Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Glice
Does anyone else look at threads like this and think 'I'm not really seeing this convenience line'?
|
Huh? I certainly don't agree with purchasing anything digitally. The only stuff I download is the music I only have on vinyl and cassette, so I can have a more easily accessible digital copy of said music without having to make one myself. It's a bit of a hassle to keep flipping wax and tapes over when I just want a bit of background music while I'm writing or painting or cleaning or whatever, so having the more time-consuming mediums digitized is helpful sometimes.
HOWEVER I still would never
just have a digital copy of something. I need to have it in my hands too, or on the shelf, so it can become a more tangible item of my ownership. I'd be lying too if I didn't like showing off my big collection of records/tapes/CDs when I have people over to the flat. It's seriously more impressive than "look how much time I spent downloading music". I see the convenience but I think it comes at a cost of not getting the whole piece of the artist's work- the sleeve of the record makes as much an impression on me as the music within, sometimes.
I've had this discussion with my girlfriend about a million times- I'm apparently far too reactionary, whereas I think if you own about 8 CDs (as she does, one of which I'm only a little bit annoyed isn't in my own collection) and have the rest of your collection completely digitized, something is amiss. I don't know what it is, but it just feels strange. Justice was served to my argument anyway, when I accidentally crashed her laptop and she lost everything. Oh how I laughed.
I don't know where I'm going with this.