Pink Floyd, an open discussion

Manunkind wrote: hawkbrock wrote: You rated A momentary Lapse of Reason and The Division Bell higher than Piper at the gates of Dawn? What the f**k is this? Sick joke! TDB and AMLOR come from that gloriously sh*te era when Dave Gilmour was dredging the barrel seeing exactly what sh*te he could produce and still make money (usually from gullible yanks who didn't know the difference anyway) using the Pinko Floyd franchise... sick tacky crap music, ages much worse than Piper... AMLOR is a 2nd rate 80s porno soundtrack with about 2 good ideas... The obligatary "hit single" was Learning to Fly, a god awful synth driven piece of 80s cack with a good video, so naturally to the new found materialistic earless Pink Floyd Franchise fan, this was good yeah? Remember P.U.L.S.E? 3 sad old men, a bunch of bemulleted session musicians and an excellent lazer show becuase the music was either flogging past glories or new and completely unlistenable sh*t of the worst nature? Are you implying something? Good job rating the stuff, Winter Wine, although I don't agree with you on "Meddle", "Echoes" (what else?) being the only good song from the album.

Well first of all thank you

But I believe that "One Of These Days", and "Fearless" are two excellent Pink Floyd tracks that get overlooked

Pink Floyd are awsome. I am limited in the albums I have heard: DSOTM, Animals, WYWH, The Wall, the final Cut, but from what i have heard i can saftely say I love their music.
I recently saw the wall film and thought that was brilliant.
Meddle is next on my list to buy

Some of you people are to critical on others opinions about better albums.

I love Seamus, The Final Cut (album), post Waters albums, and Ummagumma. I'm sure many of you dissagree with me.

Winter Wine, I dissagree with you about your opinions, just so you know.

Edited by Rust

Equality 7-2521 wrote: The more influence Waters had the better Floyd was. Post-Waters is just generic AOR.

I can't agree with that. Full-on Waters can just be too harsh and oppressive. Don't get me wrong, I like "The Wall" and "Animals," but songs like "Don't Leave Me Now" are just awful and completely tasteless. I'm not too keen on Roger's solo stuff either. No, my favorite phase of Pink Floyd was when Rogers was the fledging leader but he wasn't yet a ruthless dictator who completely took over everything and he still allowed the rest of the band to contribute, as in DSotM and WYWH.

I've never really seen what the big deal with TPatGoD is. It's a pretty good 60s psychedelic pop album, but even in its own time that was still all it was, and it didn't particularly stand apart from all the other 60s psychedelic bands as being anything truly exceptional or original. I'm afraid that in the psychedelic pop/rock field, The Beatles, Cream, and Hendrix were the true masters, not Floyd. In the atmospheric prog rock of the 70s, however, Pink Floyd were giants.

Biggles wrote: Equality 7-2521 wrote: The more influence Waters had the better Floyd was. Post-Waters is just generic AOR. I can't agree with that. Full-on Waters can just be too harsh and oppressive. Don't get me wrong, I like "The Wall" and "Animals," but songs like "Don't Leave Me Now" are just awful and completely tasteless. I'm not too keen on Roger's solo stuff either. No, my favorite phase of Pink Floyd was when Rogers was the fledging leader but he wasn't yet a ruthless dictator who completely took over everything and he still allowed the rest of the band to contribute, as in DSotM and WYWH. I've never really seen what the big deal with TPatGoD is. It's a pretty good 60s psychedelic pop album, but even in its own time that was still all it was, and it didn't particularly stand apart from all the other 60s psychedelic bands as being anything truly exceptional or original. I'm afraid that in the psychedelic pop/rock field, The Beatles, Cream, and Hendrix were the true masters, not Floyd. In the atmospheric prog rock of the 70s, however, Pink Floyd were giants.

Your view of Piper is wrong to me. I see Piper as a perfect example of 60's prog and Syd as a leader of progressing music and a genious. How can you say Piper wasn't exceptional or orriginal? Have you not listened to the album? It is full of orriginallity and tasteful thinking and playing.

The sixties was one of the times when music copied itself to much. How can you say Syd copied anyone and was not one of the most innovative writers and players of that time? The album may be popular but that doesn't mean it's not prog.

If you say the Beatles were more prog than Syd then I'm going to have to disagree with you. The Beatles stuck to one formula, that was, short pop songs without improvision or orriginality. Sure they were orriginal at first but when you just keep writing stuff that you have preety much already written then it becomes less and less orriginal. The Beatles pushed musical bounderies and opened the door for many other artists but they weren't that different from all the other stuff going on at the time. I would like to see the Beatles write a 16 minute song like "Interstellar Overdrive" with so many chords and improvision and play it live.

How many instrumentals did The Beatles do? I think the answere can be counted on one hand. If you want to talk about Pink Floyd being "pop" then don't even try to compare them to artist that were truely the essence of what "pop" really means like The Beatles, Cream, or Hendrix, these artist are not true masters of progressing music, they did however make some great music. Do I even need to remind you that Pink Floyd were the first to put a totally instrumental song that was over 4 minutes long full of true improvision making Hendrix look like a calculated guitar player? Find me any other band that would even take the chance of editing and writing their own instrumental over the standard 3-4 minute song and put it on the record when the record companies fully advised them not to do it and that it would be too risky.

