A What If Pink Floyd Question... - Progressive Rock Music Forum

Author

Message

Topic Search

Topic Options

Blacksword View Drop Down

Prog Reviewer

Joined: June 22 2004
Location: England
Status: Offline
Points: 16130

Posted: March 31 2007 at 06:46

The Whistler wrote:

Blacksword wrote:

Atavachron wrote:

yes, or 'Another Brick.. Pt 2' ahh, but what wonderful shrieking "HOW CAN YOU HAVE ANY PUDDING IF YA DONT EAT YER MEAT?!"

STAND STILL LADDIE!!!!

You know what I hate about that song? Inside the opera, it's a great lil' plot advancer (even if I prefer both the other parts). But OUTSIDE the opera, it's just a "school-sucks" song. It looses all it's weight!

I thought it was, when it came out and I loved it for that reason! I was at school and it did suck!!

The song is highly relevant to the plot IMO, but Floyd were very shrewd, when they chose it to be the single for the album. It was bound to strike a chord with kids who had no idea about the 'plot' of the album. It became an anti school song for a whole generation. Genius!

Ultimately bored by endless ecstasy!

tdbark

Forum Groupie

Joined: November 13 2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 81

Posted: March 31 2007 at 22:35

http://www.rollingstone.com/news/coverstory/the_madness_and_majesty_of_pink_floyd

This makes for a very interesting read.

The following applies directly to this discussion:

Waters and Gilmour had famously shown contempt for each other for a quarter-century -- each felt the other had tried to dishonor his life's work and hinder his future. After Waters started a solo career in 1984, he went on to disparage his former bandmates. Guitarist and singer Gilmour, he said, "doesn't have any ideas," and drummer Mason "can't play" (Waters had long before thrown keyboardist Wright out of the band). Gilmour gave as good as he got. When he took his version of the band on tour, he appropriated Waters' most famous prop, a gigantic pig balloon, and attached testicles to it, which some read as a commentary on how he viewed the band's former bassist. ("So they put balls on my pig," Waters said. "F**k them.")

Despite both triumphs and wounds, the band's members couldn't escape a certain bond -- not just a hatred for one another, but also a realization that without the community they once had, their music could never have mattered.

Waters, having set aside his higher education and any other ambitions, now made Pink Floyd his purpose. "He was the one," Gilmour told Barry Miles, "who had the courage to drive Syd out, because he realized that as long as Syd was in the band, they wouldn't keep it together, the chaos factor was too great. Roger always looked up to Syd and felt very guilty about the fact that he'd blown out his mate." Others, though, credited Gilmour -- now lead singer as well as lead guitarist -- with changing Pink Floyd's direction. In contrast to Barrett, Gilmour favored a more clearly structural and melodic approach. It was both this collaboration and competition between Waters and Gilmour that would largely drive Pink Floyd toward its triumphs, though it would also make for its troubles. In his early days in the band, Gilmour was already reacting to Waters' domineering manner, describing him as "a pushy sort of person."

There is more in the Magazine itself... The online exerpt ends about halfway through the article. I read the entire article this morning and my impressions were that, as Waters took over the band, the musicality of the band suffered as Waters stripped the sound as much as possible, likewise Gilmour fought to keep the band musically interesting. So the comparisons to Lennon and McCartney are very apt. Gilmour is recognized as a great guitarist, musically sound and strong in arranging. Waters writing voice carried the messages and his visual acuity strengthened the band's live performances. Without each other, they could not come close to the greatness they achieved as a "true group/partnership." However, one can make a very strong argument that the Gilmour-led Floyd far out shone the Waters solo efforts.

Edited by tdbark - March 31 2007 at 22:38

Twenty men crossing a bridge into a village,
are twenty men
crossing twenty bridges
into twenty villages.

Wallace Stevens

dedokras

Forum Senior Member

Joined: December 04 2006
Location: Bulgaria
Status: Offline
Points: 635

Posted: April 02 2007 at 04:01

"Have you heard Broken China by Rick Wright? Perhaps along with ATD the two near perfect solo ' floyd' albums."

Absolutely agree with this statement!

"However, one can make a very strong argument that the Gilmour-led Floyd far out shone the Waters solo efforts."

I don't think so, IMO Amused... as well as Broken China were far better than Division and Momentary.

Regarding the possibility of a drier Dark Side, I think it actually was better Waters couldn't do it his way, because now as a result we have 4 different masterpieces in a row instead of 4 Animals albums (although Animals is my all time favourite album).

Floydoid

Forum Senior Member

Joined: April 02 2007
Location: Planet Prog
Status: Offline
Points: 936

Posted: April 02 2007 at 07:26

Finnforest wrote:

I can't let this go on any further. Waters was Pink Floyd. Gilmour admitted as much in the Mason book when he said that Roger was the one who stayed all night, did the writing on the fly, got the job done, while he (Dave) and the others went home nice and early for a hot dinner and foot massage. David is a talented guitarist and vocalist who gave great gifts to the sound, but make no mistake, Roger is the reason that the 70s Floyd albums are great, while the Gilmour "Floyd" albums are nice pop music schlock. There is NO debate here. Ole Rog was the man, while the boys played their parts as rock stars. You take Waters out of the 70s albums and you'd have another 5 or so "Momentary Lapses" on your hands. What a nightmare that would be.

I tend to agree up to a point. The Floyd were a four-way partnership, two 'architects' in Roger & Nick, and two 'artists' in Dave and Rick. I think they were driven by the tensions between them, and the leadership of Roger. The great shame was when Rick was fired during the making of the Wall. Both that album and the Final Cut could have been quite different had Rick still been contributing his talents.

'We're going to need a bigger swear jar.'

darksideof View Drop Down

Forum Senior Member

Joined: February 22 2007
Location: Newark N.J.
Status: Offline
Points: 2318

Posted: April 02 2007 at 23:24

agreeee !!another prove? look at richard wright and dave albums from the 70's then you will know what finnforest is taking about. Pink Floyd would of being a totally disaster withour Roger.

Edited by darksideof - April 02 2007 at 23:27

http://darksideofcollages.blogspot.com/
http://www.metalmusicarchives.com/
https://www.facebook.com/pages/Darksideof-Collages/

Hippie

Forum Newbie

Joined: April 03 2007
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Points: 3

Posted: April 03 2007 at 18:10

The Whistler wrote:

Not a Roger Waters keeps the band OR Syd doesn't go crazy question. No, a question that I've never heard voiced before, and as a result, one which you probably won't find all that interesting and the thread shall sink...I'm really selling this, aren't I?

I read in...some kind of an interview or something that good ole Rog wanted Dark Side to be really dry, whereas Dave wanted it swampy. Dave got his wish, and Roger didn't get to make a "dry-art" album until Animals. Wish was cold, to be sure, but I think that Animals is how Roger wanted Dark Side.

NOW, what if he'd gotten said wish (not Wish). What if Dark Side was dry, like Animals, the next album was dry, all throughout the seventies? I actually sort of prefer the drier albums by Pink Floyd, so I think it would have been good.

Unless, of course, he'd gone off the deep end and made the Final Cut, killing the band, noise, etc. I haven't really heard the album, but I have heard of it (both from others and sound clips), so I'll play that it's not fantastic. But was that the natural direction, or the curse of 80's prog?

Would Roger taking dictatorial control have been better for the band's output? Or would it have killed it sooner? Would Wish even have been created? Should this be a poll? Who's better, Pink Floyd or the Moody Blues? I'm listening...

toolis wrote:

this is where we disagree... it was Roger's vision and only his... concepts such as Animals and The Wall were 99% his.. i'll admit though that PF's sound wouldn't be the same if it hadn't been the rest musicians, they wouldn't have sounded the same but i don't think it would have made that much of a difference...

What a load of ~~clap trap~~ PING! There is NO debate, some of you need slapping with a wet mackrel!

Any real fan knows that Rick Wright was the backbone of the Pink Floyd sound in the 70s.

toolis wrote:

with every respect, i think you are exadurating.. neither Mason nor Wright were brilliant musicians, they just had their own distinct sound that if it hadn't been, PF would sound merely different, not inferior..

You need to go and do your homework! For a start Rick Wright was the only member of Pink Floyd who was classically trained. Look at the array of keyboards he played - Farfisa, Hammond, Leslie, Moog, Fender Rhodes, Hohner, Mellotron synthesizer, Roland, Kurzweil, baby and grand pianos to name but a few! He also played trombone.

Chris Stacey wrote:

Basically any of the great bands worked because of the combination of great personalities. Look at Zeppelin after Bonham died. I understand the importance of RW to the Floyd sound but he would not have succeeded without the brilliance genius of Rick Wright ( sadly underrated), the sophistication and sound of Gilmour, vocally and guitar wise, and the housekeeper and pacifier ( not to mention a unique drummer), Nick Mason.

This is one of the most sensible things that anyone has said in this thread (and particularly the bit I've emboldened).

Edited by Hippie - April 03 2007 at 18:29

You can't hear me, but I can you ...
For I heard you singing through the gloom
singing and singing, a merry air
lean out the window, golden hair