I have a 2013 MiM strat (Brown-burst finish) that I want to repaint solid black at some point.
According to a few spec sheets, it's got a polyester finish.
I'm not really interested in getting any of the wood to show through or anything fancy like that. I don't even mind if it doesn't look all that professional.
Any recommendations on the process? I was thinking I should probably sand away the clear coat a little to 'matte' it first, but would that be even necessary? I'd rather not take the whole finish off if I don't have to.
Also, what paint should I use? Any brand recommendations? As I understand it, I have to paint a few coats of color, than 3-ish coats of clear coat + sand in between coats.
EDIT: Figured I'd mention that I'm planning to rattle-can it. I just don't know what brand to buy.
Taxing your carbon foodprint is not ridiculous. The market mechanism is supposed to work cause a trade would be best for both parties. Once you introduce pollution to the story, a third party who has had nothing to do with the trade of the two persons is now negatively effected. By not pricing the eternality you are creating a system in which trade and therefore also the pollution are too high from a social point of view. This can be fixed by a pigovian tax.
And you clearly have not read the papers otherwise you'd know that anthropomorphic climate change is a thing. CO2 is a greenhouse gas, more co2 means more heat gets trapped. We have measured for decades now that co2 has risen. How do we know that it is caused by humans? cause the isotope content (c14/c12 ratio) of the co2 matches that of the coal and oil deposits, not those of naturally occuring sources like oceans, air and the biosphere. Man made climate change has been proven scientifically. That you and others are ignorant of basic facts, does not mean that it hasn't been proven. What the real questions are is what the actual effects will be long term.
Clearly you haven't read very much into this beyond the general leftist rhetoric. The CO2 we emit makes up about 3.6% of the total carbon emitted per year and it's not even the CO2 we need to worry about, but the chain reaction caused when the temperature increases evaporate more of the oceans, in turn adding more water vapor to the atmosphere. CO2 is useless as a greenhouse gas. Water vapor, on the other hand, could be of concern as water vapor makes up 98% of the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Even cursory reading on the subject would tell you that.
It's still debated whether our additional 3.6% is having a significant effect on evaporation of the oceans and this simply wasn't accounted for in the original study which only focused on the amount of CO2 emissions humans were directly responsible for.
And no, taxing people more to help the environment is an awful idea. Taxing the corporations is a better idea, but that will only in turn raise prices which does the former in an indirect fashion. The world runs on fossil fuel as of today, and no amount of taxation that will likely NOT go toward research into energy alternatives (oil and coal companies will make sure of that!), is going to change that. You can't pay the earth in tax dollars either.
Quote by Eastwinn
nah, there's widespread consensus and more evidence for it than most scientific theories that people accept without question. that's usually the case with theories that have, for whatever reason, been controversial. look at quantum mechanics, for instance.
Who the hell debates quantum mechanics? Only those Electric Universe people and hard-core Einstein worshipers that can't accept that we might need to modify relativity someday to unify the two theories, I imagine.
BTW, not saying climate change isn't a thing. I have trouble with the anthropomorphic part, specifically the ones that say it's the sole cause, and the alarmists claiming Armageddon for profit and political support. Climate changes. That's what it does. The question is how much of an impact are we having on it (because we are. No getting around it), and what measures do we need to take to fix the problem. I still disagree with a carbon tax.
Believe in anthropomorphic climate change went slightly DOWN here Still the vastmajority beliefs in it though, but Geert Wilders (why always the right wingers?) denies it so his followers don't belief it either (they are idiots and/or old)
I think the problem is more how hard the left-wingers hit it a few years ago. They went full alarmist and made ridiculous predictions that didn't come true (I'm looking at you Al Gore!) and now more and more people are thinking that it's not really a problem seeing as Manhattan and the Florida Keys aren't completely submerged in water just yet. This happens every time the right or left (but especially the left IMO) see a possibly legitimate problem. They hit it like they're paying for it by the hour and then people think they're nuts and go the other way.
I'm more in the camp that we need to be mindful of it, but taxing people for their 'carbon footprint' is ridiculous. We ****ing breathe it out... It's about as dumb as arresting people for 'manspreading'...
