THE GREAT WORKER SHORTAGE FALLACY

Stores and other businesses say they're hiring, but are their hiring methods actually working, or not working? Are workers lazy, as some in the press insist, or are the employers incompetent in their hiring practices instead?

If there are two openings for every unemployed worker, as newscasters say, why do businesses make it so difficult to apply for jobs? 

Why are their hiring methods often so counterproductive? Is it because of AI replacing HR?

And if businesses are crying out for workers, why are so many big businesses still planning on layoffs?

If businesses are claiming they need workers, how many new workers are they really going to need after such businesses merge and combine stores and management?

These questions are valid ones, and something plainly isn't adding up.

Up until the recent war events starting in late February, nearly every day or night in America, if you listened to the news on the radio, or saw it on TV or online, there would be at least one mention of the plight of American businesses in their apparent search for workers.

Even now, periodically the subject of the 'worker shortage' is sometimes mentioned. It's sometimes referred to as the Great Resignation. The Great Resignation, or 'great worker shortage' is supposedly caused by several factors, some of them bordering on the political, but one of them being the Coronavirus Pandemic, and its after-effects on the US economy.

Now, the small office I worked for over the past decade decided to take a six to eight month hiatus early in 2021, as business was low during the pandemic. And right now, the office is only starting to get back into action. In the meantime, during the hiatus I decided to look for other employment, possibly permanent re-employment. Being that I had a certain amount of money saved up (I don't spend that much, personally), my search wasn't out of dire necessity, but I thought I'd see what I could find. I figured it couldn't hurt. 

My present employer understood my reasons for possibly seeking other work, and was fine with that.

So I decided, for the first time in just over a decade, to look for work. I got my resume up to date, and did some searching. Now remember -- this was during a time when on the news they have been pounding away at us for months that all these employers, large and small, were in dire need of workers. Recent news reports insist that there are two job openings for every unemployed person in the U.S., so that trend, of businesses needing workers, appears to have held up.

And, of course, over the past few months, they were blaming everything negative you'd encounter in business, or in the economy, on either the pandemic, or the 'worker shortage'.

No crackers? The problem must still be related to the Coronavirus Pandemic.... Even though there were plenty of crackers during the lockdowns. And now, that the pandemic has been declared mostly over (here in the US, at least) they blame the 'worker shortage' for everything instead.

EXCUSES, EXCUSES... and CUTTING HOURS & COSTS

If the shelves on your local grocery or box store were missing items, it was because their suppliers couldn't find workers. If a large retailer cancelled its online ordering service for special delivery, it was because "we don't have enough workers." If you needed to rectify your utility bill, and had trouble getting ahold of someone on the telephone, it was either because of the pandemic, or they simply didn't have enough people. One of the reasons given the American public during the early months of the large gas price increase was a shortage of gasoline tanker truck drivers. 

Even governmental departments were saying they didn't have enough workers.

Airlines cancel hundreds of flights because "they have staffing issues." That, of course, leads to the unanswered question: 'If you know that you don't have the staff available to maintain all those flights, why would you have scheduled them at all in the first place?"

Stores reducing their hours is also blamed on the "worker shortage" or after-effects of the pandemic, even though stores started reducing hours before the pandemic even hit. In my region, finding a 24 hour fast food restaurant is a challenge. Even before Corona hit, it was a challenge. The lights would be blazing outside, signs would be lit up like a Christmas tree, and you'd drive up to find the place is actually closed.

Grocery stores and drug stores which used to be 24 hours cut back their hours even a year or two before the pandemic hit. Some of them, which used to have their lights blazing during their closed hours, are dark -- indicating that they are cutting costs for some reason.

It's been the same with a lot of 24 hour gas stations, where you are now expected to use the ATM-style gas pump, and pay at the pump with a card, instead of go inside, or to a window, and pay a real person -- because even though the lights are on, the doors are locked. Companies are obviously using the pay at the pump method to save the cost of hiring a worker. But at the same time, these companies are blaming the "worker shortage". It's odd -- they had workers three weeks ago -- but locked doors now. See a pattern here?

This trend for businesses cutting hours makes it look like we're headed back to the 1950's, when there were no all-night or late-night businesses. Obviously the American business model is changing.

BUSINESS GIVES ITS REASONS, AND THE MEDIA PARROT THEM

Anyway, it seemed -- both during and after the pandemic -- that nearly every industry was experiencing a worker shortage or having staffing issues, at least according to what they said in the news.

Now, I had bought into those explanations for empty shelves, higher prices, and reduced store hours, just like probably most other Americans have. I mean, businesses and governments wouldn't lie to you, would they? The news media reporting about this Great Worker Shortage wouldn't lie to you, would they?

Now, it's possible that there are some employers out there who are indeed having trouble finding workers for their businesses. After all, the US Chamber of Commerce claimed in July, 2021 that there was a shortage of "skilled workers". The exact words used were "pervasive lack of skilled labor."

You can read about it here:

Chamber of Commerce CEO: Employers can't find workers (cnbc.com)

On the other side of the coin, the US Department Of Labor has a list of job positions which have the most openings, and a list of which "careers" have the most openings. It shows that the top ten "career" positions in the US are for unskilled labor, with low wages, and no higher education is required. Many of these positions only require a high school diploma, and aren't positions requiring technical training or skills.:

Careers with Most Openings | Careers | CareerOneStop

According to the list, 15 of the top 20 career fields pay approximately $15 or less an hour, and higher education is not required -- just more evidence of the lack of skills or education needed. In fact, if you look at the top 50 career fields on the Department of Labor's site, 33 of the top 50 "career growth" fields pay $15 an hour or less, which is minimum wage in many urban, coastal areas of the U.S. -- and they do not require more than a high school diploma for education requirements.

Yet, although many in the news media say there is a "pervasive lack of skilled labor", many others claim that the post-pandemic economy is terrific. Some political pundits even say the US economy is "booming" right now, while overlooking the lower wages for most positions that have openings.

So, once again: none of these movers and shakers would lie to us, would they?

EYES WIDE OPEN

Well, during my job search, my eyes were opened to at least one or two facets of this issue. I no longer believe that many, if not most, of these large retailers and other large companies truly need or truly want to employ more people. If they do, they certainly are shooting themselves in the foot with their arcane, slapped together and ineffective hiring methods -- even for jobs that pay relatively low wages. I don't care what they SAY about the subject -- all one has to do is look at their actions. 

What their motives would be for saying one thing, and doing another, is something beyond my knowledge. Incompetence is the first thing that comes to mind, but the CEO's and managerial types at America's largest companies are highly educated and often very experienced people. One would think or hope that they actually knew what they were doing. But, either way, it definitely seems that if these large companies truly want more workers, their way of achieving that goal is downright ineffective, almost by design.

The way they claim to be searching for workers appears to be designed to do the opposite -- to keep you from applying, to keep you from gaining, or to even keep you from wanting employment there. Some factors built into the employment system that many companies use are definitely counterproductive -- and yet nothing is ever done to change them for the better.

Although it may look conspiratorial, it seems to be good old fashioned corporate level incompetence.

CORPORATE H.R., BY COMPUTER BOT

One of the retailers where I applied for a job is national in scope. If I mentioned their name here, everyone in the U.S. and Canada would know who they are.

The application process was an education in everything wrong with modern day HR and employment practices. First off, there was no one to talk to about getting a job there. 

Instead, it was all online. The pre-employment 'test' was online. The application itself was all online -- meaning, you had to create an account with them. Which also meant that you had yet one more login name and yet one more unique, 500 character, alpha-numeric password to remember; one more bunch of login info to write down on the massive sheet of paper (stuffed in your desk somewhere) that has all your other unique, 500 character, alpha-numeric passwords.

Then, after I passed their online application and online 'test', I received an instant job offer.

Now, mind you, no human being was involved in the process aside from me. It was all done by app -- all done by the company's employment computer bot.

The computer bot then scheduled my in-person visit, along with their drug test. There was also an online approval I had to give for an extensive background check, and an option for me to request a copy of that. I requested a copy of my background check by marking 'yes'. It has been over a year now, and I still have yet to receive a copy of that background check. I guess that computer bot has a short memory. And the beauty of it: there is no one to contact about it -- whether by email or online message, and no one to call. 

They do not want to hear from you.

When I went to the place for my drug test, there were exactly three human beings I interacted with: the security guard, the dude who photographed my Social Security card and Driver's License, and the woman who gave me the drug test.

When my drug test was done, the woman who gave it to me told me "check your email for the next two weeks", so I did, every day. I never received an email.

