# What's the Most You Have or Would Ever Spend on a CD?



## Lenfer (Aug 15, 2011)

I really can't say I spend that much on my CDs. I tend to buy them online and or second hand. I think the most i've ever spent on a CD for myself was £22 but that was for the *Mstislav Rostropovich: Complete EMI Recordings*. 

However as my knowledge of classical music as grown, in part thanks to all you clever folk. I find myself looking at CDs and some of them can be £/€50 +. Is it me or is that just crazy money to pay for a CD?

It's not that I can't afford it I'm lucky enough to have a fairly comfortable life financially. I would feel awfully guilty though especially with the way things are for so many people at the moment. At this time of year as well to be spending that sort of money on a CD for myself.

What do you think am I right or am I wrong? I'd also be quite interested to know what you spend or have spent and what for. Your Bargins and your Gems that sort of thing.

Sorry to ramble on but I don't want to post another thread. This sort of ties in with the "*Purchase vs. Naxos music library*" thread posted by *Mika*. The CD in question has been uploaded to *Youtube* and I've listend to it half a dozen times today. I'm not content with this though and prefer to own the CD am I old fashioned?


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

The most I ever spent was around £60 for a complete Beethoven sonata cycle, but that was certainly a large exception.

Now that I have access to Spotify, I never buy CDs any more. I pay a fixed rate of £9.99 per month and have access to (practically) every CD that I could want. I never own any of them, and when I stop paying my fee I can't listen to them any more, but I pay for the experience, not the plastic.


----------



## clavichorder (May 2, 2011)

I always have some regrets when I've bought individual CDs over 12 dollars. 7.99, I can cope with just fine. But every once in a while, I'm at the store and I see something I want that isn't available at any lower price and I'm not patient enough to buy it elsewhere. 

I think a great way to get music, is through bringing your laptop to a public library and ripping CDs onto it. I'm not sure how legal it is, but librarians don't ever stop me. At any rate, what IS(I think) perfectly legal is if you check the CDs out and then rip them into your library. I also have a friend who has a good collection, and I rip his discs into my library. This cuts down on CD expenses considerably. If I ever want to listen to CDs on my stereo, I have a special cord that plugs into the headphone jack of my computer and into the audio video output of my reciever. Its a setup that totally works for me.


----------



## Manxfeeder (Oct 19, 2010)

CDs are comparable to the cost of a cheap seat in a live performance, so that doesn't bother me, and their price has stayed pretty stable. Considering they pretty much last forever if treated properly, amortized over their lifespan, they're quite a bargain. I believe most record companies lose money on classical recordings, but they've (at least in the past) gone ahead anyway because of their inherent value. 

I think the most I've spent on one item is Leusink's cycle of J.S. Bach's cantatas . I don't remember how much that was, but I think it was around $100.


----------



## Manxfeeder (Oct 19, 2010)

clavichorder said:


> e.
> 
> I think a great way to get music, is through bringing your laptop to a public library and ripping CDs onto it. I'm not sure how legal it is, but librarians don't ever stop me. At any rate, what IS(I think) perfectly legal is if you check the CDs out and then rip them into your library.


Actually, that isn't legal. Contents of CDs are copyrighted material.


----------



## regressivetransphobe (May 16, 2011)

Depends on the artist. I like owning my music, so if it's rare and I know where my money's going, I'll spend any amount as long as it's not like $2,500 (I saw that price on amazon for a used CD one time, must have been a listing error). Obviously I'll spend more for vinyl.


----------



## clavichorder (May 2, 2011)

Manxfeeder said:


> Actually, that isn't legal. Contents of CDs are copyrighted material.


Now that this has been brought to my attention, I feel somewhat guilty. I was never sure. I'm also bummed that I may not be getting music as easily as before. And a little pleased that I got so much while I could.


