4 ms·

While I can understand the nostalgia of playing music on a record player (many of us had lots of records when we were younger), and how that experience could be

by nocman 9y ago

While I can understand the nostalgia of playing music on a record player (many of us had lots of records when we were younger), and how that experience could be different for you, perhaps in a very pleasant way, I find the idea that the experience of using one medium over another somehow makes you more "serious" about the music (or more engaged with the music, or whatever else you want to call it) is laughable. You can be every bit as "active" in the listening experience playing the music on an iPod or a CD player as you are sticking a needle on a vinyl record. And for that matter, you can be just as passive in the listening experience listening to a vinyl recording (well, OK, you might get a slight bit more exercise getting your butt off of the chair when the record is over -- if you can't get someone else to put on the next record :-D). I do think that our culture is terribly entertainment-driven, and that much of the time music is just background noise that isn't really being paid attention to, but that has nothing to do with the medium, except that some mediums make that easier to do than others. I Also think the culture tends to underestimate the value of peace and quiet, and that the TV or stereo doesn't have to be on 24 hours a day. Don't get me wrong, I love music, and so does my family. We have it playing regularly at our house. I'll still crank up the stereo when a song is particularly good (it's usually too loud for my kids before it's too loud for me :-D). But having some quiet in the day, so you can think without being bombarded with stuff in the background is also important -- not just for older people either -- kids and young adults need it too. [edited to remove unintended indentation]

