The Delta Snake Review - A Music And Arts Blog - Dec. 3, 2022

THREE REVIEWS FROM THE DELTA SNAKE ARCHIVES: VOL. ONE

NOTE: VOL. 2 COMING SOON. THIS ISSUE WILL HAVE THAT LINK WHEN ITS LIVE.

Wednesday, July 2, 2014 (Revised Dec. 3, 2022)

(Model: Klaudia)

No. 1: Are American-made guitars really better?

As a general rule, American-made guitars, particularly electrics, are better made and of higher quality (There are important exceptions, but for the purposes of this essay, we'll stick to the generality).

The reason isn't that Americans are better at making guitars. It's about cost.

It's because America uses foreign factories to make the lower-priced economy models. When making first-line guitars for their own market, countries like Japan generally make guitars that are as good as American ones.

One example is Stevie Ray Vaughn. He played some Japanese Stratocasters before signing an endorsement deal with Fender. The main reason was that Fender wasn't producing guitars in the United States for about a decade or so. It was after the infamous "CBS era" when that company bought Fender in the early 70s.

The CBS-era guitars were criticized for various quality issues. For example, players and critics characterized the sound of the Telecaster back pickups as an "ice pick" tone. In lay terms, a sound that's like a flat-sounding, high-pitched tone similar to, perhaps, a buzzer or trumpet blast. That's the best way I can describe it.

In 2023, those complaints about the CBS era have faded away, and those 70s models have become vintage classics with a sound no modern version can duplicate (and priced accordingly).

During the 80s, Gibson was owned by a Norlin company, and that era was also considered a low point.

During that era, Japanese companies like Tokai, Burney, and Ibanez flooded the market with lower-cost, high-quality (and low-quality) copies of Gibsons and Fenders, the best examples of which have become collector's items today.

That was known as the "lawsuit era," where overseas companies had to stop copying the Gibson headstock. It's since become an era that's developed a whole set of myths, where every Japanese guitar made then was superior and of legendary quality.

I won't go into it here, as it's a subject that really should be discussed in a separate blog as it's a long story in itself.

…quality costs…

The fact is that a guitar made overseas will be as good as the contractor/customer wants it to be. This is because the guitars are manufactured to a particular specification and budget, not because somebody wants to make an inferior guitar. 

All things being equal in terms of materials and craftsmanship, one of the primary reasons an American guitar is more expensive is labor cost.

One good example was a particular limited-edition budget guitar line Gibson came out with several years ago at $500 each. The guitars were crude, the paint job cheaply applied, the fretboard was baked maple instead of Rosewood, and the only sign that it was a real Gibson was that each had a single stock pickup and the distinctive headstock shape Gibson has patented.

You could've removed that stock pickup and put it in a Korean-made Epiphone of the same body shape, and you would have had a better guitar for $200 less (or more).

It was funny reading the various reviews for that line of Gibson guitars. The reviewers stressed the simplicity, that it was for players, not collectors, and that it was a Gibson. In other words, they walked a fine line between telling the truth and not saying something that would cause Gibson to pull ads from their pubs.

The guitar forums were more entertaining. The opinions varied between those who were happy to have a Gibson at a low price, those who saw that if it could be had cheaper (like when Gibson reduced the price to 300) that it wasn't a bad "fun" guitar and those who brutally pointed out that the production shortcuts produced a guitar that was a worse value than their cheaper Epiphone line.

I should add that I briefly owned one at the 300.00 price but gratefully took advantage of the store's 30-day return policy. Nowadays, you can get a decent guitar with tone controls, two pickups for that amount, and an excellent one at 500.00.

… Fender's big gamble…

Fender was one of the first major American companies, at least the main one that most American guitar players cared about, which was willing to put out a foreign-made guitar with its logo.

Their cheaper Squier line was already manufactured overseas, but around the 90s, the first Mexican-made fenders appeared. Those guitars were cheaply made and didn't sound particularly good. However, the price was certainly right, particularly for those who knew how to upgrade a guitar.

There was some of the usual contempt from some in the guitar community, but Fender continually improved the process and created several lower-line Fenders and Squires that all but the most hardline have accepted as exceptional values in each price range. They helped make the mid-range price market competitive with models that cost more.

