Top 3 reasons why modern music sucks
Unofficially, it's said that the music you connect with and listen to for the rest of your life happens between the ages of 13 (right before high school) and 25 (after graduating college), and that you absolutely will not listen to anything else after that.
Well, I call b.s. on that mainly because music goes through its trends where at times some of it is great while at other times it just plain sucks. And right now were in one of those 'suck' periods.
I went through the first 5 of the Billboard Hot 100 just to see if there was anything in there that I, a guy in my late 30s (meaning someone TOTALLY out of the popular music demographic), would actually like.
Here are the current top 5, and my opinion on each:
- Blurred Lines by Robin Thicke featuring T.I. + Pharrell
Rich's opinion: Blah.
Weird clash of jungle-like beat with Motown vocals and 70s flavor. Doesn't work at all. This song tries a bunch of different styles, and fails at all of them. - We Can't Stop by Miley Cyrus
Rich's opinion: Sucks.
Starts off with this creepy detuned voice, then the main vocal comes in which sounds auto-tuned and monotone as hell, the over-pronounced kick drum noise is REALLY annoying... this is just bad. - Radioactive by Imagine Dragons
Rich's opinion: Huh?
Very weird clash of styles here. The electronic drums totally ruin this song which otherwise could have been great. I don't get what the producers of this song were trying to do at all here. The vocals carried the song just fine, but that beat is such an immediate turn-off to ridiculous levels. Oh, and one minor note on the video. This is the kind of stuff that gives kids nightmares. Not kidding. Very, very wrong in every way. The creep-out factor just goes way beyond the line. - Get Lucky by Daft Punk ft. Pharrell Williams
Rich's opinion: AWESOME!
Yes, great. Why? Everything is done right. This is a great song. Nothing is too overdone, everything is mixed right, and the disco influence is done 100% correct. I genuinely do like this song. - Treasure by Bruno Mars
Rich's opinion: Eh.. okay.
This is obviously a disco tune in every way, but it's trying way, way, way too hard to be disco. It's okay at best. Not great. Just okay. Get Lucky got it right in every way, but this one missed the mark by trying too hard.
You can tell that I dig the songs with a much more organic sound to them compared to ones which are over-produced electronic pieces of garbage. And it just goes to show that even at my "old" age, modern music is something I can connect to if done right.
What are the top 3 reasons modern music sucks?
These 3 reasons expound on my opinions above.
1. Clashing styles don't work.
Songs that can't decide what they are just plain suck. Listeners appreciate songs where it's very easy to tell what genre they fall into. Songs #4 and #5 above do that very nicely, but #1, #2 and #3 don't. When you have a song that can't decide what it is, it's not memorable, confuses people and just doesn't work.
2. It's obvious the music industry (still) hates rock and roll.
The music industry for the longest time has been trying to kill rock and roll forever. Make no mistake, they want it dead. Why? Because pop music is easier to sell. The industry could not care less how many dedicated rock fans there are out there because at the end of the day they prefer to churn out garbage that's a quick, easy sell.
In addition, the industry prefers to sell music that appeals to the widest possible audience, which brings me to reason #3...
3. "White people" music is expressly forbidden in all forms.
I'm just going to call it as I see it here. Any music that leans towards a Caucasian audience is something the industry avoids like the plague, but the funny part is that there are many who aren't Caucasian that would really enjoy NEW proper rock songs. And by "proper" I mean "not electronic junk" where you can actually hear overdriven guitars, real acoustic drums and so on.
On my YouTube channel and Facebook page, I have several fans, both domestic and international, who aren't "lily white" people whatsoever. These are people who really like rock music and absolutely fall into the 13-to-25 age demographic. But as far as popular music is concerned, there's nothing for them out there that they can connect to.
What I see is this growing gap of rock fans that want the music industry to just die off altogether because they're sick of the plastic pop crap. While I can personally hear some good groove in a couple of the songs I mentioned above, this gap I speak of hates every single song I mentioned and wants them gone.
As Ozzy Osbourne once sang, you can't kill rock and roll. Try as the music industry does, rock is just something that they can't kill off. They've tried, failed and should just embrace it again. If they don't, then the industry will die off due to their own stupidity.
Would I buy a 3D-printed guitar?
3D-printed guitars are NOT affordable and start at around $3,000 to buy one. Eventually they will get cheaper, but for now they cost way, way too much.
But let's say for the moment that I actually had the money to spend on one. Would I buy it?
No.
Right now, 3D printing is still a maturing thing, and at present there is no real reason to own a 3D-printed guitar. They don't play better, don't sound better and solely exist just because some people think they look cool (I personally think they look like children's toys).
3D-printed guitars do use wooden necks, by the way. Why? Probably because one hasn't been able to have been printed yet that has the right flex or weight to it. I'm sure eventually someone will develop a printed neck that gets it right, but that's probably not going to happen any time soon, therefore wood is used.
Basically speaking, 3D-printed guitars at best are a novelty, much the same as guitar bodies made from acrylic.
