Gear Obsession

[Sacred Synthesis]

A synthesizer forum is both the best place and the worst place to have this discussion.  I'm ready for the virtual tomatoes.

We all suffer from it, to one degree or another: the hunger for a steady supply of equipment.  It's like an addiction, or perhaps more like an obsession.  Whether new or used, we crave for constant changes to our set ups, to see stuff coming and going.  We buy the latest piece, use it for a year, and then sell it on Craigslist, Ebay, or Reverb.  And the reason we sell is so that we can buy something else.  And when we're not buying or selling, we're researching equipment we don't yet own but are dreaming we one day will.  In fact, we spend far more time on YouTube and Soundcloud listening to other people demonstrate their instruments than we do sitting at our own instruments making recordings of our own material.  And speaking of our own material, rather than compose actual completed pieces of music, we, too, create primarily instrument demonstrations for the others who similarly suffer from Gear Obsession.  Around and around it goes, providing a massive movement of cash and credit flow, but very little high quality synthesizer music.

We tell ourselves we don't have a problem, and that, with the next few new pieces of equipment, our vision will be complete and we'll finally be content.  No more spending for us.   But once we've had that new stuff for a mere two weeks or so, we're already daydreaming about another new piece of equipment - while we're driving to work or lying in bed at night.  In fact, we reserve all our extended periods of thinking, and even look forward to them, because we intend to spend every minute thinking about gear.  If we have composer's block for weeks on end and feel drained of all inspiration, then we attribute it, not to a lack of ideas, talent, or ability, but to a failure to stock our studios with all the right gear.  And our poor wives or girlfriends - they have to endure our technical twaddle day and night, and wish that they excited us half as much as does a brand new, or newly restored, piece of gear from some distant techno-geek's workbench. 

To give one example, my wife's eyes instantly glaze over as soon as I say the word "oscillator".  I know of no other word that has this effect on her.  Once I utter the word, she's instantly and involuntarily adrift in the ionosphere, and I can only bring her back by changing the topic.

If I can describe the above disorder with such detail, then I must have a degree of firsthand experience with it.   

I have one suggestion that I've learned to follow, partly due to a limited supply of disposable income.  You're never going to have the perfect set up.  So, design one that is good enough and be happy with it.  Cut back on the demo videos; reduce your research time; stop looking outside of your studio for satisfaction, and get to work with the equipment you own. 

We do not suffer from a dearth of musical tools, but from the discipline of assiduously using them to good musical effect.

[chysn]

Hear hear, well said, this is true. It is, of course, an pan-disciplinary phenomenon.

The tricky thing is that improvement of one's tools is not a wholly irrational goal.

I'll say more later, but I have to feed the children right now.

[Sacred Synthesis]

Yes, we all want to establish a certain degree of quality in our set ups, so as to serve our musical intentions. That's taken for granted.  But my issue is with the obsession that cannot reach such a point for the reason that there is an obsession.  The alternative is to learn how to be content with a less than perfect set up.  Hard work goes a long way.

[Paul Dither]

No set-up and no instrument is perfect. Everything comes with a compromise, otherwise it couldn't be finished in the first place. But as long as one is productive and the tools one has chosen don't get in the way of being productive, that's fine. Conversely, a lack of inspiration can rarely be found within an instrument or a set-up itself. The latter is the good news with regard to gear obsession. We all do it, we all like it, because we like synths, or at least each of us likes certain types or aspects of synths. We may not agree on what is or should be the most important feature combo, but all in all new announcements or teasers can tickle our imagination from time to time. And then there are also often certain "holy grail" devices, (sometimes very expensive) instruments we might not own, but hold in high regard due to very particular characteristics. For some it's a CS-80 or a Minimoog, for chysn it's a Music Easel I believe (I do like it a lot as well), and for me certainly a Two Voice Pro amongst other items.

The question is always: Will another device really enrich anything you do on a musical level? If that's not the case from a technical or conceptual POV, have you become unsatisfied with the sound of your instruments? If so, have you tried everything to solve that problem already? Or are you looking for something new and different in terms of sound? Can that be achieved with what you already own? Are there any workarounds that might lead to interesting musical ideas in turn?

