Pink Floyd - "The Endless River" -- New Release October 2014 (Part Two)

Absoulutely. PFs fan base has expanded to the point where even though it has looked for years like the band was finally retired, they are one of the most talked about bands in the world now. Still gathering new generations of young people.
And having their biggest concerts ever during the 80s.
And it would seem you just wish to argue.
And I do not deny that some fans care about the lyrics. Some probably are still pissed that PF isn't using a Moog much after Dark Side too. But again, they are the minority.

Read carefully:
My point is that PF remains insanely popular, no matter who writes the lyrics. As does David Gilmour no matter what he does.
A sure fire way to get an album a lot of attention is to have David Gilmours name on it somewhere, ask The Orb.

That doesn't mean I think there is nobody who cares about the lyrics, obviously a minority do.
But in the great scheme of things, it doesn't matter. PF is still popular.

I can't make it any simpler for you than that.

 

Yes, you have made it 100% clear that you are a complete and utter troll.

 

You really think a majority of people that went to those wildly successful 80's tours to hear "Dogs of War" and not their classic 70's output? Now you've changed your argument into whether Pink Floyd is generally popular or not. Wow.

 

I do feel that way as well. I care about lyrics on the Syd-era stuff but after that I just want the lyrics to stay out of the way of the soundscapes. I care about lyrics when I'm listening to the Fall or Nick Cave. But with Pink Floyd I listen to them the way I listen to Stockhausen. So when I start to think about the lyrics, I like them less.

 

When you are incapable of debate, attempt insults. I am trying to be a gentleman and keep it on an intelligent level. You are making that quite difficult to do.

At least you didn't say "yo mama". ...

 

I can't say I like them less, and I use to sit and read the lyrics while listening. But I like the lyrics on AMLOR and DB just as much. There were times when the lyrics helped to paint an image. But still, I would have listened to PF if there had been no lyrics.
Also, I have noticed that whenever you see someone singing along with a PF song, they seldom know more than a line or two of the lyrics and jump in on them. Kind of like with Yes, the lyrics more paint brief images within the music rather than tell any story that is worth following.

 

I'm thinking about songs like Pigs and Welcome To The Machine where they lyrics have a "message" and so they are kind of corny. It takes you out of the music.

 

To be fair, I think a good majority of them did go for the new music, even though they didn't know what they were in for in terms of knowing what was going to be played. That same majority was already familiar with their 70s output. The only reason a lot of them came to those shows was just by hearing the name "Pink Floyd" alone.

But yeah, there's always going to be a group that only comes for the classics.

 

Changing his argument is all he does. The lyrics were not important! Er, they were somewhat important! They were more popular in the 80s. Er, their concerts were popular in the 80s!

Present a fact and he'll change his mind again.

 

Also, comparing American tour dates in 1975 to 1987 they don't appear to have been playing in bigger venues in 87.

 

Only a couple hours left to win either the TDB box or just the vinyl from UCR.

http://is.gd/pXbZUr

 

He doesn't care about lyrics. In a previous thread he admitted that, for him, rock music is all about swinging phalluses.

 

I don't care about Led Zeppelin's lyrics and I love Led Zeppelin. However, it's simply bizarre to claim lyrics aren't important for a band-like Pink Floyd.

 

I always thought Animals was a bit borrowed from George Orwell. I can see corny, never really thought of it that way but I get that.
I like Animals a lot, but I never cared for the lyrics.

 

You don't say!

 

Pink Floyd - The Endless Thread

 

Absolutely mind boggling why they didn't just release this with the Divsion Bell box set since it is most likely just throw away outtakes anyway. So disrespectful to Roger Waters to release this under the Pink Floyd banner. Obviously it will sell more that way, but a shame that many people will think they are buying a pink floyd album.

 

Let me guess, you are living in the past? Do you own some kind of time travel device?

 

It has happened a few times already. In the 80s it was highly valuable to release an album under the Pink Floyd moniker, now I feel it makes little difference... I don't think this is going to sell lots anyway... and it will sell to old Pink Floyd fans who know the whole story...

 

Roger left the band. Albums after his demise are ofcourse not disrespectful.

 

If they really wanted to give tribute to Mr. Wright, wouldn't they make sure both of his solo albums are readily available on cd/vinyl come October?

 

A self proclaimed Milli Vanilli fan, still pushing the Disco Sucks line in 2014 ???? Good grief.

Yes, I'm sure he was forced to record his parts under a lot of duress. Gilmour couldn't possibly be open minded enough to enjoy disco music could he ?

 

Mm-hmm.... I think disco sucks, and yet I collect the Bee Gees. Jesus, people.

 

Then please explain the reasoning behind your comment about Gilmour's "disco" track.

 

He probably meant that the typical Pink Floyd fan who was supposed to buy Gilmour's solo album was a "disco sucks" type of person and therefore DG made himself a disservice including a disco track (and little else) on The Wall.

In a way I think that the argument makes sense.

To be honest I think that Run Like Hell was a throwaway track by DG. He must have thought: "this is a musical, not a rock album, therefore music genre can be all over the place".