The Division Bell

Personally I find Division Bell and Momentary Lapse of Reason to be really sterile affairs and very laboured in terms of songwriting. They're both padded out with vapid instrumental noodlings which, to me, lack any kind of impetus other than to say 'this is what we sound like so let's be atmospheric'.

I've long felt that Gilmour is a very limited songwriter and continue to believe that. His solo work is marked by a lack of strong compositions. He's a wonderful guitar player and a fine enough singer but he doesn't exactly leap out of the crowd when you say 'amazing writer'.

As usual in these situation there's a sum of the parts thing going on. It's that strange alchemy of disparate elements transmuting chords and notes into gold.  Remove an element and what have you got - for fans of Blackadder I think you get the musical equiavlent of Percy's 'purest green'. Gold it ain't.

The best of Floyd exists in the push and pull between Gilmour and Waters. The Waters vitriol that creates Dogs with the sublime playing that articulates that anger.

Waters is a rotten musician. He'll probably tell you that himself. But he was often a great writer. Gilmour is a superb musician and a gifted arranger but a lousy writer. Sum of the parts.

Post Waters Floyd was a triumph of style over content. Post Floyd Waters was full of fury but sounds insignificant.

While, in recent years I've more and more come to the conclusion that Floyd really only produced four 'great' albums Meddle, DSOTM, WYWH and Animals, I still think the Wall and Final Cut contained aspects of what made Floyd great - a fiery little synergy that made even their most laid back meanderings bite a little.

Everything after that was just an incomplete echo of what went before, a facsimile that in every repeition gets blurred at the edges until it's not recognisable anymore.

To me then, Division Bell simply represents some nice easy listening background music. To quote BB King: the thrill is gone.

 

 

 

Snow Dog wrote: Blacksword wrote: I've always liked it. Its well produced thoughtful rock music. There are no surprises and I think you can tell that its by a band that been around for a long time and that its been a long time since their 'best' work. To be honest I'd rather listern to TDB than 'The final cut', or some earlier efforts like 'Atom Heart Mother' or 'UmmaGumma' We differ in opinion then, I would prefer to listen to any other PF album .

Including 'Momentary Lapse..'? I thought that was slightly better than TDB.

Floyd did lose something signifcant when Waters went, but listerning to the 'Final Cut' it sounds like Roger had lost the plot, and had past his best anyway. All the big prog bands have their heyday and then fall into decline. When you considered what happened to Genesis in the 80's I think Floyd carried on with a lot of dignity, and still produced thoughtful music, and avoided selling out.

As long as you dont consider the agressive Volkswagon sponsorship deal they had for TDB tour, as selling out??!!

Blacksword wrote: I've always liked it. Its well produced thoughtful rock music. There are no surprises and I think you can tell that its by a band that been around for a long time and that its been a long time since their 'best' work. To be honest I'd rather listern to TDB than 'The final cut', or some earlier efforts like 'Atom Heart Mother' or 'UmmaGumma'

We differ in opinion then, I would prefer to listen to any other PF album .

I've always liked it. Its well produced thoughtful rock music.

There are no surprises and I think you can tell that its by a band that been around for a long time and that its been a long time since their 'best' work.

To be honest I'd rather listern to TDB than 'The final cut', or some earlier efforts like 'Atom Heart Mother' or 'UmmaGumma'

Cluster One wrote: Reed Lover wrote: How you can give Division Bell a "5 star masterpiece of progressive rock" rating is beyond me! <>It is a great album,very enjoyable but I think we all agree that it is not strictly a progressive rock album.It is a rock album by a progressive rock group. 4 stars would be fair. I could live with five stars if the guide did not say otherwise: "5 stars=masterpiece of progressive rock" that is what it says and you should stick to that. Yep, I figured I'd catch some sh1t there. But my reasons are purely honourable. No sh*t,just disbelief.  FLOYD are not 100% prog IMHO. They are just a mammoth musical phenomenon that are constantly evolving, and can't really be pigeon-holed. (Psychadelic? Progressive? Space Rock? Experimental? Classic Rock? Operatic? even punkish in Animals? They are all these things, and yet none of them really) However, there are plenty of progressive 'elements' on "The Div Bell". Again, the argument surfaces, 'What is prog?' But the sheer excellence, intelligent concept and musical tour de force that is found on this record more than makes up for any 'is it or is it not prog?' questions. Just because I don't think it the most progressive FLOYD album, doesn't mean others will as well! I feel the record is very 'progressive' conceptually if that makes any sense. People who understand the concept on this album will agree. I'm talking about THE PUBLIUS ENIGMA and the Communication themes found throughout the lyrics and liner notes. Mr Gilmour seems to go to great pains to say that any concept is accidental. But back to the review, if an album is on this site, then it's fair game. I am not the only one who has given this overlooked gem 5 stars. As I said in the review, as the biggest proponent of this album if I don't give it 5 stars...who will? But then, we get massive debate about ratings and ranking.5 stars should be awarded sparingly. You should have given it 4 stars based on your own explanation and the guidelines laid down by the admin group.Otherwise why have the guidlines at all?

Great review. Since you implored me I took the time to read it right through. Unfortunately lately I really don't have as much time as I would like to read and write reviews particularily long ones. I bought the album the day it came out and loved it immediately. Great album to mellow out to after throwing the frisbee around with your insane dogs for an hour in the park. I also like the live versions they did on Pulse. I also agree with you that it was a great swan song for the band and in a way I hope they have packed it in. I'm a Stephen Hawking fan and apparently they dubbed in his voice without his knowledge. I forget the story. I think I'll throw it on the turntable right now.

Edited by Vibrationbaby

i only heard the rotten FM tune"high hopes" and it's enough
for me...

