Yawn. Decent, but overrated in their prime; but now definitely a has-been, band.
This is news!?
I beg to disagree - along with 35 million who have purchased the 'Dark Side of the Moon' album and many millions more that listen to & enjoy via radio, individually downloaded songs via iTunes, etc...
I suppose you think Led Zeppelin, The Beatles, The Who, Genesis, Yes (to name just a few album oriented bands) were probably overated in their prime and are now has-beens. I'm afraid all your taste is apparently limited to you mouth.
Well, I guess everyone is entitled to their own taste (no matter how poor) even you!
This actually makes sense for Pink Floyd as they really did care about how the songs flowed together in an album. I'd expect the songs to still be on iTunes but in an album only format
Quote:
Originally Posted by ToomeyND
Simple fix, make the album one long song. Sell it for a 1.29, just like all the other songs, only this one is an hour long.
According to their stance, no one should be able to skip to the next "song" on their album anyway.
Quote:
Originally Posted by azazel-
Blasphemy!
OT: sell them as album-only. Problem solved.
The issue was they were not allowed to sell it as a single album length track. Now with the iTunes album format they probably will allow it, but previously, they asked and were denied.
Why would anyone want to purchase an entire album by a no talent group like Pink Floyd? As I recall they've had zero good songs and one passable average song (the Wall) in their entire history.
They're nothing like the Beatles who had nothing but good songs.
They're in the same category with other untalented groups who've maybe had one or two good songs in their entire career (eg: Steely Dan, Grateful Dead, Moody Blues, etc.) along with a ton of garbage.
I might pay 99 cents for the wall but I wouldn't pay $1.10 for their entire collected works.
Why would anyone want to purchase an entire album by a no talent group like Pink Floyd? As I recall they've had zero good songs and one passable average song (the Wall) in their entire history.
They're nothing like the Beatles who had nothing but good songs.
They're in the same category with other untalented groups who've maybe had one or two good songs in their entire career (eg: Steely Dan, Grateful Dead, Moody Blues, etc.) along with a ton of garbage.
I might pay 99 cents for the wall but I wouldn't pay $1.10 for their entire collected works.
There is no use arguing. The youth of today has never developed the listening skills to appreciate music, or true talent.
Music these days is not generally viewed as an art form, but simply as either background music or entertainment, hence the death of the (concept) album and the rise of the single that can be digested in roughly 2.5 minutes.
What a totally bone-headed thing to say, and offensive too. Maybe you want to make some generalisations about "blacks" too? Or some other group you can put a big label on and shit all over?
What's true, is that no one who truly appreciates music would ever say what you just said. So to me, you simultaneously removed any credibility you have as a critic as well.
Lots of "the youth" appreciate music and lots of todays music is fantastic, and yes "an art form."
I am old enough to remember sitting in the audience watching Pink Floyd perform "Dark Side of the Moon" (their second best album IMO), LIVE. But I still like music, so you know what? I listened to some other stuff in between then and now. Music evolves. I rarely listen to anything older than 2000 these days, even though I have owned and enjoyed music from almost every decade.
To have some old goat who still listens to Dinosaur Rock and hasn't opened his eyes since the 1970's go on about how "today's youth has no musical appreciation" is just laughable.
In case you didn't hear, the 1980's had some pretty brilliant music also, and while the 90's was perhaps not as interesting, there are hundreds of very, very, interesting groups out today that put most of the 70's to shame. There is good music in every era from "Benny Goodman" to "Bitter:Sweet" and from "Sha-Na-Na" to "Starfucker."
Open your eyes and ears and stop letting the past be your only guide to life.
Why would anyone want to purchase an entire album by a no talent group like Pink Floyd? As I recall they've had zero good songs and one passable average song (the Wall) in their entire history.
Mmmm. Millions of people would beg to differ.
Quote:
They're nothing like the Beatles who had nothing but good songs.
Are YOU the walrus?
Quote:
They're in the same category with other untalented groups who've maybe had one or two good songs in their entire career (eg: Steely Dan, Grateful Dead, Moody Blues, etc.) along with a ton of garbage.
You can't really be serious. I am sure you're taking the p*ss.
Quote:
I might pay 99 cents for the wall but I wouldn't pay $1.10 for their entire collected works.
telling.
EDIT: shouldn't have written this. music is a personal thing.
First, why couldn't the tracks be marked and sold as "album only"? It makes no sense to just withdraw everything, sounds too hyperbolic to me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DCno10
You wouldn't read chapters 1, 9, 16, and 42 from a book without reading the entire book would you?
The problem is that creating an album as a cohesive work is not common, and I don't think it's comparable to books. For the occasional concept album, sure. Most albums are more like a collection of short stories bound into the same book. Whether it matters to read in a particular order depends on the editor.
Quote:
Originally Posted by grking
vinyl is far from dead
Let's say dead in the mainstream, every day sense. There are people that do blacksmithing as a hobby too, but that doesn't mean it's widely practiced.
This is just plain greedy! If the whole CD is truly amazing listeners would buy it anyway. They just trying to get as much money out of every song possible.
Musicians are called artists just as painters, sculptors, and photographers are.
Few would argue that you have to buy an entire painting as opposed to some fraction of a print. I doubt Michaelangelo would've wanted to sell only the arms of a sculpture. No one would argue that the photoessays of the 'world in a day' should be cut up by region.
Shouldn't musicians be allowed the same right - to sell their latest collection of songs together instead of selling them separately.
This has nothing to do with greed - it is about the right to express yourself and to have control over your work. If you do not want to buy you do not have to.
Really if the band wants the album sold as an album and not individual tracks then IMO that's their call. They did make the music after all, and providing they didn't sell the rights they can do what they want.
That being said, its a completely stupid argument. Let be honest here Pink and step in to the REAL WORLD where what ACTUALLY happens exists. People who buy the album will listen to the songs they want, when they want. If they don't want to listen to the whole album they wont, in fact a lot of people wont. Why? It's called a shuffle button.
When I see things like this I can't help but think its about money. I just have a hard time believing that PF is stupid enough to think that selling an album in it's entirety == listening to an album in it's entirety.
I couldn't disagree more. As an artist, you produce music to your vision. If people want to listen to it differently, that doesn't concern you any more. The important thing is that you presented it as you wanted to, and you appreciate the people who accept it that way.
And PF would undoubtedly make more money selling individual tracks - they could sell a hundred copies of the song "Brick In The Wall" for every entire album ("The Wall") they sell. Probably even ten thousand to one. The money is in selling singles, which is why EMI is fighting them.
I CAN CHOOSE to do just that. Just like I can choose to appreciate a painting by only focusing on a part of it. It is MY choice how to interpret a piece of art. If Pink Floyd considers their music to be "high art" that is fine, but they DON'T get the right to tell me how to appreciate it. If I am forced to buy an entire album just to satisfy their viewpoint then I will simply find other art to appreciate instead.
I really like one line in "Atom Heart Mother." Why can't I just buy that?
I couldn't disagree more. As an artist, you produce music to your vision. If people want to listen to it differently, that doesn't concern you any more. The important thing is that you presented it as you wanted to, and you appreciate the people who accept it that way.
And PF would undoubtedly make more money selling individual tracks - they could sell a hundred copies of the song "Brick In The Wall" for every entire album ("The Wall") they sell. Probably even ten thousand to one. The money is in selling singles, which is why EMI is fighting them.
What are you disagreeing with? As I said PF can do whatever they want to do, it's their music. I completely agree with that. Thats not what's stupid. What's stupid is BELIEVING that people will listen to an album in it's entirety, because it simply isn't true. No matter how much they want it to be.
Here is an analogy that represents this: I sell coffee, but only to people who like disco. So people tell me they like disco so I will sell them coffee. in the end, this is intentional disillusionment. I don't really believe that everyone who buys my coffee likes disco, and they don't believe that I believe it. It's an exercise in futility. PF knows not everyone who buys there album will listen to it in it's entirety, they even know most people wont.
Again though, if they want to believe that somehow the integrity of the album is maintained by selling it in it's entirety only, though they may be disillusioned, thats totally their prerogative. I hope it makes them feel better. Clearly they don't need the money. Which is why a new artist will give their music away and a rich famous artist can be picky, a.k.a Metallica.
