Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Music The Courts The Media United Kingdom

EMI Cannot Unbundle Pink Floyd Songs 601

Posted by timothy
from the but-this-is-on-the-internet dept.
smooth wombat writes "Before the advent of iTunes and MP3s, EMI and Pink Floyd entered into a contract which stated that EMI could not unbundle individual songs from their original album settings. This was insisted upon by the members of Pink Floyd, who wanted to retain artistic control of their works, which they considered 'seamless' pieces of music. However, with the advent of digital downloads, EMI has been selling individual songs through its online store. Pink Floyd sued, claiming EMI was violating the contract, whereas EMI said the contract only applied to physical albums, not Internet sales. Judge Andrew Morritt backed the band, saying the contract protected 'the artistic integrity of the albums.' Judge Morritt also ruled EMI is 'not entitled to exploit recordings by online distribution or by any other means other than the complete original album without Pink Floyd's consent.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

EMI Cannot Unbundle Pink Floyd Songs

Comments Filter:
  • by hubert.lepicki (1119397) on Thursday March 11, 2010 @03:43PM (#31442516)

    doesn't make any sense. Pink Floyd's music is meant to be listened to as a whole, albums are (the good ones) carefully prepared and are one piece of music story.

  • by amicusNYCL (1538833) on Thursday March 11, 2010 @03:46PM (#31442580)

    For Pink Floyd this is about artistic integrity, not profit. They've already made their money. For EMI it's all about profit, and that's why Pink Floyd put that provision in the contract.

    This is a win for Pink Floyd, and a loss for labels who think they can do whatever they want.

  • by CapnStank (1283176) on Thursday March 11, 2010 @03:48PM (#31442628) Homepage
    I believe its because Pink Floyd is not worried about their wealth but rather the distribution of their art. The concept is crazy, I know, but there are people out there who do things for other reasons than greed in today's modern world, despite what EMI will have you believe
  • by causality (777677) on Thursday March 11, 2010 @03:49PM (#31442642)

    Let's hope they get permanently blocked by their ISP (and others) for three strikes.

    It'd be unfortunate for it to have to come to that, but it would be an ultimately good thing if such advocates for ever stringent copyright laws got a taste of their own medicine. In a way, that's what is happening here. Pink Floyd is only able to exert this control (and have a judge back them up) because of the strict nature of copyright law, including over songs that are significantly older than many folks participating in this discussion. It seems that EMI and others who lobby for more copyright restrictions have gotten what they wanted. It's viscerally satisfying to see that what they want and try so hard to get more of is not always how they imagined it to be.

  • by Jedi Alec (258881) on Thursday March 11, 2010 @03:49PM (#31442658)

    You know, this might be a bit of a shock for you but sometimes, on very rare occasions, people make decisions where monetary profit is not the prime motivator. This might be one such case...

  • by Anonymous Monkey (795756) on Thursday March 11, 2010 @03:50PM (#31442670)
    I think Pink Floyd isn't worried about money any more. This is about art, and obviously art is more important than money for them. This keeps them from having lots of lame boxed sets made, or songs downloaded out of context so the artistic point gets blunted.

    My hat is off to you Pink Floyd!

  • Re:Radio? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Berkyjay (1225604) on Thursday March 11, 2010 @03:52PM (#31442728)
    Well there is a big difference between individual songs played on the radio as opposed to individual songs bought on iTunes. Yes, the radio plays their songs stand alone, but if I liked the song "Money" and I wanted to hear it again I have to go buy "Dark Side of the Moon" where I will be exposed to all of the songs on the album. Now if they were sold as singles on iTunes, well all I would ever hear was "Money". I would never be exposed to any of the much better songs on the original album.
  • So, my guess is... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by CannonballHead (842625) on Thursday March 11, 2010 @03:53PM (#31442750)

    That Slashdot will generally back up PF in this, because they are standing up to the evil record label.

    Which seems to be somewhat contradictory to the general opinion that record labels (and/or artists? information wants to be free? evil copyright?) should not be allowed to have such tight control over how things are sold.

    So here's a record label making it EASIER to get tracks and we're upset about it, because PinkFloyd wants to only sell complete albums. I guess that's their artistic license... but aren't they being evil and putting strict terms on how you acquire their music? I've heard plenty of arguments how that shouldn't be allowed, it's not fair, etc., unless you're talking about physical media. And PF is now suing over distribution of non-physical media ...

    So yes: in my opinion, EMI is breaking a contract. Bad.

    And in my opinion/guess, Slashdot is going to generally be contradicting themselves, upholding a "non-freedom" position (PF's) because it happens to be against what the record label wants.

    If PF wanted it to be listened to as a whole, then make it one track. Or make it movements, like symphonies... etc. For that matter, think of all the symphonies that are sold by movement. Separately... :)

  • by Hatta (162192) on Thursday March 11, 2010 @03:55PM (#31442792) Journal

    I have yet to hear anything resembling artistic integrity on the radio.

  • Re:Emi (Score:5, Insightful)

    by cayenne8 (626475) on Thursday March 11, 2010 @03:56PM (#31442798) Homepage Journal
    This is so cool!!

    Too bad we don't have newer bands around today, that can make a whole albums worth of music worth listening to...

  • Re:Emi (Score:4, Insightful)

    by mmarlett (520340) on Thursday March 11, 2010 @03:59PM (#31442874)

    Well, we do. We just don't have any that have that clause in their contract.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 11, 2010 @04:01PM (#31442928)
    I question why Pink Floyd bothered to divide them into tracks or to name them different names if they truly were 'seamless.'

    I can tell that you don't listen to any classical music. It's about the composition as a whole, which is comprised of smaller pieces or movements. Floyd is (well, was) doing the same thing, except via modern instrumentation.
  • by CannonballHead (842625) on Thursday March 11, 2010 @04:03PM (#31442966)
    On the other hand, they've already made their fortunes. They can afford to have artistic integrity.
  • by Lunix Nutcase (1092239) on Thursday March 11, 2010 @04:03PM (#31442970)

    Yes, those are different. They agreed to release those as singles. Doesn't change the fact that their contract with EMI says that EMI can not sell their albums as anything but the full album without PF's consent.

  • Re:Emi (Score:5, Insightful)

    by omfgnosis (963606) on Thursday March 11, 2010 @04:04PM (#31442996)

    I think people who say stuff like this are revealing more about their own taste in music than they realize. At 27, I can honestly say that there's been a wealth of great music released throughout my life, even if it isn't on heavy rotation on radio and cable music networks. And I can think of very few one hit wonders I'd include in that.

  • by TheRealGrogan (1660825) on Thursday March 11, 2010 @04:08PM (#31443058)

    You think that's a win? It just means more Pink Floyd songs will be downloaded on file sharing services rather than purchased legitimately. When all that is left is illegitimate means you can guarantee that's the route people will take. This time, it's the artists I have no sympathy for. That's a switch.

    Maybe they don't even mind if people share their music (having "already made their money"), which would be admirable, but it's still a disservice to their fans to not give them a legitimate avenue other than "buy a CD" (which for me personally would amount to maybe 20% to 30% of a Pink Floyd album that I actually like.)

  • by axl917 (1542205) <axl@mail.plymouth.edu> on Thursday March 11, 2010 @04:10PM (#31443118)

    as apparently people just blindly click on what they perceive is lulzy, but was really quite dim.

    We're talking about the sale of the songs and albums here; not the one-time listening on a radio station. Apples and oranges. Sure, some tracks like Money or Comfortably Numb lend themselves to single airplay, but when was the last time a station played "The Grand Vizier's Garden Party, Entertainment" ?

  • by Sir_Lewk (967686) <.sirlewk. .at. .gmail.com.> on Thursday March 11, 2010 @04:11PM (#31443138)

    Why do authors often give names to chapters in their books, if they never intend on having chapters published individually?

