The Floyd Sell Out?

[niallquinn]

Yes, but does it include the masters? I mean if they take a poor tape and separate it, remaster it, like the Beatles did with Now and Then..........remember the bits we heard of Arnold Lyne and Candy and a current bun on the Radio4 Producers programme? Or Nicks collection of masters and live gigs frrom 67 we could be in for some good stuff! a Super Deluxe of Piper on 3 cd's, here take my money now.

[Emdy]

a Super Deluxe of Piper on 3 cd's, here take my money now.

https://www.discogs.com/release/1060...-Gates-Of-Dawn

[madhombre]

Anyone know if this includes the wall or not?

https://variety.com/2024/music/news/...on-1236165925/

Names if vaguely but might be out of ignorance
and more importantly, the live wall footage Roger has been hoarding?

[DaveTheRave]

This news story, which heard on the radio yesterday morning, implies that the Wall is included.

https://www.npr.org/2024/10/03/nx-s1...-music-catalog

[Grilo do Demo]

Ignorant me doesn't understand one thing. Publishing rights not being included means, I assume, that Sony cannot publish anything of what they bought. Which doesn't make any sense at all, so I assume it's an assumption I shouldn't assume.

What did Queen do differently than Pink Floyd? Can someone explain in layman terms?

[NuffM]

Ignorant me doesn't understand one thing. Publishing rights not being included means, I assume, that Sony cannot publish anything of what they bought. Which doesn't make any sense at all, so I assume it's an assumption I shouldn't assume.

This news about Pink Floyd selling their recorded music catalog to Sony Music can be broken down in simpler terms:
Recorded music catalog: This refers to all the music that Pink Floyd has already recorded. By selling this, Sony Music will own the rights to those recordings. So, whenever that music is streamed, sold, or used in movies, Sony gets the money, not Pink Floyd.

Neighboring rights: These are rights related to the performance and broadcast of music. They include royalties paid when a song is played on the radio or in public places. Now, Sony will receive those royalties instead of Pink Floyd.

‘Name and likeness’ rights: This means that Sony will control how Pink Floyd's name, band logo, and likeness (images of the band) can be used for commercial purposes. They could, for instance, license the Pink Floyd name for use in merchandise or advertisements.

Publishing rights: This part is not included in the deal. Publishing rights refer to the ownership of the actual music compositions (lyrics and notes). Pink Floyd, or their current publisher, still owns the rights to their songs as written music. Sony only gets control over the recordings of those songs, not the written works themselves.

So, in short, Sony now owns the rights to sell and distribute Pink Floyd's recorded music, receive performance royalties, and use the band's name and image for commercial purposes—but Pink Floyd or their existing publisher still controls the rights to the actual musical compositions.

Does this mean that Sony can choose whether or not a Pink Floyd song appears in a film now?

Yes, that's correct. Since Sony now owns Pink Floyd's recorded music catalog, they have the power to decide whether or not a specific recording of a Pink Floyd song can be used in a film, TV show, commercial, or other media.

However, if a filmmaker or company wanted to use the composition (the lyrics and melody) of a Pink Floyd song but have it recorded by someone else, they would need to get permission from whoever owns the publishing rights, which are not part of this deal. So for the original recordings, Sony has the control, but for the written music, permission would still be needed from Pink Floyd or their publisher.

Hope this helps.

[daemonspudguy]

Their publisher is (or at least used to be) called Pink Floyd Music Publihers Limited.

[Grilo do Demo]

Helps a LOT, thank you! I understand everything now!

[daemonspudguy]

What I'm wondering is if this means that Pink Floyd's music will now be released by Columbia Records worldwide or if they will continue to be distributed by Parlophone in Europe. I would guess that it's the former but I've seen stranger things happen in the music industry.

[DaveTheRave]

This news about Pink Floyd selling their recorded music catalog to Sony Music can be broken down in simpler terms..,

Very interesting! Sounds like the opposite of the Beatles, where I think it’s easy for someone to record their cover version of a song, but the actual music recordings are controlled by the Paul, Ringo, Yoko and Harrison’s widow.

[voices2010]

Should we think then that the latest vinyl releases by Pink Floyd Records will be the last ones with quality and faithful to the originals of the time? Lately, record labels have not made any effort in their editions and to make them economical they sell poorly printed material and in bad materials.

[NuffM]

Should we think then that the latest vinyl releases by Pink Floyd Records will be the last ones with quality and faithful to the originals of the time? Lately, record labels have not made any effort in their editions and to make them economical they sell poorly printed material and in bad materials.

To be fair... the vinyl releases in the last decade have not been great at all except for Early Years stuff, some Later Years, Animals... I think that's about it. Unless I'm forgetting.

[Emdy]

To be fair... the vinyl releases in the last decade have not been great at all except for Early Years stuff, some Later Years, Animals... I think that's about it. Unless I'm forgetting.

I don’t think any of the Early Years material was pressed on wax apart from the “First Recordings” 7” EP with the ‘65 recordings, aside from the replica singles included in the box. And I recall the first wave of the Animals remix pressings being pretty noisy.

I have a handful of 2016+ pressings from the official catalogue along with some older pressings and a litany of boots and oddities. Aside from one or two minor QC issues with packaging, the quality of the newer offerings hasn’t been anything to scoff at on my end.

