Pink Floyd songs could be removed from iTunes after court ruling - Page 3

Since you asked: Yes and Genesis - yes.

Don't take it personally.

Should "Echoes" or "Atom Heart Mother" cost 99 cents each?

To me, if an album is not worth listening to its entirety, then I just rip select songs into AAC and play them back on my mobile. Funny how almost every single song that I have on my mobile is from bands post 1990.

There might be no more than two dozen truly great albums made in the past 20 years, but plenty of good singles. This is the MTV generation, folks.

I'm glad Pink Floyd won this thing, as they obviously should.

Anyone who listens to Wish You Were Here and skips any of the tracks is

Only if you pause between tracks two and three to account for the time it takes to flip the record over.

I'm glad they won as a simple matter of contract law. Now it's up to them what they do about it.

The "medium" you speak off did not exist when PF albums were created. Aside from The Division Bell, every PF album preceded the digital age, so your argument makes no historic sense, as PF was not specifically writing music to distribute in a digital format.

As for piracy, I doubt that PF cares. With their wealth, why would they lose sleep on a few million bucks? Besides, most of the people who are downloading their stuff will either end up buying their LPs like I did or continue to rip singles only.

The point that most people seem to be missing is that just because iTunes is now available, it does not mean that bands no longer have the right to control distribution. In the past, if you wanted a single off a PF album, TOO BAD because the band rarely released any. Why should it be different now? It's the artist's choice, and it may be your choice to pirate their music.

Hey don't let you Meatloaf !

Yeah. Pink Floyd is just flying off the store shelves. You need to over 60
to know who the even are. errr I'm over 60.

This was true for the most part back when their albums were released. With LPs, most listeners chose not to skip songs. PF basically said at the time of their work, if you don't want to listen to all of our songs, then do not buy our album because we are not releasing singles (with a few exceptions). This was their stance, and they have chosen not to change it just because technology has moved on.

People, Pink Floyd is not a modern band, so stop comparing them to current artists.

Please stop romanticizing the past too. There were plenty of boneheads back in the '70s and '80s who used music as background fluff for their social activities too. This is not just a 21st century trend.

I also really like only one song on U2's latest album, but because U2 did not release it as a single, I cannot buy it on CD (I do not want compressed downloads).

Think before you type. Pink Floyd stands to LOSE money by not selling singles. How is this about "greed"? It's about greed for EMI and record tycoons.

Think before you type --this is the best adage for internet usage.

You read my post wrong or perhaps I didn't make it clear enough, but that's exactly what I meant.

I hate that background noise with a passion.

No.

I listen to Pink Floyd and Radiohead on my speakers when I have the time to do so. If I want to hear singles, I just bring up 1990s pop music.

Besides, most of my PF listening is on vinyl anyway, so playing just one track is not practical.

yawn ... I never liked Pink Floyd and I did grow up during the boom days of vinyl record stores.

And before you call me a "Menudo fan": I like complete classical symphonies, and any number of other different musical styles and artists, PF just never did anything for me (maybe it's the lack of mind altering substances in my life?).

More power to them to be allowed to package and sell their music however they like, it doesn't affect me (and I bet _most_ anyone else). True fans already own the complete catalogue and people like me will continue to ignore their music.

There has never been anything stopping anyone from buying whole albums instead of individual tracksif they want to. There has never been anything stopping owners of music CD's from playing individual tracks if they want to. The notion that Pink Floyd is somehow protecting the artistic integrity of their albums by forcing customers to buy them in their entirety is ludicrous.

Good point!

Long Duk Dong likey Dark Side of Moon when he was 12.

But not when he was 13.

No more yanky my wankee! Must go now!! Donger needs food!

How often did artists release a record or CD that had only two or three good songs on them and the rest were garbage intended to "pad" the rest of the recording space. For those of you old enough to remember buying records, how many albums did you own that actually had decent songs on side B?

Most people do not want to pay for cable TV "packages" of garbage channels that they do not want. How nice it would be to select and pay for just the five or six channels out of seven hundred that you actually want to watch. Why should music be any different in this regard? Is buying an entire album worth the trouble and expense, if all you want is two songs?