I've read papers by climate scientists on both sides and it seems that we really don't know whether anthropomorphic climate change is really even a thing or not. The left took the side they thought would serve their interests and churned out a bunch of demagogues. I think we'd be better off planting more trees, because as I understand it, that's the real problem. We're putting more carbon in the atmosphere and cutting down trees at the same time (other half of the carbon cycle). More trees = more conversion from CO2 to O2. #stopdeforestation!
That's actually pretty damn close to where I live. Most of my co-workers live there. It's crazy how I can live in an area and know a handful of millionaires and Paterson residents as well.
I met one while I was there. He owned a fancy restaurant that no one ever went to that he just kept running for fun. There are definitely people with money there, but if you needed a look at what uneven distribution of wealth looks like, it's a pretty prime example.
Eh. It's probably good for now, but really it's just like a shitty Band-Aid with dirty adhesive. Just like every other time, inflation will rear it's ugly head and they'll be in the same predicament as before.
I'm not really an expert on economics. I've read a few books, but as far as I know minimum wage needs to just be gotten rid of altogether. It does more harm than good, really. It was a nice sentiment, but the economy just doesn't work that way. Mopping floors or flipping burgers just isn't worth $15/hr and the employer doesn't want to pay $15/hr for it. This gives employers an incentive to cut back hours, number of employees, etc. If the employees don't like it? There's another one knocking on the door next week looking for a job and it doesn't require much training to do these jobs meaning the old employees just get their hours cut until they quit. They get switched out like a cog in the machine. It also gives smaller businesses incentive to pay employees under the table.
I was staying with my girlfriend in North Jersey for a few months and tried to get a job there. Not a single job I was offered (or she has been offered) didn't pay under the table except corporate chains and these small businesses payed awful. They'd say: "We'll give you $30 a day. You come in at 10 and work till like 3 or 5." Some quick math will tell you why that's a raw deal (min wage in NJ is $8.38/hr). It's no surprise that the area is extremely poor. Crime is bad. Most everyone you meet is on some kind of welfare. And these people, mostly immigrants/illegals that speak very little English, get tricked by these employers with that kind of weird double speak into working for wages far below what would be considered 'livable'.
Anyway, I don't know the answer to the problem. The way we're going about it now just doesn't seem effective though. It's good to give people some relief in the short term, I suppose, but it's about as effective as raising the debt ceiling over and over and over. I was reading about Basic Income, and that seems like a viable way of fixing it, but it's a difficult concept to get people to wrap their heads around. It just seems ridiculous on the surface.
No worries! Everyone struggles with rhythm at some point. At least you're admitting it rather than carrying on for years and years with bad rhythm!
teoria.com has some ear trainers for rhythm.
The best way is going to be actually playing different rhythms though and if you want to be able to write them without playing them, play them with sheet music so you can get a handle on the way it looks in standard notation. Really, there's no point in ear training rhythm if you don't have a solid foundation for playing different rhythms on your instrument.
I would recommend picking all kinds of styles/genres when it comes to rhythm and learning at least the basics of as many as possible. Do some Reggae, some Blues, some Swing, some Funk, etc etc etc. The more styles you can master rhythmically, the better! Be sure to tap that foot or count in your head or gyrate..really just something to keep time. Play with a metronome too. You'll be an expert in no time!
1) Do you think there is room for boutique pedal companies (such as Earthquaker Devices or Eventide) to grow in this saturated pedal market?
Absolutely. They already have grown. 'boutique' pedals is a more niche market to begin with, but just look at Earthquaker Devices. They're now sold at Guitar Center! So long as there are people chasing tone, there will be people looking for new pedals to try.
2) Do you more frequently buy high end pedals with a premium price or more basic pedals with a more affordable price?
I certainly used to. I now build my own pedals for the most part as I've found that 99% of them are incredibly simple circuits and are easily constructed at home for a fraction of the cost (and plus I get to modify them to my liking!).
That being said, I'll still buy a pedal here and there and I'll generally go higher end. Really, I have no idea how to do something like, say, program a Spin FV-1 chip, so if there's a sound I'm after and a company that's done it via digital means, I'll consider buying it.
3) What would it take for a premium pedal company to stand out? Unique tones/effects?
Going off what I said in the second one, it's important to do things other companies can't do. Anyone can build a clone or rearrange circuit blocks to make something they can call 'new'. When I see a company that does something innovative or creative with sound, even if it's spending time nailing the tone of something no one's ever reproduced in pedal format, it's impressive, and those are the pedals that will be remembered.
