this has been a skullheadjob productionOriginally Posted by Jerjo
stay tuned for more condescending troll posts in a thread near you
this has been a skullheadjob production
stay tuned for more condescending troll posts in a thread near you
Why is it whenever someone mentions an artist that was clearly progressive (yet not the Symph weenie definition of Prog) do certain people feel compelled to snort "thats not Prog" like a whiny 5th grader?
Wasn't this the beginning of the allWatersallthetime era where Rog wouldn't let anybody else's stuff in?
that was interesting... and surprisingly pleasant
I like how Waters is candid about being a jerk when he was younger
Why is it whenever someone mentions an artist that was clearly progressive (yet not the Symph weenie definition of Prog) do certain people feel compelled to snort "thats not Prog" like a whiny 5th grader?
The Surrogate Band was Waters take on the present, as it applied to Pink Floyd. He felt that they were playing venues that were so big, the audience couldn't even tell who was onstage. That's why he came up with the idea of each band member having a doppelganger, who wore a mask of the respective band member (eg Andy Bown wore a Waters mask, Snowy White wore a Gilmour mask, etc), to blur the lines between which of the eight were "the real band" and which were the "surrogates".
This conceit was taken a step further by having the show open with the Surrogate Band playing In The Flesh without participation from any of the actual members of Pink Floyd, save for Waters, who sang from behind a curtain, while Andy Bown lip synced onstage. If you listen to any of the live recordings of The Wall shows, you don't actually hear Gilmour, Mason or Wright until the second song, The Thin Ice.
Well, as far as that goes, the music had been "bigger than their ability to perform" since at least 1968. There was always lots of overdubs that couldn't be reproduced by four musicians onstage. Listen to Echoes, for instance, there's lots of places on that where there's two or even three simultaneous guitar parts, as well as multiple keyboard parts, etc.I don't think anyone in the audience would have been put out or disappointed with an extra horn player and some backing vocals. However, in the later tours, and I was there by the way... it was just so over the top, so many musicians it just felt like the music had become bigger than their ability to perform it.
The majority of the music from 77 onward probably could have been played as a quartet, with out the ancillary musicians, but it would have sounded very different, just as Echoes, Brain Damage, Money, Shine On You Crazy Diamond, sounded very different onstage circa 71-75.
I think a bigger point was, the band wanted to reproduce the studio versions relatively closely after a certain point. I think that they needed to reproduce the big lush sound of the records onstage, to go along with "the big show". I don't really see a problem with that. I mean, that's how they made the records sound, and that's part of why they're regarded as a "classic" band, was because of the way the records sounded. And I think they viewed one of the challenges of the live performance was to get that sound onstage. If took an extra one or two guitarists or an keyboardist, so what?
And it's not like the auxiliary musicians were doing "the heavy lifting". Or at least, I don't think they were. Certainly, in the guitar department, Gilmour still busted his ass playing every night. I believe the only songs where Tim Renwick played any solos were Learning To Fly and Another Brick In The Wall pt. 2 (and some nights, a little bit in Money).
You might be able to make an argument that Jon Carin was playing most of the prominent keyboard work, as it's hard to tell watching bootleg footage or from the nosebleed seats at Municipal Stadium (or Yankee Stadium, or Giants Stadium, or Earls Court, for that matter). But in the Pulse video, at least on the version that was broadcast on Pay Per View, there's a very good shot of Wright playing the synth solo in Any Colour You Like, which suggests he at least played some of the synth work himself.
Likewise, I think Mason really was drumming most of the time, though I notice on the Division Bell tour, there were two drumkits onstage, so who knows how much of the show was really Nick and how much was Gary Wallis playing drums, or for what reason they may have switched off. I recall a review online back in the 90's, written by someone who saw several shows on that tour, who said he specifically noticed Mason and Wallis switching off during Time (ie Nick playing the intro solo, then the fill that leads into the first verse and the first few bars would be Wallis, until Nick could sit down behind the kit again and then take over for the rest of the song), but beyond that, I haven't heard too much about how actually did what.
What simplicity?! Like I said, there were always overdubs on Pink Floyd records. Even on Piper At The Gates Of Dawn, being recorded on 4 track and all, there's overdubs. The idea that any time they could have played any of those records, and it would have sounded exactly like the record, with just the four of them, no backup musicians, tapes, etc, is completely ridiculous.What would it have sounded like with the same simplicity as what they did on record?
Define "official band member". Supposedly, Patrick Moraz was never an "official member" of The Moody Blues, despite being credited as such, and appearing on album covers, press photos and music videos during the time he was in the band. I read once that Ron Wood wasn't actually a member of The Rolling Stones until 1989 (supposedly it was part of why he agreed to do take part in the Steel Wheels album and tour), despite him likewise appearing on all tours, videos, press photos, etc for the preceding 14 years or whatever it had been.A substitute bassist is not worthy of becoming an official band member?
They did. With Guy Pratt.As far as Waters... why not replace him?
Well, the original plan viz-a-vis Gilmour joining wasn't to "add something new and take it somewhere else", but rather to keep the band from ceasing to exist altogether. They needed a way to keep going when Syd started falling apart. I don't think they had the same problem when Roger walked out of the band.Bring someone who could really add something new to the band and take it somewhere else...
just like Gimour (sic) did taking over for Sid?
They never pretended he wasn't important. I don't know where you get that from.It was wrong to just pretend Waters wasn't important,
I think another important thing to consider is, maybe after having spent all those years arguing with Roger, the other three weren't inclined to deal with someone else in that regard. I think it's a similar situation was with Genesis, with Gabriel and Hackett out of the band, they realized there was less stress over the songwriting and direction, and bringing some else in as an actual band member could theoretically merely recreate the previous situation (though I somehow suspect finding any other musician having Waters' titanic ego might be difficult).
Egads. This sounds like an extension of his idea of building a wall between the band and the audience, in order to separate performer and audience. Waters had some very odd ideas about what he did or didn't owe the audiences who paid to see him perform live.
I'm not sure what kind of scenario you're putting forth here. You think that immediately following the 77 tour, they should have gone back into the studio and immediately made the followup to Animals? OK, I guess that's one way of doing it.I don't know why they didn't get together earlier and add Gilmour's and Wrights solo stuff to The Wall instead of using it for solo work.
But I think the band were exhausted after the tour, and they probably wanted/needed a hiatus from each other, and the pressures of being in one of the biggest bands in the world. And obviously, Gilmour and Wright each had enough material to make up a solo record, and they probably each wanted to make a record where one wouldn't have to argue with someone else (and my impression is Roger was always argumentative, it didn't just start at the time of The Wall).
One suspects that all four of them were probably thinking "solo album" at the time. The Wall probably only ended up being a Pink Floyd record because they needed something that would sell well enough to bail them out of the financial crisis they found themselves in at the time.
And given what The Wall ended up being, I'm not sure the stuff that was on the David Gilmour album (never heard China White, so I can't comment there) would have fit in on The Wall. I mean, where/how would you have used Mihalis on The Wall, for instance? And I'm not sure the other songs would have been better placed on The Wall either.
Also,as has been pointed out, though Gilmour and Ezrin did make some songwriting contributions to The Wall (some of which, allegedly, went unheralded in the bylines), it was basically written as a pre-existing song cycle by Waters, who then presented it to the band (along with Pros And Cons Of Hitchhiking, which was written during the same time frame, apparently). There really wasn't a whole lot of wiggle room, in terms of inserting the contributions of others. As I said, Roger may have conceived it as a solo record, and had a hard time letting go of that when it became apparent that it wasn't going to be one.
Useless it wasn't, but by page 2 it was already a war zone
You know, dude, you're not much better than skullhead, and if I may, your posting rate (900 in what... 2.5 months)... At that rate, you'll overtake the biggest posters here within a few months. At least skull post sparingly... though when he does, it's usually noticed by everyone
While TFC is far from perfect (and I WTF'd on it when it was released) and I rarely pull it out, but when I do, every time, I'm pleasantly surprised if I remain an objective observer. The album has only piano and organs for "keyboards" instead of all those synths of The Wall, BTW.
I got rid of AMLOR, there aren't any redeaming factors
Yeah, AF is soft on the 80's productions compared to its contemporaries, but compared to Pros & Cons, it was shocking. (though Rog's Radio Kaos would do much worse "in 80's prod" direction >> but later would get beaten to death by AMLOR)
Mmmhhh!!!... Let it be known that I find Gilmour's solo albums (including TDB
) better than 95% of all the albums released in the occidental world. I saw his tour (with Mick Ralphs on guitar), but was utterly disappointed on how few stuff he played from his first solo album (not even sure they did, TBH)
Yeah, but let's face it, it would be like if Ron Wood would inherit TRS ownership if Jagger leaves the band at the expense of Keith.
The Floyd ownership should've befallen on Mason's lap, not Gilmour. Don't get me wrong, I think Dave was right to continue
And all their ideas went out in Wet Dreams and DG's s/t, so they had nothing to contribute or counter Water's' two concepts (Wall and P&C) he proposed since nobody had anything to put on the table.
If that were the case, then Gilmour's songs on The Wall wouldn't be there (and thankfully they are)
Yeah, you can sense the hurt in Mason when Waters brutally states that he regrets nothing from the Floyd days... Mason twitches and tries to get him to soften his stance, but Waters is probably too far in his drinking to realize (and knows the camera is filming)
MMMhhh!!!... I don't think Roger was thinking solo at the time... Too busy saving Floyd from bankrupcy... and he was proposing all his concepts (including the future P&C) to the band.
