Music vs. Cover Art & Booklet

Hmm... So according to this poll half the people would rather have just the album art while the other half is fine with just the music. We could save money this way and only buy half the albums we want. The ones who like the music can keep the files and as long as we sent the empty vinyl sleeves and CD cases with the artwork they'd be content.

Snow Dog wrote: Dean wrote: Exhibit 1:     ...how many people bought that in the 70s because of the Patrick Woodruff's artwork rather than Dave Greenslade's music? (hint: lots) I did!!! Beautiful.......but the exception rather than the rule. I took mine back actually. Its such quet music and tthe crackles on the vinyl drove me nuts! Plus I thought it a wee bit boring.

 

The music.
If the lyrics and the "cover" art work are available online, I'm not fussed about owning the product in physical form.

Mr ProgFreak wrote: BaldFriede wrote: Will books also become a virtual thing? Hopefully not. And just like I like my library I like the collection of albums on the shelves. Just think of this: When a new friend for the first time enters the place where you live, what will he, among other things, take a look at? The books and musical albums on the shelves, because they reflect an important part of the host's personality. Do you honestly think this can be replaced by having it all on the computer? I definitely know I would be missing out on something, and the question "let me have a glance at your computer to see what you read and hear" appears to be a bit daring to me. Of course manners may change in the future, but I actually like to have my personality on display for people who visit me. It definitely won't be the same if it is all on the computer. I think that users will simply have the bulk of their collection on their computer. It still makes sense though to keep some books, CDs or vinyl albums ... to put in a shelf, and to show to visitors. I currently have 1000 CDs ... I could give visitors a good impression of what I'm listening to by simply keeping the 100 most important ones. Preferably ones with great artwork, in digipacks instead of jewel cases. BTW: You can also present your collection on the computer. All major music player applications allow you to manage cover art ... if I open Winamp (my player of choice) I can display my entire collection as a big tiled display of cover art. That also looks much better - and more interesting - than my CD shelf, with only the side of the CDs visible.

Yes, but it would definitely not be the same to present the collection on the computer. And you are already compromising. Our homes definitely would be less "home" if it was all on the computer.

I honestly just think that owning the physical media is so much more beneficial...

I can play it out of a CD player!

For example
I recently developed a fetish for MARILLION artwork, and TBH, I'm looking at bidding on a 12" Record just for the album art today...

I bought 11 Marillion CD's in the last 3 months from eBay - I could've downloaded them from iTunes, or illegally, but I chose to buy the CD's as I prefer to own a physical media.

Don't get me wrong - its not that I'm opposed to or afraid of change, its that I feel like I'm not really paying for a proper product when I buy MP3's. I usually don't give them as much consideration, or value them as much either.

For example, I payed 19.99 USD for a Marillion: FUGAZI CD on eBay (That was before 7USD in postage to Australia) and I could've got it for around 9.99AUD on iTunes, but I wouldn't feel as though I owned the music.

And apart from that
I wouldn't be able to play it Every morning on my CD player before school...

Wrong question in the poll. Make a poll with both options possible to choose. Not just one option with the answer you want. What valuable answers can you possibly get by asking rhetorical questions like this?

I voted for cover and booklet, but of course the music is generally more important. I buy Vinyl when its an option, bwt, and of course its about the whole package. 

topofsm wrote: I'm confused and appalled that the vote was tied 3-3 before I voted. This is a music forum after all.   In any event, Mike, I may be one of the only people who seems to think that it's fine that album art and stuff could be left aside, as long as you're left with great music. I myself seem to prefer music that contains lyrics that are at least somewhat important, but I don't even get physical CDs every time to marvel at the magnificent artwork or read through the lyrics as I'm listening, because after all it's the music that's important. Furthermore, I think Roger Dean's artwork is incredible, but I don't have any physical copy of any albums that he did artwork on, save for my father's vinyl copy of Fragile, and that one has water damage so the first coat is coming off easily. But that doesn't matter, cause I enjoy lots of Yes music anyways.   I listen to music through an iPod dock anyways, or in the car when I'm driving so there's little need for me to have vinyls and CDs, though sometimes I'll get a cheap thrift store vinyl for something like a dollar for the collectability of it.

Indeed, the situation is different for each album. Some albums have great artwork that is intertwined with the music. Some albums have great artwork, but it doesn't have much to do with the music at all (often the artwork is created independently from the music). And then of course there are albums where the artwork is totally unimportant.

And as you said, there is the cost factor. Focussing on the music (MP3) alone allows me to buy more albums. But like you I'm also paying regular visits to my local thrift store ... when I see an album with a nice cover for a bargain price, I'll take the opportunity.

Dean wrote: Exhibit 1:     ...how many people bought that in the 70s because of the Patrick Woodruff's artwork rather than Dave Greenslade's music? (hint: lots)

^ sure. As I said before, I prefer music over stuff to put in a shelf.

I'm getting the feeling that most of you who *demand* the piece of plastic and paper component are simply used to the format so much that you can't - and don't want to - think about alternatives.

I'm sure that 20 years from now music will be a purely virtual thing ... as will be video (blu-ray is the last disc format). Amazon have shown with their Kindle that it is possible to transfer the experience of reading a book to the electronic world ... why should it be different for booklets? In the end the electronic solution will take over, because it's simply more convenient, more efficient and more elegant. If done correctly of course, but I am sure that we'll eventually see some kind of device like the Kindle, but a bit larger and with color display, and of course with one (or more) headphone plugs.