Photography and Music

I'm not sure if this is the right place to post this.

I am a musician, and I also enjoy photography. I just browsed through the "Editor's Picks" on 500px, and it reminds me so much of what has become of modern music. For many years, a lot of "music" has been trending toward being more technology-centric, to the point where many of the elements of songs are programmed, as much as they are played. As a musician, I can pick these songs out instantly when I hear them. They are sterile, mechanical, and they have no soul.

I am not a great musician, but I have heard and played with great musicians. When they play, the music they make has flavor, and it reflects their very real style. When music is programmed instead, and all the notes are midi controlled to hit perfectly on the computer's clock, and the voices are auto-tuned to be exactly in tune, the music doesn't breathe. It has no life.

To me, the photos I'm talking about feel the exact same: Programmed on a computer. I guess it is a sure sign that I am getting old.

Can you show us some of yours so we can get an idea of what you mean?

Photos or songs.

Yeah lets see some pics.who cares what someone else thinks.you may think its great and others think its boring.what you see thru the viewfinder is yours and only yours.so enjoy shooting.you do it for your own enjoyment and soul.so enjoy.

Photographer and musician here too. High quality photographs are easy with modern camera/phone, so this make taking pictures easy and the content can be poor, cheap or insignificant. Likewise with things like Logic, Garage Band and other software, music production is easy, so easy-to-make music can also be poor, cheap or insignificant.

Here is some music I made with Logic on my computer. Production sound very professional compared to my cassette tapes of the 1980s, but then everyone else on youtube has just as good or better production.

I think I feel this connection between great and GREAT as you have explained. I have heard "Le Sacre Du Printemps" many times, but when I heard it conducted by Igor Stravinsky, even as old and feeble as he was, it was awesome. I heard "Pier Gynt" on records by Oiven Feldstadt, but when I heard it in person conducted by him it was awesome. The list goes on. There is heart and soul in works of masters. And this has nothing to do with recordings vs live music as I have heard much music live from an orchestra and then the same music live by an ORCHESTRA!

PE

I don't begrudge anyone else their preferences, that's why I said I must be getting old... I know I sound like my parents, and their parents, when I complain. I'm mostly saying the over-processing of photos doesn't "speak to me", even though it certainly involves a lot of skill that I don't have. It doesn't feel real.

I took a couple cameras to an old repair shop I didn't even know about, and spoke with the owner for awhile. The older gentleman was kind enough to give me a tour of the whole place (which was so interesting), and that was the term he used. He said film "speaks to" him.

This reminded me of a feeling I have had many times as I have tried to find newer music that I enjoy, only to find programmed music everywhere. I am not saying there is no skill involved or that others may not rightly enjoy it, only that it doesn't "speak to me".

Like I said, I must be getting old.

I'll 61 and just got back into film after 40 odd years. I understand what you're saying. I find myself looking at some of the work and saying I could never do that and I realize I can't but that will not stop me from taking my pictures.its all about pleading yourself first.

I split my time between guitar playing and photography and I am amazed at the identical issues. I play a high end acoustic guitar and high quality analog camera gear. I frequent forums for both and it seems like the same people. With photography when you look at images on line, as we do, you have to wonder the affect of digital processing and with music it is exactly the same....can you trust anything? Personal end results or personal real experience, in both cases, the real is multiples more dynamic and enjoyable.

I recently brought two theremins, one for me and one for a friend who is a musician. He has been teaching me. Other than learning to play chords on a guitar and learning to barely read music and playing simple tunes on it when I was a teenager, the instrument play the best is the turntable. I am taking the time to play each lesson well.

In respect of both photography and music, it matters a lot how it gets to you.
If it is coming to you through a phone or computer, even the most soulful product will have to excel to overcome the context.
Seek out live music, and real prints.

Ariston said:

I'm not sure if this is the right place to post this.

I am a musician, and I also enjoy photography. I just browsed through the "Editor's Picks" on 500px, and it reminds me so much of what has become of modern music. For many years, a lot of "music" has been trending toward being more technology-centric, to the point where many of the elements of songs are programmed, as much as they are played. As a musician, I can pick these songs out instantly when I hear them. They are sterile, mechanical, and they have no soul.