[buffalofloyd]

This news about Pink Floyd selling their recorded music catalog to Sony Music can be broken down in simpler terms:
Recorded music catalog: This refers to all the music that Pink Floyd has already recorded. By selling this, Sony Music will own the rights to those recordings. So, whenever that music is streamed, sold, or used in movies, Sony gets the money, not Pink Floyd.

Neighboring rights: These are rights related to the performance and broadcast of music. They include royalties paid when a song is played on the radio or in public places. Now, Sony will receive those royalties instead of Pink Floyd.

‘Name and likeness’ rights: This means that Sony will control how Pink Floyd's name, band logo, and likeness (images of the band) can be used for commercial purposes. They could, for instance, license the Pink Floyd name for use in merchandise or advertisements.

Publishing rights: This part is not included in the deal. Publishing rights refer to the ownership of the actual music compositions (lyrics and notes). Pink Floyd, or their current publisher, still owns the rights to their songs as written music. Sony only gets control over the recordings of those songs, not the written works themselves.

So, in short, Sony now owns the rights to sell and distribute Pink Floyd's recorded music, receive performance royalties, and use the band's name and image for commercial purposes—but Pink Floyd or their existing publisher still controls the rights to the actual musical compositions.

Does this mean that Sony can choose whether or not a Pink Floyd song appears in a film now?

Yes, that's correct. Since Sony now owns Pink Floyd's recorded music catalog, they have the power to decide whether or not a specific recording of a Pink Floyd song can be used in a film, TV show, commercial, or other media.

However, if a filmmaker or company wanted to use the composition (the lyrics and melody) of a Pink Floyd song but have it recorded by someone else, they would need to get permission from whoever owns the publishing rights, which are not part of this deal. So for the original recordings, Sony has the control, but for the written music, permission would still be needed from Pink Floyd or their publisher.

Hope this helps.

Thanks for this explanation. I really have no clue about this stuff and this definitely helps clarify some stuff.

[ILuvHoney]

This news about Pink Floyd selling their recorded music catalog to Sony Music can be broken down in simpler terms:
Recorded music catalog: This refers to all the music that Pink Floyd has already recorded. By selling this, Sony Music will own the rights to those recordings. So, whenever that music is streamed, sold, or used in movies, Sony gets the money, not Pink Floyd.

Neighboring rights: These are rights related to the performance and broadcast of music. They include royalties paid when a song is played on the radio or in public places. Now, Sony will receive those royalties instead of Pink Floyd.

‘Name and likeness’ rights: This means that Sony will control how Pink Floyd's name, band logo, and likeness (images of the band) can be used for commercial purposes. They could, for instance, license the Pink Floyd name for use in merchandise or advertisements.

Publishing rights: This part is not included in the deal. Publishing rights refer to the ownership of the actual music compositions (lyrics and notes). Pink Floyd, or their current publisher, still owns the rights to their songs as written music. Sony only gets control over the recordings of those songs, not the written works themselves.

So, in short, Sony now owns the rights to sell and distribute Pink Floyd's recorded music, receive performance royalties, and use the band's name and image for commercial purposes—but Pink Floyd or their existing publisher still controls the rights to the actual musical compositions.

Does this mean that Sony can choose whether or not a Pink Floyd song appears in a film now?

Yes, that's correct. Since Sony now owns Pink Floyd's recorded music catalog, they have the power to decide whether or not a specific recording of a Pink Floyd song can be used in a film, TV show, commercial, or other media.

However, if a filmmaker or company wanted to use the composition (the lyrics and melody) of a Pink Floyd song but have it recorded by someone else, they would need to get permission from whoever owns the publishing rights, which are not part of this deal. So for the original recordings, Sony has the control, but for the written music, permission would still be needed from Pink Floyd or their publisher.

Hope this helps.

Might sound like a stupid question, but are unreleased recordings included? Such as live recordings? The answer might be obvious but I would like a clear answer to this question.
As The Wall seems to have been included in the deal, does this mean that the 1980-81 concert film might finally get released if Sony sees the economic potential? And if Sony do indeed own the rights to the recordings, Roger can't deny handing over the reels/tapes if Sony demands them handed over for release can he?
I won't get too high hopes of course, but I just want confirmation (or correction) on whether this means that Sony would have the right to release any unreleased output such as live recordings they see fit now too, without the band members having any say.

[keleven]

I would put the odds of a Wall concert film release at nearabouts zero regardless what the contract terms are. The band deemed it too poor in quality to release by 1980s standards, it will not have gotten better with age, and it would not make a blip on Sony's profits from this deal.

I see two ways of figuring out what this deal might mean for unreleased material. The first is to review the actual contract and see what it says about it rather than going by secondhand media accounts - not an option. The next best thing is to wait and see what they do next year for Wish You Were Here. It will be the album's 50th anniversary and the customary occasion for a super deluxe edition anniversary release. Yes, of course we have already had one but that never stops anyone. If they release material we haven't heard before, then that bodes well for the future. If they just put out a blu-ray of a Dolby Atmos version or whatever, then there is less reason to think this deal will yield anything we care about.

[Floydophile]

I am wondering about future remixes.

Would contractual terms allow Sony to commission, for example, Steven Wilson to remix 'Atom Heart Mother' or 'The Return Of The Son Of Nothing' (all parts please!!!) and / or Dr. Alex Paterson (from The Orb) to reconstruct 'Household Objects' or 'The Big Spliff' from all bits and pieces which Pink Floyd recorded for respective projects?

It Would Be So Nice