Do you spend more on Starbucks than music?

They say music's too expensive, what about Starbucks? Tasty as these frothy concoctions can be, it's a fleeting satisfaction. An album's worth of music is a repeatable pleasure.

Steve Guttenberg
Ex-movie theater projectionist Steve Guttenberg has also worked as a high-end audio salesman, and as a record producer. Steve currently reviews audio products for CNET and works as a freelance writer for Stereophile.
Steve Guttenberg
The Boss' new CD costs about the same as two large Cinnamon Dolce Frappuccinos? Steve Guttenberg

You could down a $5 Cinnamon Dolce Frappuccino in ten minutes, and it's gone forever. How many Cafe Mochas do you buy in a week? Tasty as these frothy concoctions can be, it's a fleeting satisfaction, isn't it? An album's worth of music is a repeatable pleasure, something you may enjoy dozens of times over the years. A CD is still a lot cheaper than a week's worth of Starbucks.

Sure, it's a matter of how you want to spend your disposable income, and whatever puts a smile on your face. But when I hear people going on about music being too expensive I'm mystified. Compared to what?

Oh, and by the way I noted that Springsteen's latest, Working on a Dream, goes for $9.99 for an Amazon MP3 download, but my local record store is selling the Springsteen CD for $7.99 (and the LP, which includes a free MP3 version for $14.99!). Hey, I'm still playing LPs I bought more than 40 years ago. Music is a repeatable pleasure--what you eat/drink turns to, well, you know...

So for the price of a couple of Frappuccinos you could own an actual CD, with cover art and liner notes. Oh, remember too that if you have any sort of decent hi-fi or headphones, the CD will sound better than the MP3.

Why pay more for music and get something that doesn't sound as good?