----------



## elgar's ghost (Aug 8, 2010)

I think the most I've spent in one go was about £50 or so for Steve Reich's 90s box set - and that was with a reduction. As a recall, I paid about the same for Kubelik's and Haitink's similarly-sized Mahler and Shostakovich's cycles. For a double CD I paid about £25 for Birtwistle's opera Punch & Judy - the price was top whack and I had to get a shop (long since gone) to order it as these were pre-internet days for me but I was pretty desperate to hear it. For a single disc there have been occasions when I've paid a RRP of c. £15 but I would baulk at paying that these days unless it was for a rare, discontinued disc that I would need to have.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

clavichorder said:


> Now that this has been brought to my attention, I feel somewhat guilty. I was never sure. I'm also bummed that I may not be getting music as easily as before. And a little pleased that I got so much while I could.


I think things like Spotify are just going to proliferate and improve from here on, so pretty soon you'll probably have more music than you ever could have hoped for available at a lower price than you'd have ever dared to hope for.


----------



## Vaneyes (May 11, 2010)

Back in the day in brick 'n mortar stores, around $25 for a new full-price single CD and $40+ for a new full-price double. I never felt guilty about those occasional outlays, since the used and new bargains were too numerous to mention. 

However, us geezers must remember the considerable amounts of time and money spent on the hunting and gathering process. It's interesting to note that some geezers went through painful H & G withdrawal, once brick 'n mortars started rapidly closing. I was one.

But, I've had very good fortune online, as no doubt many have. I seldom spend more than $12 total for product and postage. I think the most has been around $20.

Did I mention that I'll always love CDs.


----------



## Taneyev (Jan 19, 2009)

The most I paid was u$s 100.- for an 11 CD RCA box with the complete Kreisler's EMI recordings. And I don't regret. It's one of muy most cherished posessions.


----------



## Manxfeeder (Oct 19, 2010)

clavichorder said:


> Now that this has been brought to my attention, I feel somewhat guilty. I was never sure.


Sorry for the buzzkill. But I'm glad you have a conscience.


----------



## Manxfeeder (Oct 19, 2010)

Vaneyes said:


> However, us geezers must remember the considerable amounts of time and money spent on the hunting and gathering process. It's interesting to note that some geezers went through painful H & D withdrawal, once brick 'n mortars started rapidly closing. I was one.


I remember looking forward to holidays, because Tower would have 25-percent-off sales. I'd pick out the CDs I was interested and count the days. Good times.


----------



## regressivetransphobe (May 16, 2011)

> Sorry for the buzzkill. But I'm glad you have a conscience.


Copying something is not the same as stealing it. If I used some magical machine to make a direct copy of your sweater, it would not deprive you of your sweater.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

I spent nearly 100 dollars once for the completely symphony set of Allan Pettersson on CPO.


----------



## neoshredder (Nov 7, 2011)

$93 for Baroque Masterpieces/Various. (60 cd Box Set)


----------



## Manxfeeder (Oct 19, 2010)

regressivetransphobe said:


> Copying something is not the same as stealing it. If I used some magical machine to make a direct copy of your sweater, it would not deprive you of your sweater.


 Unauthorized copying of copyrighted material is illegal in America. It's not theft but copyright infringement.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

I'm slowly collecting the entire set of Gardiner's recordings of Bach's complete cantatas...










By the time I collect the entire cycle I will have spent somewhere in the neighborhood of $500-$600 US. But we are talking of something like 200 cantatas. The most I've spent on a single box set was around $100 US for Karajan's recording of Wagner's entire Ring.










The Ring has remained a serious investment. I picked up Krauss' recording last years around this time for about $30 US but it has jumped at present to around $135!










The classic Solti recording remains at $100+










And the Keilberth set is even more expensive at nearly $150.










Of the 5 great recordings of the Ring, only the Knappertsbusch recording remains "reasonably" priced at $35-45.


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

The Solti ring cycle in the early nineties, about 200 USD.


----------



## Conor71 (Feb 19, 2009)

I spent about $70 AUS on Mozart's complete Symphonies with Bohm/BPO


----------



## Lenfer (Aug 15, 2011)

Manxfeeder said:


> Unauthorized copying of copyrighted material is illegal in America. It's not theft but copyright infringement.


