Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Pink Floyd Wins Legal Battle Over Digital Sale of Individual Songs
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
John.B
macrumors 601
Yep, I agree 100% But I'm not sure if this is as important for a lot of pop music. ( not talking about Pink Floyd)
For me, listening to a lot of my cd's from end to end gives the music more perspective.
BornAgainMac
macrumors 604
Does Pink Floyd have a lot of tracks that suck? I only know of a song that band did in the 80's. It is an ok song, nothing special. It could hurt the bands overall sales if it is album only and if most of the music sucks.
Billy Boo Bob
macrumors 6502
As nice as that sounds, I was talking with a local DJ lately who said that stations are no longer allowed to track a whole album. That really stinks. I remember the old days in Detroit when one station would play whole albums from 6 p.m. until Midnight, and another from Midnight 'til 6 a.m.
Pink Floyd has been my favorite band since I saw them at my first concert in '75 (and each tour since, some a few times). I can't imagine buying any one song (not that I'm missing any in my collection that iTunes offers).
Watch it... Dem's fightin' words. 🙄
Pink Floyd never wanted to be a singles band, so this makes sense; when "Dark Side of the Moon" came to Columbia Records, the band was told that they needed a single to sell the album (ironically, "Money" was chosen). With Pink Floyd, it's always been about the full album experience--too bad this court win might backfire and just lead to piracy of individual tracks rather than a surge of people plunking down $9.99 when they only wanted a song or two. Hopefully not, though.
:]
:]
lazyrighteye
Contributor
Billy Boo Bob
macrumors 6502
Well, like any band, that's a matter of taste. One of those "You can please some of the people...." things. I have teenage nephews who can tolerate it, but certainly wouldn't buy any or even play any on their own, though. Then again, I would say the same about the "crap" they listen to.
Just a matter of opinion and taste.
John.B
macrumors 601
Music licensing is actually more complex than you might think. The record label winds up owning certain types of rights (which is payment for their production, distribution, etc. costs). Pink Floyd would have to buy out EMI to distribute DSotM, etc. on their own and EMI has almost no incentive to sell those rights to wildly popular albums like this; it's like having a perpetual money tree in your back yard.
If anything, I'm surprised that "Pink Floyd" could agree on anything given Roger Waters history of firing everyone in the band at least once. 😉 My guess is this is more about Richard Wright and Nick Mason continuing to get royalties; but have nothing more than a hunch to base that on.
Pink Floyd are free to sell their music in whatever format suits. But what that are doing will have an unintended consequence. This plan might please old Floyd fans, but it isn't going to help to introduce the music to any new paying fans.
A band is free to sell their music in a particular format, but the consumer is also free to listen to that music in whatever way they desire. By and large people have gotten used to cherry picking their favorite tracks from many artists and albums and listening to them in whatever order they desire.
If a music fan only wants one Pink Floyd track, the only place that provides a single track download service will be the pirate networks. ANYTHING that reduces the choice of paying customers on commercial download services is a dumb move in this day and age.
(Disclosure: I have an ipod for digital music on the go, but a vinyl only system in the living room. I 'audition' artists via mp3 and buy vinyl albums for posterity. I don't like Pink Floyd, because my parents were hippies and it used to freak me out - probably due to 'second hand smoke' 😱)
A band is free to sell their music in a particular format, but the consumer is also free to listen to that music in whatever way they desire. By and large people have gotten used to cherry picking their favorite tracks from many artists and albums and listening to them in whatever order they desire.
If a music fan only wants one Pink Floyd track, the only place that provides a single track download service will be the pirate networks. ANYTHING that reduces the choice of paying customers on commercial download services is a dumb move in this day and age.
(Disclosure: I have an ipod for digital music on the go, but a vinyl only system in the living room. I 'audition' artists via mp3 and buy vinyl albums for posterity. I don't like Pink Floyd, because my parents were hippies and it used to freak me out - probably due to 'second hand smoke' 😱)
Pirates
So when push comes to shove, EMI claims that digital copies of media ARE inherently dissimilar and that previous contracts related to physical media shouldn't can't 1 to 1 apply to digital media. Hmmm, sounds suspiciously like every music "pirate" EMI has been attacking for years.
So when push comes to shove, EMI claims that digital copies of media ARE inherently dissimilar and that previous contracts related to physical media shouldn't can't 1 to 1 apply to digital media. Hmmm, sounds suspiciously like every music "pirate" EMI has been attacking for years.
Digital Skunk
macrumors G3
I agree wholeheartedly. I am no super Pink Floyd fan, and I do understand that you can't buy just one track and expect to get the full spectrum of their work, but in the end, the consumer suffers, especially if you are new to Pink Floyd.
I think it will in the end. There are other artists that follow their album structure in lots of different genres that don't have or push for that kind of sales method. If the listener actually likes the music, they'll buy more songs, and will most likely get that the songs run together and will buy the rest of the album.
LagunaSol
macrumors 601
RalfTheDog
macrumors 68020
I have the greatest respect for Pink Floyd and their artistic integrity. By the way, which one's pink?
With the exception of the degraded sound, I am 100% with you on those points. I personally can not hear the difference between a well encoded (IE not 128bit) MP3, and a lossless / CD track. Granted I am far from a sound engineer, but I can hear a poorly encoded, artifact filled track when I hear one.
I agree with the OP on this, despite not having physical numbers. Just look at the amount of devices sold, in the past 5 years. With the sales of devices that can play CDs, LPs, and Cassetts going down quite quickly, it has to be in relation to what type of media people are consuming. If people aren't buying CD players, it is likely that they aren't buying the media that is used inside those devices.
I don't like this fact (I love my jewel cases, and LPs of even some recent music), but I think it is the unfortunate truth.
Corrosive vinyl
macrumors 6502
Way back in the stone age (1970s) there was an influx of bands who put out albums to have their art heard. There was no such thing as platinum or multi-platinum albums until Frampton comes alive. The record industry was about bands evolving instead of the cool new thing. It was also not about selling out, because you couldn't. The lucky bands sold 500,000 copies of an album (gold). Back then it was about putting out a quality album which sounded like a cohesive unit. Radio stations played "album sides" and not just single tracks. Now, there are maybe 4 songs out of 12 which sound good, and the rest are junk. It takes a lot more brains and balls to make an album instead of just a random collection of songs.
tip
macrumors 6502
This is limiting for the consumer and if this becomes a trend, will be extremely frustrating.
I've seen some comments like "Pink Floyd's albums should be listened in their entirely" - two quick comments on this:
1) Does it really matter that it's Pink Floyd? I happen to love Radiohead's "Ok Computer," and I think it's a brilliant album as a whole, but I'm going to skip "Fitter Happier" every time - I bought the CD, but if I should rebuy it on iTunes, I'm NOT going to buy that song. What if a one-hit wonder band does the same thing? Do you want to buy the entire album for one song? Really, this comes down to the fundamentals of purchasing songs online. It is limiting for the consumer.
2) The entire album on one track does not work. I also happen to love David Lynch's films, but he had the same mindset that his films should be viewed in their entirety, so some of his DVDs are on one track. It is frustrating. What seems like an idea of artistic integrity isn't quite the same when you have the the media in your hands.
I've seen some comments like "Pink Floyd's albums should be listened in their entirely" - two quick comments on this:
1) Does it really matter that it's Pink Floyd? I happen to love Radiohead's "Ok Computer," and I think it's a brilliant album as a whole, but I'm going to skip "Fitter Happier" every time - I bought the CD, but if I should rebuy it on iTunes, I'm NOT going to buy that song. What if a one-hit wonder band does the same thing? Do you want to buy the entire album for one song? Really, this comes down to the fundamentals of purchasing songs online. It is limiting for the consumer.
2) The entire album on one track does not work. I also happen to love David Lynch's films, but he had the same mindset that his films should be viewed in their entirety, so some of his DVDs are on one track. It is frustrating. What seems like an idea of artistic integrity isn't quite the same when you have the the media in your hands.
BillyBobBongo
macrumors 68030
I buy LP's and then download the music via P2P. Perfectly legal, no DRM BS, cheap, and I have a copy of the music with the absolute best possible sound quality. Vinyl.
Rock on, Pink Floyd... these albums ARE meant to be listend to beginning to end, not all piecemeal like today's music. Artists who do this anymore are few and far between. Even back then, Floyd was not exactly "common". They are, always have been, and always will be, truly exceptional. Shine on, you crazy diamonds.
And to anyone who says they're outdated, is that why they have the second most valuable back catalogue EVER? They are one of the greatest bands in history, and their music has stood the test of time. In another 37 years, young seekers will still buy Dark Side of the moon, listen to it front to back with headphones on, and get goosebumps from a truly outstanding work of art. You wouldn't listen to a single movement from Beethoven's 9th, right? Or from Mozart's Requiem? This is no different.
To those who say it's about money - not likely. The band members are so insanely rich, they couldn't possibly want for much more. What they WANT is for their art to remain intact.
Rock on, Pink Floyd... these albums ARE meant to be listend to beginning to end, not all piecemeal like today's music. Artists who do this anymore are few and far between. Even back then, Floyd was not exactly "common". They are, always have been, and always will be, truly exceptional. Shine on, you crazy diamonds.
And to anyone who says they're outdated, is that why they have the second most valuable back catalogue EVER? They are one of the greatest bands in history, and their music has stood the test of time. In another 37 years, young seekers will still buy Dark Side of the moon, listen to it front to back with headphones on, and get goosebumps from a truly outstanding work of art. You wouldn't listen to a single movement from Beethoven's 9th, right? Or from Mozart's Requiem? This is no different.
To those who say it's about money - not likely. The band members are so insanely rich, they couldn't possibly want for much more. What they WANT is for their art to remain intact.
Damn...... I must be getting old when someone thinks Pink Floyd and albums are a dying industry. I still remember listening to Dark Side of the Moon (vinyl) on my Class A Amp and Technics TurnTable! Nothing like turning on the amp and waiting for the vacuum tubes to light up (amongst) other things to light up, and listening to this album from start to finish. Those were the days when songs from an album flowed into each other, not the way things are done today with one hit song and seven fillers on an album.
marksman
macrumors 603
I think they certainly have the right to do that, especially if they contractually have that right, so good for them.
I would say in a new world order, most new artists are not going to ever have the right, and albums are going to be a thing of the past eventually anyways. It will not be how musicians release their work.
I would say in a new world order, most new artists are not going to ever have the right, and albums are going to be a thing of the past eventually anyways. It will not be how musicians release their work.