to prevent EMI from selling tracks off their "Dark Side" album individually, which then of course leads to the inevitable discussion among music nerds: what is a concept album, and which do you think is the best? Should concept albums split up their tracks? Have at it, kiddos.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/201 ... bum_s.html

In my eyes, the answer to your question really depends upon whether or not the individual tracks stand up to listening as individual songs.

But then, the larger question comes down to artistic control versus commerce:
Which right supersedes the other? The rights of EMI to make a return on their investment as they see fit, or the rights of the band to have their art presented as they intended it to be presented?

I have not yet read the linked article, but I would guess that is the crux of the matter, in which case, chalk one up for the artist.
Or, did it come down to more of a contractual thing... how the contract was worded and such?

So, artistic control.

I mean, I get why PF did this (and I happen to love "Dark Side" as a whole, not broken up-- not sure I'd say the same thing about "The Wall"), but the reality, as I perceive it, is that people are already splitting up the tracks and sharing it among friends. And does it mean anything that PF themselves don't play the songs in sequential order during their live shows?

Man, I wonder how many times EMI has recouped their investment on Dark Side...?

LOL @ EMI for trying to screw another band and failing.

It was entirely down to the contract. Pink Floyd, long ago, negotiated for a terms saying that EMI couldn't sell individual songs, and EMI came up with a bullshit argument that the contract didn't apply to digital songs, somehow.

Nice work Floyd.

I'm not really a Pink Floyd fan but I do like their stance on this. I'd take it a bit further and say I think its a bit sad that the album format in general (as opposed to concept albums) has become much less important than the songs themselves. I think good albums with well thought out sequencing are much more than a random collection of songs. Rocks off is a great song but I can't imagine ever putting it on a mix because I just would never want to hear something other than Rip this Joint next.

It could be said that we've come full circle considering early rock and pop format was singles and the artistic statement of an album has seen it's day. Especially when it comes to mass approval of said album. If DSOTM was made today, do you think it would sell 30 million copies. Of course not. I know the much loved and maligned Radiohead have been saying this for a few years now.

nobody should ever listen to The Wall or Tommy all the way through, this is a crime against humanity.

Interesting, but does this cover radio? I mean, for decades "Money" has been a classic rock staple. It seems weird to me that it would be ok in one format, but not the other.

Probably not. As Haq noted, it really is just enforcing the original contract between the parties. I would venture to guess that the agreement allowed for radio play of singles. If they were playing "Money" in the 70s on the radio, then they can still play it today.

I think I've heard every track off of Dark Side presented as a "single" on rock radio at some point.

I know, it just seems weird that they'd agree to one and not the other back then, ya know? I guess they realized radio was a necessary step in promoting your record, but then again isn't selling singles now? Maybe they noticed they got a few pennies more per whole record sold, than singles.

Well just because I heard it played as a single on the radio, doesn't mean I could go down to the Record Bar and buy the 45...it's Album Oriented Rock radio, right...*nervous laugh followed by car crash sound*

I understand their POV, and understand that there "used" to be something called AOR format. Its just I was mulling over the differences of said format and buying an mp3. To me, there isn't any difference other than you can listen to the song over and over. You don't get to pick what comes before and after yr song on the radio. Like I said before, I understand but I'm kinda playing devil's advocate.

Whether Pink Floyd would have wanted singles played on the radio or not is largely irrelevant. Radio was the primary marketing tool in the 70's and no label would have ever signed a contract not allowing radio to play singles. Not selling songs without the band's permission was a much smaller concession in a pre-mp3 world.

Stairway was never released as a single.

They have a bunch of best-of collections with songs from Dark Side, what exactly are they fighting for?

they're one of those bands that i can't stand that i lump in with the doors, grateful dead, etc.

It's really quite simply. They are fighting because EMI broke their contract. Clearly best of collections were within the bounds of the agreement with EMI, selling off individual songs as MP3s wasn't.

Perhaps you are so laid back that you don't mind signing legally binding contracts outlining what a business partner can and can't do with your artistic output only for that business partner to profiteer from brazenly breaking that very same contract - but I'm guessing that to most individuals that would be regarded as a illegal enterprise.

O.k., say you're in Pink Floyd. There are going to be fans out there that'll buy the whole album. There's probably some snot nosed kid out there who thinks "Money" is pretty cool, but they only have a $5 itunes gift card...

Contracts and moral high grounds aside, why would you as a band not want to sell them that one track if that's all they want?

Because they're already kajillionaires and could care less about "the kids".

Because you're interested in making art as you see it, consumers be damned?