'There's a certain relief with not having to own music. It's a lot of work'

[Kotowboy]

Getting the CD you've been waiting for on the day of release, taking it home, listening to it as WAV and looking at the artwork and reading the lyrics.

>>

Listening to a 320kbps stream on day of release whilst browsing the net and not paying attention.


Also - having a massive pile of CD's is way cooler than having a massive pile of MP3s in iTunes.

It seems like every-time we take a technological step forward - some things actually get worse.

Since CD - there's never been a BETTER format - it's only gotten worse.

[Super Dude]

I disagree. Having a massive pile of MP3s or M4P on iTunes = massive pile on the iPod, which you can then take into your car for short rides or extended road trips. Great success.

[Kotowboy]

And why not have both ?

If you have the original CDs you can import the music at whatever quality you want.

You don't always get that option when buying MP3s online.

[Super Dude]

Indeed, why can't you have both? All I disagreed with was MP3s automatically being an objectively worse music technology.

[ClairvoyantCat]

It makes a lot of sense to me.  I don't really do much with the physical copies for the few CDs I own, and usually just leave them somewhere to collect dust once they've been transferred to the digital realm.  I can listen to it anywhere I want to at that point, so CDs don't have much use at all to me anymore and I don't really bother to keep them around.  Music downloading/streaming just seems logistically better to me, and I don't really experience the sentiment that others seem to get when listening to a physical product anymore than a downloaded one.

[Super Dude]

Right, and now that I have a car that my iPod can plug into, I really have no use for the CDs themselves.

[kirksnosehair]

Right, and now that I have a car that my iPod can plug into, I really have no use for the CDs themselves.

Not unless you want to original artwork and enjoy the hobby of collecting a physical product.

For me, personally, I've kind of adjusted to the digital age by only purchasing physical product of bands that I want to keep collecting, such as Dream Theater, Transatlantic, The Flower Kings, Spock's Beard, Neal Morse, Iron Maiden, and a few others.  The rest of the time, I usually just end up buying an MP3 download from Amazon.  It's quick and easy.

The downside, though, is I don't like not having the lyrics.  It's a pain the ass to go dig them up online somewhere.  Having that CD you can pull out to read the booklet still has some value for me, sometimes.

[ClairvoyantCat]

Right, and now that I have a car that my iPod can plug into, I really have no use for the CDs themselves.

Not unless you want to original artwork and enjoy the hobby of collecting a physical product.

For me, personally, I've kind of adjusted to the digital age by only purchasing physical product of bands that I want to keep collecting, such as Dream Theater, Transatlantic, The Flower Kings, Spock's Beard, Neal Morse, Iron Maiden, and a few others.  The rest of the time, I usually just end up buying an MP3 download from Amazon.  It's quick and easy.

The downside, though, is I don't like not having the lyrics.  It's a pain the ass to go dig them up online somewhere.  Having that CD you can pull out to read the booklet still has some value for me, sometimes.

Hmm.  This might be the fault of my messy room, but doing a quick search on a lyric site for me is much quicker than trying to find the CD I want and read its (often much smaller) print. 

The lack of artwork is the one part that had definitely remained a plus for CDs.  I'm kind of surprised at the lack of availability of digital booklets around the internet:  I can find them for more popular releases but otherwise it's difficult. 

[The Letter M]

The argument here isn't about CDs vs MP3s or Physical vs Digital... it's about Owning vs Streaming. Sure you can own an account to a streaming service, but in the end, you don't really OWN the music. It's like Netflix' streaming service or Hulu - You can watch any of that, at any time, whenever and wherever you want, but you don't technically OWN it. Without an internet or network connection, you cannot watch/listen to streaming media, so you can't really own it.

With movies, the invention of digital copies have helped movie-fans by allowing them to watch their favorite films on their iPods/Phones/portable-digital-devices, rather than having to be at home to watch them. Do film-fans freak out as much about the whole digital vs physical issue?

-Marc.

[TL]

It's not just about physical vs digital though. The article in the OP is about not even buying music digitally, and eliminating the notion of buying music entirely.
Edit: Beat'd

Do film-fans freak out as much about the whole digital vs physical issue?

A bit, though I'd say to less of an extent.

