Help! I can't bring myself to unload my old rock records!

[RDK]

I probably have 2000+ LPs, still buy the occassional new one and still enjoy searching through the dollar bins for old stuff. I've tried to cull the herd on occassion, but have found that it's more trouble and time-consuming than its worth. Can't get much money for anything but the rare stuff - and that's usually the the stuff I'm more inclined to keep. The "junk" I often keep around just to look at the covers and wallow in nostalgia even if, sometimes, the music isn't so hot or the vinyl is pretty scuffed. But it takes so much time just to audition each album to see if it's worth keeping or not that I end up just saying "forget it" - which is probably how it'll be until I move or am forced to make some room. If I have duplicates or have replaced something with a CD I'll often just give the used vinyl to a pal here at work.

[papsrus]

Donate them to the library. I think you'll get a tax credit (another thread touched on this) and you can draw some satisfaction from the thought that the music will get played and enjoyed by somebody. And, if you ever want to listen to something, it'll be right there at the library for you!

[ejp626]

Donate them to the library. I think you'll get a tax credit (another thread touched on this) and you can draw some satisfaction from the thought that the music will get played and enjoyed by somebody. And, if you ever want to listen to something, it'll be right there at the library for you!

Unless you get a firm commitment from them, donated material goes straight to the sale pile. You'd be hard pressed to find any LPs at all in the entire Chicago library system and what they do have is opera, classical or jazz.

[Hot Ptah]

Donate them to the library. I think you'll get a tax credit (another thread touched on this) and you can draw some satisfaction from the thought that the music will get played and enjoyed by somebody. And, if you ever want to listen to something, it'll be right there at the library for you!

There have been online threads before in jazz forums about donating vinyl to libraries. The overall conclusion in those threads is that libraries don't want it either, usually. Often your collection ends up getting sold for a ridiculously low price at the library's annual fundraiser.

If you have a lot of vinyl, it's stuck to you like zebra mussels.

[Hot Ptah]

Thanks for all of your replies! It's given me lots of food for thought. Are any of you thinking of holding onto your vinyl just in case your kids get into your old rock stuff? That's part of my thinking.

Ha! Dream on! My 12 year old daughter thinks that ALL of my music "stinks". She likes the soundtrack of her life, recorded by people close to her own age. And so it goes, forevermore.

I have concluded for myself only, that as long as I have storage space and feel like keeping old recorded non-jazz music, I will. There is no real way to "make money off of it," except for the odd rarity I somehow managed to accidentally keep in good condition.

What surprised me a little bit is that when I decided to try to donate my old non-jazz vinyl to worthy organizations for the less fortunate, they had absolutely no interest in receiving it.

That IS surprising! Bizarre, if you ask me. There must be someone who would enjoy this stuff (besides us in our younger days).

Actually, I have found that older and younger people do not "enjoy this stuff" much. Even albums like "Tommy" and "Deja Vu" seem to elict yawns and shouts of "turn that garbage off" from my daughter's friends. Just as I could not "hear" my parents' early 1950s showtunes albums, although they were most likely of real merit, younger people cannot "hear" our "stuff."

Of course, there is always the odd exception, the current 15 year old nerd who gets into World War II battles, 1950s Presidential campaign buttons and late 1960s rock, but there aren't very many of them, I think.

Not even the Stones merit a listen? Dylan? Ry Cooder? Young people today!

My experience, which may not be universal, is that "the young people of today" are as eager to listen to the Stones, Dylan or Ry Cooder as I was, at age 14 in 1970, to listen to Benny Goodman. Not at all.

It's more of the sound of the music--it's not THEIR SOUND. Hannah Montana is THEIR SOUND. Other current groups and singers are THEIR SOUND.

If you try to tell them that the Stones are objectively better than Hannah Montana, you sound like a 50 year old in 1969 railing against that awful rock and roll noise--"we had Glenn Miller when I was growing up, that was real music, not these....these...animals with their screaming and screechy guitars, it sounds like they are pulling a cat's tail. Now Jimmy Dorsey, that was music!"