BOT A DISAGREES WITH BOT B

About three weeks later, I got an email saying the position had been filled. OK, cool. It happens. The email said "check your phone, you may get a call." They didn't say what number would call me. OK, whatever. I never, of course, got a call. 

About a week or two after that, I received yet another email, stating that because they had not heard from me, the job offer was rescinded.

I scratched my head. They were pissed because they hadn't heard from me? Just a week or two before, they had told me the job was already filled, and they had told me to wait to hear from them.

And, as with every other communication from this company -- there was no reply allowed. It was always a one-way email, always a one-way communication, with no recourse or opportunity to reply... No email contact, no phone number to call. All of which is fairly common anymore in the modern day business world. The only communications allowed were one way only, from their voice-mail robots, or robot texts.

It's like "talk to the hand." I.e., Go Away.

They do not want to hear from you.

Think about it. If a company does not want to hear from you, what does that say to their potential employees?

This screenshot is an example of "We Don't Want To Hear From You" in action -- even if it involves reporting an obvious website error, common to two separate, well known and popular browsers. The website in question shall remain unnamed -- who it is, is not the point. The point is that -- increasingly -- tech companies do not want to hear from consumers who either have an issue with the software, or have actually found a problem with how it operates. Even people who do business with websites sometimes complain about this. I've seen it mentioned on writing and author websites. "There is no Customer Support!" is a common complaint.

Look at the text in the printscreened email (it can be viewed in a tab by right-clicking on it). They no longer have an email account that deals with issues and glitches. In other words: They Don't Want To Hear From You. "Go to the forum!" they say. I.e., they've outsourced customer support to other consumers, who don't have access to the actual product to make any necessary changes, and are probably as irritated as you are about any glitches.

Then there is the issue of why such companies don't have anyone manning a simple email account to field potential glitch reports. They employ hundreds, if not thousands, of programmers to work on useless "updates" that rarely if ever fix anything, yet they can't seemingly afford a simple team to field glitch complaints. 

Instead, this particular company shut the Complaint email account down, even though the email address still is listed on their website. The only conclusive answer is: They Don't Care. Unfortunately, in the American business world, they are not alone. One could almost find a reason to not fault them -- they're just following the lead set by many other companies.

This nonchalant, "We Don't Want To Hear From You" attitude is spreading to HR at various companies and corporations in the United States. No email contact, no phone contact, dead end emails, etc. It's giving a Big Middle Finger to the applicant.

PEOPLE? WE DON'T NEED NO STINKING PEOPLE

It was at this point in the application process that I realized that during the entire encounter with this potential employer no human being made any of the decisions, and NO human being -- aside from the security guard, the guy who photographed my ID, and the drug test girl -- was even remotely involved in the process, on behalf of the company. No vital communication to me was done by a human. Not one. All information I gave the company was not processed by a human.

All was done by computer bot. And one computer bot didn't know what the other computer bot was telling me.

Welcome to the Impersonal, Inhuman, and sometimes Inhumane world of the Modern Day version of HR. HR (American slang that is short for "Human Resources") is in itself is a corporate monstrosity created in the late 1980's when 'personnel' departments were transformed from the office that dealt with employment and benefits, to a bureaucratic black hole of endless jargon and bullshit. 

But now, they've managed to make that even worse.

TALK TO A LOCAL MANAGER -- NO, SCRATCH THAT! 

DEAL WITH A BOT INSTEAD.

Let's fast forward a couple months. I applied at another place, a big chain retailer where I shopped frequently. The front of the store, like many others, had several "Help Wanted!" signs covering the windows. In fact, as of the date of this writing, it still does.

And every time I shop at the store, their PA is always breaking in with announcements about how they really need workers, and how they are looking for people. The announcement says for people to "talk to a local manager!" as well as apply online. I asked the checkout guy about what I heard on the PA about getting a job. I asked him who the 'local manager' was. He said for me to go to the customer service desk during regular business hours, they'd get me connected.

So I did that, the next day. I was immediately told to go online. So much for 'talking to a local manager'.

When I got home, went online. It was the biggest boondoggle of a mess. Their search function operated like it was programmed on a Commodore 64. Really non-user friendly. Rube Goldberg would have been proud. There were job listings for stores two or three states away. There were instructions to go to LinkedIn to apply for an open position. I went to LinkedIn, and found that the position listed as "open" on the company's website was "not taking applications".

One computer bot didn't know what the other computer bot was doing or saying. See a pattern here?

The store wanted you to create your account with their website, where you give them all your data -- name, birthdate, address, phone number, email, and other vital info -- and then you find that none of the jobs are available. The checkout person at the store said they needed delivery order fillers. The website said there were no such positions open. The store's main website said they needed Night Stockers. The store's job website said there were no such positions open.

Once again, I was dealing with a situation where a) THEY DON'T WANT TO TALK TO YOU, and b) everything was done by computer bot, and c) one computer bot doesn't know what the other computer bot is telling you, and -- finally -- d) the human being actually working in the store knows more about the store's needs than the online, employment computer bot does.

 

A cartoon making the rounds on social media lately... It says a lot about the tendency for businesses and government agencies to replace actual people with online AI bots -- it's just another way of saying "F*** Off! We Don't Want To Hear From You".
 

REPLACING H.R. WITH A.I. -- IT'S A REAL TREND

At least some of my suspicions -- that a lot of these hiring issues are due to AI replacing people in HR departments -- have apparently been covered before in the press. It just wasn't considered a factor in the "labor shortage" until recently.

Here are two articles published by Vice a couple years ago that cover this subject.:

The Robots Microsoft Assigned to Do My Job Can't Do It (vice.com)

Here’s What Happens When an Algorithm Determines Your Work Schedule (vice.com)

I am certain that much of the negative that I experienced in my short job search described above was due to AI replacing HR. If one does a search on AI replacing HR, you'll find quite a few articles, and you'll even find websites for the companies selling this software to companies. It's a fairly big industry, and claims to help companies "cut costs".

Is it truly helping business? That is a good question. 

How can it be helping a business if no one really wants to work there anymore?

"Please enter a brand new, mind-numbing, 500 digit, unique alphanumeric password so we can start to mine your data, thank you."

WHAT ARE THEY DOING WITH YOUR DATA?

This all adds to my suspicion that in reality, these big corporations really don't want workers, they just say so, because a) it's great PR to say so, b) they're incompetent, and possibly c) they just want your data. I mean, I didn't get a job, but they still have my data -- the first company still has my drug test info and background check data filed away somewhere. What are they going to do with it? The data itself didn't get me a job. And it probably never will. So where does the data go, and how is it used, and by who?

And it's actually an important question, never seemingly breached by any news media: Why is it that to do a modern-day job search, you have to create an account at every single company where you apply for work? 

And -- just as importantly -- what do they do with all your data?

Before you question my suggestion that some of these corporate HR operations could be mining your data, there are actually companies who market data-mining software to HR departments nationwide. Just do a search on "Data Mining in HR" and several such data-mining software companies will come up on any major browser. They're not just mining the data of their employees -- not when a greater number of prospective employees and applicants provide a larger pool of data to use internally -- or to sell.

And since when is the applicant expected to choose which exact position they are going to fill, ahead of time, during the application process? Isn't that a bit backwards? That's putting the applicant in the position of HR, isn't it?

As for the retail store that still says it needs workers over its PA system, I can't be the only person who has tried their miserable, human-free employment application process. I live in a city of over 100,000 people. You going to tell me I'm the only guy who applied for a position at the store there? Then why is the store always saying it needs workers? 

The only reasonable answer is that they really don't want more workers. The companies I dealt with are some of the largest in the U.S. in their field. How can they truly be in need of workers? And why is their application process so hackneyed and Rube Goldberg that it makes the I.R.S. look streamlined?

None of it makes sense to me. Either the people running some of America's biggest corporations are completely inept and incompetent when it comes to finding new employees, or they are telling us one thing, while they are actually doing another. I find it difficult to believe that such wealthy and powerful corporations simply can't find workers.

I've reached the conclusion that this "great worker shortage" is a big farce -- a fallacy. How can big business say they want people, when they don't have the balls to actually deal with people in person?

THEY 'NEED WORKERS': THAT'S WHY YOU'RE ON TERMINAL HOLD OR IN A VOICE MAIL BLACK HOLE WHENEVER YOU NEED ANYTHING

When I call one of the nation's largest banks, and have to stay on hold for 50 minutes just to check out why there is an issue with my credit card, what does that have to say about how much they supposedly need people? You're gonna tell me one of the nation's largest banks can't find workers to talk on a phone -- really?

When I go into a box store owned and run by one of the US's largest retail corporations, and instead of 5 checkers there are only 2, and the line of customers at each checkout stand is ten miles long, what does that say about the company's desire to hire people?

If they really wanted to hire people, wouldn't they allow a local manager -- you know, the man or woman who would be your boss -- to take your app, look it over, and schedule an interview, or interview you on the spot? Wouldn't that be a more logical hiring practice than the top down, data-mining, cobbled together, bot-infested version they have now?

WTF is wrong with American business anymore? 

And on top of that, I truly believe that American business has held an anti-people attitude in its business models for a long time.

EVEN PAYING YOUR BILL CAN BE A HASSLE

You ever have to endure an hour of voice mail BS when you just need an answer from a big company to a simple question? You ever have to maneuver through a dizzying array of voice mail prompts and useless number pressings to find you never can get ahold of a human being at the other end of the phone connection? You ever try to get ahold of a human whenever you had a software, computer system, or other consumer product problem?

 

Have you ever tried to do something like just pay a bill online? Some utilities actually have working websites, but a lot of other companies make it so difficult just for them to get your money. You have to wait hours on the phone for the "next customer service representative" (because they never hire enough of them -- even before the pandemic, this was the case) or their website is an endless cycle of clickbait bullshit that never gets you to a means to simply pay your bill. Even their customer surveys are often designed to make you click, click, click, click, rather than simply tell them why you're dissatisfied and leave.

THEY DON'T WANT TO HEAR FROM YOU.

If I had a dollar for every time I've heard a robot voice tell me "Your call is important to us, and the next available customer service representative will answer your call as soon as they are available" I'd probably at least be $100 richer by now.

If businesses truly wanted to hire people, they've more often than not shown that their preference is to install computer programs to replace people instead. If businesses truly wanted to hire more people, they'd make it easier to apply for a job, by actually talking to a manager, instead of insanely more difficult, through their social media, strung together by bubblegum and duct tape, flow-chart-rich and results-poor mess.  

Now, I know it probably sounds as if I think that there is some conspiracy that employers aren't really looking for workers, and that they are lying to all of us about the problem. But instead -- I repeat -- it looks like it all comes down to good ol' fashioned American Corporate Incompetence.

THEY ARE OUTSOURCING H.R. WORK TO THE POTENTIAL EMPLOYEE

And one of the supreme ironies of this trend -- where they replace HR and other work with AI bots -- is that it is Corporate America's way of outsourcing more and more HR work to YOU.

No longer does a manager hand you an application to fill. YOU go to their website and enter all your data. No longer does a manager interview you for a job. YOU engage in some stupid computer "test", on a website -- including a simulated task -- that somehow emulates the job you are applying for. No longer do store managers schedule your shift -- YOU are the one who does that yourself, on the computer, or it's determined by AI. No longer does someone train you -- you are supposed to get it all by watching an instruction video, on your computer.

And if something is wrong with your paycheck, YOU have to figure that out for yourself -- or deal with an AI bot to try to straighten it out -- because in many of these companies there is no longer anyone to contact about such issues. The payroll "work" is all done by an AI bot on a company computer network. No people necessary.

In the mid-2010's they were telling us that AI would get rid of half of the jobs in the economy by mid-Century. I can see now, more clearly, how this is happening -- and the trend, as well as the lack of openness and honesty surrounding it -- should disturb everybody.

DISAPPEARING EMPLOYEES WITH EXPERIENCE

One trend that is related to everything I've mentioned here is a disturbing one: the tendency for big corporations to have unwritten policies where they get rid of older, technically adept and highly experienced employees and then replace them with younger, cheaper workers.

I know of at least three large companies (which I won't name) that appear to have this policy -- two of them I have read about in news articles, and the third company's "get rid of the older, experienced workers with seniority" policy I heard about through a friend who knows people who work in that company.

All three companies deal at least partly with tech, and the first two have had news articles written about their policy of getting rid of experienced workers because they save on the salaries. At the same time, those experienced workers have knowledge that a newhire can't just instantly gain. The results can be potentially disastrous for the company's product line, but American tech companies seem to have this tradition. It was discussed as early as the 2000's when a prominent professor of computer science, Norm Matloff at California's UC Davis, had a white paper on the software industry's war on older tech workers.

At least some of Mr. Matloff's work can be accessed here.:

Norm Matloff's H-1B and Offshoring Web Page (ucdavis.edu)

This sort of thing -- getting rid of older, experienced tech workers -- is still happening. The friend I mentioned just previously does repair work for a lot of tech workers in a major metro in the US. He knows personally of workers over age 40 who are afraid of losing their jobs at a major US tech giant, because they have seen other workers over age 40 lose their jobs overnight, and become replaced by new-hires who cost less, but don't always know the particular needs of the project they're working on.

And all this begs the obvious question: If you are running a company, how can you say you "need qualified workers" when you're getting rid of qualified workers -- the experienced, qualified people that you're canning at the same time you're complaining? 

Here are several thought-provoking articles that go into this subject with a bit more depth.:

Older IT Workers Left Out Despite Tech Talent Shortage - WSJ

Age Discrimination in the Tech Industry — the RACE to the BOTTOM

In a troubled economy, older tech workers are considered expendable (loeab.com)

“Systemic” Age Discrimination in Tech, even as Tech Workers Get “Better with Age” | Wolf Street

Opinion: Bye, boomer: the coming cull of workers over 50 - MarketWatch

These articles from several years ago (in a couple cases) indicate that this sort of laying off of experienced and qualified workers, ostensibly to "cut costs", has been going on for quite some time. It's still apparently happening now, even at a time when industries complain about "not being able to find workers". It appears that the American employment business model is sick.

Now think about this: the last time you bought an item, like -- perhaps -- a replacement part for your car or truck, and found it designed poorly, or defective right out of the box, or you used software that is clunky and buggy when the older version of it worked perfectly, you might have just read the answer to the reason why. Corporate America seems hell-bent on cost cutting, to the point of getting rid of people who knew the product, knew the market, and knew the company -- to the detriment of the product or service quality and consistency.

When a company eliminates its experienced workers, it destroys any viable continuity that is necessary to keep a product consistent. The next crew below them also knows what is probably in store for them, after they have seen the older, experienced workers being canned just because they have experience and seniority. I know people who work, or worked, at companies who have done this. They are well aware they could be next in line.

They know that the company will get rid of them, just like they got rid of the experienced guys and women ahead of them. 

It doesn't do wonders for a company's products or services when your workforce has zero sense of loyalty because of your non-existent loyalty towards your workforce, or your non-existent HR practices. If they no longer have a stake in the company, or even in the future of the product, what is that going to do to the actual product?

COMPANIES 'CAN'T FIND WORKERS': THATS WHY THEY'RE LAYING THEM OFF, EVEN WHEN THEY HAVE BANNER REVENUES

OR

'WE NEED WORKERS SO BAD WE'RE LAYING THEM OFF'

Another disturbing trend is American businesses complaining about not being able to find workers, while at the same time, other big companies, including some tech and manufacturing companies, are laying off people. Right now, Ford Motor Company, which is expanding its Electric Vehicle development and production, is laying off 3,000 workers. 

How does that figure? You're expanding, by laying people off instead of engaging in worker retraining, during a time when there is a "labor shortage"?

OK. Got that. 

It would almost be a funny part in a late night TV monologue, except for the fact it's a) true and b) hurting people's lives.

BMI, a large music licensing and royalty collection company, had a banner year in 2021, when they made record revenues. They laid off 10% of their workforce this year. Other prominent companies are laying off people, including some tech companies: Walmart, ReMax, Shopify, Peloton, Best Buy, and others. These are fairly large companies -- Walmart being the biggest retailer in the US aside from Amazon. Yet at the same time, US businesses are bewailing the lack of workers.

See a pattern here? Say one thing, act like another.

Here's just one news article on these layoffs.:

https://www.cnbc.com/2022/08/22/50percent-of-employers-expect-layoffs-a-survey-found-heres-how-to-prepare.html

CONCLUSION: AMERICA'S EMPLOYMENT MODEL IS SICK

From everything touched in this article I can reach several conclusions:

First off, American business is too centralized in its hiring and HR, which is keeping them from finding enough workers -- their local managers, who know what the needs are on the ground, aren't apparently given enough leeway to hire and fire, making the entire company slow to adapt to the those needs. They're depending too much on the internet and AI to do everything for them, instead of leaving employment to middle managers and the like.

Secondly, American business increasingly is holding an attitude that "churn is healthy" -- i.e., workers coming and going, getting hired and then fired frequently -- is supposedly good for business. There are several prominent US corporations where this is reportedly the preferred employment model.

