There's no reason, with hundreds of aspiring producers and engineers, that a good band with limited resources couldn't cut a great album for $1k instead of $100k. Given, of course, that the band could find a producer willing to work for the same reasons they want to play.
Not sure if the post is trying to be offensive, or if it's simply trying to help (though not clearly) the conversation.
"There's a lot more to recording a band than having an expensive microphone."
Indeed there is. Great point. Really great. Having _multiple_ good microphones is just one tiny necessity. It's just one tiny expense compared to everything else, and so that is why I linked to _one_ item. Do you want me to provide links to mixing boards, high-end reel-to-reels, synths, pianos, rental prices on orchestras, estimated costs of studio musicians, singers, engineers, producers, etc, etc? Because all of those things cost more than even very expensive microphones.
Hope I've cleared up the bewilderment.
But you've obviously missed the idea: the gap between what you can make with mediocre equipment and top-notch equipment is closing fast. In the old days, you needed good mics because analog equipment needed high quality input. With digital processing and recording, you can get close with a mic that costs $200 (which, if you had a good marketplace for borrowing/sharing equipment, you might only pay $5 for the weekend).
No. In the old days, home equipment had one track, and studio equipment had one track. Sgt. Pepper was recorded on a 4-track--what distinquished them were the things that you just can't get in your garage: Studio-quality accoustics, a vast array of equipment, world-class instruments and studio musicians, producers, arrangers, etc.
Yeah, if you want to be the next White Stripes, okay, maybe you can pull it off. But then you aren't dealing with "great albums" by any measure.
Sorry about all this; it just bugs me when people think things come cheap when they don't.