Mhmm, I feel a bit sorry for *TC's* *American* members *US* law is rather draconian when it comes to that sort of thing. I'm not 100% sure but I'm pretty sure it's still illegal to copy a CD onto your computer to put onto your ipod/mp3 player in the *States*. A similar law was only repealed this year in the *UK*.

I back up all my music and movies to my computer and a portable hard drive "just incase". Thank you all for your replies I think I may go ahead and get that CD now still not sure though. I find it strange CDs become "rare" surely if the CD was that good they'd make more no?


----------



## Manxfeeder (Oct 19, 2010)

Lenfer said:


> Mhmm, I feel a bit sorry for *TC's* *American* members *US* law is rather draconian when it comes to that sort of thing. I'm not 100% sure but I'm pretty sure it's still illegal to copy a CD onto your computer to put onto your ipod/mp3 player in the *States*. A similar law was only repealed this year in the *UK*.


In the States, to my understanding, it is legal to copy something you already own for your own use.

As far as copying someone else's CD, it's legal in Canada. So if we cross the border to Canada and copy their CDs, then cross back over, apparently that's legal.


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

The most I ever spent per disk was $35. I love Fats Waller and picked up the complete set as it was released. But I lent one 2 CD box to a friend and it was never released. By the time I replaced it, the set had skyrocketed to $75 on the secondary market.

I was at a party of major league record collectors once, and the subject turned to the most anyone had spent for a record. One had spent $300 on an LP, another $275 on a rare single. They turned to me because I was the only one who collected 78s... "What's the most you've ever spent on a 78, Steve? I bet it was a lot!" i answered that my general rule is to not spend more than $2 a disk. When I run out of good two buck disks, I'll consider three, but that isn't going to be for a very long while.


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

The big record labels can worry about copyright. It's their business, not ours. A collector's job is to appreciate music. When I see a collector who feels the need to hammer on other collectors about civil issues that are none of any of our business, I suspect that the collector isn't spending enough time with music. If a collector can't resist the urge to dabble in copyright, it should be defending fair use, not supporting big corporations who are more than equipped to defend their own interests.


----------



## elgar's ghost (Aug 8, 2010)

Lenfer said:


> I find it strange CDs become "rare" surely if the CD was that good they'd make more no?


You would think so, but scarcity is due to various reasons - on the one hand, some discs which I'm after that are usually selling at inflated prices are recordings that need to be reissued (Bruggen's Schubert symphony cycle springs to mind - maybe the box set was a limited edition) but just as often there are others that are difficult to find at a reasonable price because the label no longer exists (Olympia, Russian Disc etc.) and haven't had, or are unable to have for licensing reasons, the re-release option taken up by someone else.


----------



## Comistra (Feb 27, 2010)

For a single disc (not a box), I really can't spend more than US$15, and even then, that's rare. This price point is probably due to the fact that it's around what I paid for CDs when I first started purchasing them. I'm not correcting for inflation, but who said I had to be rational?

The idea of rare music is ludicrous to me, because music (especially now that we've gone digital) is not like a physical object: you can always make copies. Now, of course, copies may not be available for reasons that have been mentioned, but that doesn't change the fact that music is rare only by choice. There is nothing _physically_ stopping a million copies of a rare piece being made, there are only legal roadblocks.

The only time I would be really torn about a "rare" CD would be if there are no other recordings of a particular piece. Even then, though, I'd probably wait until somebody bought the rights and started selling at a reasonable price, or just do without.


----------



## Chi_townPhilly (Apr 21, 2007)

StlukesguildOhio said:


> ...the Keilberth set is even more expensive at nearly $150.


And for that reason, I bought the Keilberth "in installments."

I have four sets that were more expensive than THAT one, though:

1) *Chicago Symphony Orchestra*- The First 100 Years (12 disc set) 
[currently selling for $150.00 new "on the river."]

