Rogue":2nvs2ixe said:
Zachman":2nvs2ixe said:
I would say they recognized and utilized good gear, and defined for themselves what gear they preferred, and required.
Possibly, but I doubt it. I'd say they had to play what they could get to play the venue. They didn't have the money and credit we do, nor the options. They played, figured out how to play to the amp, and thus defined what is good tone.
Back in the day-- The guys in America used Fender, Sunn, and Gibson because that's what there was mostly, and it was cheaper, same as those on the other side of the pond using Vox and Marshall.
Either way, everyone uses what they use. Those restricted by budgets, likely have to compromise where those who aren't, don't. In the end, ALL gear are mere tools to accomplish a job. Clearly not all jobs are equal, nor are players.
Just because one can play doesn't mean one knows shit about engineering their gear, and vice versa, just because one has great gear doesn't mean one can play anything interesting enough to motivate one to listen.
Great gear doesn't guarantee great results, but it does provide the possibility of a specific range of results, and while good tone is subjective, there is such a thing as consensus... so those who are aspiring toward a tone goal are more likely to get closer irrespective of their playing prowess, when using better/appropriate gear, than if being restricted by lesser/inappropriate gear.
Obviously the point of it (from a musicians stand point) -- is making music-- as opposed to a collector, hobbyist, manufacturer or retailer.
Either way, arguing on a GEAR forum-- about the merits of playing vs gear seems silly to me. No gear= No playing and NO tone.