rplace Posted May 31, 2022 Share Posted May 31, 2022 Excellent article. https://pitchfork.com/features/article/the-obsessive-world-of-digital-music-collectors/ I know there are a few here that keep a digital library as well as physical media. I'd be curious to hear everyone's take is, and if you never did it, did it and gave up or still chugging along. As for me I can't imagine ever going back. 100,000+ songs instantly available in every room of my house, in the backyard, even the garage. I've done the vinyl thing for 40+ years. Still love it. I totally get the physical media connection. I think I could go the rest of my life and never slide another CD in my cars slot or open the tray on my Oppo-play-every-disc-type magic machine. Convenience is a factor, but strangely I have very little interest in streaming services. I still want to be in control of my music. After all once I buy it, rip it, download it....it is mine. I can't see renting music even if that means I have access to 20X what I currently have. If I've taken the time to own it, it means something to me. Lots of good talk in the article about how watered down the services actually are. The article is a bit long but worth the time to read. I'd really be interested to hear different opinions. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Schu Posted May 31, 2022 Share Posted May 31, 2022 I still have everything... optical media, Vinyl and Digital files. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OO1 Posted May 31, 2022 Share Posted May 31, 2022 HI RES Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MicroMara Posted May 31, 2022 Share Posted May 31, 2022 Well , all I can say ....I can´t live without physical media at all , but I also have the digital streaming medias in my set-up. I don´t compare their individual strengthen or weaken . Love them all . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Racer X Posted May 31, 2022 Share Posted May 31, 2022 I once was a slave to the vinyl. Weekly trips to all the used record shops, getting my fingers all funky flipping through endless bins of records. Buying records I never played. Playing the same five records as I became a lazier DJ shuffling my records. One day an amp fritzed and I just chunked it all. After a five year hiatus, I started playing stereo again. One day I saw a Japanese idol video on youtube, and it changed my life. Five years in, still all Japanese idols all the time. I now like to play mp3 files and I get just as much enjoyment if not more than when I was spinning records. Having my entire curated collection a tap or two away.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CWelsh Posted May 31, 2022 Share Posted May 31, 2022 I'm relatively new to streaming and like it because it introduces me to new music and artists that I would not find otherwise. Where I live (central Iowa), radio sucks. Even when I lived in the Chicago area, it wasn't that great. So far, I've only used Amazon Music Unlimited and I've been happy with the quality. As for purchasing and collecting my own digital music, I haven't been motivated so far. Not saying I won't, but I'm still exploring. When I read the article, something troubled me regarding artist compensation. Maybe I'm misunderstanding, and I would welcome enlightenment if I am. The author said: "And of course, your one-time purchase of the files supports the artist who made the music exponentially more than the fractions of pennies generated by the occasional stream." Then, goes on to say, "I also love to rip CDs—from friends, the library, or the used bin at record shops. Peer-to-peer file sharing networks have receded to the underground, and while that’s largely a good thing—artists should get paid!—they’re often the only place to find music that’s no longer available to buy or stream. Digital files are infinitely transferable, which leads us to one of the biggest reasons to become a digital music collector: sharing.... But for me, there’s no better way to organically spread music than sharing files, thanks to its mix of convenience and intention." My question is, when the author is "rip[ping] CDs—from friends, the library" and "organically spread[ing] music [by] sharing files", is the artist being paid for the ripped/shared files? My guess is, not. And, if not, is the artist actually making more money from the one time purchase from a file than from the fractions of pennies they earn each and every time their music is played because the streaming service is responsible for each use? The day may come when I start purchasing and collecting rather than paying a monthly fee. For now, streaming works really well for me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rplace Posted June 1, 2022 Author Share Posted June 1, 2022 15 hours ago, CWelsh said: When I read the article, something troubled me regarding artist compensation Just my opinion, but I see it all the time online. Everyone pretending to be concerned for the artist missing out on $$$$ when you copy a CD/Download from a friend. All very virtuous and self-righteous. People thumping their chest that I always buy every CD from the artist at the show so every penny goes in their pocket. Anyone who owns a bunt CD rather than buying it, is the same as if they walked into a store and shoplifted it. None of us ever copied an album to cassette and gave it to our friend when we were 17 and money was tight? none of us ever checked out a LP, Cassette, books on tape, CD, DVD from the library and made a copy? That mix tape or CD you made for your girlfriend should land you in jail because she does not have a legally bought copy of every album you made hers off of? 15 hours ago, CWelsh said: Author's Quote: Peer-to-peer file sharing networks have receded to the underground, and while that’s largely a good thing—artists should get paid!—they’re often the only place to find music that’s no longer available to buy or stream. Obviously, P2P sites like Napster in the late 90s are/was/were wrong. And actively going to a torrent site with the intent of getting for free which you would otherwise buy is cheating the artist. I did not read the article that way. I saw it is spreading the joy in small amounts. Not burning 50 copies and selling them out of your dorm room. A lot of the file sharing he talks about came directly from the producers of the material because it is not available on streaming sites. Legal battles over samples keep many works of art from being redistributed. Something produced on cassette or CD long ago in small quantities that people loved in one part of the world are not available today in any other way than getting a copy from somebody that has it. Maybe I'm wrong but I didn't get the feeling that he was saying it was okay to give 5TBs of Taylor Swifts entire catalog to 50 people you don't know online. I think you missed the bigger picture of the article. The love of the music, sharing with