Post your latest purchases with pics (NO STOCK IMAGES)

[dfc05]

I should clarify. I don't mean killing companies in an RIAA illegal download sense, but that now you can listen to virtually anything on Spotify/mog/etc., legally. The interview I was referring to was this one, where the labels might be considered DIY labels in the truest sense (run by bands).

(sorry, this is poorly google translated from spanish):

The future of music is very complicated and even unknown. In less than a year CDs will be gone, because no one will have a device for playback [I believe this is referring to boomboxes -- basically there is no point in buying a cd anymore -- more on this later]. The players are digital and vinyl are for the fans. I do not know how it will really all this, but what is clear is that today the music lives on less passion. Internet us about things, but has eliminated the impatience of waiting for something to be edited and hearing new bands. There is no mystique. Everything is within reach. The passion of despair arose from the desire to find things, to travel to discover and listen to music. Currently everything is within reach of a click.

MP3's have always seemed lame to me, maybe because I grew up with cd's. I've bought through bandcamp before when that was the only option. I would much prefer to pay a little extra for physical product, especially since some labels/bands actually put effort into their packaging.

I almost wish we had stopped at 30-second song clips on amazon + limited internet radio. This was actually sufficient to get me off mainstream radio. What is really starting to disturb me is that free, legal streaming music starts establishing the feeling that you are not actually buying useful product for yourself (because you can already have it for free, legally, unless you specifically choose to limit yourself) -- but that you are donating to the band like a charity case.

Of course, part of this is not really the Internet's fault, in that cd's are indeed obsolete now. You stick it in your computer and you never have need to use it again except maybe in the car. So maybe the cd format has just run its natural course. Still, if they "disappear" entirely, that would be sad. I really have no clue if I would go to mp3's, or buy a record player and try switching everything over to vinyl just to get physical product.

While I'm on this, packaging in general has become lamer over time as things switch over to digital. Remember when Age of Empires came packaged with a whole book? Maybe it's supposed to be only about the game, or the music, but I appreciated that.

 

[YROC]

I, for one, welcome our digital overlords.

 

[Vegeta897]

words

This is such a lame view to have. You know that CDs are merely a storage device for digital audio right? MP3s with high quality are virtually indistinguishable from what you hear on a CD. If you want your music on a CD you can burn it yourself. If that's not good enough for you, then your view is even lamer than I thought. Oh no, you don't get the 'official' CD that was made by the band, and cool cover art man! Buy vinyl if you want a physical product directly from artists. At least then you'll have a format that some would say offers a significant boost in listening quality.

You really need to have something physical to feel like your purchase of music means something?
And that paying artists directly to download the music to acquire the exact same quality of listening except cheaper and more convenient for you and the artist is like a 'charity case'?

The problem seems to be in you, not the industry.
It's about the music, not the format it comes on. The only reason album art exists is because it would be silly to sell just a blank disc with no cover. Though some artists like to include album art and even extra related art in the archives you download when you buy from bandcamp.
Printing CDs is costly to the artist and takes time. No artist out there would choose this over the far more convenient and profitable method of online distribution.

 

[dfc05]

Is it really an argument that the artwork is important? There are bands like Godspeed where the visuals are produced by the band, intimately tied to their music, and absolutely iconic. Or bands like Explosions or Eluvium that have long-established friendships with the artists, who even go on tour with them and man their merch table. Some bands/labels clearly prefer to sell CDs than MP3s, given how many musicians make handmade CDs, or sell only the CD and provide the MP3s for free (actually, $0 or name your own price which is frighteningly similar to donating). There are labels that don't even sell MP3s directly.

As for vinyl -- that requires an investment in a record player and sound system. If I were really hardcore, I would get one. I would like to do that when I have a real job, or ask for my dad's since he never uses his. But for now, CDs are the most affordable way for consumers to buy a physical product, and for bands to produce a physical product if they feel compelled to have artwork -- and many do.

Then there's the whole case of the death of the local record shop which is obviously tied to lack of physical sales. Not lack of vinyl sales which are resurgent, but lack of the mass consumer CD sale. I won't get into that debate as I doubt you feel a physical shop is even important.

Last -- I buy primarily from record labels themselves and local shops, and attend shows, where I buy more merch. So it's pretty insulting that you'd get on my case for having a "problem" just because I'd prefer a CD over MP3s. Like I said, if a band is selling MP3 only, I've purchased it. If they're selling a CD, I pay more for it. If they have to drop a format due to lack of business, that's not their fault. It's not the fault of the kids buying vinyl. But if the band produces a well-designed CD and the general consumer decides they'd prefer to pay $8 for MP3s instead of $10 for the CD, then I think that's sad.

