Factory "Aged"/"Relic'd" Guitars : Homage to the Greats, or Just the Ultimate Poseur/Try-hard Trophy Guitars?

 

WHAT THE HELL?

From Jonathan Horsley in Guitarist Magazine in November, 2025:

It doesn't take much to set the guitar-playing public off. But if there is one subject in electric guitar that’s guaranteed to ruin Thanksgiving dinner, it is the idea of relic'ing a guitar.

For some, a pre-worn finish is a crime against humanity, up there with not muting your guitar when tuning up. Others think it looks cool.

Many might argue either way, but isn’t relic'ing just a case of tying a guitar to the back of your car and doing donuts in the carpark?

In a recent interview with Guitarist, Fender’s Chief Product Officer Max Gutnik tries to explain that there is a lot more to it – claiming it has taken their luthiers years to perfect (?) the relic jobs we see on its Custom Shop builds. "Perfect"? Um...no.

“You know, relicing is hard to do. It’s ironic because people think you can just drop it a few times and drag it down the street,” says Gutnik. “But it’s actually a really intensive process that adds a lot of hours to the guitar.”

Me? I'm calling bullshit. I would take the "Pepsi Challenge" with 10 random guitars, and I could pick out the actual vintage ones from the shitty relic'd ones. I've been around vintage instruments for 4 decades now, and there are "tells" you pick up along the way. 

Finish wear is often the most obvious dead giveaway it's a fake. After all, we all play the guitar differently, in terms of technique as well as how we treat our instruments in general. Where one player’s belt buckle might grind down the finish on the back of a guitar might be different to another’s (or not at all). Not all guitars age the same. Look at John Frusciante’s and Mike McCready’s Stratocasters, for instance. But then you have guitarists who are not delicate with their instruments (Angus and Malcolm Young, Neil Young, Billie Joe Armstrong), and the wear on their guitars looks nothing like the aforementioned. 

“Trying to make the relicing not look uniform is really important,” continues Gutnik. “The processes we use have improved so much: you want the feel and the look of a broken-in guitar, but you don’t want anything actually broken! So we just keep improving that process, the lacquer and paint…”

Let's stop right there. First, there was a period where even Fender was using some kind of programmed etching pattern, and there are posts on threads out there to this day that demonstrate 4 or 5 different guitars with almost identical wear---but hey, glad they finally learned that people don't want their fake-old guitar looking like someone else's fake-old guitar. But just as importantly, let's talk about the actual paint work. Today's lacquers are not formulated the same as those used on the Golden Era classic guitars (different plasticizers and mixes thereof), and in cost-cutting measures, they're not even applied the same, so it's never going to be apples-to-apples. I can look at, for example, my Angus Young signature SG and my late-60's EB-0 bass (from the time period the Angus is supposed to replicate), and the EB-0 has minimal shrinking of the lacquer, still retains a mirror-like smoothness, but the AY has the telltale woodgrain pores peeking through that make the surface less smooth. That's just one example, but very, very obvious to me. 

“It’s like getting a pre-washed pair of jeans: they’re broken in so they’re comfortable right out of the store, but they’ll continue to wear and become your own,” says Gutnik. “That’s what’s so great about nitrocellulose lacquer. If you have to wait 25 years to get to that place, I mean, you might not get there! So starting that process and having the guitar feel super comfortable out of the gate is what we’re aiming for.”

But here's the thing: the comparison is not even in the same ballpark, as some of us cannot fathom paying a premium for "new" jeans that already had the worn-out knees or tears, and even if they were more affordable, would we REALLY have bought a new pair of pants with half the wearable life of a fully new pair? I just simply cannot get on board with "relic'd" or "factory aged" guitars, and I doubt I ever will be able to. But then again, I wouldn't buy a car that's beat to hell (unless it's as an intended restoration project), and if I want a "used" guitar, I'll just buy a "used" guitar, save myself the added premium for the "custom shop aging" and be done with it. Hell, I've seen original vintage examples of certain guitars for literally only a few hundred more dollars than a badly "aged" replica, and if I want that particular model with "age" on it, I'd rather just pay a little extra for the real thing and not a counterfeit.

Out of the dozens, or probably hundreds, of guitars have seen that have had this kind of process performed on them, I can literally count three that actually looked legitimate (except on one of the guitars, supposed to be a reissue of a '64 Gibson SG, it was before they started doing the horn tip shaping properly, so that ruined the façade instantly for anyone who knows SG's, and while the aging wasn't the worst I'd ever seen, the slabby upper horn tip told me it wasn't a vintage SG). The rest were either overdone, worn in bizarre places that you never find certain types of wear on an instrument, or just otherwise too clean looking to pass. It's almost like guitar satire or something, where you're just exaggerating this preconceived thing and it's not really to be taken seriously. I know I'm pissing off a lot of well-to-do's with disposable income and weekend warriors who saved up for months or years to buy their fake-aged Strat or Les Paul by saying this, but it's corny as hell. Stop it, please.

I bought my prized Custom Shop '64 reissue Gibson SG Standard last year to replace my original near-mint '64-'65 one that I had to sell 8 years ago after being laid-off at work (since my then-wife certainly wasn't going to help with the household expenses or Christmas for our child). In mid-2023 the Gibson Custom Shop FINALLY (after 23 years) started shaping/tapering the horn tips on them properly, and I knew I would finally be able to get a suitable stand-in for my lost Holy Grail SG. Not being a fan of the overly-faded "cherry" they use on their stock models (I prefer an "as-new" unfaded finish), I ordered mine in "Wine Red" (GLOSS), which looks more like the as-new "Cherry" finish back then, and no, I did NOT opt for either the "VOS" nonsense OR the "Murphy Lab" crap. I wanted a brand new instrument that carries on the spirit of my old one, for me to "age" (or not) on my own via natural playing. And even as a custom "Made 2 Measure" one-off, it still was cheaper than a production-line Murphy Lab guitar.

Personally, I think these custom shops that produce these pre-aged instruments should be replaced by a player-centric program that allows players to purchase brand new Custom Shop instruments for a deep discount, or do an "abusive leasing program", where you get a brand new shiny vintage reissue guitar, and literally your job is to gig it, play it around the house nonstop, take it to rehearsals, play the crappy, smoky dive bars with it, really just don't give a crap about it and treat it like some regular player's guitar or a beater, even stuff like leaving it out in the trunk of your car in freezing temperatures or subjecting it to environmental changes quickly, like bringing it out of the cold from that freezing car into a warm house and cracking open the case to influence weather checking and stuff. You know, never wash your hands before playing it, don't be careful when it comes to eating or drinking around it, let the schmutz really build up on the hardware and stuff. In other words, methods that cause NATURAL wear and "aging". Yes, it would pretty much require one to put all their focus on banging around that one guitar during the process, but that's the point then, innit? Once you have achieved the level of play wear desired,  you box it up, ship it back to the manufacturer for a once-over, some adjustments or restringing (maybe a fret-job of some sort if you did a really, really good job with it), and then you get a new guitar in the mail to repeat the process over and over again. That would at least be more legitimate, and the wear on the guitars would be more honest. Because paying a premium that sometimes adds anywhere from 25 to 75% extra cost to have a badly faked vintage guitar just seems laughable to me.

No matter how much you want to convince me (or yourself) that your Murphy Lab Gibson or your Journeyman Relic Fender is "art" or "passable" as a vintage guitar, let me go ahead and be brutally honest with you and say, "no, it isn't". It will fool your country club buddies or maybe some dude in the audience at the local bar who "knows just a little about guitars" (insofar as he can tell the difference between a Les Paul, Strat, Tele and so forth), but you're not fooling anyone who's had their hands on actual vintage instruments. So again, I say: stop it, please.

Thoughts for the "Lead" Guitarist #2 : Hear Me Roar! Please??? (The "LEAD Guitarist" Mentality)

 First off, I AM a guitarist, so I have every right to say everything I'm about to say. While some blogs I write are a little more from an objective, general perspective, many of the guitar-centric ones I write are written from my point of view as a guitarist with a conscience. And I realize that guitarists HATE to be scrutinized, just like vocalists, drummers and other musicians, but especially by other guitar players. Well either stop reading or put on your big-girl panties if you're a "lead guitarist" who might be a little sensitive on the topic.

Oh so many years ago when I started playing guitar, my primary influences ranged from AC/DC to the Sex Pistols to Nirvana, and I just wanted to be a guitarist in a good band. In the beginning it was all power-chords and downstrokes, punk rock fury at its finest. When I actually started learning a couple of simple scales (ones like major, minor, blues, pentatonic, etc. that are the foundation of "guitar solos"), my confidence boosted quite a bit and I actually began incorporating guitar solos into songs. Once I started learning to cop some Angus Young and John Christ licks I was branching out from Johnny Ramone "chords only" playing, and it felt good. After a couple of failed attempts at bands, finally in my senior year I put together my first "serious" band, Idle Minds, of which (in its ORIGINAL TRIO INCARNATION, prior to adding a 4th member, switching drummers and taking on some really corny attempts at a "big dumb live show" mentality) remains one of my fondest periods of musical memories. Along with Danny (drums and vocals) and Zack (bass and vocals), I got behind the mic for the first time in a serious capacity and started really writing songs. Some forgettable, others I haven't played since the band split but I will always remember and could whip out my guitar and play right now. Why? Because songwriting came FIRST and I tried to write memorable, meaningful material. When I had put together groups in high school, I wanted to play "lead guitar", and thankfully I remained just a couple of notches ahead of my co-guitarists in skill so I was just that. But even after only a couple of situations where I found myself battling for volume, hearing duplicate parts mushed together instead of a mesh of different voicings (in other words, we were playing the exact same parts at times, which was redundant as hell, and sounds like crap most of the time) and just sometimes experiencing overall clashing of egos with someone who needs more validation than just being part of a non-shitty band, I decided that unless I were to find my perfect match as co-guitarist, I wanted to be the sole 6-string in a band. Not a "lead" player, per se, but THE player. BIG difference. If I couldn't either find a "Malcolm" to my "Angus" or even a "Ronnie" to my "Keef" (or vice-versa...lol), then I was going to combine the individual styles of my favorite guitarists and cover all the territory I possibly could on one guitar. Not an easy task, but definitely more rewarding than having to deal with the aforementioned afflictions often associated with dual guitars in a band. Kind of like why I preferred to front a band while playing an instrument (or have another instrumentalist in the band front the group) instead of having to deal with some whinging meat-mic-stand who fancied themselves a "vocalist"---to this day, I still abhor working with "vocalists", maybe more than ever thanks to more bad experiences with them.

The reason this subject has come to mind again is because for over ten years in a row, we have a fellow--we'll just call him "Jimmy" for now-- locally who continues to seasonally put ads up on Craigslist looking for a band, and it's attitudes/perspectives like his that unfortunately represent a pretty narrow, shitty attitude towards playing in a "band" (aka: a "team effort"). Here's one of the ads, copied and pasted, sans personal details (because, frankly, I'm embarrassed for him):

Blues Rock/Rock LEAD Guitarist (Greenville Upstate)

I am an experienced lead guitarist looking for a gigging band in the Upstate. My style is heavily influenced by Hendrix, Satriani, Gary Moore, David Gilmour and Rory Gallagher.

I am looking for a rock, blues, and or - blues rock band; please no metal, or church bands.

I am very effects friendly and I can emulate organs, strings and bizarre noises. My tone is all Marshall based, check out the link at the bottom!

I like male and /or female fronted bands, blue to melodic rock. Serious inquiries only please.... And please notice, it says LEAD not Rhythm, I dont do rhythm, Im a lead player - THANKS!!!

Transportation, TEAM PLAYER, non drinker, hard working guitarist with a massive drive to make the band the best it can be.

For a taste of what I can do.... Http://www.reverbnation.com/jam*****ton

Wow, right? "Too cool for chords", huh? Well, apparently other CL readers thought so as well, because he got a couple of public "responses" worth noting (both anonymous, but nonetheless still valid and SHOULD be seen as great constructive criticism by the guy who posted the original ad). Here they are:

First response reads:

Scotty Anderson, which is arguably the master of the electric guitar today, has always said that being a good rhythm guitar player was much more difficult than playing single note lead guitar. Even his lead lines are harmonized, and not with a pedal, by his own knowledge and ability. The best lead players are the ones who know and understand chords and harmonic balance. I'm a guitar player, and a strong enough player to not have to rely on a 'rhythm player' or a 'lead player' because I play both as needed. I'm not looking for a guitar player, but as I've seen you post on this forum for years, and obviously to no avail because you post regularly... Maybe take it as a sign to change your attitude, or at least the projection of it because any seasoned player isn't going to want to play with someone that stresses they are a 'lead player.' That's like saying I play 'Lead Piano' or 'Lead Steel Guitar.' I think that it is implied if you play an instrument and understand music theory at all, then you can play lead...

