Today a judge ruled that emi cannot sell digital versions of individual floyd songs. Does this mean that EMI is/has been an illegal file-sharer? Will the BPI be beating their door down tomorrow morning? Probably not who wants to bite the hand that feeds - especially when it's a big hand that's taking no notice of the ruling....
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/8561963.stm
Pink Floyd versus EMI
-
max_tranmere
- Posts: 4734
- Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am
Re: Pink Floyd versus EMI
I heard that 'Pink Floyd' won the Court case, and this could set a precident but few people have the money to, or the guts to, sue a huge record label. 'Pink Floyd' did and they won today.
I wonder who 'Pink Floyd', as described in the Court papers this week, actually are. Some posiibilities:
1. David Gilmour and Polly Samson (Samson is Gilmour's wife who jointly wrote most of the last Floyd album)
2. David Gilmour and Bob Ezrin (Ezrin co-write a lot of the later-day Pink Floyd material and was as involved as Gilmour in coming up with ideas for the music. He is also the producer of the later stuff)
3. David Gilmour, Nick Mason, the Estate of the late Rick Wright, and Roger Waters (even though Waters left in 1985 he has sued Gilmour many times and receives a load of the money from their record sales to this day. He also earned millions from the enourmous 'Pink Floyd tours' that Gilmour, Mason, and Wright did in 1988/89 and in 1994, even though Waters wasn't on the tour).
4. David Gilmour alone (as Nick Mason admitted to only having had 'minimal involvement' in the 'Momentary Lapse of Reason' album in 1987, their second to last album - most of the drum parts were played by session players - the 'band' was basically Gilmour and some backers. But Rick Wright, who was sacked from the band by Roger Waters in 1983 was back on keyboards but was never credited as a full band member - it was even rumoured that David Gilmour wrote and signed Wright's salary cheques from then on).
I wonder who 'Pink Floyd' actually is now. I would go with option 4.
I wonder who 'Pink Floyd', as described in the Court papers this week, actually are. Some posiibilities:
1. David Gilmour and Polly Samson (Samson is Gilmour's wife who jointly wrote most of the last Floyd album)
2. David Gilmour and Bob Ezrin (Ezrin co-write a lot of the later-day Pink Floyd material and was as involved as Gilmour in coming up with ideas for the music. He is also the producer of the later stuff)
3. David Gilmour, Nick Mason, the Estate of the late Rick Wright, and Roger Waters (even though Waters left in 1985 he has sued Gilmour many times and receives a load of the money from their record sales to this day. He also earned millions from the enourmous 'Pink Floyd tours' that Gilmour, Mason, and Wright did in 1988/89 and in 1994, even though Waters wasn't on the tour).
4. David Gilmour alone (as Nick Mason admitted to only having had 'minimal involvement' in the 'Momentary Lapse of Reason' album in 1987, their second to last album - most of the drum parts were played by session players - the 'band' was basically Gilmour and some backers. But Rick Wright, who was sacked from the band by Roger Waters in 1983 was back on keyboards but was never credited as a full band member - it was even rumoured that David Gilmour wrote and signed Wright's salary cheques from then on).
I wonder who 'Pink Floyd' actually is now. I would go with option 4.
Re: Pink Floyd versus EMI
It would have to be whoever signed the contract to which the judge referred.
Re: Pink Floyd versus EMI
Option 4 for me as well.
My hatred of Pink Floyd holds no bounds, but the iconic image I will always have is the line up at Live 8 when Rogers looked happy to do the group bow at the end and Gilmours face contorted with anger as he genuinelly hates Waters
My hatred of Pink Floyd holds no bounds, but the iconic image I will always have is the line up at Live 8 when Rogers looked happy to do the group bow at the end and Gilmours face contorted with anger as he genuinelly hates Waters
-
max_tranmere
- Posts: 4734
- Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am
Re: Pink Floyd versus EMI
He's a funny guy Roger Waters. He is incredibly talented and one of the best lyricists ever in my view, but he had a way of ruining the self-esteem of people he no longer liked according to David Gilmour. Gilmour said that when they were recording The Final Cut in 1983 that by the end of the album Nick Mason basically felt he couldnt play drums anymore and largely gave up on music and Rick Wright was worn down to feeling like a nobody aswell, then he was fired by Waters himself.
Apparently, after Waters left in 1985 (although Floyd basically stopped being a band in 1983) Nick Mason was just into racing his expensive fleet of sports cars and was no longer a musican. As I mentioned earlier Mason had little to do with their 1987 album A Momentary Lapse Of Reason, although he and Gilmour do appear in the band photo on the inner album sleeve (just the two of them) and when their huge tour was starting in 1988 Mason more or less had to learn to play drums again. This was all apparently because of Rogers Waters wearing Nick Mason down in the 1983 sessions for The Final Cut. If you listen to that album it is like a Roger Waters solo record. Gilmour doesn't sing one word on it.
When they got back together in 2005 for Live 8 there is a backstage photo of all four together and Roger Waters does not look like he wants to be there, although to his credit he did wave David Gilmour over to him at the end of the final song of the set and put his arm round Gilmour's shoulder. This moved quite a lot of Pink Floyd fans, I remember reading that in many things online afterwards.
Here is the photo of them backstage before their appearance at Live 8. I've always interpretted Roger Waters' slightly sarcastic facial expression, and wide-eyed look, as a sign of him saying: "do I really want to be standing here next to these 3 wankers?". (Roger Waters is standing on the far-right, in the blue shirt, for those not familiar with Pink Floyd):
Apparently, after Waters left in 1985 (although Floyd basically stopped being a band in 1983) Nick Mason was just into racing his expensive fleet of sports cars and was no longer a musican. As I mentioned earlier Mason had little to do with their 1987 album A Momentary Lapse Of Reason, although he and Gilmour do appear in the band photo on the inner album sleeve (just the two of them) and when their huge tour was starting in 1988 Mason more or less had to learn to play drums again. This was all apparently because of Rogers Waters wearing Nick Mason down in the 1983 sessions for The Final Cut. If you listen to that album it is like a Roger Waters solo record. Gilmour doesn't sing one word on it.
When they got back together in 2005 for Live 8 there is a backstage photo of all four together and Roger Waters does not look like he wants to be there, although to his credit he did wave David Gilmour over to him at the end of the final song of the set and put his arm round Gilmour's shoulder. This moved quite a lot of Pink Floyd fans, I remember reading that in many things online afterwards.
Here is the photo of them backstage before their appearance at Live 8. I've always interpretted Roger Waters' slightly sarcastic facial expression, and wide-eyed look, as a sign of him saying: "do I really want to be standing here next to these 3 wankers?". (Roger Waters is standing on the far-right, in the blue shirt, for those not familiar with Pink Floyd):
Re: Pink Floyd versus EMI
>I wonder who 'Pink Floyd' actually is now. I would go with option 4.
Sadly this sort of question is where it all gets nasty.
There is the question who is LEGALLY Pink Floyd, and who is MORALLY Pink Floyd.
When bands first start they are all mates and just play for the "fun" of it (they are MORALLY a group).
Then it all gets legal and they have to start signing contracts (then it becomes LEGALLY a group).
Then members are fired, others hired, original members rehired and so on.
My guess is the main four members (not Barrett) are all LEGALLY Pink Floyd.
I guess albums like Dark Side of the Moon, which featured the four main "members", would be under this ruling about selling individual songs.
I find it all rather sad when groups get like this.
All sorts of group members (Beach Boys, Pink Floyd, Procol Harum etc) have sued each other many years later about who wrote a song, or who wrote the lyrics, who wrote the tune, who arranged it and so on.
A few months ago the lady who did the vocals (Clare Torry) on Great Gig in the Sky (and got paid about ?50 at the time) has now sued for equal writing credits on the song and now gets half royalties and is credited on the album as part writer.
It all gets like a nasty divorce and is very sad.
Sadly this sort of question is where it all gets nasty.
There is the question who is LEGALLY Pink Floyd, and who is MORALLY Pink Floyd.
When bands first start they are all mates and just play for the "fun" of it (they are MORALLY a group).
Then it all gets legal and they have to start signing contracts (then it becomes LEGALLY a group).
Then members are fired, others hired, original members rehired and so on.
My guess is the main four members (not Barrett) are all LEGALLY Pink Floyd.
