|
Post by alunsevern on Aug 25, 2015 16:42:16 GMT
Time for a new thread, and I was prompted in this by this post on reorganising record collections over on Jazzcollector.com. I read Jazzcollector frequently although I must say its concerns (and indeed its values, its aesthetics, its obsessions, its tone) are not really mine. It is dominated by records of a type and financial value that don't for the most part even interest me all that much... And yet, and yet, I still read it regularly because the quality of writing is high, some of the stories about 'stumbling' on massive collections are excellent (the ' Baltimore collection', for example, but most of all because it opens a window onto a little sub-world I will never fully be part of but am fascinated by. Anyway, back to the nub of this -- organising and reorganising record collections. Now what interested me about the Jazzcollector.com post was the diversity of the comments. Some people thought 400 records more than enough; others wondered how someone could possibly house let alone listen to 10,000 records. Some recounted their arcane (frankly nuts in some cases) classifications systems... - What do you think constitutes a 'large' collection?
- Is there a number that is 'too many'?
- Would you ever dispose of records simply because you had run out of space?
- Do you have ever utterly unbreakable rules in your collecting, such as no reissues under any circumstances?
- Do you have a price limit?
- Do you only collect jazz?
- Can you foresee a time when you won't collect?
My own view on this is that somewhat late in life I have arrived at the small is beautiful philosophy. I now know know that I may have only say twenty years' listening ahead of me. It sounds a long time, but it isn't. So I now think that fewer records is the secret to happiness. A couple of years ago I sold off every item of non-jazz, and every item of jazz that included vocals. I went from around 2,000+ records to (I'm guessing) under a thousand. But every record is jazz. I have also ditched some mediocre records because I have tried to implement some of the disciplines of book collecting. Listen once or twice, good and hard. Do you need to keep this? Is it essential or merely nice to have? Can you do without it it? If so, it goes. I have also replaced some mediocre sounding records with better sounding CDs. Now that has been a surprise! The simple rule of thumb, I suppose, is this. Unlike my books, which spread all over the house and into my office in the city (thousands and thousands -- I no longer have any true idea how many), my records are restricted to a single old iKea bookcase. And into this they must fit. This almost means (not quite, but almost) something out for every something that comes in... If, during the course of say a weekend, I listen to seven or eight records I am very happy; but if I listen to seven or eight records and also identify two or three that can be disposed of, then I am truly happy. Let's hear your collecting idiosyncrasies. Honest, open, truthful. The madder the better.
|
|
|
Post by dottorjazz on Aug 25, 2015 18:18:44 GMT
my collection has been built in over 5 decades. at some point I had more records than I've now. I count every item as one, so big boxes like Billie Holiday Live and Private Recordings in Chronological Order, a limited edition of 500 copies (22 LPs) count as one record only. so I've 772 12" and 112 10". don't now if it's large or small, surely satisfies my interest, even incomplete. all records have been listened at least once with two exceptions, two Chet Baker recently purchased that are still sealed (but I've the digital counterpart). they aren't too many. the pleasure of adding a new record in the collection is still high and my want list is quite extended, it has ever been. I like searching and am convinced that a COMPLETE collection would be a disaster. nothing more to search: the end of the path. I wouldn't like it. space is the problem: a couple of years ago I was obliged to move my Jazz digital collection (over 2200) to my office where it's now nicely settled. I kept at home only my Classic collection (over 1600), that is easily manageable now. this summer I began to move a part of it to our holiday home in Tuscany. this diaspora also allowed me to begin cataloging our large collection of books, now spread in three different locations. ALL my Jazz books are at home in Milano. I don't think I'll ever dispose for space reasons: I keep a sale list of records I'm not interested in any more for what ever reason. in terms of price limit I've always trusted in my good sense, I hope. for some records I've paid a lot but I never repented. I collect Jazz only, mainly first mono editions: in rare occasions I buy second or stereo. I'm convinced I'll stop collecting after I'm dead (if there will not exist a collectors' heaven).