[edit for your edit]

Printing CDs is costly to the artist and takes time. No artist out there would choose this over the far more convenient and profitable method of online distribution.

This is just flat-out wrong. Many counterexamples. And very insulting. This operates under the assumption that a band's primary goal is to make money, and not to produce a work of art.

 

[ríomhaire]

You think it's sad that people would prefer to pay $8 for a more convenient option that the band probably makes a greater profit on because of some sort of arbitrary weight you put on the storage device? I could understand if you were talking about a vinyl where the sound is more physically etched on in an analogue fashion, but a CD is a digital storage device. There is literally no difference between the data stored on a CD and on a harddrive.

If you think MP3s are too low quality then bandcamp sell FLAC format. I don't know much about audio formats but it's supposed to be "lossless" and much better quality than mp3s.

 

[YROC]

FLAC is the bees knees.

 

[dfc05]

Misses the whole point. From a pure business perspective, MP3s/FLACs are more profitable. Some bands aspire to higher goals than to make money. I can't see how that is so hard to understand unless you've never purchased any physical CD from a band that cares. Have you never opened up a cd case and thought "Holy crap this is gorgeous" and you listen to the music -- and everything fits together perfectly?? If not, you are missing out. That is the freakin' bees knees. Sigur Ros's () album. Explosions in the Sky's All of a Sudden, where it comes with a fold-out poster of art. Godspeed's road map to the music on Lift Yr Skinny Fists, or the wonderfully paranoid diagram on Yanqui showing how everything connects to bombs (lol). If they wanted mo' money and didn't give a crap about giving you a beautiful package, this is how they would've packaged it:
Clear plastic case.
One sheet that goes in the inside -- no booklet, no art on the back.
CD with name of band and album in boring text, no art.

The fact that lots and lots of bands go wayyyyy above and beyond this is a testament to their love of art over money. If you want to hear it from the artists' own mouth, I suggest you watch the film Blood Sweat & Vinyl. There's also an interview out there with the founder of Temporary Residence Limited, where he specifically mentions wanting to give his bands the resources to have artwork for their albums that evokes the music. This is how they want to present their work -- as a physical piece of art. It is obvious that the band wants it this way and would eschew higher profit margins to sell you art.

The bottom right cd I posted -- that band has gone to selling only 7"s, tour-only. When asked why -- "nobody buys CDs anymore." MP3s did not even come up as a discussion point, because that runs against their entire aesthetic. The implication here is "We would make CDs if people bought them, we refuse to sell MP3s, and so we are left with selling 7"s because only the hipsters with record players are buying physical copies of music anymore."

Anyways, I didn't mean to derail the purchase thread. In the original post, I was mostly sad that nobody was buying CDs from the best local record store in town even at 40% off, and that part of the "magic" of waiting anxiously til Tuesday for an album release (and then 'til Saturday so you can get to the store), and getting your new album, and opening it up and you pause for a good few minutes poring through the artwork and then you put the music on and cry because of how beautiful it all is -- we have lost that. I still don't see how this is so controversial unless, again, you've never bought a well-designed CD. Your loss and a loss to the bands that care and the artists they love.

 

[Vegeta897]

Misses the whole point. From a pure business perspective, MP3s/FLACs are more profitable. Some bands aspire to higher goals than to make money.

And what's that? To release some album art? Funny, and here I thought bands released music. There's nothing stopping a band from releasing any number of pictures with their music digitally, like I already said.

If you claim there are bands out there who care so much about releasing art with their albums, why don't they just release some art book merch on the side of selling the music digitally?

"we refuse to sell MP3s"

And why the shit do they 'refuse' to sell MP3s? Probably because they were thinking something like iTunes or Amazon, where big companies take a hefty chunk of your profit. And don't tell me it isn't about the money, because they said themselves that they didn't make CDs because nobody would buy them = losing money.

I understand where you're coming from, I really do. I just think you have a slight irrational bias against digital value.

