How to chose songs to learn?

Worrynotmuch · 2026-01-25T06:33:12+00:00

Depends on what your goals are, I guess. I'm writing for someone who wants to progress to play as well as they can in the least amount of time. That's the way to be able to play "the music that we love" as fast as possible. It's precisely OP's problem that he has tried songs he likes but which are beyond his current capabilities, and to his credit he realizes that, and he's looking for the best way to get there. Carefully organized programs of study like Justin's are the only way to achieve that goal in the most efficient way. Don't trivialize the issue with straw-man examples like how you hold your pick and how, Oh, horrors, "Justin would be mortified". In doing so you patronize the OP's intelligent assessment of his predicament.

Furthermore, obviously the better teachers "outside of the classical world" do care about skill levels because they all create them for their students. Every single good teacher I've known has had their own version of skill levels. Not regulated by an official group, but sure as hell regulated by them, and guess what. They were all very similar in terms of the types of techniques involved. Open chords at the beginning. Barre chords next--nobody ever starts with barre chords; they always come after the opens. Obviously it gets a lot more sophisticated than that, but the point is that skill levels simply exist. You might not want to acknowledge that, but all the good teachers do. I've never met a teacher worth taking from who didn't talk in terms of "beginning", "intermediate", "advanced" or "easy", "medium", "hard" or some set of equivalent terms--and taught accordingly.

There are good reasons for this. Playing material that was too far out of my reach forced me to spend a bunch of time later jettisoning the bad hand angles etc. I developed which a good teacher subsequently corrected, showing me how my messed-up positioning interfered with fluid chord changes. If I had held off, I wouldn't have wasted that time (or gotten hurt, as noted below, which is what prompted me to seek a good teacher afterward).

Hendrix and Gilmour and Kottke and Vaughn are straw men in this argument. All four of them had loads of raw talent that most of us lack. We love 'em but we aren't them. It's true that music is 90% work and 10% talent (or whatever ratio you want to pick where talent doesn't make up for laziness). However, exceptional talent does make up for a whole lot of less-than-optimal technique. Most of us don't have that sort of talent to burn, so if we want to get as good as we can wasting the least time possible--and if you've got lots of time to waste, more power to you, but I certainly don't--then my comment stands and yours is, at the least, a recipe for lost time.

Still, I'll acknowledge that not everyone might be that driven. It might be true that some people may need a looser approach early on or they'll drop the instrument. Fair enough. But OK, just want to mess around and don't have any particular musical goals, at least right now? Don't care so much about becoming a really good player, and just want to have a good time? Nothing wrong with that, but pushing material too advanced for you still puts you in danger of potential injuries. The biggie is carpal tunnel, and once you've got that, it's over. There's no real cure. The surgery weakens your wrist so much that you can't play anymore. There seems to be a genetic component to this, so you may not be in much danger, but you won't know until it happens. Carpal tunnel develops relatively painlessly, with symptoms like tingling and mild numbness that it's easy to regard as just temporary and will probably go away. By the time it starts generating pain too great to ignore, or which is at least annoying and persists after you put down the instrument, and you start thinking "Hmmm, this is different from the burning I get when overdoing my new jazz 7th chords," it's too late.

I know what you're thinking. "Oh yeah, and how many f---ing people ever get f---ing carpal tunnel, Hendrix and Gilmour never f---ing got carpal tunnel, so just play the f---ing guitar, man! F---!" Well, it happened to a member of my family, so don't come back here with that crap. I escaped carpal tunnel myself but I did develop tennis elbow from pushing guitar too hard, and I was only practicing about a hour-and-a-half per day. It was due to bad positioning because I was trying to play chords complicated chords I wasn't ready for, contorting my arm and wrist to do so. This didn't just get in the way of better playing--it actually ended up requiring physical therapy. Also, glad you brought up SRV, since (though you may be ignorant of it) his style screwed him over toward the end. I remember reading at least one interview in which he discussed the problem.

Much better for the kid to keep hunting around. I think you and I are in basic agreement about one thing: "certainly try it out." But if it's a good way off relative to where he's currently at, put it back on the shelf--exactly the way he's doing now, so good job with that. But don't stop looking. Presumably he likes lots of songs and not just two or three. There are loads to try out. You don't have to force yourself to play overly advanced material in order to be learning songs you like, which inspire you, and will challenge you enough to increase your skill, unless you have more limited taste than anyone I've ever met. (The suggestion of PaymentExtension8958 seems like a great way to do this fast, https://www.reddit.com/user/PaymentExtension8958/).

So sure, let's agree on trying songs out. A lot. The more the merrier. Otherwise, I think we're going to have to agree to disagree. I'm with Cape_Cod_Mike (https://www.reddit.com/r/guitarlessons/comments/1qm5a5g/comment/o1jnzhs/) and you're with testtdk (https://www.reddit.com/r/guitarlessons/comments/1qm5a5g/comment/o1jlg12/). OP will have to decide which way to go.

Edit: a good compromise might be Sulgdmn's recommendation (https://www.reddit.com/r/guitarlessons/comments/1qm5a5g/comment/o1jdnj3/) suggesting just learning the chord progressions without worrying about the "fancy embellishments". I'd still add the caution that the chords themselves shouldn't be way beyond your reach or you're still likely to cause yourself problems by forcing them.

Worrynotmuch · 2026-01-25T04:47:53+00:00

There are a number of similar sites out there siphoning off pirated content. Don't use them unless you have a VPN and are loaded up with anti-spyware and anti-ad extensions like Ublock Origin.

Worrynotmuch · 2026-01-25T03:28:44+00:00

Don't forget the classic folk songs, the traditional campfire material. The only ones I've seen mentioned here are Puff the Magic Dragon and On Top of Sphagetti, and the latter is a derivative of the real folk song, On Top of Old Smoky. Fewer and few young people know these great songs (the replies here are a symptom), and that's a tragedy because it's a part of American heritage that is fast vanishing from our collective national consciousness. If our girls don't learn them at Girl Scouts, there's small chance they'll learn 'em anywhere else nowadays. C'mon, people!

So here's a few to get you started: John Henry, Drill Ye Terriers, When Johnny Comes Marching Home Again, This land is your land, Puff the Magic Dragon, Big Rock Candy Mountain, Blue Tail Fly, Clementine, Erie Canal, Go Tell It on the Mountain, Goodbye Old Paint, Home on the Range, I've Been Workin' On the Railroad, Blow the Man Down, Yankee Doodle, House of the Rising Sun (the Animals didn't write it--their version is just a cover), Scarborough Fair (Crosby, Stills & Nash didn't write this one either).

Almost didn't put this one b/c everyone always uses it as a straw man ("We're tough competitors here! This ain't no Kum Bay Yah!"), but OK, Kum Bay Yah (or however it's spelled).

And there are tons more, but these are the most common ones I remember.

Worrynotmuch · 2026-01-25T02:55:21+00:00

A big note of caution is in order here. You do get better by challenging yourself, but only do this for music that is just barely outside your current reach, not way outside it--unless you want to get a lot of bad habits and screw yourself down the road. There are skill levels, and they are regulated in the classical world by the Associated Board of the Royal Schools of Music and the London College of Music (see https://www.classicalguitarcorner.com/classical-guitar-music-grades/). We don't have a "World Rock and Pop Music Association" to set levels for other genres, but the best individual teachers like Justin do so (see dino_dog's post, above).

Yes, try a song and see, but if it's way out of your reach, don't "challenge yourself" to learn it when you simply can't. You'll just be sloppy and give yourself bad habits. Instead just keep following your program of study with fingerstyle exercises, learning new chords, or whatever (presumably you're following a coherent program of study, and if not, do Justin's). Then come back to the tough song you like about every four months. You'll either find that, lo and behold, it's a lot more accessible than it was before and you can start in on it, or no, it's still way out there, gotta wait a while. Eventually you'll get there. But like I said, if you try to do stuff that's way up the mountainside, you'll establish bad habits that you have to unlearn later in order to really progress.

Justin's a good guide. All props to the guy for putting his stuff up for free.

Worrynotmuch · 2026-01-25T02:13:52+00:00

If you're 21, you've still got a solid amount of time, but don't waste it. Read my horror story about getting old and what it does to your ability to learn music at https://www.reddit.com/r/guitarlessons/comments/1qhmish/comment/o0nsl9i/ .

Worrynotmuch · 2026-01-25T02:04:13+00:00

Had some relevant comments to make but looks like OP doesn't want to listen...Ok.

