In this age of downloads...are we losing album art? Andy Warhol's talent was displayed on this 1982 album by Billy Squier...is this becoming a lost art?
http://i973.photobucket.com/albums/a...1/emotions.jpg
Printable View
In this age of downloads...are we losing album art? Andy Warhol's talent was displayed on this 1982 album by Billy Squier...is this becoming a lost art?
http://i973.photobucket.com/albums/a...1/emotions.jpg
I can't see any of your pic posts Jon.
I see them..odd
But still..my question?
I am not sure. It's like, do we lose books when we have kindles. First, physical albums will always exist, precisely as art objects, even though they probably won't be mass production; most important, I anticipate a boom of virtual albuming, cover pictures and allQuote:
Originally Posted by Jon
Sorry, my internet went out right after I posted that last night. I think so because I can't really remember any iconic album covers from the last ten, maybe twenty years really.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jon
I don't know if popular, mainstream artists focus on cover art enough for there to be widely recognized, iconic album covers; I think the average listener may have left that in the past, unfortunately.
As for me, I very much crave the tactile experience; album art is a significant component of that. My favorite bands typically offer (in addition to downloads and regular CDs) editions housed in books (sometimes 5" x 5", but sometimes 10" x 10") with bonuses like extra tracks and video material, always with extra artwork (as pages in the books). Even without the extra music and video content, I would still want the book with art; it's just a great experience.
Of course, this is really only for the music that is very important to me, not the things I listen to casually, as they cost $50 - $100. But even with the other things, it's a CD (hopefully with a booklet!) for me.
Paying for a music download just seems kind of...wrong. I need a physical format to properly invest myself in an album, be it a CD or a record. Downloads are utilitarian IMO. They serve a purpose but I'll listen to downloads mostly while I'm doing something more important or while driving. If I truly want to not just listen, but hear and enjoy music, I'll do what I do when I want to read a really good book - I'll set time aside specifically for that.
And no, I don't think legitimate downloads are killing the physical format. Record labels are killing the record business with their ridiculous prices. Why does a Radiohead LP in this gazillionth pressing cost $40 is beyond me.
Yep. They need to take a look at the movie industry. I can go Wal-Mart and find a 20 year old movie on Blu-ray for $5. But a 20-year-old album on CD still costs $15+Quote:
Originally Posted by WeDealInLead
I personally have bought less than 5 downloads, usually for something where I know I'll never want the full album etc. In one case, a band added a track to an album over a decade after I'd bought it; not wanting to buy another CD, I just bought the extra track through iTunes.
Exactly. That record has paid back the band, the record label, the distributers, lawyers, roadies, record pressing plants etc. a million times over. Want to sell more records? Lower the price. The actual manufacturing cost is less than $10 per unit. Metallica "Garage Days Re-Revisited" is $50. Bonkers.Quote:
Originally Posted by IwritecodeYep. They need to take a look at the movie industry. I can go Wal-Mart and find a 20 year old movie on Blu-ray for $5. But a 20-year-old album on CD still costs $15+Quote:
Originally Posted by WeDealInLead
Most records nowadays have download codes so that works out for me. Records for home, downloads for when I'm on the go.
I spent less on concert tickets and weed for their Ride the Lightning tour!Quote:
Originally Posted by WeDealInLead
And I had a cool album to clean the weed on.
But Jean makes a good point.