Guitar Lessons by Chip McDonald - chip@chipmcdonald.com

Wednesday, January 16, 2019

Impressions - Being Human is Data Compression

 I just tried to make a video for YouTube.

I was doing an extemporaneous analysis of the bootleg multitracks of the Beatle's _Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band_.  So I thought, hey, I'll just go through each track and babble about what strikes me as it happens.

 As it turns out - and I knew this, but it was not illustrated to me so viscerally - I think a lot.  I did an hour straight on trying to get out of my mind thoughts about just the second section string track and the vocal track.  I was trying to be "not super detailed, not overly OCD".  I skipped a lot, what I perceive as being "a lot".

 What I don't perceive as being "a lot" is what is condensed as "what I'm hearing".   To unpack what I'm perceiving on just 2 seconds of part of the strings track could really take easily over an hour.  Translating instantaneous perception to what is in reality "slow motion" human "music theory" jargon. 

 But then also, the implications of it.  How it strikes me emotionally, but then also what I think the context is, and the timbral sound, and the ambience. 

 I stopped after realizing I could probably make 4+ videos on each part.   Whether anyone would care I don't know, I halfway think I should just do it just to see, or for merely the sake of it.  What is interesting is that in the literal process of doing it, I realized how much information the idea of


"AN IMPRESSION"

 

reduces, as a human.  It's somewhat token based, but also a blend of other compression and sorting schemes.  

 The human input/output buffer is massively parallel, obviously.   An epiphany for me is that what probably makes me a "naturally overtly talented musician" will work against me in this context.  It might be informational for a student, when I forced to condense things into a 30 minute lesson, but when allowed to expand in this way without that temporal boundary it's an ocean of information to wade through and collate.

 I've been thinking deeply about music since I was very, very young.  There are pictures of me with headphones on when I was 4 years old, pictures of me plucking at a toy piano at younger than that.  The ... internal array, the framework of my perception being built for decades now, is a way of compressing experience.  It's what humans do, catalog, sort, and collate experience.  For musical moments, it's definitely too much to try to unpack into a video explanation of said perception in a completely accurate fashion.  It would take a brain download to do that, but the question is can I rise to the challenge of being able to *moderate* it well enough to make gradations of decompressed-perception, to present a pragmatically granular explanation of "thought" that can be of use to somebody?

 I don't know.

 For a few years I've been mulling the idea of making a video series on the title of "Speculative Musical Anthropology", where I babble on what I *think* are connections between different pieces of music from a common background/influence.  I've jettisoned that as YouTube has allowed the corporate copyright-claim jihad to obliterate doing video on "things that could reference copyrighted material", despite the allowance for such a thing under the premise of education.  I don't want to go gangbusters into such a thing only to have it taken down; and I'm typically not motivated to do things if they're inherently likely to be stilted from the outset.  Pursuing the middle ground is the most difficult thing of all, of course.

 I'm stilling cooking the idea, though.  Let me know your thoughts if one cares about said subject.  I know I need a "Youtube presence", but the option-anxiety of possibility is immense.  






Wednesday, January 2, 2019

The Problem With DAW Plugins Not Officially Discovered: Scurrilous Experiments and Non-scientific Conclusions - PART TWO

(note to the glitterati that has contacted me, that either chooses to be argumentatively rambunctious or reflexively pedantic in a ego-needful way: I don't really care, as written in Part One this is errant, off the cuff extemporaneous "speculation".  As such I'm not willing to debate about it, nor do I care if you want to make a mental ego-measuring contest out of it: I don't need to do that, why do you...?)

.. part two, where Chip further digs an unfounded hole.....



GRIPE #2

The temporal number crunching.  This is where Ye Old Infinite Resolution steps in, but wait! I'm not talking about it in the "traditional sense", give me a moment...

 In the analog domain, your distortion pedal is instantaneously changing your guitar sound.

Every moment you play, yields

1) a unique level
2) a unique pitch
3) a unique harmonic content


 Every moment.  With zero latency, with perfect parallelism.  From a processing standpoint, in software you've got to address those 3 things based on an instantaneous sampling reduced to a single number representing level.  To get a result from your function, you have to determine a modifier for those 3 things.

 This should be perfectly digital model-friendly, it would seem.  The problem I think, is that you have to do math on the single sample one at a time serially, or you have to do it component-wise and then add it together.  You're applying basic math to the number to represent the change in level, the change in pitch, and the harmonic content.  It's really just one number across a set of numbers  - a grouping of 1,024, or some such.  A processing "clump".

That "clump" then leads to another clump, etc..  The math applied to each clump will be the same.
The buffer is NOT instantaneous, however.  So while in theory the sample rate is "fast enough" to represent any audio signal, the software is trying to modify that signal faster than reality.  It's not that the analog world has Infinite Resolution, it's that it has Infinite Parallel Processing Power.  It's not doing anything in a buffered state.  It's not doing anything serially, or in modules paralleled.   No clumping.  One continuum.  The variability changes with infinite granularity; all aspects are not fitted to a curve and composited serially. 

 Comb filtering is (effectively) errors in sound that occur at mathematically regular intervals across the spectrum.  It's my belief that as a byproduct of the math in software happening temporally, clump by buffered clump - but with metered regularity of delimited by the buffer size - that across a longer time scale (a second, 2 seconds), there is a "temporal comb filtering" happening.

 "Temporal Comb Filtering": yes, I made that up.  Normally one describes comb filtering as an instantaneous phenomenon.  "Here is the sample of this moment, and we can see peaks at 100 hz, 200 hz, 400 hz, etc.".  What I am describing is this happening at some ratio across time.

 The buffer z is processed, then z+1, then z+2, etc..  But, because the same math is being applied to every buffer, there could be artifacts/errors introduced that creates a harmonic series only seen in multiples of the buffers.  On a waterfall plot it would be buried among the resulting signal.  A number being rounded up or down, 1,024 times modified by whatever other functions,  creating an artifice that is not visible in a graph, or even a waterfall plot because - how do you know it's an artifact when it's the result of math on a test signal that's changing?

 The rest signal is *variable*.  Guitars are not perfect signal generators.  The math applied to a perfect sine wave would be confusing, because you are making a function that is intentionally truncating values to yield distortion.   You have no way of knowing if your mathematical system across time is making a harmonic series alteration that is not linear to a Real World Analog Amp.

 Even if you have a sweep, or a set complex wave, you wouldn't know because you can never measure it against an analog equivalent perfectly.  Comb filtered sound can measure frequency wise as being "close" - but again I claim the human mind can discern the difference across a large sample set.

 Your brain realizes "there is a commonly reoccurring series here" that doesn't happen in the analog world. A non-humanly testable phenomena, and a non-scientifically testable phenomena.

 The result being, for most distorted guitar sounds I hear an amount of comb filtering I don't like in the mids/highs.  When that doesn't change - it sounds "digital" to me.

 I first had an inkling of this thought when the first Line 6 gear came out.  When I first heard it I was super impressed - it does sound like, in time slices, the real thing.  But then, if you hold a chord and spin the dial while the presets go by, you'll notice a harmonic coloration to *all* of the presets.

 That is software artifacts I think, and it's evidenced by comb filtering in the same manner on everything.  All digital sims have this I realized, when I tried the Fender Cyber Twin for the first time: spin the knob, and there it is, comb filtering.  Plug into the Vox modelling amp next to it, spin the knob - all the presets have that comb filtered sound, maybe at a different frequency/spread.

 Once you hear it, it's always there.  You can fool yourself into thinking you don't notice it, but it's there.  Every electrical system is going to have comb filtering artifacts, particularly speakers, but it's not a fixed thing between devices.  And it's state-variable; more or less evident depending on the input signal.

 As an example of this, I'll point to a video by John Segeborn that is tremendously great and educational.  In this video he plays the same thing back through different models of a Celestion Greenback speaker.  You'll hear comb filtering on each as a "shhhhh" harmonic coloration, but it will be different on model.  Which is fine - that's what speakers do.  The problem is when your software is adding another coloration on top of that one, or homogenizing it:



  In each example you can hear a spike in treble.  BUT, you're not just hearing a spectral peak, it also has comb filtering: a vaguely "smeary" sound, that changes in dominance depending on the signal.  My belief is that humans are super sensitive to this, and THIS is what software is messing up in sims.  I think it is too linear in general to signal level in sims.

 So, at some volumes it might be spot on.  At other levels it's too loud, or maybe buried by the upper harmonics.  This interaction is flawed in digital recreations I think.


 I think.  I do not feel like trying to provide proof or documentation.  I've been (unfortunately) doing all sorts of tedious comparisons and tests for years at this point that has led me to these assertions.  I think there is a problem here in the comb filtering and harmonic decay linearity.  I could be wrong.  Harmonic decay errors, and comb-filtering problems.

$.10.

POST SCRIPT

 Here's a yet another free idea I wish I had the resources in which to patent, but I don't:
Without a doubt, at some time within 3 years a company will come out with a post-processing VST plugin that will use A.I./confrontational machine laerning to conform a track output to mimic anything.


















Wednesday, December 26, 2018

The Problem With DAW Plugins Not Officially Discovered: Scurrilous Experiments and Non-scientific Conclusions - PART ONE

 I've spent... wasted... thousands of hours tinkering with variations on setting up processing chains in DAWs. 

 I know "in theory" things are Perfect, and "digital sound" is a myth.

 Except, I've never been happy with recorded sound, my own or with others in the post-digital age.  It's always been a nebulous thing, and it's always been something that has been attempted to be quantified by the usual parameters:

  • Time domain;
  • Spectral;
  • Bit rate/depth
  • Digital timing (jitter).

 These things have all been sorted out in the year 2018 to a very fine degree.  In theory, it's not only perfect - it's beyond perfect, because there is more theoretical digital dynamic range than there is in physical reality.

 ... but still I'm left unsatisfied.  Particularly by guitar sounds, but pretty much everything.  It occurred to me last year I was "chasing the dragon": after thinking about it - I kind of don't like most recorded guitar sound.  Even the Most Famous ones.  Even the ones of my favorite players.

 Furthermore, I think post-digital the aspect I don't like has been exaggerated.


 At first I thought I was hearing simply a spectral response I didn't like.  This is a way of thinking that I believe 99.9% of the musicians on the planet think like in regards to sound.  It's not a wrong way, but it's not comprehensive in 2 ways that not heard or read anybody discuss.


  •  The dynamic linearity of "effect simulations" are non-linear to reality.
  •  By default of the necessity for serialization in FIFO digital processing, phase relationships of non-Fourier transform processing has a "sound" when trying to mimic "near signal truncation" effects (distortion) - possibly leading to comb-filtering noticeable across time.

GRIPE #1



 This is a very, very subtle thing and I'm quite sure very few people can consciously perceive what I'm going to describe, but it's real:

  Software emulations of analog gear usually consists of a means of reproducing a spectral response or balance over time.  Meaning one expects (excuse my ham fisted notation)  x(fn1+x*x1),(fn*x2) to yield a frequency distribution that is the same as an analog device.

 The acceptable result is not expected to be perfect.  The analog devices are not perfectly linear, and the math is expected to be a "close approximation", which it usually, remarkably, is.  The functions yield a nice approximation of an instantaneous spectral response that sounds like The Thing Being Emulated.

 For my first Perhaps Imaginary Gripe I think that there is a substantial temporal difference in the math in the box versus the analog realm.  Mainly, in the timing of the non-linearity of the decay of the harmonic distortion spread dynamically.

CHIP, PLEASE SPEAK ENGLISH...

 Ok, what that means is that say for a classic "overdriven tube amp distortion" on a single note that is struck hard, as the note dies out in the first few ms there is a balance of low to high frequency content.  You hear a brash noisy "csryshhhh" on the attack and THEN you hear the lower harmonics, and as the note fades across the initial 100 ms the harmonic "blend" dies out at differing rates.

 What I "think" I'm hearing is this discrepancy:  with the digital simulations,

  •  The high frequency square wave upper harmonics last too long;
  •  As the note fades, the high harmonics fade at the same rate as the lower;
  •  This rate doesn't not change when you change how hard you play.

 With a real analog sound, those three things are reversed.

 So there is an Uncanny Valley (look up the term if you don't know what that means) wherein the mind hears a blend of harmonics - in the single "time slice" of awareness - that sounds almost exactly like the Real Thing.

 What the mind *doesn't* perceive precisely is that the way it's decaying doesn't match the real world.  But it's my pet theory that we can only internalize the examination of our internal "audio buffer" in single instantaneous time slices.  It's hard, or impossible, to really quantify the nature of how it falls out.

SIDEBAR:

 I also will theorize that this is due to evolutionary survival requirements.  The way things decay harmonically is also implicit in the way nature sounds at a distance.  The rustling of leaves, for instance: that has a particular decay characteristic, which is different than the sound of A Large Threatening Predator Brushing Against a Bush.

 The aggravating pedantic arguments placed by people wanting to assert themselves that humans are strictly limited to *acting on* information consciously testable is proven to be a fallacy in this example.  You can test 1,000 people by playing them the sound of an animal walking among nature, trampling on the ground, and while the auditory cues are only milliseconds in duration they'll all be able to say "sounds like an animal walking around".

 Play them one 100 ms example, and they won't have a clue.  Yet, across a large sample set (10 seconds), those tiny little sounds that only last a fraction of a second subconsciously conveys a very specific story: "large animal walking around behind you to the right, 20 feet away".

 So no - I'm not impressed by arguments of "the ear can only hear 20-20, 44.1/16bits captures all the information we can perceive", because it's based on primitively testing the instantaneous awareness of untrained people on test tones.  Your mind, as in the example above, makes an assessment across time of what it's hearing.  It's not *consciously* analyzing the frequency response, decay characteristics, phase relationships, etc. - your subconscious mind is doing the heavy lifting and returning a result that says

"something isn't real about this "amplifier" you're hearing".

 Comparing one single time slice to the victim amp doesn't mean it's identical temporally 100%.  That the technology gets very close is baffling, but I claim your cerebellum does tricky processing *across a sample set* that defies quantifying by instantaneous measurement parameters (frequency/level).

...sorry.

  
BACK TO OUR REGULAR PROGRAMMING...

 So you hear the simulated amp, and it reminds you of the real thing on an instantaneous basis.  But as you play it, you become less and less convinced.  You can't really put your finger on it...

.. but I claim the way the note dies out, the way the spectral balance changes, and the way that responds linear to your touch is giving your cerebellum a picture that only it is privvy to computationally.

END OF PART ONE.....




















































 











Saturday, December 22, 2018

Penance For Suburban Band Practice and a Lowered Bar

 The kid next door is trying to put a band together:

The Literal Shed in Which Rock Music Is Trying To Happen....


 I can hear them in their shed next door, a sub-sonic thump that's fighting my "Brad Mehldau - No Chaff" Spotify playlist I'm listening to at my desk.  The room I'm in is at the back of my house, adjacent to the shed in the backyard of the neighbor's house.

 I can't complain.  

 

 Well... he or one of his buddies threw a Miller Lite can over the fence apparently last week, they'd better not do that again.  

When I first started playing guitar at 15, I found myself jamming with every drummer and bass player I could find, to little avail at first.  I was extremely precocious and admittedly didn't suffer the less than adequate, or anyone less than actually completely motivated by art in music. 

 See, at first there are 2 basic categories:

  • the nascent musician that really wants to play music and accomplish something
  • the person that just wants an excuse to hang out.  

Actually, a musician can get very far under that second category just by being in the right place and sticking with it, but that type tends to annoy me.  I have wasted much time with stealthed versions of this type, I advise the reader not to do the same.

 Regardless, while I was running through the local musician offerings, one by one, we made a large audible racket in many a suburban locale.  In the 80's everyone wanted to be in a band, there wasn't really a shortage of drummers and bass players, despite the guitar player ratio being about 30:1.  I found myself jamming in every residential neighborhood in Augusta Georgia, near Augusta, and some non-residential areas in and out of town. One time I found myself  in the middle of a literal corn field, in a shack that some guys had built out of pallets and ran extension cords to from somewhere beyond the field I couldn't even see.  Their friends would crawl up on the outside and look in, ala _Mad Max Thunderdome_.... 

 That was the first year I played guitar.  I had been telling people I'd only been playing guitar for a year, which was a mistake as I found out later. You can't get with experienced musicians that way.

 Many inadvertent audiences were made in many adjacent houses.  It's worth noting that in the rich neighborhoods the houses are much farther apart and better insulated.  In poor neighborhoods, the walls have no insulation and often are mere feet away from a neighbor.  This creates interesting life lessons in diplomacy.

 At the end of that first year of playing I found myself invited to watch a band practice by an upper classman at my high school, the drum major in the music program.  He played drums in a band with some older guys that actually had some experience, and of course I was probably expected to be Another Audience Member hanging out at band practice.

 I was invited to jam with them on guitar during one of their breaks, and unfortunately for the guitar player I was in the band soon thereafter.  I was fortunate, because I found myself playing with guys that not only could play entire songs, but actually had some musical panache and experience.

