Can anyone explain the vinyl renaissance?

[Sal1950]

Thank you. Any album you would recommend?

One of his remasters of classic rock or new music of his own?
2ch or 5.1 or Atmos
There's so much to chose from.
The below remaster list is 3 years old, lots more since

Steven Wilson: Remixing Classic Albums

Prog-rock wunderkind Steven Wilson is using his studio skills to give legendary rock albums a new lease of life.

www.soundonsound.com

His latest solo effort is 2021s The Future Sucks in all 3 digital formats.
He also fronts the progressive rock band Porcupine Tree, their latest was 2022's Closure Continuation also in all 3 formats

 

[drmevo]

It can't be lost on you how inept that statement is? Not that the rest of your justifications are any better. They're not getting paid for that CD multiple times, they just ask that one person own it at a time. Actually, I'm not going to waste energy debating someone's self-justification of illicit behavior.

Simply incredible someone would say that "out loud." It's such a short-sighted and indisputably greedy take, and clearly illegal. It doesn't take much thought to realize that selling your CD because you ripped it and keep a digital copy means the next guy doesn't pay anything to the artist. It's not always Gene Simmons and Lars Ulrich we're talking about getting screwed over - they are the .1% of pro musicians.

I always like hearing the tape hiss and then it ends to nothing… and the tape hiss starting on the next song.
Of course that is on pre-digital recordings that used tape as the source.

Same! A lot of the recent Impulse reissues have this quality.

 

[pseudoid]

I was in our city's largest vinyl emporium this weekend trying to sell them my big Beatles box-set CD collection. They were quite keen on buying it but...damn it all..it turned out for some reason it was missing one album (Rubber Soul) so they rejected the whole box set. They would have given me 70 bucks for it.

Most of the LPs in my collection (north of six-hundred '70s/'80s artists) were in pristine condition.
Sound-quality reservation (of my record library) apparently [?] had gotten the best of me, in those years. The very FIRST listen - after each purchase - also copied/recorded the whole LP onto TDK-SA (90min.) on 2 HarmanKardon cassette decks.

Circa 2017 - in a fit of de-contenting rage - I had put my whole LP library on CraigsList, including the Excel ledger for all my LPs (date/artist/album/price/etc., for each).
Peeps kept contacting me to buy parts of the collection - as, apparently, there were many 'collector's items' in my library.
I just did not want to go thru the big angst of trying to eek out the last penny to research which were (and were not) hi-value LPs in my collection.

Some how, a company called VinylVault contacted me to buy the whole collection (in one-lot: as I had stipulated), for a negotiated price both parties readily agreed upon.
No fuss; no mess!
Deal was done very quickly that I considered 'lucrative' for me: Especially since, I had never purchased the albums in my collection as a commodity/investment but simply for their musical value! The quickness of the negotiations leads me to believe that I must've had many rare/collectors' albums... to be a good value for an expert that is willing to offer large capital for such a lot-sum.

The guilt of purging such collections may be excruciating but subsides within the first month.
ROI may even give you just reasons for some hardware upgrades!

Should I be arrested for IP theft??
Could you imagine if artwork had such IP restrictions????

 

[levimax]

Should I be arrested for IP theft??

No but some would say you should delete all of the backups.
For awhile I was chasing around very expensive versions of CD's, DVD-A's etc. and then discovered I could get them all for free on the dark side of the internet and I downloaded a lot of these "special" versions rationalizing that I would never buy them anyway at the crazy high prices and I had all ready bought other versions previously so downloading them was OK. I then came to the perspective that this was indeed stealing and I deleted all the files and back-ups. I do miss some of these but for me it was the right thing to do. YMMV.

 

[MattHooper]

A tablet is tangible,

In this context, that's a bit like saying the experience of shopping on-line is just as tangible as shopping in a store. Well, yes, the keyboard or ipad you are using is "tangible" but it's not the same type of "tangible."

Same with the difference between holding music that has been engraved on a large disc in your hand - you have to interact with that in a different manner than just swiping away tracks on your ipad. That difference makes a difference (to many who like vinyl).

It certainly doesn't mean it should make a compelling difference for you, though!

and a lot less expensive than a vinyl collection. I'm not sick of streaming. If some people are sick of streaming, is there a sensible reason for this?

Not sure that 'sick of streaming' fits the bill, but many are looking for something else or in addition to streaming music.

I find I can get "music ADD" when using streaming. With millions of tracks at my finger tips I tend to surf music more than settling in and listening intently. Vinyl helps me focus more on just listening and not worrying about swiping to the next track. I put on a record and almost always listen to a whole side, often the whole album. I rarely would do that when streaming. Of course, this is all driven by the individual. Some people have no problem at all focusing on entire albums (or whatever they want) when streaming.

Then there is the generation that has grown up with music and movies in digital form, transmitted via their phones/ipads/screens. A portion of this generation is discovering the experience of more tangible products (like records...and other items). It seems a fairly wide-spread human need. It's why so many people keep all sorts of physical objects.

 

[mppix]

One of his remasters of classic rock or new music of his own?
2ch or 5.1 or Atmos
There's so much to chose from.
The below remaster list is 3 years old, lots more since

Steven Wilson: Remixing Classic Albums

Prog-rock wunderkind Steven Wilson is using his studio skills to give legendary rock albums a new lease of life.

www.soundonsound.com

His latest solo effort is 2021s The Future Sucks in all 3 digital formats.
He also fronts the progressive rock band Porcupine Tree, their latest was 2022's Closure Continuation also in all 3 formats

Do you mean "The Future Bites"?

 

[pseudoid]

No but some would say you should delete all of the backups.

You see, @levimax? This type of scare tactic - just another Shenanigan by the Hooligan B*st*rds - is what got us to this 'hysteria' moment.
I am not going to rant about the goods/bads of IP, but ....
Simple rhetorical question, to your simple statement, is this:
How do you exactly make sense of your statement when someone (specifically in this case: me) was already paying an "excise tax" on purchased 'blank' cassettes to make such "copies" for personal use?
I won't ask you about the poor-quality of the resultant cassette and whether that would have prevented you from repeating a "shenanigan".

I feel no guilt or shame! Thank you!

 

[MattHooper]

No but some would say you should delete all of the backups.
For awhile I was chasing around very expensive versions of CD's, DVD-A's etc. and then discovered I could get them all for free on the dark side of the internet and I downloaded a lot of these "special" versions rationalizing that I would never buy them anyway at the crazy high prices and I had all ready bought other versions previously so downloading them was OK. I then came to the perspective that this was indeed stealing and I deleted all the files and back-ups. I do miss some of these but for me it was the right thing to do. YMMV.

I went through this on another thread but...

I've been very strict for many years regarding "getting stuff for free" and pirating. Being part of the film industry, my income seems to have suffered from the effects of piracy. And I have been a musician and know many struggling musicians, hence I'm very sensitive to taking money out of people's pocket.
Along those lines, when Napster and then the rest of the swapping MP3s phenomenon happened, I never did it because I viewed it as a form of stealing.
I was offered hard drives full of music from friends/acquaintances and refused.

Likewise when it seems like everyone I knew was torrenting music and movies (before streaming especially). Even people I knew in the industry! Again, I couldn't do it. I would pay for anything I watched or listened to. Friends learned not to bring up watching movies for free that way, knowing how I felt about it.

Likewise I have resisted illegally sharing or acquiring sound effects libraries, sound editing software, plug-ins etc. I pay for everything.

And when everyone and their brother seems to be using VPNs to access stuff they can't get here....I also refuse to engage in that.

After ripping lots of my CD collection I held on to the CDs for 15 years, but I truly began running out of room for storage. I finally relented and got rid of a bunch of them - sold a few, dropped a lot to Goodwill. I still have a big box left in storage. I looked in to the issue on-line and it seemed to still be something of a gray area. But even if it's not, and strictly speaking it's not kosher, I've cut myself a break in getting rid of some of my CDs. I've done a lot of time in the Virtue Circle, I'm still sticking to my guns regarding all the above. But I'm not gonna reach perfection.

I have no doubt that some of the stuff I've watched on youtube - e.g. all sorts of clips/content/maybe old movies/music videos/music, whatever - would have been posted without the rights. I have no idea what or when, but that is always some likelihood on youtube. I'd suspect most here have likely viewed stuff on youtube or elsewhere that was a rights violation even if they didn't know it.

One could say well it's up to youtube to police that or the people posting to get the rights. But let's face it, if one wants to be perfectly virtuous and avoid the possibility of seeing anything for which the rightful owner should receive money, then one could completely avoid going on youtube. I'm not about to stop using youtube and I doubt many here are either. Life's messy.

So is getting rid of some of my ripped CDs 100% consistent with my long standing objection to paying artists for their work? (Well...I did pay for every CD). Perhaps not strictly speaking. Then, ok, I'm human and not perfect. I can live with that. If I've slipped a bit after many years, I'll still keep doing the best I can for the most part.

 

[levimax]

You see, @levimax? This type of scare tactic - just another Shenanigan by the Hooligan B*st*rds - is what got us to this 'hysteria' moment.
I am not going to rant about the goods/bads of IP, but ....
Simple rhetorical question, to your simple statement, is this:
How do you exactly make sense of your statement when someone (specifically in this case: me) was already paying an "excise tax" on purchased 'blank' cassettes to make such "copies" for personal use?
I won't ask you about the poor-quality of the resultant cassette and whether that would have prevented you from repeating a "shenanigan".

I feel no guilt or shame! Thank you!

I went through this on another thread but...

I've been very strict for many years regarding "getting stuff for free" and pirating. Being part of the film industry, my income seems to have suffered from the effects of piracy. And I have been a musician and know many struggling musicians, hence I'm very sensitive to taking money out of people's pocket.
Along those lines, when Napster and then the rest of the swapping MP3s phenomenon happened, I never did it because I viewed it as a form of stealing.
I was offered hard drives full of music from friends/acquaintances and refused.

Likewise when it seems like everyone I knew was torrenting music and movies (before streaming especially). Even people I knew in the industry! Again, I couldn't do it. I would pay for anything I watched or listened to. Friends learned not to bring up watching movies for free that way, knowing how I felt about it.

Likewise I have resisted illegally sharing or acquiring sound effects libraries, sound editing software, plug-ins etc. I pay for everything.

And when everyone and their brother seems to be using VPNs to access stuff they can't get here....I also refuse to engage in that.

After ripping lots of my CD collection I held on to the CDs for 15 years, but I truly began running out of room for storage. I finally relented and got rid of a bunch of them - sold a few, dropped a lot to Goodwill. I still have a big box left in storage. I looked in to the issue on-line and it seemed to still be something of a gray area. But even if it's not, and strictly speaking it's not kosher, I've cut myself a break in getting rid of some of my CDs. I've done a lot of time in the Virtue Circle, I'm still sticking to my guns regarding all the above. But I'm not gonna reach perfection.

I have no doubt that some of the stuff I've watched on youtube - e.g. all sorts of clips/content/maybe old movies/music videos/music, whatever - would have been posted without the rights. I have no idea what or when, but that is always some likelihood on youtube. I'd suspect most here have likely viewed stuff on youtube or elsewhere that was a rights violation even if they didn't know it.

One could say well it's up to youtube to police that or the people posting to get the rights. But let's face it, if one wants to be perfectly virtuous and avoid the possibility of seeing anything for which the rightful owner should receive money, then one could completely avoid going on youtube. I'm not about to stop using youtube and I doubt many here are either. Life's messy.

So is getting rid of some of my ripped CDs 100% consistent with my long standing objection to paying artists for their work? (Well...I did pay for every CD). Perhaps not strictly speaking. Then, ok, I'm human and not perfect. I can live with that. If I've slipped a bit after many years, I'll still keep doing the best I can for the most part.

This subject is a no win subject to debate, much like politics and religion, and will leave it at that. Peace.

 

[Bob from Florida]

I went through this on another thread but...

I've been very strict for many years regarding "getting stuff for free" and pirating. Being part of the film industry, my income seems to have suffered from the effects of piracy. And I have been a musician and know many struggling musicians, hence I'm very sensitive to taking money out of people's pocket.
Along those lines, when Napster and then the rest of the swapping MP3s phenomenon happened, I never did it because I viewed it as a form of stealing.
I was offered hard drives full of music from friends/acquaintances and refused.

Likewise when it seems like everyone I knew was torrenting music and movies (before streaming especially). Even people I knew in the industry! Again, I couldn't do it. I would pay for anything I watched or listened to. Friends learned not to bring up watching movies for free that way, knowing how I felt about it.

Likewise I have resisted illegally sharing or acquiring sound effects libraries, sound editing software, plug-ins etc. I pay for everything.

And when everyone and their brother seems to be using VPNs to access stuff they can't get here....I also refuse to engage in that.