|
|
|
Post by alunsevern on Aug 26, 2015 16:01:21 GMT
Hello Dott, I thought you might be first to chip in. "I'm convinced I'll stop collecting after I'm dead" --> I think you are probably right on that point. "(if there will not exist a collectors' heaven)." --> It hasn't been proven yet, but the balance of evidence suggests that such a thing doesn't exist, so I think you are right on this point too. I'm always interested to see that when you explain your collecting habits/rules, they always sound calm, rational, balanced, judicious, sensible, well thought through, logical. I still can't quite work out how you do it
|
|
|
Post by dottorjazz on Aug 26, 2015 18:15:44 GMT
do you really think it's so difficult to understand? I can't expect to buy a 1568 (NY 23) for some hundreds but I'm not willing to pay some thousands, why? 'cause I do not like it so much and my level of approval for a given record comes first. I've never followed market's craziness, simply I've chosen the stand-by option. prices go up and down, always. and if they aren't going to what I judge a correct level, I don't buy. I've always thought that I can live well without THAT record. actually I owe at least the digital version, so I HAVE the music, that comes first. of course it's more satisfying the original first pressing, but I can stay without. when I was younger, much younger, I used to buy lots of records a week: it was not uncommon I could buy 2-300 records a year. now it's another story: partly because I've many of what I wanted, partly because it's not easy to find what I'm still missing at a decent price. I'll never pay too much for a record: but, how much is too much? as Fredrik from Sweden, I try to look for NM or EX copies and I'm very proud of my collection that's more than 80% in those conditions. I've always upgraded important records, Sax Colossus comes to mind, until a very clean copy could come in, selling the older one. nowadays I buy 10-20 records a year, one or two are heavyweight, over 500€, if they are around: guess which label. I do not have any obsession now, I had several in the past. one was this: Albert Ayler Bells. this is one of the records that have been published in many a different appearances as FIRST. but one was the very first: I saw it the first time when I had just entered Ebay, around 15 years ago. then it disappeared to come out again 5 years ago: I thought I had already got it but the seller, a friend!, at the very last moment, increased the price. he knew how much I WANTED it. I was pissed and let it go away. I've never bought again from him, and I've been a very good customer since the 80's... but Fate was kind to me: just a few weeks later that record surfaced again and I could get it for less than half the price I was willing to pay. Attachment Deleted
|
|
Fredrik
Junior Member
fwrarejazzvinylcollector.com
Posts: 61
|
Post by Fredrik on Aug 27, 2015 7:23:55 GMT
I believe once you get into 1st pressings and trying to find the most beautiful copies you become nuts. A 1st pressing in great condition or nothing at all. It's all completely nuts, I know. To splash out thousands of dollars for a LP is pretty radical. For me, the music comes first, if I don't think the Music is great I won't buy the record. If the music is great, then I'll look for a 1st pressing. Because 1st pressings have soul. The rarity of a record is a factor too. To hold a 1st pressing from the 50's in superb condition, that's very rare and the music is outstanding on, is nothing short of magical. To get your hands on a 50's record that's still in so great shape is hard to grasp. The notion that this is how it was supposed to sound like. The absolute confidence that you're getting the real unspoiled sound. The smell of the jackets. The overall genuine feeling. I feel right now I will never buy nothing but a 1st pressing of any record. That's my curse but also my blessing, with the complete satisfaction of holding, putting on the turntable and sit down and listen to these great gems. Now, the problem with this hobby, if you practice it like I do, is that it will cost of lot of money. I'm not a millionaire. Still, I can put aside some dough each month for records. I think it's worth every penny I spend on the beauties. But the more interesting question is: is it more nuts to splash out thousands of dollars on a splendid 1st pressing Blue Note than splashing out the cash to own 4000, 5000 even 10.000 records which you will never have time to play? Quality of quantity. Thoughts?
|
|
|
Post by alunsevern on Aug 27, 2015 12:35:22 GMT
Fredrik, Quality over quantity every time, as far as I am concerned. But i think the point needs making that many collectors who own tens of thousands of records will buy from almost any source and in almost amy condition. What they seem to want primarily is volume, bulk, numbers, diversity. I don't really understand that mind-set but i suppose it does have at least one thing in its favour: it isn't an especially expensive way to collect records, and if they have the space -- well, why not? But it isn't my style.. Nor yours, obviously, and not Dott's either...
But i'll put my cards on the table: personally, i do think hundreds (let alone thousands) of dollars/pounds/euros for a record is, as you said, "nuts". Even Dott's upper limit ("heavyweight", as he said) of €500 is way beyond what i would even consider paying for a record. And it isn't only that i can't afford to pay those kind of sums (and i really can't) -- it seems *wrong*, somehow. I suppose what I mean is i simply couldn't justify it to myself. It wouldn't make me happy because....it feels wrong...
|
|
Fredrik
Junior Member
fwrarejazzvinylcollector.com
Posts: 61
|
Post by Fredrik on Aug 27, 2015 13:41:29 GMT
Think of it as collecting fine art, except you can listen to it. These pieces are relics, historical artefacts, not just albums. Considering how rare and desirable they are, and the conditions the high-end stuff comes in (like new, from the 50's) then it's not so difficult to come to grips with how much you have to pay to get your hands on a copy.
|
|
|
Post by dottorjazz on Aug 27, 2015 17:52:28 GMT
my thoughts about the pleasure of owing AND playing a beautiful 50's record are identical to Fredrik's. for most if not all my originals, I've the digital counterpart: I guarantee it's NOT the same pleasure listening and handling a cd, even with the same great music. I agree with Alun that hundreds/thousands of $ or € or £ for a single record can be a hard resolution. my behavior is under a straight rule: music first, not rarity. I've already declared that 1568 is not my preferred record, so I won't suffer if I can't get it. for records I would like to owe we can discuss. it's so easy to spend, let's say, 2 grand but it's not satisfying. when I bought on auctions I always had my limit well in mind. often my limit has been surpassed by others: no problem, I'll try again. my most expensive records are in the range of 1000-1750 €: this happened for less than ten records in five decades, one every 5 years. here are some.
|
|
Fredrik
Junior Member
fwrarejazzvinylcollector.com
Posts: 61
|
Post by Fredrik on Aug 27, 2015 18:46:13 GMT
The money you have to spend collecting 1st pressings of vintage jazz LP's are in many cases cheaper than collecting rare records in other genres, for example collecting The Beatles stuff. How about 19201 British Pounds for a copy of the White album? Roughly 29.000 USD back in 2008. I think every penny spent to own an original copy of a great, music-wise, rare and beautiful vintage jazz album is worth it. Then you have it in your collection to treasure and listen to for the rest of your life. Some people, as you know, buy these 1st pressings to put on a shelf and collect dust. Not playing it for whatever reason. Now that's nuts. Here are some of my most valuable gems:
|
|
|
Post by Rich on Aug 27, 2015 21:10:00 GMT
Time for a new thread, and I was prompted in this by this post on reorganising record collections over on Jazzcollector.com. I read Jazzcollector frequently although I must say its concerns (and indeed its values, its aesthetics, its obsessions, its tone) are not really mine. It is dominated by records of a type and financial value that don't for the most part even interest me all that much... And yet, and yet, I still read it regularly because the quality of writing is high, some of the stories about 'stumbling' on massive collections are excellent (the ' Baltimore collection', for example, but most of all because it opens a window onto a little sub-world I will never fully be part of but am fascinated by. Anyway, back to the nub of this -- organising and reorganising record collections. Now what interested me about the Jazzcollector.com post was the diversity of the comments. Some people thought 400 records more than enough; others wondered how someone could possibly house let alone listen to 10,000 records. Some recounted their arcane (frankly nuts in some cases) classifications systems... - What do you think constitutes a 'large' collection?
- Is there a number that is 'too many'?
- Would you ever dispose of records simply because you had run out of space?
- Do you have ever utterly unbreakable rules in your collecting, such as no reissues under any circumstances?
- Do you have a price limit?
- Do you only collect jazz?
- Can you foresee a time when you won't collect?
