Pink Floyd court battle against EMI

Burnsy2023 · 11 Mar 2010 at 13:42

I've just had an interesting discussion about Pink Floyd's win in the high court about their wish for their music not to be distributed as individual tracks.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/8561963.stm

The way I see this, this is only detrimental to the consumer. I am very aware the PF design their music to be listened to as a whole album but removing the choice for a consumer to buy one track is daft IMO. Why should the consumer have to pay for a whole album when they only want one track? Surely the consumer demand for single tracks is enough reason to keep it?

The Beatles are equally at fault here. At the end of the day both PF and The Beatles are multinational content providers and to limit the distribution of their music isn't only a stupid business decision but hugely detrimental to the consumers who want to listen to it. No wonder people pirate it.

Shamikebab · 11 Mar 2010 at 13:45

I agree with Floyd. I think artists deserve the right to have their music consumed how they intended. I can't imagine why anyone would want a single Pink Floyd track anyway, the experience is the album as a whole.

Steve2000 · 11 Mar 2010 at 13:46

I suppose Dave and Roger are sick and tired of people saying the only Floyd songs they know are Money and Another Brick.

Interesting since they actually released that best of CD a few years ago.

Burnsy2023 · 11 Mar 2010 at 14:00

Shamikebab said:
I agree with Floyd. I think artists deserve the right to have their music consumed how they intended. I can't imagine why anyone would want a single Pink Floyd track anyway, the experience is the album as a whole.

If a significant number of consumers want single tracks then surely it's in their best interests to cater for them? It's common business sense.

Steve2000 · 11 Mar 2010 at 14:03

Floyd have always stated quite openly that they put their own musical interests before those of their fans.

Burnsy2023 · 11 Mar 2010 at 14:04

Steve2000 said:
Floyd have always stated quite openly that they put their own musical interests before those of their fans.

Ultimately that's where my problem lies.

jakeke · 11 Mar 2010 at 14:11

It's their music, it's their decision. I do agree with them to an extent, they put the work in to make an album, not a collection of songs, and if they feel their music is best represented in an album format (let's face it, it definitely is) and they signed contracts to say so, they have every right to expect the contracts to be uphelp, surely?

Burnsy2023 · 11 Mar 2010 at 14:13

jakeke said:
It's their music, it's their decision.

But who does this decision harm? The consumer, through he removal of choice and that can never be a good thing.

It may be their choice, but it's the wrong one.

Shamikebab · 11 Mar 2010 at 14:24

Burnsy2023 said:
If a significant number of consumers want single tracks then surely it's in their best interests to cater for them? It's common business sense.

If they're looking at it from a purely business sense, which music most certainly isn't to a lot of people.

Burnsy2023 · 11 Mar 2010 at 14:30

Shamikebab said:
If they're looking at it from a purely business sense, which music most certainly isn't to a lot of people.

I'm not saying they shouldn't highly advertise the album and explain why people should buy the album, but why shouldn't we have the choice to consume it as individual tracks and pay for them as individual tracks if we prefer to listen to them that way?

Ziggy · 11 Mar 2010 at 14:35

Artist rights > consumer rights in the hierachy IMO.

jakeke · 11 Mar 2010 at 14:36

Burnsy2023 said:
But who does this decision harm? The consumer, through he removal of choice and that can never be a good thing.

It may be their choice, but it's the wrong one.

I get the impression they just want their art to be released in it's intended format, which I do think is well within their rights since they made it.

They're not forcing anybody to buy the album, nor are they saying that people can't listen to one song at a time. They made it as an album and I imagine they take great, great pride in the finished article and don't want to see it ruined by the people who don't have the patience to see an album through.

Ziggy · 11 Mar 2010 at 14:37

jakeke said:
I get the impression they just want their art to be released in it's intended format, which I do think is well within their rights since they made it.

They're not forcing anybody to buy the album, nor are they saying that people can't listen to one song at a time. They made it as an album and I imagine they take great, great pride in the finished article and don't want to see it ruined by the people who don't have the patience to see an album through.

I agree.

If you can't live without the track, buy the the album; it can be had for what 5.99 or something online?

Shamikebab · 11 Mar 2010 at 14:37

Burnsy2023 said:
I'm not saying they shouldn't highly advertise the album and explain why people should buy the album, but why shouldn't we have the choice to consume it as individual tracks and pay for them as individual tracks if we prefer to listen to them that way?

Same reason that I won't be able to have lots of pieces of art found in galleries as my cellphone background. It's up to the creator how their art is used/consumed (depending on contract of course).

JBuk · 11 Mar 2010 at 14:45

Burnsy2023 said:
If a significant number of consumers want single tracks then surely it's in their best interests to cater for them? It's common business sense.

Shows that they care more about their music than how much money they can earn

Fenris · 11 Mar 2010 at 14:46

It's their music, let them do what they like with it I say.

To me it just shows that they care more about music that pandering to consumer demand.

benneh · 11 Mar 2010 at 14:46

Shamikebab said:
Same reason that I won't be able to have lots of pieces of art found in galleries as my cellphone background. It's up to the creator how their art is used/consumed (depending on contract of course).

I agree. I think art should be consumed in the intended way. An album is an album, and lots of artists still feel that way. Often breaking an album down into individual tracks destroys the concept/overall idea.

HamZilla · 11 Mar 2010 at 15:17

Does this mean that if you want to listen to PFm that once you press play you cannot pause or stop until you reach the end of the album?

benneh · 11 Mar 2010 at 15:42

HamZilla said:
Does this mean that if you want to listen to PFm that once you press play you cannot pause or stop until you reach the end of the album?

In the same way that you're only allowed to stare at the whole painting in one go, yes...

The Running Man · 11 Mar 2010 at 15:52

Burnsy2023 said:
If a significant number of consumers want single tracks then surely it's in their best interests to cater for them? It's common business sense.

no...

if lots of people only want 1 track - but you can charge them for 12 full tracks so that they can get access to the 1 track they wanted...

then u just made a pile of profit that you would have missed out on by selling as a single.

thats business sense.