Fender could do this because its customers have a different culture than Gibson owners. Fenders are intended to be affordable quality made assembly-line guitars, screwed and bolted together, allowing users to mix-and-match parts.

…on the Gibson side…

The Gibson culture values a guitar that is a top-quality American guitar with no equals. Of course, companies like PRS and Fender would dispute that, but there's no denying that Gibsons are like Harleys. It doesn't have to be better; the name has that much cachet in the United States.

Gibson kept their economy lines separate, with Epiphone being the leading brand, which is ironic, as that company was a major competitor with Gibson, particularly in the hollow body guitar lines. Gibson is American-made (though not always 100% US parts), and the Epiphone line varies from high-end products made by Japanese and Korean manufacturers to lower-end models made in China and Indonesia.

…in the 60s…

In the 60s, you could say that a Japanese-made guitar (for export) was inferior to an American one. However, most of those companies didn't try to be better, as the idea was to capture the low-end market (though many of those models are now worth over a grand in the vintage market).

As Japanese guitar makers got better, they got more expensive. So the next generation came from Korea, and the usual denigration began again.

…now to China…

The ironic thing is when production shifted to China and Indonesia, guitar players began to value Japanese and Korean guitars as if those were the good old days, and the perception of Japanese craftsmanship rose even higher.

But like I said, when these countries decide to build a good guitar, they're certainly capable of it. One good example is jazz great George Benson's Ibanez, who also makes guitars that are favored by the metal crowd.

…the American Way…

America is a more affluent country than most, so we have strange ideas about guitars and guitar-making. Most American guitar players seem to assume a certain superiority in American craftsmanship, and our attitude that a $400 guitar is only adequate for beginners would probably make many musicians worldwide roll their eyes.

We're one of the few cultures that think if you buy a guitar at a certain price, it will make you that level of good, even if some of the most legendary music England and America ever produced was recorded using cheap or catalog quality instruments.

The fact is the world can make instruments just fine, thank you.

Any good flamenco guitarist will want one made in Spain. There are probably plenty of good luthiers in the United States that can make a decent flamenco guitar, but if they opened up shop in Spain, they'd find that there are centuries of subtleties in the craftsmanship that they don't know.

Guitarists who look down on Chinese guitar makers forget that the Japanese had the same learning curve in the 60s, and they are making excellent guitars now.

The Chinese now make nice guitars, which shouldn't be surprising, given that their culture made vases centuries ago that are now worth millions. A markup that would turn any red-blooded American capitalist green with envy and make computer software makers nod their heads in approval.

The primary value of an American guitar is that it's made better with finer materials. If you gave the same budget and materials to a Japanese maker, I'm sure most guitar players these days would admit that they would come out with an instrument that is just as good and cheaper to boot.

One of the reasons the Asian guitar companies haven't tried to take on Gibson is that, as a rule, they don't want to. The idea that the average American wants to pay over $2000 for a first-line guitar is a philosophy that would put most guitar makers out of business fast. The meat of the industry is in the 300 to 1000 range.

…purity…

Plus, not all Gibsons are 100% American anymore. Some of their acoustic line was made in Canada, where good quality wood is still cheap. I'm sure the reasons why a Canadian-made guitar seems perfectly fine with the Gibson crowd run the garment from the apparent quality to stereotypes about Asian factories (compared to ones in the Western Hemisphere).

…the Les Paul…

For example, aspiring Gibson Les Paul owners can check out opinions about the guitar in the various guitar forums about that type, not just the ones dealing with or hosted by Gibson.

A Gibson Les Paul isn't a complicated guitar to make. In fact, except for the fact that the neck is glued on and the top layer requires some shaping, it's as simple as any Fender, which is why it's one of the most imitated and counterfeited guitars in the world.

Many players say that if you find a Les Paul copy made with the same craftsmanship and materials and stick Gibson pickups in it, you probably will have a guitar that's as good as Gibson makes. Plus, more than a few Gibson owners don't like the stock pickups either and replace those as soon as possible.

That's my opinion; I'm only as right or wrong as the next guy. I have owned Les Pauls and liked some, hated others.