[Super Dude]

Right, and now that I have a car that my iPod can plug into, I really have no use for the CDs themselves.

Not unless you want to original artwork and enjoy the hobby of collecting a physical product.

For me, personally, I've kind of adjusted to the digital age by only purchasing physical product of bands that I want to keep collecting, such as Dream Theater, Transatlantic, The Flower Kings, Spock's Beard, Neal Morse, Iron Maiden, and a few others.  The rest of the time, I usually just end up buying an MP3 download from Amazon.  It's quick and easy.

The downside, though, is I don't like not having the lyrics.  It's a pain the ass to go dig them up online somewhere.  Having that CD you can pull out to read the booklet still has some value for me, sometimes.

Hmm.  This might be the fault of my messy room, but doing a quick search on a lyric site for me is much quicker than trying to find the CD I want and read its (often much smaller) print. 

The lack of artwork is the one part that had definitely remained a plus for CDs.  I'm kind of surprised at the lack of availability of digital booklets around the internet:  I can find them for more popular releases but otherwise it's difficult.

Not to mention iTunes has a lyrics box for every song so you could just copy and paste it.

The argument here isn't about CDs vs MP3s or Physical vs Digital... it's about Owning vs Streaming. Sure you can own an account to a streaming service, but in the end, you don't really OWN the music. It's like Netflix' streaming service or Hulu - You can watch any of that, at any time, whenever and wherever you want, but you don't technically OWN it. Without an internet or network connection, you cannot watch/listen to streaming media, so you can't really own it.

With movies, the invention of digital copies have helped movie-fans by allowing them to watch their favorite films on their iPods/Phones/portable-digital-devices, rather than having to be at home to watch them. Do film-fans freak out as much about the whole digital vs physical issue?

-Marc.

And as I said, the people who license those streams can revoke them at any time for any reason, and never have to give it back. I don't know why they would, but if they do, too bad.

[Fluffy Lothario]

The downside, though, is I don't like not having the lyrics.  It's a pain the ass to go dig them up online somewhere.  Having that CD you can pull out to read the booklet still has some value for me, sometimes.

It probably literally takes more effort and would be a bigger pain in the ass to pull out the booklet (especially how those damn things catch and don't just glide out on most CD cases) and open it up than to do a Google search.

And I'm genuinely curious from the last page of this thread, how much time do people seriously spend devotedly gazing at the covers/booklets of their albums and meticulously reading through the lyrics? Even if I own an album, I'm far more likely to look up the lyrics and even check out the cover art online anyway.

But generally speaking, attachment to an album's cover, booklet or case has always baffled me. To me, they're nothing more than the packaging. They're there to generate interest in the customer and sell the product, and to help the customer transport it home in good nick. Being so attached to them makes about as much sense as keeping and lovingly studying the boxes your home appliances came in because they have a pretty picture of the appliance on them and are a convenient way of looking up the specs. Sure, the artwork is tied to the album, and will be compatible with the genre/tone of the music etc... but when did you last see a kettle that came in a box with a wicked-ass dragon and sword-wielding pirates on it? Does that mean you make a point of keeping that kettle box that does such a good job of representing and selling the kettle? Not likely.

[The Letter M]

The downside, though, is I don't like not having the lyrics.  It's a pain the ass to go dig them up online somewhere.  Having that CD you can pull out to read the booklet still has some value for me, sometimes.

It probably literally takes more effort and would be a bigger pain in the ass to pull out the booklet (especially how those damn things catch and don't just glide out on most CD cases) and open it up than to do a Google search.

And I'm genuinely curious from the last page of this thread, how much time do people seriously spend devotedly gazing at the covers/booklets of their albums and meticulously reading through the lyrics? Even if I own an album, I'm far more likely to look up the lyrics and even check out the cover art online anyway.

But generally speaking, attachment to an album's cover, booklet or case has always baffled me. To me, they're nothing more than the packaging. They're there to generate interest in the customer and sell the product, and to help the customer transport it home in good nick. Being so attached to them makes about as much sense as keeping and lovingly studying the boxes your home appliances came in because they have a pretty picture of the appliance on them and are a convenient way of looking up the specs. Sure, the artwork is tied to the album, and will be compatible with the genre/tone of the music etc... but when did you last see a kettle that came in a box with a wicked-ass dragon and sword-wielding pirates on it? Does that mean you make a point of keeping that kettle box that does such a good job of representing and selling the kettle? Not likely.

