"Did The Music Business Just Kill the Vinyl Revival?"

[humprof]

Smart stuff from Ted Gioia. (Spoiler: it's a rhetorical question.) Several of his conclusions could be applied to other corners of the music business, too--and/or to the industry at large. For instance: "For my part, I have zero confidence in the people who made this mess in the first place. Nothing will get fixed until they’re replaced by visionaries who can actually lead the music business in the right direction."
https://tedgioia.substack.com/p/did-the-music-business-just-kill

 

[kap'n krunch]

yup, Ted is a Guru, love the Barnes & Noble story, which is mentioned on the article ...
https://tedgioia.substack.com/p/wha...rnes-and?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email

 

[4-earredwonder]

Smart stuff from Ted Gioia. (Spoiler: it's a rhetorical question.) Several of his conclusions could be applied to other corners of the music business, too--and/or to the industry at large. For instance: "For my part, I have zero confidence in the people who made this mess in the first place. Nothing will get fixed until they’re replaced by visionaries who can actually lead the music business in the right direction."
https://tedgioia.substack.com/p/did-the-music-business-just-kill

“In the year 2023, even bowling alleys, bordellos, and bookies are more tech savvy than the major record labels.”​

A great observation, IMO.

Admittedly, I WAS a vinyl 'junkie' back in the day but because of you know what, SUBSTANDARD pressings, especially when listening to classical and jazz, sought the alternatives: Open Reel [WAAYYY too little software...especially QUAD, cassettes [1 7/8 ips ....GIVE ME A BREAK]....and when the Compact disc was announced with the promise of PERFECT SOUND FOREVER, I jumped on the bandwagon only to discover .... the hype was woefully PREMATURE!

I even surmised in another thread on QQ forum that the amount of time, energy and uber expense lavished on the LOWLY cassette format would have been better spent making the COMPACT DISC more agreeable right out of the gate instead of 16 bit, 44.1kHz oversampling [why not at least 20 bit with a HIGHER oversampling rate???????]

And does vinyl REALLY sound better than digital ....... especially through a receiver with its minimalist phono section??????

Yeah, if you want to spend megabucks on a Turntable, tonearm, cartridge, add a step up phono transformer and choose a pre amp OTHER THAN THAT OF A RECEIVER ..... maybe, yes .... but NOT quite if the vinyl record is in any way compromised with inclusions [ticks, pops, swishes, etc.] Because REAL music doesn't include any of the above, especially during quiet passages ...... and then there might be 'rumble ...' and reduced bass output when the phono cartridge nears the disc's center ..... all vinyl bugaboos which simply are not part of the master tapes.

And here it is .... 2023 ..... when the powers that be have state of the art digital tools at their disposal ...... and finally, SURROUND has make somewhat of a resurgence ...... and we're still being fed LOSSY CODECS [Dolby Digital/DTS] and while some praise the existence of a surround title even with those lossy codecs....my question remains WHY?

WHY not go the extra mile and make it sound truly HIGH FI or master tape worthy by including LOSSLESS instead of LOSSY. It has been pointed out many times that even the use of LPCM 5.1 which does not incur a royalty fee, IMO, sounds a hell of a lot better than 1990's DD and DTS!

Are we at a crossroads? And the article pointed out that Joe Q. Public is spending a lot more on OLDER MUSIC versus NEW ...and why is THAT?
Perhaps because older music is SUPERIOR [60's, 70's and 80's ......] and the new music, although admittedly some is exceptional ... just doesn't have that nostaglic vibe .... those classic 'hooks' nor the bravura of what real music should sound like .......

Which brings me to another point .... over the years many of us have invested in MULTIPLE versions of classic albums in every conceivable format so when we pluck our hard earned bucks down ONCE AGAIN for the very same music ..... it should finally engender ALL that is on those ancient master analogue tapes .... and not in SUBSTANDARD form ....The technology is certainly there as are the tools to make it happen .....

But the history of the major record companies can be summed up in one word ..... GREED ......Charge 'em MORE and give 'em LESS!

So it really is up to us if we want to 'invest' once again in sound recordings that either give us what we REALLY WANT .... the FULL MONTY or more of the same ...LOSSY codecs compressed RBCDs and/or scratchy vinyl replications.

But unfortunately [again] that old adage "ASK ... AND YOU SHALL RECEIVE" does not apply to the Major Record Labels even in 2023!

