Gear vs Talent...

[Jamz]

These days there's so much invested...both faith and money...into gear with the hopes that anyone purchasing will sound like a particular "idol" or pro using a piece of gear.
We had our grand opening yesterday at our new recording facility. All of the bands were excellent. However, one band...JC Satellite...comprised of 3 young kids just blew me away. They took the outdoor stage using equipment I provided for the bands. They rocked their butts off like a bunch of long time pros. No fancy gear, no gimmicks, no autotune. Keep in mind the lead guitar/lead vocalist is 11. ELEVEN!!!
Restored a bit of faith in good old rock N Roll and talent. I love gear too but no contest here. More excited by God's gift.

Check out the youtube video of "Infected" by JC Satellite

Please visit MySpace.com - Cambridge Sound Studios - NEWTOWN, Pennsylvania - Rock / Acoustic / Pop - www.myspace.com/cambridgesoundstudios

[Mr.HOLMES]

Is that a new story.
For sure we need great musicians before we gear heads begin our work.

IMO its not 99% about gear it is 99% about performance of the musicians.
Repeating myself here agian and again.

[Ken Walker]

Nice to hear this story. You can always buy gear. Talent can only be earned or hired.

[Joemamma]

Talent.

[Anselmo]

Those kids are going far if they keep at it...

[AMIEL]

wow that kid sings with balls!! and attitude! he is a young Rockstar!

[TonyBelmont]

Talent out-trumps gear 100 to 1.

It's been scientifically verified.

[cassiopamusic]

everytime i think about buying a new guitar pedal i think will this pedal help me sound better or will practicing for 5 hours straight help me sound better? i know the answer but i end up buying the pedal anyway cause im a gearslut.....and damn i wish i was that good when i was 11.that kid rocks!

[Matt Hepworth]

I've kind of decided that gear = 25% of the equation.

[dreamsongs]

Of course talent is more important than gear but everyone wants to sound as good as they can. Why compromise what you sound like ?

This is where gear comes in...

[dale116dot7]

Good gear captures talent. Bad gear can wreck it.

[theGeek]

Originally Posted by glitch

I've kind of decided that gear = 25% of the equation.

+1 on that.

I used to be the guy that thought "man, if I got a Vox Wah I could totally wail like [insert guitar player here]..."

In that process I acquired a lot of gear and, for what its worth, a good ear as to what "good guitar tone" is. I'm a total gearhead and I'm ok with that. But nothing can replace hard work. Talent is, for most of the world, is earned and you have to practice to get better. But remember that practice doesn't make perfect. Practice makes PERMANENT.

[Ross H]

We have nice gear...not great gear but nice. I have always bought popular gear by professional standards i.e. NS 10s, U87 because if my mixes sucked, I could only blame myself and not blame it on owning the wrong gear.

Funny thing about gear vs talent, is I always find myself pissed off when I am trying to "fix" a crappy song and musicians with the gear choice, editing, and plugs...but put talent in the room with a great song and you can pretty much put up some "nice" mics and pres, turn it up, and the talent kinda takes care of the rest.

Ross

[theGeek]

word. SRV on a POS Squire would STILL sound like SRV.

[Mr.HOLMES]

Of course talent is more important than gear but everyone wants to sound as good as they can. Why compromise what you sound like ?

Do not compromise on gear but waht is the need for the best guitar or the best mic pre amp if the muscian is bad.

To say it loud for all the instrumentalists here in the FORUM.
Every hour behind the computer is a lost hour behaind you instrument.

Making music is 10% Talent and 90% hard work and stamina.
And there are one of 1000 where it is 90% Talent and 10% hard work such as Mozart etc...

So I could record a great Band even with RME internal MIC Pres and it would sound great anyway... because the band is great. But today musicians believe the cure is the modern recording studio and not learning their trade right.

So I have done editing of bad Bands for too much hours.... and I am not willed to do such Jobs anymore.... the best comment was after such a Job....."Wow we have a great timing"....believe me they had no timing

[Jamz]

Here's a picture of the boys from their performance on Sunday.

[Fabi]

Talent definetely first.

Gear should be above absolute low end though, too. Especially the musicians instruments. I would rather record a good musician with a good instrument with a m-Box and a xy of sm57, than a good musician who is struggeling on his 50€ cheapo guitar through an EAR pre and Apogee converters!!

So my list would be:
1. Talent
2. Musicians equipment
3. Technicians equipment

Sorry guys don´t hate on this and don´t get me wrong
I loooooooove gear

BTW I often listen to very crappy recordings just because the performance is great. If both comes together though

[gsqd]

To play devil's advocate:

The more talent and raw ability you have in front of high end gear the more you'll get out of your high end gear!

