Pink Floyd '1965' double 7"

Lucy Leave seems to be the best thing on there and I got that on CD 20 years ago.

 

I can't believe this hasn't been ripped and YouTubed yet.

 

From what I've heard of this material I wouldn't pay a premium just to hear it in better quality. It's just not very good.

 

I think it's a very strong indication, otherwise they wouldn't have included material that was previously uncirculated.

 

In future you should maybe choose a different analogy rather than being so offensive. Not funny or clever.

 

Since these are already waay out of my price range I really hope someone does a needle drop in the near future. This is some holy grail stuff for me.. Andy's quote bodes well for a future Piper deluxe set.. now that's something I would gladly pay $200 for!

 

So what's the point in releasing tracks that have never been bootlegged and you never plan to release properly anyway..

 

As I say before I think this is proof that they do want to release them properly.
The 50 year rule in the UK means that even if you subsequently release the material after 50 years it's still public domain. So this is insurance so that they can give them wider distribution in the future.

 

Copyright extension, as detailed further back in the track.

 

Theoretically, by doing this, it allows the opportunity to keep the copyright of recordings that MIGHT be on some future commercial release (within the next 50 years).

Although how much money would Pink Floyd lose even if say their version of "I'm A King Bee" or "Walk With Me Sydney" fell into the public domain? I can't see this generating huge amounts of $$$ even on some future official Pink Floyd release. But now, by creating a super ultra rare vinyl-only release, it seems that the band is inadvertently creating a situation where swindlers are taking the opportunity of charging hundreds of dollars for a $20 double 7" vinyl set. If they would have just printed say 10,000-20,000 copies, this would likely have satisfied the vast majority of Pink Floyd collectors. But now it has been made into a super-rarity, allowing astronomical prices to be charged.

 

But when? I can't imagine them releasing these even on an expanded Piper

 

Yes, I agree. I can't foresee a time when the band will release yet another deluxe Piper set with these extra 6 songs. And even if they did, it wouldn't make a difference saleswise (I mean, how many people will care in the year 2050 if Pink Floyd finally releases "Walk With Me Sydney"? ----yes, the 7 people still alive who would care will be very happy, but I don't see the marketing purpose).

 

70 years, actually. Copyrights only lasted 50 years up through 1962 releases. That's why Love Me Do fell into copyright, but the Please Please Me album is safe until 2033.

Unless the laws change, songs released right before the 50 year deadline ultimately receive 120 years of copyright. (Up to 50 years from recording date when they remain unreleased, and then 70 years from their release.)

 

Oh. 70 years then. Thank you.

So I definitely will be dead in that case...

 

And if I'm not down there with you by then, I'll be too old to care about it!

 

Just because this release brings the name pink floyd on it doesn't mean it is pleasant to listen to...

 

Yes - it has a lovely opening guitar chord sequence that could belong on Madcap laughs.

 

See, we joke about it. But I'm still trying to figure out the reasoning behind how this is all being handled.

Okay, I get the idea of the whole copyright thing: Use it or lose it. If you haven't released a recording after 50 years, it becomes part of the public domain (if somehow somebody gets into the secret stash of tapes and then releases it on a public domain release, which still has to pay the proper publishing royalties). But it's not like these songs would be selling in the millions or even tens of thousands. At this stage of the game, it is pretty much just for the diehards. Look at Dylan's big 18-CD bootleg set. They made 5000 copies of those. And it seems as if the estimate for the numbers has been correct, with about 4000 being sold so far. It's not like they needed to make 100,000 copies.

And back to Floyd: Why limit this present release it to only 1000, which only annoys the say 5000 or 10,000 diehards of Pink Floyd who would want this release. Instead, as I said before, it creates a black market or an eBay market where this release is going for hundreds of dollars. AND the reason is so that by limiting it now and preserving the copyright status (meaning it will NOT fall into the public domain for another 70 years), then it will enhance sales at some future date for some future release? That sounds strange to me, because I don't think the inclusion of say "Walk With Me Sydney" on some future release will matter in the least. Whatever diehards are still alive and collecting in the year 2050 will get the next Piper deluxe set (or whatever) regardless of the copyright/public domain status of the songs. And I don't see some grey-market Public Domain release that features "Walk With Me Sydney" as being able to sell in any big amounts. So maybe Pink Floyd or their record company are losing a few pennies in this scenario, but it doesn't seem like a real strategy. And if the songs suck so bad that you don't want to ever release them, then keep them in the vault and no one will ever get to hear them. End of story in that case.

I should point out that if the rare songs are like a Holy Grail item and if the band/record company think that a future release could generate hundreds of thousands of dollars (or more), then this all would make sense. You know, like a "Smile" type album. But that is NOT the case here.

On a personal note: I'm not a huge Pink Floyd collector. But if I saw this vinyl release of 6 rare early songs for $20, I'd probably get it ---and it looks very nice too and I like historical releases like this. I'm not the type to spend hundreds of dollars on it, though, and it seems silly to make the true diehards have such a hard time in getting this product.

 

Is it that the law does not actually force them to hand over the tapes, which I presume they do still own, irrespective of the copyright of their contents. I presume anyone who finds a copy of the recording some other legal way can release it.

 

Yes, if a song say snuck out on a bootleg, or even if someone stole or made a copy of the tapes, and if the company/band never released it legally after 50 years, then the recording falls into the PUBLIC DOMAIN and any grey-market company can release it (although they still have to pay the proper publishing royalties for the song).

BUT if a recording had never been bootlegged, and has remained in the vault unheard, then it can stay in the vault. The company CANNOT be forced to let anyone in to get it for a Public Domain release. It still is the property of the company. They would only lose the exclusive copyright of that particular recording. But if they would never release it, then it doesn't really matter. (And as I've argued, the monetary value is miniscule for recordings like "Walk With Me Sydney", which would not generate much $$$ anyhow).

 

So it cannot be said that the record companies use the law in such a way that they do not have to licence it to anyone. Simply, this aspect is not something the law even covers.

I believe that, in the world of archival film, if some footage falls out of copyright, a company can find/buy a print and they can then sell/licence that as stock footage. If I find a print I can use it without paying anyone. But I'm not clear whether anyone can check whether or not I have copied the first company's print in the first place. So then it becomes about ownership of copies of the original.

 

^^^Yes, the licensing part of the publishing is unrelated to the copyright extension law.

And it seems as if the Beatles' lawyers are taking a different approach, where they believe that they have the legal right to prevent the licensing (even if a recording has entered the public domain and is available for use via a previous bootleg, for example).

But why do the Beatles' lawyers think this way, while Pink Floyd, Dylan, and others do not? Because they have the money to burn and they can afford to keep these legal challenges locked up in the courts for years? Or have they really found a loophole that allows them to do as they are doing? I don't know. It gets very confusing though ...

 

Interesting hearing the 4 snippets of new songs. Surprised to see the fairly negative reaction here, sure they are the juvenelia of a zygotic band but it's very very interesting to hear what have only been titles in reference books come to life.

Also surprised (though I guess I shouldn't be) about how pure R n B sounding these songs are.

I mean, would anyone have identified 'Double O Bo' as Pink Floyd in a blindfold test?
Sounds like really generic R and B of the time, with Barrett (if that is him) unrecognizable on vocals.

'Remember Me' is pure garage rock! Could fit straight on Nuggets! (who is singing? If it's Barrett, again it sounds nothing like him.)

'Walk with me Sydney' .. written by Roger Waters, seems like a kind of jokey character piece for the live show, a bit like 'The One in The Middle' by Manfred Mann. Is that a female voice on the refrain? Juliette Gale from the Screaming Abdabs maybe? I actually think this is strongest melody-wise tune on here, nothing to do with the later Pink Floyd sound at all though and I can imagine many thinking it ultra corny.

'Butterfly' - this song was often seen talked up in Barrett biographies; I always imagined at as more of an acoustic whimsical song, in fact it is an R and B sleazer, although unlike the 3 previously mentioned songs it does have a lot of Barrett flavour in the melody and delviery, with the vocals sounding very recognisable - it's not too far removed from 'Candy and a Current Bun' in its slightly surreal lasciviousness.

 

Good observation. It reminds me slightly of 'Spazz' by the Elastik Band.

 

I really don't get the Floyd organization. I understand that to Dave he has no more interest in Floyd and that money is not important however his attitude is just a slap to fans. I don't think it's Roger that is holding up the release of this material.

It's apparent that interest in Pink Floyd crosses generations, there is a wealth of vinyl bootleg reissues of their albums flying around, yet they refuse to do a proper vinyl reissue campaign.

Their last planned single is still being held hostage.

I'd love to hear this release but paying such an inflated price for a current release just doesn't set well with me, especially since they can turn around at any time and do a general release.

Hey Dave, if it was good enough for the Beatles it good enough for you, and your new music is just not that interesting.