I guess as an example, I'm always impressed with the stuff CatalinBread do. I really get the vibe that they want to create things that no one else has or if they do something someone else has, they want to do it way better. That's a company that will do well. EQD took a similar approach and they're also doing quite well nowadays. It's also how ElectroHarmonix approached the market years ago and how they continue to approach it. Every year they pump out new pedal designs that are interesting/innovative. They never approached the market trying to make a Fuzz Face clone
Anyway, that's all coming from someone that's gone through far too many pedals and is pretty jaded by the entire stompbox market.
Yeah, I had 5 that I can recall. All men. 2 Health teachers, a Phys Ed teacher, a Math teacher, and an English teacher. A few school nurses along the way too. Then again, I grew up in an area that had what I would consider a pretty even breakdown relative to the population of the US when it came to race (that is, until I moved to a mostly white town when I was in the 10th grade).
I've managed to persuade a few, by getting them to play the usual stuff, and me changing the harmony underneath ... so they hear new sounds coming from their hands, effectively.
I think this was the moment where I really 'got it'. In one of the books I read, a part of it recommended to play two chord progressions (I-IV-V and i-iv-v) and to play the scales of each mode over it, and to try starting scales on different notes on each chord and to just pay attention to how it shifted the feel of the song or direction of the melody as well as the feel of each chord.
Realizing that and realizing how all those scales fit together with each other was a crazy moment. Add in arpeggios (and how they relate to/give the sound of different scales) and my mind was blown. I couldn't believe that I hadn't put it together before that! I was then also able to listen to a song and have a far better understanding of what was going on. I listened to 'Purple Haze' and was like: "That solo sounds an awful lot like a Dorian scale." I picked up my guitar, and lo and behold, I was right.
Once you have that power to your hands, and you do some reading on melodic and harmonic motion, I think it's enough for most people to start getting very creative.
Good on you for getting people to pay attention to that stuff earlier on in their foray into theory! I think I would have had a much more successful run earlier on had someone sat me down and did just that. I look back and feel like there was a lot of time wasted and a lot of boring/broken songs written because of ignorance and not having the right teacher when it came to these things. Part of that was my own pride, I'll admit.
It still baffles me how some books and teachers can make some of these concepts so damned complicated when they don't need to be. I think it was said earlier that a lot of it is making it more academic for the sake of making it academic. I agree with that. IIRC, Tonal Harmony isn't even that old and it's still written in a way that some sections are just overly complicated. And some of these online lessons/teachers (specifically the less qualified ones that barely understand the concepts they attempt to teach)? God. Shoot me now.
If you're selling it by yourself (i.e. not to a store), it could raise the value, but that depends on how you market it. You'd get more selling it yourself either way, really. The stores are going to give you 40% of the used value at best. They have to make a profit too.
If you're selling it to the store, I would imagine that it'd actually decrease value. IME, even swapping out parts for better parts ends up in a lower value. The stores want it to be in the condition it was in when you bought it, so a new paint job, however good, isn't going to make it worth more to them.
That being said, bringing in a guitar with brand new strings, a proper setup, and clean will get you far more from the store (and if you were to sell it on your own). If I'm selling something back to a store, I make sure to clean the **** out of it and get it in the best working condition. It gives the impression that I truly take care of my gear, which is less work for them and allows a store to resell it at a higher price.
I play an extremely light gauge string set and I haven't broken a string in ages. Then again, I'm very light with the guitar. I also learned to string the guitar 'correctly' (proper length plus bends to 'lock' the string) which cut down on string breakage quite a bit. In fact, I haven't broken a string since switching to that method of stringing the guitar.
I'll still bring an extra guitar most times, but not if it's an open mic/open jam type thing.
Other than that, I have some extra tubes, picks, patch cables, strings + adjustment tools in my case. I haven't had to use them in years, but they're there just in case. I also keep an extra fuzz box in there.
I play out of a pretty simple rig for most gigs. Just fuzzbox, wah, octave fuzz, guitar, and amp for the most part. I'll bust out the a tremolo/univibe/leslie/tape echo every once in awhile, but I've gotten pretty lazy when it comes to carrying gear around. I'd rather use my guitar controls and a fuzzbox to get 90% of my sounds.
I had trouble with theory at the outset, but I think it wasn't the material so much as coming from it as a self-taught guitar player.
As a self-taught player, tabs, fret numbers, shapes, etc were king and the hard part was making the connection between the shapes and the actual notes I was playing. You can memorize the shape of a major scale or pentatonic scale in each position, but the challenge was figuring out which notes were what, you know? Like which one is the 7th? the 6th? And then, having not used standard notation since 5th grade, moving through books was...slow... to say the least.
Eventually it clicked. I had to read a few books. The first I read was 'How Music Really Works', which I believe is available online for free. It approaches theory in general terms with no standard notation. Not everything in it was accurate information, but it did help me grasp everything. From there I picked up a used copy of 'Tonal Harmony' (the text book), and worked my way through that.
The second thing that makes it hard, is the idea of going back. Having played guitar for 6 years before touching theory, and having memorized shapes and via experimentation and improvisation figured out what sounds good and what doesn't, it's difficult to sit there and have to work through a book taking you back to nursery rhymes in C to explain theory. In other words, it's hard to find books that cater to those that actually have quite a bit of 'unofficial' musical experience. Most books seem to take it to the very basics, as if you're a six-year-old, and I think we all know that many music theory books tend to have a condescending tone (on top of the archaic/pretentious language used) to them, which can be off-putting as well.
The last thing is not understanding what music theory actually is. There's a terrible misconception that it tells you what you're 'allowed' to play. As if it's a rule book rather than a tool box. As I'm moving into learning other fields, I'm seeing it there as well, so it's not an attitude relegated to music, but it seems to be the most ingrained in music (particularly guitar) since there's this weird mysticism/spirituality attached to music. A mythos, if you will. That somehow 'self-taught' means not learning in any way other than improvising and 'feeling it' and that any other way is somehow 'cheating'. It's an interesting attitude, but it's there, and I think it's what puts a lot of people off, especially younger people (myself included back when I started) who are still mystified by guitar.
If it's initially at the correct pitch (and is at the correct pitch at the 12th fret) but then falls out of tune, it's not an intonation problem so much as a string gauge problem. If you were to play a guitar that's perfectly intonated, no matter what note you hit, the pitch would vary. It's just the nature of the instrument.
I'll put this crude physics lesson in spoilers because it's unnecessary -
Think about it: If you were to watch a slow motion video of a string being plucked, what happens? Well, very momentarily, the string is put under more stress than it normally is as the pick moves the string away from it's point of rest. This increases what one might consider a 'theoretical pitch' if the string were vibrating at that moment. You could think of it like a very violent and sudden tightening of the tuning peg. When you let the string go, it vibrates as it attempts to move back to that point of rest, slowly lowering pitch and amplitude (the volume, or what you can hear) as it goes. The amplitude is determined by how violently (suddenly) you drop the amount of extra tension you built up by moving the string away from it's point of rest.
Try this with a tuner on: Pluck the string with more and more force. You'll find that the initial pitch gets sharper and sharper the more force you apply but will always move back down to about the same spot before becoming inaudible.
Now, depending upon the mass of the string (gauge) and the distance between the two points of tension (scale length), you'll have different amounts of pitch variation within the audible range. This has to do with the relationship between how much tension must be applied to a mass to allow for it to vibrate at certain frequencies (as well as how much slack is on the string when it's tuned to a pitch). The more mass you have, the more tension is required to tune it to pitch. The more tension you have, the less slack you have. The more slack you have, the less audible a frequency is going to be and the larger it's variation in pitch will be within the audible range.
So the TL;DR of the badly explained above is that the mass of the string (gauge) and distance over which a string vibrates (scale length) determines how 'tight' the variation of pitch will be at a certain frequency. Thicker strings allow for more 'stable' pitches, at lower frequencies. I would imagine you're trying to play with light strings in a lower tuning, which is where the problem is occurring. The strings have too much slack and are varying pitch greatly. Increase the string gauge and re-intonate your instrument or tune your guitar up to a pitch that is within the gauge you've chosen's workable range.
- Tonewood on an electric guitar - It just doesn't effect tone on any electric guitar unless it's designed to. No guitar you buy at the store is built this way. It's snake oil. Deal with it. The guitar companies use the woods that they do because they're cheap, easily workable, durable, and look pretty.