It's not always just the representation of the packaging that is nice. It's also perhaps the idea that the artist themselves put a lot of work into it - the images, the artwork, the lyrics layout and the fonts, the liner notes or stories contained within, and of course the credits/thank-yous.

Using an appliance as an analogy falls a bit flat because a LOT of people put their ideas into an appliance - you have inventors and designs, engineers and analysts, then the factory workers who put them together and package them, as well as the people who work on the advertising (the economists and artists) and package design... literally, dozens of people have their input on an appliance, so the package isn't always something to treasure or keep. For a band or musical artist, all of that comes from a few people, or in some cases, just one (when all the art-direction is given to one artist), perhaps with the band's approval.

The person who invented an appliance doesn't always get approval for all the things that go into the release of a product - the company would do all of that and just forward the money/profit for the product to the inventor(s).

Packaging is all about the artist, and those like Steven Wilson take great care in what they release. In the age of CDs, it's not as important as it used to be with vinyls, with their larger covers. When I buy an album, I keep everything because I paid for everything. When I buy a pair of shoes or a blender, I toss the box because I don't need the box, nor does it serve a purpose. The packaging for a CD houses the disc for safe keeping/transportation, and the album booklet offers information pertaining to the album itself.

-Marc.

[TL]

But generally speaking, attachment to an album's cover, booklet or case has always baffled me. To me, they're nothing more than the packaging.

You see, we humans have this thing we call 'sentimentality'.

But seriously, do you not see a difference between a piece of art and a consumer appliance?

[theseoafs]

It's not always just the representation of the packaging that is nice. It's also perhaps the idea that the artist themselves put a lot of work into it - the images, the artwork, the lyrics layout and the fonts, the liner notes or stories contained within, and of course the credits/thank-yous.

Practically speaking, though, how likely is it that the artist actually put in all that work? I don't know for sure, but it seems far more likely to me that a typical musician, not being familiar with graphic design, would just relay the intended style to a professional who takes care of all that independently. Actually, I don't even see why the musician would do that; I would think the label would take care of all of this dirty work, with little intervention by the musicians. It's standard practice for artists to select album artwork, sure, but with regard to everything else, the Steven Wilson "complete package" approach is a very rare exception to the general rule.

Now, I'm too young to have lived through the vinyl days, so perhaps things were significantly different back then. However, these days, I think I'd find myself disappointed more often than not if I bought a CD intending to greatly enjoy the packaging. Sometimes the booklet is full of excellent and original art, but just as often it's black lyrics on a white background (and sometimes I don't find any lyrics at all).

[ClairvoyantCat]

Yeah, from what I've heard in interviews, the artist often doesn't have as much of a say in the artwork as you might think, at least in the album cover.  The label chooses a cover that they think will sell, first and foremost.  There might be a little more liberty in the booklet, but it's still probably a rare occurrence that you're seeing the artistic vision of the musician or whatever and might not even be related to the music very much, and most booklets don't even have much artwork to begin with.  Usually a label will bring out a few sketches or something and the artist will say "yeah, that one's cool, I guess."  From what I've read, anyway.  It's very small art, too.  If I were interested in physical art I would probably buy a painting to hang on my wall. 

[The Letter M]

It's not always just the representation of the packaging that is nice. It's also perhaps the idea that the artist themselves put a lot of work into it - the images, the artwork, the lyrics layout and the fonts, the liner notes or stories contained within, and of course the credits/thank-yous.

Practically speaking, though, how likely is it that the artist actually put in all that work? I don't know for sure, but it seems far more likely to me that a typical musician, not being familiar with graphic design, would just relay the intended style to a professional who takes care of all that independently. Actually, I don't even see why the musician would do that; I would think the label would take care of all of this dirty work, with little intervention by the musicians. It's standard practice for artists to select album artwork, sure, but with regard to everything else, the Steven Wilson "complete package" approach is a very rare exception to the general rule.