It's a shame

threefates wrote: It sounds progressive to me...

but not the reviewer, who has asked for comments:

The Division Bell" a masterpiece of progressive music? No. Musically it is not really that progressive at all

Cluster's words at the start of the review.

threefates wrote: From an interview with David Gilmour: GF: The title "The Division Bell," the graphics on the album sleeve, and the lyrics seem to address the division between Roger and the rest of Pink Floyd. To any Floyd aficionado, the lyric "On the day the wall came down / The ship of fools had finally run aground" in "A Great Day for Freedom" is patently not about the Berlin Wall, but about that other wall. DG: Oh, is it? GF: The album could easily be interpreted as an allegory about the split with Roger. DG: I don't think that it is. There are a couple of hinted mentions that could or could not have something to do with him. But all that I read from people working out what they think it's about has been either fairly or wildly inaccurate. I enjoy that. I'm quite happy for people to interpret it any way they like. But maybe a note of caution should be sounded because you can read too much into it. "A Great Day for Freedom," for example, has got nothing to do with Roger or his "wall." It just doesn't. What else can I say? GF: In "High Hopes," the lyric suggests that the seeds of division were planted in Floyd's early days. DG: I think it's more about my early days and leaving my hometown behind. There is an enormous amount of stuff about communication or lack of communication on the whole album. But that's accidental. We started finding there were one or two songs like that, and other songs emerged that had it within them. It seemed to take over the album at some point and dominate the thinking. GF: In "What Do You Want from Me," you return to the theme of alienation from your audience that you'd explored in "The Wall." Is that something that you genuinely feel? DG: It didn't start out from there at all. It actually had more to do with personal relationships but drifted into wider territory. No, I don't really feel a great sense of alienation from the audience. I never agreed with Roger on his dramatic treatise in the lyrics of "The Wall," but it was a very good idea. Obviously there's a gulf in some ways because we're up there performing. I've been doing it for a long time, I've become wealthy from it and sort of revered - all the things that create a gulf between you and your audience. Given that, I feel we have great communication with people who come to see us and I enjoy performing for them.

I love the way the interviewer gets it wrong every single time, I mean c'mon, Division Bell came 10 years after the Final Cut,why would he be still writing lyrics directly referring to the split with Waters and themes from earlier albums which were basically Water's own?

 

Cluster:

How you can give Division Bell a "5 star masterpiece of progressive rock" rating is beyond me!
It is a great album,very enjoyable but I think we all agree that it is not strictly a progressive rock album.It is a rock album by a progressive rock group. 4 stars would be fair.
I could live with five stars if the guide did not say otherwise: "5 stars=masterpiece of progressive rock" that is what it says and you should stick to that.

So I just reviewed it also...  But here, I'll add what Dave Gilmour says about it...

 

Musically, this album is Floyd at its best.  “Cluster One”, the solo starting “Coming Back To Life”… “Marooned”, this is the David Gilmour we all love to hear.   I found this album musically to be a breath of fresh air and after a few years without anything new from Floyd… this was heaven.  Having Rick Wright back replaced the missing foundation of the sound and lyrically I got more from this than the angst of “The Wall” or “The Final Cut”.

TDB was for Floyd a return to their original way of working.. as a team instead of a dictatorship.  The concept of TDB is one of coming out of a hard time into a better life. I think the whole world can relate to that.  Its about the 3 of them dealing with marriage breakups, the loss of Roger, the loss of Syd, the great expectations on them from their fans, and their coming back to life as a threesome.

And the reason its genius is because you can weave your way thru Pink Floyd's career just from listening to the lyrics on this album. The depth on this album is so thick, its staggering!  Its actually about them going thru every obstacle that life has thrown at them... and coming out the other side....

Forgetting the past... and coming back to Life...

Having High Hopes... for a brighter future...

Regarding the Communication concept, the making of this album basically started off as a way for them to exercise their demons... give their history... but they realized that the communication thing did show up in many of the songs... so I guess it was on their minds...

 

From an interview with David Gilmour:

GF: The title "The Division Bell," the graphics on the album sleeve, and the lyrics seem to address the division between Roger and the rest of Pink Floyd. To any Floyd aficionado, the lyric "On the day the wall came down / The ship of fools had finally run aground" in "A Great Day for Freedom" is patently not about the Berlin Wall, but about that other wall.

DG: Oh, is it?

GF: The album could easily be interpreted as an allegory about the split with Roger.

DG: I don't think that it is. There are a couple of hinted mentions that could or could not have something to do with him. But all that I read from people working out what they think it's about has been either fairly or wildly inaccurate. I enjoy that. I'm quite happy for people to interpret it any way they like. But maybe a note of caution should be sounded because you can read too much into it. "A Great Day for Freedom," for example, has got nothing to do with Roger or his "wall." It just doesn't. What else can I say?

GF: In "High Hopes," the lyric suggests that the seeds of division were planted in Floyd's early days.

DG: I think it's more about my early days and leaving my hometown behind. There is an enormous amount of stuff about communication or lack of communication on the whole album. But that's accidental. We started finding there were one or two songs like that, and other songs emerged that had it within them. It seemed to take over the album at some point and dominate the thinking.

GF: In "What Do You Want from Me," you return to the theme of alienation from your audience that you'd explored in "The Wall." Is that something that you genuinely feel?

DG: It didn't start out from there at all. It actually had more to do with personal relationships but drifted into wider territory.

No, I don't really feel a great sense of alienation from the audience. I never agreed with Roger on his dramatic treatise in the lyrics of "The Wall," but it was a very good idea. Obviously there's a gulf in some ways because we're up there performing. I've been doing it for a long time, I've become wealthy from it and sort of revered - all the things that create a gulf between you and your audience. Given that, I feel we have great communication with people who come to see us and I enjoy performing for them.

Edited by threefates