Options
Insane record collections ( Collectors Weekly )
A feed on Twitter, @Slate , have some fascinating stories. One they've been retweeting for a few days now originates from "Collectors Weekly". There are some seriously over the top music collections...
Take a look at these pictures ! Some people getting great fun out of their hobby, and excellent photography by Eilon Paz :
http://www.slate.com/blogs/behold/2014/06/18/eilon_paz_photographs_record_collectors_in_his_book_dust_grooves_adventures.html
Take a look at these pictures ! Some people getting great fun out of their hobby, and excellent photography by Eilon Paz :
http://www.slate.com/blogs/behold/2014/06/18/eilon_paz_photographs_record_collectors_in_his_book_dust_grooves_adventures.html
0
Comments
6 Music DJ Gilles Peterson, filmed by Channel 4 surrounded by his record collection, reveals that he wanted one Brazilian 7" single so much he swapped his car for it.
1. collect coloured vinyl. If the only reason you buy a record is because it is on coloure vinyl then it's a pointless exercise. (I bet I've a few coloured vinyl 7" they don't have but I bought them for the music)
2. Put LP sleeves on the wall. I absolutely hate this.
I'd have a pretty large record collection if I'd never started buying cds. Having a think about it, I've realised that I have records and cds in seven rooms.
office / records and cds
box room / cds
front bedroom / records and cds
back bedroom / cds
lounge / records and cds
downstairs lounge / records and cds
store room / records
Actually there may be a hundred or so cds in the kitchen but that doesn't count as they are not supposed to be there.
it's far from pointless.
for one, if you enjoy doing it, then it's not pointless
for two, coloured vinyl can increase in price due to the collectable nature and limited pressings, so it can be a good investment if you know what you are doing. same with picture disc and other limited editions. i've never been a fan of coloured vinyl myself as coloured vinyl is usually of poorer quality than black vinyl, but i have a few discs that are worth quite a few quid now so buying them for the normal retail price at the time was a good purchase
Well it's clearly not pointless to the person collecting them
Pointless in so far as they are being bought only because of their colouration and not for listening to. A collection that isn't even assembled for the musical pleasure of the buyer is rather vapid.
On the second point: any vinyl can increase in price. Most, and indeed the most valuable records are generally on standard black wax because that is how they were pressed. Everything is a limited edition. Many things that say 'limited edition' or 'collectors edition' are pressed in tens of thousands and end up being far from that. Albums that ran to a couple of hundred copies tend not to say so or be widely distributed or even known about by most listeners. Acquiring them can be more luck than knowing what you're doing and they're likely to have been picked up on the strength of the music in the groove.
Buying for investment or speculating certainly isn't the way to build a great music collection as it's driven by hope of profit and not passion.
If it's snobby to not see a point in putting together a huge collection of items purely because of their pretty colours and nothing else, then I'm fine with that. It's a significant collection because of its size but it may just as well be cut glass since it can't be appreciated properly as music collection having no rhyme or reason behind it except colour: the equivalent of having a book collection assembled based on cover design and not the content of the pages.
