Print Page | Close Window

The fall of Pink Floyd

Printed From: Progarchives.com
Category: Progressive Music Lounges
Forum Name: Prog Bands, Artists and Genres Appreciation
Forum Description: Discuss specific prog bands and their members or a specific sub-genre
URL: http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=73632
Printed Date: November 27 2024 at 16:30
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 11.01 - http://www.webwizforums.com


Topic: The fall of Pink Floyd
Posted By: The_Jester
Subject: The fall of Pink Floyd
Date Posted: November 28 2010 at 21:28
When do you think the fall occured? Or do you pretend they did not fell?



Replies:
Posted By: Run Home Slow
Date Posted: November 28 2010 at 21:30
Final Cut did it for me.



-------------
If you got ears, you gotta listen — Captain Beefheart


Posted By: harmonium.ro
Date Posted: November 28 2010 at 21:31
Where exactly did they fell? They stopped, but fell? IMO they're the greatest rock band of all time, so not sure where they "fell". 


Posted By: The Truth
Date Posted: November 28 2010 at 21:39
They didn't fall they just stumbled a bit. Then stopped.

-------------
http://blindpoetrecords.bandcamp.com/" rel="nofollow">


Posted By: WalterDigsTunes
Date Posted: November 28 2010 at 21:42
They stopped being remotely interesting when that one dude did too many drugs in the 60s.


Posted By: DisgruntledPorcupine
Date Posted: November 28 2010 at 21:51
They never fell.


Posted By: tdfloyd
Date Posted: November 28 2010 at 21:52
No need to pretend, they did not fall anywhere.  They started with the inventive Piper, searched for their sound for a couple of albums after their leader left  with most every album improving on the one before.  Left some their prog excesses behind and found critical and unbelievable commercial success starting with Dark Side for 4 albums.  Waters has to get his message out and the Final Cut is his baby that is all stripped down.  Love that album.  The leader leaves and a new one emerges and his (Gilmours)  album tries to restore the musical side of PF.  Seven years later they have a successful album and tour that restores Wright and Mason in more than just name only and retire.  Some albums not as good as others, yes.  Not a bad album in the bunch .  The best band period.


Posted By: Dellinger
Date Posted: November 28 2010 at 21:56
I wouldn't say they fell either. When Waters left they still did a pair of cool albums, for me The Division Bell being among my favourite Floyd albums. Parhaps it was after that album's tour that they fell, but as stated before, they rather just stopped.


Posted By: Tychovski
Date Posted: November 28 2010 at 22:03

Each era stumbled a bit, but I don't think they ever fell.



-------------
Everyone knows rock attained perfection in 1974, it's a scientific fact.


Posted By: TheOppenheimer
Date Posted: November 28 2010 at 22:14
We still listen to Pink Floyd, in fact, we still like it, so i dont think they fell anywhere

-------------
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
A veces es cuestión de esperar, y tomarte en silencio.


Posted By: Finnforest
Date Posted: November 28 2010 at 22:14
The Final Cut is where the band concludes, for me.    


Posted By: Manuel
Date Posted: November 28 2010 at 22:45
I would not say "Fell", but change direction a bit when Waters left.


Posted By: octopus-4
Date Posted: November 29 2010 at 00:18
they stopped and restarted differently several times. The guy on the right in Finnforest's photo looks a bit like Dave Gilmour, isn't it ? Smile

-------------
I stand with Roger Waters, I stand with Joan Baez, I stand with Victor Jara, I stand with Woody Guthrie. Music is revolution


Posted By: akaBona
Date Posted: November 29 2010 at 02:22
After Wish You Were Here everything went downhill ... not including live albums.


Posted By: Easy Livin
Date Posted: November 29 2010 at 03:01
Reminds me of a VERY old thread...
 
http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=1563 - http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=1563


Posted By: Textbook
Date Posted: November 29 2010 at 03:09
Their last album was decent so I would say they didn't fall.


Posted By: clarke2001
Date Posted: November 29 2010 at 04:48
The Wall of Pink Floyd.Emoticons




-------------
https://japanskipremijeri.bandcamp.com/album/perkusije-gospodine" rel="nofollow - Percussion, sir!


Posted By: Blacksword
Date Posted: November 29 2010 at 05:15
Depends what you mean by 'fall' They ceased to make music of any real worth after The Wall imo, although they've probably played some of their biggest live shows years after that album.

Commercially they've never really fallen. Maybe they stumbled a bit around The Final Cut, but they recovered after Waters left. They weren't half the band they were before of course.

-------------
Ultimately bored by endless ecstasy!


Posted By: octopus-4
Date Posted: November 29 2010 at 05:22
I'm probably too floydian, but I think they just changed direction several times. Saucerful of Secrets is different from The Piper. Dark side is totally different from Ummagumma or from More. Animals and WYWH are different from Dark Side and so on... did they fall each time? I don't think so. I don't think that songs like High Hopes or Wearing the Inside Out can be considered a fall. They evolved. Each time they have left somebody disappointed but this was evolution. Also the poor underrated The Final Cut has its highlights and a solid concept.

-------------
I stand with Roger Waters, I stand with Joan Baez, I stand with Victor Jara, I stand with Woody Guthrie. Music is revolution


Posted By: chopper
Date Posted: November 29 2010 at 06:16
Originally posted by The_Jester The_Jester wrote:

When do you think the fall occured? Or do you pretend they did not fell?
 
Perhaps you can tell us why you think they fell?


Posted By: Adams Bolero
Date Posted: November 29 2010 at 06:31
Originally posted by clarke2001 clarke2001 wrote:

The Wall of Pink Floyd.Emoticons




-------------
''Nobody realizes that some people expend tremendous energy merely to be normal.''

