The fall of Pink Floyd

Dean wrote: JeanFrame wrote: Artistically the fall started when Syd lost it. From then on, what we got was a watered-down version - And don't point out to me how successful they were in selling albums. If you're going to say that commercial success equates to artistic value, then I won't believe another word you write. I still really like what the band did after Syd by the way, but it pales by comparison to what would have been possible had the Barrett mind not flipped to the dark side. ...so you're saying they "fell" part way through Saucerful Of Secrets and that Piper At The Gates Of Dawn is the only ablum of any artistic merit.. It's a curious notion that's for sure - quite how Barrett would have moved the band forward into the 70s and beyond is something we cannot even begin to guess at - juding by his solo albums it's evident he wasn't moving in a Prog, Space-Rock or even Psyche direction at that time. Personnally I think that a Barrett Floyd would have been a casualty of the late 60s just like so many other Psyechedic acts where at the time and they would have been just a footnote in the history of rock.

I've just seen this post, hence late reply, apologies for that. Fair point Dean, and interesting as usual, but I didn’t say that what Floyd produced after Syd had no value, I said it was essentially diluted in artistic value. Also, I was talking about Syd at his creative best, not the clapped-out version that he later became.

The remaining band members were/are intelligent creative people; they used the motifs and atypical chord changes they’d heard from Barrett’s work, the themes of the lyrics, the images, and they incorporated all this into their ‘own’ work. It was essentially skilful artisans copying the works of a master. They also became more proficient in the use of the studio and the possibilities of the instrumentation in ways that Floyd had never previously done. What they produced was a shiny vehicle, painted and wrapped to deceive the eyes as well as the ears (like the live shows, it could be argued). To the eyes and ears that are happy to accept technological improvement , instrumental smoothness, smooth packaging, and studio proficiency in place of pure creativity and originality, this worked a treat. Indeed, you could argue that the polish they brought to the product, allied to its essential simplicity and convention, made it much more saleable than it could have been with a reasonably-sane Syd at the helm. As I’m sure you know, commercial and artistic success are not necessarily the same thing. It was the same effect as Yes produced out of the ashes of their own true originator, 1-2-3 – something technologically superior but artistically inferior, which nevertheless sells to the masses. David Bowie does the same thing with his whole career, basing it all on other people’s output, but turning it into something wonderfully packaged, a kind of brilliance in itself, especially when allied to powerful performance and clever use of angles, a veritable montage of impersonations, yet by its very nature, at its heart, it is a parody of other people’s shadows, lingering on his wall like the souls blasted into eternity at Hiroshima.

Sometimes that’s how it is in the real world. Van Gogh only sold one painting in his entire life, and that was to his brother.

moshkito wrote: Snow Dog wrote: irrelevant wrote: Paravion wrote:   The Wall is a horrible record. It's a toe-cringing overemotional experience overloaded with triteness in the lyrics and in the music.  You have perfectly described about 1/2 of that album. Well obviously I disagree totally   I think there is a point to be made as to what Paravion is wanting to say.   When the first version came out, way before the general release, that is the special showings that had the Quadraphonic sounds and there were two shows in SF, none in LA, for example, what was shown was much longer, had a stronger story and the material that eventually became "The Final Cut" was mostly a part of "The Wall" and the story was a little better put together and the military stuff made better sense than it does in its current form ...   It's still a very good album, but for the sake of continuity, in the end, Pink Floyd had to cut it down ... because the time span for 2 LP's was limited to about 22 to 23 minutes per side ... and the piece was a good 20 minutes longer than those 85 to 90 minutes. The SF show, I clocked it by accident, was 103 minutes long ... and you can show me, or ask me ... where did the rest of the stuff go? Some of it is in "The Final Cut" and the rest is just visual stuff that is more a part of the film than it is a part of the record.   On record the whole thing suffers horribly ... on film it comes together a lot better.   It's an opera, or a rock opera ... and still, to this day, many people don't like Verdi or Puccini or Wagner ... it's ok Paravion!

irrelevant wrote: Paravion wrote:   The Wall is a horrible record. It's a toe-cringing overemotional experience overloaded with triteness in the lyrics and in the music.  You have perfectly described about 1/2 of that album.

I loved DSOTM and the four succeeding albums, but it is the case that it bought the band a great many new fans, and, in fact, this led directly to The Wall, the alienation theme was directly linked to a fan spitting at Waters during the Animals tour.

^ I've never understood the concept of slating-off a band because of its fans. I listen to the band not their fans.

Paravion wrote:   The Wall is a horrible record. It's a toe-cringing overemotional experience overloaded with triteness in the lyrics and in the music.

moshkito wrote: [QUOTE=Paravion] [quote=Roger Waters] Money it's a crime Share it fairly but don't take a slice of my pie Money so they say Is the root of all evil today But if you ask for a raise it's no surprise that they're giving none away

[QUOTE=moshkito][QUOTE=Paravion]

IMHO this a very good example of a very good lyric. It reflects the contradictions inherent in people; the second line has a little dig at socialism (and himself... or at least a socialist...) He questions whether money is the root of all evil and then decides it's meanness and greed that is the true evil as he finishes off by having a dig at capitalism. This verse alonehas implications thoughout. All this and an odd time signature in a blues riff too.

Dean wrote: The_Jester wrote: But it's more comercial, they became controlled by the labels. And the proof of that is?

 

Edited by moshkito - December 13 2010 at 19:09

AtomicCrimsonRush wrote: I thought Momentary Lapse was quite good when you consider the albums of that decade.

I wonder why everyone is conserned if an album was commercial or not.