|   More Bang for the Buck ? | MasterCylinder
Dec 2, 2002 4:56 PM | | With the innovation of the CD and the associated time capacity, do we now get more music per dollar than previously ???
I found a CANNED HEAT album in my vinyl collection that I bought in 1970 for $3.33 at K-Mart. If you calculate the inflationary effect since that period, the price would now (2002) be $15.49 American and $16.45 Canadian.
The "double" albums released during the 70s cost more -- I found that my copy of "Wheels of Fire" was slightly over $5..... and a copy of "Topographic Oceans" was even more. These albums both have less than 80 minutes of music.
Dream Theater's "Scenes From New York" requires an 80 minute CD-r to burn a copy -- will not fit on a 74.
Many other artists are now releasing albums that require more than the standard 74 minute Cd-r.
Seems to me that these days, you might get a "double" for the price of a single ?????? |
| Psst... hey MC, wanna exchange some money with me... | Snowbunny
Dec 2, 2002 5:47 PM | | I'll give you an even better exchange than that!
Heheheh... don't you work with numbers???
Now, just to be topical, what's Topographic Oceans? It sounds like it should be good!
Snowie
$15.49 US = $24.14 CAN |
| American / Canadian | MasterCylinder
Dec 3, 2002 7:56 AM | | I did not try to use the conversion ratio -- the difference was the inflation rate of US dollars versus the Canadian inflation rate since 1970. Otherwise, you imply that the conversion was 1 to 1 in 1970.
Next time I'll do both.
Picky picky...................... |
| Apologies, MC | Snowbunny
Dec 3, 2002 8:54 AM | | I was in a silly mood yesterday. No offense intended.
Snowbunny |
| American / Canadian | arc_light
Dec 5, 2002 10:41 PM | | In fact the conversion $CDN to $USD just about that time was about $1 to $1.05. (Early 70's for sure)
$1 Canadian dollar got you $1.05 US. Made for real bargains below the 49th for the Canadian visitors. Especially so on U.S. produced goods. The Canadian import tariff rates at the time were killer. |
| You got that right! | - Davey -
Dec 2, 2002 5:48 PM | | What was the question again? Oh yeah, 1970 and Canned Heat. Hey, you can get most of Canned Heat's CDs today for $7.99. What's that in 1970 dollars? About $1.50? I think you have a bug in your USD --> CAD conversion though. $15.49 USD should be closer to $24 CAD.
Music per dollar is an odd concept and it has often surfaced on this forum before. I think some artists just don't know how to edit their work and would rather leave it up to the consumer, but I'd much rather pay for a 35 minute album that is well sequenced and edited than a rambling mess that stretches the boundaries of your CD-R. I guess some artists can pull it off and maybe Dream Theater is one of them, but there aren't many and if any artists are lurking at this site that plan on putting out a 78 minute album, I would strongly advise you to cut it to 45 minutes and save the rest for the obligatory unreleased tracks compilation. |
| Too slow, Dumbo! | Snowbunny
Dec 2, 2002 5:53 PM | | :-P |
| Sorry, I was just trying to let you finish first <img border=0 src=http://members.surfbest.net/dbi@surfbest.net/dumbo.gif> | - Davey -
Dec 2, 2002 6:08 PM | | Excuse me for being considerate <img src=http://members.surfbest.net/dbi@surfbest.net/dumbo.gif>
:-P |
| Well, that is considerate of you, since you have such a teeny | Snowbunny
Dec 2, 2002 6:13 PM | | Dumbo? Did you get permission from Disney to use that image??? I'm telling!
Snow Whyte |
| My little Dumbo sure is small :-) | - Davey -
Dec 2, 2002 6:17 PM | | <img src=http://www.disneydaydreams.com/dumbo/dumbo.gif>
Don't try this at home young Dumbos. This is a professional Dumbo performing in a cartoon. Real Dumbos can't fly! |
| Umm... should you be posting <i>this</i> picture here, Davey? | Snowbunny
Dec 2, 2002 6:22 PM | | Awww... how cute!
(I'm a sucker for baby hefalumps!) |
| Can't play any more now. It's Raiders-Jets tonight. Seeyalaterbye :-) | - Davey -
Dec 2, 2002 6:33 PM | | |
| Hey! Didn't I go out with you last Sunday? ;-) | Snowbunny
Dec 2, 2002 6:41 PM | | I'm still having tight pant flashbacks!
Do you even <i>care</i> who won the Grey Cup?
Have you ever even heard of the Grey Cup? :-) |
| What good is it, if it sucks hippo balls? | DustyChalk
Dec 3, 2002 12:03 AM | | (Not referring to your current example, just speaking in general.)
Everything's relative. As I've pointed out many times before, there's probably more notes, per se, on a 35 minute Slayer record, than there is on a 70 minute Godflesh album. Now, how much would you pay? And would you really pay "by the minute"? Hmmm...not that I'm suggesting you pay "by the note", neither, that would lead to, well, Yngwie Malmsteen (?sp), for one. Not that there's anything wrong with that, but you can see how that kind of thinking will lead, for example, record executives to rate an album, "by the hit". Now, wouldn't <I>that</I> suck?!? Oh, wait a minute, that's right, they do do that, and it <I>does</I> suck.
There are "short" albums (by today's standards) that I don't think suck at all -- Garbage's first and second albums come to mind -- both clocking in at around 50 minutes, IIRC. And I wouldn't change a thing about them. (Alright, I got the Japanese versions, which add two tracks each, for a total of 60 minutes, but they're completely optional, without over-burdening or distracting from the album at all. But I'm insane. If I never found out about those other tracks and was only stuck with the albums, I wouldn't regret it at all. Not one bit.)
Is it a good thing that they're pushing the limits of the technology? Not if you have an old player that won't play them. Not if the extra (80-72=) 8 minutes is crap. Not if they do that bonus "hidden" track (ooh, so hidden, I would never have figured out that it was there unless somebody told me!) thing of 30 minutes of silence between the last track and the really last track.
I remember listening to The Fixx' <I><B>Reach the Beach</I></B> when it first came back, and when it finished, I was like, "that's it?!?" Rewound (the tape), and played it again. It's so good, that even by those normal standards (it was about a 38 minute album in the day of ... about 38 minute albums [unless you count <I><B>Duke</I></B> and all the works by Klaus Schulze</I></B>]), it <I>seemed</I> short, but really wasn't.
Today, when I listen to <I><B>Tales from Topographic Oceans</I></B>, it hits me the same way. It is <I>not</I> that bludgeningly long, especially not by today's standards. (PS I think it is right over 80 minutes long, IIRC.)
Snowbunny -- it's Yes. I thought you listened to Yes all the time when you were a kid? Or were you more of a Fragile -era Yes kid? |
| <i>YES </i>and no... | Snowbunny
Dec 3, 2002 8:59 AM | | I bet if I heard the YES albums now, I'd know them intimately.
My neighbourhood buddies, who played in a garage band, were pretty much obsessed with YES, and I know I have heard every album played live and on vinyl, at some point in my life. But I only remember the names of the radio hits. :-)
Thanks for answering, Dusty. |
| |