Last edited by Trane; 02-03-2018 at 04:02 AM.
my music collection increased tenfolds when I switched from drug-addicts to complete nutcases.
Wasn't getting at anything except forgot the timing. Wright and Gilmour did their solo albums and Waters went and wrote The Wall and Pros and Cons of Hitchhiking . Waters let the other three decide which they would work on as Pink Floyd and Rog would take the other as a solo project.
Mason is an equal partner with Gilmour and Wright got his partnership back during TDB.
Gilmour has said on several occasions that he regrets not fighting for more writing credits on earlier albums stating the Rog didn't write the solos, he did. I don't know how that all works but to me for something like the long intro to Sheep it seems Wright should have gotten a credit.
Well, I suppose that's why Gilmour took Mason on boards for AMLOR and even mentionned Wright in the credits: adding Floyd credibilty to an otherwise solo album... I suppose I wouldn't hate AMLOR as much if it had been a Gilmour-signed album, and therefore not usurping the Floyd name. I mean, it's bad by Floyd standards (Rog's Kaos of the same year trounces it, IMHO), but for the times (87), it's maybe a sligthly better than average album, in one of the most dreadful year of history of music.
As for songwriting credits, it's always an issue, IMHO...
Playing solos (Gilmour in this case) and writing arrangements (Wright in this case) are not considered "songwritings forms"... Maybe they should account for something, though.
my music collection increased tenfolds when I switched from drug-addicts to complete nutcases.
Rest assured had Roger attempted The Wall as a solo project it would not have sold near as well as having the Floyd branding attached to it.. Gilmour has stated one of the reasons he warmed to the idea of putting Floyd back on the road with MLOR was that his audience was small touring as a solo artist.. I think he had to cancel several shows due to poor ticket sales.. and of course Waters experienced the same thing when Floyd was on the road for MLOR tour selling out arenas he was playing to half empty venues.
I agree, and also thought it was a money grab. With Waters out, Wright acting as a sideman basically, and Mason out of shape needing the assistance of a second drummer, it's more than obvious what was going on. The album of course pales in comparison to anything before it.
It was a Gilmour solo album in reality. The only reason people call it a Pink Floyd album is because it had Pink Floyd written on the jacket or CD booklet. People can buy into that, or not... certainly not me.
Three songs out of 26, and arguably the three most famous: "Young Lust, "Comfortably Numb" and "Run Like Hell."
The rest are "Words and music by Roger Waters..."
I think "Another Brick in the Wall" (by far, the most famous) and "Mother" get more airplay that "Young Lust."
"The White Zone is for loading and unloading only. If you got to load or unload go to the White Zone!"
Gilmours solo in that song is what made it iconic.. He should have gotten a writing credit.. I know he gets a producer credit
I agree, this is what he was after at those shows, but I suspect it was also a bit prophetic about the future of the band and what it turned into. I remember going to the concerts in the 80's and feeling duped, because I wanted to see Pink Floyd and not a slew of side musicians on the stage recreating the music not much different than a tribute band. Some tribute bands are great at what they do.... I give them credit, but when I'm there to see the real deal, I want the real deal.
We know what the albums sound like with all the overdubs etc. Sometimes overdubs are just for sonic texture blending etc.... but I don't think every single overdub needs to be filled in at a concert. One of the things that makes me want to go to a concert is to see how "the band" is going to adapt to the live situation.
I think Led Zeppelin is a perfect example of how to do it right. The songs take on a whole new dynamic and in some ways, often better. Also in the case of LZ, you have an even more stripped down element because it's basically a three piece band with a singer. It's inspiring to watch John Paul Jones move from bass to organ as needed, and to see Page filling in all kinds of new guitar stuff, making decisions about whether to solo or play rhythm against the bass or keyboard parts. No Quarter is a perfect example of a song that really comes more to life in a live situation. Listening to "The Song Remains the Same" it certainly has taken some flack, but why? because it sounds open raw and more honest? It marks the band at a certain point in time in a live situation, drugs and all.
So getting back to Pink Floyd, how would that have sounded if just those four guys were on stage? Might Rick Wright have had to add another rack of keyboards etc? I would have loved to listen to what HE THOUGHT was most important of the layers to add into the music. How would Gilmour approach his guitar palate in a live situation without backing tracks? Why does Nick Mason need a second drummer? It's crazy. He's a wonderful drummer. Is he too lazy to practice parts he wrote himself before the tour? If so maybe he shouldn't be on stage.
Here is the thing... as fans, we are there to see "A BAND", not a solo artist. Now if I go out to see David Bowie, then I expect to see a stage of hired guns hand picked by Bowie. I know that going into it. But if I pay to see a band, then I expect to see that band. I get that they might bring in a guy to blow sax on "Money" or "Us and Them"... or a gal to attempt "Great Gig", but I want THOSE GUYS to play everything else they can. I'm not interested in seeing all these other people playing the parts of the actual members.
Solo artists use hired guns... that is what they do. Bands are bands because they are supposed to be A BAND! A band should be a collective collaboration between the members. I get that Waters wanted to be a solo artist .... and he quit and he did. Now if I want to go see his show, I know it is NOT going to be Pink Floyd members. I'm ok with that because I know he is now a solo artist using hired guns. I know, like Bowie, he is going to REALLY get on with his vision of doing it exactly how he wants. But is it Pink Floyd? No it is not. Better? Worse? you make the call.
I saw YES in maybe 2003? The Mark lll version with Squire, White, Anderson, Wakeman, Howe. It was just those guys on stage killing it. They played "The Revealing Science of God" and it was just fantastic. Sure, without overdubs etc... didn't need any of that in a live performance. I walked out of the theater totally inspired. I knew that I had seen something very special and masterful. With Pink Floyd, I did not feel that way at all. I think I could have if they had stripped it down and played that stuff as they did like "Pompeii". I could have been hiding in the ancient ruins out of sight and been blown away by that performance. They certainly did those songs justice without extra musicians filling in overdubbed studio parts.
That's why we go see live music. If I want to hear all the studio gloss, I'll stay home and spin the record through a nice cartridge, tube amp, and a pair of high efficiency speakers.
As I said, if AMLOR had been a Gilmour solo album, it's not his worst... But it's by far the worst "Floyd "-named album.
Hey You gets plenty of airplay in Continental Europe as well.
my music collection increased tenfolds when I switched from drug-addicts to complete nutcases.
Sure, it's a radio staple in the US, too.
"The White Zone is for loading and unloading only. If you got to load or unload go to the White Zone!"
TFC is the worst and least Pink Floyd sounding album of all their albums. None of the spacey Synths/Keys that were present on all of their other 14 albums, therefore completely devoid of the "Pink Floyd sound"
Why is it whenever someone mentions an artist that was clearly progressive (yet not the Symph weenie definition of Prog) do certain people feel compelled to snort "thats not Prog" like a whiny 5th grader?
Agree 100%.
But you & I are not in the nWnF camp.
Some people just cannot handle the reality that there was a Pink Floyd after Waters chose to leave, a Genesis after Gabriel chose to leave, a Soft Machine after Robert Wyatt, a Yes after.....well, you get the picture. Repeating ad nauseum that those albums don't exist or don't count etc is ludicrous and accomplishes nothing. People are free to not like them or listen to them, but this lather, rinse, repeat, repeat, repeat stuff is absolutely silly.
It is perfectly acceptable for a fan to like only a certain period or to love all iterations/evolutionary periods. However, loving only one particular era and insisting that only a "true fan" would love only that period is sheer idiocy.
The Final Cut irritates me. As I have said before, "we get it Roger, Daddy died too young and war is bad." That album is somewhat typical of Roger's emphasis on lyrics over melody that we're seen in his solo career. Nonetheless, his solo stuff does have some gems in it. Amused to Death is a great album. And for that matter, so is The Division Bell (see what I did there).
I don't like country music, but I don't mean to denigrate those who do. And for the people who like country music, denigrate means 'put down.'- Bob Newhart
As far as melody is concerned, there is at least as much melody on The Final Cut as there is on Amused to Death.
"No melody" on Post War Dream? Your Possible Pasts? Gunner's Dream? Fletcher Memorial Home? The Final Cut? Two Suns in the Sunset?
Fake news.
I agree that the "true fan" thing is complete idiocy
However, you obviously don't get TFC... there is much less talk of Roger's dad than on The Wall (film or album). Only one song deals with that... The rest deals mostly about Maggie Bitcher sending troops to defend the few rocks of the Falkland war.
my music collection increased tenfolds when I switched from drug-addicts to complete nutcases.
If there is any album that should not be considered a true Pink Floyd album, it's obviously The Final Cut. Waters wrote all the lyrics and insisted on the anti-war theme to the album. Wright does not even play on the album. Mason's contributions were pretty much limited to sound effects and very little real drumming. Gilmour was limited to one shared vocal, no writing credits, and no production credits. It's a Waters solo album and really should not have carried the Pink Floyd name, but they owed the record co another album.
I'm someone who agrees with Waters political and anti-war views for the most part, and I would have no problem with the album as a solo Waters album. Momentary Lapse and Division Bell had real contributions from the 3 remaining members of PF and was much more a return to the sound and style of what we expect PF to sound like.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks