Dw. Dunphy On…Vinyl

My mom, God rest her soul, hit the nail on the head. She always used to ask me, “Why must you do everything ass-backwards?” She had a point. Shoes went on before pants, finalizing efforts always preceded initializing efforts, and have you ever seen me get out of the backseat of a car? It’s like some horrid recreation of a breach birth.

So in this modern age, you can put a shiny, silver disc into the face of your car’s dashboard and hear wonderful sound. You can put a machine the size of a candy bar into your pants pocket and a headset the size of dental floss with tiny tumors into your ears and hear wonderful sound. Me? I like records.

I’m not alone, as there is a small but loyal following who still doggedly cling to “The Vinyl.” In fact, in 2007, there was an industry wide surge of sales for records, roughly 1%. You may not think that’s a big deal, and it ain’t, but considering how the music industry overall declined many times over in the past year, sales of any kind was enough to have execs wetting themselves with joy.

Let me reiterate that we’re talking about brand new releases here, and not just the boutique labels like Classic Records, Sundazed and Mobile Fidelity who reissue older titles. Last year, I wound up with offerings like Bruce Springsteen’s Magic, Foo Fighters’ most recent Echoes, Silence, Patience & Grace, Porcupine Tree’s Fear Of A Blank Planet, Arcade Fire’s Neon Bible and Plant & Krauss’ Raising Sand. These are far from the indie individualists who doggedly cling to “The Vinyl” as sacrosanct. If you were so inclined, you could have also glommed up recent collections by Modest Mouse, The White Stripes, Wilco, Spoon, Katatonia and many more.

So I’ve once again admitted my inherent geekiness with copping to another minor cultural obsession. But what, you may ask, is the attraction? Is it the size, the big black platter and the huge sleeve art? In part, perhaps. There certainly is something to a well-designed product that complements an audio release. With these new releases, designers have a chance to go thematically nuts. Legendary designer Storm Thorgerson used to do it with Pink Floyd’s albums, specifically their Wish You Were Here album. Illustrating the relationship between presence and absence, photos of objects existing without owners, suits without bodies, water without ripples, etc, carried forth through the front and back sleeve, through the inner sleeve and right on to individual label images for side one and two. On CD, you have most of the images, but those fine details are lost to the Shrinky Dink diminution. Digital music purchasers get none of that, and perhaps, at this point, they could not care less.

Digital distribution has pretty much destroyed the music graphic design field. Your album needs only two elements for the cover now: a monstrously huge portrait photo and an equally monstrously huge logo. It’s the only way your product will “read” on the iTunes page and the only identification you’ll get on your tiny iPod screen. And no matter how big her picture might be on her new release, Celine Dion still looks like a man in drag, so smaller size definitely is in her “plus” column.

What the digital medium has over the mystified analog model is sound quality. Sorry, purists, but I call bullshit on your assertion that vinyl sounds warmer, truer and more lifelike. That’s called “surface noise” and is generally considered a detriment. Depending on what company cut your vinyl record, even a shoddy MP3 will sound better. It’s not always the case, as both the aforementioned Porcupine Tree album and Rush’s Snakes & Arrows sound fantastic on vinyl, but my LP of Of Montreal’s Hissing Fauna, Are You The Destroyer sounds like my answering machine. Also, unless you carve your Thanksgiving turkey with your CDs and use your hard drive to play Whack-A-Mole down at Chuck E. Cheese’s, your music won’t degrade through usage. Skipping is highly infrequent and dust and artifacts (otherwise known as “crud”) can’t affect a soundfile existing in the computer ether.

So, in defending my analog favoritism, I’ve said that records are oversized, bulky, prone to sounding bad from the beginning and likely to sound worse over time. No wonder I have no future in advertising. But let us now consider the one thing the vinyl LP has over every other medium making it the true venue for music lovers: because of the limited access you have to the works while it is playing, and its inherent non-portability, you have to actually listen to what’s playing, straight through, start to finish (of each side). You can’t scan to the chorus. You can drop the needle on only specific songs, but what a pain that is! You can’t jog to it because you’ll make the damned thing skip. Essentially, when you play an LP, you’re engaged in the experience of listening to that music. You can take the time to pour over cover graphics and liner notes. You can turn the lights down and stare into space with a glass of Amaretto on the rocks for all I care, but that music has been placed there for a reason.

