1. A controversial statement to start with. This seems to be the way your list will go on. Provocative opinions presented as fact. Still, to start, you seem to be implying that so-called photographers who make photographs can't use their cameras.
But clearly on the evidence that these musicians who can't play or read do make music (whether you like it or not) and that today's photographers do produce so-called photographs both would clearly be false statements.
2. That's a lot to put into one statement. It might be true today but any truer than it was yesterday? But let's not talk about talent or creativity as no one knows what they are (see below). Originality – the idea of originality has been debunked long ago. Quality - you really cannot say that quality does not exist.
Photography and music. At the moment the only thing I'd agree with that you imply in your post is that artforms go around in circles. Endless recycling of the past. Now, The Past has always been plundered by the artists of The Present and that is the way it will always be but what I fail to see is new modes of thinking about music and photography, whatever they use as a starting point. Where I do see it is in very few individuals outside of the mainstream. I also think that it tends to be coming from those who not only embrace new technology but find new ways of thinking with the technology. It is the thinkers that produce the new art of tomorrow.
3. So what. And what's a camera? Read Vilem Flusser.
4. What is it and where does talent lie? With your reference to sampling, the late 20th Century critique of the myth of originality seems to have passed you by. At the simplest level of argument, sampling just makes the artistic strategy of copying and stealing more evident than it was 100 years ago. Creative theft. Picasso liked it ,and if done with the right amount of bare-faced insolence, so do I.
And how does this relate to photography? I don't see much evidence in the way of any sampling equivalent as technological directive in photography. More's the pity as photography is on the whole so stuck in a 20th Century rut.
5. Maybe they are looking at it from different point of view to you. Or are you actually saying that maybe they're stupid or insensitive and that you're not? And which mediocre art form are you referring to?
6. It's hard to make money because everyone is an artist/musician producing material for consumption. Like most everywhere else there are so many people being photographers that we dont need them any more. The photo is not art and the market itself is devalued.
7. Not sure what you are getting at here. Market saturation? Yes, as with all the stuff poured out by the (imo, awful) creative industries. So therefore – go underground. Find new ways to make a living from what you do . Move away from the established and industry-controlled revenue mechanisms.
In general, most of the new and creative photo art of tomorrow will be made digitally. The old photo art of yesterday will still be made today using old film cameras. This is the youthful disease of retro-mania ( to borrow Simon Reynolds' term).