Why is this even an issue when it comes to iTunes? There have been Album-Only songs since day one. If Pink Floyd want it so you must buy their whole album, let em? I don't see how it's an issue? It will probably mean fewer Floyd songs sold, and people who buy the whole album will still listen on shuffle anyway.
Yep. several sites are acting like the band won the right to yank their music completely from itunes and such. they didn't. Just to require 'album only' which is what we will likely see
In other news, sales of Pink Floyd songs on iTunes momentarily spiked before falling over 50% due to the removal of single track downloading. Toshiba EMI's stock fell 2 points while Apple (APPL) closed at yet another all time high.
Funny how people keep accusing Apple of being the ones who take away options. All I ever hear about is content companies and artists shooting their own selves in the foot like this.
Give the morons a gun, go ahead, maybe this time they'll hit themselves somewhere vital.
If one million people want to download just one song off of a Pink Floyd album, the artists and labels should take their money and wish they come back for more and encourage more of the same behavior.
The one sure way to to encourage piracy it is to keep on destroying the ala-carte business model that has worked so well as it brings the price point down to a level nearly all can participate in.
All it take is one unhappy customer to turn them into permanent pirates.
So what if the album is a complete work?, the only reason albums exist in the first place is because of the medium designed to transfer the music to a customer.
Now that medium is individual electronic files and should be sold as such.
I sure this isn't used by other artists thinking they are going to make more by forcing albums with one or two good songs and the rest crap, because they are in for a wake up call.
What a totally bone-headed thing to say, and offensive too. Maybe you want to make some generalisations about "blacks" too? Or some other group you can put a big label on and shit all over?
What's true, is that no one who truly appreciates music would ever say what you just said. So to me, you simultaneously removed any credibility you have as a critic as well.
Lots of "the youth" appreciate music and lots of todays music is fantastic, and yes "an art form."
I am old enough to remember sitting in the audience watching Pink Floyd perform "Dark Side of the Moon" (their second best album IMO), LIVE. But I still like music, so you know what? I listened to some other stuff in between then and now. Music evolves. I rarely listen to anything older than 2000 these days, even though I have owned and enjoyed music from almost every decade.
To have some old goat who still listens to Dinosaur Rock and hasn't opened his eyes since the 1970's go on about how "today's youth has no musical appreciation" is just laughable.
In case you didn't hear, the 1980's had some pretty brilliant music also, and while the 90's was perhaps not as interesting, there are hundreds of very, very, interesting groups out today that put most of the 70's to shame. There is good music in every era from "Benny Goodman" to "Bitter:Sweet" and from "Sha-Na-Na" to "Starfucker."
Open your eyes and ears and stop letting the past be your only guide to life.
with all due respect, you need to read what was written, and this is not the first time you have projected your feelings on to what I have written, and not responded to what I actually wrote. First, you do understand the term "in general" do you not. The term refers to the majority, more than 50%, and the statement stands. Few youth will put on some music and sit and listen to it, without doing something else. For most, music is an addition to an activity, listening is not THE activity.
Second, I never said modern music was not an art form, I said it was not appreciated as an art form. If you cannot see the difference, so be it.
Third, you have no idea what my musical tastes are, again, you jump to invalid conclusions based on an emotional response to my post. Indeed, a few posts above, I listed several acts that I listen to on a regular basis. I also listen to classical, Miles Davis, Aretha Franklin, Bob Dylan, The Dead, Phish, String Cheese Incident, Elvis Costello amongst others. My tastes are rather eclectic.
I couldn't disagree more. As an artist, you produce music to your vision. If people want to listen to it differently, that doesn't concern you any more.
They're not telling you how to listen to it. What they want is to make sure you get the entire work, not just some random bits and pieces of it. If you only liked one section of a painting, would you be arguing that the artist should allow you to buy only that section? Really, this is no different.
Quote:
And PF would undoubtedly make more money selling individual tracks - they could sell a hundred copies of the song "Brick In The Wall" for every entire album ("The Wall") they sell. Probably even ten thousand to one. The money is in selling singles, which is why EMI is fighting them.
