Progarchives.com has always (since 2002) relied on banners ads to cover web hosting fees and all. Please consider supporting us by giving monthly PayPal donations and help keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.
Joined: January 04 2007
Location: Grok City
Status: Offline
Points: 16432
Posted: April 14 2012 at 11:52
zravkapt wrote:
Every member of the band hates those albums, just as Fripp for the longest time hated Lizard and Can's Holger Czukay never thought much of Future Days. I personally don't care what artists think of their work, only if I enjoy it.
In a series of emails with Holger, he also did not like his first 2 solo albums, which are a lot of fun to listen to. but probably way too challenging for the "progressive" listener, because these albums are totally nuts and crazy, and makes you wonder what he is smoking!
But they are a lot of fun to trip through them ... and listening to bass on bass on bass with a bass solo on top is quite different, but not in a way that Chris Squire would have done ... just different from a compositional sense, because he is not concerned with his bass skill as much as he is with having fun with it and using the bass in yet another way as if it were a different instrument in the whole score. And it has some magnificent moments in it.
All in all, the only big name folks that I have talked to about their music, the only ones that do not look back at it and dislike it, are the folks in Gong, who have an incredible appreciation and respect for the literary, and artistic process, where others appear to not say so, at least publicly.
I do think that sometimes there is some humor with these words and David is not above pulling a joke on you!
But I don't see the need to explain things I wrote years ago ... that moment was then ... today is a different moment, and yeah ... you and I would do it differently. But I'm not sure that PF would not have gotten the attention they did without Roger screaming and other various bits and pieces they did, which got people in the audience, including this fooooh in September 1972 at the Hollywood Bowl (who had not heard most of this stuff at all!!!!!) to say ... wow ... that was totally far out and impressive! Specially in Quad and the sound was unreal!
But for David to state that all that stuff was foolery, and did not mean much, is kinda crazy ... it was the stuff that helped them define what they went on to do ... so you know that the math is not adding up!
I do accept the comments on the recording ... since he knows about that now, that he did not know then, when he was more concerned with playing than he was in postulating on some gas!
Music is not just for listening ... it is for LIVING ... you got to feel it to know what's it about! Not being told! www.pedrosena.com
Joined: June 18 2009
Location: Mexico
Status: Offline
Points: 12610
Posted: April 14 2012 at 14:10
progresssaurus wrote:
geneyesontle wrote:
"I think Atom Heart Mother was a good thing to have attempted, but I don't really think the attempt comes off that well." - Himself on Atom Heart Mother
interesting
<SPAN dir=ltr =long-title title="Ron Geesin & David Gilmour-Atom Heart Mother LiveAUDIO ONLY London 15/06/2008"></SPAN>
<SPAN dir=ltr =long-title title="Ron Geesin & David Gilmour-Atom Heart Mother LiveAUDIO ONLY London 15/06/2008">Ron Geesin & David Gilmour-Atom Heart Mother London 15/06/2008 </SPAN>
<SPAN dir=ltr id=eow-title =long-title title="Ron Geesin & David Gilmour-Atom Heart Mother LiveAUDIO ONLY London 15/06/2008"></SPAN><SPAN dir=ltr =long-title title="Ron Geesin & David Gilmour-Atom Heart Mother LiveAUDIO ONLY London 15/06/2008"></SPAN>
I remember this concerts were advertised at a Pink Floyd site I visit regularly. They were planned by Ron Geesin, and he asked Gilmour if he would like to guest in the performance. Gilmour had accepted to do the guest spot on both concerts, but then cancelled on one of them, without much of an explanation... he said he just couldn't go to the second show or something like that... I believe Ron Geesin was rather puzzled and displeaced with the change of events (as a matter of fact, he had been backed up with a Pink Floyd tribute band, I think from Italy, so he actually had another guitar player at his disposal anyway). However, I have the feeling that the reason Gilmour declined to play the second show must have been because he didn't really enjoy playing the song (of course, I may be completley wrong with this asumption).
Joined: August 15 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 1305
Posted: April 14 2012 at 16:00
What a coincidence considering he has the worst songs on both those albums (yet he still brings out "Fat Old Sun" at his solo shows even though no one wants to hear it).
Joined: March 12 2005
Location: Neurotica
Status: Offline
Points: 166178
Posted: April 14 2012 at 16:08
While I wouldnt sell me children to buy either disc I do quite enjoy both of them. I'd put AHM on the same level as WYWH (two excellent long songs sandwiching one really good song and two alright to good songs. [Although I never did care for Fat Old Sun]). Ummagumma definitely seemed like an experiment, but a fairly successful one I think. I do kind of wish there was more live material though. (I certainly agree it wasn't recorded that well...not awful but no where near fantastic)
Dig me...But don't...Bury me I'm running still, I shall until, one day, I hope that I'll arrive Warning: Listening to jazz excessively can cause a laxative effect.
I think David should be more humble for the work he created in those years, but hey, if that's how he feels, then we can't help that. Both albums contain many of my favourite Floyd pieces, but as a whole, that's where they suffer a bit. Ummagumma is one of my favourite Floyd albums and AHM is great for Alan's Breakfast and the title track.
Joined: April 19 2009
Location: Kansas
Status: Offline
Points: 21795
Posted: April 15 2012 at 01:46
Harry Hood wrote:
What a coincidence considering he has the worst songs on both those albums (yet he still brings out "Fat Old Sun" at his solo shows even though no one wants to hear it).
I think "Fat Old Sun" is the best of the solo tracks on that record, and that's saying something because I like the whole record.
Joined: March 23 2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 2447
Posted: April 16 2012 at 10:45
The Truth wrote:
Harry Hood wrote:
What a coincidence considering he has the worst songs on both those albums (yet he still brings out "Fat Old Sun" at his solo shows even though no one wants to hear it).
I think "Fat Old Sun" is the best of the solo tracks on that record, and that's saying something because I like the whole record.
I too love Fat Old Sun, I was thrilled that Gilmour decided to resurrect it for the Remember that Night concert. Also love the 15 minute version the Floyd did back in the early 70's.
Though I'd have to say that Summer '69 is the best of side two of that album, Fat Old Sun second.
Glimour does have the best song on the studio album of Ummagumma though, by far.
Joined: October 28 2008
Location: Wales
Status: Offline
Points: 13321
Posted: April 16 2012 at 12:44
I agree with Gilmour's sentiments, ad they are certainly shared by both Waters and Mason, on the record in interviews.
As experimental, or transitional, albums, they were quite "in vogue" at the time of release. I still have a cassette tape of an old BBC concert I taped off the radio, with John Peel introducing Atom Heart Mother live, and gushing about it.
They are both good albums. However, in the context of their later works, they are quite clearly a band trying to find themselves.
BTW - an earlier post re Waters taking over is not historically accurate. Both Meddle & DSOTM were true band efforts in the writing of the music, if not in the lyrical side of things on the latter.
Joined: June 18 2009
Location: Mexico
Status: Offline
Points: 12610
Posted: April 16 2012 at 17:17
infandous wrote:
The Truth wrote:
Harry Hood wrote:
What a coincidence considering he has the worst songs on both those albums (yet he still brings out "Fat Old Sun" at his solo shows even though no one wants to hear it).
I think "Fat Old Sun" is the best of the solo tracks on that record, and that's saying something because I like the whole record.
I too love Fat Old Sun, I was thrilled that Gilmour decided to resurrect it for the Remember that Night concert. Also love the 15 minute version the Floyd did back in the early 70's.Though I'd have to say that Summer '69 is the best of side two of that album, Fat Old Sun second.Glimour does have the best song on the studio album of Ummagumma though, by far.
I also like Fat Old Sun very much. The studio version was very nice, but the live versions were really great (too bad there isn't any official release of that song live in the 70's). Also, the live version of "Remember that Night" and "Live in Gdansk" is very good, though it has a rather different and more polished sound compared to the live versions from the 70's.
Joined: December 23 2009
Location: Emerald City
Status: Offline
Points: 17534
Posted: April 17 2012 at 09:31
I find his comments actually funny......Almost every interview I have read or seen on TV, the band members usually are beating themselves up. They self criticize more than any artist I know, but I always see this smurk on their faces whilst they talk......Like saying "ahhh were just joshing you...".
If he is 100% being truthful, then that is too bad that he did not have a good time doing these records, and maybe back then they did not like them, but I have to think eventually they must have liked them.
If not then I suppose it could be a reason for their dislike of one another and eventual collapse and internal strife. There is a definate line between bands that enjoy each other, like their work usually versus bands that self criticize too much and hate each other.
In this case the albums are just OK to me...but they have a place of importance in rock history.
Joined: April 01 2009
Location: Atlanta
Status: Offline
Points: 26133
Posted: April 17 2012 at 09:48
We sometimes take it for granted that Pink Floyd naturally evolved from the experimental band of the late 60s/early 70s into the classic rock powerhouse of the mid to late 70s. In retrospect, we can see a progression from, say, the epics "Saucerful" to "Atom Heart" to "Echoes" to "Dark Side". But remember that in the early 70s, the Floyd were actually kind of lost, having lost their leader and searching for a new identity. Lots of trial and error, and a gradual coalescence into the style that made them millions. It may seem natural now, but at the time it was probably a painful growth period for the band. Their future success was not a sure thing, and making a living under those conditions is stressful.
I think the music they came up with during this "searching" period was the most fascinating stuff they ever did, but I can totally understand how the creators of that music see it as a series of failures. Failures that were necessary to learn from, in order to eventually arrive where they did, but failures nonetheless.
Edited by HolyMoly - April 17 2012 at 10:17
My other avatar is a Porsche
It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle if it is lightly greased.
Joined: January 04 2007
Location: Grok City
Status: Offline
Points: 16432
Posted: April 17 2012 at 11:00
Hi,
I like Atom Heart Mother, and think that it is a magnificent piece. Yes PF was more exploratory those days, but it would be really hard to say that they did not learn to interpret their material better by having gone through that period, and that is what most bands do not do, or attempt ... because of commercial considerations! Specially these days!
There are some neat notes here, by the way, and some maybe incidental or accidental.
In the bootlegs, there are many versions of this. Some with a choir and some without, and then there is ... THAT one ... where the whole piece is a lullaby. I believe that piece is the one that was done in Paris with Roland Pettit and it was trashed senselessly, since classical folks hated rock music then (so to speak) and hip folks thought classical music was passe and too fat and didn't smoke reefers!
The by-product of this, might have been the cover of Jethro Tull's "A Passion Play" with the dead/hurt ballerina on the cover in a "classical building/stage for music" ... which to me is a statement that the current "classical music is dead" per Ian Anderson, and it has been dying and falling apart more and more sicne then ... to the point where the sales of it these days are almost not even tracked anywhere!
The title is also funny ... look up the definition of "passion play" ... old style of work/play not done anymore!
And the whole album? exactly the same thing all the way through. I actually find all that more interesting than the PF stuff. But all of them trashing what taught them to do what they did ... is sad, bizarre and not appreciative of the young mind and learning ... is worse.
Why is it that we think that all youngsters are not good artists/musicians and that only the accepted mode can be good because it can be defined? I believe that Ian was making that point, right after he said that we were Thick as a Brick!
Music is not just for listening ... it is for LIVING ... you got to feel it to know what's it about! Not being told! www.pedrosena.com
Joined: March 23 2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 2447
Posted: April 18 2012 at 07:48
Catcher10 wrote:
I find his comments actually funny......Almost every interview I have read or seen on TV, the band members usually are beating themselves up. They self criticize more than any artist I know, but I always see this smurk on their faces whilst they talk......Like saying "ahhh were just joshing you...".
If he is 100% being truthful, then that is too bad that he did not have a good time doing these records, and maybe back then they did not like them, but I have to think eventually they must have liked them.
If not then I suppose it could be a reason for their dislike of one another and eventual collapse and internal strife. There is a definate line between bands that enjoy each other, like their work usually versus bands that self criticize too much and hate each other.
In this case the albums are just OK to me...but they have a place of importance in rock history.
I'm pretty sure this is only in retrospect. At the time of creating those albums, they generally seemed happy with them. Though no doubt, much like Genesis, the huge popularity of their latter material made their less popular, more underground stuff, seem less "good" to them later on. I think any artist looking back, is going to see their earlier stuff as somewhat naive and searching. They were young and trying to define themselves as a band and as individual musicians. I discovered the early albums after discovering the later, more popular ones. To this day I much prefer the early experimental stuff, because from Piper through Meddle, every album was so different from the last. After Dark Side, it all sounds the same really. Really, really good, but quite similar in style and approach.
Joined: July 02 2008
Location: Australia
Status: Offline
Points: 14256
Posted: April 18 2012 at 08:34
I agree with Gilmours assessment of ATM as I think its just about their worst earlier album. I cant bare most of it apart from Alans Psychedelic Breakfast perhaps, Its a real mess yet gets high ratings constantly.
Ummagumma has a great live section esp Astronomy Domine. The studio stuff is again a mess but its okay as a curio esp the lengthy titled piece ...... grooving with a pict.
Joined: December 23 2009
Location: Emerald City
Status: Offline
Points: 17534
Posted: April 18 2012 at 09:28
I would never pretend to know what an artist is thinking or trying to say.......I see and read some of these interviews especially on the PF documentaries and such and I take their comments at face value. If David says they did not like it then I believe they did not like it........Which again is sad when back in those days studio time was precious for a band just getting going, they are not making money and I have to think you always want to put your best foot forward as a young band.
I realize they had a special circumstance with regard to Syd Barrett and probably created just a weird vibe from then on out,
Gotta agree with Gilmour's assessment. Much of the material is really self-indulgent and pays little interest in actual songwriting. It's experimental, but alot of it I find unlistenable these days. Perhaps those albums are a micrcosm of the times: I liked them back in the days when I was doing drugs
http://martinwebb.bandcamp.com
The notes are just an interesting way to get from one silence to the next - Mick Gooderick
Joined: January 04 2007
Location: Grok City
Status: Offline
Points: 16432
Posted: April 19 2012 at 15:02
spknoevl wrote:
Gotta agree with Gilmour's assessment. Much of the material is really self-indulgent and pays little interest in actual songwriting. It's experimental, but alot of it I find unlistenable these days. Perhaps those albums are a micrcosm of the times: I liked them back in the days when I was doing drugs
But that's like saying that the majority of progressive stuff is not "self-indulgent" (wouldn't that make for an awesome Keith discussion?) ... and distorts the definition of music even further ... and it makes me feel that there will never be new music anymore, because it can't be self-indulgent, and many of those folks and musicians will have to flick you and I off just to be able to express themselves the way they wanted to do at the time.
David, is looking at yesterday with today's eyes ... and of course things have changed so much since then that he and many others (Neil Young is the exception?) would do it differently ... but then ... I doubt that he would have become the David Gilmour that he is today ... if the time, place and history was changed. The same for Roger and everyone else.
I would think it is obvious that anyone today, would do anything they did then, differently ... the question might be "how" and "what" would they have done different ... but a lot of those answers would likely be trivial in the first place and you still do not have a guarantee that your time and place and future would not have changed ...
I don't consider any of the "progressive" works "indulgent" and never will. I will consider Ozzie and some of the more blatant popular loud bands as self-indulgent.
Music is not just for listening ... it is for LIVING ... you got to feel it to know what's it about! Not being told! www.pedrosena.com
No, I don't believe most prog is self-indulgent at all. The difference between later Floyd is that they began to pay more attention to writing good songs AND being experimental within that framework instead of simply trying to be experimental. Bands like Yes, Genesis, ELP etc became popular because, beneath the long instrumental sections and fanciful lyrics, there were some great songs.
http://martinwebb.bandcamp.com
The notes are just an interesting way to get from one silence to the next - Mick Gooderick
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
This page was generated in 0.418 seconds.
Donate monthly and keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.
/PAlogo_v2.gif "Progarchives.com Homepage")
David Gilmour on early Floyd Albums
Topic Options
zravkapt wrote:
