JTM Posted July 6, 2011 Share Posted July 6, 2011 I know, I dislike his verbal diarrhea as well. Just for FYI's sake, I wasn't directing that at you. Ha Ha. Verbal diarrhoea...Right again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JTM Posted July 6, 2011 Share Posted July 6, 2011 Right. Back to the subject matter. As the full musical content of The Wall immersion box set is yet to be confirmed I was hoping that there would be a surround sound mix. But as this box set is concentrating on 2 double albums (studio/live/demos)it's probably won't....Maybe a 5.1 release will come at a later date.? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Walter Posted July 6, 2011 Share Posted July 6, 2011 The Division Bell is the best album they did after Animals. With David, Nick, and Rick all participating in the making of the songs (unlike the previous albums) it sounded much more like "Pink Floyd" than prior offerings. What I enjoyed most about those last two albums though, was how they never had any designs to re-create the success they had with Roger without him. They just wanted to prove they could make and tour a successful record, and not need Roger skulking around, as talented as his skulking was. They did that, and as a fan, I am more than satisfied. Agreed. It was, musically, the most "Floyd" sounding album post '77. The tour was more spontaneous than the '87-'88 tour as well. Are they planning on including bonus material from those sessions, also? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dazedcat Posted July 7, 2011 Share Posted July 7, 2011 Let's face it, Floyd's downhill ride began when they outrageously ousted poor Syd:(:( You probably think the Beatles went downhill after Stu Sutcliffe left them don't you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Electrophile Posted July 7, 2011 Share Posted July 7, 2011 Even though said person can no longer respond, Pink Floyd did not "outrageously" do anything to Syd Barrett. His increasingly erratic behavior, coupled with his overuse of drugs and deteriorating mental state, left them with little to no choice but to remove him from the band. They wanted to keep him on as a Brian Wilson-type, where he'd stay back in England and write songs while David went on the road with them to perform them, but it became more and more obvious that he was no longer mentally capable of even doing that much. They had to make a decision -- either keep him in the group and risk destroying their burgeoning career, or let him go and replace him with someone else. All of them have said that they felt they should have done more for him, and it was that guilt that influenced some of their most legendary works. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Electrophile Posted July 8, 2011 Share Posted July 8, 2011 Sorry......as good as The Piper at the Gates of Dawn is, it is in no way, shape, form, or size more legendary (or better, for that matter) than The Dark Side of the Moon, Wish You Were Here, Animals, or even The Wall. It's not even better than The Division Bell. It is great for what it was, and what it represented in British rock at the time. However the aesthetic did not carry over very well, and they couldn't have sustained their careers even without him, doing that kind of music album after album. The band had no choice but to do what they did. They couldn't have continued with Barrett as psychologically disturbed as he was. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DavidZoso Posted July 8, 2011 Share Posted July 8, 2011 Sorry......as good as The Piper at the Gates of Dawn is, it is in no way, shape, form, or size more legendary (or better, for that matter) than The Dark Side of the Moon, Wish You Were Here, Animals, or even The Wall. It's not even better than The Division Bell. It is great for what it was, and what it represented in British rock at the time. However the aesthetic did not carry over very well, and they couldn't have sustained their careers even without him, doing that kind of music album after album. The band had no choice but to do what they did. They couldn't have continued with Barrett as psychologically disturbed as he was. I totally agree with everything you said. I want to add I really think Meddle is underated and Ialso The Final Cut- even though some people think of it as a Roger Waters solo album even though Gilmour and Mason are on it. Wish you were Here and Animals are my all time favs though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greenman Posted July 8, 2011 Share Posted July 8, 2011 I'd rate Pipper well above The Division Bell personally although not on the same level as the Ummagumma live disk, Meddle, Darkside, Wish You Were Here and Animals. Personally I think far too much focus has been put on "Syd the acid gnome songwritter who went nuts" and not nearly enough on the more collective rock deconstruction that made up the Floyds live shows. Mainly I spose because the material is too challenging for most listeners with no personality to latch onto but for me Interstellar Overdrive and its successors like Careful With Tha Axe Eugene were the early Floyds best and most influential work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bouillon Posted July 8, 2011 Share Posted July 8, 2011 Sorry......as good as The Piper at the Gates of Dawn is, it is in no way, shape, form, or size more legendary (or better, for that matter) than The Dark Side of the Moon, Wish You Were Here, Animals, or even The Wall. It's not even better than The Division Bell. It is great for what it was, and what it represented in British rock at the time. However the aesthetic did not carry over very well. I suppose it all depends what you're looking for. Much as I love some of their 71-77 music, I really don't think of PF as great songwriters. Syd was a great songwriter, and has debatably influenced far more artists than PF. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bouillon Posted July 9, 2011 Share Posted July 9, 2011 Agreed! Is it just me, but doesn't it seem weird to discuss this stuff with kids who have only experienced these bands from a timelline perspective where the whole song catalog was pretty much there on the day they were born? No time to let different eras of an artist's music sink in or influence you. No memories of where you were the first time a new single or new album came out. Cheers, Brad True. And the saddest thing of all for the newbies is that they will never get to experience the evolution of great bands, if the quality of the current music scene is anything to go by. Going back to Piper, I wasn't around from the start - I got into all this madness around 72, and my first PF album was DSOTM. Unlike LZ, I can't recall the order in which I bought up their back catalogue, but I think it started off DSOTM > Meddle > A Nice Pair. Dunno if you had A Nice Pair over there, but it was Piper+Saucerful, and I bought it because it was cheap - and because it had tits on the cover . Anyway, I didn't know much about early PF then - I'd read Nick Kent's famous Syd article in the NME in 74, but never heard any of the early stuff until I got A Nice Pair. And when I first heard Piper......BIG 'WTF?' moment. Really couldn't get my head around it, and - astonishingly, in retrospect - I thought Saucerful was the better album. It took several years for Piper's coruscating majesty to sink in...but these days, it's one of few PF albums I can bear to listen to. Truly unique. As for the claims elsewhere that PF had no choice but to dump Syd, well, they may have convinced themselves of that back then, but knowing what we do about them (and Waters in particular), I tend to favour the view that Waters seized the day and exploited Syd's condition to take control of the band. The assertion that Syd was no longer capable of delivering cohesive songs is total bullshit - most of the stuff on his two solo albums pissed all over anything the Syd-less PF produced before Meddle, IMO - and with a little more compassion and tolerance, plus a little therapy, I see no reason why he couldn't have remained part of the band, even if in a somewhat back-seat role. But that would've required some effort on the others' part, which they were evidently not prepared to make. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dazedcat Posted July 9, 2011 Share Posted July 9, 2011 Agreed! Is it just me, but doesn't it seem weird to discuss this stuff with kids who have only experienced these bands from a timelline perspective where the whole song catalog was pretty much there on the day they were born? No time to let different eras of an artist's music sink in or influence you. No memories of where you were the first time a new single or new album came out. Cheers, Brad You can always tell when the kids discuss things from a purely historical perspective. I chuckle to myself always. I don't get bothered by their passion but they just don't know what it was like to grow up with the music, it wasn't a discography then it just happened organically. What bothers me though are the adults who ought to know better but don't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Electrophile Posted July 9, 2011 Share Posted July 9, 2011 What kids are you talking about? I'm a 29 year old grown woman. I haven't been a kid in a long, long time. I'm sorry that I couldn't experience the genius that is Pink Floyd when they were out making records and touring, and had to experience them on my own long after they chose to hang it up. I don't think that makes me a "kid" though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dazedcat Posted July 9, 2011 Share Posted July 9, 2011 Sorry Electrophile, I wasn't referring to you and if you took it that way I apolgize for the confusion. I wasn't trying to belittle your own Pink Floyd revelations either. But I do still think buying the albums and singles as they happened in life makes the entire memory of a great band different for those of us who did. In my opinion, whenever I've discovered somebody long after the fact I can deeply appreciate the music made but I don't feel any personal connection to it at all. No memories of where I was the first time I heard something for example, who the kind of person I was at that time or who I knew, etc etc. But hey, that's just me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Electrophile Posted July 9, 2011 Share Posted July 9, 2011 No, it's fine dazedcat......I was just curious as to who you were speaking to. The thing is though, I can remember where I was the first time I heard Pink Floyd or Led Zeppelin or any other band I like, just as much as you can. First time I heard Pink Floyd I was 12 years old, and the band was playing Soldier Field on their tour for The Division Bell, and the classic rock station was playing their music basically all day. I knew my dad had a couple albums of theirs, but he'd never played them. So I asked him to pull them out and play them, because I wanted to hear them. I became such a huge fan, he ended giving them to me. Just because that wasn't the first time those songs were played on the radio, doesn't mean I can't or don't remember the first time I heard