Who was more influential? The Beatles, Hendrix.

Who was more progressive in the late 60's and actually took chances when it came to writing music? Pink Floyd

First of all I am entitled to my opinion, and that is that I enjoy Interstellar Overdrive and second, I said the amount of improvion on that track is enough to make Hendrix look  like a calculated player.

Third, all those times that the Beatles are said to "reinvent" themselfs, they had only done it once by the time Piper came out, and I don't think the songs during 67 surpassed Piper. Sure the songs on Sgt. Pepper might not seem typical, but that's just barely. A few songs have different time signatures than most of that time period, so what? They have a french horn section in one of the songs, so what? They have a melotron in a song or two, so what? Did they really progress their sound that much? I think not.

Piper firmly established Pink Floyd as a major band of that time and was much more innovative, inventive, immaginative and instrumental than Sgt. Pepper, and it was only thier debut.

You say the Beatles changed their sound after Sgt. Pepper, ya your right, they changed it straight back to what we saw in Revolver. Hardly groundbreaking and nothing different. Oh my, you have a piano in some very short songs that are connected together to make another very short suite, wow! Now is that groundbreaking? I think not.

Hendrix and Beatles are much more pop than Pink Floyd was. Beatles reinvented their sound four times, big deal. Pink Floyd reinvented their sound, and all of rock for that matter, lets see, I count fourteen times.

Rust wrote: First of all I am entitled to my opinion, and that is that I enjoy Interstellar Overdrive and second, I said the amount of improvion on that track is enough to make Hendrix look  like a calculated player. Third, all those times that the Beatles are said to "reinvent" themselfs, they had only done it once by the time Piper came out, and I don't think the songs during 67 surpassed Piper. Sure the songs on Sgt. Pepper might not seem typical, but that's just barely. A few songs have different time signatures than most of that time period, so what? They have a french horn section in one of the songs, so what? They have a melotron in a song or two, so what? Did they really progress their sound that much? I think not. Piper firmly established Pink Floyd as a major band of that time and was much more innovative, inventive, immaginative and instrumental than Sgt. Pepper, and it was only thier debut. You say the Beatles changed their sound after Sgt. Pepper, ya your right, they changed it straight back to what we saw in Revolver. Hardly groundbreaking and nothing different. Oh my, you have a piano in some very short songs that are connected together to make another very short suite, wow! Now is that groundbreaking? I think not. Hendrix and Beatles are much more pop than Pink Floyd was. Beatles reinvented their sound four times, big deal. Pink Floyd reinvented their sound, and all of rock for that matter, lets see, I count fourteen times.

The Beatles went from "Love Me Do" to "A Day In The Life" in 4 years. That's progression!

"Pink Floyd reinvented all of rock 14 times" - you're going to have to expand on that one!

Edited by chopper

chopper wrote: Rust wrote: First of all I am entitled to my opinion, and that is that I enjoy Interstellar Overdrive and second, I said the amount of improvion on that track is enough to make Hendrix look  like a calculated player. Third, all those times that the Beatles are said to "reinvent" themselfs, they had only done it once by the time Piper came out, and I don't think the songs during 67 surpassed Piper. Sure the songs on Sgt. Pepper might not seem typical, but that's just barely. A few songs have different time signatures than most of that time period, so what? They have a french horn section in one of the songs, so what? They have a melotron in a song or two, so what? Did they really progress their sound that much? I think not. Piper firmly established Pink Floyd as a major band of that time and was much more innovative, inventive, immaginative and instrumental than Sgt. Pepper, and it was only thier debut. You say the Beatles changed their sound after Sgt. Pepper, ya your right, they changed it straight back to what we saw in Revolver. Hardly groundbreaking and nothing different. Oh my, you have a piano in some very short songs that are connected together to make another very short suite, wow! Now is that groundbreaking? I think not. Hendrix and Beatles are much more pop than Pink Floyd was. Beatles reinvented their sound four times, big deal. Pink Floyd reinvented their sound, and all of rock for that matter, lets see, I count fourteen times. The Beatles went from "Love Me Do" to "A Day In The Life" in 4 years. That's progression! "Pink Floyd reinvented all of rock 14 times" - you're going to have to expand on that one!

Mabey I did over elaborate a little when it came to Floyd progressing music 14 times, but they did progress their own sound atleast 14 times with each new studio release. I would say they progressed rock 6 times, most of those 6 being Darkside and after. The Beatles might have progressed music during the early 60's but during the later part of that decade when many other worthy prog bands, including Pink Floyd, emerged it is a fact they progressed music more than the Beatles.

The Beatles did have 4 albums in the American top 100 best selling album chart, which proves my orriginal point, that they were more pop than Pink Floyd and made "popier" music as opposed to Floyd during the late 60's. I believe the Floyd were more prog than the Beatles were.