Well, I think some of the ones who are still alive are still making music today.
So if they weren’t deep down musicians, why would they still bother doing that if their main purpose was to make money, when they’re already super rich?
That’s because actually they had a calling to be musicians.
Their main purpose of writing and performing these songs was never to make money.
I think most musical bands and producers are motivated by the satisfaction and enjoyment of making music, it’s a great feeling, but commercial success is a key part and motivator for many if not most commercial bands we hear about. Of course there are a huge number of amateur bands and musicians who don’t make music as a living or as their primary income, but do it purely for the enjoyment and satisfaction… and perhaps covering the costs of their gigs and instruments wear and tear.
[quote=“Canaryfan, post:48, topic:36962, full:true”
Nick Mason was bemoaning last year that all his school chums became solicitors, accountants, bank managers etc. & all retired years ago on handsome pensions while he had to keep on working…
[/quote]
Nothing to stop him investing in a private pension, but as all the royalties add up from WYWH and DSOTM , most people would say they are a pretty good pension in their own right
I don’t think so other than the internet. CD, phonograph, records, cassette tape, radio, streaming were all developed for commercial reasons ie to make money.
The internet was developed as a combination of global academic inter networking, and defence reasons should initially the US come under nuclear attack… it then became more commercialised from the 90s with the advent of more capable broadband tech for consumers and of the WWW… which is how most consumers use the internet now, through much social media, streaming and web sites… which have become mostly commercial endeavours. Indeed which is why we had the “ .com “ bubble in the mid to late 90s… before the hype burst in the very early 2000s. Yep very much lived and breathed through that and felt the highs and lows at the time.
Commercialisation from music, tv and film was a dominant driver of many of these technologies… and it’s satisfying to see our first gen streaming tech of the mid 90s that some of us worked so hard to develop for consumers being used ubiquitously in the 2020s… and in some ways some aspects haven’t changed that much….
It’s a joke. People obviously aren’t bored of them. Much of their music is classic and thus enduring.
I don’t dislike them at all and have quite a few of their albums. You’re the first to respond to my little comment so perhaps you’re being oversensitive. If one is confident in one’s choices, who cares what others think?
Possibly
I remember Rod Stewart being interviewed. His motivation for starting a band was not music, money or fame.
He said it was the best way “to pick up birds”.
You should know Ian.
You can never have a big enough pension!
As a former pensions professional and sometime pension adviser I couldn’t agree more
That’s what I remembered & why I made the tongue in cheek comment.
Incidentally, if you haven’t read Nick Mason’s book ‘Inside Out’, from about 2004, I can thoroughly recommend it.
Nick has a very dry sense of humour that is evident throughout the book & I was surprised to find that a lot of PF success wasn’t planned & almost happened by accident. At times the music came a poor second to all four of the bands obsession with five a side football, if I remember correctly!
Oh, to be young again!
I too am somewhat surprised that the back catalogue of ageing artists like the Floyd can be worth hundreds of millions of pounds, although I admit I am pretty clueless about the revenue streams enjoyed by bands whose heyday is long since passed.
Pink Floyd have sold more albums globally than any other group, with the exceptions of The Beatles and Led Zeppelin. In DSOTM they have the second (or third, depending on your source) best-selling album ever, and in The Wall the biggest-selling double album of all time. WYWH has sold about 25 million copies, Animals and TDB way over 10 mill and all of the core catalogue (even AHM) is multi-platinum.
But Sony aren’t just thinking of physical sales or streaming. WhAt they’re really intrested in are the image rights and the rest. The Floyd (like Zep and the Fabs) have never really allowed their music to be on movie sountracks, on various artist compilations, in TV shows or in adverts. This deal opens the door to that, not to mention things like documentaries, merchandise etc. A year’s worth of sync rights, for say, an advertising campaign, can net even an unknown artist and their label between £50,000 and £250,000; imagine what the third biggest band ever and their new label Sony could earn?
If there’s anything left in the archive (who knows?) to mine, they can mine that too. That’s why a lot of fans are excited about this deal, although personally I’ll believe it when I see it.
"You can never have a big enough pension "
My former employers didn’t agree with that
Between building his model railways. And let’s be honest when we were teenagers, being in a band was cool…
For the Pink Floyd fan who has everything…
I do agree with that, HH, but that very clearly applies to ALL commercially successful musicians and bands. To me, it is wretched access, what we pay them to perform for us and provide music for us to buy.
However, DG does seem to be a tad more humble than so many of them. The popularity and power goes to the heads of many of them. Examples … RW, EC, Sir (what a joke) Mick Jagger …
These are just my opinions of course …
It just strikes me as sad that these heritage acts scoop up so much of music buyers’ cash, while young musicians and the more avant garde artists struggle to make a living. It’s like that in all areas of the arts of course, but just how many rereleases does anyone really need? It’s a collector’s dream, but does little for music and musicians generally.
Yes, this.
For me, generous moves like this calm some of the wretched excess that makes me actually despise the industry a little bit.
We pay them to do what they do, so I think of them as sort of contract employees. I always paid my own employees very fairly and well above the median, but there was a limit.
I agree completely. It’s time for them all to retire. There are plenty of good, upcoming bands that probably deserve the limelight.
Especially as streaming pays young, newer and probably struggling artists a pittance - to enhance profits and presumably keep the cost lower so consumers subscribe.