Pink Floyd win court battle stopping their tracks being sold individually

[cthrubuoy]

I'm on a prog forum so I'll be shot down here, but it just seems pretentious of them to not let their fans enjoy their work however they want in favour of a (less convenient) show of driving home what an awesome singular experience their albums are. Sure, I do personally think DSOTM should only be listened to in one go, but why should Pink Floyd force people to do so, regardless of how necessary they might think it is?

Technically, they're only forcing you to 'buy' the whole album...

Grab that cash with both hands and make a stash

[cthrubuoy]

https://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2011/jan/04/pink-floyd-emi-single-digital-downloads

[Ben_Jamin]

It just makes it more like the old times whne buying an album was worth ur money

[MetalManiac666]

Snobby prog ass holes giving prog fans bad images.

gonna have to agree with this

[The Dark Master]

In my opinion, being able to just legally download single songs  (and any song, not just the songs released as singles) is one of the best things to happen to the music industry.  That way people who only want one song can just buy only one song; the consumer pays for it, the artist and the label get payed, the consumer doesn't get sued into oblivion, and the consumer doesn't have to buy the full album unless they decide to make that commitment at a later date.  I remember back before downloading music (even before the original Napster) when you had to go out and buy the whole album even if you only wanted one or two songs.  Because of this, you were always much more restricted to how many bands you could actually "get into" at any given time because you had to pay $20 per cd.  Now, if someone hears Pull Me Under and they decide that they like it, they can just download that song, and pay for it, and maybe later, they will buy the full album, go to concerts, buy merch, etc etc.  Allowing the consumer the option of spending less per band helps them to broaden their musical palette because they can sample a whole bunch of artists rather then having to buy only one album at a time.

Now don't get me wrong.  I love albums, especially albums by bands that actually know how to make full albums, not just a few singles and a bunch of filler.  And I do feel that concept albums and rock operas in particular can only be fully appreciated by listening to them as a whole.  Many of my favorite albums by many of my favorite bands are concept albums or rock operas (specifically, V by Symphony X and Streets and Dead Winter Dead by Savatage; oddly, Scenes from a Memory is not my favorite DT album, but I digress).  But forcing people to buy only full albums kind of defeats the purpose of buying songs via download.  If I had to buy the full album regardless of the medium, I would just go out and buy the physical thing (which I usually do anyways for bands I really like).  At least that way I own the physical record.

So is this whole thing about Pink Floyd wanting special treatment just because most of their records are concept albums?  That seems awfully pretentious of them, and it opens the door for other artists to start making these demands too.  Who will be the next to claim this sort of special treatment?  David Bowie?  Marilyn Manson?  Trans-Siberian Orchestra?  Many artists do "concept" albums on a regular basis, and the whole definition of what makes a concept album is rather vague anyways.  Many albums have common themes and motifs running through them; that doesn't make them concept albums.  Before you know it, Miley Cyrus will be demanding the same thing because the lyrics to pretty much all her songs revolve around certain themes (read: teen life shit) and therefore her records should be considered concept albums too!

Honestly, there is a part of me that thinks this really is just about the money and they're just using the whole "artistic" thing as a moderately respectable justification.  If they really did not want their songs listened to out of context of their respective albums, then why would they have "best of" compilations?  I don't hear Floyd bitching about how all the songs on Echos are being "taken out of context".  No, this is all about forcing people to buy the whole album, rather then letting people just buy a track or two to get a taste, and then maybe come back for more to make a full album commitment.

[Samsara]

Interesting.

I think if it was another band, pushing for this would be foolish. But given that PF has made all of its money already, and are one of the landmark names in rock and roll history, they can get away with it, and don't need to worry that folks still won't listen to them.

It's all about where you are at as a band. Bands like Floyd, Zeppelin, Metallica...all can get away with stuff like that and not hurt themselves one little bit.

But for everyone else out there, it's beyond stupid. I get the artistic point "hey we made ALBUMS, and want people to hear them as we intended," at the end of the day, the public is the one that decides how they want to listen to music. If that's the four best songs from all of your records, and nothing else, they are the consumer.

With technology the way it is nowadays, that is what it is. The diehards will still purchase albums in their entirety. But when a band does something like this, it just comes off as not adapting with the times. On one hand, I respect it. On the other hand, in this day and age, it is a pretty stupid marketing move.

But again, it is Pink Floyd, and they can get away with it without it hurting them.

[Orbert]

Well, either that or maybe ten years ago when the contract was set up, no one foresaw how big downloading singles would become, and Pink Floyd thought preserving the album integrity was a pretty good idea that wouldn't cause nearly the fuss that it has.

[Quadrochosis]

Well, either that or maybe ten years ago when the contract was set up, no one foresaw how big downloading singles would become, and Pink Floyd thought preserving the album integrity was a pretty good idea that wouldn't cause nearly the fuss that it has.

This.

[KevShmev]

So is this whole thing about Pink Floyd wanting special treatment just because most of their records are concept albums?

They aren't asking for special treatment; they are asking for control in how their music is sold, which they apparently have the right to do, according to their contract, so what is wrong with that?  

[LudwigVan]

If we go back to pre-digital download times, how is this much different from a band having it's say over which song on the album gets released as a "single" or not?  

It's still hard to believe that Stairway To Heaven was never released as a 45 rpm single.  No matter how hard Atlantic records tried to push Jimmy Page to allow them to release it as a single, he wouldn't budge.  Pretty shrewd, because it resulted in everyone buying up the full Zoso LP just to get that song.  On top of that, the strategy worked as a way to expose fans of Stairway to the rest of the compositons on that album.  You have to admire that kind of foresight, vision and resolve in the face of the "make a quick hit buck" mentality of the corporate music world.

In hindsight, I don't think you can question Zeppelin's ability to exercise some degree of artistic control.  

[Nick]

So is this whole thing about Pink Floyd wanting special treatment just because most of their records are concept albums?

They aren't asking for special treatment; they are asking for control in how their music is sold, which they apparently have the right to do, according to their contract, so what is wrong with that? 

Right, this pretty much makes the second half of TDMs post moot. As for the first half, no one is forcing you to get into Pink Floyd in this instance. As Samsara said it would be dumb for a lesser band to do this, but Pink Floyd is more than happy to give you the following choices-

A. Buy the album
B. Move on

If A doesn't suit you then buy a few single tracks from another band, it's that simple.

[darkshade]

dont know if this has been mentioned before, but wasnt DSotM written as one giant piece? The Dark Side Of The Moon Suite. Similar to Six Degrees, the band wants you, the listener, to experience it as one piece, not 8 sectioned off tracks. The other albums i dont think were considered one song, but i could see this court battle victory at least being justified for DSotM. Thoughts?

[KevShmev]

Well, the obvious difference there is that "Six Degrees" is technically one of six songs on the album of the same name, while Dark Side is a thematic/concept album.  Sure, both can be considered large pieces of music that work best when listened to as wholes, but they are still two different things.

[darkshade]

Well, the obvious difference there is that "Six Degrees" is technically one of six songs on the album of the same name, while Dark Side is a thematic/concept album.  Sure, both can be considered large pieces of music that work best when listened to as wholes, but they are still two different things.

i agree. However, one could think of SDoIT disc 2 as an album all its own (42 min is standard length for 70s album). I also believe (from what ive seen on TV or what ive read) that the members thought of and performed DSoTM (before it was released) as one piece of music, only to dissect it during the post-production of the album. Correct me if Im wrong

[The Dark Master]

So is this whole thing about Pink Floyd wanting special treatment just because most of their records are concept albums?

They aren't asking for special treatment; they are asking for control in how their music is sold, which they apparently have the right to do, according to their contract, so what is wrong with that?  

There is nothing wrong with them wanting control over their music, and if it was according to their contract then Floyd has the right to take the label to court for braking said contract.  But single song downloads are the reality of the modern music industry, weather Floyd likes it or not.  For them to demand that their albums only be sold as complete albums, even via digital download, makes them seem egotistical and anachronistic.

[KevShmev]

I am sorry, but that is a ridiculous stance to take.  Everyone is doing it, so Floyd should do it, too?  That is basically what you are saying.

[Quadrochosis]

I am sorry, but that is a ridiculous stance to take.  Everyone is doing it, so Floyd should do it, too?  That is basically what you are saying.

[The Dark Master]

So is this whole thing about Pink Floyd wanting special treatment just because most of their records are concept albums?

They aren't asking for special treatment; they are asking for control in how their music is sold, which they apparently have the right to do, according to their contract, so what is wrong with that?  

Right, this pretty much makes the second half of TDMs post moot.

So the notion that they are doing it just out of sheer artistic arrogance or just for the money has no validity at all?

As for the first half, no one is forcing you to get into Pink Floyd in this instance. As Samsara said it would be dumb for a lesser band to do this, but Pink Floyd is more than happy to give you the following choices-

A. Buy the album
B. Move on

If A doesn't suit you then buy a few single tracks from another band, it's that simple.

I never said that they were forcing anyone to get into their music.  I simply said that this is a poor marketing decision in the modern music business, for many reasons I already stated.  And yea it would be dumb for a less successful band to do this, because they need every cent they can get. (I'm not going to say lesser because that implies that A) success is indicative of quality, which is not always the case; and B) that Pink Floyd is somehow objectively superior in a medium were quality is almost, but not entirely, subjective.  They are an awesome and highly influential band, but they are not on some lofty Olympus far above the lowly mortals of the fans and other bands, as far as I'm concerned)

As for Floyd not wanting to play the game of the modern world and insist that people buy their albums as a whole or not at all; well that's fine with them, I doubt they will be hurting for cash either way.  But for them to justify it by saying they don't want their songs taken out of their original context is ridiculous.  If this were the case, why release compilations like Echos?  Does a "best of" compromise their artistic integrity too?  Or does this mean that Floyd's music can only be played live as full albums, as Roger Waters is doing now?  Even Dream Theater has the common sense to realize that they cannot always play SFAM of SDOIT (the song) in their entirety, but fans would still like to see those works represented at their live shows, at least in part if not always as wholes.  The pretense that Pink Floyd's works can only be listened to in their entirety is absurd.  Sure, you can only fully appreciate the true genius of something like The Wall by listening to it in it's entirety, but that doesn't mean you are committing some horrible blasphemy by just listening to Have A Cigar or Another Brick In the Wall on their own, out of the context of their original album.  I don't get all pissed off when a radio station decides to only play one or two Floyd songs at a time.  Sure, it's really awsome to hear them in full, but realistically, it can't always be done, so what's the problem with some soft core fans only wanting a few tracks here and there, and yet still being able to pay the band for them?

[The Dark Master]

I am sorry, but that is a ridiculous stance to take.  Everyone is doing it, so Floyd should do it, too?  That is basically what you are saying.

Well if you want to dumb it down like that then, yes.  To go into more depth: the music business has changed and while Floyd is at a point of success where they don't really need to put the extra effort to sell their music, that doesn't mean they have to force everyone to buy full albums in a world where it is no longer necessary to do so.  I think Floyd has a perfectly valid point that you have to listen to the full albums to "get" the artistic mastery in them; but to force such a choice on the consumer in a reality where most other bands are far more open with the distribution of their music comes across, as I said, as egotistical and anachronistic, if not outright greedy.