Updates

A couple things:

1. This site got a minor face lift, which it really needed. Everyone knows that when it comes to actual content, I hold Web 2.0 standards and legibility in high regard. This site does not qualify, though, since it is devoid of any "real" content and exists to perplex more than to inform. So I will make no effort -- ever -- to make the font bigger, label any of the links, or create an appropriate visual hierarchy to organize the "information," although I will tell you that you can ALWAYS find out what something is by mousing over it and looking at the little tool tip that pops up. Just explore, you're poking around in someone else's head anyway. And no, you're not allowed to zoom in to read it.

2. I got a Twitter account. Go ahead, laugh. I wouldn't care about Twitter except that it neatly integrates into the sidebar of blogs, giving a convenient channel for one-line thoughts that don't contain enough to be turned into real posts. It will help clear my head, and I'll post tour blurbs to it too. It also allows me to get headlines and miscellaneous snark easily and efficiently. Follow if you desire. I still refuse to join Facebook, because it's creepy, evil, intellectually vacuous, and dehumanizing. Twitter could be intellectually vacuous, since it intrinsically prohibits depth, but I like to think of it as a challenge of conciseness.

Writing

Generally speaking, I do better with list-making than with actual writing. I would much rather make a list of "top 10 things I would change about myself" or "top five strengths" or "action items" (shoot me, please) than actually write a coherent account or argument to communicate the same information.

I'm not sure whether this makes any definitive statement about the nature of my self-reflection, or maybe it's that in my mind the "task" of writing can't be separated from the academic imperative to create a defensible argument. (This may be of a piece with my wife's blog syndrome.) The main problem is that my written communication can't develop through practice, because false imperatives strangle the possibilities of new modes and new fronts. Part of me wishes I had taken creative writing in college, but another part knows it would have been awkward, mostly due to the inevitably forced display of personal inadequacy. We rarely go into situations where we're required to show off what we're not good at.

I wonder too if the nonlinear process I use (to write papers: I "build" them) might itself be partially responsible for my Germanic and analytical tendencies. Sentences are intrinsically one-dimensional; I think three-dimensionally. I compromise by writing two-dimensionally. With enough revision, there's no penalty on fluency, but certainly some magic narrative element is lost. I don't have the gift of surprise anymore.

I don't experience my own texts because I see them the way an architect (or more properly, a contractor) sees a building. Words then primarily form systems, not stories. Thus the criterion or standard is an absence of flaws, not the presence of some human response or impulse. Again, it comes back to a desire to be unassailable, rather than human -- which might be the opposite, anyway.

(As an experiment, I wrote this on a piece of paper in a single sitting in a restaurant, without revision.)

Tech: The Frankencaster (a.k.a. the Telesmashter)

Nobody asks about this guitar because I haven't recorded anything "serious" with it apart from (Temet Nosce). But it's probably my favorite because it's so weird, and it's one of a kind.

It started as a standard MIM Fender '72 Telecaster Deluxe reissue, made in 2006. I bought it to replace my '87 Les Paul, which had been destroyed by heat and botched neck repairs. '72 Tele Deluxes are electrically identical to Les Pauls -- two humbuckers with two volumes, two tones, and a 3-way switch -- but sound radically different because of the traditionally-Fender materials and construction. The reissue pickups, while oversized, are in fact average humbuckers that have been sized up to look like the original Seth Lover-designed Wide Range humbuckers. The original '72 Deluxes had 1MΩ pots, but the reissue uses 250kΩ, presumably as a cost-cutting measure. Replacing the 250ks with 1Ms makes a substantial sound improvement to the instrument. I used the guitar this way with Rosetta in Fall of 2006.