- Albert Camus


Posted By: Hawkwise
Date Posted: November 29 2010 at 07:32
When they turned in to David Gilmour Band 

-------------


Posted By: tamijo
Date Posted: November 29 2010 at 08:13

Dont know if the fell or not, but I lost a lot of interest after Animals. Some good things after that, but nothing like before. Loved the film as a film though.

 
 


-------------
Prog is whatevey you want it to be. So dont diss other peoples prog, and they wont diss yours


Posted By: paganinio
Date Posted: November 29 2010 at 08:51
The Fall of Pink Floyd: here's my side of the story.

Pink Floyd ruled 1971-79.

And then in 1980, a post-punk band called The Fall took over, along with other post-punk bands.

That's when Pink Floyd, as well as other prog bands, fell.

Post-punk rose and prog fell. That's the long story short.


-------------


Posted By: someone_else
Date Posted: November 29 2010 at 08:56
I don't think they had a "fall". Their masterpiece era was from Ummagumma to Wish You Were Here. After this, The Wall and A Momentary Lapse of Reason were lesser albums, but still good. The Final Cut and The Division Bell form the evidence that they did not fall, although these albums are no real context for their best 1969-75 output.

-------------


Posted By: Slartibartfast
Date Posted: November 29 2010 at 09:13
Originally posted by Adams Bolero Adams Bolero wrote:

Originally posted by clarke2001 clarke2001 wrote:

The Wall of Pink Floyd.Emoticons



Did they fall off the wall?  And was it a great fall, y'all?  Then there's that whole kings horses and mens thing.


-------------
Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened...



Posted By: infandous
Date Posted: November 29 2010 at 09:41
I'd say, considering the enduring popularity of Floyd (arguably the only prog band to have such universal and prolonged popularity), that they never fell.  I wasn't crazy about the post-Waters albums, but the Division Bell is a nice psudo-Floyd album that at least has reminders of what made them so great, and at best is not their worse album (even considering the ones with Waters).  Final Cut is a great Waters solo album, with Gilmour and Mason as guests.





Posted By: lazland
Date Posted: November 29 2010 at 09:42
Originally posted by infandous infandous wrote:

I'd say, considering the enduring popularity of Floyd (arguably the only prog band to have such universal and prolonged popularity), that they never fell.  I wasn't crazy about the post-Waters albums, but the Division Bell is a nice psudo-Floyd album that at least has reminders of what made them so great, and at best is not their worse album (even considering the ones with Waters).  Final Cut is a great Waters solo album, with Gilmour and Mason as guests.





It would be virtually impossible for me to put it any better than thisClap


-------------
Enhance your life. Get down to www.lazland.org

Now also broadcasting on www.progzilla.com Every Saturday, 4.00 p.m. UK time!


Posted By: Languagegeek
Date Posted: November 29 2010 at 14:48
I'd say my interest falls dramatically after Pompeii/Obscured by Clouds. Everything Dark Side on is overplayed and boring except Animals, which is superb IMO. 


Posted By: Chris S
Date Posted: November 29 2010 at 14:49
Floyd never fell.

-------------
<font color=Brown>Music - The Sound Librarian

...As I venture through the slipstream, between the viaducts in your dreams...[/COLOR]


Posted By: silverpot
Date Posted: November 29 2010 at 14:53
They never fell!
They changed from album to album and they managed to surprise me everytime. They never got stuck with a formula,  didn't make the same album over and over.
I also think that their eighties output was better than most of their peers' , and so was The Division Bell from the nineties.


Posted By: rushfan4
Date Posted: November 29 2010 at 14:54

The Wall fell at the end of the Wall.



-------------


Posted By: Jake Kobrin
Date Posted: November 29 2010 at 15:18
They dissipated just like any other band, from the inside. It even happened to The Beatles. Roger Waters sort of took over the band, and David Gilmour hated that which fueled a grudge between them. Meanwhile Richard Wright became unmotivated and uninspired and was ultimately fired. Plus they lost a lot of money on tours, etc, etc, etc... It's no mystery. 

-------------
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Dr-Neil-Kobrin/244687105562746" rel="nofollow - SUPPORT MY FATHER AND BECOME A FAN

Jacob Kobrin Illustration


Posted By: chrijom
Date Posted: November 29 2010 at 15:30
Originally posted by Slartibartfast Slartibartfast wrote:

Originally posted by Adams Bolero Adams Bolero wrote:

Originally posted by clarke2001 clarke2001 wrote:

The Wall of Pink Floyd.Emoticons



Did they fall off the wall?  And was it a great fall, y'all?  Then there's that whole kings horses and mens thing.

Definately the Humpty Dumpty thing! LOL


Posted By: Okocha
Date Posted: November 30 2010 at 10:44
After Animals.


Posted By: Tapfret
Date Posted: November 30 2010 at 10:51
In all honesty, I would have not really enjoyed The Wall had the movie not gone along with it. The Final Cut just sounded like outtakes from The Wall. 45 minutes of continuous whining by RW. Come to think of it, Animals doesn't do much for me. Wish You Were Here has the 3rd best campfire song ever. Dark Side would be fine if it wasn't so freaking overplayed. Meddle is the only one that I can't live without.

-------------
https://www.last.fm/user/Tapfret" rel="nofollow">
https://bandcamp.com/tapfret" rel="nofollow - Bandcamp


Posted By: lazland
Date Posted: November 30 2010 at 13:22
Originally posted by paganinio paganinio wrote:

The Fall of Pink Floyd: here's my side of the story.

Pink Floyd ruled 1971-79.

And then in 1980, a post-punk band called The Fall took over, along with other post-punk bands.

That's when Pink Floyd, as well as other prog bands, fell.

Post-punk rose and prog fell. That's the long story short.


Are you seriously suggesting the The Fall took over Floyd's mantle?ConfusedConfusedConfusedConfused They were fairly big for a while, and still are in Mark E Smith's twisted ego, but replace Floyd? Come on.

