|
| quote: | Originally posted by bas
Those are good points, I just don't understand the reason behind complaining about vinyl only releases/labels. If one wants them that badly, just pony up the money for a turntable and join the ranks of the few that can actually still play vinyl only stuff  |
It reeks of elitism. Whatever the intentions are, the end result still is a cliquish message that a given production should only be heard/played/owned by certain people, even if the only barrier to entry to that group is $1-$2k at any open-to-the-public music supply store. As mentioned, vinyl has always been impractical for any type of use. It's only recently that there have been legitimate replacements for it, so the only people left with the 'ability' to play vinyl are those who either A) have been around since the days when it was a requirement or B) want recognition from those in group A.
I own a number of vinyls, mainly because of the appeal of the format and/or the value that results from it. There are only a few of them I've even put on a turntable, though, because I would rather keep them as they are, and because, whether it's for listening purposes, or mixing for my own amusement, the alternatives are far quicker, cost-effective, and, to my ear, acoustically superior. Add to that the fact that the selection is far greater, as the number of CD/SACD/DVD/Download-only releases far outnumber vinyl-only releases [for newer releases--obviously, the farther back you go, the more this shifts, eventually in favor of vinyl], and it leaves little reason for me to abandon this stance.
If someone can provide evidence that distributing releases as vinyl-only indirectly leads to greater sales or profit, I'll take back my point, since that result is a tangible and logical justification. I'm doubtful that it is the case, though I am about as far from an expert on record label revenue and expenses as I am on anything.
___________________
> S u s h i p u n k . P h o t o g r a p h y <
Last edited by shaw on Aug-08-2010 at 16:52
|
