In a move that might strike some people as bizarre, Pink Floyd got the courts involved because it did not want its record label, EMI, to sell individual Floyd tracks on iTunes. Amazingly enough, the band won. I say 'amazing' because it always seems like when individuals are pitted against business concerns, the individuals come out on the short end of the deal. Oh wait, this is England we're talking about. Never mind. After seeing the details of the contract, it does appear that EMI stepped outside legal bounds.
Now back to the 'bizarre' thing — I can't find fault with the artists. They conceived of (most of) their recordings as suites of tunes, spent a lot of time on the execution and recording of the music, and labored over the sequencing before releasing the final collection. If they want to keep the albums in tact, ensuring a complete listening experience, that's well within' their rights. I have to credit them for sticking to their principles. It's hard for me to believe that they would have pulled in a ton of cash from digital singles sales. I dunno, maybe they were throwing away a bunch of money. Can there really be that much pent-up demand for copies of "Money" and "Another Brick In The Wall, Pt II"?
EMI was of course trying to protect their own business interests, though their ham-handed approach was surprising. Their contention that the contract referred to vinyl albums only was just plain silly if you ask me. Apparently, the judge thought so too. On the other hand, maybe I shouldn't have been surprised, given the insanity on display during the recent OK Go fiasco. Who exactly is sitting behind the desk at these companies anyway? Have they been sharing the lead paint chip jar with Glenn Beck?
.jpg?t=20120209092158)
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - El Bicho
"Their contention that the contract referred to vinyl albums only was just plain silly if you ask me."
It is odd that they thought they could get away with it but Hollywood contracts have worked on a similar model. Producers try to stiff everyone when porting material to new distribution modes like home video and Internet, so they have to renegotiate contracts or strike like the writers recently did.
Music rights are another huge issue, which is why WKRP and other music-based show get ruined when the rights aren't relicensed for home video. Or never released a la Wonder Years
2 - Glen Boyd
Funny line about the lead paint chip jar Mark. I mean this is Floyd were talking about, right?
-Glen
3 - Tom Johnson
I think it's great. Other bands stood up to their labels and Itunes and the only solutions "fine, no Itunes for you!" Eventually they gave in. Pink Floyd didn't.
I don't understand why this had to go to court. If they wanted each album to be seen as a single work of art, then so be it. If the labels didn't get something in writing when they made up their contracts, tough.
No where else do we see art fractured like this. You don't see movies sold as 5 minute segments, or paintings being shown in bits and pieces. It's only music where it's acceptable to chop up what an artist may consider to be a full statement into more commercially viable mini-products. Everyone loves music and yet music is seemingly univerally disrespected as an artform.
I would bet that new contracts being signed from here on out will ensure that things like this never happen again, for those few new artists who continue to create albums, that is.
4 - El Bicho
"Eventually they gave in. Pink Floyd didn't."
They probably didn't have PF's FU money, which is why Gilmour won't tour with Waters.
"No where else do we see art fractured like this."
That's because the business started with singles. Artists weren't releasing complete albums on player-piano and phonograph cylinders. And the singles have always been a mainstay of the business from radio, TV appearances, juke boxes, music videos.
Universal disrespect seems a bit of an exaggeration. What do you put on mixtapes for friends and girls you are trying to impress: songs or albums?
5 - Mark Saleski
there's a big difference bicho, from somebody putting together a mixtape and a recording company carving up a work of art for profit.
hmmm...trying to think if i ever put any Pink Floyd on a mixtape. probably "Money" (which honestly, i never thought fit in on Dark Side) and "Careful With That Axe Eugene".
6 - Brian aka Guppusmaximus
I think Mr. Gilmour & Co. were probably also thinking of their fan base when they didn't cave in. PF fans love each album as a whole and usually enjoy them in a high quality format because they actually recorded their material with high end equipment and great engineers. (I've used "The Division Bell" as reference material)
So, who gives a fuck about the money lost by not selling those shitty sounding mp3s only to destroy the PF experience. I think Pink Floyd should do with their discography what Peter Gabriel is doing with his new works... Release digital full album downloads but in 96Khz / 24Bit. Someone needs to knock that useless iTunes crap on its ass and I think these two artists/bands can do it!!
7 - Mark Saleski
sadly, i think only about 1 percent of the listening public cares about sound quality. it's probably always been that way tho...
8 - zingzing
pink floyd is kinda stinky. just thought i'd throw that in there.
this whole thing is pretty stupid. pink floyd should let their fans experience pink floyd however the fuck they want to experience pink floyd. besides, where was this self righteous anger when they were releasing best of's and singles discs?
can you fucking download "echoes: the best of pink floyd" as separate tracks, or does this malarkey extend to everything they've done?
ridiculous.
9 - El Bicho
"there's a big difference bicho, from somebody putting together a mixtape and a recording company carving up a work of art for profit."
Which is what? Both are carving up works of art, are they not? One is not more noble because there's no money involved.
"besides, where was this self righteous anger when they were releasing best of's and singles discs?"