The first things to go were the pickups. I initially swapped in two EMGs which I had previously used in a Les Paul, but quickly removed them because they weren't wide enough for the huge 2-1/4" string spacing -- a result of the "vintage style" Strat hardtail bridge -- and the outside strings had a noticeably lower volume. After realizing that the spacing is so weird that appropriate aftermarket pickups would be vanishingly rare, I gambled on the only other drop-in option I had: Rio Grande's '72 Big Bottom Humbucking set. This set is their Vintage Tallboy humbucker for the neck and Muy Grande humbucker for the bridge, rebuilt specifically for the '72 Tele. The nicest part about these units is the 4-conductor wiring for coil splitting. These models are single-coil-specific designs that have simply been doubled into humbuckers. I replaced the two tone controls with push/pull pots to switch between single-coil and humbucking mode on each pickup. The guitar did duty this way in Rosetta in Winter/Spring of 2007, but I went back to the stock neck pickup because I only used the bridge pickup in Rosetta and the weaker Fender reissue pickup caused less sonic interference ("stratitis").

I was surprised and pleased at the versatility and sweet sound, but eventually decided the bridge humbucking wasn't really suitable for Rosetta. The Muy Grande output was huge but the combination of AlNiCo magnets and high DC resistance didn't allow enough treble attack, and I felt the guitar was being misused and undervalued in that context. So it gave way for yet another Les Paul (the red guitar) and became my home experimentation instrument. At this point I set it up as a straight baritone guitar, tuned B E A D F# B, and set about trying to maximize its potential for new sounds.

The main change was a custom pickguard from Warmoth, routed for the full-size 4-bolt pickup at the bridge and a standard 2-bolt Gibson humbucker at the neck (where the string spacing is not a problem). I opted for only two control holes --- one for a volume pot and one for a switch.

The current neck pickup is a Gibson Dirty Fingers 4-conductor humbucker (I added a nickel cover from an old 490R, it helps with hum in split-coil mode). This is one of the only ceramic pickups I find tolerable for the neck position, and it seems to flatter this guitar and its low tuning, more so than the Gibson 490R I tried first. I previously had the Dirty Fingers in the bridge of my Les Paul before swapping in a Bare Knuckle Painkiller there. I don't know of anyone else using the DF in the neck position, and certainly not on a Tele. Gibson claims it is "bridge only," but in fact its spacing is the same as Gibson's "neck" models (50mm), narrower than their other "bridge" models (53mm) like the 498T.

The bridge pickup is hardwired to the switch and output, with no volume/tone controls. With zero loading from any pots, this gives maximum output and attack, mitigating the Muy Grande's overly-warm tendency. The silver toggle switch shorts the middle wires to the hot wire, bypassing the lower coil and running the upper coil by itself. The neck pickup is wired to a 500k volume pot with a DPDT pull-switch. This switch shorts the middle wires to ground, running the lower coil by itself. When blending both pickups in single-coil mode, using "opposite" coils like this results in hum cancellation (this is called "RWRP"), just like switch positions 2 and 4 on later model Strats. With the Dirty Fingers at lower height, plus the cover, and with the pot loading, it matches up just perfectly with the Muy Grande in terms of output and blending. See below for a schematic.

This guitar is also fully shielded internally, using copper foil. Shielding doesn't completely eliminate hum from single-coils, but makes a noticeable difference. I tried shielding the pickup coils themselves, but hum was still present and it dulled the sound.

Tuning the guitar baritone B to B presents some challenges -- both in the accuracy of tuning and with staying in tune. It also requires higher-than-usual action to accomodate heavier strings, more slack, or both. I use a 14-18-28w-38-48-58 set for this guitar. To give a finer tuning ratio, I installed Steinberger gearless tuners. These use screw shafts to pull the string into the headstock, without gears, at a 40:1 ratio. They work well. You won't need to enlarge the existing mounting holes, but the Steinbergers require a small (1/16") auxiliary hole pointing in the direction of the nut. Getting the Fender tuners out is also a pain, since the topside inserts are wedged tightly in the mounting holes and can take the finish off as they come out, if not tapped out carefully.

