Serious fans spend more than $422 a year on music

http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/music/posts/la-et-ms-sxsw-2013-fans-music-spending-habits-20130312,0,5792828.story

By Todd Martens
March 12, 2013, 1:43 p.m.

AUSTIN, Texas -- The most serious of fans can spend upward of $422 per year on music in the U.S., according to the results of a new report from Nielsen Entertainment released today at South by Southwest. Those who can be classified as music fans, Nielsen proclaimed, account for nearly 75% of all music spending in the U.S.

There is a catch: The most avid of fans in Nielsen's sampling of 4,000 consumers downloaded the most tracks for free, approximately 30 in a year. What's more, those classified as "music fans" account for just 40% of the music-buying public in America.

Nielsen has identified three core consumer categories. The "aficionado" is willing to spend more than $422 per year on music, concerts and artist merch, and does so via sites such as iTunes, Amazon and indie outlets. The "digital fan" was determined to spend about $363 per year and views a smartphone or tablet as the entertainment hub. Finally, the "big box" fan shops at mass retailers, is partial to pop and country and spends, on average, $196 per year on music.

Less engaged consumers still spend on music. Occasional concertgoers, ambivalent music consumers and background music consumers were found to frequent discovery sites such as Pandora and were willing to spend between $44 and $121 per year on music. The concert attendee, of course, spent the most.

What, exactly, is an ambivalent music fan? Someone, Nielsen wrote, who is "seeking more -- not particularly engaged with the music but are using Pandora ... Willing to pay for streaming concerts and willing to pay for special/unique content."

Those with the most intense relationship to music are still the most likely to frequent peer-to-peer file-sharing sites. The likes of PirateBay and LimeWire were popular with music aficionados and digital fans. The ones who spent the least on music were the ones who expressed the most interest in a music recommendation engine such as Pandora, and the big box fan seemed particularly disinterested in such services.

When it comes to on-demand paid streaming services such as Rhapsody and Spotify, the services thus far appear to target the music afficiando. Yet there was interest among all consumers in an on-demand streaming service, and even 25% of those classified as "ambivalent" music listeners have sampled one.

Nielsen Entertainment executive David Bakula estimates that there's a growth era of between $450 million and $2.68 billion still for the industry to reach. "Consumers really want more and they want to be engaged," he said.

There's plenty of half-full/half-empty moments throughout the detailed study. For instance, of those who don't meet the criteria to be classified as one of Nielsen's core music fans, 60% have never seen their favorite band live and in concert. Yet more than 60% of ambivalent fans use free services such as Pandora and, in what could be a good sign for the potential growth of paid streaming services, about 25% of ambivalent fans use Spotify and Rhapsody.

How the latter can grow will continue to be a focus of South by Southwest, beginning later today with a talk by Spotify founder Daniel Ek.

i think i spend around $500 a year on music, it use to be quite a bit more.

in before the poll asking how much you spend per year on music

lol

I'm pretty sure I spend about $1000/yr on music. 100/mo seems about right. I also download somewhere between 1-5gb of music per month that I don't pay for. Some of it I buy on vinyl if I like it but most of my 'illegal' downloads are things i'd never buy.

60% have never seen their favorite band live and in concert

That's weird, unless it's mostly to do with living somewhere that big bands don't play.

the quicker we nail the coffin shut on rock and roll fandom the quicker we can encase it in concrete and drop the fecker into the mid Pacific

60% have never seen their favorite band live and in concert

Pretty sure these people fall into one of two categories:

Favourite band is split or has dead members (and is The Beatles or The Who or Fleetwood Mac or Pink Floyd or etc)

Favourite band is modern superstar who rarely plays live except at private parties in the Middle East (like Rihanna).

I'm a fucking music writer and there's no way I spend more than, like, $275 per year on music. (Which itself is a generous number.) But I get lotsa promos and listen to stuff on youtube/bandcamp.

In the old days (pre parenthood) maybe it was closer to $500-$600 even though I never really went to lots of shows or concerts.

I think there are plenty of ppl who like music, and still even spend money on it, who are just not that into gigs, the hassle, the whole experience. And there are def some musicians whose recs I really enjoy who I couldn't care less about seeing live (the reverse is also true, particularly w/ regard to improvised music.)

wd bet that the stats on not seeing your favourite band live have been pretty steady throughout the history of rock gigs

I get sent a lot of promos but I still spend around £500 a year on music (concerts not included) and it would be more like £1000 if I had to buy all the new releases I wanted.