  • by amiga3D (567632) on Thursday March 11, 2010 @04:11PM (#31443140)
    Maybe it's greed or maybe it's revenge. The only way to hurt EMI is through their bank account. If someone makes me go to all the trouble and expense of hiring a law firm I'm damn sure going to hurt them as bad as I can.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 11, 2010 @04:14PM (#31443190)

    There is no downside to this ruling. Admittedly, people who would like to download only parts of Pink Floyd albums will be disappointed, but from a stand point of what is good for society this is a good ruling. Of course, if copyright didn't extend longer than it should, this ruling would be irrelevant since Pink Floyd's music would be in the public domain by now (or within a couple of years anyway).

    Oy, there is no such thing as society. You ought to be applauding this because it is good for the individual, and protects the right to enter into and enforce contracts. Negotiation and trade of your labour and creative works by mutual consent.

  • by h4rr4r (612664) on Thursday March 11, 2010 @04:18PM (#31443268)

    It seems like one mp3 of the whole album should be fine to sell.

  • by madsenj37 (612413) on Thursday March 11, 2010 @04:22PM (#31443370)
    There is a down side to this ruling. Many who want songs and not full albums at the price offered will revert to piracy. This will hurt the bottom line of EMI and Pink Floyd, weather or not they care, they will be compensated for their efforts.
  • by bluefoxlucid (723572) on Thursday March 11, 2010 @04:26PM (#31443472) Journal
    You know you can show up on someone's doorstep and bitch for years, threaten to sue, get laughed at. Then sue. It's quite likely Pink Floyd sent their lawyer over to cry breech of contract, for months. "Please stop doing this." ... oh, you don't want to listen? Hold on, let me get the big stick.
  • Re:Radio? (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 11, 2010 @04:30PM (#31443558)

    While you think you've made some sort of insightful comment you're really just an idiot. His comment doesn't have anything to do with the contract itself. It has to do with the band's reasoning for the contract.

  • by thePowerOfGrayskull (905905) <{moc.liamg} {ta} {esidarap.cram}> on Thursday March 11, 2010 @04:31PM (#31443568) Homepage Journal
    Fortunately Slashdot consists of many minds and some of them don't view this is a contradiction at all. That is: PF has the right to control distribution however it wants to -- moreover, EMI supported that as well, in the contract they signed. Beyond that: information has no desires and can't want to be free, but artists (and even labels) are within their rights to want to get paid.
  • See if I care... (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Stormwatch (703920) <rodrigogirao&hotmail,com> on Thursday March 11, 2010 @04:31PM (#31443570) Homepage
    ...I've already pirated their whole discography anyway.
  • umm.. simply (Score:3, Insightful)

    by way2trivial (601132) on Thursday March 11, 2010 @04:31PM (#31443576) Homepage Journal

    rip your own album as a single mp3

  • Re:Song flow (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Angst Badger (8636) on Thursday March 11, 2010 @04:37PM (#31443696)

    In general, I agree -- most Floyd songs don't work when pried out of their context, though there are exceptions. And certainly, EMI deserved the spanking that they, for once, got.

    That said, every time I hear someone talk about "artistic integrity", I reach for my revolver. It's one of those bullshit art industry marketing terms like "authenticity" that doesn't actually mean anything. My experience of a work of art is internal to me. Sometimes I give a shit about what the artist was thinking, and sometimes I don't. Except for live performance art, once a work of art is done, the artist's role is done; all future action takes place in the senses and thoughts of the audience. If an audience member likes one panel of a triptych and doesn't care for the other two, why should they be bound by the artist's intent if they want to hang a print of just one panel?

    The cult of the artist has acquired too many trappings of the religious cults of which it is an imitation. If I'm not going to kneel before God, then you can rest assured that Roger Waters isn't going to get a tip of the hat, either.