Those 2% increments in gear quality often go hand in hand with the ability of the talent to utilise and show it off.

<GM>

[not_so_new]

Originally Posted by theGeek

word. SRV on a POS Squire would STILL sound like SRV.

This is such utter crap, Internot inspired BS.

As a guitar player for the last 35 or so years I can attest that the more I connect with my instrument the better I play.

On top of that plug SRV into Kirk Hammet's guitar rig and see how much it sounds like SRV still. Yes the LICKS would still be the same, we all have muscle memory and things just come out like "us." THAT is what people are saying when they say "SRV on a POS Squire would STILL sound like SRV".. it's beacuse he would still have a style.

Style is not what we are talking about here.

Different amps sound different PERIOD.

Tell me with a straight face that this.....

http://www.randallamplifiers.com/pro...6L61.PAUL1.mp3

... sounds like this....

http://www.randallamplifiers.com/pro...EL34.PAUL1.mp3

Same "talent" with different gear, sounds pretty different to me.

This is not to say that talent does not count. I am just saying that it is the whole shooting match that matters not just one piece or another. The room, the gear, the players, the arrangement, the song, the people on the other side of the glass, everything matters and makes up the whole recording.

To single out one element like "talent" as the only one that really matters is very short sighted, just as short sighted as someone singling out another element like "gear" would be.

[Jim Williams]

I thought Robert Johnson settled this 60+ years ago. Hendrix often jammed at clubs and just brought a left strung guitar. He would use whatever amp was there. Funny, it always sounded like Jimi.

He would have a small amp, maybe a Princeton back stage in the dressing room to warm up. Funny, it always sounded like Jimi. Someone else would plug in the same amp, it didn't sound like Jimi.

Sometimes he would use other amps than the Marshalls while recording. Voodoo Child is Hendrix playing though a Fender Bassman. Funny, it still sounds like Hendrix. I saw him play at Devonshire Downs in '69. He had a white strat with a Telecaster neck fitted locally as he brought no gear and prefered maple necks at that time. He was supplied with 6 dreaded post CBS silver face Dual Showman's with 15" JBL speakers.

Funny, it sounded just like Hendrix. Anyone else would have sounded like Buck Owens on 10.

Jim Williams
Audio Upgrades

[not_so_new]

Originally Posted by Jim Williams

I thought Robert Johnson settled this 60+ years ago. Hendrix often jammed at clubs and just brought a left strung guitar. He would use whatever amp was there. Funny, it always sounded like Jimi.

He would have a small amp, maybe a Princeton back stage in the dressing room to warm up. Funny, it always sounded like Jimi. Someone else would plug in the same amp, it didn't sound like Jimi.

Sometimes he would use other amps than the Marshalls while recording. Voodoo Child is Hendrix playing though a Fender Bassman. Funny, it still sounds like Hendrix. I saw him play at Devonshire Downs in '69. He had a white strat with a Telecaster neck fitted locally as he brought no gear and prefered maple necks at that time. He was supplied with 6 dreaded post CBS silver face Dual Showman's with 15" JBL speakers.

Funny, it sounded just like Hendrix. Anyone else would have sounded like Buck Owens on 10.

Jim Williams
Audio Upgrades

I guess you missed the point of my post as usual Jim.

What you think "sounds like Jimi" is his PLAYING. The notes he chose because of his upbringing and the melodies he had in his head. I hear a huge difference between all the different gear that Jimi played in his short recording career, his playing was always AMAZING but his tone changed quite a bit.

Again, if "tone is all in the fingers" then tell me that you don't here a difference between these two clips. They are the same "fingers" on the same pass recorded out to two different amp tones.

If you can't hear a difference between these two clips then you might want to get another vocation there Jim.

http://www.randallamplifiers.com/pro...6L61.PAUL1.mp3

http://www.randallamplifiers.com/pro...EL34.PAUL1.mp3

[dreamsongs]

Originally Posted by not_so_new

I guess you missed the point of my post as usual Jim.
If you can't hear a difference between these two clips then you might want to get another vocation there Jim.

Ouch...

I think everybody's talking about different things here. What exactly are we talking about ? - innate talent, tone, technique, style or sound quality etc...

All different things...and some of these have nothing to do with gear...

[not_so_new]

Originally Posted by dreamsongs

Ouch...

I think everybody's talking about different things here. What exactly are we talking about ? - innate talent, tone, technique, style or sound quality etc...

All different things...and some of these have nothing to do with gear...

Now THAT I agree with.

My take is that when I come to GS I am talking about what takes place on this side of the glass. My clients are my clients, they have the talent that they have when they come to see me. I have only two options.

1) I can tell them to leave because I only record the best (and then look at a perpetual empty studio schedule)

2) I deal with the clients as they come and do everything in my power to take care of MY part of the process.

YES it is easier to deal with great players on great instruments but that isn't always an option. If I get handed lemons I do my damdest to make the best sounding lemon aid I can…. that's MY JOB after all.

I LOVE old blues recordings, Earl Hooker, Hound Dog Taylor, etc, but most of these recordings sound like ass. I would always take a great performance over the great recording if I was forced to choose BUT, all things being equal I would rather have these same great performances in a better sounding presentation.

I guess my point is that as "recording engineers" (I use that term loosely) it is our job to make better SOUNDING recordings. If someone thinks that will happen by just putting a Radio Shack cassette deck on a bar stool in the corner of a band practice room and because the band is HOT they are going to get the best sounding recording ever released they are sadly mistaken.

I keep saying it like a broken record, I don't know why it is so hard to understand for some people (not you man). If you want to make a recording that blows your peers socks off you should have a great band with great songs in a great sounding room. You should use great equipment and know how to use this equipment to the fullest degree and YOU better have some innate talent to match your techniques. Drop the ball on any of the above and your finished product will suffer to one degree or another.

That's it… the whole recording process in a nut shell.

[dreamsongs]

Originally Posted by not_so_new

Now THAT I agree with.

My take is that when I come to GS I am talking about what takes place on this side of the glass. My clients are my clients, they have the talent that they have when they come to see me. I have only two options.

1) I can tell them to leave because I only record the best (and then look at a perpetual empty studio schedule)

2) I deal with the clients as they come and do everything in my power to take care of MY part of the process.

YES it is easier to deal with great players on great instruments but that isn't always an option. If I get handed lemons I do my damdest to make the best sounding lemon aid I can…. that's MY JOB after all.

I LOVE old blues recordings, Earl Hooker, Hound Dog Taylor, etc, but most of these recordings sound like ass. I would always take a great performance over the great recording if I was forced to choose BUT, all things being equal I would rather have these same great performances in a better sounding presentation.

I guess my point is that as "recording engineers" (I use that term loosely) it is our job to make better SOUNDING recordings. If someone thinks that will happen by just putting a Radio Shack cassette deck on a bar stool in the corner of a band practice room and because the band is HOT they are going to get the best sounding recording ever released they are sadly mistaken.

I keep saying it like a broken record, I don't know why it is so hard to understand for some people (not you man). If you want to make a recording that blows your peers socks off you should have a great band with great songs in a great sounding room. You should use great equipment and know how to use this equipment to the fullest degree and YOU better have some innate talent to match your techniques. Drop the ball on any of the above and your finished product will suffer to one degree or another.

That's it… the whole recording process in a nut shell.

I agree with you 100%...

And I doubt anybody here that's in the trenches everyday would disagree either...

[theblue1]

Originally Posted by glitch

I've kind of decided that gear = 25% of the equation.

I'm wondering if some of us may be talking about skill behind the board -- which is something that definitely is part of the sonic quality equation. Big time.

You can have the best gear and the best engineer but if the music doesn't come alive, you'll just have a pristine recording of music no one much wants to hear.


But even there -- or maybe especially there-- I would say that knowledge, experience and a good ear in an engineer will trump gear.

I guarantee you I'd rather be recorded by an engineer I respect in a $1000 closet studio than have to be engineered by a bozo in a half million dollar studio. (That said, I'd probably try to just commandeer the session in the half mil studio... c'mon, my one chance to play with the big boys' toys. )


PS... Actually, looking above, it looks like not_so_new covered this pretty well, already. Looks to me like he has a pretty good head on his shoulders. For a gear slut...

[Jamz]

Thanks for the replies. My original intention wasn't really to start a debate...although I always wanted to post a thread with "vs" in it LOL!. My post was merely an observation.
It was refreshing to watch 3 young kids mount a stage with other bands many times their age and kick serious ass. Reminds you why you're buying the gear. Gear is good. Gear is fun...in context...Capturing a performance rather than creating the performance. My 2 cents.

[luctellier]

See my signature..

[Digitar]

Conclusion

Great gear without great talent - LACKS

Great talent without great gear - LACKS

OH WELL