Who Still Buys CD?

I didn’t see anything previously posted regarding this, so mods let me know if it’s already been posted.

Anyway, who still buys CD? I just picked up three the other day for $10. For some reason, iTunes downloads feel “thin” to me. They lack the punch, tightness and clarity of a CD. Anybody else still buy CD?

How long do you think the medium will still be around? I would buy high-resolution downloads but they’re just way too expensive and I don’t think I can really tell the difference between them and a good CD anyway.

I still buy CDs. I like having the physical media. I also like getting the wav file which I can then convert to flac, mp3, or whatever I wish.

I would buy a CD if I wanted the music enough. I have about as many CDs as I’m willing to give up the space for . So I would be fairly selective on adding more.

I haven’t bought a CD in quite a while. I have an extensive library of older CDs and nearly anything put out today isn’t worth the money, IMO. I remember the days when albums like Fleetwood-Mac’s Rumours and Boston’s first album came out and EVERY song on them were GREAT. There are dozens and dozens of older albums/CDs that were the same. Today you are lucky if one or two songs are good because the rest is just filler. There are some good, talented musicians and singers out there but not many, if any, are great song writers and pioneers like we have had in the past.

[QUOTE=UTR;2686433]I haven’t bought a CD in quite a while. I have an extensive library of older CDs and nearly anything put out today isn’t worth the money, IMO. I remember the days when albums like Fleetwood-Mac’s Rumours and Boston’s first album came out and EVERY song on them were GREAT. There are dozens and dozens of older albums/CDs that were the same. Today you are lucky if one or two songs are good because the rest is just filler. There are some good, talented musicians and singers out there but not many, if any, are great song writers and pioneers like we have had in the past.[/QUOTE]

Sounds like my parents when I was a kid. “That isn’t music”. Closed minds will always lose out. There are plenty of good musicians out there. But its harder to find them due to the proliferation of bands and increased output. There are tools, however, to find new music: Pandora, Spotify, Last.fm, NPR’s concert collection amongst them.

[QUOTE=hogger129;2686425]I didn’t see anything previously posted regarding this, so mods let me know if it’s already been posted.

Anyway, who still buys CD? I just picked up three the other day for $10. For some reason, iTunes downloads feel “thin” to me. They lack the punch, tightness and clarity of a CD. Anybody else still buy CD?

How long do you think the medium will still be around? I would buy high-resolution downloads but they’re just way too expensive and I don’t think I can really tell the difference between them and a good CD anyway.[/QUOTE]

People and magazines have been predicting the end of CD"s for a while now. Yet they still vastly outsell any other physical medium. Will they continue to do so? I doubt it. Every time I go into a music store, the only people I see buying music are over 30, and mostly over 40. And they are few and far between. As the proprietor of my favorite spot says “Anyone under 30 either downloads or buys vinyl”.

Do I still buy CD"s? Sure. But I rarely buy new CD’s, since the vast majority are still priced at about 1990’s levels. I can count on the number of new CD’s I bought last year on one hand. I usually preview anything new I buy on Spotify or Last.fm. I buy more used CD’s, but I am pickier about why I buy. I am slowly adding “new” artists that I don’t have to my collection of bop and hard bop jazz, as well as fleshing out my collection with albums I don’t have from certain artists.

[QUOTE=yojimbo197;2686436]Sounds like my parents when I was a kid. “That isn’t music”. Closed minds will always lose out. There are plenty of good musicians out there. But its harder to find them due to the proliferation of bands and increased output. There are tools, however, to find new music: Pandora, Spotify, Last.fm, NPR’s concert collection amongst them.[/QUOTE]

There are no pioneers in music and there haven’t been for a long time. I stated that we have some talented musicians but they just aren’t that prolific. Jason Mraz is one, Grace Potter another but they aren’t in the same league as some artists of the past. They have a cult following but not much mainstream attraction. There are definitely few bands with the talent of past bands. Boston, Fleetwood-Mac, The Eagles, Chicago etc. had more talent in one band than about any five bands you can name today put together. Besides, if you have to dig a band/performer out of a pile then they aren’t in the same league as the ones to which I am referencing. Name me ONE recent album that has anywhere near the overall quality of songs that Fleetwood-Mac’s Rumour album has. Heck, name me one newer band that has the same level of talent overall that Fleetwood-Mac has/had. IMO, the 1970s was the pinnacle of music (outside of country etc.) and ever since the quality and inventiveness of artists have been declining to the sad state it is in today.

I agree with both UTR & yojimbo197 .
I think some of the best performers ever were in the late 60’s thruogh the 70’s.
Those sure set the bar high for any that came after .
On the other side Stevie Ray Vaughn did most if not all of his music after 1980,
I liked early Jewel songs, Norah Jones too.
Robert Randolf .

Garth Brooks for country. Buddy Jewel for a couple of country performers.

I don’t like rap or hip hop . It just annoys me. Especially when a car has it so loud I can hear it like it is on my own car stereo. I don’t think that is going to convert me.

I still buy CDs, We have a good HiFi system with a good quality CD player, and a CD is so easy to use and navigate.

I can name a few bands who are very talented.
Muse
Cold Play
And from over the pond, Dream Theater.

[QUOTE=UTR;2686440]There are no pioneers in music and there haven’t been for a long time. I stated that we have some talented musicians but they just aren’t that prolific. Jason Mraz is one, Grace Potter another but they aren’t in the same league as some artists of the past. They have a cult following but not much mainstream attraction. There are definitely few bands with the talent of past bands. Boston, Fleetwood-Mac, The Eagles, Chicago etc. had more talent in one band than about any five bands you can name today put together. Besides, if you have to dig a band/performer out of a pile then they aren’t in the same league as the ones to which I am referencing. Name me ONE recent album that has anywhere near the overall quality of songs that Fleetwood-Mac’s Rumour album has. Heck, name me one newer band that has the same level of talent overall that Fleetwood-Mac has/had. IMO, the 1970s was the pinnacle of music (outside of country etc.) and ever since the quality and inventiveness of artists have been declining to the sad state it is in today.[/QUOTE]

You’re looking/hearing through the myopic lens of sentamentalism. I’m sure my grandparents hated Miles Davis and Thelonious Monk when they came out. “Benny Goodman, now there was a guy with a great band”.

As far as current/still playing musicians that can really play(since Grace Potter and Muse were already mentioned)

Gov’t Mule
Cowboy Junkies
Over The Rhine
Explosions in the Sky
Mogwai
Robert Cray
Primus
Peter Gabriel(though he hasn’t done much in recent years due to his producing)
Pearl Jam
Mars Volta
Hod O’Brien
Gomez
Brad Mehldau
Blur
The Black Keys
Ryan Adams

[QUOTE=UTR;2686440] Name me ONE recent album that has anywhere near the overall quality of songs that Fleetwood-Mac’s Rumour album has. Heck, name me one newer band that has the same level of talent overall that Fleetwood-Mac has/had.[/QUOTE]

Every album of Avantasia ,the metal opera project of Tobias Sammet,the bandleader of EdGuy…:bigsmile:
Personal opinion,of course…:cool::wink:
About buying cd’s…sometimes I do,when I really like the band,and when there’s more than 3 good songs on it.
I think that after all those years of their existance,cd’s are still WAAAAY overpriced ,compared to the manufacturing cost and the (small) part of which the artist really gets.
IMHO,there are to many people who eat a big part of the cake…

The distributor and his ‘accounting system’ are the ones that gobble up 90%. The recording studio gets their 6%. And when the Distributor and the Studio are the same (sometimes spelled S-O-N-Y, for example), that’s 96% going to one entity.

The accounting system is a monstrosity that has been championed for a hundred years, though, with trickery involved between “Items manufacturered, Items shipped, Items Sold - to contracted wholesalers and smaller distributors, Items held in obeyance (on shelves, unsold to end-users you and me) and Units Sold.”

Less “Units Returned”.

All kinds of chicanery is offered to prevent artists from getting (1) real numbers of units sold, and (2) real payouts based on those numbers.

In addition, most performers are given a heroin-esque contract. “Psst, here, kid - try some of dis… sign here, here’s ya $80 kajillion.” But it’s indentured servitude for that amount, based on those unreal, unpublic and unknowable Real Units Sold.

“Sure, we gave ya $80 kajillion and yer album sold $100 kajillion, but we put in another $99.999 kajillion in marketing, those fancy hotel expenses for you, me and our entire staff. So net profit was only a dollar. You’ve only got $79.9999 kajillion to go!”

Somehow, all of those particulars of marketing and expenses are easily itemized, but those same details are never spelled out for the distribution of product.

Even worse… distributors lock up retailers. “You must put your shelves in THIS order so we can do our monthly audits. You signed a contract to get products on your shelf - so now our hook’s in your mouth (or needle in the arm). You have no choice.”

It’s somewhere between the worst-est Mechanic’s Lien and Heroin Addiction.

“Indie” stores are those that have signed up with lesser distributors, but they’re still distributors.

We still sell plenty of CDs ourselves, and hundreds of others sell more. But we’ve all taken the Grateful Dead approach and sold our own gear at our own performances. If we have to split anything “with the gate” (clubs), we’re in a nice town with 180 clubs to compete with, and 44 weekends of festivals and outdoor performances. We can always look around and reply, “We don’t need YOUR steenkin’ badges,” therefore.

Alfonso Bedoya - one of the great spokesmen in performance history:

roadworker , I will have to give some of those a listen.

Might add this one:
joe bonamassa

I also don’t think def leopard had anything befor 1980.
Probably not Ratt, Whitesnake , or Poison either.

I’m not looking through any lens. Most of the bands/performers you listed are unknowns to most people regardless of their age. They have not been as widely followed as Fleetwood-Mac, Boston, Chicago, Van Halen, Queen, Led Zepellin, Super Tramp, The Beatles, Rolling Stones. These bands WERE the mainstream of their day and were widely played and sold albums by the millions. Nearly all the young people I am around know these bands well. They listen to them and think their music is fantastic. The biggest indicator of these bands iconic status is their music being trans generational for the past 40-50 years. It has literally stood the test of time and is as great sounding as day it was released. The 1980s was the beginning of the end for great music, IMO. How much Duran Duran do you hear being played nowadays? Remember (if you are old enough) how popular they were in the 1980s?

I know everyone’s taste in music is different and maybe people have stopped caring about the quality of the music they are fed. I know the few bands/musicians that are talented [B][I]and[/I][/B] great song writers can’t seem to get any real traction like the iconic bands I mentioned. I guess we live in an age where what a person wears (i.e. the weirder the better) and how they act is more important than the quality of their music. The last ones I can remember pulling off the weirdness of Lady Gaga while writing/playing pioneering music of great quality was Elton John and David Bowie. :wink:

If it’s a good cd I’ll buy it because I like to know all the players that play on each song.And if it is a great song I’d like to know the writer.
And on Fleetwood Mac I like the original Fleetwood Mac Mick Fleetwood,Peter Green,Jeremy Spencer,John McVie ,Danny Kirwan and Bob Bruning. And now Mick Fleetwood Blues Band.I might be old because I don’t care for alot of the newer players they just seem to be to much studio work added and voice ins.Something like photo shop eh.

[QUOTE=UTR;2686481]I’m not looking through any lens. Most of the bands/performers you listed are unknowns to most people regardless of their age. They have not been as widely followed as Fleetwood-Mac, Boston, Chicago, Van Halen, Queen, Led Zepellin, Super Tramp, The Beatles, Rolling Stones. These bands WERE the mainstream of their day and were widely played and sold albums by the millions. Nearly all the young people I am around know these bands well. They listen to them and think their music is fantastic. The biggest indicator of these bands iconic status is their music being trans generational for the past 40-50 years. It has literally stood the test of time and is as great sounding as day it was released. The 1980s was the beginning of the end for great music, IMO. How much Duran Duran do you hear being played nowadays? Remember (if you are old enough) how popular they were in the 1980s?

I know everyone’s taste in music is different and maybe people have stopped caring about the quality of the music they are fed. I know the few bands/musicians that are talented [B][I]and[/I][/B] great song writers can’t seem to get any real traction like the iconic bands I mentioned. I guess we live in an age where what a person wears (i.e. the weirder the better) and how they act is more important than the quality of their music. The last ones I can remember pulling off the weirdness of Lady Gaga while writing/playing pioneering music of great quality was Elton John and David Bowie. ;)[/QUOTE]

I can do nothing but agree with this statement. The Backstreet Boys and N*Sync were big when I was a kid and how much do you hear them played on the radio anymore?

[QUOTE=UTR;2686440]. There are definitely few bands with the talent of past bands. Boston, Fleetwood-Mac, The Eagles, Chicago etc. had more talent in one band than about any five bands you can name today put together. Besides, if you have to dig a band/performer out of a pile then they aren’t in the same league as the ones to which I am referencing. Name me ONE recent album that has anywhere near the overall quality of songs that Fleetwood-Mac’s Rumour album has. Heck, name me one newer band that has the same level of talent overall that Fleetwood-Mac has/had.[/QUOTE]

  1. So I named over 5 bands and/or artists that have as much or in some cases more talent than Fleetwood Mac, You never said that the bands had to be mainstream. Frankly I’ve never really cared much for most of the Beatles or the Stones. If I wanted to hear a British band rip off American blues I’d rather hear Led Zeppelin, or real American blues artists for that matter like Otis Rush and Buddy Guy. Fleetwood Mac was talented but I’d say they are more of a period band. Take 100 colllege students and let them listen to Fleetwood Mac and I"m betting the vast majority will cringe and reach for their iPod earbuds.

