The Delta Snake Review: A Music And Arts Blog

Al Handa 

deltasnake@yahoo.com

CONTENTS:

From The Archive: If Music Reviews Are Purely Opinion, Do People Take Reviews Seriously? 

(Plus An Informal History Of Music Reviews)

(Originally published June 14, 2014, and revised Jan. 19, 2023)

GUITAR REVIEW: EPIPHONE LES PAUL SL MELODY MAKER

AN ANECDOTAL HISTORY OF CHEAP CHIC GUITARS

FROM THE ARCHIVE: REMASTERED RECORDINGS IN THE DIGITAL WORLD (2015)

Special Preview: Excerpt from Jook by Al Handa (Due August 2023)

From The Archive: 1996 Review Of Television’s Marquee Moon Album (revised 2023)

SPECIAL PREVIEW: Episode 3 of The Quitters on Kindle Vella

From The Archive: If Music Reviews Are Purely Opinion, Do People Take Reviews Seriously? 

(Plus An Informal History Of Music Reviews)

(Originally published June 14, 2014, and revised Jan. 19, 2023)

The answer to the above question is yes, no, maybe, and who cares.

For a new artist who has a new release out, it can be a matter of life or death to have that release reviewed. Not because an aspiring star wants a good review, though they and their label would prefer that, but that the release is mentioned at all.

People can't buy what they don't know is out there.

So as simple as it seems, that's the primary purpose of a review. It lets the buying public know this particular release is available. It's part of the buzz. Of course, the record label knows that when the consumer sees that a new release is out, they first think, is it worth my money?

Notice that I didn't say how good it is.

Most people don't really care what a critic thinks, and the problem with many critics is that they believe their job is to tell the public how good the music is.

…the blues…

I'll use the blue genre as my primary example of why the latter type of critic is useless. As the former editor and publisher of the Delta Snake Blues, the reason is that when someone sent me a letter agreeing or disagreeing with my review, it was apparent they had often already bought the record.

I started the newsletter for the same reason many create music newsletters; I was an avid fan of the music, was a serious record collector, and wanted free records. To get those, I had to be a reviewer.

When I started the newsletter in the early 80s, there weren't that many blues publications, so the blues labels gave me excellent support. They bought advertising and sent me plenty of records. So many that I eventually had to form a reviewing staff and farm them out.

One of the first things I noticed is everybody reviews records differently.

…the model…

I tended to follow a model. That is to say; there was a formula. First, you wrote a paragraph or two about the group, then briefly described their earlier recordings if they had any, then went on to explain the reviewed record and how it differed from the others or if it was similar. Then, finally, there was a section where you described whether you liked the record, but you always tried to make sure to describe the record in the context of the group's history or discography.

There are good reasons for this type of review besides making it easier for a reviewer (me) who was still learning to write. The most important reason is that the consumer could tell you weren't an industry shill who had simply reworded the press release.

Using press releases and pre-written reviews was pretty standard in early teen magazines in the 60s and 70s and made a significant comeback on the Internet. If you Google a product and read the various statements, you'll find that many of the reviews are similar, and in some cases, the writer didn't bother to change the wording of the press release.

Nice press photos accompanied many of the records and CDs that came in, and a sheet of review excerpts by others, saying such things as "his finest work in many years" or "songs that will become classic," and so on.

…nice turn of phrase…

If the review had a really nice phrase, the label or publicist would ask you if they could use it. Some of my reviews are still up on the Internet because they were positive, which is a very acceptable practice. Still, critics often would write reviews with the intent of being quotable and worthy of inclusion in the press release.

The reason was simple; critics like being famous like everybody else. They want their opinion to be respected, and America is one country with a public that's absolutely addicted to "expert" opinion.

When I began farming out the CDs, I found people reviewed releases differently. Some people flat-out told me they didn't want to write a negative review and only "emphasize the positive." Which can ignore faults a consumer would notice, like a lousy stereo mix, out-of-tune instruments, or singer that's tone deaf.

Others would want to make a mark, so they often would go heavily negative, while others read the liner notes on the back of the LP cover and sort of wrote their version of it. There were a dozen other variations of that, but it sufficed to say when I read some of the reviews as an editor, it became apparent that some were not useful to the consumer.

…wild and woolly…

The 70s were a wild and woolly time for rock record reviewers, who sometimes became caustic and flat-out insulting to many of the 60s legends. The backlash was inevitable if one knows the history of early rock critics.

In the 60s, rock journalists and writers were often very close to artists, even to the point of being friends. The artist felt that they were people who understood the new music called rock, and this affinity shows in the reviews that came out during this period.

This relationship had already begun to change by the next decade. Artists had become big stars, and the industry had become major corporations. As a result, the traditionally adversarial relationship between artists and the press had crept back in, and the scathing reviews that were part of the classical music landscape became more common in rock. 

It's swayed back and forth over the years, and one current popular review format, listing an artist's recordings from worst to best, offers the best of both worlds. One can take the gloves off on some and call others the direct word from God. Of course, that doesn't prevent readers from questioning the critic's taste or sanity, so everybody wins.

Keep in mind that what I've said is an overview, skips many subtle points, and is my own view of the evolution of 60s-70s rock criticism. 

…back on point…

Anyway, getting back to the essay, the reviewer has to be aware that they're writing for a market. If it's a review of a blues record, it's not really about evangelizing and getting people to like the blues. It's mostly going to be read by someone who is already into that music. What the listener wants to know; is it worth spending money on, what context, and "what it sounds" like? In other words, is it Chicago-style blues, folk blues, rock-influenced blues, and so on?

The reason is most of the people who buy any music will be fans, either of the group or the genre. They don't necessarily want to know whether it's good, but what it sounds like and if the group is competent. Musicianship does count. Also, does it sound like the group's last record, or have they changed direction?

Details like audio quality weren't as important in the blues, as many of us blues fans still love the reissues of the old 78s and are used to scratch noises and low-fi sound. The subject of a separate article is easily the question of whether sound quality matters (or what's good enough). There are some observations about that in the essay about remastering in this blog.

When I say the consumer's interested in what the record sounds like, it means that the fan wants to be sure it's a blues record and not music done by a rock band that decided to do blues, or if some group is calling it a blues record when it isn't. The latter happened a lot in the 80s.

