Pink Floyd write editiorial in USA Today on internet radio

[NogbadTheBad]

Not new news but interesting to see them go this route in going after Pandora internet radio.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinio...olumn/2447445/

[Scott Bails]

Just cool to see those three names together.


But didn't they just enter a deal with Spotify?

[Father Tiresias]

Just cool to see those three names together.

.

[GuitarGeek]

I kinda like how USA Today actually explains who Pink Floyd are, at the bottom of the piece. If it had been, I'd have said "They're members of Pink Floyd, and if you don't know who Pink Floyd is, what fucking rock have you been living under for the last 45 years?!"

[Banquo]

I kinda like how USA Today actually explains who Pink Floyd are, at the bottom of the piece. If it had been, I'd have said "They're members of Pink Floyd, and if you don't know who Pink Floyd is, what fucking rock have you been living under for the last 45 years?!"

Man, there are plenty of people who don't give a shit about pop culture, just as there are those who think about nothing else but pop culture.

[PotatoSolution]

My parents still think Pink Floyd is the name of a guy, not a whole band.

I'm guessing a significant portion of people reading USA Today think the same thing.

[ronmac]

My parents still think Pink Floyd is the name of a guy, not a whole band.

I'm guessing a significant portion of people reading USA Today think the same thing.

And, they're right:

[SteveSly]

I kinda like how USA Today actually explains who Pink Floyd are, at the bottom of the piece. If it had been, I'd have said "They're members of Pink Floyd, and if you don't know who Pink Floyd is, what fucking rock have you been living under for the last 45 years?!"

Pink Floyd have not been together for 17 years now. I have younger people who work for me, are into music, but look at Pink Floyd as ancient history. Most of them have heard the name, but don’t necessarily know their stuff or what they were all about. For many of these kids downloading is all they have ever known.

Steve Sly

[GuitarGeek]

Man, there are plenty of people who don't give a shit about pop culture, just as there are those who think about nothing else but pop culture.

Yeah, I call those people my dad. But even still, how can you not at all know who Pink Floyd is?! I mean, at the very least anyone who surfing the web should know they're the band did The Wall and Dark Side Of The Moon. I'm not expecting "the average person" to know about Atom Heart Mother or Point Me At The Sky. But The Wall and Dark Side Of The Moon are beyond mere "pop culture". I mean, not knowing about those two albums is like not knowing who Elvis Presley or Frank Sinatra is.

[GuitarGeek]

My parents still think Pink Floyd is the name of a guy, not a whole band.

I'm guessing a significant portion of people reading USA Today think the same thing.

Yeah, that would be the same portion who think Jethro Tull is a solo artist, and that the Woodstock Festival actually took place in Woodstock, NY.

[polmico]

I mean, not knowing about those two albums is like not knowing who Elvis Presley or Frank Sinatra is.

My students this past year thought my DSOTM poster was some kind of Illuminati code.

[Banquo]

Yeah, I call those people my dad. But even still, how can you not at all know who Pink Floyd is?! I mean, at the very least anyone who surfing the web should know they're the band did The Wall and Dark Side Of The Moon. I'm not expecting "the average person" to know about Atom Heart Mother or Point Me At The Sky. But The Wall and Dark Side Of The Moon are beyond mere "pop culture". I mean, not knowing about those two albums is like not knowing who Elvis Presley or Frank Sinatra is.

Dude, you need to come out of that basement once in a while. There are adults with kids in middle school who don't even remember U2 or REM.

[moecurlythanu]

Most of the young people I've met online think that the world began when they were born. They can tell you almost nothing about the past. They're not exactly experts on the present either, beyond the superficial.

[Jerjo]

On the other hand, if you go into any t-shirt or cap place in a mall, you will always see a handful of geezer bands among all other crap: Floyd, Beatles, Zep, Sabbath, and the Doors. Some things endure.

[GuitarGeek]

Dude, you need to come out of that basement once in a while. There are adults with kids in middle school who don't even remember U2 or REM.

Yeah, but I wouldn't put REM and U2 in the same league as Pink Floyd.

[Banquo]

Yeah, but I wouldn't put REM and U2 in the same league as Pink Floyd.

Well, of course not. More people know about U2 and REM than Pink Floyd.

[NotTheMama]

I'm delighted to see the surviving Floyd guys trying to help musicians get paid for their recordings, but I really think that toothpaste is out of the tube. The days of making money from your recordings are pretty much over. The irony is that when talented people no longer have any hope of making money from music they'll do something else. Then the music starts to suck and nobody wants to hear it, leaving Pandora SOL--or at least stuck with nothing but back catalogue.

[Tangram]

My students this past year thought my DSOTM poster was some kind of Illuminati code.

They do need an education, they do need some thought control !!

[MYSTERIOUS TRAVELLER]

Well, of course not. More people know about U2 and REM than Pink Floyd.

actually, though you're being facetious, I would say that U2's legendary status *is* approaching Pink Floyd's (not among progsnobs* of course) whereas REM is a bit more marginal in the broader world.