If anything, in the 1980's, in spite of critical panning from the trendy media (who LOVED The Fall BTW), prog bands such as Floyd, Genesis, and Yes, with newer bands such as Marillion sold LPs and gigs by the shedful. Commercially, they were still doing extremely well.

Also, prog is still a very healthy scene. Post punk most certainly isn't.


-------------
Enhance your life. Get down to www.lazland.org

Now also broadcasting on www.progzilla.com Every Saturday, 4.00 p.m. UK time!


Posted By: Noak
Date Posted: November 30 2010 at 15:00
Piper, Saucerful and AHM are the only PF albums I really enjoy. So after that I guess.


Posted By: moshkito
Date Posted: November 30 2010 at 15:46
Originally posted by The_Jester The_Jester wrote:

When do you think the fall occured? Or do you pretend they did not fell?
 
Wish You Were Here.
 
And if their two songs "Welcome to the Machine" and then "Have a Cigar" don't tell you all of it ... you are not listening to the words! They were pist at the record company for being forced to do something closer to the concept of Dark Side of the Moon, than they were in doing the material that they already had been playing in concert for at least a year! ... which finally appeared in "Animals" ...
 
That is not to discredit things like "The Wall" at all ... and I think that Roger decided to do something even bigger to get back at the record company ... but by that time, so much money was rolling in and DSOTM was still on the charts that no record company was going to say NO to Pink Floyd ever again ... because the contract would die that very second!
 
In the end, PF even gave in to the record company and the film company. Material, pictures and visuals that ended up in "The Final Cut" were a part of "The Wall", that would have made it way too long and force it onto 3 LP's and it was hard enough to sell double LP's, let alone triples in those days ... and you pretty much could only use about 80 to 90 minutes tops for the whole thing!
 
Were it today, the day and age of the CD, the material of "The Final Cut" would be much more integrated into "The Wall" ... and it has ... the political nature of it is quite visible in the current version of "The Wall" ... which apparently Roger wanted in the other shows but had to be curtailed for both financial reasons and the length of the work.


-------------
Music is not just for listening ... it is for LIVING ... you got to feel it to know what's it about! Not being told!
www.pedrosena.com


Posted By: Bitterblogger
Date Posted: November 30 2010 at 16:19
Originally posted by Jake Kobrin Jake Kobrin wrote:

They dissipated just like any other band, from the inside. It even happened to The Beatles. Roger Waters sort of took over the band, and David Gilmour hated that which fueled a grudge between them. Meanwhile Richard Wright became unmotivated and uninspired and was ultimately fired. Plus they lost a lot of money on tours, etc, etc, etc... It's no mystery. 
This sounds about right. Should've stopped after A Momentary Lapse of Reason (not that it's so outstanding it's a winner to go out on, but it proved they could go on successfully without Waters). The Division Bell is lesser, and had they continued, no doubt some downright embarassing stuff would've resulted.


Posted By: The_Jester
Date Posted: November 30 2010 at 16:28
For me, the fall of Pink Floyd began when they became more comercial. It began to become comercial when Dark Side of the Moon was realesed. Even if there were good albums including Dark Side of the Moon after it, the band started to make comercial things and lead to the fall of Pink Floyd.


Posted By: ferush
Date Posted: November 30 2010 at 19:25
Floyd's got ups and downs and they started too bad by four or five bad albums one by one at the beginning.


Posted By: JeanFrame
Date Posted: December 01 2010 at 03:14
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.


Posted By: someone_else
Date Posted: December 01 2010 at 03:23
Originally posted by ferush ferush wrote:

Floyd's got ups and downs and they started too bad by four or five bad albums one by one at the beginning.
 
QuestionConfusedWacko


-------------


Posted By: octopus-4
Date Posted: December 01 2010 at 03:41
Originally posted by someone_else someone_else wrote:

Originally posted by ferush ferush wrote:

Floyd's got ups and downs and they started too bad by four or five bad albums one by one at the beginning.
 
QuestionConfusedWacko

If I correctly understand, Ferush means

The Piper At The Gates of Dawn
A Saucerful of Secrets
More
Ummagumma
Meddle

Five bad albums? 


-------------
I stand with Roger Waters, I stand with Joan Baez, I stand with Victor Jara, I stand with Woody Guthrie. Music is revolution


Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: December 01 2010 at 05:05
It really depends on what you call "a fall" - if we consider A Momentary Lapse Of Reason as being the nadir of their entire career (as some here suggest) then we have to take into account that it was a multi-platinum album that spurned tour that grossed £60M and a multi-plantimum live album (Delicate Sound Of Thunder). Critically and artistically it is not "up to the standard" of previous Floyd albums, but that standard is remarkably high for a band that had been in existence for 20+ years and had recorded 12 studio albums up until then - no other psyche/prog band had achieved that feat with that sustained level of success, 17 years after their first No.1 album (AHM). However, the relative success of AMLoR wasn't carried solely on the Floyd name either (unlike The Final Cut) - it was an album of its time and for that time it was actually a good one when compared to what else was being produced in 1987 by any band with Prog credentials (Rush, Marillion & Tull). It is easy to sit here in the relative comfort of 2010 and say it was a weak album, but from the perspective of 1987 it wasn't ... that we on the PA can rate Savatage's Hall Of The Mountain King as a "better" 1987 album is frankly laughable (and I love Savatage and HotMK) and is more a reflection of how we view AMLoR with respect to previous Floyd releases than how it stands up against releases by any other band in that year. We must remember just how dire 1987 was from a Prog perspective - Tull won the Grammy for Best Hard Rock/Metal album in '89 for their 1987 album Crest Of A Knave (not a bad album in itself either, but a long way short of being a good Tull album) - Marillion and Rush were being held aloft by "pop" singles success, not "prog" album sales (Hold Your Fire spurned three top 20 singles in the US, Clutching At Straws three top-30 hits in the UK) - Floyd sold AMLoR without radio airplay and without "hit" singles.
 
