Quote:
Originally Posted by MarkMilberg
I understand the appeal of having huge cover art, and the pops and hiss of vinyl can add atmosphere to an album, but...
1) Especially for a live album, I want as few breaks as possible. A CD allows for 75 - 80 minutes of play without interruption; you have to flip your vinyl after about 40 minutes, right? Which means there are times (due to song lengths) where you need 3 LPs (i.e. 5 side flips/record changes) instead of changing the CD once.
2) CDs are less fragile (I've melted vinyl by leaving it in a car)-- which means there's also much less chance of a CD getting damaged in the mail when it's shipped to you (since not all couriers are gentle with packages).
3) You're much less likely to get a bad copy of a CD - it seems like so many ants have gotten bad pressings of vinyl and had to contact MusicToday to get it replaced.
4) If you don't live in the US, it can be VERY expensive to get vinyl shipped to you.
Also, and I recognize the U2 fan base is older, but yesterday @U2songs posted poll on twitter asking "When U2 releases their next album, which format are you likely to be found listening to it on the most?"
28% have said CD
22% have said vinyl
24% have said buying a digital copy (e.g. from iTunes)
26% have said streaming.
Since DMB continues to release CDs, and older DMB fans are going to be a similar age to U2 fans (and so likely have similar thinking), CDs are likely quite popular with DMB fans.
I'm not criticizing you for preferring vinyl (like what you want to like!) but there are a lot of CD fans still out there.
|
As a vinyl enthusiast I still agree with your mindset here. Unless it's a legendary shows like live at Red Rocks, Luther College or the remasters they did for the albums, I don't want to "risk" a huge purchase for a show I have not heard, will have to change every 2-3 songs and have no idea of the quality of the vinyl or sound.
This happened to me with the last vinyl they did LT 58. It's a good/solid show from 2000, but not really worth the extra vinyl treatment. AND they did a pretty sloppy job with it. Yes yes yes, it came on coke green vinyl or whatever, but who gives a fuck if it doesn't sound amazing.
For me, I want a vinyl that sounds AWESOME. DMB did a great job with Live at Red Rocks, Luther College and the remasters of Crash and UTTAD. Those are special records for me and I am glad I have them memorialized in what I consider the finest listening medium around. Also the Dave and Tim 1993 DMBlive re -release sounds incredible. I didn't get around to buying the Benaroya Hall one, but I'm sure that is similar.
Everything else, not already legendary, or the next new album is not going to be worth it in my opinion. Collecting live shows is one thing, but the need to have them on vinyl is another.
Like when I listen to Luther College, it sounds pristine! Like I'm at the fucking show in the room. Clean, spatial and warm. I can revisit it with fresh ears because they brought out the best parts of the music and the original recording was awesome to begin with.
With a new show, unless it's truly something that they've spent time on mixing and mastering specifically for vinyl , it just feels like a money grab. "Hey you crazy fans, pay 4 times what we ask for on CD for the exact same thing, just put on a bigger piece of plastic and a higher likely hood for low quality, warping, skipping and tracks that should not be split up! Good fun!"