Pink Floyd "The Later Years: 1987-2019" 17-disc box set 11/29/2019

[MYSTERIOUS TRAVELLER]

I find AMLOR and TFC to be bookends of sorts. One shows Floyd with Roger in the drivers' seat, the other, David. It's interesting when writing teams eventually split, stop sharing a vision and go their own separate ways. A similar thing happened in Kansas. Their Steve Walsh-driven Freaks of Nature is a similar yin/yang situation with it's Kerry Livgren-driven follow up, Somewhere to Elsewhere. All offer interesting "alternate realities" to what made their bands famous and great originally.

agreed
insightful point of view

[Drake]

That One Slip remix is not too impressive. Why did they put a pillow on the mix?


Skickat från min iPhone med Tapatalk

[Interstellar]

At least on AMLOR they were trying new things. On DB it sounds like the have songs that parody past glories. High Hiopes is the high point because it isn't a straight up rehash. Still, I'd play AMLOR first...

I share this point of view. AMLOR, to me, is the overproduced follow-up to About Face, but at least it brings something new and somehow fresh to the PF discography. I have tried to like TDB, but I find it desperately unbalanced, with that Take It Back / Coming Back To Life sequence in the middle, which is once again some (poorly inspired) Gimour solo material IMHO. I remember hearing High Hopes for the first time and saying to myself : "Yes, things are getting interesting now !" Except it's the last track. If they had included some of the psychedelic material later released on TER, the album may have made another impression on me.

[Casey]

I want to thank everyone who responded to my question. Make no mistake, I wasn't singling anyone out & I admit that, in retrospect, me saying "universal distaste" was over the top.

My question was more of a personal nature. I became a devout PF fan upon the release of Ummaguma. It was the picture on the back of the LP that enticed me: so much equipment, it's got to be good. I didn't really care for the "solo" LP but the live one... man, it satisfied something inside me like nothing else (at that time in my life 8-> ). After that, & for a few decades, I gobbled up anything with the name "Pink Floyd" on it. It got so bad that my brother once said that if they released an LP of Roger Waters' farts I would buy it. Probably right. But the first chink in the armor came with The Wall. Except for a few flashes of the style of music I liked, the album left me flat. And everything since, group & solo, CD & video, failed to strike my sweet spot. But I have all of their releases, & some they didn't "officially" release & I'll probably keep them. At least a while longer.

Since this personal evolution of taste & desire to one more discriminitory & practical, I've often wondered if I would like some other album if the PF moniker was on it or if I wouldn't give a 2nd listen to if it didn't have the PF brand. I have so many CDs. I now find myself wondering why.

[Tangram]

I don't think it was supposed to sound 'spectacularly' different. Just with less 80s sheen and a sound that sounded more like Mason and Wright were part of things. I think it works though it might be a little too clean now. I'm definitley hearing parts I didn't before. Like that Leslied guitar part under the chorus. It's makes me curious to hear the rest of the album. No way I'm buying that box though!

I'm starting to think I got my hopes too high for this box set. I agree with your statement on the sound of the remix. But underneath it all was the same song. I really don't know what I was expecting because it gave exactly what they said would be delivered. I am looking forward to the expanded Delicate Sound of Thunder set.

I have to say that I liked the AMLOR when it was released. To me, the Gilmour led Floyd was like a breath of fresh air. While it was much lighter in subject matter( expecting Sorrow, Dogs of War) , I felt that the Animals, The Wall, The Final Cut was all that I needed in that style of lyric writing with the music that came with it. And while the remix may turn out to be different and less 80's like, I'm not sure its going to be worth it. I hope they end up breaking up the box like the Early Years, because there is no way I'm forking over ~$400 for this or most any other boxset.

[Trane]

I don't think it was supposed to sound 'spectacularly' different. Just with less 80s sheen and a sound that sounded more like Mason and Wright were part of things. I think it works though it might be a little too clean now. I'm definitley hearing parts I didn't before. Like that Leslied guitar part under the chorus. It's makes me curious to hear the rest of the album. No way I'm buying that box though!