 HERE'S THE IMPORTANT BIT.....


 A lot of people heard us in the neighborhood.  I was using the drummer's Fender Bassman at practice; later we'd end up rehearsing in my parent's garage and I'd managed to get a 120 watt Peavey Hertage tube amp from a paper route.  Then a 50 watt Marshall JMP 2x12 tube amp combo I'd run in stereo with the Peavey.

 Our bass player used a variety of amps, a Yamaha bass amp in conjunction with sometimes a tube guitar head of some sort, in a biamp setup, with a pair of 2x15 cabinets, one of which had JBLs.   A very, very potent setup.  Sometimes there were other bass players.  Pictures fell off the wall in my parent's living room.  My parents being accommodating in my pursuit of music I will be forever grateful for.

  Sometimes the police would show up.  Generally it ended up with them hanging out and listening, which is a good sign.  We usually didn't practice later than 10 or so, which in reality is Not So Bad. Particularly these days not a big deal, but back then it was Very Rebellious, but ...


 But back to These Days:

 The guys next door do their thing one night on the weekends. Sometimes Saturday night, sometimes Sunday night.   I don't know them, and I wouldn't tell them this, but...

.... that's not enough.

  I was lucky.  In the above mentioned band I was the youngest, still in school, but we still practiced at least twice a week.  Often times more, sometimes 4 times a week.  We were maintaining about 40+ songs, the standard metal/rock club fare at the time, but also some left-field technical-instrumental things.  I was lucky.  In theory once you're Good Enough you can get by with what the guys next door are doing, rehearsing once a week or less.  You're just going through the motions, you should already know the songs, then go to the gig.

 But when you're starting out, being able to play with a group multiple times during a week is educational in a way I can't deliver as a guitar teacher.  Playing with other musicians is not the same skill set as playing to the recording - which is also completely necessary, of course.  Learning to listen to the other members of the band is critical, and something that people don't do anymore . It's now a matter of the guys that stick it out long enough that they CAN play in a band, that they finally get with other musicians, and they cobble through things by default.

 That's not the same thing as putting your time in with other musicians.

 The guys I played with initially were really into music for music's sake, and we had no problem playing the same songs over and over because it was FUN.  When you play the same song with a band 20 times it's a very different thing afterwards than just scratching through and going "that's good, we've got it, see you at the gig".  You learn to own it.

 It's a shame that Darn Kids Today don't use their time getting experience playing music with live humans when they still have the time.  It's invaluable.  I never had a problem playing with other people, since I'd been doing it literally since day one routinely every week; and I was "extremely precocious".  But that lack of human playing experience is completely evident in most novice musicians I hear today, and even a lot of so-called "experienced" musicians.  Guys and gals that have chops and are "professional" - but only when everything is a certain way with the rest of the band.


 Yes, I'm complaining in that respect, but I'm hoping someone reading this will take it to heart: playing music in a band is fun.  There is a reason I just got a text from one of my first students - who I taught all the way back from when I was 16 - of pictures of his band playing a recent gig in N.C..  There's a reason most guys that played 30 years ago are still going at it. 
  
 At least the guys next door are actually playing as a band, it seems These Days it's a rarity.  Outside of playing at church, I don't have any students at the moment that play in a band, but I have a few that, if it were 20 years ago, they'd have already been in multiple bands by now.  30 years ago I would have immaturely laughed at the guys next door; now I'm thinking

"geez, that's a relief to hear someone starting out TRYING to play MUSIC with other HUMANS".


 It's really very pathetic it's come to this.  Something went wrong in the mid 2000's, and the impetus to form bands and play music in front of an audience evaporated, only leaving the praise bands and some die hards on the periphery that find themselves with a fair amount of gigs with the dearth of bands present now.

 I don't find the drummer's kick drum particularly annoying because of the above, despite being able to tell he's probably got his pedal tension wrong.  It's really almost not noticeable in the house (all of those nattering nay-bobs that called the police on my bands were probably just old-school stick in the mud anti-rock music pro-Establishment conservative knobs), and they don't actually play a lot, actually.  I'm afraid it's a Fun Hang Out situation for them, and they'll probably get bored with it in a few months like the half pipe skateboard ramp that ended up rotting on the other side of the fence.

 Which is sad, and sad for me, because I look at both hopefully - "maybe kids, other people are going to get back into playing music in bands?", but I know it's far removed from the Good 'Ol Days.  The tendency is to look at the guys in Greta Van Fleet and go "yeah, but... hey, they're playing together as a band!"; like that somehow is enough these days.  A novelty: humans playing rock music as a group.  For fun.

 And it IS FUN.  1,000 x more fun than a video game, and more rewarding.  How that notion has been sucked out of the thought process of society is scary.

 (....just walked outside to listen to what they were doing...)

Earlier it was _Back in _Black.  The guitar player sounded like he was having tuning problems, tried to tune, stopped... he was tuning as I walked back outside.  Sounds like they're  now trying to do some Neil Young.   The drummer is in the throes of what I call "kinestheticlly-hyper shuffle beat syndrome"; an affliction that attacks novice drummers, sometimes for many years.  Yes, you can sort of play a shuffle over just about anything, but, uhmm.... yeah.

 Well, they're still at it.   It doesn't bother me, I hope nobody calls the cops on them.  Maybe one of them will want to take it seriously, and maybe go "hey, maybe we should get together more often and practice more...?".   But if not, at least they can tell friends, 

 "I'm IN A BAND...".

 

 



























































 



Friday, December 14, 2018

The "Clean" Sound that Really Isn't?

"Fender clean".

 This is something you're hear/read about.  It's pretty elusive, yes.  Because it's very easy to get on most Fender amps turned up a bit, and nearly impossible otherwise.

 It is NOT a completely "clean", undistorted sound.  It's actually a bit compressed above 1k, and when you play hard the low end distorts.  Which is the trick. 

 Check out Mark Agnesi demonstrating this (ridiculous) strat.  He's going through a Deluxe turned up a bit:


 Note that the chords at first a little bit distorted, the low end is getting saturated.  But then notice the single note lines are not "distorted" per se.

 You can sort of do this on other amps, and on sims.  Kinda.  You have to sort of really moderate your pick attack, and even then you can't really be as expressive on the single string things because the difference between the "soft and chimey" sound and the "aggressive/bitey/distorted" accented sound comes on suddenly. 

 It's also usually the same timbre as well. 

 Effectively speaking it's the quintessential "play soft and it's clean, hit it hard and it's dirty".  But what's really going on is that there is always distortion above 1k, compression, that keeps the treble sounding up front while the low end is make more "present" by adding harmonic distortion when you give it more voltage.  It's not "clean" in reality; if you ran music through it you'd hear bright garble for the most part. 

 The beauty of the sound is that it's very expressive.  There are differences in sound as you play, it's never "perfect"; it's not homogenized.  Which is almost the opposite of digital sims, which can mimic the frequency spectrum perfectly *at one level*, but not across levels.  It sounds "identical" but it doesn't respond identical.  You can practice to try to get the same effect - but that's defeating the purpose, and time is short. 

 If you want that kind of sound, you get the right amp.  The reason I'm writing this is that I've sold off the vintage versions of amps that did this; my Gibson GA-40, and a '65 Deluxe reissue - and now I've got to figure out how to get that back in a more affordable manner, so I've got "Fender "clean"" on the mind.
















Friday, December 7, 2018

Vintage That Needs to Go Away: Fender, FIX THE STRAT OUTPUT JACK!

 At least once every 2 weeks or so, I have to give a little speech about how a student needs to make sure they keep the nut tightened on the output jack of their Fender What-ever-Caster.

Pure Evil!


 They put a flat washer under the nut, which is useless and obviously does not work.  For the uninitiated:

 The nut works it's way loose as you plug the cable in/out, and move it around.  I'd guess that after 2 months of  use is when they start to loosen, at which point depending how much and how aggressive you plug the cable into and out of your guitar, the two wires soldered to the jack under the jack plate twist around and around..

 Until one breaks, and the guitar stops working.  Sometimes one is near a music store that can repair it.  Sometimes it's maybe only $35 or so to fix, but closer to a standard bench repair fee of $75 is possible.   At least a week will be lost, maybe more.

 That's presuming the student/Stratocaster owner even knows this has happened and CAN be repaired.  How many people just stopped playing guitar because this happened to their Squire Stratocaster after a few months?  What impact does this have to Fender and other brands for people that end up never staying with it and buying more gear?

 This has been a scourge forever.  The "phono jack" is a design left over from literally 1948 or so, and really can be traced to about 1877.  It's primitive, inelegant, and failure prone.

