There was an interesting debate on today’s Ron and Fez that speaks to a subject we’ve been whinging about for some time now: digital delivery of content, specifically of music. Pink Floyd has won a court ruling that will put an end to places like iTunes selling its songs individually. The band feels that their music can only truly be appreciated in the album format, from start to finish, and it never liked people being able to pick and choose what songs they wanted to download.
I will say this right now: I’m not a Pink Floyd fan. I have nothing against them, but when kids were starting to get into bands like Pink Floyd, say around age 13 or 14, I was busy playing Final Fantasy. It’s a case of not being exposed to their music, and at this point, I’m not going to bother. My loss, I suppose. But don’t cry for me, because that’s makes me especially suited to write this story—I have no emotional attachment to the band in question.
The gist of the ruling—The High Court in the UK, to be exact—is that EMI, the band’s record label, won’t be allowed to sell individual songs from its catalog online. That means, from now on, you’ll only be able to buy The Wall as a full album online, and not merely “In The Flesh?” and “The Thin Ice.”
Yes, I had to Wiki that. Again, I wouldn’t know a Pink Floyd song if [insert cliché here].
That’s the debate: should consumers be allowed to buy whatever song they want without having to buy an entire album?
One side says, “Yes, consumers should be able to pick and choose whatever song they want without worrying about what any band says. Just because a band ‘says’ its music can only be appreciated in album form doesn’t make it so. Is There Will Be Blood any less valuable when you’re watching the Blu-ray on your 60-inch plasma instead of at an actual movie theater?” (I’d say no, it’s not any less valuable, especially since I can control the viewing environment when I’m watching the Blu-ray—no having to worry about loud idiots texting back and forth with their mates.)
The other side says, “Well, Pink Floyd made the music, and only they know how it can be appreciated. If they intended for the songs to be listened to as an album, we as consumers should appreciate their artistic wishes.”
While I side with the first opinion, the fact is I really don’t care too passionately one way or the other. The band wants you to buy albums? Fine, whatever.
But surely Pink Floyd understands how music is consumed in the year 2010: people put their iPhone or iPod or Zune HD or whatever on shuffle mode, run on the treadmill at the gym for 20 minutes, and hear “Poker Face,” “Run This Town,” and “Lay in a Shimmer” all in a row. Young people ask, “What’s an album? I only listen to my Spotify playlist when I’m writing about what I did on my summer vacation.”
Don’t expect to see this trend—going back to album-based music sales—continue beyond Pink Floyd. The music industry knows people are already used to buying this or that song from iTunes, and it’s in no position to say, “Actually, we want album sales now. Sorry.” It’s grateful that people are buying music at all, let alone expecting people to buy entire albums.
This is where I throw it to y’all: is Pink Floyd in the right here? Should a band be allowed to dictate how its fans listen its music? Or is this a giant “who cares?” debate?
Consumers are only being told how to buy Pink Floyd’s music, not how to listen to it. I think bands have that right. If it hurts them it was a poor business decision. From an artistic position I see their point- they didn’t craft music as singles, but as larger works. It’s a trade off for them.
I am curious what this means for all the ‘greatest hits’ compilations of their music though. I am assuming those are still sanctioned by the band and those hardly maintain the integrity of the original albums.
Whatever the case, it’s their music and if their distribution contract states they can control it in such a manner then so be it. I still have the choice not to buy their music, and for music I have purchased (full albums of theirs, btw) I can still listen to it however I wish.
On the whole, I’d have to agree with the band. If they’ve got a contract that says “You can only sell it in this fashion,” and they want to enforce that, it’s their right.
I’d say a closer analogy would be attempting to purchase 0:30:32 through 0:38:16 of “There Will Be Blood.” Apparently Pink Floyd considers the album more akin to a movie as far as online sales go, than a television series.
You guys rock. I’m a pretty big Floyd fan, and while I don’t necessarily appreciate having my options limited with regards to how I purchase music, I see the band’s point. And they’re right.
Conversely, they should appreciate people are still *buying* their music, and be careful what they wish for – Bit Torrents come in album only format, too…
I think the label should be allowed to dictate how it’s sold. But I think they are going to lose massive sales this way.
