Is Collecting Records Stupid?

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.


mojo-photo-beatles.jpgVia Uncut comes news that an exceedingly rare copy of the Beatles’ 1968 “White Album” is set for auction this week, and is likely to bring bids of up to £5000 ($10,000). The record has a serial number of 00000007 (kind of like Mr. Burns’ Social Security number) and since it’s rumored that the first ten copies of the album were all given to band members, that would make this “the lowest numbered original mono copy” that has ever been up for auction. Is this silly, or a justifiable appreciation of a landmark work of art?

I’ve never had much of a “collector’s” mindset when it comes to music, although my preference for vinyl’s sound forced me to search (and often pay high prices) for hard-to-find records in the pre-internet days. For a while, the Pixies’ Doolittle just wasn’t anywhere on vinyl, and when I finally found a copy I paid like $25, which was a lot back then. Jeez, It’s still a lot. But for me, it’s always been about the music on the record, not the record itself, although I do have to admit to a certain geeky pride when I flip through my stacks and see the rare Warsaw record or a hard-to-find Kraftwerk LP.

mojo-photo-vinyl.jpgHowever, these days it’s harder and harder to justify the shelf space. My 1-terabyte hard drive holds thousands of albums, all of which I can access at the touch of a button, and I have to admit I’ve downloaded an mp3 of a song I need for a project because the original record is all the way across the room. Even though the physicality and warm sound of vinyl still attracts me, if I have to pack all 3000 of my records up again for another move, I’ll probably roll over and die.

So, in this age of WiFi and iPods, it may seem all the more ridiculous to shell out 10 grand for a rare copy of an album you can enjoy for free (or cheap) just about anywhere at any time. On the other hand, does the cheapness of our download culture make rare records, wiped delicately with a dust cloth and placed carefully on a turntable, the “slow food” of today’s music distribution system? I’ll admit it, there’s a part of me that wishes I had $10,001 so I could outbid everybody else. Oh well: la la la la life goes on.

Photos: (1) courtesy Cameo Fine Art Auctioneers and (2) used under a Creative Commons license from Flickr user Peryi.

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate