who here owns the least physical music?

Music posts are a bannable offense.
User avatar
father of lies
Sir Posts-A-Lot
Posts: 10421
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2007 6:17 pm
Location: MKE WI

Re: who here owns the least physical music?

Post by father of lies »

I'm with Gookstorm. I try to support the things I like without having a bunch of more or less worthless shit. I pretty much only buy movies that I am going to share with other people regularly (the last few were Thee Films [the Burroughs experimental films] and the Jodorowsky box set). Cds are worthless to me.
fvkk
User avatar
You Killed Jesus
Keep it thick...
Posts: 516
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2007 8:09 pm

Re: who here owns the least physical music?

Post by You Killed Jesus »

riley-o wrote:
You Killed Jesus wrote:I've been to Vancouver over this last year
you were in vancouver and didn't call to go for a drink ?

no, that's fine, i understand... you were probably busy... it's okay...
SPOILERSPOILER_SHOW
:cry: :cry: :cry:
Sorry bro, gonna be there this spring so we can hang out and stuff then :rhug: :lhug:
User avatar
Necrometer
crippled god of the universe
Posts: 64430
Joined: Fri Aug 03, 2007 10:42 am
Location: Feelin' fine.

Re: who here owns the least physical music?

Post by Necrometer »

DeadWalrus wrote:
Necrometer wrote:OK, so the difference between diamonds and cubic zarconia - that's legit and not a retarded social construct imposed by cocksuckers?
don't get me started
Indulge me!
Image
good thing I'll be dead soon, cause I'm tired of liars winning
User avatar
DeadWalrus
Freakin Insane & Stuff..
Posts: 2560
Joined: Sat Jun 14, 2008 11:29 am
Location: beards and bad haircuts

Re: who here owns the least physical music?

Post by DeadWalrus »

Necrometer wrote:Indulge me!
in short, diamonds are also essentially worthless, or more accurately vastly over-inflated in value since they can be manufactured to be nearly indistinguishable from natural diamonds and can be produced flawlessly. that's actually one of the methods to determine if it is manufactured and, ironically, it's what is most sought after in natural stones. also, natural diamonds are over-mined, but prices are kept high by a combination of artificial scarcity and marketing (two months salary! she's worth it, right fellas?). then there's the wars and exploitation... so basically FUCK DIAMONDS cubic zirconia supremacy.
User avatar
Necrometer
crippled god of the universe
Posts: 64430
Joined: Fri Aug 03, 2007 10:42 am
Location: Feelin' fine.

Re: who here owns the least physical music?

Post by Necrometer »

right; diamond's are nature's vinyl
Image
good thing I'll be dead soon, cause I'm tired of liars winning
User avatar
DeadWalrus
Freakin Insane & Stuff..
Posts: 2560
Joined: Sat Jun 14, 2008 11:29 am
Location: beards and bad haircuts

Re: who here owns the least physical music?

Post by DeadWalrus »

Necrometer wrote:right; diamond's are nature's vinyl
hmmmm, i find your metaphor uncompelling as i have yet to ethnically cleanse a population to acquire more vinyl.
BroMan
Hetero as hell...
Posts: 721
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2009 11:49 pm
Location: Near Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
Contact:

Re: who here owns the least physical music?

Post by BroMan »

I own about 6 to 8 CD's that I bought myself and like 2 burned ones. I DO however have a cd from when I was a kid, The Beavis & Butthead Experiance and it still works!
PSN- BroMan43
User avatar
Barcass Grinder
I hate my life.
Posts: 4108
Joined: Fri Oct 05, 2007 8:05 pm
Location: Iowa
Contact:

Re: who here owns the least physical music?

Post by Barcass Grinder »

Bored, Esq. wrote:I like vinyl a lot but I wouldn't buy something on vinyl if it was also on CD....

The [mp3s] that accumulate over time that I really enjoy, I buy....

I keep mp3s of stuff that I simply can't get any other way...

I've never paid for mp3s, I never will.
Agreed on all these points.
User avatar
blastocystosis
O.G. Interwebber
Posts: 4533
Joined: Fri Aug 03, 2007 1:06 pm

Re: who here owns the least physical music?

Post by blastocystosis »

Jofa.
Brian P.
How's them beans, ma?
Posts: 3285
Joined: Fri Aug 24, 2007 2:47 pm
Location: Pushing blondes in front of cars.

Re: who here owns the least physical music?

Post by Brian P. »

Sorry Ross, I know threads are important, serious business but I'm not counting all that shit.
Music is the pleasure the mind gets by counting subconsciously.
User avatar
zzzzzzzz
Unquestionable Presence
Posts: 824
Joined: Sun Jan 24, 2010 10:05 pm

Re: who here owns the least physical music?

Post by zzzzzzzz »

I've had an mp3 player for about a year now and its fucking awesome not dragging CDs around with me anymore, I've downloaded tons of shit and its actually made me buy more CDs than I planned on. I'm still trying to catch up with all the shit I'd like to own. I got a box of shame up stairs with lots of fucking worthless CDs, mainly damn near every metal/grind/crust album from 1999-2004, a bunch of fucking garbage.
User avatar
krudmonk
Bonestorm 13
Posts: 17033
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2007 1:58 pm
Location: terra yerma

Re: who here owns the least physical music?

Post by krudmonk »

Vinyl has no distinguished spine. I don't get the vast array of colors and fonts on my shelf.
UGH! HEEEYYYYY!!!!!!!
43°29′28″N 83°23′49″W
Nespithe
Posts: 969
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 8:35 am

Re: who here owns the least physical music?

Post by 43°29′28″N 83°23′49″W »

I have a few hundred pieces of vinyl, most of which I couldn't get on CD. I woulda got those on CD if I could have.
User avatar
Necrometer
crippled god of the universe
Posts: 64430
Joined: Fri Aug 03, 2007 10:42 am
Location: Feelin' fine.

Re: who here owns the least physical music?

Post by Necrometer »

Brian P. wrote:Sorry Ross, I know threads are important, serious business but I'm not counting all that shit.
I think you would have to have 1 or 0 CDs to win this thread... I believe your mind could get some pleasure from counting to either of those numbers... consciously.
Image
good thing I'll be dead soon, cause I'm tired of liars winning
User avatar
triple clutcher v2.5b
This drum machine utterly confounds me.
Posts: 4733
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2007 3:01 pm
Location: syracuse
Contact:

Re: who here owns the least physical music?

Post by triple clutcher v2.5b »

I don't own much music, maybe 200 CDs? Especially nowadays, I won't buy a CD unless I'm convinced it's something brilliant and that I'll continue to enjoy it in a regular basis in the future. Up until maybe five or six years ago, I'd buy albums because I liked one song on it or because I heard about it thirdhand or something (or just because I wanted new music NOW and couldn't be arsed to wait until I could find something better), and then listen to it twice before selling it for pennies.

Now I wait until I spend an entire weekend finding myself obsessed with an album, at which point I'll usually seek out the artist's website (or at least their label) and throw money at whatever they have for sale. CDs, T-shirts, blowjobs, whatever. This method has yet to steer me wrong.

as far as MP3s go, I miss the good old days of eMusic, where spending $10 a month meant unlimited downloading of whatever they had up. Sure, it was all a bunch of borderline-unlistenable and militantly indie artfag music at that point (Kill Rock Stars, Troubleman, etc.) but it was fucking brilliant.
User avatar
Gookstorm
Freakin Insane & Stuff..
Posts: 2837
Joined: Fri Aug 03, 2007 4:25 pm
Location: pol(1,pi/e)
Contact:

Re: who here owns the least physical music?

Post by Gookstorm »

DeadWalrus wrote:in short, diamonds are also essentially worthless, or more accurately vastly over-inflated in value since they can be manufactured to be nearly indistinguishable from natural diamonds and can be produced flawlessly. that's actually one of the methods to determine if it is manufactured and, ironically, it's what is most sought after in natural stones. also, natural diamonds are over-mined, but prices are kept high by a combination of artificial scarcity and marketing (two months salary! she's worth it, right fellas?). then there's the wars and exploitation... so basically FUCK DIAMONDS cubic zirconia supremacy.
Can you relay that to a vinyl analogy, I'm not sure the vinyl guys could hear it over the floor noise and pops.
ThE GodDamN BattletweeteR wrote:
Gookstorm wrote:Koreans hate Americans too much to ever fuck them, silly roundeyes.
obviously you never been to kunsan, osan, or seoul.
neckbeard
Foaming at the mouth.
Posts: 7281
Joined: Fri Aug 03, 2007 9:33 am

Re: who here owns the least physical music?

Post by neckbeard »

I'm half with you, but I'm not sure why you're defending vinyl. It's just as useless.
kale
neckbeard
Foaming at the mouth.
Posts: 7281
Joined: Fri Aug 03, 2007 9:33 am

Re: who here owns the least physical music?

Post by neckbeard »

Gookstorm wrote:
Can you relay that to a vinyl analogy, I'm not sure the vinyl guys could hear it over the floor noise and pops.[/quote]

How about a car analogy; Using vinyl to reproduce music is like driving around in a Model T when it's possible to just teleport with your mind.
kale
User avatar
Idget Child
Big McLargeHuge
Posts: 4080
Joined: Wed Aug 29, 2007 8:23 am
Location: Fuck City

Re: who here owns the least physical music?

Post by Idget Child »

I'm glad that I'm not the only one who can finally see what a petulant zero DeadWalrus is thanks to his asinine arguments in this thread. The main issue that's being overlooked here is that burned CD-Rs are constructed differently than pro-CDs: CD-Rs use a dye that gets imprinted to store information rather than the polycarbonate layer that features pits of information (even though they're really bumps) that are used to illuminate the disk for reading. Consequently, CD-Rs are easier to deteriorate or lose data. Additionally, this "reproducibility" argument also relies on the assumption that everyone who can listen to a CD will have the means of reproducing high-quality CDs and artwork, despite issues such as image resolutions, bit rate, hardware limitations, CD-label printing and alternative packaging. Overall, you're better off owning official CDs. They aren't "worthless."

