Entertainment For Lively Minds
What Pink Floyd are *really* bothered about
The papers are interpreting the Pink Floyd vs EMI court case as being all about whether you should download the whole of "Dark Side Of The Moon" from iTunes and play it as one complete track by the light of a single candle or whether you can cherry-pick the tracks you like and leave the rest by the side of your plate. This is not its main significance.
The bigger game is who gets to make those kind of decisions because it's above all about control. Pink Floyd, like many other "heritage" acts, own the masters of some of their albums but not others. This is for all sorts of historical reasons that didn't seem to be a problem back in the 70s when nobody thought they would be selling their music thirty years later. This current case is part of Pink Floyd's ongoing effort to get ownership of all of their masters. Whoever owns them gets to decide how they can be sold.
You can understand why the current owners of EMI, having paid a fortune for the company partly because of the richness of its back catalogue, wouldn't want this to happen. Once a band gets complete ownership of its masters there's nothing to stop it taking them to another record company or, presumably in this new world, doing without a record company altogether and cutting their own deal with people like iTunes. That's why the big acts are watching this with such interest, not because they're worried about the segues on Side Two.
- More from David Hepworth.
- Login or register to post comments
-
The sanctity of segues
Perhaps that's what it's about for EMI but I suspect artistic integrity is exactly what it's about for the surviving members of Pink Floyd. I suppose you could argue that the band are simply being avaricious, knowing that they can make more money from selling an entire album than individual tracks, but if that was the case, wouldn't they have released singles in their heyday? The issue of "segues on Side Two" is irrevocably tied to the issue of artistic control as it is precisely to preserve the integrity of their original creative vision that the artist needs such control. This case may have only been about money and possession for EMI but frankly, who cares what record companies think?
Suspicious Minds?
My first reaction to this news story was "So what?" Surely anyone who wants a copy of Dark Side of Moon has got one already?
Then I got to thinking, "Hang on a minute, have I got one?"
Turns out I haven't.
I may well rectify that over the weekend if drink is taken and I'm close by to the laptop.
Is this just a marketing ploy to flog a back catalogue without having to go to all the trouble of getting the band together and touring?
Pink Floyd have been out of the news for sometime. It would be interesting to see if ITunes and Amazon do any business over the next few days as a result of the story.
The lead has been buried on this...
Everyone's talking about the "unbundling" case, but "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." (http://www.wral.com/entertainment/story/7211647/) Apparently this is the first time such a hearing has happened behind closed doors.
This royalty case is the one that PF was really interested in: the unbundling case was just a no-brainer that PF knew they'd win (the contract wording seemed pretty definite, and EMI's only defence was the silly "downloads aren't records" canard, which would invalidate all their contracts anyway), giving PF leverage to go to EMI to reset their royalty rates, with the threat of a breach of contract suit as ammunition.
Art v Commerce
Is it just me or do these large acts hide behind the artistic argument to actually bolster the commercial value of their back catalogues? Surely, if the sequence of songs were so important, they would only ever play them in sequence at gigs?
I think it is hugely unlikely that Pink Floyd songs won't be available online within the next 10 years. They will just wait for the right price/deal to be offered by EMI & iTunes and the like. Good luck to them but there is a concept album on hypocrisy in there somewhere.
The sequencing at gigs is an interesting point Lee...
Having seen Floyd in concert on a few occasions, and picked up a few (official and unofficial) live recordings here and there, I don't think I've ever come across Floyd playing DSOTM in anything other than the full, original sequence.
I stand to be corrected though...
Floyd* always played their 'concept' albums
in the right order.
Dark Side, Wish You Were Here, Animals and The Wall were only ever played in the right sequence once the record had been released.
Pre-Animals, they did of course extensively tour the music before the records were released. (The Man, The Journey, Raving And Drooling etc etc)
*I'm talking here about 'proper' Waters-era Floyd. No idea what the Gilmour Floyd do.
Art for art's sake, money...
What's so wrong with artists trying to bolster the value of their back catalogue? We the punters might have a romantic notion of struggling artists in their garrets producing great art but, perfectly reasonably, they'd actually like to make a few bob out of it.
We're always urged to make our money work for us and nobody thinks twice about moving a savings account to one that pays a higher rate of interest. Given that a musicians back catalogue is effectively his life savings, it would be odd not to manage it carefully.
I'm struggling
to give a damn over what will no doubt come to be known as Floydgate: when Gilmour and Waters are both said to have a personal wealth of nearly £100,000,000 I fail to see that their greed is not the overriding factor here. Legal principles and the like maybe the smokescreen they use, but as somebody pointed out earlier, everyone on the planet (and his dad) owns DSOTM by now, so why don't they just give it away Radiohead style?
for the same reason that you don't work for free presumably?
They're as entitled as the next man to be paid for their efforts.
Whilst on nowhere near the same scale as the Floyd, I feel totally entitled to my royalty streams as they're the fruits of my talent and ability.
If I play for someone, it's a job and I expect to get paid for it.
To be fair
They have been paid for DSOTHM. And paid handsomely. Fair enough, no one wants to work for free. But in this case pay day has been and gone, and it was a big cheque.
I might be better disposed to work for free if I could afford to. Especially if my work were something which I derived pleasure from.
edited
snippier than intended.
If unbundling was such a problem...
...why do I have a Greatest Hits CD by the name of "Echoes" from 2001?
But...
...why shouldn't they be able to own their own masters? Why should EMI - whose investment in Pink Floyd has been repaid many times over - continue to hold ownership and dictate how their work is packaged and sold? The clumsiness of the new EMI management regarding artists has already resulted in the loss of Radiohead, Paul McCartney and the Rolling Stones. Looks like the Floyd will follow.
Interesting point
but I do think that artists like Pink Floyd developed by working with EMI, not in isolation of them. So I agree that an artist should have rights, but so should anyone who has invested and helped develop the output of an artist.
Kate Bush
Gilmour presumably appreciated EMI enough to recommend they get involved with Kate Bush.
and Kate
also took a similar POV over the release of Ariel. She didn't like the fact the album could be split up rather than in the sequence she had spent the last 12 years getting it into.
It may be the stance of King Cnut (when did it stop being Canute btw? It's Booo-dica all over again) to try and stop the devaluing of an album as a piece of work rather than a sausage to be sliced (mmmmm sausage) in our digital age but doesn't mean people shouldn't try
Its not always about the benjamins
Thing is
EMI were a very different company back when when they signed and 'developed' Floyd, and Kate Bush for that fact.
Two words...
Guy. Hands.
Two more words
"wan" and "ker"
Probably more at fault
were the people that sold EMI to him. Did they think he was going to be the Abramovich of music?
They should be ashamed of themselves
but they took the money and ran, as shareholders do. Hands saddled the company with so much debt it is no longer viable despite the fact that its underlying operations are profitable to the tune of 200 mil. More so than the competition actually. The debt payments are destroying it, and they are Hands' work. Good article about it in today's Observer.
Link to the article below
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2010/mar/14/emi-debt-internet-piracy
So the sellers and the buyers overvalued the business. Hence the debt. Warner's will get it for less than they offered (which is probably market rate for the business a few years down the line).
I still find it hard to feel sorry for major record companies (or major artists) how have enjoyed super profits for 46 of the last 50 years and who complain now they are seeing normal profits (provided they get the right music out). Welcome to real life.
Is it just me
... But surely it's not that hard to release the album (or each side, say) as a single long track and charge accordingly? Presumably the record companies believe there's more money to be made by selling individual tracks and allowing the listener to play them in order if they want to. But it's a way of ensuring the sequencing integrity, if the artist insists on it.
sidelong tracks
didn't Prince steal a march on this by having the CD of 'Lovesexy' consist of only one long track? I have it on vinyl and there are no track 'guides' to assist skipping the stylus forward. Tricky for finding 'Alphabet Street' when DJing! Not sure how it comes on download though.
Indeed
...he did. Although you can buy it with the tracks seperated now.
Over the years, Prince has sort of anticipated all sorts of developments in how we consume music and how musicians can/should produce. He was using the internet in quite an advanced way long before many other musicians, He's been fussing over owning his masters for ages and he gave up on record companies as being useful for anything (other than distribution) at some point in the mid-90's. His anti-youtube (until-they-start-paying-me) stance, much ridiculed at the time (when everyone thought it was a great 'promotional' tool) seems less and less perverse (see the OK Go story). Then there's the Daily Mail cd thing, realising that money was in touring not records and using the records as promotions for tours (although that could have something to do with the quality of his records)...I may think of more examples.
Essentially, he might be a mentalist has-been, but he's a bloody canny (and rich) one.
PMusically Prince is a motherfunking genius.
And therefore exempt from ever being a has-been!
Aside from that, good post. :)
The recordings of Piper At The Gates Of Dawn
will pass into the public domain in seven years. I've no doubt both Floyd and EMI are nervous about maximising their income before that process starts to happen.
They'll renew their rights surely?
They'd be mad not to...and I bet they don't do it one track at a time!
They won't have the option to "renew"
Public Domain kicks in 50 years after first release whether you like it or not. It should be noted that songwriting royalties will still be payable (for 70 years after the writers' death I believe), it's only the performance that becomes PD.
So, come January 1st 2012 (for instance), if you have an original 1962 pressing of the HJH's "Love Me Do", you could theoretically digitise it and offer it for sale as an MP3, or even press your own CDs and sell them, just make sure everyone gets their cut...
Didn't the "Move It" hitmaker challenge this in court.....
...recently?
Can't remember for the life of me what the outcome was.
He lost
See http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/07/25/wrinkly_funksters_want_groove_ca...
The notion of "Public domain" centres on what is seen to be in the public interest. Is it in the public interest for record companies (for instance) to sit on 50 year old master tapes they have no intention of re-releasing/exploiting? No, so let them become PD and give everyone a chance to hear them.