I was reading an interview with Davidd Gilmour from 1999, and he was asked this question:

Q: Who did you hate most out of Genesis, E.L.P., Yes or King Crimson?
(C.T.-Stevenage)

DG: Probably Yes, E.L.P., Genesis and King Crimson in that order...

The question is pretty leading...I mean, it's not like Gilmour himself picked the names on that list. If you asked him to name his top hated bands among all music, I have a feeling few if any of those names would come out on top.

I'll bet most prog artists are sick of being lumped in with bands that they don't have much in common with. Even when a band is obviously prog, that doesn't mean they have to think of themselves that way...just as long as they stay true to their personal inspirations, I don't mind them calling themselves whatever they like.

Yes, the question was very leading, but nevertheless I didn't expect such a direct answer, without (seemingly) much hesitation, to a question as stupid as "which do you hate the most...?"  

On the other hand I remember once reading an interview with Richard Wright (reading interviews with PF members is my big passion) He said he was very fond of Gabriel-era Genesis, and listened to them a lot in the 70ies. That might explain why I have always preferred Wright over Gilmour   

Vince wrote: On the back of the "Inside Pink Floyd" DVD, there is a quote from David Gilmour saying that Atom Heart Mother is a piece of crap... Hey Radioactive, I bet he would like your Atom Fart Mother sig

haha shall I send him fanmail?

Swinton MCR wrote: He was probably a bit peed off because they all produced finer music than him !

 Agreed, absoloutamente

Genesis made 3 good albums?

*counts* Actually, seven.

he hates german prog (kraftwerk an others notably)

I remember an interview about him...quite arrogant!!!

diseasedmind wrote: IMHO id rate pink floyd higher than all those bands..

Floyd are nowhere near as talented musically as KC, Yes, or ELP. Floyd are better songwriters, though.

NOT SURE MY FRIEND!!!

oliverstoned wrote: -Nursery crime -Selling england -Foxtrot

Best three, but not the only good ones. For me, Lamb, Trespass and the first two Collins albums are masterpieces as well.

what was Pink Floyd's relationship with the ther prog acts of the day, specifically the bands listed?

most of the other prog bands worked with eachother in some way or another, but PF seems to be left out

Aaron

Swinton MCR wrote: He was probably a bit peed off because they all produced finer music than him !

That's exactly what I think of that !

Genesis did at least 5 MASTERPIECE, and many good stuff

Pink Floyd did maximum 4 GOOD album, and some good stuff

For me, no comparaison...Genesis, ELP, Yes and King Crimson are giant, and Pink Floyd are...an ordinary or a good band, no more (That's my opinion)

Steve Hackett doesn't seem too hot on prog either.

This is from Guitar Player Magazine December 2003 interview with him (Issue 403, Volume 37, Number 12), pages 41- 46:

"You typicallly get lumped in with the prog thing. Do you feel that's fair?

That's a difficult one, isn't it? No matter what I do, I'm forever progressive. There's no way around it. If I do a blues album, or an album or Erik Satie pieces, I'm still reviewed as a progressive artist. In the end, any kind of notoriety has its limitations. Wouldn't it be great to come to the plot with a clean slate each time? But it's kind of nice that people listened to something I'd done in the first place, so I can't really complain."

"You have a sincere love of the blues. What is the origin of that and why didn't we hear any of it in Genesis?

[...] When I joined Genesis in 1971, I played a mixture of things for them, including sme blues harmonica. But, in those days, Genesis considered the blues as a bit of a joke, so it had to be kept under wraps. To me, blues is this passionate thing where the electric guitar sounds its most authentic. I'd rather hear an honest blues than a band struggling through some logical progression in 7/8 or 9/8 any day. [...] But we [Genesis] were just a bunch of young guys who didn't realize that what we were doing would soon become unfashionable."

ELP had 6 masterpieces... and a couple of other closebys....

Altho I love Floyd.. and I think they've got atleast 5 masterpieces of their own.  I think David was most likely just tired of being asked that question. 

He was asked which ones he hated the most. He didn't ever really say how much he hated any of them. For all we know, Yes could be one of his favorite bands, but he "hates" them more than ELP, King Crimson, etc.

