Does This Annoy You?

[Oldiesfreak1854]

I've been reading a lot of articles lately about the so-called "resurgence" of vinyl records (which, even if it's occurring, is greatly exaggerated.)  I appreciate that so many people are interested in collecting vinyl (something I haven't gotten into but want to), but it seems like almost all the focus is on LPs.  That annoys the heck out of me and makes me think, "What about 45s?"  To tell you the truth, I'm not that crazy about LPs in comparison to singles.  Not every song on an album is good, and considering the type of music I usually listen to, I don't want to have to listen to a song about sex, drugs, or any sort of garbage like that.  I realize you can just move the needle with an LP, but I'm pretty sure without trying that it's a huge pain in the butt trying to get it to the right spot.  The point is, why are 45s so ignored?  Is it because record labels figure that if they sell more singles, that they'll lose money on album sales?  It's just incredibly frustrating.  Does this annoy any of you as well?

[Alcon]

I'd give it a 2 on a scale of 1 to 10, 10 being how you won't respond to this after several promises to.

I openly and aggresively support civil unions, but not gay marriage.

Still waiting, after several weeks, on your rationale why.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

It doesn't annoy me at all, but it's logical that 45s would be ignored in today's market. First off the tendency to prefer buying singles rather than albums is pretty much the same that would lead people to prefer buying individual downloads. In both cases, the consumers are more interested in music as it affects them than in the vision an artist might have. Also many of the people who but vinyl do so in addition to other formats as a way of supporting the artists they really like. For those people, a pricier 33 ¹/₃ album is to be preferred to a 45 single.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

I download a lot of music, and I would be open to (indirectly) supporting musicians by buying 45s (even used), but I just feel that LPs are kind of a waste, especially if you don't really like all the songs.  If I want an entire album, I would much sooner buy a CD than download it or buy an LP. (That is, unless the album is really awesome, in which case I would be more inclined to go with vinyl.)

It doesn't annoy me at all, but it's logical that 45s would be ignored in today's market. First off the tendency to prefer buying singles rather than albums is pretty much the same that would lead people to prefer buying individual downloads. In both cases, the consumers are more interested in music as it affects them than in the vision an artist might have. Also many of the people who but vinyl do so in addition to other formats as a way of supporting the artists they really like. For those people, a pricier 33 ¹/₃ album is to be preferred to a 45 single.

What does that first sentence mean?  And also, I come from a very cheap family (I'm half Scottish by ancestry, if that helps put it in perspective), so I would think that the vast majoriy of people would prefer a cheaper single since nearly everybody likes getting a bargain. 

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

With a vinyl album, you're more or less locked into the song order the artist intended.  If you want the freedom to pick and choose, you bought singles, and for that sort of freedom, digital singles are better than vinyl singles.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

Is he really having a special moment over the logic of vinyl?

[Oldiesfreak1854]

With a vinyl album, you're more or less locked into the song order the artist intended.  If you want the freedom to pick and choose, you bought singles, and for that sort of freedom, digital singles are better than vinyl singles.

Yeah, but what if you're one of those folks who thinks that vinyl sounds better?  Wouldn't you want to buy vinyl singles then?

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

With a vinyl album, you're more or less locked into the song order the artist intended.  If you want the freedom to pick and choose, you bought singles, and for that sort of freedom, digital singles are better than vinyl singles.

Yeah, but what if you're one of those folks who thinks that vinyl sounds better?  Wouldn't you want to buy vinyl singles then?

Perhaps, but the market for vinyl singles appears to be too small to justify the cost of making the master for pressing the single.  Plus, by eroding into vinyl album sales, singles would increase the per unit costs on albums.  Vinyl is not like CDs where the cost to produce the first one is essentially the same as the cost to produce a copy.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

LOL@calling single records 45s.

They're called 7"s. And they often don't even spin at 45 RPM. Probably a majority of my single sized records spin at 33 1/3 RPM.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

LOL@calling single records 45s.

They're called 7"s. And they often don't even spin at 45 RPM. Probably a majority of my single sized records spin at 33 1/3 RPM.

Sorry, I didn't know better.  What's the difference anyway?

