why did it take me so long to listen to the cure

[redbreegull]

Originally Posted by bye june

It's just taken me a while too because I prefer to buy the CDs...I wish I wasn't like that...It would save me some money.

CDs don't make any sense to buy anymore IMO

if you are interested in the sound quality you should stop wasting $$$ on CDs and just invest in a turntable. if you don't give a shit about that but are concerned with not stealing the music or whatever, just buy the mp3s (although this makes even less sense to me because you are essentially paying a dollar per track at complete shit quality)

[Dogfighter28]

Quite possibly my favorite overall band when you consider their full output

Best way to appreciate them: watch the Trilogy concert. Quite possibly their three best albums (though I'm partial to the dark side) played in sequence

I once was walked in on while bawling to pictures of you while drinking alone and eating an entire 16 inch pizza

[null123]

I don't understand why all vocalists' voices can't age as well as Robert Smith's has

[slunken]

[redbreegull]

Originally Posted by Charmbag

I don't understand why all vocalists' voices can't age as well as Robert Smith's has

the rest of his body has made up for it

[Mooney]

the cure became my favourite band after the pumpkins broke up. i don't listen to them that much these days. like slunken, i'll throw on three imaginary boys or boys don't cry more than anything else. definitely check those out - three imaginary boys was the first official release in 79, and boys don't cry was sort of a compilation that came out the following year.

[D.]

Last night I downloaded their first album and while I only had time to listen to the first three tracks, it didn't seem as horrific as I once thought it was, I guess. Hmmm.

[Trotskilicious]

ugh, d.

[Shallowed]

Originally Posted by redbreegull

CDs don't make any sense to buy anymore IMO

Sure they do.

They're a lot more resilient, the set up isn't as fiddly, it's more convenient than vinyl, they're much cheaper, and I don't know what you're talking about "quality" for because there's nothing wrong with the sound quality of CDs.

[Trotskilicious]

records are hipper

[redbreegull]

Originally Posted by Shallowed

Sure they do.

They're a lot more resilient, the set up isn't as fiddly, it's more convenient than vinyl, they're much cheaper, and I don't know what you're talking about "quality" for because there's nothing wrong with the sound quality of CDs.

to each her/his own. it only takes a brief moment longer to throw on a record than a CD. these days a lot of vinyl comes with a free mp3 download if you want to burn a CD for the car or put it on your ipod or whatever. they are sometimes cheaper but if I just want to hear something I haven't heard before I'll torrent it anyway.

as for quality there may not be anything "wrong" with CDs, but they are absolutely inferior to a vinyl record

[redbreegull]

I mean I guess it depends if you are using completely shit speakers then no, I would not recommend wasting money on a vinyl setup, but if the sound quality is really important to your listening experience CDs do not compare on nicer headphones or speakers

[slunken]

Originally Posted by Mooney

the cure became my favourite band after the pumpkins broke up. i don't listen to them that much these days. like slunken, i'll throw on three imaginary boys or boys don't cry more than anything else. definitely check those out - three imaginary boys was the first official release in 79, and boys don't cry was sort of a compilation that came out the following year.

Three imaginary boys is the eu pressing and boys dont cry is the us pressing.

[redbull]

f i r e i n c a i r o

[noyen]

Originally Posted by slunken

Three imaginary boys is the eu pressing and boys dont cry is the us pressing.

basically. just a few track differences. same weirdness with the walk and japanese whispers. one being called an album the other a compilation where both are compilations of singles. the smiths releases were kind of like this too. where it was really singles that evolved into albums.

[bye june]

Originally Posted by Shallowed

Sure they do.

They're a lot more resilient, the set up isn't as fiddly, it's more convenient than vinyl, they're much cheaper, and I don't know what you're talking about "quality" for because there's nothing wrong with the sound quality of CDs.

