# How do you listen to your huge collection?



## Wood (Feb 21, 2013)

Reading Bigshot and Svelte's posts about their enormous record collections had me wondering how they manage to listen to all the music that they own. 

If you have a huge collection, say more than three or four thousand LPs, CDs or the equivalent, how do you ensure that you get to hear all of the music that you own?

Or, is this not important, because you also have reasons for collecting in addition to listening, such as for investment purposes, or to complete sets?


----------



## ptr (Jan 22, 2013)

I don't expect to listen to every recording I have collected again (I have listened to at least 90% before registering them in my database and putting them on my library shelf), it is rather there to serve me as a library to cater for my slightest whim!

It is great fun to pull album after album of oddball records to play when You have people over for drinks and entertainment! :tiphat:

/ptr


----------



## Vasks (Dec 9, 2013)

My collection is not "mega" (roughly 1200 LPs and 1200 CDs) but I did start in 2008 keeping track of exactly all my listening choices. Spending 40 - 90 minutes per day (with no days of listening adding up to 2-3 weeks per year) I will have heard every drop of CD music and a majority of LP selections by next year. Wish me luck and really wish the mega-collectors even more luck if they're my age or older. LOL!


----------



## LancsMan (Oct 28, 2013)

Well I have to admit to having a bit of the OCD in me, and tend to collect and listen to music based on lists. I'm currently going through my collection based on recordings as recommended on BBC Radio 3's building a library - roughly in date of composition. Then I might go through my list of penguin rosette awarded recordings. Rather sad really! 

I do allow myself to cheat now and then and choose a CD I just feel like hearing.


----------



## csacks (Dec 5, 2013)

Mine is not huge. iTunes says that I could be listening music for 46 days in a row, which is long enough. As it is all in my computer, it is sounding from Monday to Friday, as long as I am at the office (let´s say 90% of the time). To me, no list, it just depends of the specific mood for the day. Early in the morning, before the arrival of my patients and before the arrival of the students, I use to listen those pieces that should be enjoyed when they are louder, but it is from 8 to 9.
By the way, talking about OCD, I deleted the counter from iTunes, because to notice that I listened something with out order (lets say a movement more than the others), used to produce me some anxiety. Prescriptions for that will be accepted.:tiphat:


----------



## brotagonist (Jul 11, 2013)

I used to have about 3000 LPs, back in the age of vinyl, but my current collection, entirely on CD, is considerably smaller. I just purchased my 501st album today. I am still working on re-buying some of the lost gems, but I am also discovering a lot of new things on the way.

Large is relative. While my collection is by no means large, by the standard as defined by the OP, it _is_ large, to my ears. Since I _do_ intend to listen to _all_ of my albums again and again, after all, that is why I bought them, the size of my current collection is immense. It would take me approximately 11 months to listen to it all. I feel that I am approaching the point at which I could barely justify much more buying, as I would not be able to listen to my purchases sufficiently often to appreciate and know them.

How do I approach this? What I do is run a computer program to generate random numbers that are associated with the line numbers of the listing of all of my albums in a spread sheet. Since I have a 5CD carousel player, 1-2 discs are randomly chosen, 1-2 might be new acquisitions and 1-2 could be discs that I happen to feel like hearing presently. When each disc has been heard sufficiently attentively to be considered a listening, usually 1-2 times around the carousel, I will increment the play count for the album in the spread sheet (I keep track of each disc in an album separately, so that I don't have to play 7 discs in succession). When the program generates a random number associated with a disc that has a high play count, I skip it and go to the next, so the vast majority of my albums/discs get approximately equal playings. If there are albums I consistently reject, they become candidates for culling.


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

Wood said:


> Reading Bigshot and Svelte's posts about their enormous record collections had me wondering how they manage to listen to all the music that they own.
> 
> If you have a huge collection, say more than three or four thousand LPs, CDs or the equivalent, how do you ensure that you get to hear all of the music that you own?
> 
> Or, is this not important, because you also have reasons for collecting in addition to listening, such as for investment purposes, or to complete sets?


You're looking at this in a way that I never do. I have a large collection but never think about it in a "how to listen to all of them" fashion. I acquire what I want to acquire and listen to what I want to listen to. I don't take it any further.


----------



## Jos (Oct 14, 2013)

LP collection of about 2500, little over half of that is classical. Recently got rid of all my cd's and player so that is making things a bit easier
There is no system in my listening, it's completely ad hoc, random, mood-depending. Always has been like that. The albums are stashed in "the crates"; that way I can browse recordshop-style, I pick album associatively; violinconcerto's can lead to quartets, pianosonatas can cause a suddenly interest in baroque concerti grossi. All very erratic, I know, probably a reflection of the rest of my life.....
One rule is that every vinyl that enters the house, new or used, gets played on that day at least once.
Not much of a systembuilder, I'm afraid. Atm listening to Poulenc's Gloria (oh, the third movement!) and I haven't got a clue what's next.

Cheers,
Jos


----------



## SixFootScowl (Oct 17, 2011)

My collection is small, maybe totaling 300 CDs, and only about half that is classical. A lot of them I rarely listen to. I have several Beethoven Ninths that I have not listened to and may get to some day. I run an MP3 player in my left ear more than several hours a day cycling though my current favorites. I can't imagine having thousands of CDs/records. My neighbor knows a guy who has about 30,000 CDs, whole basement full. He can never listen to them all in the rest of his life unless two at once--one in each ear perhaps :lol: --it does seem obsessive, no? I am obsessive with my small collection (30 ninths and still need Bernstein and Furtwangler).


----------



## Guest (Dec 13, 2013)

Oh great. I read the OP. I start to think of a response. I read the posts. Bulldog has said what I wanted to say.

Doncha hate when that happens?

OK. Not really. Great minds and all....

So here's my response: Since my collection is now almost (long story) all digitized (traumatic story, too), I usually manage to listen to each file by double-clicking on it. That sends the tracks to Cog. Then I press the Play button, and Bob's your uncle.

Pretty easy, really.

But seriously, I once estimated how long it would take to play everything I owned, at roughly the amount of listening I typically do.

About four years. Five and a half, tops. (Probably more like three.)

Not terribly intimidating.

Anyway, yes. I have a lot of music. But I've never been a collector. I like music. I listen to it. The more the better. 

It's not a burden. It's a great joy and delight.

Easy!


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

I've got about 7000 recordings and some of them I've never heard.
It's a collection and that means you buy what you haven't got---just in case.


----------



## Blake (Nov 6, 2013)

One song at a time.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

moody said:


> I've got about 7000 recordings and some of them I've never heard.
> It's a collection and that means you buy what you haven't got---just in case.


It gives you the possibility of listening even if you don't!


----------



## scratchgolf (Nov 15, 2013)

moody said:


> I've got about 7000 recordings and some of them I've never heard.
> It's a collection and that means you buy what you haven't got---just in case.


I'm very similar. I've had some albums for over 10 years and never listened to them. Options are great and I'll occasionally dig something random out of my collection and check it out.


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

some guy said:


> Oh great. I read the OP. I start to think of a response. I read the posts. Bulldog has said what I wanted to say.
> 
> Doncha hate when that happens?
> 
> ...


Exactly. You know, there are some big issues to worry about in this world. Why worry about a record collection that gives "great joy and delight". That doesn't make sense to me.

I've had cancer twice, my grandson is now an 18 year old daddy, and my wife has essentially lost the sight in her left eye. No way I'm gonna worry about a music collection; I'm going to enjoy the hell out of it.


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

I have multiple iTunes libraries, organized by style of music... country, opera, classical, jazz, popular, rock n roll, blues, ethnic, etc. Depending on how I am feeling that day, I put a library on shuffle play and stream it to speakers throughout the house. It's playing 24/7. For instance, right now it's playing Debussy piano music by Rubinstein. I can control it from my iPhone, so I can check what's coming up next or pick something specific to listen to. I have over a year and a half's worth of music on my server altogether. I've probably heard most of it, but it's like painting the Golden Gate Bridge. By the time I'm finished, I'm ready to start over again.

I rarely play my LPs any more, except to digitize them. The same goes for CDs. I don't play them. I rip them to the server.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Vesuvius said:


> One song at a time.


...and that is just the vocal music


----------



## Gilberto (Sep 12, 2013)

I place a transparent strip on an astronomical chart and assign various stars a genre. Then by reason of the tossing of yarrow stalks one certain genre is determined. From there another transparent strip is utilized and stars labelled A to Z to determine the beginning letter of a file name within the genre...using yarrow stalks, of course. From there it gets a little dicey but you get the idea. 

Or if I don't have yarrow stalks then I just listen to what I want. I don't think John Cage would mind.


----------



## Weston (Jul 11, 2008)

I have all my music stored as mp3 files on a computer dedicated to it with maybe a tenth of it at a time stored in my iPod. Both the machine at home and the iPod play at random and I just hope for the best. This is for casual listening. For deep listening I do hand pick the pieces and of course do not randomize movements. 

I have tried to estimate the number of hours of music I have and if it is feasible to hear all of it in this mortal coil. I think it is about 100 days of music if played non-stop round the clock, and growing all the time, but yes it is doable. The thing is I do hit the skip button a lot when something doesn't fit my mood. I also get angry when I see the iPod has played one track 7 or 8 times when so many tracks have zero plays. But science tells us this is true randomness.