Many regard it as a solo Gilmour album, but musically it is a completely different product when compared to his previous solo albums and one that is more than worthy of the Floyd name (more so than the undeniably Water's driven Final Cut) - while Wright and Manson are present on the album practically in name only is somewhat irrelevant given that their presence in the studio was enough to motivate and inspire Gilmour and Ezrin to make it more than just a solo album, (especially in light of the ensuing legal battle with Waters during the recording).
 
 


-------------
What?


Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: December 01 2010 at 06:15
Originally posted by JeanFrame 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.

-------------
What?


Posted By: Snow Dog
Date Posted: December 01 2010 at 06:37
Two great posts Dean.

-------------
http://www.last.fm/user/Snow_Dog" rel="nofollow">


Posted By: trackstoni
Date Posted: December 01 2010 at 06:49
yes they fell , with the fall of Berlin Wall !

-------------
Tracking Tracks of Rock


Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: December 01 2010 at 06:54
Originally posted by The_Jester The_Jester wrote:

For me, the fall of Pink Floyd began when they became more comercial. It began to become comercial when Dark Side of the Moon was realesed. Even if there were good albums including Dark Side of the Moon after it, the band started to make comercial things and lead to the fall of Pink Floyd.
Another curious notion. Commerciality has always been the "bane" of Progressive Rock and "serious" musicians, but commercial success isn't the same as "selling-out". If what they produced was of little or no artistic merit, or failed to progress, be ground-breaking or experimental then I would have no alternative but to agree with you. But that isn't quite the case with Floyd - it is hard to describe a nine-part 26 minute "song", or an album with three tracks over 10 minutes, each as being in any way commercial. The Wall may have produced Another Brick In The Wall Part 2, but as an album in its entirety is it far from being commercial (musically or critically) or even that accessible. If you want to measure Floyd by the radio-play of two hit singles then so be it, but I struggle to see how that can reflect on the albums that they were lifted from.
 
If you are simply slating the chart success of DSotM as indication of their commercial saleability then that's also appears curious, since it was not their first bite at album chart success either - Atom Heart Mother got to No 1 in the UK (DSotM never did). With the exception of Ummagumma all Floyd albums upto and including DSotM contained short "pop" songs together with longer experimental tracks. Dark Side Of The Moon wasn't such a radical departure for them (compare it to the "soundtrack" albums like More or Obscured By Clouds for example).


-------------
What?


Posted By: someone_else
Date Posted: December 01 2010 at 07:00
Originally posted by octopus-4 octopus-4 wrote:

Originally posted by someone_else someone_else wrote:

Originally posted by ferush ferush wrote:

Floyd's got ups and downs and they started too bad by four or five bad albums one by one at the beginning.
 
QuestionConfusedWacko

If I correctly understand, Ferush means

The Piper At The Gates of Dawn
A Saucerful of Secrets
More
Ummagumma
Meddle

Five bad albums? 
 
Almost correct. Atom Heart Mother was released one year before Meddle. But that does not stop me from being flabbergasted ShockedOuch. I guess that Ferush's statement was meant to be just a provocation. I would give 3 to 5 stars for these albums.


-------------


Posted By: Geizao
Date Posted: December 01 2010 at 12:22

They fell? Why just they fell? Abandoned members... Regret... Betrayal... Anger... Guessed, you might have just when.


Posted By: The_Jester
Date Posted: December 01 2010 at 19:17
Every album before Dark Side of the Moon is, as I think, much more good than the rest of what they've made.

-------------
La victoire est éphémère mais la gloire est éternelle!

- Napoléon Bonaparte


Posted By: moshkito
Date Posted: December 01 2010 at 20:04
Originally posted by JeanFrame JeanFrame wrote:

...
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.
 
You didn't finish the sentence ... dark side of the moon ... because Syd WAS the original Greatest Gig in the Sky ... go listen to the bootlegs that are around from before the release of that album!
 
And when you do, you will know that "Wish You Were Here" is total and utter ... disgusting ... crock ... mandated by the record company.


-------------
Music is not just for listening ... it is for LIVING ... you got to feel it to know what's it about! Not being told!
www.pedrosena.com


Posted By: TODDLER
Date Posted: December 01 2010 at 21:59
Originally posted by Tapfret Tapfret wrote:

In all honesty, I would have not really enjoyed The Wall had the movie not gone along with it. The Final Cut just sounded like outtakes from The Wall. 45 minutes of continuous whining by RW. Come to think of it, Animals doesn't do much for me. Wish You Were Here has the 3rd best campfire song ever. Dark Side would be fine if it wasn't so freaking overplayed. Meddle is the only one that I can't live without.
Overplayed? That's the understatement of our times. All the Philadelphia DJ'S playing the later Pink Floyd endlessly. The trippy dippy conspiracy mind driven hippie DJ'S with their cool and soft spoken syrup voice. You've got a friend in P.A. on their license plates. The FM becomes AM, then years later, no one remembers? Huh? What is their deal? Sick. Very sick because the next time you see these DJ'S who promote only the later Floyd, they are representing AC/DC. They don't care about the honest interest of the public. They only care about promoting what is already been contrived. Roger Waters is lucky that his songs which describe the agony of the British school system attracted all the airheads of western culture. Otherwise, he would have the financial status of Ron Geesin. So they leave an impression on the people of the eastern U.S. that Pink Floyd are icons of Prog or the ultimate Spaced out thing for the common drug influenced American kid to get into. If they played Ummagumma on a Philadelphia radio station during the daytime broadcasts, they would not only loose their job but probably get arrested by the art police. Plus, they just wouldn't get it anyway. Just because it feels like an album where one takes acid before listening, that doesn't mean it couldn't be taken as a pure experimental project.  