I might as well add in that the tongue-in-cheek "cubic zirconium supremacy" argument is parallel to any argument in favor of posing.
Chad wrote:Idget child might be the worst poster here though...
neckbeard
Foaming at the mouth.
Posts: 7281
Joined: Fri Aug 03, 2007 9:33 am

Re: who here owns the least physical music?

Post by neckbeard »

Idget Child wrote:Additionally, this "reproducibility" argument also relies on the assumption that everyone who can listen to a CD will have the means of reproducing high-quality CD
Only one person has to make a perfect copy which can then be transmitted to anyone for free via Internet
kale
User avatar
DeadWalrus
Freakin Insane & Stuff..
Posts: 2560
Joined: Sat Jun 14, 2008 11:29 am
Location: beards and bad haircuts

Re: who here owns the least physical music?

Post by DeadWalrus »

noah thirteen wrote:Throughout this thread you've pretty much earned more :drooly: s than anyone I have ever seen.......
tell me why physically owning a cd is better than an mp3
neckbeard wrote:I'm half with you, but I'm not sure why you're defending vinyl. It's just as useless.


if all you care about the musical content, you are right. if you care about "physically owning the music" it's the only medium that makes any sense at all
Bored, Esq.

Re: who here owns the least physical music?

Post by Bored, Esq. »

One can easily see in threads like this why the time-honored tradition of slow, patient explanation to halfheads inevitably leading to violence will never be eradicated from our society until we enact eugenic planning. I mean...if stupid people were susceptible to logic and/or rationality they wouldn't be stupid, would they? This is why I always carry a giant foam hammer with me.
User avatar
Idget Child
Big McLargeHuge
Posts: 4080
Joined: Wed Aug 29, 2007 8:23 am
Location: Fuck City

Re: who here owns the least physical music?

Post by Idget Child »

neckbeard wrote:
Idget Child wrote:Additionally, this "reproducibility" argument also relies on the assumption that everyone who can listen to a CD will have the means of reproducing high-quality CD
Only one person has to make a perfect copy which can then be transmitted to anyone for free via Internet
Of course, but that depends on what's being copied (i.e., a Lady Gaga album versus some second or third-tier death metal band with a much more limited fanbase or proportional capability of getting a good copy of their music released digitally) and the ability to get that copy onto your computer. There are definitely enough files on the whole internet to find these perfect copies, but it's still only one part of the ability to physically reproduce an album if you're going to juxtapose this reproducibility with the ability to reproduce all of the components of vinyl and its packaging.
Chad wrote:Idget child might be the worst poster here though...
milkmandan
GOLD MEMBER
GOLD MEMBER
Posts: 11294
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2007 2:33 pm
Location: Austin

Re: who here owns the least physical music?

Post by milkmandan »

neckbeard wrote:
Gookstorm wrote:
Can you relay that to a vinyl analogy, I'm not sure the vinyl guys could hear it over the floor noise and pops.
How about a car analogy; Using vinyl to reproduce music is like driving around in a Model T when it's possible to just teleport with your mind.[/quote]


Image
ImageImageImage
User avatar
Gookstorm
Freakin Insane & Stuff..
Posts: 2837
Joined: Fri Aug 03, 2007 4:25 pm
Location: pol(1,pi/e)
Contact:

Re: who here owns the least physical music?

Post by Gookstorm »

DeadWalrus wrote:tell me why physically owning a cd is better than an mp3
mp3 sucks, use FLAC or something lossless so you can transcode to different storage requirements on the fly.
Idget Child wrote:The main issue that's being overlooked here is that burned CD-Rs are constructed differently than pro-CDs
No, that's not an issue at all here. I think you've overthought this one out and assumed a awareness level of the original comment. It has to do with means of manufacture for a congruent / identical product. For most people, an mp3 is functionally equivalent to a CD and far more convenient, so it wins. For a tiny minority, they value the properties associated with physical media as much, if not higher, than the actual music itself. It's an addiction similar to how people addicted to sodas and burgers have a dining "experience" that consists of many subtle associated elements - wake the fuck up and realize what you actually like, people. I don't need to pay $5k+ / yr to smell shit I like to smell. Go to Yankee Candle Company and ask them to make a vinyl smelling line of candles or something, wtf. Go to a visual art exposition if you like seeing cool shit.

It's really weird, book nerds have always had the mantra about not judging a book by its cover while the music nerds seem to be about how important the cover is to the media. Talk about double standards...
ThE GodDamN BattletweeteR wrote:
Gookstorm wrote:Koreans hate Americans too much to ever fuck them, silly roundeyes.
obviously you never been to kunsan, osan, or seoul.
Post Reply