There comes a time when you have to stop playing metal
In every guitar player's life - ones who play metal specifically - there is a point where playing only metal can sometimes get on your nerves.
Even for people under 24 that may read this, you know there are days when you pick up the guitar, do the same thing you've always done where you mash the distortion pedal and go for it, but... meh, you're just not "feeling the metal" that particular day. This sometimes happens, and it's nothing to get angry over. Doing the metal thing requires being in the mood for it.
I do play metal from time to time. And there was a point when it was the only thing I played. But then I eventually branched out into other styles as seen above, and these days I play more "dirty overdrive" than I do outright heavy metal music.
Is this because I'm over 30? Partially. Metal is a game for the young, because that's the time when you have "the attitude" for it, i.e. teen angst. For you older guys that just got ticked off at me by reading that, don't be. When you get older, you start turning the volume down a bit and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. And please, do not take turning down the volume as an admission of defeat, because it's not and never has been.
It sometimes is really difficult for a metal guy (or girl for that matter) to branch out into other styles of music, simply because metalheads don't permit it. For whatever reason there's this unwritten rule that if you have decided to be metalhead, you must only listen to metal and absolutely nothing else. Personally, I think that's b.s. and you should be able to listen to whatever you want. If you like a combo of Pantera, Whitesnake, Nine Inch Nails and - oh, my God - Garth Brooks, rock on. Seriously. You listen to whatever you want and be proud of it.
Do you have to stop playing metal forever?
No, of course not.
But I am saying you should stop playing metal all the time, and I'll tell you exactly why: Because it makes you a better musician.
When you branch out into other styles, most of the time you can incorporate the new stuff you learn back into metal.
See, the problem with being only-metal-all-the-time is that you will at some point get into a creative rut. You'll try to think of riffs one day, and they just won't happen. You'll try to compose a solo, and that's not happening either. You've literally exhausted all that you know and need some inspiration...
...and that's when you dive into other music styles to get a much-needed break from the metal.
And I suggest starting with country, because oh yeah, there are some ridiculously good country guitar players to listen to.
After that, listen to surf music.
Buy a guitar that "doesn't look metal" at all
The appearance of an axe has a whole lot to do with how you feel when playing and what you feel like playing.
And nothing says "not metal" more than a Stratocaster in Fiesta Red with a maple neck and fingerboard.
Every metal guitar player should own at least one "totally not metal" guitar. Why? Because it's different and it's a break from the guitars you normally play.
No, I'm not trying to "convert" metal players
Mr. or Ms. Metalhead Guitar Player, you know as well as I do you're going to hit a creative rut sooner or later. Probably sooner.
Avoid the rut by having useful diversions. Listen to other music styles, buy a "non-metal" inexpensive guitar, and do whatever it takes to keep your creativity going.
Keep it fun and interesting; that's all I'm saying.
The weirdness of the Fender '51
The '51 is probably one of the weirdest ways I've ever seen Fender treat a specific model of guitar.
Okay, a little history.
The '51 is, if you can believe it, an original Squier design (for 6-string guitar and not bass) and was never a Fender first; this is one of the rare and few instances where this has actually happened. Originally, this guitar appeared in 2004, meaning it's not something pulled from some wacky design experiment back in the 1950s or 1960s. For whatever reason, this design of guitar was a Squier original. And being it was a Squier, it obviously sold for really cheap - as in $150 cheap new back in the mid-2000s. And there were even instances where major guitar stores knocked down the price of the Squier '51 to $99 just to get rid of these things because nobody was buying them.
The '51 is a guitar that I'm 100% sure started Fender's whole "Pawn Shop" series.
Speaking of which, the Pawn Shop series started in 2011, and as far as I'm aware, all Pawn Shop models are made in Japan, which of course is not a bad thing because Japan makes good stuff.
The Fender '51 obviously costs a whole lot more than the Squier '51 ever did. And yes, it is classified by Fender as a Pawn Shop model.
The differences between the Fender and the Squier are:
- The Squier is a basswood body and the Fender is alder.
- Although I can't confirm this, I'm sure the tuning machines are far better on the Fender model.
- I'm also sure bridge is made of a better steel on the Fender.
- The electronics operate exactly the same as they did on the Squier, but the pickups in the Fender are much better as there is an "Enforcer" humbucker in the bridge and a "Texas Special" in the neck. On the Squier they're just plain ol' cheap pickups.
- The frets probably have much better finished edges compared to the Squier, although I can't confirm that.
...and that's pretty much it.
As far as the weight difference between the two, I'd guess the Fender is slightly heavier for the reason a slim profile was probably used on the Squier '51 and a full-profile Strat body was used on the Fender.
Why would Fender take a Squier design and make an expensive guitar out of it?
I'm not sure, so I'm going to have to guess here.
The Squier '51 is a mish-mash of several Fender designs put into one guitar, but what really makes it unique is how the controls work.
The two knobs do a lot more than you think.
The volume knob is a push/pull to split the humbucker to a single-coil. The second knob - get this - is a blend and is in fact your pickup selector. Roll all the way back, bridge pickup. Roll to the middle, both pickups. Roll to the front, neck pickup.
Pretty crazy, eh?
It's stuff like that which totally qualifies it as a "Pawn Shop" guitar. What other Fender model do you know of that has an H/S setup, splittable bridge humbucker and a blend knob?
What makes the guitar weird?
Something you don't immediately notice - the string spacing is slightly narrower. What this means is that if you buy a Squier '51 with the intention of modding it, well, that may prove to be a challenge because since the spacing is narrower, the pole pieces on the pickups are also spaced closer together. I suppose you could work around this by using a "rails" pickup which should (but wouldn't be guaranteed) still sound right even with the closer string spacing.
This weirdness also means that while the '51 may be Strat-shaped and look like it has a Telecaster neck on it, that string spacing may feel a lot different than what you're used to.
Does the FENDER '51 have that same narrower string spacing?
I honestly don't know - but - the fact it has the Enforcer and a Texas Special pickups mounted in it suggests the saddle spacing is standard. But I can't confirm that.
Want the Squier '51?
They're readily available for cheap. Cool guitar? Yeah, I think so.
Is Sarod picking worth learning to pick fast?
For some guitar players, picking as fast as possible with the most accuracy (meaning as little missed notes as possible) is important. And when you talk about fast picking, one technique is called sarod picking.
A sarod is an instrument used mainly in Indian classical music, and it's arguably the second-most-known stringed instrument in that genre of music next to the sitar.
The most famous electric guitar rock player you know who uses sarod picking is Eddie Van Halen. When you watch him pick fast, you will see him doing it.
Before I tell you how sarod picking is actually done, there's a few things you should know about it.
1. You cannot (traditionally) mute with the picking hand when sarod picking.
When sarod picking, your hand is "floating" above the strings so there is no opportunity to mute, and the reason for that is that the swinging motion of this picking style doesn't really permit it. You'll understand what I mean by that in a moment when I explain how to sarod pick below.
2. Sarod picking is all about the wrist.
Very little of your forearm or anywhere beyond that is used when picking this way; it is a very different style compared to what you're used to. Should you decide to try this picking technique, your wrist in the beginning is going to get one heck of a workout.
3. You absolutely cannot learn fast sarod picking in a day no matter what your skill level is.
For most electric guitar players, learning to sarod pick is like learning how to play the guitar all over again. Some of you on attempt to learn this may get so frustrated with it that you won't bother. But if you do learn how to do it, you can pick insanely fast and for a very long time once you get the motion right.
How do you sarod pick?
The key to knowing how to sarod pick is to understand it is a stirring motion. And fortunately this stirring motion is really easy to understand.
Fill up a glass of water. Take a spoon, start stirring the water, and watch your wrist while doing it. Notice how you're not using your forearm at all to stir that water. Now you understand the stirring motion.
On the guitar, take your pick, arch your wrist above the strings just as if you were going to stir water like you did a moment ago. You'll notice that the way you hold your pick will be angled instead of flat like you normally have it. Start picking in that circular stirring motion. Now you're sarod picking.
You are technically tremolo picking ("up-and-down" picking), but with sarod you've got the circular stirring motion going on in addition to that.
While you're doing this, you'll understand fully why I said this is like learning how to pick all over again; it's totally different than how you normally pick.
You also now understand why I said it's very difficult to mute with the picking hand while sarod picking, because if you try to mute, it's far more difficult to keep that stirring motion going.
Why is sarod picking good for playing fast?
Once you get your stirring motion up to speed, it is the most effortless way to tremolo-pick very quickly. Your wrist basically never gets tired because the circular stirring motion "throws the weight" continually. Much less exertion is needed to sarod pick compared to other tremolo-picking methods.
How long does it take to start sarod picking fast?
It takes a while. Like I said, it's like learning picking all over again, and it can be frustrating to learn it. But once you've got it, you'll be able to fast-pick very easily.
Do I sarod pick?
Rarely. I will somewhat-sarod pick chords on the low end of the fingerboard when playing Spanish-style guitar.
At times I will sarod pick on the upper frets, but not that often because I lean more towards hammer-ons and pull-offs for speedy notes.
On a final note, no two people sarod pick the same, because it greatly depends on your arm and finger length. So when you watch Eddie Van Halen do it, your way of sarod picking will not be the same, as it will be custom to you. In other words, don't take the way he picks as the exact way you should do it. Develop your own way of sarod picking and it will work out much better for you.
Do you hate reverb?
There are more than a few guitar players out there who absolutely hate reverb. And I mean hate it with a passion. They want absolutely nothing to do with it whatsoever.
How I feel about reverb is that it depends what you're using it for, and what type you're using.
The BOSS RV-5 to the right is a good example of some of the reverb types out there. It can do gated, room, hall, plate and even emulate a Fender spring reverb.
I think reverb hate stems from the fact that in some instances you just hear it way too much.
Here's a really condensed history of reverb:
"The sound" of surf music was largely in part due to the Fender's "Reverb Unit", originally making its appearance in 1961. That thing was a real-deal tube-driven spring reverb device; a licensed design from Hammond. Yes, as in the Hammond Organ Company. (I bet you didn't know that one!)
Okay so anyway, there were a lot of songs produced in the 1960s that had reverb plastered all over the place.
Then the 1970s came around; I call that "the dry decade" because while reverb was frickin' everywhere in the 60s, in the 70s it was almost completely shut off. A lot of this was due to disco and funk, where a no-reverb dry sound makes the drums and bass heard a whole lot clearer.
In the late 1970s however, reverb came back with a vengeance in the rock guitar world..
Oh, yeah.
However, when the 80s rolled around, not all was well in Reverb Land. In all music genres across the board, everyone was dousing their recording in super-washy reverb. And a lot of it was awful.
The biggest "offender" for reverb in the 1980s was undoubtedly the snare drum. Instead of an acoustic snare, it was replaced with a digital snare that had crazy amounts of reverb on it, as evidenced with Pour Some Sugar On Me by Def Leppard.
Now I know the drummer for Def Leppard is one-armed due to a car accident, and I know that playing drums one-armed isn't exactly easy - but - you can't deny that there is just way too much reverb on that digital snare sample. The song is cool, but every time I hear it, all I hear is that frickin' snare. And I think it's the loudest thing heard in the song.
Then the 90s rolled around, and I call this the "digital reverb" era, because that's when all this crazy new digital gear started going into studios all over the place.
During this decade the reverb, thankfully, was rolled down quite a bit - but with a tradeoff. Instead of it being bonging and washy, now it "snapped" and "whooshed". Losing My Religion by R.E.M. is a good example of this.
...and that's pretty much where reverb has stayed ever since. Sure, there have been minor (and I mean minor) variations over the years, but more often than not, "studio reverb" is considered that snappy/whooshy sound.
What about now?
Today we have the best of all worlds. In a single pedal like the RV-5 above, you can more or less get every reverb type that's ever existed. No, it doesn't reproduce all of them perfectly (no multi-effect reverb pedal can), but the point is that with some simple knob tweaking, you've got it all in a little box.
But should you use it?
Here's how I feel about that:
I personally believe the best reverb types for guitar are "room", "hall" and "spring".
A good reverb sound that pretty much everyone likes is the "sounds like it was recorded in a studio room" thing. And that's room reverb. As long as you don't overdo it, you get that classic blaring-humbucker-through-a-Marshall-in-a-small-room thing going on.
Hall reverb is good for classic 70s and 80s rock sounds like Runnin' With The Devil by Van Halen. Definitely a hall 'verb type.
