Pink Floyd takes a stand. I like it.
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.…
Article comments
— go to most recent comments26 - zingzing
yeah, well, yesterday there was some ad playing, but i couldn't find it before it ended, and i'm pretty sure i had at least one or two bc pages open. then today, i've only got this page open and some man is talking to me about some "plot against the earth" or something like that. maybe i scrolled over it and didn't notice, or maybe it was just a glitch, but it makes me want to run an adblocker on the site, which, of course, is bad for business.
i haven't tried out chrome yet. the early reviews of it weren't that grand, but maybe they've turned it around. that's the microsoft one, right? all i know is that i'm getting pretty sick of safari and i don't like some of the stuff that firefox thinks is necessary, so... i'm on the market for a better browser.
27 - Mark Saleski
no, chrome is a google thing, and i'm not sure if they've finished the native version for the mac yet.
all i know is that it's the fastest thing out there (that i've used...haven't tried opera in a while) and has some nice features, all of which are under the hood and don't get in your way.
28 - zingzing
ah, yeah, i meant google. microsoft has internet explorer, and won't give up that ghost yet. i believe it's done for mac. maybe i'll check it out.
29 - roger nowosielski
chrome ain't working today. FF is OK thus far. Haven't tried it on Safari or the Opera yet. I sure don't want to be forced to use the Explorer.
30 - Mark Saleski
roger, i've seen your comment about chrome on other threads. what's the actual problem? i'm using it and see no problems at all.
31 - roger nowosielski
It was about an hour ago. Let me check it again.
32 - roger nowosielski
The BC pages still don't load up fast enough or at all.
I happen to think it's the browser problem because other sites are also either too slow or inaccessible.
FF and Opera are fine. Let me try Safari.
33 - roger nowosielski
Safari works OK too. Now I have three browsers operational (except from Chrome).
34 - El Bicho
"you're pretty notorious around here for being a hotheaded, stubborn know-it-all when it comes to music"
it's a big club around here
35 - zingzing
well, the "stubborn" and "know-it-all" bits aren't quite unique to the big guppy, that's for sure. he is one to get all worked up and upset and start throwing insults around though... sigh... metal fans.
heh. just kidding on that last one.
36 - Brian aka Guppusmaximus
"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."
So... That would make it irrelevant.
Ya know, zing, you seem to think it is okay to throw your verbal weight around without any consequences and everyone should just roll with the punches(for the record, you started the whole personal taste issue on this thread so I have no idea why Mark is coming down on me)so, calling me a dickhead doesn't really carry any water. I'm pretty sure most people would question a person's credibility when they say,"Pink Floyd is kinda stinky"... For fucks sake, man, grow some fucking ears, get some music education and right back when you have a clue.
37 - Brian aka Guppusmaximus
*Oops* write
38 - zingzing
heh. oh my.
alright, sorry about the "dickhead" comment, but you did take it from a relatively easy-going conversation into personal insult time, so... whatever.
and no, what i said doesn't make musical "education," by which i take it you mean theory courses and performance classes, etc, etc, doesn't make it "irrelevant." i said what i said, in that it's no guarantee to make you a more interesting musician. and it's not a prerequisite. you can make great music without having taken any instruction or knowing theory. sometimes it works out, sometimes it doesn't.
"I'm pretty sure most people would question a person's credibility when they say,"Pink Floyd is kinda stinky.""
meh. they aren't to my taste. has nothing to do with my "credibility." maybe in your book it does. your dismissal of all things electronic (although i doubt you mean to say it that way,) shows your limitations. we have different taste, for sure, but that doesn't mean yours is any better than mine.
and what do you know of my musical education? i'm pretty good with the history and the ideas at play. i'll admit i've never played an instrument (well, that's not true either,) with any degree of professional skill. but that doesn't mean i can't appreciate or have any knowledge of music. instrumental virtuosity is pretty far down my personal totem pole, but ideas are very high up there. and there are plenty of unschooled musicians coming up with mind-blowing ideas. not even you can deny that.
(and when i "started the whole personal taste issue," it was clearly tongue in cheek.)
39 - roger nowosielski
Trying to catch bits and pieces here, Brian wasn't exactly Mr. Clean either. So perhaps the dickhead term wasn't totally undeserved.
