Drumwaiter wrote:Hawk wrote:new technology is making everyone a DJ.
Just like everyone that owns a computer has a recording studio.
I loved this exchange, and it made me remember another conversation where it was pointed out that not everyone who owns a camera is a "photographer". When photographic equipment became the possession of the common man, did that industry go through the adjustment that the recording industry is right now? Probably.
I just sampled a local album this evening that was recorded at a local "studio" that immediately sounds amateur and/or "local". I understand that the artist is in agreement that the sound quality is substandard and not what they wanted going in, but they settled for what they got because they either don't know about, or think they could afford an alternative.
I do think the photographic comparison is a good one because it is a creative medium, with "quality" that is subjective and requires different degrees of detail depending on the job. No, I don't need a professional to take pictures of my dogs playing in my yard, but if I want a proper family portrait done, A pro knows how to get detail that is lost on the amateur, and can consistently get that level of product.
Would you hire me to take your wedding photos with my point and shoot digital camera? I hope not. So why do so many artists spend money with a recordist who does "production" as a hobby not a profession, for recordings that they plan to distribute and/or sell?
Yes, there is a lot of middle ground, but I'm talking about people that believe when someone says they have a "recording studio" that they have some cred, the same as if someone were selling their service as a "photographer" I would expect a level of quality with that description.
If people are happy with their end result, everything is good. I just hear too many stories where that isn't the case, but the cycle continues.
