each song flows from those bands. There is no detuned garbage going on. There are no Cookie Monster vocals. There are no wacky time signatures. What those dudes wrote was just straight-up good metal riffs with proper song structure to keep it together. And it worked.
Can it work again? Yes, but only if metal bands these days pull their heads out of their asses and write songs that kick you in the face the proper way... but again, that's not likely to happen. They'll still detune everything so songs sound like a big, long, stinky fart, and add Cookie Monster vocals on top which is just another fart noise.
Yep, that's American metal today. Loud, distorted farts. Congrats, guys. You suck.
Chiptune music sucks
If you ever wanted to know what kind of musician puts forth the most effort and gets the least results, the chiptune musician is it.
A chiptune is when some idiot purposely creates synthesized music on an 8-bit sound chip, but not just any sound chip. He will use the crappy sound chip in an 8-bit gaming console, namely the Nintendo Entertainment System or a Nintendo Game Boy.
I can understand it when someone wants to make electronic music that involves a bit of tinkering and hardware hacking to do it. But why they would choose an NES or a Game Boy for that instead of, say, a littleBits synth kit is beyond me. True synths always sound better.
Seriously, a MicroBrute sounds so much better than that craptastic NES chip.
When you want that real-deal, fat-ass synth sound, you get a proper analog synth to do it with, and not the ridiculously wimpy NES.
Another thing about the chiptune sound whether it's from an NES or Commodore 64 SID or whatever it used is that what's heard just isn't pleasant, and there is no way to make it pleasant.
With analog synth, you can get the sound to be "warm" or "soft" or whatever you choose to call it. But that cannot be done on an 8-bit chip. If you say it can, I tell you you're wrong because you are. I've heard many attempts to make 8-bit chips get a warmer/softer sound, and... no. Just doesn't work.
Chiptune music started as an underground thing and stayed there, thankfully. It's just a bad sound made on crappy equipment. Hopefully anyone who does chiptune music now will eventually grow out of that crap and get a real synthesizer for a change.