Sly Dunbar, 1981 – photo by Pogus Caesar

A conversation about digital photography at concert events in the comments here on this blog the other day got me thinking about the fact that music is more than just recordings of music – and that music preservation is not just about the preservation of recordings.

Recordings are typically captured ‘idealised’ audio-only presentations of musical compositions. Utterly crucial to our understanding of music cultures, but not the whole story by any means. Music is also about moments in time – performances, events and experiences.

Without getting too heavily into the critique of that sea of hands holding mobile phones aloft, all capturing their own souvenirs of a performance (and, some argue, missing the actual experience), I thought it was worth opening up a discussion about what the value of music photography is within the context of preserving music culture for future generations.

What, for instance, do these images tell us about ourselves, about culture and about music?

Larry Blackmon of Cameo, 1998 – photo by Pogus Caesar

Gail Anne Dorsey, 1988 – photo by Pogus Caesar

Selwyn Brown of Steel Pulse, 2005 – photo by Pogus Caesar

Some things to perhaps pay attention to:

First, all of these photographs were taken by one man. Pogus Caesar is a well-known music photographer, and these images all come from a forthcoming retrospective of his work.

Second, they were all taken in Birmingham, UK – though not all of the artists depicted are British.

Third, all of the photos were taken with one camera. Pogus Caesar has used the same equipment for the past thirty years and continues to do so today.

Not all of the photos are ‘official’ shots – and some of them were taken in environments that were not welcoming to photographers. While it would be pretty much unthinkable to ban cameras from live events today (most people’s phones are cameras after all), just ten years ago you would have required accreditation and permission to carry anything with a lens into a venue.

The characteristics of film compared to digital raises another interesting issue (as does the publication of the book) – which is that the photos that see the light of day are a) physical artefacts; b) scarce; and c) selected. With the advent of near-limitless digital photography, Flickr and tagging, anyone who takes photographs can upload and share everything, and the viewers of those photos get to decide what is interesting and what isn’t.

Of course, the very term ‘photographer’ becomes problematic, and a question of professionalisation or a recognisable core set of skills, rather than just the possession of something that can take photographs.

But most importantly to me, and in the context of this work, is the extent to which music photography interacts or integrates with the preservation of music culture – and the extent to which not only music recordings, but also music photography, music journalism, music flyers, music television programmes, music radio and music merchandise are also kept or lost – and the ways in which digital technologies, copyright and corporate interests impact upon that cultural aspect of music media.

In other words – what is it about these photographs that is worth preserving in the same way that the recordings these people have made are worth preserving, how can digital media contribute to their preservation, and how are issues like copyright impacting upon that dynamic?

Lots to think about here, and I’m only just getting start on this part of the terrain. Be really keen to hear your thoughts…