iPodDailyNews - Where iPod news comes first

Mar 11, 10 - 12:37 pm Comment from: HMCIV

That's very monolithic of Pink Floyd. Guess we have to buy the whole wall, not just one brick.

Mar 11, 10 - 12:38 pm Comment from: breeze

HMCIV:

trying out a new word?

Time and money will tell whether Pink Floyd was right. As for the formula that works out how much royalty should be paid, the lack of production costs involved with downloads, marketing and advertising, savings accrued should in all fairness be passed onto to the band. The recording companies having made up their profit ages ago.

Customer choice even allows us to reorder the tracks even if the artist thinks it undermines the "integrity" of the work. I refuse to listen to Dire Straits "Brothers in Arms" as laid out. For me it's always 1-4-5-6-9, then a "Side 2" of 2-3-7-8. It's a very different experience.

"Bands also receive less money if fans pick and choose tracks instead of buying a full suite of songs."

And grocers receive less money if customers pick and choose what they actually need, instead of being forced to buy bundles which include stuff they don't want. So by this logic, clearly grocers should create legally-protected bundles to increase profits and deny their customers choice.


We don't need forced album purchase...
We don't need no thought control...
Hey! Floyd! Leave our tracks alone!

Mar 11, 10 - 12:46 pm Comment from: MikeK

Well, there is now a way around this for artists if they choose..

On BT's new album "These Hopeful Machines"he has discovered a way to prevent fans from buying individual tracks. He has simply put all the songs together into two tracks entitled "Side A" and "Side B" which are sold together for $9.99. If fans really want their tracks separated, they have to buy the physical CD.

http://itunes.apple.com/us/album/these-hopeful-machines-continuous/id349711701

Mar 11, 10 - 12:52 pm Comment from: ron

Who the hell does Pink Floyd think he/she is anyway? A singer?

I think I'll send him/her to Coventry.

Pick Floyd is garbage. Never buy 1 song, much less an album of that crap.

Mar 11, 10 - 12:57 pm Comment from: Greg L

Nice summary and analysis by MDN.

Mar 11, 10 - 01:04 pm Comment from: ChrissyOne

Don't blame me, I voted for Zeppelin.

Being that Pink Floyd's music is more art than anything,
this makes sense. Their albums are entire experiences, not ment to be broken into hit tracks. While it may make sense to leave their most popular tracks as individual purchases, it makes even more sense to bundle the whole ablums as to not degrade the integrity of the artist and to preserve the intended experience.

Mar 11, 10 - 01:07 pm Comment from: Predrag

"Pick Floyd is garbage. Never buy 1 song, much less an album of that crap."

Discussing matters of taste reveals extremely poor taste. That you personally don't like Pink Floyd reveals to me that you have very poor musical taste. But that's me. Anyone who has lived on the planet Earth for a little will surely know that Pink Floyd seems to be one of the highest acclaimed artists in the broad genre of contemporary popular music.

But that's beside the point here. Pink Floyd seems to be playing (willingly or unwittingly) into labels' hands, giving them leverage against Apple in their desperate quest to force the artificial construct know as The Album onto the public.

It is sad that the court had to rule for Pink Floyd, and ironically, label will likely be all to happy that it lost this one. They can now easily go back and force Apple to re-bundle a lot of their "Albums" in order to "preserve artistic integrity" of the most recent excrement from Lady Gaga or whoever...

Mar 11, 10 - 01:08 pm Comment from: theloniousMac

Pink Floyd is not like other bands.

Every album created by Pink Floyd is a complete work of art.

The Wall, Dark Side of the Moon, etc. They are not compilations of singles, they are a single work of art consisting of tracks that are movements, more like operas.

Breaking apart the Wall is almost a criminal act.

I can understand why Pink Floyd feels this way. I could understand it for Nine Inch Nails.

I'd laugh if it was something like Hannah Montannah or Britney Spears.

It's funny though. if they feel that way about their albums then why did they put out a 'greatest hits' album comprised of individual songs from their albums?

So no more Pink Floyd songs on the radio either?

"Bands also receive less money if fans pick and choose tracks instead of buying a full suite of songs."

So after all, this is about making more money than you can spend, is not about music or art, right? is not about spreading the message? Just money?

Does Apple prevent artists from identifying all album tracks as "Album Only"?

So... the point of MDN is Pink Floyd shouldn't have artistic control of how its music is sold? This isn't a record label trying to force something, it's the people who actually wrote, performed and recorded it. That holds weight as far as I'm concerned. The choice is on YOUR end. If YOU don't want it, don't buy it. But it's their music, and they can set the rules if they so please.

@theloniousMac,

I can't totally agree with you. Atom Heart Mother and Ummagumma really are just a collection of singles. Probably Saucerful of Secrets, too. But those were early albums. I do agree that the albums you mention are works of art, and deserve best to be played as they are and not split up.

I think that the determination of what makes a work of art, not to be split up into singles, is more in the mind of the beholder than anything else. I have some favorite Al Stewart albums that I wouldn't listen to in any order other than how it was released. However, I can't really say that there's a common theme or thread that unites the songs in that order. I guess the artists who release the works are just as much beholders of the work as are their fans.

But that's just how I see it. YMMV.

Oh, by the way - which one's Pink?

I think artists should sell their album the way they want. It is their product, no one else's. If they want to sell it in an "album" instead of individual songs, that's their right. If people don't want to buy the whole album, that's their right too : then they just don't have to buy it.

@bob

I think we can all agree it is all about the money. True, they can set the rules however they want regarding their art. and they have. They have also thrown any argument about "artistic integrity' out the window. They are the ones who have turned their "art" into a commodity to be sold to the highest bidder. that is disappointing to me and apparently to others as well. I think i will be sticking to the flaming lips version of DSOTM from now on. The other bands version is gonna leave a bad taste in my mouth from now on.

These kinds of decisions by the record companies or the artists only drive their fans to pirated options.

However, Pink Floyd is one of the few bands where I would say the whole album is worth every penny. But Garth Brooks... bwahahahahahahahahahahahaha!

Mar 11, 10 - 01:35 pm Comment from: Msavwah

Floyd albums are meant to be played whole. I for one would have no interest in buying any single pink Floyd track. I want the whole album. So by that logic this makes sense to me.

Mar 11, 10 - 01:39 pm Comment from: Zaphod

pink floyd sucks.

do people actually listen to that crap?

NOFX FTW.

The discussion about whether their stand is wise or not is interesting, but it seems like the essence of the lawsuit is more about EMI not holding up its end of the deal. The contract says that EMI can't sell individual tracks without Pink Floyd's permission, and yet they did just that. Of course this is probably really about the digital royalty issue, but still, a deal's a deal.

FWIW, I think PF's albums are unique pieces of work, and I understand why they don't want them atomized. But I also don't feel cheated when I hear "Comfortably Numb" on the radio without the rest of "The Wall" around it.

Mar 11, 10 - 01:56 pm Comment from: theloniousMac

@Bartsimpsonhead: LOL

@Kevin J. Weise: You're right. My reaction to Pink Floyd is emotional, not clearly thought out.

@Zaphod: You're just this guy, ya know?

Mar 11, 10 - 01:57 pm Comment from: LordRobin

Anyone who says "Pink Floyd sucks" deserves to be slapped upside the head. I'm not a fan myself, but c'mon -- the artistic importance of this band simply cannot be disputed.

Still, bands are going to end up hurting themselves if they attempt to "force" consumers to buy albums by denying them the right to buy individual tracks. Consumers don't like being forced to do anything. They'll buy far less music and revert to piracy for individual tracks.

------RM

@theloniousMac,

I'm inclined to agree with you, but the problem that Pink Floyd has is 30+ years of precidence where they didn't bother to enforce their 'single piece' arguement against radio stations.


Nothing personal against PF, but they need to explain how it is "different" than that which they have previously ignored, and I don't think that they really have a legal leg to stand on...regardless of our opinions of the artistry element.


-hh

Mar 11, 10 - 02:20 pm Comment from: UltraVisitor

If I want only the Mona Lisa's smile, I should be able rip if off of the painting. Screw da Vinci's "composition".

We all know that "composition" is a lie made up by artists because those greedy pricks want take our freedom and money.

Mar 11, 10 - 02:27 pm Comment from: KingMel

@Predrag
I do not agree that Pink Floyd is "playing (willingly or unwittingly) into labels' hands." Pink Floyd simply has a contract stipulation that empowers them to deny single track sales. Since that has been legally upheld, that is the way it is. EMI has to pay a penalty for allowing/enabling the sale of individual tracks.

This is an isolated incident. Unless a whole bunch of other artists have similar contractual clauses and choose to implement them to block single track sales, it won't have any material effect.

Mar 11, 10 - 02:40 pm Comment from: KingMel

Face the facts, it doesn't matter what you want Pink Floyd to do. It also doesn't matter if you believe their stance is hypocritical because they released a greatest hits album. PF has the legal right to "preserve the artistic integrity" of their albums, even if you don't agree that there is any artistry in their products. With respect to the manner in which their songs are played on the radio, I doubt that PF has any artistic control over that medium. Even if they did, they would probably have to bow to practicality in that case because the radio model would not work for complete albums.

It really isn't that big of a deal. Either buy the albums or don't. Get over it already.

Personally, I am a big PF fan. Many groups have one or a few songs that I like, and I may piecemeal those albums. But PF's albums are good beginning to end, so this legal ruling has no impact on my music consumption.

Mar 11, 10 - 02:42 pm Comment from: breeze

The Lunatic is in your head

Mar 11, 10 - 02:46 pm Comment from: shawnpetriw

Pink Floyd is full of sh*t. If the artistic integrity was so important, and an album had to be listened to as a complete work, then they shouldn't have allowed radio to play single songs.

Fans and Floyd who maintain the unity argument seem to forget radio hits and how they came about: not by listening to the entire album. That radio play drove album sales and paid the band a crapload of royalties.

And now they're bitching. Nice.

Mar 11, 10 - 02:47 pm Comment from: shawnpetriw

I should read MDN take all the way through before posting. My bad. MDN said it all.

MDN is so on the wrong side of this. I disagree vehemently. And ask, when are you going to rail against Amazon for failing to sell books by individual chapters?

Mar 11, 10 - 02:48 pm Comment from: Mac-nugget

Just imagen if we where back in the 70's. This would be a problem.

Mar 11, 10 - 02:52 pm Comment from: Grigori

The same old BS take from MDN. Artists aren't dictating how you listen to the music; rather, they are dictating how you can buy the music. It's really rather simple, and to suggests that artists bend to the marketplace is the death of art. . . even if it is, objectively, to their own commercial detriment (which, in the case of Pink Floyd, is a non-starter).

"Artists who feel their "album" is a "complete seamless work" should not split them up."

Ever heard of a song cycle, morons? DSotM always had banded tracks on the LPs, allowing listeners who wished to to play an individual song. MDN's take is idiotic.

"Best of," "greatest hits," and other compilation bundles are a no-no, of course. Artistic integrity and all that."

What a bunch of ballyhoo, particularly coming from a bunch of non-artists.

"'Bands also receive less money if fans pick and choose tracks instead of buying a full suite of songs.' So, the answer is to deny their fans choice?"

If that is their decision. . . then yes. To suggest that ANYONE other than the content creator should decide how they market their product is beyond ludicrous. Jerks.

"The members of Pink Floyd, of course, will have to stop cashing those royalty checks for their Works bundle, lest they be deemed complete and utter hypocrites."

Ha. . . talk about narrow minded.

"Physical CDs (remember those?) should obviously be mastered with one track."

Yeah, I remember them; in fact, I still buy them, and until iTunes/Amazon/et al make full, uncompressed 16-bit, 44.1-kHz audio (or better. . . now, THERE's an idea!) available, I'll continue to do so. Apple has the power to implement this, yet so far have failed to step up to the plate, so they won't be getting any of my music-spending cash until they fix their effed-up business model. As for the "one track" notion, um, what part of my first paragraph don't you get? You can listen ANY WAY YOU WANT, you bozos; the choice they're making is how it is sold, not how it is consumed; they're NOT the same thing.

"Radio stations will, of course, not be allowed to "split up" albums and "pick and choose" which songs to play on-air. Full albums, all the way through please, Mr. DJ."

Um. . . lord, where to begin? The douchbaginess of this comment is unbelievable. The rest, of course, is just reiteration of the same blather.

