4 ms·
Sometimes records aren't as fungible as books, i.e., a particular record is going to have a certain rarity, condition, and (obviously) location, whereas a book
by cr1895 10y ago
Sometimes records aren't as fungible as books, i.e., a particular record is going to have a certain rarity, condition, and (obviously) location, whereas a book is a book and it doesn't really matter which specific copy of that book it is. In this case a brick and mortar record store can sell online (such as is often done through discogs) and not really compete with other online music sales.
- toyg 10y ago> it doesn't really matter which specific copy of that book it is Heathen! Sacrilege! That is absolutely not true -- books have (or rather suffer, in most cases) revisions, cuts, changes, translations... Even something as direct as Stephen King's work can change significantly from edition to edition. And of course, books suffer the ravages of elements as much as records, which can reduce the enjoyment of illustrations, typography, notes and so on. Really, they are the same thing. The difference is that the experience of reading a book through digital media has only recently caught up with analog (and barely) thanks to eInk, whereas music was hit earlier by MP3s. Bookshops have just not adapted to the changing landscape as much as record shops.
- cr1895 10y agoYou're right; I was thinking the same after I posted. There certainly is a parallel. I suppose I've never given thought to whichever edition of a book I've read.