…craftsmanship…

Craftsmanship does count. A lower-line Epiphone copy that is well made can play better than a Gibson made by a worker who might've been at less than top efficiency that day or passed and approved by a careless QA inspector. That goes for guitars as much as tables or anything made of wood. Even with a lot of the CNC-made guitars, care in the assembly and manufacturer is a factor.

My point of view in guitar reviews is that whether it was American-made is only one of the factors. However, it's undoubtedly important, as there's no denying that an American guitar has an aura about it that can't always be quantified. 

As a matter of disclosure, I own some American-made instruments at this writing. To be exact, two electric guitars, a 12-string, and a banjo. The banjo was made in the 30s, but the other two are modern American electric guitars (Note: my instrument lineup is different in 2023).

…in conclusion…

One recent development is the proliferation of super cheap guitars, mainly from China, that can start as low as one hundred dollars (or even below). For that sum, you can get a replica of any classic model like a Les Paul, Telecaster, or Strat.

That's not surprising. When mainstream guitars get too expensive, that leaves a big opening for those who make economy guitars. As US manufacturers moved from country to country to find cheap labor, they left behind subcontractors with equipment and guitar-making expertise who needed a new market. 

Those cheap Chinese guitars being reviewed and hawked on YouTube were probably made by the same people who made lower-line Epiphones, Gretsch, or Squiers before the manufacturing moved to Indonesia. This is a win-win situation as there will always be players who want a reasonably priced guitar, to own more than one, or to have a cheap platform for upgrades to create a dream guitar.

My opinion on buying an American guitar is that if it gives you what you want, it's worth it. Paying more because it was American-made certainly is a valid reason, but I wouldn't pay more simply because it's an American guitar.

Paying 200 or 300 more because a guitar is American-made is patriotic; paying a thousand or more is just a crass exercise in capitalism.

Guitar Review: 2016 Fender MIM Standard Telecaster (review and essay - Revised in 2022)

I remember my first Telecaster, purchased from a friend for its new price, 250.00. It was a 1971 CBS-era Standard with fretwork done and a rewound front pickup. The back pickup produced a typical CBS-era ice pick sound, but that wasn't a concern as I preferred to use the front pickup with the treble cranked up (which has been my preference since then).

It wasn't my first guitar, which was an old Gold top Les Paul that I hated, but it was the one that created a connection that lasted 20 years, and to this day, my primary guitar is always a telecaster. Of course, that could change if Gibson ever creates an affordable SG with a shorter scale that won't neck dive. But even then, a tele would always be kept on hand.

One of the things guitar shop salesmen said back then (and was described in reviews) was that the Fender Telecaster was the cheapest "pro-level guitar" you could buy. For 250.00, a musician had a "serious" gig-quality instrument. 

That wasn't entirely true. With many underpowered PA systems, a big professional amp was also necessary back then, but the psychological effect was real. If you played a Fender, you had graduated from playing with toys.

Whether a Fender was American made wasn't as big an issue as it is now. The main controversy was whether CBS buying the company was good, and there was plenty of criticism of the stock pickups, neck quality, and various QA issues. All of which have been subject to revisionism in today's vintage-loving age.

There was a short period when the only new Fenders available were made in Japan, and those are esteemed today as excellent values even at collector prices. That's because Fender was never viewed as a premium product by most of its customers, and where it was made was a secondary issue for a small minority.

Leo Fender designed the Telecaster to be a cheap appliance guitar that would make it possible for the masses to own a decent instrument. The parts were standardized, designed to be easily replaced to keep the guitar operational for a lifetime, and, just as importantly, could be easily repaired or modified by its owner.

I'm sure even the first Ford Model T cars were constantly tinkered with due to the ingrained restlessness of the American character. However, with the electric guitar, that urge to modify it didn't truly become possible until a third-party parts market emerged.

Fender moved the guitar away from the concept of a crafted piece that reflected a central artistic philosophy (or price range, of course) and into the realm of industrial design and mass production, customizable to even the smallest whim of the customer.

 

The Telecaster is perceived differently after a few decades. One remarkable thing is that the Fender guitars that were designed to be more expensive models, like the Jazzmaster and Jaguar, are now considered esoteric. Those two were also promoted as equal to the later Stratocaster model, which was to be the next big thing.

It's been said that the true test in the marketplace is survival, and the Tele has certainly met that test. It's no longer seen as an entry-level guitar for the pro market, which is reflected in the current price of the American-made version. Even if it still costs less than a Gibson or a PRS, it's not a cheap guitar anymore.

That is unless you buy one of the Mexican or Asian-made models. Then a telecaster can be had for a couple of hundred bucks, and even cheaper if you buy an off-brand.

There was a lot of debate when the first Mexican Fenders came out. Part of it was a concern (and criticism) about quality, but a lot of it was the perception that it diluted the brand. But, in retrospect, it was a great move. It kept the price of a Fender down and helped boost the third-party parts industry, keeping it an affordable guitar that could be played as-is or modified into the perfect vision, however long that took.

Which brings up the question, what is a genuine telecaster?

That was an easy question back in the early days, and now, after over 60 years, it's still clear that if it looks like a tele, it is one. People can argue what it takes or costs to create a "good" one, but there's no doubt what one is. In my case, if it has an alder body and a maple neck, then it's a real tele.

The Internet and the vintage market (or the nostalgia market, to be exact) have created a sense that cost is a factor, which is certainly true to an extent. There is a difference between a good wine and a cheap bottle of Night Train, which holds true for guitars. There is undoubtedly a qualitative difference in materials and construction in the various price ranges.

Whether that truly makes one guitar sound better than another is open to debate, and if the discussion boards on the Internet are any indication, it always will be. We're talking about sound, and that's as individual a thing as wine tasting. 

The pleasure will always be a mix of cost, packaging, and mojo. If a person perceives that a thousand-dollar guitar is better than a six-hundred-dollar version, it will sound better. That's a scientific fact, at least how it applies to that person.

If you ask a bunch of telecaster lovers what the perfect one is, there'll be an endless variety of answers. 

The one thing that's hard to change is the human notion that money denotes quality. Many Fender guitar owners will say that the headstock means nothing and that the guitar itself and how it sounds and plays are what counts.

Like most concepts, it's true when it is true and not when it isn't. There'll always be a perception that American-made Fenders are superior to Mexican or Asian versions.

I've owned American-made teles, the best being a '66 Esquire and a 2013 Standard. There was a 2010 American Special and a 1976 Standard modified with a B Bender that I never could connect with, and being American-made didn't make any difference. 

The 2016 Fender MIM Standard Telecaster reviewed here is better than another tele I own, a Squier affinity, but not because it has better components or a better finish.

The fact is, both are good players that are a pleasure to play. However, I like the front pickup of the MIM Standard a lot more, and that's important because, as I've said earlier, that's the one that's used (by me) the most.

I went into the Guitar Center to try out the slightly cheaper Modern Player Nashville style tele with the Strat pickup in the middle position, but I didn't like the feel. There happened to be a used 2016 MIM Standard in the rack, and after playing it, I couldn't put it down. That it was cheaper sealed the deal. 

A bargain price has a lot of mojo in the Fender world.

I once said in an earlier review that decades of existence had made the notion that there is a definitive or "traditional" telecaster sound almost meaningless, and it's true here. 

I bought this Standard because it had a great sound with various levels of gain, and a great front pickup, so it's an excellent complement to my Affinity, which has a great middle (both pickups) sound (but a so so neck pup).

I did due diligence and checked the back pickup, which with the stock ceramic, had a nice chimey tone, which is the most usable sound in my case. There's some twang and spank there, but whether it's sufficient for country or chicken picking is a question for a different kind of player.

It has a nice clean tone and sounds loud and musically clear unamplified, which I like in a tele. It's a bit heavy, but that's not an issue for a sit-down player who'll mainly use it to record. 

I was able to test it on the same amp model it would be played on at home, so that was a real help in determining how it'd sound. It's fun to try out a new guitar on a high-end Marshall or Fender twin, but always try to play on an amp similar to the home unit.

What will make this Tele good for you depends on what will music will be played on it. The prevailing wisdom is that the stock ceramic pickups here are best for higher gain sounds in blues and rock and should be replaced with alnico-type pickups for a more traditional sound (whatever that means). 

