«--Previous Post | Blog Index | Next Post--»
Is Collecting Records Stupid?
Via Uncut comes news that an exceedingly rare copy of the Beatles' 1968 "White Album" is set for auction this week, and is likely to bring bids of up to £5000 ($10,000). The record has a serial number of 00000007 (kind of like Mr. Burns' Social Security number) and since it's rumored that the first ten copies of the album were all given to band members, that would make this "the lowest numbered original mono copy" that has ever been up for auction. Is this silly, or a justifiable appreciation of a landmark work of art?
I've never had much of a "collector's" mindset when it comes to music, although my preference for vinyl's sound forced me to search (and often pay high prices) for hard-to-find records in the pre-internet days. For a while, the Pixies' Doolittle just wasn't anywhere on vinyl, and when I finally found a copy I paid like $25, which was a lot back then. Jeez, It's still a lot. But for me, it's always been about the music on the record, not the record itself, although I do have to admit to a certain geeky pride when I flip through my stacks and see the rare Warsaw record or a hard-to-find Kraftwerk LP.
However, these days it's harder and harder to justify the shelf space. My 1-terabyte hard drive holds thousands of albums, all of which I can access at the touch of a button, and I have to admit I've downloaded an mp3 of a song I need for a project because the original record is all the way across the room. Even though the physicality and warm sound of vinyl still attracts me, if I have to pack all 3000 of my records up again for another move, I'll probably roll over and die.
So, in this age of WiFi and iPods, it may seem all the more ridiculous to shell out 10 grand for a rare copy of an album you can enjoy for free (or cheap) just about anywhere at any time. On the other hand, does the cheapness of our download culture make rare records, wiped delicately with a dust cloth and placed carefully on a turntable, the "slow food" of today's music distribution system? I'll admit it, there's a part of me that wishes I had $10,001 so I could outbid everybody else. Oh well: la la la la life goes on.
Photos: (1) courtesy Cameo Fine Art Auctioneers and (2) used under a Creative Commons license from Flickr user Peryi.
Comments
As a fellow lapsed vinyl-phile, it's cathartic to hear someone else say this stuff. Yup, I've gone on the iTunes store because I'd rather pay a dollar and save myself the frustrating task of searching thru my 4-5,000 dusty records. And, yes, I look guiltily at my neglected turntables as I open iTunes to avoid the chore of plugging in, cuing up, blowing the fluff off the stylus and all those other arcane procedures... but there's still nothing like the tactile experience of a vinyl record. They even smell good - something MP3s are way behind the curve on!
I miss the art work of albums. The original White Album (cover aside) came with a poster or two; head shots of the band. Can't do that with CDs or downloads, either.
I can assure you, however, that when my folks house burned down with my LPs inside, they burned very hot and very thoroughly.
Maybe it was a blessing in disguise. . .
Posted by: The Walrus on 02/29/08 at 2:02 PM Respond
have you heard about this guy?
http://www.thegreatestmusiccollection.com/index.html
i'd probably never spend more than $30 for a record-- at that point it's more for the collector value than for the music. i think that's the case with this beatles album. at the same time, why is it any worse to assign a $10,000 value to a record than a $20,000 value to a car?
i have to say that one of the highlights of my week is going into the local, husband-and-wife-owned record shop and thumbing through the dollar vinyl-- some of which i've never heard of before, and others that seem familiar. they're not always gems, but it's rare to find an album that doesn't have at least one good song on it. generally speaking, though, these records are great, and completely forgotten by popular culture. april wine? early genesis? UFO? for a dollar, it's hard to go wrong. plus you get the real, tactile, personal involvement with the music. i can put a record on and am completely involved in the process. the great thing about vinyl is that you have to participate. i'm so much more aware of what i'm listening to when i have to get up and flip the record over, or can stare at some giant cover art instead of a little icon on my computer screen.
my brother got me a digitizing turntable for xmas and so now i can buy an album for a buck, and digitize it, so i can listen to it everywhere. good times.
Posted by: molly on 02/29/08 at 2:50 PM Respond
most importantly - I can play my vinyl without electricity!
It will be the only post apocalyptic music (crank record players, phonographs, needle and construction paper cone)...
(and of course acoustic instruments....)
Posted by: Keith on 02/29/08 at 4:46 PM Respond
My roommate and i posess more than 20,000 lps. I have every record i have purchased save 3 and 2 of those Ive since replaced. NO NO NO! I love looking through them; collecting lps is a lifelong passion because the music sounds better and warmer. Cd's will never be appropriate for bands like the Stooges or the Clash. Finally, there's a lot of music out there that was never rereleased on CD so you CANT download it onto your ipod!
Posted by: jillian on 03/01/08 at 7:26 AM Respond
Whatever you do DO NOT lose your collection of vinyl records. I once was the proud owner of around 3,000 vinyl LP records in excellent condition going back to the 1960's.
When my wife and I separated and then divorced I never saw them again. I miss those wonderful sound recordings more than I have the right words to express.
For those who think that the digital music of the current day is preferable there is no sense in wasting your breath trying to explain it to them.
Posted by: Michael Weaver on 03/03/08 at 2:08 AM Respond
Funny, though I've less than 50 records I still wax nostalgic about em as rock-n-roll moments. Not crazy enuf to bid on Beatles albums at Sothebys, I'll never forget the pandemonium of the Ed Sullivan show and "I Wanna Hold Your Hand."
Posted by: treehugger on 06/28/08 at 2:41 PM Respond
ARCHIVE
RECENT COMMENTS
Top Five: ABBA Songs (2)
Monika Bauerlein wrote:
I have a soft spot for Nina, Pretty Ballerina. Maybe becau...
[more]
New Snickers Ad Encourages Drive-By Shootings of Unmanly Men (9)
simon wrote:
Awesome ad!...
[more]
Meeting in the Ladies' Room (6)
Tom Kat wrote:
When are you going to get rid of this HO...we know you lad...
[more]
New Music from Around the Blogs: Machines Don't Care, Kid Cudi, Santogold, Lykke Li (3)
Sheena Beaston wrote:
Thanks for the link!...
[more]
The Dark Knight Turns Out to Be a Dick Cheney Fantasy (9)
Party Ben wrote:
Thanks for the comments. To those who argue the film was a...
[more]
Yearning for Better Coverage of Polygamists (3)
GeorgeSalt wrote:
Apparently, polygamists are America's new n*ggers - the on...
[more]
Diverse List of Mercury Prize Nominees Revealed (2)
Party Ben wrote:
@sra: Roops, I knew that. Thanks for catching.
"House of...
[more]
Music: Million DJ March to Unite Annoying, Headphone-Wearing Dorks (2)
Laura wrote:
I know i'm late commenting this post but I can not agree w...
[more]
Ten Silliest Digg.com Headlines About The Dark Knight (2)
Justin wrote:
You mentioned "this reporter?" Did CNN buy TMZ? hehe...
[more]
Hancock: Racist, a Metaphor for Racism, or Just Dumb? (9)
Jason wrote:
We snuck into see this lame movie, and oh my, it sure is o...
[more]
Movable Type 3.33


Posted by: Fried Wire on 02/29/08 at 1:26 PM Respond