My own view on this is that somewhat late in life I have arrived at the small is beautiful philosophy. I now know know that I may have only say twenty years' listening ahead of me. It sounds a long time, but it isn't. So I now think that fewer records is the secret to happiness. A couple of years ago I sold off every item of non-jazz, and every item of jazz that included vocals. I went from around 2,000+ records to (I'm guessing) under a thousand. But every record is jazz. I have also ditched some mediocre records because I have tried to implement some of the disciplines of book collecting. Listen once or twice, good and hard. Do you need to keep this? Is it essential or merely nice to have? Can you do without it it? If so, it goes. I have also replaced some mediocre sounding records with better sounding CDs. Now that has been a surprise! The simple rule of thumb, I suppose, is this. Unlike my books, which spread all over the house and into my office in the city (thousands and thousands -- I no longer have any true idea how many), my records are restricted to a single old iKea bookcase. And into this they must fit. This almost means (not quite, but almost) something out for every something that comes in... If, during the course of say a weekend, I listen to seven or eight records I am very happy; but if I listen to seven or eight records and also identify two or three that can be disposed of, then I am truly happy. Let's hear your collecting idiosyncrasies. Honest, open, truthful. The madder the better. Hi Alun, I identify with your feelings on JC.com. For a while I enjoyed visiting and commenting there with dreams of someday being able to be the winning bidder of some of those high-stakes auctions. But with experience I've become more realistic, and at this point I'm well aware that I'm not part of that 'clique'. But yes, I agree, it's tempting to just look in on that world, all that big money being thrown around like that. My jazz vinyl collection seems to always stay below 100 copies. I know I am not a typical collector. If I had to guess, there's something to be said about the machismo that goes along with a large collection. I may have bought into that when I was younger but not anymore. I'm a huge quality over quantity person, in all facets of my life. It also seems to make sense that people who strictly listen to vinyl have more of a reason to have large vinyl collections. I'm often very content with listening to a digital copy of album, so vinyl listening is a special, not dogmatic, thing for me. I have a few post-1990 pressings, but I like the idea of pre-1990 pressings because one can be fairly certain they are all analog, and that digital mastering has not interfered with that. This is just a psychological preference of course; I have heard hundreds of digitally-mastered records that sound great. For me, it kind of defeats the purpose of vinyl though, ideologically. If it's been digitally mastered, a CD is just fine. Under these circumstances, I don't need originals. Even though there's a lot of excitement surrounding them, I find that the more I spend on a record the more picky I am about it, and whenever I spend more than $100 USD on a record I often find myself not feeling like the sound quality justifies the cost--though for some reason I keep trying! To be perfectly honest though, I struggle with whether or not I should even be a record collector at times, because no matter how hard I try not to be, I'm very picky about noise; I think my ear is critical to a fault when it comes to this, and I think growing up in the digital era has spoiled me. The truth about my conflict is this: I love vinyl, I love how tactile it is, and I love the nostalgia of it, but noise-wise and fidelity-wise I can't deny that digital is an amazing medium, and sound quality-wise I often prefer it to vinyl. In the end though, believe it or not, the tangibility and nostalgia factors usually end up winning out over sound quality, which is why, for all the trouble vinyl is, I prefer the vinyl listening experience to digital--for older music...I just wish I wasn't so picky! As time goes on and the more experienced I become as a collector, the more I think that all the effort that goes into collecting vintage vinyl isn't really worth it in the end, because deep down I know that in a way the whole collecting thing takes me a little away from the most important thing: the music.