Clearly, it's NOT about the money. Unless they've pissed it all away, I'd imagine every surviving member is a multi-millionaire.
I suppose you think Led Zeppelin, The Beatles, The Who, Genesis, Yes (to name just a few album oriented bands) were probably overated in their prime and are now has-beens......
Comments
Yawn. Decent, but overrated in their prime; but now definitely a has-been, band.
This is news!?
I beg to disagree - along with 35 million who have purchased the 'Dark Side of the Moon' album and many millions more that listen to & enjoy via radio, individually downloaded songs via iTunes, etc...
I suppose you think Led Zeppelin, The Beatles, The Who, Genesis, Yes (to name just a few album oriented bands) were probably overated in their prime and are now has-beens.
Well, I guess everyone is entitled to their own taste (no matter how poor) even you!
Rock On!
This actually makes sense for Pink Floyd as they really did care about how the songs flowed together in an album. I'd expect the songs to still be on iTunes but in an album only format
Simple fix, make the album one long song. Sell it for a 1.29, just like all the other songs, only this one is an hour long.
According to their stance, no one should be able to skip to the next "song" on their album anyway.
Blasphemy!
OT: sell them as album-only. Problem solved.
The issue was they were not allowed to sell it as a single album length track. Now with the iTunes album format they probably will allow it, but previously, they asked and were denied.
They're nothing like the Beatles who had nothing but good songs.
They're in the same category with other untalented groups who've maybe had one or two good songs in their entire career (eg: Steely Dan, Grateful Dead, Moody Blues, etc.) along with a ton of garbage.
I might pay 99 cents for the wall but I wouldn't pay $1.10 for their entire collected works.
To anyone that disagrees with the position of listening to/releasing only whole albums: go listen to The Dark Side of the Moon in its entirety.
Then come talk to me.
Once was enough, thanks. This isn't about artistic integrity, it's about greed.
Why would anyone want to purchase an entire album by a no talent group like Pink Floyd? As I recall they've had zero good songs and one passable average song (the Wall) in their entire history.
They're nothing like the Beatles who had nothing but good songs.
They're in the same category with other untalented groups who've maybe had one or two good songs in their entire career (eg: Steely Dan, Grateful Dead, Moody Blues, etc.) along with a ton of garbage.
I might pay 99 cents for the wall but I wouldn't pay $1.10 for their entire collected works.
That'll explain all the sales then!
There is no use arguing. The youth of today has never developed the listening skills to appreciate music, or true talent.
Music these days is not generally viewed as an art form, but simply as either background music or entertainment, hence the death of the (concept) album and the rise of the single that can be digested in roughly 2.5 minutes.
What a totally bone-headed thing to say, and offensive too. Maybe you want to make some generalisations about "blacks" too? Or some other group you can put a big label on and shit all over?
What's true, is that no one who truly appreciates music would ever say what you just said. So to me, you simultaneously removed any credibility you have as a critic as well.
Lots of "the youth" appreciate music and lots of todays music is fantastic, and yes "an art form."
I am old enough to remember sitting in the audience watching Pink Floyd perform "Dark Side of the Moon" (their second best album IMO), LIVE. But I still like music, so you know what? I listened to some other stuff in between then and now. Music evolves. I rarely listen to anything older than 2000 these days, even though I have owned and enjoyed music from almost every decade.
To have some old goat who still listens to Dinosaur Rock and hasn't opened his eyes since the 1970's go on about how "today's youth has no musical appreciation" is just laughable.
In case you didn't hear, the 1980's had some pretty brilliant music also, and while the 90's was perhaps not as interesting, there are hundreds of very, very, interesting groups out today that put most of the 70's to shame. There is good music in every era from "Benny Goodman" to "Bitter:Sweet" and from "Sha-Na-Na" to "Starfucker."
Open your eyes and ears and stop letting the past be your only guide to life.
Why would anyone want to purchase an entire album by a no talent group like Pink Floyd? As I recall they've had zero good songs and one passable average song (the Wall) in their entire history.
Mmmm. Millions of people would beg to differ.
They're nothing like the Beatles who had nothing but good songs.
Are YOU the walrus?