others to broaden their horizons was a small part of it. The bigger part was collecting and curating your own music. Then slicing and dicing the data in ways you see fit. No different, in my mind, than deciding to reorganize your LP collection in a new way that means something to you. Though with a properly digitized library you can have it a dozen different ways in the same day. I must confess. I was working with a guy probably 20 year ago, and we were talking about all sorts of music/groups. He asked me about Beth Orton. I said I did not know of her. He gave me a copied CD of Trailer Park. I've since bought probably 4 or 5 of her other albums. Had I not "stolen" that one, illegal, CD and learned of her I'm, sure she would be a lot better off financially. I think I gave him a copy of Radio Head's In Rainbows a few years later. Send the SWAT team to his house. If you really care about the artists financial well being go see them live at a show. Its about the only way to make money as a band these days. Unless you are at the very top of the food chain streaming royalties are a pittance compared to the days of record sales. And even then the studios were ripping off the artists. I'm not directing all this all at you @CWelsh, sorry if it comes off that way. I just see so many online "music lovers" quick to jump on anyone with the hint of sharing/trading. Some old dude said something about throwing the first stone. Seems like most should practice what they preach. If you have never copied anything I guess that let's your toss some rocks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billybob Posted June 1, 2022 Share Posted June 1, 2022 Not a preferred method of getting stoned. The digital is winning the race. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CWelsh Posted June 1, 2022 Share Posted June 1, 2022 47 minutes ago, rplace said: Just my opinion, but I see it all the time online. Everyone pretending to be concerned for the artist missing out on $$$$ when you copy a CD/Download from a friend. All very virtuous and self-righteous. People thumping their chest that I always buy every CD from the artist at the show so every penny goes in their pocket. Anyone who owns a bunt CD rather than buying it, is the same as if they walked into a store and shoplifted it. None of us ever copied an album to cassette and gave it to our friend when we were 17 and money was tight? none of us ever checked out a LP, Cassette, books on tape, CD, DVD from the library and made a copy? That mix tape or CD you made for your girlfriend should land you in jail because she does not have a legally bought copy of every album you made hers off of? Obviously, P2P sites like Napster in the late 90s are/was/were wrong. And actively going to a torrent site with the intent of getting for free which you would otherwise buy is cheating the artist. I did not read the article that way. I saw it is spreading the joy in small amounts. Not burning 50 copies and selling them out of your dorm room. A lot of the file sharing he talks about came directly from the producers of the material because it is not available on streaming sites. Legal battles over samples keep many works of art from being redistributed. Something produced on cassette or CD long ago in small quantities that people loved in one part of the world are not available today in any other way than getting a copy from somebody that has it. Maybe I'm wrong but I didn't get the feeling that he was saying it was okay to give 5TBs of Taylor Swifts entire catalog to 50 people you don't know online. I think you missed the bigger picture of the article. The love of the music, sharing with others to broaden their horizons was a small part of it. The bigger part was collecting and curating your own music. Then slicing and dicing the data in ways you see fit. No different, in my mind, than deciding to reorganize your LP collection in a new way that means something to you. Though with a properly digitized library you can have it a dozen different ways in the same day. I must confess. I was working with a guy probably 20 year ago, and we were talking about all sorts of music/groups. He asked me about Beth Orton. I said I did not know of her. He gave me a copied CD of Trailer Park. I've since bought probably 4 or 5 of her other albums. Had I not "stolen" that one, illegal, CD and learned of her I'm, sure she would be a lot better off financially. I think I gave him a copy of Radio Head's In Rainbows a few years later. Send the SWAT team to his house. If you really care about the artists financial well being go see them live at a show. Its about the only way to make money as a band these days. Unless you are at the very top of the food chain streaming royalties are a pittance compared to the days of record sales. And even then the studios were ripping off the artists. I'm not directing all this all at you @CWelsh, sorry if it comes off that way. I just see so many online "music lovers" quick to jump on anyone with the hint of sharing/trading. Some old dude said something about throwing the first stone. Seems like most should practice what they preach. If you have never copied anything I guess that let's your toss some rocks. I hear what you're saying and don't disagree. I don't even disagree with the bigger picture of the article. For me, at this point in my life, paying a monthly fee for a streaming service makes more sense than building a digital collection, but that may change someday. The issue of artist compensation, though, bothers me because it seems to always pop up in any article like this and it always sounds like a rationalization to me. Maybe it shouldn't, and maybe it isn't, but it comes across that way to me because I sense a self-righteous trashing of the streaming services as if they are cheating the artists by paying them "fractions of a penny". It is clearly speculation on my part, because I don't know the real economics of the music business today, but I wonder if those fractions of pennies from who knows how many streamed plays (tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands?) don't add up to significantly more money in the artists pockets than digital sales. I don't take any of this personally and don't even mean to throw rocks at those who share. I just don't feel the justification of concern for the artist is warranted. It makes me think the author feels guilty. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wrench Posted June 6, 2022 Share Posted June 6, 2022 Streaming, currently using Amazon, has given me the ability to revisit music that has been remastered and presented in Ultra HD and be up to date with the latest enhancements without having to repurchase them. 🙂 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the real Duke Spinner Posted June 10, 2022 Share Posted June 10, 2022 I dumpstered my vinyl 27 years ago Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.