Why should the fan's desire override the artist's? That makes no sense. Their record contracts likely dealt with best-of's and singles. It made no mention of digital downloads, and obviously now the band is in a much stronger position
10 - zingzing
"Why should the fan's desire override the artist's?"
and why should an artist decide how you experience their work? how can they? it's ridiculous to even attempt it, and it just makes them look pompous when they try. miserable emo bastards.
11 - El Bicho
"and why should an artist decide how you experience their work?"
because it's their work
12 - zingzing
too bad?
it's impossible to control. if pink floyd wants everyone to sit down and listen to their albums front to back, they had better have a lot of time and guns. people will listen to them how they want to listen to them, regardless of what pink floyd demands.
13 - zingzing
plus, if anyone ever forced me to listen to all eight thousand minutes of the fucking wall ever again, i'd say "just shoot me now, because if you don't, i will." of course, by the end of that album, even the most positive person in the world would want to die.
14 - jeannie danna
All we are is just another brick in the wall...:)
15 - jeannie danna
Tom Petty sticks up for his art too, I admire that! The worst day of my life was hearing anticipation while watching Ketchup slowly pouring out of a bottle. I knew they would eventually try to sell all of our memories.
16 - Brian aka Guppusmaximus
"it's impossible to control."
Let me take this a little out of context. You say offering singles on iTunes would give the fan more access and less control. I say BULLSHIT! You have to install Apple's software and use Apple's system to download music from iTunes and on top of that, if I wanted the whole album, I'm paying almost as much money for an inferior product. Where's the freedom in that? Just because you foolishly bought into the Apple experience by accepting their terms(EULA) doesn't mean all the artists should offer their music for your convenience?
"pink floyd is kinda stinky"
Yea, sure... You need to grow some ears buddy. Even though I don't like all the songs off of the album, "The Wall" was fucking brilliant!
17 - zingzing
"You say offering singles on iTunes would give the fan more access and less control."
no i didn't.
"Just because you foolishly bought into the Apple experience..."
i've never bought anything off of itunes.
"You need to grow some ears buddy."
got as many as i can reasonably handle.
""The Wall" was fucking brilliant!"
when you were 15...
18 - zingzing
"on top of that, if I wanted the whole album, I'm paying almost as much money for an inferior product."
hey, hey, pink floyd fan, get raped by your favorite band!
19 - Mark Saleski
you can't control it. certainly not after the thing is in hands of the buyer, but that wasn't Pink Floyd's point.
let's exit the music world and use an example in the visual arts. let's say an artist is displaying his stuff at a website, a site where prints are available for sale. the artist finishes a new triptych and hands it over to the site....and the company decides that they're going to bust it up and make each of the panels available as separate prints.
the artist objects. again, i side with the artist.
20 - Brian aka Guppusmaximus
Zing... "You" in the general sense of the word. I wasn't talking about you.
"hey, hey, pink floyd fan, get raped by your favorite band!"
Huh?? Explain that one to me,please, because I was referring to the current popular format for digital downloads It is a fact that Mp3 is inferior to CD(.wav/pcm 44Khz/16bit) whether or not I'm a Pink Floyd fan.
But why should I discuss these things with someone who believes that Music education is irrelevant, Hi-Fi audio equipment is a waste of money and spends their time defending shitty electronic music?
"got as many as i can reasonably handle."
Yup, I figured you wear deaf in one ear and can't hear out the other...
21 - Mark Saleski
and spends their time defending shitty electronic music?
if you're going to bring personal tastes into the matter then you're wasting time. he could just as easily say "and spends their time defending shitty metal music" and i'd have the same reaction.
now if you'll excuse me, i have to go listen to some shitty 20th century orchestral music.
22 - zingzing
"But why should I discuss these things with someone who believes that Music education is irrelevant, Hi-Fi audio equipment is a waste of money and spends their time defending shitty electronic music?"
jesus, brian, grow up a little. i never said musical education was irrelevant. i said that it doesn't guarantee that you'll be a better, or even a good musician. it, in fact, could kill your creativity.
i also never said that hi-fi audio equipment is a waste of money. i like that stuff as much as the next guy. if i defend one thing, i'm not automatically against another.
i like some electronic music. i also like a lot of other things, but you seem to think that you're insulting me by pointing out one of the many, many types of music that i like. i'm hurt? you happy? you like metal. you also like limp ass new age music. so what?
you're pretty notorious around here for being a hotheaded, stubborn know-it-all when it comes to music, so don't add being a dickhead to that list.
23 - zingzing
mark: "you can't control it. certainly not after the thing is in hands of the buyer, but that wasn't Pink Floyd's point."
then what is pink floyd's point?
the example you point out HAS to take it out of the context of music. because historically, music has always been about songs. but if you're going to go that route, you're right in a sense. but now i have the image of pink floyd as great, snooty painterly types with a feather in their cap and pantaloons, etc, etc.
but it's just too bad. because it doesn't matter in the end. totally useless exercise.
24 - zingzing
my god. we have autoplay ads on this site now? and has anyone else noticed that the site will be horrifically slow, or will load a certain amount of the page, or will refuse to load altogether sometimes? it seems to be worse on safari, but it even happens with high frequency over on firefox as well.
25 - Mark Saleski
re #24: i'm using chrome. not sure what it is or isn't doing, but the ads just seem to sit there.