[crapback]

Hmmm. Let's see. Wasn't there some form of media out there that plays single tracks and helped make Pink Floyd famous? I swear there's a name for it. I know it's not called album.

 

[9pintube]

Quote:

Originally Posted by crapback /img/forum/go_quote.gif Hmmm. Let's see. Wasn't there some form of media out there that plays single tracks and helped make Pink Floyd famous? I swear there's a name for it. I know it's not called album.

Crapback don't you mean "FM RADIO" Wasn't "Dark Side of the Moon" the #1 album/song for over ten yrs?

 

[Ham Sandwich]

Quote:

Originally Posted by crapback /img/forum/go_quote.gif Hmmm. Let's see. Wasn't there some form of media out there that plays single tracks and helped make Pink Floyd famous? I swear there's a name for it. I know it's not called album.

Yes. The 45 single.

Here's a listing of their US and UK singles releases.

They can make those same singles selections available as individual downloads if they want. That's fine. Singles like that is (or can be) different than just taking the same song directly from the album. As a dedicated single the artist gets to choose the songs available and they get to chose to do possibly a different version of the song than what's on the album. A different intro, different mixing, different ending, whatever. The point is they get go choose and make the artistic decisions if that is what they want to do. Some bands want to keep that kind of artistic influence over the albums/songs and some bands don't care. Let the bands that want to be able to. The label shouldn't take that out of the control of the band if the band doesn't want them to. It's the bands music after all.

There is no rule that says a band has to make their recordings available for sale. A band could chose to only do their music live and never sell (or even make available) recorded versions. Would be frustrating for people like us who like to listen to recorded music. But that doesn't mean a band couldn't decide to do things that way. Let the band sell what they want the way they want.

 

[Stairsy]

I have to side with Pink Floyd on this one and would like to think that their intentions are artistically pure... having said that, getting the full album price for a piece of work written as an album is also a justified motivation... what would Michaelangelo think of his "Creation of Adam" being sold as a seperate print when it will never be viewed in context? (not trying to speculate as to Michaelangelos opinions but provoking a thought)

I hate to say it but I think the day of the album is limited, I like Ham Sandwich have all my single tracks in a completely seperate directory to my "Music Library" and even when putting music onto a portable player only transfer whole albums, I like to hear an artists music in the context of the album... However I am interested to see how music will develop as artists start creating tracks that are not part of an album at all

 

[rehabitat]

If an artist decides to exercise their right of ownership over their intellectual property then that's fair enough. If anyone disagrees than that's just irrelevant. The cost if an album vs. a song is quite petty, but I bought all the Floyd's albums 20 years ago so my opinion may not mean anything to you. In the modern world people are able to choose whether they want to pay for a product or not.

It's that simple.

 

[Dublo7]

This is good. I'm pretty sure that Radiohead did the same thing.

 

[murrays]

Is there still an entity existing that is known as "Pink Floyd"? Is it just some abstract legal corporation now? Or are the original members still all involved in ownership and control of their works? Have Gilmour and Waters resolved their conflicts now? (sorry, too many questions).

Dublo7,
I think you will find that Radiohead have no control over their back catalog - it is all owned by their old record company. The band were none too happy with the recent repackaging and compilations of old material.

Murray.

 

[Qonmus]

Meh. That's fine I guess.

I generally listen to albums only, but sometimes if I have people over I like to make a playlist that sometimes includes some pink floyd songs, generally brain damage into eclipse, or wish you were here, or whatever. If they're going to throw a fit about iTunes selling their singles, that's their prerogative, but some of y'all need to get real here. Just because you sit down and listen to DSOTM in its entirety every Saturday night doesn't make you more of an aficionado than someone like me who sometimes likes to listen to their favorite parts of the album.

I understand the album as a piece of art, but sometimes people just wanna hear the highlights, and thats fine. I think appreciating good music is a lot more simple than some of us around here make it out to be.

 

[sullysnet]

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheMarchingMule /img/forum/go_quote.gif One nice comment on Digg: I don't think I like Pink Floyd. You see, I bought this song from iTunes, and it just sounds like a bunch of alarm clocks going off...

LMAO!!!!! that is too funny

 

[TheWuss]

i think i'm "pre-mourning" the loss of the album along with you guys.

but, as some consolation, it's nice to think about the glory days of the 45 single.

you know - chuck berry and other artists from the 1950s didn't really delve into long players very much, though they were around. not until circa 1964 (the beatles) were LPs considered "high art".

when you think about the amount of effort a song like good vibrations endured... man... it's no wonder the beach boys never finished SMiLE.

if artists could devote that energy today to a single song, maybe the schlock fest called top 40 would improve??? prob not.

i dunno. maybe they DO devote that much effort. they're just not brian wilson, that's all.

RIP LP (1948-???)

 

[fjrabon]

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheWuss /img/forum/go_quote.gif i think i'm "pre-mourning" the loss of the album along with you guys. but, as some consolation, it's nice to think about the glory days of the 45 single. you know - chuck berry and other artists from the 1950s didn't really delve into long players very much, though they were around. not until circa 1964 (the beatles) were LPs considered "high art". when you think about the amount of effort a song like good vibrations endured... man... it's no wonder the beach boys never finished SMiLE. if artists could devote that energy today to a single song, maybe the schlock fest called top 40 would improve??? prob not. i dunno. maybe they DO devote that much effort. they're just not brian wilson, that's all. RIP LP (1948-???)

My favorites are the artists that can master both formats. Bands like Radiohead, Oasis, The Beatles, etc. Who did just as well with their singles and b-sides as they did with their albums.

 

[Justin Uthadude]

My understanding from listening to BBC was that PF's contract specifically stated no single sales. So, there it is. And yes they are album artists.

As for the album lovers, which I am generally, I have read way too many liner notes where the band states something like this, "we had all these songs left over..." or "we let Slick's wife (or the producer) choose the order of songs" neither of which give credence to the album as art ideal.

Yes, I grew up in the record era where the order of songs was fixed pretty much; cassette too. In fact, I had a very tough time with best of so-and-so, because my brain could already hear the beginning of the 'next' song I expected to hear because I had the album order memorized and You Take My Breath Away didn't follow Tie Your Mother Down for example.

I understand the romantic notion that albums are sacrosanct, but I have a hard time believing John Lennon would say A Day in the Life isn't worth listening to alone, but only if preceded by Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Heart's Club Band.

I will now light myself on fire to save you the effort.

.

 

[francisdemarte]

I'm divided on this one. Sometimes the only way you "discover" a band is by a single, which in turn leads you to the album. What band didn't make their start on a Single?

I guess if your already a household name like The Beatles or Pink Floyd this is less relevant.

 

[TheWuss]

http://www.head-fi.org/forums/images/smilies/popcorn.gif[/img]
.

nah. no need for flaming here.
i sort of agree with you to an extent.

Most records are simply a series of stories, related only in that they are gathered together on a record.

but with others, the story IS the album - a concept record.
and in those cases, we as listeners are selling the work short when we sample only a piece of the story.

 

[Ham Sandwich]

I agree that most modern albums are just collections of songs and greater than the sum of the parts. It's the rare album now that retains the art of the album being more than just the sum of its individual songs.

For those few albums though, I think it is perfectly within the rights and the obligation of the artist to prevent the album being broken up into individual tracks on iTunes or Amazon MP3 if the artist doesn't want the album split up. Just because it's a good thing for Lady Gaga albums doesn't mean it is good for all.