Same here (not sure about the "too clean", though)

The rest of the album does sound enough like Pink Floyd. Indeed it's been claimed earlier sessions saw songs rejected because they 'didn't sound Pink Floyd enough'.

The Division Bell is better, helped by less '80s' sound. The first half or so and 'High Hopes' are really special. But again there are a few weaker tracks in this stadium vein.

There are remnants of 80's productions in TDB, but much less obtrusive and I don't hold it against the general album's sonics.

Perhaps there's a perception of some "universal distaste" based on the number of 'hate posts', but it's important to note that the person who has written the most posts in this thread is an unabashed Gilmour hater. So don't just count the number of posts hating on AMLOR; one must consider the source of the hate posts.

You might want to apologize to that poor guy you're aiming at.siffle.gifdown.gif

I know I would feel offended it if it was me that you were so clumsily shooting for, you clumsy Roger-hater. sdiable.giflmao.gif

Here's thing... I'm fucking sick of Dark Side through The Wall. They are the most overplayed albums in their catalog and are the bulk of every tribute show and jam. I mean YOU HAVE to play that stuff. I get it. But it's impossible to escape. People going to a show expect it because those are arguably their best albums. But familiarity breeds contempt and I am to that point. So to me, the albums before and after that are much more preferable.

Totally agree... The only ones of my buddies that are still playing live is in a Floyd tribute (Pink Factory) and for years, they concentrated on those 4 albums... I went to their concerts for friendly support, but was bored out of my skull. Last time I saw them, one of the KBdist pushed Astronomy Domine, and One Of These Days and the band, at first unconvinced, was suprised by the warm recption (probably because I participated in the crowd noise ), and they will do more (I hope) for next gigs.

So what if AMLOR is a glorified Dave album? If you don't like the tunes, fine. But it's not "bad". The second side in particular has some of the coolest music in their catalog. For some reason the Division Bell didn't age as well for me. At least on AMLOR they were trying new things. On DB it sounds like the have songs that parody past glories. High Hopes is the high point because it isn't a straight up rehash. Still, I'd play AMLOR first...

As I said, I always had problems with the 80's production (but I've got that as well for half of About Face and most of Radio KAOS as well.... and to a (much) lesser extent for TDB). Maybe if they release the stand-alone new mix (or as a bonus disc)

That One Slip remix is not too impressive. Why did they put a pillow on the mix?

Difficult to judge on YT , though, but yes, there is a sound level difference

[jkelman]

I don't share the 'universal distaste'. I think the rest of the album is fine. Just not those two songs. As I said they feel like the weaker moments of About Face- 'Blue Light' and the like. And Gilmour digs out that 'grunting' vocal on 'The Dogs Of War' that he used on 'All Lovers Are Deranged'.

Nor do I. Certainly not PF’s finest moment (and I’ll be clear about that when I review the box), but far from a bad album. Yes, songs like “Learning to Fly” and “Dogs of War” don’t sound anything like anything Floyd had done to that time...but this was, after all, originally intended to be a Gilmour solo record, and with that in mind, makes more sense. After all, Tony Levin, on a PF album, is as terrific as ever, but just doesn’t sound Floyd (he’s just too accomplished, to be honest).

The instrumental tracks absolutely feel like Floyd to me, and while the 2011 remix/remaster helped de-“80s it, I’ve greater expectations for the new mix that will be included in the box, with Mason’s new drums (if all goes well, I might have it this coming week or, worst case, the following week...in the meantime, I’m largely spending my time absorbing 30 discs of Gentle Giant).

So no, AMLOR isn’t Floyd at its best...but, for me, it’s as good or better than both The Wall and The Final Cut, neither of which, barring a couple of tracks, sounded much like Floyd to me either. i don’t think I’m alone in feeling that the last great Waters-era Floyd album was Animals.

So I’m never quite sure where the hate for this album is, when the band’s two previous studio albums were, at least IMO, low points for Waters-era Floyd. And I also cut AMLOR a bit of slack as Gilmour strove to turn a solo album into a Floyd record...and, in that regard, was also trying to figure out exactly what a post-Waters Floyd album would even sound like.