Well put, my man. Here was someone who followed this guy's retort:

I couldn't have said it better. I have wondered why J***s' postings have been on here so long. I listened to reverb nation and got half my answer.

I also wondered,,,,if he doesn't play rhythm at all, does he just stand there thru the song and only play when the leads come in or does he play leads thru the whole song?????? 

So, thankfully I'm not the only person out there who feels like the "don't burden me with trivial 'rhythm' guitar parts" point of view is fucking lame. In my experience, people with this mindset have so for a couple of reasons (outside of sheer narcissism, that is), both of which make you as undesirable a candidate for a band as the singer who can't hold pitch or the drummer who lacks dynamics.

One, it means you "don't like learning songs". Many times people use euphemisms like improvisation to sell themselves, but most of the time it simply means that he/she simply doesn't like to be bothered with the little things, like actually having to learn the songs entirely. I've seen this in people ranging from those "hey man, let's jam" types to even some guys who consider themselves "pros" (or at least "local rockstars"), including one in particular who blew a legit professional gig due to lack of musical commitment (and evidently a bit of a drug/alcohol problem to boot), and it's pitiful.

Secondly, it means that regardless of your claims, you more than likely are NOT a team-player, and have no truly constructive contribution to the overall band outside of your own musical masturbation. No wonder you spend the majority of the last 20 some-odd years of your playing looking for a band to join, because no self-respecting band will hire you based on your self-serving demands, or after having watched you embarrass yourself at a tryout.

Summing it all up, why don't you just say you want to be the ONLY guitarist in a band? Assuming of course that in all your massive talent you can actually hold your own as the band's only guitarist. Then you don't have to worry about labels and rank. Then you're TRULY contributing to a band instead of just noodling around acting like top rooster when you're really just another cock. Even to this day I don't like working with another guitarist for the most part. Unless the parts are well-defined, or in the case of the other player being a primarily-acoustic player, I've found it to be more annoying than not, and more headache than it's worth. Especially when I've worked with people 20 years older than me who still don't know what real "tone" is, or who don't play their parts right to begin with. I can think of 2, MAYBE 3 guitarists I've actually enjoyed playing with over my career, and particularly after my tenure in a band I like to call "Shitterville" (IYKYK), and the brief time I had to share guitar duties with a drunk asshole who only played a third of the time in a certain 90's cover band, I won't be taking any offers to join a two guitar band seriously ever again. I don't need some other lousy guitarist ruining the experience for me. Thanks to having learned how to be in a band in general, I frankly don't NEED another guitarist in most cases, period. Is it nice to have someone occasionally helping to fill-out performances and "make it sound like the studio recording" on some things? Yeah, absolutely, if the person actually can play the right parts. But not required, and most of the time not desired. It keeps the stress and drama down, not having to pollute my time and space with that kind of nonsense.

Guitarists are a dime a dozen, outnumbered only by the amount of wannabe "vocalists" who want to front a band, so you have almost limitless choices for either, should you decide to take out an ad or audition players to fill your missing spot in your band. And I recommend you audition them, take notes, and watch for red flags to make sure you don't end up having to hire someone else when that person fails miserably to successfully provide your needed musicianship or complete your team unit. Also never forget that there's ALWAYS a better player out there, perhaps with a better attitude for working/playing with others. So do NOT commit until you know you are a good match, both ways.

In closing, I honestly can't think of one band that's going to hire someone so full of themselves as to say "I'm too good to play rhythm guitar in any capacity". Readers, can you?

Yeah, I didn't think so.

Thoughts for the "Lead" Guitarist #1 : Does a Song HAVE to Have a Solo to be 'Good'?

 

OK, this topic was actually started by my buddy Eddie some time ago, but I thought I'd carry it over here and toss my 2 cents into the ring (comments are welcome):

"Does a song have to have a solo to be 'good'?"

I'm noticing a number or reviewers bagging on bands, or at least taking "points" off when a song does not have a solo in it.

Personally, i don't think it should be a "deal-breaker." The first Stone Temple Pilots CD has no solos at all. i can't cite the source, but i remember reading that somewhere, and realizing that i didn't even notice in all the times i had listened to it. i just really liked that CD (still do), and that was all that mattered. 

I think the worst thing a guitarist (or any potential soloist) could do is add a solo just for the sake of having one. If there is no statement to be made, then don't say anything.

Now don't get me wrong- i like a great solo as much as anyone (Vai's "Call It Sleep" remains my personal fave). i just don't see why some think it's an absolute necessity. Bear in mind, i'm not saying for one second that my opinion is right, or better than anyone else's. i submitted this to Vin in hopes of starting some discussion about this issue here. i'll take all the insight you folks are willing to offer.

-eddie

My response on his post:

I think that throwing a solo into a song just to give the lead guitarist an excuse to wank-off or satiate his/her personal insecurities is utterly pointless, boring and a waste of stage time or tape (or "virtual" tape). I'm a lead player myself at heart, and some of my favorite songs which are done by bands who are known for their outrageous lead players have little or no solo work at all in them.  If someone can take a lead break in a song which reinforces the melody or the hook of the song, or take the song to another level energy-wise, then great; more often than not that's what I incorporate into my own songs nowadays, something which goes with the feel and vibe of the song instead of another blues-box solo with a few wheedly-wheedly parts to wow the few who care. If it's just so the lead guitarist can stroke their own ego with the same-ol', same-ol' flashy trash, in-the-box solo work he/she does in every other song (having worked with people like this, I have a very strong opinion here), then it's doing the song (and the band) a terrible injustice. 

