Pink Floyd court battle against EMI

MickeyFinns · 11 Mar 2010 at 16:36

If that is really their argument then why don't they release the cd's with no track markers?

And then they can put it on iTunes as one mp3?

Burnsy2023 · 11 Mar 2010 at 16:51

Nickg said:
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.

Or they decide that one track isn't worth the album and pirate it instead?

Shamikebab · 11 Mar 2010 at 16:58

Burnsy2023 said:
Or they decide that one track isn't worth the album and pirate it instead?

Well Dark Side of the Moon has what 45 million estimated sales? I don't think they're struggling some how.

Steve2000 · 11 Mar 2010 at 17:03

Burnsy2023 said:
Or they decide that one track isn't worth the album and pirate it instead?

They have far too much money to care about piracy.

One More Solo · 11 Mar 2010 at 19:08

Shamikebab said:
I agree with Floyd. I think artists deserve the right to have their music consumed how they intended.

This.

SexyGreyFox · 11 Mar 2010 at 19:21

I could be absolutely totally wrong here (no I'm not) but I'm pretty sure Floyd have done concerts where they have played individual tracks off albums without playing all the album.
Hypocrites is wot I sez.

scorza · 11 Mar 2010 at 20:32

I'm with Pink Floyd on this. Art must always be worth more than profit, and EMI's main claim that the limitation only applies to the record and therefore doesn't include downloads is blates ridiculous. Why would a contract signed in the '70s refer to downloads?

ElvisFan · 11 Mar 2010 at 20:40

dmpoole said:
I could be absolutely totally wrong here (no I'm not) but I'm pretty sure Floyd have done concerts where they have played individual tracks off albums without playing all the album.
Hypocrites is wot I sez.

That was my first thought when i read the OP.

SexyGreyFox · 11 Mar 2010 at 21:39

ElvisFan said:
That was my first thought when i read the OP.

Absolutely.
If you have wrote an album to only be heard with one track following the other then do the same when playing live.
Floyd have played their albums all the way through in the past (eg DSOTM) but then they'll follow with a few album tracks here and there.
Hypocrites.

One More Solo · 11 Mar 2010 at 22:31

dmpoole said:
Absolutely.
If you have wrote an album to only be heard with one track following the other then do the same when playing live.
Floyd have played their albums all the way through in the past (eg DSOTM) but then they'll follow with a few album tracks here and there.
Hypocrites.

Pink Floyd's argument is that they want to have control over how their music is distributed, and CDs and concerts are separate entities. When they play a concert they are directly controlling how and what of their music is distributed i.e. choice and order of songs in order to create a 'whole' concert. Their argument seems to be that they don't want these 'whole' arrangements- whether live or recorded- to be broken up, and that is entirely up to them.

Their attitude is perhaps that a CD is just like a film or book, and you wouldn't pay for a single chapter or scene.

ElvisFan · 13 Mar 2010 at 02:50

One More Solo said:
When they play a concert they are directly controlling how and what of their music is distributed i.e. choice and order of songs in order to create a 'whole' concert.

Well that's the single biggest load of pretentious toss I've ever read in the whole of my 37 years.

I do gigs and I know the importance of the pacing of the set list to the live audience. Once that audience has left the building it's irrelevant. It's no different for floyd. Their audience members don't memorise the entire show. They go home with their favourite bits lodged in their heads.

SexyGreyFox · 13 Mar 2010 at 10:16

ElvisFan said:
Well that's the single biggest load of pretentious toss I've ever read in the whole of my 37 years.

I do gigs and I know the importance of the pacing of the set list to the live audience. Once that audience has left the building it's irrelevant. It's no different for floyd. Their audience members don't memorise the entire show. They go home with their favourite bits lodged in their heads.

I'm glad you said it and not me.

Why shouldn't I be allowed to buy the only track I like on a PF album when the rest are crap?
I'm the kind of person who will listen to 2112 by Rush and play all the parts in a different order - it doesn't matter.
I'm also the person who has edited out the first 2.5 minutes of Shine On You Crazy Diamond because it's crap.
I once knew a lad in the 70s who couldn't listen to any tracks on The Lamb Lies Down On Broadway by Genesis unless he went through the other tracks in order first - Pink Floyd meet your fool.

Meridian · 13 Mar 2010 at 19:19

dmpoole said:
I'm the kind of person who will listen to 2112 by Rush and play all the parts in a different order - it doesn't matter.
I'm also the person who has edited out the first 2.5 minutes of Shine On You Crazy Diamond because it's crap.

It might be interesting to mix up concept (half)albums for a laugh, but I'm not sure it's my style personally. As for SOYCD, the first 2.5 minutes is the best bit. It's the later sections which get dull.

M