[AllenLowe]

well, I'm looking around to donate my collection - if it's a good enough collection, and the particular library is truly serious, they won't discard it - though my particular collection comes with the Lowe curse -

[papsrus]

Hmmm ... well, so much for libraries.

Which reminds me, I once had furniture rejected by Goodwill! They actually came to my house to pick it up, and then said, "Nope, this stuff is too beat up." That was a new low.

[RDK]

Hmmm ... well, so much for libraries.

Which reminds me, I once had furniture rejected by Goodwill! They actually came to my house to pick it up, and then said, "Nope, this stuff is too beat up." That was a new low.

Yeah, I know the feeling. The Goodwill stores near us actually have signs to the effect that they only want furnishings in good condition. Old LPs I can tuck away in a box, toss in the garage and forget about; not so with old couches.

[7/4]

Hmmm ... well, so much for libraries.

Which reminds me, I once had furniture rejected by Goodwill! They actually came to my house to pick it up, and then said, "Nope, this stuff is too beat up." That was a new low.

[sjarrell]

I buy records at work, and they trickle in more slowly than ever these days. I pay a buck and up for the useful ones and refuse the not-useful ones. Things I used to see daily I see maybe annually now. These days I'm thrilled when a stack of Zeppelin LPs show up, because there's always a kid that wants 'em, and I never know if or when I'll see them again...

[porcy62]

My experience, which may not be universal, is that "the young people of today" are as eager to listen to the Stones, Dylan or Ry Cooder as I was, at age 14 in 1970, to listen to Benny Goodman. Not at all.

It's more of the sound of the music--it's not THEIR SOUND. Hannah Montana is THEIR SOUND. Other current groups and singers are THEIR SOUND.

If you try to tell them that the Stones are objectively better than Hannah Montana, you sound like a 50 year old in 1969 railing against that awful rock and roll noise--"we had Glenn Miller when I was growing up, that was real music, not these....these...animals with their screaming and screechy guitars, it sounds like they are pulling a cat's tail. Now Jimmy Dorsey, that was music!"

My experience, though I had to lock my TT after the friends of my son wanted to hear how Zep and Who sound on vinyl, needless to say they were pretty stoned that time, I didn't appreciate the results.

[Teasing the Korean]

There are significant numbers of kids into so-called "classic rock," WAY more than than the numbers of kids when classic rock was current who listened to music from, say, the 1930s and 40s.

I say this merely as an observation. I could care less what these kids listen to.

[7/4]

There are significant numbers of kids into so-called "classic rock," WAY more than than the numbers of kids when classic rock was current who listened to music from, say, the 1930s and 40s.

That's right.

Young Zep, Who, Floyd and so on fans.

Those darn kids.

[papsrus]

There are significant numbers of kids into so-called "classic rock," WAY more than than the numbers of kids when classic rock was current who listened to music from, say, the 1930s and 40s.

That's right.

Young Zep, Who, Floyd and so on fans.

Those darn kids.

Never mind that, those bands are still touring!

(I've always been curious about what sort of audience shows up to a Journey concert these days .... I would guess it's largely middle-aged yuppie types reliving the night they lost their virginity, or something along those lines.)

[7/4]

Even without Roger Waters, Floyd hasn't toured in many years.

Zep hasn't toured since before their drummer died in '80.

.

Edited July 23, 2008 by 7/4

[papsrus]

Even without Roger Waters, Floyd hasn't toured in many years.

.

Really? I thought I read a story somewhere recently about how the flying pig got loose at a concert and landed in some woman's yard miles away.

[7/4]

Really? I thought I read a story somewhere recently about how the flying pig got loose at a concert and landed in some woman's yard miles away.

Roger Waters concert.

[papsrus]

Really? I thought I read a story somewhere recently about how the flying pig got loose at a concert and landed in some woman's yard miles away.

Roger Waters concert.