-"Vintage" - "Vintage" what? You're using that term incorrectly. And in terms of pickups: When you pick up an old guitar, it sounds different because the magnets have lost their charge over time. They're made the same today (well, those with alnico magnets) as they were back then.
As for caps: Contrary to the guitar mythos, the material of the cap has 0 influence on the sound. That .022uf cap from 1967 you just bought for $40 sounds the same as the cap I bought for a nickel today. Mine's smaller and has a tighter tolerance. TL;DR: In electronics, values matter (that .022uf), not the material or age of a component.
-"Mojo" - If I build a clone of a pedal or amp and match the capacitance and resistance of the components within (electrolytic caps..the big cylindrical things that shock you..degrade over time), you can't tell a difference in a blind test. Again, values matter in electricity. RE Guitars: It's the player that counts. If you picked up David Gilmour's guitar and ran through his rig, you wouldn't sound like David Gilmour. You'd sound like you playing through David Gilmour's rig.
Well, most 9v pedals can take 12v. They usually use components rated for 18v (or 16v on some occasions), however running them at 18v can be dangerous because you may get a spike that can cook components.
The 9v is really for safety reasons to account for voltage spikes/miss-marked power supplies and (I would assume) the inconvenient size of a 12v battery You'll actually find that 9v wall wart adapters don't always put out 9v, but sometimes more like 10-12v.
So, yeah. I'd run maybe the OD at 12v and use that 9v at another spot. ODs seem to like higher voltages. I mean, it depends what's under the hood, but I'm about 99% sure it'd be fine.
Otherwise, the MXR 10-band EQ can handle up to 18v. It's rated for 18v but 9v and 12v work just fine with it. It'll just have a little less headroom.
EDIT: Also, you could daisy chain one of the 9v if you're not comfortable fiddling with miss-matched voltages. People worry about daisy chaining pedals, but so long as the power supply is supplying enough current for both pedals, it won't 'tone-suck' your sound in the slightest. You can measure current draws with a multimeter. There are videos and stuff online that can show you how
I quit about 4 months ago. It's a pretty dumb thing no matter what if you make it a habit and don't recognize it as a bad one for your health, but I don't think someone is stupid if they smoke. In fact, a lot of really smart people were smokers. Einstein was one.
I just think it's dumb to start smoking regularly regardless of what's wrapped in the paper. You'll regret it at some point. Just like everything else, moderation is key.
The singer in the last cover band I played in said he smoked to 'add rasp to his voice'. He didn't last very long. He was a dumb ass.
I have a Zoom MS-50G sitting in my closet. It's not the best multiFX ever, but I find that it's good to have one on hand, especially if you're playing in cover bands. I don't use reverb/delay/pitch shift/tremolo/flanger in my regular rig, and sometimes I need them for a cover. It's also good to have more options for the effects I do use.
I had a friend who had a Boss GT-10. That thing was pretty...boss (sorry. Had to do it).
I used to have a Digitech RP350. It was shitty, but probably sounded about the same as the Zoom.
My first amp was a Line6 Spider III. I will never purchase a Line6 product again. It still sounds like butt to this day. I use it as an end table to prop up my mixing board these days. I've heard the Line6 POD is good, but I'll probably never bother with it.
I once watched a thing where a guy was going on about how videogames are the last unfettered competitive outlet there really is nowadays which is why they've surged in popularity and why more competitive games are mostly played by men. He backed it up with research papers and flow charts and the works.
It was an interesting argument and I think I agree with it for the most part.
It sort of leads into the argument dealing with the idea that videogames may actually prevent violent behavior by allowing people to go blow the heads off of zombies or whatever in a virtual world instead of doing it in the real world.
While correlation certainly doesn't mean causation, violent crimes, including youth crime, have been on a decline since 1975(?) and continue to fall. If videogames do indeed 'cause violence', shouldn't we see a spike in youth violence around the mid 90s to now? Christina Hoff Sommers argues in one of her videos that the people of Gen Y are actually less violent, sexist, racist, misogynist, etc as a whole when compared to Gen X.
Again, correlation isn't causation, but I think these trends might suggest that humans have the ability to differentiate between reality and fantasy and/or that perhaps having an outlet for these kinds of instinctual/primal urges that no longer fit into our modern view of what a society looks like might be a good thing.