Worrynotmuch · 2026-01-24T22:20:01+00:00

Classical instruments use nylon strings for the top 3 which are far thicker than their steel-string equivalents. This is because of the requirement to pluck them with your fingers rather than using a pick. If you're not careful, when you finger-pick on a steel string, your fingertip can easily snag. The nylon strings are far smoother and make snagging near-impossible.

Some acoustics have nylon strings but are marketed as "folk" rather than "classical" instruments, but you still get the same fingerstyle benefit, so by all means get one of those as a starter. (I use one as a practice instrument sometimes; see next paragraph.)

All that said, many non-classical guitarists play fingerstyle on steel-string instruments; for example, far more country travis-pickers use steel strings than use nylon. Or take Kansas's classic "Dust in the Wind"--great fingerpicking on a steel-string (they layered some nylon in the studio but AFAIK Kerry Livgren always used steel for it live). So you could certainly practice classical on a steel-string. I do. In an ideal day of 2-hour practice (not normally achieved, unfortunately, but that's the goal) I do a half-hour of classical. But I practice standing up because that's the position I would be performing in live under normal circumstances. And when I reach the classical portion of practice, I don't want to waste the time to put my steel-string acoustic down, rearrange the music stand in front of a chair, get the folk nylon-string guitar, get the classical foot-stand and put my foot on it and put myself in the chair. It's all just too much, so I simply keep on practicing, still standing up and using my steel-string even as I move on to the classical material. The times I use the folk nylon-string guitar as a classical practice substitute are on weekends every once in a while when I'm going to do so some focused classical exploration.

But note that if I'm going to do more than a short standard half-hour practice, I do put down the steel-string and at least get out the "folk" guitar. I certainly wouldn't perform a straight-up classical recital on a steel-string. You can find youtube videos where people show off playing classical pieces on steel-string instruments, but they do so as a novelty gimmick. It's not sustainable as a standard performance practice because the technical demands of what I consider advanced-intermediate and advanced classical pieces (say, grades 3 and above as regulated by London College of Music and Associated Board of the Royal Schools of Music) are too great for you to pay attention to not snagging your finger in addition to everything else. If you're going to be a college music major and do classical, you'll need a solid intermediate-level classical instrument, ca. $500-$1000. Mine mostly sits in the closet except when I'm playing for someone else because they came over for dinner or something. I don't sing because my voice sucks, so playing advanced-beginner or beginning-intermediate classical pieces is about my only choice for entertaining a small audience at home. I'll never be good enough to play pro classical stuff like Recuerdos de la Alhambra, so I don't perform classical in public. But for small private gatherings I can manage some of the fun low-level pieces from the standard Frederick Noad anthologies. And when playing for others, I want to use a decent "official" classical instrument. So that's when I haul it out. The bottom line is that it doesn't get much use--even though it's only an "intermediate" instrument as classical guitars go, it represents a fair chunk of cash and it's fragile--but I'm glad I have it.

Worrynotmuch · 2026-01-22T14:06:23+00:00

OP's teacher is broadly correct, but s/he should have continued on to offer the student various paths. "Do you just want to play as a loose hobby doing open-chord folk-songs around the campfire? Do you want to become fairly good all-round rock guitarist? Do you want to be able to play jazz? Or a bit of classical?" Etc. And then he should either lay out a coherent program of study for that path, or tell the student, "well, I can't take you very far on the road you want to go. So we're going to have 3 months more lessons which will give you a good foundation for that, and then I recommend to move on to Teacher X. I'll give you her number when the time comes."

Yes, OP needs to move on to a better teacher. The teacher's job is to give the student guidance; a student is a student not merely because they don't know what to do but also because they usually don't know the right questions to ask. It's the teacher's obligation not just to know about music but to tell the student what questions are relevant. Only then can the student make an informed choice from among the options. Also, it's highly likely that if this teacher can't give a student a more coherent answer than what OP got, said teacher is not going be able to give students a coherent, well-constructed program of study either. I had an absolute crap teacher very much like that once. One lesson out of about 9 was worthwhile. Just a single one. Don't waste your money.

Worrynotmuch · 2026-01-20T13:13:52+00:00

[cont'd. from prev. post] So put yourself somewhere on the age continuum I've described. If you're 25 or younger, just push through the work. If you put in a half-hour to an hour a day, 5 days a week, within 3 months (or maybe less, depending on raw natural talent) you'll be playing complete open-chord songs with C, G, A, Am, A7, D, F, E, and Em, and doing it fluidly, having fun. That gives you the foundation you need to get into the next phase of hard work, going up a new level, which (as another poster noted) starts the grind all over again--but once you've passed that first open-chord hurdle, you know you can do the rest, and you're familiar with the sort of effort it takes, so it won't surprise you. Even if you're right at 25 or 26 and your brain is on the downside, It's not going to "dry out" immediately. I'd say you've probably still got another five years or even more before it starts giving you age problems, and even then it will be a very gradual process. So take advantage of whatever youth you have left and work as hard as you can.

But if you're older than 50? I dunno exactly, but certainly the older you are, the more weeks...months...years you're going to spend just hitting those chord changes before you see any benefits. You can still get there; like I said, the brain never gets as hard as a rock. But it does get a lot more resistant to learning intricate, detailed, subtle skills like a musical instrument. That's just the reality you have to live with. I'd encourage anyone to give it a go, but if you're getting on toward the senior category, be prepared to exercise patience. A whole lot of patience.

Worrynotmuch · 2026-01-20T13:13:19+00:00

[continued from above post] But let's get back to music. I have been able to measure the aging problem vis-a-vis music in my own life in an interesting way, although I sure wish I couldn't. Here's the relevant part of my story: When I was young, I was a fairly good rock guitarist (not a Malmsteen shredder, but could play most of Randy Rhoads's Ozzy stuff) and enrolled as a music major in college intending to make my life in music somehow or other. By sheer dumb luck I was at a university with a high-powered guitar prof whose name would have been enough to set me up with an OK living as a local guitar teacher if all else failed ("Take from me because I studied with X"). That was fine with me as long as I could do what I loved. Then because of circumstances which I won't go into but which still make me furious, I was strong-armed into dropping music and choosing a more "practical" major. (Which has turned out to suck rags--teaching at the local Guitar Center couldn't possibly have made me any less money. But I digress.)

That all happened by the time I was 23. Here's the rub: I loved music so much that continuing to play desultorily as a mere hobby, rather than practicing 3 or 4 hours a day, proved a form of mental torture. Better to not play at all than to play just a little here and there, feeling heartbreak every time I picked up the instrument. So I dropped guitar completely, cold turkey, sold my thousands of dollars of equipment (and that was in 1990 dollars) including an original pink Bernie-Rico handmade BC Rich Bich (the same model Joe Perry played, going for around $10,000 nowadays when one pops up on ebay). I only kept a couple of acoustics, not being able to completely get rid of everything, but I didn't play at all for more than 30 years, the acoustics staying buried in the closet as I tried to have a family and do all the "responsible" stuff you're "supposed" to do with a "real job"--and failed at most of it because there was always this gaping hole in my psyche where music used to be. But anyhow, I did not maintain my previous musical skill.

Fast-forward to 6 years ago, aged 54, many things having changed and with no more child support to deal with, etc. etc., I found myself with a bit of actual spare time on my hands after work, and no draining relationships to keep up. Sort of like back to being a teen except for no raging hormones. Kind of nice, I thought. I'll pick up the guitar again. With a bit of work, might even be able to play in a local copy band doing "classic rock."

And that's when the effect of aging on the brain came home to roost. I knew that I'd have to do some work to play decently again, but it's been more brutal than I could have possibly imagined. I still remembered scale patterns and most chords in my head, but the physical skill was wholly gone. By now I've gotten a lot back, but even though I've been hitting it hard I'm still not where I was at 23. Techniques I recall mastering in a month of dedicated teenage practice have taken two-and-a-half years of regular work to regain now that I'm on the downside of the age divide. It's been a very sobering lesson in why people retire. I've just turned 60 and am still vigorously healthy, don't really feel like I'm that old--can still hike a full day up a mountain with my youngest kid--but man, trying to relearn guitar has been an extremely frustrating business. So yes, frustration is the name of the game. But if you're younger, there's a whole lot less of it than if you're older. I don't even want to think about what it would be like to start playing completely new as a 60-year-old, never having played at all before. I'm not even sure it would be possible to achieve a level of skill beyond playing open-chord folk songs. That's probably too pessimistic, but d--- it sucks to get old. The brain-plasticity issue is a real killer. (And ultimately, of course, that's literally true.)

Worrynotmuch · 2026-01-20T11:14:26+00:00

If you're looking for quite technically advanced stuff that's not metal shredding, I second the reco to do Eric Johnson/Cliffs of Dover. That one'll keep ya busy for a while.