I mean, even when I had very little cash at university I still spent £10 a week so that was £500 right there.

Favourite band is modern superstar who rarely plays live except at private parties in the Middle East (like Rihanna).

rihanna is pretty much permanently on tour

could certainly understand people not being able to afford tkt prices though

xp to self - I appreciate that was pre-downloading but if the rubric is "serious music fans" and it includes concert tickets, £500 doesn't feel like a stretch at all.

the quicker we nail the coffin shut on rock and roll fandom the quicker we can encase it in concrete and drop the fecker into the mid Pacific

― silly word combination (Noodle Vague), Wednesday, 13 March 2013 10:04 (1 hour ago) Permalink

mid-atlantic wd be better but i concede that the pacific is deeper.

I'd never seen my favorite musician live until about half a year ago.

never seen kate bush live.

I think there are plenty of ppl who like music, and still even spend money on it, who are just not that into gigs, the hassle, the whole experience.

iirc when ILX has talked about 'gigs of the year' and suchlike at the end of whatever year, the overwhelming majority of posters have seen single-figure numbers of live bands across the last 12 months

Apols for being wrong about Rihanna - she's not somebody I pay much attention to but remember reading about her being paid millions by some sheikh.

iirc when ILX has talked about 'gigs of the year' and suchlike at the end of whatever year, the overwhelming majority of posters have seen single-figure numbers of live bands across the last 12 months

find this quite depressing! not in a "ooh all you single figure gig goers should go to more gigs, shame on you" way but just that live music is the best thing ever!

In the pre-streaming days I spent thousands of dollars a year on music. Maybe more than $10k in my most irrational year. These days? $10/month to Spotify, $10/month to Rdio, $25/year to iTunes Match, maybe $5-10/month on random iTunes/Bandcamp downloads, so that's ~$350 on recorded music. I don't see a ton of live shows, but certainly including those would push me over $422. I don't think I purchased any physical pieces of music in 2012. Maybe there were a couple in 2011.

WARNING: RAMBLING POST ABOUT THE STATE OF THE MUSIC INDUSTRY BY SOMEBODY WHO DOESN’T REALLY KNOW WHAT THEY’RE TALKING ABOUT. PLEASE IGNORE IF YOU THINK THIS IS GOING TO OFFEND YOU, YEAH?

no idea how much i spend, varies wildly. just on music purchases, probably about £50 a month. another £50+ on gigs, plus there’s the spotify subscription and internet connection as well which is where most listening comes from.

sometimes i wish the RIAA would *really* crack down heavily on illegal filesharing/youtube etc just to force the people who need to hear gangbang style 100 times a day to contribute *something*. it’ll be a shame to lose those geeky small run pressings of things from 1945 that you’d have never heard in a million years, but if it means working musicians are getting paid a bit more- good imo.

at the same time I love the idea of information being free (for educational purposes) to anybody that wants it. not sure how to that could be achieved, maybe this is where libraries should step in. would love to see libraries that offer DAWs, video editing, listening pods, the whole variety of digital media alongside what they currently offer. redefine them as “creative/learning centres” or something.

feel like ISPs are getting a free ride, they should be contributing *something* too (if they don’t already- I don’t know)

when i take a step back i'm still completely blown away by things like Spotify, i'd pay up to about £50/month for that if they could convince me there was a fairer reward system in place, and would *really* support it I felt like it would encourage new technologies that will allow artwork/production credits/lossless audio to be more of a concern.

anyway, i have this funny feeling google will step up at some point and take the music industry seriously and ruin everything for everybody because they’re the only ones with the resources to scan every record/cd artwork ever and digitise/archive everything properly, then they’ll roll it out for free, they’ll make money off it, settle things with all the major labels and everybody else will just have to deal with it.

people don’t talk about this stuff enough imo, I guess because it’s difficult to talk about with everything changing at such a pace, it’s difficult to get a grip on things

I don’t think this is even that relevant to thread, but I’m bored at work and have had too much coffee. so there

find this quite depressing! not in a "ooh all you single figure gig goers should go to more gigs, shame on you" way but just that live music is the best thing ever!

Eh, I used to go to a lot of gigs but then I got old it used to be that bands would tour toilet venues where maybe 30 people would turn up but it would get the word out for the new album locally; now it's p. much the other way round where the album is beamed into people's homes across the world for free and bands make money from playing live and selling t-shirts to guaranteed packed venues only, so nobody plays the backwater university towns like where I live any more

there's still a slightly stagnant local scene but the up&coming hip new band from out of town circuit is completely dead here, the pub venues are all just local bands now and the biggest venue in town is 90% tribute bands and Britpop also-rans doing the 15-year reunion tour

or maybe it is just that getting old thing. RIP my days of live music

for "free" I should've said I guess - I realise the artists and even the labels don't really have any choice in the matter

The "digital fan" was determined to spend about $363 per year

great article

Finally bit the bullet and subscribed to Spotify, it really is remarkable and something like it is probably ~~the future of music~~ or w/e, HOWEVER, I agree that it seems dirt cheap for what you get, and from what I've heard about both artist compensation and the financial state of the company itself, it doesn't necessarily seem like a sustainable model. But if they raised the price, like someone mentioned above to, say, 50/month, (which I certainly believe it is worth), would that cut out its general appeal and make it even more unsustainable? I feel like they've got to find the balance between catering to ILMers who listen to tons of new shit vs. some ppl that just wanna play Of Monsters and Men or whatever

booooo they ain't hardcore

Yeah Spotify has slashed the amount of money I spend on music, for better (for me) or worse (for musicians)...I easily spent £600/year on CDs a few years back when I first started earning money but now it's maybe £5/month Spotify, £50/year downloads, £50/year physical releases and maybe £100/year on gigs.

I got the feeling when registering for Spotify Unlimited that I was less paying to support the artists (spread 5 bucks a month over all the artists I listen to, it'd spread pretty thin) and instead paying a ransom of sorts to free myself from the (imo) deliberately obnoxious and inappropriate ads (i.e. ads for Brad Paisley coming in in the middle of listening to the Boredoms, I feel like that's a plot on Spotify's end to annoy you with non-demographically appropriate ads, played at a loud volume)

I basically use Spotify to preview albums I want to purchase; my assumption is that permanent data repositories of every single song I could ever care to listen to will not happen in my lifetime (which, given that not everything I want to listen is on Spotify, is a safe bet).

$5/month was so low that I never even bothered with free Spotify, lol

like, $60/month to preview tons of albums/songs? woot

er year I meant

they just need to get a decent percentage of people who listen to music over the internet (which must be at least half the population by now) on and paying for it. but i just can't see that happening, unfortunately.

i can imagine something like spotify pro, where you get a portable 'spotify device' with internet connection that displays album covers/album content that costs £50 a month and each listen rewards the artists with a much higher percentage than the avereage spotify user.

£10 is fine but if its gonna be £50 a month then why not just buy lps or cds?

because i probably listen to a few thousand pounds worth of LP/CDs a month?

i can imagine something like spotify pro, where you get a portable 'spotify device' with internet connection that displays album covers/album content that costs £50 a month and each listen rewards the artists with a much higher percentage than the avereage spotify user.

this is basically their smartphone app, only without the dedicated device and the higher percentage to the artist AFAICT

I basically use Spotify to preview albums I want to purchase

pretty much the same here, plus it's a convenient way to listen while I'm at work. still end up spending, um, quite a lot each month on records.

well i can't find who engineered each record, there aren't the orig lyric sheets, artwork etc it's not lossless

xpost

I feel like no one actually releases this information anymore; I don't know that it's readily available off of iTunes downloads

sometimes i think that maybe the future will be digital downloads or streaming plus a physical art-book thing for those who want it with album information, lyrics and photos and stuff

My hoarder mentality makes me more excited to own some records than listen to them once I actually have them. I'm working on it- not being so attached to the collector's copy incentives / overall materialism. Ugh.

no it's not. it's the thing i hate most about digital and what i love the most about physical media. that contextual information used to be very useful. i liked it when i recognised the engineer, or session musicians, reading the artist's rants, how they would present their lyrics, that stuff is fun!

sometimes i think that maybe the future will be digital downloads or streaming plus a physical art-book thing for those who want it with album information, lyrics and photos and stuff

― acid in the style of tenpole tudor (NickB), Wednesday, March 13, 2013 11:14 AM (1 minute ago)

As far as CDs go they're so cheap to make it's hard to imagine them not including that anyway for convenience.

kind of redundant when they stop making cd players though

"sometimes i think that maybe the future will be digital downloads or streaming plus a physical art-book thing for those who want it with album information, lyrics and photos and stuff"

this is what i mean about a spotify device. you know like all those graphene hyping ~what is the future going to be like~ things. a device which "becomes" what you're listening to, it'll change it's colour/artwork, you'll be able to dive in and find out all sorts of information about the music. it'll have a top quality DAC, that's the sort of thing i'd pay decent money for.

a dedicated device is very unlikely given the trend to consolidate all of your mobile browsing devices into one phone/tablet

Here's why I don't feel bad about the vast reduction in my spending: there was no possible rational justification for the amount of money I used to spend. I used to buy CDs from which I had heard no music, and about which I knew next to nothing. Sometimes I would like them, but often I would not. That's a lot of low-percentage $15 gambles. No way did the record industry deserve to get $15 from me for each of those. They did because I was willing to spend it anyway. And while in the abstract I would be happy to pay more than $10/month for Spotify and/or Rdio, I've also spent years and years paying way more for cable TV than they deserve from me, and I don't see Comcast offering to reduce my cable bill to match how much their "service" is rightfully worth to me. So media industries, talk amongst yourselves.

i've been waiting for itunes or even spotify to create mobile device "experiences" for albums--there are sorta endless possibilities for this but i suppose it's a lot of work and not something the artists themselves are capable of.

agreed. but i guess we could hit a point where these things become so cheap to produce that it won't really matter, it won't be about the device itself- it'll be about the content. you're just paying for a £1 bit of material and chip that can stream music from the spotify servers, there might be standardised form aspects that make it suitable as a music device and that's the area that musicians will begin to operate in wrt their artwork + extra content

xposts

i've been waiting for itunes or even spotify to create mobile device "experiences" for albums--there are sorta endless possibilities for this but i suppose it's a lot of work and not something the artists themselves are capable of.

unique apps for each album, that sort of thing? i suppose bjork went there with biophilia

yeah i mean very few artists have seem to caught on to the fact that people are listening to music on what are essentially portable computers--and computers can do things!

at minimum i think spotify et al are gonna have to start offering a wider array of content--videos, etc.

yeah but they're always crap because 1) you're still holding a fucking phone 2) limited by app features 3) it doesn't interface with your environment

can't wait for the autechre/designers republic mobile device skin that displays a light show in yr room

kind of redundant when they stop making cd players though

― acid in the style of tenpole tudor (NickB), Wednesday, March 13, 2013 11:18 AM (13 minutes ago)

True, the little download card would maybe be included if anything.

Which reminds me of that failed (I presume) experiment that the major labels tried where instead of CDs at the store you go buy download cards. This was like 5 or so years ago? At the time at least, every computer still had a CD drive so what the hell did they think they were solving for the consumer? It was such an empty attempt at updating the business model. I feel like some dinosaurs were saying "young demos love downloading, let's provide that and completely misunderstand the incentive with the hopes that if it catches on we don't have to compete with used CD sales even though you can just burn the music to a blank disc" Or maybe the campaign started with good intentions but watered down during development to just conform to old industry habits anyway.

Somewhat related:

http://www.theverge.com/2013/3/11/4080130/can-anyone-turn-streaming-music-into-a-real-business

The argument of the article is that eventually selling music content and creating streaming services will be a loss leader for huge tech companies like Apple, Google, etc. to pair with their platforms and hardware sales. People love music and want access to it, but don't want to pay what it's worth, so only massive corps who can absorb the losses will be be left in the music content business.

I always find this generalist articles like the one in the OP about "the state of the music consumer" to be ridiculous. Most of the music/artists I interact with sell smaller-than-demand editions of their music on vinyl or cassette, they sell out instantly and create a secondary market that's like a subculture unto itself.

"Those who can be classified as music fans, Nielsen proclaimed, account for nearly 75% of all music spending in the U.S"

Everyone who is "seriously into music" has their own preferences for how they consume it and it has nothing to do with your average/casual music consumer. I mean, who cares about that consumer? The hardcore aficionados seem to be keeping music models alive.

I basically use Spotify to preview albums I want to purchase; my assumption is that permanent data repositories of every single song I could ever care to listen to will not happen in my lifetime (which, given that not everything I want to listen is on Spotify, is a safe bet).

― Darth Icky (DJP), Wednesday, March 13, 2013 11:02 AM (36 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

This is my approach as well. There's no way it's sustainable but if I find out via Spotify that I love something I'll buy it for 6 bucks off eMusic for "permanent" archiving. Or (even better) buy just the 4 or 5 tracks that my Spotify listens have revealed to be the meat of the album. Then once in a while my long term relationship to the album grows so devoted that I buy the CD for the exalted actual shelf.

On topic, the last time I actually tallied it (for tax purposes) was around 2008 and it was like... heh... several thousand dollars. These last few years I'm pretty sure it's more like $1200. About 50 a month on physical, 20 a month on eMusic, another 10 a month on downloads not in the eMusic catalog, and one or two big splurges during the year like a box set or w/e.

My hoarder mentality makes me more excited to own some records than listen to them once I actually have them.

Evan, I'm right there with you. I love looking at the spine collage in my music room. I've been on a binge on Amazon, filling in holes in my collection or replacing CDR/digital copies with legitimate ones. I try to read all the liner notes (but frequently don't). I rip everything and listen to my digital copies 95% of the time and it makes me think, "What's the point of the physical copy at all?" Liner notes, making my own rips and having a physical backup is all I can come up with.

And I spend a shitton of money on music - I try to buy domestic releases from my local dealer but I do use Amazon/the artist or label site for imports. Last year I bought well over 150 CDs and a mess of digital-only tracks. It's a total addiction.

I see a ton of live shows and sadly I think over the past year (probably the last few years) I've spent more on alcohol @ venues than on music related expenses

bands should sell their own substances I guess is the takeaway?

http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/54625000/jpg/_54625384_afp_wine2.jpg

they should sell their record as entry fee, stop using shitty promotors (those kids with rich pareents who don't need to have a job but want to hang out with all the musicians and have got good at the internet because they've got 10 macbooks)

in my portable music device fantasy land you'd bump yer devices on the door and the band get their money instantly. ok i'll shut up now.

"sell record as entry fee" would basically cut revenues from performance in half if not worse - it means giving the record for free to people who might otherwise buy the record and come see the show, I really doubt that'd be made up for by increased revenue from attendance, given that records cost money to make

most people i know make pittance from gigs anyway. even the people in "big name" been going 20+ years are making v little money these days and doing shitty things like the charging younger bands to support them, or getting younger bands to guarentee a certain amount of people entry and play for free. hate all that stuff. same people have shitloads of excess stock left over from recent record releases, that they're hoping to shift on european tours or w/e but over the past few years, even the trusty europeans have stopped buying records

Though it is a good promotional stunt to do at record stores for the intimacy/the excitement generated/the establishment of both band and store "brands"/the appreciation of local scenes and venues/the hip value to excite record shoppers and people who want to associate with that mindset.

xpost

that's from a very rock/punk/diy in london perspective though. other people i know involved in the indie/dance and dance music scenes seem to be making good money.

i dunno, i think it's a good model for the diy crowd, charge people £10 for a single + gig entrance, if they show a receipt of purchase they get into the gig for free. the gigs you do around that time are promoting the single. everybody wins. you get people to your gigs and you get people owning your music.

My hoarder mentality makes me more excited to own some records than listen to them once I actually have them.

Evan, I'm right there with you. I love looking at the spine collage in my music room. I've been on a binge on Amazon, filling in holes in my collection or replacing CDR/digital copies with legitimate ones. I try to read all the liner notes (but frequently don't). I rip everything and listen to my digital copies 95% of the time and it makes me think, "What's the point of the physical copy at all?" Liner notes, making my own rips and having a physical backup is all I can come up with.

And I spend a shitton of money on music - I try to buy domestic releases from my local dealer but I do use Amazon/the artist or label site for imports. Last year I bought well over 150 CDs and a mess of digital-only tracks. It's a total addiction.

― Gerald McBoing-Boing, Wednesday, March 13, 2013 11:49 AM (33 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

I've always been attracted to the collecting hobby, but I have to smack myself when I feel buyers remorse all day when I bought the black vinyl version instead of the colored vinyl version. I'm not too pathetic about it, but at least self awareness gives me clarity to say "if this is bothering me so much than how much did I even care about actually listening to this thing?" Then I feel stupid for feeling dumb but at least I can get my shit together and reassess the priorities.

that's from a very rock/punk/diy in london perspective though. other people i know involved in the indie/dance and dance music scenes seem to be making good money.

i dunno, i think it's a good model for the diy crowd, charge people £10 for a single + gig entrance, if they show a receipt of purchase they get into the gig for free. the gigs you do around that time are promoting the single. everybody wins. you get people to your gigs and you get people owning your music.