Originally Posted by redbreegull

to each her/his own. it only takes a brief moment longer to throw on a record than a CD. these days a lot of vinyl comes with a free mp3 download if you want to burn a CD for the car or put it on your ipod or whatever. they are sometimes cheaper but if I just want to hear something I haven't heard before I'll torrent it anyway.

as for quality there may not be anything "wrong" with CDs, but they are absolutely inferior to a vinyl record

Originally Posted by redbreegull

I mean I guess it depends if you are using completely shit speakers then no, I would not recommend wasting money on a vinyl setup, but if the sound quality is really important to your listening experience CDs do not compare on nicer headphones or speakers

Originally Posted by redbreegull

CDs don't make any sense to buy anymore IMO

if you are interested in the sound quality you should stop wasting $$$ on CDs and just invest in a turntable. if you don't give a shit about that but are concerned with not stealing the music or whatever, just buy the mp3s (although this makes even less sense to me because you are essentially paying a dollar per track at complete shit quality)

I prefer CDs because:
1. I like to own the physical release.
2. I can play them in my car.
3. I can rip them to my computer.

I really only download music that I can't find on cd...or like itunes only stuff.

[redbreegull]

again, whatever floats your boat, but most new vinyl comes with free mp3 download and they really do sound better

[Shallowed]

Originally Posted by redbreegull

they are absolutely inferior to a vinyl record

Originally Posted by redbreegull

they really do sound better

You can stop that now.

[Trotskilicious]

i see what your point is with the snobbiness he's got going but vinyl is better and for one big reason: the cover and the liner notes

[Shallowed]

He's talking about sound quality. Yes the package is nice and stuff, personally I'm not overly emotionally invested in the front cover being four times larger than the CD's.

Sound wise, neither are "better". They're different.

[Trotskilicious]

have you ever looked at the machina notes on vinyl? you might think differently about having large artwork.

faggot

[Shallowed]

yes it's quite nice

larger artwork is nice

[Cool As Ice Cream]

Originally Posted by redbreegull

these days a lot of vinyl comes with a free mp3 download if you want to burn a CD for the car

this could be the cause of your problems with cds.

i have shit ears anyway, so to me it's not important.
the main difference for me is the kind of speakers. cd or vinyl doesn't really matter. sounds shit through shitty speakers, sounds good through decent boxes.

[D.]

Cool. Vinyl vs CD debate. I bet we'll really get to the bottom of this debate once and for all ITT.

[Cool As Ice Cream]

b&w ftw

[Shallowed]

Listening to Boys Don't Cry (album) for the first time. Does the sound of this album and era of The Cure get compared to The Smiths a lot?

Jesus that noise at the end of Subway Song scared the shit out of me ferreal

[noyen]

Originally Posted by Shallowed

Listening to Boys Don't Cry (album) for the first time. Does the sound of this album and era of The Cure get compared to The Smiths a lot?

Jesus that noise at the end of Subway Song scared the shit out of me ferreal

they hate each other (robert smith and moz hate each other forever) but i don't think i've ever heard of sound comparisons all too much aside from the fact they were bands around the same time like a bunch of others that get lumped together as 80's 'modern/college rock" or whatever. maybe i guess. i've heard more comparisons to them and joy division in their "punk" days. there was a lot of sound debate between the cure and new order for a while and still is as to who ripped off who. there's a couple songs that have near identical bass and drum sounds.

[slunken]

Originally Posted by noyen

basically. just a few track differences. same weirdness with the walk and japanese whispers. one being called an album the other a compilation where both are compilations of singles. the smiths releases were kind of like this too. where it was really singles that evolved into albums.

This was probably the most common with early Rolling Stones records. What record companies did was, the US pressing is re-configured to i n clu de more tracks that were singles in the UK but US listeners more than likely hadn't heard.

[redbreegull]

Originally Posted by Shallowed

Sound wise, neither are "better". They're different.

well that's unfortunate for you that you can't hear the difference I guess. I'm not trying to be a snob and I don't really care about the artwork or liner notes. the sound is better on a vinyl record.

[redbreegull]

Originally Posted by slunken

This was probably the most common with early Rolling Stones records. What record companies did was, the US pressing is re-configured to i n clu de more tracks that were singles in the UK but US listeners more than likely hadn't heard.

I don't know anything about the stones but early beatles records are the same