Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Bad Dog Cafe' started by JuneauMike, Mar 23, 2018.
It’s kind available right now in your pocket.
I completely disagree. I’d rather find something that suits me that have a large marketing firm decide what I listen to. That’s kind of the reason “corporate” music is the way it is. We gave them way too much power for the sake of convenience.
And it’s really not hard to find good music.
There was sooooooooo much crap back then "when we used to buy albums".
I know. Because I used to sneer at it.
Boston ? Never bought that warmed-over half-prog blow-dried bulls**t.
What is this need that old/getting old folks have of bemoaning the fact that things are different than they were when they were young ?
For me, this is a far better time than when I was young, broke, insecure, and lacked confidence - plus - all the reissues !
Did I mention the reissues ?
I'm begining to notice that you sneer at a lot of things. What's up with that? Ha, ha.
The old record model at least made some sense. An artist has a guitar and some talent, the label loans him some start-up cash to make an album. They spend money on marketing and distribution and if it blows up there's enough money to make a profit and underwrite several marginal or developing bands. If it tanks, the label eats the cost of manufacturing albums or CDs, marketing, shipping and whatever sales don't cover of recording costs. Artists advance is usually gone too. You can argue about how fair it is, but at least the risk involved was something you could understand.
Pandora or Apple have captive members, and they can get your music in front of a lot of people. But when you get down to it, it's pretty much free money for them. I don't see where they are carrying any risk. They have next to no infrastructure, just software. Yet their royalties, which I think look very generous on the surface, seem to pay less to all involved. If an album tanks, what does a streaming service lose?
I think music is way more fragmented than it used to be, but otherwise about the same. Seems like it's always been 90 percent crap, 5 percent decent and 5 percent great. What falls into the 90 percent category is personal taste.
I do think less powerful labels and the availability of tech that allows for self-produced music has made it possible to hear material that probably wouldn't have gotten made in the old days. So that's good. I wonder if Townes Van Zant would have loved the way things are now. He sure didn't stand a chance in Nashville when he was alive.
I love Boston - that guitar sound is what got me playing guitar [emoji3] and loving music. And Brad Delp’s incredible vocals. Not trying to convince you - one man’s trash is another man’s treasure. I get it. I’m just glad the record company, and John Boylan, didn’t feel the same way you did.
I'm not sure that I want to get into any of this - the performing I've done has rarely been recorded, or even in that category. All I've felt, all along, is that I really want to have the music I love on a medium I can enjoy, be it vinyl or digital, and that I can keep and keep referring back to. All the folks who have never heard good music because their format is a lossy format can keep enjoying it, even if it sounds empty to these old ears. And I prefer to purchase from the performers or those who represent them, so they get their fair share. It's only right.
Make A Great Again!
I lived through some pretty cool releases:
The White Album
The Jimi Hendrix Experience
Ummagumma (Tone Grail!)
Trans Europe Express
On Earth as it is in Heaven
Songs in the Key of Life
Goodby Yellow Brick Road
Toys in the Attic
A Night at the Opera
However... I was as thrilled to see Kix Brooks and Ronnie Dunn at the Opry recently as any other...
As a music consumer I have no interest in streaming or ITunes. I buy everything on CD's. I like to have something tangible in my hands with the album artwork and liner notes. A long time ago I once purchased many albums, then many cassettes, and now many, many, CD's. I am clearly not from the young kid demographic.
When I bought vinyl... a friend and I would buy it... evaluate the cover art and text... hang the poster, play pool, learn the riffs... figure out how the tracks were done... look up where it was recorded (in an encyclopedia), read up on the history behind the lyrics, try to find tour info... copy the logos... call radio numerous times (to support Starz or some other up-start)... move speakers...
I’m 43. I haven’t stopped buying vinyl since I started at 12. Grew up mainly on tapes and had a million CD’s in my 20’s.
I’ve found one thing. That music isn’t about the format. I don’t buy into that. So many music fanatics now that are just kind of over the top about it. It’s almost like they are a fan of vinyl more than they are of music.
I’ve also learned that a really high quality Bluetooth speaker streaming well mastered music sounds damned good. I even like how my phone sounds blasting music. Sounds kinda like a transistor radio.
I guess I drank the Kool Aid. But, teaching my kids about music, streaming on the iPad is pretty brilliant too. They can see all the album covers and I can play them samples of each album. And we can go on this little journey of musical exploration that wouldn’t be possible if I was digging through my vinyl saying “Lemme see if this has the version I wanted to play you...Wait, where did I put that record?...”
The only thing I hate is that recording artists are not getting their due. I do what I can to support. I still buy music at times. Even if I can stream it.
At work, I'm on YouTube, playing jazz albums from the '50s and '60s. Stuff like Gene Ammons -- jukebox jazz.
If stuff like this was available on vinyl I'd be interested. New stuff, not so much.
But streaming is the most popular medium. And don't they give the artists the least income?
I have a feeling you might enjoy offerings from the Numero label. Some of it was never widely available before.
Nothing against vinyl, but I am surprised that people are willing to pay 4 times the price. I was at Barnes & Noble and they had Aerosmith's Greatest Hits on vinyl for $20 and on CD for $5.
That’s because no one has anything to play the CDs on. Even cars don’t have them anymore. And why pay for $5 for a piece of plastic with digital files on it when you can just stream it?
I’ve been buying vinyl since I was a little kid. Never stopped. My tapes? Lost fidelity. Digital files? Lost my music at least 3-4 times to computers crashing, backup hard drives breaking, etc. CDs? After moving close to a dozen times over my life (and having roommates, broken cases, scratched up and won’t play, etc.
My vinyl on the other hand? Still works. Still in great condition, worth more than when I paid for it, and I have memories of when and where I got each one. Including many at actual shows where I’d much rather buy a record for $20 than a t-shirt for $30.
I dunno, I don’t get by people don’t get vinyl just because it’s been around for a long time. It sounds great and it’s reliable. And it will always work. Spend $300 on a good turntable and some speakers and it sounds REALLY good. And right now, buying physics merch from bands is the best way to support musicians.
Interesting, maybe the idea of Album Rock -or put your genre here- is coming back.
Which leads to another aspect. That is a lot of people were/are downloading single songs. Take that, and people buying full albums again, I can easily see more revenue from CDs and Vinyl.
As for myself, I haven't bought a physical CD in a long time. I tend to like to download the CD, lossless, on-line. I wonder how they qualify that? Is it considered buying the CD or a download?
I have my whole collection on a server and stream to the rest of the devices around my house.
Well, ok, but...it's not like cars have record players anymore either.