 I can think of a few better ways of doing it, but I don't have money to patent and manufacture such a thing.  Fender, though - there's no excuses.  Why they continue to use this idiotic part is beyond me, aside from it's sheer cheapness.

 They could easily improve it a lot: simply use a serrated washer, or put a dab of Loctite on the nut.  Or both.  Either nobody at Fender has thought of this as an issue and a fix, or they just don't care.

 Until then, I'll continue to have to waste a student's lesson time explaining they need to keep the stupid nut tight, and that the shorting-noise they're hearing is the result of the jack being loose, and that when it fails they've got to get it fixed.  Ridiculous.



Tuesday, December 4, 2018

How Much Should I Practice This Chord?

Normally I can't specifically answer the "how long will it take?" kind of questions, but I suppose this isn't exactly one of those.

This student is doing it wrong.


  •  Let's say you've got to play a hypothetical song, and it's a slow one: a tempo of 60 beats per minute.
  •  Let's also say that you've got to play a chord every quarter note.  So in other words, 60 chords a minute.  A chord every second.
  •  Let's say the average length of a "song" is AT LEAST 3 minutes long.

 You've got to be able to play a chord 180 times in a row, at a pace of 1 a second.  Sure, most songs aren't based on 1 chord over and over, but you're still squeezing, releasing that many times at least.

 This is presuming a very slow tempo, mind you.  So conservatively, in reality - you need to be able to do twice that, in order to have a little bit of lee way in your ability to be able to say "yes, I can play this song".

 360 times, at a pace of once a second would be a nice target.

 "Man, Chip, that's a lot!"

 That's only 3 minutes.  99.9% of the people reading this won't bother to do this I realize, but I'm just throwing that out there: you NEED to be able to do this, AT LEAST.

 Maybe you press/strum/release a chord 50 times.  That's half what's really baseline.  A "nice workout" might be all of the open chords (G,C,D, Dm,A,Am, E, Em), 50 times every day.  Then there are the bar chord variations...

 The point being, to play an Average Pop Song you've got to get your musculature to the point where you're in that ball park figure.  So there you go: practice Said Chord 50x a day, at least, and aim for 180 as the goal.  360 to conquer it.  In reality, though - this is why you want to make playing along to recordings of songs your goal: you're "getting your exercise" by doing so, in a more interesting and entertaining way.  






Tuesday, November 27, 2018

You've Got Problems?

  • "I can't hold the pick"
  • "The pick keeps moving around!"
  • "My third finger won't work!"
  • "My pinky won't work!"
  • "My fingers won't work!"
  • "My fingertips are sore"
  • "I can't get to the C chord fast enough"
  • "I can't always pick the D string when I need to!"


Etc. etc. etc...

 Just about every student I've ever had will come to me seemingly exasperated with a complaint about some physical aspect that is considered either "impossible" or specific to them and nobody else in history.


 I can try to convey the idea that yes, there are elements to learning to play guitar that is challenging - and when something happens that seems daunting, to the point of being "impossible" that in reality - I've probably heard that before.

 Persevering is part of getting better.  If it didn't take that everyone would do it and the ability to play guitar would be commonplace.  And boring.

 A big, big takeaway from learning guitar is the literal skill set of  learning how simple repetition, applied in a very concise manner, always yields rewards.  Rewards that from the outset may seem literally impossible.

 The basic mechanistic things - holding the pick, getting from one chord to another, finding the strings with the pick consistently, etc. - are all individual skills.  Everyone gains ability of these individual skills at differing rates.  It is never, EVER linear.

 By that I mean chances are one student takes for granted what another student is telling me is impossible, and vice-versa. If both can take me at my word when I say "it will balance out over time" then it's just a matter of persevering.

 The caveat is that for the kid that has many, many hours a day to practice will perceive those non-linear discrepancies in skill diluted by the sheer quantity of practice time.  In other words, if you only practice 15 minutes a day and have trouble finding the high E string in an arpeggio, you're going to perceive that as an issue across many weeks.

 Maybe 2 weeks go by after starting to address said issue, and you think to yourself "I've been doing this for 2 whole weeks!!!  I still can't do it!!!".  The guy that plays 4 hours a day literally addresses that problem in the same day he decides to fix it.

 Let that soak in: in the first example the guy at 2 weeks comes to the lesson saying "I can't do this!!! I've been working on this for 2 weeks now!".  This person has put in less than 4 hours of time applied to the problem.  The guy that does 4 hours in one day - he's already got it covered.

 That doesn't mean you can't get better at 15 minutes a day, but skills learned on guitar take  multiple hours.  You can split that up across days, but once you get down to quarter hour playing sessions you're increasing not just the literal length of time it's going to take, but also the mental effort!   

  In reality you'll maintain at 15 minutes a day, it will be uphill to get more skill. Right at 30 minutes you'll get steady increases.  Practically, you need a little more than an hour a day, say an hour and a half, to see "exciting" results.

 Presuming you're applying yourself properly and not messing around practicing.

 Regardless, the point of this post is that everyone I teach at some point will find an aspect of their ability they feel is not "keeping up" with the rest of their ability, and will perceive that as being some sort of guitar playing show-stopper.  It never is.  










Sunday, November 25, 2018

Ernie Ball Paradigm Strings Redux

 I've broke 3 high E strings with the Paradigms.  This last time about 20 days out.

With the first set I had, the high E broke while tuning up, which I discounted as a fluke.  It would seem the high E string is not as impervious as the rest?  Better than "normal" by a bit I would say, but nowhere near the 90 day guarantee.

 I thought I should hang onto the inner packaging but of course I didn't.  It looks like Ernie Ball provides a fairly painless process for the "warranty", kudos to them. 

 I'm guessing the high E string, being so ephemeral in minimal material, does not see the same gains their manufacturing process yields to the rest of the gauges?  Maybe not, but it seems, feels like the high E string will be the Achilles heel of the marketing strategy. 

 I think they should just throw in an extra high E, for the premium price I don't think it would impact their profit margin much. Or perhaps have an extra E in the 3 pack (which is what I've bought).  

 At the moment I've got a set of them on my Suhr I put on about 2 months ago, I'm putting them on my "Jovian Thai Tea" Warmoth right now, and replacing the set on my "at work" "Shenzen copper" Warmoth that the high E broke on just now.

 The Suhr I basically only use when recording, since the frets are nickel and "getting there", so I expect those to last a bit longer.  They're not oxidized and are still intonated, which is a great thing; having "extra" guitars sitting around is useless if the strings are going to need changing if you pick it up, really the main plus for me with these strings.

 I really should just go ahead and change the strings on my Line 6 Variax, they're shot.  I only use it for the occasional "stunt stand in" recording use for oddball sounds (sitar, 12 string, large body).  I may put a set on my '82/'83 FujiGen Gakki Squier Strat today as well.  But I want to record music! So maybe not.

Regardless... The high E's breaking strike me as the strings being "more normal" than the rest.  For Most People that are not playing many hours a day hyper-aggressively, it's probably not an issue.

$.10

Saturday, November 24, 2018

That Time When the Not-Well Known Shredder Backhanded Pink Floyd / David Gilmour Like Trump

 Not me - yes I can, but I'd prefer to not be thought of as a "shredder" - and I love Gilmour's playing.

Tastes like Kool-Aid?


  No, I'm referring to someone who played in a Pretty Famous Metal band for a time who is known as a "shredder", technical chops-based player. Let me qualify that statement by saying that's exactly why he got that gig, lest anyone be confused.  I'd prefer not to say the guy's name, I don't want to call him out - I understand the mindset he has, even though I disagree with it and think it's completely malformed and ignorant.

 This guy gives a guitar clinic and said the following:

""Like...Take a guy like David Gilmour. Alright? Everybody looks at him like super-respected, fantastic guitarist, top of the list, A-class guitar players. Now... Why do you think that is? I mean, the guy... I've never heard the guy play outside of a regular pentatonic scale. Have you? I could be wrong. I don't know their music. But that one famous song they have, the Pink Floyd 'Free Bird' song with the long solo...[audience member says 'Comfortably Numb'] Yes. It's gorgeous. It's absolutely gorgeous."


 I'm going to start by saying I resisted going online and writing something snarky somewhere.  That's kind almost as bad IMO.  But I did go online to get the lay of the land as far as what people thought about what he said.  I was shocked.

 People have lost both verbal/reading comprehension skills required for Living in Reality, as well as having being taught to be empty vessels, naive and pliant recipients of direction.  I will explain in context:

 What Shred Guy said was

"Like...Take a guy like David Gilmour. Alright? Everybody looks at him like super-respected, fantastic guitarist, top of the list, A-class guitar players. "

... he's setting Gilmour up.

"Now... Why do you think that is? I mean, the guy... I've never heard the guy play outside of a regular pentatonic scale. Have you? I could be wrong."

 Uhg.

 Ok Shred Guy, yes, you're wrong.  I'm going to refer to the first solo in the song, not the outro; Mr. Shred Guy didn't specify, but he did make a sweeping generalization so I'm allowed to be non-general if I want to. 

 In the first solo you're about to bash Mr. Shred Guy (Comfortably Numb) he's not just using the pentatonic scale.  It actually begins with an F# bent to G.

A half step.

 There are no half steps in the pentatonic scale.  He's suspending the D major with the 4th, the G, then he does a similar thing over the A major by playing D-Db: another half step.

He then descends DOWN THE MAJOR SCALE in the key of D as the song changes key to G, over the C as IV.  More diatonic notes ensue.

 Mr. Shred Guy: you're very wrong.  But here's what rubs me the wrong way: as someone presenting himself as a Technical Authority figure, why doesn't he *hear* the diatonic notes....?  He should.  If the Comfortably Numb solo strikes him as Just Another Pentatonic Solo he's not perceiving things as well as some of my advanced students do.  The half step right at the beginning of the solo should strike one as "not pentatonic", not to mention the diatonic scale melodies.

" I don't know their music. But that one famous song they have, the Pink Floyd 'Free Bird' song with the long solo...[audience member says 'Comfortably Numb'] Yes. It's gorgeous. It's absolutely gorgeous."

   This is what freaked me out about the online comments; people argued that Mr. Shred Guy wasn't being derisive - somehow.  Despite statements like the above.  That "one famous song" that he doesn't know the name of?  Really?  And then the audience, people insisting in some instances that he's COMPLIMENTING  Gilmour don't realize he's being sarcastic about the Free Bird comparison?

 Free Bird is a great song.  Yes, it's a cliche to put it down; but it's a classic, and managed to get on the radio A LOT despite being a really long song.  Not only that, but - the guitar, despite being derided as a "doodly woodly" solo is recognized by millions, and is also in turn a classic.  Very few on the planet have the credentials to really criticize it.  Gilmour, Brian May, Jimmy Page?  Another pair of people Mr. Shred Guy doesn't care for.  Regardless, it's fun to mock things but in reality Free Bird is a truly great piece of music, whether you like the style of it or not.

 ...but he's comparing Comfortably Numb to Free Bird for the negative connotation.  Yes, he is.  That people don't get that is mind blowing.

 "but he said it was gorgeous!"

 Yes, but the context of his comments was that he was speaking on the subject of  "should people practice over backing tracks".  His argument is that Gilmour is only known as a guitarist because the backing music sounds "gorgeous" (which it does... but that doesn't mean Gilmour can just be some kid at Guitar Center on a saturday morning and write/play such a classic piece of music... right...?).  It's kind of like (in ironic contrast) how someone is going to build a wall.  It's going to be a wonderful wall  Absolutely wonderful.  

 It's also curious that Mr. Shred Guy apparently hasn't heard of the mega-Top Ten hit by Pink Floyd "Money", or some of their other charting songs?  "Another Brick in the Wall Pt.2"?  Wish You Were Here?  Learning To Fly didn't go that high up the charts, but he hasn't heard _Dark Side of the Moon_?  Maybe he doesn't realize the sheer numbers that one record has sold?

..but sure, Pinky Floyd only has "that one famous" song.  Metal Band has had some success, but outside of the guitar solos I would suggest it's because of the other guitar player/band leader/singer, not the "definitely not pentatonic miasma of changing keys" solos Mr. Shred did.


"Why do you think he sounds so good? He's not even following the chords in that progression. "

 Ironically he's actually very clearly following the chords - he's outlining Dsus4, Asus4.  You can easily hear the arpeggios.  Again - kinda obvious.  That aside, whether he follows the chords or not HAS ZERO to do with whether something is GREAT MUSIC or not!

 There is a mindset of certain "trained" guitarists, usually in jazz, that it's all about following the changes.  A rule that the audience doesn't care about, and plenty of (maybe most great themes) does not follow.

For the person with no artistic sense, no idea of subjective emotional judgement, "creativity" is a math problem.

 Mr. Shred Guy might be referring exclusively to the outro/end solo.  I get it.  But he's making a generalization to address the whole thing.  Even at that, there is an F# in the bass going to the G major in the progression.  His "I've never heard the guy go outside the pentatonic scale" applies here as well, it's his song....

"He's playing in one key, one key. The chords are changing around him."

 This statement applies to everything Mr. Shred Guy did with Famous Metal Band. Not that it matters!  There isn't a rule that says "music must change keys to be good".  A completely ridiculous premise.  The "chords are changing around him" - so what?  You don't like it?  That's fine, but conceptually there is zero wrong with that.  It's not a math test.

"He's playing with finesse. That's why. He's playing with finesse."

 This is a backhanded compliment.  Yes, obviously Gilmour plays with finesse.  But it's also the note choice, however "basic" it is.  I would point out that a lot of Bach relies on "basic", no-extended harmony.  I'd also point out that how complex the harmony is has zero to do with whether it's good music or not.

"And this backing track he's created is what is making him sound so incredibly godlike."

 Yes Mr. Shred Guy, it's great, isn't it? So, why don't you do the same thing if that's all it is?  Mr. Doesn't Play Outside of the Pentatonic knows something you don't? 


"He's created this fantastic wall of music. All he has to do is play with finesse in a key of B minor, and "

 Except in the first solo it's I IV in D major and then IV I the key of G major, but ok.. you meant "just the outro solo"... Yes, it's fantastic what Mr. Never Outside the Pentatonic Scale made.

"let the background give him this world of great sound. That's why. It's not just because of his playing-- his fingering."

... wait. Didn't you just use the word "finesse"...?   It's not his playing, his fingering?  Tasteful, perfect vibrato and phrasing just happens I guessOr maybe Mr. Shred Guy is referring to something else?

 " Of course, he's a fantastic pro guitarist. He has finesse. But that exact playing, without that wonderful background, would -- you know, it's going to sound terrible "

 How does someone read that and not interpret that as being negative?  At the same time, how does one have "finesse" but it's "going to sound terrible"?


"
-- it would sound like anybody in a Guitar Center. It's just one very basic, conceptual way of playing. "

 Sure.  

 Here is what's basic: a juvenile point of view.   One that measures, when nothing needs to be measured, and then takes the step of requiring quantity (only pentatonic/5 notes?  Only 1 key?) and complexity as being the basic of good.  That's what I think of as limited, small-town thinking/mindset.  Appreciating subtlety isn't something children do.  Also, confusing ability with greatness is a childish attitude.  I can play things Gilmour would never have been able to do, and it has zero bearing on what I think of his FINESSE and NOTE CHOICES.

 It's great music.  Only a dweeb would denigrate any aspect of true greatness.  Mr. Shred Guy has never done anything that is Truly Great, and because of his attitude probably never will, if I had to bet on it.  "Truly Great" is sublime and transcendent, and doesn't care about math or technicalities, and most of the times leans towards simplicity.


"But what is genius about it is the world that's created under that solo. Everybody follow what I'm saying?" 

 Yes Mr. Shred Guy.  I follow what you're saying, and I disagree vehemently and am amazed that others think you're somehow complimenting Gilmour by dismissing his solo by backhandely complimenting the mere "backing track".  The "backing track" some would simply call "great music" greatly amplified by a great solo.

 I really have come to hate the 21st century.  Common sense is gone, everything is based on arbitrary rules, a society of lawyers.  "Is this good?  Well, let's see if it fits this criteria!  What, there is no criteria?  Well, then, we must obviously use superlatives - how much does it do something?  Is that enough?  One can do more, or less?  Then it must not be "good"!".    

 "Good" can be more subtle than someone realizes.  Oftentimes when it IS subtle, it's that much more "good".  Mountain Dew in it's bromenated, hyped citric tartness can strike one immediately as "good", sometimes. I can't imagine wanting to drink a lot of Mountain Dew, but it's good sometimes IMO.  Sushi, not the same experience; everyday would be great, and the more subtle the better.  IMO.

 I'm not going to say "sushi doesn't have as many ingredients as Mountain Dew", or "anybody can put raw fish on rice".  Mountain Dew is great and so is sushi; there is no reason to compare or measure IF IT'S GOOD.  Be a human,  just say "I don't like pentatonic music", "I prefer very complex music"".


 Ahrgh.  I hate the 21st century.

(This post to be possibly removed shortly for a much abbreviated rendition...) 




