Sep 22, 2019 at 3:05 AM Post #13,666 of 19,075
Key point made.
Can be argued that, if you wait long enough, say another decade or two, more and more of the non-mainstream, esoteric and historical recordings will become available online. But then, who wants to defer their musical enjoyment for years ? May not be around then.

I remember when cable TV started. They said there were going to be over 100 channels, and each one would be different. One would show crime movies from the 30s, another would have 70s TV sitcoms, another would have classic cartoons... with over 100 channels, that should cover everything, right? Well it turned out that there's over 100 channels of basically the same thing. There are three or four channels that air legacy titles. Even the classic cartoon channel started airing modern live action shows. Streaming won't reach down that far ever. At some point the CDs that contain the music that streaming doesn't cover will be as rare and sought after as the LPs that Japanese collectors snap up, and the pre-war blues 78s that go for hundreds of dollars. If your tastes extend beyond the average consumer, you will either have to buy obsolete media or do without. If you're a normal consumer, the market will give you all you want.

In the meantime, I have a huge collection that I am digitizing and will have the best of both worlds. It isn't about format. It's about availability of the music.
 
Last edited:
Sep 22, 2019 at 12:43 PM Post #13,667 of 19,075
To a degree you are correct.... however there are major differences between video and audio.... and, in the end, I expect them to make a significant difference there.
What you have described about "what we all expected cable to become" is actually largely what it has become.
My cable service does offer one channel for old westerns, and another for old evening sitcoms, and yet another for very old horror movies.
I could have over a thousand channels if I signed up for the big package... and they have a LOT of movies on demand as well.
Some of the main reasons so many shows still remain unavailable is a combination of lack of interest, licensing costs, and simple space.
The other is that we currently lack an in-place way to effectively "commercialize and monetize" those old movies for which there is little interest.
Someone has that old cartoon you want to watch... and they would cheerfully sell it to you for $1... but they have no way to actually do so.
Even though DVDs have become cheap, there is still effectively nobody who has come around to offering video DOWNLOADS, and no standard for doing so... yet.

I recently purchased a rather obscure (recent) album from Amazon.
I purchased it as a commercial CD but, when it arrived, what I got was a CD-R with an obviously ink-jet printed lable.
It looked like a bootleg copy, but an enclosd slip reassured me that it was legitimate.
"Since there is so little demand for that album it has not been issued as a commercial CD disc. Instead, Amazon has been licensed to print copies directly, when they are purchased."

We have also in fact had a recent attempt to do something similar for DVDs.
Some time ago Walmart offered an option that, if you owned any DVD disc, you could turn in the plastic, and they would....
"Exchange it for a digital copy that you could play on any of your electronic devices via your favorite streaming service".
What this meant was that they would accept your physical disc, destroy it, and trade it for a license to stream the movie.
(I don't know if this still exists or not - or if it was a commercial flop.)
My point is that, if the trend away from PHYSICAL digital media continues, this is the obvious direction in which things will eventually go.
However, the physical CD-R disc that Amazon sent me will disappear from the process.
Someday, instead of buying a used CD for $2, what you'll receive is either a copy of it as a digital audio file you can download, or a license to listen to it on your favorite streaming service.
And, if you sell that old CD, instead of being piled somewhere on a shelf, each disc will be carefully shredded, and "the licence it embodies" will be added to a server somewhere.

The technology to do this has been around for years...
The ONLY current sticking point is licensing.
Our current laws have simply failed miserably to keep up with the technology.

The music industry has traditionally had a seriously flawed idea about ownership.
The "official part of the music industry" will tell you that, if you purchase a music CD for $15, the plastic disc costs about $1, and the remaining $14 is being paid for the license.
Yet, by that logic, if you were to accidentally damage that disc, you should be able to purchase a new piece of plastic for $1, and transfer your license to it.
Likewise, if you long ago purchased a vinyl disc with that music on it, you should be able to purchase a CD style disc, and transfer your license to it.
Yet, instead, they now claim that the license is NOT separate from the plastic, and cannot be moved to a new piece of plastic.
(Now, magically, with the loss of that $1 piece of plastic, the license you paid $14 for has mysteriously vanished.)
And this outdated concept - that the license and the actual physical plastic are one and the same - is what is locking us into the current situation.

If I have an old album I don't want, and you DO want it, I can sell you the plastic vinyl album or CD, in exchange for some money.
The law allows me to do so... and this has been accepted reality for so long that nobody questions it.
Yet there is no OTHER WAY in which I can simply transfer ownership of that album to you in return for money WITHOUT THE PIECE OF PLASTIC.
(In essence, at this point, the CD itself is merely "the token which holds the license".)
What's missing is an alternate LEGALLY SANCTIONED MECHANISM whereby I can transfer ownership of the license.
However, because the current combination of music streaming and music piracy is well along the path towards destroying this outdated system...
We can reasonably expect that it will eventually be replaced by a newer and more practical one.

For example, instead of selling my old CDs to "ye olde CD shoppe" I'll be able to go into a shop and sell them my old pieces of plastic and their attached licenses.
They will then immediately RIP and shred the plastic discs.
They will then have digital copies of the music itself...
And the "licenses", each of which entitles one person to own and play the music from one of those discs, which they have 'recovered" or "extracted" from the discs themselves...
You will then be able to purchase a copy of that file, and the license that entitles you to play it, from your local shop.
Once this happens, every CD ever made will eventually end up in a worldwide database somewhere, where it can be easily downloaded by anybody.
And, once this occurs, you can bet that SOMEBODY will work out the details of a new licensing protocol to go with it.
(It would be foolish to delete the file after one download. There must be SOME way to sell more copies, collect the licensing fee for them, and distribute it "fairly".)

Of course, the music industry would prefer to prevent this, so there is no way for the owner to "recover his license form the plastic and has to buy a new one".
However, the obvious ancillary point to all this is that the practical aspects of the market and the technology will force this to happen, and sooner rather than later.

In the real world....
If you, or somebody you know, has "the last copy of that rare CD available on the planet".....
They're going to rip that disc and make copies for their friends.....
And, while many people might feel a touch of guilt about "stealing an album they should have bought".....
Very few people feel any guilt whatsoever about "acquiring a bootleg copy of an album that is otherwise unavailable"....
Therefore, in a sense, the music industry is essentially "racing against the clock" to find a legal way to sell that music before it becomes available for free....
(They basically need to find a way for you to sell that copy, and get their "fair share", before you get tired of waiting and simply start giving it away.)
And, yes, if you have or want some album that's really obscure, it may never "find its way into the system".....
However, as such a system becomes more ubiquitous, and more readily accessible, that barrier will be lowered.....

I can literally envision a day when EVERYONE has a streaming account somewhere...
And we are each offered a $1 credit for every CD we send in that they don't already have in their database.
(And every song, on every disc that's sent in, shows up on everybody's streaming service the next day....)

This will happen the day the music industry is forced to remove their collective thumb from their collective ass....
And that day is coming soon.... as the current business models for selling discs continue to become progressively less able to support the industry.
(We may, quite literally, see a day when physical discs simply become unsalable, and the streaming services become the ONLY customers who actually purchase music.)

We are already approaching this point with video....
Netflix, with their production of exlcusive content, has now become one of the top few remaining major studios....
And many stores have alreadys topped selling DVDs and Blu-Ray discs, or are discussing doing so....
And, if you try to actually purchase CDs, you will find that the list of places that carry them are dwindling rapidly.
(My local "vintage music shop" also no longer buys or accepts them for trade-in.)

Considering how rapidly streaming has risen from a novelty to dominate the market....
It seems clear that this is what the majority of customers actually want....

I remember when cable TV started. They said there were going to be over 100 channels, and each one would be different. One would show crime movies from the 30s, another would have 70s TV sitcoms, another would have classic cartoons... with over 100 channels, that should cover everything, right? Well it turned out that there's over 100 channels of basically the same thing. There are three or four channels that air legacy titles. Even the classic cartoon channel started airing modern live action shows. Streaming won't reach down that far ever. At some point the CDs that contain the music that streaming doesn't cover will be as rare and sought after as the LPs that Japanese collectors snap up, and the pre-war blues 78s that go for hundreds of dollars. If your tastes extend beyond the average consumer, you will either have to buy obsolete media or do without. If you're a normal consumer, the market will give you all you want.

In the meantime, I have a huge collection that I am digitizing and will have the best of both worlds. It isn't about format. It's about availability of the music.
 
Sep 22, 2019 at 1:11 PM Post #13,668 of 19,075
At least 80% of cable channels are basically the same. And many of the ones on certain subjects are only on tiny bits of that subject like the History channel, which should be called the Hitler channel; or the exact opposite of what the subject is, like the Learning channel having series about ignorant hillbillies and the science channel having documentaries about UFOs. Cable sucks. It isn't even close to what it was promised it would be. It's just a bunch of commercials and shows that aren't even good enough for broadcast TV that you pay $100 a month for.

Subscription music is fine for what it is. I subscribed to XM for a while and it had a few stations I was interested in. But after a while, the playlist became apparent. They never got down to the songs I wanted to hear. They were too busy playing the ones I'd already heard a million times. That is comfortable for most people, but for me, it's deadly. I want to hear things I've never heard, not things I've heard over and over. I've had Spotify and it could never figure out what I wanted to hear. Amazon Prime Unlimited music is OK, but the other day I was looking at latin big band and 70s Disco 12 inch singles and the only way to hear what I was looking for was to buy a CD. I keep Amazon because it's handy for previewing things before I buy. I also use it for looped background music that plays through my Alexas. It's handy for that. But my music server is how I listen to music most of the time.
 
Last edited:
Sep 22, 2019 at 1:17 PM Post #13,669 of 19,075
1. You're supposed to scrub in a circular motion with a soft cloth to buff out the scratch.

2. Physical media is essential for people with broad musical interests. Probably a third of my collection is of music not available on streaming. That amounts to thousands of CDs. If you are interested in mainstream music, streaming is perfect because it covers that completely. But there's a lot of music that never made the transition from 78 to LP, a lot that never made the transition from LP to CD, and a lot that didn't make the transition from CD to streaming. The only way to hear that music is with physical media.

1. I have been able to fix CDs without scrubing in a circular motion with a soft cloth. Maybe this method helps with the more extreme cases?

2. Or people who prefer physical media. My father collects stamps. He could collect jpg-pictures of stamps on his harddrive, but he prefers the physical stamps. I prefer physical CDs and I don't need to justify it to anyone. It's my business how I consume music. I use streaming to explore music (recently Charli XCX's new album which I didn't like as much I predicted so I won't buy the CD and Raphael & Kutira new age stuff which isn't so good to justify the huge prices these albums go for), but I don't trust it so if I like what I hear I try to get the CD.
 
Sep 22, 2019 at 1:21 PM Post #13,670 of 19,075
There are always collectors who collect like stamps. Some people collect headphones like that. I don't fill lists myself though. I chase down branches of the tree looking for relationships between performers and styles. It isn't as organized as stamp collecting- more organic.

I tend to explore particular subjects in bursts... for instance, I heard a Buddy Rich song that I liked, so I bought a few Buddy Rich box sets and devoured them. When I listen to a bunch of a particular kind of music, I can get a feel for the overall shape of the subject. That is what I'm interested in, not specific songs.
 
Last edited:
Sep 22, 2019 at 8:22 PM Post #13,671 of 19,075
I'd have to say that I fall firmly on BOTH sides of this one.

I personally NEVER read the liner notes on CDs.
If I'm curious about the details I generally just Google them.
Therefore, when I acquire a new CD, it immedlately gets ripped, and the plastic gets tossed into the closet in a box.
However, of course, some people do enjoy that aspect of collecting music.

