Screw dat,8-Tracks are the ones that need to come back!

That might have been an offhand comment, but this is a deep subject for me, so please excuse the wall of text I unleash here. I'm sure I touch a lot of anecdotal areas, too, but I'm going by what I really see.

First, I'd like to see that, myself. I'd get involved, even. I actually have a project on board right now that I would like to release on videotape but I probably won't because I doubt the presence of any demand. I hope I'm wrong...I might do it anyway, in a limited run, and see what happens.

Some bands like audio tapes because you can do it with no resources. It's like the opposite of having a label. Music can be recorded live or with a 4-track, or taken from any source easily to go on to tape. The consumer equipment was made for duplicating. And it works as a medium for release because lots of people still have players. They fit in the stack of audio gear with your record player, CD player, receiver.

There is also a backlash among musicians against CDs. CDs don't get respect. They are put in binders and the cases get ditched. They are copied, scratched, left on the table bare. They gave us the ability of easy ripping, and hurt the market for musicians to sell music. We have digital sales now which has got some of it back, but torrents irrevocably damaged people's overall willingness to pay for music. Many have turned to records, which are less easily copied, and more importantly, provide a large canvas on which to present beautiful artwork to accompany the music. Records also demand attention and enforce a ritual, since most players need to be stopped when the needle reaches the end of a side. I think that tapes, as another analog medium, have followed from that inhibition on copying, and they are way cheaper than getting records pressed. Making tapes is something anybody can do in their home.

Now for VHS, we exist in a completely different space. Making copies is cumbersome, because your typical player/recorder doesn't have the ability by itself. Players are cheap, tapes are cheap, even cameras can be had cheap. But video has to be edited. One long continuous take is easily boring, editing "in camera" makes artifacts. A VHS editing setup is still extremely expensive, not to mention has many parts, at least one of which is likely broken even if you spent a lot of money on it. Sima and Videonics made some consumer gear, but most setups were pretty high end from the stance of today's market, even if they were revolutionary in bringing cost down for independent artists in the 70s and 80s. If you edit in a computer, the easiest way to get the stuff out if it is to DVD.

Fewer people kept the VCR around, because space is generally more limited in front of the TV and marketing. CDs and tapes coexisted for a long time. DVDs and VHS didn't, and the quality difference was used for a big push to get people to rebuy all their stuff.

Finally, lest one think I'm biased, I actually still have VCRs (to go with all the old cameras I have), and I do not have a cassette tape player, because my last one got destroyed when I moved. But I want to get one again.

Actually, I'm surprised there's not more of a retro-VHS scene for nostalgiac indie filmmakers. Like a lot of underground bands are releasing cassette tapes, because of...not sure why, other than it's relatively cheap still. It would just make sense.

Especially at the height of blurry, found-footage movies and shows like Tim & Eric utilizing the look and feel of VHS.

Really?

NO.
The only thing good about it is the nostalgia radiating from it.
VHS is done.

^ What's weird though is that they cost way more to make.

The thing I liked best about video cassettes is that they were less expensive than DVDs.