The band, whose albums include "The Dark Side of the Moon" and "The Wall," went to court to challenge EMI's right to "unbundle" their records and sell individual tracks online.H/T The A.V. Club. Where they make this excellent observation:
Judge Andrew Morritt accepted arguments by the group that EMI was bound by a contract forbidding it from selling records other than as complete albums without written consent.
The judge said the purpose of a clause in the contract, drawn up more than a decade ago, was to "preserve the artistic integrity of the albums."
So, yeah, there you go: Listening to "Money" or "Comfortably Numb" sans those songs' original contexts is doing Pink Floyd an aesthetic disservice. Now would Roger Waters please call every classic-rock radio station in the world and tell them that?I've never really understood the urge of some artists to go around and control exactly how their work is enjoyed. Isn't the enjoyment the point? Not to wax nostalgic too much or anything, but I first heard The Wall on classic rock radio, most likely driving around in a friend's car or in a basement somewhere, out of order, out of context. It took me forever to understand why you can't have any pudding if you don't eat your meat. Or what the hell The Wall was anyway. But I dug the music and watched the movie (and have been kind of freaked out by Bob Geldorf ever since, Live Aid and all) and love the whole thing. Did it matter when I was in my best friend's Buick Skyhawk that I didn't know where "Comfortably Numb" fell in the storyline of The Wall? Not at all.
This is one of those artists vs. accessibility things that are so popular these days, I suppose. Does an artist have an absolute right to control their work at all times? Should that get in the way of enjoyment? Should anyone have to listen to ALL of The Dark Side of the Moon because they like "Money?" (Who doesn't like "Money?")