Editorial: Is Vinyl Killing The Mp3 Industry?

...or does it?

About a year ago, after purchasing and assembling a rather large, wall-sized CD storage rack, I posted a photo of this behemoth on Facebook. The first comment on that post was something along the line of how much simpler it was to have the same amount of music stored digitally on an external hard drive the size of a hardcover book. (An ironic analogy, I thought.) I have found that this is a widely held opinion these days, although I would caution digital media fans to back up their hard drives. If you've ever had a hard drive crash on you, taking all of your stuff down with it, then you understand that pain. This is a primary reason why I prefer having hard copy CD's and vinyl records, but there's much more to it than that.

Please understand, I like the convenience of digital media. I'm the kid who used to head over to his friends' house with 20 record albums stuffed under each arm. Being able to fit 5 times that much music (with room to spare) into a device that fits in my shirt pocket, that can sound as good if not better than my old records, is pretty darn slick. As vinyl collectors know, any respectable record collection can weigh a ton. In the early 90's, when my wife and I moved from a rented townhome into our first proper house, my record collection numbered around 4000, and it was boxed up in groups of about 50-70 albums per box. After the moving guys had schlepped all the furniture, and an upright piano, they started on the records. You'd have thought they were going to die. As with anything else, it's not the weight that gets you, it's the reps. So yes, digital media definitely has the advantage there.

Nonetheless, I have to wonder if one format is truly better than others, or are they all just different, equally valid options? Overall, I am finding that the answer is entirely subjective. As it has been during any period of multiple home audio formats, there are several choices, and which is best depends on your own perspective of what is right for you. So let's have a brief look at the past for some perspective on how we got to the way things are now.

In the 70's, we had turntables, reel-to-reel tape, cassettes, and the popular but clunky 8 track cartridge. No audiophile of that time whose opinion was worth his Stereo Review subscription would have said that the 8 track was the best home listening format; nor would that same person have had a turntable or reel-to-reel deck in his car. They all had their purpose, but vinyl records were still the primary format back then, despite their size, weight, and the necessity of being careful when handling them, not that everyone did that.

I done been hyp-mo-tized!

When compact discs arrived in the mid-80's, they were revolutionary in many ways. They certainly weighed a lot less. The all-too-familiar pops, crackles and skips of vinyl were gone. They didn't warp and you didn't have to be quite as careful with them. But above all, they were shiny. We liked the shiny. We liked it so much that we didn't see behind the curtain. Through the compact disc, the record industry was able to persuade most of us to replace our record collections en masse, despite the average retail price of $18-20 per disc. They advanced this by reducing the number of vinyl pressings made, and retooling their pressing facilities for CD's. Many private record pressers who couldn't afford to adapt their operation closed their doors. Records were expeditiously evicted from stores, as browsing racks were quickly rehabbed for CD longboxes. (Remember them?) The big music corporations also saved millions on the backside by greatly reducing shipping expenses due to weight, and by slashing returns losses for defective vinyl.

It took some time before the concept of using better masters for CD's took hold, as our ears were used to the subpar sonics that the often terrible record pressings of the 70's provided. For the rest of the 80's, it was a full speed "find a master and call the plant" production schedule, regardless of the sonic quality of the master that was used, hence the notoriously poor sound of the first edition CD's of classic albums like "Abraxas" by Santana, Rod Stewart's "Every Picture Tells A Story", Jethro Tull's "Aqualung", and several others. Most of these CD's were made from multi-generational copies of copies that suffered from muffled highs, excessive compression, distortion, and other maladies that weren't corrected until the arrival of the Mobile Fidelity Gold editions. Only then did the notion of improving sound for CD release occur, as the technology now allowed for it, and customers began to make their demand for it known.

A tube amplifier by CAV Audio. Righteous.

One thing that has certainly changed is the way people listen to music. Our attention span as a society is not what it once was. Truthfully, it's been in decline since Americans got used to having the radio in their lives. Many of us use music or the TV as background noise in our homes, and that's fine. What I'm talking about is a decline of participatory listening for the pure enjoyment of the music, and for the quality of its sound.

I believe that the portability and convenience of digital music lends itself to an effortless disengagement by the audience. Furthermore, I contend that the advent of the intangible digital file has contributed greatly to a perceptional devaluation of music by the lay public, both as an art form, and monetarily, depriving music of the attention and value it deserves. They can't hold onto it. It's a download, so what's it worth? A buck? They'd rather talk than listen. It pains me when live music that is intended to be listened to is loudly talked over in public places, although alcohol often plays a starring role in that behavior. It's not new, but it seems to have become worse over the last couple of decades.

Webster's defines the word 'listen' as "to pay attention to someone or something in order to hear what is being said, sung, played, etc." Therefore, true concentrated listening is an active, yet submissive event. Formats like vinyl and reel-to-reel tape require some preparation for the listening experience. There's a ritual of sorts that goes with having a good amplifier and the smell of the tubes heating up; the careful handling and cleaning process to remove dust from the record, and once that's done, the anticipation of the slow needle drop. After all that comes the best part: the active engagement and immersion in the sound of the music.

This is why some say that listening to music on vinyl is an experience that can't be matched by simply pushing an instant play button on a digital device. Vinyl is perfect in all of its imperfections. For many reasons that are still unfolding, records are being manufactured again in numbers that grow each year. Pressing plants worldwide are overbooked, new ones are opening, and the records themselves are of far better quality than ever before. My personal opinion is that while vinyl is an excellent format for many genres of music, it does not suit all of them. I've found that Jazz on the Blue Note and Impulse labels, Chess Blues, Folk, Americana and Acoustic music in general, along with most Classic Rock seems to fare the best on vinyl. Anything electronically oriented or generated, not so much. This can be anything from Emerson Lake & Palmer to Nine Inch Nails to Daft Punk. I can enjoy the music of those bands, but I prefer them on CD. It's just a better fit.

I contend that one of the main reasons for the resurrection of vinyl is that it's something of a backlash against the Mp3. There's a sound quality issue, yes, but I also believe that there is a strong desire for something tangible. Music is kind of 'in the air' anyway, isn't it? It's just sound; a composed idea, invisible and weightless. To further that by having all of your music collection stored in an ethereal "cloud" only distances you from your music. We need to have a way to store this fragile thing for convenient reference when we want to hear it again, and to hold it in our hands. The listening experience is also enhanced by having a cover designed with intriguing artwork, photos, song lyrics, and various other enclosed items that can be as exciting and entertaining as the music itself. Besides, should I be fortunate enough to somehow meet the performer of a recorded work, I cannot ask them if they would please sign my download.

I want this shirt.

Records and CD's also provide a way for the writers and performers to get paid for their creative work. Terrific advancements have been made in the digital arena for musicians to sell their own downloads, and I think that's great. It's not just convenient, but it helps keep production costs for the artist in check.

An ugly concept that surfaced during the 90's heyday of peer-to-peer download services like Napster and Limewire is the false and dangerous perception that music should be free art for the public to consume at will, without compensating artists for their work. This is hurtful and destructive, as it causes grave injury and insult to independent artists who depend on their work being purchased, just so they can make an honest living at their craft.

When I say honest living, I'm talking about making enough to cover normal living expenses, and being able to self-finance recording and touring, because there is no old-model record company that is able or willing to back them anymore. Make no mistake, the old ways of rock star royalty making millions off of record sales that keep them in bathtubs full of cocaine are long gone. The days of cushy development deals are gone. The corporations want a sure-fire hit right now, and more for later. There are many big name, legacy artists who wouldn't have a snowball's chance on a gas grille of getting a deal with a major label if they were a new artist today, because their music, fan base, and sales were developed through several album releases over time. This simply does not happen anymore. Recording, touring, and just living is expensive these days, and all those costs come out of the artist's pocket first, which has to be made back before any profit is realised. Thankfully, crowdfunding websites are making things easier, but it's still a tough go. Face it, no one goes into any business just to break even.

To those who download without buying, I say this. You're not "stickin' it to the man" by downloading free music. You're stickin' it to the artist whose work you claim to love so much. Why would it make sense for them to continue to sweat their guts out and hamstring their finances creating more music that you're just gonna steal from them? Don't tell me they'll make it up in merchandise and ticket sales. That's a lie. Theft is theft, no matter what column on the spreadsheet it comes from. If you like what they do, buy the music. Besides, the torrent sites are infested with viruses and bugware.

In closing, a quick anecdote about stealing from artists. I once knew a guy who was dumb enough to ask the bassist for The Replacements if he would autograph a record. That's fine, but it was a bootleg! The bassist took a black Sharpie and wrote F**K YOU!! in giant bold letters across the entire cover, then cussed the guy out for buying bootlegs instead of a t-shirt or one of their legit albums. I don't blame him a bit.