 

[dfc05]

Fair enough. I would personally solicit answers from bands themselves if I were a journalist. For that one band I mentioned -- they just had a kid. I think they kept producing CDs until they needed to be able to eat. There's a huge difference between doing something for higher profit, vs. "we would do this, but we can't feed our kid anymore." It wasn't that selling a CD was unprofitable (those things are actually pretty cheap to manufacture), but that it's unprofitable to make the CD and have nobody buy it -- then you just spent money to fill your closet with your own stuff. Their label (which is co-owned by one of the band members) started directly selling MP3/FLAC the past year. They easily could've done digital distribution totally independently -- make it available at zero cost to the band and let people buy an MP3 if they want. But apparently they're not utilizing that option. Maybe it makes zero financial sense, but it's their choice.

The deeper we dig here, it's just going to come down to: "Why would anyone rather sell a CD than an MP3?" "Because they want to. They like putting their music in pretty things and I think that's swell so I buy their pretty things" "But -- they could be making money! This makes no sense! I think they would rather make money!" "They don't care. They wanted to make PRETTY THINGS." "WTF?! but they play music!" "Musicians like pretty things too. Pretty things that they made to go with the music, and that you can touch and feel because that's different from looking at AlbumArt.jpg.*" "But, the money!!!!" "Dude, it's art, it makes no sense."

*[if you don't think this is different, remove "no stock images" from the thread title]

I just feel baffled -- it's like I'm old or something. At the tail end of a generation where art+music was the standard, and was for everyone (not just "oooh, you must be an enthusiast/snob, still buying CDs and vinyl, why don't you go join a last.fm group about it," or worse -- "you must be selfish, buying CDs when MP3s are more profitable to the band -- even though some of these bands let you download MP3s for free -- wait, what the heck.") There are plenty of editorials out there lamenting the decline of physical music, so I don't think I'm totally insane, just from a different generation.

 

[Quixoticism]

Even I hesitate to buy cd's because there's no surprise to look forward to anymore unless you pre-order or do some kind of self-imposed no-Spotify/bandcamp/myspace/youtube/NPR-first-listen asceticism. I already heard 3 of these 4 albums long before I bought them.

I know I'm late to the discussion here but wtf? I only buy an album if I've listened to the whole thing and I like at least 90% of it. Buying a cd for 'surprise' and finding out that surprise is junk and nothing like what you'd expect is a waste of money and akin to the experience of all the unfortunate people who bought a Smashmouth album because they liked "all star" on the radio.

Support good music by paying the artists who make it. Don't buy or listen to anything you're not absolutely sure you're going to get great listening out of. If you really care that much about art, there is usually plenty of it on the artist's webpage.

I prefer to buy cd's when I can because I have a backup and I get to choose the audio quality when I import it. That being said, I don't have any complaints about the digital media I have purchased and downloaded.

 

[dfc05]

How old are you guys? I and every friend I know who likes music has browsed a record store and bought something purely because it looked awesome or was put out on an indie label we trust, and liked it. You seem to think I'm against all digital media. I buy MP3s too if that's all they've made available. I use Spotify a lot, but heck yeah I miss the experience of unwrapping a new album and not already knowing every song on it. Sometimes I pre-order instead of listen-first, buy-later. 1. It's called trust. 2. It's fun, try it sometime. And seriously -- you need to hear 90%? What about established bands that you already like? What if you've only heard 6 of 9 tracks? Heard & liked 30 sec clips of every song, but each song is 5 minutes long, so 90% of it is still a surprise? Is 90% measured in number of songs or time? Do you go to the movie theater and say, "I'm not going to pay to watch this movie, because I'm not sure if I'll like 90% of it"? "This videogame is being made by Valve. The premise sounds good, the 5% in the demo was fun, Valve usually puts out great games, but I don't know if I'll like the other 90%." Is music held to a vastly higher standard for the sole reason that you can now stream it for free?

But at least you still buy. What I absolutely don't like, is that a band can no longer afford to put out a physical product even if they really want to because nobody will buy it, and that independent record stores are going out of business.

It is laughable that anyone here can say "there's art on the bands' webpage." Buy "He Has Left US Alone But Shafts of Light Sometimes Grace the Corner Of Our Rooms" by A Silver Mt. Zion. I know I like the music (and can trust I'll like any future release by them). Very simple design on cardstock, but gorgeous color pairings, and has etchings printed in red foil. You can feel it when you run your finger along it. Go ahead and look up a picture, but it won't do you any good. They are completely different. If you can't appreciate that artwork, then you don't appreciate it, and that is that. Doesn't mean you have to belittle it though.

