One of my daughters is into vinyl, so I bought her a turntable and bluetooth speaker set up she enjoys. But it took many weeks, maybe months, to get those Beyonce and Taylor Swift LPs she ordered. A rebrand of the old East Coast (Boston area) record store Newbury Comics has a busy Long Island mall store with manga, K-pop merch, and new v…
One of my daughters is into vinyl, so I bought her a turntable and bluetooth speaker set up she enjoys. But it took many weeks, maybe months, to get those Beyonce and Taylor Swift LPs she ordered. A rebrand of the old East Coast (Boston area) record store Newbury Comics has a busy Long Island mall store with manga, K-pop merch, and new vinyl, but even my daughter thought it wasn't worth it for me to buy her the new Lana Del Rey album or whatever for $30-$40. And $30 appears to be ground level for most new vinyl.
And I used to think $14.99 was outrageous for a vinyl. I worked at Peaches Records and Tapes in the late 70’s early 80’s. I have several “peach” crates full of oldies but goodies. Guess they’re worth something after all.
I recall when you could buy a lot of the records that you see at newbury comics now for $5 to $10 on clearance, only even on sale just to get them out of the backroom. Kudos to those who either held onto them or knew that a vinyl resurgence was due sooner or later! Yes, it's very likely a lot of those records have significant value, although because of the resurgence, the market is flooded with a lot of the most popular records, so many of the ones you might think are big money are actually around that $5 to $10 mark. It's the ones that got extremely low pressing numbers or are more obscure back catalog issues that are worth much more.
The thing is digital files or streaming is so much cheaper. You can get a digital album for around the same price you would pay for an album back in the 80's. When you account for inflation, that is such a bargain! $30 for a vinyl album is really not that bad when you consider inflation. But when you realize you could take the $30 and get 3 digital albums with it, you have to REALLY be dedicated to vinyl to keep buying everything on it.
That is all true! Which is what makes this genuine vinyl revival difficult for some to understand. Those who have not really had the full experience. True many of those people will never make the commitment but those who do, regardless of age, are all in. I have new young friends way into it. i visit them and it reminds me of my apartment in the '70s. A wall of records, a nice two channel audio system and the television is in another room. Their pleasure is sharing with friends in a social setting, playing records, going through the wall etc. And later, when they go onto their computer, there are no ads related to what they were listening to!
Albums did not cost $3.98 in 1966. In June 1967, the "Sgt. Pepper" album cost $1.77 mono, $2.39 stereo. I liked mono. Same with the Doors debut album. I still have the price stickers on the original purpose. As to what my point is, the answer is in Mr. Gioia's column. I believe the column to be about vinyl remaining a specialty purchase based on rarity, when better corporate planning might have made it more affordable. If you want to compare retail, you must compare the vinyl price of 1966 with the current CD price of a new album: the new Taylor Swift CD, beginning at $11.99 at Target.
BTW: I found a Goody's ad from July 26th 1969. $4.98 list was the lowest Schwann Catalog list price and those were on sale that week for $2.94, which in today's dollars is still $26.00. And yes, the fading CD market means prices dropping. It's always been less costly to press CDs on polycarbonate and package in a "jewel case" than it is to press a record and package in a nice paper on board laminated LP jacket. Even your $2.39 in 1968 is more than $18 in today's dollars.
I never argue with someone affiliated with the Absolute Sound, although I got along very well with Harry Pearson. It seems like you are spoiling for a fight, and you are moving the goalposts. 1966 to 1969. Prices change. So what? Find someone else to impress with your superior knowledge. I admit it: You're smarter than I am. You win.
This is correct. I recently researched prices of albums on vinyl and tape formats since the late 1950s. Mainstream retail album prices were $5.98 in the mid-1970s, which is about $35 today. At Sam Goody's they were cheaper, so $30 in today's dollars sounds about right.
Not totally sure this example tracks with time. In late 90’s there was a lot of vinyl available - led by dance / rnb / electronic music, but also most major releases had a vinyl edition. In UK at least these LPs were the same price as CDs, around £10-12.
What you claim about the late 90's simply is not true in America—and while I was able to get some U.K. vinyl back then it too wasn't "a lot of vinyl available". Vinyl releases were limited and pressing numbers were small. That's why records like Son Volt's "Wide Swing Tremolo" (1997) sells for upwards $150 in mint condition and Alice In Chains' debut album (1995) sells for upwards of $750 (median Discogs price is $389). Happy to own both but the point is, your claim that "lots of vinyl" was available from the majors is simply not supported by the facts in America. Plenty of dance/rb, yes and that helped save pressing plants. That and Scientologists for reasons I'll not get into here!
Sure, totally take all that. Limited sample of one (me) going by what was available then in Tower Recs / HMV / Virgin, central London. Obviously way more CDs, I guess my main point was on the cost. If you bought the new U2 , Madonna album on vinyl it was the same price as the CD. Totally accept the runs were small, there’d be v little back catalogue available.
Definitely have to hear what the Scientology angle is though! :)
One of my daughters is into vinyl, so I bought her a turntable and bluetooth speaker set up she enjoys. But it took many weeks, maybe months, to get those Beyonce and Taylor Swift LPs she ordered. A rebrand of the old East Coast (Boston area) record store Newbury Comics has a busy Long Island mall store with manga, K-pop merch, and new vinyl, but even my daughter thought it wasn't worth it for me to buy her the new Lana Del Rey album or whatever for $30-$40. And $30 appears to be ground level for most new vinyl.
And I used to think $14.99 was outrageous for a vinyl. I worked at Peaches Records and Tapes in the late 70’s early 80’s. I have several “peach” crates full of oldies but goodies. Guess they’re worth something after all.
Interesting essay.
I recall when you could buy a lot of the records that you see at newbury comics now for $5 to $10 on clearance, only even on sale just to get them out of the backroom. Kudos to those who either held onto them or knew that a vinyl resurgence was due sooner or later! Yes, it's very likely a lot of those records have significant value, although because of the resurgence, the market is flooded with a lot of the most popular records, so many of the ones you might think are big money are actually around that $5 to $10 mark. It's the ones that got extremely low pressing numbers or are more obscure back catalog issues that are worth much more.
Many of them are autographed. Working at a record store got you promos, backstage passes, etc. It’s fun to know old is new again!
Newbury comics i will credit for not over charging used vinyl. as for new, they make margin
a $3.98 record in 1966 would cost $30 today. "Guess they're worth something after all"? Check out prices on Discogs.
Yes inflation alone would make a $4 album in 1973 a $28 album in 2023.
That is true!
The thing is digital files or streaming is so much cheaper. You can get a digital album for around the same price you would pay for an album back in the 80's. When you account for inflation, that is such a bargain! $30 for a vinyl album is really not that bad when you consider inflation. But when you realize you could take the $30 and get 3 digital albums with it, you have to REALLY be dedicated to vinyl to keep buying everything on it.
That is all true! Which is what makes this genuine vinyl revival difficult for some to understand. Those who have not really had the full experience. True many of those people will never make the commitment but those who do, regardless of age, are all in. I have new young friends way into it. i visit them and it reminds me of my apartment in the '70s. A wall of records, a nice two channel audio system and the television is in another room. Their pleasure is sharing with friends in a social setting, playing records, going through the wall etc. And later, when they go onto their computer, there are no ads related to what they were listening to!
$30 today is $3.98 in 1966 dollars, which is what records then cost. So, your point is?
Albums did not cost $3.98 in 1966. In June 1967, the "Sgt. Pepper" album cost $1.77 mono, $2.39 stereo. I liked mono. Same with the Doors debut album. I still have the price stickers on the original purpose. As to what my point is, the answer is in Mr. Gioia's column. I believe the column to be about vinyl remaining a specialty purchase based on rarity, when better corporate planning might have made it more affordable. If you want to compare retail, you must compare the vinyl price of 1966 with the current CD price of a new album: the new Taylor Swift CD, beginning at $11.99 at Target.
BTW: I found a Goody's ad from July 26th 1969. $4.98 list was the lowest Schwann Catalog list price and those were on sale that week for $2.94, which in today's dollars is still $26.00. And yes, the fading CD market means prices dropping. It's always been less costly to press CDs on polycarbonate and package in a "jewel case" than it is to press a record and package in a nice paper on board laminated LP jacket. Even your $2.39 in 1968 is more than $18 in today's dollars.
I never argue with someone affiliated with the Absolute Sound, although I got along very well with Harry Pearson. It seems like you are spoiling for a fight, and you are moving the goalposts. 1966 to 1969. Prices change. So what? Find someone else to impress with your superior knowledge. I admit it: You're smarter than I am. You win.
This is correct. I recently researched prices of albums on vinyl and tape formats since the late 1950s. Mainstream retail album prices were $5.98 in the mid-1970s, which is about $35 today. At Sam Goody's they were cheaper, so $30 in today's dollars sounds about right.
Not totally sure this example tracks with time. In late 90’s there was a lot of vinyl available - led by dance / rnb / electronic music, but also most major releases had a vinyl edition. In UK at least these LPs were the same price as CDs, around £10-12.
What you claim about the late 90's simply is not true in America—and while I was able to get some U.K. vinyl back then it too wasn't "a lot of vinyl available". Vinyl releases were limited and pressing numbers were small. That's why records like Son Volt's "Wide Swing Tremolo" (1997) sells for upwards $150 in mint condition and Alice In Chains' debut album (1995) sells for upwards of $750 (median Discogs price is $389). Happy to own both but the point is, your claim that "lots of vinyl" was available from the majors is simply not supported by the facts in America. Plenty of dance/rb, yes and that helped save pressing plants. That and Scientologists for reasons I'll not get into here!
Sure, totally take all that. Limited sample of one (me) going by what was available then in Tower Recs / HMV / Virgin, central London. Obviously way more CDs, I guess my main point was on the cost. If you bought the new U2 , Madonna album on vinyl it was the same price as the CD. Totally accept the runs were small, there’d be v little back catalogue available.
Definitely have to hear what the Scientology angle is though! :)
But considering minimum wage was maybe $4.00, to a 17 year old, working hourly on weekends, $14.99 was a lot of money.