After ripping lots of my CD collection I held on to the CDs for 15 years, but I truly began running out of room for storage. I finally relented and got rid of a bunch of them - sold a few, dropped a lot to Goodwill. I still have a big box left in storage. I looked in to the issue on-line and it seemed to still be something of a gray area. But even if it's not, and strictly speaking it's not kosher, I've cut myself a break in getting rid of some of my CDs. I've done a lot of time in the Virtue Circle, I'm still sticking to my guns regarding all the above. But I'm not gonna reach perfection.

I have no doubt that some of the stuff I've watched on youtube - e.g. all sorts of clips/content/maybe old movies/music videos/music, whatever - would have been posted without the rights. I have no idea what or when, but that is always some likelihood on youtube. I'd suspect most here have likely viewed stuff on youtube or elsewhere that was a rights violation even if they didn't know it.

One could say well it's up to youtube to police that or the people posting to get the rights. But let's face it, if one wants to be perfectly virtuous and avoid the possibility of seeing anything for which the rightful owner should receive money, then one could completely avoid going on youtube. I'm not about to stop using youtube and I doubt many here are either. Life's messy.

So is getting rid of some of my ripped CDs 100% consistent with my long standing objection to paying artists for their work? (Well...I did pay for every CD). Perhaps not strictly speaking. Then, ok, I'm human and not perfect. I can live with that. If I've slipped a bit after many years, I'll still keep doing the best I can for the most part.

JP is correct - I don't believe there is any argument that will refute what has been posted.

Yes, we are human and make mistakes. We all have to live with our own conscious. The excuses being made remind me of a child who's hand is in the proverbial "cookie jar" plainly in sight, while the child claims "no, I didn't take any cookies"!

 

[RichB]

JP is correct - I don't believe there is any argument that will refute what has been posted.

Yes, we are human and make mistakes. We all have to live with our own conscious. The excuses being made remind me of a child who's hand is in the proverbial "cookie jar" plainly in sight, while the child claims "no, I didn't take any cookies"!

This child is destined for political greatness.

- Rich

 

[MattHooper]

JP is correct - I don't believe there is any argument that will refute what has been posted.

Yes, we are human and make mistakes. We all have to live with our own conscious. The excuses being made remind me of a child who's hand is in the proverbial "cookie jar" plainly in sight, while the child claims "no, I didn't take any cookies"!

I hope it's clear I did not offer an excuse of the type you just characterized.

 

[MattHooper]

This child is destined for political greatness.

- Rich

...or just "Politics."

 

[RonSanderson]

Should I be arrested for IP theft??
Could you imagine if artwork had such IP restrictions????

Artwork should have some of these restrictions.

My wife is an artist and is painfully attuned to the way art is treated as an object, not as intellectual property.

She firmly believes that when artwork is resold at a profit to the original owner, that a serious percentage of that profit should go back to the artist. Further, the buyer simply does not have the right to deface or destroy the art simply because it is in their possession. That not only disrespects the artist, but removes the work from the cultural heritage.

Many famous artworks were originally sold for nearly nothing, then later resold, enriching the first buyer but leaving the artist still empoverished.

So put away your foolish arguments, which are so weak I can feel you straining to keep up your illusion. To disrespect the IP rights of the creator is to disrespect the creator. If you do not respect them you have no right to enjoy the fruits of their creativity and labors.

Regards,
Ron

 

[RonSanderson]

This subject is a no win subject to debate, much like politics and religion, and will leave it at that. Peace.

I understand your sentiment, but I have to side with @MattHooper . It’s not a personal preference. It’s theft of a person’s intellect, talent, and labor.

The creator deserves to benefit from their creation. The more widely it is appreciated, the more they deserve to benefit. It’s simple morality.

My wife and I try to patronize local business, even if inconvenient and more costly. We want them to still be in business when we really need them. We want them to be part of the fabric of the community we live in. To support us, we have to support them.

We can’t expect to simply benefit from the acts of others without doing something in return, ourselves.

It’s simply the right thing to do.

 

[Sal1950]

Some how, a company called VinylVault contacted me to buy the whole collection (in one-lot: as I had stipulated), for a negotiated price both parties readily agreed upon.
No fuss; no mess!
Deal was done very quickly that I considered 'lucrative' for me: Especially since, I had never purchased the albums in my collection as a commodity/investment but simply for their musical value! The quickness of the negotiations leads me to believe that I must've had many rare/collectors' albums... to be a good value for an expert that is willing to offer large capital for such a lot-sum.

I did the same back around 2010, sold all the vinyl to one LP specialist and all the CD's to a local dealer.
We all knew the really valuable ones were things like the MoFi label and other specialist labels.
I could probably done better selling them individually but that could take forever..
Let him make an honest profit for the investment.

Should I be arrested for IP theft??

Clank Clank,
The dream police, they live inside of my head
The dream police, they come to me in my bed
The dream police, they're coming to arrest me, oh no

Do you mean "The Future Bites"?

LOL Yea, that might have been a Freudian Slip.

This child is destined for political greatness.

- Rich

He's in the White House right now.

She firmly believes that when artwork is resold at a profit to the original owner, that a serious percentage of that profit should go back to the artist.

Why, if the value of that object falls thru the floor, will the artist reimburse him for his loss

We want them to still be in business when we really need them.

Wonderful, so do I.
How many times do you go back in that store and pay him again for a product you took home at an earlier date.
???

 

[Bob from Florida]

I hope it's clear I did not offer an excuse of the type you just characterized.

I did not think so.

 

[levimax]

I understand your sentiment, but I have to side with @MattHooper . It’s not a personal preference. It’s theft of a person’s intellect, talent, and labor.

The creator deserves to benefit from their creation. The more widely it is appreciated, the more they deserve to benefit. It’s simple morality.

My wife an I try to patronize local business, even if inconvenient and more costly. We want them to still be in business when we really need them. We can’t expect to simply benefit from the acts of others without doing something ourselves.

It’s simply the right thing to do.

I agree with you which is clear from my comments, just not interested in debating it as people take it personally and seldom if ever does anyone's mind get changed. Since there is never going to be any prosecution or enforcement of the laws for these types of things ( personal use, not large scale copying) it does become a type of personal preference.

 

[pseudoid]

She firmly believes that when artwork is resold at a profit to the original owner, that a serious percentage of that profit should go back to the artist. Further, the buyer simply does not have the right to deface or destroy the art simply because it is in their possession. That not only disrespects the artist, but removes the work from the cultural heritage.
Many famous artworks were originally sold for nearly nothing, then later resold, enriching the first buyer but leaving the artist still empoverished.
So put away your foolish arguments,

Foolish!
LOL...
Residual-ownership by originator?
Right-on...
Cultural-heritage IS by endowments and/or philanthropic decisions << currently based on deed of ownership.
Whatever...

NFT? Anyone?

 

[RonSanderson]

Foolish!
LOL...
Residual-ownership by originator?
Right-on...
Cultural-heritage IS by endowments and/or philanthropic decisions << currently based on deed of ownership.
Whatever...

NFT? Anyone?

Not foolish, certainly - in many realms what seems unthinkable becomes the norm, once it has been thought of.

Perhaps you mistake the object for the intellectual property it represents. By selling a painting or sculpture the single object embodies the artist’s work and talent. Like an NFT tries to be, it is a unique object. The artistic expression joins other visual, musical, architectural, literary, and similar expressions to make up the framework of our culture. It may be certified as such by some institution, but that is after the fact and that validation is not required for the object to be part of the cultural whole.

The rise of printing gave the visual artists a means to break the uniqueness of the object. Essentially a print is a license to view and retain the image, while the original plate is held intact by the artist. Music on platters, discs, or files use the same approach.

50 years ago it was Foolish! to think a recording artist owned the song. The labels controlled the song, the rights, the income stream. Only decades of abuse of this system and rebellion by the artists made this shift possible. The Foolish! became the Obvious!.

Yes, an artist should benefit from every print made, every display of the image on TV, in ads, or on album covers. And, to be equitable, they should retain rights to the intellectual property even if the physical object itself changes hands. And if the IP and its physical manifestation increase in value, the artist should benefit from that.

I like your troll. No, I don’t purchase an object for an agreed-upon price and then go back and offer to pay more. It’s a thing. It is not intellectual property. But yes, I may go back to that store again the next time I need another thing, It is a way of rewarding the seller for providing a venue and product lineup that makes my life easier. That, too, is a moral imperative.

There is a place for capitalism, but it is not in our souls. There are values above what money can put a price on.