Print

Print


Quite right you are -- there will soon be a swell of used CDs owing to
downloading and streaming. One must wonder though whether there will be a
backlash similar to that with LPs, wherein former owners regretted making
the switch to CD and had to repurchase their vinyl collections.

Lucky me, a house that ably holds 15K LPs and 30K 78s. Music in every room!

clark



On Mon, Aug 12, 2013 at 1:47 PM, Carl Pultz <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> Try this on: a collection of classical records was, for those of a certain
> age, a way of honoring a body of art that we respected and which also
> reflected a positive glow onto our self-images of being cultured, hip
> people. A remembrance of a time before public libraries, when the gentry
> had the books and shared their largess with those commoners whom they found
> worthy. Now it could be yours, timeless music, treated with care; not
> scratched up, passť, or otherwise disposable. So, we built it up with care
> and devotion, holding on to our collections until some change was forced on
> us: moving, downsizing, loss of independence, or death. Many holdings went
> off to other, somewhat younger, collectors, who are now repeating that
> cycle with even bigger, aggregated collections. We're now into a third or
> fourth generation for whom this accumulation is possible, now at lower cost
> in part because there is less demand.
>
> With perspective, we see a lot of the major label catalogs as being
> contractual obligation product, not really all that historically necessary.
> Plus, classical produced tons of reissues, attempts to squeeze a little
> more cash flow out of the back-catalogs, now simply redundant. You can
> guess what percentage of a random stack of classical albums is likely worth
> owning: maybe 5%? Probably higher from a good collection, but some you will
> already own. Even without the new formats, there is just more out there
> than can be digested.
>
> We're seeing a third wave of classical LPs washing up on a lonely shore,
> the first being from those who around 1990 'converted' to CD. It promises
> to be a tsunami. (Followed eventually by an ocean of unwanted CDs.) In my
> case, my older brother will leave to me his 5 or 6 thousand albums (unless
> he cleans house), and that would be added to my 4 thousand, crowding our
> little house, which I already have a hard time justifying. And there's my
> friend in Syracuse, who has a smaller but very select assemblage, who can't
> find anybody to take it on. My buddy who runs a very good record store has
> been choking on classical and doesn't want any more. Meanwhile, my digital
> holdings are growing, with each addition making the likelihood of any
> particular LP being played that much lower.
>
> Is it cool to see something talked about on the ARSC list, like the very
> early stereo recording of The Origin of Fire, and be able to pull it off
> the shelf and put it on? Yeah, serendipity is what makes having a
> collection fun. But, it's kind of silly, too. Ray Davies called it
> plastic-wear. We may love it, but if it's not unique it's just stuff, like
> all the other crap we've loaded up the planet with.
>
> We built these collections because we could. Ah, the burdens of wealth.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List [mailto:
> [log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of [log in to unmask]
> Sent: Monday, August 12, 2013 10:22 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] NYPL sells the vinyl collection -- I'm serious
>
> Just wondering why there is so much classical to be had.
>
> Is this because:
>
> So much classical has been re-released on CD?
>
> Classical collectors are an older lot and prefer the simplicity of a CD
> player?
>
> Classical collectors are quicker to adopt new & better sounding formats?
>
> Is classical less collectible than other genres?
>
> Of course all of these questions are certainly arguable.
>
> I'm just wondering.
>
> joe salerno
>