I am not a great musician, but I have heard and played with great musicians. When they play, the music they make has flavor, and it reflects their very real style. When music is programmed instead, and all the notes are midi controlled to hit perfectly on the computer's clock, and the voices are auto-tuned to be exactly in tune, the music doesn't breathe. It has no life.

To me, the photos I'm talking about feel the exact same: Programmed on a computer. I guess it is a sure sign that I am getting old.

Click to expand...

No, you may not be getting old. It could be a sign that your taste in music is "maturing". I have the same feeling about many of A. Adams' best photographs as well as some of John Sexton's "Quiter" pictures. I also especially like many of Craig Varjabedian's pictures of New Mexico and the West. Like "well played" music, I think I am getting the "feel" of each of these photographer's work. Why is it that people think they are "getting old" when their "tastes" mature? I have had musicians describe just what you did about modern renditions of music, both classic and otherwise..........Regards!

Same here, I do both music and photography (amateur in both cases.) I enjoy mostly classical and jazz and play bass with symphonic orchestras and a big band. Lots of fun.

I concur on the "sterility" of modern recordings, mainly pop: mostly computer generated or corrected. I saw a youtube video where the presenter was stating that the ability to correct any deviation in pitch or time (for instance, the drummer being a bit early or late for aesthetic reasons) killed the soul of the music. An analogy can be drawn with digital photography, where $5,000 lenses and digital correction of the few remaining imperfections are heavily used.

I recently discovered the Phase 4 Stereo series: recordings made by Decca in the '60s with some of the most renowned conductors and orchestras of the time. The sound engineers went bonkers during mixing, just "because they could" with the new technology at their disposal. The result is, hmmm, interesting while sometimes borderline bad taste. Certainly the Lomography of music! Definitely worth hearing, particularly if you are already familiar with the pieces. Just went through Dvorak 9th and Symphonie Fantastique this morning, those recordings are certainly moving!
https://www.theabsolutesound.com/articles/the-decca-phase-4-stereo-concert-series/
Disclaimer: you might not want to hear those a second time, so give them a try with your Spotify (or similar) before committing to buying the CDs!

I took up tuba about a year ago. I guess that goes along with my 8x10.

Taking a different tac on this thread, advances in music has been dependent upon technological advancement as has been photography. My own instrument, the harp, was incapable of playing much classical music until the invention of the double action harp. The piano was a great advancement over the harpsichord, and the Steinway a great advancement among pianos. The invention of valves for brass instruments was a great advancement. Not to forget Richard Wagner’s quest for a particular sound with his Wagner tuba. And where would jazz be without the inventions of Mr. Sax and Mr. Hammond’s electric organ. And don’t forget the vibraphone.

Also, las with making music, a camera can’t be forced. Nor can pictures be made consistently without practice.
As for the similarity of musical pieces and photographs, both require structure and thought in composition.

I won’t get into the similarities of rock and digital.

guangong said:

Taking a different tac on this thread, advances in music has been dependent upon technological advancement as has been photography.

Click to expand...

Very true. However, the classical music world for one is very conservative and reluctant to adopt new technologies. For instance, new materials (such as carbon fiber) for violin making or bow making. One of my bows is carbon fiber, made by a renowned luthier, and is truly excellent (and expensive) - a perfect match to my instrument. But because of the many cheap carbon bows on the market, carbon bows have this kinda "meh" reputation in orchestras. I believe carbon string instruments, too, can bring a lot of advantages but no one even dares thinking about playing one. I might be totally wrong in my views here, but this is the impression I got over the years.

guangong said:

Taking a different tac on this thread, advances in music has been dependent upon technological advancement as has been photography. My own instrument, the harp, was incapable of playing much classical music until the invention of the double action harp. The piano was a great advancement over the harpsichord, and the Steinway a great advancement among pianos. The invention of valves for brass instruments was a great advancement. Not to forget Richard Wagner’s quest for a particular sound with his Wagner tuba. And where would jazz be without the inventions of Mr. Sax and Mr. Hammond’s electric organ. And don’t forget the vibraphone.

