THE DIVISION BELL

Almost a ditto of my opinion of Momentary Lapse. We have the very unfortunate attempt to resurrect past glories without quality material, musical vision, or even decent lyrics. The Division Bell is just a tad more rounded than Momentary Lapse but that's hardly enough to recommend it. Listening to these two albums and what I recall about Waters solo work, it becomes obvious that the two need each other to succeed musically. Conflict in a band is not something to run from right away. Certainly it can become too much eventually, but great work comes from personal conflict. Roger and David will always be better together than they ever will apart. Division Bell proves David can still sing and play guitar but he is lost in boring songs with little to say. While I haven't heard Roger's recent work I would assume he too has had trouble succeeding without the talents of Gilmour.

The most interesting moments on Division Bell are still but a shadow of something like Dark Side or Animals. I think this piece by Tom Graves sums up my feelings pretty well: "Gilmour, who has become Pink Floyd's de facto leader, in particular seems bored or dispirited. His guitar solos were once the band's centerpieces, as articulate, melodic and well-defined as any in rock. No longer. He now has settled into rambling, indistinct asides that are as forgettable as they used to be indelible. Only on "What Do You Want From Me" does Gilmour sound like he cares. Another problem with the album is its length. At more than an hour, it is too long and quickly exhausts its few fresh ideas. The band seems to be padding at every opportunity. Consequently, The Division Bell will satisfy only the most ravenous Pink Floyd fan."

There is no reason for progressive music fans to own the two Gilmour solo albums passed off as PF unless one desires the complete catalogue.