 

[Krynn72]

The problem, for me at least, is that there's too much music I like, and it sucks when you buy an album you dont like. There's plenty of bands I like that have albums I dont enjoy. Trust is a pretty shitty way of buying albums when you dont have a lot of cash to burn.

 

[dfc05]

The problem, for me at least, is that there's too much music I like, and it sucks when you buy an album you dont like. There's plenty of bands I like that have albums I dont enjoy. Trust is a pretty shitty way of buying albums when you dont have a lot of cash to burn.

This is perfectly reasonable. I do attempt to rein in the crazy by maintaining a budget and a buy-list, and kind of panic getting stuff off the buy-list. But I've been 100% happy on pre-orders; not 100% but mostly happy with spontaneous record store purchases. Risk goes both ways too: sometimes I buy music I love at the moment, but over time it loses awesomeness. Se la vie.

My ideal is the short-lived system of free 30 second clips of every song, then decide if you want to pay to hear the whole thing. Now it's unlimited streaming of the whole thing, and mull over whether you like 90% of it enough to buy a copy of what you could continue streaming for free. We'll never regress and I certainly take advantage of free streaming. But the old way felt more balanced (and fun! loved trying to extrapolate off those 30 sec clips, then find out how the song really goes, or what you assumed was the chorus was actually the verse). You can still do it, you just get called stupid.

[ultra-edit, last I'll make on the topic]
I've thought about this a whole lot more, and I think what it comes down to is this:
To a lot of people, music is just the squiggles you can see in Audacity, and your ear picking up sound waves. Maybe you like what your ears are hearing, maybe you don't. By definition, that's what music is in the strictest sense.
To me, music is that, plus everything else that has zilch to do with sound waves: that band your friend loves and maybe you don't like at all but you'll listen to it anyways; which band you were listening to the summer of '01 while playing Age of Empires all day; flipping through your high school CDs knowing every one of them is terrible but you still find some softness in your heart for Third Eye Blind's self-titled even though you know that dude can't sing live at all; scrambling down Colfax Ave to try to get to the record store before it closes -- not realizing that Colfax is the freakin' "longest, wickedest street in America" (I still feel bad for my friend who had the sprained ankle); Razzy Bailey on cassette crooning "She Left Love All Over Me" on that rusty old van trip to Rocky Mountain National Park and you know it's awful and kind of gross but you love it still; climbing over the railing when people around you started moshing to Melt-Banana; sitting in people's disgusting muddy shoe puddles at that Dark Dark Dark house show out by the river during a rainstorm, wondering if you're gonna catch something but not caring because it was sooooo good; fat ladies helping pull you through to front row of the hugest Explosions in the Sky show ever (and at the very end of "Memorial" you're like, "Am I hearing weird booming sounds?" and your sister tugs on your shirt (your Explosions shirt at that) and points -- fireworks!); and yes -- even something so "lame" or nonsensical as bringing home a CD you've never heard, pulling the plastic wrap off and thinking "wow! sweet art, I wonder what it sounds like!"
I don't think it's wrong to want all those things, above and beyond Track01.mp3 @ 320kbps, or for a physical package to contribute something to the music. I think that's a celebration of the fact that music doesn't exist in a vacuum (or -- in a nondescript air filled room, because music literally can't exist in a vacuum lulz!).

 

[Zephos]

I think everybody from both sides of the argument has pretty much summarised what I had to say on the topic. Me, I'm for the most part a physical consumer. I own a record player and I love going down to my record store and chatting with the people who work there, who I now consider my friends and go out often with them to the bar across the road. It's the whole experience of hanging at a store, getting recommendations, buying the record and seeing all the lovely artwork and posters and attachments that come with it. I recently purchased F#A#Infinity by Godspeed you Black Emperor! and it was amazing to find all these little trinkets, a sealed envelope and all sorts of things. It's like buying a collector's edition of a game or a boxset DVD. Sure it doesn't directly add anything to the core product but there's that fun physical collector's aspect. There's a lot of love and care evident in many.

That said, I'm equally an advocate for digital releases. I can think of dozens of bands in my collection who would be nowhere without that cheap direct avenue to their audiences. I can't entirely relate to people who say I need to listen to a whole album before purchasing, but that's because I enjoy the thrill of listening to a song or just seeing the cover of an album, popping in a purchase, and discovering its an incredible album. I mean it doesn't always pay off but here in Australia albums on CD cost the same as a movie ticket and popcorn, and as dfc pointed out if I'd be a hypocrite if I applied the same logic to a movie as I did music. I've seen plenty of bad movies, as I've purchased many bad albums. I can understand why people wouldn't take that risk, but I suppose I'm indoctrined with older ways of thought.