…personal Q&A…

In other words, the type of review the consumer appreciates most is similar to a QA inspection report.

For starters, is the record what it the artist and publicist say it is?

Which makes sense. For example, as a teen, I was a fanatic Hot Tuna fan. I was aware that many people didn't like the group or didn't understand their fusion of country blues and psychedelia. If a reviewer thought the new album was lousy, I'd have bought it anyway. I could find myself agreeing with the critic later on if disappointed with that record, but it wasn't going to stop me from buying it. 

Plus, with any good artist, every record generally has some good stuff.

…two insights…

There are two insightful observations about reviews that two very different rock artists made.

Todd Rundgren once said that young reviewers should review new rock records. The reason is that rock 'n roll is a basic sensibility expressed differently by each generation. The youth hear an exciting new sound and energy, but the older reviewer has heard it before and tends to be cynical and critical.

I always had to guard against that when reviewing a blues record. I was familiar with blues records all way back to the 20s, so some group in the 80s doing the three thousandth version of Dust My Broom could easily be dismissed as boring or unoriginal. I had to try to listen to it with a set of "new ears," so to speak, and see that sense of discovery in the music.

Frank Zappa had the other incisive comment, which is also true, especially for genre music. He said that people often picked music as part of a range of choices that made up a lifestyle.

So if someone was really into being out of the mainstream, they made sure that their fashion sense was very different and picked music that fit their lifestyle. It didn't matter if the music was good or not. A good example is hard-core punk. That meant ratty ripped-up clothes and being into the correct type of superfast and dissonant music.

That whole concept wasn't just Frank Zappa being cynical. I was in a punk band in 1977, and what Frank said was right on target. 

…same for the blues…

Same with the blues. Particularly in the 70s and early 80s, the younger bands worked very hard to be good at the genre instead of changing or revolutionizing it. That's nothing to criticize; it was just how you wanted to play the blues. 

Though I will say that during that period, the predominant sound among the younger bands in my area was West Coast-style blues, with elements of swing, which was sometimes a turn-off to those who liked Chicago blues, so it was important in any review to identify the style of blues.

Also, the audience has various motives for wanting to hear the music or buy it. That's why every review draws both praise and criticism. Many fans can see it either as validation or criticism of their taste. So whether or not it's a bad record, unfortunately, tends to come out after purchase.

I thought my review style was good because it gave readers an idea of where the group was heading or was a warning that the group had changed its sound. 

It gave a prospective buyer a clear idea of where the music was coming from, what it sounded like, and if there was a historical context. Making sure that the review included many contexts made it informative, so at a minimum, it was entertaining to read.

If the reader enjoyed the review and found it informative, that's as far as I could take it. Even if the verdict was good or bad, I knew in most people's minds that it was something they were going to decide, not me. 

People do like to hear from other human beings what they think about something. The main thing to remember is that it's like any advice offered to a friend or stranger. That is to say; no one likes to hear a lecture

…in the digital age…

In the digital age, it's almost unnecessary to have critics. You can hear a song on iTunes and Spotify, and there's no better critic than you regarding what to spend your money on. Even if there have been cases when the critics have been right, that's a true statement. The consumer is still the best critic.

One of the most famous examples is when the Stones released Exile On Main Street in 1972. It was widely panned and hated by many critics. I still remember the very lukewarm review that Rolling Stone magazine ran.

The public disagreed, and several of the cuts became hits (or at least FM hits). So now, the general consensus is that it's probably the Stone's finest work, but the record simply was what it was; it's just that the critics didn't like it at first, and now they do. So that example tells you what a record review can or cannot be in a nutshell.

The critic was part of a system that no longer exists, which gave out only the amount of information necessary to get people to buy a record. They had to buy it to hear it all. In the digital age, there's no point in telling consumers if the song is good or bad. The digital age has brought back the old listening booth concept, where a person could hear music before buying it. 

But then, you might hear the cut and want a second opinion. In which case, this critic stands ready to help.

- Al Handa 

  January 2023

GUITAR REVIEW: EPIPHONE LES PAUL SL MELODY MAKER

The Les Paul Melody Maker has been around since the 50s and has traditionally been a student economy model, whether Gibson manufactured it (or later on by (Epiphone).

In its early configuration, the Melody Maker generally had a single P90 (or Humbucker later on) in the bridge position. As a result, the double pickup models were called Les Paul Juniors or other names.

The various models are well documented on the Internet and are interesting reading for those who wish to learn more about the Melody Maker.

However, it's worth noting that in the 60s and 70s, the original Gibson versions became famous because of artists like Leslie West of Mountain and Mick Ralphs of Bad Company, among others, who used one for recording and live performance.

The notoriety predictably put the guitar's price into expensive collector territory (with the inevitable hosanna-type praise for its miraculous vintage tone).

Fender had two student models, the Mustang and its hard-tail variant, the Duo-Sonic. The latter gained fame from its use by Patti Smith and others in the early Punk era, and the price of those went up, but in the original configuration, it remains a higher-priced model in the Squier economy line.

…credit where credit is due…

One has to give Epiphone and its parent company, Gibson, credit; they've kept the original style Melody Maker among the cheapest in the market and competitive with the multitude of cheap guitars coming out of China. 

That makes it an instrument that draws passionate raves or condemnation, and it's best to evaluate it like an Olympic gymnastics judge and throw out the highest and lowest scores. That gives a prospective buyer a reasonable middle ground of information.

I recently purchased this guitar because my current collection is all acoustic (for various reasons), but wanted an electric for fun and possible use for recording, and it had to be as cheap as possible.

I looked into the various guitars in the two-hundred price range. I saw a lot of nice models starting from about a hundred, which were Chinese copies of traditional designs which mainly enjoyed rave reviews on YouTube (which is the best place to hear how a particular axe sounds).

The problem with print and video reviews on guitar sites is that those are all too often just material taken from press releases or, in the case of YouTube, paid infomercials that many channels are eager to do for a price. Some YT reviewers have publicly alluded to the practice, but as a rule, it has stayed a dirty little secret.

I view YouTube reviews as a great way to hear how a particular guitar sounds and ignore the recommendations. In the case of electrics, it's valuable to listen to those demonstrated through the players' various types of amps and skill levels. 

