Hey, I was managing my lossy archive and thought up this poll...

Basically the question is, What size is your music collection?

More specifically this means the number of full Albums and EPs you have stored, ready to access on HDD(s) either as lossless or transparent lossy...

For me, I have about 2400 albums (~209GB Lossy - Stored in an external HDD, no backup yet.. )

Ching

3000~4999

29,320 files in 2,007 folders stored using 346 gigs of a 500 gig HD. 90% (guess) of it is FLAC, the rest random lossy.

Just over 600

Are you talking legally or illegally owned?

I measure my library primarily by song count, since I collect on a per-track basis mostly.

I don't think anyone on this board owns illegal music do we. Let's stick with legal.

I have around 400 albums (including a very few EPs) I think. I make that an average of around 21 albums purchased every year.

I'd like to know the rate for other users, as I'm wondering how a 20 year old can have 2000 albums.

Well, legal or not, I'll leave that to your own descretion!
I'm 21, have been collecting albums since i was 16. The majority of the albums I have were obtained in the last two years.

So, does that mean you are buying around and album a day, or around 10 a week?

I'll not beat around the bush. I own about 350 CDs. A large number of the lossy albums I have are those that I have ripped from friends CDs and even some from the local library (!). Some albums are in fact obtained with p2p...

There I confessed

I've been known as a music freak. I listen to absolutely anything. One minute I'll have Bach on then the next DJ Tiesto and then after that probably Pink Floyd. I just can't satisfy my music needs with buying CDs legally

Let's stick to legal: 430.

Is borrowing albums legal..?

In some countries, it seems. There is an interesting thread on the subject here. Edit: actually it's not that interesting, but there are a few interesting posts, including some Polish members saying that it is totally legal to share CDs with friends, and Guruboolez pointing out that it it totally legal to rip library discs in France.

I am a hoarder by nature - a bit obsessive in fact. However, it didn't take me long to realise that there is no point in me grabbing as many albums as I can if I just don't have the time to listen to them. If I have too much choice I tend not to spend the time giving an album a chance to grow on me. I'd rather be selective and make the time to listen to an album.

In recent years I have probably only bought 2-3 albums a month.

NB: Please can we stick to legally owned albums here, as I do not wish to see illegal activities condoned by this board.

Yes, I tend to hoard a great deal.

Unfortunately, desire gets the better of me and I obtain many albums without buying them.. I am in no way condoning this activity but methinks for someone like me who desires vast amounts of music and does not have a great deal of money, there is little choice.

I always attempt to save money and purchase CDs whenever I can.

If and when I have greater funds at my disposal I WILL replace all hoarded albums with purchased CDs.

Who has 10000+ albums btw?..

Same here. For a few years, i kept full albums and a lossless backup of it via the CD. After a while, it dawned on me that 95% of the stuff which i regularily play makes up just about 33% of the tracks i had on my hdd. And i asked myself "why would i want to waste 66% of space, and have to pick the good tracks manually whenever i create a playlist?". After that, i began to only keep the best tracks of albums, and then give the original CDs to people who do not know the artists yet, but who may like them. Funny thing is that this way, a circle of buddies emerged who would do the same. And the irony is, that this way the amount of music we bought actually increased, because our music-horizon widened.

For some CDs, which clearly do not have "songs" but are more like one big work, splitted into parts, i still keep full albums. Though, those are a minority here.

The result on my hdd, is 2400 hand-selected tracks. I can just drop a folder into fb2k and will have a playlist consisting only of "good" and "very good" tracks, without any fillers.

How long do you give an album before deciding you will never like a song on it?

My favourite track on an album often changes over time.

I would always be worried I had dismissed a track too soon, or find a song going around my head only to find that it's one I no longer own.

I have approximately 300 albums, but most of them I have had for more than 10 years. I don't spend much time anymore listening to my music so I only but 1 or 2 per year now.

Many years ago i have been a big fan of the early King Crimson albums. Then (in the eighties) i bought some more recent ones and my reaction was: What's this? It took about one week to get used to them, then i really liked them... And something similar frequently happened to me. I also think, that i would spend less time on trying to understand some new music, if there are too many (easy listening) choices available. One album per month was ok for me.

Exactly. I'm glad it's not just me.

A recent example for me would be Arcade Fire's "Funeral". I wasn't impressed to start with, but a friend had recommended it so I persisted, and it's now my favourite album in recent history. Also, my favourite track has switched from "Wake Up", to "In The Backseat", and then after weeks of listening to "Neighborhood #1". In fact, "Une Année Sans Lumière" probably was the first track that gave me any hope. I bought Neon Bible and have yet to get into it, but I'm not giving up on it quite yet.

Originally, a few months - now just 2-4 listens. With "good" and "very good" tracks, i do not solely mean that i "like" them, but also the quality, creativity and how "interesting" and "deep" it sounds. A few years ago, i wouldn t be able to do that in just a few listens, but over the course of time became trained in it and got a quite good intuition in estimating how interesting a track may be long-term.

One also has to take into account the pool of potentially interesting tracks. I got to know various very resourceful people - getting to find interesting and exceptional music is no longer something which requires alot of effort for me - i actually have to put on the brakes on good recommendations, because the resource of interesting music is much higher than i can handle. There is a whole universe of interesting and unknown music out there, and i simply do not consider it efficient, to analize a track for a long amount of time, just because there may be something interesting hidden deep within it - because there are enough other interesting tracks out there which do not require *studying* them, to be interesting. I followed that road a few years ago, and came to the conclusion, that it is not worth it for me.

This does not mean, that i do not care about deep and layered music. The majority of my music is very layered, multi-facetted and capable of growing over time. But i do not consider it worth it if one has to listen to a track for months, just so that it *starts* becoming interesting. A good track, should already be interesting on the first few top layers, and additionally be capable of growing even more over the course of time. I want both, not either/or. And because the resources out there are large enough, it is efficient for me to have such high demands.

- Lyx

Interesting takes. I feel the same way but couldn't articulate it as well. There's so much good music in the world that I've gotten good at quickly evaluating what I like, at least in most types of music. Where it's difficult for me is in abstract and minimal music where the appreciation requires a particular set of circumstances (for me anyway) that can impose some time. There I understand what SS means, where a given track may not be effective until it's played in the right circumstance.

I also delete tracks that I rate 1 or 2 stars and I don't care that the album is now incomplete. There's no point in keeping those songs around when there are always other songs that are better. When culling these tracks over a large collection you can gain a lot of HD space back, to use toward better music.

I had read that whatever music was popular when you were in your late teens and twenties is what you will be most comfortable listening to for the rest of your life, and this is certainly the case for me. Sixties and early seventies rock, as far as I am concerned, is the pinacle of the genre, with most of what has come since then sounding boring and derivative to me. Of course, I also like all kinds of classical music, which I also listened to throughout my youth.

Make one or 2-3 playlists only with this kind of minimal music. Then only listen to it when you are in those "calm, aware and absorbing" states. Over the course of time, you will notice which tracks are potent. It takes a bit more time than other tracks, but this way, it worked faster for me. Besides, you will over the course of time accumulate a few very unique playlits consisting of hard to find and *select* tracks. Typically, it is very difficult to create such a playlist instantly, because it consists of usually "unspectacular" tracks and you can only efficiently create such a playlist, when you are in that state of mind. By doing the above, you end up with playlits, which you can simply load, without being distracted with experimentation while in that state.

(edit: added quote)

I wouldn't agree with “whatever music was popular when you were...”. I think it's "whatever music was popluar with you when you were...”. Luckily this was the time when I widened my musical tastes as I was finally able to buy lots of music for the first time and I guess therefore I won't be stuck to a limited set of genres for the rest of my life.

I own just a bit over 2000 albums, mostly cd:s ripped to flac with dvd backup, but also quite many older vinyls that are not backed up.

Excellent suggestion -- I'm going to do it this way. Thanks! By the way, I like the concept of layers and how it's not worth spending the time discovering the inner layers unless the outer layers are at least somehow interesting.

You're welcome


The main problem is "you dont know beforehand". When something is uninteresting on the surface and shows no signs of inner depth, then there is a small chance, that it MAY be interesting below the surface after listing many many times to it. It may - or it may not. Why should i spent that much time - without knowing beforehand if it pays off - when there are enough other tracks out there where the chances are better? In that scenario, it simply makes no rational sense, to choose the high risk instead of the low one. Plus - if one often plays music when guests are there - then this music is unsuited for them at that very moment - music which has both(interesting on the surface, AND below) does not have this drawback. Why pick between "either/or" when i can have "both"?

Yes, i will miss out some interesting tracks that way. I would as well miss out some interesting tracks, if i would do it the other way. I have to set priorities anyways, because there is too much interesting music out there, to get to know it all. I will miss out something anyways - my choice is just the "what", not the "if".

- Lyx

Do you guys check out new releases a lot? Knowing the state of cd mastering these days... Personally, I don't.

Bad mastering isn't an excuse to avoid all new music

It is to me. Why listen to bad sounding music when you can listen to good sounding music?

Why limit yourself to like 5% of the music world, when you can have access 95% of it? It is your choice to ignore the alternatives because you do not want to put in the effort to actively seek for them. You get fed with trash by the music industry, and your reaction to it is giving up. In other words, you still depend on them telling you what to do.

- Lyx

I have about 900 albums available on my hd, with another 150+ vinyl, dozens of 8tracks, a few reel2reel backups i havent got around to backing up. Most of my stuff is cd ripped from my own purchases, my parents (thankfully they didnt buy into 80s-90s pop music) collection, and also the library. Also the music i have found to be extremely hard to find i've had to obtain through other means (out of print stuff, imports, chinese/thai obscure titles, non cd stuff...)

I'm 20, and I've had to slow down some since i started college.

And yeah, nothing beats the mastering of late 80s-90s cds. The cds were even a little more substantial compared to the ones of today.

It seems i have the same listening habits as Lyx, studying the music, etc. I like to listen to any new albums I get by shutting off the lights in the early evening, laying down with my headphones, and conscienciously listening. Hope that doesn't make me too geeky or old-fashioned.

Edit: I like music that takes a little unpacking to get the full deal. I really hate to name drop, but even something like System of a Down can be appreciated from an aesthetic or musicality standpoint. I'll stand by that explanation as reason for my penchant for free jazz, too.

I'm not sure what are those percentages, Lyx. To my experience all stuff today is more or less badly mastered.
I often listen to a local radio station which plays lots of new stuff, all kinds of music. Indie and mainstream. I'm not so happy about the sound of it. And the station puts the music out just about as it is, without their own compressors.

What is called "indie" is part of the mainstream. There is a whole universe of music out there of which you do not know that it exists. But you will not find that stuff in mainstream-media. Often, you wont even find it in ANY commercial media. It doesn't come to you by itself. The mentioned percentages actually are quite possible an understatement - the 5 percent was a conservative estimation. From the POV of reality, almost all music is not released by the major labels and its subs. From the POV of the media though, almost all music is released by the major labels and its subs. Your perception of reality is totally skewed, because thats how they want your perception to be like - that there is only them and nothing else. They though are just a tiny totally overrated bubbleworld, relative to what actually is out there. Todays media is fiction.

- Lyx

P.S.: Regarding overcompression - what do you expect from a RADIO? They use compression in addition to the compression already in the original tracks.

Well please mention some artists/labels that belong to that "other" universe. What music styles belong there?