The main thing was that I could get the front pickup sound that seems to come out of any telecaster I've owned when playing blues. There are other sounds, of course, but that one has to be there. If a ceramic pup does the job, then there's no need to replace it with alnico.

I'll be using this Tele to play blues, alternative rock, and electric fingerpicking pieces, and so far, so good.

Another question is if a MIM Standard is worth six hundred dollars new when a used American version can be had for around the same price.

Again, that's a yes or no...if that American Tele sounds better, yes, but one can't know that until one comes along at that price range. On the other hand, if having an American Tele is important from an emotional point of view, then it's better to wait for one. 

Owning a guitar is all about fun and pleasure, what dreams it gives you, and so yes, what's on the headstock can be important. It's your money.

I got this one for 370.00, in new-like condition and fully returnable. Since I was in the market for a mid-priced tele, it was perfect. However, I'd have passed on it at even 200.00 if I didn't like it. Any dollar spent on something you don't like is a wasted dollar on a guitar that won't be played. 

That's empirical wisdom from a guy who suffered from severe GAS when younger.

The most important piece of advice from most Fender owners is that your ears are the essential way to judge a guitar. It's also an excellent idea to like the stock guitar being played and not what you think it'll sound like after modifying it. 

The often vocal minority of players who think all stock parts are crap that this or that guitar will need this or that change to be good, are sometimes right, but not often enough to bet a few hundred dollars on.

This 2016 MIM Fender Standard Telecaster isn't the same as my first; in many ways, it's better. I like the slimmer modern necks with better frets, and the slightly hotter pickups give me the same sound that rewinding produced back then. The fit and finish are better, though I think that's more of an aesthetic judgment. My '71 got pretty beat up, and I didn't notice any sound quality drop-off.

The beauty of a telecaster is that the right one gives you the sound in your head. I've owned some nice ones in the past, including that great '66 Esquire, and while there's wistful regret at their loss, thanks to Fender consistency, I've never lost the sound. You'll find that after all is said and done, telecasters are more similar than different.

Given how this one has sounded so far, I'd have passed on the Modern Player and spent the extra hundred on this one. That I got it cheaper just confirmed it was destiny.

Note: I did make some practice recordings with that original '71 Tele back in the 80s that were digitized and put on my Boogie Underground Media channel on YouTube. The transfer from analog is a little primitive, but check those out if you'd like to hear how that Tele sounded. It was mainly the front pickup, treble cranked, with high gain on a nice little Peavey amp.

The cuts are Internationals Rock The Blues (you should be able to tell which parts are done by Tele), VJ Hook, Rocking Juke Joint Shuffle, Night Train, and Texas Jook Blues.

Specs (as stated on Internet:

Body:

Body Type: Not Specified

Cutaway: Single Cutaway

Top Wood: Not Specified

Body Wood Back and Sides: Alder

Body Bracing Pattern: Not Specified

Body Finish: Gloss

Orientation: Right Handed

Neck:

Neck Shape: C modern

Nut Width: 1.65 in. (42 mm)

Fretboard: Maple

Neck Wood: Maple

Scale Length: 25.5"

Number of Frets: 21

Neck Finish: Satin

Other:

Headstock Overlay: Not Specified

Tuning Machines: Die-cast sealed

Bridge: Not Specified

Saddle and Nut: Not Specified

Number of Strings: 6 String

Case: Not Specified

Accessories Included: Not Specified

Origin: Mexico

(Model: Klaudia)

A MUSIC LOVERS CONFESSION: I LOVE “BAD” MUSIC

Friends who know me well know that a significant part of my collection is made up of what music others call bad, stupid, in bad taste, crass attempts by an artist to cash in on the latest trend, or a deliberate attempt to offend or shock.

I think a more accurate term would be "music you either love or hate."

For example, my latest acquisition, "Bombay Disco: Disco Hits From Hindi Films 1979-1985," is a bizarre mix of Indian percussion pounding out disco rhythms, high-pitched Indian singing, and a riot of sitars, cheap electric guitars, exotic string arrangements, and from what I could tell, any sound a person could identify as being from India.