This can all be unfolded into many different directions. Sometimes, however, the reason can be really banal and one just wants something else, a different flavor or color. Pretty much any reason to get a new instrument or long for one is legitimate (from an artistic or creative standpoint) as long as one doesn't expect new inspiration to originate from the desired object itself. While it is important to treat an instrument for what it is and to be inspired by the way it works, it will always remain a tool that provides you with a set of options you ultimately have to choose from. Within that framework, the improvement of one's tools is a rather natural process that can entail an ongoing specialization as well as different approaches to maximize or minimize things, or both. Some might even go through real paradigm shifts and totally change their artistic goals and hence also most of their tools if they make a difference in that regard.

Have I now deviated completely from the obsession topic? – I don't now. Another attempt could also be to ask what constitutes the obsession. Is it just "oh great, a new synth," or something like "I wish I could own this other instrument to make better music," or "I feel like I severely lack instruments that do what I want them to do"? Is the obsession directed at particular instruments at all, or just at an empty spot that can be arbitrarily filled with anything, as long as it's different or new enough?

[Jason]

I think one of the questions this post raises is: "Do we derive more pleasure from acquiring than we do from having?" I think the clear answer is: Yes, like other homo sapiens, this is quite often the case. We see many examples of this, including people who are addicted to shopping... whether it be going to the mall, the garage sale, or the eBay app. Physiologically, we get a bigger hit of dopamine when we acquire than we do from merely having. 

A related question is: why are humans this way? While different people will have different explanations, (frequently dependent on our geographical location), I think the best evidence I've seen suggests that we evolved to be this way. Our ancestors were hunters and gatherers for hundreds of thousands of years, and so it's not surprising that we still receive a hit of dopamine when we acquire something. For all those centuries, acquiring something, or not, literally meant the difference between living and dying. When our ancestors were dissatisfied, they were more likely to go back out there again to try to get some more meat for the family. Those who were satisfied, stayed to snuggle by the fire and smoke magic mushrooms... and didn't live to see their genes survive to the next generation. We're wired to be dissatisfied.

The next question is why does this trait bother us so much? Because it's so illogical! (After all, we're keyboardists, not...) Aren't humans more logical than that? We think that we are logical because we can point to so many examples of logical thinking, but the truth is that we don't think very logically most of the time. Noble laureate Daniel Kanheman has a frequently sighted book on this called Thinking Fast and Slow. (For a shorter, more recent book, try Subliminal: How Your Unconscious Mind Rules Your Behavior by theoretical physicist Leonard Miodinow.) A good example is how people think about buying cars. They reason that they are in their cars ten hours a week, so that's over 500 hours a year, which is over 20 days a year, and so they're going to lease the car that they want rather than buy the car they can afford. But how much happiness do we actually get from our car? That depends a great deal on how much time we actually spend thinking about our car, which, of course, is very little.

Of course, none of this means that there is anything illogical about having wonderful instruments. Having them makes us happy too... probably more happy than most material possessions. I think it could be argued that, as our instruments get incrementally better over the years, they give us slightly more happiness. Where does that leave us? I think a major goal should be to avoid buyer's remorse. I can say that, in addition to having increasingly better keyboard rigs, I have had very little buyer's remorse, and that is because I try to research what I can so that I can make the most informed purchasing decisions. That research led me to my Prophet '08, my Tetra, and now my Rev2. No remorse with any of that; and I'm happier than I've ever been with my rig.

[chysn]

I'm assuming that we're talking about hobbyists here. Professionals might be obsessed with gear, too, but they have a duty to produce something, whereas hobbyists have no such duty.

In this case, there's nothing illogical about it. Perhaps the purchases lend context and experience to the real hobby, which may be research for its own sake. If this is the case, I'd just say "let people like things," which is my pillar of geek philosophy.

If you want to produce music, but think that you need to have the right equipment first, it's a tougher call. You might be right, for example. It's definitely possible to have stuff that can't help you achieve your goals. If I had only a theremin, I'd never play any music because I find the sound of the theremin to be insufferable. That's an absurd example, but it demonstrates that finding the right fit is pretty important. You have to like your instrument.

Still, the old saw that the perfect is the enemy of the good resonates with me. If you're having trouble here, your primary goal should be to expand your definition of perfection.

[Sacred Synthesis]

My point is simply that, at some point, you've got to put your foot down and say, "Enough is enough!"  The pursuit of the ideal set up can easily predominate the objective of using well the instruments you presently have.  So, yes, strive to acquire the gear you need to serve your purposes, but don't get addicted to the chase.  Settle down at some point and set to work.  And consider sitting out the chase for a while, even quite a while.  It can be a most helpful personal challenge to stretch your own creative resources, rather than merely your financial ones.

[Manbird]

Perhaps it's no surprise, but there's a (slightly) similar discussion just brewing on GS, except that one has (again, no surprise) drifted immediately into a discussion of the size of one of the member's member. I know you know I'm not kidding. Uh...

Yes, this is indeed an obsession, this gear-need. I think synths all day, I work with them, I watch the vids and check the forums every 10 minutes. Maybe I'm in the minority - and I hope I'm being sensitive here - but my gear lust (and I'd say it's 88% synthesizer-focused) has never had a negative effect on my productivity. I bring this up because I can still identify with the worry that I'm spending too much time thinking about gear, worrying about the gear I wish I had etc. I've written about it on this forum and elsewhere, but despite my girlfriend in California having a Prophet 5, there's a feeling of lack and loss in my soul where my own former/future P5 once was/wants to be. I say "soul" and I mean it. I don't even need to bring spirituality into this discussion, but let's assume "soul" is simply a word for the intangible, invisible part of us we can't make sense of no matter how many books we read, how many dollars or yen we earn, how many mountains we stick flags on and so forth. But this "soul" is also the living ghost of our integrity, the bit of us that holds all the various scrambled eggs together in each of our individual personal truths. (??) For me, the Prophet 5 IS a million dollars or the mountain top. Isn't it odd that even though I have access to one half the months of the year, I have such a strong need to have and to hold my own? (Maybe some of this is just practical - her P5 belonged to Terry Riley (!) and thus I've never dared to erase any of the sounds on board - maybe all I REALLY crave is a place to program 40 patches of my own! Ha.)

This IS the stuff I think about every bloody day!

I use all the instruments I own/have access to, I get more than "money's worth," for sure. And despite my lack of recognition and record sales, I suppose I am professional! Yet, despite this alleged professional-ness, I feel like it's all a game and I have weird guilt about playing synths at all sometimes! Like, twiddling a brass patch surely can't be my "work," especially when it's for my own music. If I'm twiddling that brass patch on someone else's record for money, my attitude shifts. I hope I'm expressing myself even half clearly - it's not always clear to me, yet it's this very DSI forum that has helped shape some of my thinking about what I do and its place in the microcosmic world.

Trying to focus my rambling a little bit - one form my "obsession" has taken, again with a productive outcome, is the number of Prophet 6-only tracks I've been working with. As much as I very enjoy seeing demo vids of people working with the P6 and other synths, I wonder if my own contribution helps place this instrument in a "real world" context. "Here's what this synth sounds like in a complete song." And that's meant to speak to Sacred Tim's "enough is enough" sentiment. Meaning, I could go around the room and try one synth and then another, or I could sell another kidney and buy one synth and then another, but I'm trying to push myself to stay put, to sit with one thing and see/hear what it is on its own. But... then a get an email from Reverb or from Tone Tweakers or I watch another Prologue demo or I find a second-hand OB-6 on craigslist... Thankfully, no kidneys are being sold! While I long for more and more synthesizers and other gear, I do truly love the collection I've built up. This doesn't stop me from wishing for that CS-5 I used once or wondering if that bloke still has his Quadra and would he want to sell it...

I'm not certain if my contribution to this conversation is of use to anyone, but I appreciate the space to rant a bit!

[chysn]

But nobody's got to do anything. If the pursuit is enjoyable, let it happen. If somebody wants to buy instruments and set them up and never touch them, but enjoys reading about them and buying them, then that's okay. Maybe they get noodled with on alternate weekends. Maybe not. Not everybody wants the personal challenge of stretching creativity. Collecting is an actual hobby.

The real question is, do you expect something different of yourself? If so, then the error is in thinking that the next purchase will turn you into--I don't know--Franz Schubert. In my view, that's the thinking that needs to be addressed, more than simply the obsession with gear.

The first advice that most famous writers usually give is "write something every day, even if it sucks." This might be a good start. It's Monday. I'm going to try that this week.

[chysn]

I'm not certain if my contribution to this conversation is of use to anyone, but I appreciate the space to rant a bit!

Of course, it's perfectly on-point, and a fascinating perspective.

[Paul Dither]

But nobody's got to do anything. If the pursuit is enjoyable, let it happen. If somebody wants to buy instruments and set them up and never touch them, but enjoys reading about them and buying them, then that's okay. Maybe they get noodled with on alternate weekends. Maybe not. Not everybody wants the personal challenge of stretching creativity. Collecting is an actual hobby.

The real question is, do you expect something different of yourself? If so, then the error is in thinking that the next purchase will turn you into--I don't know--Franz Schubert. In my view, that's the thinking that needs to be addressed, more than simply the obsession with gear.

That's actually an important differentiation.

[Paul Dither]

Trying to focus my rambling a little bit - one form my "obsession" has taken, again with a productive outcome, is the number of Prophet 6-only tracks I've been working with.

Focussing on one particular instrument and building whole tracks with it can be a very rewarding experience, particularly in the early days. This not only provides a nicely limited creative framework, but also teaches you how to get the most out of one instrument.

[Sacred Synthesis]

But nobody's got to do anything. If the pursuit is enjoyable, let it happen. If somebody wants to buy instruments and set them up and never touch them, but enjoys reading about them and buying them, then that's okay. Maybe they get noodled with on alternate weekends. Maybe not. Not everybody wants the personal challenge of stretching creativity. Collecting is an actual hobby.

The real question is, do you expect something different of yourself? If so, then the error is in thinking that the next purchase will turn you into--I don't know--Franz Schubert. In my view, that's the thinking that needs to be addressed, more than simply the obsession with gear.

The first advice that most famous writers usually give is "write something every day, even if it sucks." This might be a good start. It's Monday. I'm going to try that this week.

Your first paragraph, Chysn, - and especially the first two sentences - would require that we address the issue from a religious and philosophical approach - something that cannot be done on a forum such as this - not because it isn't permitted (although there is some truth to that), but because such elaborate discussions are pointless on a synthesizer forum.  That's my own opinion.  Such discussions are best done face-to-face and with a limited number of people who deeply care about the questions involved.  Otherwise, they end up being hopelessly meandering, with folks having little interest in the topic throwing in trite little comments, witty remarks, platitudes, and jokes that lead around and around in an illogical and non-conclusive circle.  It often ends up being, not even a debate, but more a rant primarily by the loudest and most persistent members, without anyone actually being able to make a serious point well.  Hence, the "deep dark subjective pit" thread that predictably went nowhere.  That's why I wouldn't take part in it either there or here.

In posing the original question/theme, I deliberately wanted to focus on the artistic aspect.  Hence, your second paragraph was more in line with my thinking.  But, of course, let the thread go where it goes.  I have no interest in trying to direct it.   It just seems that this topic is screaming to be addressed - the possibility that we may be immersed in the material stuff of our field more than is good for us, our music, and the field itself. 

Although it's not directly related or intentional on their part, I was actually quite happy that DSI didn't attend NAMM.  I've come to loathe all the hype of that winter time gear orgy, and would prefer to have an announcement that comes with less glitter.  When the time comes, just give us the facts and spare us the theater.  So, as far as I'm concerned, DSI can take their own sweet time preparing the next instrument.  I have no doubt it will be superb.  I just prefer to learn about it in a calm and serious way, and not as part of that hyper-materialistic theatrical production full of roving reporters called NAMM.

[dsetto]

Brave and vital subject. I also find it tough to find a personally satisfactory balance between seeking musical growth via learning in these virtual social settings and extraneous thought of tools. The fast rate and vast depth of the information on the web surely has its benefits and hazards.

Supporting each other via healthful communication as is done in this thread & forum is one Internet way of reconciling the Internet.

[Sacred Synthesis]

Well said, Dsetto.

To pose an extreme, I find it increasingly enjoyable these days to challenge myself to make complete improvisations/compositions with a minimum of equipment.  In my case, this means either one keyboard/module-paired instrument, with or even without bass pedals.  It means focusing 100% on the music, since the technical distractions are nearly non-existent, except for, perhaps, moving a modulation wheel to alter the dynamics.  And I find the results to be consistently among my favorite pieces.  In this case, less is more.

Similarly, among the most enjoyable YouTube videos I can find are those in which the musician plays only one or two instruments.  I love the Marc Melia type of approach in which one person plays one instrument and draws deeply on his and its abilities.  Even if it requires multi-tracking, it's so gratifying to see one instrument being used to its utmost, if that's even possible with a modern synthesizer.

Speaking of thinking about gear - I more often find myself figuring out ways to minimize my set up.  I've thus far limited myself to four or five keyboards, but lean now more towards three, and could imagine finally deciding on only two.  I don't mean to be preaching about it, but am only offering another very different approach, the challenge of doing more with less.  All I can say is that it feels liberating to not have so bloody much stuff, and it's always a breath of fresh air to be more directly immersed in the making of music. 

[dsetto]

I believe my idealistic post has a dissatisfactory vacuousness. I want to follow that with "deeper connection found offline" is a possible better means. But that's hard to settle and can surely bring on different issues. (I'm intentionally open-ended as I see it embodying a wide terrain of implementations.)

And for as far as I see, I know I will continue coming here for growth & virtual discussion about matters I find intriguing. And therein lies the problem. Often, the most interesting conversations are centered about reconciling disparate individual processsing of shared sets of fixed items. And we also seek that deep level of engagement with focus capable of it.

Good luck to each of us wrestling with it. Thanks to each of us supporting each other.

Let's pretend that knowing there's a bunch of us with similar-enough goals, values, & plights helps us see the problem, accept it lovingly, make space for it- perhaps, and gently remind to put it back in its place if it's out too long.

If only I treated myself that way.

[dsetto]

Being with music with virtually "non-existent technical distraction". That's a guiding balancing light for the 'tools & methods' passionate.

Looking forward to returning there.

[BobTheDog]

I have in the last year stopped buying kit, or at least cut it down a fair bit.

I used to buy a couple of guitars a year and also a couple of synths.

I miss the buzz of getting something new and now I am moving into the "buy something new, fund it by selling stuff you don't need anymore".

I got a Organelle (fantastic thing) at Christmas and sold some guitar FX stuff to fund that.

I just Ordered an MPC Live, so I'm gonna sell an Elektron A4 and my Karp Odyssey to fund that.

I'm not getting the same buzz as things have to go to get new things, and you sure think about it a lot more before pressing the "buy" button!

[Soundquest]

... In fact, we spend far more time on YouTube and Soundcloud listening to other people demonstrate their instruments than we do sitting at our own instruments making recordings of our own material.  And speaking of our own material, rather than compose actual completed pieces of music, we, too, create primarily instrument demonstrations for the others who similarly suffer from Gear Obsession.  Around and around it goes, providing a massive movement of cash and credit flow, but very little high quality synthesizer music....

I do wish more of us posted their music here.   Maybe tying into all of this is not just gear distraction, but also patch distraction.  Amassing thousands of patches can consume time and perhaps  add indecisiveness into a starting point.  I like making patches, but it also can be a burden time wise.  So I found what works for me is that I alternate weeks.  One week I screw around with patching and just playing around, then the following week I try to focus on coming up with songs. 

It seems most hobbies have their YouTube obligation now.  I confess that I go to bed most nights watching Youtube synth demos.  If anything,  this makes me even more inspired to make music.  But yes, I need to be careful not to let it cause GAS.    I guess everyone has their quota for GAS.  I've reached that point- and P12 put the nail in the coffin      So, unless I'm replacing a mixer, or something broken, no more gear lusting on youtube.

I'm thinking that another possible issue that might dissuade the production of full songs might be related to reward versus the time invested.  For example,  one could spend 10, or more, hours on a multi-track song and get only a hundred listens on Soundcloud over period of many months.  I'm sure many of us have tried handing out a CD of our music to  work, friends, or family,  and if you're lucky, you might find it getting used as a coaster, let alone played.    But with a Youtube demo of any synth equipment,  one might spend only a few hours for the whole production and rack up a lot more viewers.   So for that hobbiest, it might feel they are being heard more with that approach.

[chysn]

But nobody's got to do anything. If the pursuit is enjoyable, let it happen. * * *

Your first paragraph, Chysn, - and especially the first two sentences - would require that we address the issue from a religious and philosophical approach - something that cannot be done on a forum such as this

I found this confusing at first, but then I realized that my phrasing left the door open for a categorical interpretation of those two sentences, which was not intentional. I just meant that folks don't need to answer to anyone else with respect to their own musical output or lack thereof.

Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law. When it comes to your art.