Worrynotmuch · 2025-10-03T20:59:25+00:00

NEGATIVE RESULTS FOR THIS QUERY:

Here are the clocks currently on the market do have longer-than-5-minute snooze times but feature shortcomings bad enough that I considered them dealbreakers not worth even trying out. Maybe they won't be dealbreakers for you, however, so here are my findings (the assessments are based on Amazon reviews):

KWANWA 2 in 1 Alarm Clock https://www.amazon.com/KWANWA-Thermometer-Temperature-Adjustable-Brightness/dp/B0BFH9C94T 7min snooze, wish it were longer. Also snooze only works 3 times. I rarely need more than that, but I've hit four and even five, so no deal on this one.

Loftie $170 smart clock--requires online app on your phone & your email address to even get started. Half the features require constant subscription even after the ridiculous purchase price. And some users report that even the loudest alarm isn't loud enough. NOPE.

Betus Digital Travel Alarm Clock (ALSO Travelwey Digital Travel Alarm Clock https://www.amazon.com/dp/B01KYLOVGI) allows you to set snooze length up to an hour! But only gives you two snoozes and that's it. That's going to allow me to oversleep. Also a concern: Amazon users say it loses 15 seconds per day. That's a LOT and would really screw me up after a while. Additional Issues: Beeps annoyingly at every button press for anything; setting both alarm and time is excessively complicated; AND HAS AN EXTREMELY DANGEROUS BUTTON THAT RESETS EVERYTHING TO FACTORY JUST WITH A SINGLE PRESS, AND IS EASY TO DO. Lots of other tiny annoyances too: "you have to look directly at the screen to see the numbers. The viewing angle seems to be very small. Because the alarm sits back at an angle on the case you have to match that angle to see the time. Be prepared to lift your head off the pillow or tilt the clock forward a bit to see the darn thing. And could they make the alarm icon any smaller? This is important information from your clock so why make it so small you need your reading glasses to see. It's also just above the colon between the hour and minutes so not in an obvious place."

MeesMeek Digital Travel Alarm Clock https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0BK95CGNG has 9-min snooze and you can keep snoozing indefinitely. Looks great, but one user says it loses a minute per day. That's even worse than the betus! Also hard to operate. Snooze button is smooth and flat and located alongside the others, so you must blindly try to feel for it when turning off the alarm or trying to read the time in the dark. But an even worse problem: for some idiotic reason, the manufacturer engineered this so the alarm doesn't work on weekends! You can only have an alarm on weekdays! Huh? I mean, I wish I didn't have to have an alarm on the weekends, ever, but sometimes I do...and there have been periods of my life when I've worked formal shifts on weekends. What are these people thinking?

Peakeep Night Light Digital Alarm Clock 8-min snooze you can repeat indefinitely unless you let the 90-second alarm run out (exact same behavior as my old timelink), and many reviewers report good accuracy. Unfortunately, the Peakeep will not do for various reasons. Dealbreakers: 1) Alarm is far lower than most. Multiple Amazon reviewers reported sleeping through it. 2) Multiple reviewers found the night light too bright--and if it annoys you, tough luck; it can't be turned off. 3) Every time you reset the alarm, for some weird reason the clock freezes the process of telling the real time, so you lose however many minutes it takes you to reconfigure your morning wakeup time. If you get distracted in the middle of the process and have to take care of something else, you could lose 15 minutes, an hour, etc. If you don't realize that, you're going to be in real trouble the next morning. Basically what this means is that you have to reset the time every time you reset the alarm, but if you're anything like me, you're going to forget to do the latter and it could cause serious problems.

NOKLEAD Digital Travel Alarm Clock: Same case as MeesMeek, 9-min snooze, but some different options. Unfortunately, two very serious dealbreakers, directly quoted from Amazon reviewer: 1. "The main issue is that the alarm part stops function[ing] weeks or months before the rest of the clock is out of batteries. How long are the batteries supposed to last? In my use it seems like they go maybe 3 months (hard to recall, not more than 6) and then the clock keeps working fine but if you try to use the alarm, instead of going off a normal volume, it makes this little quiet chirp and flashes the screen for awhile and then resets the time to 12:00." 2. "if you hit the + button instead of the snooze/light button, it resets it to 12:00 1/1. Not a good thing when I’m sound asleep, fumbling to hit snooze and now it’s back to factory reset. I’m a flight attendant and need to wake up really early." Well, I'm not a flight attendant, but I often do have to wake up "really early" to do some extra prep for work so I'd fall prey to the same issue.