So, a transitional and inconsistent album, I think, that was much better live, as evidenced on A Delicate Sound of Thunder. Post-Waters Floyd also largely found its feet again with The Division Bell and, while The Endless River was a posthumous tribute to Wright, culled from Division Bell sessions, I enjoy it quite a bit as well.

Add that Floyd had already become a stadium style band in the mid-to-late ‘70s, so I’ve no issue with post-Waters continuing in that vein, which means some of the material may well have been designed for that context...but both A Delicate Sound of Thunder and P.U.L.S.E. were, at least IMO, fine albums and videos. So, with the knowledge that this was a very different Floyd than my favourite years from Ummagumma through Animals (with special affection for Atom Heart Mother, Animals and especially Meddle), I can enjoy it for what it is...rather than bemoaning what it isn’t.

And, after all, it took some time for Waters to find his post-Floyd feet also. While albums prior to it have their moments, they are very inconsistent as well (at least, IMO); it’s only been with Amused to Death and Is This the Life We Really Want? that he finally found his own place. Not to mention that, based on the live videos he’s released and other performances I’ve seen, I’ll watch the more relaxed, affable and humble Gilmour any day over the constant “look at me” of Waters. Even when someone is singing Gilmour lines on, say, “Comfortably Numb” (the worst being a video I have with Bruce Hornsby singing the Gilmour lines), Waters constantly and relentlessly does everything to ensure that people are watching him. His constant desire to be the centre of attention contrasts with Gilmour, who is far more generous to his band mates (solo and with Floyd) than Waters seems capable.

Like I said, I’ve really enjoyed Waters’ last two solo records, but don’t think I could handle paying big money to see him live. I’ll stick with concert videos - and even then, do and likely will find myself tuning out, visually, whenever he seems to be trying to draw attention away from his fine live bandmates and, instead, focuses it on himself.

[calyx]

...this was, after all, originally intended to be a Gilmour solo record...

What makes you say that ? Not true as far as I know. Precisely, it was Gilmour's intention from the outset to return to Pink Floyd, having come to the conclusion (based on his 1984 solo album/tour) that it made little sense professionally or commercially to continue his solo career on such a reduced scale when the Pink Floyd name afforded him a much larger audience. Waters came to the opposite conclusion after his own 1984-85 solo tour despite also suffering from much reduced attendance figures. In 1985, Waters, Gilmour and Mason famously met in a London restaurant to discuss Pink Floyd's future. Waters went away having made it clear he wasn't interested in further PF activity, which Gilmour and Mason (although they didn't say so) coming to the conclusion that the name was free for them to seize. Mason was very much involved in the project from the start, although he wasn't a composer and his drumming wasn't deemed good enough to use on much of the material. But he was around. The fact that his musical contribution turned out to be negligible didn't make the project a Gilmour solo album. Wright's involvement came at a later stage, to the extent that he wasn't on the "band photo" inside the album, which was just Gilmour and Mason. Apparently he was tied to a legal agreement from 1981 that prevented him to ever re-join the band - this issue, evidently, was later solved, and subsequent promotional material featured all three.

[Steve983]

That was the first I heard of it originally intending to be a Gilmour solo album too. I read that a first version of the album was scrapped because it didn't sound enough like Floyd.

Sent from my SM-T310 using Tapatalk

[LeFrog]

I heard it said many times as well but I think it originates from quotes stating that the album project started out with material that Gilmour had originally written himself for possible use as a solo album. As we now know, much of this material was scrapped eventually, and yes, it seems Gilmour and Mason set out to make a Pink Floyd album from the start.

