a question for haydn..gear philosophy.
(i'm from london uk...a product of brit science uni btw.)
please critique my position on gear
and my approach. as follows.
for some time its concerned me that many folks new to recording/songwriting
think all they gotta do to get a great golden record going is,
just get a mountain of high end gear.
some go thru lots of money in the process.
i simply note that great records in the past, like the 60's were often done
on rather little gear.
and that if the song is great, one doesnt necessarily need oodles of gear.
right now i have a pc that can do 80 tracks,
way more than needed for a good song imho.
i also build my own mic pre's.
and like to explore cheap gear often picked up used for pennies in the pound and
see what i can get outta them.
cos my theory is ..everything has a sound to it.
(my degrees in physics btw.)
even a cheap little guitar amp found for 5 quid at a pawn shop
in north london somewhere...lol.
i'm primarily a songwriter for fun and dont profess to be a
an exemplary audio mixing bloke. (i go by feel a lot.)
to cut a long story short , i feel for about 10k these days,
one can put together a nice recording set up includeing pc.
and one doesnt need to spend more.
cos i believe all the rest is writing a good song with great hooks
and a nice sound picture .
do you feel my thinking is wrong ??
feel free to blast away at a fellow brit..lol.
particularly i'm interested to know , if someone like yourself only had 10k in gear includeing pc...a few decent mics/nice ada/couple of nice mic pre's ...
could u still produce a good record.....assuming the song was great of course and the musicians. just curious.
reason i'm asking is i have many mates here that always ponder how much to spend and i often caution them on overspending.
and tell them to concentrate on the song rather than just gear.