Nowadays, songs are sold pre-licensed to television soundtracks. Many first heard O.K. Go’s “Here It Goes Again” as a commercial jingle before hearing it as an actual song. Ditto for Feist’s “1234″, alongside the ubiquitous Apple iPod commercial that promoted it. Music rings your phone, wakes you up, puts you to sleep, vibrates in your toothbrush, accompanies you in airports, doctor’s offices, grocery stores and even serenades you in Hallmark greeting cards. It is mostly pre-programmed and shoved down your throat, pasted on your brain like bumper stickers and, above all, sold to you during every waking moment of the day. With vinyl, you have to make a conscious decision to listen, and you have to make a commitment to hear it through. On CD, you can play The Who’s Tommy and skip straight to “Pinball Wizard”. On LP, you can as well, but you’re more likely to allow a natural progression of music, from outer groove to inner groove.

Once upon a time, music was entertainment. I find that, with the vinyl LP, it still is, and forces me to sit and enjoy. Yes, it may very well be ass-backwards with the times, but what, really, has modernity offered you? Hannah Montana?

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

  • Malchus
    Another aspect that vinyl offers is the complete personal experience each listener has with their own LP's. My copy of Yes 90125 has so many worn down grooves and scratches that it wouldn't go for more than a 15 cents in any used bin. Yet I listened to that damaged vinyl so many years that if I hear the songs in a "clean" version, they aren't my songs. I need to hear those noises. Those are my skips and drags on the record. I love vinyl.
  • You got it. I beat the hell out of my original LP of Foreigner 4 as a kid. Put some wicked scuffs on "Woman In Black", but that song is indelibly altered in my (admittedly retarded) brain in that fashion and I wouldn't have it any other way.

    Of course, some of that album really could've used a few more skips! :-)
  • I can hardly think of an album released in the last few years that I would want to listen to from front to back without lifting the stylus a couple of times to skip the filler. Perhaps Diana Krall's Girl In The Other Room would be tolerable. Or Norah Jones' first. In the pop field, I'm straining to think of an example. Aimee Mann's Lost in Space is pretty consistent all the way through.

    You don't listen to Revolution 9 every time you cue up the fourth side of the White Album, do you? :)
  • Old_Davy
    The art of sequencing albums has been relatively lost in this IPOD world. Fleetwood Mac's "Rumours" just isn't the same on "shuffle play". May I make a suggestion for a modern album with great sequencing? The flow of "The Fragile Army" by The Polyphonic Spree almost requires you to listen to the entire thing from beginning to end in the order it is presented. It is an amazing album, and one that is an entity upon itself, not just a collection of songs.

    Props to you for mentioning "Lost in Space". That one has a real nice sequencing flow as well.
  • Lyle
    Yes. Mick Jagger said he spent quite a bit of time sequencing the songs in his recent compilation of his solo songs. Then he added, "but I don't know too many people who listen to a whole album all the way through any more."
  • Do you really want to know?

    Want to know?

    Want to know? :-)
  • It sounds like I don't want to know. ;)
  • riverman
    Highly specious!

    Recorded/broadcast popular music has always been both disposable and ubiquitous. Easily ignored and omnipresent. Beginning long before the digital era we intentionally surrounded ourselves with music that didn't demand our attention. Pop-chart 45's, car radio, television, shopping-mall Muzak, mix-tapes for parties and dances, cassette Walkmans on public transportation, and on and on.

    The debate should never have been digital vs analog, or CD vs vinyl. The split has always been between people who appreciate music predominantly as entertainment vs people who appreciate music predominantly as art.

    Sure, people who love music as art but have only owned CDs and iPods spend hours walking around with tiny earphones, the music barely audible above the sound of traffic or wind or crowds of people. But these same music lovers also spends hours in their quiet homes listening to their favourite albums from beginning to end. And the experience of those albums in the home are not dulled by the musical-chatter on the streets.

    The pleasures of portable music aren't any less so for being portable.
    In fact, the memories you form to songs heard at random out in the world often enhance the experience of hearing those songs at home within the context of their albums. And vice versa.

    Not to sound too florid here, but music is a powerful thing and it will always be used for purposes both sacred and profane. The true believers will accept it no matter what the medium and use it for their own holy purposes, both wonderful and mundane. Love is love, no matter where you find it.
  • No question that music is a powerful thing and people will adapt in order to enjoy.

    For myself, I don't want to adapt, as ungainly and precious as that may sound. I listen to music in dribs and drabs too, in the car, on TV, through headphones jacked to the PC as I am while I'm writing this... But that's the difference. I'm listening but not fully engaged in it. Right now it's background. For myself, when I want it foreground, when I want to truly zero in on it, vinyl does it for me. It's deficits forces a focus that modern media just can't offer.
  • riverman
    You do not need to adapt.

    There's nothing about a CD or mp3 playlist that precludes taking an hour to "turn the lights down and stare into space with a glass of Amaretto on the rocks" while listening to that CD or playlist from beginning to end.

    Nor is there anything about a CD or mp3 playlist that demands that you only listen to it in drips and drabs while not fully engaged.

    It's about decision.

    And with an iPod you can mix a "Walking" playlist to listen to on your earbuds while you hike to the top of your favourite hill. Once at the top you can pull your blanket, bottle of wine, and high-end headphones out of your knapsack and lay down and listen to whatever album you want, from beginning to end.

    Watch out for bears though.

    The changes in technology don't matter 'cause people are still the same. The same people will be listening attentively to ASTRAL WEEKS on their holographic-stereo brain implants, while other people will devote those brain implants to flitting among the hit parade.
  • EightE1
    Your Of Montreal record probably sounds like shit cuz it's mixed to sound like shit -- I read somewhere recently (probably Rolling Stone or the NY Times) that albums nowadays are actually being mixed for iPods and MP3 players and, thus, those tiny, tinny ear-buds. Springsteen, Grohl, Plant, Tweedy, and others who have a healthy older fan base probably don't follow that paradigm, and their vinyl sounds better for it.

    I'm in my late 30s, still have a turntable, but haven't bought a "new" record in vinyl format in ages. Still, in the last year, I've made the 40-minute trek to the closest independent record store that still sells old vinyl, and purchased used copies of out-of-print favorites by Blondie Chaplain, Balance, Nils Lofgren, Patti Smyth, Garland Jeffreys, and others. They sound pretty damn good to my ears.

    Rob
    EightE1
  • David_E
    I almost skipped this articl–almost skipped this articl–almost skipped this articl–almost skipped this articl–almost skipped this articl–almost skipped this articl–(bump) Really enjoyed your essay.
  • I own about 3000 records, 99% from the 80's. The only record I own after 1989 is The Fragile from NIN. I love every piece of vinyl that I own more than any of the CD's that I have - yet I would never even think about purchasing a record these days. Unless someone can mount a record player in my car, then the limitations are just too great. But I love popping on an 80's record and just chilling to an entire side at a time. My favorite part is holding the cover while listening to it. I'm a liner note person and i actually do miss that, especially on those records that I got used in bare sleeves....but there's nothing like that 12" album cover (unless it's the Scott Baio record). I'd take any 80's Dio cover on LP before I take a CD's booklet.
  • Don't take this the wrong way. I'm just curious... You're an 80s kid, right? If so, it makes sense as a good deal of my collection is from insane teenage hoarding.

    I agree 100% percent with the portability factor. It's a big strike against vinyl, but I find that when I really want to get deep into music, doing so in the car is impossible. It gets relegated to some sense of light sleeping where you only get basic attention while the majority (at least, the important part) goes to the road.

    I have Tom Petty's "Long After Dark" on vinyl and can't adopt any other way of hearing it.
  • JonCummings
    Three comments:
    1. I bet that Robert Plant/Alison Krauss album sounds great on vinyl. T Bone Burnette gave it a great, otherworldly sound, like those old acoustic blues 78s. If I had it on vinyl, I'd probably put a couple little nicks in it just for authenticity.

