Why did you left CDs?

[ATS]

CDs sound awesome, better than records.

[AnX]

[fedexnman]

CDs sound awesome, better than records.

A good vinyl on a good record player and good stereo sounds so good though ...a CD on a good CD player and stereo doesn't always sound so great though .... but I never got into vinyl , I think I had some Michael Jackson Thriller , 1970s the muppet show with Elton John , and had a lot of those $1 or $2 forty fives , think I had M.J. Beat it , Don Henley Dirty Laundry , I had a bunch of those . Then the Sony Walkman came out and it was over for records for me , even though cassettes sucked , they were portable .... The cassette is basically the mp3 of records ......

[BONES]

Vinyl only sounds good the first few times you play it. Remember, it's a sharpened piece of diamond running over soft, brittle plastic. Every time you play it, it is just a little bit worse than the last time so if it's something you really like, you'll wear it out pretty quickly. OTOH, I still have the first CD I bought in 1986, Infected by The The, and it still sounds exactly the same as it did the first time I listened to it. Better still, I can listen to it at home, in the car and even when I am out and about (I still have a Discman).

[fedexnman]

I like CDs better than Vinyl , but man those old ass magnovox record players inside those big assed wood cabinet speakers thingies ... Man those were some good sounding stereos .

[ATS]

CDs sound awesome, better than records.

A good vinyl on a good record player and good stereo sounds so good though ...a CD on a good CD player and stereo doesn't always sound so great though .... but I never got into vinyl , I think I had some Michael Jackson Thriller , 1970s the muppet show with Elton John , and had a lot of those $1 or $2 forty fives , think I had M.J. Beat it , Don Henley Dirty Laundry , I had a bunch of those . Then the Sony Walkman came out and it was over for records for me , even though cassettes sucked , they were portable .... The cassette is basically the mp3 of records ......

I have a great set up for both. Both sound good.

[el-bo (formerly ebow)]

I am the exact opposite - I ONLY play albums and I never skips songs, even ones I don't like. .

im the same.

used to hate visiting friends who would play a few tracks, then change the album, why would you do that? its like cutting the mona lisa in half

Maybe it's more like people not being as into the same rituals as you are

I wouldn’t call it a ritual. For me (and it seems also for the artists I like), albums usually mean something as a whole. When I listen to music to focus on music (not as background), I’m in it for the whole package. Each song often belongs with the others on the album, and that is especially the case with concept albums (my favorite).

Albums are often a reflection of a certain period, place or state of mind for an artist, and this can certainly give them some kind of cohesive through-line. However, this is not always the case. Artists are bound (Or at least they used to be) by contract to release material, at given points. Often this leads to a lot more randomness, and even duds to make it onto albums. Add to that, that many albums' running order is decided 'by committee', and bound to the 'laws' of where to place singles, and how many 'fast-ies' should 'we' have before a 'slow-y. And then there's what to do at the end of side one to ensure that the listener will be bothered to get up, and walk across the room.

I'm all for people listening to an album in it's 'proposed'/given order, should they wish. But the way it's been presented in this thread just comes over as snobbery (Maybe I'm wrong).

I do see concept albums as different. To me, they are like long-form novels, whereas most albums are like collections of short stories. Those short stories may have an over-arching theme, through line, or are all placed in the same universe, but they are just as valid and 'whole', in and of themselves; they can be just as enjoyable in isolation, or in any order one chooses

[vurt]

because the album i wanted to hear next i have on vinyl.

[vurt]

I am the exact opposite - I ONLY play albums and I never skips songs, even ones I don't like. .

im the same.

used to hate visiting friends who would play a few tracks, then change the album, why would you do that? its like cutting the mona lisa in half

Maybe it's more like people not being as into the same rituals as you are

I wouldn’t call it a ritual. For me (and it seems also for the artists I like), albums usually mean something as a whole. When I listen to music to focus on music (not as background), I’m in it for the whole package. Each song often belongs with the others on the album, and that is especially the case with concept albums (my favorite).