It’s also ironic that you place those bands on a pedestal, and yet fail to mention other great bands/musicians that started out in the 1970’s like the Pretenders, Elvis Costello and the Attractions, and even Tom Petty and the Heartbreakers. Not to mention The Allman Brothers, etc etc.

As well you failed to mention bands that reached their peak or a peak in the 70’s like Pink Floyd, Genesis, and Iggy Pop.

  1. Out of those bands I mentioned
    Cowboy Junkies
    Robery Cray
    The Black Keys
    Peter Gabriel(You might remember him as the first lead singer of Genesis)
    Blur
    Ryan Adams

have all had albums in the Top 100 and I believe at least the Top 40. In addition Cowboy Junkies, Explosions in the Sky and The Black Keys have had their music used in movie soundtracks and on TV shows in the opening sequence. And I"m probably not remembering enough. The point being is that they are known, just not by people who don’t bother to venture outside the oldies channel.

  1. Out of those “mainstream bands/artist you identified as being “iconic”” several were examples of the gratuitous form of 1970’s stadium rock/corporate rock. Boston, SuperTramp, and Yes were probably some of the worst offenders with all of those extended and gratuitous solo and jamming.

I buy CDs still. If you shop on Amazon often the physical CD is cheaper than the MP3 album and Amazon now includes a 256k+ encoding of the CD you just bought. Example:


[QUOTE=olyteddy;2686488]I buy CDs still. If you shop on Amazon often the physical CD is cheaper than the MP3 album and Amazon now includes a 256k+ encoding of the CD you just bought. Example:
[/QUOTE]

+1. I have bought quite a few CD’s through Amazon. Have been very happy with their services.

[QUOTE=yojimbo197;2686487]1. So I named over 5 bands and/or artists that have as much or in some cases more talent than Fleetwood Mac, You never said that the bands had to be mainstream.[/QUOTE]

I figured this was an obvious condition. Otherwise, the janitor at the local grade school could be put on the list.

[QUOTE=yojimbo197;2686487]Frankly I’ve never really cared much for most of the Beatles or the Stones. If I wanted to hear a British band rip off American blues I’d rather hear Led Zeppelin, or real American blues artists for that matter like Otis Rush and Buddy Guy. Fleetwood Mac was talented but I’d say they are more of a period band. Take 100 colllege students and let them listen to Fleetwood Mac and I"m betting the vast majority will cringe and reach for their iPod earbuds.[/QUOTE]

I personally know a lot of young people and they nearly all listen to classic rock though not exclusively.

[QUOTE=yojimbo197;2686487]It’s also ironic that you place those bands on a pedestal, and yet fail to mention other great bands/musicians that started out in the 1970’s like the Pretenders, Elvis Costello and the Attractions, and even Tom Petty and the Heartbreakers. Not to mention The Allman Brothers, etc etc.[/QUOTE]

I don’t see why this is a major issue for you. I never stated that I listed ALL bands I thought were very talented while being mainstream. Frankly, I don’t want to waste my time listing all those bands/artists.

[QUOTE=yojimbo197;2686487]As well you failed to mention bands that reached their peak or a peak in the 70’s like Pink Floyd, Genesis, and Iggy Pop.[/QUOTE]

I don’t think it is right to expect a band to keep producing at a high level for decades. The half-life of very talented and creative musicians is short on the average. The great bands of the past 40-50 years have had incredible staying power and have remained popular across multiple generations. Heck, nearly every area in the USA has radio stations devoted to mostly playing their music.

[QUOTE=yojimbo197;2686487]2. Out of those bands I mentioned
Cowboy Junkies
Robery Cray
The Black Keys
Peter Gabriel(You might remember him as the first lead singer of Genesis)
Blur
Ryan Adams

have all had albums in the Top 100 and I believe at least the Top 40. In addition Cowboy Junkies, Explosions in the Sky and The Black Keys have had their music used in movie soundtracks and on TV shows in the opening sequence. And I"m probably not remembering enough. The point being is that they are known, just not by people who don’t bother to venture outside the oldies channel.[/QUOTE]

IMO, breaking into the top 100 doesn’t make a band domineering or mainstream. These are more niche bands than mainstream.

[QUOTE=yojimbo197;2686487]3. Out of those “mainstream bands/artist you identified as being “iconic”” several were examples of the gratuitous form of 1970’s stadium rock/corporate rock. Boston, SuperTramp, and Yes were probably some of the worst offenders with all of those extended and gratuitous solo and jamming.[/QUOTE]

They filled large stadiums, sold millions of records and are still played on radio stations across the country 30-40 years later. I don’t think even you would say The Black Keys are being played as often as Boston is today. Heck, I would bet that in 40 years Boston, or any band of their stature, will be played more than any current band/artist you listed.