delinka 9y ago
"...using one medium over another somehow makes you more "serious" about the music" I believe you missed the point. He says the ritual makes the listener more involved with the music. He doesn't say different media make one more or less serious about music. It's similar with food: you can be serious about your food whether cooking it yourself or ordering it at a restaurant (or eating at a buffet.) But you're more involved with the food if you select your own raw ingredients and cook it yourself.
- nocman 9y ago
  No, I don't think I missed the point. My point was that he was unnecessarily tying the listener's activeness/seriousness/whatever with/about the music to the medium it was on. I totally get the point about there being different levels of interaction with music. I just don't think that listening to music on vinyl equates to you being a more active listener. For some it might help, I suppose, but I think it is far from universal. Also, the implication was (as I read it), that if you listen on vinyl you are tons more likely to be an active listener than someone who is using a more modern medium, and I just don't think that's true.
  - hotgoldminer 9y ago
    Depending on what you're listening to (and more to the point - how what you were listening to was recorded/mastered), an analog medium sounds better. Same can be said for a digital medium, of course. It is a tool box. I put the tools I need in the box. In that light, medium does somewhat equate to being an active listener - you evidence that you care about how the music was made in the first place.
  - 0xCMP 9y ago
    It's a similar argument to digital vs physical in other areas. Ebooks vs real books. Evernote/Notes vs a real notebook and pen. There is research which says our minds react differently to the physical world than to the digital one. So from the idea it follows that using a Vinyl itself may not be better/worse than digital, but the mental state you enter into because of the higher activation cost (decide to play music + go to place where music is + select music + play music + go back to place to relax) as well as the reduced control (requires significant movement to pause/play/go back/go forward vs a digital device in close proximity) that it makes a difference in appreciating the music that is playing because of that investment of energy. If you play something on Spotify you just aren't invested as much and aren't as likely to pay as much attention to the song as you would if you had invested that energy into playing it on vinyl. So not so much that you can't do it with modern mediums, but that the modern mediums are not designed to inherently provide that feeling or bring you to that mental state.
- osrec 9y ago
  I'm not sure if your cooking analogy holds in this case. As someone who has never operated a record player, I don't think the act of merely setting up the equipment would really add to my experience. If we were talking about replacing a musical instrument with an iPod, then your cooking analogy is more cogent. Perhaps the pleasure is more rooted in nostalgia - I remember an episode of Everybody Loves Raymond in which Frank (the elderly father) shuns a state of the art CD player for his vinyls (https://youtu.be/ZQM6GwUancI https://youtu.be/ZQM6GwUancI), and his reasoning for why was that it reminded him of the enjoyment those records gave him earlier in his working life. It's like when I watch a sketchy VHS of Mr Bean, it reminds me of times with my maternal grandfather in a way a crystal clear DVD copy never could!
thebokehwokeh2 9y ago
While I get your point, I too understand what OP is saying. As someone who considers himself a big music guy, at least once upon a time, I'm simply no longer as invested as I once was when listening to CD's or vinyl as I am now when listening to albums or singles on Spotify. My take is that it's a matter of ritual. It's akin to the whole unboxing phenomenon on youtube. There is still something about physical tactile interaction with something before its enjoyment. The smell of CD's or vinyl and the collectability of things like limited edition covers and liner notes just make it that much more special. And then when you listen to an album on Vinyl, where it's practically impossible to skip forwards and backwards, you're de-facto an active participant in the whole endeavor. You enjoy the album as it's meant to be enjoyed, fully placing yourself at the mercy of the Artist who carefully constructed the order of songs. I no longer hold new releases from artists I love as special as I once did when the album was released in stores for this simple fact. It used to be an event that could only happen after a few hours of anticipation. Having all songs at your fingertips is incredible, but Stairway to Heaven is also much less special when you can skip directly to the guitar solo with minimal effort.
- nocman 9y ago
  I totally get the attraction of actually buying something physical, and it was fun as a kid to look through the stuff that came with an album. As is being discussed elsewhere about this article, it is similar to the difference between buying a physical book and an electronic one. I like that "new book" smell too, and I prefer reading on real paper, even though I spend all day reading on computer screens at work (and much of my time at home). However, even as a kid, I'd probably only look through the album cover, liner notes, whatever maybe a few times, and then probably never looked at it again. I just wanted to put the music on so I could listen, and the album cover was just a means to an end. I would have traded that experience for "push a button and the album plays" in a heartbeat. There are some fond memories of artwork on the cover, etc -- and it is a valuable connection to the music -- because everyone remembers the Styx "Paradise Theatre" album cover, and connects it to the music that was on it. "And then when you listen to an album on Vinyl, where it's practically impossible to skip forwards and backwards, you're de-facto an active participant in the whole endeavor. You enjoy the album as it's meant to be enjoyed, fully placing yourself at the mercy of the Artist who carefully constructed the order of songs." ^ a few things about this. First it really depended on the album/artist/producer who decided the order that the songs went in. For many albums it was not the artist. Producers often decided what was the "most commercially viable" and put those songs up front (or in whatever order fit their particular strategy). Some artists insisted on more control, but the record companies had a lot of power here, so I think those situations were more rare. Second, dude, did you never pick up the needle and skip over a song? :D Didn't everyone either try to hit that tiny gap between songs to play your "favorite", or to pick up and skip one, or go back and repeat one? Of course, the "ultimate" solution was to record to cassette tape just the songs you wanted, and in whatever order you wanted them. Also, I personally don't find the lack of control of what plays in what order to be any value to me. If the music is good enough that I want to listen to the whole thing, it usually makes no difference to me what comes after what. The only exception to this might be, for those albums that are really that good that I listen to them over and over, I know which song is coming next when one finishes, so I can be prepared to sing along, or whatever. But I still see no need to give up control of the order of play just to experience this, I an just queue up the whole album on the electronic device of my choice and push 'play'. Third, while it is true there were some artists that had an idea of an "experience" and wanted things laid out just so, I don't think most artists cared which order you listened to their songs in. In fact, musicians tend to be a lot more laid back than that. They don't care how you listen to their music, they are just happy if you are and that you get something out of it. It really depends on the artist, of course.
bamboozled 9y ago
It can't be just about "nostalgia", because it's growing popular with teenagers of today.
- jhbadger 9y ago
  Nostalgia can be about idealized versions of the past that one never experienced oneself though. When I was a teen there was a very popular TV show about the 1950s called "Happy Days" that was popular even among us teens who had no experience of the actual 1950s. Similarly, more recently, "Mad Men" about the 1960s.
  - bamboozled 9y ago
    Maybe they are simply enjoying that medium though? It's almost as if people are having a hard time coming to terms with that prospect. I don't prefer learning or brainstorming using pencil and paper because they did it in the twenties, I do it because it's effective and I enjoy it, same for reading real books, I just enjoy them more than a Kindle (which I tried and find subpar)
    - zzo38computer 9y ago
      I agree too, pencil/paper it can be good I find it work good, and real books too I prefer. That is different than records vs CD, which is a different kind of thing to that in my opinion.
racl101 9y ago
Totally agree. Case in point: myself. I have never owned a record player nor any vinyl records. I have owned a Walkman which was a hand-me-down from my older brother and I used it for a couple of years before it got accidentally broken. Then I owned and used CD players (a mini stereo and a Discman) for about 5-8 years after that. Ever since then I've owned mp3 players and/or streamed music onto my computer / devices. The drop in audio quality/fidelity from switching to digital formats notwithstanding, I still very much listen to music very deliberately and very purposefully. I actually try not to just play music as background noise while I work (I listen to podcasts instead). Instead, I make time to experience music during my walks or at home. I do this regardless of the medium. To suggest that vinyl records is the only way to truly experience music is almost to suggest that people who don't own record players don't really like or care about music which is grossly untrue. And also, collecting and curating your vinyl collection is not the only way to be active about music.

by nocman 9y ago

delinka 9y ago

"...using one medium over another somehow makes you more "serious" about the music" I believe you missed the point. He says the ritual makes the listener more involved with the music. He doesn't say different media make one more or less serious about music. It's similar with food: you can be serious about your food whether cooking it yourself or ordering it at a restaurant (or eating at a buffet.) But you're more involved with the food if you select your own raw ingredients and cook it yourself.

nocman 9y ago
No, I don't think I missed the point. My point was that he was unnecessarily tying the listener's activeness/seriousness/whatever with/about the music to the medium it was on. I totally get the point about there being different levels of interaction with music. I just don't think that listening to music on vinyl equates to you being a more active listener. For some it might help, I suppose, but I think it is far from universal. Also, the implication was (as I read it), that if you listen on vinyl you are tons more likely to be an active listener than someone who is using a more modern medium, and I just don't think that's true.
- hotgoldminer 9y ago
  Depending on what you're listening to (and more to the point - how what you were listening to was recorded/mastered), an analog medium sounds better. Same can be said for a digital medium, of course. It is a tool box. I put the tools I need in the box. In that light, medium does somewhat equate to being an active listener - you evidence that you care about how the music was made in the first place.
- 0xCMP 9y ago
  It's a similar argument to digital vs physical in other areas. Ebooks vs real books. Evernote/Notes vs a real notebook and pen. There is research which says our minds react differently to the physical world than to the digital one. So from the idea it follows that using a Vinyl itself may not be better/worse than digital, but the mental state you enter into because of the higher activation cost (decide to play music + go to place where music is + select music + play music + go back to place to relax) as well as the reduced control (requires significant movement to pause/play/go back/go forward vs a digital device in close proximity) that it makes a difference in appreciating the music that is playing because of that investment of energy. If you play something on Spotify you just aren't invested as much and aren't as likely to pay as much attention to the song as you would if you had invested that energy into playing it on vinyl. So not so much that you can't do it with modern mediums, but that the modern mediums are not designed to inherently provide that feeling or bring you to that mental state.
osrec 9y ago
I'm not sure if your cooking analogy holds in this case. As someone who has never operated a record player, I don't think the act of merely setting up the equipment would really add to my experience. If we were talking about replacing a musical instrument with an iPod, then your cooking analogy is more cogent. Perhaps the pleasure is more rooted in nostalgia - I remember an episode of Everybody Loves Raymond in which Frank (the elderly father) shuns a state of the art CD player for his vinyls (https://youtu.be/ZQM6GwUancI https://youtu.be/ZQM6GwUancI), and his reasoning for why was that it reminded him of the enjoyment those records gave him earlier in his working life. It's like when I watch a sketchy VHS of Mr Bean, it reminds me of times with my maternal grandfather in a way a crystal clear DVD copy never could!

thebokehwokeh2 9y ago

While I get your point, I too understand what OP is saying. As someone who considers himself a big music guy, at least once upon a time, I'm simply no longer as invested as I once was when listening to CD's or vinyl as I am now when listening to albums or singles on Spotify. My take is that it's a matter of ritual. It's akin to the whole unboxing phenomenon on youtube. There is still something about physical tactile interaction with something before its enjoyment. The smell of CD's or vinyl and the collectability of things like limited edition covers and liner notes just make it that much more special. And then when you listen to an album on Vinyl, where it's practically impossible to skip forwards and backwards, you're de-facto an active participant in the whole endeavor. You enjoy the album as it's meant to be enjoyed, fully placing yourself at the mercy of the Artist who carefully constructed the order of songs. I no longer hold new releases from artists I love as special as I once did when the album was released in stores for this simple fact. It used to be an event that could only happen after a few hours of anticipation. Having all songs at your fingertips is incredible, but Stairway to Heaven is also much less special when you can skip directly to the guitar solo with minimal effort.

nocman 9y ago
I totally get the attraction of actually buying something physical, and it was fun as a kid to look through the stuff that came with an album. As is being discussed elsewhere about this article, it is similar to the difference between buying a physical book and an electronic one. I like that "new book" smell too, and I prefer reading on real paper, even though I spend all day reading on computer screens at work (and much of my time at home). However, even as a kid, I'd probably only look through the album cover, liner notes, whatever maybe a few times, and then probably never looked at it again. I just wanted to put the music on so I could listen, and the album cover was just a means to an end. I would have traded that experience for "push a button and the album plays" in a heartbeat. There are some fond memories of artwork on the cover, etc -- and it is a valuable connection to the music -- because everyone remembers the Styx "Paradise Theatre" album cover, and connects it to the music that was on it. "And then when you listen to an album on Vinyl, where it's practically impossible to skip forwards and backwards, you're de-facto an active participant in the whole endeavor. You enjoy the album as it's meant to be enjoyed, fully placing yourself at the mercy of the Artist who carefully constructed the order of songs." ^ a few things about this. First it really depended on the album/artist/producer who decided the order that the songs went in. For many albums it was not the artist. Producers often decided what was the "most commercially viable" and put those songs up front (or in whatever order fit their particular strategy). Some artists insisted on more control, but the record companies had a lot of power here, so I think those situations were more rare. Second, dude, did you never pick up the needle and skip over a song? :D Didn't everyone either try to hit that tiny gap between songs to play your "favorite", or to pick up and skip one, or go back and repeat one? Of course, the "ultimate" solution was to record to cassette tape just the songs you wanted, and in whatever order you wanted them. Also, I personally don't find the lack of control of what plays in what order to be any value to me. If the music is good enough that I want to listen to the whole thing, it usually makes no difference to me what comes after what. The only exception to this might be, for those albums that are really that good that I listen to them over and over, I know which song is coming next when one finishes, so I can be prepared to sing along, or whatever. But I still see no need to give up control of the order of play just to experience this, I an just queue up the whole album on the electronic device of my choice and push 'play'. Third, while it is true there were some artists that had an idea of an "experience" and wanted things laid out just so, I don't think most artists cared which order you listened to their songs in. In fact, musicians tend to be a lot more laid back than that. They don't care how you listen to their music, they are just happy if you are and that you get something out of it. It really depends on the artist, of course.

bamboozled 9y ago

It can't be just about "nostalgia", because it's growing popular with teenagers of today.

jhbadger 9y ago
Nostalgia can be about idealized versions of the past that one never experienced oneself though. When I was a teen there was a very popular TV show about the 1950s called "Happy Days" that was popular even among us teens who had no experience of the actual 1950s. Similarly, more recently, "Mad Men" about the 1960s.
- bamboozled 9y ago
  Maybe they are simply enjoying that medium though? It's almost as if people are having a hard time coming to terms with that prospect. I don't prefer learning or brainstorming using pencil and paper because they did it in the twenties, I do it because it's effective and I enjoy it, same for reading real books, I just enjoy them more than a Kindle (which I tried and find subpar)
  - zzo38computer 9y ago
    I agree too, pencil/paper it can be good I find it work good, and real books too I prefer. That is different than records vs CD, which is a different kind of thing to that in my opinion.

racl101 9y ago

Totally agree. Case in point: myself. I have never owned a record player nor any vinyl records. I have owned a Walkman which was a hand-me-down from my older brother and I used it for a couple of years before it got accidentally broken. Then I owned and used CD players (a mini stereo and a Discman) for about 5-8 years after that. Ever since then I've owned mp3 players and/or streamed music onto my computer / devices. The drop in audio quality/fidelity from switching to digital formats notwithstanding, I still very much listen to music very deliberately and very purposefully. I actually try not to just play music as background noise while I work (I listen to podcasts instead). Instead, I make time to experience music during my walks or at home. I do this regardless of the medium. To suggest that vinyl records is the only way to truly experience music is almost to suggest that people who don't own record players don't really like or care about music which is grossly untrue. And also, collecting and curating your vinyl collection is not the only way to be active about music.