----------



## Blake (Nov 6, 2013)

PetrB said:


> ...and that is just the vocal music


... and one symphony at a time.
... and one quartet at a time.
... and yada-yada-yada.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

I have about half the number of recordings as Moody... but then he has a few years on me. My collection (physical CDs) are organized by nationality... and then within that roughly chronologically and then by genre within the work of individual composers. I also keep a data base on the collection and highlight discs not yet played. I can rapidly find nearly any specific work of music. Sometimes I seek out a specific work/recording because something I have seen or read or heard inspires me to want to listen to that specific piece. Most of the time, however, I just randomly browse the shelves looking for something that piques my interest. I start browsing thinking "I'm in the mood for opera" or "I haven't heard anything Russian for a while" or "I have the time... I'd really like to listen to one of my opera recordings that I have yet to hear."


----------



## SixFootScowl (Oct 17, 2011)

Weston said:


> I also get angry when I see the iPod has played one track 7 or 8 times when so many tracks have zero plays. But science tells us this is true randomness.


I'd say that the random selection in these mp3 players is pretty cheezy and it sure looks like a skewed distribution. I ran about 80 songs on a player once and kept tabs on the frequency each song plays (checkmark each time). It got to where some songs played 5 times and others not at all. I think about 15-20 percent of the songs had not played at all after about 300 or so tracks were played.

A true random distribution of integers (to represent songs) should result in a flat distribution that is after say 500 tracks play on a player set to shuffle with 50 songs, each song should have played about 10 times. It won't be exact, but the more tracks played the closer to the true distribution it should be. So if you play 50,000 tracks on a player with 50 songs on it the distribution should be pretty flat. You can run some trials on a computer to see what happens to the distribution with different numbers of trials (tracks played).

But what would be nice would be a mp3 player that plays songs in a "sampling without replacement" mode, that is, once a song plays, it will not play again until all the other songs have played.

I got to where I can't deal with shuffle for very long and so will just play through my player. That way albums play in order (if they were loaded properly). In my car I spin discs and the greater control over what plays is more important in the car because I have much better sound than with my MP3 player, which I run in my left ear only. I just love to have my music playing almost all the time (Right not it's playing Christ on the Mount of Olives--Beethoven of course).

Ah music! Wonderful, wonderful, music. I just can't get enough of it!


----------



## Blake (Nov 6, 2013)

TallPaul said:


> I'd say that the random selection in these mp3 players is pretty cheezy and it sure looks like a skewed distribution. I ran about 80 songs on a player once and kept tabs on the frequency each song plays (checkmark each time). It got to where some songs played 5 times and others not at all. I think about 15-20 percent of the songs had not played at all after about 300 or so tracks were played.
> 
> A true random distribution of integers (to represent songs) should result in a flat distribution that is after say 500 tracks play on a player with 50 songs, each song should have played about 10 times. It won't be exact, but the more tracks played the closer to the true distribution it should be. So if you play 50,000 tracks on a player with 50 songs on it the distribution should be pretty flat. You can run some trials on a computer to see what happens to the distribution with different numbers of trials (tracks played).
> 
> But what would be nice would be a mp3 player that plays songs in a "sampling without replacement" mode, that is, once a song plays, it will not play again until all the other songs have played.


That wouldn't be random though, as it's basing itself on an even distribution. Random means without internal order, it's not random if there's a reason.

Your last statement is more of what people look for when they want a "random" playlist.

Edit: It's funny, after I posted this I started questioning myself... maybe there's different levels of randomness? But if it's connected to order/reason at all then it's not random? I don't know.


----------



## SixFootScowl (Oct 17, 2011)

Vesuvius said:


> That wouldn't be random though, as it's basing itself on an even distribution. Random means without internal order, it's not random if there's a reason.


Ah, I forgot that a large sample (roughly n>30)will tend to approximate a normal distribution and that is bell shaped. But is that a function of the random number generator? I still think that truly random selection of intergers should come up with a flat distribution (Uniform Distribution). What they need is to provide the players with a uniform distribution. Here is a web site that generates random numbers in uniform, left-skewed, right-skewed, and bell shaped distributions.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

A lot of times I play games with myself to decide what to listen to. For example, I'll put my Itunes on shuffle and guess what I'm listening to. If I get it right I skip the piece, if I get it wrong I listen to it because if I can't tell what a piece is just by listening to it I obviously need to listen to it more.


----------



## Blake (Nov 6, 2013)

TallPaul said:


> Ah, I forgot that a large sample (roughly n>30)will tend to approximate a normal distribution and that is bell shaped. What they need is to provide the players with a flat distribution (or more precisely, a Uniform Distribution). Here is a web site that generates random numbers in uniform, left-skewed, right-skewed, and bell shaped distributions.


You responded right as I was putting my "edit" in. I'm left a little confused on the matter of randomness. So that's random with a bit of order? Haha


----------



## SixFootScowl (Oct 17, 2011)

Vesuvius said:


> You responded right as I was putting my "edit" in. I'm left a little confused on the matter of randomness. So that's random with a bit of order? Haha


And I edited my post as you responded. Here is a site that talks about random numbers and I think you are right, but my brain still wants to see a uniform distribution. Not sure how to test it because random number generators in computers are typically pseudo-random number generators. I had a lot of statistics in college but that was 25+ years ago and I know about enough to be dangerous unless I do a lot so research and study first. Grasping true randomness is like trying to grasp eternity or the immensity of space. Suffice it to say, a uniform distribution random number generator would be nice in MP3 players as would the without replacement sampling method. The user should be able to select between those options.


----------



## SixFootScowl (Oct 17, 2011)

Vesuvius said:


> Edit: It's funny, after I posted this I started questioning myself... maybe there's different levels of randomness? But if it's connected to order/reason at all then it's not random? I don't know.


So even John Cage cannot attain true randomness. :lol:


----------



## arpeggio (Oct 4, 2012)

Vesuvius said:


> One song at a time.


ditto.............................


----------



## Blake (Nov 6, 2013)

TallPaul said:


> And I edited my post as you responded. Here is a site that talks about random numbers and I think you are right, but my brain still wants to see a uniform distribution. Not sure how to test it because random number generators in computers are typically pseudo-random number generators. I had a lot of statistics in college but that was 25+ years ago and I know about enough to be dangerous unless I do a lot so research and study first. Grasping true randomness is like trying to grasp eternity or the immensity of space. Suffice it to say, a uniform distribution random number generator would be nice in MP3 players as would the without replacement sampling method. The user should be able to select between those options.


Well, these guys need to start using words properly. I'm all excited over here thinking we've discovered absolute randomness.


----------



## SixFootScowl (Oct 17, 2011)

Vesuvius said:


> Well, these guys need to start using words properly. I'm all excited over here thinking we've discovered absolute randomness.


They've a lot more on that site, but it seems the real random number gurus reside at random.org

And according to them it seems the distribution depends on the population. A population of 100 integers (songs) would have a uniform distribution because the probability of each integer or song being sampled is the same. In fact, I have skewed the distribution on my player before by putting duplicates of my most favored songs so they would come up more often in the shuffle.


----------



## Blake (Nov 6, 2013)

TallPaul said:


> They've a lot more on that site, but it seems the real random number gurus reside at random.org
> 
> And according to them it seems the distribution depends on the population. A population of 100 integers (songs) would have a uniform distribution because the probability of each integer or song being sampled is the same. In fact, I have skewed the distribution on my player before by putting duplicates of my most favored songs so they would come up more often in the shuffle.


I hear you, but being random means 1 piece can play 100 times, highly unlikely... but possible. I normally choose tunes by the randomness of my moods.


----------



## jtbell (Oct 4, 2012)

I keep track of when I listen to which recordings in my database, so I can pull up a list of "recordings least recently heard." When I'm not hankering for a specific recording, I choose something at or near the top of that list. Right now, at the top of the list are CDs that I bought in April 1997.  The total size of my collection is about 6000 "units" (CDs, downloaded albums, LPs).


----------



## SixFootScowl (Oct 17, 2011)

Vesuvius said:


> I hear you, but being random means 1 piece can play 100 times, highly unlikely... but possible. I normally choose tunes by the randomness of my moods.


I tend to go in OCD phases. For example, I listened to nothing but Johnny Winter (over 100 albums and concerts on hand) for a couple years, then one day picked up a classical mix at the dollar store and plugged it into the CD player, and then it was nothing but classical for about six months (but no vocal). Then it was other stuff, to mention a few: a kick on the Ninth (at one time I was playing through a dozen or so Ninths continuously) until I had about 30 Ninths, then Neil Young to the tune of about 21 CDs, and since a few months ago it is nothing but vocal classical works.


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

My iPod will play pairs of tracks in blocks depending on how I loaded it onto the iPod. For instance, if I have uploaded a big batch of Beethoven all at once, if Beethoven plays, the next track is most likely also Beethoven. The third track resets and is truly random again.


----------



## BillT (Nov 3, 2013)

How do I listen to my huge collection?

a) I don't have one. I have a few hundred CDs. Always looking to try out new music that I think I would like.

b) I don't. I listen to what I like, when I like. Many CDs in my "collection" never get played more than once. 