As it stands physical media seems on the wane. I think there'll always be a small market for perhaps records and such, hopefully. I'd be saddened if it ceased to exist at all. To get back on topic, here's my latest (rather relevant) purchase:

 

[Bad^Hat]

The problem, for me at least, is that there's too much music I like, and it sucks when you buy an album you dont like. There's plenty of bands I like that have albums I dont enjoy. Trust is a pretty shitty way of buying albums when you dont have a lot of cash to burn.

Yeah, this is more or less where I come from now, too. I used to browse record stores and buy stuff based on word of mouth or because I liked one of their singles or even a couple times because of the album art (usually a bad idea), and more often than not I got something I liked. Sometimes it was surprisingly good, or the packaging was really nice (having something you can hold in your hands is much more satisfying than opening an image on your computer), so I think I get what dfc is talking about when he describes that "magic." But I listen to far too much music to worry about that now. The internet and mp3s have opened up a whole world of new and wonderful and obscure music to me and there's no way I could go back to physical copies (except for bands I already like and want to support). Besides, I still find it pretty exciting when I stumble across some little-known band that blows me away, even if I listen to the whole thing before throwing down any money on it.

 

[Pi Mu Rho]

Two of these:

 

[Vegeta897]

The other two, you had for lunch.

 

[Krynn72]

The other two, you had for lunch.

This one saw his fate in Pi's hungry eyes.

 

[kineaesth]

Bengal kittens!? Awesome!

 

[Warped Dan]

got myself Mass Effect 3 Sunday. Love it! And also a shitload of groceries and shit like that. Really too tired to find my camera

 

[Krynn72]

got myself Mass Effect 3 Sunday. Love it! And also a shitload of groceries and shit like that. Really too tired to find my camera

Shoulda bought an energy drink while you were there.

Here's some shit I bought over the past couple weeks. Apparently I subconsciously decided I dont like money, and got rid of all I could spare.

Bought four of these guys. Pak40s mounted on RSO tractors.

And six of these Sd Kfz 251/9s. 7.5mm cannons on 251/1D chassis.

And two of these SIG33 15mm infantry guns.

 

[KiplingsCat]

Pretty lights to cheer up my piano because I don't have as much time to play anymore

Also, those kittens are adorable. WANT.

 

[DEATHMASTER]

 

[Naph]

 

[Vegeta897]

Coke for breakfast, man.

 

[Naph]

Yeah my friend criticised me on that. If there was any breakfast value meal beverage other than OJ I'd order it.

 

[Zephos]

Coffee.

 

[morgs]

I always drink coke first thing in the morning. Why is this supposed to be wrong?

 

[Naph]

Coffee.

The overall nature of the day didn't quite necessitate coffee.

 

[Pi Mu Rho]

Are those some ****ing ocicats?? Those mother****ers are smart as ****, they grow up to be the size of a small dog, and they can jump like eight ****ing feet. Don't get me wrong, I love my little calico kitty, but god damn you know how to pick a cat Pi

Bengals, which is about the same thing. I chose them for the exact qualities you just described!

 

[Shamrock]

hello. This is what I bought....

 

[YROC]

 

[Naph]

hello. This is what I bought....

What is it?

 

[ríomhaire]

It's one of them digital photo frames with a picture of an iPad background displaying on it.

 

[Naph]

That would make more sense, because no one I respect would ever consider buying an iPad.

 

[Shamrock]

Well, I had an Android tablet, but Android isn't quite there yet for me in either performance or battery life. I wanted something that I know I'll use and be able to use for a few days without worrying about charging the thing.

 

[Dinnesch]

I wanted something that I know I'll use for a few days

I read it like this and it's how mine would end up if I bought an iPad.

 

[sixteenth]

Well, I had an Android tablet, but Android isn't quite there yet for me in either performance or battery life. I wanted something that I know I'll use and be able to use for a few days without worrying about charging the thing.

That's actually completely understandable. My Asus Transformer only lasts up to 2 days with regular use even w/ the battery dock attached. It's atrocious.

 

[NeptuneUK]

Would posting a shamefully large amount of alcoholic beverages count as a latest purchase?

 

[Pi Mu Rho]

Would posting a shamefully large amount of alcoholic beverages count as a latest purchase?

Briefly.