The more expensive the music, the less memorable?
 

Something that I don't properly understand is why the music that I perceive as being more memorable is often cheaper, either new or secondhand, than much of the music I find boring. Many albums or songs I like can be found legitimately for relatively little, but there's a ton of boring music that tends to cost more, which leads me to wonder why people are willing to pay more for less.

For some reason a lot of music released in the 60s/70s (reissued) is unusually expensive compared with most 80s/90s/00s music (perhaps £6 secondhand VS £2-3, or £13 new VS £9), and I've never understood why this is, given I find a lot of it far less memorable and catchy than 80s/90s music.

So does anyone know why less memorable music is often more expensive, regardless of the artist's popularity?

They price albums by their memorablomator score.

Records, like all things, are priced according to supply and demand.

I buy way too many CD's and have found no correlation. If anything, music I pay more for might be better on average, but only because I'll take fewer chances and research more, if I'm going to pay a lot for a single album. That would make sense, I guess.

Would more popular music typically be priced higher or lower than less popular music, then? Some independent music is cheaper, some more expensive than major label music.

If it’s set like on iTunes where it’s only a digital product then no. Supply and demand remain static. If it’s in a record shop, it’s supply and demand. Some distributors buy back product at cost and destroy them to control supply. Cars, peanuts, CDs, hookers, doesn’t matter, unless there’s an artificial price control the answer is always supply and demand. You may walk into a situation where the seller greatly underestimates the value of a collectable record but that’s because of his ignorance about the limited supply and large demand. In case, I failed to mention it, supply and demand.

Distributors destroy hookers? :yikes:

Also, to the OP: haven't you ever heard of downloading? The price structure there remains level across all music because, um, it's free.

Shhh! Don't say anything. Lars Ulrich might sue you.


Actually a lot of vinyl from the sixties and seventies are considered collectors items, especially if they're on original labels. Of course if you're talking about the major labels vs. the independents, I would guess there is a bit of greed with the labels while the independents just want to be heard. I tend to prefer indie music myself as far as today's music goes.

Lars Ulrich can suck my tiny cock. :laughing: If you check my post, I never intimated that I download, just that the option is there. Try that one in a court of law! What? Search and seizure of my hard drives? Oh, ****. Um, just give me one minute, and don't be alarmed at the sound of any explosions you may hear...
The attempt to overcharge for vinyl can be so annoying it's insulting. Love it or hate it, I saw Meat Loaf's Bat Out Of Hell "specially reissued on vinyl" some years ago for something like thirty Euro. I got the original for I think a fiver, way back when there was only vinyl, when nobody even spoke about vinyl, they were just records, or albums. This super reissue, there was nothing new about it, just, you know, it wasn't a CD, and they were charging what they liked for it. ****s.