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

LOL@calling single records 45s.

They're called 7"s. And they often don't even spin at 45 RPM. Probably a majority of my single sized records spin at 33 1/3 RPM.

Sorry, I didn't know better.  What's the difference anyway?

Wasn't aware that they were making 33 ¹/₃ RPM singles these days. The only significant technical difference is in the rotational speed, so there is no reason it can't be done.  A higher rotational speed means better sound fidelity, but less recording time for a given sized record. (You can also fiddle with the groove size, with larger grooves giving better fidelity, but less recording time.) When 45 RPM records first came out they were also done as larger albums, but couldn't hold as much music as the 33s.  The larger spindle hole of the 45s made them handier for jukeboxes, so they dominated the singles market while the longer running time of the 33s made them the format of choice for albums.  Now that jukeboxes don't use vinyl records, it's not too surprising that there would be 33s as singles.

[Lief 🗽]

I've been reading a lot of articles lately about the so-called "resurgence" of vinyl records (which, even if it's occurring, is greatly exaggerated.)  I appreciate that so many people are interested in collecting vinyl (something I haven't gotten into but want to), but it seems like almost all the focus is on LPs.  That annoys the heck out of me and makes me think, "What about 45s?"  To tell you the truth, I'm not that crazy about LPs in comparison to singles.  Not every song on an album is good, and considering the type of music I usually listen to, I don't want to have to listen to a song about sex, drugs, or any sort of garbage like that.  I realize you can just move the needle with an LP, but I'm pretty sure without trying that it's a huge pain in the butt trying to get it to the right spot.  The point is, why are 45s so ignored?  Is it because record labels figure that if they sell more singles, that they'll lose money on album sales?  It's just incredibly frustrating.  Does this annoy any of you as well?

If you're listening to music where you don't need to listen to the whole album to appreciate it, you should start listening to better music IMO. Also you should show sex a lot more deference than calling it "garbage" since it's how you were created, bro.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

LOL@calling single records 45s.

They're called 7"s. And they often don't even spin at 45 RPM. Probably a majority of my single sized records spin at 33 1/3 RPM.

Sorry, I didn't know better.  What's the difference anyway?

Wasn't aware that they were making 33 ¹/₃ RPM singles these days. The only significant technical difference is in the rotational speed, so there is no reason it can't be done.  A higher rotational speed means better sound fidelity, but less recording time for a given sized record. (You can also fiddle with the groove size, with larger grooves giving better fidelity, but less recording time.) When 45 RPM records first came out they were also done as larger albums, but couldn't hold as much music as the 33s.  The larger spindle hole of the 45s made them handier for jukeboxes, so they dominated the singles market while the longer running time of the 33s made them the format of choice for albums.  Now that jukeboxes don't use vinyl records, it's not too surprising that there would be 33s as singles.

33 RPM 7"s aren't really thought of as singles, but rather as equivalent to EPs. They often have more than one song per side. Also split 7"s are very common (one band on one side, another band on the other side.)

[Oldiesfreak1854]

I've been reading a lot of articles lately about the so-called "resurgence" of vinyl records (which, even if it's occurring, is greatly exaggerated.)  I appreciate that so many people are interested in collecting vinyl (something I haven't gotten into but want to), but it seems like almost all the focus is on LPs.  That annoys the heck out of me and makes me think, "What about 45s?"  To tell you the truth, I'm not that crazy about LPs in comparison to singles.  Not every song on an album is good, and considering the type of music I usually listen to, I don't want to have to listen to a song about sex, drugs, or any sort of garbage like that.  I realize you can just move the needle with an LP, but I'm pretty sure without trying that it's a huge pain in the butt trying to get it to the right spot.  The point is, why are 45s so ignored?  Is it because record labels figure that if they sell more singles, that they'll lose money on album sales?  It's just incredibly frustrating.  Does this annoy any of you as well?

If you're listening to music where you don't need to listen to the whole album to appreciate it, you should start listening to better music IMO. Also you should show sex a lot more deference than calling it "garbage" since it's how you were created, bro.

I mean extramarital sex.  You know, songs like "Start Me Up" or "All Right Now."