A friend recently decided to melt his CD-collection (about 500 discs) down into MP3s through iMusic and his iPod. He then liquidated the CDs themselves (selling all he could to a used CD shop and donating the rest.) To enhance his user experience, he captured all of the CD cover images and loaded them into the iPod as well. As a personal data backup and recovery plan, he then burned all the MP3s onto 7 DVDs and stored them off-site (ie, a location other than his apartment.)
I must say, there is something admirably lean, weightless, efficient, portable about his new music collection, storage, and consumption strategy. I admire it even as I remain old-school. I still feel attached to objects. I still have a sizable LP collection alongside my atom-based CDs.
Yet I wonder if even a "collection" as lean as my friend's may soon be outmoded. In the future, will we all simply subscribe to massive network-based music collections (bigger than Napster or iMusic), save our preferences and lists in the database, and tap into the network anywhere, on demand? In such a scenario, what is a collection, really? No need to have a personal cache of hoarded music, when you can dynamically access any song at any time.
Sure, your collection plays a social role as well. No problem: with the networked music collection, you can opt to make a list public and share it with friends, family, and strangers. You can find like-minded music listmakers. And you can even enhance your P2P (peer to peer) social capital as a tastemaker through the magic of peercasting.
Comparing the home-based present to the network-based future, why hoard and store when you can click and share in an atsmosphere of (rented) digital abundance? Of course, the user experience of putting on a vinyl platter, holding a big piece of album art in your hands, and watching the needle travel across the grooved landscape offers many joys. After all, new technologies don't always uninvent their predecessors. Instead, sometimes technology stacks up.