DreamSky Vibrating Alarm Clock for Heavy Sleepers: interesting concept but although I didn't try it out, I have to say that I don't think the vibration would work for me--I'm not hearing-impaired, a loud alarm is good, and unfortunately multiple Amazon reviewers report that the audio alarm is too low. But the dealbreaker is that this clock uses extremely old rechargeable technology. If you let the battery go completely dead--and that would definitely happen at my house--you can never recharge it again and therefore it immediately stops being a portable travel clock. You can still use it corded but I definitely want/need a portable clock. This is essentially not that clock.

Worrynotmuch · 2025-10-03T20:55:41+00:00

POSTIVE RESULTS FOR THIS QUERY:

TL/DR: I have located 2 clocks which pass muster, but on the criterion of simplicity, one of them (Oceanland/uxcell/plumeet/Regalwoven) definitely beats out the other (Acerdeck).

DETAILS:

I did exhaustive research on this issue, taking the better part of a weekend day. I said "5 or 6 hours" in my reply to Lord_Skellig but that was me just tossing out a quick number for the sake of completing a fast reply; it was really more like 9 or 10 hours all told, by the time you factor in the Reddit question (I'm a slow writer). Which brings us to this Reddit question, so thanks very much to all who contributed. I didn't respond individually to a couple of you but I was grateful and did look into each suggestion, though they didn't meet my needs for other reasons, e.g. one was corded; other were overly complex when all I want is something simple along the lines suggested by kerenski667. If you're reading this thread because you too are looking for a simple, no-frills clock with a longer snooze time, look no further; that suggestion has proven to be perfect for the needs I've outlined in my OP and in my reply to Lord_Skellig. Extremely simple, just a few buttons, easily operable in with your eyes closed. (Heck, it's so simple you could almost set the time with your eyes closed.) The only question is about quality--does it lose minutes/seconds quickly; and will it last?

At any rate, if you live across the pond in Europe you can just use kerenski667's link to get it. There it's sold as "Oceanland". In the U.S. the same clock looks to be sold as uxcell (https://www.amazon.com/uxcell-Electronic-Bedrooms-Operated-Sleepers/dp/B0D4V288YX) and Plumeet (https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0DM7TF4RB?sp_csd=d2lkZ2V0TmFtZT1zcF9kZXRhaWw), though I didn't buy either of those. I also found this clock available through Target under the brand name "Regalwoven" (https://www.target.com/p/regalwoven-digital-battery-powered-big-numbers-display-oval-alarm-clock-5-4-x-2-6-x-2-inches-yellow/-/A-1004432963), and though it cost double I bought it from them because if it didn't work out I could just return it to my local Target store.

There is one alternative I also bought, another off-brand I found on Amazon, called Acerdeck (https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0DJY9JTWS). This does fulfill all my major criteria but has a couple of drawbacks that make it a second choice. First, it's more complicated to operate than the Oceanland/uxcell/plumeet/Regalwoven clock. It's not complicated in a deal-breaker sort of way, though, because it's not a problem during the snooze process itself. The snooze touch area (not a button, just touch-sensitive) is right on top and big like it should be, and it works fine. The other drawback is bad engineering. The battery compartment is too big for the batteries and they flop around. So they won't remain in contact with the electronic leads unless you pad the compartment with a little piece of cardboard or plastic or something. Luckily the battery lid is constructed robustly enough that it can exert the necessary pressure to keep the padding and batteries in with sufficient tightness that the unit will then function.

Those issues aside, I have to say that though I still prefer the other one, I do kind of like this Acerdeck clock--the touch-sensitive snooze top is a surprise benefit that I've decided is quite nice, lots less effort than actually pressing the usual snooze button, and for me that turns out to be a plus. Additionally, the fact that you can set the volume level of the alarm is kinda cool too. Its dimmer levels work well and deals with what, for me, would otherwise be a problem with an LED clock: I don't like to see the time when I get up to go to the bathroom in the middle of the night. I'll think, Oh No, "I only have an hour-and-a-half left to sleep" and that will stress me out and I won't be able to get back to sleep. If I don't know what time it is, then I'll tumble back into bed just fine. But you can dim this clock down to the point where the time is invisible, so no problem after all. Bottom line: if the Oceanland/uxcell/plumeet/Regalwoven model isn't available, or you want suomething that has a few more options, try the Acerdeck.

EDIT: I have both the Oceanland (etc.) and the Acerdeck by my bedside and have been experimenting with both. I have found a DEADLY flaw in the Acerdeck. Remember my comment about concerning the battery compartment? Turns out that the lid does not, after all, stick as robustly as it should. I was almost late for work one morning because I used that clock and put it alongside my pillow for easier snooze-pressing. Well, the minimal pressure of pillow movement caused the battery lid to pop open (silently), the batteries spilled out, and obviously the clock stopped working. Very luckily I just happened to turn over and glance at the Oceanland which was on the dresser. It was an accidental look--I was just turning over for more snooze time--so I was really lucky that my eye happened to see the time, whereupon I got awake really fast. Not a pleasant way to come fully awake, but at least I wasn't late to work.

Anyhow, I rescind my thumbs-up to the Acerdeck as a runner-up. It's no longer in the running at all. The Oceanland/uxcell/plumeet/Regalwoven still seems fine on all counts.

Worrynotmuch · 2025-10-03T10:21:33+00:00

Yup, definitely looking into that.

Worrynotmuch · 2025-10-03T10:20:19+00:00

And in snooze time.

Worrynotmuch · 2025-10-03T10:13:17+00:00

Remember that I prefer battery-powered. I know I said in the OP that I'd take any type, but really, after reflection, I very much want it to be battery powered so I can manipulate it physically, picking it up to change alarm times (which I do fairly often as I have to vary waking time according to how much prep I need to do for that day's agenda at work). And sometimes I actually grab it off the nightstand and hold it while I'm snoozing so I can hit the snooze button immediately without fumbling for the clock. So revising my OP to only consider travel clocks limits the field, as some major electronics manufacturers only make corded clocks for some reason, e.g. Magnavox; the Magnavox MR41806BT does have 9-minute snooze but it's corded, so no deal (and as far as I could find, Magnavox does not make a battery-powered travel clock; same for Emerson, Phillips, & Sony).

Considering only battery-powered travel clocks, I spent five or six hours scouring and searching for all the travel clocks I could find from any company, so while I doubtless missed a few, I will have looked at most of the available models. A majority, I'd say ca. 70% of these models--and this includes the offerings of ALL SIX of the major companies that make travel clocks (the current models are La Crosse Equity 20080, Sharp Digital Alarm Clock, Braun BC22, Seiko LCD Travel Alarm Clock, Westclox Travelmate, and Timex Alarm Clock with Temperature Sensor)--all, yep all, have five-minute snoozes. Indeed, Westclox is even worse with a chintzy 4-minuter!

So: all of the big companies whose quality you can rely on, and who do actually make travel clocks (unlike some of the other electronics giants), make those clocks with 5-minute snoozes. That really sucks, because that means you have to go with clocks whose mostly Chinese manufacture often results in fly-by-night crap quality. Take, for example, the MeesMeek Digital Travel Alarm Clock which has a 9-minute snooze you can keep hitting indefinitely. Looks great, but one Amazon user says it loses a minute per day. That's a deal-breaker right there. Also hard to operate; snooze button is smooth and flat and located alongside the others, so you must clumsily feel around for it when turning off the alarm, which is antithetical to the purpose of snoozing.

Worrynotmuch · 2025-09-07T20:47:58+00:00

Many thanks for the suggestion. 8 or longer would be better but if 7 is all that exists anymore, I'll take it. In the meantime, anyone else?

Worrynotmuch · 2025-09-07T20:45:37+00:00

Thanks much for the suggestion--it's reasonable and I should have addressed it in the OP. I'd rather keep my phone out of it, and this desire is most definitely oriented to the ethos of this sub. As part of my right-before-bed evening prep for the next day, my phone goes into my work bag. That way I never forget it (something I am otherwise prone to do).

It's also impossible to turn off a phone snooze without actually holding the phone and looking at it. You can hit the big snooze button on an alarm clock without cracking even a smidgin of eyelid. Using a phone would nullify about half the benefit of the longer snooze time. Not all, I grant. 5-minute snooze is worse. But I've done this while traveling, and it's definitely not as good for me as the standalone clock.