[Side note: I always struggled with watching, listening to or playing alongside guitarists who "play too much", and I think it really came to a head around 2005-ish, when I was recruited to be a ringer/turd-polisher in my then-brother-in-law's band. I started on bass before moving to guitar after basically being fed up with the idea of sitting back in the rhythm section while Mister Only-Knows-One-Blues-Scale played several-minutes-long solos every chance he got utilizing the exact same formula and patterns, void of understanding that one type of solo doesn't fit in every song, and oblivious to the idea that not every song needed to be dragged out so he could play guitar hero for drunk people. It was embarrassing, and thankfully when I moved over to guitar, I was able to provide a foil for some of that ridiculousness, but I screwed up by waiting for it to boil over instead of saying something earlier on, so the damage was done, and the lifestyle was locked in until I had enough and left in mid 2007 after the way his brother's death was handled by the others. From that moment on, I decided that I'd never be a slave to the "guitar solo culture" ever again, and to this day about half of the songs I write intentionally do not feature unnecessary guitar "masturbation".]

Now, I'm not going the extreme grunge-90's hipster anti-solo route and saying that any tasteful, decent lead-work is prohibited, I just think it should FIT or be forgotten. No, not all songs NEED a solo (STP was a good example of just having the occasional "traditional solo", and of course you have Nirvana, Green Day, etc), and not all solos need to be fast, flashy or time-consuming. Some of the best solos ever are short, simple, and ballsy as hell. I'll take Angus Young, Neil Young, Paul Kossoff and Mick Ronson over any of your technical noodly players any day. Not always because of what they played, but sometimes for what they DIDN'T play, and the emotion/feel they put into those bursts of notes (especially when we talk about, for example, Angus' and Kossoff's vibrato technique, WOW!).  A lot of lead players tend to neglect the fact that sometimes it's what's NOT played that's important and impressive, not how many notes you can cram into a minute. Giving the song a chance to breathe is important, and the spaces in between can actually ADD value to what you're playing.

"Less is more" is sometimes the key, as tired and overused as that saying might be. One of my personal credos is that if you can hum/sing along to a solo, it's a keeper. There can even be a little flash in there, a "wow-worthy" lick or two, but if there are memorable parts the average listener can remember and recognizes as strongly as the vocal melody or hook, you've got a winner. Think "Sweet Child O' Mine" by Guns N' Roses, "You Shook Me All Night Long" by AC/DC, or even (as much as I personally am not a fan) "Hotel California" by the Eagles. There are parts even the most casual listener waits for and instantly recognizes. I agree with with the sentiment that anyone who emphasizes technical skill over musicianship/taste is more likely than not to fail. Of course, folks (especially other guitarists) often conflate musicianship and technical skill, leading some to underappreciate a good, simple guitar solo. But think about how blown-away all your non-playing friends and family (or the crowd at the local pub you play) seem to gush over how "good" you are, even when you're just playing some basic riff to a song they love. In most cases, the audience doesn't know how technically proficient you are, they just like hearing coherent music---and with many corner pubs and cover-band scenarios, it doesn't always have to be THAT "coherent", even.

I don't think songs or bands which don't showcase a lot of lead work should be trashed at all, and I think before anyone dares to speak negatively about the lack of solos they need to ask "does the song really need it?"  I'd rather a song leave me wanting more (Foo Fighters) than wanting it to just friggin' end (hello, Pearl Jam's Mike McCready). I don't think a lead guitarist's technical ability should matter if the band has great songs. Look at "nu-metal" from the late 90's and early 2000's: most of that stuff is nothing but "chugga-chugga" riffs and noises (no real lead work), and with a lot of what passes as "metal" these days, they do old-school style neo-classical shredding (along with the overuse of sweep-picking and other "Youtube tricks"), and either way both are completely unlistenable to me because the songwriting's just plain horrible and forgettable. However, take a band like System of a Down who crosses all the same "metal" territory but has guitarists who have some taste and the ability to keep from over- or underdoing it when the time is right (not to mention some really unusual but good songwriting--and those haunting vocals) and you have a listenable, entertaining album full of decent songs which don't bore the piss out of me. Same with Rage Against the Machine, early Danzig, or even Ghost: enough fretwork to be exciting, but most of the time reined-in to serve the song. Good stuff.

Of course there will always be people "amazed" by technical prowess over song quality, and there will always be guitar-centric tours/concerts/conferences to appease those people. And on the flipside, there will always be those who believe that solos are egotistical, frivolous & pompous, who give a purpose to minimalist songwriting and the idea of creating textures and movements over milquetoast guitar solos. I prefer a middle-ground, but there has to be SOME relevance or it gets out of hand. Does a solo make a shitty song (or a band in general) sound better though? Hell no! Can bad/boring/too-long solos ruin a good song or band? You bet your ass they can! Serve the art, not yourself, and if the song doesn't NEED a lead part, don't muck things up! The song should ALWAYS be priority. Let that solo ELEVATE the song, not break it.

ME? When I want to impress I just bend a note, shake the fuck out of it, and smile. That's art.

RIP Paul "Ace" Frehley

 

Let me preface this by saying I was appalled at Ace's weird political takes over the last few years. There were some live videos of performances where he goes off on a pro-tRump tirade that would've made draft-dodging statutory-rapist Ted Nugent proud. I did not like "this" Ace. "That" Ace was unhinged and cringey as hell, with most of his pro-tRump rants being as unsolicited and from out-of-left-field as those by the orange pedofelon himself. "That" Ace was a dick, and was not the guitar hero I considered integral in my own guitar playing (directly, and through other influences).

Unfortunately, like a lot of music, I was around insufferable people who tried to "force KISS" into the previously-punk-rock sound of one of my early bands (a move that would essentially ruin the band, I hate to say), and I went through a phase where I wanted nothing to do with the band, but over the years I was reintroduced to them by my bandmates Kenny and Lynn (in the Oath--literally named after a KISS song), and developed a new, and more mature, appreciation for them.

While he lacked the emotive, aggressive and "vocal" lead guitar playing of my main hero, Angus Young, Ace nevertheless took some of the licks he copped from Page, Clapton and Hendrix, and made them fit into KISS' "big dumb party rock sound". Many guitarists (from the guys in Skid Row to Slash to Dimebag to Mike McCready) went on to develop their styles with a lot of his influence.