Ah ... it's all becoming clear to me now. :eye:

[7/4]

Lost: Roger Waters' Pig

[Bright Moments]

i'll take 'em off yer hands - if'n they come with jewel boxes.

[papsrus]

Well, I do hope the pig is at least back in one piece.

I guess, aside from the Stones, few of what I think of as top-tier rock 'n' roll acts continue on today. The Eagles do get back together periodically I think, or at least did somewhat recently. Springsteen is still going strong, of course. But it seems like there's a market for what I think of as second-tier acts from that period. Foreigner, for instance, is touring this summer. I think that train wreck Kiss still puts on the same show they did 30 years ago or so (and probably sells out large halls). I'm sure there's more but I'm too lazy and tired to look. Outlaws maybe? Skynard? ...

[Big Beat Steve]

Ha, a real funny thread again.

Vinyl seems to have a stronger hold over here, though, it seems. Whenever a local record store holds a special sale here even the young'uns snap up stacks of vinyl as fast as they can and the place is CROWDED! Same at local fleamarkets. Vinyl record stalls do attract the browsers and buyers. Still a niche market overall but a fairly active one, it seems.

But this thread and the woes that seem to befall even you longtime hip forum members make me realize what a nerd I must be.

Am I nuts in clinging on to a collection of some 6,000 LPs (plus 45s that approach the 1,000 mark too, I think) whereas my CD total still is only some 600 to 700 (though increasing steadily)? And I keep buying vinyl and am only slowed down by the fact that I am running out of vinyl shelf space.

And though a good quarter of that vinyl falls into the Rock category (mostly 50s R'n'R/Rockabilly and related styles, including more recent bands of this genre, and assorted 60s stuff) which I don't even listen to that much anymore I STILL could think of only a couple dozen that I'd easily let go (too few to bother sorting them out anyway).

So am I just an incurable vinyl nut or what is the diagnosis of the enlightened CD/mp3 doctors? :D

Edited July 23, 2008 by Big Beat Steve

[sidewinder]

Am I nuts in clinging on to a collection of some 6,000 LPs (plus 45s that approach the 1,000 mark too, I think) whereas my CD total still is only some 600 to 700 (though increasing steadily)?

No

[ejp626]

Am I nuts in clinging on to a collection of some 6,000 LPs (plus 45s that approach the 1,000 mark too, I think) whereas my CD total still is only some 600 to 700 (though increasing steadily)?

No

To me, the key question is are you actively listening to and enjoying LPs. If so, it makes perfect sense to keep them. What is a little strange is keeping thousands of LPs that are literally never listened to, just boxed up and moved from place to place.

[Big Beat Steve]

Well, just do a little calculating. Regardless of whether you own 5000 LP's or 5000 CD's and even assuming you have a fixed time per day available for listening (really LISTENING, not just doodling in the background), how often is it humanly possible at all just to listen to EACH of these records in turn just ONE single time? Obviously a LOT of them just sit there and gather dust between the times you pull them out, especially if you are not one of those bookkeeping souls (who keep logs of when they listen to which records) but pull out whatever and whenever you feel like it (which means some get a spin far more frequently than others that in turn sit there even longer until - literally - their turn comes again). It just is a natural law that once any collection reaches a certain size you just CANNOT listen to each and every record very often anymore.

So the key question to ask would rather be: Do you want to have the records around just to BE ABLE to listen to them if and when you should feel like it or don'tcha?

I agree that stacking away thousands of records in boxes in inaccessible places (such as even some of the forum heavyweights around here seem to do) is not the most sensible thing to do (mine all sit on shelves neatly arranged by style and alphabetic order where they belong) but on the other hand I can understand it to a point myself as I've got quite a huge load of books and mags on assorted topics stowed away in crates that I just cannot bring myself to dump nor even to sell off at garage sales or fleamarkets - yet. Maybe it just is in the nature of those afflicted by an advanced case of collectionitis.

Edited July 23, 2008 by Big Beat Steve