Click to expand...

These are good points. There have been many advances that have helped the artist perform, or to create. Those seem to be what you are talking about. What I am talking about are the advances that are taking the artist out of the performance, like mentioned above with computer generated "corrections."

Photography is heading the same way, with AI being introduced into the editing big time. But I feel confident in saying that, no matter how good the AI gets, it can never edit enough to produce photos like what NB23 has shared right here on Photrio.

The strange thing to me is that I see wonderful photographs from talented people, that I could never hope to capture, and that are already amazing in their own right, but are edited to look like CG. I recognize that this is simply my preference, which doesn't mean that others' preferences are wrong and mine are right. I guess that is kind of the point I'm making... is that preferences have passed me by.

Maybe I will accept Arklatexian's generous take, that my tastes are simply "maturing."

Perhaps many of the images on 500px look sterile to you because of all the over-ambitious editing done on them to "clean them up", creating a world simply to perfect too be true. Like in music, taking a recording of a very good vocal take and running it through auto-tune. Or taking an acoustic guitar recording and painstakingly editing out every little string squeak between notes.

TheRook said:

Perhaps many of the images on 500px look sterile to you because of all the over-ambitious editing done on them to "clean them up", creating a world simply to perfect too be true. Like in music, taking a recording of a very good vocal take and running it through auto-tune. Or taking an acoustic guitar recording and painstakingly editing out every little string squeak between notes.

Click to expand...

Makes sense to me...but the only serious music in our house (other than Netflix et al) is my girlfriend's harp and my jazz guitar.

I think I can sum it up as some people can, and most people can't. Technology lets the "can'ts" into the mix and it shows. Can't sing but you look good? no problemo. Use auto tune. Technology allows the "posers" in the door. Of course technology can be used effectively too. I think about modern movies shot digitally by real artists. It isn't really the technology that makes things sterile, it is the people using the technology.

I play guitar too and I wouldn't call myself a musician. It is sad though that I am probably better than a lot of what you can hear these days. Listen to live music where the fakery is absent. Most of it is absolutely horrible. I blame a lot of this on younger musicians who grew up with the technology to fix their mistakes so they never practiced their way into anything. They never had the "that's not good enough, do it again" way into being better.

One thing I've noticed as I've gotten older is genres mean less to me than talent now. I'll pay attention to true talent without regard if it is a pop song or heavy metal or rock or whatever.

And as far as photography goes, it doesn't matter to me whether someone used digital or film, only the talent with which they apply their ideas.

Patrick Robert James said:

I blame a lot of this on younger musicians who grew up with the technology to fix their mistakes so they never practiced their way into anything. They never had the "that's not good enough, do it again" way into being better.

Click to expand...

Point well taken. I am not a great musician, but I have played with people who I consider to be GREAT musicians. The one thing they all had in common is that they were absolutely obsessed with their craft. An amazing bass player I once knew WOULD NOT stop practicing between takes in the studio. The rest of us lesser musicians just hung out, talked, and wasted time; but not him. I know very well the reason why so many are so much better than me... and that includes photography.

I also feel that there is a correlation of technology and the "feeling" of music. I have a degree in audio production, aka studio engineer (which I never used, it just allowed me and my band to use the college recording studio for free!). 2 things that I feel strongly about film and being a musician

1) The digital camera remind me of what I will call "studio musicians". to me, theses people are the ones who needed (and I recorded their albums so I know first hand) 25+ takes to get the song right. they knew how to play their instruments but where not passionate or masters of them. they knew that it would take them many takes but didn't care. in the end they would get something that they felt was good enough. reminds me a lot of the thousands of digital photographers who I see at places like yosemite. They spray and pray that 1 shot out of the 200 they took at 8fps will come out. true musicians, to me, are the ones who play live and have feelings in their performances. any player can record a song, but it takes someone who has some sort of mastery of their instrument to be a great live performer. that's why, when it comes to rock music, I always prefer live recordings over studio ones. there just seems to be more life in them.

2) the invention of the drum machine. being a drummer first hand, this was a real killer for me. yes it helped me when writing music, but it, for me, killed the feeling of what my sons generation calls music. as a drummer playing certain songs, I was able to really control the FEAL of a song, by laying back a little, almost to the point of dragging it along, or push it full on ahead, to the point of rushing it. but always keeping it in the pocket. so I could push or pull the feeling of a song, very much like a MF or LF shooter does with film. the drum machine made, to me mind, music very vertical. there is no feeling to it at all. the beat is always on, perfect in every way, very mechanical, very sterile but with no feeling. very much like digital cameras. they may be higher resolving and allow the photoshopper to apply endless amount of sharpening and HDR effects and so on, but it has no life to it. the image, like drum machine music, to me just feels sterile.

I could go on, but its just more of the same. maybe its just a gernatinoal thing and as the younger kids get older they will appreciate the old ways, so to speak, more than they do now. who knows

john

I asked icons painter who was in the tops of 500px, why pictures always needs to be computer processed. He told me - because without it nobody is going to like it.
I can't stand 500px, nor I can't stand processed voices on music radio stations.
The problem, where are plenty of better sites with normal pictures, but then I turn on the FM radio in my car the choice now is very limited. I'm not musician, but I have absolute hearing or how it is called. These recent songs with sensitized voices from those who can't sing naturally and programmed "music" are the torture for my brain. So called "classic" music is often even more torture and jazz became no music long time ago. Who with normal brain and ears could stand those violins or sax?

BTW, I see no correlation between film and digital photography. Both could be done good or awful.

I get what you're saying. I too am a musician. And I think with digital technology, there is less of an investment in time and money to become an accomplished musician or photographer these days. I can take years to get decent at a regular instrument, and a lifetime to master, but you can start churning out entire songs in a few weeks with a computer and samples. Same with photography. It can take years to figure out how to shoot, develop, and print film well in the analog realm, but a few weeks to get really good at those same steps with software. Not only that, but the lower cost of entry (almost everyone has a computer these days) makes it something that most anyone can dabble in.

Though I don't see any of that as an actual problem. If anything, it opens up the medium to more people, which is a good thing. It also frees people to pursue things that were previously beyond the limitations of the old ways.

To me, the real problem is the way in which they are consumed. People no longer buy photographs and studying them. They glance at them on Instagram. There's no investment of either time or money. They no longer sit and attentively listen to albums. They put them on the background while doing other tasks. People don't invest the time and mental energy into consumption that they once did. There used to be an appreciation for the innovative and unique. Now, the appreciation mainly lies within trends. Something happens. It's the next big thing. Everyone jumps on board. And then that gets abandoned when the next big thing comes out. The innovation that once drove these industries is largely dead, as they've become more fashion than art. People are no longer using these mediums as means of self expression, but rather as commodities to help boost their online profile. I mean, how many songs written today sound that much different from songs from the late 90's?

So, I have no problem with all of these digitally created songs made purely of samples. I have no problem with digital photos where the saturation has been either pushed or cut to the extreme. I do have problems, however, with how every song pretty much sound like every other song, and every picture pretty much looks like every other picture. And the reason why is because it's safe. People have proven that they like it. People will like other things similar to things they already like. So it's profitable. But true artistry has always been about taking risks. And it's the risk taking that's disappeared. It seems that either everyone is afraid to fail or afraid to like something unproven. And that's what's making this last decade so bad as far as art goes.

But I don't fear it. It's a cycle. Much like the 80's, which was a pretty bad time for art (and there was some good stuff in the 80's, just not as much as there was in the surrounding decades), it will pass when people get tired of the same old, same old. It's cyclical in nature. Once aspiring artists give up on trying to become internet famous (because it's virtually impossible and short lived anyway), and once consumers realize that what they're consuming is disposable and not worth keeping with them in their hearts and minds for years to come (unlike what previous generations had access to), tastes will change and art will improve.

jim10219 said:

To me, the real problem is the way in which they are consumed.

Click to expand...

Amen to that.