There's also the argument over aggressive behavior and whether it's good or bad. I have seen a study that suggests that the media can cause increases in aggressive thoughts. I don't think that's necessarily bad. Nor is competitive behavior, IMO. Yes, it can be a factor in violent behavior, but IME it's important to the advancement in a all areas of our race. It's a good thing, but there's such a thing as too much of a good thing.
I also don't think that a single case of someone 'inspired by violent video games' committing a heinous act is a reason to censor or ban video games. We already have the rating system. That really should be enough for parents to make a decision on it. Don't let one dumbass ruin it for everyone.
That's where I stand at the moment unless I'm provided with statistics/studies/etc that prove otherwise.
Coming from a guitar player that probably relies a little too much (at times) on improvising through shit:
About 95% of our improvising isn't improvising. It's ideas/licks/scales we've familiarized ourselves with. We've practiced playing certain licks and experimented with scales/runs/arpeggios over different chords in a key. We do it for hours. Then, when it's time to play in a jam situation or a solo, we just chain together the licks we know best based on the chord progression, feel/flavor of the situation, and time allotted.
What's most important is rhythm and timbre. If you can get those two down, the notes you're playing become less important. In fact, with proper rhythm and timbre, when you hit 'wrong' notes, it makes you sound like you meant it and that you were going for something expressive.
If you're familiar with jazz standards, listen to Miles Davis improvise and try to count how many jazz standards he 'quotes' in his solos. You might find that A LOT of his improvising are actually chaining together the melodies of other jazz standards. Same idea when improvising on guitar. The licks we 'come up with on the fly' are mostly accidents, to be honest. People eat that shit up though.
It does nothing to the tone or playability of the instrument. It may have some effect on the tension, but I think usually it's done like that depending on where the grounding wire is on the trem claw rather than to effect the tension.
With a floating trem, you'll have to adjust the tension if you like to tune the trem. There's an indian guy on Youtube who does a great tutorial on how to do it. I think the channel is FruduaTV or something like that.
I would figure out what pickups the bands you like use. "Hard Rock" is kinda broad.
If they're using humbuckers, or that's something you want to try using, you can try to find some stacked humbuckers. They look like single coils and fit in a single coil spot, but are really two stacked on one another.
Actives might be an option too. It's something to check out.
Otherwise, as far as passives (what you probably have right now) go, the only thing that matters is the amount of winds and the strength/type of magnet. Some people swear by alnico, which is considered higher quality (mostly just because companies put them in expensive guitars), but I've found that ceramic (which is what comes in Squiers and Made in Mexico Fenders) to be just fine. Usually 'vintage' pickups have weaker alnico magnets in them to simulate aged pickups.
As far as winds go: the more winds you have, the higher the output but the more high frequencies get lost along the way. So if you want a brighter/"glassy" sound, get something with less windings. If you want a warmer/darker sound, go with more windings.
Anyway, before you do any of that, I would fiddle with height of your pickups. There are a million guides online on how to do it, but it might fix your problem. Simply lowering or raising the pickup can have a huge impact on tone and I usually find that when people are thinking about buying new pickups, it's really just a height adjustment problem.
Good art makes people feel something or think about something. Rhyming happens to be a very effective way of creating tension and releasing it, which is the essential ingredient in all art.
I personally think stresses are more interesting/important.
I was recently reading about a theory that suggests singing may have developed before spoken word. The guy was talking about how we each have our own 'tonic' when we speak. You sit on your 'tonic' when you're using prepositions, conjunctions, articles, and pronouns.
He goes on to say that when we stress a syllable, we raise the pitch of our voice by about ~a 3rd. When we're emphasizing a word or phrase, we go up by ~a 5th.
When we whine or tease, we do it in minor 3rds. When we're kind of wound up/nervous, we move up by ~a 4th. When we're being angry/aggressive, we generally go up by ~a 5th unless we're threatening someone. Then we'll go down a 5th. When you fear for your life, our voices go up by about a ~b7/6.
He says these are most likely related to the first 5 harmonics which seem to be the basis for music in many cultures (pentatonic scales of various kinds).