2) *The Philadelphia Orchestra*- Centennial Collection (12 disc set) 
[out-of-print, and surely uncommon, at least]

3) *New York Philharmonic*- The Historic Broadcasts (10 disc set) 
[currently selling for $185.00 from the Philharrmonic-Society], and

4) _New York Philharmonic_- The Mahler Broadcasts (12 disc set) 
[currently selling for $225.00... same source]


----------



## Philip (Mar 22, 2011)

Manxfeeder said:


> Actually, that isn't legal. Contents of CDs are copyrighted material.





clavichorder said:


> Now that this has been brought to my attention, I feel somewhat guilty. I was never sure. I'm also bummed that I may not be getting music as easily as before. And a little pleased that I got so much while I could.


Oh please! you really shouldn't feel guilty at all, especially at the price you pay for tuition (univsersity library) and taxes (public library).

There's so much false information going around that you should really read the acts for yourself.

*US:* http://copyright.gov/title17/

_§ 107 · Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use40
Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, *the fair use of a
copyrighted work*, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords
or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism,
comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use),
scholarship, or research,* is not an infringement of copyright*. In determining
whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to
be considered shall include-
(1) *the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a
commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;*
(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;
(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted
work as a whole; and
(4) *the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted
work.*
The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if
such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors._

*Canada:* http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-42/

_Copying for Private Use
Where no infringement of copyright
80. (1) Subject to subsection (2), *the act of reproducing* all or any substantial part of
(a) a musical work embodied in a sound recording,
(b) a performer's performance of a musical work embodied in a sound recording, or
(c) a sound recording in which a musical work, or a performer's performance of a musical work, is embodied
*onto an audio recording medium for the private use of the person who makes the copy does not constitute an infringement* of the copyright in the musical work, the performer's performance or the sound recording.
Limitation
(2) Subsection (1) does not apply if the act described in that subsection is done for the purpose of doing any of the following in relation to any of the things referred to in paragraphs (1)(a) to (c):
(a) selling or renting out, or by way of trade exposing or offering for sale or rental;
(b) distributing, whether or not for the purpose of trade;
(c) communicating to the public by telecommunication; or
(d) performing, or causing to be performed, in public._


----------



## Lenfer (Aug 15, 2011)

elgars ghost said:


> You would think so, but scarcity is due to various reasons - on the one hand, some discs which I'm after that are usually selling at inflated prices are recordings that need to be reissued (Bruggen's Schubert symphony cycle springs to mind - maybe the box set was a limited edition) but just as often there are others that are difficult to find at a reasonable price because the label no longer exists (Olympia, Russian Disc etc.) and haven't had, or are unable to have for licensing reasons, the re-release option taken up by someone else.


Thanks *Elgar* I hadn't thought of the label going out business.


----------



## Chris (Jun 1, 2010)

I once paid £18 for a CD of Aaron Copland. This was after a particularly gushing recommendation on CD Review. CD Review is on BBC Radio 3 on Saturday mornings. The programme is fatal to.....can I say, to those of a susceptible disposition? It sounds better than 'suckers'.


----------



## Guest (Dec 29, 2011)

$150 for this Bach SACD (Mine was new--a comparative bargain to the current price of $325!)


----------



## Manxfeeder (Oct 19, 2010)

Philip;252338
[I said:


> § 107 · Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use40
> Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, *the fair use of a
> copyrighted work*, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords
> or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism,
> ...


It sounds like there's an exception for educational purposes. But the phrase "The effect of the use upon the potential market or value of the copyright work" is the problem. According to your theory, anyone can buy a record, sit outside a record store with a duplicator, and give out free copies. That affects the market for and value of the copyrighted work, so I don't think it meets that exception.


----------



## opus55 (Nov 9, 2010)

The most I've ever paid for a single disc was probably US$20 (Harmonia Mundi). If I include box sets, it was Shostakovich Haitink cycle for around US$55 for 11 discs. Shostakovich box set was still a bargain to me.

Since I don't have time and money to always shop for music, I use free online music services and library too. With these services, I almost never make a purchase without listening to at least part of recording.