You'd be better off saving $2,650+ and just get an Epiphone Les Paul Studio instead. Or heck, even a Gibson Les Paul Standard is cheaper than a 3D-printed guitar. Yes, really.
my first "good" watch
I've not regularly worn a watch in years. As a kid I used to wear Casio watches all the time but just stopped after a while. Then in 2011 I just felt the need to own a Casio watch again, so I bought two, the F-28W (which I still own) and the W59.
The W59 I returned because I hated the band on it. While true the F28-W and the W59 both use a resin band, the W59's band just has a textured shape to it that irritated my wrist, so back it went. That, and the W59's display - much like the F-91W - does not display weekday, month and day all at once, but rather just weekday and day. That to me is annoying because I prefer weekday, month and day all showing on the face. I ordered a new watch recently, the Casio AE1200WHB-1BV. I don't have it yet, but it should arrive in less than a week.
Did I need it? Actually, yeah I did. And it took a lot of searching before I decided on going with that watch in particular. Lately I've been using the countdown timer in my cell phone quite a bit, because there are things I need to time where I walk away and need a reminder to come back later (such as running a clothes dryer cycle). Using the phone is annoying for this task and it's just altogether easier to have a timer right on my wrist. There are certain things I do that happen at the same time every day, and again, it's easier to have a watch on the wrist beep at me at the appropriate time instead of doing daily alarm stuff on the phone. However, for very-specific stuff that happens on a particular calendar day, the phone is definitely better and I don't deny that (specifically because of the keyboard and the extra space to type up a description). I needed a watch that supported multiple time zones because there are instances where it will be very convenient to see what time it is in other parts of the world from my wrist just from a single button press. The fact the AE1200WHB-1BV has a black nylon strap band is a very, very big deal for me because black nylon watch bands are very difficult to find on a new watch. Sure, you could buy it separate and install one that way, but why bother with the extra cost when you can get it right on the watch itself that fits exactly right the first time?
The best way to wear a watch is so that it fits loosely on your wrist. With resin bands, that feels to "plasticky". With pleather bands, same deal, too plasticky. With real leather bands, yes those are comfortable once broken in, but they have to be thick to feel right, and that thickness is something I don't prefer. With a metal band adjusted by links, that feels too sharp on the wrist. With metal that acts like a strap, too "bumpy". With metal that has spring tension, that pinches my skin. At that point the only option left is fabric, as in nylon. Great material, very durable and can handle pretty much anything - except for the fact the vast majority of nylon bands for watches are any color but black... ...so you can understand now how my eyes lit up once I found out Casio had a watch with every feature I wanted and the black nylon strap band. Casio does do nylon bands correct. The part of the band that holds the watch has an extra thicker stitched "shroud" around it, while the rest of the band is the regular thinner nylon. Very good combo because that's basically the most durable setup you can possibly get. Is the AE1200WHB-1BV large? Not really. The size is 45 x 42.1 x 12.5mm in size. In comparison, the F-91W is 38.2 x 35.2 x 8.5mm in size - but that's considered very small to most people (and the F28-W is even smaller at 31.5 x 32.5 x 8mm). A lower-end G-SHOCK like the DW9052-1V has a size of 48.5 x 43.0 x 14.77mm and weighs a lot for a watch, topping out at 59g (the watch I bought in comparison is 39g).
And after that, any Casio PRO TREK watch is a frickin' monster, size-wise. The PAW1300T-7V (I picked that one just because I like the way it looks) measures as 56.9 x 47.4 x 11mm and with the band weighs 97g. Significantly thinner than a G-SHOCK and even thinner than the watch I just bought, but freakin' chunky everywhere else because of its "Tough Solar" wide casing.
For weight, the F28-W is a feather-light, weighing in at only 14g - and that's with band. No, I'm not kidding. Its extremely light weight is basically the only reason its resin band doesn't bother my wrist all that much. Yes, this does mean the watch I'm receiving at 39g is well more than double the weight of the F-28W - but - it has the proper nylon strap treatment and it's very flat, so it should fit nicely. I do dig the look of the AE1200WHB-1BV a lot. Some Casio watches just look plain dopey, but every so often one is introduced that gets it right, and I'm pretty sure the one I just bought is one of those.
Eventually at some point I will buy an analog dress watch, because as far as style is concerned, analog always looks classier than digital. I will either get a Citizen or a Seiko, with white dial and calendar on the face. Probably a Citizen. When you're seen wearing something like the Citizen AO9003-16A...
...you're the man. There is no ifs, ands or buts about it. You are the man when you wear a watch like that because it just screams style and class. And you'd be surprised at how people treat you differently when they see a ritzy timepiece on your wrist - even if you're dressed in just jeans and t-shirt. Citizen is one damned fine brand of wristwatch and it does get noticed. Casio does have expensive timepieces as well, and they're nice and all that, but they don't come anywhere near the style and class that Seiko and Citizen have. Heck, even a $90 Seiko just says "luxury" all over even on their basic models.
So yeah, I'll get the dress watch someday. But for now I wanted function, and the Casio I bought fits the bill nicely.
Top 5 classic electric guitar looks
There are certain guitars out there that when made with certain woods (just for appearance) and colors define the classic look for that particular instrument.