I did a little experimenting of my own with it today. Pretty interesting stuff:
Apparently I speak (roughly) around a G# (slightly sharper but less than halfway to A). I confirmed that stressed syllables were generally floating around a B (M3) and emphasized syllables were floating on the D (5th). 'Wound up' voice checked out. Was a C (4th). Whining was ~a minor 3rd and depending on the 'type' ("Something bad happened" or "You're annoying me" types) it would start in different spots but both 'types' involved either the #4 or the b7/6. Turned on my 'getting busy' voice and found that it generally hangs around the b7/6, 4th, and 5th up or will go down a M3, while seemingly avoiding the 'Tonic'. When I tried out my 'sad/disappointed' voice, it seemed to be hovering around the 6/b6.
Then I was thinking: I know I'm not the only one that has 'different' voices for when I'm talking to different people. I have my 'Parents' voice, my 'talking with friends' voice, my 'I'm trying to sound professional' voice, etc. Apparently when I'm talking to my parents, I raise my entire register up to around an A#. My 'professional' voice drops down to around a F# or a G. My 'friends' voice is still a G# but the inflections seem to become slightly sharper.
I found it interesting that many of the things that happen to my voice (without my even knowing) seem to be related to how music theory describes the stability/instability of notes.
I'm starting to write this stuff down. I think it could prove kinda useful for not only songwriting, but just verbal communication in general.
Anyway, I think it kind of brings poetry and rhyming into a new context. When we're rhyming (or even just speaking), in a way, we're singing. Those rhymes are the cadence and the way you arranged the stressed syllables is the melodic phrase.
Going off the Greenback comment, I was doing a little research into it about a year ago (never pulled the trigger), but apparently the newer greenbacks (Celestion) aren't nearly as good as the old ones.
Austin Speaker Works does a model called 'Crossroads' that's modeled after the old greenbacks you'd find in a 100w half-stack from the late 60s/70s but as a 70w. Apparently they're pretty dope. Might be worth checking out.
We build an ASI (artificial super intelligence) and hope to god (at this point, the ASI will be god) it doesn't smite our asses. Money becomes obsolete. Current social/political/economic structures become obsolete. Humans no longer spend their lives working to make a living. They work to better themselves and humanity. Creativity soars.
In collaboration with the ASI, we learn how to manipulate atoms (nanotech but smaller). We become gods ourselves with the ability to travel at speeds greater than light to new planets within our galaxy and galaxies unknown. We no longer die.
Humans spread like a disease throughout the universe. They no longer own houses, but own planets. They engineer entire galaxies and sentient species for fun and experimentation. When they grow bored, they upload their consciousness to the singularity until the time comes for them to inhabit a new body.
After this process becomes stale, we create a new universe within our own universe and live many lives as a new sentient species on it's way to godhood. The process then repeats itself.
You're nitpicking. I highly doubt a single movement you come across over the course of your entire life is going to be focused exactly to where you want it to be focused and is going to fix all the things that you think need to be fixed while leaving the things you like alone.
That's just not how movements work... It's a bunch of people that want to complain about a blanket issue. Some of them are idiots (usually the most vocal) and make the whole movement look like a bunch of nutjobs. Every single movement ends up with an over-compensation of one side (if successful). The hope is that once the scales have gone back to balance, things are better. It's not always the case.
If you need a look at where these movements are going, look no further than where the 'Political Correctness' and 'Modern Feminist' movements are today.
Get used to it. Live your life. Be happy. Stop caring when someone calls you something terrible. When people get emotional about social issues, all logic and reason gets thrown out the window. Try reading about the most common logical fallacies and you'll have a hard time caring about anything most of these activists/SJWs say these days, or ever.
I don't know how you have your dirt set up or what sound you're going for, but I use 1 dirt pedal mostly and use the volume on my guitar to go from clean -> slight OD -> fuzzy goodness -> leads.
You could play around with it and see if one or more of your switching combos isn't necessary. ODs and Fuzzes usually do a pretty decent job of cleaning up with the guitar's volume.
Anyway, I have a Zoom MS50G in my closet that I whip out for cover bands. It'll allow you to place the effects in any order and I think up to like 6 of them (IIRC). It won't be able to do FX loop and main line simultaneously (you'd need two), but I found that the FX loop isn't entirely necessary for most applications, so maybe you can plug everything in in front of the amp and see if there's a noticeable tonal difference? Anyway, it's pretty budget and has some decent stuff in it, especially on the simple modulation end (delay, flanger, trem, chorus, vibrato). I think they make a bluetooth version too that allows you to change patches from your phone if you want to be one of 'those guys'.