Not all radios. The radio I was talking about doesn't. It comes out pretty natural.
They also play lots of old stuff, including vinyls, and it sounds good and dynamic. Trust me.

Most real ambient (not techno-ambient or "chill-out") is either self-published or on unknown labels. Same goes for goa, post-rock and shoegaze. A high amount of non-mainstream electronica is also released on unknown labels. The majority of Drum'n Bass and Jungle is released on unknown labels. Almost all berlin-school/synthie-music is released on unknown labels. The list goes on.... As for artists - plain and simply search yourself. You will not get them delivered on a silver-tablet..... wikipedia, last.fm, filesharing,.... - you have more than enough options at your disposal if you are willing and creative enough.

- Lyx

What kind of replaygain values are typical in the other universe? I'm not really into those genres you mentioned, more rock/ prog etc.

So now you're going to decide what music is "good" based on replaygain values?

If avoiding modern, loud, clipping, overly compressed music is your goal, you could join the world of

24/96 vinyl rips, a world I think is full of wishful thinking and fanciful delusions:)

No of course not. Lyx hinted that in the "underground" scene (?) things would be different mastering-wise, which was why I asked.

The loudness race had an impact on the underground as well, though not as destructive yet as in the mainstream. There are a few albums where it is really annoying because they are otherwise good albums - but in most cases, it is tolerable. Some genres arent affected at all by the loudness race, because they traditionally make heavy use of dynamics (ambient and berlin-school/synthie-music for example). Jungle/iDnB are a bit compressed, but i highly doubt that it will get worse there, mainly because it is a genre which lives from dynamics and which is mostly released on vinyl and played in clubs - in other words, its music which typically isnt played on boomboxes.

Various rock-genres - among non-mainstream stuff - are most affected by the loudness-race. Shoegaze for example traditionally is compressed (actually, thats what it is about - the wall of sound)... but lately it has crossed the line towards annoyance.

To keep a long story short: the underground is affected by the loudness race - but not as much as major label music.

Replaygain-values are just an indication, not a rule. The average heavily depends on the genre. My overall impression regarding unknown music, is an average RG-value at around -2 to -6db.

Since this thread is already about music collection and taste: http://www.last.fm/user/lyxar/

Nice website lyx. You got good music taste methinks. Ulrich Schnauss and Amorphous Androgynous I like very much.

I have some Tangerine Dream, Cluster and Klaus Schulze and they really made good use of dynamics.

Rock today incl. subgenres, regardless of record labels, is so compressed that I just can't stand it. I guess you understand.

I think I have about 350 albums stored on HDD (vorbis) and about 215 CDs (only original ones)

I agree that independent rock is also affected by the loudness war. But I wouldn't want to miss this music because of that. In the end this largely unknown music makes use of distortion and compression anyway, but at an earlier stage in the production. It's not always easy to tell if it's artistic freedom or bad mastering, as long as it's not annoyingly clipping I don't bother because it may very well be part of the sound (Shoegaze was a good example, another one would be turn-of-the-century Post-Rock).

About evaluating whether you like new music... it makes a big difference how you listen to the music. At least listen once by headphones. If it's good at "close range" you'll remember that when you listen to it casually in a more noisy or busy environment.

Personally I get bored by music that is not catchy at all. While catchiness this includes pop-like tunes (but not mainstream chart ), I also think of certain ambient and repetitive electronic music as catchy (memorable). In that case it's not the melody or tune but the overall sound or arrangement of instruments that is keeping me hooked.

So, those who have voted they got more than 2000 albums, are they all purchased?

It's hard to believe someone may have that many without some leeching / hording.

I'd love to see a library of 2000 retail CDs all neatly stored on shelves

You should have made two polls... now it's too late. Some have included their downloaded music and other not.

Yea I should have. Maybe I'll just make a new one..

2000 is just starters for a serious collectror.

No doubt.

There doesn't seem to be many serious/obssesive collectors here though.