― Crackle Box, Wednesday, March 13, 2013 12:26 PM (1 minute ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

Yes it works better as a promotional stunt than a touring philosophy/strategy.

ppl i kno touring strategy these days is:

can we all get 2 weeks off work at the same time
who do we know with a van that we can borrow
how many people do we know in each city to sleep on floor
the gigs won't cover food/fuel expenses so shall we use the band credit card

band comes back with broken van, credit card debt, damaged backs and livers, lots of records that didn't get sold

the next step after that is touring with dinosaur jr where you realise mascis's guitar tech is getting paid more than your whole band. but mascis is a super cool guy and you have all the dinosaur jr records and you've wanted this since you were 12 so it's cool.

"The most avid of fans in Nielsen's sampling of 4,000 consumers downloaded the most tracks for free, approximately 30 in a year."

...that can't be right...
30 in a week? a month?
30 a year doesn't sound too damn avid to me.....

Yeah, who tells any pollster the truth about their illicit activities?

"the most avid porn viewers in Nielsen's sampling of 4,000 consumers streamed the most free porn, approximately 6 clips in a year"

eggzackly...

"the most avid shoplifters in Nielsen's sampling of 4,000 consumers stole the most shit, approximately, etc...."

find this quite depressing! not in a "ooh all you single figure gig goers should go to more gigs, shame on you" way but just that live music is the best thing ever!

― Crackle Box, Wednesday, March 13, 2013 6:19 AM Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

I'd much rather go to a DJ gig than a live show these days. For as much rap as I listen to, I just realized the other day that the last non-friends' rap show I went to was Shabazz Palaces' Black Up prerelease party two years ago.

i spend lots of money on music and see a shit ton of live shows because music is better than most things

my job gets me into free shit, and i get mailed free shit, but i still buy tickets and lots of physical music because the amount of free shit i get cannot contain how awesome music is

i spent last saturday afternoon going to used cd stores, music is great

music is overrated

But spending money is the shit

This thread caused me to look at my expenses. This is how much I spent on music in the calendar year 2012, though this includes all music-related expenses and not just the CD/vinyl that the article deals with:

Concerts (1)      $ 1,300.94
Refreshments (2)  $   780.80
CDs & LPs         $   696.82
Band Merch (3)    $   162.00
Misc (4)          $    29.95
Magazines         $     8.00
----------------------------
TOTAL             $ 2,978.51

(1) Concerts includes parking but not gas.
(2) Refreshments include all bar tabs while at concerts but no pregaming/postgaming.
(3) Band merch are tee-shirts and the like at concerts.
(4) The miscellaneous expenses are two sets of headphones.

Also worth noting: Almost all costs are for two since I attended only a couple of concerts without my wife in tow.

We are apparently huge alcoholics.

You are extremely thorough in documenting your spending habits, too.

I try and pay for nothing in cash, the few cash transactions I do are easy to track and I use software to track all of my spending. It was as easy as running a report!

Whiney your real love of music is a goddamn inspiration and a force for good in this world just so you know, much love

Evan, I'm right there with you. I love looking at the spine collage in my music room. I've been on a binge on Amazon, filling in holes in my collection or replacing CDR/digital copies with legitimate ones. I try to read all the liner notes (but frequently don't). I rip everything and listen to my digital copies 95% of the time and it makes me think, "What's the point of the physical copy at all?" Liner notes, making my own rips and having a physical backup is all I can come up with.

And I spend a shitton of money on music - I try to buy domestic releases from my local dealer but I do use Amazon/the artist or label site for imports. Last year I bought well over 150 CDs and a mess of digital-only tracks. It's a total addiction.

― Gerald McBoing-Boing

I am also in the same situation as you guys. I spent most of my time listening to music on my itunes or my ipod but albums that I like I still need physical copies of. I have hundreds of records/CD's I've not even played. I've been collecting since I was ten (that's twenty years now) and I cannot get out of that habbit. I comfort myself with the fact I've sold and got rid of hundreds of CD's in the last five years if I don't rate them anymore and as Spotify wasn't around then I spent loads of money on albums that were just rubbish. Now I only buy albums I'm sure I'm going to like (there are a few bands that never let me down) or ones I've already heard. The thing that's now making it worse now is I've decided I want to swap all my CD's for vinyl so I'm going through loads of my favourite bands trying to get their best albums on vinyl. Why on earth am I doing this to myself? Because records look cooler? That's probably it. I think I've lost the plot.

Totally doing the same thing. I've completely stopped buying cd's, even cheap used copies unless its one of about 5 bands I collect. In now going back and buying my fav albums on vinyl. Generally I go for the first pressing but I will buy a repress if it makes sense. For example, I needed The Return of Durutti Column but I only want to own the sandpaper cover. Unfortunately, that version is several hundred dollars so I bought the shitty looking repress. Also, I love that my 2.5yr old daughter asks me to play a record, not a cd. It's a bit superficial but I get more joy out of them than I do CDs. In fact, since I moved 2 years ago, my CDs have remained boxed in the basement.

I still buy CD's of new albums that come out due to the price difference. I wish I could go back in time and instead of wasting so much money on average albums I paid full price for just buy the things I actually liked but on vinyl. I feel your pain on the prices of the vinyls though. It was easy enough to replace copies of albums by Roxy Music, Bowie, New Order, The Cure etc but now I've got to the stage where I'd like to replace some 90's indie albums and even more recent albums. I'd really like to get some Super Furry Animals albums on vinyl but all of them go for at least 40 pounds on Ebay. I was interested in getting some albums by Broadcast, they sell for a hundred pounds plus.

I've been quite lucky with some of the albums I've found but then I always think, hmm I wonder how much it would be to replace all my albums by... and then it becomes an obsession. So many great albums out of print on vinyl and then even when they do repress them I'm reading how the quality is terrible.

posted on ILV, but relevant the the turn the discussion has taken:

http://www.avclub.com/articles/has-the-vinyl-revival-gone-too-far,93610/

"TO the turn"

That AV Club article is still bullshit. He was buying vinyl before it was cool and now he's over it. I love limited editions, colored vinyl, hand numbered, silk screened, deluxe gatefold blah blah blah. Music makes me happier than anything else. Looking through the spines, finding the right record, pulling it off the shelf and placing the needle on the grooves increases my enjoyment. I'd rather roll a joint than hit a bong. Process does have value.

lolol

I dunno, I'm as much of a serious junkie as anyone here (approx $3K a year on recorded music), but what I took away from it was the questionable value of expensive reissues of records that are still widely available e.g. Rumours. And reissues are so stupidly expensive. Case in point, I just found a copy of the 1st Smiths LP on US Sire for 12 bucks, it is pretty much mint. To buy one of those new reissues would have cost me more than twice as much.

also I hate joints, so ymmv

feel like ISPs are getting a free ride, they should be contributing *something* too (if they don’t already- I don’t know)

^

i think a big problem with digital models is trying to redefine a product when there isn't one any longer, there's only infrastructure.

The Smiths remastered vinyl sounds great. I too have the original Sire release and don't feel the need to upgrade but the convenience of finding a new copy is enough for some people.

wav cd vinyl all have their strengths imo it totally depends on what music you're talking about. i quit spotify earlier this year though, just started to feel like a drag. i don't like relying on one thing that much.

oh i'm poor too so i'll be buying that t.k. records comp on cd from 1989 with one or two tracks i can't find anywhere online over ten $5-10 12"s. dance/disco on cd looks ugly and it's still value priced here ime and it sounds great.

I just spent 120 of my taxes on this 6lp john fahey box set but boy was it worth it

i think it really pays to be non-dogmatic about format. (except when it comes to digital compression because fuck that noise.) the more the merrier imo.

xp haha my sig other got that! sounds sooooooo good. fahey on vinyl is the way to go!

i hope i don't spend $422 or more on that ridic breeders reissue

i think it really pays to be non-dogmatic about format.

This is otm, I end up buying albums on a mixture of CD and vinyl and sometimes digital depending on price/availability and the quality of the artwork. As long as I've got it there to listen to I'm happy.

I think I spent about £300 last year on physical music, probably another £100 on downloads (mostly individual tracks rather than whole albums). I have slowed down a bit this year so far.