40 - Brian aka Guppusmaximus
Blah,Blah,Blah... I've heard it all before zing, and as much as you wanna make it sound like I'm just starting shit, you're the one who boiled down one of the greatest recorded albums in the history of Rock N Roll down to a fairly ignorant moment in life. You can rattle on about how a lack of education doesn't impede the creative process,but, I still say if you don't have a very well marked map you're not going to get too far... And, no, I don't just mean theory & books. I mean a lot of time spent practicing and pushing yourself as a musician to learn new styles & tricks and then tightening up those newfound skills.
I guess I would have to equate it to the written & verbal languages. People who know more than one language can go farther in life and experience more things. But, what the fuck do I know,right? I mean I have only played the drums for 25 years and know the limitations because I had the same mentality that you have right now. Music has been my life,not just some hobby that a lot of talentless hacks think they can take on because they saw The fucking White Stripes pull a popular album out their ass!
FYI - I'm not just a Metal Fan. It may have been what I started out loving & playing but I have progressed. I listen to quite a bit of music and if you think Michael Manring is limp ass "New Age" then you're really showing your ignorance.
41 - zingzing
and i say there's far more ways to show musical creativity than just instrumental skills. you place far too much emphasis on it. sloppy is just as capable of being great as tight is. i like tight, but i'm more interested in band interplay, rather than individual displays of skill. there's just nothing in that for me.
"I still say if you don't have a very well marked map you're not going to get too far"
show me the map to originality. it's a straight line between where you're at and where no one else has gone.
"you're the one who boiled down one of the greatest recorded albums in the history of Rock N Roll down to a fairly ignorant moment in life."
i dunno where you see that. i just think it (like a lot of pink floyd) is pompous and depressing. depressing albums, i can take, but pompous i can rarely stomach, and when you put the two of them together... it's just poison to my mind.
"I mean I have only played the drums for 25 years and know the limitations because I had the same mentality that you have right now."
and yet there are thousands of songs written by rank amateurs that are works of genius. figure that one out.
and i never called out michael manring specifically as "limp ass new age." manring is a bass-poppin', harmonics abusin', ponytailed bore slut. it's virtuosity for the sake of virtuosity, which is just not my cup of tea. if you like it, by all means, have at it. i won't call you stupid for liking it, because that's your thing. i don't know why you insist that those who disagree with you must be "ignorant," and i bet because of that you find a lot of ignorant people in your life.
42 - Tom Johnson
Wow, I made a mistake not checking back after I dropped my initial comment on Friday.
Anyway, I got to thinking about it some more and became troubled by one aspect of this issue. It's one thing to want to sell your albums as albums, but they also pushed particular songs as singles. Maybe they should be offering the albums as-is plus the ability to buy whatever singles were available. Or maybe bands that want to sell albums should consider never pushing singles because the album is to be considered a singular work of art. Sure, Dark Side works best in one listen, but that didn't stop them from sending out Money, Us And Them, and Time to radio. I know, I know, that's how music is sold, but that's also the point - those songs were chosen to be broken out, so maybe those songs in particular should be allowed to be purchased by themselves.
I guess I'm backpedalling on my initial reaction - hooray for the Floyd, but does this really benefit anyone? Itunes will still sell single songs at ridiculous prices and albums at better prices (whether at once or via the "complete my album" deal) than buying songs one-by-one, so they kind of are encouraging people to buy albums, in a way. I would bet they'll sell album-only albums at higher prices. Bands opting for the "album as art" route will sell fewer of anything because fewer people will take a chance on full-albums these days. They can't even dip a toe in with a single going this route, as meaningless as this would be for a band like Pink Floyd. It's daunting for unadventurous mainstream listeners, and that's who ultimately made Pink Floyd very, very rich.
Someone asked about selling the compilation Echoes' tracks separately. I don't know how they could work separately as they segue from one to the next. It's kind of a concept-compilation.
43 - roger nowosielski
"People who know more than one language can go farther in life and experience more things."
Explain that to me, Brian, if you can - beyond the obvious. Of course you have a point, but then again, there are limitations. Unless you're an expert, like a scholar in Medieval English or in biblical languages. If you mean to press your analogy this far, than I cannot disagree with you, but I doubt that's your intent.