Or he could view them as competition. Or he could be an old crotchety coot. Or he could be joking. Or he just doesn't like prog. Or he's jealous that they can all play better than him. (oooh....sorry Gilmour fans ) Or...something.

threefates wrote: ELP had 6 masterpieces... and a couple of other closebys.... Altho I love Floyd.. and I think they've got atleast 5 masterpieces of their own.  I think David was most likely just tired of being asked that question.

It isn't quantity.. it's quality

Ah well you'll have your elp share.. I really tried.. I failed.. Is it something with elp - elp that is bad and I should try another album? or..

My order of these groups is: King Crimson, Genesis, Yes, ELP and Pink Floyd. I think Pink Floyd is often more pop than prog (sorry PF fans ). Gilmour does have great feeling and sound, but Fripp, Howe and Hackett are much better players technically. And so were all musicians in those bands in comparison with Pink Floyd. 

Velvetclown wrote: David who ??????????

David Carradine...grasshopper!

Fantômas wrote: David Gilmour should try to be more like Fripp... The world would be a better place...

But Robert Fripp is literally on record (or CD) stating he doesn't like prog!!!!!!!

I would suggest Gilmour and Fripp don't like being tarred with the term 'progressive rock', because of 30 years of negative press.

DallasBryan wrote: Pink Floyd could be considered the godfathers of cosmic/space/psychedelic music with the release of Dark Side of the Moon creating the european cosmic progressive scene.

wrong!   bands as Ash ra tempel , Popol Vuh and Tangerine Dream have released their first albums before the release of dark side of the moon.... but you are not enterily wrong, this album developed a passion to space rock for a whole generation!!

I'm sure most rock musicians are completely up their own arses and believe they are something they are not.

Gilmour probably hated other prog bands because they all had better drummers and keyboard players than floyd, and were therefore able to make more interesting music. The fact that he sold more records than any other prog band says more about the lack of imagination on the listerners part, rather than any defficiency on the part of his contemporaries.

And I am a Pink Floyd fan!! It annoys me when people like him say things like that..He's only a f***ing rock star FFS!!

'We're just musicians. Its not that noble a pursuit' Geddy Lee

You're right in that people dont regard them as prog rock.

Most people I know like selected Floyd tracks or albums, but would laugh their arses off at Genesis, Yes or ELP. They would certainly not asscociate PF with them. I would of course, politiely disagree with them.

Radioactive Toy wrote: threefates wrote: ELP had 6 masterpieces... and a couple of other closebys.... Altho I love Floyd.. and I think they've got atleast 5 masterpieces of their own.  I think David was most likely just tired of being asked that question.  It isn't quantity.. it's quality Ah well you'll have your elp share.. I really tried.. I failed.. Is it something with elp - elp that is bad and I should try another album? or..

Yeh, you probably just need to grow up first... then you can start to appreciate real music...

hopelevre wrote: david gilmour is a conceited condescending hypocrite. since wish you were here he has managed to bleed dry the integrity of one of the greatest BAND'S( no david it is NOT the david gilmour band) in rock history. to the point that he forced the band name onto inferior product(momentary lapse, division bell)even though its main creative force and cornerstone (roger waters) had long since left . all this to pad the overstuffed pockets of an overrated guitarist who indulges himself and his fantasies as being one of the greatest ever far too much, taking himself and his music ( good as it may be) far too seriously.

David Gilmour is none of those things.  And unless you've met him and had a conversation with him, you're just basing your assumption of an editor's idea of what David Gilmour should sound like.  I've met David quite a few times, and he's always been gracious and kind.  But after 35 years of answering the same useless questions, I'm sure he probably just starts to make things up for a little variety.  I've read several interviews where he answers the same question in quite a few different ways with no relation.  I'm sure he's just trying to keep himself amused thru it all.

David Gilmour is none of those things.  And unless you've
met him and had a conversation with him, you're just basing
your assumption of an editor's idea of what David Gilmour
should sound like.  I've met David quite a few times, and he's
always been gracious and kind.  But after 35 years of
answering the same useless questions, I'm sure he probably
just starts to make things up for a little variety.  I've read several
interviews where he answers the same question in quite a few
different ways with no relation.  I'm sure he's just trying to keep
himself amused thru it all.

Vince wrote: On the back of the "Inside Pink Floyd" DVD, there is a quote from David Gilmour saying that Atom Heart Mother is a piece of crap... Hey Radioactive, I bet he would like your Atom Fart Mother sig

That's because Floyd hated the album...Shame cos i think it's one of their best early albums

I bet if you asked most old prog musicians what was in their old record collection..there would'nt be much prog in there.

9 times out of 10 most musicians of the early era were Classical or Jazz trained/influenced,usually their preference in listerning too i guess.

hopelevre wrote: my post ahd nothign to do with the question asked of mr. gilmour and everything to do with his general attitudes not one in a specific instance. he is corrupted by self love and commercial greed.

Speculation and nasty speculation at that.

I have never met the guy and can only form an opinion from watching or reading interviews with him.I detect no "self-love" or to be more accurate arrogance and egotism,whatsoever.He seems perfectly level-headed and self-deprecating to me.

As for your view of the last two "Floyd" albums,you are of,course entitled to them.

For my part I think they are two of the best rock albums released over the last 20 yrs or so!

Progger wrote: Gilmour is a good guitarist, not brilliant, not exceptional, just good. He can consider himself very lucky that he was in a band that had a genius called Roger Waters to carry him!!!!!

Without gilmour waters would have been lost. Case in point; The Final Cut

con safo wrote: Without gilmour waters would have been lost. Case in point; The Final Cut

Without Waters there is no Pink Floyd. Case in point; Momentary Lapse Of Reason & The Division Bell. Even the great Bob Ezrin coudn't save these two Gilmour solo albums from being very poor

I am not anti Dave Gilmour, just being realistic. Like I say, he's a good guitarist but isn't up there with the greats. Gilmour has a great ear for melody but lacks good technical ability. He cannot be compared to the Howe's, Fripp's, Satriani's & Vai's of this world.

The last two Floyd albums don't have one memorable track on them. This was the proof that without Waters there cannot be a Pink Floyd!

The truth of the matter is that most post 80's prog bands copy Gilmour's guitar sound because it isn't difficult to do!

Progger wrote: was the proof that without Waters there cannot be a Pink Floyd

The Division Bell contains what is probably my all-tim favorite song: Wearing the Inside Out.

I think they complemented eachother well as musicians, the albums that they worked on together (and under good terms) were their best albums... and the albums that either one took head role in were their weakest.

Not saying gilmour is as able as Steve Howe, but he is a good guitarist.

Ha ha ha!

At least he hates YES the most ;-) But, if seriously, I think David Gilmour does not hate any of these bands. He just made fun of the interviewer.  

Arteum wrote: Ha ha ha! At least he hates YES the most ;-) But, if seriously, I think David Gilmour does not hate any of these bands. He just made fun of the interviewer.

I also considered it some kind of a joke when I read it..

Another interesting thing I've come across browsing through the internet, is, that possibly the most hated once-a-prog-musician by the members of this forum, the great drummer Phil Collins actually liked prog, especially Yes. Just look below (sorry if it is hard to read) 

I doubt that would be his answers today This is probably from around 1972-74.

Progger wrote: I am not anti Dave Gilmour, just being realistic. Like I say, he's a good guitarist but isn't up there with the greats. Gilmour has a great ear for melody but lacks good technical ability. He cannot be compared to the Howe's, Fripp's, Satriani's & Vai's of this world. The last two Floyd albums don't have one memorable track on them. This was the proof that without Waters there cannot be a Pink Floyd! The truth of the matter is that most post 80's prog bands copy Gilmour's guitar sound because it isn't difficult to do!

no, people like rothery are very capable guitarists, they dont play like gilmour because its easy, its because its a great style...gilmour is a great guitarist, like forgotten son said, there really is too much gilmour bashing on this thread, really...im ashamed of you guys.