Albums are often a reflection of a certain period, place or state of mind for an artist, and this can certainly give them some kind of cohesive through-line. However, this is not always the case. Artists are bound (Or at least they used to be) by contract to release material, at given points. Often this leads to a lot more randomness, and even duds to make it onto albums. Add to that, that many albums' running order is decided 'by committee', and bound to the 'laws' of where to place singles, and how many 'fast-ies' should 'we' have before a 'slow-y. And then there's what to do at the end of side one to ensure that the listener will be bothered to get up, and walk across the room.

I'm all for people listening to an album in it's 'proposed'/given order, should they wish. But the way it's been presented in this thread just comes over as snobbery (Maybe I'm wrong).

I do see concept albums as different. To me, they are like long-form novels, whereas most albums are like collections of short stories. Those short stories may have an over-arching theme, through line, or are all placed in the same universe, but they are just as valid and 'whole', in and of themselves; they can be just as enjoyable in isolation, or in any order one chooses

not snobbery so much as it sounded.
i just meant, id just be getting in to something and theyd change it. i personally found it annoying in said situation, a smoking session, wasnt helped by the constant picking and choosing.

how people choose to listen to music is theor business of course. but, rituals exist in certain situations beyond personal choice.
if you invite me to a party, i expect a mishmash of songs, if you invite me to have a smoke and listen to some albums, i expect to hear an album from start to finish

[el-bo (formerly ebow)]

I am the exact opposite - I ONLY play albums and I never skips songs, even ones I don't like. .

im the same.

used to hate visiting friends who would play a few tracks, then change the album, why would you do that? its like cutting the mona lisa in half

Maybe it's more like people not being as into the same rituals as you are

I wouldn’t call it a ritual. For me (and it seems also for the artists I like), albums usually mean something as a whole. When I listen to music to focus on music (not as background), I’m in it for the whole package. Each song often belongs with the others on the album, and that is especially the case with concept albums (my favorite).

Albums are often a reflection of a certain period, place or state of mind for an artist, and this can certainly give them some kind of cohesive through-line. However, this is not always the case. Artists are bound (Or at least they used to be) by contract to release material, at given points. Often this leads to a lot more randomness, and even duds to make it onto albums. Add to that, that many albums' running order is decided 'by committee', and bound to the 'laws' of where to place singles, and how many 'fast-ies' should 'we' have before a 'slow-y. And then there's what to do at the end of side one to ensure that the listener will be bothered to get up, and walk across the room.

I'm all for people listening to an album in it's 'proposed'/given order, should they wish. But the way it's been presented in this thread just comes over as snobbery (Maybe I'm wrong).

I do see concept albums as different. To me, they are like long-form novels, whereas most albums are like collections of short stories. Those short stories may have an over-arching theme, through line, or are all placed in the same universe, but they are just as valid and 'whole', in and of themselves; they can be just as enjoyable in isolation, or in any order one chooses

not snobbery so much as it sounded.
i just meant, id just be getting in to something and theyd change it. i personally found it annoying in said situation, a smoking session, wasnt helped by the constant picking and choosing.

how people choose to listen to music is theor business of course. but, rituals exist in certain situations beyond personal choice.
if you invite me to a party, i expect a mishmash of songs, if you invite me to have a smoke and listen to some albums, i expect to hear an album from start to finish

Actually, I didn't mean snobbery in reference to either your or Jace's posts. Even with the others it's probably more like one-upmanship.

And if you'd ever come 'round to mine for a smoke, you'd be taking your chances. Often the album would be left to play, but I used to like to ride the buzz in more directions than most albums could deliver. So I'd usually dj it

[vurt]

dj it properly? like mixing n stuff or just changing records with gaps?

[el-bo (formerly ebow)]

dj it properly? like mixing n stuff or just changing records with gaps?

With gaps as long as it took to eject one cd and load the next

[vurt]

noooooooo!

[el-bo (formerly ebow)]

To be fair, there was always some kind of talking and video-gaming happening. Wasn't just silence every few minutes

[vurt]

you had games