Got to see Roger Waters and Nick Mason play all of Dark Side of the Moon (and a bunch of other stuff) a couple of years ago at the Hollywood Bowl. Far from rubbish, it was the best show I've ever been to, and I can't think of anything that would top it.

Fark Gilmour.

what a megalo-ignorant. sreamin'and rockin' (new window)

+c

submitter: Subby agrees

and you're in a very small minority.

Occam'sLadySchick: what a megalo-ignorant. sreamin'and rockin' (new window)

I like the vintage Floyd as much as anyone (maybe more than most folks), but I think Gilmour's point was simply that the band wasn't particularly proficient, technically. If the guys in, say, the Mahavishnu Orchestra had been in the audience when this was performed, I'm highly doubtful that they would have prostrated themselves before the stage with a chorus of "I am not worthy."

Having said that, I should add that I don't think this means Pink Floyd's music is bad, or was bad, or is in any way inferior. I don't think complexity or degree of difficulty should be a requirement for music to be considered good.

And having said that, I've always thought Gilmour was a pretty damn good guitar player. The other guys in the band were good but maybe not as impressive.

I happen to really like Gilmour. Pbbbth ;)

Rye_: Got to see Roger Waters and Nick Mason play all of Dark Side of the Moon (and a bunch of other stuff) a couple of years ago at the Hollywood Bowl. Far from rubbish, it was the best show I've ever been to, and I can't think of anything that would top it.

Fark Gilmour.

Yup. Just saw him do it at Coachella. Possibly the single greatest large concert experience of my life. I mean, the guy had a plane fly over as part of the show- A FRIGGIN PLANE! Here's a pretty awesome shot of the night

Secret Agent X23: I like the vintage Floyd

you sound like my dad. he sent my brother the CD that he recorded last. ho-hum

there are plenty of great guitar players. they're a dime a dozen.

it's the uniqueness that that grabs me.

Floyd without Waters is just Pink.

I don't think the post-Waters Pink Floyd was great compared to the previous era, but AMLOR and Division Bell are still really good albums on their own.

Adremelech-

I agree about Division Bell but Momentary Lapse is and sounds like a Gilmour solo album and is inferior to his other real solo albums.

I think Rick's "Wearing the Inside Out" is the best track on Division Bell too.

As far as all releases go post Water's Floyd, Amused to Death for the win.

Occam'sLadySchick: Secret Agent X23: I like the vintage Floyd

you sound like my dad. he sent my brother the CD that he recorded last. ho-hum

Well, I have no particular interest in defending the band, or in converting anyone into a fan (if that's what you're getting at). There are LOTS of other people on my list of personal favorites ahead of Pink Floyd (including the Sex Pistols).

I guess my point is this: Gilmour was just saying their level of musicianship wasn't all that great. (He didn't say the band was rubbish, at least not in the linked article. That word doesn't appear in it.) I'm saying he might have a point, but that doesn't mean the music sucks. They found other ways to make up for it.

Bottom line, as a listener, you like what you like. It's just that simple.

So a duck walks into a bar, and he orders a gin and tonic. The bartender says, "I didn't know that ducks liked gin." The duck replies... okay I forget the punch line but Pink Floyd sucks.

oh yea....subby here.

In the original article I found David did say they were rubbishiatried to link to that one but someone already had tried and it wasn't listed. I had to find a related one instead.

/guess the other guys headline wasn't incendiary enough.

Secret Agent X23: I like the vintage Floyd as much as anyone (maybe more than most folks), but I think Gilmour's point was simply that the band wasn't particularly proficient, technically.

Meh, technical proficiency, while useful, isn't that vital of a skill for music, IMO. If the music is technical but has no emotion, it's not worth listening to.

/played viola in HS, so I kinda know what I'm talking about

Which one's Pink?

Secret Agent X23: Bottom line, as a listener, you like what you like. It's just that simple.

Unfortunately, some people don't see it that way, and feel the need to rip you for your listening preferences. I've never understood why; maybe the anonymity makes them feel important and emboldens them. Or mabe they're just flaming assholes; who knows. IMO, these people are nothing more than members of the "efite snobbery", to paraphrase the late Spiro Agnew(never thought I'd be doing that). I hate the Sex Pistols, but if you like them, that's your prerogative, and who the hell am I to tell you you're wrong?

coffee fiend: maybe the anonymity makes them feel important and emboldens them. Or maybe they're just flaming assholes; who knows.

Who says it can't be both?

Uncut Magazine? That sounds like a foreskin fetish magazine for gay guys.

+++Subby for great headline.

Gilmour's version of Floyd is pathetic. I say this with the authority of a man who lives with a woman who actually purchases David Gilmour solo work because according to her "David Gilmour is a genius", apparently I am not the only evidence of her lack of taste.

Damnit, I don't care. Anything with "Pink Floyd" as the band is good by me.

/owns most the albums

Musicology101: oh yea....subby here.

In the original article I found David did say they were rubbishiatried to link to that one but someone already had tried and it wasn't listed. I had to find a related one instead.

/guess the other guys headline wasn't incendiary enough.

3 word filter pwnage

mdbuff12: Which one's Pink?

Pink Floyd is the most over rated band ever. Comfortably Numb is BORING.

mdbuff12: Which one's Pink?

Bob Geldof.

Careful With That Ax,Eugene
A Saucerful of Secrets
Echoes
One of These Days
Green is the Colour
Stay
Cymbaline

Are the people who claim Pink Floyd is "boring" or "overrated" familiar with the above titles? Have you ever actually heard those songs? Is there something else from 1969-70 that has a more dense atmosphere and totally original and unique sound? Please list.

Watching Dazed & Confused as we speak, getting kicks, etc.

/Nothing wrong with Pink Floyd
//They're a great way to relax after a long day

I'd take sonic experimentation over technical skill any day.

He's completely right, of course, and I say that as somebody who loves Pink Floyd's whole career (except for Lapse, but I do like The Division Bell). Pink Floyd's greatness lay in proving you didn't have to be super songwriters or super-technical musicians to make amazing music.

Careful With That Ax,Eugene
A Saucerful of Secrets
Echoes
One of These Days
Green is the Colour
Stay
Cymbaline

I'd swap out Stay and replace it with Summer '68, but you're totally right.

TeddyRooseveltsMustache: Rush Pink Floyd is the most over rated band ever. Every song they wrote Comfortably Numb is BORING.

craigdamage: Careful With That Ax,Eugene
A Saucerful of Secrets
Echoes
One of These Days
Green is the Colour
Stay
Cymbaline

Are the people who claim Pink Floyd is "boring" or "overrated" familiar with the above titles? Have you ever actually heard those songs? Is there something else from 1969-70 that has a more dense atmosphere and totally original and unique sound? Please list.

I'm a huge PF fan, but choosing those as the non-boring songs? You fail.

Some of those are my favorite Floyd songs, but they are all pretty low key (OoTD possibly excluded). Not to mention LONG. They are "lay back and chill" songs, which kind of defines boring.

The post Waters records are bad. Nick Mason isn't even on most of MLOR. Division bell is slightly better but a slightly better turd is still a turd.

I wish they would get back together and go on a tour with just the 4 of them. I saw Floyd in 94 and there were like 30 farking people on the stage. Come on. "Live At Pompeii" shows how good they were and how much noise they make. No sax playing, no backup singers, just 4 awesome dudes. Wish that could happen again.

He's totally hit it on the head there. A dearth of technical expertise is more likely to make for good music than a glut of it is.

Which would you rather listen to, the rudimentary Rolling Stones or the technical wizardry of Steve Vai?

craigdamage: Careful With That Ax,Eugene
A Saucerful of Secrets
Echoes
One of These Days
Green is the Colour
Stay
Cymbaline

Are the people who claim Pink Floyd is "boring" or "overrated" familiar with the above titles? Have you ever actually heard those songs? Is there something else from 1969-70 that has a more dense atmosphere and totally original and unique sound? Please list.

