Another hypothesis for explaining GAS

[mr22]

I have a new hypothesis for why Gear Acquisition Syndrome happens. My hypothesis makes three assumptions.

(1) Playing skill improves incrementally, but your ears improve in discrete jumps.

If your guitar teacher tells you that you're making a lot of unwanted string noise, you will not be able to un-hear the string noise. You will feel like you've gotten much worse, because your perception has improved. But in reality you are hearing yourself more accurately.

Similarly, if you watch a video that talks about single-coil hum, you will notice single-coil hum more acutely. You do not know how to perceive something until you've figured out what to listen to. This is why your perception of your playing takes huge jumps.

(2) We compare our playing to the last time we played in the same context or 'tone.'

We implicitly compare our playing to the playing we did when we were last in a certain context. For example, if you play daily in your room, it will be hard for you to hear improvements. But if you visit a guitar shop monthly to try out guitars, you will feel like the

guitars you're testing out are making you play better. Not really. You are just hearing a month's worth of improvement because you are comparing your play today to your play a month earlier.

(3) If we are primed to believe GAS stories, we believe sudden reductions or increases in playing quality are due to gear rather than to skill.

When you perceive that you've gotten better or worse, you immediately try to come up with a story to explain the change. If you are primed to believe GAS stories or to believe that tone or skill can be purchased, you will give the gear credit for any change in your skills.

Using these three assumptions, I can explain a lot of my 'I sound great' or 'I sound like garbage' moments.

Story 1.

I had the chance to play a nasty, disused Squier Stratocaster. I had played the same guitar eight months earlier. When I played it the first time, it sounded awful. But I didn't expect much more than that, because it was a Squier that was covered with rust and dirt.

Last week when I played it, the Squier sounded so much better. I thought it sounded almost as good as the guitars that I have at home. This was a huge 'aha' moment. The Squier didn't improve. I was just able to hear how I had improved over eight months of practice.

Story 2.

I purchased my first looper pedal. I heard, for the first time, just how poor my rhythm is. I've been doing rhythm exercises daily using the looper. This has been a humbling experience.

I keep a cheap guitar at work. Immediately after I did the rhythm exercises, I took this office guitar out and played it. I had not played this guitar for a month. I sounded awful. It was easy for me to blame my lack of familiarity with this guitar -- I hadn't played it for a month -- but that explanation doesn't make sense. I wasn't familiar with the details of that Squier. I hadn't played it for eight months. But the Squier sounded great. I take a break from playing one guitar, and suddenly it sounds awful? I take a longer break from playing another guitar of a lower quality, and it sounds great? That makes no sense. It's much more likely that I was hearing my poor rhythm and blaming it on my gear.

Story 3.

After using a Joyo American Sound as my main amp for months, I tried out the Deluxe Reverb-alike setting on my Boss Katana after not hearing it for months. I was surprised by how good the Katana setting sounded. Once again, the Katana setting was the same as it ever was. The setting did not improve. I have just improved over several months, and I was ready to give the Katana preset the credit.

The hypothesis explains why tone-chasing feels like improvement. Suppose you have maybe three tones that you alternate between. You stick with one tone for months. Then if your perception of your abilities improves, you will think your tone has gotten worse. In response, you switch to one of your other standard tones. Now that you've changed the context of your playing, you will be able to perceive a huge improvement -- because you've improved since the last time that you used that tone. The sense that your tone has gotten worse (because your ears have gotten better) will be counteracted by the feeling that you've gotten better (because you're comparing your current play to the last time you used that tone). This may be the reason why many of us spend time switching between pedals

that are only marginally different or twisting knobs instead of practicing (like we should).

There are a few ways that this hypothesis could be falsified.

Go to a guitar shop and play a 'holy grail' guitar that will not be sold for maybe six months because it costs too much. Play it through a 'holy grail' amp that will not be sold for the same reason. Record the knob settings if you want to be super-scientific and repeat

them later. Then go home and commit to playing the same exact home rig

for six months. Mark the locations of every knob and keep them identical. Do not switch up pedals or patches or presets. Stick with one guitar if you can. Then go to the guitar shop and play the 'holy grail' setup again. Does the holy grail setup sound a lot better

the second time? The reason your home rig should stay identical is so you will not hear gradual improvements until you return to the 'holy grail' rig. If the holy grail setup sounds more or less the same as it did before, then my hypothesis has some problems.

A second way that the hypothesis could be falsified is if you have three or so main tones (or guitars or amps) that you alternate between every several months but switching between them yields no sense of improvement. If you practice daily, stick with the same tone config for months, but you feel like you're equally terrible whenever you make your tone switch, then I could be wrong.

On a personal note, owning a Harley Benton TE-62 and playing it through mediocre amps at my workplace (I'm a teacher, we have music rooms) has done wonders for my GAS. The HB is cheap. If you look carefully, you'll see some fit and finish issues that are just no good. I practice at home daily, so improvements at home seem gradual. But I play at work sporadically, so my HB seems to either be totally awesome or a complete dog. The guitar hasn't changed. What has happened is that my skills have taken a jump forward, or my ears have improved. I just notice the changes because I play the HB weekly or biweekly, so the session-to-session contrast is greater with the HB.

The HB experience has helped me with my GAS because I regularly have the "OMG, this thing kicks butt" experience with a $125 guitar. This "OMG..." experience is just as vivid as when I try out an expensive guitar in a guitar shop. This $125 guitar regularly feels like it as good as a Music Man or Suhr guitar that I've tried out in the shop. And on other days, it sounds like it is made out of balsa wood. The assumptions of this hypothesis do a great job of explaining how my perception could vary so much.

(By the way, the HB TE-62 is a great guitar. I think you can't go wrong with it. I've replaced the tuners -- the previous ones held tune fine, they were just a little annoying to restring -- and bought proper knobs. It's a fantastic guitar, not just a good guitar for the price.)

Another thought before I go. I think that many GAS episodes could be tamed or eliminated if we started referring to a guitarist's 'voice' rather than their tone. It would be absurd to hear a singer say "I really want to get Tom Waits' voice ... what microphone do I need to buy to really nail the Tom Waits voice?" Instead of saying "what pedal do I use to get that ZZ Top 'Eliminator' tone," we should hear "what pedal do I need to buy to have Billy Gibbons' voice?" Both things sound absurd. Lots of people need to be okay with the fact that they just sound like themselves.

Similarly, instead of doing 'covers' of songs, musicians could say that they're doing 'arrangements' of those songs. If you say you want to 'cover' Radiohead's Idioteque, you can estimate in about 3 seconds to the nearest thousand USD how much you would need to spend on synthesizers. But if you say 'I want to do an arrangement of Idioteque on my dreadnought,' then it becomes a skill-building puzzle that seems totally doable. (Imagine someone nailing 'Idioteque' on an acoustic! How cool would that be? I bet Madison Cunningham could do it.) If a cellist can nail 'Night Rider' and post it on YouTube (albeit with four tracks featuring the same person), then imagine what is possible if people get over doing 'covers' and start getting into 'arrangements' instead.

[mr22]

Oh yeah, where does the purchasing and GAS come into the equation?

When our ears improve, making us feel like we've gotten worse, it is possible for us to 'correct' the problem by playing on something new. For the reasons stated above, when we go to our neighborhood guitar shop, we will feel like the gear has made us improve because we're comparing our skills to the last time that we were in the shop.

I got so excited about explaining the perceptions and their causes that I forgot to connect it to the GAS...

[sumgai]

mr22,


Don't tell us, let us guess.... you're not a psychologist, but you play one one TV, right?

Let me break down my take-away items:

a) I'll take what's behind Door #3, Monty!!

Most members here know that I've been pounding the "single guitar" axiom since Day One, and even before we started up. Long before.

The simple fact is, you can play only one guitar at a time, ergo, why do you need to own two guitars? The common answer is "for the different tone". And as you've capably shown above, it's not about the tone, it's about the voice.  See my story below point #2.

EDIT: Forgot to add in that a second (or even third) guitar is appropriate for professionals who need instant backup rigs, in case of string breakage, etc.


b)

I think that many GAS episodes could be tamed or eliminated if we started referring to a guitarist's 'voice' rather than their tone.

cynical1 has been saying for years the very same wording you just used, most recently in Monsters of the 70's:

I think it's a question of finding your voice...and being willing to follow it regardless of what others may tell you about what you hear.

To help bolster that little bon mot, I have a story I'd like to share:

During the mid 70's, at the start of Eric Clapton's solo career, he came to town (Seattle) during a tour. As it happens, he was a day early, so he went down to the Exhibition Hall to catch the Allman Brothers, playing that night. And of course, Duane and Greg heard Eric was in the house, and invited him to come up on stage for a number - Eric accepted. The stage manager freaked out - "I don't have any Fender guitars! How is Eric going to sound without a Fender?!" So Eric picks up Duane's backup guitar, an SG, and plinks for a few moments, twiddles a knob or two, and the band takes off. Wouldn't you know it, E.C. sounds just exactly like Eric Clapton, no discernible differences to be detected.

Moral of the story: Ol' Slowhand found his voice, and it didn't matter one whit which tool he used to express himself, it sounded just like he wanted it to sound; distinctive, definitely recognizable, unique (at the time). (He must've been channeling cynical1!)

Long story short, one's voice is not the same as one's tone. IOW, the Mojo is in the voice, not in the gear. Recognize that little factoid, and your worrying days are over. Trust me on that one.


c)  I'll go along with 'arrangements'.  In fact, someone just recently said "if you're gonna do another person's song, don't just copy it, make it your own!"  I can't remember who said that at the moment, but someone will respond shortly with the correct attribution, I'm sure.  The defining example of this is, of course, Jimi's version of All Along The Watchtower.

Thanks for the article, or more like a treatise.




sumgai

[newey]

Feb 5, 2023 18:50:47 GMT -5 sumgai said:

In fact, someone just recently said "if you're gonna do another person's song, don't just copy it, make it your own!"

That was me, quoting (I think) Mick Jagger.

[pyrroz]

Hi mr22

its nice that you deal with those questions.

On the one end of the spectrum you have guys like my other guitarist in the band who constantly tries to buy new gear, albeit a beginner, so its a manifestation of GAS, and on the other end you have famous guitarists with a huge collection of (many times the same) guitars. The technical aspect and the peculiarities of each guitar's tone cannot be ignored. I have two strats, I could tell with closed eyes which is which within seconds of playing unplugged. I think one single guitar is a limiting factor. Technique and skill and sound and self confidence are all inter-blend together, so that no ones knows which causes what. Its like in the holistic medicine: does the symptom or the remedy or the patient's character play the biggest role in healing? who knows? very hard to separate the factors, the result for the cause, are all mixed together in an endless feedback process. In the case of Sumgai's roland idea, you get one guitar but so many sounds and tonal possibilities that the GAS is tuned to TAS (as in tone)! or NSTS (new synth trial syndrom!)

[cynical1]

“You do know you could find yourself charged with being a dominant species while under the influence of impulse-driven consumerism, don't you?”
― Terry Pratchett

When I still had hair...and it was brown, the idea of two instruments was a luxury. Everybody had a spare in a case...on the oft chance the primary suffered an embolism...but it was typically a "good enough for three hours" bass or guitar. It was the motivation to fix the primary axe ASAP... This explains my irrational prejudice against active instruments. When that 9V dies onstage, so do you...

Skip ahead to about 12 years ago. I am no longer actively playing, but the space aliens had just left the planet with my ex-wife and I realized I had just recovered control of my disposable income. I now have more pedals, amps, cabinets and instruments than I ever dreamed of when I was playing.

It wasn't because I needed any of it. I was just finally in a position to do it. Why do people buy a big home when their kids are almost gone...or that third car? I can't speak for the rest of the world, but here in the US we are a hyper-consumerist society. As Huxley said, "Armaments, universal debt, and planned obsolescence—those are the three pillars of Western prosperity."

GAS is just a small spur off the main road.

HTC1

[newey]

All of this, I think, ignores the point. Yes, you can only play one at a time. Yes, buying new gear in search of "that sound" is futile in the absence of talent.

One can only drive one car at a time, but rich guys often have big car collections. It's because they love cars. Some they buy knowing they will hardly ever drive the car, it will sit all nicely polished in the garage, but they apprciate the look, the aesthetics of it. Other ones they buy may have a unique history, they're buying a piece of that history. Or, it's the car they lusted after as a child, they're revisiting their childhood.

Same with guitars. People don't purchase a '59 goldtop LP because they plan to make it their everyday player, a new LP would work fine for that. They buy it because they want to own a '59 goldtop LP.

Then there are people like me, hobbyists. I've accumulated a bunch of guitars, none are really classics, none have any huge value, some don't even play particularly well. I have them because I assembled/built them, I figure propbably no one other than me wants any of them, they're mostly cheapies. It's just my hobby. Granted, if I didn't play guitar (a little bit, anyway), I probably wouldn't have the interest. But, I can't afford to have a classic car collection, nor do I have anywhere to put one.

Therefore, don't assume that GAS necessarily has anything to do with music. Sometimes it does, but often not.

[mr22]

Yeah, my first post was descriptive, rather than normative. I'm trying to understand what is true about GAS, not say whether people should or should not GAS.  That's up to them.

I certainly couldn't judge others for buying more gear than they 'need'! I definitely have way too much stuff, and I own several things that I've purchased for the wrong reasons -- including a mistaken belief that the purchase would make me a better player.