like yes i obviously know why this philosophy exists and why people say it so much, and yes, there is validity to it. but it only makes sense as a way to confront one specific situation: the neophyte artist who first put paint on canvas two weeks to a year ago, finds their work unsatisfying (insert entire ira glass "killer taste" quote here) and has come to people they consider Better Artists to ask "am I using the wrong brushes?"
yes, it's valid to reply to that person by saying that, you know, da vinky could still have painted the mona lisa with a house painting brush dipped in cowshit. that's true and poignant, but people love to throw this phrase around the same way forum nerds use "RTFM", as a shutdown to any and all questioning about technique and tools, and that's where it becomes insulting, dismissive, and often just wrong.
i cannot tell you how many times i've seen someone reply "RTFM" to a question that is not answered in the manual. and I cannot tell you how many times i've seen someone ask about technique or tools and get told "just try harder sweety :)" tools matter beyond an objective measure of quality.
yes, two paintbrushes may be "basically the same", two pencils might be "basically the same", and a skilled artist can notionally produce anything they like with dollar store versions of either one. but a brush with a particular texture lends itself to specific kinds of results, and even as an extremely inexperienced artist I can tell you that there is a massive difference between shading with a #2 Ticonderoga and doing the same thing with a Blackwing. they are "the same", but they aren't the same.
but that's not even the sort of thing i'm talking about. i'm talking about people insisting that DSLRs and smartphones can readily take the same pictures, or acting like "what guitar do i need to make speed metal" is somehow not a valid question (it's an ibanez RG, you want an ibanez RG.) or even worse, people suggesting that music or art software is all interchangeable.
christ. christ almighty
an artist COULD make the same picture in photoshop and krita, but if they aren't straining as hard as they can to consciously make that specific image, the software is going to heavily influence the result. a musician COULD make the same song in ableton or FL studio or reason, but if they are starting from scratch and working organically it is very likely that that won't happen. and that's only considering the physical structure of the various UIs and how they push the creator towards specific ways of making and using patterns and automation, not even considering the likelihood that they're using a completely different set of tone generator plugins. nobody would say that a trumpeter would still be a trumpeter if they bought a clarinet instead of a trumpet.
my videos wouldn't even look the way they do if I was still using goddamn Adobe Premiere, because while they're both notionally NLEs, the visual effects that are readily craftable in Resolve are very different than in Premiere. and like... canon cameras shoot redder than nikon. yeah, you're gonna swim against that current, you're going to recolor everything in lightroom anyway, but the fact that every one of your pictures is just warmer than the same picture shot on another brand of camera, and in ways that are not fully and automatically corrected by dragging the color temp slider, fucking matters. don't get me started on film stock. art is inseparable from the tools used to make it.
and i mean... all of this is also ignoring the simple fact that it's often nicer to use better tools, and if someone asks "what's the best tool," you could just... tell them? and let them waste their money on it and learn a valuable lesson in the process? answering a question with a brand and model is literally easier than replying with a scolding, every single time. it's free.
I think there’s also a page or two to be written about the appropriateness of the tool with regards to the artist.
Let’s keep with Gravis’s guitar analogy here: maybe the Wizard neck design on the Ibanez RG gives you cramps because it’s too thin or the large radius means you press down on it too hard. Maybe when you play or practice sitting down the Strat/Superstrat body shape means you have to twist your body in a way that has a nonzero chance of immediately making your back hurt. I know the former is something people struggle with when then first get a new “serious” “shredder” guitar after getting started and spending their first few months or even years on like a cheap Strat or Tele, and the latter is something I struggle with whenever a guitar shop just has a short stool.
Not only that, there are a lot of other speed metal guitar gods who don’t use an Ibanez RG, or even an Ibanez at all. Marty Friedman has used Jacksons for decades, Yngwie Malmsteen’s entire aesthetic is tied extremely tightly to a classic Fender Stratocaster with scalloped frets, Dimebag Darrell’s guitar had always been the same shape but was either a Washburn custom or a Dean ML, Rusty Cooley and Michael Angelo Batio use custom and signature Deans, not to mention how Ibanez competes very intensely with ESP for the hands of the Japanese visual kei scene.
The point I’m trying to make is not to counteract Gravis’s, absolutely not, because his point still stands with the first example I brought up: yes, switching directly from a Tele to an RG is going to hurt for the first few weeks, because it is constructed and designed that much differently, and you are learning a completely different philosophy of technique that will let you play faster and more accurately. What I’m saying is that as a professional, you need to analyse what you need to do for your task, and how you yourself will get the task done, in order to then determine which of the tools that are or can be made available to you are appropriate for how you are going to do the task.
Not too long ago there was an Adam Savage video where he refers to how the first few years, sometimes decades, even, of a professional’s life, is characterised by Tool Acquisition. It is the time in your life as you learn and get better and even as that slows down as you get closer and closer to maestro expertise, you still have the opportunity to experiment with all the different tools available and see which ones are work for you and which ones are not. And If they all aren’t, hey, you also have the rest of your life to try and carve out your own niche and get that specific tool made.
Most people see tools as Things To Do Specific Tasks. I think their purpose is to make your life easier.
Oh yeah, and I should be clear, I don't mean everyone who wants to play speed metal should have an RG. What I mean is, if you walk up to me and say "I don't have a guitar, I haven't played guitar, I want to play speed metal, what should I get," I'm gonna tell you to get an RG - and there's a really good chance that I just helped you become an artist faster and easier than you otherwise would have.
As soon as any amount of actual experience, any personal knowledge whatsoever enters the picture, that answer may become invalid. Hell, I don't even play guitar! This is a half-remembered adage from various tutorials and musicians I knew over 10 years ago, when I was contemplating learning to play metal. I would not present myself as an authority on guitars, but if you've never played one, then you aren't even an authority on yourself.
When we're talking about a $300 investment that can probably be flipped on Craigslist if it really doesn't work out, I'm gonna go with the cliche recommendation, because if I tell you "go with your heart :)", you're gonna walk out of that guitar store with some off brand hollowbody with a bigsby trem, and that'll be on me
