it occurred to me that the guitar amplifier and effects industry as a whole has a myriad of otherwise unqualified experts with half finished degrees or "years of experience" as makers/tinkerers which I think has led to the current status of a glut of product without real innovation. It feels like a big cut/copy and paste affair.
I can grok that.
The thing is, I don't charge most of those folks with "foul play," because IMO they don't really need to put in the effort to make products like that.
The reason we see a ton of TS/FF/BM derivatives is because the vast majority of guitarists are okay with purchasing something very similar over and over again. Same thing with Strat-like guitars, LP-like guitars, and all of the archetype classic amps that I probably don't even need to list...
What is funny IMO is that the lack of innovation is in plain sight...with guitars that we 'prefer.' The vast majority of them were not designed by guitar players. It's so funny that many of their features have not really been improved on. Perhaps one of the biggest curiosities to me is guitar bridges - most look barely different than what was offered a half a century ago. If you asked the average guitarist about "sustain 101 from a physics standpoint," you'd just get glossy eyes!
...I got a Babicz bridge for one of my Teles a few years ago. While it is probably still way on the conservative side WRT what would TRULY be cutting edge design, it does make a very crisp and clean break from the past in many ways. It boggles my mind that really no one talks about the Babicz stuff, or some have replaced them with other "dark ages bridges."
So - if this is the case with the mechanical parts on our guitars, what's the chance of getting served up some innovation with other stuff?
It's far easier for even an educated pedal builder to simply "do the recycler thing" as well - take something existing and put their "genius touches" on it. I think that some of them even get applauded for it!
...In the case of the Big Muff, it's kind of laughable IMO. Matthews paid Bob Myer (a Bell Labs engineer) what was a modest sum of money for a design that was released in 1969 -
that's almost a half a century ago! IOW - to "improve on it" (at this point), you'd basically have to throw away what Mike paid Bob for, and just start over!
Bob wasn't even a guitarist, either (IIRC). I think he kind of misunderstood M.M.'s intentions at first, that Mike was looking for something that could be built very cheaply, with common components (that could be substituted if necessary!). Well, Mike also wasn't (isn't) a guitarist - he's a keyboard player!
...It doesn't mean that non-guitarists can't design or build musical stuff. After all, after "the designer fills their role," the folks that usually assemble these things probably don't play guitar either!
And while high-tech goodies for guitar won't necessarily sound any worse than "regular tech" stuff, it's just overkill to use gold plated stuff, mil-spec boards, and methods to suppress noise or distortions that aren't in the audible range. AND - the audible range thru the typical guitar amp is a fraction of what we can hear, or what a decent stereo is capable of. IOW, IMO, it's absolutely throwing good money after bad.
"Good money after bad," you're thinking? Yes, especially with a freakin' Big Muff. Lots of folks don't realize that the transistors really aren't "biased correctly." It's not that it matters, unless you're trying to make it into "something hi-tech," which it will simply never be (IMO)!
IM
HO, the mark of an innovator will rarely be represented by starting with a pre-existing product, and claiming to properly re-engineer it. It's not to say that their efforts are wasted, just that we probably shouldn't be so liberal throwing tons of kudos. That said, I never hold my breath waiting for products that aren't (heavily) derived from other things. Why? It's hard to make money that way, so the innovator has to do it for the love of innovation. And that doesn't put food on the table.
