Read today about a company that, at the conclusion of the interview, asks the interviewee to write a haiku about the interview experience.
Now I've heard that some companies will ask you off-the-wall questions to see how you think on your feet. Or they'll ask you how to do a simple task to see how detail-oriented your thinking process is. Or they'll ask you a question that seems simple, but want to see if you think outside the box and give the usual, easy answer. I've even sat through some of these kinds of questions. And in most cases I thought they were as ridiculous as they are. Truth is, I think most companies that asked them heard about the famous (or infamous) Google interview process, and they wanted to do something that seemed just as hip and trendy so folks would want to work there. So they just came across as copy-cats.
There were a couple of technical interviews that I sat through where the weird question was beneficial. Those two interviews were with different companies and a couple of years apart. They both asked the same question. How do you make a PB&J?
The first time, I answered the question, but I kind of stumbled on myself because I hadn't really thought it through. I gave some details, but realized when I left that I had still been a bit high level in my answer. I didn't get that job. I think that was more about me telling them I was trying to cut my commute down and then them telling me the job involved a bit of driving to field offices every day. But I digress.
The second time I was asked the question, I was ready. I went into mind-numbing detail. "Get your bread out of the cabinet, and be sure that it's sandwich bread. I prefer this brand and this variety for these reasons, but as long as it's sliced, you should be fine. Gently set the loaf of bread on the counter in a way such that it won't fall off. Now you can get your utensils out of the drawer. Go to your silverware drawer and pull out a knife. Not a sharp one, but one of the full-size table knives like they set next to your plate at suppertime. Pull that out of the drawer and set it on the counter next to the bread. Now let's find the jelly. I actually prefer jam, but that's a matter of personal preference..." The guy didn't even let me finish. I was five minutes into my answer and just getting to the point of putting the peanut butter on the bread when he finally stopped me and said, "sounds like you can definitely pay attention to the details when you need to." I was prepared to go on for another five or more minutes. Don't clown me with a question like that, because, according to Mrs Enfinger back in 6th grade, I got a PHD in class clown. That job I got. Or at least got offered. They didn't offer enough, and I turned it down after a week of trying to get them to increase the offer. They did, but just barely.
Anyways, most of the time I think those kinds of interview questions and gimmicks don't really serve a purpose. When I was on the other side of the table, I refused to ask those kinds of questions. Instead I'd give an actual example they might encounter, and then I'd ask them how they would respond. Details? I could tell in their answer if they knew what they were talking about. I didn't care if they could bore me with the tedious details on how to make a sandwich.
So I was reading this morning and saw this new take on this whole "who can ask the dumbest, most off the wall thing in an interview, and I think this one wins. Hands down it wins. Apparently, some company (they didn't say who) would ask, at the end of the interview, for the applicant to write a haiku describing the interview experience. I thought about it for a couple of minutes, and here's what I penned. And those that know me know that I'm just brash enough that this is what I would give them. I present to you, my interview haiku.
This is the dumbest
Interview question I've had
You’ll hire me or won’t
I guess I made a mistake tonight. There's a piece of gear that caught my eye about a year ago that I decided to research. I keep telling myself that, if I ever spotted a screamin' deal on this piece of gear I was going to pick it up. I spotted that deal, but decided to do the research on it first. By the time I got back to it, someone else had picked it up. Not pulling the trigger quickly wasn't my mistake. My mistake was in hitting up some internet forums looking for thoughts and reviews on it. There was one person's pontificating that particularly chapped my hide.
Someone had written a short, glowing review of this piece of gear. It's a pedal that's not considered a piece of budget gear, but it uses digital modeling to copy an old analog pedal from way back. Consequently, the used/new price is usually $70/$100 vs the several hundred that the original costs. So most of the comments turned into the usual copy vs original vs cheap vs insanely expensive arguments. Most of that part of the discussion I just skipped, but this one post caught my eye.
I'm not going to copy the post here (although that would probably be easier), but this self-proclaimed authority on the subject spewed their nonsense using what appeared to be a well thought out tome of a post. However, when you take a look at what they were saying, they're nothing more than a corksniffer saying that more expensive is always better.
They said that folks that give good reviews on budget gear or copies of other, more expensive gear fall into one of a several categories. They said that they either are a young, broke player that can't afford anything nicer that really just wants to justify their purchase to avoid having buyer's remorse because they know what they got is really not that good. Or it's someone that doesn't know anything about gear and they're just repeating what they've heard or read somewhere else online. Or, and this was my favorite, they're not a pro player that has demo-ed vintage, boutique, mid-level, budget, etc gear to see which of it is really better. They even had the audacity to condescendingly mention that not everyone can afford vintage or high end gear, but "everybody has to start somewhere."
They went on like this for 8 or 9 paragraphs. Then they continued to argue with other commenters expounding on these opinions. I think that's part of what just really irritated me.
Yes, budget gear is usually not as good as more expensive gear, but saying (or at least implying) that someone is giving a favorable review of a piece of gear solely because they know it sucks and are trying to feel better about it is, as the British would say, total rubbish.
Let's use my Klon and klones as an example. At one point, I had my KTR and like 8 klones and did a shoot out with all of them to see which one I liked best. Honestly, I fully expected to the KTR to come in somewhere in the middle with some of the less expensive klones sounding better. To the corksniffer's credit, yes, the KTR edged out all the rest of the pedals, and, to my ear, it sounded better and did the Klon thing the best, and the cheapest klone I had at the time ended up at the bottom of the heap. All the rest of the pedals were basically a crap shoot with pedals that I wanted to do well (and were more expensive) not ending up as high as I would've like. The #1 pedal (the KTR) was a $300 pedal. The #2 pedal (the Tone Bakery Creme Brulee) was a $100 pedal. Was the KTR worth 200% more than the Tone Bakery? That's a highly subjective thing. I have both, and even I would say that the KTR sounded better but I'd be hard pressed to say it was worth $200 more. I'd also say that, since I'm not a pro player, the other pedals sound close enough (and are easy enough to replace) that I'm probably not going to gig out with the KTR. Heck, my EHX Soul Food came in at the #3 spot, and it was the 3rd cheapest pedal. I'd write a glowing review on that pedal for none of the reasons that poster mentioned. I'd do it for the simple fact that it's a good pedal.
They closed their nonsense by saying that folks can drive their budget car if they want, but the Ferrari is always going to be the better car. To that assertion, I would have to say that it depends on the Ferrari. A bright red Ferrari is almost always going to win the cool factor, but may not be the better car. Who wouldn't take a 1962 Ferrari 250 if given the opportunity, but it's not always the better car. I drive an FJ Cruiser. It's a very utilitarian ride. But it has aircon, a radio/cd player, power windows, power locks, can pull a trailer, is a capable off-road ride, and, according the literature, will do 0-60 in 7.8 seconds (although I'd believe that when I see it). That Ferrari 250 has none of the amenities, and has a 0-60 time at just over 8 seconds. From a purely objective viewpoint, the modern FJ cruiser is an all around better vehicle than the 60 year old Ferrari. The Ferrari would be a fun ride for an afternoon or two, but give me power windows and an a/c the rest of the time.
I don't think the modern pedals are that different. The pedal I am looking at is a fuzz pedal that digitally copies one of those late 60s/early 70s fuzzes. In the coolness factor, the huge enclosure of the old pedal totally takes it. In tonal qualities, the old pedal probably wins again. In the budget arena, the newer pedal can be had on the used market for 1/10th the price of the originals. From an audience factor, the only ones that are really going to care about the difference in sound are those of us that are "discerning" guitar players; nobody else is going to give a rat's big butt.
In the world of guitar gear reviews, it seems to be truer than ever that half of what you read is just wrong and the the other half you can't believe. I'll be the first to admit that there's bad gear out there. But, if you go into it with an open mind, there's a LOT more good gear than you think. Heck, back during the summer I started looking for a good compressor pedal. I ended up over the course of the last 6 months buying and playing on about 5 pedals...some budget and some not. Which one has ended up on my board? That red Behringer compressor that cost me $25 brand new and shipped to my door. Definitely considered to be a budget pedal. Also, a good reminder to put the cork down and breathe in the fresh air.
And in conclusion, as with all things gear related, your mileage my vary.
The end of 2009 I got laid off from my job. I had managed to make it through almost that whole recession that we had back then and remain gainfully employed, but that one big client decided not to renew their contract. I don't think their decision had anything to do with the recession. Truth is, from what I followed, they decided that they could do what my company had been doing for them on their own. They spent a year trying to do so, but couldn't get the right people in the right places, made a complete mess of things, and re-hired my by-that-time-previous company about 18 months later. In fact, I figured they weren't going to get the right people in the right places because they called myself and a couple of other folks on my team and tried to hire us...for half of what we had been making. We all took our chances to find something better paying.
Neeways, I was fortunate to work my last day in the middle of December 2009 and start a new job the middle of January 2010. So I decided to spend the month working on my guitar playing. I hadn't really been playing a whole lot at the time just because of life, but knew that I wanted to try to pick up some skill and, since I had the time, actually work at it. I wanted to learn some blues, so I started looking around online for some lessons. Not in person lessons, but a book or dvd (remember those?) or something along those lines that I could do the self-paced thing with.
Luckily, I stumbled across Griff Hamlin's 4 Note Solo. Now, I have no idea what the search criteria was that I entered, but it popped up, and I watched it. The concept looked super simple to follow. I had already taught myself a couple of the minor pentatonic boxes, but had never figured out what to do with them. Their practical application eluded me. Watching his video, I also thought that Griff's style of teaching was right up my alley.
So I signed up for his email list, began reading the emails that he was sending, and saw him advertise his Blues Guitar Unleashed course. During my off month, I worked on the 4 note solo he had, and as soon as my new job started, I ordered his course. That's easily been one of the better musical decisions I've made.
Griff's style of teaching ended up meshing with my learning style pretty well. Even with a new job, I managed to discipline myself to sit down and practice every day for a few minutes. Focusing on what was on the dvd and in the book meant that my playing actually started to move forward in ways that it hadn't since I was a kid sitting in my room for hours a day.
Griff has continued to put out new course material. He has listened to those who have bought his courses, and works to fill those areas where we're saying we'd like to learn more. He is still primarily teaching around the blues and the blues form, but has branched out with other courses (theory, CAGED, modes, etc). His most recent course from just a few months ago is a course on How to Play like BB King.
I've grown to appreciate Griff over the last 10 years, and, even though I've never had an in-person lesson from him (yet), I consider him my guitar teacher. I've appreciated that I have never seen him be one of those hyped up teachers that says "so this thing and you'll be Eddie Van Halen!" He has always been honest about the need for practice and lots of hard work if you're planning on getting better. I've gotten to talk with him over the years via email and a couple of workshops, and he is always encouraging even when you know that what you just played sucked monkey butt. My unbiased opinion is that Griff is a top notch teacher. My biased opinion is that he makes all other guitar teachers look like amateurs.
If you've been looking for someone to jump start your guitar playing, especially if that playing revolves around the blues, my belief is that you do yourself a dis-service if you don't give Griff's courses a chance. Not only is he a great teacher, but his courses are well made (nothing amateur-hour about them), and he offers a money back guarantee. If you get into it and realize it's not for you, he gives you 90 days to let him know and he'll refund your money. As well, he has a forum where a lot of his students hang out. On that forum, you can ask questions about the courses and post audio or video of you working a lesson. The folks on there are just as encouraging as they can be. They may give an idea or two to make a lesson work better for you or to let you know that you need to keep working a technique because you don't quite have it down, but they'll still make you feel good about yourself and your playing. I believe they truly understand that music isn't a competition and that everyone's musical journey is going to be different. They're just a great bunch of gals and guys.
Later on, I hope to do another post about the BGU course specifically and what it teaches and how it goes about it. Until then, trust and believe that it's a quality course that can move your playing forward if you work it.
A couple of months back I picked up one of those Epiphone Les Paul Standard 50s. A gold top. Because everyone needs a gold top, right? Never expected to play it much because I've never bonded with an LP. Granted the only ones I'd played had been the entry level Epiphones and the entry level Gibsons. I'd never played a "nice" one from either brand, so some would say I had probably never given them a fair shake.
I think I got a pretty good deal on this guitar because it was being sold as a blem from American Musical. No big though because I fully expected to just hang this one on the wall because I think a gold top is a beautiful guitar.
It came in, and I pulled it out of the box. I'm not sure why American Musical was selling it as a blem. I'm guessing someone bought it and returned it, so they couldn't sell it as new. It was setup pretty nicely, and I couldn't find anything wrong with it. Once I got it on the workbench, I noticed that the nut is a couple of millimeters off center. I think it was cut weird because it's flush on the bass side and just barely not flush on the treble. Otherwise I have been all over this thing, and can't find anything wrong with it.
The neck is perfect. I wish all my guitars had the neck on this one. It's bigger than all the other electrics I've got. I've got an Epi acoustic that has a big neck on it that is bigger and borders on being uncomfortable to play after a few minutes. This one is big without being as big as that one. It's a good handful without making my hand tired. It's just a great feeling neck.
The pups on it are advertised to be an Epiphone Probucker 1 in the neck and Probucker 2 in the bridge. I've read that those are Epi's version of the the Burstbucker pups. I really like them. To my ear, they're clear and articulate. I especially like the neck pup. I've really liked the Epi Alnico Pro (Epi's equivalent to the 57 Classics) that are in my 339, but I think these Probuckers make the Alnico Pros sound kind of average.
It has the 50s-era wiring in it. From what I've read, that means that the highs don't get muddy if you turn the tone down. Honestly, until recently I've always dimed the tone and never messed with it again, so I'm not really sure if wiring like this makes a difference. Since I've started playing with the knobs on all my guitars more, maybe I'll eventually be able to hear a difference.
I think it looks as good as a gold top should. I think that the gold color is more yellow than the Gibsons I've seen. The Gibsons seem to be a greener gold that this one. You can look at the sides and see that it is a 3-piece body. Looking at the back, they have a veneer on it (albeit a nice looking veneer) that make it appear to be one piece, but it's not.
It's got the to-be-expected cream colored binding and hardware and gold knobs with pointers. There is binding on the neck, too, but the binding doesn't cover the fret ends like it does on a Gibson. It's got the vintage looking tuners with the off-white plastic tulip keys. The headstock is the new Gisbon-inspired headstock that I, personally, like better than the usual Epi headstock.
The one thing I don't like about the guitar is that this mug is heavy. Like orca heavy! I stuck it on the scale because I was curious, and this thing is 9.5 pounds. It is noticeably heavier than any other guitar I've got. I wouldn't want to stand and play it for long periods of time.
Other than the weight, this guitar is really a great guitar. My assumptions of the guitar when I initially bought it turned out to be completely wrong. It feels good and plays good and, to my ear, sounds really good. Since I picked it up, it has become the guitar that I play the most. For the last couple of years, I was typically reaching for my 339 when I played. This Epiphone Standard 50s Les Paul seems to be making the move to become my main player. I've played Gibson LPs that I didn't like half as well as this one. Over the course of the last 10 years I've bought several Epiphones (a 1962 anniversary Sheraton, a 339, a couple of different acoustics, this Les Paul, and others), and with every purchase, I am more impressed with Epiphone's offerings.
Snarf is a wannabe musician who currently resides in the great state of Texas. His wife is his favorite. He believes chocolate milk made from milk that is anything less than whole milk is basically water and deserves to be dumped down the sink so nobody has to suffer through it. He hates having to shop for clothes. But he has a thing for really cool bags, and, consequently, has more gig bags than guitars and a closet full of messenger bags and backpacks. He still misses his dog who was taken by cancer 5 years ago. Check out his Reverb shop and see if he has any gear he's trying to get rid of.