 Everybody has to come up with a description of the early Floyd. That description is DRUGS. As if to say that every musician or composer that wrote 20th century Avant-Garde HAD to have taken drugs. What's up with that? Don't you see how that influence has dragged society down and pushed them so far from the arts they can no longer see the light? It's the same as Jim Jones brainwashing to me. If most people are going to think the same then they might as well take the plunge right? After close to 30 years of this garbage,...it really feels that extreme. When Edgar Varese heard the traffic in the city through his window, he was inspired to write music. He created those car horn sounds and city noise through instruments. Roger Waters did the same on Ummagumma with unorthodox methods that created sounds. or sound effects. He didn't have to drop LSD to accomplish that. Christ, most people have it all wrong. You can blame that on the radio.


Posted By: Slartibartfast
Date Posted: December 01 2010 at 23:11
I think they started to go off the rails a little with The Wall.  Still like the album and the movie though.  And I'm still pissed that when I went to see the band on their Division Bell tour that it was an outdoor show it was raining we weren't allowed to bring in umbrellas and they were all basically confiscated.  I think the band did it personally. Angry

-------------
Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened...



Posted By: darksideof
Date Posted: December 02 2010 at 00:48
Floyd Never Fell and without The Floyd we would never had prog as we know it.!! All their albums are quiet fantastic.

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


Posted By: octopus-4
Date Posted: December 02 2010 at 02:59
Originally posted by darksideof darksideof wrote:

Floyd Never Fell and without The Floyd we would never had prog as we know it.!! All their albums are quiet fantastic.
ClapClapClap

And I remark ALL


-------------
I stand with Roger Waters, I stand with Joan Baez, I stand with Victor Jara, I stand with Woody Guthrie. Music is revolution


Posted By: darksideof
Date Posted: December 02 2010 at 09:44
Originally posted by octopus-4 octopus-4 wrote:

Originally posted by darksideof darksideof wrote:

Floyd Never Fell and without The Floyd we would never had prog as we know it.!! All their albums are quiet fantastic.
ClapClapClap

And I remark ALL
Embarrassed


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


Posted By: infandous
Date Posted: December 02 2010 at 10:09
Great posts by Dean (as always).  It should be mentioned though that all members of Floyd had their sights set on commercial success (though maybe not Barrett, but we'll never know that for sure now).  However, they seemed to aim for that mostly in the business side, while the music remained completely in their control (they made sure of this fairly early on).  As Dean points out, you need to compare their albums to what was being released at the time.  This puts The Wall, and especially the Gilmour led era, into proper perspective.  As I've said, I wasn't crazy about those albums, but there was certainly very little as good as them at the time of their release (that I was aware of at the time, or that was considered "popular" music).

So, no, they never fell.  Also, Floyd is the best blend of commercial success and experimental music that there has ever been, in my opinion, and I'd challenge anyone here to name a better one.




Posted By: Alberto Muñoz
Date Posted: December 02 2010 at 13:15
They never "fell", define "fell".

-------------






Posted By: thehallway
Date Posted: December 02 2010 at 13:18
They fell and got back up again several times, haven't we all?
 
Like today, I slipped up in the snow, but then I righted myself!


-------------
http://www.thefreshfilmblog.com/" rel="nofollow">



Posted By: Bonnek
Date Posted: December 02 2010 at 13:23

I wouldn't say they fell in any sort of way, I even enjoy Momentary Lapse of Reason if I want to hear something BIG.

But for my taste their best years were surely 68-71, with DSOTM being a turning point to more consistent but - for me - less exciting releases.




Posted By: Mushroom Sword
Date Posted: December 02 2010 at 16:02
For me it's not after the Final Cut, but before. The Wall was great. But the only good track from The Final Cut is "One of the Few". So after the wall... 


Posted By: The Block
Date Posted: December 02 2010 at 16:10
Originally posted by Mushroom Sword Mushroom Sword wrote:

For me it's not after the Final Cut, but before. The Wall was great. But the only good track from The Final Cut is "One of the Few". So after the wall... 
So they ran into "The Wall" and couldn't get back up LOL

-------------
Hurty flurty schnipp schnipp!



Posted By: jean-marie
Date Posted: December 02 2010 at 17:27
The story ends up with DIVISION BELL witch is a very good album even if WATERS is gone 


Posted By: Slartibartfast
Date Posted: December 02 2010 at 22:14
Originally posted by Alberto Muñoz Alberto Muñoz wrote:

They never "fell", define "fell".

Pete and Repeat were sitting on a fence.  If Pete fell off, who'd be left?


-------------
Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened...



Posted By: uduwudu
Date Posted: December 04 2010 at 05:08
I used to really dislike The Final Cut but recently have found it's chilling austerity to conceal some real fine melodies. It's not an everyday impulse though but now I regard it as a fine album.

Have a look at the Rough Guide To Pink Floyd. He really takes DG to task (especially his bass player) for U2 like moments and unnecessary live albums (unlike Ummagumma.)

I find it amazing that a band of the commercial level of PF managed to navigate different albums of different music and really challenging progressive listeners (who can like preferred formula just as much as anyone alse...)

Courageous band all round.


Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: December 04 2010 at 05:23
^ The Delicate Sound Of Thunder is perhaps "unnecessary", but I think it was recorded and released to make a point and the point was well made at the time - Pink Floyd wasn't a spent force and they could continue without Waters.
 
Pulse is completely necessary IMO - Floyd were(are) one of the most bootlegged bands of all time and RoIO albums were the only way of hearing Meddle, ATM, DSotM, WYWH, Animals and The Wall played live since Floyd hadn't officially released any live albums during the height of their success through the 70s.
 
I've just replaced the battery in my copy so the pulse blinks again Approve


-------------
What?


