Comment buried. Show
1. Zaren

   Fresh-Faced Recruit

   Joined: Aug 2001

   +3
   03/11, 10:18am | report spam | close reply

   Aaaaand...

   down go sales of the second-most-valuable song catalog in the world.

Comment buried. Show
1. andrewbw

   Fresh-Faced Recruit

   Joined: Jan 2001

   +15
   03/11, 10:28am | report spam | (1 reply) close | reply

   Does it matter?

   Eh, I put Pink Floyd in the same category as the Beatles: I already have the full catalog so it doesn't affect me, and they're successful enough at this point that I don't begrudge them the right to dictate how their music is sold. Besides, anyone who likes Pink Floyd realizes many of their songs outside of the context of their album really do lose something, so I respect if they are trying to maintain that cohesion.

Comment buried. Show
1. DougAdams

   Fresh-Faced Recruit

   Joined: Oct 2001

   +12
   03/11, 10:34am | report spam | close reply

   Hey, hey

   It ain't the Floyd unless its on VINYL.

Comment buried. Show
1. facebook_Don

   Via Facebook

   Joined: Mar 2010

   -9
   03/11, 11:11am | report spam | close reply

   comment title

   Interesting............

Comment buried. Show
1. davesmall

   Fresh-Faced Recruit

   Joined: Oct 2006

   -10
   03/11, 11:51am | report spam | (2 replies) close | reply

   Who cares?

   This kind of stupidity goes way beyond dumb. It's about like a book publisher banning sales on the Internet because he's more comfortable with brick and mortar book stores. Also similar to a company requiring that all interoffice communications go via typed and printed memo via the company's mail system rather than email. It amounts to passing a rule against forward progress.
   
   The bottom line is that someone who wants a Pink Floyd song will no longer head for iTunes. Now they'll head for Bit Torrent, Limewire, or some other file sharing service. They'll still get the Pink Floyd song but Pink Floyd won't get any money. The one thing they won't even consider would be buying an entire CD just so they can get the one or two songs that they like.
   
   By the way, did Pink Floyd ever have a good song? I can't recall one.
   
   

Comment buried. Show
1. dynsight

   Fresh-Faced Recruit

   Joined: May 2005

   +7
   03/11, 12:00pm | report spam | close reply

   Not the point

   I really don't understand what the big confusion is over here. It has nothing to do with Pink Floyd being good or not (btw, I am over 40, and I think they are GREAT...but this is beside the point).
   
   The nature of the record contract is NO SINGLES. You cannot sell just a song. Period. They are the creators, it is their right. You don't have to transfer the whole thing to your iPod if you don't want to. Why is this so hard to translate to digital media.
   
   Same thing with books. Ebooks are fine. I like them. However, if I buy an ebook that has rights managment, I cannot make unlimited copies for my friends. I can transfer my ownership to a friend, but no copies.
   
   If someone opts to put something online they can prevent downloads or limit simultaneous connections (simulating 5 copies, for example). OR allow unlimited...but it should honor whatever the contract is.

Comment buried. Show
1. JoeSubling

   Fresh-Faced Recruit

   Joined: Mar 2010

   +4
   03/11, 12:02pm | report spam | close reply

   @davesmall

   Your comments show a complete ignorance of Pink Floyd. They're an iconic band, and one of the most iconic albums they created, The Wall, would be completely artistically compromised if it were sold track by track.
   
   The fact that you can't even remember a good song by Pink Floyd shows that you have no reason to be speaking on the subject of Pink Floyd.

Comment buried. Show
1. elroth

   Fresh-Faced Recruit

   Joined: Jul 2006

   +7
   03/11, 12:03pm | report spam | close reply

   @davesmall

   Don't be ridiculous - talk about getting all huffy over nothing.
   
   There is no other possible ruling in this case. Pink Floyd wants its music to be available as album-only, and it's in their contract, so that's their right. Whether you like their artistic vision or not, they should be in control of how their music is presented. They are part of the lucky few, who have any say at all about what their record label does.
   
   If a band won't list on iTunes because it only wants its music presented as full albums, or if it won't sell lossy compressed music, good for them.
   
   Oh, and Dave - is there anyone in this world who cares what you think about Pink Floyd's music? Don't be so pompous.

Comment buried. Show
1. testudo

   Forum Regular

   Joined: Aug 2001

   +4
   03/11, 12:31pm | report spam | (1 reply) close | reply

   Re: Aaaand

   down go sales of the second-most-valuable song catalog in the world.
   
   Let's see. People complain and moan about all the c*** music out there and how so many are in it for the money, and the labels are out to suck artists dry.
   
   Now here comes an artist who obviously isn't in it for the money (since, as you say, sales will drop). Does this artist get respect? No, of course not. They get blasted for NOT being in it just to make money.
   