it's not pointless at all. there is a point as i've explained. and you are simply generalising as some people will play them. you could say the same for picture discs or anything else to which some people will collect without playing, of which some people will collect as an investment, and others will collect for fun, and some people will play them and others won't. you can still collect and play
no it's not. collecting without playing items can bring pleasure in a number of ways. some people may like the idea of collecting alone, others may enjoy owning the item, others may enjoy the way they look, others may enjoy collecting as an investment and enjoy seeing their investment increase in value, and enjoy reaping the rewards when cashing in by selling their investment. last year i made literally thousands of pounds on ebay just selling a few music items listed on sunday afternoons
not really. some items are limited edition, some will keep being pressed for decades without limit, such as the dark side of the moon. cds, tapes, dvds, all sorts of formats and items can increase in price. it's not limited to vinyl. likewise items can decrease in price
even if pressed in tens of thousands, or even a hundred thousand copies, if the intention is to limit the release at that point, it's a limited edition. perhaps you are putting too much value and meaning on the term "limited edition" and buying into the marketing hype to make people buy something for collecting reasons. some "limited edition" items will be rare and sought after and increase in value, others won't. likewise items that aren't "limited edition" can similarly be rare and sought after and others won't
they can be, but on the other hand, the opposite can also be true
yet more generalising. the people i know who buy music items for investment have amazing record collections. they do this alongside general purchasing. such as buying 2 copies instead of one, or a bunch of copies if something is cheap. i don't know anyone who simply buys music to collect for investment reasons. don't most people collect things because they like them, even those who collect for investment purposes, such as art collectors? i could potentially collect things simply for investment reasons but to which i have little interest in the items, but i don't as the items don't interest me, and it's hard to retain interest and keep up to date in regards to what to collect if you aren't interested in that field, but some people may do so simply for financial motivation, however in regards to simple collecting items like records i don't know anyone who does that but there may well be
but you don't know if the guy plays the records or not. he may enjoy playing them. perhaps he plays them all. perhaps he only plays a few. i'm sure his collection will be more valuable than collecting cut glass, and if he leaves them in his will to someone then maybe that person will play them, whereas they wouldn't be able to do much with the cut glass
how dare someone have a differing point of view ...
Pointless > not pointless > pointless > and so on
Of course they can be played by default and I'm sure people with vast collections of vinyl do tend to spin some of it but it has been acquired not for the content of the grooves but for an unrelated criterion - its pigmentation. This self-imposed external constraint having nothing to do with the music BUT then dictating what can and can't enter the collection, devaluing it as a MUSIC collection. A sizeable but valueless and non-tactile mp3 collection that is chosen based on listening pleasure has more relevance in terms of being a statement of the collector's knowledge of or taste in music. Unless of course, the mp3 collector only acquires mp3s that are between 5MB and 7MB in size, or some other non-music related irrelevance.
Precisely, collecting artifacts; or for profit. Nothing to do with music appreciation and only music-related insofar as the items contain music. Music which is incidental to the collector's motivation. Which is why I wrote vapid.
Quote:
I think you know enough to know that the vast majority of recordings don't remain in print constantly, despite there being a seemingly huge selection that do. The far higher percentage become unavailable (suggesting that indeed there was some 'limit' to the 'edition') which usually causes price increase. No one knows the future - what will come back into print, what won't. Of course demand can often drop when a rarity is reissued but market price of an original may stay the same, lower or even rise.
Well, of course. A 'limited edition' is always limited to some number, which the public may or may not be made aware of.
I'm pretty cynical about it to be honest. A sales a sale. They don't care about the reason as long as they shift.
Which is why I wrote this to qualify: (tending to show that I don't place too much value on the idea) Just an indisputable truth. (Which you'll dispute anyway.) Clearly, I was still speaking in the context of assembling a working music collection to be enjoyed by the owner aurally. Putting physical constraints on a collection that is for LISTENING to is throttling it.
Yeah. There was a caveat there! (my bold). That's the whole point!
(I really see no purpose in finding arguments against what another poster says just for the sake of it).
"i could potentially collect things simply for investment reasons but to which i have little interest in the items, but i don't as the items don't interest me"
- Yes. This is what I would describe as vapid but like the rest of us here who enjoy music, you buy it to listen to and I assume you have a passion for it. I know I do. Many of us have bought a 'double' or two or sold things for a profit but we don't decide not to buy a good tune because it is only available on black wax.
These guys who collect coloured vinyl - if they buy anything they can get there hands on that is coloured and that is the impression I got - well, they must have a lot of crap (subjective) that they don't like! Plus, if someone sells anything in their collection (the profit aspect you've discussed), unless they have at least two copies, they are diminishing their collection because surely collecting is specifically about amassing rather than just buying and appreciating.
so they have a point
not really. that's just generalising again. some will buy for the colour, others will have other reasons. some material may only be available on coloured vinyl, so people buy it for the music
see the generalising comment above
and why it was pointed out as wrong. even after an explanation you still don't understand it and generalise again. you can buy to enjoy and make a profit. people don't just fit everything into pidgeon holes
which is why I don't generalise about things
so when you don't generalise you can see a number of options
it is the music BUSINESS. the main reason for most businesses is to make a profit
but it doesn't qualify anything as you simply generalised too much. it seemed you were too interested in making demeaning comments about the collector to care about much else
but you don't know the guy, you don't know if he listens to it or not, and you don't know what else he has in his collection. someone could collect smurf records and still have a great overall collection, but you might just be blinded by the idea of smurf records
it sounds like you don't understand the meaning of the word vapid
but as I said before, you don't know them or what they like or what they do with it or what else they have. you've simply drawn a conclusion about someone you don't know based on a tiny bit of info. think bigger
I think you might be generalising here. (Although, allegedly you don't!) I dismissed the collection's MUSICAL MERIT because it was not assembled based on the MUSIC it contains. I haven't demeaned any person.
It seems to me that you are not prepared to entertain any statement written on here by others if you see some way of dismissing it, no matter how inessential or redundant that reply actually may be.
Yes, this is true at least. They may have other records. If they do and they were bought on musical appeal rather than a physical characteristic, then this would have more relevance as a music collection i.e. one for aural rather than visual appreciation than what the page presents. If they only have what has been presented to us, then what I've already written is a fair summary of the situation. You don't enjoy turn up a track on the radio because it looks nice.
yes it is generalising. and whilst you think it's safe to draw that conclusion based on a photo with a tiny description. i disagree.
however your original post said "1. collect coloured vinyl. If the only reason you buy a record is because it is on coloure vinyl then it's a pointless exercise. (I bet I've a few coloured vinyl 7" they don't have but I bought them for the music)" - but it's not pointless as i've pointed out. the guy enjoys it. it's not pointless doing something if you enjoy it.
how can i be generalising when i'm specifically referring to your comments, and your comments alone, and stating how they come across to me?
i'm also not the only one who thinks your posts were demeaning to that person
wrong
that's only your opinion. who is to say why one collection should have more relevance than another? he has a large collection of music, and whilst on the face of things from seeing a photo and a single line description it may appear odd to you what he has done, the act of simply collecting material in such a way results in him having a varied and diverse music collection of many styles. he is likely to have a better record collection than many if not most of the regular posters on this site, and possibly a better collection than you.
now you've went on a fair bit about this guy, but did you spend a single second looking for further information about this person before you made the last post? as you will find out some more interesting information about him that could change your views on him and you'll see why you shouldn't simply generalise and make such comments based on a single picture. to do so on almost anything will often lead you to coming to the wrong conclusion
There are all sorts of reasons why people collect things and people have been collecting things since forever. Collecting recorded music artefacts has only been possible in the age of mechanical reproduction which adds to the things we can collect.
The main reason we collect is emotional. That emotional connection is generally with the music but not always. It might be a desire to relive the past, a desire to have that obscure object of desire that no one else, a desire to invest, and so on an so on.
Many of these collectors are curators of the past, both their own past listening and the history of recorded music. They may be collecting to pass on their collections to museums or family. Or they may be hoarders who haven't thought this through.
You could read the photos as representations of obsessive passion or consumerism gone crazy!
If you frequent more record-oriented music forums it's also evident that many people do collect records for aesthetic reasons. It might seem obsessive, but they enjoy comparing the sound quality on an original pressing with a remaster, or a US version with a Japanese one, and so on. So I'm not sure it's entirely an emotional thing; there's a fascination with the experience of listening to recorded music that is maybe closer to the philosophical study of aesthetics. Why does this album sound better than that one, even though this one is scratched?
so I think it's a lot more than simply collecting to enjoy or the emotion, but emotion is a psychological thing
I know some collectors who will collect every pressing of works of certain artists, so if an album comes out across the world they want the uk, us, Chinese, Russian, French, Germany, etc etc etc versions, and likewise reissues and repressings, and it's for the purpose of simply having it as opposed to comparing sound quality, although others will collect pressings to compare the sound. collecting obsessively like that must have more to do psychologically than simple emotion. but it's what they want to do and it doesn't harm nobody so why bother about what other people do. I have my reasons for collecting and they have theirs. collecting would be a lot harder if they all shared the same vision
It's nice to hear aesthetics get a mention. I would extend the aesthetics of the music here beyond reflections on the quality of the recorded sound but to the quality of the composition and the performance as well. It is surely one of the joys of recorded music that you can compare versions of great works through time?
This is a collection of coloured vinyl. The largest in the world.
You disagree about it being safe to conclude that the largest collection of coloured vinyl in the world came about through the owners deliberately buying if based on its pigmentation.
Well, it seems to me that if it didn't, the only other way it could have happened is that these guys have bought out entire warehouses of records (which, of course does happen), causing them to have one of the largest privately owned record collections, period.
Now if this IS the case, there is all likelyhood that the article would state the size of the ENTIRE collection as THAT would be wholly relevant to as a cited example on the subject of huge collections!
After all, IF this were the scenario, they would also be likely to have vast numbers of picture discs, shaped picture discs, 10" singles or many other physical subsets of vinyl in general that are slightly uncommon.
To enjoy all of the music on all of the coloured vinyl you even finds requires no critical discernment. It is the same as liking any and all music or fiction or anything else. It just doesn't happen.
I say you are generalising because you've decided that because I call a (music) collection assembled on the basis of appearance 'vapid' then that means I'm (too) "interested in making demeaning comments about the collector to care about much else". I'll say it again: I didn't demean anyone. I dismissed a collection's musical value because it was obviously assembled based on its visual characteristics rather that its musical content. You even say that someone else thinks my posts were demeaning to the collector. Unless you've phoned up the owners to alert them that someone on a forum is unimpressed (and I doubt they care) I can only assume you attempting to attribute this meaning to glyn9799's post.
I would be interested to see a list of various people's music collections because of who they are, to see what they like, what they have what they don't have, to think what they might like that I have etc. but i would have no interest in reading a list of coloured vinyl because it's incidental, sterile, souless, nothing to do with music.
Now this statement of mine - "It seems to me that you are not prepared to entertain any statement written on here by others if you see ome way of dismissing it, no matter how inessential or redundant that reply actually may be." - I honestly was amused but unsurprised when you replied with 'wrong'.
haven't made any ridiculous claims on this thread - I claim that the world's largest collection of coloured vinyl has been assembled deliberately, rather than by accident and that while it may relevant as a collection of artifacts and due to its size, it cannot show the knowledge of genre/s or the taste of the owner/s because it was not assembled for the love of the music. You're happy to argue ad infinitum but present no alternative reason why someone may end up with the largest coloured vinyl record collection. This is why I would conclude that you are arguing for the sake of arguing and made the statement I've just quoted above.
i've never said that nor the opposite. now you are jumping to conclusions
well it seems to me that you don't think very open mindedly. there are a number of ways he could have done it. collecting 1500 coloured vinyls over 30 years is 50 records a year, or less than 1 per week. easily done in addition to collecting other music. it's an old guy, he's been collecting for decades.
again jumping to conclusions. you obviously have little experience in dealing with media interviews. they will focus one one thing at times and ignore the rest to make a story, editing and changing comments to suit the story. just because something isn't said doesn't mean it's true or false
that's true. the guy has written a book on extraordinary vinyl. just because the photo and tiny bit of text doesn't mention it, doesn't mean he doesn't have these things
who says he enjoys all the music? more jumping to conclusions? he may enjoy his collection as a collection, and enjoy some of the music a lot, some a little, and not like some of it. the article doesn't enter into this
well have a look in the dictionary and see what generalising means and you'll maybe understand
that collection belongs to someone proud of the collection, so by demeaning the collection in turn you demean the owner. and again you have jumped to a conclusion about the collection without knowing much information about it.
if i said your house was a mess, wouldn't you find that demeaning? can you now see why what you said was demeaning?
you can make a demeaning comment about someone without that person knowing about it
well that's your opinion. however it being nothing to do with music is a false statement
who said your claim was ridiculous? the parts you state as if they were facts have been pointed out as incorrect. but nothing has been claimed as ridiculous. you have made demeaning comments about the chap in addition to this, and those are the reasons for my posts, pointing out that his collection is far from pointless and vapid as you say, and pointing out reasons why that is not the case. in return you've just argued about it. have you even looked up the guy yet to find out more about him?