That said, I do also have somewhat of a "collector mentality".
Because of that, I have certain groups and artists who I 'collect", and I do enjoy knowing that "I have all their discs".
I also enjoy knowing that I will never lose access to any of their albums due to a licensing dispute or something like that (which might result in its becoming unavailable via streaming).
Therefore, I will always buy a copy of their latest album when it comes out, and keep the CD and the album notes in my permanent collection.

However, that only applies to a small percentage of all the music I listen to.
For a much larger majority of it, I am quite satisfied being able to simply punch up a song from a streaming service.
It saves me the aggravation of finding a CD that I rarely listen to, and, if one specific song were to become unavailable, it wouldn't be a tragedy.
(If I feel that way about one or two songs then I'll buy the CD they're on - or buy a download copy - or find a copy I can back up some other way.)
Also, to be honest, my main concern is that I not lose access to the music, so a full quality file I can download and back up on a hard drive is about as good as the plastic version.

I'm currently in the process of sorting through the remainder of the rather large collection of CDs I've acquired over the years.
I plan to rip and keep the ones that I consider "my favorites"... and the rest will go to a friend of mine who still has a CD player and enjoys handling the plastic.
(Those are the ones that never come out of the closet now anyway - because they're easier to stream.)

I should also point out that the whole ecosystem of tradictional physical discs has some serious drawbacks than many people seem to ignore.

First, there is the whole absurd notion about licensing and ownership.
A long time ago, I purchased a vinyl copy of Dark Side Of The Moon; at the time I was told that most of the $15 I paid was for the license to listen to the music.
Then I purchased the MFSL "audiophile version" (which is mastered very differently and sounds quite different).
However, not only did I pay for new plastic and new mastering, but I didn't even get a discount because I HAD ALREADY PAID FOR THE MUSIC.
Then, when it came out on CD, I was expected to pay full price again (even though they insisted that the plastic was only about $1 and the license was most of the price).
And, when the dog ate my disc one day, instead of simply "replacing the plastic for a service charge", those crooks expected me to pay full price again.
Many people complain that computer software companies are unethical.
However, as long as you retain a copy of the license, most of them will allow you to download a new copy of the actual software for free, or sell you a replacement disc for a few $$$.

Second, there is a trend with many record companies these days to issue multiple different copies of their physical CDs.
There may be "the regular copy, the deluxe copy, and the special copy they sell at Target"...
Or there may be different copies that are ostensibly targeted to different countries or continents.
While they have various ways of justifying the need to do so I personally find it to be highly unethical.
It means that, if I really want to buy "all the songs on their new album", I am forced to purchase multiple copies of the disc (different versions).
(Instead of being fair and saying: "You already paid $15 for the disc; we'll sell you the extra deluxe track for another $1".)
(I see no problem with having a "deluxe version" that has more songs than the "cheap version" - but, if I purchase the most expensive copy, I should get ALL the songs.
Don't tell me that there are two songs that are ONLY available on "the South American version disc"... but two other songs are only available on the US version.)

Not only do I personally find this highly unethocal...
But, from a practical point of view, it means that, EVEN IF I BUY THE ACTUAL DISC I AM NOT ASSURED OF HAVING ACCESS TO THE ENTIRE ALBUM.
(To me, this completely eliminates one of the main reasons for owning that disc, which was to actually be assured access to it.)

There are always collectors who collect like stamps. Some people collect headphones like that. I don't fill lists myself though. I chase down branches of the tree looking for relationships between performers and styles. It isn't as organized as stamp collecting- more organic.

I tend to explore particular subjects in bursts... for instance, I heard a Buddy Rich song that I liked, so I bought a few Buddy Rich box sets and devoured them. When I listen to a bunch of a particular kind of music, I can get a feel for the overall shape of the subject. That is what I'm interested in, not specific songs.
 
Last edited:
Sep 23, 2019 at 1:27 AM Post #13,672 of 19,075
Your collector's mentality has butted up against the real world.
 
Sep 23, 2019 at 9:45 AM Post #13,673 of 19,075
I don't get your comment.

At least so far, I can stream all the music I want, AND own actual copies of the stuff I really care about.
If you're referring to the fact that we always seem to get screwed by somebody, at least if they can figure out a way to make a few extra bucks... that isn't likely to go away any time soon.

In all fairness, I do believe that, when it comes to different versions of discs, many music producers really do believe that it makes sense to have "customized versions for different audiences".
And, in fact, at least one group I like did eventually release a whole separate album, containing all the "bonus tracks" from various copies of their other albums.
By doing so, they enabled all the collectors to actually collect all their work, AND managed to sell another album... which seems like an intelligent solution to me.
Alternately, these days, we can often purchase individual songs, via discs or single downloads, which also solves the problem nicely.
(Unfortunately, you are quite correct, and we are stuck in a world that quite often caters to "the lowest common denominator", or "strictly the best way to make a buck".)

Your collector's mentality has butted up against the real world.
 
Oct 24, 2019 at 11:51 AM Post #13,676 of 19,075
I think streaming subscriptions make more sense if you do not already have a large collection built up.

I used to feel the same, but once I implemented Roon with it's ability to support my existing library and streaming (Tidal in my case), I was able to save quite a bit of money by not continuing to purchase CDs while taking advantage of the Roon/Tidal recommendations which helped me find a lot of new music I likely wouldn't have purchased.
 
Oct 24, 2019 at 12:11 PM Post #13,677 of 19,075
A great deal of the music I listen to isn't available on streaming, I'm afraid. Streaming isn't any good for music that is niche or out of print. It also can be unhelpful when you are looking for a specific mastering.
 
Last edited:
Oct 24, 2019 at 1:04 PM Post #13,679 of 19,075
That's been my experience.
I would note that the different streaming services vary wildly in terms of what they have available.
The new Amazon Music service seems very good - and has lossless files.
Spotify probably still has the best coverage - but their sound quality is sometimes lacking.

I've found that I can stream most of the more or less popular albums I want to listen to.
But they tend to be less than complete on older albums - even by popular groups.
And they almost never offer much of a choice on different versions of albums - other than modern or very popular ones.
See how many of the 25 different re-issues and re-masters of Dark Side of the Moon you can find on your favorite streaming service.

I've settled on streaming for most things...
And only purchasing downloads or CDs for really obscure items, or those I am unwilling to risk losing access to.

Nothing is perfect. I still have to buy some niche recordings, but overall, it works for me.
 
Oct 24, 2019 at 2:36 PM Post #13,680 of 19,075
That's been my experience.
I would note that the different streaming services vary wildly in terms of what they have available.
The new Amazon Music service seems very good - and has lossless files.
Spotify probably still has the best coverage - but their sound quality is sometimes lacking.

I've found that I can stream most of the more or less popular albums I want to listen to.
But they tend to be less than complete on older albums - even by popular groups.
And they almost never offer much of a choice on different versions of albums - other than modern or very popular ones.
See how many of the 25 different re-issues and re-masters of Dark Side of the Moon you can find on your favorite streaming service.

I've settled on streaming for most things...
And only purchasing downloads or CDs for really obscure items, or those I am unwilling to risk losing access to.


Agreed - I like Amazon's library and will likely switch to them if/when Roon supports it. Unless things have changed, Amazon's player doesn't support WASAPI Exclusive mode, which while not a showstopper, isn't ideal.

The library is good, and at less than the cost of one CD, the monthly rate is hard to argue with as an existing Prime member.

In general with streaming services, I'm more interested in being exposed to new artists/music than specific masters though I understand those who feel different. For the few cases where a significantly improved master exists, I'll still buy the physical media. There are also a few "smaller" artists I really like, so sometimes will buy a CD simply to support them. That's a short list though.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top