Ace's vibrato might not have had Angus' or Paul Kossoff's sweetness, but he was one of those guys who I respected for using it to make his style a little more interesting. And he would do what I called the "Frehley chirp", where it was almost a "chicken pickin' " type harmonic with the pick and a finger, usually while slowly bringing a bent string back down, and no one quite does that the same. His solos were very formulaic and sometimes you'd hear similar licks in different songs (kind of like Angus, or the Skynyrd guys, and a lot of other artists who came out of the era), but that also helped one familiarize with the technique a little bit quicker. He wasn't a "shredder" necessarily, and I can't say he was the "best" at anything (aside from that aforementioned "chirp"), but he was definitely the most fun KISS lead guitarist to watch onstage.

"The Spaceman" was Ace's onstage persona, complete with strobing light-up guitars, firing rockets and lasers from another one, and his awkward swagger onstage which was the perfect foil for Paul Stanley's androgynous prancing and Gene Simmons' stomping monster. I was happy to get to see the final tour with the original members over 25 years ago, even if I think Ace MIGHT have been off the wagon again, because I recall "Shock Me" (my favorite KISS song, which he sings) being quite sloppy vocally. But enjoyable, because I was watching history in the making.

I'd like to pretend that up until he started getting cringey a few years back about the political crap, Ace was just the lovable doofus we thought he was, and the imperfect recovering alcoholic whose playing inspired thousands of young guitarists from multiple generations. To "that" Paul "Ace" Frehley, I hope you're in the stars now, Spaceman, and being that character you played so well in the band you helped make into one of the biggest musical acts in the world during their heyday. Say hello to Kenny and Lynn if you see them on your way out of the Milky Way.

PS: if you want to really hear how guitarists influence one another, listen to the Doors' "Five to One", KISS' "She" and Pearl Jam's "Alive" and you'll hear a multigenerational homage. Ace lifted Robby Krieger's solo, and McCready lifted Ace's, and none of those songs sound remotely similar but the same lick "works" in all of them.

Drop-D Tuning : Why Are Some Guitarists Afraid Of It and Why Do Others Use It As a Crutch?

 

Adrian Smith (Iron Maiden)

A while back I happened upon an article (here: https://guitar.com/news/music-news/adrian-smith-drop-d-tuning-iron-maiden/) where Adrian Smith from Iron Maiden was talking about being the only guitarist in the band to utilize drop-D tuning. Personally, I like the idea of just one guitarist using an alternate tuning, because it adds a unique layer to a song, be it a new tune or a reimagined classic. 

I didn't really get into Iron Maiden until I was probably in my late 20s or early 30s, but I was especially intrigued when Adrian came back into the band and they kept both Dave and Janick around, making it a three-guitar band. I usually don't really care at all for bands that have more than two guitar players, but Maiden and the Foo Fighters get a pass on this one, because they both distribute the duties well, with each player adding their own chord voicings and differences in tone, and the overall sound in both cases ends up being huge. But back to the topic at hand, which is "drop-D tuning"...

Dropping your low E string down to D is one of the simplest alternate tunings one can do, and in my opinion it's also one of the easiest ones to navigate and become competent with. For me, it doesn't work for everything, and I'm not sure I would like it if that was the only tuning I ever used, because there are some chordal limitations with it. However, sometimes when I feel like I'm in a songwriting rut, it's a nice way to break the monotony a little bit, and I'd say more than half the time, I end up accidentally stumbling upon some cool new riff or idea. Plus adding that tuning to your toolbox can expand your repertoire exponentially if you're playing a lot of covers, especially alternative, grunge or some metal, but also with other genres as well. Even some old classic rock tunes used the tuning but a lot of people don't realize it. So it's a good thing to get used to, even if you're only using it part of the time.

I think the only real problem I have with the tuning is that there are some people who use it exclusively but only seem to be able to write songs utilizing that open D string (same goes for people who down-tune their guitars lower as well for a lower variant of "drop-D", such as "drop-C/B/A/etc"). So you'll have people who have entire setlists that are all in the same key, and after a while it just all starts running together. When it becomes a crutch, or you can't figure out how to make it sound more interesting than that, I think that's when it's time to change things up and try a completely different tuning altogether. I don't even really have a problem with having a lot of songs in the same key, some of my favorite artists would utilize certain keys a lot on some albums, and there is something to be said about the satisfying power and zing of an open string on some chords/riffs. But when it becomes obvious that you are incapable of doing anything that doesn't center around chugging on that open low string, it will bore the pants off of some listeners. Others might not care or notice, but I even hear some new artists these days who seem to use a couple of the same exact chords in a good chunk if not all of their songs (not just "drop-tuned" players either), and I guess I've always just been too self-conscious to allow myself to do that, and I force myself sometimes to write in keys that deviate from something else I just wrote previously.

I was a little shocked to hear that Adrian couldn't get any of the other guys in Iron Maiden to down-tune with him, but I ran into it myself. Albeit, not with any one of that kind of caliber of playing or talent, but there are some guys who are deathly afraid, it would seem, to deviate from standard tuning. Also with Murray and Gers, I doubt it's inability, fear or boneheadedness at play, it's probably just a preference that became habit over the course of the last 50 years, and that's a lot more understandable when one is a well-established player who's formed their own styles in their career. 

Back in 2005 through 2007, I played in a band with my dipshit ex-brother-in-law, I started on bass but moved over to guitar after about a year (long story there), and I was trying to expand the set list, both when it came to covers and original songs. On more than one occasion I tried to implement drop-D, but dipshit-Daniel just wasn't having it. For whatever reason, He just couldn't wrap his head around how to play the guitar tuned that way. The dude who turned "lead guitar playing" into a repetitious noodle-fest of a sideshow hamming it up while the rest of us stuck to actually playing "the songs" just could not wrap his head around the concept of turning those lowest three strings into a power-chord or readjusting his brain to understand only the lowest string changed and everything else was still the same. That wasn't the only thing we butted heads about of course, we were constantly in some sort of conflict over the excessive unnecessary guitar solos, him running around trying to be a Temu Angus Young who literally knows one "blues scale" (insulting to me, as an actual fan/disciple of Angus' nuances, vibrato and FEEL) with his wireless cutting out sounding like shit, and us battling volume on amplifiers and stuff. Frankly those were just some of the many things I was actually relieved not to have to deal with anymore when I left that group, even though I would miss one or two of my other bandmates until we reconnected later. But digressing.

The point is, no matter how hard I tried, and no matter how simple the song, it just wasn't going to happen. To this day I still don't understand the disconnect or why it was so confusing for him. Perhaps it was too much to ask to expect him to take a weekend or two to play around with a new guitar skill when he could be out trying to fuck teenage girls. Shame on me for suggesting such a thing. I seem to recall also not being able to do some Red Hot Chili Peppers songs because of some odd chord shapes and the requirement to play with a little more finesse, but thankfully later after that project I would be able to reconvene with players who could pull all of the above off competently.  There was a mix of stubbornness, fear and apathy at play, and I feel like it was a disservice to the rest of us to be held back by one person's aversions. In this case, he was not a veteran player (had only been playing 3 or 4 years at that point), and should've been thirsty and eager to soak up new ideas and techniques. About 5 or 6 years into playing I had gotten accustomed to playing in standard, drop-D and 3 or 4 different open tunings. 

With Iron Maiden, I think now I'm going to have to go back and listen to some live stuff so that I can listen for the different guitar tunings, that's got me curious because I haven't noticed up until now and I don't know why I'm just now realizing this.

The Importance of the Guitar Setup : And Why You Need to Learn How to Do Them!

 

Original Article (By Phil Weller published 17 June 2025) Here:

https://www.guitarplayer.com/guitarists/jason-isbell-guitar-buying-advice

I'm not going to post the entire article here, but I'll post a couple of the parts I want to address regarding Jason Isbell's comment about young players just wanting to get started on the guitar:

“Spend the 50, 80 or 100 bucks before you leave the music store and let them set it up for you,” he says. “Let them set the action right, make sure the frets are level, make sure it’ll stay in tune.”

“Because of course you’re not gonna be able to afford an incredible instrument when you’re that age. But if you spend the extra time, the extra money, you get home and you can play it. It makes all the difference in the world.”

Okay, let's talk "setups", then...

I don't disagree that a good setup, even on a guitar that might not be the greatest, definitely is crucial to making playing fun and efficient, as much for beginners as people who have been playing for decades. That part is totally true. That's why when I spent a few years working weekends at a guitar shop, one of the most important things for me to learn, for my own benefit as well, was how to get the most out of any given guitar from a playability standpoint. Here's where I have a problem though...

Most people who work at guitar shops, be they mom-and-pops or chain retailers, CAN'T SET GUITARS UP FOR SHIT. One of the things I used to do when I worked at a shop was go around and make sure everything was set up to play comfortably, be it something brand new out of the box from the manufacturer or some used piece of gear. But you go into any given shop most of the time, and it's a crapshoot. Totally by chance, you might happen upon something that's reasonably playable, but most of the time you'll pick it up, be either underwhelmed or completely turned off by the high action and poor intonation, and you'll move on to something else. Sometimes you'll make your rounds with literally everything in the store and there'll be something wrong with everything you pick up.

This is why it's hard for me to support the idea of one must go and play an instrument in a brick and mortar store before purchasing something. I used to believe that there had to be some sort of special connection by actually playing the instrument you're buying prior to purchase (and that DOES happen sometimes), but the way I see it nowadays is that if I'm going to have to do a complete setup and adjustment on it as soon as I get home, it doesn't matter whether it came from a store up the street or some anonymous online retailer. So guess which one I'm going to go with? That's right, the one that gives me the better deal. Yes, yes, support local or small businesses and such, but even that has gotten to the point where it doesn't mean what it used to. Because a lot of the smaller independent shops have kind of become toxic and uncomfortable, and if I'm catching an attitude from the owner or salesperson the second I come in the door, the odds of me actually spending money with them go down to the single digits.

I have seen some of the most atrocious setups come out of retailers like Guitar Center. I discovered 20 years ago that Guitar Center does not hire people who know the products, or know how to service the products. They hire people to accept payment for products, and occasionally quote whatever is on the product page or the company website. I have seen a few people pay good money to get service done on a guitar. Whether that was a pickup replacement or a full-on (alleged) "setup", I don't think I've ever seen anything done that I felt was done competently or thoroughly. And I think that's a shame, because I used to pride myself and not only knowing about everything in the store that I was selling, but also being able to help dial in and service those products as well.

So I guess I would say, while I agree that proper set up, or one that's tailored to the specific player, is important, learn how to do it yourself. Save yourself hundreds or even thousands of dollars, and just learn the basic skills. Adjusting a truss rod is not difficult. Raising and lowering bridges or bridge saddles is easy. Setting the intonation is not rocket science. Turning screws to get your pickups the proper distance from the strings in order to achieve your optimum sound is as simple as it gets. Even changing out electronics or hardware can be done by a novice--just be patient and take your time. In fact, the only kind of work I generally don't like doing and would prefer hiring an actual luthier to take a look at would be fret-work. Aside from that, I have no reason whatsoever to let somebody else take a screwdriver or any other tool to an instrument that I'm going to be playing. I can set it up just fine myself, thanks.

And I recommend that anyone who plays an instrument also learn how to service said instrument. Don't let someone rip you off by halfassing something you could've done better yourself.

Theory Vs. Application : Why So Many "Guitar Students" Abandon the Instrument

 

I was scrolling through some posts on a music discussion site, and I ran across an interesting thread a fellow posted that really caught my eye, as it's been a source of many a raised hackle. Here's his original post:

Years ago, my late wife had a cousin, about 15-16 at the time, who had been taking guitar lessons for a few years. They asked if I could show him some things. So when they were up for a visit, I borrowed the bro-in-law's acoustic and we went to a back room to go over some things.

I wanted to get a general idea how far along he was, so I would know what to show him. So I asked that question. His response? "We're on eighth notes now."

The instant he said that, I knew he couldn't play a lick. He proved me right. He didn't know how to tune, only knew a couple of open chords, no barre chords, and his picking method involved holding his arm out in open space with no control at all.

His lessons with his "guitar teacher" seemed to have involved this "teacher" just going through the book with him. That's it. This kid couldn't play for squat.

So, I showed him some really-for-real things he could play, taught him the riff to "Sweet Home Alabama" and a few other little things, things that anyone would recognize. His "teacher" had never done anything of the sort. His parents, ignorant of music and guitar but well-meaning, simply didn't know any better. All this "teacher" had been doing was "teaching" him the exact crap he could have learned on his own for free by going through the book. It reminded me of the few hideous guitar lessons I took from a woman in my hometown, and to this day I have no idea if she could even play guitar.