 

[jamesc]

Smart stuff from Ted Gioia. (Spoiler: it's a rhetorical question.) Several of his conclusions could be applied to other corners of the music business, too--and/or to the industry at large. For instance: "For my part, I have zero confidence in the people who made this mess in the first place. Nothing will get fixed until they’re replaced by visionaries who can actually lead the music business in the right direction."
https://tedgioia.substack.com/p/did-the-music-business-just-kill

Wow, great article. Nice "S curve"!

 

[barfle]

Even with my fairly extensive vinyl collection (see avatar), I really don't understand the vinyl craze. Yeah, I occasionally buy a new record (to me), but it's almost always a quad I didn't already have. Even then, if I have it in a digital format, I will probably pass.

I have quite a few boxes to help my vinyl sound good, but it's a crap shoot as to whether the outcome is as good as a 24/96 digital track, or even a low-compression MP3. Surface noise is always increasing, clicks and pops are always increasing, warpage is always increasing.

Most of my vinyl was purchased well over 20 years ago. I keep a lot of it because I'm nostalgic. I have a few rare pressings, but most of my listening these days is from a digital source.

 

[4-earredwonder]

Even with my fairly extensive vinyl collection (see avatar), I really don't understand the vinyl craze. Yeah, I occasionally buy a new record (to me), but it's almost always a quad I didn't already have. Even then, if I have it in a digital format, I will probably pass.

I have quite a few boxes to help my vinyl sound good, but it's a crap shoot as to whether the outcome is as good as a 24/96 digital track, or even a low-compression MP3. Surface noise is always increasing, clicks and pops are always increasing, warpage is always increasing.

Most of my vinyl was purchased well over 20 years ago. I keep a lot of it because I'm nostalgic. I have a few rare pressings, but most of my listening these days is from a digital source.

Join the club, barfle .....although I stopped buying vinyl years ago and just blew a small fortune on a VERY high end digital system. No ticks, pops nor warpage ... just a HUGE dent in my savings!

 

[gene_stl]

After making my first pilgrimage to the St. Louis Record Exchange, the owner had all the quad LPs in an "audiophile" section so they were all in one place and reasonably priced. So I bought a nice stack of SQ and QS (and one dbx LP, of a classical guitarist, Laurindo Almeida) LPs. But these are the first LPs I have bought since CDs came out in the eighties.

I still love collecting CDs. And SACDs, and DVDs, and Blue Rays, and, and ...........

 

[par4ken]

Talk of ticks and pops is overblown. Clean vinyl in decent shape has few clicks and pops and those that are there usually go unnoticed. I like to digitise my collection for convenience and preservation of the vinyl and stylus. When I dub "clean" vinyl, I'm often surprised that it contains a few clicks (that I didn't even notice) they are clearly visible on the waveform display and are also very easily removed!

I seldom buy new vinyl, what is the point if a high quality digital version is available. Sadly that is not always the case, CD releases are more often than not brickwalled; bringing us back to vintage vinyl!

The current vinyl craze is due to young people thinking that the old technology is so cool, you have something to hold in your hand! Limited editions, coloured vinyl. picture discs etc. are aimed at the collector market, more so than for actual music playback. There is absolutely no sonic advantage to vinyl if it is sourced from the same brickwalled source as the digital version.

If "new" vinyl is to survive they will have to stop the price gouging, also are those heavy 180gm pressings really necessary?

 

[gene_stl]

When I hear that the new pressings are brickwalled it really makes me angry because in addition to being brickwalled they are also usually about $30 or so , often more. Even today that is a fair amount of money. Some you tubers have been weighing the 180 gram discs and they are usually just over 170 grams.

 

[HiFiMan]

I have a modest vinyl collection and only listen (without great expectation) when I'm in a nostalgic mood; yep, pushing 70. I also very much enjoy handling and looking at it (maybe more so than listening). If I wan't the maximum listening experience, it's always digital; for the same reasons already mentioned here. One thing about vinyl today that really baffles me; I have several DBX encoded LPs, and every one of them (40+ years old) is absolutely quiet (like a CD). Very enjoyable to listen to. I'm amazed everytime I listen to one. So, why don't modern LP pressings use this technology today? Decoders would be cheap to make and the LPs sound wonderful. Modern pressings are an embarasment; or should be! If you listen to all the hype, you'd think you're going to hear those recordings like you've NEVER heard them before. And that may be true, but certainly not in the direction you want. But alas, I guess buyers of these "modern" day pressings really aren't listening to the music very closely.

 

[4-earredwonder]

I very recently purchased a slew of JVC XRCD, FIM [First Impression Music] 32 bit remastered and SONY K2HD mastered CDs from Elusive disc, some for a fraction of their $40 list price ... all sealed. They come in luxurious packaging and some are pressed on 99.9% pure silver discs. And NOT a one of them sounds in any way compressed. In fact, some sound as good or better than some SACDs. And JVC's Audio Wave via their XRCD24 series have introduced their Blue Note Jazz discs remastered by a gent named Alan Yoshida which IMO sound better than their Analog Production Stereo/Mono SACD equivalents!

They are all 16b 44.1kHz ....... but the moment you pop them into your player you'd NEVER know you were listening to a RBCD!

Admittedly, the list price IS steep and for many the drawback would be they are usually esoteric releases by nature .... meaning Jazz, Classical and a few eclectic titles from obscure artists ...... but musically they shine and I don't regret buying any of them.

The point being ..... the technology IS there to elevate the RBCD to new heights and if this could only be applied to ALL present and future RBCD manufacturing I know the need/desire to purchase vinyl equivalents would finally diminish ......

But would the Major Record Labels make the investment of retooling their CD pressing plants and incorporate all the virtues of this magnificent technology ...IMO, probably NOT ... just as the pressing plants utilized to manufacture LPs is 1950's technology and we ALL know, or should, that those vinyl lathes are either failing which is why the current stock of non customed pressed vinyl is itself, woefully OUTDATED!

 

[MidiMagic]

“In the year 2023, even bowling alleys, bordellos, and bookies are more tech savvy than the major record labels.”​

A great observation, IMO.

Admittedly, I WAS a vinyl 'junkie' back in the day but because of you know what, SUBSTANDARD pressings, especially when listening to classical and jazz, sought the alternatives: Open Reel [WAAYYY too little software...especially QUAD, cassettes [1 7/8 ips ....GIVE ME A BREAK]....and when the Compact disc was announced with the promise of PERFECT SOUND FOREVER, I jumped on the bandwagon only to discover .... the hype was woefully PREMATURE!

I even surmised in another thread on QQ forum that the amount of time, energy and uber expense lavished on the LOWLY cassette format would have been better spent making the COMPACT DISC more agreeable right out of the gate instead of 16 bit, 44.1kHz oversampling [why not at least 20 bit with a HIGHER oversampling rate???????]

And does vinyl REALLY sound better than digital ....... especially through a receiver with its minimalist phono section??????

Yeah, if you want to spend megabucks on a Turntable, tonearm, cartridge, add a step up phono transformer and choose a pre amp OTHER THAN THAT OF A RECEIVER ..... maybe, yes .... but NOT quite if the vinyl record is in any way compromised with inclusions [ticks, pops, swishes, etc.] Because REAL music doesn't include any of the above, especially during quiet passages ...... and then there might be 'rumble ...' and reduced bass output when the phono cartridge nears the disc's center ..... all vinyl bugaboos which simply are not part of the master tapes.

And here it is .... 2023 ..... when the powers that be have state of the art digital tools at their disposal ...... and finally, SURROUND has make somewhat of a resurgence ...... and we're still being fed LOSSY CODECS [Dolby Digital/DTS] and while some praise the existence of a surround title even with those lossy codecs....my question remains WHY?

WHY not go the extra mile and make it sound truly HIGH FI or master tape worthy by including LOSSLESS instead of LOSSY. It has been pointed out many times that even the use of LPCM 5.1 which does not incur a royalty fee, IMO, sounds a hell of a lot better than 1990's DD and DTS!

Are we at a crossroads? And the article pointed out that Joe Q. Public is spending a lot more on OLDER MUSIC versus NEW ...and why is THAT?
Perhaps because older music is SUPERIOR [60's, 70's and 80's ......] and the new music, although admittedly some is exceptional ... just doesn't have that nostaglic vibe .... those classic 'hooks' nor the bravura of what real music should sound like .......

Which brings me to another point .... over the years many of us have invested in MULTIPLE versions of classic albums in every conceivable format so when we pluck our hard earned bucks down ONCE AGAIN for the very same music ..... it should finally engender ALL that is on those ancient master analogue tapes .... and not in SUBSTANDARD form ....The technology is certainly there as are the tools to make it happen .....

But the history of the major record companies can be summed up in one word ..... GREED ......Charge 'em MORE and give 'em LESS!

So it really is up to us if we want to 'invest' once again in sound recordings that either give us what we REALLY WANT .... the FULL MONTY or more of the same ...LOSSY codecs compressed RBCDs and/or scratchy vinyl replications.

But unfortunately [again] that old adage "ASK ... AND YOU SHALL RECEIVE" does not apply to the Major Record Labels even in 2023!

Maybe because I want to buy compatibility with older recordings, not yet another stupid format incompatible with all of the others with inaudible lossless super-fi.

I do not want 10 different players to play my recordings. I do not want incompatible music files that might or might not work with the software I have. I have settled on two formats - phono record and CD. I have two because much music is not available on one or the other.

 

[MidiMagic]

Talk of ticks and pops is overblown. Clean vinyl in decent shape has few clicks and pops and those that are there usually go unnoticed. I like to digitise my collection for convenience and preservation of the vinyl and stylus. When I dub "clean" vinyl, I'm often surprised that it contains a few clicks (that I didn't even notice) they are clearly visible on the waveform display and are also very easily removed!

I seldom buy new vinyl, what is the point if a high quality digital version is available. Sadly that is not always the case, CD releases are more often than not brickwalled; bringing us back to vintage vinyl!

The current vinyl craze is due to young people thinking that the old technology is so cool, you have something to hold in your hand! Limited editions, coloured vinyl. picture discs etc. are aimed at the collector market, more so than for actual music playback. There is absolutely no sonic advantage to vinyl if it is sourced from the same brickwalled source as the digital version.

If "new" vinyl is to survive they will have to stop the price gouging, also are those heavy 180gm pressings really necessary?

No, those 180 g pressings are not necessary. They do not even follow the RIAA specifications for phono records. The center hole is smaller than the specified size (which is 5/16", not 1/4") and will not fit the spindles of some turntables. The records are also thicker than the standard specifies, too thick to work with some record handling devices.

 

[Blackwood]

Just a general thanks for this thread and the comments here. I like good, thoughtful, writing and Gioia seems to fit that.

I had read Gioia’s Delta Blues book which I enjoyed. Didn’t realize he was writing on a variety of topics online. (Was just reading his B&N article which fascinated me as I haven’t been in a B&N since the pandemic started. I was sure they’d be dead by now.)

I’ve added Ted’s Substack feed to my RSS reader.

 

[Cyber 1]

A very well built cartridge adds a type of distortion via the generator that adds a very pleasing
sound that the human ear does perceives as pleasing. This sometimes even happens when the original
source is a digital signal then transferred to vinyl.

On some recordings I do like digital better but on a really well recorded , mastered and pressed LP there is a
certain magic that is there.

As for pops ticks ect, whether a LP is 40 years old or brand new and sealed if your not prepared
To properly remove the pressing plant contaminants you will never hear the vinyls true sound
capability and will also experience the Rice Krispy Bros.

 

[Mr. Afternoon]

I have never owned a vinyl, they hit their peak well before my time. After listening to one, I simply cannot understand the vinyl craze. There's nothing there that digital can't offer us, excepting for better mastering because of physical limitations. If record labels weren't so daft with their mastering and stopped brickwalling everything, this wouldn't be a discussion.

 

[Wagonmaster_91]

also are those heavy 180gm pressings really necessary?

No, the weight of an LP has no bearing on the quality of the sound of the vinyl. A heavy record just seems nicer and makes you feel a little better about paying $25 - $40 dollars for a new copy of a record you paid $5 - $9 for 50 years ago. I haven't encountered any problems with the spindle holes on new pressings. And I haven't owned a turntable changer where you could stack records since I was 12 - it's totally manual TT's for me - and I wouldn't stack records if I could.

 

[Quadly McQuadmeister]

Talk of ticks and pops is overblown. Clean vinyl in decent shape has few clicks and pops and those that are there usually go unnoticed. I like to digitise my collection for convenience and preservation of the vinyl and stylus. When I dub "clean" vinyl, I'm often surprised that it contains a few clicks (that I didn't even notice) they are clearly visible on the waveform display and are also very easily removed!

I seldom buy new vinyl, what is the point if a high quality digital version is available. Sadly that is not always the case, CD releases are more often than not brickwalled; bringing us back to vintage vinyl!

The current vinyl craze is due to young people thinking that the old technology is so cool, you have something to hold in your hand! Limited editions, coloured vinyl. picture discs etc. are aimed at the collector market, more so than for actual music playback. There is absolutely no sonic advantage to vinyl if it is sourced from the same brickwalled source as the digital version.

If "new" vinyl is to survive they will have to stop the price gouging, also are those heavy 180gm pressings really necessary?

Short answer? YES. I lived through the Arab Oil Embargo '70s. The (RCA) Dynaflex, "flippity-floppity" nadir of vinyl was exactly what killed it not ONLY in the eyes of High-Fidelity enthusiasts, but the music consuming public in general. It was sent into overdrive (by the Music Industry itself) when the compact disc was introduced. That said,180 gram LPs made out of poor quality "biscuits" (the '80s saw pressing plants recycling vinyl artifacts INCLUDING THE ALREADY APPLIED LABELS) will still sound wretched. There's a reason the iconic pressings of the '50's/'60s (think Mercury Living Presence or RCA Shaded/White Dogs) are so highly prized. The companies that produced them considered them "Marquis" products that were the tip of their marketing "spear" in terms of quality.

Poor recordings (and performances, I'm a retired professional musician/teacher and I often recorded myself and my own groups) have as much or more to do with what the end product sounds like, but vinyl quality is not the "one yard line fumble" on which we consumers should perish. BUT, I agree with you that the Youth market demographic exhibits a certain disconnect from the "social behavior/cross generational identification coolness factor" and actual musical merit or audio quality. Neither appear to be a priority for most of them, at least from my point of reference. In the early days of these types of discussion groups (when they were basically chat rooms) I would point out the trend that was spelled out in magazines like Stereophile. At the time they were talking about the RIAA showing that roughly 10% of recorded music sales being attributed to Jazz or Classical. That's now struggling at about 2%.
I like (and value) a fair amount of the music that is (apparently) the legacy of my generation. But owing to the way multitrack mono and amplified music itself is produced, the concept of using "unamplified music being produced in an unamplified three dimensional space" de-emphasizes the idea of an "Absolute" reference standard for quality in the first place. Quality is expensive, but (circling back to "Stereopile") IMO, the High Fidelity media has overshot the sweet spot to the point it's now largely irrelevant. I'm fatigued of having to flip through endless reviews of $1,000,000 Turntables/Tonearms and cartridges that retail for more than my home. The entire industry is targeting the 1% (and fractional divisions thereof) and have left the vast majority of us behind. It's a pickle. My personal solution is to turn my attention to restoring vintage gear and it's where it's "at" for me now. I have a pretty big collection of physical media by "average Joe standards" (I have a story about seeking out rare Maynard Ferguson pressings from West Coast record collecting icon Leon Leavitt, but I won't recount it here-I may have posted it before) as I started prioritizing what I valued precisely because my tastes were increasingly deviating from the center of the mid-70s and after "popular music sales" bell curve. So I'm an outlier in those statistics anyway. Everybody's mileage varies.

 

[MidiMagic]

I have a modest vinyl collection and only listen (without great expectation) when I'm in a nostalgic mood; yep, pushing 70. I also very much enjoy handling and looking at it (maybe more so than listening). If I wan't the maximum listening experience, it's always digital; for the same reasons already mentioned here. One thing about vinyl today that really baffles me; I have several DBX encoded LPs, and every one of them (40+ years old) is absolutely quiet (like a CD). Very enjoyable to listen to. I'm amazed everytime I listen to one. So, why don't modern LP pressings use this technology today? Decoders would be cheap to make and the LPs sound wonderful. Modern pressings are an embarasment; or should be! If you listen to all the hype, you'd think you're going to hear those recordings like you've NEVER heard them before. And that may be true, but certainly not in the direction you want. But alas, I guess buyers of these "modern" day pressings really aren't listening to the music very closely.

Because they sound awful without a DBX decoder and very few people have one (or can get one).

 

[krnewman]

I listen to anything, especially if I can get ahold of it cheaply and it sounds nice to me.

Some of my equipment and recordings I paid a bunch of money for but most of it I picked up for a few dollars or from waste bins. I cobble things together in pastiches of bricolage.

I am auditorially promiscuous, i listen to 78’s and SACDs, etc. I love all channels of sound from 1.0 to 7.1 and i like to coax surround out of the unexpected.

I also enjoy hearing how things sounded then. I want to hear through my own ears something real. [written while running Command Records RS837SD (cost $1.40) through a Sylvania model CR-2742 amplifier (cost $10) which has some sort of Dynaco type quadraphonic system - it sounds good to me in part because it sounds true, not true to doc Severinsen‘s trumpet but true to the experience I’m trying to replicate so I can enjoy it]

I think we listen to different things towards different ends but we all like multi channel surround or we wouldn’t be here.