Pink Floyd wins case against label

JAUQO III-X · #1 03-11-2010, 07:53 AM

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/8561963.stm

scotch · #2 03-11-2010, 07:59 AM

Finally... some GOOD news on the artistic integrity front!

**baba** · #3 03-11-2010, 08:03 AM

Good for them. I respect the sanctity of concept albums and the importance of them being digested as a whole.

Frettage · #4 03-11-2010, 08:06 AM

As of this writing, iTunes is still selling The Wall as individual tracks.

MonetBass · #5 03-11-2010, 08:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Frettage

As of this writing, iTunes is still selling The Wall as individual tracks.

I'm sure their 'cease and desist' order is forthcoming.

I still believe in the concept of the album, especially regarding bands such as Pink Floyd, Yes, Rush, and the like. Good for them.

ClydeMcAllister · #6 03-11-2010, 12:29 PM

This makes a lot of since for this band especially. Whenever I put on some Floyd I always have to listen all the way through, that's just the way it is.

NKUSigEp · #7 03-11-2010, 12:43 PM

Congrats to Pink Floyd!

MIJ-VI · #8 03-11-2010, 09:28 PM

'Floyd's always been a concept/album band.

I cringe every time I hear a butchered Pink Floyd 'single'.

MIJ-VI · #9 03-11-2010, 09:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by scotch

Finally... some GOOD news on the artistic integrity front!

+1

Art endures because money can always be spent faster than it's made.

--------

BTW:

TL5 · #10 03-12-2010, 07:13 AM

I disagree totally.

I just checked iTunes. Their album "The Wall" is $24.99 and has 26 songs.
20 or more of those songs would never get played by me, on purpose anyway.
Dark Side of the Moon checks in with 9 songs and a 9.99 price tag. There's only one song on that one that i'd play more than once.

I don't want to be forced to buy the songs that suck just to get the one or two that I like.

I presume this is just an effort to score the whole $35 from a casual music fan instead the $6 or $8. If 'artistic integrity' were really the issue, why even divide it up as individual titles to begin with? Wouldn't 'side 1, and side 2' be more fitting?
I suppose they'll insist that classic radio quits playing individual songs as well?

This is utter stupidity in action IMHO.

JAUQO III-X · #11 03-12-2010, 07:17 AM

TL5,

The original contract contained a clause to "preserve the artistic integrity of the albums.

That means that the contract meant EMI were "not entitled to exploit recording by online distribution or by any other means other than the original album, without the consent of Pink Floyd.

EMI broke the contract agreement and now they have to pay.

It's only right.

**john turner** · #12 03-12-2010, 07:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TL5

I disagree totally.

I just checked iTunes. Their album "The Wall" is $24.99 and has 26 songs.
20 or more of those songs would never get played by me, on purpose anyway.
Dark Side of the Moon checks in with 9 songs and a 9.99 price tag. There's only one song on that one that i'd play more than once.

I don't want to be forced to buy the songs that suck just to get the one or two that I like.

I presume this is just an effort to score the whole $35 from a casual music fan instead the $6 or $8. If 'artistic integrity' were really the issue, why even divide it up as individual titles to begin with? Wouldn't 'side 1, and side 2' be more fitting?
I suppose they'll insist that classic radio quits playing individual songs as well?

This is utter stupidity in action IMHO.

from a certain point of view i can agree with that. however, the artist has the right to control how their creations are disposed of, even in the post-napster apocalypse.

pink floyd was never concerned with classic radio, nor were they very concerned with making their music easily or quickly consumable by the masses or easy to sell, or easy to market, or easily dealt with in any manner from a business point of view. they generally held a pretty organized and official contempt for the music industry as a whole from very early in their career (re have a cigar, among others). they were only concerned with presenting their art in the way they wished it to be presented. their wishes should be respected, especially by any musicians who also wish their own art to be preserved and presented according to their wishes and not someone else's.

remember, also, pink floyd has no interest in seperating the songs to begin with - that was emi's doing. they just did not want them being sold individually. i'm sure they will now work out pricing for the entire albums that will be much more reasonable. any fan of the band should applaud this, not rail against it. this was a cynical attempt by their record label (who in this case is obviously an unnecessary 3rd wheel in the whole process) to garner more money for floyd's music, by your own example - you don't think floyd was getting more money for the $35 i-tunes version of the wall than they would for the sale of the cd, do you? they weren't, from my understanding. the label was getting all of it.

TL5 · #13 03-12-2010, 07:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JAUQO III-X

TL5,

The original contract contained a clause to "preserve the artistic integrity of the albums.

That means that the contract meant EMI were "not entitled to exploit recording by online distribution or by any other means other than the original album, without the consent of Pink Floyd.