Thirdly, American business is replacing people with AI bots, many of those AI bots doing the hiring and firing. The people at the receiving end of the AI/HR decisions determine that working in that field is no longer for them.

Hey -- how is that all working out for you now?

And once word gets out, that even the practice of seeking employment is like playing an endless game of phone tag with robots, how does that make potential employees want to work for you?

Does business in general actually care about any of this? It's a good question.

Now, every business has its right to do what it wants, employment-wise, as long as it's legal. If someone has a big company and wants to lay off people to cost-cut, or install a computer program to do all their HR work -- that's their right.

But at the same time, it's bizarre that so many companies are complaining about finding people. And I think at least some of the reason comes down to those businesses' methods of finding and hiring people. They've clearly lost their way.

IT AIN'T EASY....

I'll end this by roughly quoting David Bowie (who was 'quoting' UK folk artist Ron Davies, who wrote the song): It Ain't Easy.:

And here's the same song done by Long John Baldry, if that's more your style. He did a great version, too.:

SUMMARY: ALL'S WELL THAT ENDS WELL

Bluebells.... Not of Scotland, though that is a great bagpipe tune.

All that said, work has been picking back up at the office where I have been employed since 2011, so I am no longer involved in seeking other employment.

But the next time you hear about the Great Worker Shortage or the Great Resignation, try applying for one of those open jobs. Make sure you have a full cup of coffee and a lot of patience to wade through tons of online bullshit. You'll need your smartphone handy, because they want your number so they can text you the secret code you'll need to get to that application that the computer bot will discard right after it mines your data. And, of course, they'll keep your phone number along with the rest of your personal information.

Perhaps you'll be luckier than I was. Good for you if you are so lucky. Really. I wish the best for people.

But, from my experience, for a business world that is screaming 'worker shortage!' and deriding the public about it (even implying that people are lazy), they sure make it next to impossible to just talk to a human being about the job they say they're trying to fill, and they often don't seem to value some of the workers they employ if they are so willing to get rid of them while complaining about needing workers.

Peace.

C.C. -- written February and March, 2022. Posted December, 2022.

I held off on publishing this article for well over 6 months -- on purpose. I normally don't write anything that would appear even remotely political. I also didn't want to sound like I'm bitching and complaining, but I really think this replacing of people with bots is hurting American business, despite the fact they seem hellbent on doing it.

This article is one of those few times that I have done where I have breached subjects like this, because I think it's a bizarre situation where employers claim to want workers, but make it so stupidly difficult to acquire them -- and the press ignores this particular facet of the employment issue.

The only reason I'm posting it is because I think it is actually a vital and important issue. American business appears unaware that they are shooting themselves in the foot with their idiotic ways of trying to gain workers.

Most of the time I write about radio, music, guitars, biking, and the like -- and usually I prefer to keep it that way. :-)

This is one of those RARE occasions I strayed from writing about those happier, and more fun subjects.

My apologies to anyone who was looking for another article about radios or guitars, and was disappointed. Next time, friends: I have a new SW radio, so a review is upcoming!

Stay tuned, and 

Peace. 

Addendum, January 25th, 2023 -- I clarified some bad grammar. 

The Myth of the Guitar "Tonewood Myth"

My 'number one' guitar, a SAKAI made Jaguar copy, brand might be Wards or  Daimaru. The body is mahogany plywood. Does that count as 'tonewood'? :-)

I will start this article by making the same statement I made in an earlier article I wrote about that much-maligned guitar pickup, the Powersound.: 

I am not an equipment snob.

I think decent (or even good) music can be made on any instrument that tunes. I also don't think there is such a thing as "better" tone -- even in guitars. Instead, we all have our preferences. To me, the perfect tone is Eric Clapton at Klooks Kleek, November, 1966 (see video link below), or the tone he got at the Revolution Club the next year (see video link below, too). Other times, the perfect tone to me is the tone AC/DC's Malcolm Young and Angus Young attained, circa 1975-76. 

And sometimes I think the perfect tone is Francis Rossi's lead guitar tone, circa 1975, on Status Quo's awesome rock record On The Level.

Not sure where Eric Clapton would stand on the 'tonewood' debate, but he was playing his 'Summers Burst' 1960 Les Paul in this recording, borrowed and/or bought from Andy Summers -- his previous Les Paul, which he used on the Mayall / Bluesbreakers 'Beano' album, was stolen.

Cream playing 'Sunshine Of Your Love' at the Revolution Club in France, 1968. By this time, Clapton was playing his 'Fool' SG through a Marshall Super Tremolo amp. The differences in Clapton's tone between 1966's Fresh Cream LP and 1968's Wheels Of Fire LP can probably be more ascribed to amps, miking techniques, and other factors than just the guitars alone.... and who knows where the wood used in those guitars (a borrowed Les Paul on Fresh Cream, the 'Fool' SG on Disraeli Gears and much, if not most, of Wheels Of Fire) made a difference in sound. 

At times like this, I sometimes think that actual difference in sound that the wood may give to a guitar may be more of a factor to the player, as opposed to the music listener.

Status Quo's On The Level album from 1975 was probably their best. This track is an example of Francis Rossi's awesome lead guitar playing, and trebly sound. He used a Telecaster through either a Marshall or Sound City amp. Most Americans aren't even aware of this phase of Status Quo's long and remarkable career, and most American guitar players don't even know who Francis Rossi is -- and that is a pity.

"Good" tone is just preference. And we all have them.

The past couple of years, thanks to the Coronavirus lockdowns (and other factors), I've spent a lot more time on YouTube (affectionately known here as the 'Tube), watching videos of various rock guitar players and slide guitar players, as well as checking out other music and guitar related videos.

And somewhere on the trail to videos about all aspects of guitar, I discovered a new controversy. It's called the "Tonewood Myth". In fact, there are a bunch of videos on this subject.

NOTE: In this article, I talk about my own guitars a lot. There is a reason for this... Well, two reasons. We all like to talk about our guitars, don't we. But the main reason is to show you where I am coming from. When I say 'I am not an equipment snob', I think it will be pretty apparent to the reader, after seeing my guitars, that truly am not one of those. My guitars are all budget models. I like the tones and sounds I get from them -- but they are budget models, none with what probably would be called "Tonewood". So any of my thoughts about "tonewood" are from my own experiences, playing these budget model guitars. 

THERE IS WOOD, AND THEN -- THERE IS GUITAR WOOD

Now, for the uninitiated, most guitars -- both acoustic and electric -- have bodies and necks made out of wood. And there are other materials in guitars -- especially electric guitars -- that are not wood: the metal bridges, metal tuners, metal tremolo bars and springs, the metal string 'trees' and string retainers, the plastic pickguards, and the like. But the biggest part of any guitar is the wood. And wood, amazingly enough, has sonic properties. This can be more easily heard in an acoustic guitar than an electric guitar, but the type of wood can make a difference in any guitar's tone.

For example, if you place your ear to the back of your electric guitar, and strum the strings, you'll definitely hear the sound of them, resonating the body (I think this resonance is called sympathetic vibrations), and most of the other parts of the guitar. With some electric guitars you will hear this more loudly than others. My loudest guitar body is that on my 1970's, Japanese made, Sakai Jag copy.

My Lotus L520, which is made from three pieces of ash, one of the pieces going from the neck joint through to the butt-end of the body. It weighs 10 pounds. I'm not sure if the body wood affects the tone much -- the guitar is brighter than a Les Paul, and sounds a bit like Mick Ronson's Les Paul, with a nice 'orange snarl'. It could be the wood, or the ceramic magnet humbuckers, or both, or something else. I just don't know.

THE ORIGINS OF 'TONEWOOD'

For years, electric guitars were sold on the quality of their wood, and the type of wood used to make their neck and body. There were magazine articles on guitar wood, and how it affects tone. There are numerous internet articles on guitar wood. And from all this literature, the term "tonewood" arrived.

Some guitar makers pride themselves in making their electric guitars out of "tonewood", apparently. And -- also apparently -- they price those guitars higher.

So, there is this large mythos about guitar wood, and "tonewood", and the internet has a ton of information and discussion about it. After all, we guitarists love to talk shop. And we also apparently love to argue about it, too. :-)

An example of the extent of this "tonewood" mythos is the numerous websites that will describe the various 'tones' that you can get if your guitar is made out of a certain wood: mahogany gives your guitar a 'dark', 'full', tone; ash and poplar will give you more 'midrange', and a 'brighter' tone; maple necks will give it more clarity; a maple top (or 'cap') on top of a mahogany body (like many Les Pauls have) will add some treble to the 'darker' mahogany characteristics, etc.