----------



## Philip (Mar 22, 2011)

Manxfeeder said:


> It sounds like there's an exception for educational purposes. But the phrase "The effect of the use upon the potential market or value of the copyright work" is the problem. According to your theory, anyone can buy a record, sit outside a record store with a duplicator, and give out free copies. That affects the market for and value of the copyrighted work, so I don't think it meets that exception.


Actually, i don't have a theory. all i did was state the Fair use right and highlight the sections that could absolve you of any accusations; that is, 1) if you borrow something from a school or public library, ie. for non-profit educational purposes (even though the record company is well compensated since the library has initially paid for public lending rights), and 2) if you can show that your activities have no influence on the market, ie. if you _don't_ give out free copies.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

Copying something is not the same as stealing it. If I used some magical machine to make a direct copy of your sweater, it would not deprive you of your sweater.

But you have stolen the money that the original designer would have made from each sweater sold. If the artist cannot make money from making a product that largely undermines the motivation to make more.


----------



## jimmosk (Dec 11, 2008)

regressivetransphobe said:


> Copying something is not the same as stealing it. If I used some magical machine to make a direct copy of your sweater, it would not deprive you of your sweater.


No, I think of copying a CD (illegally) as being similar to turnstile-jumping, or any other means of riding on mass transit without paying a fare. It does not deprive anyone else of the ability to ride the train. But it is still depriving the transit company of money.

Oh, and to stay on topic, I don't remember what the most I myself have ever paid for a CD is, but my unusual-CD auctions sometimes go for ridiculous sums -- the most ever was $456 for a Musica Helvetica CD of Valery Stukov's _Tuba Concerto_.


----------



## Manxfeeder (Oct 19, 2010)

Philip said:


> Actually, i don't have a theory. all i did was state the Fair use right and highlight the sections that could absolve you of any accusations; that is, 1) if you borrow something from a school or public library, ie. for non-profit educational purposes (even though the record company is well compensated since the library has initially paid for public lending rights), and 2) if you can show that your activities have no influence on the market, ie. if you _don't_ give out free copies.


I think it's a stretch to say copying a library CD for your personal use is considered educational. I don't think a jury would agree with that concept, either.

Of course, personally, I don't think record companies are going after us little guys anymore, so I wouldn't worry that much about being dragged into court for a bootleg CD. It's more of a moral issue and an issue of depriving artists of what's due them. Maybe big corporations are making huge profits off music, but I'm thinking of guys like a friend who has his own studio, distributes his own records, and depends on sales for his living.


----------



## Philip (Mar 22, 2011)

Manxfeeder said:


> I think it's a stretch to say copying a library CD for your personal use is considered educational. I don't think a jury would agree with that concept, either.
> 
> Of course, personally, I don't think record companies are going after us little guys anymore, so I wouldn't worry that much about being dragged into court for a bootleg CD. It's more of a moral issue and an issue of depriving artists of what's due them. Maybe big corporations are making huge profits off music, but I'm thinking of guys like a friend who has his own studio, distributes his own records, and depends on sales for his living.


I agree, but Fair use doesn't necessarily require educational purposes: "the purpose and character of the use, _including_ whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;"

For me personally, it's not a moral issue. but i can't control how everyone else feels. if your friend feels like he's being robbed, perhaps he should look into the real world effects file sharing has had on the market, because they're actually positive. when you own an indie record company, it's your own responsibility to adapt to a shifting market, for example by utilizing tools like the internet for promotion, streaming, ad revenue, etc.


----------



## brianwalker (Dec 9, 2011)

StlukesguildOhio said:


> Copying something is not the same as stealing it. If I used some magical machine to make a direct copy of your sweater, it would not deprive you of your sweater.
> 
> But you have stolen the money that the original designer would have made from each sweater sold. If the artist cannot make money from making a product that largely undermines the motivation to make more.


I suppose you support SOPA then?

Have you ever heard of price discrimination and deadweight loss? Most of the things pirated online would not have been purchased if the pirate copy didn't exist online. Piracy is a form of imperfect price discrimination that favors the consumer, but the net utility is a definite plus. A kid who's dirt poor and has little connections/social network of friends with classical music CDs/etc had to rely on the radio and the public library back in the day, but now, if he knows where to look, he has the entire Western Canon of music before his fingertips. Would society really be better off if he was deprived of the privilege of listening to a Great version of Tristan or the Magic Flute so that a few record executives could make a few extra bucks? That he should have to wait until he's 24 and has a decent job, and at the same time, make trade offs between a nice pair of shoes and a Mozart boxset?

You're using the word "stolen" very loosely here. To show that the artist was actually deprived of something, there would need to be solid proof that the pirater/copyer would have made the purchase otherwise. In most cases this isn't true.

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100524/0032549541.shtml

Lady Gaga is OK with people pirating her music.

For smaller artists the effect should be a net positive, since the biggest artists have works that are the easiest to pirate, while the works of more obscure artists are more difficult to find. In addition, fans will like to show "support" for the little guy when they can. When a rap fan has to choose between an Eminem CD or something by a up an coming rapper the choice is obvious, but piracy allows him to choose based on a different criterion.

I know this is beating on a dead horse, and I've seen this piracy debates go on to no end, but I felt the impulse to speak out.

Another way that piracy can help contemporary artists is that it shifts the distribution from the studios to the artists alive today. 100$ spent on Solti's Ring cycle would go instead towards the concert of an artist who's ALIVE, etc.

The advent of online file sharing has been one of the most important innovations in the past 100 years.

This post reeks of personal bias and will no doubt draw insinuating remarks, so I'll throw down the gauntlet and share with everyone my personal experience with pirating.

I was raised middle class in a philistine household, grew up listening to the radio and watching the films that they broadcasted on television. Pirating changed my life because it gave me virtually unlimited access to a whole world that required a divestment of funds I didn't have. Investments are risky, since you don't know whether you'll like a film or not before you purchase, and failed investments can make one very, very conservative. I was raised to spend money frugally. It was only with the freedom of piracy that I entered into a new world, the world of Rohmer and Kurosawa, Bergman and Hitchcock. I'm sure they're rolling in their graves right now. Is there anyone involved in the production of My Fair Lady that isn't dead or approaching death? Does Michael Bay really need more money?

I went to see A Dangeorous Method yesterday; the ticket costed 10$. If piracy didn't exist I would've never gone, since any and all of my disposable income allocated towards entertainment would be spent on classical music and perhaps a few arthouse DVDs; I would've purchased a Karajan CD or some opera recorded in the 50s, 60s, or 70s, probably, or some other work in which the purchase would not benefit any contemporary artist whatsoever. Without piracy I would have to rely carefully on reputation and Amazon reviews to direct my purchases, and almost all of the top rated recordings of each work are recorded by artists who are dead.

I'll start with one example. With piracy I was able to go through 9 different recordings of Bach's Partitas and Sonatas for Violin, and surprisingly, my favorite were those by contemporary artists, Julia Fischer, Kyung-wha Chung, and Mullova, but they're certainly not the highest rated on Amazon, nor do they have the largest reputation. Without piracy I would've stopped at the miserable Milstein and the snail-like Szeryng or perhaps the lukewarm Grimaux (by far the highest rate recordings of the Partitas on Amazon), and would've stopped there. Given the current circumstances I would jump at any opportunity to see the three aforementioned violinists, who are ALIVE, perform in concert. Don't even get me started on Mahler's symphonies.

I've "saved" a bare minimum (this is the roughest of approximations) of 20,000$ from piracy, 20,000$ that I didn't have. This is a low end estimate, and I've gone through 15 Mahler cycles alone, you do the math.

There are so many social and political problems, nay, catastrophes going on right beneath our noses. Piracy is the least of our worries, and yet Congress comes up with this SOPA gambit.


----------



## Manxfeeder (Oct 19, 2010)

Well, at least by now we've heard from both sides of this issue.


----------



## kv466 (May 18, 2011)

Most on a single cd, probably around 30 bucks...most on a set,...about $700 back in the day with the Complete Mozart Edition by Phillips which is now worth around $10,000 if not more...so, it was kind a good buy...not to mention that just about every single performance is top notch.


----------



## hespdelk (Mar 19, 2011)

I can't remember the most I've spent on a single disc.. averge prices I guess.. probably something like $30 for limited pressing of rare repertoire. Obviously more for multiple or boxed sets.

I don't think one should feel guilty about buying oneself a cd.. really, this supports the creation of more recordings of the music you love. The classical recording industry works rather differently from the pop version, even with the "major" labels, but especially when you get down to the independents which are usually labours of love run with very little budget (just think of all your favourite rare repertoire frequently in only one version put out by the likes of CPO, Chandos, Hyperion, etc - hundreds of independents varying in size from moderately sized firms to small businesses run out of the owner's home). It is a form of music patronage.

I'm not a particularly ancient specimen myself, but in response to some other comments earlier in the thread, I miss my deep catalogue brick and mortar shops too.. on the internet there is literally everything, but its not the same as browsing through long dusty isles for something you've been looking for for ages or even something you didn't know existed. I like having access to almost everything, but there was a pleasure to the search and surprise.. it seems strange to me that people not that much younger than I will largely have no idea of such things.


----------



## Lenfer (Aug 15, 2011)

kv466 said:


> Most on a single cd, probably around 30 bucks...most on a set,...about $700 back in the day with the Complete Mozart Edition by Phillips which is now worth around $10,000 if not more...so, it was kind a good buy...not to mention that just about every single performance is top notch.


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

Manxfeeder said:


> I think it's a stretch to say copying a library CD for your personal use is considered educational.


This sentence is ironic. The whole point of a library is to educate yourself, whether with a textbook, novel or symphony.


----------



## Lenfer (Aug 15, 2011)

hespdelk said:


> I can't remember the most I've spent on a single disc.. averge prices I guess.. probably something like $30 for limited pressing of rare repertoire. Obviously more for multiple or boxed sets.
> 
> I don't think one should feel guilty about buying oneself a cd.. really, this supports the creation of more recordings of the music you love. The classical recording industry works rather differently from the pop version, even with the "major" labels, but especially when you get down to the independents which are usually labours of love run with very little budget (just think of all your favourite rare repertoire frequently in only one version put out by the likes of CPO, Chandos, Hyperion, etc - hundreds of independents varying in size from moderately sized firms to small businesses run out of the owner's home). It is a form of music patronage.
> 
> I'm not a particularly ancient specimen myself, but in response to some other comments earlier in the thread, I miss my deep catalogue brick and mortar shops too.. on the internet there is literally everything, but its not the same as browsing through long dusty isles for something you've been looking for for ages or even something you didn't know existed. I like having access to almost everything, but there was a pleasure to the search and surprise.. it seems strange to me that people not that much younger than I will largely have no idea of such things.


Your post made me feel better about it in a way. I'm in my early 20s and have only been in an "real" record shop on two occasions. I'm not talking about chain stores like *HMV*, I'm not sure what the *American *equivalent would be. I don't have any vinyl or cassette tapes my CD collection is perhaps sadly exclusively CDs.

I haven't been in this game long I only started to buy CDs when I joined *TC*. Thus far I don't think I've done that badly. I've recentely moved to *iTunes* as I ended up with 3 *iPods* at Christmas.  :lol:

I'm *still* not satisfied with the way I have my music stored on the computer. If anyone has a "large-ish" *iTunes* library I'd love to see some screen caps please. 
*
L'enfer* x


----------



## Manxfeeder (Oct 19, 2010)

bigshot said:


> This sentence is ironic. The whole point of a library is to educate yourself, whether with a textbook, novel or symphony.


I don't think they fall into the same category. But I guess we can agree to disagree.


----------