I guess albums like Dark Side of the Moon, which featured the four main "members", would be under this ruling about selling individual songs.
I find it all rather sad when groups get like this.
All sorts of group members (Beach Boys, Pink Floyd, Procol Harum etc) have sued each other many years later about who wrote a song, or who wrote the lyrics, who wrote the tune, who arranged it and so on.
A few months ago the lady who did the vocals (Clare Torry) on Great Gig in the Sky (and got paid about ?50 at the time) has now sued for equal writing credits on the song and now gets half royalties and is credited on the album as part writer.
It all gets like a nasty divorce and is very sad.
Re: Pink Floyd versus EMI
>He's a funny guy Roger Waters.
The Sky Arts 1 channel shows lots of Rock Documentaries (many of them not new it must be said) and recently showed a Classic Albums programs about Dark Side of the Moon, and also a Pink Floyd biography.
It was obvious that most of the band members thought Dark Side of the Moon was the Pink Floyd album where they all contributed to it in equal measure and had a say in its creation, although mostly Waters lyrics.
There was a lovely bit where Richard Wright said he heard one "chord" on the Kind of Blue album by Miles Davis that he loved and used it as a basis for one of the songs on DSOTM.
It made me realise that each band member gave their bit to DSOTM which is why it worked and was such a great album.
But the other documentary made you realise that Waters ego took over the band and Animals and The Wall were mainly his work and he seemed to play down the contributions of the other members (and both albums have a nasty "edge" to them I dont like).
Both Nick Mason and Richard Wright said Waters had tried to force them out the band and Wright was particulalry upset about it. You could see there was no love lost between Wright and Waters.
When one member tries to force out one half of a band you have to wonder who the "band" are. Waters would have probably loved to have forced Gilmore out as well and he could have been left owning the Pink Floyd band name, and toured for ever playing Animals and The Wall.
As I said above, it is all rather sad when "friends" come to this.
The Sky Arts 1 channel shows lots of Rock Documentaries (many of them not new it must be said) and recently showed a Classic Albums programs about Dark Side of the Moon, and also a Pink Floyd biography.
It was obvious that most of the band members thought Dark Side of the Moon was the Pink Floyd album where they all contributed to it in equal measure and had a say in its creation, although mostly Waters lyrics.
There was a lovely bit where Richard Wright said he heard one "chord" on the Kind of Blue album by Miles Davis that he loved and used it as a basis for one of the songs on DSOTM.
It made me realise that each band member gave their bit to DSOTM which is why it worked and was such a great album.
But the other documentary made you realise that Waters ego took over the band and Animals and The Wall were mainly his work and he seemed to play down the contributions of the other members (and both albums have a nasty "edge" to them I dont like).
Both Nick Mason and Richard Wright said Waters had tried to force them out the band and Wright was particulalry upset about it. You could see there was no love lost between Wright and Waters.
When one member tries to force out one half of a band you have to wonder who the "band" are. Waters would have probably loved to have forced Gilmore out as well and he could have been left owning the Pink Floyd band name, and toured for ever playing Animals and The Wall.
As I said above, it is all rather sad when "friends" come to this.
Re: Pink Floyd versus EMI
In your list I'd go for 3, definitely.
Waters got paid (and gets paid) millions in royalties because they are largely his songs and the albums they did after he left were largely irrelevant.
Waters got paid (and gets paid) millions in royalties because they are largely his songs and the albums they did after he left were largely irrelevant.
Re: Pink Floyd versus EMI
The Pink Floyd I knew and saw many times was started by Syd Barrett.
David Gilmour arrived as a make weight when Syd started slipping into mental health problems and is now somehow Mr Pink Floyd.
My interest in them declined with every post Barrett album they released and thought they had become pretty irrelevant by their 80's popularity peak.
However saw David Gilmour doing a guest spot with Jeff Beck last year and would love to see him in a more traditional group setting.
David Gilmour arrived as a make weight when Syd started slipping into mental health problems and is now somehow Mr Pink Floyd.
My interest in them declined with every post Barrett album they released and thought they had become pretty irrelevant by their 80's popularity peak.
However saw David Gilmour doing a guest spot with Jeff Beck last year and would love to see him in a more traditional group setting.