If you are reading this article, chances are you have access to the Internet and are already aware of the vast amount of information available regarding music equipment.  From manufacturers' sites to user forums, it is possible to find opinions on almost anything you can imagine. The development of the Internet is a double-edged sword because while it offers unprecedented convenience and a wealth of useful information, it can also give an equal voice to sources which may not be particularly credible.

Traditional music publications available at newsstands, such as Guitar Player and Guitar World, have always included reviews of guitar-related products.  Many of these hard copy magazines now have Web sites, and much of their equipment reviews can be found online.  Though no opinionated review of anything by anyone should be taken as concrete truth due its subjective nature, reputable publications are rarely questioned when it comes to credibility because we assume that they are staffed with knowledgeable experts who write the articles.

Whether we will admit it or not, I believe that people tend to give something a little more value or credence just because it appears in the media.  If I open up a guitar magazine and find that they are hailing an amplifier or a guitar, I am usually interested in checking the product out to form my own opinions.  (Notice I said "my own opinions".)

Many players are swayed by seeing something online in print as well.  I'll even use my Web site as an example of this.  I receive a lot of e-mails from people who surf my site and assume that I am a knowledgeable source of information.  Guitarists send me questions and solicit my thoughts on relevant topics.  At the risk of either destroying (or enhancing) the validity of my writings here, I will say that I don't consider myself to be any kind of expert.  I am simply a guitarist who has been playing a long enough time to develop some opinions on things based upon personal experience.  Then again, I guess most writers are doing the same thing.  My main hope is to help people find new ways of playing and thinking, as well as to keep reviews of equipment and music in proper perspective.  Just because I can publish things here shouldn't imply that they are always right for everyone.

The more I learn, the more I realize that I disagree with many opinions of others, including the so-called "experts".  This is not because they are wrong.  Rather it is because there are things that are right for me and my path.  I have a certain way of doing things to achieve my sound and musical mission that may not be compatible with what other players are trying to do.  There are also many times that I do agree with published thoughts on music gear, but I find it important to take everything with a grain of salt when evaluating one's own applications.  Everybody is different!

The most interesting aspect of the Internet is how user forums and message boards give the average person a prominent and sometimes instant voice on matters of discussion. There is no shortage of Web sites where musicians can post their opinions on music gear.   This is great news, as it creates an avenue of expression for everybody to be heard.  It is good to have an opinion from your average Joe Q. Guitar to counterbalance the thoughts of famous or more-visible guitarists and writers. The downside, though, is that it can be hard to verify the credibility of the reviewing source, particularly on some forums where anonymous posting is allowed.

I believe it is a good thing to remain open-minded and receptive to the thoughts of other parties.  I have learned many things and been exposed to new equipment by listening to the reviews of magazines and Internet posters.  However, I have also noted some things lately in magazines and online that disturb me because so many people are impressionable.  It's not that the information from these sources is necessarily inaccurate.  I equate some of the ads and reviews with those TV commercials that move so fast that you don't have time to read all of the minute fine print at the bottom of the screen.  If people would read the fine print, they would probably decide that the product being advertised is not what it may appear to be on first glance.

Here are some things I've noticed lately in the world of Internet and printed opinion regarding music equipment that I feel should be pointed out.  Note that these examples could be applied to almost anything being sold today:
 

Advertising

The world seems to revolve around economics these days.  Money and financial welfare are the primary motivations for much of our culture in regard to career and even art.  Living in America, our system is based upon capitalism.  It is the "American Way" for a person to develop a product or service and advertise it for sale.  While it is wrong to misrepresent something with an intent to defraud, there are always methods of advertising that are legal yet still seem disingenuous to me.