Posted By: rogerthat
Date Posted: December 04 2010 at 06:02
Originally posted by The_Jester The_Jester wrote:

Or do you pretend they did not fell?


Why should it be "pretend"? Confused  If we believe they didn't, we are necessarily wrong and biased?  Floyd went into gentle decline after Dark Side, which lapsed into the mild mannered boredom of the last two Gilmour albums but it was not a fall by any means.  As a last album, Division Bell is quite coherent and well written and expressed.  Boring, especially for my taste, but that does not constitute a fall, as in a band who badly lost their way and failed to make sense at any level.


Posted By: Slartibartfast
Date Posted: December 04 2010 at 07:27
Originally posted by rogerthat rogerthat wrote:

Originally posted by The_Jester The_Jester wrote:

Or do you pretend they did not fell?


Why should it be "pretend"? Confused  If we believe they didn't, we are necessarily wrong and biased?  Floyd went into gentle decline after Dark Side, which lapsed into the mild mannered boredom of the last two Gilmour albums but it was not a fall by any means.  As a last album, Division Bell is quite coherent and well written and expressed.  Boring, especially for my taste, but that does not constitute a fall, as in a band who badly lost their way and failed to make sense at any level.

Sputtered and evaporated?  I didn't find the DB boring at all.


-------------
Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened...



Posted By: rogerthat
Date Posted: December 04 2010 at 07:31
I didn't claim it to be a fact. But for what it's worth, my assessment is that it's a largely AOR/MOR oriented affair that would not get half the respect it does if it were not for the Floyd name.  I go the other way, I find it disappointing to hear the adventurous, daring Floydians going through the motions. The only reason I don't come down too hard on it is Gilmour can't help being, well, Gilmour and that lends a semblance of emotion to the otherwise sleepy music. 


Posted By: Paravion
Date Posted: December 04 2010 at 08:03
Meddle indicated the fall of Pink Floyd..


Posted By: Moondrop
Date Posted: December 04 2010 at 09:58
With Obscured by Clouds and Dark Side of the Moon they became a lot less interesting, but I wouldn't say they "fell" as they still had high quality outputs.


Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: December 04 2010 at 12:27
it was when the changed their name to the Screaming Abdabs

-------------
What?


Posted By: Blackbeard
Date Posted: December 04 2010 at 12:35
Everythings has its time and its place. For Pink Floyd this coincidence is gone, but i am thankful for a lot of really great music.


Posted By: Finnforest
Date Posted: December 04 2010 at 19:03
Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:

it was when the changed their name to the Screaming Abdabs


LOL


Posted By: adace1
Date Posted: December 05 2010 at 01:36
I think they lost their footing with the Cut and Reason albums but really ended on a bang with Division Bell. That album for me stands up to any of their 70's material. 

-------------
http://www.last.fm/user/adace/?chartstyle=lastfmblue">


Posted By: himtroy
Date Posted: December 05 2010 at 12:46
Around 1968

-------------
Which of you to gain me, tell, will risk uncertain pains of hell?
I will not forgive you if you will not take the chance.


Posted By: moshkito
Date Posted: December 06 2010 at 21:21
Originally posted by infandous infandous wrote:

... ...  It should be mentioned though that all members of Floyd had their sights set on commercial success (though maybe not Barrett, but we'll never know that for sure now).  However, they seemed to aim for that mostly in the business side, while the music remained completely in their control (they made sure of this fairly early on).  ...
 
I'm not sure this is the case ... the nice attention they were getting was helping them get around and get known ... but they did things that most rock bands don't do at all today ... where someone is so pre-occupied with fame and notoriety and making sure they had heard and seen on Prog Archives.
 
PF already had a lot of attention in 1972, and they had already been a part of at least 3 movies, 2 by Barbet Schroeder, 1 by Anotnioni that was totally hacked by the American studio that paid for it that did not want to use Pink Floyd, and several other film projects, one released as a concert with DSOTM outtakes, a lot of which ... Nick Mason called ... "nice home movies" ...
 
The point to be made here, is that Pink Floyd was looking for their music to be "visual" ... and they had made the call that their concerts would be a treat ... and then they put together a trip for DSOTM, that featured a film that won an Oscar later, and had some far out singers and the tours were sold out. heck ... PF was sold out in 1972 at the Hollywood Bowl where I saw them first ... to give you an idea ... and their main concern then, was the quality of the music coming through the Quadraphonic sound system they started with ... (they were the first with it) ...
 
I don't thik that PF fell ... I think they ran the course of their life ... and what more can you do together? ... not much except share a glass of wine and look at each other and say ... we did well ... much better than we thought.
 
And btw, much of "The Final Cut" were out takes from The Wall, and they were in the first version of the film and were cut later because it was too long for the American audience and they wanted to make sure they did not go over the 2 albums time span. The extra material was about Roger's dad and the war, and that is where Vera Lynn and a lot of the war stuff came from ... and added a very nice historical concept to the story of The Wall. As it is right now, the whole 4th side is bizarre and the whole military thing is stupid ... and an analogy for the social powers, and that was not exactly the concept before, and it still isn't!


-------------
Music is not just for listening ... it is for LIVING ... you got to feel it to know what's it about! Not being told!
www.pedrosena.com


Posted By: octopus-4
Date Posted: December 06 2010 at 23:29
Originally posted by moshkito moshkito wrote:

Originally posted by infandous infandous wrote:

... ...  It should be mentioned though that all members of Floyd had their sights set on commercial success (though maybe not Barrett, but we'll never know that for sure now).  However, they seemed to aim for that mostly in the business side, while the music remained completely in their control (they made sure of this fairly early on).  ...
 
I'm not sure this is the case ... the nice attention they were getting was helping them get around and get known ... but they did things that most rock bands don't do at all today ... where someone is so pre-occupied with fame and notoriety and making sure they had heard and seen on Prog Archives.
 