IMHO Gilmour has done good music, but the interesting elements in PINK FLOYD's music came from SYD BARRET (before he went to Jupiter) and ROGER WATERS (before he got too much piss in his head). As a person, I don't value him very much... Sorry if this hurt's somebody elses but Gilmour's feelings. It shouldn't.

HAHAHA...........I have ALWAYS questioned whether Pink Floyd were truly progressive....and those comments by David Gilmore are proof that once again I am right.............haha...nah I'm just joking......I mean that section of the interview was taken at random.....we have no idea what preceded or followed those remarks.....You can basically assume anything from those statements.

.........Maybe he was joking, who knows.....in order for me to comment on that section of the interview I would have to read the whole thing and establish what context was being proposed....It's sort of watching a news cast or a film, and there is editing done to make you see the point of view of the creator.

If David Gilmour is serious and not joking around, I wouldnt be surpirsed....after all, Robert Fripp has said many times that he HATES the term PROGRESSIVE to describe his music.....and there is certainly no debating the context of his remarks....Fripp is damn serious.

Also I would like to comment on the dangers of trying to over label and categorize, putting bands into boxes in the process....this is why I refuse to acknowledge progressive BANDS, but I will acknowledge only progressive MUSIC....I seriously doubt that any member of Pink Floyd thinks of themselves as being progressive....but yet we veto their imput and label them as progressive anyway. For example...John Lennon SWEARS up and down that Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds is NOT about LSD....but some of us will forever see it as a song about LSD, because the listener has taken over the aim and content of the artist's work...this happens of course, it is a natural process. A piece of music is the property of the artist, but once that music leaves the hand of the artist, in a way it is no longer his....so therefore we could basically say that Pink Floyd is prog because that is what some people feel....regardless of what the HELL the band members say.  

We have TOLD these bands, commanded upon them....THAT THEY ARE A CERTAIN TYPE OF MUSIC AND THEY CAN BE NOTHING ELSE.....and that is WRONG.....Phil Collins once remarked.."prog music was something Genesis DID, but that's not all Genesis IS"......

stonebeard wrote: reviving a 4 month old topic:  and

Yea.... Its a good topic

Guests wrote: david gilmour is a conceited condescending hypocrite. since wish you were here he has managed to bleed dry the integrity of one of the greatest BAND'S( no david it is NOT the david gilmour band) in rock history. to the point that he forced the band name onto inferior product(momentary lapse, division bell)even though its main creative force and cornerstone (roger waters) had long since left . all this to pad the overstuffed pockets of an overrated guitarist who indulges himself and his fantasies as being one of the greatest ever far too much, taking himself and his music ( good as it may be) far too seriously.

Dude, what are you talking about, show me anywhere where David said he was the best guitar player and that he was better than all other prog bands? When did he ever take his music too seriously?

I read in an interveiw that he thinks of their music as simple and that it's not all that complicated, just like everyone on this site says, they are simple. That doesn't mean their bad, as they are my favorite, but he never said any of the crap your acusing him of.

jitu wrote: Snow Dog wrote: Sounds like he should be a member of this Forum

connect four

Gentle Ronnie wrote: oliverstoned wrote: -Nursery crime -Selling england -Foxtrot Best three, but not the only good ones. For me, Lamb, Trespass and the first two Collins albums are masterpieces as well.

Totally agree. And Genesis Live and Seconds Out. Everything else is pretty poor.

  I heard that Roger Waters and Peter Gabriel are good friends. I think some of this anti other prog bands is just attention seeking stuff a bit like the old Beatles Versus Rolling Stones conflict.However Prog does seem to be a stigma ( The Bee Gees have called themselves the enigma with a stigma over their disco involvement ). It takes a lot to be out  of step with the times even when the times sucK ( late 70s early 80s).

David Gilmour is just too full of himself. He's not that great on the guitar. I personally prefer Syd Barrett. Roger Waters may be too arrogant as well but Pink Floyd actually needs his creative genius. Division Bell and A Momentary Lapse of Reason, the two Waters wasn't there for, were the two worst Pink Floyd albums in my opinion.

Moral of the thread:

Being in Pink Floyd makes you an ***hole.......

ya because Rick Wright is such an a**hole as everyone says,

by the way I'm being sarcastic