- Bill


----------



## Itullian (Aug 27, 2011)

CDS only.
car or stereo.


----------



## Mika (Jul 24, 2009)

Extending this thread a bit. Assuming you are using streaming services like youtube, spotify etc. How you manage that? Pretty extensive database .


----------



## Couac Addict (Oct 16, 2013)

I've whittled my collection down in recent years as it was getting too difficult when moving house.
Now, new purchases replace older ones instead of adding to them. So my CDs are my favourite recording for a particular work.


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

Our collection is probably around 10000 CD's by now (half physical, half downloaded). I probably will not listen to a lot of them more than once (or at all) given that I'm 56. Unfortunate, but so be it.


----------



## Svelte Silhouette (Nov 7, 2013)

bigshot said:


> I have multiple iTunes libraries, organized by style of music. Depending on how I am feeling that day, I put a library on shuffle play and stream it to speakers throughout the house. It's playing 24/7. For instance, right now it's playing Debussy piano music by Rubinstein. I can control it from my iPhone, so I can check what's coming up next or pick something specific to listen to. I have over a year and a half's worth of music on my server altogether. I've probably heard most of it. I rarely play my LPs any more, except to digitize them. The same goes for CDs. I don't play them. I rip them to the server.


This is 'wallpaper music' and that 24/7 is a 'wall of randomised noise' which would be like hell to me ... yeuch.

I appreciate that you can choose to circumvent the random 24/7, if you like, BUT I'd choose to do just that all the time as I like to think about what I'd like to listen to and then dedicate my attention to that listening experience then maybe have a break or watch a movie or just enjoy the sound of silence.

I have rather more than a year and a half's music in my collection BUT even if I only had that much I'd rather it didn't randomly fill the air each and every day's millisecond (of that year and a half). I have listened to all of the LPs and CDs in my collection at least once so have definitely heard all and would hate even the very idea of 'probably having heard most' as that'd smack of conspicuous consumption.

I split my listening time, in the main, between LPs and CDs but do fuel a several terabyte music server to which I'm increasingly adding music (in WAV format) and movies to enable easier access when I get old and/or lazy. I am not digitising my LPs even though I've a proper 'standalone' Hi-Fi CD recorder optically linked to a moderately decent amp (with decent coax linkage between the latter and my turntable) since if I have an AAA recording I can't get/don't want an ADD CD of then making my own would be unnecessary (as well as less professional) since I'm perfectly capable of lowering a stylus onto said discs and listening to them using the mechanism they were designed to be played upon.


----------



## Svelte Silhouette (Nov 7, 2013)

Wood said:


> Reading Bigshot and Svelte's posts about their enormous record collections had me wondering how they manage to listen to all the music that they own.
> 
> If you have a huge collection, say more than three or four thousand LPs, CDs or the equivalent, how do you ensure that you get to hear all of the music that you own?
> 
> Or, is this not important, because you also have reasons for collecting in addition to listening, such as for investment purposes, or to complete sets?


Unlike BigShot I don't have 'tens of thousands' of records though admittedly do have rather more than 10,000 (and likely 20,000+) recordings albeit accumulated over 40 years (and across formats).

I am not a completist as that'd be just conspicuous consumption and I prefer choosing the best of whatever I actually want rather than one record company's complete set of whatever (or whoever) which may have stuff I don't want or had already got the 'premier' version(s) of.

One can't ever listen to everything and so shouldn't randomly collect as much as one can, gluttonously, or randomly play stuff, willy nilly, since that isn't giving the music the attention it deserves. There is a place for wallpaper music, of course (um ...), but sub-standard instrumental stuff will suffice in airports, public houses and restaurants though I'd prefer silence there too rather than grating piped muzak ...

Few CDs are an investment though older LPs, and particularly rarer ones, can be BUT mine are for playing as music is for pleasure ... well, mine is anyway.

I listen to music on my Hi-Fi, PC, iPhone and ICE BUT make my own choices always in what, when and on which though, sadly, won't likely be able to have a final complete pass through my collection in my lifetime so should maybe stop collecting now as the only alternative is 24/7 muzak which is where I came into this thread at Post #41.

Alas, new and better stuff always comes along so I either miss out on that or get it and miss out on a re-listen of something older in my lifetime ... decisions decisions, maybe one day I'll go bankrupt and that'll make life a whole load easier.

*My only advice on collecting is 'Don't let your music become muzak' else you're Baching up a wrong tree imho and should stick to watching the Tele man.*


----------



## Guest (Dec 14, 2013)

TallPaul said:


> So even John Cage cannot attain true randomness. :lol:


He said that himself. He said that he had not succeeded; he had just been going along in the general direction.


----------



## SixFootScowl (Oct 17, 2011)

some guy said:


> He said that himself. He said that he had not succeeded; he had just been going along in the general direction.


It is good for one to recognize their limitations. True randomness is impossible (IMO).


----------



## Wood (Feb 21, 2013)

The responses to my OP have been interesting. For those with enormous collections, the common thread seems to be that not being able to play all of the music isn't a consideration, the main thing is to have what you want to play on hand as and when you require it. 

I asked about this as I've noticed my listening habits change in the last couple of years, where I've gone from knowing everything in my collection intimately, to preferring to listen to a lot more new music but without such an in depth knowledge. This is happening to the extent that I am buying new stuff faster than I'm playing it, so it interests me to see how those with more advanced collections tend to use them.


----------



## brotagonist (Jul 11, 2013)

Wood said:


> I've gone from knowing everything in my collection intimately, to preferring to listen to a lot more new music but without such an in depth knowledge. This is happening to the extent that I am buying new stuff faster than I'm playing it...


I was thinking about the idea of an "advanced collection" after taking part in the thread. In this day and age, we _all_ have advanced collections, given that we have either/both an internet connection and a library card. The albums I have purchased are the works about which I have or strive to have "in depth knowledge," while the off-site resources (internet, library &c) I have ready access to are the "new stuff" that is coming along "faster than I'm playing it." It's not about ownership, but access.


----------



## Wood (Feb 21, 2013)

brotagonist said:


> I was thinking about the idea of an "advanced collection" after taking part in the thread. In this day and age, we _all_ have advanced collections, given that we have either/both an internet connection and a library card. The albums I have purchased are the works about which I have or strive to have "in depth knowledge," while the off-site resources (internet, library &c) I have ready access to are the "new stuff" that is coming along "faster than I'm playing it." It's not about ownership, but access.


True, but for me ownership has such advantages over streaming (low sound quality) and library (access and cost of loan often greater than purchase price) that I no longer use either. So for me it is a question of whether to continue my current excessive purchasing strategy, or rein it in a bit. I think a fair few people on here have the same dilemma.


----------



## Svelte Silhouette (Nov 7, 2013)

Wood said:


> not being able to play all of the music isn't a consideration, the main thing is to have what you want to play on hand as and when you require it. I've gone from knowing everything in my collection intimately, to preferring to listen to a lot more new music but without such an in depth knowledge. This is happening to the extent that I am buying new stuff faster than I'm playing it, so it interests me to see how those with more advanced collections tend to use them.


Spot on ...

I oft bought 20 or more individual 'CD albums' in a day (and not even one anywhere near Christmas) in the time when we had numerous CD shops to browse around. It'd take me a while to listen to the perhaps 24hrs of music thereon albeit though I could now have just arranged to play the set 24/7 and 'listen to' (or rather 'hear') it all over a single day at home (albeit though 7hrs or so would have to have been subconsciously 'picked up' as I slept). Seriously though, I'd bet that at least 10% of my purchases have only had a single listen since it will have likely taken a week to listen to one such day's clutch by which time more would have been acquired with such sometimes 'spiralling out of control' in really excessive weeks albeit offset by some lesser ones.

I managed to get out of the 'really bad spiralling' for a bit (and CD shops dwindled on the High Street), so that eased the listening experience, BUT then got back into it as a result of the damned internet.


----------



## neoshredder (Nov 7, 2011)

Whatever I feel like at the moment. I have many choices.


----------



## Jos (Oct 14, 2013)

> t's not about ownership, but access


The modern approach, and I strongly agree. I stream a lot from youtube, soundcloud, or harddrive, soundquality is not that bad with Appledevices and a good system. Same for movies, why have all that junk clogging up the house when one has Netflix?

But........an elpee is such a nice tangible thing, it has artwork on the cover, linernotes by German or English professors, it crackles and pops sometimes,, but it also has the element of ritual, the anticipation, full and rich sound, staying active while listening because the damn things need to be flipped every 25 minutes or so. And the things are easily available at auctionsites, recordshops and, 2nd hand at fleamarkets and charityshops, usually for a dollar, euro, pound. The joy of finding a true gem !!
Do agree ofcourse that one has to be critical about the amounts of "bagage" that one allows into ones live........

I'll get of my soapbox now, good evening from the dinosaur vinyl club !

Cheers, 
Jos


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

Svelte Silhouette said:


> This is 'wallpaper music'


No, it's like having a radio station that only plays music I like.


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

Wood said:


> I asked about this as I've noticed my listening habits change in the last couple of years, where I've gone from knowing everything in my collection intimately, to preferring to listen to a lot more new music but without such an in depth knowledge.


It might just be with experience, you are able to absorb and comprehend music faster than you used to.


