Honestly, why would anyone want forty thousand songs in their pocket?

Another one of those threads that really encapsulates what some of us find frustrating about this forum. "Why would I want to have access to more music when I could have access to less?"

 

Being afforded the choice to listen to whatever I want when I'm not at home just like when I am home. Not sure what the issue is.

 

I carry large number of music on my mp3 player and android phone, but the maín bulk of this music is music I have not heard before, or new finds which I have not yet had the time to listen to properly. The mobility provides the opportunity to discover and pursue music I haven't heard or listen to before.

I see no point really to rip all the Stones or Beatles albums and carry them with me all the time. Carry music to evoke mementos from childhood, first date and whatnot seem to be waste. I can indulge in old memories occasionally at home.
Hearing an old song by chance in a bar or on the radio, which triggers a memory is another thing.

Being interested in music, means to me: I have already too many records, but there is always something to "new" discover the next time I go online to this forum, go record shopping, or ride a taxi in Omaha or Tokyo.

One just have to keep listening....


(and use Sound Hound to identify the songs)

 

The silliest thing I've ever read here, and I was here for the guy showing waveforms to the music store clerk.

 

One of my favorite live albums.
I used to think it was cool to have 20,000 songs at my fingertips. I found that having too much of a selection made it hard for me to decide what to listen to, so I then started making playlists-many, many playlists. So many that I had a tough time deciding what playlist to load. I've since gravitated to using my phone as a player (with PowerAmp, best 4 bucks I ever spent), which has a much smaller and, therefore, much more essential selection.

 

I listen to the Monkees, so ... that sounds about right!

 

What exactly is "frustrating" about this thread? People who like big portable collections (a decisive majority) are explaining why, and other people are explaining their misgivings about it. Interesting insights all around and different strokes for different folks. I'm not seeing a single pernicious thing about this discussion. Having qualms about digital overload is not a thoughtcrime, nor is loving your massive iPod stash.

 

I don't agree with the OP that I would like us to go back to the days when it was very difficult to get music. It's a magical world right now with spotify, youtube, easy digital purchases, discogs/amazon/ebay to order almost anything you can imagine, no matter how rare.

There's a sense that in my own experience, I am rarely developing any kind of relationship with an album or artists because I am constantly switching to something "new" instead of absorbing what I have. Plus I know that my brother, who has long collected rare CDs, has sometimes lamented the fact that without the thrill of the hunt, getting that special album loses some of its lustre.

But those are simply issues that arise as time moves on. It's up to me to make the effort to focus on an album or an artist instead of simply driving myself to acquire more and more and more - to what end? I wouldn't want to deprive myself or the world of the selection and convenience, just because I can't control my own musical ADD.

 

Agreed. It's a reasonable and thought-provoking discussion. (not always something we get here when talking about formats, which is essentially what the thread boils down to)

 

But in a forum where you routinely read that . . .

* little worthwhile music has been made since they were in high school
* the past was better, musically speaking, than the present
* reissues of old music are more important than new music
* seeking out the "perfect sound" by hoarding multiple copies of single albums is as rewarding a pursuit as hearing new music

. . . this kind of thread strikes a different note.

 

the answer to the thread question is - the same reason they'd want to spend many hours mesmerized by staring at a little tiny screen on their iPhone.

 

What's "frustrating" to me is the premise; if this were really a neutral thread about small vs. large music collections it might be titled something along the lines of "Do you like having 40,000 songs in your pocket?" rather than "Honestly, why would anyone want forty thousand songs in their pocket?" which takes a(n) (albeit mildly) combative stance, one which, if we're all being honest here, is more prevalent here than in the "real world". We're going into this discussion with a declared viewpoint in a non-neutral background to start, so there's bound to be pushback.

The well-written essay you excerpt above makes the case for a smaller collection partly as an identifier of your personal tastes/values. Good for you if that's your thing. It used to be mine, but I've grown older and am now less interested in identity politics and am more interested in "hey, I'd really like to hear that XTC B-Side right now...Yay, it's on my phone!" As you say, it's no thoughtcrime to think either way, but to have someone immediately dismiss one valid viewpoint from the start is a bit irksome.

 

Taking a provocative Oxford Union debate-style proposition and conversation starter as irksome and dismissive is a category error.

 

Why? I didn't realize we were adhering to a set of debate rules here. Besides, I was irked. Hence, irksome.

 

It's a better title than "Do you like. . .?" even if a bit combative, because it can't be answered Yes or No.

 

True, it takes at least a "why not?".

 

And if you listen to Classical music, all that space is really meaningful. My I-Pod has five different versions of Schubert's Ninth Symphony. I've played them all on the I-Pod more than once, my favorite 'walking music.' I do data entry for a living. Having so much potential for variety—Bruckner Symphonies, Beethoven Symphonies, fifty hours of Baroque music, the Beatles catalog, the Rosanne Cash catalog, a five hour big-band compilation—helps make my kind of work survivable.

 

Since I was about 14 or 15, I wanted to listen to my choice of music, rather than what was programmed on the radio. That led to cases of 8-tracks, cassettes, CDs and minidiscs - anything I could use to free myself from the bonds of the radio. With a 160Gb iPod in my pocket, I have a comfortable assurance that I'll never have to listen to "More Than a Feeling" again. Having more songs to choose from doesn't render me incapable of making any choice at all, or lessen my enjoyment of a single song or album.

 

Agree. Some people here seem to have this attitude that you must EARN your listening enjoyment. If you've not had to work to play a song, it's not worthwhile.

Which I don't get. Some appear to feel vinyl is superior to CD partly because it requires more work to play. Some feel if you don't listen to an entire album the whole way through every time, you're shortchanging the artist.

I disagree with both of those notions and others that connote "special status" to listeners because they allegedly had to work harder to listen...

 

I had to walk 9 miles in the snow barefoot to get to the music store and it was uphill both ways, and my arms got tired cranking the phonograph, but I liked it!

 

Yes, but I have gotten away from listening to my favorites. I actually mentioned the Joe Walsh album because it has been off my radar for so long.

What I mean by favorites is, I can get through a week or a month or whatever by not hearing any of those major artists and their major albums. I can get by by not hearing some playlist that features songs i really do like and am not tired of yet. So of course Who, Stones, Floyd, Dylan, Waters, and tons of others can be put aside for the time being, so can other music I know and love. But give me an album that I have not really listened to at all, maybe John Prine, or Bruce Cocburn, or a live set that fell through the cracks (Walsh), or a Dolly Pardon album with few hits if any. Something really out of left field. A very out of print country or folk album might do.

Those kinds of musical requests, me demanding first rate song writing, five star performances, wonderful recording quality, stellar production, is going to require some 400,000 tunes all loaded up and tagged correctly. Previously made playlists are not at all what I am talking about. Nor am I speaking of itunes pitching me bands and artists based on what it thinks I like from previous listening. I mean really great stuff pulled up out of thin air, and not previously heard by me. How about a stellar John Fahey album on that drive up to the lake next weekend?

 

Why? If you lived through the days of cassettes and cds in cars, the answer would be obvious. The answer is because we have ever shifting moods. Variations and shades that somehow psychologically calls for music that fits that certain emotional time and space. I think all of us have experienced picking an album only to realized "Naw, I don't want to hear that now" when some uptempo song came on and you're feeling a little blue. I used to keep a shoe box with thirty cassettes in my car. And then a CD folder with 80 CDs in it. And before you set out to drive and looked for something to listen to YOU NEVER HAD THE MUSIC YOU "CRAVED" AT THAT MOMENT. I would pull out tape after tape, picking them up and chucking them aside: "Nope....nope....nope.... nope...." or flip through that folder of CDSs "Not that one....not that one... not that one...." You never seemed to have the right CD or cassette with you for THAT moment. I don't know why exactly. Half the time you were just tired of the selection you carried with you, I think that's a large part of it. But there's also the mood-of-the-moment thing. And that is why having 40,000 songs in your pocket works!

 

To my mind, my iPod is exactly like the series of Walkmans I had in high school and college, only with better fidelity and much longer battery life, and iTunes is exactly like the suitcase of mixtapes I kept in my locker, only theoretically infinite. It's portable music that I can listen to as I'm walking, driving, on the subway or otherwise doing stuff, either by listening to whole albums, on shuffle or using playlists that I've curated for various moods or activities.

On the other hand, this morning I sat in the living room looking out the window at the rain and listened to the new LPs by the John Steel Singers, John Southworth and Caribou in their respective entireties.

Two different listening styles, two different circumstances. Doing one doesn't mean I can't do the other.

 

It's not as cut and dried as you would like. It really depends on the artist, the art, etc. Some works are meant to be played from beginning to end. Others are fine in bit and pieces. It's not the listener imo, its the works (of art) that get "special status" in my collection. Not so black and white.

But I do agree that one need not work to play a song. Sometimes work is required to appreciated it fully, but not to simply play it.

 

Such a stellar work, worth having five recordings of. I need to get the old the Karl Bohm, Berlin Philharmonic version on DG on my music server, as I only have the LP. Been meaning to go back to that, thanks for reminder.