"Classic rock" and "lite rock" have had a good run, and they are about to join WWII big band music as "ancient" music on yet another "oldies" radio station: Something you listen to while pumping gas or doing the dishes on a Sunday afternoon. "Lite rock" is also commonly found at the dentist's office......

The medium is the message.

- Marshall McLuhan

I agree with Pink Floyd's right to want their albums sold as a whole. I have pretty much their entire collection on LP, and CD. I even had some on cassette. If I didn't own them, and was to purchase in mp3 format, I'd certainly get the whole album.

What I find funny though is that they have released some singles before.

http://www.discogs.com/Pink-Floyd-Mo...release/510353
http://www.discogs.com/artist/Pink+Floyd

TV stations and cable companies are not artists. Thanks for making the point that PF has been trying to champion. They are the talent, not the corporations.

But you choose not to ignore an internet post about them. If you lost 1 minute posting about every band that you didn't care for, wouldn't you have wasted an entire lifetime? Or is PF somehow special in that you especially want to ignore them?

What is clear is that most trolls love to trash things that they do not like, even if they are needlessly offending people.

I don't care about the Stones much, but since they have sold hundreds of millions of albums, I'm not going to go out of my way just to criticize them. If I did, then I would be a low-life loser troll who is just flaming to tick people off. Get it?

The only thing ludicrous is your thinking that Pink Floyd is FORCING customers to buy anything.

Not to derail the topic, but there are so many things wrong with this statement. First, "in general" does not mean majority. Generality means abstracting from the specifics in order to talk about something that applies to an entire subject as a whole, or to every member of the subject. Something that's true in general is a rule that applies to everything under discussion, and cases where it's not true are exceptions to the rule, the specifics that we abstract from when talking in general. Second, even if you only meant to say that the majority of youth cannot appreciate music, the statement is problematic. What sort of data do you have to draw this conclusion? No doubt anecdotal evidence from personal experience that has shaped your stereotypical view? Do you also talk about how black people are lazy "in general" because you happen to live around unemployed black people?

To get back on topic a bit, I think Pink Floyd's decision makes sense. Some of their albums are clearly intended as a coherent work from beginning to end. That said, this thread has a distinct "get off my lawn you damn kids with your loud music" quality to it that is unsettling. I use that expression deliberately because this sort of criticism of the artform and appreciation of a different generation is nowadays the subject of mockery and satire, and yet it is surfacing here for some reason. I would have thought that in this modern age people are enlightened enough to know that there are no objective standards of art and culture and are aware of the constructed nature of their own standards and tastes. One should be able to appreciate the fact that genuine artistry and culture underlie the works that one oneself may be unable to enjoy.

[QUOTE=solarein;1588789]Not to derail the topic, but there are so many things wrong with this statement. First, "in general" does not mean majority. Generality means abstracting from the specifics in order to talk about something that applies to an entire subject as a whole, or to every member of the subject. Something that's true in general is a rule that applies to everything under discussion, and cases where it's not true are exceptions to the rule, the specifics that we abstract from when talking in general. Second, even if you only meant to say that the majority of youth cannot appreciate music, the statement is problematic. What sort of data do you have to draw this conclusion? No doubt anecdotal evidence from personal experience that has shaped your stereotypical view? Do you also talk about how black people are lazy "in general" because you happen to live around unemployed black people?

I have to ask, are you Gazoobee's relative? Your logic is flawed in at least a couple of ways. First, the process you describe is one of generalization. Second, if something applies to everything, then there are no exceptions. To the extent that there are exceptions, then the generality applies to the majority.

Like Gazoobee, you make assumptions about me, apparently based on your own preconceptions, biases, and apparently unregulated emotional reactions, as you know little or nothing about me. The data are not based on personal anecdotal experience. There are any number of articles in the popular press that have discussed the paucity of younger audiophiles (http://news.cnet.com/8301-13645_3-10212786-47.html). Go to any of the audiophile boards, and the topic is not uncommon.

I have to assume that you must have some sort of racial bias against African Americans, because I have never once brought the topic up. On the other hand, both yourself and Gazoobee seem obsessed about making racial slurs towards African Americans, and bringing race into a topic that has absolutely no racial overtones to it. Indeed, you have no what my racial background is, and yet, you apparently wish to somehow denigrate what I have said by using an all to common McCarthyist smear.

I understand that musical tastes are subjective and vary from person to person but you are completely off your rocker to dismiss Pink Floyd as a "no talent group". Let me sum up the numbers for you. Dark Side of the Moon--45 million sold with 250k sold every year on average. It stayed on the billboard 200 for more than 13 years (by far a record), is number 3 all time behind AC/DC Back in Black(#2) and Michael Jackson Thriller (#1). The Wall--30 million sold for a double album (unheard of BTW). That is 75 million sold between just two albums! Comparing them to the Beatles is pointless as the Beatles were a singles band early on (not one album in the 20+million sold bracket). I like both bands but Pink Floyd has succeeded where few bands have (outside of The Who). Their albums have sold throughout time without people trying to "cherry pick" for singles (with rare exceptions. That is the way they have always created their albums. Not as a collection of singles but as one complete work where one song melds into another song.

I am 37 and have listened to them since I was ten.

Limewire? Did I just wake up in 2001?

It's interesting you mention Thick as a Brick, the two songs that comprise the album are "album only" on iTunes, you can only buy the whole album.

The albums created by Pink Floyd (or rather Roger Waters) were to music today as a novel is to a one-liner. Just like you can quote a paragraph from a novel because it's interesting, you can also play a single song out from Pink Floyd. But if that's how you got they're music, you were doomed never to get their music. And Roger Waters was a very deep thinker (and Gilmore a great guitarist).

But although there's a number of groups that make similar claims, but I honestly don't know of anyone else who really did that well--told a cohesive story over the course of an album. (Edit: yeah there's examples already given by others: Tommy is certainly one) No doubt there are examples. The one cited above (Meatloaf)... I don't think that's one of them, though. Metallica and AC/DC certainly aren't examples. Perhaps they put some effort into balancing portions of their album, like an abstract painter tries to have bright colors here to counterbalance the dark colors there (Rush did that, for instance, and so did ELO), but nevertheless it wasn't the same. I liked AC/DC when I was a kid, but they were one of those quintessential bands where I'd buy a whole album to get one song, and that got frustrating.

But there was still a point to album-only sales though. I'd but a whole album of Rush to get one song, and then I'd discover that I liked most every other song on that album. Yeah radio stations started the process of breaking the album and played only singles, but even really good albums, there'd only be a song or two played by the radio stations. Sometimes my favorite songs from an album were never to heard on radio.

How about Joe's Garage (Zappa)?

I fully and wholeheartedly agree with your and a few other's point about PF albums and why they propably chose to do this change.

Regs, Jarkko

I agree, musical tastes are highly subjective. Fragmentation of musical tastes in the market ensures that fewer bands will ever earn that kind of money. For example, not every teenager automatically gravitates to classic rock today as was the case throughout the mid-late 1960s, 1970s and 1980s.

Regarding your other statements: Be careful! Marketing has absolutely nothing to do with quality.

I understand the whole marketing/quality concept. My point was this person thought PF is "a no talent group". I'd say with so many albums continuing to sell after all these years plus being the fathers of quadrophonic sound make them just a little bit more than a "no talent group".

My interpretation is that PF may have assumed that those who would otherwise have just cherry picked tracks will be forced to purchase entire albums in order to get the tracks they want.

Before iTunes, this is the model that prevailed.

No, the issue is that EMI licensed the tracks to be sold individually.
PF wants the full album to be the only option when purchasing.
A single album, length track was never an issue.

Now only a full album with a half dozen individual songs will be sold. You will not be able to purchase individual songs.
I doubt very, very much it will be a single album length track.

That's their business. They are the kind of group where I've heard everything they did, as it is mostly at least 30 years old. Very doubtful I would buy the albums, but I might buy a song if the mood hit me.