# Is the photography industry analogous to the music industry?



## EricO (Jul 6, 2011)

1. It used to be that musicians could play instruments and some could even read music 
2. Todays musicians (and their music) lack talent, creativity, originality, and quality 
3. There are many times more people making music these days with all of the computer software thats out there 
4. If you strip away music videos, dancers and the sampling of other musicians music most musicians are exposed as talentless 
5. The fans of this mediocre art form are oblivious to the lack of quality in the music 
6. Its becoming harder to earn money because of all of the techno advances that allow a mediocre artist to make music without having real skills 
7. The marketing of the music is making it harder for the artist to earn money 
Im still listening to and preferring music from the 80s and still using cameras from the 80s and 90s. 
Would you care to list the analogies to photography to these bullets?


----------



## Bitter Jeweler (Jul 6, 2011)

I think you are making sweeping generalizations.


----------



## compur (Jul 6, 2011)

I agree with the OP -- the photo industry is very analogous to the music industry (I was a musician many years ago).  Other industries too I suppose. Technology is being used as a substitute for real talent and ability.


----------



## one90guy (Jul 6, 2011)

I would have to agree with Bitter Jeweler. I use a digital to take test shots. Then I use a Argus C-3 or maybe a Ricoh Diacord. So where would that put me?


----------



## Vautrin (Jul 6, 2011)

What you're mostly talking about is cost and difficulty of entry.

Years ago, if you wanted to be a muscician, you had to really bust your ass on an instrument.
Years ago, if you wanted to be a photographer, you had to really bust your ass shooting film.

These days, if you bought an apple you have the tools to make studio quality music
These days, if you paid a few hundred for a nikon, you have the tools to make quality photos

Granted access to equiptment doesn't make the muscician or photographer.

But it can make things easier.

Look at olympus.  They have a new software algorithm to tweak things like saturation, sharpness, etc., to make images more desirable to look at.

Great example of how they are taking something that used to be a hard won skill and making it (much) easier to do


----------



## e.rose (Jul 6, 2011)

I compare the music industry to photography all the time.  Not in the same way you are, but for every complaint I've hear a recording/sound engineer make, there is a photographic equivalent that I've hear and read photographers complain about, haha


----------



## Mike_E (Jul 6, 2011)

WB in post is photography's autotune.  Auto-Tune - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Isaac Asimov mentioned this meme a long time ago in his Encyclopedia Galactia.


----------



## EricO (Jul 6, 2011)

Yeah.  While it was ingenious that you picked up on the fact that these were not absolute truths, you answered 0% of the questions.




Bitter Jeweler said:


> I think you are making sweeping generalizations.


----------



## e.rose (Jul 6, 2011)

EricO said:


> 1. It used to be that musicians could play instruments and some could even read music
> 2. Today&#8217;s musicians (and their music) lack talent, creativity, originality, and quality
> 3. There are many times more people making &#8220;music&#8221; these days with all of the computer software that&#8217;s out there
> 4. If you strip away music videos, dancers and the sampling of other musician&#8217;s music most musicians are exposed as talentless
> ...


 


EricO said:


> Yeah.  While it was ingenious that you picked up on the fact that these were not absolute truths, you answered 0% of the questions.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Honestly... I agree with Bitter.  Your examples are *way* too generalized.

Are you a working musician or do you just enjoy it?  I'm just trying to figure out what perspective you're coming from.

1.  True... sort of.  MANY of them could read music... not "and some could even..."

2.  Not true.  MANY of them STILL have loads of talent, creativity, originality, quality, and can STILL read music... you just don't hear it on Top 40 radio... rock OR pop.

3.  True... but they would have been doing it back then had they had the technology.  It's just a sign of technological progress... and SOME of the things people are doing with those instruments... because they are instruments... as in a tool... like some of our non-camera tools in photography... are amazing and no one is able to duplicate them.  It's all about knowing your craft, and knowing the tools intimately enough to be able to use them in ways no one can dream of.

4.  Sort of true.  Again, it depends on what genere of music you're talking about.  If you're pointing this as "today's music" as in the "popular" stuff, as I feel you are, then sure it's true in most cases.   But it's also true for "old" music too.  Just because it came out of the 80's and 90's doesn't make it quality.  There was a TON of sh*t out back then too.  

5.  Very true.  Fans of today's POPULAR music, are shallow and have no idea what good music is if it raped 'em in the butt and kissed their mother.  And I use such graphic words, because that's just how DENSE most popular music lovers are.  And I'm not talking about the people that enjoy the occasional pop or pop rock or even popular alternative rock while still listening to quality music... I'm talking about all the 20 somethings of my generation that go to places like the hardware bar every weekend, get wasted and listen to the same f**ing Katy Perry song over and over again and think it's LIFE CHANGING! 

6.  True.  But again... it's always been like that.  Music throughout the decades is swamped with "mediocre" "musicians".  It just sounds worse to you because we're in a different age of music.