   Or maybe they are in it for the money. Do they get credit for standing up to their label and insisting that they abide by their contract (in a possible attempt to get the label to make a new deal and send more money to the artist)? Nope.

Comment buried. Show
1. Athens

   Addicted to MacNN

   Joined: Jan 2003

   -8
   03/11, 12:33pm | report spam | (1 reply) close | reply

   Meh

   No big deal, if I cant find the individual songs I want on sale online I can just pirate the ones I want. The only loss is to EMI/Pink Floyd.
   
   I am of the opinion they just want all there filler songs in between the hits to turn some form of profit as well. Its nothing to do with Artistic merits because they cant control which songs I listen to and in what order. The Artist ability in dictating that kind of control only comes from concerts where people dont have the ability to fast forward, skip and pause. All forms of personal media players means the control is in the hands of the listener not the recorder.

Comment buried. Show
1. TylerDurden

   Fresh-Faced Recruit

   Joined: Dec 2001

   +2
   03/11, 12:56pm | report spam | close reply

   Pink Floyd? Good Song? Hunh?

   @davesmall...
   
   "by the way, did Pink Floyd ever have a good song? I can't recall one."
   
   Excellent point, thank you for proving the Floyd's position. They make GOOD albums, pop groups only make good songs with a lot of filler that deserve to be sold track by track.
   
   But okay, I'm going to pretend that you weren't just being a snot, and that you don't actually know who or what Pink Floyd is. Here's a list of "catchy" Pink Floyd songs for all the music noobs that aren't hearing any Pink Floyd songs on their "Hot Hits" radio stations. I'm going to start with Meddle and move up from there, because that's when I really began to dig them. Again, each album is actually good all the way through, but here the songs that you'd hear on rock radio stations,.. if you listened to rock radio stations.
   
   One of These Days
   Fearless
   Time
   Money
   Us and Them
   Welcome to the Machine
   Have a Cigar
   Wish You Were Here
   Another Brick in the Wall (Part II)
   Mother
   Hey You
   Comfortably Numb
   Run Like h***
   
   This is a very conservative list and I'm keeping it to just the Roger Waters era Floyd, but there are other "radio" songs after Roger Waters left too.
   
   Dave, do yourself a favor, if you do consider yourself a fan of music, not just a pop consumer*, but you actually LOVE music of any genre, any flavor, go out an buy "The Wall", one of the most amazing rock albums of all time, especially for 1979 (go watch the movie too, yes, there's a full movie based on the full album, so, yeah, they have some good songs).
   
   (* If your just a pop consumer, into hip-hop, R&B, or whatever flavor of the month tune that is currently thumping out of the radio and you just want something to shake your a** to, then, yeah, you probably won't like Pink Floyd. Pink Floyd is not just a beat, it's music.)

Comment buried. Show
1. goldensunflakes

   Fresh-Faced Recruit

   Joined: Mar 2010

   +1
   03/11, 01:34pm | report spam | close reply

   albums vs. songs

   Sure, you can listen to just the songs you want, but I find wanting to do so with PF fascinating. The only floyd albums I don't listen to are the compilations. Like many others, I don't listen to floyd songs. I listen to albums. In terms of the real issue there, I agree with others that the artist has the right to call the shots. Good for them.

Comment buried. Show
1. danviento

   Fresh-Faced Recruit

   Joined: Dec 2005

   -1
   03/11, 01:34pm | report spam | (1 reply) close | reply

   Lock, load, aim at foot, FIRE AWAY!

   As a whole, I think they "artistic integrity" argument is usually poor when it comes to sales. When I saw AC-DC refused to sell on iTMS because of they wanted to sell albums only, they dropped off my radar as worth a legit purchase. As others have said, though, Pink Floyd's work at least lends itself to a continual track playback.
   
   If iTMS allowed artists to make this decision about whole album purchase only, I bet we'd see some real stats on the vitality behind this kind of sales model. What do you think?

Comment buried. Show
1. ff11

   Fresh-Faced Recruit

   Joined: Apr 2004

   +2
   03/11, 01:47pm | report spam | close reply

   re: Who cares

   Pink Floyd offers their music the way they want. You are free to buy it, or not. You are not free to steal it, and they don't have to alter their vision to accomodate thieves.

Comment buried. Show
1. wrenchy

   Forum Regular

   Joined: Nov 2009

   -5
   03/11, 02:15pm | report spam | close reply

   Pink Floyd

   These guys sound like the Apple of music bands.
   
   You can't download one song. You have to get the whole album or nothing.
   This is meant to "preserve the artistic integrity".
   
   In other words, we have to maintain the "User Experience...."
   Shouldn't be a problem for the Apple faithful. They're used to being told what to do.

Comment buried. Show
1. davlab

   Fresh-Faced Recruit

   Joined: Jul 2006

   +2
   03/11, 02:39pm | report spam | close reply

   If Pink

   Floyd wants to sell their music as album only, then what's the big deal. The individual songs can be marked as "Album Only." If they make less money with this method, so be it.
   
   I buy mainly classical music and a lot of it is "Album Only." I typically buy full albums because classical recordings can sometimes have 25+ "songs" and getting all 25 for $9.99 is a much better value than purchasing them individually at $.99 each.

Comment buried. Show
1. JoeSubling

   Fresh-Faced Recruit

   Joined: Mar 2010

   +2
   03/11, 02:47pm | report spam | close reply

   Missing the Point

   I think people are missing the point. Pink Floyd creates operas, not collections of singles. That is why it's not unreasonable for them to not want songs to be given out individually.

Comment buried. Show
1. testudo

   Forum Regular

   Joined: Aug 2001

   -1
   03/11, 03:43pm | report spam | close reply

   Re: Lock, load

   If iTMS allowed artists to make this decision about whole album purchase only, I bet we'd see some real stats on the vitality behind this kind of sales model. What do you think?
   
   
   If the iTMS allowed such capability, I think what it would show, first and foremost, is what groups/singers see their work as 'art' and which see it as a way to make as much money as possible. Or what artists know that their works are just a bundled collection of individual items vs. those who put effort into making an album.
   
   What it would also tell you is what artists are in it for the music and not just to sell a bunch of songs, get on the charts, so they can be the next 'big thing', get freaky with groupies and into the party/drug scene.
   
   What it won't tell you is what is the best kind of sales model, because as anyone who is serious about their 'art' knows, you do it for yourself, not just to make money.

Comment buried. Show
1. LouZer

   Fresh-Faced Recruit

   Joined: Nov 2000

   +4
   03/11, 03:49pm | report spam | close reply

   Not just music!

   Why is everyone just focused on music here. It has always pissed me off that one can't get just 2 or 3 chapters of a book. You have to buy the whole damn thing. And movies! I swear, why in the world would anyone go and buy a whole movie on the iTMS, when you should be able to just get a couple of the good scenes for a 10th of the price.
   
   And don't get me started on painting! Man, I passed one of those 'artists' selling their wares by the side of the road, and told him I just wanted the upper-right portion of this painting he had. He looked at me like I was insane or something!
   
   When are these 'artistes' going to learn it isn't what they want to do with their works, it's how I want to buy it that matters.

Comment buried. Show
1. jragosta

   Fresh-Faced Recruit

   Joined: Oct 2008

   +2
   03/11, 03:50pm | report spam | close reply

   No big deal

   I'm not a PInk Floyd fan, but based on 40+ years of heavy music listening, I personally think that "you have to listen to the whole album" is bunk.
   
   HOWEVER, whether I think it's bunk or not is irrelevant. As the creator of the work, they have the right to control how the product is distributed. Now, they can choose to delegate that right to someone else (the labels) or keep it themselves, but ultimately, the artist chooses to license or not to license their work, so I support them 100%.
   
   I do, however, think it's going to cost them sales. Most Pink Floyd fans already have all their music. The only new revenues will come from people just learning about them - and those newbies are more likely to buy a single song for $0.99 and then buy more if they like it than to spend $9.99 or more for the full album. But, as I said, it's their choice.

Comment buried. Show
1. backdoc

   Fresh-Faced Recruit

   Joined: Mar 2010

   0
   03/11, 04:45pm | report spam | close reply

   of course

   In most cases, if not all, buying one song from a Pink Floyd album would be like a book by the chapter. You wouldn't only pick out certain chapters of a book and expect to get the point of the book. And, you wouldn't get the intended experience of a Pink Floyd album from only listening to certain songs.

Comment buried. Show
1. martinX

   Fresh-Faced Recruit

   Joined: Sep 2008

   +1
   03/11, 07:56pm | report spam | close reply

   Wot's.. uh, the deal

   Oh by the way, which one's Pink?

Comment buried. Show
1. Fast iBook

   Fresh-Faced Recruit

   Joined: Mar 2003

   -3
   03/12, 04:57am | report spam | close reply

   No thanks!

   I was never interested in this band, and now i don't care to ever listen to anything by them, especially if i have to buy a whole album. If i can show up to a concert for part of it, i should be able to purchase part of an album. Common sense really.
   
   - A

Comment buried. Show
1. blidd

   Fresh-Faced Recruit

   Joined: Sep 2003

   +1
   03/16, 05:10am | report spam | close reply

   I do not think Pink Floyd is interested in the Mon

   The have far more money than they know how to use. If Pink Floyd Really needed the money they would have gone on the Earn big bug world tours after live8. But Roger and David know they would not be able to stand each other for at tour of that length. Pink Floyd will continue to sell their Albums at a steady pace as more kids comes into contact with their music, but it will not be chart topping.