…YouTube videos…

A pro can make any guitar sound great, but videos by amateurs are a better glimpse into how it might sound when you're playing it (and, of course, we assume that great things will come from your efforts).

So, the perfect choice was cheap, very cheap if possible. That meant since the construction and materials were going to be basic, it had to have an outstanding cool factor and low-cost mojo.

In the 70s, that meant finding a used guitar like the Fender Duo-Sonic (or a less desirable model like a Jazzmaster) or failures like the various Gibson models that attempted to be Fender-like or cheaper versions of the Les Paul (early specials, etc.).

That's not an option in 2023. Every model from that era is now a collector item out of my desired price range.

The main problem with the various one hundred dollar copies of classic guitars, besides the sound, was that I  do have a bit of snob in me, so a cheap copy of a Telecaster or Strat isn't appealing to someone who's played the real thing since the early 70s.

…two choices…

That left the Melody Maker or Mustang/Duo-Sonic, but the latter is a premium item even in the Squier line. There is a Mustang in the same price range as the Melody Maker, but it's a modernized version with Humbuckers that look and sound good but lose too much in translation in the eyes of an old geezer who remembers the good old days of Fender cheapies. An excellent choice for a modern player, though, and it was a close second choice.

This particular Melody caught my eye because it looks like the original but with a paint job and specs that would look good for a higher-range Fender Squier.

The tie-breaker was the maple neck and alder body with classic Melody Maker styling. The single tone and volume knobs would be familiar to any Tele player, and having controls for each pickup is a matter of taste.

The classic sunburst with P-90 pickups is available in this model line for those who like the vintage look. In my case, I've always preferred the single-color automobile look (aka Fender) and more traditional single coils. Those who love the P90 sound will like this one.

Also, the alder and maple model was part of the starter kit version. The material can be poplar or other woods when sold by itself.

Interestingly, this model has a neck scale similar to a Tele or Strat but slightly wider like a Les Paul. In other words, it's a full-size neck, making it slightly "neck heavy," though it doesn't dive for the floor like a Gibson SG. 

The best place to get this model is from a store where it can be played or from a site that states that it's been set up and has a good return policy. Mine came directly from Epiphone, which frankly isn't as reliable. The guitar could have been sitting in the warehouse for a while and needed adjustment and fretwork. 

I can do those things due to experience, but a beginner may not be able to or have a friend who can. 

…spend more…

I also decided to spend a little more and get the starter pack. My tuners (except my old school Korg from the 90s) had corroded, which modern clip tuners can do, and it saved me the trouble of getting accessories like a gig bag separately at more cost. The little amp is cute and OK for what it is.

The main reason I like Epiphones is that their guitars have nice playing necks, are constructed with good materials, and have excellent cosmetics. Electronics were sometimes mediocre in the past, but these days that's not the case.

The main thing is among the large pack of cheap guitars available these days, the brand name does mean something, and I had a good idea of what I was getting with this brand in a mail-order item.

It did need setup, but otherwise, it's highly playable, and through my small Fender amp, which was the only electric equipment still in my gear collection, it does sound a bit like a Strat.

The front pickup has a middle-position Strat sound, and the bridge is kinda Tele-like, but the Epi single coils are brighter and have a pleasant chime. That works well for future projects in an 80s New Wave bag. If I needed a purer Fender sound, then a Squier Tele or Strat could have been had for a little more money.

That's the guitar voice I'm getting, and yours will probably be different depending on the amp, pedal, or playing style. 

…further investigation…

This Melody Maker seems to have a wide range of sounds, judging from what I heard in the numerous YouTube videos, and checking those out is recommended for those interested in buying this model. Listen to it demonstrated by pros and beginners, so you hear what it'll sound like at first and what's possible with dedicated practice.

Though the experts will say that guitars like this are just a stepping stone to better models, in my essay after this review, I make the point that if you can't make pro-level sounds on a beginner guitar, then a more expensive guitar probably won't help.

In my case, it's a perfect part of a collection. In your case, it's the start of a journey and more than good enough to produce the music you hear in your head; after that, it's talent and practice.

...and I should note the ones who become pros tend to be the ones who put in the time and work hard at it. In other words, it's all in your hands, not how much the guitar costs.

Note: I rarely list specs as those are widely available in more detail online, but this a good idea here as this line has been around for decades, and the materials used can vary.

I've included a pic of the starter pack, and you can see my guitar in the ads here for my Vella book, The Quitters.

Specs:

Brand: Epiphone

Model:  Les Paul SL Melody Maker (dual single-coil config.) 

Color: Turquoise (other colors avail.)

Body Material: Alder

Neck Material: Maple

Fretboard Material Type: Granadillo

Guitar Pickup Configuration: Open coil 650SCR single-coil pickup (neck) and 700SCR single-coil pickup (bridge)

Hand Orientation: Right

Guitar Bridge System: Adjustable, intonated wrap-around "Stop Bar Combo" bridge

Controls: Single master volume and tone knobs.

AN ANECDOTAL HISTORY OF CHEAP CHIC GUITARS

The music media generally emphasizes the importance of owning premium guitars to give a player the best possible chance of success (aka make lots of cash). The only factor more important is God or Lady Luck, and in the music business, it's a good idea to have plenty of both.

It's not surprising that many icons and legends of music swear by hallowed brands such as Gibson, Fender, PRS, and others. They're paid well to do so and are effective evangelists for the Church of Premium Gear and compare well to TV Evangelists wearing thousands of dollars of gold jewelry and clothes to show that faith is well rewarded.

When people who complain about gas prices see how much a CNC-carved piece of wood with some electronics can cost, it can send them right back to Jesus to thank him for the fabulous bounty at the pumps.

The Cheap Chic trend in guitar collecting is said to have been an outgrowth of the escalation in the price for vintage name brands and legendary (but defunct) models, which is true when it is and not when it's not. The reality is that cheap guitars have always been popular, and an old Harmony guitar now worth over a grand didn't necessarily get that way because the buyer couldn't afford 50,000 for a vintage Gibson. It, more often than not, was due to a celebrity musician using it on a recording or live.

For example, Jimmy Page used an old Supro practice amp for the first Led Zeppelin album, turning that model into a collector's item. He also used an old Harmony Monterrey acoustic to play the opening for Stairway To Heaven, which also moved that pretty good economy guitar into a higher price bracket.

On the other hand, you can still get old Maybelle brand banjos pretty cheap because no one famous has played one (in recent times, that is). For example, my instrumental "It Never Rains On My Banjo," which is on YouTube, Spotify and etc., was recorded on one that only cost me 250.00 at the time. That may seem like a lot, but some vintage Gibson banjo can go for over ten grand or more.

…prevailing wisdom…

The prevailing wisdom is that one learns on beginner guitars and moves up to pro-level gear when it's time to get serious, but frankly, most players won't get that chance unless they can get pro-level sounds out of what experts say is a cheap piece of crap.

A name-brand guitar can help players reach the dizzying heights of stardom or keep them the equivalent of house poor and living on an allowance from a girlfriend. 

We at The Delta Snake Review feel their pain in the latter case.

The fact is that a lot of famous music was performed using cheap guitars, notably in blues, folk, punk, and jug band music. I'll refer readers to Google for a comprehensive list but will give examples here and there. However, one good example is the harmonica, a relatively cheap instrument (less so now, thanks to American ingenuity) that's still a significant voice in the Blues.

In the 1920s, the inexpensive "Catalog Guitar" which Sears sold and other mail-order companies moved rural musicians away from banjos and fiddles to the guitar, which at first had more of an effect on the history of recorded music than on live concerts.

The problem was that compared to a banjo or violin, the early guitars weren't very loud and were mainly popular in intimate settings like parlors or Adhoc bars like "Jook joints."

Jazz bands or orchestras played the mainstream music at the time, and until guitar makers developed louder models like the "Archtop" or in the case of Country or Hawaiian music, "resonator" types, the guitar generally remained a solo or small ensemble instrument.

What the guitar did do well was allow a solo artist or small group to play harmonically richer music and the instrument recorded well on 20s technology. 

…the  Blues…

Possibly the most famous group of early guitar players were what were later called blues artists (that term at the time referred to a type of scale or sound that most popular bands played as part of a wider repertoire). These bluesmen (I'll use the term as it's the standard label now) created a body of music that may not have been the sole origin of rock and roll, but they, indeed, were the archetype in terms of image.

Those originals played music considered so raunchy that mainstream churches condemned them and claimed they played "Devil's Music." This ostracism was so severe that Robert Johnson's famous "Hellhound On My Trail" isn't a celebration of rebellion but the haunted feelings of a man who was aware that the mainstream considered him a man doomed to Hell. 

These early musicians lived the part; they drank (most of the blind ones got that way from drinking cheap moonshine distilled using copper pipes that made the stuff poisonous), fought, talked and sang dirty lyrics, caroused, broke the law, and in short, actually lived the life that most modern rockers claim to have lived (trashing luxury hotel rooms doesn't count).

But that's a different subject; the burning question for guitar gearheads is, what guitars did they play?

Well, they all played whatever they could afford. It wasn't Gibson's because that company started building mandolins, and when they started making guitars, it was archtops mainly used in jazz bands.

It wasn't Fender because they didn't start making guitars until the 50s.

…honor roll…

The honor roll of cheap guitars includes models like Silvertone, Regal, Washburn, Stella, and Harmony. The legendary Leadbelly used a Stella twelve string, and as said earlier, the acoustic guitar opening to Led Zeppelin's Stairway To Heaven was played on a vintage Harmony.

There are various reasons for the current price of these old vintage cheapies blowing past a grand or more. Many articles cite the high cost of vintage name brands, which makes the lower-line models attractive to the average collector. Still, most of the reason is a combination of intrinsic value and the often surprising higher quality materials used to manufacture those compared to modern economy guitars.

When Jimmy Page used the old Harmony Monterrey acoustic on Stairway To Heaven, the price of that guitar shot upwards, and the critical opinion went from blase contempt to admiration for the incredible sound. That's a classic case of intrinsic value. It's not just rock star worship; it was also a case of realizing that the Harmony Monterrey was a good guitar, at least after decades of aging.

That's a key point for acoustic guitars; if the quality of the wood is good, particularly the top (the part with the hole for those who aren't familiar with acoustic guitars), then the sound improves with age. There's a technical reason, but I'll refer those who want to know to Google, where a variety of good and stupid opinions can be found, and all contain at least a grain of truth.

…in other words…

In other words, an old Harmony can sound better than a new low or medium-priced acoustic (and occasionally a high-priced one) because it was built in an era when good quality wood was cheap and plentiful. Many old economy guitars had what was called a "solid top," not plywood. This is why vintage Martin guitars are still more popular than new ones. Both are top-quality guitars but the older ones have aged wood tops.

I have an old Regal parlor, for example, and luckily got it cheap at a pawn shop because it was all beat up, and I had to spend months making it playable. It was worth my time because the wood was as good as a lower-line Gibson of the same era, and it can cost over a thousand in mint condition. It looks like Hell, but it sounds as good as some old Gibsons, and having owned a few vintage models, it sounds as good, if not better. 

Whether a modern player would agree would depend on taste, and if you prefer "X Bracing" to "Ladder Bracing," spruce top versus mahogany, etc. Such preferences and the supporting arguments are similar to those put forth when debating the relative quality of wines and Professional Sports Teams, and as such, can be ignored by the average person.

The other factor that affects vintage cheapies is a rarity. The wood might be as good or better than modern guitars, but the construction was often cheaper, with more shortcuts taken in the manufacturing process. In other words, you can still find an old Silvertone or Harmony at a low price, but it's rarely playable unless it's for slide guitar, where high-string action is preferred, and a severely bent neck isn't a problem. 

There's an old Stella in an antique store near where I live, but even at 150.00, it'd cost several times more to get it into playable condition. It does look cool as a display in the store window, though.

Another good modern example is the English band, Oasis, where the two guitarists used Epiphones for their classic recordings. Now that cheap chic is popular; one can find lists of famous guitarists who used or started recording on cheapies on Google.