There are guitar players who maintain that only mahogany guitar bodies can give your electric guitar a good hard rock sound, only ash bodies can give you a bluesier sound -- etc. etc.

This thought applies to guitar necks as well. There are guitar players who swear by maple necks (no rosewood or other dark wood on the fingerboard), especially in Fender style guitars. There are guys who swear by thick, 'rosewood slab' fingerboards (as opposed to the thinner 'rosewood veneer'), maintaining that the fingerboard can produce a different tone. 

Fear Factory's guitarist Dino Cazares swears by painted necks. Other guitar players swear by certain electric guitar finishes. Mick Ronson sanded the paint off the top of his Les Paul Custom, swearing that it brightened the sound of his guitar. The Cult's Billy Duffy, who is a Ronson fan (as I am) does the same to his Les Paul Customs.

The late Mick Ronson -- who was David Bowie's guitarist from 1970-1973, and also played on albums by Ian Hunter, Elton John (an excellent outtake of 'Madman Across The Water'), and UK folk rocker Michael Chapman -- with his 1960 Les Paul Custom, which he stripped to the bare wood (on the top only -- the back and sides, as well as the neck, remained LP Custom Black). Ronno thought that it would enhance the treble response of the guitar. Whether it did or not is a good question, but the guitar looked cool, and it sounded good regardless of whether the missing paint made any difference or not.

If you look very closely at the 'surrounds' -- the plastic frames used to mount the pickups -- you'll see they are cream colored with sections where it looks like they are turning black. This is because Ronno had to paint the surrounds white with plastic model enamel paint, because Gibson never made black surrounds until much later. And -- naturally -- the white paint would wear off.

So there are a lot of differing ideas of what makes a certain electric guitar sound good. And guitarists seem divided as to the effectiveness of some of these practices. Does the finish really make a difference on an electric instrument? It's hard to believe, but what do I know?

'BUT IT'S NOT GOOD FOR METAL'

As for the wood itself, there are guys who only play mahogany wood guitars for metal music, because other woods like ash and poplar "aren't good for metal". There are guitar snobs who (especially in the past) would look down at any guitar with a bolt-on neck. This was more predominant in the 70's and 80's than recently. I remember guitar players talking about this. They thought bolt-on necks were 'cheap'. Never mind that Hendrix played a guitar with one. And his tone influenced a lot of guitarists.

And for years, if you told someone your guitar's body was made of two or three layers of mahogany, glued together (like my Univox Gimme Les Paul) or -- gasp! -- mahogany plywood, they would look at you as if you weren't really playing an actual guitar.

One can see this sort of talk in a lot of guitar literature, even today. Luckily, the attitude towards guitars and how they are made has changed over the past two to three decades.

That said, guitarists generally seem a bit pedantic about this sort of thing. And in the past few years, the "tonewood" argument seems to be the latest controversy, now that we all agree bolt-on necks are OK. :-)

A section of my 1970's Sakai made Daimaru Jag copy (which for over a year I thought was Teisco-Kawai), showing the maple (?) neck (with rosewood veneer fingerboard), and if you look at the body here, you can see it is 5 to 6-ply Mahogany (at least I think it's Mahogany - it could be another wood, like Agathis? A lot of Teisco guys really don't know what wood was used to make Teisco-Kawai or Sakai plywood bodies, but at least one Teisco fan told me it's Mahogany). This guitar has the loudest body on any of my electric guitars (when you place an ear to the back of it), and it is my loudest electric guitar, acoustically. Electrically, it's quite loud considering the relatively weak pickups. 

Plywood is probably the farthest from 'tonewood' that you can get, but the guitar still sounds good. Sort of like an SG with P-90s, with more treble available. I can make it sound like Francis Rossi's green Tele easily.

WHAT THE WOOD IN A GUITAR ACTUALLY DOES

The wood in an electric guitar serves maybe three purposes. First, clearly and obviously, it provides the body and neck for the guitar. Wood is fairly abundant, and it's less expensive than some other guitar-making materials. There also is a tradition that guitar = wood. The wood hopefully looks good -- some guitarists really like a guitar with 'figured' wood -- swirls, 'flame', etc. The wooden pieces of the electric guitar also provide a sturdy base for the mounting of pickups, bridge, tuners, frets, tailpiece, etc., and most guitar woods are sturdy enough to machine, but hopefully light enough to be able to wear the guitar while playing it.

Now comes the controversial part of it: Wood also provides some of the electric guitar's sound. What percentage of the sound, or tone, of the guitar the wood provides is arguable. Some people say it makes no difference. Others say it's vital. I'm somewhere in the middle.

Now, some woods may have more sonic properties than others. Ash supposedly resonates more midrange. My Lotus L520 resonates a lot of midrange. Its body is ash. Coincidence? Maybe. It may be more probable that the ceramic magnet humbuckers are designed more for increased midrange, and the wood may have nothing to do with that. I don't know what the source of the midrange resonance is. All I know is it often sounds a lot like Mick Ronson without needing the cocked wah-wah. That's good enough for me.

But it's an example of how some guitar people look at guitar wood, and how it may or may not affect the guitar's sound.

Although there may be some truth to these descriptions of various woods giving a guitar certain sonic characteristics, many guitarists think that the idea that wood gives an electric guitar's tone a certain character is nothing more than a myth -- that the wood in a guitar's body doesn't matter. And some guys take this argument even further, insisting that the guitar body itself -- wood, size, shape, thickness, density, etc. -- makes no difference to the tone whatsoever.

NO 'TONEWOOD' HERE, UNFORTUNATELY

Now, I don't ascribe to the tonewood theory per se, as my main players do not have "tonewood". I have one mahogany plywood guitar (my Daimaru, Sakai Jaguar copy). That guitar has been my main player for years. My first good electric guitar, my Univox Gimme, has a body made with several slabs of mahogany glued together in a "pancake". That used to be frowned upon by guitarists. My Univox also has a (gasp!) bolt-on neck. In the late 70's and through much of the 80's that was also frowned on by guitarists. Many of them viewed bolt-on neck with absolute disdain.

My Ibanez, 'Ibby' Gio GRX-40, made in 2000 out of Agathis wood. When I did research on the guitar after it was given to me, a lot of comments about any guitar made out of Agathis wood were negative, claiming that Agathis is a 'cheap' wood, and that Agathis wood won't, and simply can't, give you 'good tone'. I call bullsh*t on that. To be fair, there are other guys on the 'net who claim that Agathis can sound good, like a cheaper version of mahogany. Really, I think it all depends on the individual guitar, along with set up, strings, etc. The sound of the guitar is a summary of all the parts.

My newest electric guitar, my 2000 Ibanez Gio GRX-40, has a body made of Agathis wood -- a tropical pine that many guitarists think is a cheap, throwaway wood, so naturally, it follows that you can't ever get a good tone from a guitar made from that wood.

My Ibby Gio GRX-40's bridge and Powersound Humbucker. I filed the bottoms of the bridge saddle set screws a little bit flatter than they were, to give them more positive contact with the bridge plate. I noticed a bit more volume and definition to the notes afterwards. The low-E string's saddle is filed short (with spring taken out) to make it intonate better, especially for a .52 string, and Open G. The humbucker, which has a ceramic magnet, is 4-5 mm away from the strings, for a better sound, and to keep the magnet from pulling on the strings. It's stuff like this that can make probably as much, if not more, difference to a guitar's sound than the wood.

And, last but not least, I have a guitar made out of three chunks of heavy ash, glued together -- my Lotus L520 Les Paul copy. It's a 10 pound guitar, and sounds like one. But it's made of glued together chunks of ash.

So I am the last guitar player in the world that would be a 'tonewood' snob.

The back of my Ibby Gio. Ibanez Superstrats come with three trem springs, and they seem a bit robust. I noticed a definite improvement in tone when I decked the tremolo (bridge plate flat against the body) and tightened the tremolo 'claw' to the wood, as can be seen here (it's battened to the wood, all the way to the left). If you look closely, you'll see that the ground wire was soldered to the wrong 'tab'. The worker at the factory soldered it to one of the tabs meant to secure one of the tremolo springs. instead of the ground tab that's in the middle of the 'claw'. I decided to leave it that way.

What can not be seen easily is that the entire trem assembly is a hair off -- the 'claw' is too far north in this pic. In other words, it's not exactly to spec. Neither is the neck bolt placement, if you measure the placement of the neck bolts. The strings are all properly aligned, and the neck itself is aligned well, so the guitar still works as intended. 