Spring reverb is when you want to go old-school to the 60s sound because, well, that's what they used and it sounds cool.
In a live situation, my opinion changes.
I am 100% anti-reverb and 100% pro-delay for a live rig. Reverb on a live rig is annoying to control because it will sound different even with the exact same settings at each different place you play.
The delay effect works a whole lot better for a live rig because a) in the audience it does sound like reverb, b) you can hear it a whole lot better and it's much easier to tweak it on a per-location basis, and c) you're not fighting against the natural reverb that's around you when you use delay.
In the studio, sure I'll use reverb and will readily admit that. But not live.
Studio Rats vs. Guitar Players
I got a lot of flak because of my last post, mainly because something happened that I totally didn't expect - I actually caught the ear (pun intended) of the audio engineering community and unintentionally hit them right where they live.
The article I wrote was for guitar players and not audio engineering dudes. First I got a load of crap thrown at me on Facebook, lost a few fans (boo-hoo), then comments came in on the blog and blah blah blah. All "amateur audio enthusiasts" (their words; not mine) and pro-level dudes.
To an audio engineer, hearing things like "PCs are dying", "The DAW is doomed" and things of that ilk are heresy. Why? Because they've pretty much spent all their lives working with big-box PCs and Macs, probably went to school for their craft (or are attending right now), and here comes me, this guy with a blog, with a jugular punch right to their livelihood (again, unintentionally), by saying the stuff they use won't be necessary in the near future. Whether it's a student studying this stuff or a 20-year veteran in the recording industry, they interpreted what I wrote as a kick in the face.
I've known a lot of studio rats over the years. And yeah, I call audio engineers who record music studio rats. If you're an engineer and insulted by that, don't be, because it's a term of affection. I don't get offended by being called "guitarded", which is way more insulting than "studio rat" ever could be. Consider that being offensive on an equal opportunity level. I'm guitarded; you're a studio rat; let's move on.
This is my take on studio rats: They have their place in the world; they are needed. But they're not the kind that encourage creativity in a recording environment.
Do you honestly think a studio rat would allow "ugly" to be recorded as-is on a Tascam 488?
Nope. The studio rat would take the recording, "clean it", and do other nasty things that would take away from the ugly that gives the sound actual character.
I am a huge fan of doing more with less, and of course that's the exact opposite of the way a studio rat thinks.
The studio rat would reply with, "No, I like things to be small and compact, too!" True, but only in the physical sense. Ultimately what the studio rat wants is as much control as possible, and because of that they wouldn't be caught dead with a Tascam 488. Why? "Too limiting."
The 488 (which I did own at one point) is a great example of doing more with less because the limitations of the machine force you to be creative. If there's something the 488 can't do, you can't load in some software plugin that will magically fix everything. Whatever problem you encounter, you just deal with it and find a workaround. And that's where things get creative and, y'know, fun.
No, I am not saying to dump DAWs or digital. But I am saying that a good studio rat should be able to record with any machine that can record audio no matter what the platform is. To be limited to just one way of recording is just... bad. I mean, studio rats do go to school for this stuff, and they're telling me that the school only teaches one way of recording and that's it? I should hope not. I can record with a DAW, digital multitracker, analog multitrack or reels, but the modern studio rat can't?
I would challenge any studio rat to buy a DP-008, or heck, even a DP-004 (or if you've got really big set of balls, a 424) and record something cool with it. Did you just say, "NO WAY"? Why? You've got mountains of recording knowledge; you know how to wield one. You do know how to wield one, right? Can you accept a restrictive recording environment of a small-sized multitracker? It would be interesting to see if you could, or watch you squirm trying.
Remember, studio rat, you're supposed to be the smart recording guy, so the multitrack recorder should be easy for you... right? If I can wield one easily, you obviously should be able to do the same... right?
To my guitar player peoples, keep buying your multitrackers, keep recording, keep rocking; you're doing all right. And oh yeah, keep posting vids too. We still need more players on YouTube. Yes, I will bug you about it until more videos start getting out there. :)
To you studio rats, get off my nuts. Or if you're going to continue stomping on my nuts, take the restrictive-recording-environment challenge. I'll bet that you'll find recording creativity you never knew you had. Why? Art from adversity.