Why Gear doesn't Matter

[SampleScience]

Nicked this from Gearslutz, I thought it was a good enough read to share it here:

http://www.prosoundnetwork.com/article/ ... ston/18213

[Doug1978]

Lynn Fuston doesn't say anything new in his article for you, me or 95% of the other members here at KVR.
He would have been better just to have stuck to this:
''Aspiring engineers, if you only remember one thing after reading this article, it should be this one, plus two more:
1. Use what you have. I started with one RE20 and two borrowed, no-name condensers.
2. Work hard and long at honing your craft. It took me 10 years before I started getting happy with my sounds.
3. Spend more time developing your skills and less time researching and acquiring gear.''


Yes, the habit of acquiring near-duplicates of our existing products is a waste of time (just like commenting on spurious music websites...).
It distracts and impedes the creative development of our knowledge, and undermines our confidence in what we have already got.


But to say that gear doesn't matter is bogus.
Gear does matter.
Top musicians, engineers, producers etc could of course use a budget hardware product or free software very effectively in many cases - but they don't.
Why?


And I'd rather spend a bit more money on an excellent product, for example some of the U-he synths, than go for something that I find much cheaper, but very limited and frustrating a few weeks later.
Research is key to good purchasing.


ps, I've always disliked the sweeping, unoriginal and lazy generalization (which Fuston repeats):
''Recording gear has never been so accessible and affordable in the history of mankind.
So has all this progress made music recordings “better” than they were a few generations ago?
Sadly, no.''

In many cases, yes it has.

[Acid Mitch]

But to say that gear doesn't matter is bogus.
Gear does matter.

for sure.
While agree with the premise that talent is important, so is the gear.

[SampleScience]

Gear is important and talent is too, I agree. But could we define talent in music production as being able to make the most out of a piece of gear, hence, not needing as much gear to sound good like less talented producers?

[Hink]

silly me, my gear requirements grew as my talent grew...I guess I had that wrong too

[SampleScience]

silly me, my gear requirements grew as my talent grew...I guess I had that wrong too

Same thing for me, the more I learn the more I need specific piece of equipment or specific softwares.

[chk071]

Gear is important and talent is too, I agree. But could we define talent in music production as being able to make the most out of a piece of gear, hence, not needing as much gear to sound good like less talented producers?

Yes, but what's the benefit of such a conclusion?

[SampleScience]

Gear is important and talent is too, I agree. But could we define talent in music production as being able to make the most out of a piece of gear, hence, not needing as much gear to sound good like less talented producers?

Yes, but what's the benefit of such a conclusion?

The benefit is a better understanding of what we do. But I don't think I've conclude anything here, I've just asked the question.

[Aloysius]

...

But to say that gear doesn't matter is bogus.
Gear does matter.

+1

[trimph1]

[trimph1]

[trimph1]

The above does not eradicate the need for good gear, it just shows us how talent can grow out of whatever one has..

[SampleScience]

Wow! First, I was skeptical, but when he started singing, I was truly amazed!! He's really good!

[Michael L]

Note: Steve is singing about his gear.

[Amadeus2]

Mind over matter. End of discussion.
Thank you.