# How would you classify yourself?



## Boccherini

***NOTIFICATION: Read before voting.

---

_A simple question
you may think

Yet, profoundly,
arouses the underneath
cracks the cryptic
reveals the occult
beams the introspective

And!...

Ideologically provocative._

---

I hope we all share the same plain definitions for "Collector" and "Listener" identically, but I would represent them to make sure. If you have another definitions, please specify.

*Collector:* Someone who adopted another hobby/habbit in addition to the ostensibly main/prior hobby of listening to music, and subconsciously substituted the "main" with the "subsidiary/ancillary" hobby of collecting recordings. These persons purchase recordings quite often, even if they don't intend to listen to everything more than once or twice. One of their greatest pleasures when purchasing recordings is the process of going to the store/ordering via internet; the process usually comes to an end when they recieve what they have baught/ordered and delightfully putting it in the right place somewhere inside their dreamlike collection, while an evil satisfactory smile is drawn on their faces. Their pleasure reaches the final and greatest peak when placing a "special" recording which causes them to make the same evil smile but now bigger while satisfactorily whisper: "Another _oeuvre_ has been successfully finished...". They know many wierd ways to order their collection. Live concerts, even favourite ones, might not be their most desireable peak. Most importantly, they purchase recordings for the sake of "having" many performances of a specific piece/composition, rather than listening to all of them and enjoy each in a different manner; they might claim otherwise, though. Usually, they have many recordings they own for several years that haven't had the opportunity to listen to them. --_The Collector seeks achievments; more and more_.

*Listener:* Well, in many senses, he's the other way around. The only hobby he adopted regarding music is to listen. He's simply a decent listener who purchases recordings for the sake of listening to them once in a while, not for the sake of filling a few inches more inside their recordings' location. Even though they might own several performances of the same piece, it's because they want to experience it in a whole different way which often leads to different kinds of appreciation towards that specific piece. He doesn't feel an "inner need" to purchase recordings on a weekly/monthly basis. His pleasure comes to its peak while listening to music. He doesn't have any recording that, yet, haven't been listened by him. Live concerts, especially favourite ones, are generally their most desireable peak.
Just to clarify, the _Listener_ might own more recordings than the _Collector_ - in proportions, and passively/seemingly, it might look that the _Listener_ is being a _Collector_ himself. But, it's merely the way they define the manner of appreciation towards music which classifies themselves differently. --_The Listener seeks the music; more and more_.

Ladies and gentlemen, where do you stand?

You shall take things in perspective, indeed.


----------



## Aramis

All the way, listener. I tend to be very distrustful towards new recordings of works that I count as my favourites - I have two or three performances that I really love and admire. Before I get another one I must read a lot of good things about the performer or the particular recording so I will have good reason to try it out. I rarely just go and seek random recording of work that I already know just to put the bird... wait, there is no such idiom in english... just to... eee... YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN!


----------



## Boccherini

I fear my description wouldn't be as clear as I wanted it to be in the first place, and the strong dichotomy that the first post might relay, perhaps would lead to misunderstanding. As a matter of fact, the last statement is the most important:

Take my description of the "two" in the right perspective!

*Collector* who listens to music OR *Listener* who listens to music?


----------



## Conor71

I dont think that Collecting/Listening are so mutually exclusive that you have to be one or the other . - Sometimes I am in Collector mode and sometimes in Listener mode, I certainly can identify with the descriptions given for both.
If I was to chose one, which I am guessing is what the OP would prefer, I probably spend more time thinking about Classical music in Collector mode .


----------



## Conor71

Boccherini said:


> I fear my description wouldn't be as clear as I wanted it to be in the first place, and the strong dichotomy that the first post might relay, perhaps would lead to misunderstanding. As a matter of fact, the last statement is the most important:
> 
> Take my description of the "two" in the right perspective!
> 
> *Collector* who listens to music OR *Listener* who listens to music?


Ta for the clarification (it was posted while I typed up my reply!) - with that in mind I would classify myself as *Collector* who listens to music .


----------



## sospiro

I was a *collector* of a singer (Carreras) and to be honest it was just train spotting like a little boy ticking off his train numbers. But then I became a *listener*. There are several JC recordings I don't have but don't feel compelled to get them. (Possibly because they're rubbish!)

I'm a *collector* of Italian opera & have more than one CD/DVD of the same opera but I love to hear/see different productions of my favourites so I think this falls into the *listener* category.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

Boccherini;107512[b said:


> Collector:[/b] ... One of their greatest pleasures when purchasing recordings is the process of going to the store/ordering via internet; the process usually comes to an end when they recieve what they have baught/ordered and delightfully putting it in the right place somewhere inside their dreamlike collection, while an evil satisfactory smile is drawn on their faces. Their pleasure reaches the final and greatest peak when placing a "special" recording which causes them to make the same evil smile but now bigger while satisfactorily whisper: "Another _oeuvre_ has been successfully finished...".


(1) Good poll.

(2) Yes indeed, I am the most evil dark Lord of Collectors. Pressing the "add to cart" button of a recording (especially when on sale) at a website, with the evil collecting mentality of *buy first, listen later*, and believing I am vastly expanding my evil empire of music collection, composed by my subservient composers and performed by my subservient performers at my evil will (i.e. upon the press of the play button), satisifies my evil urges of being entertained by exquisite music, under the illusion of being temporarily transported back in time to the work's very premiere.

(3) Why do I collect? Because I am evil and I can financially afford to do so, while you probably cannot afford to do so ... woooo-huaaaa-haaaa-haaaaaa .......


----------



## Boccherini

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> (1) Good poll.
> 
> (2) Yes indeed, I am the most evil dark Lord of Collectors. Pressing the "add to cart" button of a recording (especially when on sale) at a website, with the evil collecting mentality of *buy first, listen later*, and believing I am vastly expanding my evil empire of music collection, composed by my subservient composers and performed by my subservient performers at my evil will (i.e. upon the press of the play button), satisifies my evil urges of being entertained by exquisite music, under the illusion of being temporarily transported back in time to the work's very premiere.
> 
> (3) Why do I collect? Because I am evil and I can financially afford to do so, while you probably cannot afford to do so ... woooo-huaaaa-haaaa-haaaaaa .......


Ah, well, Point Piper moody thick!


----------



## jurianbai

a collector. I obsessed with particular genre, I still buy that music although I can predict that I will rarely listen to it. the worst part is... if I decided to want it,... I will do... *anything*.


----------



## Boccherini

Incidentally, I'm inclined to think that those who purchase recordings they even _might_ not enjoy (they either checked samples of what they would get and didn't like it much/ hated it but, oddly, insist to get it, or they didn't bother to check samples at all), would probably classify themselves alongside collectors.


----------



## Weston

I admit the experience of shopping for music (and books too, for me) can be as pleasurable as listening, but again they are not mutually exclusive.


----------



## karenpat

I'm definitely a listener. I can get happy to the point of giddiness when purchasing a new recording, especially online, but it's more due to the fact that I don't buy a lot of music by many people's standard, so when I do it's almost like a big happening. I tend to use Spotify and youtube a lot to "get to know" music before I decide what to purchase - I want to make sure that it will be worth the money, because I can easily feel guilty about buying a recording that I don't listen to much.


----------



## dvdwant

I'm both - I love ordering the disc - I get a kind of endorphin high as I make the purchase and then I forget about it. In the days it takes for the music to arrive I occassionally think about them - like a child thinking about christmas in November. And when it arrives and I unwrap it and fill my house with the sound I listen, really listen. Most remarkable experience of this is the Zinman Beethoven cycle which brought such a freshness to these often heard works. I collect to listen which leads me to collect - a happy and expensive cycle


----------



## Ukko

*both +*

I was a *collector/*_listener_ for many winters. Now I am selling off the majority of my collection - and adding a procedure. I still buy recordings, but after I_ listen_, I immediately decide whether to keep or sell. The collection is getting smaller, but slowly.


----------



## Nix

I wish I had the money to be a collector, but instead am a listener who abuses the library to no end.


----------



## Head_case

Mostly a listener. However I've noticed that I tend to treasure my listenings of specific ensembles - for instance - most of the Taneyev Quartet's works which are out of print and next to impossible to afford or buy again. 

If I lost those albums, I would cry like only a grown man knows how. 

Otherwise, I don't care much for collecting, and use my CDs to dice the vegetables.


----------



## Huilunsoittaja

If I only had more money hahah! I'm guessing that's an obstruction to being a collector.

Listener here.

Actually, I don't really like to buy music very much at all nowadays. If it's something really rare, then I get it. But I feel I tend towards abusing the music if I have so much control as to listen to it whenever I want. It's better when it just comes to me through radio, or similar, and then I tend not to abuse/over-listen to certain pieces of music.


----------



## 151

I see them as inseparable qualities. A collective mindstate doesn't necessarily require the physical mediums to collect information from what we hear around us. Listening is a focus that requires the knowledge of the past to make sense, you collect as you listen to each value. I can't idly do either of them so I'm afraid I cannot vote for either.


----------



## joen_cph

Agree with your statement that listening is probably the best way to deal with music ... I also like to expand my knowledge in the field, to a degree that must be labelled that of collecting. I don´t think it is obligatory to immediately listen to what one has bought, if one has the intention of listening to it eventually. I tend to prefer the better, recorded artists for live concerts. However a distinction should perhaps also be made between _practising musicians _and _listeners_ as regards record collecting, since musicians often tend to collect less.


----------



## Sonata

I am a listener for sure. My collection size may be as large as a "collector's" but it's because I love having a wide variety of music to enjoy. I usually obtain about two-thirds of my music via digital downloads, and one third as hard copies (if a used CD is cheaper than the digital copy, I'll get it for sure. Or if it's a band I really love, I typically like the actual CD).


----------



## World Violist

Listener. The only reason I've bought multiple recordings of one piece is to hear and experience it in a different manner; whenever I've been completely satisfied with a recording as an experience, I haven't tended to buy another one.

Also, as a side note, I've sold many CD's... something no self-respecting collector would ever do, probably, and I don't mean the bad recordings either.


----------



## Guest

Listener - I have bought multiple recordings of a single work, but mainly because I was searching for a recording that I preferred.

I also purchase a great deal of my collection over iTunes. I know, it may be blasphemy to some, but I am not at a point in my life where I intend to spend the money on a system where I would be able to start telling the difference. And I have found many things on iTunes that I couldn't find elsewhere, and often at lower prices - for example, the Harmonia Mundi Musique d'Abord recordings are often only $5.99 on iTunes. I can't tell the difference between the iTunes digital files and the CDs I have.

Sometimes, though, I do like the CD, and have bought them for a few prized recordings.


----------



## superhorn

It's hard for me to say. I love to purchase classical recordings, but it isn't my be all and end all. 
I try to avoid excess duplication of repertoire because there is such an incredibly wide variety of interesting non-standard repertoire available. 
Why have 50 different sets of the 9 Beethoven symphonies or the same number of the Brahms and Tchaikovsky ones etc when you can get symphonies by Roussel, Franz Schmidt, Arnold Bax, 
Havergal Brian, Nikolai Myaskovsky, Sergei Taneyev, Karol Szymanowski, George Whitefield Chadwick, Paul Creston, Alexander von Zemlinsky, Franz Berwald, Carlos Chavez, Zdenek Fibich, 
Alexander Glazunov, Rued Langaard, Alan Hovhaness, Hugo Alfven,Wilhelm Stenhammar,Max Bruch,
Bohuslav Martinu, Witold Lutoslawski and so many other composers? 
That's just the kind of CD collection I have. Look,I love the Beethoven symphonies as much as any one,but I don't want to hear them day in,day out.
It's a lot like the kind of food you like to eat. It's great to eat a tender,juicy flavorful steak, but if you eat that every day, you'll get awfully tired of it(not to mention the damage to your arteries).


----------



## Boccherini

superhorn said:


> It's a lot like the kind of food you like to eat. It's great to eat a tender,juicy flavorful steak, but if you eat that every day, you'll get awfully tired of it(not to mention the damage to your arteries).


Vital point, I think either. It's one of my points I was trying to make in an earlier thread of mine - Musical Monasticism. I think it's very dangerous to _consume_ music; Whether pieces which contain emotional aspects are concerned (may I radicalize/generalize the Romantic period onwards), I think it's likely to turn them to complete kitsch after many listens. However, pieces which combine less emotional aspects are (may I say Classical period and backwards) not likely to tire, even after many listens. Though, the experience might be degenerated in a few certain respects, but I'm not sure where to draw the line.


----------



## Boccherini

By the way, for I deliberately created 2 options and not 3, I am to suggest to avoid the "both" propitious catch-all answer, if you don't mind.


----------



## joen_cph

> I think it's very dangerous to consume music; Whether pieces which contain emotional aspects are concerned (may I radicalize/generalize the Romantic period onwards), I think it's likely to turn them to complete kitsch after many listens. However, pieces which combine less emotional aspects are (may I say Classical period and backwards) not likely to tire, even after many listens.


 You have often said this and you seem to imply 1) some sort of compositional, classical balance in the music before the arrival of Romanticism, that reduces any emotionalism in classical and pre-classical music + 2) likewise an intellectual refinement before the arrival of Romanticism, that makes the music more durable as regards repeated listenings, whereas Romantic and Post-Romantic music is characterized by 1) emotional excesses that soon become kitsch-like and 2) lack of intellectual refinement. I find this statement very difficult to accept unless one only refers to a certain part of the post-classical repertoire. Truly, Romanticism later developed into emotional extremity/kitsch in some cases, especially among less talented and original composers (as it was the case in late Symbolist painting and poetry, for example). And I think your line of arguments could of course be supported by juxtaposing such examples as many Bach/Mozart works versus the incredible platitudes inherent in some Verdi or Paganini ones (sorry), but you must then ignore the polyphony, the tonal experiments and the complexity of Romantic - Post-Romantic scores and ignore the tiring and often very predictable mechanics of a routinely composed Italian Baroque Concerto or the like ... Your arguments do not hold if we take in composers such as Bruckner/Scriabin/Bartok, for example. The Romantic symphony also often has an ambitious programme as a Microcosm and there is so much more going on than one simple melodic line, for sure - new nuances can also be found in many repeated listenings. It is no coincidence that they often took so long to compose, whereas a Telemann or Sammartini could compose hundreds of trifles ... Likewise you seem to ignore the incredible variety found in 1) different interpretations pointing to different aspects of the Romantic-Post-Romantic works, say the Liszt piano sonata and its ever-changing ongoings or the Wagner Ring, and especially 2) the incredible variety of the late 19th - 20th century repertoire as a whole. As a consequence, you seem to say that modest compositions could be listened to again and again, whereas it is "wrong" to listen to more ambitious works (that are IMO also much more closely related to our contemporary life) and try to decipher or interpret them ... ?


----------



## Boccherini

joen_cph said:


> You have often said this and you seem to imply 1) some sort of compositional, classical balance in the music before the arrival of Romanticism, that reduces any emotionalism in classical and pre-classical music + 2) likewise an intellectual refinement before the arrival of Romanticism, that makes the music more durable as regards repeated listenings, whereas Romantic and Post-Romantic music is characterized by 1) emotional excesses that soon becomes kitsch-like and 2) lack of intellectual refinement. I find this statement very difficult to accept unless one has a very limited knowledge of the post-classical repertoire. Truly, Romanticism later developed into emotional extremity/kitsch in some cases, especially among less talented and original composers (as it was the case in late Symbolist painting and poetry, for example). And I think your line of arguments could of course be supported by juxtaposing such examples as many Bach/Mozart works versus the incredible platitudes inherent in some Verdi or Paganini ones (sorry), but you must then ignore the polyphony, the tonal experiments and the complexity of Romantic - Post-Romantic scores and ignore the tiring and often very predictable mecchanics of a routinely composed Italian Baroque Concerto or the like ... Your arguments do not hold if we take in composers such as Bruckner/Scriabin/Bartok, for example. The Romantic symphony also often has an ambitious programme as a Microcosm and there is so much much going on than one simple melodic line, for sure - new nuances can also be found in many repeated listenings. It is no coincidence that they often took so long to compose, whereas a Telemann or Sammartini could compose hundreds of trifles ... Likewise you seem to ignore the incredible variety found in 1) different interpretations pointing to different aspects of the Romantic works, say the Liszt piano sonata and its ever-changing ongoings, and especially 2) the incredible variety of the late 19th - 20th century repertoire as a whole. As a consequence, you seem to say that modest compositions could be listened to again and again, whereas it is "wrong" to listen to more ambitious works (that are IMO also much more closely related to our contemporary life) and try to decipher or interpretate them ... ?


If I am to conclude, I would say you're mostly refering to the sweeping statement I made, which wasn't so accurate, regarding emotionalism in the Romantic period and basically everything which comes afterwards and, say, lack of emotionalism in the Classical and pre-Classical periods.

I neither intended to imlpy there's no emotionalism at all in the classical and pre-classical periods, nor Romantic and Post-Romantic compositions are all likely to be kitsch, after specific amount of listens. I think emotionalism exists in all periods, as long as the composer is a human. Though, I tend to think that whenever someone is limited to many rigid (and rational, of course) rules and want to "work" inside the framework of these rules is likely to have more difficulties to be very creative and express his unstuck emotions than someone else who breaches these rules and work more freely.

Disregarding a few negligible exceptions, Romanticism, as complex as it might be, is still Romanticism; Not that it's a weakness or something, and, of course, I didn't compare rational aspects between pre-classical and post-romantic periods; Many romantic symphonies are more complex then classical, I would assume. Likewise, Classical symphonies, as simple and predictable as they might be, are still Classical.

As for the variety of pre-classical and post-romantic performances/reproductions, it is true, I ignored that point. I refered to a decent/authentic performances - not reproductional interpretations, whichever the period might be.

"Modest compositions", to use your words, are not necessarily the reason why replaying them doesn't turn them into kitsch, it's merely the style of those specific compositions which defines the difference between them and the "ambitious works" you mentioned.


----------



## Sid James

I am a listener. Owning cd's isn't the be all & end all for me. I also like to listen to the radio, borrow cd's from the library, listen to friends cd's and (most of all) attend live concerts. I think that "canned" music can never be as good, or as absorbing, as "live" music. I'm not really interested in seeing the Berlin Philharmonic's standards, but if the repertoire interests me, that's the main thing. I'd rather have something that's engaging, warts and all, than yet another squeaky clean rendition of some tired old warhorse. I think it's kind of my duty to support and patronise the ensembles here in Sydney who are playing some very interesting repertoire, even if they might not all be top-class (but actually, I think that many of them are, even though they may be less well known than some of the bigger ensembles).

I think it's a waste of time & money to acquire umpteen different recordings of the same work. Once I have a recording, I tend to listen to it to understand what that particular performer is doing with the work. That's enough for me, I leave all of the fine points to the performer. I try not to over-analyse (although as some frequenters of these boards know, I sometimes do that to no end!!!). I'm more interested in the actual music, not the trifling details of the performance. I only own about 300 cd's and am not really interested in increasing this greatly, I mean one has only so many hours in one's day/week to devote to music, I also have other pursuits, music is not the only thing.


----------



## Guest

I reject the notion that listening to any composition, regardless of the period, can in and of itself cause that piece to devolve to kitsch. I think the only factor that could drive such a transition is the way in which it is heard. Is it listened to mainly for background noise, or is the person truly listening to it? Many works of art, literature, and yes, music, can be examined repeatedly without undermining their beauty. How many people have stared at the Mona Lisa. Is it kitsch? Or read a masterpiece of literature over and over, and still fully enjoy it? 

I listen now almost exclusively to classical. The way that I bring variety, and avoid tedium, is to continually alter the composer I listen to, the period I listen to, etc. I will go for a while listening to late Romantic - Bruckner, Mahler, Brahms - then transition back to, say, classical, or Baroque. And so on . . . 

Generalized statements regarding which periods had more emotion in them than others only work if it was generally so. I hear wonderful varieties of emotion in the works of Mozart. His adagios are incredibly moving, and he also knows how to be playful. I can listen to Haydn's Creation and feel emotion there as well. And in Baroque, it is equally easy. True, you can find numerous examples of musical trifles, but listen to the religious works of Bach and tell me that he didn't pour emotion into them. His St. Matthew Passion alone has enough emotion in it to cover the entire Baroque period.

Many people feel that works like Beethoven's Fur Elise, or Pachelbel's Canon, have devolved into kitsch, no doubt due to their excessive play. And yet I can still listen to a wonderful recording of these and find some new aspect I had not heard before, and so they are still fresh.


----------



## Octo_Russ

I'm definitely a listener, i don't treat compact discs like a stamp collection, they're practical things to listen to, i have roughly 1600 discs, and they all get played on a rotation basis.

I also sell discs that i don't think add to my library, i have fairly regular purges, i do enjoy searching and *acquiring* new discs, but i wouldn't call this being a collector.

I feel sorry for those that have 5000+ discs, a library that is totally out of control, you can't properly listen to it all, and there must be hundreds and hundreds of discs that haven't been played in a decade.


----------



## Toccata

I opted for "collector".

One presumably doesn't start out as a "collector", but as a "listener". I would guess that many members on this Forum are too young to know yet whether or not they may one day become a "collector". 

After I had listened to classical music for many years and decided which composers I really liked, I then became a "completist" in regard to several of them. To give just one example, I like Haydn and I especially like several of his symphonies. However, I reached a stage when I wasn't satisfied with that and I set about acquiring all of his symphonies, even though many of them are nothing much to write home about. 

The problem is that one can finish up, after several years, with a lot of material that simply doesn't get played after a relatively short burst of enthusiasm. I must admit that I have tons of such stuff.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

Opal said:


> I opted for "collector".
> 
> One presumably doesn't start out as a "collector", but as a "listener". I would guess that many members on this Forum are too young to know yet whether or not they may one day become a "collector".
> 
> After I had listened to classical music for many years and decided which composers I really liked, I then became a "completist" in regard to several of them. To give just one example, I like Haydn and I especially like several of his symphonies. However, I reached a stage when I wasn't satisfied with that and I set about acquiring all of his symphonies, even though many of them are nothing much to write home about.
> 
> The problem is that one can finish up, after several years, with a lot of material that simply doesn't get played after a relatively short burst of enthusiasm. I must admit that I have tons of such stuff.


You are just as evil as any dark Lord of Collectors. Your entire post is entirely agreeable.

The same could be said about a wine collection. Folks with the financial means may acquire so many dozens of bottles that with intention, most will not be consumed by them, but the pride of owning a fine collection gives them pleasure. (Although with wine, consuming such large quantities will have health problems, which cannot be said about listening to fine music). With CDs, at least I do have the intention of listening to each, at least once.


----------



## tsubomi

I used to be a collector when I was younger, when I got pocket money from my parents and could use them however I liked, but I simply can't do that anymore, for many reasons. So naturally I voted "Listener".


----------



## Il Seraglio

Even if I had the funds to collect all the music I wanted, I wouldn't concern myself with every recording I could get my hands on. I think the closest I can see myself to building up a collection habit is buying every volume of John Eliot Gardiner's recordings of Bach's cantatas, purchasing them all over a year at the appropriate time for which they were set (Trinity, Easter, etc). I'm normally not that OCD, but it just seems like fun.


----------



## DreamInSong

Conor71 said:


> I dont think that Collecting/Listening are so mutually exclusive that you have to be one or the other . - Sometimes I am in Collector mode and sometimes in Listener mode, I certainly can identify with the descriptions given for both.


This essentially


----------



## Enjoying Life

I am a listener with a desire to be a collector. I enjoy buying CD's, organizing them, and playing them. It helps me feel a little connected to the music when i own it instead of checking it out from the library. I think that is why downloading is less interesting to me than buying the CD. I like having some tangible link to the music.

My collection is very small but I love having it and will build it over time.


----------



## ozradio

I like collecting Nonesuch vinyl with their funky covers.


----------



## RJ Empson

At this stage I aqm very much a collector as I am fairly new to classical music and am exploring all of the composers and their works..... however this is hand in hand with my journey of exploration and I do really LISTEN to each and every piece so until I have the bones of a good collection I will remain a collector... after that who knows.


----------



## Toccata

RJ Empson said:


> At this stage I aqm very much a collector as I am fairly new to classical music and am exploring all of the composers and their works..... however this is hand in hand with my journey of exploration and I do really LISTEN to each and every piece so until I have the bones of a good collection I will remain a collector... after that who knows.


With respect, I very much doubt that you are a "collector" in the sense intended in this thread. By "collector" here is meant someone who has acquired a pretty decent knowledge of classical music, has been listening to it for a long time, knows the main repertoire well, can reel off lots of facts and opinions on classical music, and who has become fascinated by the desire to acquire multiple copies of the same work and/or wishes to acquire everything written by several composers. You are no where near that level of involvement, from what you've said. You're a beginner, aren't you, still busy acquiring compilation CDs and such like? That's not what's meant here by "collector". I suggest you read the OP again.


----------



## RJ Empson

Wow I didn't realise I didn't need to classify myself as there was somebody else to do it for me, I find your comments both unhelpful and insulting, true I'm new but I doubt that prevents me from participating in discussions.


----------



## Toccata

RJ Empson said:


> Wow I didn't realise I didn't need to classify myself as there was somebody else to do it for me, I find your comments both unhelpful and insulting, true I'm new but I doubt that prevents me from participating in discussions.


Don't blame me if you've got the wrong end of the stick. Perhaps you ought to read threads a bit more carefully before wading in with silly responses, suggesting you are collector when you've only just started by your own admision.

And who is preventing you from participating in discussion? I'm certainly not. An appropriate answer from you, consistent with your other introductory posts, would be that you are a listener anxiously acquiring all the information you can usefully glean. As for my post being "insulting", push off will you. That's clearly not valid.


----------



## Guest

Opal said:


> With respect, I very much doubt that you are a "collector" in the sense intended in this thread. By "collector" here is meant someone who has acquired a pretty decent knowledge of classical music, has been listening to it for a long time, knows the main repertoire well, can reel off lots of facts and opinions on classical music, and who has become fascinated by the desire to acquire multiple copies of the same work and/or wishes to acquire everything written by several composers. You are no where near that level of involvement, from what you've said. You're a beginner, aren't you, still busy acquiring compilation CDs and such like? That's not what's meant here by "collector". I suggest you read the OP again.


With all due respect, you can be a beginning collector. If his intention is to collect, then it doesn't matter whether he has 1 recording, or the entire combined recordings of all the major labels, and some transfers from old 78's as well. What you describe is more than a collector - that is more of an aficionado. A collector and a connoisseur. Either that, or just someone who intensely enjoys classical. One does not have to acquire everything written by several composers to finally achieve the level of collector, as if this were some Dungeons and Dragons role-playing game. And a collector could also be completely ignorant of the in depth facts regarding classical music. Perhaps they just like the idea of investing in classical music - they like to collect the finer things in life.

Bottom line, I tend to take issue when people highjack meanings of words and give them a new spin, then chastise people for not adhering to their new definition. A collector is a person who gathers or accumulates things. And the original question is "How would YOU classify YOURSELF?" (emphasis added)


----------



## Toccata

DrMike said:


> Bottom line, I tend to take issue when people highjack meanings of words and give them a new spin, then chastise people for not adhering to their new definition. A collector is a person who gathers or accumulates things. And the original question is "How would YOU classify YOURSELF?" (emphasis added)


I haven't hijacked the meaning of any words. Assuming you read it in the first place, may I suggest you put you take another look at the specific definition of "collector" given to us in the OP.

From this it is perfectly clear even from the first sentence:

_"Someone who adopted another hobby/habbit *in addition* to the ostensibly main/prior hobby of listening to music, and subconsciously substituted the "main" with the "subsidiary/ancillary" hobby of collecting recordings._[my embolding]

that it is not intended to include newbies to classical music who are still at the early stage of collecting material for just one or a limited number of composers mainly, if not solely, in order to allow them to become acquainted with the works of those particular composers. The words "in addition" are important in this definition.

I would be perfectly content for member Boccherini (who created this thread) to express his viewpoint on whether he considers the concept of "collector" - in the specific manner he intended - embraces newbies who presumably have only a very limited collection, and one which is perforce designed primarily to enable listening and familiarity rather than it having any additional intrinsic value of itself as a collection.

Beyond that, I can't really be bothered to argue this matter further with you or anyone else. Like so much else here, it's of no great interest to me.


----------



## Boccherini

DrMike said:


> ... Bottom line, I tend to take issue when people highjack meanings of words and give them a new spin, then chastise people for not adhering to their new definition. A collector is a person who gathers or accumulates things. And the original question is *"How would YOU classify YOURSELF?*" (emphasis added)





Opal said:


> ... I would be perfectly content for member Boccherini (who created this thread) to express his viewpoint on whether he considers the concept of "collector" - in the specific manner he intended - embraces newbies who presumably have only a very limited collection, *and one which is perforce designed primarily to enable listening and familiarity rather than it having any additional intrinsic value of itself as a collection*. ...


Oh well.

I purposely added a notification in the first post, suggesting voters to read before voting, because I assumed there will be some voters who might adopt different definitions for a "Listener" and a "Collector", and the poll would not be as accurate as I wanted it to be. Furthermore, I literally suggested, to those who don't share the same definitions I presented, to specify.

As for the title, I didn't actually believe that everyone would freely come up with their "interesting" definitions and vote _only_ by their own subjective and unique opinion; And, I didn't suggest voters to follow the _exact_ definitions I've presented, either. But, I think these definitions also contain objective aspects, intrinsically - which should be adhered by voters - that cannot be easily excluded and disregarded.

A beginner who purchases quite a few recordings (say, less than 5...) per year, regularly, isn't a collector, judging in the senses of the first post. However, I do think that a newbie who has just started to collect _and_ to listen, simultaneously, could possibly be defined alongside collectors, but I guess that specific phenomenon is pretty rare, and in this case the key is laid only with member RJ Empson, so I fear, gentlemen, that this question cannot be answered as long as we don't thoroughly investigate and analyze the fellow new member, and that process, via internet, could take thousands of years...


----------



## Toccata

Boccherini said:


> A beginner who purchases quite a few recordings (say, less than 5...) per year, regularly, isn't a collector, judging in the senses of the first post. However, I do think that a newbie who has just started to collect _and_ to listen, simultaneously, could possibly be defined alongside collectors, but I guess that specific phenomenon is pretty rare, and in this case the key is laid only with member RJ Empson, so I fear, gentlemen, that this question cannot be answered as long as we don't thoroughly investigate and analyze the fellow new member, and that process, via internet, could take thousands of years...


In the light of this, I take it you are agreeing with me but don't want to tread on anyone's toes, hence the ambivalent ending.

I would accept that somebody could conceivably regard himself/herself as both a listener and collector of classical music, rather than just one or the other. But I strongly doubt that someone can legitimately claim to be a "collector" in your defined meaning merely on the strength that they are collecting compilation CDs to broaden their knowledge since they are fairly new to classical music.

There has clearly been a misunderstanding here probably due to the fact someone hadn't read the thread properly. This may not have been the first example, but it was the one I happened to spot.

Someone else who appears also not to have read the thread definition of "collector" properly may need to sharpen his act in future before accusing me of things like hijacking meanings of words and then chastising people for not adhering to a new definition. As you have kindly clarified, I did no such thing and this allegation is complete rot.


----------



## jhar26

I guess I'm somewhere inbetween, or both, or whatever. I don't buy recordings "just to have them", but on the other hand I can't keep up listening to all that I buy even though that's my (possibly unrealistic) intention. I think I have a character trait that puts me in the collectors category and that is that I'm always more frustrated by what I don't yet have than that I'm happy with what I already DO have. Even after I've just ordered several items I'm already thinking about what I'm going to buy next time.


----------



## Ukko

*Perhaps a glass of cool water?*



Opal said:


> In the light of this, I take it you are agreeing with me but don't want to tread on anyone's toes, hence the ambivalent ending.
> 
> Someone else who appears also not to have read the thread definition of "collector" properly may need to sharpen his act in future before accusing me of things like hijacking meanings of words and then chastising people for not adhering to a new definition. As you have kindly clarified, I did no such thing and this allegation is complete rot.


But Opal, even if everybody slips back to "read the thread definition of 'collector' _properly_" and then agrees with your posts (I have and do not), you will not have achieved World Peace.


----------



## Chi_townPhilly

jhar26 said:


> I guess I'm somewhere in between, or both, or whatever. I don't buy recordings "just to have them"


Yeah, I heard _that_. Yet, my set of CDs & DVDs is still small enough that I expect I'll revisit everything I own, even the (increasingly small percentage of) non-Classical stuff. So _"...I defy [classification], with calm, transfixed mind."_

BTW: Nice post, *Hilltroll72*. Time to break out one of the new smilies: :lol:


----------



## Guest

Opal said:


> In the light of this, I take it you are agreeing with me but don't want to tread on anyone's toes, hence the ambivalent ending.
> 
> I would accept that somebody could conceivably regard himself/herself as both a listener and collector of classical music, rather than just one or the other. But I strongly doubt that someone can legitimately claim to be a "collector" in your defined meaning merely on the strength that they are collecting compilation CDs to broaden their knowledge since they are fairly new to classical music.
> 
> There has clearly been a misunderstanding here probably due to the fact someone hadn't read the thread properly. This may not have been the first example, but it was the one I happened to spot.
> 
> Someone else who appears also not to have read the thread definition of "collector" properly may need to sharpen his act in future before accusing me of things like hijacking meanings of words and then chastising people for not adhering to a new definition. As you have kindly clarified, I did no such thing and this allegation is complete rot.


Being that "someone else," and given that you think my comment stemmed from either not reading the OP, or not understanding it, there is a bit of irony in telling you that the problem does not lie with my failing to read the OP or grasp the meaning, rather your lack of understanding my comments.

I don't know the need for all the various polls - basic curiosity, I suppose. But unless somebody is doing some kind of serious cataloging of how we all fall on this question, and accuracy is essential, my point was . . . who the hell cares is someone new chooses to classify themselves as a collector. But even then - you could clearly still question their choice, because the nature of these boards is spurring discussion, and you could have done that, but you went a little bit further and got condescending - all over a person's subjective personal classification. You know I'm not simply trying to pick a fight with you and argue with you, because in another post, quite recently, we were of the same opinion.

I'm not saying you can't disagree - but why can't we disagree without being disagreeable?

At least the guy explained what he meant when he classified himself as a collector, and how he came to that answer. He could have simply just clicked "collector" and, if you strictly cared about the breakdown of the OP categories, this would skew things.


----------



## Toccata

DrMike said:


> I'm not saying you can't disagree - but why can't we disagree without being disagreeable?


I can do without any further condescending and sanctimonious comments such as this from you. You have quite enough to say on this Board, comments which generally are of no interest to me, without taking pot-shots at my behaviour. What I said in relation to someone's vote is no business of yours except that you made it so.

In any event, wasn't it you who said in reference to my earlier comment: ".._I tend to take issue when people highjack meanings of words and give them a new spin, then chastise people for not adhering to their new definition ..."_

This is hardly very friendly is it, Dr Mike? For sure, I didn't like it.

I didn't hijack any definition. I followed as closely as I could the one which is given in post # 1. If you think I have changed this materially, please explain how. Rather, it is you who appear have taken a much broader definition and used it to justify a swipe at me.


----------



## Guest

Opal said:


> I can do without any further condescending and sanctimonious comments such as this from you. You have quite enough to say on this Board, comments which generally are of no interest to me, without taking pot-shots at my behaviour. What I said in relation to someone's vote is no business of yours except that you made it so.
> 
> In any event, wasn't it you who said in reference to my earlier comment: ".._I tend to take issue when people highjack meanings of words and give them a new spin, then chastise people for not adhering to their new definition ..."_
> 
> This is hardly very friendly is it, Dr Mike? For sure, I didn't like it.
> 
> I didn't hijack any definition. I followed as closely as I could the one which is given in post # 1. If you think I have changed this materially, please explain how. Rather, it is you who appear have taken a much broader definition and used it to justify a swipe at me.


I see - so what you want me to do is to quit taking pot shots at your pot shots.

I defined "collector" based on a strict dictionary definition. However, to address the point regarding whether or not you hijacked the strict dictionary definition, or even the OP definition, I would offer, first, the description of collector from the OP:


> Collector: Someone who adopted another hobby/habbit in addition to the ostensibly main/prior hobby of listening to music, and subconsciously substituted the "main" with the "subsidiary/ancillary" hobby of collecting recordings. These persons purchase recordings quite often, even if they don't intend to listen to everything more than once or twice. One of their greatest pleasures when purchasing recordings is the process of going to the store/ordering via internet; the process usually comes to an end when they recieve what they have baught/ordered and delightfully putting it in the right place somewhere inside their dreamlike collection, while an evil satisfactory smile is drawn on their faces. Their pleasure reaches the final and greatest peak when placing a "special" recording which causes them to make the same evil smile but now bigger while satisfactorily whisper: "Another oeuvre has been successfully finished...". They know many wierd ways to order their collection. Live concerts, even favourite ones, might not be their most desireable peak. Most importantly, they purchase recordings for the sake of "having" many performances of a specific piece/composition, rather than listening to all of them and enjoy each in a different manner; they might claim otherwise, though. Usually, they have many recordings they own for several years that haven't had the opportunity to listen to them. --The Collector seeks achievments; more and more.


And now, this is what you stated in the post that I objected to:


> With respect, I very much doubt that you are a "collector" in the sense intended in this thread. By "collector" here is meant someone who has acquired a pretty decent knowledge of classical music, has been listening to it for a long time, knows the main repertoire well, can reel off lots of facts and opinions on classical music, and who has become fascinated by the desire to acquire multiple copies of the same work and/or wishes to acquire everything written by several composers. You are no where near that level of involvement, from what you've said. You're a beginner, aren't you, still busy acquiring compilation CDs and such like? That's not what's meant here by "collector". I suggest you read the OP again.


The OP states a collector acquires for the sake of having - he makes no claim, as you have, that this person must also know the main repertoire well, can reel off lots of facts and opinions on classical music, other than the best places to buy recordings. What you did was take the OP, and then meld it with your additional opinions, as you stated them in post #31:


> One presumably doesn't start out as a "collector", but as a "listener". I would guess that many members on this Forum are too young to know yet whether or not they may one day become a "collector".


So in a sense, you did in fact judge this persons selection, not really based on the OP definition, but rather your interpretation of the OP, with your own opinions mixed in. Now, granted, the individual who first formulated the definitions has since (although somewhat nebulously) agreed with your position, but that came only after you first asserted it as the correct interpretation, with ideas not originally stated.

Why is what someone posted fair game for you to criticize and act condescending towards, but your criticism is somehow sacrosanct, and above criticism?

As I said above, your beef with me is that you are annoyed that I would be condescending and dare to criticize your condescending criticism of another member, who posted a very innocent post, merely describing why he felt he was a collector. Yeah, that makes sense (sorry, that was being rather condescending and sarcastic). Might I condescend to remind you of the oft-repeated maxim - people in glass houses should not throw stones.


----------



## Toccata

DrMike said:


> Now, granted, the individual who first formulated the definitions has since (although somewhat nebulously) agreed with your position, but that came only after you first asserted it as the correct interpretation, with ideas not originally stated.


What a long-winded and largely irrelevant reply from you in the post above.

I have filleted out the only relevant bit which is what I have quoted above. I feel vindicated by it. I do hope other readers will re-read it, until it sinks in. I got it it right, OK!

I took a gamble on how Boccherini would react to my invitation to allow him to be judge of whether I had correctly interpreted his intentions. In essence he agrees that I got it basically right, and, by implication, that your much wider definition is not what he meant. On the other hand, he could have said that I got it wrong, and that would have made me look a bit daft. But I was pretty confident that I hadn't misinterpreted it, and Boccherini is an intelligent and honourable member so I guessed he would put the record straight.

Of course, I had to interpret the rather complex-looking definition of "collector" given by Boccherini in post #1. When I first read it, I wondered what on earth it was getting at. I guess a lot of respondents to this thread felt the same way and probably couldn't be bothered to work it out, and so substituted their own definition of a looser form. It is therefore ridiculous of you to question my specific further comments about the chosen definition. In my comments earlier I did not change its fundamental meaning but merely provided a few examples of how this kind of "collector" behaviour may be observed in practice.

So, I'm sorry to say that that I totally disagree with your mischievous assertion that I amended the initial definition. I should also say that my further comments on this matter do not in any way mirror my interest in this poll or matter generally. I'm just not going to allow you to peddle more of your long-winded, largely irrelevant responses without challenge.


----------



## Guest

Opal said:


> What a long-winded and largely irrelevant reply from you in the post above.
> 
> I have filleted out the only relevant bit which is what I have quoted above. I feel vindicated by it. I do hope other readers will re-read it, until it sinks in. I got it it right, OK!
> 
> I took a gamble on how Boccherini would react to my invitation to allow him to be judge of whether I had correctly interpreted his intentions. In essence he agrees that I got it basically right, and, by implication, that your much wider definition is not what he meant. On the other hand, he could have said that I got it wrong, and that would have made me look a bit daft. But I was pretty confident that I hadn't misinterpreted it, and Boccherini is an intelligent and honourable member so I guessed he would put the record straight.
> 
> Of course, I had to interpret the rather complex-looking definition of "collector" given by Boccherini in post #1. When I first read it, I wondered what on earth it was getting at. I guess a lot of respondents to this thread felt the same way and probably couldn't be bothered to work it out, and so substituted their own definition of a looser form. It is therefore ridiculous of you to question my specific further comments about the chosen definition. In my comments earlier I did not change its fundamental meaning but merely provided a few examples of how this kind of "collector" behaviour may be observed in practice.
> 
> So, I'm sorry to say that that I totally disagree with your mischievous assertion that I amended the initial definition. I should also say that my further comments on this matter do not in any way mirror my interest in this poll or matter generally. I'm just not going to allow you to peddle more of your long-winded, largely irrelevant responses without challenge.


Wow - as with the OP, you like to cherry-pick which parts of a posting you like and support your ego, then ignore the rest. You expanded the definition of collector and chided another person for not abiding by your definition. I thought that Boccherini's definition was quite clear. The fact that he later expanded it was irrelevant. At the time of the post that you thought it necessary to criticize, there was no such official expanded definition. Boccherini, for whatever reason, felt no need to specify that Collectors had specific, detailed knowledge of the music. In fact, I would interpret it as them having no detailed knowledge, other than the breadth of the available catalog. He implies that they don't spend so much time listening to the music, rather just collecting it all.

The point is you made an unnecessary criticism of another's posting here - unnecessary not because you didn't agree with the posting, but because you felt it necessary to ridicule the individual for their opinion. Now you get all huffy when someone calls you out on it. In my last post, I very clearly showed, with direct quotes, that you had, in fact, changed the definition from the original post. It is there for all to judge.


----------



## Toccata

DrMike said:


> The point is you made an unnecessary criticism of another's posting here - unnecessary not because you didn't agree with the posting, but because you felt it necessary to ridicule the individual for their opinion. Now you get all huffy when someone calls you out on it. In my last post, I very clearly showed, with direct quotes, that you had, in fact, changed the definition from the original post. It is there for all to judge.


This gets worse and worse. First you accuse me of hijacking a definition, changing its meaning, and then chastising someone for not adhering to their new definition. Now you stoop to accuse me of " … _feeling necessary to ridicule the individual for their opinion"_.

Is there no limit to your arrogance? How do you know what my feelings are on this matter? You are surely pushing your luck a bit here, aren't you? I can now see why several people got so frustrated with you on the religion thread, where you kept making up weird stories to try to justify your fringe views.

Regards this thread, as you know, the thread originator has since confirmed that a classical music beginner (such as the member to whom I addressed my initial comment) who purchases a few recordings isn't a collector in the sense intended. I can't see why that isn't good enough for you, instead up making all sorts of nonsensical constructions which are presumably designed to get you out the hole you have dug for yourself.

I'm not responding any further on this, so you'd be wasting your time trying as far as I am concerned.


----------



## Chi_townPhilly

Thread temporarily closed, pending review of posts with reference to our Guidelines & Terms of Service.


----------



## rojo

After discussion, the staff here at TC have decided to tentatively re-open this thread. Please keep the forum rules in mind when posting and refrain from attacking others' posting style. We have a PM system for personal discussion. Any further 'disruption' of this thread will result in infractions.

TC staff


----------



## Boccherini

Thank you, admins.

Back to discussion, and I hope I'll clear up the accumulated argumentative fog.
I agree with DrMike and Opal in parallel, on the the different aspects that each has represented, one unlike the other.

Basically, the collector I've presented in the first post is not the one and only existing collector. The one I mentioned is "the" collector, the hardcore collector, the so-called "Dark Lord"; the same collector that Opal later expanded/interpreted in post #31 in his own way, but I tried to describe "the" collector maybe more provocatively and pragmatically while Opal added more aspects, judging as a collector (I assume). Actually, we both described the hardcore/massive collector, each in his own way.

However, DrMike in post #42 presented a newbie collector, the basic and fresh who has just started to collect recordings and yet hasn't reached the high level of the massive one. These kinds of collectors would probably be confused while reading posts #1, #31 and #41. Nevertheless, these collectors _can_ reach a higher collecting level after a specific period of time. So, I suspect the basic collector that DrMike mentioned, as newbie and brainless as he might be, theoretically _is_ considered to be a collector. And, I think it's pretty legitimate of the massive collectors (especially those, that post #1 speaks to them) to question/express doubts on basic collectors whether they _are_ true collectors or not.

As for the misunderstanding first post, I apologize, but I was quite sure that I could easily fish a few hardcores that could gladly be suited to the criteria that were presented in the first post (post #7, for example ).

Try to keep this thread unlocked; it might be very interesting to see the results after a year or so.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

Boccherini said:


> Try to keep this thread unlocked; it might be very interesting to see the results after a year or so.


All this argument about the Dark Art of Collecting! It is simply clear to me that you guys are all pathetic junior trainees, yet to master the true Dark Art of Collecting, as I have done. In another year's time, my evil empire will have again expanded and my powers shall reach new heights, while you junior trainees stray far behind. woooo-haaaa-haaaaaa-haaaaaaa................


----------



## Ukko

*In addition to the reflex bow...*



HarpsichordConcerto said:


> All this argument about the Dark Art of Collecting! It is simply clear to me that you guys are all pathetic junior trainees, yet to master the true Dark Art of Collecting, as I have done. In another year's time, my evil empire will have again expanded and my powers shall reach new heights, while you junior trainees stray far behind. woooo-haaaa-haaaaaa-haaaaaaa................


No cause to be alarmed here, gentlemen and ladies; all 'collectors' except of possibly of gold, and definitely of horse-drawn agricultural implements, are of dubious mental stability. If you really wish to make a hedge against Armageddon, support a breeder of draft horses.
Harpsichord Concerto is doomed to eat his recordings, unless he has more than one obsession.


----------



## World Violist

Hilltroll72 said:


> No cause to be alarmed here, gentlemen and ladies; all 'collectors' except of possibly of gold, and definitely of horse-drawn agricultural implements, are of dubious mental stability.


Wait, what? I'm not of dubious mental stability!!! How durst thou questioneth my mental stability! Horse-drawn agricultural implements my foot; they're the real nutters amongst collectors! Unless they're farmers, in which case they are the most mentally stable of all human beings. As for gold... well, it isn't like the Aztecs were expecting a Spanish Inquisition or anything...:devil:


----------



## Nicola

Boccherini said:


> Thank you, admins.
> 
> Back to discussion, and I hope I'll clear up the accumulated argumentative fog.
> I agree with DrMike and Opal in parallel, on the the different aspects that each has represented, one unlike the other.
> 
> etc etc


Do you think the response at post #38 justifies the response "collector" on your chosen definition, or would "listener" be more appropriate?


----------



## Boccherini

Nicola said:


> Do you think the response at post #38 justifies the response "collector" on your chosen definition, or would "listener" be more appropriate?


As I said in the "etc etc" part you've quoted: I've made a division - the poster of post #38 _is_ a collector (considering he doesn't lie), but not as high and massive as presented in the first post.


----------



## Nicola

Boccherini said:


> As I said in the "etc etc" part you've quoted: I've made a division - the poster of post #38 _is_ a collector (considering he doesn't lie), but not as high and massive as presented in the first post.


So he doesn't fit the definition you gave originally, but some other looser definition? Is that what you are saying?


----------



## Boccherini

Nicola said:


> So he doesn't fit the definition you gave originally, but some other looser definition? Is that what you are saying?


Yes! Yes! Yes! How many times do I need to say that?


----------



## Nicola

Boccherini said:


> Yes! Yes! Yes! How many times do I need to say that?


Just asking, that's all.

In that case why all the ambivalent responses from you? You could have cleared up this mess much sooner, and helped prevent all the twaddle dished out by some members.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

Hilltroll72 said:


> No cause to be alarmed here, gentlemen and ladies; all 'collectors' except of possibly of gold, and definitely of horse-drawn agricultural implements, are of dubious mental stability. If you really wish to make a hedge against Armageddon, support a breeder of draft horses.
> Harpsichord Concerto is doomed to eat his recordings, unless he has more than one obsession.


Well, yes I do have other obsessions, including high powered sports cars. One of mine punches out 500 horsepower; no member Hilltroll72, not the ones produced by draft horses, but the one produced by an internal combustion engine.


----------



## Nicola

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> Well, yes I do have other obsessions, including high powered sports cars. *One* of mine punches out 500 horsepower; no member Hilltroll72, not the ones produced by draft horses, but the one produced by an internal combustion engine.


Only one?

Do you own any private jets, as well?


----------



## lencoo12

jurianbai said:


> a collector. I obsessed with particular genre, I still buy that music although I can predict that I will rarely listen to it. the worst part is... if I decided to want it,... I will do... *anything*.


Incidentally, I'm inclined to think that those who purchase recordings they even might not enjoy (they either checked samples of what they would get and didn't like it much/ hated it but, oddly, insist to get it, or they didn't bother to check samples at all), would probably classify themselves alongside collectors.


----------



## Sebastien Melmoth

Poll is stupid.

Both avid listener and avid collector--(it's an hobby...).


----------



## Chi_townPhilly

I thought about this question a little more- and felt that I had a potentially interesting tangential point to add-

My collection of recordings number in the hundreds (_mid_-hundreds, at a guess) and, in well over 90% of the cases, I view it as a means-to-an-end. That is to say, I value the recordings for the music contained therein, and not for any intrinsic collection-size, completist or other considerations.

There are three notable exceptions to this general rule. They are (in order of acquisition) the 12-disc set _Chicago Symphony Orchestra- the first 100 years_, the equally-sized set _The Philadelphia Orchestra- the centennial collection_, and the 10-disc box _The New York Philharmonic- historic broadcasts_. These I value not only for the music, but also the way a 'collector' would value such things- that is, as an uncommon item in itself- something not available to just anyone with a valid credit card and access to an on-line retailer.

It's curious, really... I've seen three notable examples of individuals (I'm not referring to anyone in present company) who have made post-after-post-after-post about the size of their collections, reports on their latest acquisitions, and contemplations of their purchases. Nothing wrong with that, in and of itself. However, these posts are decidedly more numerous than posts by people who speak of their collection's rarities (or at least non-commonalities). I suppose I oughtn't make any general conclusions about one side of that coin or the other- for one thing, our sample-size for each group is woefully small. For another, it's always easier to add (and report on) quantity than it is to add (and report on) quality (or at the very least, rarity).


----------



## science

I don't want to choose "collector" because of the obvious criticism of it, but I'll confess...

I frequently buy too many recordings, and don't listen to them enough. I probably have a thousand hours of music that I've only heard once, and another thousand that I've only heard 2-3 times. I intend to get around to it all many times...... _someday_.

The thing is, I'm always hearing or reading about something and thinking that I want to hear that music, and buying a recording, and before I've listened to it much I've heard of a dozen more intriguing things out there, and repeat.

It's really hard to stop that. No sooner have I got so much of the big composers that it can never happen to me with them than I find out about another great neglected baroque violinist or something, and there's jazz which I've only barely begun to explore, and rock and electronica and world music.... Makes me downright angry to think of all the great music I'll never have time to appreciate.


----------



## LordBlackudder

i don't keep things for the sake of boring an unlucky guest one day. i just keep the music i like or need.

listener


----------



## drwatson

Despite my advanced age and the associated stereotypes, I made the move to electronic music recently. I suppose that my computerised list doesn't really count as a collection? I always found a physical collection quite a nuisance and never became attached to it. I listen to something, devour its beauty, and move onto the next thing, like a cat.


----------



## Taneyev

Collector of what? Recordings? All CDs. recordings collector is an avid listener. I'm both things. 1700 Cds for my pleasure. It isn't always so for collectors of vinyls or 78s. Many times they buy exemplars only for the player and the label, because it's "rare". And don't bother to listening to it. Only thing they want is to have it.


----------



## cwarchc

Due to my, relatively small collection of classical music, I have to be a listener
There is a whole world waiting to be discovered
Everything I buy has to be listened to again and again
That's not to say I won't turn into a collector when I gain experience
BUT, I'm enjoying the experience, and sharing in the knowledge of this forum
It's costing me a fortune.


----------



## moody

sospiro said:


> I was a *collector* of a singer (Carreras) and to be honest it was just train spotting like a little boy ticking off his train numbers. But then I became a *listener*. There are several JC recordings I don't have but don't feel compelled to get them. (Possibly because they're rubbish!)
> 
> I'm a *collector* of Italian opera & have more than one CD/DVD of the same opera but I love to hear/see different productions of my favourites so I think this falls into the *listener* category.


You were certainly eventually right about Carreras


----------



## moody

Odnoposoff said:


> Collector of what? Recordings? All CDs. recordings collector is an avid listener. I'm both things. 1700 Cds for my pleasure. It isn't always so for collectors of vinyls or 78s. Many times they buy exemplars only for the player and the label, because it's "rare". And don't bother to listening to it. Only thing they want is to have it.


This is typical of the Japanese colle ctor.


----------



## moody

Huilunsoittaja said:


> If I only had more money hahah! I'm guessing that's an obstruction to being a collector.
> 
> Listener here.
> 
> Actually, I don't really like to buy music very much at all nowadays. If it's something really rare, then I get it. But I feel I tend towards abusing the music if I have so much control as to listen to it whenever I want. It's better when it just comes to me through radio, or similar, and then I tend not to abuse/over-listen to certain pieces of music.


No wonder the recording industry is in big trouble!


----------



## Taneyev

In the last 2 years I didn't buy a single CD. What I do is to download YouTube audio-video, and made them copied on a CD. Have nearly a hundred, and all are from rare to extremely rare for the composer, the work, the player or all those things together. The sound is not always good, and several are from old vinyls or 78s, but as you say, to a gifted horse you don't exam their teeth. Besides, it's useless to try to find those pieces on CD. They aren't, or totally OOP, or from vinyls I can't find anywhere. And many are live interpretations never to be published on records.


----------



## myaskovsky2002

I know many Argentinians, they all are pirates. I regret this situation. I don't agree. I was part of a group, they made me discover a software to transfer CDs and stuff. I don't remember the name, it was a kind of huge hardrive somewhere where you could upload music an other people could download it. It started as a dicussion group with some exchanges, mostly rare recordings... It degenerated, people started exchanging any kind of recordings... I quit.

Martin


----------



## Taneyev

Yes, we are all pirates because we don't have any choice. In the last 10 years more or less, you can't find any real rare CD for sell in the country. Best seller are Naxos, at about US 6.- a piece. Major labels, (DG, Philips etc.) can cost US 15/20 each. Non European label CD since 15/20 years. And the American labels material is the arch-popular and known composers and works. So, if I want rarities, I have to be a pirate. Or made trades as I did many times.


----------



## myaskovsky2002

Odnoposoff said:


> Yes, we are all pirates because we don't have any choice. In the last 10 years more or less, you can't find any real rare CD for sell in the country. Best seller are Naxos, at about US 6.- a piece. Major labels, (DG, Philips etc.) can cost US 15/20 each. Non European label CD since 15/20 years. And the American labels material is the arch-popular and known composers and works. So, if I want rarities, I have to be a pirate. Or made trades as I did many times.


I understand this... That is one of the reasons I left the country 29 1/2 years ago. I left on February, 14th 1983. A whole new life, a whole new adventure. But I never was a pirate. This is against my very principles. My son is a musician and he was in a very popular group for a few years, he sold a lot of CDs, but many of them were downloaded. 2005, he was 22.






He is the third from the left. He is the one who sings and the one who composed this song.

I'm pretty sure nobody will watch nor listen to this... Many indifferent people here, Alas.

Martin


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese

a bit of both actually


----------

