Quote Originally Posted by mlsstl
The book couldn't have been written if they hadn't released the singles. ;-)
Everyone back then released singles, and once again it is to create interest in the album, not for indiviual songs. I am sure a book could have been written on the Beatles singles, Led Zepplin singles, Rolling Stones singles, Queen singles, Cream singles, The Who singles and the beat goes on.



And I didn't say they were around in '48. I was giving historical context that showed the idea of a "concept album" in pop music is not a particularly old idea. And, it has faded from its peak as a vehicle for artists.
Agreed, nobody does concept albums anymore. I personally don't think the training and musical skills needed to put one together are necessarily "in" musicians of today. However, that does not address the reality that some of their albums were "concept" projects, and I do not think it is wrong for them to want to keep their creative concept intact, even 40+ years after it was created.


Agreed, though that wasn't always believed to be the case. BMI was formed in the early 1940s when ASCAP refused to renew broadcasting rights for radio stations. ASCAP was being greedy and dang near killed themselves in the process. They ended up accidentally launching new forms of music to the public at large (blues, gospel, country which formed the foundation of rock 'n roll in the 50s) when BMI was formed to supply music the radio stations could broadcast. By the time ASCAP came around, it was too late and their absolute control of music America heard was over.
I am well aware of musical history, there were quite a few of my family members out there making it.


You are making the assumption that this is only a monetary loss for Pink Floyd. I'm not convinced that's the case. The whole history of music, dating back to the classical musicians, is one of artists and their publishers trying to control the manner in which the public consumes music. There has always been something that came along that screwed up their well-crafted plans and forces them to adapt or lose influence if they think they have the power to resist the changes.
I am making no assumptions, and I don't think it is relevant if the loss was more than monetary. The plain simple fact here is that they want their albums to be heard as a creative whole, and not some parsed out bunch of individual tunes. They conceived their albums as concept albums, and that is how they want them heard. Even if the real reason is they just don't want Apple selling their songs, or they make money on sales of the albums, their reasons are their reasons. Obviously whatever the real reason is , they believe so much in it, that they are willing to leave money on the table.

I've always liked Pink Floyd, but have never been one of the acolytes. (While I have many of their albums, I'm not sure I could tell you the last time I listened to one.)

Guess this will be a situation where we agree to disagree. You think they've got some higher cause involved, and me? Well, I'm just not convinced.
Since neither of us really knows why they are making this move, there is really nothing to agree to disagree with. I don't think convincing you are anyone else is their aim. I prefer to go with the reasons they clearly state, since we do not have enough information for anything else. However, with information we have, they state their music is continous(of which it is), and as such should not be cut apart and sold in bits and pieces. Obviously the judge agreed, and now their albums must be sold as a whole, or sold in pieces with their permission.