"Pink Floyd's" "The Endless River" - Do You Consider it to be Pink Floyd (proper), or no?

It's not just that all members aren't present - one guy is dead and has zero say in it all. You're left with the guitar player and drummer calling it Pink Floyd.

FWIW I consider Final Cut and AMLOR solo albums under the Pink Floyd name. I like 'em, but I don't pretend they are actually Pink Floyd, the band, albums.

I also don't think you can be general with something like this. It's really on case-by-case basis.

I think the Stones without Mick or Keith are not the Stones (principle song-writers, players, founders etc.) without either guy. Same with the Who - Daltrey and Townshend are the key components there. Not to downplay the contributions of the other guys, but that's just the way it is.

Wings? Like they would ever form and tour without Macca? It's Paul McCartney's backing band. Band on the Run was a solo project. I doubt people care if the Wings name were on it or not. It's McCartney's name that carries the weight.

 

I totally agree with this:

And totally disagree with this:

Daltrey and Townshend are the key components if the desire is to see a cover band of Townshend songs with the original singer. Without Entwistle and Moon The Who don't sound anything like The Who.

 

Well, he's not very prolific is he? Doesn't really address my statement unless you really think a Richard Wright ambient music tribute album with new lyrics by Gilmour's wife has as much cache as "Endless River by Pink Floyd".

It's still not a Pink Floyd album.

 

@aroney - Thank you for responding. Now, given that, your viewpoint is that certain key members aren't there or it would be a solo type project (in the case of AMLOR and Final Cut).

But, there are others who feel that the Stones' primary force was Brian Jones and that The Who are not really The Who without Moon, Entwistle or both. Wings was a band, like it or not. Each version had distinctive sounds, contributed by the styles of Laine, McCullough, et al.

To me, it isn't a case by case basis. It's the simple nature of bands changing personnel. Hell, some people thought The Beatles weren't The Beatles after Best got sacked!

 

And miss all the fun contained in this and other threads?

 

If there's an ulterior motive at play (and that's a big "if", I would think it's not so much financial as it is personal. Maybe Gilmour is releasing this album as a final middle finger to Waters, who never seemed to appreciate Wright's instrumental role in the formation of the Pink Floyd sound.

Here you go: http://forums.stevehoffman.tv/threa...-2014-part-three.383380/page-13#post-11148329

Just a warning, the thread linked to above is still not really "about the music" yet because the music hasn't actually been released.

 

Why am I the only one who cares about the integrity of the Pink Floyd brand? If I had any reason to believe it was going to be at all good, I'd have no problem. But from what I've read and those 20 year old TBD outtakes posted in the other thread, it's going to be a tedious, dull sub-Marooned type of snooze-fest, from a band that had a tremendous reputation for innovation, melody, and fearlessness (see what I did there?) Gilmour dodged a bullet by getting away with AMLOR and TBD being pretty much accepted as authentic Floyd in sound and spirit, but's not going to happen again this time, to the detriment of everyone's perception and opinion of "Pink Floyd."

 

But how can judgment be passed on an album that hasn't been released yet?

 

Stones - Jones as primary force? Early on he was certainly a factor, but as things moved on he was more of a liability. I'd simply throw down that classic run of albums following Jones' death to dispute any idea that they had ceased being the Stones. Sticky Fingers? Exile? Not the Stones? Laughable.

The Who - this one is a bit more difficult for me as I'm a huge Who fan. The Ox and Mooney are two of my faves and I would have loved to see all four on stage as the Who. At the same time I know that Townshend was/is the main driving force having literally created the blue-print of so many of their classic works.

Wings - it has nothing to do with me liking it or not (I don't get emotionally involved in this sort of thing - they are all first world issues after all) but the best Wings album, "Band on the Run", was really a Paul McCartney solo album. Sure Denny played guitar, and he imho, is the only Wing that matters outside of Macca, but that was Paul's baby through and through.

Beatles - not without Pete Best? Who are these people? Do they really exist? You must be joking!

 

Yes, bands change members and change their sound and sometimes they lose fans as a result, maybe while picking up some new ones. Everyone gets to make up their own mind about whether or not to get off the bus. I'm a Yes fan and they've gone through more members over the years than I can count. I recognize that many albums of varying quality have been released under that moniker in the last 35 years and some of them bear only a passing resemblance to the band that produced their best work in the 70s. It doesn't necessarily mean that they are without merit altogether, but I do think that they've done some damage to their "brand" throughout all of this turmoil and inconsistency.

I'm also a big King Crimson fan and they're a band that has endured seismic changes almost from the word go. One could easily argue that the Lark's Tongues band and the Discipline band were considerably different from the original model and I would agree, though I enjoy them each in different ways and tend to think that there's just enough continuity to hold it together. Some will argue to the death that they should have changed their name to Discipline in 1980 and I can understand the point, but overall, King Crimson succeeded in broadening the band's definition, IMO. As raveoned suggests, you have to view these things on a case by case basis and different people will reach different conclusions based on their tastes.

For me, once the Syd period was over, Pink Floyd was at its best when they were functioning as more of a democracy, drawing the best from each of the members as a collaborative whole. Towards the end of the 70s, Roger became so dominant that he essentially squeezed the other members out by The Final Cut and regardless of that album's strengths, I think that the music suffered. Back in the 80s, I actually wanted David to succeed in his revolt because it seemed like Roger had led them into the ditch, but when I heard AMLOR, it just felt like something vital was missing. When I later discovered that Rick and Nick barely even appeared on that album, it reinforced my assessment that this wasn't really the genuine article. At least with The Division Bell, the three of them were collaborating more like a band. We'll see how this final release shakes out.

 

I feel the same way, but watching the Pete Best documentary that came out a number of years ago, it was surprising how many people thought that way.

Sorry for the sidetrack there - I'm really enjoying the discussion on here! It hasn't devolved into name calling and angry threats!

 

I really don't understand all the controversy. The album is a salute to the memory of Richard Wright, who in my opinion was just as important to the sound of Pink Floyd as Roger Waters. The album has been completed by David Gilmour and Nick Mason, who retain the rights to the name "Pink Floyd". The basic tracks to these songs are based off the sessions of the last Pink Floyd album from 1993.

The band has plainly stated from the very beginning that these are primarily instrumental and ambient recordings.

That basically sums it all up. If you're interested in the album, then buy it, if you aren't, then don't. Regardless, releasing this album under the name Pink Floyd WILL HAVE NO NEGATIVE IMPACT ON THEIR EARLIER CATALOG WHATSOEVER.

 

Daltrey and Townshend are not the only two key components of The Who. By saying that they are, you have downplayed the contributions of Moon and especially Entwistle (who wrote songs and played/arranged much of the brass playing you hear on Who recordings). Without Entwistle and Moon, The Who don't sound like The Who due to the absence of their playing. With Endless River being mostly instrumental in nature, Waters would have pretty much just played bass, and he was never a key component of Pink Floyd in that regard (more known for his lyrics and concepts rather than bass playing). Therefore, I can't compare The Who and Pink Floyd with their current situations.

 

The only reason they are releasing it under the Pink Floyd banner is because it will sell better.

 

A Gilmour solo album called Pibk Floyd to move units, essentially.

That said, if there is 3/4 of the band participating (or did participate) then by default it is The Floyd.

That said, would it be x 20 cooler if Roger Waters participated in it? Absolutely, but, unfortunately, isn't in the cards ...

 

Few question AMLOR's status as a Floyd album and this one has more input by both Mason and Wright.

 

How about releasing it under the name Ø, ╗, ⌂, Ж, ۞ or another symbol meaning "three artists formerly known as Pink Floyd plus a lyrical contribution from the wife of one of them"? Would some of you feel happy and relieved then?

 

You support my belief that this is case-by-case basis stuff. I wrote more about the Who and admitted to being a bit torn...it's sort of like a pie - who is more Who than the rest of the Who...or something.

Now imagine "Money" without that Waters bass line.

 

I consider AMLOR to be a Gilmour album dressed up to be Floyd. There's virtually no involvement from Rick and Nick there.

 

The whole idea of it "moving units" is kind of preposterous in this day and age because, realistically, who buys actual product these days outside of the majority of people that frequent a website like this? Most will just illegally download it with never an intention of "buying it later/if I like it".

 

Not true. Many question its status. It began, and for the most part ended, as a solo project for Gilmour and had very little input from Mason and Wright.

 

No, because then the discussion would turn into "ROGER ISN'T INVOLVED WAAAAAH I WANNA DIE".

 

Depends if we're asking SH forum members or the undoubtedly many Floyd fans who don't know the names of the members

 

And what about a symbol standing for "three artists formerly known as Pink Floyd (plus a lyrical contribution from the wife of one of them) who worked together knowing, of course, that two former members are sorely missed".
And in case people don't like it, they will always have Saucerful of Secrets, with the five of them involved.

 

But no Polly.