Jacob’s post on Mojo

I am following a thread over at Madbean and Jacob (JMK) has some great comments.

I don’t ‘believe’ in mojo in the sense that some parts are better because they are older, rarer, extinct, or somehow have inherent ‘majick’ to them. However, I do believe in another sort of Mojo.

Have you ever held a guitar and it just blew you away, not because of it’s name, or it’s reputation, or even of it’s cost, but because it was a special instrument? It just screamed ‘play me,’ and you felt like you could be a better, more creative, more inspired musician if you owned/played through it? There’s the mojo I believe in. I believe that there are special elements to certain pieces of gear. Sometimes they’re historical, sometimes they’re personal, and sometime’s they’re just something you can’t define.

I like my mojo infused, axial caps and carbon comp companion fuzz. Why do I like it? I think it looks cool inside, and it looks cool outside. It sounds cool, and yes I ‘believe’ it sounds better than the cheapest parts used standard build NOT because they are ‘better or mojo’ parts, but because I want it to be a better pedal. Why do I believe that? Because I play better and like what that pedal does for me when I make MUSIC.

Sure, there’s BS marketing out there. But there’s a reason why Bonomassa plays his 59s, and there’s a reason we’re seeing a resurgence in old, mass produced, russian tall font Big Muffs, and there’s a reason why Mayer chooses a Dumble and a standard Fender to simultaneously play through. It isn’t the cost, or the ‘value,’ or the rarity – it’s the mystique, the special ‘je ne sai quoi’ that makes using them feel special.

I rest my case. Jon, you’re right, but you’re wrong. You’re right – mojo is ‘sometimes’ about old/rare/certain types of parts that sound better. But you’re wrong because that’s not what most people mean about mojo, and that’s real man.