I remember seeing the Silvertone guitar featured on Genesis' I Can't Dance video in stores 150.00 decades ago. Now you may have to pay over a thousand to get one. My impression of the guitar at the time was that a new Epiphone or Squier was a better value, but a Silvertone can have magic in the right hands.

I kept this essay only as technical as necessary to provide a quick survey of cheap chic. Thanks to the American genius for making anything unaffordable to the average person, it is only inexpensive in compared to vintage Fenders and Gibsons, which can command a price of over a million.

…another generation…

However, as the old economy models moved into the middle class of collecting, another generation of affordable guitars has come to enjoy the praise and contempt of modern guitarists. Having played many of the old models talked about and quite a few of the current class, I have to say what many guitarists say that I wish these newer guitars had been around in my teens. There are new Fender Squiers that play better than my old '73 Telecaster, which required extensive fretwork and a rewound pickup to play and sound decent.

How Squiers and Fenders and Epiphones and Gibsons compare is another series of articles in itself and a debate that'll never be resolved. The main thing to remember is that any information on a page about guitars will be somewhat inaccurate if the publication needs ad income from instrument manufacturers to survive.

A guitar isn't just about playing music; it's also about dreams. It's easier to sell a path to success that can be bought than to preach hard work and talent. The history of music was mainly created by artists who bought what they could afford (there weren't always credit or payment plans). If the guitar is good enough to unleash your talent, then you have all you need.

- Al Handa 

   January 2023

FROM THE ARCHIVE: REMASTERED RECORDINGS IN THE DIGITAL WORLD (2015)

One thing you saw during the CD era was the "newly remastered" album, sometimes classic, sometimes not. In many cases, that remastering was what should have been done in the first place...many of the earliest CD reissues of classic albums were simple digital transfers over to CD and sounded about as good as a decent tape copy. It was mainly to meet demand at the time. Later on, remastered recordings became another selling point in the industry's attempt to keep CD prices high, and that practice has continued into the mp3 era.

Remastering a CD makes sense...the medium can accommodate more digital information per song than the older vinyl and technically makes for better sound quality. The problem, of course, is what that information consists of. A straightforward digital transfer from the master would give you an extensive sonic range on a song, more than vinyl or anything you can think of. The closest most listeners will hear a song in its full dynamic range is at a live concert. 

The thing about digital isn't that it sounds more sterile than, say, vinyl; it's that all the information is sorta kinda maybe there pretty much exactly as the music really sounds like in a pure state. The music has traveled a long path from creation to your device or player.

In reality, there are other factors; the mix, how it's mastered (clean or louder), and of course, what you play it on. I remember reading once where Tom Petty said that they always checked the mix on a boom box, figuring that it would be one of the more common ways their LP would be played. 

…monomania…

The whole thing about mono recordings wasn't that it was superior to stereo but that it was the ideal format for AM radio, which generally came out of one channel. Also, some songs will sound better in mono simply because the musicians have played the music with a mono mix in mind. Otherwise, there are no reasons blues, which is considered a mono medium, can't sound fine in stereo or quad if properly mixed.

A good example was decades ago when Columbia accidentally released a bunch of Bruce Springsteen's "Born To Run" LPs on the west coast but with an "East Coast" mix. People complained that the music sounded flat.

Which it was.

For decades, most albums were released with a dynamic range that was equal along the whole sound spectrum. With the advent of the West Coast rock scene, a mix that emphasized low bass and high treble developed, which, to west coast ears, sounded better for rock. But listeners on the east coast preferred the flatter range mix, so Columbia released different-sounding LPs for each region. What happened was some east coast discs ended up in California. 

Another good example is Bob Marley's first significant record, which had "International" and "Jamaican" mixes. The International version had the bass toned down and extra instruments added, like guitars, to give the Western listener a more "musical" sound...but Marley insisted on having the Jamaican release done the way it was always done on the island, with a big, booming rhythm track and less on top (no guitar solos, etc.). In a sense, the international version was watering down his sound, but it also made him an international star and not a cult artist like Desmond Dekker. Interestingly, many of the old Bob Marley records have been remastered and are closer to the Jamaican mix in feel.

…back to remastering…

This brings me back to the idea of remastering. I'll admit, I'm a sucker for any new reissue that claims to remaster the original master tapes (or whatever). On the one hand, like with the Stone's reissue of "Exile On Main Street," you realize that it was better off with the older mix, but in the case of the new Sam Cooke reissues, it's a revelation.

To a certain extent, the idea of remastering is a gimmick...the constant remastering of the Beatles tracks tends to be a simple moving around of the sound, and the latest reissues, have made many of those songs sound clearer but losing some punch and drive in the process. Nevertheless, some songs, particularly the complex ones, do well with remastering. Some, like old blues 78s, certainly sound louder but often less clear, or in some cases, more clear but drier.

I mentioned Led Zeppelin in the last blog entry...Jimmy Page recently remastered many of the tracks, adding more compression and level (loudness), and that was the Mothership compilation. To younger ears, the stuff sounded punchier and, in some cases, did improve some of the songs (at least to my ears). However, to someone like me who already had the Led Zep stuff, the new mixes sounded louder, but a lot of "space" and tone was lost. 

Bonham's drums, for example, sounded best when recorded in a natural sound, as his power made the acoustic sound of the drums like thunder or something. Flattening it out and making it louder took it away from the realm of genius to that of a well-manipulated drum track that sounded almost electronic...but that's stuff only a tiny percentage of people will notice.

…acoustic blues…

I recently downloaded (legally, of course) a lot of acoustic blues, which I already had, but I wanted to upgrade my collection in terms of sound. In many of the services, like Rhapsody or iMesh, downloading the same release a few months apart can give you a different sound. Some artists' music was quieter but cleaner, and you could hear the acoustic instruments better. 

In other cases, it sounded louder but more distorted. This is incidentally the key difference between digital and vinyl-based music...the reason music on vinyl sounds "warmer" is that there are different sound frequencies in play. The sound, or signal, from a vinyl record will tend to sound more natural, as the sound waves are "rounder" or, in other words, slightly distorted...that distortion is what makes a lot of rock sound "louder." 

I often remember not liking how this or that rocker sounded, so I would transfer it to tape and jack up the recording level a bit to make it sound louder to my ears.