If I like one song from a band, I am not going to buy the whole album. If that’s the only way they sell it, then I won’t be buying it.
The ability to buy a single song from an album is the perfect impulse buy. It’s cheap enough that someone who may have a slight interest in the song will buy it without thinking about it. I think there are a lot more of those people than those who are willing to plunk down $10-$20 for the entire album. Not only is it a cost thing, but we live by the megabyte now, and I don’t want 10+ more songs taking my valuable space.
I know I know, space is becoming less of an issue. But flash storage is still pretty small considering how much space a couple movies take.
From an artist’s standpoint, their belief is always to show the entire work of art, not just a piece of it. SO I can understand when they want the user to fully experience their artistry. Franklin Lloyd Weber doesn;t want you to look at the living room of a house, he wants you to appreciate the whole house and the efforts he put into designing it.
However that being said, many artists have put crap out for albums. You’d get one or two good songs and a bunch of filler. We used to be forced to either buy maxi-singles or the whole album. Those were sad days. Nowadays, with the selling of tracks individually, the onus is on artists to start producing art again. Make an album worth buying.. hence the iTunes LP stuff.
One last thing to note is that if you find a few songs that you like and later decide to buy the album, the artists get more money. If it’s 9.99 for a 14 track album on itunes, and I decide to complete my album, I’m paying the difference.
I think you mean Frank Lloyd Wright
what a ridiculous discussion led by people who only listen to the shite that is modern pop culture.
there is more to making music than wanting to write a hit single, like so many “artists” seem to do these days.
many, many musicians out there spend/spent a lot of time writing an album that is coherent. if it is their opinion that it is best listened to as a whole it is their good right.
would you have this discussion about only wanting to buy one chapter from a book or just a cut-out from a painting?
@eric
You have no idea what kind of music I listen to. As it happens I am a fan of the album fortun and I can count on 2 hands the number of times I have purchased a single track from iTunes et. al.
Maybe you should read more carefully and make fewer assumptions.
@eric
Thanks for stereotyping all of us. I happen to own quite a few complete Pink Floyd albums and agree that like a book they are better experienced whole. HOWEVER, I think PF is just being snobs, and trying to make an extra buck. When actually, this will just end up hurting sales because they don’t understand today’s technology or needs.
It may end up hurting sales but…seeing as DSOTM alone has sold forty five million units, I think the band knows what they’re doing. Any band that’s sold 200,000,000 albums pretty much gets to do whatever the hell they want with their music.
Good for them.
Tell me you’re kidding.
All this means is they will negotiate a new deal w/ the label whereby they single tracks WILL get sold, but the band will get paid a better rate.
See here:
http://answerguy.com/2010/03/12/ill-see-you-on-the-dark-side-of-the-moon-pink-floyd-wins-music-download-lawsuit/
They are completely in the right. As a fellow musician, if people don’t want to appreciate my art, (insert vulgar term here). If they need one song for their shuffle or playlist, make it themselves. By all means people can continue buying singles and going with the trend, but for people who truely appreciate art, it’s like looking at the Mona Lisa and saying what you could’ve done better or left out. And for all those who would argue Michael Angelo had more portraits then just that, so did Floyd have more albums then The Wall.
The concept album is the magic of Pink Floyd, listening in a different way it may be OK but you won’t enjoy it as you should.
Sadly, nowadays, most people only listen to crappy music (no need to specify) and this crappy music doesn’t make a difference if you listen to it shuffle or randomly.
What Pink Floyd is trying to do is teach people how they should listen to music, especially classic rock, and I think they’re totally right. I mean, when I listen to Pink Floyd (I love their music) if I listen to it in random mode I don’t get to enjoy it and understand it as I like. Whereas I listen in the order the album was made the experience to listen it is AMAZING.
Where do people like you hang out… what happened to music.
Don’t care either way but,
try watching the movie “The Wall” (messed up recommended) and come away just buying 1song off the album……
Their albums were like books.
EMI screwed up. Their contract with Pink Floyd stated no singles, entire albums only. ’nuff said on the legal issue. I believe that Floyd should go after them for illegal distribution of copyrighted material, at the rate of $5,000/song distributed.
As to the band’s desire to only sell albums – that is their decision. If they make less money, it is less money for them. Fortunately for the band members, they are wealthy – they created a quality product that sold very, very well. Why they are doing what they are doing is irrelevant – it is their music, and their decision.
I happen to think they are one of the top 5 rock groups, and I have most (well, many) of their albums. In fact, three of them are in my “Concept Album” playlist playing now. Ironically, the music is playing in “shuffle” mode.
As to folks who think modern groups aren’t/can’t put out album-oriented music, I just ask that you listen to Green Day’s American Idiot (turn off shuffle mode).
They are Artist and the Conception of Their Music is for the most part that of a Theme Album where as one Song relates to the next and in My Opinion should remain so.
Think of it like this Would You only Buy a small part of a Rembrandt Painting , no You would much rather have the whole Painting to Enjoy .
Their Music is Their Art leave it as They have Created .
“Is There Will Be Blood any less valuable when you’re watching the Blu-ray on your 60-inch plasma instead of at an actual movie theater?”
That is the most ridiculous argument on your entire article. Pink Floyd is not telling people to listen to Long Play, vinyl albums; they are saying you should buy the entire album, with all songs, because that is the work they composed. Not a bunch of different songs packed together on a single package, but a single artwork composed of different moments.
They are telling that you should not be allowed to buy just the hotel gun fight on There Will Be Blood, just because you maybe don’t like the rest of the movie. Just as the movie is not a series of short stories you can fully appreciate on their own, Pink Floyd albums are not a series of songs you will “get” unless you listen to all of them, as intended by the authors.
If you think going against that intent is ok, what is next? Buying just the solo of Comfortably Numb so you can hear it after the chorus of Another Brick in the Wall?
Good for Floyd. Granted, there are many whippersnappers who think their music is shite (or for some unfathomable reason have never heard it), but Dark Side is still one of the biggest selling albums ever recorded so clearly there’s a market for what it is Floyd does (or did).
And I give a thumbs up to any artist that sticks it to the worthless legacy record companies like EMI that are run by clueless old white men who have pissed away their own business in the last decade.
There’s only one thing to say about this: Roger Waters is probably the only musician ever to ask someone to leave the concert, because he wasn’t paying attention. This says a lot about their commitment to their art.
Not to worry though, I don’t think this would create a trend, as not too many artists would have the guts to ask us to buy only the full albums.
Tell me, wouldn’t you buy Back in Black as an album, rather than just Hells Bells? It will be a “natural selection”.
I am not so sure you understand what your writing about. Pink Floyd may say that their songs are appreciated as a album, but what they mean by that is they have the right to choose how to sell their songs. I agree that it is up to the Artist to choose how they sell their songs. If they make less money by doing it one way or the other so be it. It is their choice. I would personally prefer single song buying over album most of the time but that doesn’t mean I am against what is clearly their choice. Glad to see Pink Floyd stand up about what they think is right!
I agree with DivinoAG, that argument is ridiculous. By taking one track from the album, you are taking it out of it’s context. Yes it still one piece of artistic music, and you can listen to it on its own, just as the same way you could watch one classic scene from you favourite movie without watching the whole thing, but that defies the point of the work.
Imagine introducing someone to Taxi Driver, and only showing them the scene with Travis Bickle in front of the mirror but not the rest of the movie, it would still be great, but they wouldn’t really know why he was doing it or what the film was about, and what part that scene plays in the film.
Pink Floyd were around in era where music consumption meant listening to entire albums and appreciating an artist and album for the full body of work. Unfortunatly our generations consumption is the polar opposite, picking and choosing which songs they want to hear by an artist. It’s that reason why many bands and artists are struggling to develop themselves, and why record companies are going down the pan.
You could argue that this happened with CD’s, skipping past tracks you didn’t want to hear, getting to the singles, but for the most part after spending £10-15 on an album, you’d listen through at least once or twice, finding songs you love along the way, that you wouldn’t have necessarily listened to otherwise.
The artist should decide how their music should be heard, and in what context., as they created it. This should be (and is) decided in contracts with labels, Pink Floyd did this, and it was EMI in the wrong for selling them individually. Many artists don’t stick to the idea of only selling tracks in album format digitally, as it’s just not profitable like it once was, which is a shame.
Adam.
O, for heaven’s sake. FM radio – which helped make albums like DSOTM and The Wall 20-jillion sellers and made Floyd a household name to countless 50-something farts like me – played individual tracks. The whole idea is silly. “Money” was an edited 45 RPM SINGLE, for chrissake.
Yes, but you couldn’t just go and buy any-one track from those albums as you wished back then. The songs played on radio and released as singles were done so with the collaboration of the band to help promote the album.
Again going back to the movie reference, it’s like trailers, the director will have a major say in what shots/scenes are used to promote the film, ones which won’t give the whole thing away, but that will sell it enough to you to make you go and watch the whole film.
So, I’m not a big Pink Floyd fan but I do have an understanding for them wanting to sell their music in this fashion. What worries me is that other singers thinking that they can do the same thing. Just my $.02.
The idea that you can’t appreciate parts of art without the whole is ridiculous. Let’s take a picture of naked woman for example. Do you really spend time looking at her elbows and knees? Unless you’re a weirdo, no. There are parts that you can leave out that won’t detract from the full piece. As long as you at least have the boobs, snatch and ass, you’ll get the important parts of what the artist is trying to convey. Same goes with music and an album.
Lol… it’s just amazing how you failed so badly to notice the holes on your logic.
While you might be a man that prefer to dedicate all your time paying attention to a woman’s “boobs, snatch and ass”, I don’t think you would say it’s normal to “get” a woman without her elbows, knees, or… I don’t know… her head. If you buy a pair of boobs, an ass and a snatch, I don’t think you would make the claim that you have A WOMAN, you just have three body parts.
Again, the point here is not how you are going to appreciate the work of art. You may want to just listen to a single song of the album, or just one scene from a movie, or just the mouth of the Mona Lisa. But you don’t get to ask Leonardo da Vinci to cut just the mouth and sell you for less, simply because you don’t care about the rest. So why would be okay to ask Pink Floyd to sell you just one song of an album that, for them, is a single piece?
How you experience those songs is your choice; how you acquire their work is theirs.
Just out of curiosity, can you lay out the logic that lets Pink Floyd approve of individual songs for radio airplay but not for individual purchase? I mean, if I can’t choose to buy one song because they don’t want me to only have a piece of the whole work then surely they don’t want radio outlets to only play one song, right?
Promotion. Like others said here, it’s the same as showing scenes of a movie on a trailer, to promote people to go see the entire movie. The trailer can be awesome to watch, but it’s not the product they want to sell to you.
And they never said they are okay with that, but they did compromise with that in order to make the deal with their distributor, to promote sales for their albums. That doesn’t mean they have to swallow other “assumed” compromises they never agreed on.
It’s all pretty simple if you stop to think about it, actually; I don’t know why is so difficult for people to understand. They are the artists, they crafted a product for you to consume, it’s their choice how you should buy it. You don’t get the choose how to break it apart and buy it in pieces if they think that will destroy the meaning of their craft.
If they really want to sell the album as whole, why they then sell the on big track then? Right?
Even when their wish sounds rightful, it will open the door to the crap albums.
I’ve thought about this one for a while and I think this is the conclusion I have landed on:
They wrote the music, they own the music and can do whatever they want with it.
But they sold the rights to their music to a company, they can still tell that company what they’d LIKE to see happen to their music, but the company can make whatever decision they want in the end.
It just so happens that you are wrong. I’m not giving an opinion here, just stating a fact, so understand that I mean no offense.
As you can see by the ruling made on this particular case, the company can do whatever it was decided previously on the contract made between both parties, but not EVERYTHING. A contract is a very specific list of things they are allowed to do, and this ruling makes clear that selling songs individually is not among them. It was just assumed as much.
There is no dark side of the moon, it’s all dark really…
Really, I agree.
Not that people should be obliged to listen to their stuff in album form, but that people should listen to their stuff in album form.
It just doesn’t work otherwise.
Listening to Dark Side of the Moon is like listening to one (or maybe two if you count the side change halfway through) single song, and if you listen to say, Money, by itself you can appreciate it as a song, but nowhere NEAR to the degree that could appreciate it as an album.
It’s like listening to Brick in the Wall II by itself.
Just a bunch of cockney children yelling at you.
The meaning is degreaded and I’m bored of this post.