them. I got into the bands I am into on my own, because I sought out their music. It sucks I never got to see them live (although I have seen David Gilmour live) or buy their albums the day they were released like so many other fans of theirs did, but I still have the same kinds of memories......they're just now instead of then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greenman Posted July 10, 2011 Share Posted July 10, 2011 I suppose it all depends what you're looking for. Much as I love some of their 71-77 music, I really don't think of PF as great songwriters. Syd was a great songwriter, and has debatably influenced far more artists than PF. The music was certainly Floyds strongpoint I agree but there were certainly some quality songs aswell, Wish You Were Here, Us and Them, Fearless etc. I think you greatly underestimate the impact that the music had on the devolpment of rock though, true by the time Floyd really became sucessful they'd perfected a formula that hasnt been followed too often but I think you need to look before that. The late 60'/early 70's live material(that Syd was of course involved with early on) like Instellar Overdrive, Set The Controls or Careful with that Axe had a very lasting impact on rock. I think people underestimate it because they still underestimate the importance of krautrock, without early Floyd much of krautrock is unthinkable and without krautrock much of the new wave(Talking Heads, Public Image Ltd, Joy Division etc) and electronic music(Eno espeically) in general is unthinkable. The Floyd themselves have done little to highlight that era because it was commerically less sucessful but its influence was actually far greater than what came afterwards IMHO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Knebby Posted July 14, 2011 Share Posted July 14, 2011 Dave Gilmour Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Walter Posted July 14, 2011 Share Posted July 14, 2011 That kid is something else! I don't know how the court will handle it, but he obviously doesn't see anything wrong with what he is doing - since he keeps getting into trouble - and his mom smiling at the video makes it seem as if she endorses the behavior. Oh well, not the first celeb kid getting into trouble! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greenman Posted July 14, 2011 Share Posted July 14, 2011 The "moral outrage" around this story made me think I'd walked into the 19th century so perhaps he should be shipped to the colonies? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Knebby Posted July 14, 2011 Share Posted July 14, 2011 Well I don't know if you saw any of the coverage of the riots he was involved in, but I'm thinking that if you had you might understand. The Colonies wouldn't have him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BIGDAN Posted July 14, 2011 Share Posted July 14, 2011 The "moral outrage" around this story made me think I'd walked into the 19th century so perhaps he should be shipped to the colonies? I'll say what must have gone through Knebbys mind, "TOSSER". If it had been the 19th century the little shit would never have behaved like he did because his family, being so rich, would have disowned him on the spot and maybe he would have gone to prison untill he could pay for the damages he had caused. The fact that he attacked a British Flag at the Cenotaph would have amounted to Treason and his head would have been removed from his body. If his father had any concience he would offer to pay for all the damages his little bundle of joy has caused, so lets see how much Honour the "Drummer" Mr Gilmore has, and i would like to wipe the smile of off the face of that joke of a mother, with a wet fish. Regards, Danny PS, Does anyone know what sentence he got? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BIGDAN Posted July 14, 2011 Share Posted July 14, 2011 Just seen this. "On May 6 he admitted a charge of violent disorder and was released on bail so he could complete his exams at Girton College, Cambridge" Maybe Girton College should show him the door as it would seem he is not the right type of person to be disgracing their classrooms. Regards, Danny Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Knebby Posted July 14, 2011 Share Posted July 14, 2011 Sorry to have slightly derailed this thread BTW - wasn't sure where else to put it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Electrophile Posted July 14, 2011 Share Posted July 14, 2011 Dave Gilmour He's a David, never a Dave. He's famously chided people for calling him that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Knebby Posted July 14, 2011 Share Posted July 14, 2011 He's a David, never a Dave. He's famously chided people for calling him that. Ha ha thanks I don't think I ever knew that Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bouillon Posted July 14, 2011 Share Posted July 14, 2011 Poor David. Just look at his body language in the photo accompanying the article Knebby posted. Totally unsupportive of his stepson, and quite right too. As for the mother, she should be locked up as well, for laughing in Court and trying to influence the judge with her sexy little party frock. What, Polly, you think it's amusing for your puffed-up poltroon of a son to get fucked up on acid and piss on the memory of the fallen? If I were Dave, I'd get the hell out of that setup before those two clowns totally ruined my rep. This episode probably constitutes grounds for divorce - and if it doesn't, Polly's atrocious lyrics surely do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.