Which brings me to the point.

WHY do people insist on drilling into a kid's head that they have to spend 20 years studying theory to make a sound??? For that matter, WHY do they insist on starting them on reading notation on Day One? It's ridiculous. Why not teach them to play something recognizable instead, something to inspire them? But no. They have to dive into the Mel Bay method of playing "Polly Wolly Doodle" or whatever. They present this wall of music theory and give them the impression that they have to learn all of it to play guitar.

I have NOTHING against learning theory. Nothing at all. I wish I knew it much better than I do. But some people seem to think that everyone must START with that.

I've had more than one person tell me at times that they learned more in an hour with me than a year of guitar lessons, and I'm sure some of you have experienced the same. But I could never be a guitar teacher. Why? Because the ignorant but well-meaning parents would go, "What? You're not teaching him/her to read music??? WHAT KIND OF TEACHER ARE YOU??!!" Never mind that musical notation is very limited where guitar is concerned in the first place.

I know there are some fantastic teachers out there, obviously. But it's also clear that there are some really bad ones. If I had been paying for lessons for my kid for 3+ years and he still couldn't play for squat, I would be asking why. But if the parents don't know any better, that's what they get.

I tried a "legitimate lesson" when I first started guitar and bass at 15 years old, and I was done with formal teaching. ONE lesson. Kind of like your wife's cousin, my original "teacher" was achingly inefficient, and was definitely going by the script (which I could've literally done on my own) definitely tried to do the "push the music theory first, we'll learn the actual guitar stuff...eventually" method. Needless to say, he lost me. Even back then, something in my brain told me that this guy was just dragging it out so he's got an indefinite source of income, and to this day I struggle to respect "teachers" who use this methodology. My parents weren't super-supportive early on with me learning guitar. I guess like a lot of parents, they figured it was a "phase" and that I'd bore of it, move on to the next hobby and they'd just sell or donate my pawn shop guitar, never having to worry about me spending a lifetime deluding myself into thinking I could be a professional musician. That backfired stupendously now, dinnit? Point is, the question my dad wanted to know was "when are you going to learn an actual song?", not "what is an 8th note?", "tell me what 11/4 time signature is" or "WHY CAN'T YOU PLAY A PHYRGIAN SCALE YET???" That being said, I don't get why the guy's wife's cousin's parents weren't concerned with his lack of any notable progress. A few weeks? Maybe. But a few YEARS and still nothing to show for it? You'd think they'd want to know what they were paying for. 

But I saw it a lot when I gave lessons. I was a glorified babysitter for a lot of these kids on days they didn't have after-school programs, tennis lessons, etc. I also came to the painful realization that most of my students didn't even practice on their own time. I had two students in particular who I'm certain I had to give the exact same lessons 6 or 7 times. I even occasionally would send emails or texts to the parents reiterating the importance of a practice routine, but most of the time those messages would go ignored. But the parents who DID pay attention, have their kids put in the work in between lessons, and have the kids show them what they're working on were great. Those kids went on to not need lessons, and some were already forming bands when they were finishing up working under me. Obviously the different types of parenting will affect the kids' level of commitment, and the ones that put in the effort made giving lessons much more rewarding. I tried to keep lessons fun, subtly-educational and RELEVANT to what the students were interested in.

A wise fellow who ran a local music store taught me a few things about being a well-rounded musician, and I'll never forget the one line when it came to "guitar lessons". He said:

"Classically-trained guitar players get scholarships. Guitar players who learn from watching their peers and idols, and by really training their ear to learn from their record collection...well...those guys are the ones that actually get GIGS."

That has definitely been the truth from my observations and experiences, 30 years later. It's not black-and-white, but it's mostly accurate.

When I started wanting to give lessons, I made a promise to myself that I wouldn't be a boring teacher, nor would I put these individuals coming to me for lessons in a position of having to learn what amounted to mathematical equations, esoteric terminology and mindless regurgitation. Sure, I'd sprinkle in some practical scales, basic understanding of the most common chord voicings (maj/minor/7th/9th/etc) and picking/strumming techniques, but in context that made sense, or applied to--and this was the important thing--what THEY wanted to learn. Not just what I wanted them to learn, or what I was comfortable with (which is what most guitar teachers tend to do). There is something to be said about the teacher having to adapt or even learn some new things themselves, in order to educate their student. Keeps you on your toes, and keeps it interesting for all involved.

My methodology was to find out upfront what students were trying to achieve, and what made them want to start playing. You had some "my parents are making me" type answers, as well as the "I want to form my own band" (which thankfully were the majority). Then I'd find out what kind of music they were into, some of their favorite artists, and tailor a plan according to their tastes, focusing on music that will keep them enthusiastic about playing. I'd teach them how to use a tuner, the parts/workings of their instrument and how to change/replace strings--things I think EVERY guitar "teacher" worth his/her salt should teach their students, but you'd be shocked how many guitar students haven't been taught those things and waste all kinds of money paying some dipshit at the local guitar shop to do things they could do themselves. We'd start with some applicable standard chords (first on "charts" and then the equivalent on guitar tab) to the simplest songs I could find on their preferred artist/genre lists, let them work on getting those calluses built up, and after they're grinning ear-to-ear strumming away on a song they love, I could start working some other information in there: the notes on the fretboard, a major scale, etc. Then you can move into alternate chord shapes, some rudimentary "lead guitar" scales/patterns and different picking/strumming techniques. 

By keeping the students engaged that way, I could tell which ones were going home and playing on their own time, coming back week after week ready, prepared and looking forward to learning the next song. The ones that really worked the hardest were forming bands within less than a year, putting their knowledge to work. Some were even experimenting with writing their own songs as well, which I LOVED seeing happen, as a songwriter myself. Meanwhile, some of them had friends who were taking "guitar" at school (something that wasn't even "a thing" around here when I was in school), who were mediocre-at-best on their instruments, had no creativity, and COULDN'T play a damn thing without sheet music in front of them or someone conducting them. The "classically-trained" kids couldn't improvise, couldn't "jam", and didn't remotely know where to begin regarding trying to figure out a song they heard on the radio by ear. Were they "educated in music theory"? Yes. Were they "competent guitarists"? That's arguable. They could "play" to an extent, but were completely lost without their sheet music/direction, and in many cases, didn't even seem to actually enjoy playing guitar, whereas the kids I was teaching were gleefully chugging out their Green Day and White Stripes songs or impressing their parents with some riff from a recognizable oldie, classic rock or country tune at will. This, I'd imagine, is the drive and elation felt by all of our guitar heroes who learned from listening to the radio, wearing out vinyl records and sneaking into shows to watch others play and see it firsthand.