[JKL2000]

Here's thing... I'm fucking sick of Dark Side through The Wall. They are the most overplayed albums in their catalog and are the bulk of every tribute show and jam. I mean YOU HAVE to play that stuff. I get it. But it's impossible to escape. People going to a show expect it because those are arguably their best albums. But familiarity breeds contempt and I am to that point. So to me, the albums before and after that are much more preferable. So what if AMLOR is a glorified Dave album? If you don't like the tunes, fine. But it's not "bad". The second side in particular has some of the coolest music in their catalog. For some reason the Division Bell didn't age as well for me. At least on AMLOR they were trying new things. On DB it sounds like the have songs that parody past glories. High Hiopes is the high point because it isn't a straight up rehash. Still, I'd play AMLOR first...

I think most people do not think that “The second side [of AMLOR] has some of the coolest music in their catalog.” And it’s only really three actual songs.

[jkelman]

What makes you say that ? Not true as far as I know.

I recall reading it in more than one place...but can’t recall where. I’ll try to find it and let you know....or, when I get my advance of the box, if that’s clear I’ll let you know.

I do know a number of songs were originally intended for a Gilmour solo album. Add to that the use of session drummers like Jim Keltner and Carmine Appice (ostensibly because Mason felt he wasn’t in good enough shape), along with drum machines. Wright was re-recruited after his wife approached Gilmour, but his contributions were relatively small. By my count three other keyboardists contributed more extensively than Wright.

Perhaps it’s that this was pretty much spearheaded by Gilmour, who collaborated with outside writers (not a single writing credit to Wright or Mason). Gilmour shared writing credits with Bob Ezrin.

You may be right, Aymeric, and I’ll try to find where(s) I read it. But one thing is fairly certain: with a Division Bell, all three members were listed as Pink Floyd, whereas Wright was not with AMLOR (he was hired as a session musician, but apparently more for legal reasons stemming from Waters’ ouster of the keyboardist; nevertheless, his contributions were far from extensive). Mason contributed effects but played very little actual drums on AMLOR; he played drums throughout Division Bell. Wright also co-wrote four songs on Division Bell with Gilmour, and the keyboardist contributed one solely credited to him(also singing lead on it).

So, in many ways, in all but name alone, AMLOR was a Gilmour solo album. But, like I said, I’ll get back to you if/when I find it ... I’m pretty sure I know where but want to be sure. But it may well be true that it stemmed, as another poster said, from the early material coming from plans for Gilmour’s third solo album.

————-
PS: yeah, I think that was my bad. A quick look, shows this from ultimate classic rock:

... Singer/guitarist David Gilmour was the first to see this reality, and started to waver in 1985 as he began to put a band together for his third solo release.... Gilmour saw the potential in moving forward without The Wall mastermind. Keyboardist Richard Wright's wife contacted Gilmour about lending a hand musically, but his full return was stalled by legal matters relating to his ousting during sessions for The Wall. Add in the fact that Nick Mason expressed his interest in new music as well, and by 1986, Gilmour made the decision to utilize some of his solo material for what would become the 13th Pink Floyd studio album.

Thanks.,,I can always count on you to pull me up

[Trane]

What makes you say that ? Not true as far as I know.Precisely, it was Gilmour's intention from the outset to return to Pink Floyd, having come to the conclusion (based on his 1984 solo album/tour) that it made little sense professionally or commercially to continue his solo career on such a reduced scale when the Pink Floyd name afforded him a much larger audience. Waters came to the opposite conclusion after his own 1984-85 solo tour despite also suffering from much reduced attendance figures.

Apparently he (Wright) was tied to a legal agreement from 1981 that prevented him to ever re-join the band - this issue, evidently, was later solved, and subsequent promotional material featured all three.

I saw Waters twice on te P&C tour and the Maple Leaf Gardens (hockey arena +/- 15000 in concert capacity) was filled to the brim, tickets were quick hard to find (I had floor tickets for the Clapton tour and penalty-box tickets the clapton-less tour) and sclapers making a fortune from nosebleed tickets.
And I saw Gilmour once in the Massey Hall (3000 seats, my guess) for the AF tour (with Mick Ralphs as guest) and finding tickets was much easier (maybe I was quicker on the ball) and had great tickets, first row first balcony dead centre), but the place was hardly filled to the brim.