I'm a huge Pink Floyd fan, but if that's all you're looking for:
20th century classical and minimalist composers: Gyorgi Ligeti, Iannis Xenakis, Pauline Oliveros, La Monte Young, Philip Glass, Steve Reich, Terry Riley, etc.

In rock: early King Crimson, the Moody Blues, early Tangerine Dream, some Steve Miller (Children of the Future, especially). Pink Floyd was great, don't get me wrong, but they weren't the only ones who had those elements to their sound.

If I remember correctly Mr. Gilmour was a Floyd hanger-on for quite a while before Syd Barrett did a Ctrl-Alt-Del to his brain. He, like Ringo, was one of the luckiest people alive. Being at the right place at the right time with the right talent.

gundamtsubasa: coffee fiend: maybe the anonymity makes them feel important and emboldens them. Or maybe they're just flaming assholes; who knows.

Who says it can't be both?

Point taken...

MikoSquiz: He's totally hit it on the head there. A dearth of technical expertise is more likely to make for good music than a glut of it is.

Which would you rather listen to, the rudimentary Rolling Stones or the technical wizardry of Steve Vai?

You're cherry-picking examples to support your assertion. Which would you rather listen to, the Stones' 80s album (Emotional Rescue, Undercover, Tattoo You), or the albums Vai played on in the 80s (with Zappa, Public Image Ltd., and David Lee Roth)?

ArdRi6: If I remember correctly Mr. Gilmour was a Floyd hanger-on for quite a while before Syd Barrett did a Ctrl-Alt-Del to his brain. He, like Ringo, was one of the luckiest people alive. Being at the right place at the right time with the right talent.

That is so full of FAIL, it's hard to know where to begin.

Wow! What if Keith hadn't met Mick on that train platform when Mick was carrying a stack of blues records?

What if Terry Reid had accepted the lead singer slot in the New Yardbirds that Jimmy Page offered him?

What if Ian MacDonald and Michael Giles hadn't split from King Crimson on their first American tour and stayed, which set in motion a whole bunch of personnel changes in the early prog rock scene?

And so on and so forth. I hate that argument, I really do, because it's so one-sided: "Well, so and so was lucky!" how come it's never "Thank Buddah that so and so showed up, otherwise [insert lucky band here] would have been farked and we'd never have heard from them again".

First off, The Beatles without Ringo? Hahahahaha, they probably would have been successful if they'd kept Pete Best due to the songwriting but Ringo was one of the very top drummers in Liverpool at the time and he fit in image/personality-wise perfectly. I'll say it again: Ringo was/is a terrific drummer and I say that as someone who worships the ground Carl Palmer and Bill Bruford in his King Crimson days walk upon. If you're tempted to post Lennon's comments about drummers in the Beatles, don't, this was a man who walked in to a business meeting at Apple and declared he was Jesus Christ, after all.

You're second bit of Total Fail is that you have it backwards: No David Gilmour = Pink Floyd dies a death after one album = nothing comes after Piper at the Gates of Dawn. It really is that simple, if they hadn't found him, they'd have broken up, because they were massively in debt due to the expense of their light show and all the equipment they needed to get their sound. Gilmour was more talented than the other 3 Syd left behind, he didn't actually look like and think like a former architectural student and he was a good songwriter, could actually sing (unlike Waters) and he was a steady personality to boot.

Roger Waters may want all the credit for Pink Floyd's post-Syd success, but who was actually going to sing, not croak out in an almost talking voice, all those songs that get played to death on classic rock radio, who was going to flesh out his minimal songs with the bits that people actually remember, who was going to fight for the lush production values that the band is famed for instead of dumb-ass ideas like "Do an album with no reverb"? David Gilmour, that's who.

/Not a fan of Gilmour or Waters post-Floyd stuff
//Animals rules all

He is making a point as a musician that they really weren't that great of musicians compared to many of their peers. Being a great musician doesn't mean you can write great songs, however.
He's being perfectly honest, why don't you whiners get it?

Wish You Were Here is a good album. Other than that, I hate post-Barrett era Floyd. And I've found a surprisingly large number of people who agree with me.

But hey, its a losing battle. It's Pink Floyd, fer chrissakes. Arguably the 3rd biggest rock band, UK wise. (Maybe 4th)

Did they change the article - "Pink Floyd were rubbish" isn't anywhere in the article.

/likes both versions of PF

Over the years, Gilmour has been very honest about his guitar work. Lots of people lavish him with praise, but he's pretty honest about himself: he's not a virtuoso. What he CAN do is employ effect and tone remarkably well. And let's face it: the rest of the band are adequate musicians but not exactly masters of the craft. And that's OK; their goal is to compose atmospheric and culturally relevant musical art.

To sum up: I'm sure Gilmour is sick of people telling him what a magnificently gifted guitarist he is when it's quite clear that he is not.

Syd went wacko in 67. Gilmore replaced him the same year.


/the more ya knowz
//Pink Floyd is GOD

SilentStrider: submitter: Subby agrees

and you're in a very small minority.

That word, "minority", I do not think it means what you think it means.

"Learning to Fly" is a crap song.

Gilmour was brought in as a fill in for Syd. Basically they knew Syd was going crazy and would just play one chord for an entire show. Gilmours first show without Syd came about when the rest of the band decided to just not pick Syd up for a show.

Over the years, Gilmour has been very honest about his guitar work CitizenTed


Gilmour admitted that is why they hired a jazz sax guy for the solo on "Money"
He couldn't play a solo in anything but basic 4/4 time.
That is why the tempo changes in the song when it is his turn to solo.

I believe these are actual marks of superior musicians.
Those with limited technical ability but compensate with pure originality and creativity.

Brian Eno is a prime example of this.
He calls himself a "non-musician" and yet he is a legendary musician.

This especially applies to my favorite bass players.
Yeah...yeah--Geddy,Jaco,Squire...etc....
the bass players I dig most are the ones who keep it simple but solid and groovy.
George Porter
Cliff Williams
Mike Anthony
Jah Wobble
John deacon
...and my personal fav,Dusty Hill

Guitarists are expected to be dynamic but Gilmour is by far the best exception.

craigdamage: Are the people who claim Pink Floyd is "boring" or "overrated" familiar with the above titles? Have you ever actually heard those songs? Is there something else from 1969-70 that has a more dense atmosphere and totally original and unique sound? Please list.

The fact that he made that statement, but then pulled an airy "pop" song from The Wall, suggests he knows nothing of Pink Floyd's work and shouldn't even be bothered with.

CitizenTed:

To sum up: I'm sure Gilmour is sick of people telling him what a magnificently gifted guitarist he is when it's quite clear that he is not.

Whether that's the case or not, I would think he'd be pleased with the way the solo at the end of Comfortably Numb sounded(or mayber he's just sick of the song, who knows). It's one of the greatest, if not the greatest, solos I've heard in my 50+ years.

/no, I'm not a musical snob
//yes, I listen to all kinds of music

JerkyMeat: He is making a point as a musician that they really weren't that great of musicians compared to many of their peers.

This isn't a "OMGFANBOI" defense of Pink Floyd, because he's right in a sense, but I do have to say it:

As is the case with music, people (even non-technically trained musicians) don't actually understand (because there isn't a consensus) what makes a "great musician." A great musician cannot be simply a person who can play technically accurate music on an instrument.

Many of their peers and predecessors are considered "all time great musicians," but they were about 1/10th as talented as some people who exist today. Pink Floyd wasn't as skilled as even some bands of today, but they IMHO make far better music than many of those more skilled bands. It isn't just about the playing, or the writing, it's about the atmosphere and the sound presentation.

Truth be told, the greatest musicians in the world are, for the mostpart, people who you have never heard of, and will likely never hear.

their own style belied their level of musical ability
not unlike the first U2 album

you take a fresh approach to a genre
it doesn't matter if you can play like hendrix

lock yourself in with a genius producer
or in floyd's case, engineer, alan parsons

and you're good to go.


it's all about the passion.
passion defies definition and barriers.
it's either there or it isn't.



http://myspace.com/daveyunderground