44 - Mark Saleski
eh, well we've had this conversation a zillion times before. my take on it hasn't changed and neither has anybody else's. for my ears, something resonates and i want to hear it again. the why is difficult to pin down because there isn't always an identifying theme running through it.
the music's complexity, the musician's talent (technical prowess being only a fraction of that), etc....none of that matters.
which is why i can enjoy a multi-layered Jeff Beck tune right alongside Eno's Music for Airports next to Jack White runnin' the spirit of Bukka White through a tube amp about ready to melt down. i don't know what i like that stuff, but the actual construction of it...the harmonic/melodic content...it just never occurs to me. ever.
45 - Brian aka Guppusmaximus
@41,
you place far too much emphasis on it."
Yup, because the music that sticks around for decades is the stuff made with instrumental musicianship. [Ex. Buddy Rich]
@43,
"Explain that to me, Brian, if you can - beyond the obvious."
Really Roger?! An expert in Medieval English?! You got to be fucking kidding,right?
@44,
"i don't know what i like that stuff, but the actual construction of it...the harmonic/melodic content...it just never occurs to me. ever."
Hmmm... Well, then I guess your appreciation is severely limited.
BUT, yes, we've down this road a million times and I guess I'm in the wrong company.
Ciao:)
46 - zingzing
"I guess I'm in the wrong company."
that's what people find out when they think they're better than everyone else.
"the music that sticks around for decades is the stuff made with instrumental musicianship. [Ex. Buddy Rich]"
that is profoundly limited.
you trick yourself into believing you've got it all figured out. the fact is that you've damaged yourself. you search for technical perfection, which anyone can see, thinking you've found some holy grail that's special to you. it's the wrong goal.
47 - Mark Saleski
Hmmm... Well, then I guess your appreciation is severely limited
that would be a sad and pathetic statement if it wasn't so gut-bustingly funny.
48 - zingzing
i think guppy and i (and probably several more of us around here) have been having this same argument for a few years now. but it's always entertaining to watch people digging a hole.
49 - Brian aka Guppusmaximus
@46,
Wow...nice try at psycho analyzing somebody zing,but, it's not gonna work here. I'm perfectly happy with the realization that not all bands / artists are going for technical perfection. If I recall correctly, I never said that you had to be technically perfect to create enjoyable music (technical proficiency always helps). What my point is is that if you don't acknowledge music education as being an intrical part of the journey, whether it listening or playing,then you are severly limiting yourself.
"that's what people find out when they think they're better than everyone else."
Naw...I'm just better than you.
50 - Brian aka Guppusmaximus
@ 47,
Don't hurt yourself Mark, though I wonder, How does someone consider themselves a critic of Jazz if they don't bother to technically analyze the music? Jazz is "Musician's Music", right??
51 - zingzing
"Naw...I'm just better than you."
for what reason? and at what? being smug?
"What my point is is that if you don't acknowledge music education as being an intrical part of the journey, whether it listening or playing,then you are severly limiting yourself."
then what constitutes "music education" in listening? because on that level, i'm pretty damn well "educated." and my education tells me that history proves you wrong. so many musicians have lost their creativity while becoming more technically proficient. it's just undeniable.
my mind is open to just about everything in music. yours, from what you say, is pretty closed. i've got my hangups, certainly, but you seem to dismiss a very large chunk of music because it doesn't fit your technical standards.
here's some news for you: if every musician had to be as "knowledgeable" as you, with your 25 years behind a drum kit, we'd have a bunch of 40 year old people making overwrought, boring music.
52 - Mark Saleski
How does someone consider themselves a critic of Jazz if they don't bother to technically analyze the music? Jazz is "Musician's Music", right??
easy, because the technical aspects of music, at least in the western sense, came after the music actually existed. they are a way of describing music: but not the only way.
to take a simple example, if i had to stick to the technical aspects of say, a blues song. i would have to discuss the number of bars and how the tonic, sub-dominant and dominant seventh chords were spread out over that span...plus use of alterations of the 3rd and 7th notes of the scale, with the occasional altered 5th thrown in...and maybe the flatted 5th chord used as a substitution for the II chord.
and it would be just so boring, even expanded out into the larger technical palette of jazz.
53 - zingzing
guppy would have you diagramming every sentence of the great gatsby.
54 - zingzing
...the technical aspects of music certainly are what make it exist, but they aren't what make it interesting. focusing solely on the technical side of music reduces it to a science, and neglects its art.
55 - Mark Saleski
i honestly don't think that you either can't or shouldn't think about music that way, i just don't happen to do it.
56 - roger nowosielski
That was no response, Brian.
It not all that evident that knowledge of multiple language makes one a better thinker than one who commands the mastery of one.