----------



## Svelte Silhouette (Nov 7, 2013)

bigshot said:


> It might just be with experience, you are able to absorb and comprehend music faster than you used to.


Playing stuff 24/7 will help as you can also absorb sub-consciously whilst asleep. Seriously though LPs are far better for this as if your turntable plays at 78ish then you can 'speed-read' the discs.


----------



## SixFootScowl (Oct 17, 2011)

I have often thought it would be great to have all the music you love implanted in your head with a silicon chip and be able to play in inside your head at will!


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

Music is a language. The more you immerse yourself in it, the more fluent you become.

If you treat it like bon-bons to be doled out infrequently, only when you allow yourself, you'll never get past the hor d'ourves to the main course.


----------



## Svelte Silhouette (Nov 7, 2013)

bigshot said:


> Music is a language. The more you immerse yourself in it, the more fluent you become.
> 
> If you treat it like bon-bons to be doled out infrequently, only when you allow yourself, you'll never get past the hor d'ourves to the main course.


As regards language ... I think you meant 'hors d'oeuvres', actually, BUT think we are all more than capable of eating several courses and I'll be starting #1 of 7 in a little over 45 mins.

We shouldn't make a meal out of this though lest we see the second deadly sin of gluttony rearing it's ugly head should we.

One can allow oneself hours and hours of listening until one's heart and soul are content BUT 24/7 is for the indiscriminate or those who want subliminal imprintment rather than aware enjoyment.

And now I really need to get out of here as I enjoy immersion but prefer waving to drowning so byeeee.


----------



## Guest (Dec 14, 2013)

I have maybe 850 or so. I pushed myself to re-listen to my entire collection a few times. In early July I got to the point where I had heard my entire collection at least once during the last six months.

So I guess it's still true that I've listened to everything I own at least once this year.

But that was a lot of work. Recently I listen less frequently and more casually. C'est la vie, que sera sera, et cetera.

I will say this - pushing yourself to listen through your existing collection is a good way to limit new purchases (for those who have such a need).


----------



## SixFootScowl (Oct 17, 2011)

bigshot said:


> Music is a language. The more you immerse yourself in it, the more fluent you become.
> 
> If you treat it like bon-bons to be doled out infrequently, only when you allow yourself, you'll never get past the hor d'ourves to the main course.


And there is great value to immersing yourself into a single work until you can practically run through it in your head. A great work is worthy of having an intimate relationship with it.


----------



## senza sordino (Oct 20, 2013)

I only have about 150 CDs and I haven't listened to some in years. Some I listen to frequently and others sit on the self gathering dust. 

This music is on my iPod so I listen after class once the students have left and I'm alone marking. Marking is not tedious when im listening to classical. I recently made a folder called orchestral shorts, full of overtures and other short 10 minute pieces to be sure I listen to even overlooked works.


----------



## Svelte Silhouette (Nov 7, 2013)

Totally agreed with TallPaul and BPS ...

A large collection of stuff one barely listens to much of BUT definitely only listens to some of oft enough (and with anything like enough attention ie. without using it as 24/7 'wallpaper muzak') can be a bad thing so I'm glad I don't have 'tens of thousands' of records albeit, actually, a bit sad to have collected so much that I likely can't have a proper pass through it all in my lifetime. I guess, even though not a completest, I've been a bit guilty of conspicuous consumption (and some 'excessive buying sprees') so think I'll cut off one of my hands to minimise this moving forward.

Senza's 150 would be too few for me as I have all the time in the world to listen to stuff (um ... until that guy with a scythe comes along to reap me) BUT BPS's 850 I kind of like the idea of as if one misses out on some stuff so what as long as what one has one enjoys to the full. I'd guess there may be 1000 or so recordings I know 'really well' BUT likely not 2000 as my 'musical memory' just can't be that good I don't believe.

*The bigger the collection the greater the choice come 'play-time', sure, but I sometimes (though far more occasionally now) would spend a while choosing my next play whilst listening to something though was then not giving what I was listening to, at that time, my undivided attention. Excessive collections can thus be a hindrance for anything other than randomised 24/7 so maybe there is a place for that after all for some who really want an incessant 'wall of sound' they can tweak if they desire BUT I prefer always the choice and then the dedicated listening experience. Alas and alack, in my case the choice may take longer than I've got BUT at least this afternoon's is now decided ... c'est la vie mes amis.*


----------



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

My collection is fairly substantial but one way or the other I get around to them them all, even if it means not wanting to listen to something for years (I don't do reluctant 'guilt' listens anymore just for the sake of preventing too much dust from gathering). I've got favourite categories so it's a given that some works such as symphonies and string quartets will be accommodated more regularly than others such as opera - but when I do listen to opera it's usually a bit of a binge.


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

I love my music. It's a part of my everyday life. I share it with my friends. I am lucky to be able to live in an age when so much musical genius is so accessible to me that I can just sit back and enjoy it, without having to get up and change records, clean them or worry about the sound quality of my equipment. I'm living in a home with a huge swath of art and music at my fingertips. It wouldn't be any better if I lived in the Louve or Carnegie Hall.

Living in the past is fine for old dogs who refuse to learn any more. But modern technology affords us opportunities that surpass old ways. Technology is now enabling creative culture and making it a part of everyday life. I am living a life that artists and musicians and even royalty of the past would envy. I know that old dogs envy me. They make that abundantly clear in boldface. Methinks they doth protest too much.


----------



## Blake (Nov 6, 2013)

It is nice to be able to bath in wonderful art whenever your heart desires. I listen to music all the time.


----------



## Svelte Silhouette (Nov 7, 2013)

bigshot said:


> It wouldn't be any better if I lived in the Louve. Living in the past is fine for old dogs who refuse to learn any more. I know that old dogs envy me. They make that abundantly clear in boldface.


Fortunately I envy no-one and neither do I live in the past having worked for a world-leading multi-national in software development for their and others' hardware until recently. I could do the multi-room 24/7 easily if I wanted to but prefer not to and really couldn't stand randomised incessant noise ... it's that simple. Sure, I love my iPhone, laptop and WiFi BUT Hi-Fi is different and a means to an end in getting the most out of my music as chosen by me rather than randomised indiscriminately. Each to their own ...

So that's writ off another of the 7 deadly ones, along with gluttony, with my only failing in these being an occasional run-in with #7

I've no idea where the Louve is though have been to the Louvre several times ... not much music there though and Mona has been glass-boxed for a couple of decades BUT Venus is still unfettered and armless a bit like muzak but far more pleasing to me.

Learning is continuous and Eliot's 'Wisdom of age' only so in the light of experience ... I am neither wise nor stupid but am learned in my fields of expertise though ever learning and experiencing always all ways.


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

I feel very, very sorry for people with large collections of music but because of their lack of experience in current technologies in home entertainment, they are prevented from listening to the music they love for long stretches of time. The act of identifying an album from a whole wall of them, putting them in the CD tray, pushing play and sitting back down again absorbs so much of their time that they aren't able to listen the music they love for as long as a year.

Thankfully, I have a modern *computerized* stereo system that fulfills both the promise of *"perfect sound forever"* and is so convenient, my attention is not diverted into the *fetishistic repetitive tasks* that so many other people are obsessed with. I can only imagine the drudgery of running LP records through hideously expensive dishwashers, and hope that someday everyone will have the wonderful carefree lifestyle those of us with modern stereo equipment enjoy.


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

bigshot said:


> I feel very, very sorry for people with large collections of music but because of their lack of experience in current technologies in home entertainment, they are prevented from listening to the music they love for long stretches of time. The act of identifying an album from a whole wall of them, putting them in the CD tray, pushing play and sitting back down again absorbs so much of their time that they aren't able to listen the music they love for as long as a year.
> 
> Thankfully, I have a modern *computerized* stereo system that fulfills both the promise of *"perfect sound forever"* and is so convenient, my attention is not diverted into the *fetishistic repetitive tasks* that so many other people are obsessed with. I can only imagine the drudgery of running LP records through hideously expensive dishwashers, and hope that someday everyone will have the wonderful carefree lifestyle those of us with modern stereo equipment enjoy.


How kind,but never fear we'll dodder through somehow.
As for Liz, Michael Jackson maybe but that's it, there is no culture in our Royal Family unfortunately.


----------



## SixFootScowl (Oct 17, 2011)

I know a big classical music fan who has been listening since he was a kid or for about 40 years and he does not have a collection of records/cd/electronic files. He simply listens to the radio, either the local classical station or streams other classical stations and takes what he gets. Well, at least he is getting a lot of exposure but I can't imagine not owning copies of one's favorite works. Then I asked him if he has any favorite works. He really didn't have any really strong favorites, a few that he mentioned liking in particular but no favorites that really grabbed ahold of him in the way they do me to where you have to have a copy and you have to immerse yourself in it and you have to search out the best performance of it. It is hard to comprehend this, but in a way his life is simplified by not being burdened with all these CDs and associated efforts/activities. I'll take the burden, as it is a joyous burden.