In more than a few digital albums, that's what "remastering" is, except for adding more compression; it's often just boosting some of the frequencies. The critical thing to remember is that a digital album is a collection of songs that, in CD format, had 40 megabytes of information or more per track, reduced to maybe 8 megabyte digital files, so you can't "remaster" that kind of track. 

You can make it sound louder, you can make it sound clearer (and sacrifice some volume), or emphasize a particular range (like more bass, etc.), but there's not enough room to bring back the original sound of the master tapes (or whatever the source was).

It's a trade-off, and on the whole, I like it...but thanks to free programs like Audacity and other sound editors, you can adjust many of these songs to your liking, which I'll discuss in a future blog entry. 

For example, I almost always edit out the extended audience cheering for an encore on live albums, and if I think a song sounds too weak, I'll boost the levels. In my opinion, the digital age hasn't always been kind to blues reissues, and knowing your way around a sound editor will help you make the blues sound like it should. 

…kbs and stuff…

It's not bad stuff to know, particularly as an artist. Being able to distribute digitally has been a godsend for the independent artist, but how the music is heard there is just as critical as it was during the CD or vinyl eras. How a song will sound released at 256kbs or 128kbs can determine whether or not that listener will like what they hear and buy the song.

Not to mention; the type of device, earphones or earbuds, Bluetooth or cable, surround sound, how the equalizer is set, broadcast quality, size, and quality of speaker, and the list could go on. The sound is affected by many different elements, especially mood and music preference. 

More on all that later; until then, just enjoy the music, don't mind this older adult talking on and on, and feel free to have a different take on the subject. Music is, after all, a matter of taste.

- Al Handa

  2015

Note: Album art direction by Tony Lane

REVIEW: TELEVISION'S MARQUEE MOON (1977)

By Al Handa (May 1996, revised 2023)

Note: This was a review I put on an old Usenet discussion board (pre-web), and it ended up on the online magazine Perfect Sound Forever and listed in the bibliography for the Television entry in Wikipedia. I've always wanted to revise it and finally got around to doing it. The edits mainly tone down some of the language and omit names where I thought the criticism was unfair, but otherwise, the piece was left pretty much as it originally appeared. 

My intent wasn't to rewrite it; even if I went a little overboard at times, I resisted the temptation to change it completely. In any case, I still feel the same way about the album. It's also about the Sex Pistols, so this review is as much about the era as the album. Read it as a tribute to the band in my opinion.

I've made comparisons in this review, which to some may appear critical of such bands as the Sex Pistols. However, the point of this piece is to highlight Television and speculate a bit on its place in music history. As such, it is an advocacy work and not intended to be a balanced look at the Punk movement.

I have to admit; Television wasn't the band that got me into "Punk". We all had our moments when that burning bush appeared. For me, it was one night while pulling a night shift at 7-11. At that time of night, I was allowed to play the store radio loud. "God Save The Queen" came over the air, and everything I'd read in Rolling Stone and other mags about Punk came to life.

To many of us, bands like the Ramones, Sex Pistols, and Clash had a magical connotation. One band, Television, was considered controversial. On the one hand, Johnny Rotten had once praised the group, saying that he liked the guitars' power. On the other hand, after seeing them live (or so he said), he said they were awful, mainly because of the long extended numbers. The name Grateful Dead was used as a pejorative to describe the group (which did not affect me, I liked the Dead).

Rotten's offhand dismissal was probably influential in England and amongst elements of the punk crowd but probably had little effect in New York City (where the band was based), other than critic Dave Marsh's apparent puzzlement over Television's high reputation.

…louder…

The Ramones were louder, the Pistols nastier, the Clash purer, Nick Lowe more clever, and Wire more violent, but Television was different. Television wasn't a band you could easily copy. There was a complexity that went against the grain of Punk at the time. You couldn't just pick up a guitar and play Marquee Moon like you could "12XU" by Wire. They were the first punk band to make a genuinely new and original sound that was highly technical. At a minimum, they were the most lyrical.

Now, don't get me wrong...I love the bands mentioned above. I'm saying that Television was DIFFERENT than anything I had heard before. The Pistols were like super-fast Mott The Hoople (great band), Ramones, a raunchy surf band, The Clash, a raw pop-reggae band, Nick Lowe, a great popster, and Wire...well, they were another bunch of geniuses who took Punk higher; but later than Television.

Without bands like Television (and Wire, actually), those bands created mainly energy, a fresh outlook, and rebellion. Their anti-intellectualism guaranteed that there'd be nothing to build on, even later on when many tried to become more than just punk bands.

Most artists are rarely inspired by "primitive" or "raw" art to create "new" music. Most may pick up a guitar to be like an Iggy, but that's more of embracing a lifestyle and pose. When artists like Alex Chilton, Television, or Captain Beefheart create new styles and approaches, that tends to inspire musicians as artists.

Edge of U2 was once quoted as saying his early guitar practice was copying Tom Verlaine's guitar licks. Most who copied the Pistols now play music that's about as alive and relevant as an oldie but goodie act at a rock and roll revival. Groups like Television inspired artists and hardcore Punk created a subculture of nostalgia (unless one considers Husker Du hardcore, then we have an exception).

…almost never was…

In a sense, "Marquee Moon" was a record that almost never was. The original sessions produced by Eno were almost unlistenable, an amateurish mess. It was rerecorded but flawed by a mix that thinned out Verlaine's voice, so it sounded like a flat screech at times, without any depth (note: a later remastered release fixed that).

However, for all its flaws, the record successfully captured the complexity of the sound and still retains punch in the drum and guitars. Back then, those of us who were fans probably didn't notice such fine details in the sound and mix.

What we did notice was from the moment "See No Evil" came pounding out of the speakers, this wasn't no ordinary "punk" band. If it had come out as Johnny Rotten had described it, like "Grateful Dead" music, it would have been off our turntables in a second. Not that the Dead weren't good, but what needed to come out of the speakers either had to be loud and fast or different enough to compel one to listen.

It was probably somewhere in-between, but my first impression was that "See No Evil" was a great guitar song with riffs and ideas that were different and freer than anything I'd heard.

What made it sound so "free" (in the jazz sense) was the interplay between static, powerful guitar by Richard Lloyd and the fluid ideas by Verlaine. More than fluid...the ideas seemed to go places where a trained musician could see Tom risking being unable to come back and ending up with a botched solo.

Verlaine seemed to resolve the ideas perfectly, yet never with the sheer ease of Jerry Garcia. So many Verlaine solos, at first listen, made you feel that a real chance was taken and that if he didn't come up with a killer idea out of nowhere, the riffs would peter out, or noodle about and never resolve.

It was more than raw talent, a sense of humor, or pure energy. Television had developed a style that rocked yet expressed freedom, like in certain jazz styles.

…noodling…

This sound would only have been superb noodling without a truly great band. The rhythm section of Fred Smith on bass and Billy Ficca on drums was excellent. They had a tight, syncopated sound, not unlike a good 50s rhythm and blues band. They rarely overplayed a song (in the studio, at least).

The other guitarist, Richard Lloyd, was Verlaine's equal in technical skill. He didn't have Verlaine's improvisational sense, but that wasn't needed. Richard's work verged on atonal or abstract noise at times yet was played in controlled bursts and patterns.

That tension in the guitar approaches is what made Television sound so different. Usually, the soloist is the one who explores atonality. Verlaine generally flew all over the place, but in a lyrical or linear sense. Lloyd's tonality and rhythm guitar sense made them "different" as a band, often leading to hard-edged riffs and abstract chordings.

In other words, normally, the soloist is the one who needs to be anchored. In Television's case, Lloyd was the guitarist who affected the tonality of the music more often than not, and Verlaine and the rhythm section were the ones who gave the ear its anchor and familiar musical elements. Listen only to Lloyd; you can hear some truly off-the-wall ideas being played.

In "See No Evil," Lloyd is soaring in the solos, but the guts of the arrangement are in the tough riffing underneath that is driving the song forward, with powerful rhythm section support. It's no wonder R.E.M. sometimes does this song as an encore, it's a classic guitar rock song.

"Venus" comes next, and is one of the most lyrical in the set. It opens with a great guitar riff. As the ballad moves along, one can hear complex and interesting ideas on both guitars that make perfect sense together (yet sound disjointed when listened to individually).

…Venus…

The Venus referred to is of DeMilo fame and does show us that detached, abstract view Verlaine often had, as opposed to a purely personal one. But, on the other hand, I wonder if it was just so personal as to be idiosyncratic. In any case, an armless statue with a boob showing isn't your typical romantic image.

"Friction" opens with an uptempo yet static guitar chord opening by Lloyd, which sounds like a Stone's riff played backward. Then, Verlaine kicks in with a descending chromatic riff, and the rhythm section chugs along with a beat that older fans might recognize as similar to Wilson Picket's "Funky Broadway."

Next comes "Marquee Moon," a nine-minute encapsulation of the group sound; an excellent chord opening on rhythm guitar, looping riffs out of left field, and a funky, rocking bass and drum part that lead into the song. It then builds and builds, and Verlaine begins to solo up into the upper neck of the guitar. 

More than a few times, you wonder if even he knows where it's all going. It finally resolves into a Stones-like chord burst (actually not unlike a good Dead jam number), then settles into a lyrical, atmospheric section. Smith and Ficca then lead us back into a reprise of the main melody.

In my mind, it's a perfect song capturing all the band was. Believe me; it sounded REAL good, blasting out of the P.A. speakers at the Mabuhay the night I heard it for the first time.

"Elevation" follows next, and was originally the first song on the second side of the album. On CD, its impact is diminished following "Moon." It's the most "dramatic" of the songs, with many stops and starts and sections built on unison riffs. It remains listenable, but it's more interesting than compelling.

Note: Back cover photo by Billy Lobo

…a Guiding Light…

"Guiding Light" is the opposite. When I first heard the song, it seemed like mere pleasantry, a nice album filler. These days it sounds more and more like a great ballad with a Dylanesque sense of timing and structure. Back then, I was just too rushed and intense to appreciate this one. Now, it's a rediscovered pleasure.

"Prove It" follows, and at first listen sounds like a reggae-ish type new wave cut (familiar enough at the time). However, time has revealed it to be quite different, and the opening guitar figure is more fifties than reggae. It chugs along like a good-bad Clash song, and the song has stood up well over the years.

The CD ends with "Torn Curtain," a dark, listless ballad in the "Tin Pan Alley" mold. It's too overdramatic at times, and although well played, it's no longer the strong ending cut it once seemed to be.

In the late 70s, few Punks had any real idea of what the music would seem like in a few years. Most simply wanted to put a 45 and become rock stars (oh, yes, they did). A few approached the whole era as an opportunity to create new music, and only the most obtuse won't see that the bands who most influenced the next generation were Television, Ramones, Wire, Clash, and Pistols (could be a much longer list).

I can only give a personal example. Two major influences made me play Punk music then: the Ramones and Sex Pistols. The idea was that you do it. Don't spend years learning it; just do it.

…Pistols at Winterland…

Seeing the Sex Pistols at Winterland (which turned out to be their last gig) would be a revelation. As I anxiously stood in line for that "sell-out" concert, the scalpers were selling tickets for only two dollars each, with the price dropping to one by show time.

Inside Winterland, the audience was mainly tourists and curiosity seekers. Most spent the concert making wise cracks and laughing at the freak show in what is now called a mosh pit. First, two local bands, the Nuns and the Avengers, did their shows and then the Pistols came on and trashed the show.

They played without a bass player, as Sid was too drunk to play and was mixed down (on the bootleg, he can be heard, and it wrecks the music), but the rest was as good as any English rock concert. Rotten even stopped to pick up some money that was thrown on the stage, then did the encore laying on his stomach, singing Iggy's "No Fun" in the most minimal performance I've ever seen. This attitude continued backstage, where I heard that they all trashed the dressing rooms, and Bill Graham wouldn't book a punk act for some time afterward.

…the point…

The point? Well, what the Pistols started died exactly when Rotten said it would, after one record. Their message was anger, honesty (relative to the music business at the time), and anti-intellectualism that excluded any concept of art. Those who buy that message still listen to hardcore which is more rigid in its aesthetic than any blues or jazz you'll ever hear. The Pistols never took them any further. In their last gig, they ensured Punk would never get into a major Bay Area venue for some years.

Then take "Marquee Moon." Just hearing that album gave me, and quite a few others, a totally different message; that the era's music had changed, and although not so apparent at the time, restored a sense of discovery and freedom that had long disappeared.

I once read that Alex Chilton's "Big Star" record only sold a few copies, but each of those who bought one went out and formed a band. I doubt Television was like that; they were too hard to imitate, for one thing. The Bangles could cover "September Gurls," maybe, but never "Marquee Moon."

They showed us that, perhaps for at least one moment, there could be something new under the sun after all. And, I should add, it couldn't have come at a better time.

- Al Handa 

   1996

Here's an update on each of my Vella books:

SPECIAL PREVIEW: THE QUITTERS - EPISODE 3 

https://www.amazon.com/kindle-vella/story/B09PC3L6PC

Start of episode:

Okay, home stretch!

The last songs have the same machine gun beat, but we're not some boogie band playing the same thing all the time. The first song has the vocal line shouted low, and screamed high the next, nice dynamics, and hopefully the audience appreciates the care put into it!

Roder and Quill actually spent time working on the lyrics too! The first one, "I Need Clean Tissue" has the great line, "I'm no machine in this fucking latrine!" We debated using the word latrine in rehearsal, it seemed too much like proper English, but Roder made the excellent point that it sings better than it reads.

Jem wasn't too sure about the second song title, "Dirty Finger Pointing North," as it seemed too much like the first, but Hydie pointed out that if Roder actually takes the trouble to memorize anything, that's a good habit to encourage, so try not to ask complicated questions. We all privately think that Roder might have a butt thing going on, but maybe we don't want to know.

Hydie kicks off the final songs with a sharp 1-2-3-4 rapping on the rim of the snare drum, cutting off Roder's spoken intro. She sits in back, so can see everything, and keep track of the time. Those rim shots signal that we're running late, so get moving. We don't want to be turned into a silly looking air guitar group by the stage manager when he cuts the power.

The two songs go by fast, and it's all over, just like that, ended on one note, no drawn out finales in this place. Roder and Quill thank the crowd, who just politely clap with snarky grins on their faces. The people in the tourist section tables just sit there, eyes glazed over. Doesn't look good, and we freeze up, just standing there. The stage now feels hot and stuffy, and I feel sick with embarrassment.

Then suddenly, a tall, thin punker with a reddish mop pushes up to the front, it's Ross, the lead singer for "The Negatives," they're second on the bill. He screams "Fuck your trash, don't come back! Fuck your trash, don't come back!"

The mosh pit joins in, throwing baskets of popcorn and what looks like a dirty sock, ew, chanting "Fuck your trash, don't come back! Fuck your trash, don't come back!"

Ross could tell the crowd was hostile but many are friends, and follow his cue. The yelling wakes us up, and we flip everybody off and scream "Fuck you too!" It's lame, but there's no time to come up with something witty, and energy is what counts right now.

Roder and Ross start a shoving match, and when Quill tries to intervene, they push him to the floor and sit on his face. Wow, stinky stuff, but Quill's going the extra mile in the name of show business!

Oh wow! Jesus guy is back! He's shouting at the three tangled up on the floor, "I have returned to earth early to proclaim you are all going to burn in hell for being obscene punks practicing filthy unnatural acts!"

Quill tries to reply, but his response is muffled.

I think the holy guy's serious about Roder going to hell because the two now have each other in a headlock and have fallen off the stage. Roder pins him down and pretends to do the chocolate choo choo, yelling "False prophet!" and Jesus guy's yelling, "Sodomy is ten bucks extra!" I yell, "That's not right, you agreed to twenty, a deal's a deal!"

The stage crew rushes in to clear the stage, but Ross refuses to leave, and is dragged off of Quill by his feet, still screaming "fuck your trash, don't come back" at the top of his lungs. Such a natural showman! Quill looks relieved, I think Ross must have farted because he looks really nauseous.

Jem's just standing there, stunned by the commotion, and Hydie's already left the stage, she's always been the mature one in the group. Stew and Marly are just standing around in back with big grins on their faces, so I guess the show ain't over yet. Definitely not for Ross! He's trying to get back on stage, but two stagehands are holding him down, and Quill's jumped onto the pile. Payback for that fart!

I join in the fun and stick my ass out and wave the bird between my legs, but have to retreat when people start goosing me. Hydie comes back, grabs me by the collar and drags me off, saying "when drunk guys start grabbing ass, they won't stop, so get off now!"

Now she's really being like my big sister, dammit!

The energy in the club's infectious, and the chanting grows louder and louder. Even the tourists in the table sections are shouting and throwing popcorn! I look over and see Marly and Stew laughing their heads off.

I jump up and down, laughing, we're all laughing. We did it! We're coming back for another show!

End of episode

I, Ivy Update:

 https://www.amazon.com/kindle-vella/story/B0B3RCBT4D

The story got off to a decent start, but I didn't notice that as it's obvious now that the daily totals on the Vella dashboard can differ or not jibe with the monthly or overall total, which have to be accurate as those numbers determine the royalty and bonus payouts. I'll be paying more attention to this one in November, as it’s being read more than I thought. The latest chapter, Ivy’s view of the efforts by a human to give her a pill should strike a familiar chord.

This is a new one, though it'll be the most familiar to blog readers. I'll be changing the format of the blog in November, and putting the Lost Gospels here will allow me to fully expand that line of humor and satire in a way that simply being a blog feature doesn't permit.

The Boogie Underground Think Tank: How To Survive The End Of Civilization Update

 https://www.amazon.com/kindle-vella/story/B0BG6LNXTG

This one is a revival of an old humor column I ran in my old "Delta Snake Blues News" publication in the 90s and 2000s. The slant is about survival in the upcoming hard times, but it really will be topical and cover subjects that are offbeat but relevant. The next one coming in a few days will be "How To Shop For The Perfect Expert," which obviously will be a humorous commentary on the use of experts in general.

The ebook “On The Road With Al & Ivy: The Anthology Volume 1 2016-2018 is now on Kindle Unlimited!

Please check out and listen to my music on Spotify, YouTube, Apple Music and other music sites. Please add any cuts you like to your playlists!