They're in the same category with other untalented groups who've maybe had one or two good songs in their entire career (eg: Steely Dan, Grateful Dead, Moody Blues, etc.) along with a ton of garbage.
You can't really be serious. I am sure you're taking the p*ss.
I might pay 99 cents for the wall but I wouldn't pay $1.10 for their entire collected works.
telling.
EDIT: shouldn't have written this. music is a personal thing.
[CENTER]Well...
Good thing I have their entire catalog on both vinyl and compact disc.
[/CENTER]
And of course you bought them all as single tracks.
You wouldn't read chapters 1, 9, 16, and 42 from a book without reading the entire book would you?
The problem is that creating an album as a cohesive work is not common, and I don't think it's comparable to books. For the occasional concept album, sure. Most albums are more like a collection of short stories bound into the same book. Whether it matters to read in a particular order depends on the editor.
vinyl is far from dead
Let's say dead in the mainstream, every day sense. There are people that do blacksmithing as a hobby too, but that doesn't mean it's widely practiced.
This is just plain greedy!
Musicians are called artists just as painters, sculptors, and photographers are.
Few would argue that you have to buy an entire painting as opposed to some fraction of a print. I doubt Michaelangelo would've wanted to sell only the arms of a sculpture.
Shouldn't musicians be allowed the same right - to sell their latest collection of songs together instead of selling them separately.
This has nothing to do with greed - it is about the right to express yourself and to have control over your work. If you do not want to buy you do not have to.
Really if the band wants the album sold as an album and not individual tracks then IMO that's their call. They did make the music after all, and providing they didn't sell the rights they can do what they want.
That being said, its a completely stupid argument. Let be honest here Pink and step in to the REAL WORLD where what ACTUALLY happens exists. People who buy the album will listen to the songs they want, when they want. If they don't want to listen to the whole album they wont, in fact a lot of people wont. Why? It's called a shuffle button.
When I see things like this I can't help but think its about money. I just have a hard time believing that PF is stupid enough to think that selling an album in it's entirety == listening to an album in it's entirety.
I couldn't disagree more. As an artist, you produce music to your vision. If people want to listen to it differently, that doesn't concern you any more. The important thing is that you presented it as you wanted to, and you appreciate the people who accept it that way.
And PF would undoubtedly make more money selling individual tracks - they could sell a hundred copies of the song "Brick In The Wall" for every entire album ("The Wall") they sell. Probably even ten thousand to one. The money is in selling singles, which is why EMI is fighting them.
I CAN CHOOSE to do just that. Just like I can choose to appreciate a painting by only focusing on a part of it. It is MY choice how to interpret a piece of art. If Pink Floyd considers their music to be "high art" that is fine, but they DON'T get the right to tell me how to appreciate it. If I am forced to buy an entire album just to satisfy their viewpoint then I will simply find other art to appreciate instead.
I really like one line in "Atom Heart Mother." Why can't I just buy that?
I couldn't disagree more. As an artist, you produce music to your vision. If people want to listen to it differently, that doesn't concern you any more. The important thing is that you presented it as you wanted to, and you appreciate the people who accept it that way.
And PF would undoubtedly make more money selling individual tracks - they could sell a hundred copies of the song "Brick In The Wall" for every entire album ("The Wall") they sell. Probably even ten thousand to one. The money is in selling singles, which is why EMI is fighting them.
What are you disagreeing with? As I said PF can do whatever they want to do, it's their music. I completely agree with that. Thats not what's stupid. What's stupid is BELIEVING that people will listen to an album in it's entirety, because it simply isn't true. No matter how much they want it to be.
Here is an analogy that represents this: I sell coffee, but only to people who like disco. So people tell me they like disco so I will sell them coffee. in the end, this is intentional disillusionment. I don't really believe that everyone who buys my coffee likes disco, and they don't believe that I believe it. It's an exercise in futility. PF knows not everyone who buys there album will listen to it in it's entirety, they even know most people wont.
Again though, if they want to believe that somehow the integrity of the album is maintained by selling it in it's entirety only, though they may be disillusioned, thats totally their prerogative. I hope it makes them feel better. Clearly they don't need the money. Which is why a new artist will give their music away and a rich famous artist can be picky, a.k.a Metallica.
Why is this even an issue when it comes to iTunes? There have been Album-Only songs since day one. If Pink Floyd want it so you must buy their whole album, let em? I don't see how it's an issue? It will probably mean fewer Floyd songs sold, and people who buy the whole album will still listen on shuffle anyway.
Yep. several sites are acting like the band won the right to yank their music completely from itunes and such. they didn't. Just to require 'album only' which is what we will likely see
Funny how people keep accusing Apple of being the ones who take away options. All I ever hear about is content companies and artists shooting their own selves in the foot like this.
Give the morons a gun, go ahead, maybe this time they'll hit themselves somewhere vital.
The one sure way to to encourage piracy it is to keep on destroying the ala-carte business model that has worked so well as it brings the price point down to a level nearly all can participate in.
All it take is one unhappy customer to turn them into permanent pirates.
So what if the album is a complete work?, the only reason albums exist in the first place is because of the medium designed to transfer the music to a customer.
Now that medium is individual electronic files and should be sold as such.
I sure this isn't used by other artists thinking they are going to make more by forcing albums with one or two good songs and the rest crap, because they are in for a wake up call.
What a totally bone-headed thing to say, and offensive too. Maybe you want to make some generalisations about "blacks" too? Or some other group you can put a big label on and shit all over?
What's true, is that no one who truly appreciates music would ever say what you just said. So to me, you simultaneously removed any credibility you have as a critic as well.
Lots of "the youth" appreciate music and lots of todays music is fantastic, and yes "an art form."
I am old enough to remember sitting in the audience watching Pink Floyd perform "Dark Side of the Moon" (their second best album IMO), LIVE. But I still like music, so you know what? I listened to some other stuff in between then and now. Music evolves. I rarely listen to anything older than 2000 these days, even though I have owned and enjoyed music from almost every decade.
To have some old goat who still listens to Dinosaur Rock and hasn't opened his eyes since the 1970's go on about how "today's youth has no musical appreciation" is just laughable.
In case you didn't hear, the 1980's had some pretty brilliant music also, and while the 90's was perhaps not as interesting, there are hundreds of very, very, interesting groups out today that put most of the 70's to shame. There is good music in every era from "Benny Goodman" to "Bitter:Sweet" and from "Sha-Na-Na" to "Starfucker."
Open your eyes and ears and stop letting the past be your only guide to life.
with all due respect, you need to read what was written, and this is not the first time you have projected your feelings on to what I have written, and not responded to what I actually wrote. First, you do understand the term "in general" do you not. The term refers to the majority, more than 50%, and the statement stands. Few youth will put on some music and sit and listen to it, without doing something else. For most, music is an addition to an activity, listening is not THE activity.
Second, I never said modern music was not an art form, I said it was not appreciated as an art form. If you cannot see the difference, so be it.
Third, you have no idea what my musical tastes are, again, you jump to invalid conclusions based on an emotional response to my post. Indeed, a few posts above, I listed several acts that I listen to on a regular basis. I also listen to classical, Miles Davis, Aretha Franklin, Bob Dylan, The Dead, Phish, String Cheese Incident, Elvis Costello amongst others. My tastes are rather eclectic.
I couldn't disagree more. As an artist, you produce music to your vision. If people want to listen to it differently, that doesn't concern you any more.
They're not telling you how to listen to it. What they want is to make sure you get the entire work, not just some random bits and pieces of it. If you only liked one section of a painting, would you be arguing that the artist should allow you to buy only that section? Really, this is no different.
And PF would undoubtedly make more money selling individual tracks - they could sell a hundred copies of the song "Brick In The Wall" for every entire album ("The Wall") they sell. Probably even ten thousand to one. The money is in selling singles, which is why EMI is fighting them.
Clearly, it's NOT about the money. Unless they've pissed it all away, I'd imagine every surviving member is a multi-millionaire.
I suppose you think Led Zeppelin, The Beatles, The Who, Genesis, Yes (to name just a few album oriented bands) were probably overated in their prime and are now has-beens......
Rock On!
Since you asked: Yes and Genesis - yes.
Don't take it personally.