And if you meant to provide an analogy for thorough familiarity with different schools of music (or art), then the analogy is unnecessary for I doubt anyone would dispute you.
57 - Tom Johnson
Any art that can only be truly appreciated by those who know the intricacies behind it is a general failure. That you need some kind of special training to appreciate something that is supposed to be enjoyable is pure bullshit.
Calling out jazz as "musician's music" is completely wrong. Musicians listen to it, yes, but so do plenty of non-musicians. In its heyday, jazz certainly was not "musician's music," it was just music - and dance music at that. The majority of the people listening and enjoying it were doing so because it grabbed them in a particular way. They didn't give a crap about what technically amazing things the musicians were doing.
I'd say it's the opposite, actually. Those who don't know a thing about music and don't care, it is THEY who really know and love music the right way because they don't feel any need to delve into the mechanics of what makes the music the way it is. They love it purely for what it is - something to be enjoyed - and they leave all the technical crap to the musicians to worry about. They don't get caught up in all this junk about whether this guy can solo better than that guy, whatever. It's just whether it moves them and grabs them and means something to them. I can't think of much that's more pure than that.
58 - zingzing
technically, james cameron is one of the greatest filmmakers ever.
59 - roger nowosielski
In my opinion, he's way overrated.
60 - jeannie danna
Roger,
When is your article going to be ready?
:)nite, I thought I'd say it in person...
61 - zingzing
the point is that he's awful. technically, very impressive, sure. but who gives a shit? (actually, a lot of people do...)
62 - El Bicho
I get that you may not like his films, but awful filmmakers don't make billions of dollars.
63 - Mat Brewster
Michael Bay might disagree with you Bicho.
64 - zingzing
alright, well. he's a good filmmaker, but he makes terrible films? i actually enjoyed minutes 20-60 of avatar. engrossing. the world he created was wonderful. but then his stupid ass story had to ruin the place he had made. the last hour of that movie is just a cliche piled on a mountain of cliche, perched on a cliche, dangling a cliche from its lip, saying "cliche."
and yes, awful filmmakers do make lots of money. all the time. it's because people are stupid.
65 - Brian aka Guppusmaximus
@52,
"to take a simple example, if i had to stick to the technical aspects of say, a blues song...."
You don't have to write about it in the technical sense, but, you'd understand the intricacies of the music and how a certain phrasing works in a song that you're reviewing. Along with a knowledge of what brand of instruments sound better to you,ultimately, you might start to clear up the mystery of why you like one song better than the other.
@57,
Tom, that's great that you feel passionate about the enjoyable aspects of music,but, you really need to open a book or two before you respond. I don't have the time to explain all that is naive & wrong with your comment. If non-musicians didn't care about the technical aspects of music then a lot of instrument technology & education wouldn't exist.
@56,
You want a proper response roger, but, you say that my intent couldn't have possibly been about the mastery of many languages. I couldn't possibly have been talking about Music being a univeral language and that the more you learn about expression & presentation, the farther you can go with creativity & improvisation never mind the amount of work you could do with a written song. Now multiply that knowledge times the amount of people in a project or band....
66 - Mark Saleski
you might start to clear up the mystery of why you like one song better than the other.
you know, that might actually apply to some people but definitely not to me. the reasons i like (or don't) a song never have to do with the technical aspects of its construction.
it's not like the idea lacks merit or anything, it just doesn't line up with the way i think.
67 - Tom Johnson
I explained myself perfectly well in my previous comment about why regular, ordinary people don't care about the technical aspects of music, but I think it's amazing that you have to throw in an insult ("naive") and then neglect to address anything I even said in the first place while putting it down. You still don't get it. You're so focused (overly focused, I'd say) on the creation of music that you don't understand that the great, overwhelming majority a people simple enjoy listening to music, period. You look for signs of the craft while everyone else enjoys the end product, the whole. Nothing wrong with that except that you have gone on a seemingly endless warpath to prove that if the craft isn't of some ridiculously high standard you have, it's all useless junk, and I think it's pretty obvious that is WRONG. Maybe it's what gets you off, but it's not what appeals to most people, and it never has been. People have always, always, always loved simple little songs, and there are hymns going back ages to prove it. There is nothing wrong with "difficult" music but what is wrong is coming down on people for listening to non-difficult music. The amazing thing is that many of those having to argue with you listen to difficult music on a regular basis (you just may not approve of it, however)!