Keep in mind; I don't buy these kinds of CDs indiscriminately. However, I first listened to the samples in the store (yes, I still go to record stores) and found it to my liking. Then, as I purchased the disc, the young guy at the counter nodded and said, "oh yeah, I got to check that one out too."

It's that empathetic understanding by two jaded music fans who heard it all and who have abandoned ordinary norms of taste and now wallow in the clearance bins stocked with abandoned, discredited, or passé music to feel the thrill of discovery again.

The best way to describe it is that it was an attempt by the Indian film industry to duplicate the success of Saturday Night Fever, a disco classic in its R-rated version, and a sappy love story with a good soundtrack in its cleaned-up version.

Of course, India being India, they chose the latter. This is understandable, considering that they equate an on-screen kiss as tantamount to butt-pounding jokes on South Park.

The disc is full of everything I like about hard-charging Hindi music. Exotic rhythms, punchy bass, great Indian-style vocals, and music with an atmosphere that hints at the sleaziness of a dive strip bar in San Francisco's North Beach area.

It's probably more like a merchant Marine sailor's view of India since the general atmosphere of a Hindi film is more like an old Abba video on MTV.

Does the music have a cool trashy aura, or am I just putting it there?

I don't get hung up on such questions; it's good enough that my friends roll their eyes when the CD is played. But don't get me wrong, I didn't buy it purely for shock effect; it's ultra-cool music for anyone wanting to hear something out of the mainstream.

These types of records aren't unusual. In the 60s, when psychedelic music was at its peak in the Western world, it didn't exist in a vacuum. Musicians from countries as far away as Nigeria did psychedelic music too, often adding it to the funk they had already picked up from James Brown.

Even Brazil in the 60s had a psychedelic pop movement, which was critically acclaimed, and thus out of the scope of this blog entry.

I wasn't always like that as a music collector. But, it was after playing in a punk band that forever changed my ear for music. Suddenly, harshly dissonant sounds started to seem sweet sounding or more "real."

Before Punk, I didn't understand the free jazz movement of the 60s and thought John Coltrane had made a horrible mistake recording the infamous Ascension album. Now the music makes perfect sense, and I see it as one of his greatest works.

Also, my view of audience acceptance changed. Before our first gig, the leader of our band informed us that the club owner had advised him that since Punk was still very new and they didn't know what was good or bad, we would be asked to come back if we either got loud cheers or provoked extreme hatred and boos from the crowd.

In other words, don't be boring. I won't go into all the details of what we did in our 20-minute debut to be booked again; suffice it to say, I would never do any of it again at any polite dinner party.

For one thing, most of it was staged and assisted by shills in the audience, which shocked me initially, but I later learned it was common practice by the other bands at the club. In addition, I later became a pretty good shill myself for bands that we were friends with and could put on a convincing show of wanting to assault the lead singer for his insults and shoving me off my chair before the bouncers dragged me out (and let me back in through the side door).

It was the entertainment business and all in good fun.

But that ended my usual habit of buying the latest James Taylor record or even the Stones or Led Zeppelin. In fact, I became reluctant to buy any critically acclaimed or popular record.

Instead, I began to seek it all out: avant-garde, electronic, Punk, and especially ethnic music.

Like most such impulses, that settled down to a specific taste, bad music.

The technical term is "so bad that it's good" or "good-bad" music, and there's always some element of humor, however dark or esoteric.

One of the pioneers in bad taste (in music) was Dr. Demento, whose radio show is probably most remembered for launching the career of Wierd Al Yankovic. It introduced the listener to a host of classic cuts like Fish Heads, Kinko The Clown, and other cuts with a spark of genius and humor to the right set of ears.

There is such a thing as bad music; I mean awful music. Probably the classic of that genre was the Bee Gees and Peter Frampton's version of the Beatle's Sgt. Pepper movie soundtrack. It's probably the only movie I ever went to where people started booing.

Most "good-bad" music can't be created by design. Instead, the singer or artist has to have the enthusiasm of someone attempting a piece of music that's either thoroughly out of their depth or coming from incredibly bad taste, energized by the conviction that it's an actual piece of art.

