when I listen to cds, I very rarely listen to the cd all in one take,but click on to a particular track,this is physically much easier,than doing so with vinyl lps.[where if you are not careful you can damage the vinyl]

Very true Cap'n, especially if you have had a few pints :-)

...most people look at how many tracks are on a cd before they buy them,as well as what the tracks are.

True. It's worth also looking at the track lengths, if they are printed on the cover, because sometimes a seemingly short CD in terms of number of tracks can in fact be fairly long in minutes. An example of course would be a classical CD containing two symphonies, that may consist of 8 tracks but can almost fill the CD to capacity; or a CD containing two Goon Shows, which may be half an hour in length each.


I asked the question originally,because there is a difference between 30 minutes of playing time and 60,in my opinion something thats fifteen or thirty minutes long,should not be the same price as something that is sixty two minutes long.
Yes Nutty appears to have a bargain,.

An interesting point. It's certainly true that some CDs of popular music contain not much more than half an hour's worth of material, which is poor value in terms of length alone (although as has been pointed out by others, the quality is more important to many of us than the length).

But with the advent of MP3 downloading, it seems we are now able to download each individual track, and can pick and choose what we pay for, rather than buy a whole album with someone else's idea of a good selection. So on average, we will be closer to paying by the minute than we are at present. Who knows, some enterprising online retailer might do just that, and charge per minute or second of downloaded music.