Elephone wrote:
I'd say it's both. Depends how hung up you are about sound.
We're all pretty hung up for sound here

People don't obsess about Les Pauls, Stratocasters and Telecasters, valve amps, etc, for nothing
Well my little experience is that most people who
obsess about these things aren't really great players and musicians - and in general because they look outside their own skill. Don't get me wrong, of course any discerning person appreciates quality, and I'm the first to love a beautiful, high end instrument all shiny and lovely. But for the purpose of making music, instruments are tools, they just have to bee good enough for the job at hand. An iron hammer put nails in just as well as a diamond one. A hammer made of plastic doesn't, and that's all there is to it.
Why not have the convenience of a 90's Ibanez stunt guitar that always stays in tune, that you can play with one hand because it's absurdly easy to play (at the expense of sound) and solid State amp with digital reverb built in? Because I don't like them.
Well, liking or not liking is a personal matter, and only the individual knows why (and maybe even he doesn't). And besides that, "sound" is mostly habit, hearsay and group thinking.. but dont want to get too philosophical. The point is that if you want something that sounds like a Stratocaster, you need something that sounds like a Stratocaster, not necessarily a Stratocaster. The Ibanez will sound different. So what? Someone will like it (Ibanez has sold enough guitars to be pretty certain of it). It's not worse or better because you like it or not.
I think it depends what you're trying to do. If you mean you can create good music with any gear, if you have the taste and ingenuity, then sure. But some music is very gear-dependent. There are people who created ambient music and soundtracks in the 90s who were very reliant on certain reverb units and electronic delays. Some music is actually created 'by' the gear to greater or lesser extent.
To an extent, sure, (and it is debatable.. who invented the music and defined the rules? Certainly not the gear).... but the point we (I, at least) are trying to make is that printing to tape and expecting that to create that "sound" is like putting a mic in bathroom and expect to get a Lexicon sound. One is confusing the desired result with one small technicality which, in general, has little to do with it.
There's nothing wrong to want to have the
effect that most people associate to "tape" (that is to say. sound like the great recordings from the 70s and 80s) but the tough reality is that these records sound great because they have great musical ideas, great arrangements, great players and were recorded and engineered and mixed by very skilled people (with very poor quality equipment with respect to nowadays). People at the top of their game, master of yesterday, which were able to bend the gear they had to their will and overcome any of the many limitations it had. Guess what, the masters of today do just the same - they've just got much better quality kit in average.
In other words: the OP does not need to print to actual tape to get the effect that he thinks he will get from tape... he will get that effect by writing great music, playing it beautifully and knowing how to record and mix it (or using people who do). In other words, he needs to become a master.