One of my favorites is the Butthole Surfers' "Lady Sniff, a nearly atonal mix of pre-grunge guitar, a lousy attempt at sounding like a cowboy singer, and an assortment of realistic sounds like farts, vomiting, sounds and strange exclamations that have distant roots in redneck vocabulary.

It was as ingeniously as an old Spike Jones number, and it's become the best song that the group ever did that very few people hear.

My other favorite subgenre of bad is what seems like lousy cover numbers on paper but actually is good. But, again, it just can't be as bad as a karaoke backing track. It has to have the passion of an artist or group who thinks they're doing a very cool version of the song or are at least doing their best to shut the producer up by doing it as quickly as possible but have too much talent to do it truly bad.

The jazz great Ella Fitzgerald probably did one of the stone classics of bad when she did a big band version of Cream's Sunshine Of Your Love. Her piano version was merely bad, just another typical attempt by many artists of the time to tap into the 60s youth market.

But the single version was something else. With a full band blasting out the guitar riff, Ella became transcendent.

Many people would bring up Frank Zappa in a discussion like this, but he's in a different category. His music was pure genius and satire, disguised by obnoxious song titles.

One of the classics is Lou Reed's "Metal Machine Music," which to most ears was nearly an hour of what sounded like scraping metal. Most understand that he did that to get out of this RCA contract, and it was a record that turned off even many of his fans.

Ironically only a few years later, copies of that record were fetching $50 apiece, which is the ultimate tribute that a record buyer can bestow on a piece of music that wasn't intended to be liked.

I've only covered a few examples. Avant-garde classical would require a blog entry of its own, and most performance art tries to be crummy and shocking, which violates the essential rule of good-bad music: it can't be your intent to be bad.

Good-Bad music is an aesthetic, a specific taste, and it must manifest a genius and humor that wasn't the piece's intent.

It's like any other form of music. You combine the elements, and what comes out of the mix is unpredictable. It could turn into a hit song, bore people, or be misunderstood until the right people hear it.

Sometimes it takes time, but genius persists until eager bottom-feeders like me discover it.

-Al Handa

- Al HANDA

deltasnake@yahoo.com

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

The Quitters

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

It's the first book, and after ten months, it's finally developing an audience, and the stats are trending upward this month. I think it's due to the blog and the new book/music video short format I'm using for its promotion. I’ve moved the plot lines away from potentially over technical descriptions of playing live to more emphasis on the personalities and in particular, the main character Nym. Also, some of the romance elements are now coming into play.

It's at 31 episodes, though as an ebook, we're talking maybe 15 traditional-length chapters. I'm keeping the format episodic and short, kind of like a weekly TV show, which works for Vella but will need to be restructured for the ebook.

I, Ivy

 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.

The Forbidden Lost Gospels Of Murgatroyde

 https://www.amazon.com/kindle-vella/story/B0BJ2TW4P1

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

 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 Adventures Of Queen Khleopahtra: Ruler Of Egypt, Time Traveler, and Literary Detective

 https://www.amazon.com/kindle-vella/story/B0BJC122G7

This is another new one and will be a fun fusion of the old "Peabody and Sherman" cartoon, which was about a time-traveling dog and boy, Robert Graves' often satirical take on history, and the old "Fractured Fairy Tales" cartoon that used to be featured on the "Rocky And Bullwinkle Show." 

I chose Khleopahtra as the main character because it will offer the widest range of literary situations to explore, and I happened to have a cool drawing of her and liked the idea of expanding the character. After reading the first episode, you'll agree that the possibilities are endless.

In the latest episodes, we meet Achilles and the poet Homer, who will become recurring characters!

- Al Handa

   October 2022

   ontheroadwithalandiivy@yahoo.com

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

I’ll run free promotions later this month, but members can read it for free now.

I Can Make It To Christmas by Mark McGraw (of Handa-McGraw International). F IPlease check out and listen to Mark McGraw’s Christmas single from his album on Bandcamp,Can

Make It To Christmas by Mark McGraw (of Handa-McGraw Intern

https://markmcgraw.bandcamp.com/album/songs-from-southern-pacific-spur-46

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!