PF already had a lot of attention in 1972, and they had already been a part of at least 3 movies, 2 by Barbet Schroeder, 1 by Anotnioni that was totally hacked by the American studio that paid for it that did not want to use Pink Floyd, and several other film projects, one released as a concert with DSOTM outtakes, a lot of which ... Nick Mason called ... "nice home movies" ...
 
The point to be made here, is that Pink Floyd was looking for their music to be "visual" ... and they had made the call that their concerts would be a treat ... and then they put together a trip for DSOTM, that featured a film that won an Oscar later, and had some far out singers and the tours were sold out. heck ... PF was sold out in 1972 at the Hollywood Bowl where I saw them first ... to give you an idea ... and their main concern then, was the quality of the music coming through the Quadraphonic sound system they started with ... (they were the first with it) ...
 
I don't thik that PF fell ... I think they ran the course of their life ... and what more can you do together? ... not much except share a glass of wine and look at each other and say ... we did well ... much better than we thought.
 
And btw, much of "The Final Cut" were out takes from The Wall, and they were in the first version of the film and were cut later because it was too long for the American audience and they wanted to make sure they did not go over the 2 albums time span. The extra material was about Roger's dad and the war, and that is where Vera Lynn and a lot of the war stuff came from ... and added a very nice historical concept to the story of The Wall. As it is right now, the whole 4th side is bizarre and the whole military thing is stupid ... and an analogy for the social powers, and that was not exactly the concept before, and it still isn't!
.

ClapClapClap


-------------
I stand with Roger Waters, I stand with Joan Baez, I stand with Victor Jara, I stand with Woody Guthrie. Music is revolution


Posted By: oddiyo
Date Posted: December 07 2010 at 01:23
I think they fell with "The Wall". The last Pink Floyd album proper, was "Animals", which I remember hearing in early 1977 when first released. It certainly was a team effort, and still has the trademark Floydian ingredients: Gilmour plays one of the finest solos of his career on "Dogs"; Wright is still prominent with layers of organ and synths; Mason keeps things together as usual; Waters writes some powerful and biting lyrics. After that, it was the beginning of a different band. Roger's solo career began with "The Wall" and it continues to the present day.  

-------------
CLH


Posted By: moshkito
Date Posted: December 09 2010 at 16:15
Originally posted by oddiyo oddiyo wrote:

I think they fell with "The Wall". The last Pink Floyd album proper, was "Animals", which I remember hearing in early 1977 when first released. It certainly was a team effort, and still has the trademark Floydian ingredients: Gilmour plays one of the finest solos of his career on "Dogs"; Wright is still prominent with layers of organ and synths; Mason keeps things together as usual; Waters writes some powerful and biting lyrics. After that, it was the beginning of a different band. Roger's solo career began with "The Wall" and it continues to the present day.  
 
You should have heard the original ... called "Raving and Drooling" ... it was the best space rock song ever done and had Gilmour going even further out ... which was taken out by Waters in the re-mixing of the album ... which also killed the song and made it something else ... although I will admit that it did have a nice moment in it ... and you could feel Anaheim Stadium lift and your stomach turn on a chord change on the keyboard part ... but that is/was the only thing that made that song stand out ... the rest was not as nice or as good as before.
 
The album is nice, but not half as good as the original ... not even close! It's too bad that the majority here will never hear it or have any idea about it ... or even learn what the Greatest Gig in the Sky was really all about ... because it was about Syd!


-------------
Music is not just for listening ... it is for LIVING ... you got to feel it to know what's it about! Not being told!
www.pedrosena.com


Posted By: silverpot
Date Posted: December 10 2010 at 10:38
The original version of Dogs was called You Gotta Be Crazy. 


Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: December 10 2010 at 11:26
Originally posted by silverpot silverpot wrote:

The original version of Dogs was called You Gotta Be Crazy. 
and Raving and Drooling became Sheep

-------------
What?


Posted By: jean-marie
Date Posted: December 10 2010 at 14:32
Even if MLOR and the wall are not my favourite ones ,i think the floyd never realy fell, it's a fantastic band and the three david dvd and the roger one ( in the flesh ) still are my great happinessTongue


Posted By: The_Jester
Date Posted: December 10 2010 at 21:25
But it's more comercial, they became controlled by the labels.

-------------
La victoire est éphémère mais la gloire est éternelle!

- Napoléon Bonaparte


Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: December 11 2010 at 04:38
Originally posted by The_Jester The_Jester wrote:

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

-------------
What?


Posted By: Snow Dog
Date Posted: December 11 2010 at 04:42
Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:

Originally posted by The_Jester The_Jester wrote:

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

I was thinking the same thing. Gilmour led Floyd sounds like what it is...Gilmour led Floyd. I can't imagine the record company telling him what to do or him or him acquiescing. Does The Jester also think that On An Island is controlled by the label?


-------------
http://www.last.fm/user/Snow_Dog" rel="nofollow">


Posted By: AtomicCrimsonRush
Date Posted: December 11 2010 at 04:53
I am fairly sure the labels did not control the Floyd, it was more the era. When they merged into the 90s the music scene had dissipated, at least the type of music that Pink Floyd was playing. All bands had to change or adapt to the new style. Pink Floyd refused to do this and suffered as a result. I remember clearly when Division Bell was released how everyone was so excited about this new journey for the band. I ree,br the huge diorama displays in the shops of the talking statue heads, and even the High Hopes clip was being played a lot on TV. After I heard this I thought it was a masterpiece tracks and knew i would soon have this album, though I was bitterly disappointed at The Final Cut.
 
