In the end, I find that gear is not that important amongst those with less experience or lesser skills. The better an engineer, producer, musician etc... gets, the more the gear begins to factor in as far as importance goes.
Take this however you want
I think there's several ways that can be interpreted, with probably at least some grain of truth to all of them.
SOUR GRAPES
On the one hand, I agree that there is a bit of a sour grapes factor amongst those that do not have/cannot afford the gear. This is human nature.
GEAR SLUTS
On the other hand, the sad truth is that most (not all) of us were originally attracted to this racket because we actually love the gear first and the music second. I know I'll get a lot of flames for that, but consider these points: We spend all our time on Home Recording, not Harmony Central. The Big Boys hang out at a site that is specifically titled "gearslutz.com." Hell, if I had a buck for every interview I've read with a brand name engineer that contained the statement "I admit that I am a gear slut", I could buy that UA 2192 I've lusted after for a couple of years now. And there are far more people on this board worried about how to get their CDs to sound good then they are how to get themselevs to sound good.
CAUSE AND EFFECT
The most successful people in this business may have the most gear, but let's not mistake the chicken and the egg here. Are they successful because of the amount of gear that they have, or do they have a lot of gear because they are successful?
It's a little of both (gear lists attract clients), but mostly the gear are the rewards for talent and success; far more than talent and success are the rewards for buying gear.
RESULTS
When people tend to have a affectation for a given toy, they tend even more to find reasons justifying that affectation. Amazing how Joe Golfer has to buy himself the latest/greatest putter every year because of (fill in your technical nonsense here), yet has been three-putting since 1986. All the technical increases in golf technology in the past 40 years are all arguably justifiable or technically provable in one way or another. Yet the overall average scores and handicaps amongst people using all these high-tech clubs and balls has basically not moved more than a stroke or two - up and down - in that entire time.
For all the "improvements" in technology in the past half decage or so, and for all the penetration of that technology - both state-of-the-art and "vintage" - into the Great Masses in the past 20 years, has the quality of the average music production actually gotten any better? In every poll taken on this board in the past three years of "best sounding' or "best produced" or "best engineered" album, the same set of top five or six Usual Suspects always comes up in varying orders: Beatles (Abbey Road or Sgt. Pepper), Pink Floyd (Dark Side of the Moon), Steeley Dan (Aja era), Metallica (Black Album), Radiohead (OK Computer).
That's 1967, 1969, 1973, 1977, 1991, and 1997. Not one in the past 10 years, and most of them concentrated in the 60s and 70s. I might add that most of these albums were released before most of the people on this board were born, so it's not just a matter of nostalgia voting. Not exactly a glowing track record for the progress or effect of technology in this racket. Certainly not an indication that things are actually getting better.
IN CONCLUSION
The poor disdain the gear they can't afford, the rich and successful justify the gear they can afford.
In the end, though, it doesn't matter either way. Talent will rise to the top on both sides of the glass, regardless of the gear used, and technology is no substitute for talent.
G.