Now, I'm too young to have lived through the vinyl days, so perhaps things were significantly different back then. However, these days, I think I'd find myself disappointed more often than not if I bought a CD intending to greatly enjoy the packaging. Sometimes the booklet is full of excellent art, but just as often it's black lyrics on a white background (and sometimes I don't find any lyrics at all).

While it's possible that bigger artists who succumb to their record company's whims may often let them take care of the packaging, it's also possible that they DO put their opinions in on what they sell. At least, the artists who care about what it is they're selling SHOULD do that.

But, for what *I* listen to and collect and keep, it always seems that the packaging is an important part, and that the band/artists does keep a close eye on what it is they're releasing, bands like Rush or Dream Theater that have some say in the art direction of their products and packages.

Sure, more often than not, an album's package may be plain or only contain lyrics, but that's at the loss of the artist - there's a great opportunity there to tell the listener/fan "Hey, here's some stuff that is relevant to what you're about to listen to, so pay attention and enjoy!"

If an album is lacking in that sort of thing, it's truly a sad statement. Then again, most of the people who don't care to have all of that probably don't even bother to put album artwork with their mp3s on their player/iPod. I've seen plenty of friends' iPods and their songs don't have artwork and I give them a blank-stare as if to say "Uh, why don't you have artwork?" and they don't care....and that sort of thing bugs me. These are also the same people who don't properly categorize their songs, either including misspelled titles or names, wrong track numbers, wrong genres, etc. etc. and THAT really bugs me.

Then again, I'm a little bit OCD...so...

-Marc.

[Fluffy Lothario]

But generally speaking, attachment to an album's cover, booklet or case has always baffled me. To me, they're nothing more than the packaging.

You see, we humans have this thing we call 'sentimentality'.

But seriously, do you not see a difference between a piece of art and a consumer appliance?

The music itself is the only art I'm interested in, and you'd be hard-pressed to convince me anyone would give a shit about the artwork for an album, no matter how brilliant it is, if they didn't care about the music first. I don't buy an album to look at a picture. No-one does. I understand sentimentality towards the music, the aural experience itself, but not the packaging it was delivered to me in, or the picture the artist chose to represent that music with on the packaging. Even if it's a cool picture, it's still just a picture. It's not the music.

Yeah, from what I've heard in interviews, the artist often doesn't have as much of a say in the artwork as you might think, at least in the album cover.  The label chooses a cover that they think will sell, first and foremost.

Look at the original cover to Electric Ladyland. To most people, that cover is iconic, and represents the essence of Hendrix, and he hated it, and had requested something completely different for the cover.

When I buy an album, I keep everything because I paid for everything. When I buy a pair of shoes or a blender, I toss the box because I don't need the box, nor does it serve a purpose. The packaging for a CD houses the disc for safe keeping/transportation, and the album booklet offers information pertaining to the album itself.

This is still applicable to many appliances. Most come with booklets, and if the information in them is important, you keep them. I even know of people keeping the box to, for example, their TV in their attic so that, in the event they move, they can more easily store and transport it again. That doesn't justify an attachment to them though.

[Zook]

My CDs sit on my shelf and collect dust, but the great part about it is the collection itself. A library I can go to at any time and listen to on my CD player or rip them onto my computer for other means. I love my physical CD collection, and the only work it entails is putting them in a box when I move.

[TL]

you'd be hard-pressed to convince me anyone would give a shit about the artwork for an album, no matter how brilliant it is, if they didn't care about the music first.

No shit.

I'm not saying album covers are something people would care about on their own. It's every piece of the art coming together. The cover and such holds significance because of the music associated with it.

Are you saying you have never held sentimental value in something that was technically replaceable?

[ZeppelinDT]

The music itself is the only art I'm interested in, and you'd be hard-pressed to convince me anyone would give a shit about the artwork for an album, no matter how brilliant it is, if they didn't care about the music first. I don't buy an album to look at a picture. No-one does. I understand sentimentality towards the music, the aural experience itself, but not the packaging it was delivered to me in, or the picture the artist chose to represent that music with on the packaging. Even if it's a cool picture, it's still just a picture. It's not the music.