EMI broke the contract agreement and now they have to pay.

It's only right.

I doubt very seriously that "..not entitled to exploit recording by online distribution.." was part of the original contract.
There was no "online" in 1979.

Next thing you know, every other mediocre one hit wonder act will have the same clause and it'll be like 1991 - the advent of iTunes all over again, where in order to get one song you're forced to buy the whole CD.
It's Kentucky Fried Stupid and a terrible decision for those who like songs and not "production" or a particular band/image.

**john turner** · #14 03-12-2010, 07:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TL5

I doubt very seriously that "..not entitled to exploit recording by online distribution.." was part of the original contract.
There was no "online" in 1979.

Next thing you know, every other mediocre one hit wonder act will have the same clause and it'll be like 1991 - the advent of iTunes all over again, where in order to get one song you're forced to buy the whole CD.
It's Kentucky Fried Stupid and a terrible decision for those who like songs and not "production".

if their current contract was from 1979 then that means they were also getting the same crappy royalty rate for cd sales that they were for albums, even though cd's were 2x the price.

it also means the band was getting less than a dime of every i-tunes download.

it was -the label- that caused the individual songs from the cds to cost so much more than the full cd, not the band.

as for it being a terrible decision for those who don't like bands but like songs, as i said earlier, floyd never was much interested in appeasing those kinds of folks.

JAUQO III-X · #15 03-12-2010, 07:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TL5

I doubt very seriously that "..not entitled to exploit recording by online distribution.." was part of the original contract.
There was no "online" in 1979.

Whether online distribution existed or not, Pink Floyd were smart enough to have a contract drawn up that would protect their artistic and business vision.

Evidently the contract was violated and they won their case.

PJSShearer · #16 03-12-2010, 07:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Frettage

As of this writing, iTunes is still selling The Wall as individual tracks.

There's still stuff to decide in the case so they'll stay on sale until everything is settled.

WalterBush · #17 03-12-2010, 07:40 AM

"Their latest record deal, signed with EMI before legal downloads came along, said individual songs must not be sold without the band's permission." BBC Online

Which is certainly what EMI was doing. They knew it, too, it was why they released "A Collection of Great Dance Songs" instead of selling 45's or cassette singles in the eighties.

They tried to get away with breaking their contract (did you see the quote from EMI where their spokesperson said "record" clearly meant vinyl?) and lost. Good.

While I'll admit to fast-forwarding past parts of The Wall, Pink Floyd's albums were written to be listened to as a whole, and are better that way IMO. What's more important, this establishes a bit more firmly that bands have a legal right to control how their material is marketed. It looks to me like EMI deliberately tried to misinterpret their contract, and violated both spirit and letter.

TL5 · #18 03-12-2010, 07:41 AM

Quote:

as for it being a terrible decision for those who don't like bands but like songs, as i said earlier, floyd never was much interested in appeasing those kinds of folks.

I guess there's just cause for me not replacing those old 8-track tapes through the years then.

Maybe I should purchase those individual songs before the cease and desist order hits iTunes in the USA - or better yet, I could just borrow somebody else's CD and rip those songs into my collection?

Haven't we been down that path before?

WalterBush · #19 03-12-2010, 07:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TL5

I guess there's just cause for me not replacing those old 8-track tapes through the years then.

Maybe I should purchase those individual songs before the cease and desist order hits iTunes in the USA - or better yet, I could just borrow somebody else's CD and rip those songs into my collection?

Haven't we been down that path before?

I see your point, and you're certainly entitled to think that way and act on it next time you purchase anyone's music, but the point here is that according to the contract, the decision to sell single tracks or full albums was Pink Floyd's to make, not EMI's.

Some bands want their albums sold as a whole, and I don't think it's only about dollar signs. Not always, anyway. If that's the way they feel and can negotiate that into their contracts, whether it's a good business decision or not, they shouldn't have to worry about whether their record company is going to selectively decide that online and hardcopy sales are different animals. Pun intended.

TL5 · #20 03-12-2010, 07:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WalterBush

"Their latest record deal, signed with EMI before legal downloads came along, said individual songs must not be sold without the band's permission." BBC Online

Which is certainly what EMI was doing. They knew it, too, it was why they released "A Collection of Great Dance Songs" instead of selling 45's or cassette singles in the eighties.

Are you sure "Another Brick in the Wall" and/or Comfortably Numb weren't singles? I could swear that "Wall" was. I know I've seen "Money" as a 45.
If that's the case (which I can't recall for sure) then hopefully those songs that were singled can still be sold that way, because that permission was granted years ago.

btw, I had "A Collection of Great Dance Songs" on cassette in 1981. I liked about half of it.