|
|
|
Post by Rich on Aug 27, 2015 21:24:26 GMT
I believe once you get into 1st pressings and trying to find the most beautiful copies you become nuts. A 1st pressing in great condition or nothing at all. It's all completely nuts, I know. To splash out thousands of dollars for a LP is pretty radical. For me, the music comes first, if I don't think the Music is great I won't buy the record. If the music is great, then I'll look for a 1st pressing. Because 1st pressings have soul. The rarity of a record is a factor too. To hold a 1st pressing from the 50's in superb condition, that's very rare and the music is outstanding on, is nothing short of magical. To get your hands on a 50's record that's still in so great shape is hard to grasp. The notion that this is how it was supposed to sound like. The absolute confidence that you're getting the real unspoiled sound. The smell of the jackets. The overall genuine feeling. I feel right now I will never buy nothing but a 1st pressing of any record. That's my curse but also my blessing, with the complete satisfaction of holding, putting on the turntable and sit down and listen to these great gems. Now, the problem with this hobby, if you practice it like I do, is that it will cost of lot of money. I'm not a millionaire. Still, I can put aside some dough each month for records. I think it's worth every penny I spend on the beauties. But the more interesting question is: is it more nuts to splash out thousands of dollars on a splendid 1st pressing Blue Note than splashing out the cash to own 4000, 5000 even 10.000 records which you will never have time to play? Quality of quantity. Thoughts? Great analogy regarding spending $5,000 on two to five records that you will sit down and listen to dozens of times and soak up every moment of doing so, versus spending that money on 300-400 records for which maybe half them you will never listen to, 40% you may listen to once in the background, then 10% are maybe left to cherish as much as the more expensive originals. I also have always agreed with your other points regarding the principle of hearing the music 'as it was intended to be heard'.
|
|
|
Post by Rich on Aug 27, 2015 21:28:47 GMT
Fredrik, Quality over quantity every time, as far as I am concerned. But i think the point needs making that many collectors who own tens of thousands of records will buy from almost any source and in almost amy condition. What they seem to want primarily is volume, bulk, numbers, diversity. I don't really understand that mind-set but i suppose it does have at least one thing in its favour: it isn't an especially expensive way to collect records, and if they have the space -- well, why not? But it isn't my style.. Nor yours, obviously, and not Dott's either... But i'll put my cards on the table: personally, i do think hundreds (let alone thousands) of dollars/pounds/euros for a record is, as you said, "nuts". Even Dott's upper limit ("heavyweight", as he said) of €500 is way beyond what i would even consider paying for a record. And it isn't only that i can't afford to pay those kind of sums (and i really can't) -- it seems *wrong*, somehow. I suppose what I mean is i simply couldn't justify it to myself. It wouldn't make me happy because....it feels wrong... Fascinating point regarding it theoretically feeling guilty spending a lot of money on a record. I can definitely see where you're coming from, but I agree with Fredrik that it's kind of like collecting fine art (though I don't really take part in it to his extent; the most I've ever spent on a record is $350). Some people are art collectors because they have the money to spend and they feel that what they're getting is worth the high price. It is a lot like collecting fine art, that was another good analogy of Fredrik's.
|
|
|
Post by alunsevern on Aug 28, 2015 12:09:43 GMT
Rich, Perhaps what you are is a *music* collector rather than a record collector per se. And there's absolutely nothing wrong with that. It may seem a subtle distinction but given what you said about the music being the most important thing, and the supremacy of digital for convenience and (in some cases, anyway) fidelity, being a music collector seems to describe you more accurately. Do it and be happy, I say...
|
|
|
Post by Rich on Aug 28, 2015 17:05:04 GMT
Rich, Perhaps what you are is a *music* collector rather than a record collector per se. And there's absolutely nothing wrong with that. It may seem a subtle distinction but given what you said about the music being the most important thing, and the supremacy of digital for convenience and (in some cases, anyway) fidelity, being a music collector seems to describe you more accurately. Do it and be happy, I say... Thanks for the feedback Alun. I agree, I definitely feel better about my record collecting habits when I know I'm putting the music first.
|
|
Fredrik
Junior Member
fwrarejazzvinylcollector.com
Posts: 61
|
Post by Fredrik on Aug 28, 2015 17:35:28 GMT
For me, the music always comes first, but then I have to get it as a 1st pressing if it's good enough. The albums that are the best and most important to me I will try and get on vinyl. Other ones I have digital files of. I would never buy any album if I don't love the music. I guess some people maybe would consider buying a record just because it's rare, just to have it. But not me. No way. I love the vinyl medium, it's the only way for me. I would feel incomplete if I just had the mp3's and god forbid; cd's. It's so soulless, plastic.
|
|