#81

stunning work

1 Like
#82

I always really loved the first Graham Coxon CD case which was cardboard foldover but spindle thing to hold the CD was a sort of soft foam disc. Basically it meant it was securely held but it was very nice and easy to remove to play.

I have a lot of love for CDs but really they’re fairly impractical for me now. I have been buying vinyl recently and I like it but I think it’s only really for certain albums. Certainly Bandcamp is my go-to now after my local record shop for buying things.

#83

I’ve bought a few of the classic album boxsets recently - Coltrane, Davis, Simone, Holliday, Jimmy Smith, Monk, Herbie Hancock. They’re reproductions of the original album sleeves (completely with tiny writing too small to actually read) in very thin cardboard. It works out at a couple of quid per album and the sound quality is pretty good and they really are five star classic albums. I think they’re great. They don’t take up much room and I’ve got about 40 or so classic albums for less than a hundred quid. My mate has most of them on vinyl and they probably cost him £800.

9 Likes
#84

Coldplay trying to revive the cd single.

Feel like cd singles haven’t been a thing for at least 10 years but I never took much notice so maybe they hung around?

Given the trend for insane 7” prices this seems like a reasonable cost tbh. Obviously putting aside the actual music.

#85

Haven’t bought a chart single in 20 years(!) or so but think they went for about £3.99 then. So this seems cheap comparatively. (Ok, I’ll admit that I looked on an inflation calculator and a cd single from 2001 would cost £6.77 in todays money).

#86

Yeah I never bought many but when I had a clear out a few years ago I had a few early Bjork singles so 20+ years ago. Used to be £1.99 on promo then jump to £3.99 or even £4.49 I think, which felt like a stupid amount back then tbh.

1 Like
#87

I still buy cds

Mainly second hand 90s and 00s type stuff for very little. Plus the occasional new album if vinyl is out of stock or I think it’s too expensive

I love buying second hand 60s/ 70s/ 80s vinyl -but once you get into the CD era proper I prefer to have the CD. It would feel weird to me to listen to Different Class or Dummy on vinyl - if I imagine those records I see a CD :grinning:

#88

There’s definitely an argument that you should get things that were recorded with vinyl in mind on vinyl (i.e. anything pre about 1990 and most modern alternative music) but that it’s a bit silly buying stuff that was plainly always intended for CD on vinyl. Personally if I already have something on CD I wouldn’t buy the vinyl unless it was a pre-1990 recording.

2 Likes
#89

Yeah this is me more or less

1 Like
#90

I bought this on vinyl at the time, as I’d just generally buy whatever was cheaper, and the vinyl sounds so crap that I barely listened to it. I’m guessing it had been mastered for cd or something. It just never sounded decent.

1 Like
#91

Oh my god this reminds me of when the Guardian asked readers to contribute their reviews of their favourite Pulp album like 10 years ago. So I submitted one on His N Hers and it got published, and I’d only ever listened to it on CD/stream where Babies is track 5 I think, and that’s my favourite Pulp song so of course I mentioned it. Someone in the comments kicked off because apparently it was never on the vinyl copy of the album which was the ‘true version’ of the record! Urgh. It was released in 1993 dipshit, also any version of His N Hers without Babies is an inferior version. (Also also the Gift Recording version is much weedier than the HnH version)

CDs fo lyf

12 Likes
#92

I bought Disintegration on vinyl when it came out. That sounds absolutely appalling. It was all about pushing CDs at that time and the industry didn’t give a damn about the quality of vinyl pressings. An hour of music on a single piece of vinyl so thin that you can almost see through it? That’ll be fine.

#93

Different class was the 1st CD I bought (along with Revolver)

1 Like
#94

Relevant for this thread

5 Likes
#95

Haha brilliant.

1 Like
#96

Disintegration was the one with that ‘designed to be played loud’ note on the sleeve wasn’t it? Dunno what that actually means re: production

1 Like
#97

I didn’t realise Disintegration had 2 extra tracks on the cd until it was mentioned on here really recently!

That along with 3 feet high and rising - 59 minutes on a single disc, just jumps out of the grooves - I think are the worst sounding records I own. Pulp always annoyed me as it’s not long and the other stuff I was buying at the time - indie stuff like Elastica and the Boo Radleys or electronica like Aphex, Orbital etc all sounded fine.

#98

I think the commenter would have a bit of a point where songs have been added to albums after the event (like This Charming Man being added to the first Smiths album) but with His ‘n’ Hers the CD (with Babies) was issued at the same time as the vinyl (without) so neither version is more ‘original’ or ‘genuine’ than the other. I bought the vinyl at the time so never think of Babies being on it, but I wouldn’t be a dick about it.

2 Likes
#99

Disintegration was a real piss take, because they could have released the whole thing as a perfectly respectable 72 minute long double album but instead lopped off two tracks and released an awful sounding 58 minute long single album.

At the time the industry was pushing CDs hard and they actively wanted to discourage people from buying the vinyl.

You’re right to point to Three Feet High and Rising as another example, I dug my copy of that out the other day by chance and was surprised at how awful it sounded.

1 Like
#100

I think that De La Soul album just sounds a bit bad full stop due to the mastering, from what I’ve read on hip hop nerd forums anyway. Dunno. Most of this shit is lost on me. I could be wrong, but I think Prince Paul touches on this on the What Had Happened Was podcast.

1 Like