  • One downside (Score:3, Insightful)

    by RingDev (879105) on Thursday March 11, 2010 @04:44PM (#31443830) Homepage Journal

    While I applaud the decision, it does kinda bum me out. This album was released over 30 years ago. Under the original 1790 copy right laws, this album would have just entered public domain. Thanks to Sony Bono the album wont hit public domain until the earliest of 2084.

    -Rick

  • by FlyingBishop (1293238) on Thursday March 11, 2010 @04:50PM (#31443950)

    How else can Pink Floyd punish EMI for acting as a poor steward of Pink Floyd's work? Demand an apology?

    Make the bastards pay, it's the only language they understand.

  • by RapmasterT (787426) on Thursday March 11, 2010 @04:56PM (#31444070)
    This isn't an issue of profit versus art, or even single track versus album, the issue here is that EMI had a god damned contract with the artist that specifically said NOT to do something...which they then did. And then excused it with the thin excuse that "it didn't count" because it only applied to physical albums...which then by their own argument meant they had NO contract rights to electronic distribution.

    Any ruling OTHER than overwhelmingly in favor of Pink Floyd would have set a precedent that would basically invalidate all artists rights and let the studios run roughshod over everyone.

    So rather than say "yay, Pink Floyd won!", we should be saying "what the fuck did EMI think they were doing?".
  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 11, 2010 @04:59PM (#31444108)

    also, radio stations should only be able to play entire albums uninterrupted, not a song here and there. or does that kind of publicity not bother the art?

  • by idontgno (624372) on Thursday March 11, 2010 @05:00PM (#31444134) Journal

    Then why would Pink Floyd ask for royalties as damages?

    Because you're not allowed to sue for the right to beat the loveless everliving shit out of your opponent. (God only knows how often I'd be in court if that were allowed!)

    It's a contract. The label's alleged acts in bad faith constitute a breach of contract, which is an instrument of monetary consideration. That's the scorecard. That's the stick. Cease-and-desist is temporary. Termination of contract is the nuclear option. What's left?

    For all you know, PF might donate all their damages to charity, or hire the very best contract assassins to finish the job that the courts could only start, or burn the entire windfall in a huge bonfire in EMI's parking lot.

    No, I'm not a lawyer. Yes, I know the customary abbreviation. No, I don't care.

  • by dgatwood (11270) on Thursday March 11, 2010 @05:00PM (#31444140) Journal

    And at the same time, I have never heard classical recording artists complain that their labels are making individual movements available to their listeners. Heck, they're happy that they *have* listeners. Ecstatic, really, in this day and age. And I don't see composers whining about it, either. Lord knows, if somebody wants to do part of a piece I wrote, if it is divided into movements, more power to them. If I wanted it performed as a single work, I wouldn't have divided it up into chunks.

    Heck, some of the most popular classical pieces of all time are small extractions from larger classical works---the Hallelujah Chorus from Handel's Messiah, Ode to Joy from Beethoven's 9th, Elsa's Procession to the Cathedral from Lohengrin, Nessun Dorma from Turandot... the list is almost endless. Although the whole of Messiah is frequently performed, the Hallelujah Chorus is performed far more frequently because it is more manageable---more performable. Lohengrin and Turandot are seldom performed in their entirety, but those excerpts are popular band and solo vocal literature, respectively; I've personally played those excerpts several times in various ensembles over the past few years.

    It has always been this way; large works endure in large part because they contain smaller works that are sufficient to stand on their own. By claiming this so-called "artistic integrity", bands like Pink Floyd are effectively saying that they don't care if their works are remembered. So be it. I've forgotten you already.

  • Re:Emi (Score:5, Insightful)

    by interkin3tic (1469267) on Thursday March 11, 2010 @05:02PM (#31444188)

    If you don't buy yer "Another Brick in the Wall: Part 2" you can't have yer "Another Brick in the Wall: Part 1!" How can you buy "Another Brick in the Wall: Part 2" if you don't buy yer "Another Brick in the Wall: Part 1?!?"

  • by Bakkster (1529253) <Bakkster...man@@@gmail...com> on Thursday March 11, 2010 @05:04PM (#31444226)

    That's a possible downside of their decision, not of the ruling itself. It's good for musicians to rule that their contracts covering physical record sales also give them the same rights for digital sales.

  • by Pontiac (135778) on Thursday March 11, 2010 @05:08PM (#31444304) Homepage

    From the article

    The judge also ruled on a second issue, the level of royalties paid to the band. That section of the judgment was made in private after EMI argued the information was covered by commercial confidentiality.

    I suspect the real issue here was EMI paying a lower royalty fee for online salve vs a contract set rate for album sales.

    Winning in this case puts Puck Floyd in the driver seat when it comes to negotiating a new online sales contract with EMI.

  • Re:Emi (Score:5, Insightful)

    by assassinator42 (844848) on Thursday March 11, 2010 @05:17PM (#31444472)

    I was just listening to Scenes from a Memory by Dream Theater yesterday. Although I guess that was made 11 years ago.
    The Dreamer's Paradox [jamendo.com] by JT Bruce fits together pretty well as well.

  • by mcgrew (92797) * on Thursday March 11, 2010 @05:32PM (#31444718) Homepage Journal

    If copyright lengths were sane the whole thing would be moot; Dark Side of the Moon is thirty five years old. This journal [slashdot.org] infringes Pink Floyd's copyright, but it shouldn't. It would stand without the copyright violation (which may be fair use, I don't know) but it wouldn't be nearly as good (or would be even worse, depending on your opinion of it) without it.

  • Personally I think if they broke a contract requiring them to only distribute complete copies of the work they should be required to do two things to make-good thier violations.

    1: For each sale pay the royalties for the whole work.
    2: Offer the complete work at no extra charge to people they sold part of the work.

  • by sjbe (173966) on Thursday March 11, 2010 @05:38PM (#31444850)

    They feel that they didn't make individual pieces, they made a whole, and they feel that it should only be sold as a whole.

    Pink Floyd can say whatever they want and they've made their millions so they can do whatever they want in the name of "artistic integrity" but I think that argument is nonsense. If it was a single work then why did they make individual tracks? Fact is the songs on their albums are discrete works which can be listened to independently. Their albums are rarely listened to in their entirety - a fact I'm sure they are well aware of.

    They can sell their works however they want and I'm fine with that but I don't have to buy them if I don't like the format. I happen to own several of their albums and like Pink Floyd's music but not all their music is of equal quality. There are several albums of theirs I only like a few tracks on and I haven't bought the whole album because of that fact. I could not care less about Pink Floyd's opinion about whether their albums are a single work. I'll listen to it the way I want to and buy it only in the format I want. If they won't sell it to me in that format, that is their loss, not mine.

  • by PopeRatzo (965947) * on Thursday March 11, 2010 @05:48PM (#31445002) Homepage Journal

    The only college radio station in Fort Wayne, Indiana, is WBCL, the Bible college radio station.

    The bigger question is: "What in the hell are you doing in Fort Wayne, Indiana?"

    If I remember correctly, there are buses leaving that town every single day. It's a great American tradition that people who are interested in experiencing all that the world offers leave towns like Fort Wayne just as soon as they're old enough to walk and make their way to places that are not bound by religious fundamentalism and small-town small-mindedness.

    I'd like to say I'm not trying to single Fort Wayne out, but the fact is that I'm quite familiar with Fort Wayne and the Bible Belt that it's got on so tight that it's cutting off the circulation to the brain.

    Seriously, friend, make like a tree and leave.

  • Re:Emi (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 11, 2010 @05:49PM (#31445014)

    He is running into the same problem many run into as they get older.

    Their time is devoted to other things than following the latest fad (and many acts are that). So he has found a way for someone else to do a bit of sifting for him.

    We used to get our ideas from our friends of what music to listen to. They in turn got it from their friends and so on. But eventually that 'fad loop' closes. The key changers move away or just stop doing whatever it was they did to 'find new music'. Or perhaps you realize the dude with all the cool music is a bit unstable and not what you want to be around anymore...

    So radio is a perfectly valid way to find new music. Then go searching for other things to build on.

    The problem is however, I can go searching on the internet for all sorts of music. But where do I start? Google? I know what genres of music I like but how would I find *NEW* music if I do not even know what to search for? I do not even know they exist much less what sort of music they have. Last.fm and pandora are interesting but limited in their scope of introducing new music.

    You will see this too when you get older. I didnt believe it myself when my parents told me it would happen. It does to many of us.

  • by DesScorp (410532) <DesScorp@NOSpam.Gmail.com> on Thursday March 11, 2010 @05:50PM (#31445026) Homepage Journal

    For Pink Floyd this is about artistic integrity, not profit. They've already made their money. For EMI it's all about profit, and that's why Pink Floyd put that provision in the contract.

    This is a win for Pink Floyd, and a loss for labels who think they can do whatever they want.

    Oh please. Pink Floyd has every right to do this, but they're being either very weird or just plain hypocritical. For all of the talk of artistic integrity, and about how the songs are a seamless whole, they have no problem with the individual songs being played as singles on radio stations to sell the albums, do they?

    I think this has more to do with "make people buy the whole album" than it does with any artistic vision.

  • Re:Song flow (Score:3, Insightful)

    by mikael_j (106439) on Thursday March 11, 2010 @05:50PM (#31445034)

    I have to disagree with you about artistic integrity, it's definitely something that should be respected.

    I do however agree that it gets thrown around a bit too much in situations where it's not applicable, for me it's mostly a matter of allowing the artist to have a say in how his/her artwork is presented to the viewer/listener. How you choose to listen to Dark side of the moon shouldn't be up to the artist but how the album is being sold should definitely be something that Pink floyd should have a say in (before copyright expires but that's a different issue). I feel the same way about something like say, a painting, if an artist insists that any "official" reproductions of his works are to always be reproduced in a way that includes the entire artwork then that should be respected by whatever company has managed to license the right to make posters featuring his/her paintings, if the buyer wants a cropped version of a painting he/she should just have to do the cropping himself/herself.

  • Re:Emi (Score:4, Insightful)

    by omfgnosis (963606) on Thursday March 11, 2010 @06:01PM (#31445178)

    No, the point they were making was "too bad we don't have newer bands around today, that can make a whole albums worth of music worth listening to". My answer is that we do have them, in fact a wealth of them. In a later comment I added that most artists don't write filler but that one can expect, given the subjective nature of art, to only like a subset of what's out there, even from talented artists.

    I think my broader point was that my experience has been that the perception of artists not producing whole albums worth listening to comes from hearing only heavy rotation music and not really sitting down to take in the breadth of an artist's repertoire. It might sound snobby, but appreciating art is an interactive process and rarely will someone really find much joy in art if they're not willing to invest attention in it.

  • Re:Radio? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by causality (777677) on Thursday March 11, 2010 @06:03PM (#31445202)

    3 moderators agree with him; none with you.

    Dude, I get massive amounts of mod points here all the time, and I'm a fuckin' idiot. What's your point?

    Real idiots don't know that they are idiots and they generally proceed to make decisions as though they were infallible. Then when something goes wrong, it's always someone else's fault or due to "luck" and circumstance but is certainly never attributed to their own poor decision-making. The humble gesture you just made strongly implies that you're not such an idiot, if I may say so.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 11, 2010 @06:12PM (#31445320)

    Pink Floyd: The Dark Side of the Moon. May shed some light for folks unfamiliar w/how these guys put albums together.

    http://www.netflix.com/WiPlayer?movieid=60030169&trkid=496682

  • by UnknowingFool (672806) on Thursday March 11, 2010 @07:35PM (#31446482)

    The decline of albums happened long before iTunes. Back in the days of the cassette tape, there were singles. Then the CD single came along. The really technology to blame was MTV.

    Frontline covered this topic in 2004 in an episode called The way the music died. [pbs.org]

    "What it did really is make the business a one trick pony -- and everything became about the three minutes, the single, the hit single," entertainment attorney Michael Guido tells FRONTLINE. "I think the album died with MTV. The culture in the record companies in the last 20 years has been to reward artists for three minutes of music, not for 40 minutes of music."

    The music industry because obsessed with promoting the single only. Albums then became about getting one or two hit singles packaged with a dozen other songs. The music industry shifted focus to selling a song rather than selling the artist.

    iTunes was only about selling what the Apple thought their customers wanted. There wasn't a very easy way to get music online at all whether a consumer wanted a single or an entire album. If Apple could provide this store/service they would have an advantage over other players. I'd say Apple was correct in that assumption. They didn't drive this demise; they merely used it to their advantage.

  • by pandrijeczko (588093) on Thursday March 11, 2010 @08:08PM (#31446854)

    ...if you're stupid enough to part with good money just for the pleasure of having your hard disk heads move in such a way so as to create some crappy, lossy music files on your PC, then you're probably too stupid to appreciate their music...

    Sorry, kiddies, but you need to face some facts - the vast majority of modern music is about elevating talentless people into the limelight as quickly as possible so they're too shell-shocked to demand too much in royalties; this maximises record company profits & means they're also cheap to dump when they start getting too greedy.

    This in turn implies that due to a lack of musical ability, they're incapable of producing music albums that have more than one or two good tracks on them, thus explaining why the modern "great unwashed" now want to treat music like "Pick N Mix" sweeties and just choose the tracks they like (which also happen to be the only ones that are any good).

    So speaking as the complete and utter music snob that I am, let me sit here and do nothing else but enjoy my nice hi-fidelity, old-fashioned Pink Floyd music CDs from start to finish on my nice expensive hi-fi system whilst you children go off & run around at the gym whilst listening to your "ever so modern" formulaic plastic music...

    Rant mode disengaged.

  • Standalone works (Score:3, Insightful)

    by sjbe (173966) on Thursday March 11, 2010 @08:20PM (#31446990)

    I don't know anybody who listens to just a few tracks of DSOTM.

    Pleased to make your acquaintance. I haven't seen anyone listen to the album end to end since I was in college - 15 years ago. Tracks from that particular album are played on the radio as standalone pieces all the time.

    Heck, the Wall makes no friggin' sense at all if you just pull out...

    Only if you actually are following the whole story which is more effort than I've seen most people put into their listening. The *music* is just fine even if you pay no attention to the lyrics. Run Like Hell, Comfortably Numb, Another Brick in the Wall Part 2 are all just fine as standalone works. I listen to them frequently in just that way. Heck the London Philharmonic released a symphonic version of many of those songs (Us and Them - Symphonic Pink Floyd) which proves the point that they can be standalone pieces.

    There are many ways to enjoy Pink Floyd beyond just the official dogma. I find it ironic that a group who writes lyrics decrying thought control is so interested in controlling how I listen to my music.

  • by westlake (615356) on Thursday March 11, 2010 @09:23PM (#31447560)

    Why do authors often give names to chapters in their books, if they never intend on having chapters published individually?

    The chapter head is a teaser and a bookmark.

    It urges the reader to continue on. But allows him a much-needed time-out.

    Back in the day - and it wasn't so very long ago, really - novel-length stories were often first published in serial installments in newspaper and magazines like the old Saturday Evening Post.

  • Re:Emi (Score:4, Insightful)

    by TheRaven64 (641858) on Thursday March 11, 2010 @09:29PM (#31447602) Journal
    I think the real story here is not that Pink Floyd is suing, nor that EMI offered the songs as individual tracks, but that there are people stupid enough to buy Pink Floyd in any unit other than an album or complete works set.

From Sharp minds come... pointed heads. -- Bryan Sparrowhawk

Working...