To reduce friction and increase sustain, I replaced the high string tree, nut, and saddles with Graph Tech lubricated models. The lower string tree is a roller model, which worked better with the tuning machines so close to it. Replacing the nut required that I re-profile it, which also allowed me to fine-tune the setup for baritone tuning and larger strings. This is an absolutely necessary procedure if you're going to drastically change tuning or string gauge. I don't use needle files -- instead, I use the folded edge of a piece of 620-grit sandpaper. It's slower, but works well.

Obviously, the guitar is quite versatile. I have not found the absence of tone controls or a second volume knob to be a practical limitation. The amp isn't "covering the deficiency" either, since I primarily use this guitar with two Valve Juniors that have no tone controls themselves.

As far as tone, single-coil mode on either pickup is excellent and very characteristic of a Telecaster, and the blended sound between them is actually much better than most other Telecasters I've heard played that way. In addition to canceling hum, it has broad harmonic response without being harsh or spitty. Being able to fade the neck pickup in and out without changing the bridge pickup's output is an excellent way to tweak for tone. In humbucking mode, both pickups have extraordinarily high output, but different character. The DF in the neck position is very deep, but retains a lot of treble clarity, far better than the 490R. The Muy Grande in the bridge has the most mids I've ever heard, period. I don't use it for clean sounds except when blended with the neck pickup and a bright switch on the amp engaged --- but it sounds incredible for high gain, very smooth and responsive.

EDIT 4/2009: I'm now tuning this guitar A to A, or sometimes drop-G, using string gauges .014, .018, .028W, .038, .050, and .070. I have also removed the lower string tree, since I found that it gets in the way of the Steinberger tuners.

Clothes

The first fashion article I ever personally related to:

With the recent decline in our security, industry and standing, that nostalgia for a prelapsarian America (and the durable domestic goods that defined it) seems to have settled over the stylish set here at home. "Ironically, it's largely because of overseas interest that Americans can now wear real American stuff," says Michael Williams, a fashion publicist who covers Americana on his blog, A Continuous Lean. "They're recognizing that heritage and quality are precious in our disposable Wal-Mart world." It's as if globalization has come full circle, creating both an appetite for cultural anchoring and a fashion to feed it.
-Authentic Americana, Newsweek, Jan. 31 2009

This seems to be quite a bit different from the "Ted Kaczynski chic" of four or five years ago and the ironic trucker hat and Carhartt jacket fad in Williamsburg. At least, it seems to espouse some kind of sincere admiration and nostalgia for the "strong silent," Cormac McCarthy-ish masculine archetypes, which haven't been in the eye of haute couture since Jackson Pollock. (I would say McCarthy himself, as an artist, is one of these heroic American males --- though in a far more quiet and introspective way than Pollock). After Pollock's self-destruction, the "dandies" took over as taste-makers, ultimately begetting metrosexuals 40 years later. The difference between this newest fashion statement -- born of economic anxiety -- and the hipster "white trash" fashion trend is earnestness.

By choosing clothes that exist for a reason, young urbanites are defying the metrosexual mores of recent years and trying to participate in a testosterone-rich tradition instead. It's still fashion, of course. But it's fashion that fulfills a masculine ideal rather than a feminine one: function over frill. Superficial or not, that shift has come as a relief for men who already spend more time working with their MacBooks than their hands—a sign that they aspire to be as strong and silent as their rougher-hewn predecessors.

That may be superficial, but it's more confidence-inspiring than this. Granted, I won't pay those prices just to 'look like' something that I already am: I don't want just to look like I do skilled manual labor (a simulation), I want to do skilled manual labor. But at least the underlying logic is similar to my own set of criteria -- I select clothing with use in mind. The return to function dictating form is reassuring to me, but I'm also fascinated that this emphasis on functionality seems to be regarded as both distinctly masculine and distinctly American.

Edit 2/11/09: That is, fascinated in a semi-annoyed kind of way. I appreciate and endorse elevating function above form, and the higher valuation of build quality and durability -- but the association of those values with "American masculinity" perplexes me. The Teen Vogue link illustrates the infuriating counterpart -- the association of absurd frivolity with femininity.