Anyway, for your situation I'd go with a switching unit of some sort, but I still think you'd need two if you're hell-bent on using the FX loop (maybe look for one with more than one output?).
Think about everything you know. Everything you learned in school and in life and in books.
You base your personal reality upon that.
The problem is that there's a factor that's always there: The books you read, the things you were taught, the experiences you had were all human experiences and teachings, and human beings are fallible.
We take all that info, decide for ourselves if it's credible based upon evidence (hopefully) and how 'smart' and 'qualified' we believe that person is, and then build our belief systems off of it. That opens the door for bad influence and disinformation (or withheld information) though, doesn't it?
Think about the smartest person you know of. You don't have to know them personally. Now imagine they told you the Earth was flat and brought you a mountain of evidence in support of that hypothesis that also disproves the current model of Earth. Would you believe them?
You may. Why? Because you respect that person's intellect. You believe they have an authority. They seem to know what they're talking about, and you're too busy with other parts of your life to run experiments and collect data of your own to prove or disprove their hypothesis. So you believe them, and now you're a flat-earther.
Now think about everything you were taught in school. How much of it was true? Simplified? Outright bullshit? You don't really know. You can go out and try to disprove certain things or find the truth in other things, but who really has time for that?
The point is, that as humans, we accept a LOT of things as fact from a young age. We're taught to trust our teachers and parents and government and not to question what they say. If you're to stay sane, than you really kind of have to believe at least most of what you were taught and what you've observed, but it's ok to question things. Just be careful. The rabbit hole is pretty deep.
I basically sweep the first 3 notes, then come back with an up stroke then back down for the hammer on / pull off, and then do a 'sweep' (read: down strum) for the last two notes. I just lift my fingers (very slightly) as if I'm sweeping the whole time to get that 'compressed' tone.
I do it that way because it's the most economical. I would imagine John does it the same way. It makes the most sense IMO.
I've been trying to get into this too. Been practicing soldering and ordered a fuzz pedal kit last week to start with.
Nice! Fuzzes are probably the best to start out with. Easy and sound great
You'll get good at soldering by the end of that first pedal. I practiced with cables and guitar wiring while my parts were in the mail for my first build but after 20+ joints on that first build I felt like a pro.
It's probably the most rewarding hobby I've taken up recently. It's time consuming, but there's nothing quite like playing through a rig you at least partially made yourself.
Were you playing out of a different amp in the store? That could have a hell of a lot to do with it. Generally you want to pick an amp in-store that's at least close in specs to yours or even bring in your own.
Could also try adjusting the pickup heights. That can have a pretty noticeable impact on tone. Best way to go about it is to lower them pretty far down with the treble side about 2mm higher than the bass side and ease it up by two screw strikes at a time, playing in-between to see how you like it/when the output is even.
Anyway, Single-coils can be a little weird if you're switching from a humbucker set-up. If you're getting too much treble, you might try a longer cable or roll back the tone knobs a little bit. With strats you kinda have to get used to riding the knobs a little bit. I generally keep mine between 4-7 depending on the sound I'm going for and only jack it up to 10 when I'm going for something especially 'jangly'. The volume on the guitar will also roll off significant treble signal. That guitar has 'no-load' controls which means when the volume and tone knobs are on 10, you're taking those pots out of the circuit which adds a little treble (or should I say 'lets it through'?).
Also, playing a Strat out of a Fender amp I find it's best to open the tone stack, so basically roll those lows, mids, and highs up to 10. Then I'll drop a little bit of the high end out if it's too trebl-y (to maybe ~6-8 depending) and adjust my guitar's controls to taste. That Fender Deluxe VM should pretty easily go into a tube-saturated overdrive so it might be a matter of cranking the gain a little bit more. Fender amps are known for sparkly cleans but you can certainly dial them in to spank
I guess I should also mention that if you know anything about wiring, it might be worth having a look in the inside cavity. I ordered a MIM (yeah, I know, not as quality) last year and the middle pickup was quieter than the neck and bridge despite being higher than the others. Opened it up and realized that the middle pickup looked like it was soldered by a 6-year-old. Clipped that sucker and re-soldered it and it all of a sudden came to life.
Also, Strats like fuzz and overdrives much more than they like straight up distortion (IME)
Anyway, try that stuff, if you still can't get a tone you like, I'd recommend checking out Kinman pickups or maybe a stacked humbucker of some kind.