#5. Olympic White Fender Stratocaster with maple fretboard and large headstock
The guy who made this particular Strat look famous was Jimi Hendrix. Although Hendrix played many different Strats (sunburst, black and red to name a few), it is the 1968 Strat (hence the big headstock) in Olympic White with the maple fretboard that's the most-recognized as the "Hendrix Strat".
You might look at the above and think it's an Arctic White. No, it's Olympic that's been yellowed with age.
#4. Olympic White Fender Stratocaster with rosewood fretboard and large headstock
This is a look of guitar that many famous players have used (with Ritchie Blackmore being one of them). No, it's not the late-60s Strat with a different fretboard but rather something that is "very 70s". Olympic White body, white pick guard, rosewood fretboard, large headstock with truss rod on headstock side with a "bullet" truss rod cover.
Fortunately, this guitar can be bought new easily, as it is one of the configurations for the Fender Classic '70s Stratocaster, so there's no research required. Like the guitar? Then go buy it; it's as simple as that.
#3. Butterscotch Fender Telecaster with black pick guard
Many famous musicians play Telecasters, but the guy that sticks out in my mind that plays a butterscotch Tele is Bruce Springsteen.
This particular guitar is very easy to get. On the Squier side there's the Squier Classic Vibe Telecaster '50s in the exact look shown above. On the Fender side there's the Fender American Vintage '52 Telecaster.
Whether you go Squier or Fender, you can't go wrong with this Tele as it is the total classic Telecaster look - and the easiest to acquire new.
It also should be noted that of the Squier Classic Vibe series, the Tele in particular has been reported by many players to be "the one that Squier got exactly right". Like I said, you really can't go wrong with this Tele.
#2. Fiesta Red Fender Stratocaster with maple fretboard
Whether you love or hate this color combo, it is a classic Strat look that many famous players (Buddy Holly and Dick Dale to name a couple) used.
Oddly enough, the Squier is the easiest way to get one of these classic Strats. In particular, the Classic Vibe '50s Stratocaster. Or just get the Fender-branded version.
Before you go looking, a few notes about this configuration:
No, you can't get this in a Fender Standard because the color offered there with the maple fretboard is Candy Apple Red and not Fiesta Red.
No, you can't get this in an American Standard either because the color offered there with the maple fretboard is Mystic Red (a newer color from Fender).
Yes, you can get this in a Fender flavor by specifically seeking out the Fender Classic Series 50's Stratocaster - however it's probably true you would have to order it online only as you will never see this particular configuration of Fender Strat in a guitar store.
#1. Gibson Les Paul Standard in Heritage Cherry Sunburst
Out of every electric guitar that exists, this is the one that is recognized the most.
To achieve the absolute classic Les Paul look, the Heritage Cherry Sunburst must be there, along with nickel-covered humbuckers, gold knobs, bound body and neck and trapezoid inlays.
Gibson, of course, offers one along with variations on the same theme. Can you go cheaper with Epiphone in this same basic configuration? You sure can.
There are also many other guitar makers that offer this Les Paul look for real cheap while still being a great-playing/sounding guitar. Agile AL-2000 comes to mind.
Some final words about buying for looks over function
My advice is simply this when buying for looks:
- Buy as cheap as you possibly can.
- Purposely buy multiple guitars if you have to just to combine into one look.
An example of this is recreating #4 above, that being the Olympic White Strat with the rosewood fretboard and big headstock, in a Squier flavor.
First, buy an Olympic White Squier Affinity HSS.
Second, buy any other Squier Affinity with a white pick guard and white-cover pickups and knobs.
Third, transfer the white pick guard and all electronics from one guitar to the other, and you're done.
Now you've got a classic Olympic White Strat with the neck that has a rosewood fretboard with big headstock, and white pick guard with white knobs and pickup covers. Not a bad deal if you asked me.
True, you could simply order an aftermarket pick guard and pickups, but that may be more trouble than it's worth because the pick guard screw holes probably won't line up correctly. With buying two Squier Strats, it's easy-out and easy-in. No drilling or refitting or soldering required. And yeah, that is worth the extra money just for the convenience.
And remember, you can take the HSS config and put that in the other guitar, so after you're all done you do end up with two complete, functional guitars.
Again, not a bad deal if you asked me. And fairly cheap to do.
Analog vs. Digital Reverb
Confession: I'm not really a fan of analog reverb and never have been.
Analog reverb to me is just clunky, clanky garbage for the most part. Yeah, it's cool for vintage surf tones but not really much else as the video above I did explains.
This of course means I'm a big fan of digital reverb. I personally think nobody does a better job at digital reverb than Lexicon (it's emulated quite well in my GSP 1101). However if I had to have reverb in a pedal for whatever reason, I would get the BOSS RV-5 because it's one of the few reverb pedals in my experience that gets the job done right.
I am however very anti-reverb when it comes to live music, and if I had to have a "distant" sound on stage, I'd use delay. Namely, the DD-7. Looks like a complicated pedal but it's not and has a low learning curve.