The more expensive the music, the less memorable?

RJDG14 · 10-25-2017, 06:29 PM

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?

10-25-2017, 06:29 PM	#1 (permalink)
RJDG14 Music Addict Join Date: Jun 2015 Posts: 157	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?