7.  NOT really sure what you mean by this, so I can't really give my opinion on it.

There is plenty of good music out today... it's just not the sh*t you hear on the radio.  There are REAL musicians... playing REAL instruments, writing intricate pieces of music that even the person who claims to listen to "everything" scoffs at because they don't understand it.  You can't make a statement like you did in bullet point #1 and expect people like Bitter NOT to state that you made sweeping generalizations.... because you kinda did.  

That being said... coming from an audio background... and moving to photography... there are a TON of parallel things between the two... and I don't even necessarily mean industry-wise, I just mean the arts themselves.  The only difference to me is that audio is an auditory art, while photography is visual, but their similarities never cease to astound me.  :sillysmi:


----------



## EricO (Jul 8, 2011)

Thanks for your comments.





compur said:


> I agree with the OP -- the photo industry is very analogous to the music industry (I was a musician many years ago). Other industries too I suppose. Technology is being used as a substitute for real talent and ability.


----------



## EricO (Jul 8, 2011)

Someone shared this documentary with me that shares my sentiments.  The first minute is in Dutch.

Videozone


----------



## djacobox372 (Jul 11, 2011)

I don't really remember the top 40 being any better in the 70s and 80s then it is today.

One thing that will never change is older people insisting that the new generation is inferior, even in the face of massive evidence to the contrary.


----------



## Derrel (Jul 11, 2011)

The photography industry is analogous to life in general.


----------



## den9 (Jul 12, 2011)

stop listening to the radio, theres good music out there with talented artists.

who cares what other people are doing, tune into some college radio and keep shooting film and dont worry about all the soccer moms with their consumer grade dslr's. keep producing quality photographs and show everyone up.


----------



## Stephen.C (Jul 12, 2011)

Just because people have the tools, doesnt make them into carpenters. 
Sure, there will be more crapola from people who wont actually learn their tool, but also, the more affordabilty is giving anyone a chance to learn.


----------



## subscuck (Jul 12, 2011)

EricO said:


> 1. It used to be that musicians could play instruments and some could even read music



I'm not sure how you can be a musician and *not *play an instrument. In the world of Rock, reading music has *always *been very rare. The overwhelming majority of rock musicians considered "Icons" can't/couldn't read music.



> 2. Todays musicians (and their music) lack talent, creativity, originality, and quality



Subjective statement at best. If you can't quantify it, don't make a statement like this. This is *personal opinion*, nothing more. I would hardly call Pearl Jam, Queens of the Stone Age, Widespread Panic, to name but a very few currently active bands, as lacking in talent, creativity, originality or quality.



> 3. There are many times more people making music these days with all of the computer software thats out there



Do you have any idea what a 4 track machine cost in 1964? Or what a 12 or 24 track machine cost in the 70's or 80's? Tascam revolutionized home recording in the 80's with a 4 track all in one unit that utilized cassette tape for about $400. Recording technology has only gotten better and cheaper since, and all major recording studios (and film studios) utilize this newest, latest and greatest computer technology.



> 4. If you strip away music videos, dancers and the sampling of other musicians music most musicians are exposed as talentless



Sounds like you're mostly referring to pop/rap/hip hop here. And... I agree. Always have.



> 5. The fans of this mediocre art form are oblivious to the lack of quality in the music



This has *always* been true of any type of pop music. Even in the 80's. My favorite quote from John Lydon (aka "Johnny Rotten"): If it's safe, and fits nicely into your record collection, it's probably crap.



> 6. Its becoming harder to earn money because of all of the techno advances that allow a mediocre artist to make music without having real skills



It's never been easy to make money in music, irregardless of how skilled you are. Ditto photography. For every truly gifted musician/photographer who "makes it", there are tens of thousand who are *at least as good*, who don't. Roll of the dice, plain and simple. Always has been, always will be.



> 7. The marketing of the music is making it harder for the artist to earn money



Labels and managers have *always* screwed the artist. They make their money off of touring and royalties, not record sales.



> Im still listening to and preferring music from the 80s and still using cameras from the 80s and 90s.



And how many of those bands still have active major label contracts? Most of them play "Club Holiday Inn", or play together in these has beens of rock tours that are so popular every summer. If you look to MTV or the radio as your "proof" that there isn't any good music today, all I can say is the radio has never been anything more than a source for what the record labels are pushing, and MTV is simply pushing the flavor of the month. Even the best bands of your cherished 80's were seldom heard on the radio or seen on MTV. IMHO, you seem to be like most people, i.e., the music you grew up with is the best, everything before or after is junk. I listen to music from the 1700's all the way up to today. There is both excellent and garbage in *all *eras of music. Just gotta know where to look.


----------



## compur (Jul 12, 2011)

subscuck said:


> If you can't quantify it, don't make a statement like this.



:hail: :salute: :hail: :salute: :hail: :salute: :hail: :salute:


----------

