I was just discussing this with my brother. He is only 25 while i'm 36, so i grew up with vinyl and he with digital. I too rarely know the songs on an album since i don't have the covers and liner notes to study anymore. Besides this, i don't know who's in what band, what they look like, how "creative" their artwork is, etc... All of this stuff added up to part of the bands' "feel" and image. With CD's, i just don't have the interest in "microscoping" all of the details that i did with LP's. Another point that you kind of touched upon is that with LP's, there was a "breaking point" to the music. With CD's, you either hit play and are "forced" to listen to the whole thing or "pick, choose & program" only what you like. While CD's tend to develop a certain "flow" for their length, LP's quite often had two different "flavors" from side to side. With the LP, you had a "small taste" and then could either choose to continue with that artist or move to something else. I think that this kept our "short" attention spans more readily than the 60 and 70 minute CD length. While some people might throw a tantrum about getting "cheated", i would rather have 30 - 40 minutes of an artists best cuts than 60 - 80 minutes of a bunch of filler. For someone to produce an entire CD's length of GREAT cuts nowadays, they truly must be talented. It was much easier for an artist when they only had to do it for 15 - 20 minutes at a time. Sean
>
>