Being that this was possibly the 329th Gio GRX-40 made, they probably were still learning how to make them. A small mistake on the front of the guitar (near the volume and tone controls) also is an indicator that someone might have been learning on the job. I take it as guitar 'character'. :-)

The back and neck of my Ibby Gio. If you look closely you can see the bolts securing the neck are a just a little too far 'north' in this pick. It's not a trick of the lens. Fortunately, it makes no difference in the guitar's playability or sound. It's just a unique characteristic of Gio #329.

ENTER THE 'TONEWOOD IS A MYTH' VIDS

But that said, I find it amusing, and sometimes disturbing, the lengths to which some enterprising YouTube guitar aficionados will go to attempt to prove that the type of wood of which an electric guitar is constructed makes zero difference in the sound of the guitar.

You'll see guys making a guitar out of concrete or glass, and claiming that it sounds just like a Les Paul or a Stratocaster. You'll see guys making a 'guitar' out of a fence post or a couple workbenches, 'proving' that it sounds just like a Les Paul or a Telecaster. Some of the vids are a bit convincing at first. At the very least, they show just how remarkable an invention that an electric guitar actually is: that you can get all this music out of minimal materials.

And the comments underneath these 'tonewood myth' videos are often very scathing towards anyone who thinks that the wood in a guitar really matters. If you post a comment stating that you think wood can make a difference, you may get all sorts of comments ridiculing that idea. Just like with everything else -- when it comes to guitars, everybody has an opinion.

THERE ARE 'TONEWOOD IS NOT A MYTH' VIDS, TOO

Of course, there is also the other side of the controversy, where guitarists have shown that the wood in an electric guitar's body, or neck, can indeed make a difference.

There is one video on the 'Tube where a fairly well-known Swedish guitar player took one neck, and -- in turn -- he attached it to three different, identically sized pieces of different wood -- mahogany, maple, and treated fir. He mounted the same pickup to each piece of wood in turn, and the same identical bridge and hardware. When he played each resulting 'guitar', the different woods did give the sound different tones. The difference was subtle, but audible.

The guitar player is Johan Segeborn, a popular guitar YouTuber. You can see his video here.:

Electric guitar body TONEWOOD - Myth or Fact? Judge for yourself here! - YouTube

Mr. Johan Segeborn's interesting video on this subject.

Another guy, guitarist Darrell Braun, made a video where he had a Fender Tele guitar with a rosewood neck. He also had an identical, maple neck. When he substituted necks, the sound was clearly different. The maple neck sounded a hair brighter. You can hear it in the first minute or so of the video.

ROSEWOOD vs MAPLE - Guitar Tone Comparison! - YouTube

Mr. Darrell Braun's YT vid comparing maple and rosewood Tele necks.

In that video, there is a 'blind test', where you hear both necks being played, but the screen is dark -- you aren't actually seeing them being played. You can still hear a difference, but it's harder to identify it when you're not associating the sound directly with what you are seeing. It shows you just how subtle any wood or materials comparison can be. It also shows how our minds can affect our ears. 

And -- of course -- undoubtedly, not all necks made of the same exact materials are going to sound exactly the same. I'm sure that not every maple neck sounds exactly the same. Whatever characteristics you get from your guitar's neck are just another factor in the 16-20 factors that probably make up an electric guitar's sound.

Then you have the music factor. What may sound like 'tone' to a blues guitar player may sound like crap to a metal player. And a jazz or country player may find some tones better than others. We all listen for different things, depending on our musical frame of reference.

This obviously affects how we hear the 'tones' of one guitar over another.

WHAT AMPS WERE THE COMPARISON VIDEOS USING?

In Mr. Segeborn's comparison video, you'll notice the amp he is using. It's a Marshall. In most of the "Tonewood = Myth" videos, Fender or Vox amps seem to have been used.

Does this difference in amps used make a difference in the outcome of the comparisons? 

I think it's possible, as Marshall amps are fairly dark amps, which may bring out different characteristics from a guitar's tone, whereas Fenders (especially the ones I've seen used in the comparison, 'myth' videos) are more midrangy. A lot of the perceived differences in guitar bodies that I may be listening for may be in the bass and low-midrange frequencies. Someone else may be listening more for a better high-midrange or treble attack.

DO STRING GAUGES MAKE A DIFFERENCE IN THESE COMPARISONS?

I also wonder if different string gauges can make a difference with the affect the wood may have on the sound of an electric guitar. I use fairly heavy strings -- .11 or .12 to .50 on most of them. Large gauge strings are fairly loud. They're bound to vibrate the wood in the guitar more than lighter gauge strings will, because the vibrations are greater. In most of the comparisons online, the string gauges are generally never mentioned. 

In the late 80's there was at least one or two articles in guitar magazines about heavier guitar strings giving you 'better tone'. At least one prominent hair-metal lead guitarist got some carpal tunnel or tendonitis from playing fast lead on heavy strings -- or so he said.

Why would heavy strings give you better tone? Of course, the pickups will react to heavy string gauges differently. But how about the body? How about the interaction with the neck?

It's an example of the fact that each element of your tone, or sound, is part of the whole. Throw a midrangy pedal like a Tubescreamer into the mix, any differences between guitar woods is probably thrown out the window.

'TONEWOOD' AND BLIND COMPARISONS: NOT JUST FOR GUITARS:

A Cheap Violin Can Sound Better Than a Stradivarius

This 'tonewood myth' and blind comparison trend -- where an enterprising YT video maker compares cheap and expensive instruments to see if the expensive one actually sounds worth the money -- is not unique to guitars in the internet video world. There is a video on YT, made by an expert violinist, where he compares five violins, ranging in cost from a $70 starter violin found on Amazon to a TEN MILLION DOLLAR Stradivarius.

Now, for the uninitiated, a Stradivarius violin is considered to be the 'Holy Grail' of violins. The guitar equivalent -- for rock and blues guitarists -- would probably be a 1959 sunburst Gibson Les Paul. And being that real Stradivarius violins were made 300 years ago, as opposed to several decades back, one can see why their value is so high.

And 300 years is a long time to build up a reputation.

During the blind test, a skilled violinist played the same short musical pieces on all the different violins, using the same mic, same distance, etc..

Does a Stradivarius really Suck That Bad?

I preferred the tone of the $450 violin, #3 (a Serafina brand violin). The $100K Gagliano violin, #5, came in second in my estimation. Those two violins sounded the most pleasing to me. They had a very full, musical and sweet tone. The Stradivarius seemed a little thin to me, too much high midrange. It didn't sound pleasing to me. Definitely not to the tune of $10 Million.

But I doubt any violin player would agree with me. And they would definitely tell you that the Strad is made out of 'tonewood'!

Here is the link to that video -- you can listen for yourself.:

CHEAP vs EXPENSIVE violins - Can you hear the difference? - YouTube

An eye-opening -- or ear-opening -- video where an expert violinist compares several violins to a Stradivarius.

What is interesting, is that there have been several blind 'tests' of different violins against a Stradivarius, and often the tests show that even violinists can't tell the difference in tone.

SO, WHAT ACTUALLY MAKES A DIFFERENCE IN A GUITAR'S SOUND?

Ever since I started repairing and rebuilding (modifying) my own guitars in the 1980's I have reached the conclusion that the sound of the guitar is the sum of ALL of its parts.... Including the wood.

My Sakai made Jag copy -- the back of the Fender-style headstock. The wood might be maple, and the 'grain' is oriented differently from that of most Fender style guitars. Some Japanese Guitar experts say that necks like this are "multi-laminate", so what looks like grain may not actually be the grain of a piece of wood, but some sort of multi-layered, laminated wood. 

The tuners are Gotoh's, I completely wore out the original, open back tuners. When the Gotoh's went on, the tone altered slightly. The guitar was a little bit louder, with a hair more sustain. if you look closely you can see the 'washers' under the nuts that secure the string retainer to the headstock. The 'washers' are parts of an old Dunlop .46mm Tortex pick. I just wanted to increase the string tension at the headstock slightly. I think it helped with the guitar's tuning and playing stability.

I have been working with guitars for several decades now. I sort of rebuilt my number one (my Sakai made Jag copy, which I think might be a Daimaru brand but am not sure) in 1996, lowering the string retainer (by using plastic washers on the bottom side of the headstock where the retainer is attached -- adding a tiny bit of string tension and stability on the headstock side of the nut); changing out the tuners (I completely wore out the original, open backed ones); adding shims underneath the bridge (to increase the area of contact between the saddles and the body of the guitar, effectively increasing the size of the bridge posts); radiusing the bridge to make it match the neck better; adding extra retainer springs to the pickups to make them more stable and less prone to vibration and microphonics; tightening down the tremolo bar to increase the string tension and tuning stability overall; and sanding the heel of the neck and pocket to increase the transfer of any sound between neck and body.

The effect of all these small mods was that the sustain was improved, the notes had more definition, the guitar was louder, and more stable. The overall character of its sound, however, is about the same. It still sounds like it did in recordings I made with it in 1989 and 1990.

The bridge on my Sakai-made Jag copy. First off, the fact that this guitar had a tunable bridge, and the pickup placement matched an SG or Les Paul shows that Sakai was really trying to turn out a decent, budget instrument. Secondly, if you look at the saddles, you'll see where I used a needle file to radius them. The saddles look like roller saddles, but they're not. They're stationary.

Thirdly, if you look closely, underneath the top two saddles, you'll see a square of shiny metal inserted under the bottoms of the saddles. It's a piece of coffee can.

This is what happens when Chris screws up and almost wrecks his favorite guitar's bridge. I had started filing the bottoms of the saddles, thinking I was going to 'drop' them a millimeter or so. Then I realised that they were held in place by the adjustment screw, fixing their height -- and filing the bottoms would just make them wiggle all over the place.

Luckily for me, the coffee can metal worked.

Live and learn. :-)

I also took out a pickup out of my L520, and after the replacement pickup (a P-94) sucked, put the original back in. I changed out the tuners. The new tuners sucked. The old ones went back on the guitar. 

So, as one can see, I've done my share of work on guitars. I've flattened and reattached bridges on two of my acoustics -- both of which I bought at thrift stores with the bridges pulled off of them (one of them warped in the process).

In all of my working with, and playing guitars over the years, I've discovered a few things.

The body wood, and the neck wood, definitely adds something to the tone. It may not add much -- it probably depends on the guitar. Some guitars may be a little more lively than others. Two of mine are 'livelier' than the other two. You can tell by playing them acoustically, as well as electrically. And the better the guitar sounds acoustically, I have noticed it sounds better electrically, too. But I still play the less lively ones. Because the difference in sound that may be due to any 'liveliness' just isn't a deal breaker.

A Tuning Fork, the old-school device used to tune guitars (and other instruments) to the pitch of A440 (an 'A' note at 440 Hz). Before the advent of digital tuners, and when strobe tuners were expensive, this is what we used to tune our guitars -- you'd tap the fork on a wooden (or similar non-metal) surface, and hold it over the pickup or press it against the bridge of your guitar, and tune your A string to the fork. Then -- using fretted notes and harmonics -- you'd tune the other strings to the A string.

 A Tuning Fork can also be heard if you press it to various places on the guitar's neck, headstock, and body.

THE TUNING FORK TEST

One way to find out the extent of whether your guitar's body and neck wood is actually influencing tone to any extent is to use a TUNING FORK.

Yes, that ancient tech implement, which was the only way that we guitarists had to tune our guitars before the Boss TU-2 and other electronic tuners became mainstream.

Plug in your guitar. Turn up the guitar's volume. Get a tuning fork, tap it, and hold it against the body and neck of your electric guitar in various places. Some areas of the body or neck you will really hear the tuning fork. Others? Not so much. You may still hear it even if you have the strings dampened with your fingers. One of my guitars, my L520, has wax-potted humbuckers, so they're not microphonic. And if I hold the tuning fork against the sides of the headstock, the fork is clearly audible. If I hold it on the side of the neck, about halfway down? Less so. If I hold it against the body near the neck, or other areas of the body, I can hear the fork clearly. 

My Sakai-made Jag copy is much the same, except the fork comes through louder. If I hold the fork against the side of the headstock it is very loud. The body is louder than my L520 -- and the butt end of the body, and horn of the body, are louder than the rest of it.

With my Sakai Jag copy, even if I placed the tuning fork on the end of the tremolo bar handle, I could still hear the tuning fork, although very weakly. I could hear it on the bridge, as well.

It's an example of how the entire guitar vibrates along with the strings. It's all part of the whole... One system -- the strings obviously being the loudest, and main component of sound. The rest of it is what would be called sympathetic vibrations.

The reason I can hear the fork resonating against the body is probably because the fork is vibrating the body, which is vibrating the pickup which holds the body, it's also vibrating the bridge which is attached to the strings, and the pickup is still reacting against the stationary strings, causing the magnetic field to alter, which sends a signal to the amplifier.

And, even if the strings are dampened, they are carrying some of the vibration, which is being picked up by the pickup.

We all know that if the strings move, the pickup 'sees' that movement of the magnetic field, and the coils sense that movement as music. It's because the relationship between the pickup and the strings is changing.

But the strings are not the only part of the system that is in motion: when you strike a chord on the strings, the body vibrates and when it vibrates it transduces the sounds that strings make. The pickups vibrate with the body. The bridge is vibrating with the body. The strings themselves are also vibrating along with the body. The neck is vibrating, too. All the parts are interacting with each other in some way.

All that additional motion -- all of which is vibrating along with the strings -- is going to be sensed by the pickup coils, too. As some online insist, the body, bridge, neck, headstock, and other vibrations aren't as loud as the strings. But those lesser vibrations still add to the sound, or tone of the guitar, because those other components are interacting with the strings. If a pickup can sense the faint vibrations of something so weak as a tuning fork, it's definitely going to sense the vibrations of the body interacting with the strings when you strike a chord.

Does this prove that there is such a thing as 'tonewood'?

Probably not. But it shows that the body's wood (or other body material) does enter into the formula of what makes a guitar sound a certain way. It probably depends on the guitar, too. Two identical guitars -- same hardware, same pickups, same species and cut of wood -- one may sound better than another. There are guys who swear that one 1959 Les Paul sounds better and livelier than another one. They're made of the same species of wood. Same pickups (with some minor differences in winding, perhaps). Same hardware. Same wood in the neck. Same electronics. But some sound different. 

Guitarists sometimes call it differences in 'mojo'. 

It may be due to the nature of the wood that each guitar is made of. It could be due to the individual in the factory who constructed it. There are a large number of variables in what makes a guitar tick.

A pic of Eddie Van Halen's "Shark" signature guitar. His original "Shark" was just like this one. He took a saw to his Ibanez Destroyer, wanting to make it look cool. The result did look cool, but according to Eddie, the tone of the guitar changed. Removal of so much wood close in to the bridge and tailpiece apparently made enough of a difference that he no longer wanted to play it. Some say it was probably just psycho-acoustics, and that is possible. But at the same time, one would think that a guy would know the sound of one of his favorite performance and recording guitars.

THE GUITAR 'STARS' CHIME IN

Eddie Van Halen recorded a lot of Van Halen I with his white painted Ibanez Destroyer. He apparently also used it a lot on Van Halen II. A lot of the parts on those two albums where there is no whammy bar were recorded with the Destroyer. When Eddie cut the massive chunk out of it to make it into "The Shark" guitar, Eddie swore that it changed the sound of the guitar -- enough to where he didn't want to play it or record with it when Van Halen made Women and Children First (in fact, he borrowed another LA musician's Destroyer to record that album -- WASP's Chris Holmes also had a Destroyer, and that is one of the guitars you can hear on Women and Children First). 

Some guys on the internet say that "Eddie probably thought it sounded different when it really didn't." But how do you not hear changes in the sound of a guitar you've been playing daily, and even recording with, for five or six years?

Carl Verheyen is a pro jazz and bluesy pop guitarist who is well respected as a player. He loves Strats. He has a controversial idea about setting a Strat tremolo that I won't go into here, as I'm not sure it works for everyone. But when it comes to choosing a guitar, he may be onto something. He says that if you want to find a 'good' electric guitar, hit the B string, and feel down near the heel of the guitar body. If you can feel vibration, you have a 'live one', i.e. a more lively sounding, and resonating guitar.

Robin Trower, who has been playing Strats for 50 years, goes by the 'unamplified guitar sound' theory. "If the guitar sounds good unamplified, it will sound good plugged in," he says. I think Jimmy Page has said the same thing.

Slash, the guitarist for the 80's metal band Guns 'N' Roses, had a 1961 Gibson SG. When Guns 'N' Roses started recording their first album Appetite For Destruction, Slash was so dissatisfied with the tone and sound he was getting from his '61 SG that he slammed it into the windshield of his car.

His manager got him that famous Les Paul replica to record with, Slash liked the sound he was getting from it. He stuck with that guitar, and the rest was rock music history. 

According to the tonewood myth people -- who insist that the composition of the guitar body doesn't make any difference (with all other hardware being the same), Slash should have been perfectly happy with his SG. After all, the pickups were roughly the same (PAF's vs. Seymour Duncan Alnico IIs), the basic hardware is the same, and the positioning of the pickups is the same -- the biggest difference, electronics-wise, being the distance between the neck pickup and the nut is a little different on an SG.

But something in the composition of Slash's SG and the Les Paul replica he got from his manager must have made a drastic difference in sound. A broken windshield on Slash's old van says that much.

All of these famous, expert guitarists have had one opinion in common -- they seem to think that the resonance of the body and neck of the guitar affect its tone somewhat.

Tonewood may be a myth, in that there is no definite mojo to one species or type of wood over another -- and so many other factors come into play with guitars, that the body and neck composition are just two factors out of maybe 16 or more. But I think that those guitar players out there who have bought into the idea that the wood of the guitar makes absolutely no difference just aren't thinking. 

At the very least, they haven't done the tuning fork test. :-)

After all, the bridge is the central piece of hardware to a guitar's overall sound. And the bridge's posts are buried into the body of the guitar. If the body of the guitar is resonating, it is affecting and interacting with the resonance of the strings which are also attached to the bridge. Even if the body only contributes to 5% of a guitar's tone, it's definitely contributing something to the tone of the instrument.

A PROMINENT GUITAR MAKER CHIMES IN: THE WOOD MATTERS

Now, I'm not a fan of Paul Reed Smith guitars. I've never liked the sound of them, or ever considered seriously trying one out, much less buying one. When my mom's friend gave me my Ibby Gio, he had me try out his prized PRS. I wasn't really impressed, personally. And although some PRS guitars were used on some Nu-metal classics (the guitarist in Linkin Park played one, for example), I always found the tone of PRS guitars to be sort of a high-fidelity version of blah. 

Compared to Gibsons and Fenders, for example, they just sound a bit sterile. But that's just me.

That said, I recently discovered an interesting interview with the man himself: Paul Reed Smith. Regardless of what some of us may think of PRS guitars, you can't deny that they are popular, have a rep for playability, and many stars must play them for a reason.

And Paul Reed Smith -- who not only designed and built guitars for some of the big name guitar players (Carlos Santana is an example), maintains that WOOD in a guitar is important to its sound. The actual discussion on tone and wood is maybe 15 minutes into this YT interview, but it's worth it to watch it. Mr. Smith says that every big name guitarist he's met says that the wood is important. He also -- through years of building guitars -- thinks the wood is vital to the tone. He may be onto something.:

You can watch and listen, and then determine for yourself.

WOOD IS IMPORTANT, BUT IT IS NOT EVERYTHING.

In the big picture, this really doesn't mean all that much. Even if the wood of your guitar isn't exactly lively, that doesn't mean it will sound bad! My Ibby Gio resonates a bit less than my Daimaru / Sakai (plywood) and my L520 (three chunks of ash) -- but it still sounds good. I still play it nearly every day. I have it set up for slide now and I really like the tone of it. It often sounds fairly close to the sound I hear in my head.

So, in my view, if you're buying an electric guitar only because of whatever wood it has, you're making a mistake. It may not have that awesome 'tonewood', but may actually sound better than another guitar that has 'tonewood'. It may match the sound you hear in your head more closely. It may sound more like 'you' than some expensive, 'tonewood' guitar.

But the wood is just one out of many factors that will make up the sound of your guitar.

And, luckily, you can always add elements to the signal chain to boost a guitar's tone, or alter it. An overdrive or other effects box will boost tone. Or you can swap in different pickups, go heavier or lighter in string gauges, deck the bridge of a Strat (which can give its tone more ooomph -- it did so on my Gio Superstrat) -- any of a number of things to get the sound closer to what you want.

ADDENDUM:

Just for fun, I will list here the 20+ factors I think all add up to make a guitar's sound -- and mind you -- this is BEFORE you add in the dirt boxes, echo boxes, EQ's, overdrives, chorus / flange / phaser / wah-wah's / compressors etc., and then adjust tone and drive controls on whatever amplifier you are using.:

1. Pickups (type -- single coil vs. dual coil or Humbucker; amount of wire in pickup, etc.)

2. Ceramic magnet or Alnico magnet in pickups (affects the highs especially)

3. Hardtail or Tremolo, and type of tremolo (Strat style vs. Bigsby style)

4. Strings

5. String gauge (heavy vs. light)

6. Electronic parts (volume controls, the way the guitar is wired, etc.)

7. Scale length and String tension

8. Neck material

9. Fingerboard & frets

10. Nut -- type, material, locking or non-locking.

11. Headstock mass or size

12. Tuners (type and quality)

13. Body wood type

14. Body wood mass

15. Pickups mounted to the body, or to a pickguard

16. String tree / retainer, and/or String tree / retainer type, if guitar has one

17. Zero fret, or no zero fret (would affect open chords only)

18. Bridge and saddles; mass, type of metal, etc.

19. Bridge posts -- thick, thin, how they are attached to the body

20. Distance from pickup to the strings, and pickup and pole piece set-up and adjustment

On Strats and Superstrats:

21. Number of tremolo springs

22. Bridge -- decked or floating

23. Claw (holding trem springs) all the way to the wood, or partially out

Last but definitely not least, the player. Every player has a different style and attack. And if you are a slide player, the slide you use (steel vs. brass vs. glass vs. ceramic) will also make a difference in the overall sound. 

Which pick you use will alter the tone significantly. With my guitars, celluloid picks are snappier and punch out a bit more treble, while the nylon and Delrin pics are a bit blunter, and even they vary from brand to brand, even if they're all the same basic gauge (I use .50 and .46 picks). If I want to sound like Malcolm Young or 1966 Eric Clapton, celluloid picks help (especially Fender celluloid thins). They have a certain bite and snap to them that other picks lack. Nylon picks usually sound a bit less trebly than celluloid (I use Clayton .50 nylons a lot), and Delrin picks (like Dunlop pink .50's) sound somewhere in-between.

The thicker, pointed nylon and Delrin picks that a lot of metal guys (and girls) use sound pretty direct, and seem to 'muscle' the strings rather than finesse them. They don't give me the tone I like.

IN OTHER, NON-MUSICAL LIFE....

I will end this blog post with some non-guitar things. First, when I first wrote this article, it was finally looking and feeling like Spring here in Latte-land (a nickname for Seattle, because of the fact we drink so much coffee here). The trees, which in a normal year, leaf out about April 5th, really didn't leaf out until 10-15 days later. On April 5th they were budded, but it took another week and a half for the leaves to appear.

It has been that way the last 3-4 years. We also had a night of freezing, or near freezing, in the early part of April. So, the weather was a little bizarre for Spring. In late April it was 50F outside during the day, and maybe 7C at night. The air was fresh, the birds were chirping. The Frogs weren't croaking as much in the ponds as they used to during March and April.

My pic up above is of some 'volunteer' bluebells (they appeared all by themselves one year) a nice little flower that appears in Spring. There is at least one neighbor who has a tulip in his front yard. No Rhododendron pics this year, unfortunately. As I've said in previous blog posts, they just weren't all that colorful this Spring.

My Happy Snowman lights -- this pic was taken on Christmas Eve, 2019. I won't be putting them up this year. The car that neighborhood idiots broke into is parked in the way of where they would be seen. This pic shall suffice. I got these lights when my former GF was given them by her son, and she didn't have a need for them. They do look happy, don't they. 

Now, of course, as I publish this article, it's the beginning of December. I took in my upstairs Halloween Jack O' Lanterns (the neighbor kids liked them) and switched on my only string of Christmas lights. I'm not really ready for the Christmas holidays, but it's a non-issue. Just getting through life and happy for whatever I have. I may buy a SW radio in a couple weeks, a Tecsun that is similar to my Grundig G2, as a sort of backup. Still haven't made the final decision on it, though.

Shortwave has been up and down. The last two weeks have been mostly crap ionospheric conditions. MW has been touch and go. The crap SW conditions gave those of us MW DXers in the northern tier of US states some Auroral conditions to play with -- I heard a couple California stations much stronger than usual (KTRB San Francisco 860 and KNCO Grass Valley, California on 830 kHz.).

Right now I'm drinking some black tea and doing some fiction writing. I think it's time to post this guitar article, for what it's worth.

I shall end this article with something light and fun, for all you Heavy Metal Maniacs left out there in the world -- a little bit of Judas Priest, doing a hit from their classic 1981 album, British Steel. This is when KK Downing and Glen Tipton were both still playing in the band.:

 

Until my next blog article, I hope this finds my readers living in peace and health, and I still hope that the war in Ukraine ends soon.

Peace.

C.C., February 12th, April 28th, 2022. Some editing and publishing early September, 2022. Finished and posted December 1st, 2022.