Nobody buys music just for the cover, but that doesn't mean the packaging isn't worthy of merit on its own.  The appliance box example is extremely silly, because nobody at the appliance company is actually designing the box to be a work of art.  They're designing the box to be functional and serve the purpose of demonstrating the product, because if you're buying an appliance, you're probably gonna want to know what it looks like.  That's why nobody is framing posters of the artwork on a toaster box and then hanging it on their bedroom wall.

CD packaging serves a completely different purpose.  Unless the album cover is just a bunch of sheet music, and aside from the band name, the cover art is not intended to describe what's inside.  In most cases, it's intended to be it's own separate piece of art, maybe at most being an artistic representation of the music.

I think of cover artwork as being a sort of bonus that's worth keeping.  Sure, maybe I didn't buy the album for the art.  But that doesn't mean I don't think the art is cool.  And it doesn't mean I'm not gonna enjoy the art for it's own sake.

Look at the original cover to Electric Ladyland. To most people, that cover is iconic, and represents the essence of Hendrix, and he hated it, and had requested something completely different for the cover.

Ok, but on the other side of the coin, look at the cover to Sgt. Pepper.  The Beatles individually selected each of the 60 people they wanted to be represented, then 60 cardboard cutouts were created and arranged, and then the band members posed with them while wearing costumes that were designed and produced just for that sole purpose.  Tell me that isn't art.

[Fluffy Lothario]

I'm not saying album covers are something people would care about on their own. It's every piece of the art coming together. The cover and such holds significance because of the music associated with it.

Well, as has been covered on this page, I think there's fairly little reason to associate the cover with the music, and the musicians' overall artistic intent, very closely at all, in the very large majority of cases.

Are you saying you have never held sentimental value in something that was technically replaceable?

I can't think of anything off the top of my head.

Ok, but on the other side of the coin, look at the cover to Sgt. Pepper.  The Beatles individually selected each of the 60 people they wanted to be represented, then 60 cardboard cutouts were created and arranged, and then the band members posed with them while wearing costumes that were designed and produced just for that sole purpose.  Tell me that isn't art.

By a crude, wide definition, I suppose. But that doesn't elevate the cover to being anything greater than the picture on the front of the packaging. Clearly, I don't hold album "artwork" in remotely as high esteem as most people do though. And I doubt cases where the band is that involved in their album covers are anything but rare.

[Super Dude]

Plus it's not like you can't get a Google image of that same album cover in high resolution anyway (ridiculously high resolution, if you really feel it's necessary), and then paste it onto your M4P.

[TL]

Again though, we're talking about owning a specific copy and that specific copy having sentimental value, not cover artwork in general.

[Jaq]

On the subject of lyrics in the CD versus lyrics online.

It was my realization that I could barely read the font size of most lyrics in CDs that caused me to admit I needed reading glasses. Even when my vision was 20/20, sometimes that could be a chore. That's one thing I miss from vinyl; easily read lyric sheets. Of course, a lot of bands could help in that area if they eliminated the thank you lists where each member thanks 23, 450 people apiece and then the band collectively thanks a different 23,450 people (slight exaggeration) 

[crazyaga]

whan you want to buy a picuture for your house, you can see it before you buy it. if you liked that picture, youll buy it.
whan you want to buy a CD, you cant hear the music inside it until you buy it, unless you heard it through the internet before.

[Kotowboy]

I'd have no problems downloading a movie because these days you get Fuck All inside the DVD box.

[kirksnosehair]

The downside, though, is I don't like not having the lyrics.  It's a pain the ass to go dig them up online somewhere.  Having that CD you can pull out to read the booklet still has some value for me, sometimes.

It probably literally takes more effort and would be a bigger pain in the ass to pull out the booklet (especially how those damn things catch and don't just glide out on most CD cases) and open it up than to do a Google search.

Nope.  Not for me.  I keep all of my music neatly organized alphabetically by artist.  Finding a CD and pulling out the lyrics is quick and easy.  Plus, they're already printed out.  I don't have to get on the computer, look them up, print them out, etc. 

And I'm genuinely curious from the last page of this thread, how much time do people seriously spend devotedly gazing at the covers/booklets of their albums and meticulously reading through the lyrics? Even if I own an album, I'm far more likely to look up the lyrics and even check out the cover art online anyway.