My general impression is that Waters could've filled a stadium, partly because everyone knew he was also doing a floyd set with some of the band's toys, Clapton's presence also generating much excitement. Whereas Gilmour's tour was much-more low-key.

I guess the clause expelling Wright permanently out of Floyd was probably taken because of the Rod Evans/Deep Purple tour, organized around that time.

So, in many ways, in all but name alone, AMLOR was a Gilmour solo album. But, like I said, I’ll get back to you if/when I find it ... I’m pretty sure I know where but want to be sure. But it may well be true that it stemmed, as another poster said, from the early material coming from plans for Gilmour’s third solo album.

I hope I didn't induce you into error when I wrote a couple of days ago that AMLOR was "essentially a DG solo album" because it was poor and likening it to About Face. This was just a personal opinion, not a statement of truth.
When I say that AMLOR is little more than a DG solo album, I meant that the resulting music amounted to not much more than that (solo album), but I never meant that it was one from the outset. Because there is no doubt in my mind that AMLOR was always a Floyd-intended project (unfortunately, I'm tempted to say), however hastily put together by David to claim or assert himself the ownership of the name.
It's actually the first time I heard (read it in the last pages of the present thread) that some songs were refused because not deemed Floyd-worthy. By whom (other than David if I may ask), because no-one else had a say by then? (.... unless Mason maybe?) Do we know whatever happened to those tracks, in that case?(curious to hear them)

As for AMLOR not sounding like Floyd, I don't think it is the case either, as Mason's sound collages (if memory serves, it was always up to him to execute them) and the opening track clearly show the intent of sticking to the Floyd canon, sometimes trying too hard. Glimour's previous two solo albums had some tapes, but nothing like what Mason did on AMLOR. Obviously AMLOR was weak on good musical ideas and Gilmour was wrongly guided in those 80's production values (Waters also gave in with Radio KAOS, FTM), but maybe it is those precise 80's production values is what helped AMLOR to sell unreasonable amounts of copies for such a poor album. It just sounded of its time, sometimes even like U2 songs - Joshua Tree era.

I remember some trend-setting radio stations (well some of their DJays, anyways) fuming about the return of Floyd with such a popular success (as opposed to artistical) because it reptresented the return of 70's "stadium rock", which many loathed. Astoundingly enough, they didn't mind Madonna or Springsteen touring stadiums, though... It was just Floyd on which they set their anger on

[calyx]

Two extra comments -

- Who did what on AMLoR is now well documented, for instance if you go to the album's Wikipedia page and click on individual tracks, you get the exact line-ups. This is probably sourced from one of the Floyd books for which Gilmour helped clear up what he and others did, including which tracks on "Animals" or "The Wall" he played bass on, etc.

- re: the 1984-85 Waters tour, there seems to have been a difference between the initial leg, with Clapton, and the second leg after Clapton reisgned and Tim Renwick (I think ?) replaced him. But it may, on the whole, have been more successful than Gilmour's. The main reason cited by Waters for ending Pink Floyd (as he beileved he did when he departed in 1985) was because he felt his solo career/albums/tours would be treated as a secondary matter as long as people (record company, promoters, media, etc.) believed there would eventually be a new Floyd album coming. Which made sense.

[Tangram]

I don't think it makes a difference if AMLOR started as a solo album or not. I assume at least some if not most work starts before the group gets to the recording studio. Gilmour's music to Comfortably Numb was originally created for his solo album. It seems to have turned out ok. I don't know if its true or not but the record company supposedly rejected most of the songs on the first go at AMLOR, so I imagine the rest could be considered Floydian.

If we went by credits only, Animals, The Wall and The Final Cut were solo albums or pretty close to it. And you can add Piper to that argument too. Popular opinion is that AMLOR and Radio KAOS have too much 80's production. For us who grew up in the 70's (and some in the 60's), this production was a disaster. How could PF and others in the prog community do this? Well they were all trying like crazy to remain relevant to the new group of teenagers and college students. AKA the ones who usually spend the most on the music. After the massive musical changes (punk, disco) PF and other groups didn't want to sound like yesterdays news.

As far as AMLOR is concerned, I was initially really interested in the new mix, but after hearing the one song, its different but not in a tremendous way. I hope they end up releasing it in pieces thought as I would like the fully Delicate Sound of Thunder.

[Tangram]

- re: the 1984-85 Waters tour, there seems to have been a difference between the initial leg, with Clapton, and the second leg after Clapton reisgned and Tim Renwick (I think ?) replaced him. But it may, on the whole, have been more successful than Gilmour's. The main reason cited by Waters for ending Pink Floyd (as he beileved he did when he departed in 1985) was because he felt his solo career/albums/tours would be treated as a secondary matter as long as people (record company, promoters, media, etc.) believed there would eventually be a new Floyd album coming. Which made sense.

He definitely wasn't going to work again with Gilmour and Wright, and as Waters has said, having PF around was like fighting himself....and losing. Gilmour would have been fine without PF if his solo tour sold well. I remember hearing about his show the day of the concert. I went to Jones Beach where the show was being performed and listened to it from the beach. I didn't even consider going to the box office because I assumed it was sold out. I asked some of the concert goers after the show, and they said it was only 2/3 full. Many of DG's shows on that tour didn't sell out. So it was resurrect Pink Floyd or go back to the second or third tier of rock groups. He made the right call.

[calyx]

I don't think it makes a difference if AMLOR started as a solo album or not.

Well, it doesn't, I guess, musically - we're all in agreement it was basically, de facto, a Gilmour solo project in all but name, with Mason and Wright only making minor contributions as instrumentalists and none as writers. Where it made a huge difference was, of course, in the scale of the project which had an influence from the start (EMI telling Gilmour his first batch of proposed songs wasn't "Floyd enough" and ordering him to write more; the tour necessitating huge financing backing and initially few believing it would be successful, so Gilmour and Mason had to pay the initial production costs out of their own pocket).

[Nearfest2]

I recall reading it in more than one place...

I clearly remember reading this in a few places as well.

[Nearfest2]

While this is from Wikipedia, it's all sourced from different books, etc.:

"In Waters' absence, Gilmour had been recruiting musicians for a new project. Months previously, keyboardist Jon Carin had jammed with Gilmour at his Hookend studio, where he composed the chord progression that became "Learning to Fly", and so was invited onto the team.[18] Gilmour invited Bob Ezrin (co-producer of 1979's The Wall) to help consolidate their material;[19] Ezrin had turned down Waters' offer of a role on the development of his new solo album, Radio K.A.O.S., saying it was "far easier for Dave and I to do our version of a Floyd record".[20] Ezrin arrived in England in mid-1986 for what Gilmour later described as "mucking about with a lot of demos".[21]

At this stage, there was no commitment to a new Pink Floyd release, and Gilmour maintained that the material might become his third solo album. CBS representative Stephen Ralbovsky hoped for a new Pink Floyd album, but in a meeting in November 1986, told Gilmour and Ezrin that the music "doesn't sound a fucking thing like Pink Floyd".[22] Gilmour later said that the project had been difficult without Waters.[23] He experimented with songwriters such as Eric Stewart and Roger McGough, but settled on Anthony Moore,[24] who was credited as co-writer of "Learning to Fly" and "On the Turning Away". Whereas many prior Pink Floyd albums are concept albums, Gilmour chose a more conventional approach of a collection of songs without a thematic link.[25] By the end of that year, he had decided to make the material into a Pink Floyd project.[7]"

[Jerjo]

I just listened to AMLOR this morning and it's sort of like my initial thought - a decent album but it would have been better when combined with a Waters solo album and with the presence of Wright/Mason. Compared to a lot of the drek going on in the 80s this was still a breath of fresh air. I still think Division Bell was a return to form.

[calyx]

While this is from Wikipedia, it's all sourced from different books, etc.:

"In Waters' absence, Gilmour had been recruiting musicians for a new project. Months previously, keyboardist Jon Carin had jammed with Gilmour at his Hookend studio, where he composed the chord progression that became "Learning to Fly", and so was invited onto the team.[18] Gilmour invited Bob Ezrin (co-producer of 1979's The Wall) to help consolidate their material;[19] Ezrin had turned down Waters' offer of a role on the development of his new solo album, Radio K.A.O.S., saying it was "far easier for Dave and I to do our version of a Floyd record".[20] Ezrin arrived in England in mid-1986 for what Gilmour later described as "mucking about with a lot of demos".[21]

At this stage, there was no commitment to a new Pink Floyd release, and Gilmour maintained that the material might become his third solo album. CBS representative Stephen Ralbovsky hoped for a new Pink Floyd album, but in a meeting in November 1986, told Gilmour and Ezrin that the music "doesn't sound a fucking thing like Pink Floyd".[22] Gilmour later said that the project had been difficult without Waters.[23] He experimented with songwriters such as Eric Stewart and Roger McGough, but settled on Anthony Moore,[24] who was credited as co-writer of "Learning to Fly" and "On the Turning Away". Whereas many prior Pink Floyd albums are concept albums, Gilmour chose a more conventional approach of a collection of songs without a thematic link.[25] By the end of that year, he had decided to make the material into a Pink Floyd project.[7]"

Interesting stuff. My notion that this was a Floyd project from the start is influenced by Nick Mason's book, which clearly states this. Maybe this is Mason re-writing history to make himself a part of it before he actually became one. I accept that Gilmour may have said, while working on the material, that it could either end up as a Floyd album or a solo album, but on what basis would he have chosen the latter ? The fact that record company guys were in a position to decided the material wasn't "Floyd enough" and send Gilmour back to the drawing board before giving the green light to the project, suggests that maybe the decision wasn't really his to make : it would be a Floyd album only if the record company deemed his demos worthy of the PF tag; otherwise, he'd have to settle for a solo album. But I don't think that was his favoured option.

[jkelman]

I hope I didn't induce you into error when I wrote a couple of days ago that AMLOR was "essentially a DG solo album" because it was poor and likening it to About Face. This was just a personal opinion, not a statement of truth.

Nope. That was a mistake I made all by my lonesome!!

[jkelman]

I don't think it makes a difference if AMLOR started as a solo album or not. I assume at least some if not most work starts before the group gets to the recording studio.

Of course (well, in many cases...not all, as some artists don’t know what preproduction is, or choose not to go that route). And it’s true that, with some bands, the music for an album may be largely written by a subset of one or more of its members. Lennon & McCartnry come to mind.

What’s at issue is intent; there are albums that did begin as solo albums by artists only to ultimately become a group album. One example is John Barleycorn Must Die, which began as a Steve Winwood album but ultimately became a Traffic release. Similarly, Crowded House’s Time in Earth was originally intended to be Neil Finn’s third solo album but, after drummer Paul Hester’s tragic death, the remaining members got together and found their friendship and desire to work together again rekindled, and Finn decided to make it the group’s return after a 14-year absence.

So just because one artist writes all the material, that in no way means an album can or should be considered a solo album.

Another reason has to do with how an album is made, though you’re in a bit of slippery territory here.

If an artist writes material for an album, hires session people and largely dictates what’s to be done (leaving, of course, room for so,d musical personality since, for example, if you hire Tony Levin, even with song forms defined, you are expecting to get something that is specifically him as well), that smells more of a solo release. That’s why I mistakenly suggested that AMLOR was originally intended as a Gilmour solo album (and I’m still not totally convinced I’m wrong...I’ve gotta do more looking around), as it’s rife with session players, Mason’s contributions are less than a normal group member’s would be (for good reason, as he felt he was out of shape, but got back into it for the tour) and Wright not only came in as a session man (though for legal reasons, as discussed earlier), contributing less than usual and part of a coterie of four keyboardists and playing on just four of the record’s eleven tracks.


OTOH, if an artist writes an album’s worth of material, brings it to a group and the music is changed/enhanced/arranged by the collective personalities of his/her band mates, that’s more likely to feel like a band record. Sure, Waters wrote most of Animals, collaborating compositionally only with Gilmour on one track. But the album still sounds and feels like Floyd. This, in co trust to Waters returning to use of certain Floyd signatures on Is This the Life We Really Want?, but still feeling absolutely like a solo effort...as, of course, it was intended.

So it’s not always as simple as “if one person writes all the material, it is, then, a de facto solo album.”

Cheers!
J

[Tangram]

I just listened to AMLOR this morning and it's sort of like my initial thought - a decent album but it would have been better when combined with a Waters solo album and with the presence of Wright/Mason. Compared to a lot of the drek going on in the 80s this was still a breath of fresh air. I still think Division Bell was a return to form.

I'm on board with AMLOR that its a decent album. Played it plenty when it was released and I still will occasionally play it. You made an interesting point and I think PF is about the best example where you can listen to their solo albums and easily see what they brought to the table and more importantly, what was missing without the others. Take Gilmour's first two solo albums, Wright's Wet Dream and Waters' Pros And Cons plus Radio KAOS you can hear quite good albums that have something missing. Honestly, I've never met a PF or Floyd related album that I didn't like but they got to a point that never reached the heights of their career again. I know some will say Amused to Death is, but IMHO it isn't.

I think Division Bell sounds more like a group effort and I think it would have played better if a couple of songs were cut. Its almost a double album in length but like most doubles, it doesn't hold up all the way thru.

[Tangram]

Of course (well, in many cases...not all, as some artists don’t know what preproduction is, or choose not to go that route). And it’s true that, with some bands, the music for an album may be largely written by a subset of one or more of its members. Lennon & McCartnry come to mind.

What’s at issue is intent; there are albums that did begin as solo albums by artists only to ultimately become a group album. One example is John Barleycorn Must Die, which began as a Steve Winwood album but ultimately became a Traffic release. Similarly, Crowded House’s Time in Earth was originally intended to be Neil Finn’s third solo album but, after drummer Paul Hester’s tragic death, the remaining members got together and found their friendship and desire to work together again rekindled, and Finn decided to make it the group’s return after a 14-year absence.

So just because one artist writes all the material, that in no way means an album can or should be considered a solo album.

Another reason has to do with how an album is made, though you’re in a bit of slippery territory here.

If an artist writes material for an album, hires session people and largely dictates what’s to be done (leaving, of course, room for so,d musical personality since, for example, if you hire Tony Levin, even with song forms defined, you are expecting to get something that is specifically him as well), that smells more of a solo release. That’s why I mistakenly suggested that AMLOR was originally intended as a Gilmour solo album (and I’m still not totally convinced I’m wrong...I’ve gotta do more looking around), as it’s rife with session players, Mason’s contributions are less than a normal group member’s would be (for good reason, as he felt he was out of shape, but got back into it for the tour) and Wright not only came in as a session man (though for legal reasons, as discussed earlier), contributing less than usual and part of a coterie of four keyboardists and playing on just four of the record’s eleven tracks.


OTOH, if an artist writes an album’s worth of material, brings it to a group and the music is changed/enhanced/arranged by the collective personalities of his/her band mates, that’s more likely to feel like a band record. Sure, Waters wrote most of Animals, collaborating compositionally only with Gilmour on one track. But the album still sounds and feels like Floyd. This, in co trust to Waters returning to use of certain Floyd signatures on Is This the Life We Really Want?, but still feeling absolutely like a solo effort...as, of course, it was intended.

So it’s not always as simple as “if one person writes all the material, it is, then, a de facto solo album.”

Cheers!
J

Well said! A good example would be comparing The Wall to The Final Cut. The former is almost totally written by Waters and the latter is solely the work of Waters. While only a couple of tracks are credited to Gilmour on The Wall, his input is all over that album. On The Final Cut, his participation is as a session guitarist and one vocal track. The guitar work is easily identifiable as Gilmour's, but he plays a very small part on that album. Likewise in your Animals example, this album has plenty of all four members stamp on it. While they didn't get much in writing credits, Gilmour's and Wright's playing is very prominent. Animals is one of those albums that gets better with time for me.