Actually you will find that emotion is quite a complex concept in psychology because it is often associated with physiological activity. But one clear notion about emotion in psychology is that emotion is an influential force in motivation and that is the relevance to the present subject of recorded music collections.
The other interesting aspect of this are the collections themselves. In time and I mean long stretches of time (e.g. 500 years from now) these collections may end up in museums and what will they say about the early years of recorded music?
I didn't mean emotion was simple. to reword, I could have said "emotion alone"
I think museums of the future are going to be very different to now. we may not even have the same concept of museums being a place to visit, it may all be online or something else entirely. now we look at stuff from hundreds or thousands of years ago and think of a broken axe and imagine what they may have done with it. in 500 years time, looking back on now they will have the full multimedia experience of videos and photos and audio to actually see what people did with stuff, with the past 100 years reasonably well documented in audio visual material. no looking back at ancient text and guessing what someone meant thousands of years ago
"The collection I mentioned is ONE SPECIFIC COLLECTION. The largest collection of coloured vinyl. I think it's fairly safe to conclude why THEY bought THOSE items."
"A collection that isn't even assembled for the musical pleasure of the buyer is rather vapid. "
(Meaning - again as I've made clear - in the CONTEXT of a MUSIC collection and not as a collection of artifacts). Again (as I've already stated): "it cannot show the knowledge of genre/s or the taste of the owner/s because it was not assembled for the love of the music" .
Apparently 'unique' feels that due to these opinions, I "don't think very open mindedly". Well I'm sure that quite often I don't. Oddly enough however, upon watching a clip of the collector discussing his collection, my suspicions are confirmed and I wasn't wrong at all:
http://vimeo.com/3057254
The older man is his father. The collector is not that old. "Alessandro Benedetti (Italy) has collected 1,507 different coloured vinyl records, as of 9 March 2010. His collection is made up of 1,302 LP's (998 coloured and 158 with pictures), 321 singles (304 coloured, 17 with pictures) and 30 in unusual shapes."
I am astounded that the collection is as small as this, while still managing to be a world record.
There are some posters on this site who could possibly employ their time better than by stretching threads out by going around and around in loops with pointless dissection and disagreement with practically everything other posters say, suggesting they need dictionaries and claiming that other people agree with them (on the subject of being 'demeaning') when no one else has actually said so!
However I'm still wrong and shall remain so and for this reason: a collection of records contains music, so will always, by default have something to do with music. The owner bought them because he likes their pretty colours, he doesn't know what they sound like, they say nothing about his musical taste or knowledge so despite how vapid I find it as a music collection it is still a music collection. Of course, an ornamental collection of cut glass jugs and vases and bowls could be seen as a collection of vessels because you could pour some milk into them. Even though you won't. But you could. Though you won't. But you could. Though you won't. But you could. Though you won't.
even if you have to add all this extra stuff, it doesn't make his collection pointless or vapid as you said before
how old is he? he looks at least 50 to 60 to me. is that what you call young? his father looks about 80 to 90
I'm not. as I mentioned before, for someone of his age to collect that many records and keep on buying other records isn't that hard to do over time
but again you are jumping to conclusions based on a picture. you don't know why he bought those records, or if he knows what they sound like or not. he may have a number of reasons for buying them depending on each particular record bought
Fair enough.
Somebody might want to preserve a turntable or two to play the vinyl on.
1.5 million vinyl singles
over 1 million vinyl albums
over 300,000 cd's
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SwXayHbUQ2o
theres no right or wrong here, just two differing opinions both of equal merrit.