And Gabriel chimed in with this bit of nonsense: "Hey! Floyd! Leave our tracks alone!" This is exactly what is wrong with the contemporary music consumer mindset: "it belongs to me. . . I know my rights. . . you OWE me!. . . oh, and can I have an autograph?"

Bunch of spoiled brats.

@ tilted sideways - Since the dawn of human history, people have gathered around to sings songs - not albums - together.

And a book has a narrative flow where each chapter is merely the sum of the greater whole, much like the verse and chorus portions of a pop song.

To make your analogy to selling individual book chapters make sense, you'd have to compare it to splitting out a song into intro, verse, chorus, verse, chorus, bridge, chorus portions (or however the song is structured).

But you wouldn't do that, because the song is a single unit. Same with a book. The same does not go, however, for 99.99% of all music albums.

Now that they have confirmed what we already knew about them. (Arrogant, Greedy, Money grubbing, egotist, control freaks) we can admit this has nothing to do with ART, and everything to do with money. I hope it costs them lots. Perhaps if they are that concerned with money they should put aside their petty differences and get back together to make some new albums, tour and make a boatload of cash. There ought be a law about resting on your laurels and living off of twenty and thirty year old work to pay the bills..

I would like to hear how they can get away with this argument, when they have released SINGLES, which are played in a solo fashion on the radio to this day. That kinda blows a whole in the whole artistic integrity angle if you ask me.

Personally, I always liked Floyd, but now I see them as jerks, they were once pioneers of technology, but obviously those days are behind them and they just want to get paid and get the kids off their lawn. What a bunch of hypocrites.

Mar 11, 10 - 03:10 pm Comment from: Apple Cider

Garth Brooks in the same breath as Pink Floyd? Puh-leezzee!!
Remember when Apple announced one of the early iterations of iTunes where they revealed the feature for "albums" like DSOTM to not have the irritating skip between tracks? Only those should qualify as true "albums".

The original name was The Pink Floyd, as if there were different colored Floyds making music.

Mar 11, 10 - 03:20 pm Comment from: MediaXYZ

Yes, this is a case of the artist dictating how you purchase music, but here they have clauses in their contract with EMI. There probably aren't many bands around that can dictate terms to the music lables. I would suggest that this is probably unique.

Jezus. To hear the complainers on this site, you'd think just 'cause somebody once recorded a song, you have every right to hear it wherever, whenever and however you want. Who made these albums, anyway— Pink Floyd or you?

I'm not sure this is either a good business decision, or a good "artistic" decision for Pink Floyd. But I do agree it should be THEIR decision.

How many of you that second-guess Floyd think it should be your GOD GIVEN RIGHT to "unbundle" Mac OS X from Apple hardware (thus destroying Apple's "artistic integrity" / second-guessing its business decision as creator of its IP) and use it on any box you want?

I thought so.

Mar 11, 10 - 03:21 pm Comment from: MacHin

Sgt Pepper's Heart Club Band, Let it be, and so on, by The Beatles can also be considered as pieces of art. The Moody Blues, Yann Andersen & Jetro Tull, many artists produced pieces of art in albums too. Radios can play extracts of such pieces of art, playing a single track mentioning it as part of a whole piece of artwork.

@Randy: And what's the point of a band to make music but to also make money? Starving artist is overrated. You make music to sell it and earn a living. You don't sacrifice artistic integrity by also making a living doing it.

This all boils down to people they think have the right to demand how they can buy something. You don't. And when you don't get your way, you whine about it like babies.

Why have singles? So the music can be heard and albums can be sold. What a stupid question. That still doesn't change the fact that the BAND can decide how to sell its music.

Does anyone get the impression that Grigori's album isn't selling very well?

Mar 11, 10 - 03:34 pm Comment from: Grigori

nobody: funny. Untrue, as I have no album to sell, but still funny.

Mar 11, 10 - 03:41 pm Comment from: NCIceman

Hey, that's capitalism. That's the way they want it, that's the way they put it in their contract, so they have a right to insist it be sold that way. They don't get paid for radio airplay, so that's a weak analogy. So disagree with them if you want, but it's their right.

I have to say, in certain cases the artists are correct, Dark Sid eof the Moon is meant to be listened to in it's entirety. So is The Wall and many other "rock opera, theme albums". The artform should be respected.