The Division Bell was hailed as a return to form for the band. However the reception was overall cold. i like the album but not everyone has warm feelings towards it. The live versions are excellent on PULSE. I think Floyd existed after this purely as a live act, never returning to the studios as a band rather exploring solo careers, and Gilmour succeeded as a solo artist, though it is debatable if Waters did so much.
 
The band could do more live shows easily but are settled into a retirement phase. Never say never though because the band did reunite as we know for Live Aid 8. If anyone wants to see this concert I loaded it myself on youtube!
 
 
 
 


-------------


Posted By: The_Jester
Date Posted: December 11 2010 at 11:23
Well, maybe not the labels but they were willing to attract a bigger part of the population by making their albums more commercial since Dark Side of the Moon. They started going music for the people and not for the art of music. They still are good albums, I listen to them often but, listen to the Wall, it's mainly comercial but got some Pink Floyd feel that I like.

-------------
La victoire est éphémère mais la gloire est éternelle!

- Napoléon Bonaparte


Posted By: Snow Dog
Date Posted: December 11 2010 at 11:33
The Wall...commercial? Not sure i agree.

-------------
http://www.last.fm/user/Snow_Dog" rel="nofollow">


Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: December 11 2010 at 12:07
Originally posted by The_Jester The_Jester wrote:

Well, maybe not the labels but they were willing to attract a bigger part of the population by making their albums more commercial since Dark Side of the Moon. They started going music for the people and not for the art of music. They still are good albums, I listen to them often but, listen to the Wall, it's mainly comercial but got some Pink Floyd feel that I like.
Nope - still not getting it. One of the themes of The Wall was a rant against making music for the people and the pressures of labels and Labels - Waters has been preoccupied with that concept since the late 60s (Cymbaline and Free Four) and carried it on through Wish You Were Here before embarking on The Wall, he has since carried the whole disillusionment with the media-industry further on Amused To Death.
 
The Wall was indeed a commercial success and features short songs, but none of which are in what anyone would describe as being "commercial" format - one hit single and one very popular track does not constitute a commercial album - there are 24 other tracks on the album - which of those are "commercial"? 
 
Like DSotM, the "art" is not in the individual tracks but in the complete whole - just as Atom Heart Mother was a single track of seperate parts, so was The Wall - it is also cyclic with no actual beginning or end - just as history repeats itself, so does the "story" within the album, with the end folding back to the beginning - how "art" is that?
 


-------------
What?


Posted By: harmonium.ro
Date Posted: December 11 2010 at 12:17
Jester is confusing accesible and clear with commercial and plain. 


Posted By: Chris S
Date Posted: December 11 2010 at 12:33
^ God what an awful avatar!!! Floyd btw never sold out even on The Wall

-------------
<font color=Brown>Music - The Sound Librarian

...As I venture through the slipstream, between the viaducts in your dreams...[/COLOR]


Posted By: harmonium.ro
Date Posted: December 11 2010 at 12:35
Approve


Posted By: Drew
Date Posted: December 11 2010 at 12:51
Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:

Originally posted by The_Jester The_Jester wrote:

Well, maybe not the labels but they were willing to attract a bigger part of the population by making their albums more commercial since Dark Side of the Moon. They started going music for the people and not for the art of music. They still are good albums, I listen to them often but, listen to the Wall, it's mainly comercial but got some Pink Floyd feel that I like.
Nope - still not getting it. One of the themes of The Wall was a rant against making music for the people and the pressures of labels and Labels - Waters has been preoccupied with that concept since the late 60s (Cymbaline and Free Four) and carried it on through Wish You Were Here before embarking on The Wall, he has since carried the whole disillusionment with the media-industry further on Amused To Death.
 
The Wall was indeed a commercial success and features short songs, but none of which are in what anyone would describe as being "commercial" format - one hit single and one very popular track does not constitute a commercial album - there are 24 other tracks on the album - which of those are "commercial"? 
 
Like DSotM, the "art" is not in the individual tracks but in the complete whole - just as Atom Heart Mother was a single track of seperate parts, so was The Wall - it is also cyclic with no actual beginning or end - just as history repeats itself, so does the "story" within the album, with the end folding back to the beginning - how "art" is that?
 


I agree 100%


Just saw The Wall this week (live) - it was UNBELIEVABLY good.


-------------





Posted By: Chris S
Date Posted: December 11 2010 at 13:28
Originally posted by harmonium.ro harmonium.ro wrote:

Approve
Bring back Heligoland...please!

-------------
<font color=Brown>Music - The Sound Librarian

...As I venture through the slipstream, between the viaducts in your dreams...[/COLOR]


Posted By: silverpot
Date Posted: December 11 2010 at 13:29
Originally posted by harmonium.ro harmonium.ro wrote:

Jester is confusing accesible and clear with commercial and plain. 


Some people also confuse commersial with high album sales. Just because Pink Floyd sold loads of records doesn't mean that the music is bad in any way. Or, that they ever tried to please the masses. They did the kind of music they, themselves, wanted to listen to. The record company had no say in the process of making that music, it was up against the very stubborn integrity of Gilmour and Waters.   


Posted By: lazland
Date Posted: December 11 2010 at 13:39
Originally posted by silverpot silverpot wrote:

Originally posted by harmonium.ro harmonium.ro wrote:

Jester is confusing accesible and clear with commercial and plain. 


Some people also confuse commersial with high album sales. Just because Pink Floyd sold loads of records doesn't mean that the music is bad in any way. Or, that they ever tried to please the masses. They did the kind of music they, themselves, wanted to listen to. The record company had no say in the process of making that music, it was up against the very stubborn integrity of Gilmour and Waters.   


Absolutely right. A great postClap


-------------
Enhance your life. Get down to www.lazland.org

Now also broadcasting on www.progzilla.com Every Saturday, 4.00 p.m. UK time!



Print Page | Close Window

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 11.01 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Copyright ©2001-2014 Web Wiz Ltd. - http://www.webwiz.co.uk