Brief Summary

In some areas of the pro audio and musical instrument market, much of the most exclusive equipment is bought by collectors and well heeled amateurs rather than professionals. Is harmful or of benefit to the industry?

Going Deeper

In a recent Facebook post James Richmond shared a story about how Gibson had launched a 1959 Collectors Edition reissue of the PAF humbucker pickups as found on that most coveted (and valuable) of electric guitars, the 1959 Les Paul. The specifics aren’t particularly important to the point I'm going to make, it’s a loving recreation of original design with meticulous attention to detail and new analysis techniques making it the best ever available. You get the idea. The remarkable thing about these pickups is that this limited run is expected to sell for $1000 a pair, over 5 times the price of a quality aftermarket equivalent.

This isn’t a guitar blog so we’ll leave the pickup talk to one side but the phrase which jumped out at me in the post on Facebook was a suggestion that this was using the ‘Harley Davidson playbook’. A phrase I was unfamiliar with but immediately understood.

The Harley Davidson Playbook

Harley Davidsons are odd motorcycles. If you want a ‘good’ motorbike you don't buy one of these. But that would be to miss the point of why these bikes exist in the way they do today. People who buy Harley Davidsons don't want to buy a motorbike, they want to buy a Harley Davidson. It’s practicality and value for money are irrelevant. The object itself is different and, in a very real sense, beyond comparison. People want them because they want them, whether or not they are practical, useful or value for money. The objects themselves are to some degree fetishised by the people who desire them.

Would a professional motorcyclist buy a Harley Davidson? No. They aren't fast enough to race, they're too impractical for a dispatch rider (I know some US police use them but let’s not get too deep on this example). They are there to be seen and appreciated by the people who enjoy them. In the same way returning briefly to the Gibson pickup example, the fact that these pickups are a “Collectors Edition '' and come with an attractive display case and associated case candy suggests that few of these pairs of pickups will ever actually be installed on a guitar. Their utility has become secondary to their cultural significance.

Inevitably I am seeing parallels between the more obsessive fringes of the guitar community and studio engineers. Staying with instruments for a moment it does strike me as interesting that in so many cases busy professional musicians have choose equipment differently to well-heeled amateurs. I've seen enough collectors with really top-flight instruments compared to pro working bands with gear which is good but ultimately replaceable to treat with scepticism any idea that quality of musicianship and price of gear share a direct correlation. So in that case, who exactly is expensive gear for?

Statement Of Intent

Engineers and Guitar enthusiasts overlap in more ways than just the fact that some people fall directly into both camps. Both are more than just interested in the equipment that they use, they enjoy it often as an end in itself. The gear they use has more significance than a mechanic’s choice of spanner. As well as being tools, the gear we find in studios is also to some degree indicative of who that engineer is. To quote Luke “gear often represents "a statement of intent”.

When someone buys an original U47, or even one of the top end clones, who is that purchase intended to please? The audience, the artist or the engineer? I’m not suggesting that choosing to use a U47 is a poor choice but I am suggesting that buying one is a decision which doesn't really stack up in the cold light of day.

I could of course be talking about any statement piece of equipment which enjoys status because of what it is rather than just what it does. I could have just as easily chosen the Neve BCM10 or a Fairchild compressor. A DAD AX64 is an expensive piece of equipment but it earns its place in any studio because of what it can do rather than capitalising on an association with a particular back catalogue or sensibility. Many professionals are more likely to invest in quality conversion and monitoring than in esoteric outboard. They will use the best gear (as defined by their experience and tastes) that they can on any given project but that doesn’t necessarily mean that they own it and sometimes they might hire it on a per budget basis.

Investment Vs Possession

Audio professionals are running businesses and as such investments and equipment needs to represent both good value for money and a return on that investment. Equipment may appear expensive but if the return on that investment justifies that investment then there is still a business case for the expenditure. For example a vintage console enjoys more cachet than an S6, but the business case in terms of productivity is much easier to make for the S6 than it is for the console, however lovely it might be. It has value because of what it does rather than how it makes you feel.

Equipment choice isn't always as straightforward as we might imagine but returning to the original question, who is expensive equipment for? I’d suggest that it’s either for the audience because it sounds better than anything else, or its for the artist because it makes them feel they have made the right choices to make their performance as good as it can be, or it’s for the engineer because of all of those reasons, but also because it satisfies them artistically and professionally. It can of course be for all of these reasons but I find it interesting to unpack this as the one person it probably isn’t for is for the accountant!

Who Cares?

I discussed how the idea of the Harley Davidson playbook applies to professional audio with some members of the team. There were certainly nods of recognition at the possibility that a deep knowledge and appreciation for gear can potentially descend into an unhealthy fetishisation of gear. A refreshing point of view was offered by Ashea who thought that in her experience most clients usually don’t know or care about gear. The only time they do care is when you might want or need to reassure them that they are getting the best possible results, perhaps because they aren’t feeling comfortable or they have had results in the past which didn’t meet their expectations. A good point. If things are sounding great no-one should be wondering whether a real U47 would sound better or whether the pickups on the guitarist’s Les Paul are exactly the same as a ’59.

Dom Morley agreed with Ashea and went one step further: “clients don’t care about the particular gear you use, and you should avoid any that do. A client that fetishises gear puts details of equipment brand above their own performance and really misses the point of why they are making a record”.

He also supported the well-heeled amateur who spends money on recording equipment (or synths etc). It’s as good a hobby as any other, and they are filling the coffers of equipment manufacturers which allows them to develop and innovate more. It’s easy to be critical of collectors but there are so many small-scale manufacturers of modules and anyone giving them support has to be of benefit to the industry..

‘Amateur’ literally means lover and if the most expensive equipment is bought by the people who love it it really doesn’t matter if its earning them money using it as long as its supporting the brands who create the gear professionals need. I think it would only be an issue if the products brands made no longer met the needs of professionals. What do you think?