And on the other side of the fence, you never could buy songs like "Echoes" separately because it's longer than 10 minutes which automatically makes it an 'Album Only' track (at least on iTunes).
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
This is all very true.
In fact, during its time, the Wall tour was one of the most expensive tours ever produced. PF were always known to put on extravagant shows. And the more props and showmanship, the less money the band makes usually.
Furthermore, zooming up to the current time, up to the Live 8 reunion concert, PF were constantly offered millions to re-unite, but declined them all. Finally, in 2005, they did Live 8, which itself was a benefit concert.
So, no this is definitely not about money.
Analog is better than digital? And the beat goes on...
OMG, I know this is like trying to talk to a stump, or beating a dead horse, but seriously this argument is flawed on MANY levels.
First off, the very word "Analog" was chosen originally (back before digital computers existed) because it was a representation of the original. At that time, NOBODY argued that a recording was an exact copy of the original. In fact they acknowledged that vinyl was a pretty flawed medium and then went about finding ways to get around its flaws. For example, ever hear of the RIAA Curve? That is an equalization curve that is used because the vinyl record is not capable of accurately recording low frequency tones (without destroying higher tones) -- so they are reduced when the record is cut, and emphasized when played back by the preamplifier. And of course, die-hard vinyl fans turn their ears off to the ever-present snap/crackle/pop due to dirt, or bad needles, or the "wow" introduced by the slightest warp of the media, and the vastly lower dynamic range. And they completely ignore the fact that each playing of this magical vinyl "analog" damages it, making it less and less accurate.
Yeah, vinyl records are superior to digital recordings -- go pull the other one.
But I fully accept that vinyl is preferred by some exactly because of the distortions (called "warmth" in the analog community) it introduces. That's fine -- that's a matter of opinion. But to state this as fact is simply wrong.
PS: And just in case you are still hung up on discrete samples vs. continuous, read up on the Nyquist Theorem.
OMG, I know this is like trying to talk to a stump, or beating a dead horse, but seriously this argument is flawed on MANY levels.
First off, the very word "Analog" was chosen originally (back before digital computers existed) because it was a representation of the original. At that time, NOBODY argued that a recording was an exact copy of the original. In fact they acknowledged that vinyl was a pretty flawed medium and then went about finding ways to get around its flaws. For example, ever hear of the RIAA Curve? That is an equalization curve that is used because the vinyl record is not capable of accurately recording low frequency tones (without destroying higher tones) -- so they are reduced when the record is cut, and emphasized when played back by the preamplifier. And of course, die-hard vinyl fans turn their ears off to the ever-present snap/crackle/pop due to dirt, or bad needles, or the "wow" introduced by the slightest warp of the media, and the vastly lower dynamic range. And they completely ignore the fact that each playing of this magical vinyl "analog" damages it, making it less and less accurate.
Yeah, vinyl records are superior to digital recordings -- go pull the other one.
But I fully accept that vinyl is preferred by some exactly because of the distortions (called "warmth" in the analog community) it introduces. That's fine -- that's a matter of opinion. But to state this as fact is simply wrong.
PS: And just in case you are still hung up on discrete samples vs. continuous, read up on the Nyquist Theorem.
These are on different albums man....
It was an intelligence test. Which one is Pink?
As an analog advocate I have primarily vinyl for my music. Some of the younger among us will find that vary hard to imagine. iPod? Nope. Music on my iPhone? Nope. Analog.
I have been listening to music with interest since about 1968. I have heard it on every device and in every style of venue. You really should check out the Mormon Tabernackle. That would be a great venue for an unplugged concert.
You know what actually rocks? Direct to disc recording on vinyl played (for the first, second, or third time) on a real turntable and with analog amps.
I believe there is a practical 2010 version of that, perhaps even better as hard as that might be to believe.
Direct to disc is special because there are so few copies possible due to limitations of the molding process and capture process. Today we can overcome that limitation by laser engraving, micro CNC machining, and pickup and transmission technology that can be true to the sound.
You have not heard a RECORDING until you have HEARD the 3rd harmonic.
I challenge you to "make it so" in the words of the hero of the "young and restless".
I'll buy it and I'll pay double for the album. Why pay less?
Rocketman
good to hear about a win for Pink Floyd.
buying individual tracks... it's like buying a new album and putting it on shuffle the first time you listen to it!
buying individual tracks... it's like buying a new album and putting it on shuffle the first time you listen to it!
I think it could have easily been set up whereas you can purchase the whole album or the singles. As people mentioned, they don't play an entire Floyd album on the radio. There are singles on the album meant for radio play and and things like that. If anything those would be the songs people who don't necessarily want the whole album would purchase. They're fans of the song not the band, they're fans of the song because they heard it on the radio, TV, what have you.
Personally I can't stand partial albums, but that's my preference.
Personally I can't stand partial albums, but that's my preference.
So you acknowledge the the analogue recording deteriorates each time you play it and yet you claim that it is superior? Do you really think playback of 3 times is good enough?
That is the sound of someone desperately trying to justify their purchase. Vinyl is dead.
@synth3tik: Fans don't always buy songs or albums. Patrons do. I consider myself to be a patron of the arts. I am not a "fan" of any particular band. I'd like the opportunity to make a choice as to whether I want an album or an individual song. As others have pointed out, tours are not always profitable so it is patrons like me who are willing to buy songs that can provide revenue to bands.
Yep. I acknowledge the limitations of vinyl (1950's materials technology) and clicking and wobble, etc.
I am advocating analog or at minimum a digital reproduction that does not disregard the "need" for the third harmonic.
Personally I feel music is generated and also produced at an event by MOTION and physical interaction and power. The recording medium should capture that. Whether it be a helical groove on a disc on a 2010 material and a 2010 reproduction method, or if it is some other medium or process, the POINT is music is generated analog, projected analog at a performance, so the very least we can do is record it in a method that captures the analog feel, and preferably have mobile playback devices that very closely deliver that experience.
Talk about an iPod upgrade cycle on steroids!
Rocketman
There were CARS with record players in the 50's!!!
Quote:
"The rock legends, signed to EMI since 1967, said their contract meant their albums could not be split up without their permission.
A judge agreed, saying the contract contained a clause to "preserve the artistic integrity of the albums".
EMI has been ordered to pay £40,000 ($60,000) in costs, with a further fine to be decided."
Artistic integrity??? If it were a Symphony by Mahler or any cyclic piece, I would understand the "artistic integrity". However, they are the song writers and it is their choice.
Sometimes, they use words a little too big in popular music.
"The rock legends, signed to EMI since 1967, said their contract meant their albums could not be split up without their permission.
A judge agreed, saying the contract contained a clause to "preserve the artistic integrity of the albums".
EMI has been ordered to pay £40,000 ($60,000) in costs, with a further fine to be decided."
Artistic integrity??? If it were a Symphony by Mahler or any cyclic piece, I would understand the "artistic integrity". However, they are the song writers and it is their choice.
Sometimes, they use words a little too big in popular music.
this could be the most ridiculous post i have seen on macrumors and maybe the internet.
Thanx for your really qualified opinion. I'm really sorry to have to tell you that - well - you seem to have no clue what you are talking about.
If you would really be into the kind of music that is on topic here, then you would know, that the so-called 'WARMTH' is in no way a myth.
There are hundreds of digitized instruments, effects, amps you name it. Yet if you ask someone, that is into creating music - and I mean really whole-heartedly into creating music - everybody has their own recipe of analog sound they want.
A Gibson Les Paul will always be a Paula, a Stat a Strat - and their digitzed efforts will lack that 'WARMTH'. I mean, honestly, check into eBay and go look for some effect pedals.
I could kickk myself, that I traded my Ibanez WH10 for a Dunlop Cry-Baby - because those original WH10 are, what John Frusciante is rumored to hunt on eBay for horrendous prices.
I certainly understand the distancing-yourself-from-your-parents thing, but couldn't you find something a little less essential than Pink Floyd to use as your lever?
Who the heck is Pink Floyd today anyway? A bunch of geriatrics looking for more money. I would be surprised if most of the remaining members are suffering from Alzheimer's.
It's time to move on.
It's time to move on.
Who the heck is Pink Floyd today anyway? A bunch of geriatrics looking for more money. I would be surprised if most of the remaining members are suffering from Alzheimer's.
It's time to move on.
Blasphemy.
Victory for artists. Sweet...
I am encouraged that most posters here on MacRumors favor the Floyd on this one. The argument that the remaining band members engaged in this fight as a ploy to make more money by forcing people to purchase albums rather than singles is completely baseless, especially to those of us familiar with the band's philosophy and typical modus operandi. Even though they have made ridiculous sums of money, they have blown several fortunes as well by sticking to their artistic leanings. Heck, from the DSOTM interviews (on the Classic Albums "Making Of" DVD) Waters appears to be a socialist with a great disdain for capitalism.
A victory for intellectual property rights.
I really cannot fathom the arguments that people in opposition to the Floyd have made, i.e., "I just want to buy singles and the customer is always right" and "this move will just 'force' me to obtain pirated copies", yada yada yada.
If you don't like the artist's presentation of his/her/their material, just don't buy it. There are hundreds of thousands of other artists top choose from, most of which will excrete precisely the type of 3-minute single you're looking for with no strings attached.
As far as the vinyl vs. digital is concerned, you might want to read up on the volumes and volumes of research on the subject:
http://www.hydrogenaudio.org
I love vinyl as much as the next guy: the covers are beautiful, the nostalgia factor is way cool, and provided you keep them away from heat and sunlight they can last 100 years. Even if they are a bit damaged, you can still get sound out of them, as opposed to a CD with rot, where you're pretty well screwed. Same with your hard drive full of mp3's--without a backup, you're hosed. So for overall vibe and longevity, vinyl wins, hands down.
But as far as s/n ratio and dynamic range are concerned, even lowly 44.1k/16 bit audio stomps on vinyl, let alone higher bit rate recordings. In fact, ABX (double-blind) tests prove that even the best recording engineers cannot reliably differentiate between any formats in excess of 44.1k 16 bit when played back at consistent volumes. Subjects cannot tell CDs from vinyl either, so long as one adds a few pops and clicks to the CD sample to make it fair. Scientifically speaking, the entire hifi world is utter nonsense. But when people are buying oxygen-free speaker cables as thick as your thumb @ $100/ft and $15k/pr Martin Logan speakers, they like to think that 96k recordings are worth it.
I am encouraged that most posters here on MacRumors favor the Floyd on this one. The argument that the remaining band members engaged in this fight as a ploy to make more money by forcing people to purchase albums rather than singles is completely baseless, especially to those of us familiar with the band's philosophy and typical modus operandi. Even though they have made ridiculous sums of money, they have blown several fortunes as well by sticking to their artistic leanings. Heck, from the DSOTM interviews (on the Classic Albums "Making Of" DVD) Waters appears to be a socialist with a great disdain for capitalism.
A victory for intellectual property rights.
I really cannot fathom the arguments that people in opposition to the Floyd have made, i.e., "I just want to buy singles and the customer is always right" and "this move will just 'force' me to obtain pirated copies", yada yada yada.
If you don't like the artist's presentation of his/her/their material, just don't buy it. There are hundreds of thousands of other artists top choose from, most of which will excrete precisely the type of 3-minute single you're looking for with no strings attached.
As far as the vinyl vs. digital is concerned, you might want to read up on the volumes and volumes of research on the subject:
http://www.hydrogenaudio.org
I love vinyl as much as the next guy: the covers are beautiful, the nostalgia factor is way cool, and provided you keep them away from heat and sunlight they can last 100 years. Even if they are a bit damaged, you can still get sound out of them, as opposed to a CD with rot, where you're pretty well screwed. Same with your hard drive full of mp3's--without a backup, you're hosed. So for overall vibe and longevity, vinyl wins, hands down.
But as far as s/n ratio and dynamic range are concerned, even lowly 44.1k/16 bit audio stomps on vinyl, let alone higher bit rate recordings. In fact, ABX (double-blind) tests prove that even the best recording engineers cannot reliably differentiate between any formats in excess of 44.1k 16 bit when played back at consistent volumes. Subjects cannot tell CDs from vinyl either, so long as one adds a few pops and clicks to the CD sample to make it fair. Scientifically speaking, the entire hifi world is utter nonsense. But when people are buying oxygen-free speaker cables as thick as your thumb @ $100/ft and $15k/pr Martin Logan speakers, they like to think that 96k recordings are worth it.
All the drugs they all did are finally catching up with them. They want to drop digital distribution and cut of a potential windfall because you can't get new CD/LP copies of their albums any more.
Several of their albums only make sense if you keep the songs together. It's no different than an author objecting to having the chapters of his book sold individually.
And the next night, repeat.
It's even better when you recognize the little riffs that
foreshadow the next movement ("song" or "track" seem to be the
wrong words).
The irrelevancy of this comment astounds me. The mental and physical states of Gilmour and co. are not in the least connected with the albums they have already produced.Who the heck is Pink Floyd today anyway? A bunch of geriatrics looking for more money. I would be surprised if most of the remaining members are suffering from Alzheimer's.
It's time to move on.
Who the heck is Pink Floyd today anyway? A bunch of geriatrics looking for more money. I would be surprised if most of the remaining members are suffering from Alzheimer's.
It's time to move on.
Funny how people don't bother reading through threads before posting to see that their stupid little theories were already proven wrong.
And if you're looking for talentless money whores, go look at 90% of bands out there today. What's also funny is that if PF did want some money all they would have to do is put together a reunion concert and pull in more dough than FOB, AAR, Nickelback or whatever talentless hacks you listen to could ever dream of. Think, Led Zeppelin reunion back in 2007. I forget what official price was if you were lucky enough to win the drawing, but I guarantee if it was a free for all to highest bidders and not based on a raffle, ticket prices would be in the thousands.
Edit-
"Seatwave, a ticket exchange their website, revealed that the average price for a ticket to the concert was £7,425. The tickets were sold originally for £125 each and promoters aimed to make them non-transferable."
Those prices are $14,850 and $250 respectively. I'd like for you show me one person willing to pay $14,850 for a ticket to a FOB concert or whoever it is you listen to.