----------



## Blake (Nov 6, 2013)

TallPaul said:


> I know a big classical music fan who has been listening since he was a kid or for about 40 years and he does not have a collection of records/cd/electronic files. He simply listens to the radio, either the local classical station or streams other classical stations and takes what he gets. Well, at least he is getting a lot of exposure but I can't imagine not owning copies of one's favorite works. Then I asked him if he has any favorite works. He really didn't have any really strong favorites, a few that he mentioned liking in particular but no favorites that really grabbed ahold of him in the way they do me to where you have to have a copy and you have to immerse yourself in it and you have to search out the best performance of it. * It is hard to comprehend this, but in a way his life is simplified by not being burdened with all these CDs and associated efforts/activities. I'll take the burden, as it is a joyous burden.*


*
*

Everybody has their way. There seems to be a "catch" to everything in life... give and take.


----------



## Jos (Oct 14, 2013)

Great expression, "guilt listen", Elgars ghost !! Don't do them either (anymore) but know exactly what you mean. Probably an age-thing; one thinks in years , years, maybe even a decade; haven't listened to Bartok's stringquartets since my teenage-years but I know I'll pick them up someday. They are in my collection somewhere. Juilliard quartet, if memory serves.....

Cheers,
Jos


----------



## Svelte Silhouette (Nov 7, 2013)

Vesuvius said:


> [/B]
> 
> Everybody has their way. There seems to be a "catch" to everything in life... give and take.


Each to their own ...

My preference is ownership also as radio is pretty random, even with a bundle of stations, which I'd hate the idea of being completely limited to and, ok, you may get some pleasant surprises BUT you can't savour these at your leisure or re-visit at a time of your choosing.

It's cheap though but 'there's no such thing as a free lunch' as they say in business.


----------



## presto (Jun 17, 2011)

All my music is on the ipod and it's actually easer looking through the albums on the device than it is physically looking at the original CD's. 
Also I like the way itunes shows you how many times you've listened to a track or album, you can clearly see the music you've not listened to much and rectify it.


----------



## Rocco (Nov 25, 2013)

TallPaul said:


> And there is great value to immersing yourself into a single work until you can practically run through it in your head. A great work is worthy of having an intimate relationship with it.


I am that way with Handel's Messiah. I listen to it so much that it's the only thing that goes through my head, all the time! You know how sometimes a song that you hear at the store starts going through your head? It's usually a song you hate too. Well I figured if I could have a song go through my head that I hate, why not play my favorite work so much that it went though my head instead. It worked!


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

Internet radio is getting pretty darn useful. They organize the stations into styles, for instance Baroque or Chamber, and stream in high quality AAC that sounds as good as a CD if your internet connection can handle it. I can see going exclusively internet radio, but I'd want a yellow pad at hand to take notes as I listen.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

bigshot said:


> I feel very, very sorry for people with large collections of music but because of their lack of experience in current technologies in home entertainment, they are prevented from listening to the music they love for long stretches of time. The act of identifying an album from a whole wall of them, putting them in the CD tray, pushing play and sitting back down again absorbs so much of their time that they aren't able to listen the music they love for as long as a year.
> 
> Thankfully, I have a modern *computerized* stereo system that fulfills both the promise of *"perfect sound forever"* and is so convenient, my attention is not diverted into the *fetishistic repetitive tasks* that so many other people are obsessed with. I can only imagine the drudgery of running LP records through hideously expensive dishwashers, and hope that someday everyone will have the wonderful carefree lifestyle those of us with modern stereo equipment enjoy.


This is rather hysterical, and to me a bit like boasting that after your butler opens the door of your house, you ride a Segue for three yards before your chauffeur opens up the door to your Bentley.

You know, getting up and changing the channel is much better for both young and old than that remote, and ditto for the toys you extol about manipulating your collection of music.

I fully understand transferring other recorded media to hard disk or CD's. But for the rest of what reads - imo - rather like a puffed up boast, it also reads as if coming from another of the supremely lazy of the slightly younger generation, captivated by ancillary toys surrounding the most important of the gizmos: your brain, a little thought, the recordings in whichever medium they are and the devices to play them, and your body.

Us doddering geriatrics need the mental and physical exercise anyway, not having gone so far as to sit all day in a chair on casters so we needn't stand up for hours at a stretch, while pushing the buttons of remotes so we needn't move for anything we want -- we also don't need superfluous gym memberships to counteract the deathly effects of the sloth 

So maybe congratulations are in order for being the first self-declared self-styled of Classical Music Lounge Lizard?

Oh, and say hi to Bessie for me when she's buttering that scone for ya.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

presto said:


> All my music is on the ipod and it's actually easer looking through the albums on the device than it is physically looking at the original CD's.
> Also I like the way itunes shows you how many times you've listened to a track or album, you can clearly see the music you've not listened to much and rectify it.


...and it saves the strain of all that heavy lifting!


----------



## Alydon (May 16, 2012)

I find with the privilege of owning a large collection of music is that ' less is more ' - in other words the more I have the less I listen, but when I do, the experience is of greater pleasure, as I can just dip into whatever I feel I want to listen to as the mood dictates.
But before I'm thought of as being insane, I remember only being able to go out once a month and buy a couple of LPs and adding to a collection totalling into the low hundreds. But now we can all buy music cheaper than ever before which ironically in my view makes the necessity of listening almost redundant at times as it is possible to download a piece at a moments notice or at least make an order and receive the CD the next day and add to the endless choices we have at the moment.
Personally, I find the pleasure is actually seeking out the piece of music/performance, ordering it and receiving the CD, or rare LP in the post, and then the listening experience is heightened as I feel I have somehow bought into the music and makes the whole musical experience fresher and an occasion to be savoured


----------



## SixFootScowl (Oct 17, 2011)

PetrB said:


> ...and it saves the strain of all that heavy lifting!


As much as I like the convenience of MP3 players and CDs, there is something lost in not having vinyl. I used to love, in fact grew up with, handling the big sleeves. I always enjoyed staring at the album cover while listening. There was a specialness to handling the disc by the edges, gently placing the vinyl disc on the turntable, carefully wiping the dust off of it, then gently lowering the needle into the beginning groove. The music meant all that much more because of the work you had to do in order to hear it. Now it is way too casual, you don't have to work for the music and so there is a level of appreciation lost. At least with CDs you still get the artwork, liner notes, etc, and as convenient as the cheezy, cheap, fragile jewel cases are, the cardboard packaging like Digipak is much closer to the old record albums that it gives back some of the feel that is lost with electronic music packaging.

There is something special with having more than just the music and the loss of this specialness is apparent in that rarely do I hear people talk about an album. Now it is just a CD. (And most don't know to handle even a CD by the edges.) CD! What a cold and lifeless reference. Album is beautiful and implies a cohesive work of art. Neil Young is adamant about his music being albums and he spends a lot of time thinking through the song sequence for each album. Thus, he is not pleased when someone cherry picks his songs for a shuffle, or shuffles an album. Meaning is lost.


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

Well, to be technical, an LP wasn't an "album" either. That name referred to a multi-disk set of 78s, which came in an album of sleeves.


----------



## SixFootScowl (Oct 17, 2011)

bigshot said:


> Well, to be technical, an LP wasn't an "album" either. That name referred to a multi-disk set of 78s, which came in an album of sleeves.


 You are going way before my time. Still, the term album by popular use came to be associated with the single or double disc sets popluar in the 60s and 70s.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

TallPaul said:


> You are going way before my time. Still, the term album by popular use came to be associated with the single or double disc sets popluar in the 60s and 70s.


Sorry, back up to near the first quarter of the 20th century, when the discs were heavy, single-sided, and one movement of a symphony took several discs, the entire symphony or concerto quite an assembled number of discs. (big shot points out the first ones were 78rpm discs, but later, 'long-play' came in the same materials and format.)

These were in stiff carton binders, with the discs in pages of sleeves ERGO ~ "Album."

A full recording of an opera would have been something like this:








Later, the word in place and common usage, with vinyl replaced the heavy, highly febrile glass-like discs of the earlier technology, and became a single disc in a paper sleeve within a slim cardboard envelope, they remained Albums.


----------



## SixFootScowl (Oct 17, 2011)

PetrB said:


> Sorry, back up to near the first quarter of the 20th century, when the discs were heavy, single-sided, and one movement of a symphony took several discs, the entire symphony or concerto quite an assembled number of discs. (big shot points out the first ones were 78rpm discs, but later, 'long-play' came in the same materials and format.)
> 
> These were in stiff carton binders, with the discs in pages of sleeves ERGO ~ "Album."
> 
> Later, the word in place and common usage, with vinyl replaced the heavy, highly febrile glass-like discs of the earlier technology, and became a single disc in a paper sleeve within a slim cardboard envelope, they remained Albums.


I remember as a kid we saw sets of 78s in the attic that my mother had stashed up there. So the highly febrile glass-like discs are the ones that Moe shatters over Larry's head in the Stooge shorts.

It would be rather burdensome to listen to an opera on 78s. As it was my vinyl copy of Beethoven's Ninth split the 3rd movement between two sides. I wonder if reel to reel tape would handle more of the opera, at least one act?


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

PetrB said:


> Sorry, back up to near the first quarter of the 20th century, when the discs were heavy, single-sided, and one movement of a symphony took several discs, the entire symphony or concerto quite an assembled number of discs. (big shot points out the first ones were 78rpm discs, but later, 'long-play' came in the same materials and format.)
> 
> These were in stiff carton binders, with the discs in pages of sleeves ERGO ~ "Album."
> 
> ...


Is this "Album" thing an Americanism--to me an album is a book in which you stick photographs or postage stamps.
I've not met anyone who uses the term.


----------



## HaydnBearstheClock (Jul 6, 2013)

I sort of have Haydn as my 'bread and butter' composer and spice things up with other composers - Chopin, Telemann, Beethoven, Mozart, Schubert, Bach, Liszt, Brahms and Mozart, most of the time.


----------



## realdealblues (Mar 3, 2010)

moody said:


> Is this "Album" thing an Americanism--to me an album is a book in which you stick photographs or postage stamps.
> I've not met anyone who uses the term.


That's interesting. Maybe it is an Americanism?

What would you call something like The Beatles "Abbey Road"? A Record? I've always heard it called (and called it myself) an Album because the collection of songs makes up an Album, much like a collection of Photographs would make up a Photo Album. Occasionally I've heard it referred to as a Record, but more commonly a Vinyl disc such as a 33 or 45 or 78 being referred to as a "Record".


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

They've been called albums as long as I've been alive, at least (and maybe only) in the US. First the "true" albums of 78s, that were in fact similar to photo or stamp albums. Then LPs were called albums (in distinction to "singles"). Today I think even CDs are called albums sometimes.


----------



## ShropshireMoose (Sep 2, 2013)

moody said:


> Is this "Album" thing an Americanism--to me an album is a book in which you stick photographs or postage stamps.
> I've not met anyone who uses the term.


No, it's a term used in this country (viz. Britain) extensively during the era of 78s. In the H.M.V. catalogue of recorded music 1949/50, at the front is a whole section headed "Record Albums" that you could buy for your records, first on the list being, "Standard to hold twelve 12" records in separate pockets (stiff covers leathercloth spine, available in maroon, black, green or blue) 16/-". And in the 1928 edition of "Opera at Home", published by the Gramophone Company (and dedicated "To the imperishable memory of Adelina Patti and Enrico Caruso"), it states, to quote at random that "The Mikado" is recorded complete, "The eleven records (D.1172 to D.1182) in album." Hope this sets your mind at rest!


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

ShropshireMoose said:


> No, it's a term used in this country (viz. Britain) extensively during the era of 78s. In the H.M.V. catalogue of recorded music 1949/50, at the front is a whole section headed "Record Albums" that you could buy for your records, first on the list being, "Standard to hold twelve 12" records in separate pockets (stiff covers leathercloth spine, available in maroon, black, green or blue) 16/-". And in the 1928 edition of "Opera at Home", published by the Gramophone Company (and dedicated "To the imperishable memory of Adelina Patti and Enrico Caruso"), it states, to quote at random that "The Mikado" is recorded complete, "The eleven records (D.1172 to D.1182) in album." Hope this sets your mind at rest!


My mind is perfectly at rest,thanks for asking.
I think you have probably proved my point for me,those are certainly albums :ie a book for putting items into.
But you see single LP's are referred to as so and so's latest album---or were. That appears to be in the popular field as opposed to classical. What they may have been calling CD's I know not.
I've always referred to all of them as records.


----------



## SixFootScowl (Oct 17, 2011)

Typical sentence you would have heard if you were in High School in the 70s: "Hey man, did you hear the new Led Zepplin album? It's outta sight."


----------



## Svelte Silhouette (Nov 7, 2013)

TallPaul said:


> Typical sentence you would have heard if you were in High School in the 70s: "Hey man, did you hear the new Led Zepplin album? It's outta sight."


Luckily my music room is remote to my children's rooms BUT I'd still rather some of their 'outta sight' sounds weren't 'inna my home' ;-)

I do recall referring to 'pop music' records as albums but I'd never have called a pop CD an album (or even a record even though it is, obviously, 'a record') ... no idea why but those jewel-cases just didn't map the word I guess.

I can hardly imagine the effort in playing a 78rpm Ring Cycle (or even just Die Meistersinger von Nurnberg for that matter) as this must've been an album the size of 'War and peace' since if you get an average 20mins/side @ 33.33 I'd imagine that'd equate at about 8 or 9 mins/side for 78 (but am too young to remember a format which must've taken a lot of energy [in side and disc changing] since Die Meistersinger's 5h 15m ish would've taken, I'd guess, 6.5 sides/hr or 34-35 sides ie. 17 or 18 discs which'd be a big album in anyone's book). Yes, CD has it's benefits albeit with tiny print on those teensy booklets for my aging eyes ...



TallPaul said:


> As much as I like the convenience of MP3 players and CDs, there is something lost in not having vinyl. I used to love, in fact grew up with, handling the big sleeves. I always enjoyed staring at the album cover while listening. There was a specialness to handling the disc by the edges, gently placing the vinyl disc on the turntable, carefully wiping the dust off of it, then gently lowering the needle into the beginning groove. The music meant all that much more because of the work you had to do in order to hear it. Now it is way too casual, you don't have to work for the music and so there is a level of appreciation lost. At least with CDs you still get the artwork, liner notes, etc, and as convenient as the cheezy, cheap, fragile jewel cases are, the cardboard packaging like Digipak is much closer to the old record albums that it gives back some of the feel that is lost with electronic music packaging.
> 
> There is something special with having more than just the music and the loss of this specialness is apparent in that rarely do I hear people talk about an album. Now it is just a CD. (And most don't know to handle even a CD by the edges.) CD! What a cold and lifeless reference. Album is beautiful and implies a cohesive work of art. Neil Young is adamant about his music being albums and he spends a lot of time thinking through the song sequence for each album. Thus, he is not pleased when someone cherry picks his songs for a shuffle, or shuffles an album. Meaning is lost.


I like the exercise in changing sides of an LP and/or swapping over a CD and particularly like sitting with the sleeve or booklet in my lap whilst browsing whatever blurb is writ thereon (or within) since I'm kind of 'touching the art' as well as 'letting the music touch me'. My iPhone is great for casual or remote listening (and particularly when travelling on trains or planes) BUT no substitute for holding a part of the real thing whilst dedicatedly listening to the main part of it imho ... each to their own though and I am steadily adding to my music-server for any days when I am too poorly to get out of bed though hope they're few and some time off. The only remote controls in my music room are for my CD player, CD recorder and Radio Tuner ... all else in there requires me to physically operate it by getting out of my chair (and saves me getting 'frozen' forever in it as might happen if I started an entire Ring Cycle after breakfast on my music-server). I hate the idea of a shuffle (even within any 'apparently less-cohesive' pop albums) as someone chose an order and since I chose to listen to the album I figure I should do so in the way the artist(s) arranged for it to be done. We all have our ways and some may see one or another as flawed but 'whatever floats one's boat ...' as my way is right for me and that's all I can say.


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

realdealblues said:


> That's interesting. Maybe it is an Americanism?
> 
> What would you call something like The Beatles "Abbey Road"? A Record? I've always heard it called (and called it myself) an Album because the collection of songs makes up an Album, much like a collection of Photographs would make up a Photo Album. Occasionally I've heard it referred to as a Record, but more commonly a Vinyl disc such as a 33 or 45 or 78 being referred to as a "Record".


I presume it's now on CD,in which case I just call it a CD probably--but if those items are records why should a CD not be.
Am I to say I'm listening to my album of "La Traviata", l don't think so !


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

Mirriam-Webster defines album (among others) as: a long musical recording on a record, CD, etc., that usually includes a set of songs.


----------



## Svelte Silhouette (Nov 7, 2013)

moody said:


> I presume it's now on CD,in which case I just call it a CD probably--but if those items are records why should a CD not be. Am I to say I'm listening to my album of "La Traviata" l, don't think so !


Agreed, I'm afraid that 'rightly or wrongly' considering Traviata an album doesn't gel with me any better than calling a CD an LP even though most, these days, play longer than the longest of LPs.

I blame my age ... too young to remember 78s but old enough to remember when records were LPs (and black) before those shiny silver slivers surfed an uprising.

Anyway, I have to scurry off and collect a child from school soon though will be playing a few songs from Mozart's last album on the way ... it's cool, man.


----------



## Jos (Oct 14, 2013)

Originally Posted by moody 
Is this "Album" thing an Americanism--to me an album is a book in which you stick photographs or postage stamps.
I've not met anyone who uses the term.


"Classic albums" is a series of documentaries on famous, legendary, classic, outstanding etc. musical records. 
I believe the producers are London-based, so I'd guess it's a term that is used in GB as part of everyday vocabulary. On another board, vinyl and turntable related, the word is frequently used by the (large) British group of participants.
Then again; English is not my first language so I could be completely wrong. 

Cheers,
Jos


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

realdealblues said:


> That's interesting. Maybe it is an Americanism?
> 
> What would you call something like The Beatles "Abbey Road"? A Record? I've always heard it called (and called it myself) an Album because the collection of songs makes up an Album, much like a collection of Photographs would make up a Photo Album. Occasionally I've heard it referred to as a Record, but more commonly a Vinyl disc such as a 33 or 45 or 78 being referred to as a "Record".


The term LP was often used, probably more so than in America.


----------



## Gilberto (Sep 12, 2013)

Art Rock said:


> Mirriam-Webster defines album (among others) as: a long musical recording on a record, CD, etc., that usually includes a set of songs.


Makes sense to me. I remember 7" and 12" vinyls with 4 songs referred to as EPs. I suppose that qualifies as an album too. I just came back from the library where one of the books I checked out was Vinyl Countdown: The Album From LP to iPod and Back Again. The author is a writer for The Guardian and BBC History magazine, so I'm led to believe that most people over there use the term album just as much as not.


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

EPs aren't normally considered an album/LP.


----------



## Gilberto (Sep 12, 2013)

starry said:


> EPs aren't normally considered an album/LP.


Yeah, I know. I'm a veteran record shop employee. I was just being argumentative


----------



## Svelte Silhouette (Nov 7, 2013)

Wood said:


> If you have a huge collection, say more than three or four thousand LPs, CDs or the equivalent, how do you ensure that you get to hear all of the music that you own?


Behold the future and the past in my collection with Vinyl, Open-Reel tape, Pre-recorded cassette and CD on display to the right. I could have added a 45rpm single/MiniDisc/DAT/DCC/HDCD/SACD/DVD-A or BR-A as I've samples of all of these in my collection also (along with 10" tape rather than the 7" displayed) BUT am mainly a vinyl/CD person who used open-reel and cassette for archiving and/or broadcast recording etc prior to the advent of consumer-recordable CD (after which I used, and use, a dedicated standalone Pioneer copier attached to my music room's CD player [via optical link] and amplifier [via decent coax links]). I only ever toyed with DCC/DAT and MiniDisc (knowing that consumer-recordable CD was just months behind these coming to market when in the trade) and have far less pre-recorded music on HDCD/SACD/DVD-A/BR-A than on straightforward CD.

*My 17" Toshiba laptop, with Harmon-Kardon audio onboard, is displaying this site and my avatar to avoid any doubt that I am perhaps a fraudulent 'mouthy' Luddite rather than simply someone who 'genuinely knows the difference' and 'what he prefers from his own perspective'. What I have is what enables me to say why I prefer to listen the way I do and with valid creedence for such (at least imho).*

Behind my laptop is my self-built i7-3960x processor-based server in a good and solid Dell enclosure (best ever access I've had in an enclosure via an 'easy-open' full-side panel) with 16 Gb RAM, 2Tb and 1Tb HDs onboard, Creative Blaster X-Fi Titanium (for sound) and GeForce GTX 760 OC 2Gb (for video) plus Pioneer Blu-Ray re-writer and Samsung DVD re-writer drives (for +/- DL and RAM formats) along with a 3.5" floppy one (though I've also an ancient 5.25" floppy for a spare drive bay in case I ever encounter any archive material in that format). Additionally, you'll notice a card reader for CF/IBM Microdrive (one of which is inserted), Sony Memorystick Pro Duo, SD[HC] and XD[H] (all of which are inserted and in use). In front of the server are my 3 NAS Network drives (2 Tb, 3 Tb and 4Tb from Hitachi and Iomega) with a WD or Seagate 4Tb expected at Christmas. Hence, my server has 12Tb of storage (so far) which is Networked and controllable from my iPhone (as well as being accessible by me anywhere in the world subject to isp 'roaming' being available wherever I am) whilst server, laptop. iPhone and iPod can Bluetooth connect to one another (as well as to the other household members' laptops and _vice versa_) and wi-fi connect to the plasma and LED TVs we use in our home (and associated a/v systems) if so desired. I don't have a projector (unless you include a Leica 35mm slide one) BUT do have a large ZT plasma that probably displays bigger than the screen I use for slide projection (albeit, sadly, only occasionally these days) and yes I do use a digital SLR nowadays so am not a Luddite or technophobe here either. You can't see what's in the server box so will have to trust me on that (as opening the cramped enclosure wouldn't help unless I pulled all the bits out which'd be silly and prove nowt more really) BUT you can see the Network drives etc and assume the rest is reasonable based on that.

I am not afraid of technology or of learning new stuff (and regularly add to my server which I'm about to upgrade to w8.1 whilst flattenning my 1Tb controlling HD as I do every 6-9 months). Sure, I am an oldish dog having passed '50 not out' as per the displayed badge my daughter got me last time around BUT don't 'write me off' just because I'm old.

*How do I listen ... as I choose, and as often as I can, BUT my preferred method, by a huge margin, is using my music room's turntable or CD player. Unfortunately my record and CD collection plus the various stereo systems currently in use throughout my home and my penchant for computer technology shows a wee bit of conspicuous consumption but I'll steer clear of the 24/7 route and keep exercising those arm and leg muscles at play-time until unable ... personal choice, and each to their own, BUT based on what you can see rather than merely what I say. If this all looks like show, or ego, if it's a show of anything it's probably one of excess I'm not really proud of as too much of anything is never a good thing so I'd say 'Buy less and enjoy more ... deeply and thoughtfully BUT never with casual circumspection unless that is the only way possible'.*

PS. The headset on show within my study picture is one I used to use for conference-calling (via another 'docking-stationed' laptop I no longer have) rather than for anything even vaguely hi-fi but is redundant now since I'm retired though it's still usable via the server in my study for Skyping since I use teensy buds with my iPod and iPhone as this set'd be way too indiscrete.

Apologies for the long post but a lot has been said about old dogs regarding technophobia and how wonderful the 'brave new world' is which it simply isn't, imho, hence



bigshot said:


> Living in the past is fine for old dogs who refuse to learn any more. I know that old dogs envy me. They make that abundantly clear in boldface. Methinks they doth protest too much.


isn't the case at all on any front.

This is (or was until recently) my field of expertise … it was my job (for almost 3 decades) BUT also my hobby as a consumer (though quite a cynical and demanding one due to my being 'in the trade'). I wish you all well and that whatever path you follow brings you joy and a sense of fulfilment … whatever makes you happy is a result.


----------



## Radames (Feb 27, 2013)

Wood said:


> Reading Bigshot and Svelte's posts about their enormous record collections had me wondering how they manage to listen to all the music that they own.
> 
> If you have a huge collection, say more than three or four thousand LPs, CDs or the equivalent, how do you ensure that you get to hear all of the music that you own?
> 
> Or, is this not important, because you also have reasons for collecting in addition to listening, such as for investment purposes, or to complete sets?


I have about 5000 CDs. I listen to most of them only once or twice - in my car driving back from where I got them. I like browsing in the used CD shops. If it's something I don't like at all I trade it in at a used shop somewhere.


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

Gilberto said:


> Makes sense to me. I remember 7" and 12" vinyls with 4 songs referred to as EPs. I suppose that qualifies as an album too. I just came back from the library where one of the books I checked out was Vinyl Countdown: The Album From LP to iPod and Back Again. The author is a writer for The Guardian and BBC History magazine, so I'm led to believe that most people over there use the term album just as much as not.


EPs were 7" only,but British Decca hade M edium Plays -- MPs-- that were 10" and could take two arias on each side. They went because, wait for it, Americans didn't like 10" records altho' the whole of Europe did, Humph !
The information is all very interesting but I still maintain that "album" is only used for popular stuff. I shall certainly not be using it.


----------



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

Regarding the issue of listening to some recordings very rarely due to having large collections - I can't speak for everyone but I'm reassured that I at least HAVE them to listen to in the first place!


----------



## Guest (Dec 19, 2013)

I don't have a huge collection, so it's not an issue. If there is an issue, it's that I don't have a huge collection.


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

elgars ghost said:


> Regarding the issue of listening to some recordings very rarely due to having large collections - I can't speak for everyone but I'm reassured that I at least HAVE them to listen to in the first place!


Well yeh, and if you don't like something that much you can always get rid of it. I would, I only want to keep things I want to hear again. At least you've had a chance to hear it in the first place anyway. I don't see the point so much in keeping loads of recordings of the same piece for the long term, I'd again just keep those I really like (probably just one or two in most cases).


----------



## Sonata (Aug 7, 2010)

I've been working on an "alphabetical listening project" Listening to all of my albums from A-Z. I intersperse it with whatever I feel like at the moment though, just in between I'll work through my stuff alphabetically. I started in June and I'm in the middle of Bruckner symphonies. I've got a long way to go!! Haven't had much listening time in the past three months however.


----------



## Wandering (Feb 27, 2012)

All sorted alphabetically on mp3s, not hard to navigate on my computer, just click on a file within a file and presto, very quick. My Sansa clip player on the other hand, with a 32gig microsd is sometimes tedious, it'll seem like a have to click and scroll for ages to reach what I want.


----------



## Svelte Silhouette (Nov 7, 2013)

Clovis said:


> All sorted alphabetically on mp3s, not hard to navigate on my computer, just click on a file within a file and presto, very quick. My Sansa clip player on the other hand, with a 32gig microsd is sometimes tedious, it'll seem like a have to click and scroll for ages to reach what I want.


The MP3 files aren't actually within files but within directories hence you sometimes get a huge directory tree as below for a FLAC version of my Complete Mozart Edition which I've also converted to WAV and 320Kbs MP3 (call me the ultimate 'sad b***tard' completest if you like with the 180 disc edition on CD and now in WAV, FLAC and MP3 [OK, no APE, OGG, WMA, etc but fairly completest]) ...

HDs spin quickly where SD cards are solidstate ... it's a bit like comparing a CD to a pre-recorded cassette in terms of access speed albeit not in process terms. However, a Class 10 card will help speed things up for you as I use Sandisk 95 Mb/s Extreme Pro ones which are about £60 for 32Gb.

The advantage of a server is that my networked version of this disc which I've just picked up could play on my lappy direct, where I'm sat now, or be sent to my AV amp a few yards away from the sofa (if only it were switched on) ... however, I could just go upstairs to my music room and listen on a far better system whilst holding the sleeve and reading it's blurb. For me, MP3 players are for trains and planes even though I've a very decent pair of earbuds but I keep adding to that server for that time when I can't make it up those stairs.

Apple iPods/iPhones are great for finding (and controlling) stuff BUT I hate, hate, hate iTunes and the fact my music isn't in straightforward MP3.


----------



## Svelte Silhouette (Nov 7, 2013)

elgars ghost said:


> Regarding the issue of listening to some recordings very rarely due to having large collections - I can't speak for everyone but I'm reassured that I at least HAVE them to listen to in the first place!


My feeling exactly but that's gotten me a millstone kinda around my neck as I eat up more and more space to the extent that one day I'll live in a music library and have to chuck my clothes away ... nothing wrong with naturism though except for the fact it's snowing here.


----------



## SixFootScowl (Oct 17, 2011)

starry said:


> Well yeh, and if you don't like something that much you can always get rid of it. I would, I only want to keep things I want to hear again. At least you've had a chance to hear it in the first place anyway. I don't see the point so much in keeping loads of recordings of the same piece for the long term, I'd again just keep those I really like (probably just one or two in most cases).


But sometimes you may get rid of something and later wish you had kept it. It has happened to me anyway.

The other thing about listening is that there are two kinds of listening, well probably more but to keep it simple:

1. Music playing but you are in and out because of distractions. This is typical for an earbud, mp3 player in pocket, going about your daily business.

2. Focused listening where you have no distractions. This is the best way to listen for sure.

I find the first kind annoying because you miss so much and really cannot appreciate an entire work, yet the beauty of each individual section of the music is still there. I focus better in the car by myself, but my most focused listening is watching an opera on DVD.


----------



## Svelte Silhouette (Nov 7, 2013)

TallPaul said:


> But sometimes you may get rid of something and later wish you had kept it. It has happened to me anyway.
> 
> The other thing about listening is that there are two kinds of listening, well probably more but to keep it simple:
> 
> ...


Mostly agreed though I never get rid of anything and listen less in my car or on DVD BUT that's circumstantial as I largely have winkykids when taxiing and prefer stereo to a/v.

Focused is the best for sure however that's managed ...


----------



## Guest (Dec 20, 2013)

Svelte Silhouette said:


> BUT I hate, hate, hate iTunes and the fact my music isn't in straightforward MP3.


Why? What's to hate?


----------



## Svelte Silhouette (Nov 7, 2013)

MacLeod said:


> Why? What's to hate?


My wife doesn't use an iPhone so the CDs I uploaded into an iTunes library for me can't then be ported to her 'phone without being loaded separately onto my server as 'unfettered' 320Kbs MP3s.

Sadly I love my iPhone as I have small hands and though it does nothing perfectly it does everything well which no-one else has quite managed even with bigger/better displays or cameras or whatever ... damn that perfect Apple package and double-damn their iTunes ;-)


----------



## mstar (Aug 14, 2013)

To answer the OP, I have absolutely no idea. It gets larger every month or so by 25-50 works, and I manage to be familiar with all of it.... I suppose excessive listening at any time of the day in any random order according to mood would explain it?


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

I have a household server packed to the gills with media storage in a protected array. With iTunes, I can control the playback from anywhere in the house using my iPhone or iPad, and control the server through screen sharing from any computer in the house. It streams music over my Airport wifi network to stereos all over the house. And through an HDMI connection, the server even controls my projection video system, playing both DVD and 1080p video flawlessly. Right now, I'm in the process of ripping my DVD collection to create a video iTunes library, which will serve television to the whole house using an AppleTV, the same way that my music library streams sound. That's going to take a lot of ripping though. I'm doing a few disks a day.

Apple products are all designed to work together seamlessly. It was surprisingly easy to set up my media server. Pretty much plug and play. All I needed to add was a couple of player and encoder apps for weird video formats.


----------



## Svelte Silhouette (Nov 7, 2013)

bigshot said:


> I have a household server packed to the gills with media storage in a protected array. With iTunes, I can control the playback from anywhere in the house using my iPhone or iPad, and control the server through screen sharing from any computer in the house. It streams music over my Airport wifi network to stereos all over the house. And through an HDMI connection, the server even controls my projection video system, playing both DVD and 1080p video flawlessly.


Snap(ish) as per my pic earlier in this thread, at post #98, and the ones below ('opening up those gills and the very stomach itself' whilst also displaying the backup server and media PC along with my audio-orientated and video-orientated laptops) hence my need for another 4Tb NAS drive to tide me over into next year.



























And yet, with all that tech to play with (and the ability to iPhone control it within the home, in the same way as you, or even access it from anywhere in the world subject to 'roaming' being available via my isp there), my preferred method, by a huge margin, is using my music room's turntable or CD player.

Each to their own as long as we all enjoy always all ways ...


----------



## Mika (Jul 24, 2009)

I am having a few hundred cds. I have ripped them to dlna server. I used to store cds to some boxes, but then I realized it was hard to make decisions what to listen next. Then I put all all cds to the shelves close to me. Soon I realized I was not standing close to shelves making listening decisions. What next? Huge video screen with cd covers .


----------



## Pantheon (Jun 9, 2013)

I'm sort of lagging these days with my listening. I tend to vary genres a lot which means that some of them get left behind. All in all there must be at least 40% of my library still yet to be discovered. At least I never get bored !


----------



## mstar (Aug 14, 2013)

I recently got a CD as a Christmas present, and I have yet to find out what it is.... I had to spend 10 minutes last night sitting near my piano near the tree holding the wrapped gift, convincing myself that I have to wait until Christmas.... Just thinking about what it might be.... If it turns out to be Beethoven sonatas, no - maybe Years of Pilgrimage, Transcendental Etudes - THE CHOPIN BALLADS!! Oh, I have absolutely no idea, no idea....


----------



## Rocco (Nov 25, 2013)

Just open it!!! :lol:


----------



## mstar (Aug 14, 2013)

ClutchDisc said:


> Just open it!!! :lol:


I am right near the tree and that cd right now, just having mastered some lh broken octaves with a rh strategically positioned right where my lh fingers should be (my composition, my fault?), staring at the tree.... Why must you tempt me to open it any further?!?!?! :lol:


----------



## SixFootScowl (Oct 17, 2011)

mstar said:


> I recently got a CD as a Christmas present, and I have yet to find out what it is.... I had to spend 10 minutes last night sitting near my piano near the tree holding the wrapped gift, convincing myself that I have to wait until Christmas.... Just thinking about what it might be.... If it turns out to be Beethoven sonatas, no - maybe Years of Pilgrimage, Transcendental Etudes - THE CHOPIN BALLADS!! Oh, I have absolutely no idea, no idea....


We are all anxiously awaiting the revealing of the CD contents on Christmas day. What time to you get up Christmas day so I know when to check back?


----------



## Rocco (Nov 25, 2013)

mstar said:


> I am right near the tree and that cd right now, just having mastered some lh broken octaves with a rh strategically positioned right where my lh fingers should be (my composition, my fault?), staring at the tree.... Why must you tempt me to open it any further?!?!?! :lol:


:lol: How can you stand not knowing what it is?


----------



## mstar (Aug 14, 2013)

TallPaul said:


> We are all anxiously awaiting the revealing of the CD contents on Christmas day. What time to you get up Christmas day so I know when to check back?


Ah! We need a thread, then. :lol: Traditionally, Christmas begins the evening of its eve, so that is when I open my presents, though it's awfully tempting to open now.... I won't until then!!


----------



## mstar (Aug 14, 2013)

ClutchDisc said:


> :lol: How can you stand not knowing what it is?


I absolutely can't! I had my nails under the tape on the wrapping yesterday....


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

Svelte Silhouette said:


> My wife doesn't use an iPhone so the CDs I uploaded into an iTunes library for me can't then be ported to her 'phone without being loaded separately onto my server as 'unfettered' 320Kbs MP3s.


ITunes will encode in MP3/320. Preferences > General > Import Settings. AAC has better sound quality though. Most mobile devices support AAC though. It's an open source codec.


----------



## mstar (Aug 14, 2013)

bigshot said:


> ITunes will encode in MP3/320. Preferences > General > Import Settings. AAC has better sound quality though. Most mobile devices support AAC though. It's an open source codec.


Encode.... ENCODE....


----------



## scratchgolf (Nov 15, 2013)

mstar said:


> I absolutely can't! I had my nails under the tape on the wrapping yesterday....


Maybe it's Norton Antivirus :lol:


----------



## Rocco (Nov 25, 2013)

mstar - Where is the thread about your mystery CD going to be posted tomorrow? And precisely what time are you going to open it? I want to be online at that time and not miss anything! :lol:


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

I'm a iTuneser. I turn everything into playlists, prioritize the playlists, and cycle through them.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

I tend to listen by composer. A few months ago I heard a symphony by William Schuman so for weeks I listened to nothing but Schuman.


----------