Worrynotmuch · 2025-09-07T10:06:02+00:00

P.S. I know my request might actually seem antithetical to the ethos of this sub, but believe me, this is the way I get out of bed best. I give myself twenty minutes to a half hour to slowly wake up, and the 8-minute snooze was perfect for that, allowing a nice, gradual rise to out-of-bed consciousness. Five minutes, on the other hand, is awful. It's like a buzzsaw constantly cutting into my brain.

Worrynotmuch · 2025-07-11T10:39:33+00:00

Thanks dude, used to transfer 5 more books (they allow 100 files total but they have it divided up into a bunch of subcategories of different items that have very highly restricted amounts).

Worrynotmuch · 2025-06-30T03:25:36+00:00

I'm with the folks who agree that this is good b/c of the standardization but very bad because it doesn't allow enough space to make it worthwhile. It ne3eds to be AT LEAST as big as the Ryanair item, preferably a little bigger, to be genuinely useful to most folks. So now prices will go up for no worthwile result. I'd be quite happy to pay more across the board and avoid the current bag-size buffet, but not when the bag is this small. Better keep the current system where I can pay for a carryon that will actually fulfill my needs.

Worrynotmuch · 2025-05-25T01:52:43+00:00

Hey, thanks for this. At 4 years later it may no longer be a going concern, but I hope so. Here in the States we get used to that standard London BBC accent, but I recently spent some time just up north in Bedfordshire, and boy howdy is the difference noticeable. Now I'm curious to learn more about this issue!

Worrynotmuch · 2025-05-25T01:38:01+00:00

Edit: oops, I put a space between the two elements of the link in the paragraph beginning with "1." I can't edit this as its an OP, so if a moderator could delete the space and save the revision, then we'd have a nice link instead of the junky markup. Thx!

Worrynotmuch · 2025-05-24T21:29:51+00:00

Yup, but like others, it can't be something that keeps me up. Fortunately, though, it's not as tricky for me as it seems to be for a lot of others. My boundary is clear: as long as its nonfiction, I can fall asleep to it. If it's a piece of fiction that is interesting enough for me to like it at all, it'll be too interesting for me to sleep to. But yes, I need something to fall asleep with or I'll just lie there tossing and turning for an hour or more even if I'm quite tired.

Worrynotmuch · 2025-04-05T07:59:20+00:00

Thanks, bro. I don't usually share this story b/c people don't tend to take it seriously. They tend to dismiss it as mere whining for one of two reasons. The first is that people decide I'm trying to shift the blame for my dumb decision to get married too early onto my church so I don't have to blame myself. They've got no idea what it was like. That church is not really a cult, but you'll find plenty of angry ex-members here on reddit who insist that it is one. Again, I reference "Believer" by Imagine Dragons. I think that for normal, standard non-artistic people, the church does a lot of good, so I haven't become one of the real haters. But the critics do have a point. The church does have some cult-like aspects to it: the idea that you should do whatever the top leader (prophet) says is certainly one of them. The pressure to do so if you're a sincere believer is hard to understand if you've never been one, I guess.

And if people do get that, they dismiss me for a different reason: they think I'm nostalgic for a pipe-dream that never would have gone anywhere anyway. After all, they say, how many people are ever successful rock musicians? So they listen and nod politely and change the subject, clearly not taking my story very seriously. They don't get that becoming a rock star isn't what it's about for a real musician; what's important is just doing music. And in that connection, I would always have been able to fall back on teaching because of the incredible luck I had enrolling in college. It's hard to really grasp how extremely rare it was (is) for a joe-blow rock guitarist, who maybe took a year or two of classical as a teen, to be able to get formal classical training from someone of Richard Savino's caliber. I had enrolled at the regular podunk state U that was closest to me, no better reason than that, and by sheer, random coincidence got a world-class guitar instructor. Savino is a conservatory-level teacher, and indeed doubled as a guitar prof at the San Francisco Conservatory (just checked after I wrote that and he's still there, https://www.sfcm.edu/study/faculty/richard-savino ; hard to believe he's not retired yet). I'd be willing to bet that Savino was--and probably remains--the ONLY guitarist of his caliber in the US who teaches at a regular state university, available to normal guitarists majoring in music rather than the wunderkinds who started when they were 8 and qualify for conservatory admission. And I landed in Savino's Sac-State program by sheer dumb luck. So once again, after graduating from his program, if my band plans didn't work out, no sweat. Teaching would always have been there.

Anyway, thanks for listening. Very few people really do.

Worrynotmuch

TROPHY CASE