About a year ago NetApp bought Riverbed's old SteelStore (nee Whitewater) product -- it's an enterprise-grade front-end to using Glacier (and other nearline storage systems). It provide a nice cached index via a web GUI that let you queue up restores in a fairly painless way. It even had smarts in there to let you throttle your restores to stay under the magical 5% free retrieval quota. It's not a cheap product, and obviously overkill for a one-off throw of 60GB of non-critical data ... but point being there are some good interfaces to Glacier, and roll-your-own shell scripts probably aren't.

As noted by others here, if you treat glacier as a restore-of-absolute-last-resort, you'll have a happier time of it.

Perhaps I'm being churlish, but I railed at a few things in this article:

If you're concerned about music quality / longevity / (future) portability - why convert your audio collection AAC?

Assuming ~650MB per CD, and the 150 CD's quoted, and ~50% reduction using FLAC, I get just shy of 50GB total storage requirements -- compared to the 63GB 'apple lossless' quoted. (Again, why the appeal of proprietary formats for long term storage and future re-encoding?)

I know 2012 was an awfully long time ago, but were external mag disks really that onerous back then, in terms of price and management of redundant copies? How was the OP's other critical data being stored (presumably not on glacier). F.e. my photo collection has been larger than 60GB since way before 2012.

Why not just keep the box of CD's in the garage / under the bed / in the attic? SPOF, understood. But world+dog is ditching their physical CD's, so replacements are now easy and inexpensive to re-acquire.

If you can't tell the difference between high-quality audio and originals now - why would you think your hearing is going to improve over the next decade such that you can discern a difference?

And if you're going to buy a service, why forego exploring and understanding the costs of using same?