Tuesday, November 20, 2018

The Welcome Death of Genres!


The death of guitar? 

 No, ridiculous hype from a few bored writers.

Also, people who based reality on statistics instead of their own common sense: new guitar sales down doesn't mean interest in guitar is also down.  It means new guitar sales are down.  Where is the tracking for used sales?  Particularly sense Reverb.com seems to have really come into its own, and there is no Craigslist tracking, and how about sales of guitars direct from China?

 On the other hand...


 I haven't had a Musical Purist in a long while as a student.


 Most everyone I've taught in the past 5 years will not simply state one genre of music as their preference.  Usually when pressed, it will cross at least one other "traditional" genre.  Everyone today has hybrid tastes.

 Which is a great thing in my opinion.  I've always wanted it this way, it is as it should be; I've never only listened to just one genre.

 On the other hand, most of my life has been ... wrecked... by musicians insisting on a curiously conservative adherence to staying genre specific.  This is still pretty much true today, but - I see it waning.

 Which means it will take a few years, but hopefully I predict by 2022-ish there will be a pop/rock/whatever music renaissance as people finally let go of staying within the traditional confines.  Hopefully this WILL be the death of the worst affliction to music that was initiated unfortunately in the late 80's.  That would be...

Banal extremism and gimmicks as the basic of style.

 Meaning, hopefully no longer will the following adjectives be used in conjunction with music:

  • The fastest.
  • The slowest.
  • The lowest.
  • The highest.
  • The most dense.
  • The most complex.
  • The heaviest.

Additionally, hopefully we'll also see the end of what I tacitly would say is gimmicks.  Techniques that require unorthodox approaches. Either tapping that approaches piano skills, physical/rhythmic tapping that approaches trying to be a percussionist AND a guitarist at the same time, anything that is trying to be what normally would take 2 people to do, playing with other body parts than the fingers, playing backwards, upside down, using another musical instrument at the same time, ...... yeah.  I think that's about it.

 "Hey, can you show me this clown metal song this guy is doing using a waffle iron for a pick, and all of his strings tuned down an octave with piano wire and he's standing on his head underwater while his right hand is playing Chopin on a Korg Microkeyboard silconed inside a zip lock bag, and his feet are hanging out of the pool playing the kick and snare drum parts to a Pantera song?

  Can you show me that....?"

 How about the old-school "genres: returning?  "pop/rock", "country", "classical", "sound track"?

 No appending of the nationality, or geographical region, or era. 

 Just guitar.  You know, just the music.  Here's hoping.




 








Friday, November 2, 2018

The WHEN Not the WHERE - a Sentinel For Dunning Kruger: the Stairway To Heaven Bridge!

There are lots of videos on Youtube about the "infamous" Stairway To Heaven Bridge.

 The way I've always explained it is that it is trickery to get the audience from one tempo to another.

 A fact that I haven't seen anyone point out?  Did they notice?  I'm not sure.  Because it seems instead they're very, very hyper focused on explaining why it's much more complicated than you think it is. Completely ignoring the Big Thing Going On, the tempo change.

 The reason I'm motivated to write this is because a couple videos just tell you point blank "you're perceiving it wrong".

 Which is effectively the same thing as saying that Led Zeppelin made a mistake!  Everyone that likes the song and that part of the song - you don't even know what you're hearing!  Wait!  You might not like it, or like it better, once you hear X YouTube expert's explanation of how it really is!  You're counting it wrong, the pulse is not what you think it is!

 Here's my expert opinion, for free like their explanation:

  The Dsus4 "fanfare" part comes in a touch late.  Deliberately.  The first time around is 88 bpm in 4/4, deceptively DROPS A BEAT before switching to the C.  It picks up tempo to about 92 bpm.  The C then deceptively goes an EXTRA 16th (perceived by the audience as effectively a "short beat") before going back to the Dsus4 fanfare (now at 92 bpm) which again drops a beat back to C - which this time continues at a faster 96 bpm, and Bonham puts the snare on the & of 2 - which is congruent with where Page put accents on the C, but then gives you beat 4 on the snare; at this point the AUDIENCE has been shifted to the 98 bpm speed.


 Also note the drums go away on the C chord: you can decide to count that however you wish based on the pulse of the strumming (including one guy that wants it to effectively be perceived as reggae...); but it's how the guy walking down the street who knows nothing about time signatures perceives it that actually (pun intended) "counts"!  That Invisible Listener's Foot is where the pulse is.

But feel free to hear it as reggae, or some sort of odd West African poly rhythm if that's your fancy.  In reality, NOBODY who isn't a musician COUNTS when listening to music.  Nor do most good rock musicians unless something is really amiss.

POINTS TO CONSIDER I BELIEVE PEOPLE ARE MISSING:

 "Deliberately".  I've seen a video where someone insists it's a mistake.  Most all ignore that there are ebbs and flows timing wise - which is the essence of John Bonham's feel. There are people who will insist music that isn't perfectly gridded - perfectly on beat - is therefore "wrong".  This is an edict invented by people who don't want to make a judgement call on the reality that some music pushes the beat, some drags the beat, sometimes a mix.  Or least it was until the computer recording era came along.

 "Deceptively".  It is an artistic decision to make this part feel like something happened different,  and was abrupt.  They want to disturb the AUDIENCES inner metronome.  The effect of the sensation of being abrupt, something happened "early" is what is wanted.


 This is why I say it's not a time signature change!  If you're perceiving a different time signature then you KNOW there is going to be a missing or added beat.  The fanfare is 2 measures in the song, the first of which went (deceptively ) as expected for 4 beats, the second time dropping beat is NOT "dood, a measure of 5/4".  It's NOT a big measure of 7 (the rhythmic pattern REPEATS TWICE).

 It's very simple: they DROP A BEAT.  There is a difference: in an odd time you expect a beat to go away or return. You know it's an "odd time signature" - that's the point.  I would guess that people accustomed to the odd time of the Zeppelin songs "Black Dog", "Four Sticks" and "The Ocean" want this to conform to that creative notion.  It's not, it is deliberate musical deception!  And "in ye olde days" music as an art form wasn't that coarse; it would have been crass to have Yet Another Odd Time Signature with The Drummer Playing Across the Bar/Backwards/Poly/Syncopated.

 Because they've thrown the AUDIENCE off kilter they can sneak the tempo up a bit.  Which I claim was the point.

 When they return to the fanfare - at the faster tempo - the audience now expects it to be short.  Of course!  So then they make the following C continue where the audience would also expect it to go the same extra beat as before - a surprise.  It also lets the guitar get away with accenting that cues the end tempo of about 98-99 bpm, and Bonham puts the drum-stamp of approval on beat 4 - but only after one last bit of deception with the snare hitting the & of 2:

in rock music the snare "always" accents 2 and 4.  The AUDIENCE is expected to perceive the & of 2 as a new beat 2 - or was it beat 4?  That ambiguity is the final step, closed by him hitting the snare on 4 afterwards.  BUT, because the & of 2 is after beat 2, a shorter length of time between the "traditional" 2 and 4 has occurred: the listener is pushed "forward", "faster".

 It would seem "a lot" of people want "the tempo change" to happen at that moment.

 This is a very curious thing to me.  Even as a child I heard this section of the song pushing the tempo faster (as other sections do as well).  Yet, effectively all of these videos have one problem in common: they want the tempo to remain steady from before the fanfare section through to the guitar solo!

 Which means, they all want to do some crazy math to reconcile both beats being dropped and added, as well as the slightly late start, and the "early"-ish, 16th-ish change back to the fanfare the second rep, and the accelerondo at the intro to the guitar solo.

 Some guys want to count all the way across all sections, as if nothing repeats.
 Some want to add the fanfare reps into one measure of 9 beats.
 Some want the pulse to be 16ths on the C chord parts to account for the 16th coming back to the fanfare.
 Some want the listener to perceive it as syncopation to an invisible pseudo-clave pulse.
 Some have zanier ideas about it.

 Here's my beef: they all ignore what really should be the most important concept to the notion of "music theory": the only thing that matters is

 AUDIENCE PERCEPTION

 

 The mythical imaginary listener may not be able to use musical terms to explain their perception, but that doesn't mean they don't perceive.


 Music is not science!  It is SUBJECTIVE.  It is the most absurd thing in the world to tell an audience "no, you're not perceiving it right".  That's like insisting cerulean blue in a painting of a sky is ACTUALLY green, "you're just not perceiving it right".  The only thing that matters is perception of the audience.  One can count odd times over anything and insist that's what one is perceiving, but it doesn't matter.


 I will invoke Reverse Speculative Musical Anthropology and suggest that Page/John Paul Jones had 3 separate "songs" and decided to stick them together as an opus.  They had a problem: the 3 parts were different speeds.  They had to connect them together.

 They did that in the "bridge" section very cleverly.  So cleverly that the Scientists of Music do not agree on what is actually happening.  My addition to this pointless affair (because in reality, do you like it or not?) is that you can't remove the AUDIENCE PERCEPTION from the explanation.  Call it "Chip's Audience Perception Rule".

 YOU CAN'T TAKE AUDIENCE PERCEPTION AWAY.

.. is the only absolute in "music theory".  When you count odd time signatures it does funny things sometimes to your perception.  Fundamental "sensations" of downbeat, up and offbeat get messed around.  It's confusing.  Sometimes the artist WANTS that confused impression (these days.. a lot want that apparently).  A blurry sensation of where the downbeat is seems the goal of a lot of prog bands, despite one of the important antecedents Rush making odd times groove being the dictate.  And certainly the king of grooving odd time signatures - Soundgarden - wasn't about making you feel dizzy about the downbeat.  They were all about it.

 Zeppelin didn't want you to feel confused about the downbeat on these parts of the song.  They wanted you to feel unsure about WHEN it was happening, not WHERE!

 For the first time listener to Stairway, they're simply perceiving a beat going away, a 16th being added - and in the process being tricked about the tempo.  Here's another thing: this is my opinion.  Not really an explanation, because - the way you perceive it is reality.  I'm sure there are people that won't, or can't hear it as a tempo change with beats added/subtracted (which is the problem...).  But in my OPINION the above is what is going on in reality.

$.10, thanks drive through.





 






  







 


Tuesday, October 23, 2018

Secret Music Retail Disaster Looms: Peak Guitar?

 After examining many videos of the literally hundreds of guitar factories in China, and seeing thousands of guitars stacked in each, I wonder "where do they all go...?"

My '82 Japanese made Squier Strat bought used in the 80s.  "Entry level" in 1982, now "vintage-quality". 



 Obviously somewhere, the world is a big place.  There are countless "developing country" export markets.  But I'm going to limit this discussion to "here" in the U.S..

 I've referenced "peak guitar" previously, but not in this context. Solid body guitars have been built routinely en masse since the mid-1930s.  I don't have production numbers, but let's say the "modern era" began with the Stratocaster in 1954. 

 There has never been a "guitar shortage" relative to demand.  So consider that demand was met every year since 1954.  Almost 65 years of consumer demand met. That doesn't mean it was 1:1, and exact number built relative to demand, obviously there would be an overrun every year, but let's ignore that.

 Another way of looking at that is that since the population has drastically shot up, and demand for guitars has been more or less a constant thing,

 Relative to 1954 64X consumer demand has been built (at least).  In other words, there are at least 64x as many guitars floating around today than in 1954.

 Yes, I know: all guitars don't make it to retirement behind a glass case in some Yakuza's mansion in Japan one day like a '58 'burst Les Paul.  But I would argue that the surplus not sold greatly outweighs those given to have been "broken", or "lost" somehow to the aether.  In general, there is a t LEAST 64 times as many guitars in the universe today than demand wanted in 1954.

Population in the U.S. in 1954 was about 150 million.  Today it's estimated to be between 350-400 million.  A bit more than 2-3x as much, let's say 3x.  Then, let's say that half of the guitars sold in the U.S. have evaporated into thin air somehow, leaving a 32 year production run versus 1954.

 In this imaginary context let's equate 400 million people today to then, 3X as many.  3 1954's to one 2018.  You still have over 25 years at least of guitars sold beyond human demand today.  These days a million guitars or so a year are sold in the U.S. alone.  But let's say it's half that, not as many sold in the 60's as now.

 That would yield at least 10 million guitars in a category of  "still exists, was wanted by somebody as "consumer demand" at some point".  That's obviously not all the guitars built or sold in the U.S..  Just a very conservative number of  "how many viable guitars are there in the wild, in the personal possession of someone in the U.S.".  I'd say it's much higher, but let's say it's 10 million.  What does that number mean?  It's not exact, it's not even clear what it entails aside from the claim that at any given time floating about I'd say there are at least than many guitars "in circulation".  At least.  I think it's something of a buffer figure: for the 1.5 million sold every year in the U.S., there was probably something like 10 million to be had, easily, used I'm guessing.

 I don't know how many used guitars are sold on Craig's List, Ebay or Reverb.com.  But I'll step out on a limb and say that there must be at least .... 30-40 million viable guitars around in the U.S., if not more.  I'm going to say 50 million.

 I'd like to think that means around 15% of the population plays guitar.  I think it could be higher than that.  I think for the past 10 years we've seen the guitar replace the piano as "the instrument every child has to learn as part of being a well rounded individual, learning a musical instrument".  Cheaper and more portable than a piano, a certainly more relevant these days and motivating.  But it wouldn't be every single child in the U.S.?  On the other hand, the amount of people aging that do play guitar I would claim is increasing year by year for the same reason.  Gen-X and younger, we were the transition era from piano to guitar as the Instrument our Parents Wanted Us To Be Able To Play.

 What am I getting at with all of this?

 Solid body electric guitars in general, don't vanish.  All of the above aside, there is 50+ years of electric guitars around somewhere.  They *accumulate*.  And while the "nice" ones accumulate value, most don't.

 And with 50 years worth of guitars - millions - my question is, "how many more guitars are there in the U.S. relative to consumer demand?".  I think a whopping amount more.  Go on Craig's List, plenty of nice guitars being sold.  Unfortunately, everybody seems to want almost what they paid for their instrument ....

 ... The gist being this:

 At some point it will be Common Consumer Awareness that "guitars are everywhere!".  In reality one should get around half new value for used gear; this will become self evident at some point, and the used guitar prices will reflect this. What is presently maybe a 10:1 margin will grow. 

 In other words, it will become Common Knowledge that you can get a Perfectly Good Electric Guitar for half price, relatively easily, used. As it stands now, just about everybody knows somebody with an unused guitar in a corner of someone's house, somewhere.  At some juncture it will be just "the thing", Prices for cheap guitars used will be even less than half - at some point worthless as people realize....

 guitars are everywhere.

 What does that mean for guitar retail.....?

 

 China is building guitars faster than I can type this sentence.  At some point "soon" low-end guitar sales will fall flat, because of the above phenomenon.  China is speeding the demise by pushing this inevitability closer, flooding the market with hyper-cheap and quite decent guitars.  At some point in the future (presuming there is one...) - maybe 3-5 years from now, music retail will have to reckon with what will be seen as a "sudden loss of demand for guitars".  It will be dramatically, and ignorantly touted as something along the lines of  "guitar losing popularity?" when in reality it will just mean we've met Peak Guitar and the concurrently present population will just be finding guitars to start on in other places.

 In reality it could be a boon; more people will try guitar because "guitars are just laying around everywhere".  More people may end up being life-long players, and in turn buying better gear as they progress.

 ... but it's going to be hyper-annoying to read/hear people talking about guitar retail tanking, and hard for the remaining brick-and-mortar stores.










Monday, October 15, 2018

Entertainment Psychology and Practice

I don't use or recommend a book in the context of teaching guitar.

Because ultimately the trick to learning guitar is maximizing what is entertaining about it to you.

In the late 80's during the height of the hair-band metal technical guitar playing era, I could actually prescribe a pretty exact regimen for about a 1/3rd of my students.  They would follow it, and the following week be considerably better at what that regimen addressed.

 They were very, very motivated.  As in, I haven't seen that motivation since then; "people today" (who are standing on my lawn...) can't emulate that motivation, because it was the only time in recent music history where instrumental technique was high prized and actually commercialized.

 Back in that time on MTV - which for all intents and purposes was the entertainment equivalent of the internet for most people in that era - there was a few years where the dominant thing you saw on MTV at any one point in time was guitar-centric rock.  Not only that, but there would be a guitar solo featured heavily in the middle of the video: the guitar player was the star.  Literally.


 Women can't practice to look "as good as" Taylor Swift, men can try to workout to get that Arnold Swarzenegger physique, but it's not going to be the same.

 Guitar solos, on the other hand, was something you can work at and eventually mimic effectively "exactly".  You COULD be the same as the "star" on MTV.  You could walk around knowing you were special, able to do something that was put on a pedestal and respected on a global scale that made you unique.

 That did wonders for my business.  I started teaching in that era, and for many years I never faced the problem of having to figure out how to keep a student motivated.  I completely took it for granted.  I could do what the Famous Guitar Players Did, I could help the student do the same, it was very straightforward and focused.  Just about every student I had played in bands, and that continued for at least a decade into the 90's.

 Then it went away, although the desire to be in a Rock Band remained a pretty good motivating factor.  About half of my students would be in gigging bands, and some went on to making records and touring the planet.

 That went away as the record industry died in the 2000's.  So what remains now is a curious, diffuse mixture of wanting personal growth, a little bit of a rush of doing something special, and maybe a dash of rock stardom swagger thrown in.  But it's rather abstract and non-specific.  Nothing like "I want to get in a band and pull off guitar solos like the guy in (Insert Favorite Band Here)".

  In the year 2018 everyone has different motivations, different musical preferences, different schedules, different expectations, and an overall jadeness to the process of music.  Does "fun" mean a step above the Guitar Hero video game experience?  Is "fun" playing along with a song, or is "fun" being able to execute a single, stand alone piece of music?  Is "fun" having a professional skill set?  Is "fun" learning about how to make music from scratch and record it, or to be able to analyze it by ear?

 Everyone is a unique case these days, and it's super tricky for me as a teacher to prescribe a routine.  In the 80's it was purely a matter of mechanics.  These days it's a matter of trying to get the mechanical side of technique to move along linearly to expectation - which is tricky when the balance of "fun" and "tedium" is a ratio that's different for everybody.

 I insist that ultimately learning skills within the context of goals set by music recordings ultimately is the best way to go about things.  Nobody today is going to "practice" the mechanics of something for very long at all (particularly relative to the 80's) - but being able to get it out of the way while playing to music is easier.

 It's also informative from a rhythmic standpoint.  Doing something properly along with a recording that addresses a particular aspect of one's ability is really the only way to learn the "invisible" aspect of timing.  Learning the mechanics apart from matching it timing wise to the Real Thing is pointless!

 So the Trick is balancing the "practice" routine with what is at least marginally entertaining to you.  Which gets back to "what music do you really like?  Specifically?" and "what do you REALLY want to be able to do on the guitar?".  I'm not Vulcan, I can't read minds, you have to help me out on those questions!  Sometimes I can help the student out on it from a musicology standpoint, but learning to be honest with yourself is a good thing.  Do you *really* want to learn how to play The Currently Popular Song or do you actually like The Almost Unknown Song by One's Favorite but Unpopular Artist?  You'll learn much more within the framework of "what can be learned from that song?" because the entertainment factor will keep you motivated.







 





















Sunday, October 14, 2018

An Open Letter to Roland Incorporated: Your Fatal Flaw

Dear Roland,

 You make, and have made, some really great products.

 The D-50 keyboard, the VS-880, pioneering guitar synthesis with the 303/707, and now through Boss the Katana amp line.

 I write this because I'm vexed.  I bought a Katana because for the price it seemed like a clever bit of kit for my guitar lesson business.  Very versatile, sounds pretty good, and it may even work as a throw-and-go amp with 50 watts and the 12" speaker.

 It has a fatal problem.  A problem that has plagued every Roland device in history.  So much so that there are a few of us professional musicians that KNOW this and avoid your products because of it.

YOUR USER INTERFACES ARE ALWAYS HORRIBLE IN REAL WORLD USE.

This would be ok - on a floor pedal in 1988.


It can sort of be summed up as follows.

 Roland digital products generally have a lot of capability but with a less than adequate display interface and operation implementation.

 I'll avoid going into too much detail, anecdotes about the VS-880 "snatch mode", or the endless products where you get to "scroll" through a little led display. 

 I kinda get the feeling that there must be a "legacy Roland SDK" that is used to write all software.  The Katana has echoes of things that I saw in products from 20 years ago.  The anti-intuitive patch numbering, buttons that do double duty to "swap" functions to a different set of presets, and other things.  The big problem is that you decided to forego midi and require a bespoke footswitch to access more than 4 presets. 

 I can only get 2 presets at once, unless I go through the ordeal of pressing-holding etc..  In the Ancient Times before the Yamaha SPX-90 came out that was ok.  It's not in the year 2018.

 The double-duty knobs that switch function at 12 o'clock is a horrible idea.  That you can't get at both features at once makes it doubly worse.  A micro-tiny tap tempo button.  Not even an indicator led for which model is selected - it's like not only did you decide to go "retro" with an early-80's level of technology, you also decided to skimp on the hyper-expensive led (which cost you what - $.01?).  Peavey, Line6, various Chinese companies find it cheap enough to put display logic onboard for an LCD in entry-level beginner practice amps that cost even less than the Katana - there is no reason for this.

 So, one is never really sure what is going on with the Katana, even when plugged into the dodgy editing software with a computer.  The USER EXPERIENCE is diffuse and unpleasant.  To make matters even worse, I wasn't surprised to find the Katana manual looks like Every Roland Manual From the Dawn of Time: stereotypically dry and unhelpful.

 Line 6 is your competitor now, not necessarily because of a great sounding product, but because there has been some rudimentary thought put into the End User Experience, even down to the way the manuals are written.  It would be worthwhile to study and emulated them in that aspect.

 The Katana created a big splash based on price and capability, but I'm guessing that shine is becoming lack-luster as people realize in the day to day use it's just as frustrating as Any Other Roland Product.  I kind of expected the Katana to break that mold, I expected it at this point.  I was wrong, it's another clunky to use Roland product.

 So now I'm thinking of selling it, because while in theory it should be a great amp for guitar lessons, I'm basically just using it on one channel with one sound 99% of the time.  No, I'm not going to buy the footswitch that costs almost as much as the amp.  No, I don't feel like trying to switch it from a computer.  You haven't bothered with an IPad app - that might have sufficed, but no.

 I imagine the Roland Process is something like finding a New Capable Chip, throwing engineers at it to get the nth capability out of it, and then putting it in a box.  There is more to it than that IMO.  I'd imagine the perennial seller of Boss pedals keeps the money coming in, maybe I'm wrong, but it's a shame you can't couple capability with usability after all of these many years.

















Tuesday, September 25, 2018

Influences Out of the Blue?

 I discovered something curious last year.  As a dilettante drummer I've taught myself many of my favorite drummers parts at different times in my life for my own edification.  I want to know how things work, and the process of learning always has knock-on effects in other fields, in ways that are never predictable.

 I remember after going through my nascent period of learning guitar, going through the wringer of all sorts of complicated guitar challenges, I one day put on a Pink Floyd record for the first time while holding a guitar, and discovering yes, I knew how to play just about everything spontaneously.  I had been listening to Pink Floyd most of my life to that point, and it was no surprise that I could play all the parts almost instantly and of course intuitively knew them. 

  When I'm listening to music I'm not trying to focus on any instrument per se.  But kinesthetically I have muscle memory for my limbs to play drums.  The drum beat corresponds to the limbs that would be used to play the drum beat.

 Guitar parts, yes, I know how to play whatever it is I'm hearing.  Drums I can't naturally reproduce on a super technical level, hence the learning bit mentioned above.  If I hear something that I'm not sure about how it's reproduced sticking and feet-wise on drums, I might be compelled to break it down and figure that out.  I might not be able to execute it at full speed, but that's not the point: I want to know how it works.

 I was/am also a super big ELO fan.  I realized last year that I already know all of Bev Bevan's drum parts from their record _Out of the Blue_.  I could probably scratch by in an ELO tribute band if given a week or so practice.  I know all of the fills and breaks, accents.  It's imprinted. 

 I've written about "mainlining" music before.  I love the _Out of the Blue_ record, I think it's perfect.  I've listened to it over and over for weeks when I was a little kid; I subconsciously absorbed the drum parts even before I could technically play drums. 

 It dawned on me not only did I know all of Bev Bevan's fills, but that my preferences drumming wise are very influenced by him.  He has a fairly pervasive 16th note swing, and a spartant post-Bonham, post-Ringo drum fill style.  This rhythmic sense translates to guitar: it's my right hand.  My rhythmic influences that affect how I play guitar are not just guitar players - but drummers as well.

 So two takeaways:

1) You can be influenced by things outside of guitar, whether you know it or not.

2) "Mainlining" your favorite music is educational.  It's necessary as far as I'm concerned: listening to the same song 10 times in row allows you to listen into it with much more awareness of detail than you'll ever have hearing it once one day, then maybe a week later, a month after that.


If you've never really listened to anything intently before - it's not going to flow out later.  If you've only listened to one thing intently - that WILL flow out, and it will be limited and one dimensional.  People look to music theory to circumvent this, but the reality is that you are what you eat. 

So listen to your favorite music, over and over and over and over until you're not sure if you're tired of it.  Listen some more.  Come back to it.  You're empty otherwise.