As I mentioned earlier, there are commercials on television that are fast-moving and are designed to keep the viewer from concentrating on the fine print at the bottom of the page.  Take for instance the ads for long distance telephone service that we are constantly inundated with.  The commercial will feature some rosy-colored scene of people talking on the phone or a family happily playing with each other.  There will be cheerful music accompanying the scenario with an enthusiastic announcer hawking the benefits of the calling plan.  You will hear why this service is superior to that offered by the competition.  What you probably won't focus on, though, is the fine print at the bottom of the page that is flashed for just a few seconds and is so small that you'd need an electron microscope to read it.  It will usually say that the plan is only good for certain times of the day or that it is being compared to a competitor's plan that really isn't their best offering.

Then there are the particularly irritating ads for credit cards that promise incredibly low interest rates.  "Choose our VISA card with a 2.9% interest rate," says the commercial.  "But don't look at the fine print disclaimer the law requires us to provide at the bottom of the screen that tells you we will jack your rate up to 19.9% at the end of three months."

Technically, ads such as this are legal and accurate.  But why do these companies put things in fine print?  Why don't they simply and prominently say or show all of the conditions of what they are trying to sell?  It's because they want to get away with everything thing they can legally, but without giving the buyer any clear chance to dwell upon the negatives or realities of the product in question.

I was flipping through a recent issue of Guitar Player magazine and opened up a two-page ad for some effects pedals made by Digitech.  Let it be known that a lot of their multi-effects pedal offerings are aimed at the beginner-to-intermediate guitarist level.  You won't find very many high-profile players who use them, but that doesn't mean as a rule that they aren't worthwhile products for a particular segment of the consumer market.

Nevertheless, the ad for the Digitech pedals shows three of their units with quotes in large type underneath them.  There's one that says "I don't think there's a sound you can't get from this box."*  Who says there's not a sound you can't get from this box?  Is it Jeff Beck?  Is it Larry Carlton?  No!  There's an asterisk next to the quote directing the reader to that famous fine print at the bottom of the page. **********

Next to the dreaded asterisk is this little message:  "Actual end-user quotes taken from harmony-central.com."  First of all, what in the heck is an "end-user"?  (I could make some jokes about that but will refrain for now.)  It sounds like something demographically-related.  As I have noted in recent writings, I am immediately skeptical of anything having to do with "demographics".  Secondly, are you aware of what Harmony Central is?  I have nothing against Harmony Central.  I think it is sometimes a great source of information.  In fact, I have a link to it from my Links page.  However the last source I would completely trust is somebody posting an opinion on their message forum, especially an "end-user."

Harmony Central has a large database of equipment reviews submitted by readers.  I have even posted some opinions there at the request of manufacturers.  But the thing is that anybody can do it.  Even someone who is a rival trying to smear their competitor's product can post a nasty review about it.  There is very little credibility there in my opinion.  Now if a product has 50 reviews and most of them are great, then I can probably assume that the piece of equipment is pretty good or to the contrary if they are negative in nature.  Still, there could be 50 opinions submitted by employees of the company or in the worst case 50 submissions by the same person posting anonymously.

If the Digitech ad attributed their quotes to well-known and established players, then I would, fairly or not, give more credence to the quotes.  Just because a famous player endorses something doesn't mean that I will always like it, but it is still more credible to me than the opinion of an anonymous hack on the Internet.  I am not trying to pick on Digitech and perhaps I'm blowing this thing out of proportion, but this is a great example of why keeping the fine print in perspective is necessary when evaluating a product.  It's as if they think just because something is in quotes that the reader assumes it is given by an authoritative source and that it must be correct because of it.

Also, why put the reference to Harmony Central in extremely small print?  Why not blatantly say "Look what real users say about our products on Harmony Central?"  Why hide anything?  I'm not saying to not quote Harmony Central.  Just consider the source.  For all we know, the guy who said he doesn't "think there's a sound you can't get from this box" could be a guy who started playing two days ago with no concept of tone and Digitech knows it as well.  They are trying to get away with any quotes they can find because they know that very few well-known players would endorse some of these units they are making.
 

Who is writing the review?