    2. My favorite scratch-the-bejeezus-out-of-a-record moment was this time we brought a portable record player outside and were playing my single of "Theme from S*W*A*T" over and over, and one of those boomerang-shaped seed-pod thingies fell out of a tree and landed right on the 45 and the needle ran right through it, embedding seed-pod schmutz in the single.

    3. Doesn't that scene in "Almost Famous," where the young William goes through his sister's records, make you want to do nothing but sit and listen to records for five days like you used to (if you're over 35)? And doesn't just mentioning that scene make you want to go watch "Almost Famous" for, like, the 70th time?
  • Dw...actually I'm more of a 90's kid - born in '76 - so that didn't leave me with much to work with for the 80s. I remember starting as a teen somewhere around '89 or '90 with 45s. Every Saturday my dad would give me $20 and I'd go to this little record store run out of the owner's house...and each week I'd buy 20 45's. (Nice old man, refused to charge a kid tax...where's that these days?). But I actually didn't start my 80's collection until '98. My goal was to get every top 40 hit from the 80's on CD on Vinyl - and at this point I'm 1 song short of getting every top 100 hit from that decade. I'm never ever going to find the last one, so I'm satisfied it's complete. I moved to vinyl really out of necessity to collect the music - and just really started loving it.

    Cheap Trick - Dream Police, Prince - Purple Rain, Bruce Hornsby - The Way It is, J. Geils Band - Showtime. Man, those are some records that I will swear up and down sound 100x better on vinyl.

    With me and the car thing - it's background until I really like it. Then I pay attention and learn it. I'm the type that will spin a record 10 times in a row the week it comes out - and then either never listen to it again or know all the lyrics by the next week. I only way I can get that much time with it, it to play it on the way to and from work. I have this feeling that if I bought a new record and I really liked it - I'd go out and get the CD or download it - so in the end I think I'd just rather save the money and get it on a better format to begin with.

    The record I actually listen to when I just need to chill out is Genesis - Lamb Lies Down on Broadway. Unfortunately I have to get up three times to hear it straight through!

    And finally, the other limitation, that you didn't see that often in the 80's, but probably do now more than ever - is space. The one that sticks out in the 80's is Peter Gabriel's - So. Awesome album but on LP it lacks the two strange tracks prog-ish tracks that to me are kind of the glue to the album. I love the sound of that better on vinyl but seems like Peter wanted better sound so he had to sacrifice the two least accessible songs on the disc.
  • Lyle
    !Thanks .post this liked really I
  • ken
    This phenomenon is less likely to happen now that 95% of my listening is done with CD's or mp3's but there are certain vinyl-era records I still remember which songs had skips and I still hear the phantom skips whenever I hear a given song.
  • I agree that the notion of "music as art" has been on the decline. I'd argue it started with CDs. Bands suddenly had another 20 minutes to fill, and they tossed on a few experiments that would otherwise have been B-sides of singles.

    To give but one example -- "Snakes and Arrows" has five good songs and a bunch of mildly interesting experiments. And Rush is one of my favorite bands.

    The solution might lie in skipping ahead to DVDs. Rush has had a lot of success with in that medium. Perhaps artists could switch to animation or video to create that 40-minute immersion that we "music as art" people crave.

    Or perhaps we could just have better music.
  • MichaelFortes
    I'll never give up my records (I'm sorry, "vinyl" is just bleh, it's what's on your car seat cover) and they DO sound better, when the quality of the pressing is high and the equipment their played on is of decent quality, stylus not too worn, tonearm at the proper height and weight... yeah, sounds like a lot of work, but it's worth it. When you listen to records, CDs and mp3s equally over time, you can start to hear differences in dynamic range, and especially in mp3s you can hear when high frequencies are being clipped -- it gives off a kind of distortion that only comes with digital media, and to my ears it sounds like nails on a chalkboard. Then again, you get sibilance on some records too, which can be just as bad. It's all relative. But in the end, I want my colorful labels and gatefold covers, dammit! But if the record company is giving a free mp3 download away with the purchase of the record (like Touch and Go and Sub Pop sometimes do), then I won't complain -- saves me the trouble of digitizing my own records...

    Oh, and check this article from Time Magazine: "Vinyl Gets Its Groove Back"
    http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,917...
blog comments powered by Disqus