*progsnobs: people who always react negatively when seeing this word. Not to be confused with 'Prog fans' who generally are more open minded regarding the subject of music.

[alanterrill]

Most of the young people I've met online think that the world began when they were born. They can tell you almost nothing about the past. They're not exactly experts on the present either, beyond the superficial.

Don't be too harsh on them and try to remember what you were like as a teenager. I was born in 1954 - my Dad had the radio on all day so I was familiar with a wide range of standards, showtunes, traditional dance music etc but music that really meant something to me only began with the Beatles, psychedelia etc around 1966 with the first album I bought being 'Piper at the gates'. I don't have any interest in pre 1965 music - I have never seen anything great about pop, jazz or classical music from the 40's and 50's , so I don't see why we should expect those born in the 80's to have any interest in music from the 70's, although many do - I am surprised that a few of my work colleagues aged 30 get very excited about going to see the Rolling Stones or Bruce Springsteen. These people seem old and boring even to me, and at 30 I wouldn't have dreamt of going to see say Shirley Bassey or Harry Seacombe who would have been my Dad's favourites at the time. there's plenty of new music still being made that I get excited about at my age and I don't want to be looking backwards all the time. I'd rather support artists who are still out and working and need my support to keep going.

[Poisoned Youth]

The days of making money from your recordings are pretty much over. The irony is that when talented people no longer have any hope of making money from music they'll do something else. Then the music starts to suck and nobody wants to hear it, leaving Pandora SOL--or at least stuck with nothing but back catalogue.

This has been an argument some have made for a while now, but the evidence to date is that the internet and the open dissemination of information has made music more abundant than it ever was. If anything, it's this abundance of choices that will contribute more to the "lack of financial opportunity" for current artists than anything else.

And recording technology has made it possible for young, talented artists - who still may never get noticed - an opportunity to at least record and release their music online.

So the music isn't going away anytime soon, and record labels will still profit from those they see as marketable going forward.

[JKL2000]

That letter's pretty cool. (Are they saying terrestrial radio doesn't pay royalties for the music they play?)

It's really irritating the way these companies are still fighting so hard to make money by making people pay for content on the internet. I cetrainly think creators should be paid for their work, but ever since the Internet boom really got underway I was skeptical that people were really going to go for paying for online content. There's just something about the idea that seems wrong. I really never felt like I would pay for content online, be it music, news, porn, etc. There's plenty of free content, and I can get by without the internet if I need to anyway. I want all these companies that think people are going to pay for internet content to just go belly up already.

Go, Pink Floyd!

[NotTheMama]

This has been an argument some have made for a while now, but the evidence to date is that the internet and the open dissemination of information has made music more abundant than it ever was. If anything, it's this abundance of choices that will contribute more to the "lack of financial opportunity" for current artists than anything else.

And recording technology has made it possible for young, talented artists - who still may never get noticed - an opportunity to at least record and release their music online.

So the music isn't going away anytime soon, and record labels will still profit from those they see as marketable going forward.

You're a little confused. Having lots of music available online, which is perfectly true, and being able to make a living from it are two different considerations. The argument is not that music is going away, it's that people won't pay for music anymore. Profit needs to be found elsewhere and a lot of artists rely on performance revenue, and a distant second is publishing revenue from licensing. I don't think anybody really disputes any of this--anybody in a position know, anyway.

[SteveSly]

Don't be too harsh on them and try to remember what you were like as a teenager. I was born in 1954 - my Dad had the radio on all day so I was familiar with a wide range of standards, showtunes, traditional dance music etc but music that really meant something to me only began with the Beatles, psychedelia etc around 1966 with the first album I bought being 'Piper at the gates'. I don't have any interest in pre 1965 music - I have never seen anything great about pop, jazz or classical music from the 40's and 50's , so I don't see why we should expect those born in the 80's to have any interest in music from the 70's, although many do - I am surprised that a few of my work colleagues aged 30 get very excited about going to see the Rolling Stones or Bruce Springsteen. These people seem old and boring even to me, and at 30 I wouldn't have dreamt of going to see say Shirley Bassey or Harry Seacombe who would have been my Dad's favourites at the time. there's plenty of new music still being made that I get excited about at my age and I don't want to be looking backwards all the time. I'd rather support artists who are still out and working and need my support to keep going.

Very good points. I was born in 1961 and to be honest I own very little music prior to that year. I have a few blues recordings from the 50's, but that's about it. Almost my entire collection is from the 60's onwards. I too think it is pretty amazing today that at least some young people are into bands way before their time.

Steve Sly

[jkelman]

I kinda like how USA Today actually explains who Pink Floyd are, at the bottom of the piece. If it had been, I'd have said "They're members of Pink Floyd, and if you don't know who Pink Floyd is, what fucking rock have you been living under for the last 45 years?!"

I assure you there are plenty of 15 year-old (heck, even 20) who have never heard of Pink Floyd.