Always consider the source when evaluating the validity of a review.  I always laugh when I see a review on Harmony Central written by some guy who is extolling the virtues of his new $3000 Matchless amplifier only to find out that he is running a $200 Washburn guitar with a Floyd Rose whammy bar plugged into fifteen DOD effects pedals through it.  Hey, to each his own, but keep it all in perspective.  A review probably won't give you the best information you need if the overall conditions of the test aren't similar to your environment and instruments.  Also know that a veteran player probably won't get a fair assessment about a product if the reviewer is a beginning player and possibly vice versa.

Another thing to consider is if a review is unduly influenced by paid advertising or personal connections to a manufacturer.  Ironically, after I started writing this article, I read a column in the July 2001 issue of Guitar Player, written by their Editor-In-Chief dealing with this exact topic.  It would seem that the magazine (and others) has come under fire for the perception that advertising dollars have biased their equipment reviews.  Unfortunately for the consumer, this is the hardest thing to prove.  Only the writer knows how much this factors in, if at all.

My gut feeling is that some equipment reviews are in fact influenced by paid advertising even if it is argued to the contrary.  I won't name names here, but there is a traditionally-revered company (perhaps the biggest in the history of guitar) that is producing a large quantity of junk these days, yet their products continually get undeserved praise in magazines.  Look throughout the magazine and notice how many full-page color ads they've taken out and ask yourself if the publication would suffer without their ad dollars.  Then ask yourself if that might not influence a review.  I'm not saying this always happens, but it sure makes me think it's a real possibility.
 

Apples and Oranges

When evaluating products, it is important to make sure that the items in question are similar enough in nature to warrant a fair comparison.  I have seen several amplifier and effects reviews in Guitar Player lately where they use a table of picks (1= lowest, 5=highest) to sum up a review in a table format.  These tables are eye candy for those who don't want to take the time to read the whole article but they want to get the bottom-line opinion quickly.  However, these capsulated charts do a grave disservice to some of the products when presented in this manner.

For instance, I saw a comparison of two amplifiers with completely different construction characteristics, tones, and features.  One had reverb while the other didn't.  One used different tubes and speakers from the other.  They were listed right next to each other in the table, therefore it comes off as a head-to-head comparison rather than looking at each amp for its own merits.  Even if it were a head-to-head test, why would you compare two completely different products with different purposes?  The amp with the fewer number of picks might indeed be an inferior amp, but what if someone simply chose an amp to buy because it had more picks?  They might be getting something that doesn't do what they want while the different style amp with fewer picks could be a better choice.  You wouldn't expect someone to compare a Fender Twin to a Mesa Boogie Dual Rectifier.  They are two different animals altogether.

I also don't place much stock in reviews where the writer doesn't have some familiarity with the genre of the product he is reviewing.  For example, I wouldn't want a punk rocker to be the final authority in a jazz amp shootout unless he was also a competent jazz guitarist.  I would also hope that the reviewer would be a good player in general. Trust me, I have personally witnessed some reviewers who were not very good players submitting their articles for publications with a large number of readers.
 

Summary

Try not to fall prey to advertising hype about anything.  Music equipment manufacturers are as guilty of hype as anyone.  Sometimes things really are as good as advertised.  I don't fault them for selling their goods.  I just dislike when there are hidden angles involved with the product.  Also remember to consider the source of the review and decide if you can rely upon it to be compatible with your values.  Manufacturers, dealers, media and consumers should offer their opinions with a sense of personal integrity.  I actively seek out the thoughts of sources I respect because there is always lots to learn from others.  We are living in a golden age of information with the arrival of the Internet.  Unfortnately, it is also a golden age of misinformation.
 

Jason
 
 

********** Take this article with a grain of salt.  If you can read this then you are obviously too smart and well-prepared to dwell upon it.  Article subject to immediate withdrawal.  Tax, tags, and license fees are extra.  The rates of this article may increase at the discretion of the author.  Paul is dead.  Clapton is God.  I don't dislike Digitech, just some of their pedals. Their Whammy pedal is pretty cool. I also like some of their Vocalist stuff.  I still have a subscription to Guitar Player.  I must go now because I have nothing more to say on this issue at the present time.