I suppose it all comes down to it, which method works best depends on the intent of the student. If a parent is trying to create a classical musician in the family, go for all the theory and the "proper lessons" where they're learning how to read their sheet music and follow a conductor, but understand they're going to struggle play with any genuine feeling or passion, and it's just academic to them in most cases. But if a parent wants to let a kid explore music from a more emotionally-connected ideology, all they need is a decent-playing instrument (i.e. NOT the "cheapest thing you can find because you don't know if they'll stick to it", because it's gonna' play like crap and they WON'T stick to it), some songs that make them inspired to pick up said instrument (I was hooked at that opening hammer-on/pull-off staccato-picked intro of "Thunderstruck" by AC/DC) and the determination to succeed at it.  I've learned some theory along the way, but the stuff that gets me gigs, helps me write songs and keeps me interested all boils back down to inspiration and learning by example, NOT and kind of formal musical education. To each their own, and some folks may feel the complete opposite of me. We're both right. Or we're both wrong. But back to the original post, when a student clearly wants to learn but the teacher is holding them back, it's definitely time to reevaluate the situation and match that student up with a mentor who can help them hang on to that flame, not snuff it out with outdated, irrelevant or inapplicable methods that don't suit that particular learner. Everyone learns differently. But with music, unless you're planning on joining the symphony or something, it seems counterproductive to be teaching a kid, who obviously wants to play some familiar songs and (most of all) HAVE FUN with it a bunch of stuff he may never actually use when they could actually be out there enjoying themselves.

Regardless of whether a guitar "teacher" is a stodgy, by-the-book "classical" teacher or one who tailors their lessons to match the desired outcome of their students, let the student be the guide. If your student has a different goal than what your teaching style allows, send them to another instructor who will better suit their needs. Don't hold a beginner on the instrument back, and don't destroy their enjoyment of playing because their goals don't align with your "method".

Also, if you're one of those by-the-book guys, fine, but don't you dare judge the learn-by-ear guys or the "tab-only readers", because I've ran into MANY, MANY sight-readers who couldn't play their way out of a wet paper sack without their "notes" in front of them, while us pedestrian non-readers can hop up onstage and wing an entire set from memory (or by simply observing what the other musicians are doing). It REALLY sucks when I see kids taught that reading music somehow makes one a "bEtTeR mUsIcIaN", even if they can barely eke by on the instrument itself. Case in point:

I recently had to intervene with a conversation between my stepson (who we'll call "Al") and another member of the school jazz band (who we'll call "BH" for "bass hog"). They both played bass guitar in the jazz band (well, Al played half the set on bass and half on trumpet), and this other kid had literally cockblocked Al ALL SEMESTER from using the school-issued bass amp in class. BH used the bass rig, and Al was forced to use a dinky guitar amp which couldn't even be heard. So I was already pissed. Now, a little quick backstory:

Al's mom and I already had him playing bass for a couple years, and the kid has learned and memorized dozens of songs--my only gripe is he would RATHER be on YouTube on his iPad, and he's always complaining about taking time to work on his bass...and that I can't get him to also learn how to use a pick for certain songs. He had to start learning bass clef for jazz band (he already knew treble clef from his trumpet), but otherwise had a great amount of "fingers on the fretboard" experience. He still struggles to read bass clef, but mostly I just think it's some kind of subtle rebellion for being "forced" to play an instrument and enrich himself instead of spending every free minute watching Mr. Beast videos or dicking around aimlessly on Roblox. Anyhow, back to the recital, where I got to meet BH...

For the recital performance, the electrified musicians were instructed to bring their own amps. ALL OF THEM. I loaned Al my ex-wife's old SWR practice amp (yay divorce) and showed him how to hook it up. When the kids were getting ready, we found out that BH did NOT bring an amp (claims his is "broken"), and without really marinating on how this little prick treated her kid all year, my wife inadvertently told Al that BH could use the amp when he moved over to play trumpet. Needless to say, I. WAS. PISSED.

Hold up...this little shitstain was a narcissistic little twat to your kid, and you let him use MY amp? This arrogant, screechy little Adam Goldberg-lookin' crotchgoblin was benefiting from MY gear, and I was livid.

After the performance, I went up onstage to assist Al in packing up the cords and stuff, and BH came over, being a real dick to Al, telling him he missed a bunch of notes, and how "bad" a bass player Al is...just showing what a little douchenozzle he is. When we made our way back to the band room to get Al's trumpet case and start making our exit, BH came over again, and made a quip about Al not being as good at reading bass clef, and talking about how much better a bassist he was than Al. I told the kid that Al's been learning from me, and I've been a professional musician for 30-something years now, have a couple hundred songs at the ready at any given time in my head and I can barely even read tab. I asked him what all he played. He rattled off about 5 or 6 songs. I asked "what else?", and his response was, "that's it" and "those are the songs he has sheet music for". I told him Al knows 5 or 6 times that many songs by heart. He made some quip about "bUt He CaN't ReAd ThE bAsS mUsIc", and I retorted, "he may not be as good as you at the sight-reading portion, but he doesn't need to outside of this class, and he could get up onstage and literally sit-in with a group without so much as a one-time-through of any of the songs and play along with them without having to rely on music, soo..."

That shut him up, and he wandered off. I wasn't trying to decimate the kid's ego for the sake of my own enjoyment (although when you see a kid bullying others, I don't have one ounce of remorse for helping shift him down a peg or two), but I think it was a public service to let this kid know that musicians can be just as viable or "good" whether they sight-read music, learn by ear or mimic by watching others' hands. Teach kids better, people. Even if you're an insufferable twat, you don't have to raise your kid to be one.

In closing, I don't give a damn whether you read music or don't. But the second you want to puff out your chest and pretend like you being able to sight-read somehow makes your ability to play "superior", we're going to go have us a "duel" at some random-ass open-mic night and see who can hang with some strangers and entertain better. 😉