68 - zingzing
alex chilton died.
69 - Brian aka Guppusmaximus
Well, Tom, the word "naive" isn't an insult, kinda like the word "ignorant". I really don't have the time to educate people who make comments such as yours. It really does show a lack of experience, judgment, or information.
The only overtly, over focused thing has been my argument in this thread that you cannot deny. That people like Mark have gone from commenting that my idea is irrelevant to a stance of merit. I think music education and technical craftsmanship is very important,but, that isn't how I always approach music(listening or playing -Honestly, there are parts of music theory that teaches you how to hear all the parts & instrumentation in a song, so, once you've learned those things, it is hard to turn it off). Though, I still feel that a musically sound piece of work translates better over time and lasts longer. I think too many people confuse technical & difficult.
Ultimately, music has many aspects(technical being one) and I never denied the enjoyable aspect of music.
70 - zingzing
sigh. brian, no one ever said it was irrelevant. nobody ever denied it existed. it's your focus on it (which you seem to be softening here), and the attitude you've shown to those who disagree with that focus, that have been such a big turnoff.
"I still feel that a musically sound piece of work translates better over time."
that's a meaningless statement. or at least you can define "musically sound" any way that suits you. and even if you take it in the way that you mean it, it still doesn't add up. there's just far too many examples of sloppy, uncontrolled and technically inferior songs that are absolute classics. it's one of the things that some listeners treasure the most.
71 - zingzing
besides, i don't see how you can despise electronic music so much if you love the technical side of things. at it's most austere, it's all technical. sometimes, that can make it come out lifeless and alien, but if that's what someone is aiming for, it can still be dazzling.
72 - Brian aka Guppusmaximus
Ultimately, zing,Instruments make the music. There is no other way that you can listen to music without hearing the sounds that an instrument or combination of instruments make. No matter how "sloppy, uncontrolled and technically inferior" an album,song,experiment is, at its very core it is technical & those people,computers & possibly aliens had to learn how to play, whatever instrument it is, to make that "music". So, as much as enjoyment is a huge part of the listening process, if people didn't make the technical aspect a priority or the main focus, then no one would ever progress or experiment.
"and the attitude you've shown to those who disagree with that focus, that have been such a big turnoff."
Or is it when the people here dismiss my opinion as fascist or narrow minded, that's when I reply with a strong argument that turns people off.
"manring is a bass-poppin', harmonics abusin', ponytailed bore slut. it's virtuosity for the sake of virtuosity..."
Did you think I was going to let that one slide?! Michael Manring is one of the most important musicians to come out of the 20th century. Let alone his Jazz & Fusion experience with some of the all-time greats, he helped invent a new type of guitar (Hyper Bass) which lead to him furthering the Bass as a solo instrument.
Even if I didn't like this guy, to not acknowledge such a huge advancement in music just reeks of ignorance & a pompous attitude. That would be like spitting on the technology that Les Paul created!!
"that's a meaningless statement. or at least you can define "musically sound" any way that suits you."
Really?? What music have you created or what examples can you give that would make my statement so subjective & meaningless??
73 - Mark Saleski
re #72. i think what he's saying is that "musically sound" it totally subjective. i agree with that.
74 - zingzing
brian, you say that "if people didn't make the technical aspect a priority or the main focus, then no one would ever progress or experiment," and yet they have. sometimes, it boils down to just having an idea, and having no idea how to make it happen, but making it happen anyway. or willfully destroying their own technical ability in order to get to the meat of the music. (see beat happening, one of my favorite bands. on their first album, they'd swap instruments on every song, sometimes playing to their weaknesses in order to get a naive and wonderful sound. or see alex chilton, who, for a time, would introduce as much chaos as he could into a song, destroying grooves and riffs if they threatened to become technically "correct.")
"Did you think I was going to let that one slide?"
no, but i was surprised you did for so long.
"he helped invent a new type of guitar (Hyper Bass) which lead to him furthering the Bass as a solo instrument."
i did not know that. that's nice. i'm still not convinced the world needs a bass solo, but you have to admit the guy is doing his own thing.
"what music have you created or what examples can you give that would make my statement so subjective & meaningless??"
i've made lots of music. but you missed my point, and mark got it. "musically sound" can mean anything.
75 - roger nowosielski
"i think what he's saying is that "musically sound" it totally subjective. i agree with that."
Can we say the same thing of a literary work?