Why You Should Study/Research Your Favorite Music's Antecedents (with a Caveat)

  There are many recent issues in the public mind that concern, effectively, "what is copying?".

 A.i. visual art has revealed curious biases towards ownership of style.  In the visual domain, the premise of an a.i. system stealing a *style* is a concept, whereas in music it's around the premise that a.i. systems are copying, verbatim, copyrighted music.

 I won't get into that.  Instead, how you train YOUR dataset is on you.  Meaning, GIGO - garbage in garbage out.  

 If you never look at how your favorite artists were influenced to create a style that they have, your dataset will NOT have the prerequisite information required for YOU to do anything akin to what they did.  

 Which is to say, understand antecedents.  

 Led Zeppelin gets burdened endlessly about how they've "ripped off" classic examples of blues songs.  The problem being, for most of the songs if you take out the lyrics the average person would probably never be able to equate the "questionable" song with an example of it's origin.  Different tempos, beats, chords, melodies.  

 But, that isn't to say there isn't a connection.  Understanding how they got to *there* from over *there* is important.  That comparison is what allows you to do the same.  Because there is an intellectual difference between being *influenced*, and *copying* - 

 ...but you can't argue it, or understand the difference, without having studied it.  

 You don't have to go more than 2 generations back.  Meaning, if you're into a metal/rock band, chances are they liked some aspect of Led Zeppelin's catalog.  You figure that out - that would be one generation back, then from there you figure out what the generation was that influenced that.  

 In that process, you see the lineage of creativity.  There isn't a perfectly unique creation from nothing, that doesn't exist.  You study the antecedents, and see how the antecedents depended upon other antecedents, and get *influenced by the processes that made those connections happen*.

 

The Dimension of Singing with Guitar: 2 Students with 3 Octaves?

  Maybe.... 3-5 in 50 students I get end up singing.

 This is usually the result of someone revealing that yes, they sing in the car or shower, and maybe they could sing and play guitar as well?

 Occasionally it's prompted by me asking a student if they've ever thought about singing, if they've come to the crossroads marked "starting to write music".

 I usually proceed after checking the student's vocal range.  That is to say not the traditional operatic registers, but where their pseudo tessitura is, where they seem to have note(s) that are musically useful.  

 Most people are limited to an octave or so, plus some notes in their falsetto range.  A second octave is usually available with practice.  Mixing through that octave, and into falsetto/head tone above that is usually fraught with empty "limbo" gaps.  

 This past week, I've curiously had two students that effectively can sing vowels from almost down to F# on the low E string, all the way past E 3 octaves higher without breaking, mixed into falsetto past E5.  E2-E5+, not necessarily great sounding, but pure tones.  

 One student seems to favor what I suppose is a counter-tenor range - he can squeak out ridiculously high notes out to maybe A5 while still being able to go down to maybe G2, the other a bari-tenor that can make notes below E2 while still going past E5.  Both sail through octaves mixed with smooth transitions.  Both should be able to get across singing that suits what they like to play on guitar.  

 It will be interesting to see what they do with what they have....

A Switch to the Inane

  I'm afraid that I can no longer post what was previously "conceptual" posts here.

 I've seen that I've been data mined.  I need to pivot to doing video.

 Instead I'll be posting a more droll recap of the lesson week, as I do elsewhere.  If by some chance someone comes across this - look at my past posts for more .... intellectually nutritious writing.  Sorry.

 This past week in guitar lessons:

 How shall I do this, differently than elsewhere?  I'll pick a concept t that stands out.

 There is a Blues Trope Song I've been showing students for decades, as an introduction to blues phrasing/technique.  I've presently got 2 students doing this song, that both started it at almost the same time.

 It's interesting to see what is similar in both students, and what is different.  

 Almost immediately, from the outset there is a divergence in what causes a problem.  With one, it's phrasing caused by trying to play the hardest part too fast.  With the other, it's phrasing caused by initiating the part *before* the hardest part that was hurting his phrasing.

 A simple study in chaos math.  Initial conditions in both means that, 3 weeks on, they're now both working on completely different aspects.  Both were approximately of a similar skill level, but again it's always curious how different people can be.  

 Which again points to a blurb for guitar lessons: watching a video isn't going to help.  There are too many mechanical things involved, timing and phrasing aspects, that can be missed or corrupted if left unchecked.  Each student had about 5 things going on for each lesson that addressed habits that would become a hindrance later, if they had kept doing them.  Alternately, they were things that would have prevented them from progressing into the song/concept at all.  These kind of things unsupervised, probably accounts for so many people buying a guitar, only to put it down after a few months....

  

 

The Divergence of Common Awareness of Ai and Musicians

  It's been obvious that there is a growing divergence between people who know, partially understand ai - neural network based technology, its current state and people who are unaware.  

 Or, worse, think it's capabilities are "science fiction".

 Likewise, I'm seeing this happen in musician circles.  Particularly with people referencing currently available real-neural network based music software, but also with the tertiary uses of LLMs and retrieval based voice replacement technology.

 There isn't even any cognitive dissonance.  There are simply a lot of people who think:

- Neural net based guitar software is "nothing new, it's been done before".  They think it's another variation on either digital eq, or one shot impulse response convolution;

- Voice replacement, "deep fake" software is either doing something with replaying samples, or is again, a technology that requires Impossible Technology that won't exist for many years.

 There may be a limitation on some people, as far as what they know of computer technology itself, that prevents comprehension of the revolution that is going on.  There may also be subconscious pushback happening, against what seems frightening and alienating.

 Regardless, there is a gap forming that is larger than what happened when digital recording took over.  Back when that happened, there were a lot of people that insisted "it will never be as good as a professional tape machine", that it was too complicated and limited to become a mainstream thing.  I am quite sure there are people who have effectively given up on a profession of recording, not because the music industry has fallen off, but because they literally got left behind because of their beliefs.

  As an aside, there is something similar happening in the computer repair/otaku world.  There seems to be many "tech advisors" that are totally unaware of the shift of graphic cards going from gaming to ai.  Some say things in response to hearing/reading press releases from NVidia (and others), that makes no sense - they're literally not accepting that GPU technology is being steered towards ai, and not video games. 

 There will be many disenfranchised musicians. 

 

That Time They Made Dark Side of the Moon New Coke

(... a warning to my guitar lesson students: if you bring this subject up be prepared for a whorling vortex of invective against this release.  I have not listened beyond the first 4 bars of "Breathe"; there is no point.  My vexation by this has ruined my day, and is probably only matched by my opinions about the abominations known as "Star Wars Episodes VII, VII and IX")

Gahr.  Someone decided to "make better" what is probably the closest to a perfect record that has ever been made?

It's of course, much louder.  Which in the 21st century means "better".

In doing this, they've changed the nature of the way the volume peaks change, and the way the low end sounds dynamically, and the tonal balance shifts around as the compression messes with it.

The way the volume peaks from the screaming intro is faster now. *The rate of which that occurs - which I presume came from Alan Parson's hand - is now different*.

The bass doesn't decay correctly.  The quarter notes previously poked out and then faded PERFECTLY.  IMO, this is one of the most important Pink Floyd signatures.  I remember that as a kid hearing it, *in my memory* it's a significant effect: boom BOOM baboom BOOooomm BOOM BOOM booboom...

Now it's just BOOM BOOM BOO BOOOOOMMM BOOMMM...

Ahrgh.

Likewise, the guitar strums are squashed down.  Despite the overall level being louder, the initial attack character of the guitar is gone.  The opening Em add9 is the OPENING SIGNATURE TO THE ALBUM.  It washes into the track.

 Now you have to "squint" as you listen to hear it at the start.  

And because of the overall level now being a completely different LUFS value, the entire vibe has been affected.  The pulse (ironic) of the low end is different.  The bass has to throb, the guitar has to have a "tinkly" effect - and level balanced to the bass (which it no longer is thanks to limiting/compression).  

 THE ADSR CHARACTERISTICS OF THIS RECORD IS SACRED.   

 I'm sure a lot of Monet paintings could be "made better" by color correcting sky tones, making the reds pop out more, maybe make some of the orientation more 16:9 friendly.  

Ahrgh.   #Ihatethe21stcentury.

Post AGI, Guitar and Art: Are You Tired of the Over Impressive Gimmick Yet?

  The end of human civilization, thousands of different ways?

 Eventually, "soon", there will be a robot that plays guitar solos.  Anyone want to take a bet?  Maybe even "rotoscoped" from video.  

 There is no reason it won't happen.  

Fake A.I. Prompted Image I Made Using DALL E

 
 What does that mean for the human pursuit of technical, kinesthetic facility?

 Nothing.  It will turn off a lot of people.  It will diminish the social perspective on another human accomplishment.  Will that change what you do, musically?

 It makes no difference to me.  I will continue to play guitar, and try to create what's in my head, a potpourri of different influences.  Influences that can be turned into a prompt for a LLM (large language model) like ChatGPT4, coupled to some sort of a GAN/ML audio generating system.  

 Except, making a prompt for a future LLM that will output exactly what I want will NOT be exactly what I want.  The detail required is redundant; I may as well do it myself.

 What I look forward to will be better SOUNDING tools, that are easier to deal with.  There will be "Engineer Mr. Scott from Star Trek" creators, directing a.i. to output art.  Which will be as fanciful and overblown as what we see today.

 Unfortunately for talented painters, illustrators, a.i. text prompts are cranking out Epic Landscapes like Doritos in a bag. It's gotten kind of boring, hasn't it?  For myself it has; I see people are still enthralled by endless comic book "kinesthetic super power display" movies, maybe it's no different?  

 I'm still as interested in French impressionism.  I still want to go see Monet, Renoir paintings in real life.  Am I imagining a subtle quality that I think I see, the human not in the machine?

 I don't think so.

 There is a difference between the Immediate Presentation - the first sip of Mountain Dew, versus the gestalt of it.  Don't we all know we're looking at something artificial, when viewing whatever Amazing Visual a.i. cranks out?

 Music seems to be lagging the visual.  It's way further along than most people realize, but it's just barely dipping it's toe in the Uncanny Valley.  But it will come out the other side eventually, soon.  

 But again, I doubt something will come out that affects everyone, universally, the way McCartney's "Yesterday" does, or Bach's "Air on the G String" does.  

 Not at first.

 The thing I don't look forward to is when some sociopath decides to train outputs based on human reinforced alignment from an emotion standpoint.  Because it's going to happen, and not for the right reasons.  Visuals, video, music, that is designed to affect humans emotionally. 

 Perhaps to a degree we're not prepared for.  This could be just one a.i. apocalypse scenario.  That sounds overblown if you're not aware of where the technology is already, but just consider the ramifications of such a thing.  The perfect car commercial, video and music that is subtly affecting you.  Or things in social media affecting in ways you're not aware of.  

 If we survive that, what's left is being intrinsically unique as a human.  What can you do that makes you a human?  Skillsets you have decided upon.  Accomplishments that you have bothered to do, from your will power.  Because at that moment, what I think we see now as the YouTube Effect - a futility based on being overwhelmed - will seemingly cover everything.

 We'll have to either try to be immune to it - reject seeing or listening to any media, lest we be swayed by the a.i. - or push past it *despite* it.   Or do we turn into non-emotional, grey aliens in a 100 years?  

 You are the sum of your experiences, trained in reality. Learning to appreciate music, guitar playing, is something an a.i. cannot do, because it will never have the context of being a human.  

 

Learn Guitar from Alan Alda?

   I saw an interesting little bit of advice from Alan "Hawkeye Pierce" Alda yesterday.  

 The gist of it was, 

repeat things you're trying to tell someone 3 times, 3 different ways.

 

With the additional aspect of

 only try to remember / learn 3 things at once, no more.

 I think Alda is a brilliant actor, but also has some pithy, wise things to say.  In the above, I think it's something I wish I could do better as a guitar teacher; convey a new concept or technique consistently 3 different ways, 3 times.  

 I've tried to do something like this as par for the course, but what Alda adds to the process is the (obvious) part whereby the person you are communicating with needs to be at the point of "oh yeah, yeah, right, I've got it" when you're at that third repeat.  

 I will tend to try to not annoy when I think a person has it; but perhaps that is wrong?  I probably should take it to that 3rd, "ok, you're annoying me" point?

 I'm not sure.

 But what I am sure about, is the part about remembering only 3 things.

 A lot of students want to cram as much as possible into a lesson.  My personal perspective is that the optimal lesson doesn't require me to send notes to the student, the student is familiar enough with the concept after the lesson that they know what to do without a reminder, for the following 7 days until the next guitar lesson.

 Alda's Limitation (as I'm going to coin it) is pretty logical, and concise.  If you think about most things you do, or want to do, do you really grasp or fully accomplish things when taken in more than 3 steps?

 I don't think so.  At least not when it comes to learning how to play guitar,

 The takeaway to this being, you should lean into to more fully digesting no more than 3 concepts/ideas/techniques in one go on guitar, at a time.  You're diluting your effort, and probably practically wasting your time otherwise.  It may seem *possible*, but that's not the same thing as *optimal*.

  

#1 Guitar Lesson Issue in the Year 2023?

  Skipping the fun.

 What do I mean by that?

 The fun of playing guitar is.....

PLAYING GUITAR.

 In my opinion, you should be playing along to music 10x or more than doing any kind of exercise.  Not only that, but for the most part, an "exercise" should really be in the context of a song.

 

 You don't wait until you reach Magical Guitar Wizard level before playing to a recording.  You do it constantly.  It is the best practice in itself, even when you're playing something you *think* is "easy".  Doing repetition never hurts your technique or skill.  If you only know one little part of a song - do it over and over and over, until it's like breathing.   

 You'll get much more benefit for the time put into it than doing 4 different things separately, by themselves, as an exercise.   The more you do something "professionally", the more professional you become.

ENNUI: Guitar Lesson Observations Today

The number one problem I'm seeing "these days" is 

ENNUI.

 A feeling of listlessness or lack of excitement.

 

  I think I grok the base cause of this, although it's very much hidden behind layers of Modern Sociological Sludge.

 Every major music genre - EVERY one, classical, baroque, big band, modern jazz, rock and roll, country, metal, nu-metal, mathcore, whatever - was energized in the following way:

1) An initial cadre of people struck out on their own, doing something that was unique and possibly heretical/unrelated to the "mainstream".

2) By serendipity what they were doing happened to get popular.  It's not necessarily by being great on it's own initially; it was the right thing at the right time.  

3) Secondary to that, people get excited - and build on it.   The excitement propels people forward, gets them to create and DO THINGS.

4)... until something new comes along.

  There isn't a clear cut New and Shiny Thing as there has been in the past.

 Step 1 is started by pioneers.  When you have a SUCCESSFUL pioneer, you don't see all of the unsuccessful ones.  People who may be equally worthy, but were at the wrong place at the wrong time.

 Jumping into music at Step 3 is easiest.  The problem is, we're at step 4.


  But the thing is, there is excitement to be had.  Buddy Holly didn't know he was going to be a star; not even the Beatles at first.  Eddie Van Halen, Jimi Hendrix are stars, but is Tosin Abasi a "star"?  How about Yngwie Malmsteen?   For all of these people, whether they're considered "stars" or not, they sort of pioneered a new style of music, with no distinct expectations.

 If we didn't know their names - and perhaps the reader *doesn't know who all of them are* - does it matter to them?  They were doing what they wanted to do, in a UNIQUE manner.  McCartney and Lennon didn't bemoan trying to write music that sounded EXACTLY like Elvis, they had fun writing music.  Music that was derivative at first, but after the initial 50 songs as they say, they got to the good stuff.  

 You've got to have a pioneer attitude today.  It's the time, and the way things work now is that by the time you realize Step 2 or 3 is happening, you're really back at Step 4 again.  

 So you may as well do your own thing, and get started with it now.

 

Review: "Eleanor Rigby" from Revolver (Deluxe), by the Beatles, 2022 release

  (I just zoomed through Taxman before I thought this might make a decent blog entry....)

Eleanor Rigby

(I made this in conjunction with an a.i.; don't blame me, I can
actually draw better than this but not as quickly...)

Vocals sound "carefully" de-essed.  Fricatives are all tamped down.  

Uhg.   Ok, I just listened to the 2009 remastered version, 2000 "1" version.  I definitely prefer the *overall* eq choices I've heard so far on the 2022 version.  For instance, 

2000 Version 

- a bit puffy/squashed at about 192 hz.  There is a wide-band forward sound at 2k I associate (correctly or not) with the REDD 51 recording console sound; and a forward 3.6k (R127 "Presence box" no doubt) and ~7k bump, which I associate with what I know to their predilection at the time for cranking the treble; the boost was a 10k IIRC, but there are a number of factors that create harmonics below that in the 3-8k region.

 The attack time of the compression is "not perfect".   Nor is the release.  Notice you can hear Paul take a breath after "waits at the window... (inhale) wearing the *F*ace.."; on "F"ace the 2000 version has more low mids IMO than the 2022 version, which seems to favor having more of the fricative present at the expense of a thinner fundamental.  This keeps intelligibility, and sounds more "hi-fi" in that it gives the ear more "ticklish" harmonics to hear, but... it's a post-66 decision.  

2009 Version

 Wide band harmonic boost around 384hz, "controlled" below that.  This I would associate with the Kool Factor at the time, adding Kool "toob" harmonics to a recording *that didn't exist before*, while at the same time limiting activity in the bass register, which allows the level to seem "louder".  At the same time, there is a slight high frequency roll off.  Which could either be exaggerated "tape roll off", or the addition of adding Tape Effect to make it More Better.  Regardless, if you swap back and forth between this version and the 2022 the effect is "very dull".  Maybe the tape sounded this way and they left it alone.

Note that on the same "face that she keeps" line, the "ssss" sound of the end of the word "face" is allowed through, but the "fffff" of "*F*ace" is not.  A curious difference in mix limiting/compression.  This kind of thing is super subtle, but *how the sibilance/fricatives of enunciation hit you IS A RHYTHM*.  This is the kind of almost-subliminal thing that I believe falls into the "what makes a recording "magical"" to most people, and is ultra tricky to do.  

 While the vocal is panned, the ascending counter melody on the violin is centered, and back.

 It's also something I think that the original gear, from beginning to end, both suited the Beatles perfectly in the era, but also that *there was an unconscious awareness of responding to it, and acting accordingly*.  In other words, they were hearing the playback(s); and consider the notion that Paul could hear how much enunciation was happening on certain words, and perhaps subconsciously altering the performance.  Tinkering with the basic ballistics of the ADSR might sound "better", but be an artistic dichotomy to what was intended.

 Which gets back to "I'd really like to just buy the original uncompressed multitracks", but that's a tangent...

 2022 Version: 

  Equalized much better.  In that there are no euphonic frequencies, nothing sticks out.  The previously mentioned 3.5k is not there.

 On the other hand, there are no euphonic frequencies and nothing sticks out.  

 Which is kind of part of the charm of the early half of the Beatles catalog.  Maybe?  Vocals are not panned to the side.  There is wayyyy more clarity to the cello/strings decay, among other things: this is not how it would have sounded as Paul heard playbacks.  

 So it's philosophy: I don't have any anger towards this mix, but it's perhaps not what I would want as an alternate mix.  It has much more "clarity" thanks to technology, but the vocal has a thinner sound as de-essing is maybe pushing the fundamental down.  It's also a bit louder.  It sounds more in your face, but also IMO "processed" eq wise/dynamics ADSR wise.  It distracts me, but probably not the Average Listener.  

 But I'm not sure having a more... sonically fluorescent vocal suits the nature of the song.  It not longer sounds documentarian, in that his lyric is commenting on a situation.  On the 2022 version it's IN YOUR FACE and LISTEN TO THIS STORY I'M TELLING YOU.  

 Which is very 21st century.  A subjective choice that is neither right or wrong.  There is also some doubling on the vocal during the verses.  This does not suit the "standing back and commenting" nature of the song IMO.   It also doesn't allow the chorus "ahhhs" to come in with the doubling-richness impact as much.

Violin is hard panned.  I like that the counter melody is more upfront, and actually has some dynamics.  The strings sound fantastic on this version.   

(.... my dog Wylee is barking at the delivery person outside, a good cue to end I suppose....)

 

 

Christmas Guitar Gift Advice from a Wizened Experienced Guitar Teacher

 Christmas guitar gifts fall into 2 categories:

1) Mundane-Not Exciting but Useful and Needed

2) Exciting and Fun - but not Needed and Possibly Expensive

 In the first category are the usual suspects:

Pedal tuner for the more advanced guitarist;

Clip on tuner for the beginner;

3 pack of strings;

NOT a strap - a personal thing that is akin to choosing shoes for someone else...

NOT string cleaners/spray on cleaners/String Ease;

A metronome;

A computer audio interface (either Steinberg or Focusrite brands);

Decent guitar cable (no vinyl ends);

Possibly an Ibanez Tube Screamer clone pedal (just about any cheap pedal that claims to be a "distortion pedal" that is colored green...)

In the second category:

A NEW GUITAR (see my previous blog posts)

A NEW AMP (Boss Katana if a beginner; see my previous blog posts...)

A Line 6 DL-4 delay pedal (don't forget an extra patch cable is needed);

A Miku Stomp pedal (hard to explain, in this situation YouTube is best...);

.. and that literally is about all I could safely recommend!  Sorry - I do not wish to recommend something I don't think a semi-random guitar player might not need or like.  On the other hand, I'm fairly confident of the above as far as the reader being made aware.  

Christmas Gift Guitar Amps

  As in my previous post, around this time is when I'm asked not only for "what beginner guitar should I get?" but also "what guitar amp?'".

 Beginner amps - or so to say, "very cheap" amps are a tossup these days.   But (and again, I am not sponsored or compensated by anybody for these reviews) there are 2 answers for "very cheap" beginner amps:

 Brand new, the Boss Katana mini.  small, light, portable (can be battery powered), and covers all of the basic sounds one needs - for $100:

Boss Katana Mini

 

 HOWEVER...

 It is my claim that the number of amps and guitars on the planet is an ever increasing number.  You should be able to find some sort of an amp for $50 on Craigslist, OR alternately, I also claim the Kevin Bacon effect applies to guitars and amps: if you ask around, SOMEBODY you know has one or the other sitting unused in a closet at home.  In others, for FREE.   

 YOU DON'T NEED TO PAY MORE THAN $100 FOR A BEGINNER GUITAR AMP IN THE YEAR 2022.

 Having said that as a second amp, or for just a little bit more at $230, is the full-size

Boss Katana (50 watt combo)

 This is another Amazing Thing in the 21st century.  This amp is loud enough to gig with, has literally all the effects one needs, sounds "almost" as good as a much more expensive tube guitar amp, and (importantly) weighs ~25 lbs.????

 This amp is literally a back saver.  The number of little gigs I've done where I had to bring a 50 lbs. amp, and a suitcase of pedals that this amp could have been used for is ridiculous.  I bought one of these to use in my office (when I had one before covid, I'm now only giving lessons online) and now it sits next to me at home, while my vintage Marshall still remains in disrepair and my finicky VHT Princeton clone is unused.

 Not exactly recommended as a "beginner amp" because it has wayyyy more controls and features than one really needs, and can be very overwhelming, but - not a bad choice, because it's definitely an amp a beginner can grow into.

Christmas Gift Guitars for Beginners: Stainless Frets and Torrified Wood?

  This time of year I usually get calls about "can you recommend a guitar to me for a beginner?" (even before people sign up for lessons....  hmmm). 

(note: I have not been paid by this company or received any recompense for this review...)

 My previous go-to answer was to look for the Monoprice stratocaster copy,   They still seem to be one of the best deals, although in the past year or so models from EART seem to have stepped up - I'd say try to get one of these for $188:

EART Strat

 It's effectively a fully professional guitar, but also has 2 very notable features previously not found on a guitar in this sub-$200 price range, in that it has polished stainless steel frets and a "roasted"/torrified neck and body.

 The stainless steel frets, for the average player, will effectively hold their polish and not wear out.  In the Old Days not only did we not have stainless steel frets, on sub-$500 guitars the frets were made out of a cheap, soft alloy that started to wear with very little playing.  This wear affects the playability of the guitar over the period of years.  With stainless frets effectively the guitar should play the same for the life of the instrument.

 Which brings me to the second part, the "roasted or "torrified" neck and body.   I previously couldn't make the statement "it should play the same for the life of the instrument", because wood tends to do things in different environments when it gets cold/warm, or exposed to humidity/dry air.  "Roasted" means the wood has literally been baked in an oven for a period of time, at a very specific temperature.  This does 2 very good things:

1) removes moisture from the wood;

2) "caramelizes" the lignin, which is to say effectively makes the resin act as epoxy, it becomes harder/stiffer.

 The first thing is good because it means it is much less likely to want to warp or change it's dimensionallity due to temperature/climate conditions.  Wood is not a perfect material, and guitar necks have been known to warp when furnaces are used in the winter, or A/C in the summer creates strange moist-to-dry situations.  This is due to the wood expelling and taking up moisture.  

 When torrified, not only is there no water to want to evaporate out of the wood, the caramelization acts as a sealant that keeps it from wanting to absorb moisture.  

  Which is a good thing, but an even better thing IMO is that because it makes it stiffer, it SOUNDS significantly better.   Without a doubt, I am of the opinion the the reason *some* old guitars are so prized for their sound is due to the fact that after 30+ years, if the neck hasn't warped it's due to both the having successfully dried out AND the caramelization process starting naturally.

 Roasting/torrification does both in one go.  I claim the "vintage guitar" sound, and the seemingly random variability of older guitars sounding better or worse than another, is mostly down to how naturally the wood has dried out.  Roasted necks will create a nicer sound, and also a louder, more reactive sound.   

 These two things, stainless steel frets and roasted wood, I think are the most important inventions in guitar in the past 50 years.  That you can get both on a guitar that's less than $200 is incredible.  The rest of the guitar, pickups, bridge and tuners are also very high quality, as is the quality of the nut.  Effectively in every respect a professional guitar for less than I paid for my first Hondo guitar in 1984 that was lower quality in every respect!  

 

WHY PEOPLE ARGUE ABOUT GUITAR "TONE"

 The problem with this age old argument is that most "guitar players" start forming ideas about what they *think* they like long before they have anywhere near the intellectual acumen to actually comprehend what it is they are hearing.

 VARIABLE #1:

 The cognitive dissonance of "most guitar players" seeking a Magical Sound they hear on a recording - without being able to subtract out the recording process itself.   How can you have a favorite amp, without a favorite speaker, microphone, ambience preference, recording eq/bandwidth?

VARIABLE #2:

 No experience with all of the permutations.  Never played a Tele, lipstick pickups, Jensen alnicos, a bottom cabinet next to a top cabinet, a 57 versus a LD, small diaphragm, etc. - but people try to integrate their *limited* experience with what they again think they're perceiving on a *recording*.

 VARIABLE #3:

 Insisting on a monolithic superlative.  As in, "THIS" is the BEST amp!   And then arguing about it with zero context.  

 This is the 21st century in a nutshell: not only no concern for context, but complete ignorance of the premise.  Nobody bothers to look into anything anymore, whether it's diving into music/songs, or what has been used to make the sound/recording.  Country guitar players arguing with metal guitar players about "tone"?  Queen fans arguing with Hendrix fans about amps?  

 VARIABLE #4:

 Random acceptance/application of physics and non-linear complexity.   People will wind their strings backwards over their tailpiece and attribute magic to it, but have no preference for frets.  A preference for a wood, "because", but no preference for weight/density that can vary 20%.  Preference for one piece body, but doesn't care about slab fretboard vs. one piece maple.  

 Want to sound like Stevie Ray Vaughn?  Don't play a Les Paul and a JCM800.   Want to sound like VanHalen?  Don't buy a Deluxe ri and a Tele.  If you *really* want a Famous Guitarist's Sound*, JUST BUY WHAT THEY USED.    You'll be 95% there, and if you can't play like them that's not the gear's fault.   But the bottom line is that the caroming-gear buffet syndrome is from either not knowing what you really like, or understanding it, or *not actually wanting to find out*.

Reverb is the Starfield of Music?

  This blog isn't always about guitar lessons.   Stand by for a very abstract post.....

 "Reverb is the Starfield of Music"

Or so I claim.

In science fiction movies, the starfield sets the tone.  

 In 2001: a Space Odyssey, it's understated.  The stars are not too bright, colorful or lurid.  They don't move.  You don't see them zooming by out if a porthole.  

Realistic.  

As the backdrop to the 2nd act of the movie, it defines what the movie sets out to do at that point: pull you in by trying not to defeat the illusion of "real".  In less realistic movies, maybe sci-fi shows from before the 90s, you had bright stars flying past a window on a starship: all the same color, same size.  Not as realistic, BUT - perhaps within the "creative universe" of said show.   Both a budget-restricted pragmatic choice, but maybe also a simple, quick way of communicating "you're in a starship traveling in a direction".

 Likewise, reverb on recordings once was based solely on analog gear, not unlike the analog "practical" effects of science fiction movies of yesteryear.   While the gear was primitive - springs, sheet metal plates, empty rooms with tiled walls - there was no Uncanny Valley to cross.   

 But just like the early days of computer graphics in movies, when digital came into recording it wasn't necessarily convincing.  Like early CG science fiction effects, you knew it kind of represented something but wasn't perfectly realistic.   It was good enough, and again, a pragmatic solution to production.

 Some music in the 80s suffers from this, although some just wallows in Artificial Modulated Reverb.  The early Sting recordings come to mind, Queensryche's _Operation Mind Crime_, some others.   Like the starship Enterprise in _Star Trek: the Next Generation_, something BIG was doing SOMETHING in a BIG SPACE.   You knew it wasn't real, but it was its own art form in a sense.   

  Post 80s bands started wanting real drum sounds in actual rooms, and for awhile Big Room Sounds supplanted the artifice of Lexicon digital reverbs.  Similarly, science fiction movies have started to reject the early efforts of George Lucas to use digital technology to "enhance" (ahem..) classic movies.   For some movies the look and feel *was* "computer graphics" (Tron, Terminator 2, the Abyss, et al) but when it was mixed in after the fact, the contrast wrecked the production.

 Recordings, being cheaper and much more common by orders of magnitude, have gone through this iteration already.  The Bricastic hardware digital reverb, digital convolution reverbs, have started pulling recording out of the Uncanny Valley somewhat, but some recordings are still prone to having peculiar combinations of "spaces" that are incongruent.  

 Just as some sci-fi movies feature a lot of exterior special effects, that "place" you in that world, others are more careful and spartan with the use of depicting space.   On recordings, the same thing occurs: the reverb tone, sound, and amount is the backdrop for a recording.   

 

 

The Sunset Sound YouTube channel

    I'm surprised this YouTube channel isn't referenced more.

 Sunset Sound is a famous California recording studio that's been around for a lonnng time.   While Dave Grohl has made Sound City famous in a pop culture context, Sunset Sound has been left on the back burner it seems, despite being ground zero for the Beach Boys, Doors, Led Zeppelin, Van Halen, Prince, Red Hot Chili Peppers, Metallica, and many more.

 The great thing about the channel is that they bring on engineers (and other "orbiting" personnel) to talk - extremely candidly - about the recording processes of these famous bands and their associated famous recordings. 
 
 There are other channels that do fairly intensive dives into recording *techniques*, but Sunset Sound's channel is a bit different in that it is done in the actual studio itself, and often by people that were there.  For other things (like the video linked below), they go into a deep dive from a "historical documentary" standpoint, more than a technical one, which I think may be more interesting for the less experienced/more casual musician.   

 For fans of Van Halen and Prince, there is more untold info here than anywhere.  It's really curious why it's not caught on as much as some other channels, but regardless one should look into it for a good retelling of "the way things were" procedurally for recording "back in the day" when recording contracts provided ample money for proper artistic capturing of music.  

 Before music was made on computers, it was done in places like this by people vetted by other established professionals, with a lot of hard work.  When music wasn't free and throw away, things were different....

 

 

A Good Tool Set

   I like to equate guitar skills to "tools".  

"Non-contextural Dog Serenade at Giverny"

  Guitar phrasing is very idiomatic to guitar.  Much of what the "sound" of the guitar is happens because of the physical execution of the musical phrase.  It's what is particularly challenging and rewarding about learning the guitar.

 TOOLS

 People learning how to use a hammer first, then maybe a screwdriver?  They don't start with an angle grinder, or a specialized tool like a Kreg milling jig.  They also don't consider printing something out with a 3d printer to be "using a tool", although maybe you can make a tool with a 3d printer?

 You also don't learn how to use Every Possible Tool At the Same Time.  

 When you see a professional use a tool, whether it's a guitarist or a carpenter on _This Old House_, you're not seeing the years of effort that went into learning the craft of it.  The master machinist didn't just turn on a lathe a few months ago.  And he certainly knows how to use a screwdriver, identify the different types of screws, thread offsets, metal hardness of a screw, on and on.  Things that are not as visible as the use of a lathe, but are requirements to understand the PROCESS of "being a machinist".  

 Also, something that is a CRAFT isn't worth much if it can be mastered in a few months.  Or years.   Learning a CRAFT is rewarding in the context of the effort and results; "free" results with no effort is not rewarding.  

 Each little technique on guitar is a tool to learn and master, but they're SINGULAR tools in a "tool box" of skills.  Every guitar player as a different toolbox; in essence, that IS the guitar player.  Most all have some tools inside that are the same, but the assortment and make are different.  Some have more than others, some take pride in really knowing how to use a few very effectively.

 Learning guitar is a CRAFT that requires TOOLS, but it's not everything at once, instantly....

Procedural Djent Shouldn't Surprise You (and it's not A.I.)

    The reader may or may not be aware of the following video:

 

 For starters, one should know this has nothing to do with artificial intelligence or machine learning.   So the that being the angle that this sort of has become viral around is misinformation and confusing.  

 What this is, is a penultimate iteration of a concept and technology that has been around for decades.  The premise of reducing the creation of music to an algorithm is not new, it's been postulated since the 60s.  The defining factor has been the nature of the technology of reproducing the sound of the procedural approach.  We now have tools available on our desktop or laptop computers to create effectively any sound, and trigger it from a list of numbers (MIDI) representing notes and volume level.

 The process he outlines in another video, so I'm not going into that here.  BUT, what I'd like to point out that he doesn't go into, is that music has two elements to it: math, and human chaos.  He simulates some of that human feel with randomness, but *near* randomness is what humans do best - and what scarily could be used to modify this process to yield something that would be IMO more interesting.

 That's not the same as saying it would have *human character*.  The novel nature of the *context* of human existence allows for a chaotic influence a computer can't have for now.  A computer isn't going to be "perfectly sloppy" like Keith Richards or Kurt Cobain, not in the same way, because it has no context of the physicality of being a human or the choices made that goes into being a human doing a process.
 
 I'm not surprised by this 10 hour djent video, because I've been saying this was going to happen for years.  Because - when you create music whose basic concept is mathematical complexity, you're in turn restricting the human chaotic aspect.  Being enthralled by complexity is a gimmick IMO, and is why I've sort of turned away from "complex music" in the past years.  Being hard to play, or hard to remember, has nothing to do with what music is about in my book.
  
 In fact , thinking about it... somewhere on "here" I made a blog post lonnnnng ago (but in this galaxy) about having to take notes about the tuplet (rhythmic groupings) of a song a student wanted to learn, because it resembled a _Dune_ novel translated to Morse code in its mathematical sequencing:  

 -.---.-...-.-.-..-.-.

...---...

 That Frederick Thordendahl makes some very intellectually interesting combinations of sequential patterns doesn't mean I want to listen to it.  The organization of sound makes "music"; creating something that is deliberate meant to be almost disorganized in human perception is an interesting idea, but it's not a *human* one.  Listening to ocean surf is one of the most pleasant things in the world to me, but I don't want to listen, or create, hours of faux-chaotic washes of white noise.  I'm sure it could be done in an "artful" fashion, that is again complex, and "amazing" in how it mimics actual surf sound - but LIFE IS TOO SHORT.

 A lot of Bach's music can be turned into algorithms.  It was some of the first music to be attempted to procedurally reproduced.  The results have been similar, it "sounds like Bach", but lacks the human element.  Which isn't adding randomness to imply "human", but is much, much more sophisticated: 

it's missing a human *guided by human experience*, with a bit of randomness around the edges as *the result of trying to shape the result*.  Not just randomness *without context*.  

 Which is why I can't really listen to "modern" metal.  It's wrecked by Occam's Razor.  The closer people, bands, get to "perfection in execution and complexity" the further they get from humanity.  The old school proto-metal bands - Black Sabbath, Led Zeppelin, et al - by today's standards should be "inferior", they lacked the complexity and perfection of a modern metal production.   But they're *heavier*, more immense sounding, because it's the *human* element that made it *rock and roll*.   10 hours of algorithmically perfect djent is interesting, but it's like admiring the complexity of a computer circuit board.  It's a depiction of a process that starts to *appear* to be something akin to "art", *but it's not art*.

 The real issue here is that people have lost the ability to judge the difference between art and something that is "near" art. 

Paint splatters is not a Jackson Pollock painting, and random scribbled line is not Picasso.  This only resembles art.

IMO.....

Fall Means More Guitar Playing?

 Yes.

 As the weather becomes less conducive to being outside, "magically" people tend to play guitar more.   There is something to be said for bands that come out of northern latitudes, who both have reasons to stay inside more as well as basements available for bands to practice in.

 At the same time, cooler temperatures also means less muscle flexibility.  I find a distinct need for more warm up time when inside temperature struggle to stay above 70 degrees; something you may not notice, until you ask your muscles to perform fine movements at speed.

 

Finishing Paint on a Kit Guitar Body

  I sanded off the finish I made.

 I'd previously found Tamiya had a pearl orange lacquer that I liked, but apparently in the past few years they've changed the tint a fair amount.  A waste of time and money.

 So my next adventure is to try another drip, using clear lacquer and a couple of specific mica pearl pigments.  

 This is maybe my favorite style of finish, because each guitar painted this way is as unique as a transparent wood finish.  It almost has a "metallic grain" effect, depending on how you do it.  Each one is unique, and has a bit of natural chaos to it that holds attention IMO.

 But it's super finicky and tricky.  I've done a silver based one before that came out ok - but using Rustoleum silvers.  Which has made be brazen enough to try it again, but with lacquer and the actual pigments I want.

Primer Finished on Guitar Body, Humidity is Something One Should Really Consider

  After days of being at the whimsy of the local humidity, I've finally finished the primer on the kit guitar body.

 

  It seems this year, what used to be the monsoon season is now dragged out into an all-summer long rainy season.  We're really turning tropical here in North Augusta South Carolina it would seem.

  I don't recall having to go so many days waiting for the humidity to come down in previous builds.  Starting maybe 6-7 years ago, the monsoon rain phenomenon appeared, but in between long dry periods.  Apparently this is no longer the case.  We've gotten a few monsoons, but also day after day of rain.

 Which really makes it nearly impossible to paint a guitar if you're doing it on a Peasant Level as I've had to do.  Another curious aspect of life in the 21st century: "Micro-windows For Optimal Paint Application".  

 It's made me realize that in the future, if I'm refinishing a guitar it's probably going to have to be a stain.

  

Humidity: Primering and Sanding Latest Guitar Body

 August and September didn't use to be "the raining season".

 North Augusta South Carolina is typically a very humid place; but now that it rains every day the humidity seldom drops below 80-90%+.  So I have to monitor the humidity, wait for it to drop to < 70% relative humidity, tack cloth and spray.  

 This does not bode well.  Ahrgh.

Yet Another Kit Guitar Problem #1

Due to it raining every day - the hummidity is too high to primer/paint. A sure fire way of messing up a budget paint job is painting with the relative humidity over 70%. Maybe borderline below that. For a moment yesterday it was around 58%, but I was preoccupied with something else. "Oh well". Meanwhile I've got parts laying around.

Yet Another Kit Guitar?

I've got a new guitar body on the way. ( no, it doesn't look like the picture below. Hopefully...)

I've got enough guitars. Maybe 10? Enough that I have to really think about it to know. The problem is: - most all of them are in various states of repair; - only one I would typify as a "light" guitar; - I've decided to consolidate as much as I can towards vintage Fender bridge string spacing. Lots of guitars laying around that don't work is a waste. They may as well not be in the same room as I am, taking up space (some are not...). They also don't fix themselves (usually). Don't do as I do. I need a "really light" guitar. I have had a guitar slung over my shoulder, or resting on my leg, for many hours a day, every day, for *decades*. This is probably not good for my health. I don't want to wait until I have a problem with my back, so I actually need a light guitar to use "most of the time". The only guitar I'd say is actually light is an '82 Japanese Fuji-Gen built Squier Stratocaster, which would be fine except it has small, worn frets. I may or may not eventually refret it; the problem is that it's value has gone from $200 when I bought it (the second time...) to close to or over $1,000. I've figured out I picked more consistently on Fender vintage spacing. Also that I prefer the sound of vintage Fender strat saddles. Which poses a problem since a lot of my quiver is based on Floyd Rose bridges. So I'm trying to recombine what I think is the best sounding neck I have with a vintage strat spaced bridge, on a hopefully very light basswood body. Which is another revelation: I'm quite sure I prefer basswood. Too long to go into, but if one isn't going to go the heavy/dense route, basswood has the liveliest resonance IMO - enough so that it translates to the saddles, an in turn the string.

That's my story and I'm sticking to it...

Artificial Intelligence / Machine Learning in Guitar Sims is NOT "Amp Moddeling"

Suddenly, across multiple musician-based forums, as well as social media I've seen people now acknowledging that, yes, machine learning is going to be the Next Big Thing in music. There is still much cognitive dissonance. I see people referencing the Kemper's process of using test tones as being related to "artificial intelligence" and "machine learning". I have also seen people reference circuit modeling as being the same, and again - it is not.

Having the word "Neural" in a companie's name also doesn't mean they're automatically doing something a.i./ML related. On the otherhand, I know that the company IK Multimedia IS claiming to be coming out with a machine learning based guitar sim system soon, that I eagerly await to see how it works. It's not the first ML based guitar sim. On github there are a few, but they're fairly basic (although very useable if one is technically savvy). IK Multimedia though, claims to have put together a package that allows the user to use their own gear (or others) to train the dataset. They also claim what amounts to a hard to believe quick time in doing it as well. Machine learning as a process is "sort of" a way to make the numbers of an input dataset be arranged so that they have characteristics of another dataset. This is commonly shown in visual examples, and sometimes in audio where a person is made to speak and sound like someone else. This is accomplished by "training" the ML process on a dataset of examples you want the output to resemble. This requires a LOT of computing horsepower; high end graphics video cards, and hours and hours at a minimum. The longer you let the process cogitate over the dataset, the better/more realistic the output. As well as how currated the training data is. IK Multimedia claims to have this down to 15 minutes. I'm fairly sure they're taking some shortcuts, and it will probably require the user to upload a dataset to a website, where they might have a "farm" of graphic cards to use to train the dataset. However, I'm also fairly sure it will probably create results that will get guitar simulation out of the proverbial Uncanny Valley. The question will be, will they be able to get this out to the public before some other upstart? I've experimented with PyTorch, and some of the ML things on GitHub but quickly realized I need the aforementioned graphics card - and a lot more time and patience with Java, Python to do what I think needs to be done. It wouldn't be much for most competent programmers to put together a ML based guitar sim package; but to make it work for everyone is the trick. I'm very curious to see what IK Multimedia has come up with...

10,000 Steps To Playing Guitar?

What's the most common thing a guitar teacher hears? "I didn't have time to practice this week". The 21st century puts everyone in a time crunch. I always recommend having a "sofa guitar" handy in the living room; you can pick it up in all of those liminal moments one encounters there, or even while casually watching something on tv. Learning to compartmentalize small snippets of things to practice, committed to muscle memory, opens the door for (dare I say it...) "mindless repetition" that can be very beneficial. But here's another thing: A lot of people prioritize "getting their 10,000 steps in". Which is sensible, your health is obviously important. A lot/many/most people walk to do it. What if I told you "you can get a strap for your acoustic and practice playing while you walk".......? No, it's not ideal. As a beginner it might seem very cumbersome at first, you will have to commit to having a low wrist and playing by feel instead of by sight. That's ok, even if you're making mistakes; even if you just hold one chord and strum, you're getting exercise in two different ways simultaneously! And you can practice strumming on beat with the cadence of your walk: "on beat" with each step, or a multiple/subdivision. Or other strategies I might suggest as the guitar teacher.... I'm also going to go out on a limb and say the 10,000 steps will go by faster as well! The distraction WILL make it seem less of a chore - for both the walking AND the "guitar practice". I can recommend certain specific things one could do, but as I said, just strumming a chord might be good enough for a lot of people. You're doing an isometric workout, holding the chord down, as well as rhythmic practice in strumming. The next level up would be to change open chords back and forth "blind", not looking down, not trying to look over the front of the neck to see where your fingers are. Keep it simple and basic. Yes, you may attract some attention in your neighborhood or walking path. But maybe that not a bad thing? And it's certainly not as "strange" as some jogging fads that have happened in the past! 10,000 Steps To Playing Guitar, try it...

On Machine Learning and A.I. Technology Used for Guitar Modeling

(excerpted from a recent GS post I made...)

The problem with sims to this point is that:

- Syntax - people using generic terms, or misusing terms
- Apples and oranges - comparing different technologies
- Non-linear vs. snapshot comparisons.


Making an IR that sounds identical to a *static* IR is straight forward, but also Occam's Razor invoking. "Why does it sound identical... sometimes?"
Algorithmic approaches feel better, and *seem* realistic but *not identical*. I can adjust my playing to sort of mimic the Real Thing, but "like a real amp" is not the same thing as "just like a real amp". I love Bandmasters because of the variety of timbre you can get from pick attack, dynamics; you can fake that with Certain Emulations, but it's not as subtle and controllable. I have to exaggerate and worse, think about doing it.

That's no fun.

And speaker IRs are only as good as the engineer that made them, what mic and where they put it on what speaker through what preamp at what level. A greenback sounds different cranked; if you play soft it acts completely different, sounds different. Again, there are ways around that, but it's a kludge and it requires conscious effort.

You can make it work "like a real amp", but not *just* like a real amp.

That's not fun.

All of these things I believe can be fixed, but I'm not sure if the programming talent and effort is in the right place, or guided suitably. They're all almost good, suitable for "most applications", but not exactly the same across all applications.

I think the *curation* at companies has been the most important thing until now, the success of some and the downfall of others. ML/a.i. may make it moot, but the "curation" of the training will still be a factor in the end result production-wise. The end result may be fully convincing, but not in the production style desired, which might be a new problem.

/ $.10

What Guitar Should I Buy (redux)

I'm going to try to make an abbreviated version of this very common question. Just about everything new is "basically ok". This has been the case now for a few years.
If you can spend around $250, it's easy. There are 3 "brands" that immediately come to mind, and surprisingly they're not "the expected names".

Monoprice - who is now selling for the same price through Amazon as through their own website. Yes, the HDMI cable company! Their $110 "strat" clone is probably the most cost effective starter guitar there has been. Manufacturing quality is good, potentially a gig-quality guitar.

Harley Benton - a British mail order brand that is available through the Thomann U.S. website. A bit finicky to locate and order, but this line of guitars are well thought out an "curated" clones of popular guitar models. Maybe a bit more expensive than the Monoprice, and a bit longer to have shipped, but with more variety is you choose to study specifically what you want.

EART - Available on Amazon, you can consider these "upscale cost effective".

That's it. You don't have to have an amp with an electric guitar, you can still hear it unplugged. You can also find little rinky-dink $20 amplifiers on Amazon or Ebay if you hunt for them, although alternately you can no doubt find a used practice/starter/beginner amp on Craigslist or at a pawnshop in the $50 range. How's that for brevity?

The Golden Age of Guitar Consumerism

  "... when I was your age, we put chicken wire strung on nails on a rotten 2 x 4 and called it a "guitar", and darn it, we liked it!!!"

 Guitars have never been more affordable.  That's not the same thing as "cheaper" - technically you could buy guitars at one time for $20 from a Sears and Roebuck catalog - but it wasn't very playable.

 

Inside of a $200 Chinese "generic dreadnaught acoustic" 

 There have been different eras in "Guitar Affordability":

 POST LUTE:

 In this era, at the dawn of the creation of "guitar", you only had the choice of getting a handmade guitar.  The relative cost, and quality, can't be quantified, but undoubtably it was more expensive than now.  Strings were made out of animal guts....

 POST INDUSTRIALIZATION:

 Guitars that were manufactured, albeit by hand.  The dawn of companies like Martin, Gibson.  Relative cost depended on quality again, and given that steel strings started around the very early 1900s, people still often substituted "other found wire" because of cost considerations. "Acceptable action" was probably "not acceptable" by today's standards, something to keep in mind when listening to early wire recordings.

 POST JAPAN/KOREA INDUSTRIALIZATION:

  The beginning of machine fabrication on a large scale.  This is where China is now, except they've got modern machines/tools.  Early examples were pretty crude, but playable (and now coveted by masochistically deranged "Cheap Retro Guitar" collectors...)  Later, some of these guitars were pretty good, good enough to make Gibson sue Ibanez because they were making functional Les Paul copies.  They would still go for around $200+, adjusted for inflation many more hundreds.  The cheap Asian guitars could be found for around $100, $50 in a pawn shop - but the reader must keep in mind that's in 70's/80's dollars.  While the Ibanez guitars approached "modern quality and playability", in general these were not guitars one would want to buy today.  

 From the mid-80s onward Japan took over and invented the "modern high quality cheap guitar".  Ibanez, Tokai, Fender Squire (Fuji Gen Gaki) set a new bar.   Korea entered this field with Westone/Electra, Hondo branded guitars, a forgotten transition-period brand that got lost in the coming Ibanez storm. 

 This is when I started playing guitar.  5 years earlier, and my beginner choices would have been dismal.   At the time in the mid 80s, my only choice was made by a company called Hondo, which is effectively what is now known as the Korean Samick brand.  These were not as good as Ibanez, but not as crummy and unplayable as earlier Asian guitars.  Hondo was "the" beginner guitar for a few years until Ibanez steam rolled the field, requiring Fender to step up with the Squier brand.

 POST 80s IBANEZ/SAMICK DOMINATION - THE CHINESE JUGGERNAUT:

 I can remember when China first came on my radar as a guitar builder around .... 2002?  I started to see various corporate-labeled cheap lines with "Made In China" stickers, and they seemed pretty ok.  But they really stepped it up I think around 2010, and as predicted, were going for a transition from OEM to their own branding.  It was obvious they would do that, and while they're not "technically" branding guitars today, it's now a known phenomenon that "China can make good guitars".

POST ALIEXPRESS AMAZON ERA:

 Now.  China has so subtly maneuvered into dominating the guitar market that it's like they've done shades of marketing.  Very quickly from selling clone guitars on Aliexpress - while being OEM for many brands - to "somehow" being used as OEM for alternate brands (Monoprice), and *winning* by making a better product. 
 
 Now there are the Monoprice guitars, EART, Harley Benton, et al - and they're good guitars, and less than what used to be the equivalent entry level guitar.  While being as good as what used to be a "mid level" guitar, or even higher. 

 What you can get on Amazon for $200 from one of these brands now is astounding to me.   Somewhat of what would be considered an "upper tier" guitar in the 80's.  EART and Harley Benton both offer stainless frets, roasted necks and bodies, great hardware/bridges/tuners, good pickups, and they come set up pretty good as well. 

 When Ibanez had to start offering guitars made outside of Japan, that was a watershed moment.  Maybe Samick, who has massive production facilities in Korea, can hang on?  Hard to know during the covid pandemic, with production being dependent on the health of a lot of workers (note China *does not mess around with trying to knock down covid outbreaks...).   Indonesia has tried to enter this battleground, but they've tried to scale against an already optimized market.

NEXT LEVEL - POST PRODUCTION?

 There isn't a next level.  China is at diminishing returns production wise.  But here is "the next level" that nobody has considered:

 1) Guitars don't evaporate.  They go in a corner, in a closet, under a bed, but they don't go away. 

 2) at this point there are probably enough used guitars on the planet that there is probably a positive ratio of them relative to people that even think for a moment they want to play guitar.  Everyone knows more than one person that plays guitar; I'd even suggest "most families" have a guitar at their disposal.

  3) China has relied on manufacturing *growth*.  The situation with guitar is what I'd think is maybe the penultimate last frontier.  They'll have to go after the car market next (which they are... and the U.S. and EU governments will let them crush our own manufacturers with imports...).  But after that, they're at diminishing reeturns GDP.  Solar will still continue to grow, but as efficiencies go up they'll hit a ceiling pretty quickly in 5 years (particularly as demand scales up due to international energy costs/infrastructure problems).   

 The $200 guitar is almost at a point where one can *objectively* say "that's as good as a manufactured guitar can get".   Meanwhile, if you count how many hundreds of millions of guitars have been made to this date, someone really wanting to learn to play guitar can probably ask around and find someone willing to lend them a guitar, or even have one.  A parent today is likely to have one I'd suggest.   

 

Approaching the Uncanny Valley of Guitar Playing

  I've written elsewhere about how a.i./machine learning is going to completely change the musician landscape, as far as production is concerned.

 People do not realize the leap forward we're at right now.  I won't rehash what is available elsewhere, except to say "it's probably not what you imagine it to be".   What is happening with Pytorch/Magenta/Deep Mind etc.  is as big as the Internet was, and will change us and our lives as much as it has. 

 I recently tried the Magenta project's plugin.  The sax version is amazing; it does what I promised would one day happen with ML/a.i. software, in that it doesn't just make the input come out having the timbral sound of "a saxophone", but also the inflections.

  To the reader: if you think what I'm talking about is akin to playing a synthesizer with a saxophone patch, you're wrong.  It is a completely different thing.  The program is doing things the developers literally don't totally understand; it is working on a pure dataset level.  It is NOT a DSP based wave shaping technology.

 It's a bit tricky to handle.  I have to imagine saxophone playing to match the dynamics, attack and vibrato - but when you get it right it's uncanny.  I wish the violin version worked as well, it's very creatively liberating: as far as I'm concerned, I can add a "tenor sax" part to a recording.

  I presume there will be a guitar equivalent soon.  You'll be able to whistle and have it come out with an inflected guitar sound.  The question is in the quality of the model training (that governs the output); as I predicted, soon it will be possible to make a training model create an output that "corrects" a player's dynamics and inflection to sound equivalent to "Stevie Ray Vaughn", "Brian May", etc...

 Unlike the saxophone, though, the variety of guitar sounds I think will make it impossible to have it be flexible enough to cover "all" styles.  And using it will pigeonhole your choices into a certain way of playing, just as the "saxophone" plugin does.  You can't "play" the saxophone plugin like guitar, and have a good result.

 So in the future - people will specialize in how they operate with their ML sounds - after a period of people getting confused/impressed by the realization of the technology actually working.  A period equivalent to "keyboard popped octave bass sample basslines", and then a maturity.

 One downside is that it will making mocking up a cliche clone of a Known Famous Song very easy, and many will do it and garner kudos for it.  The confusing effect of this is going to be a big negative.

 Another potential negative is - a company will jump on this to have it in a guitar amp.  I've been saying this for awhile: a beginner amp with this technology can have a couple of presets that will not only yield an output that sounds just like the original recording of a Famous Player, but correct dynamics and probably pitch as well.   Harmony will be a problem I think for a few years, but "lead guitar playing" is about to undergo a disaster in that people will think even less of the skillset required to ACTUALLY DO A GUITAR SOLO.   

 A renaissance mentality will maybe become a trendy thing, hopefully.  

 

More Golf to Guitar Analogies

 You can putt from 3 inches away with a consistency equivalent to Tiger.

 You can't play the whole game the same.

 But you can find things on guitar that are "3 inches away" that are easily doable, and rewarding.  A problem I see a lot these days are people watching YouTube and getting the impression that what "learning guitar" is about is the equivalent of mastering golf on a PGA level.  

 And it only taking a year or so.

 Instead, there are aspects that are equivalent to putting, driving, getting out of sand traps.  There is the basic skill set, "learning to swing", which might be akin to playing open chords properly.  Changing between open chords is a fundamental skill that is completely overlooked by most - but the foundation of the skills required to do everything is set by what happens with the "simple" "cowboy chords".

 Driving, maybe the endurance to complete a song.  It's difficult for me to get someone to work on a song to completion; I can't provide what is really self-motivation, only bolster.   For kids, learning songs has a competitive aspect, wanting to know more than Timmy down the street does.  Later on it's not a lot different, there is still something of a pecking order when adults get together to jam.  But for someone not at that point starting out, it you're not surrounded by friends playing the motivation can be tough to want to practice a song to the end.

 Putting might be akin to the finesse required for soloing.   But again - a very short putt can be accomplished by just about anybody, and likewise there are very simple "solo bits" people can learn that can lead to making a longer and longer putt.  But getting the satisfaction of the ball going in the hole initially has to be present.  Again what I see a lot of people do these days is expect to make a 20 foot putt over and over, and to "practice" by driving at it frantically a few times and getting mad.  

 Getting out of sand traps: specialty movement.  There are particular, "kinesthetically fun" things to learn that are unique physical things to play.  Learning to navigate them - get out of the trouble they seemingly put your hands in - is rewarding.  You can feel like you physically accomplished something in a specific way.

 I do think these analogies make golf enthusiasts particularly prepared for learning to play guitar, but hopefully the analogies can flick a switch on for others as to how to *approach* learning to play guitar.

2022 NAMM Show Guitars

  I did not go this year.  So all of this is theoretically anecdotal, but...

 It looks like manufacturers are entering a state of frustration.  Lots of wild colors - it would seem they're almost touching on revisiting some of the visual tropes of the mid-80s: lots of turqoise, purple, magenta.  

 And from Ernie Ball, the Kaizan - a crazy angular guitar that would have been seen in the early 80s in New Wave videos?  The secondary "private company" guitars displayed also appear to be touching on the same aesthetically garish traits of the 80s, leaning on geometrical basics instead of French curve based shapes.  

  Then there is the "signature" problem.  There was a time when I went through a phase of using the infamous Dunlop Jazz III pick, a tiny red nylon design with a pointy tip.  Then one day it became the "Eric Johnson signature pick".  Eric wasn't the first to use those picks, and I'm not endorsing Eric, so I though it a good time to try something else.

 Likewise, I'm definitely not paying $$$$ for a guitar with somebody else's name on it, unless it's Leo Fender, John Suhr, PRS or Tom Anderson.  All of which are now making a lot of "Joe Blow Model" guitars.  No, I don't want somebody else's idea about what a guitar should be, and I don't want to see or even know their name is affiliated with the guitar I'm holding.  No offense to said players.  At least the Jeff Gordon model Gibson Les Paul hasn't been brought back?

 But overall it seems/feels like they're all in a mode of "we've got to do SOMETHING new/different", when in reality they don't.  It's like web pages that become popular - MySpace, Digg, Reddit, Facebook, etc., that want to "improve the experience" endlessly when in reality they have maybe reached a moment of sartori in optimization for the user.  For some of those web sites their "new, improved" versions turned off their user base and they went under.

 For Fender, Gibson - they really need to just calm down, par down what they offer.  Try to be leaner, cheaper, and more consistent so that when someone says "go buy a Strat/Les Paul" it doesn't take an hour to explain which one.  And certainly don't come out with something that looks like an attachment to an old Cadillac, or a Gundam.

Mountain Biking Ain't Like Dusting Crops (but May Be Like Playing Guitar?)

  I think there is an analogy to be made between the phenomenon of what gets YouTube clicks in mountain biking, and playing guitar.

The author "sending it"

  Having been into BMX semi-seriously for many years as a kid - at the end I had converted my half-pipe skateboard ramp into a BMX-capable quarter pipe, a good 8' tall rickety Ramp 'O Injuries. I suppose this was around the age of 14-15, and I'd soon have a car and then, become a Guitarist.  1983-84.

  I started mountain biking in, I think, 1992.  I wanted to ride bikes for recreation again, but something less serious (and dangerous) than BMX.   Twice a week I'd take my respectable $500 non-suspension MTB a few miles out of town to ride a few trails in the area.  

It was FUN.

 The only concept to "mountain biking" back then was, ride a bike on trails in the woods.  You could still spend money on making your bike lighter, which made it easier to get up hills (mountain biking USED to be about going UP hills as well as down...), maneuver around Minor Obstacles.

 It started becoming mainstream popular around about 1994.  Some musician friends got into it, and we'd go riding as a group sometimes.

 It was FUN.

 Then, people started getting more serious about it.  You had to "huck" off of drops; you had to HAMMER a trail as fast as possible.  Otherwise, you were lame and a squid.  

 Suddenly, these concepts - you were either RACING or being EXTREME and RAD - overtook the premise of simply riding a bike in the woods.  The more "casual riding" people I rode with found reasons not to go riding anymore.

 Then, the mountain bike industry realized (like used guitars...) bikes last a fairly long time.  So, they came up with propaganda to sell more bikes: 

You HAD to have a full suspension bike (not really), you HAD to have expensive and finicky (and dangerous) clipless pedals, and the 26" wheel standard - a BIG wheel I thought coming from 20" BMX bikes - was declared OLD and RETRO.  

You now HAD to have 27.5" wheels, which meant a new bike. 

 Then, they told you that you must have 29" wheels.  Another new bike.  THEN, tubeless tires: effectively no inner tube (very uncool...), glued-on tires.  A big pain to maintain, expensive.

 Meanwhile, hucking off of things turned into 10'+ drops, 10-20' gap jumps, things that previously were considered reserved for sponsored pros.

 YouTube happened.  Suddenly "mountain biking" on YouTube became endless videos of RAD dudes and dudettes, going very fast downhill on $10,000 bikes, clearing professional motocross scale jumps and drops.

 You don't really see the people crashing and going to the hospital.  Just lots of bright and shiny people being RAD.  Are you rad?  If you can't hang with this seen obviously you're not!  

 Do you even really ride mountain bikes?   How much does your bike cost?  You've never been to Whistler Colorado?  Never cleared a 25' gap?  Squid.  You suck.  Your bike costs less than $5,000?  Poser.

 I don't see many people riding mountain bikes for FUN anymore.  Not in the numbers I saw in the 90s, not by far.  I'm quite sure between the MANDATORY gear upgrades and the necessity to SEND IT, DUDE as fast and recklessly as possible, most people are turned off.  It's all you see on YouTube as "mountain biking".

 Guitar playing is almost exactly the same in a relative way.   But you're older... 

 You start out for yourself, it's fun.  Some friends might play, or decide to play.  BUT....

 You start watching YouTube and see what appears to be "everybody" playing guitar on a professional level, and often combined with Distinctively Bewildering Insights being conveyed.  

 I think right now, YouTube is "disincentivizing" the motivation to play guitar for similar reasons that I think mountain biking.  The mystery and self-discovery is removed.

 Sitting on your sofa, instead of getting on your bike and actually riding a trail yourself, is NOT MOUNTAIN BIKING.  Nor is watching a video of someone playing guitar.  You are missing the best, and most important element that is really down to the fundamental concept of BEING.  You're making a withdrawal from The Bank of Motivation, without any way of making a deposit later to up the value of your savings.