Every single time I buy CD I listen to it the first few times with the lyrics sheet out in front of me.  Not sure if I "meticulously" read through them or if I am "devotedly gazing at the covers" though 

But generally speaking, attachment to an album's cover, booklet or case has always baffled me. To me, they're nothing more than the packaging. They're there to generate interest in the customer and sell the product, and to help the customer transport it home in good nick. Being so attached to them makes about as much sense as keeping and lovingly studying the boxes your home appliances came in because they have a pretty picture of the appliance on them and are a convenient way of looking up the specs. Sure, the artwork is tied to the album, and will be compatible with the genre/tone of the music etc... but when did you last see a kettle that came in a box with a wicked-ass dragon and sword-wielding pirates on it? Does that mean you make a point of keeping that kettle box that does such a good job of representing and selling the kettle? Not likely.

No offense, but that is patently absurd.

[TAC]

I have a complaint. Last week, I downloaded 2 mp3 downloads from Amazon, Reverence
 and Stargate. They are the first two full album downloads that I have bought.
I think I assumed the album art would come with it, that way , I could burn it and put together my own jewel case.

Kirk, you buy a lot of downloads. Do you make physical (burned) copies and how do you store them?

[theseoafs]

No offense, but that is patently absurd.

It isn't, though. The art is on the disc, and the jewel case is there to keep the disc from getting banged up while you're taking it home.

I've told this story before on here, I think: the way I got into music was that my dad would put on old Maiden CD's in the car when I was 6 or 7, and then hand me the CD booklets. He has a lot of CD's, and a really, really big book to keep all of them in; he would keep each CD opposite its booklet in the CD-holder (meanwhile, all the jewel cases have been sitting in the garage for ages). It really interested me to read the lyrics and look at pictures of the musicians and read the liner notes, and my dad, being a big music fan himself, took the giant case along whenever he went on any adequately lengthy drive.

Fast-forward a decade or so, and I'm 19 now. My dad has an iPod which he takes with him everywhere he goes, as well as an adapter so he can listen to it in his car. The big book with all the CD's and booklets is sitting under his bed and hasn't been touched for years because why carry around this 10 pound book when you've got an iPod with the same information stored in it?

I think this summarizes the issue pretty well. The packaging a CD comes in might be nice or of sentimental value, but at the end of the day it's a pain to deal with discs, and technology offers so many equally valuable but exponentially easier options.

[kirksnosehair]

I have a complaint. Last week, I downloaded 2 mp3 downloads from Amazon, Reverence
 and Stargate. They are the first two full album downloads that I have bought.
I think I assumed the album art would come with it, that way , I could burn it and put together my own jewel case.

Kirk, you buy a lot of downloads. Do you make physical (burned) copies and how do you store them?

Hey TAC, very few MP3 downloads come with any kind of artwork, although more artists are starting to do that.  What I usually do when I buy MP3 albums from Amazon.com is I download the MP3s then I immediately burn them to a CD for listening in my car.  I then also copy it to my iPod and then lastly I copy it to a backup drive that I keep.  So, in the end, the music is in 4 places.

I'm at the point now where I don't buy a whole lot of physical CDs, just mostly from the bands that I am really, really interested in still collecting and getting into the lyrics and artwork.

[kirksnosehair]

No offense, but that is patently absurd.

It isn't, though.

I'm sorry, but comparing my appreciation for album artwork to "lovingly studying the boxes your home appliances came in because they have a pretty picture of the appliance on them" is fucking ridiculous.  That's pretty much an unmitigated fact.

[glaurung]

Edit: Nevermind

[ZBomber]

I don't have a problem with streaming, but the people that are saying album artwork is not part of the art itself is.... ridiculous.

[ClairvoyantCat]

I don't have a problem with streaming, but the people that are saying album artwork is not part of the art itself is.... ridiculous.

It varies from case to case, but for the most part I'd say that it isn't.  There are a few artists who have the liberty and intentions to go out of their way to influence the art, but that's not terribly common.   I'd consider "part of the art itself" to be something that the musician I'm paying for is at least indirectly responsible for, which is not often the case.