The fact I really like both Rattle That Lock and Is This The Life We Really Want would suggest that they continue to create good music apart. I'd love to see a Waters/Gilmour collaboration (lets not call it Floyd) though it would likely be a studio effort only, as RW has said they can only work to together for short periods before the past issues would come between them (so Live 8, the one off The Wall live appearance and RW doing a song at a DG charity concert being the sum total collaboration since 1983). Edit: They could do a 40 years of Alienation, Negativity, Ennui and Death celebration, for release in 2023
Yes. I've always thought that the two of them should work on new material together without being billed as "Pink Floyd". Only question is: would they be called "Roger Waters & David Gilmour" or "David Gilmour & Roger Waters"?
Roger Waters is one of the finest lyricists ever. David Gilmour is one of the finest guitarists ever. Put them in the same band, and it's marvelous. Take them apart from each other, and it's a bore. I have very little time for their solo work. But Floyd from 1967-1979 is indeed fantastic.
Without beginning another debate i will add that my own personal love of the band is everything up through Animals. I’ve never liked The Wall much. And the records without Roger i’ve never sat down and listened to, mostly because what i heard sounded boring. Same with The Endless River, what i heard sounded too much like post-Roger stuff. But back to this thread, seems from all the insightful commentary that a certain intelligence, chemistry, artistry and approach just was the perfect sounding music for the soft drug listening experience, which was at its peak when the band was and which people of a certain want are still finding in their music generations later.
Part one: high school stoners love nihilism. (Compare how many people think of 1973-80 as their peak rather than the comparatively sunny Syd era) Part two: former high school stoners love being nostalgic for their days of being high school stoners.
Wish Floyd had more groove/feel/soul - I like a few of their songs, but overall, they were way too robotic for me.
Yeah, SO much of that pre-1973 material just gets better and better and better over time, even if (admittedly) some of its brilliance isn’t necessarily “instantly” recognizable as such. And as “brilliant” a piece of “aural theater” as The Wall might well be (all due credit to Roger) — simply on musical terms alone, The Wall doesn’t stack up. The Wall may be / probably is a genuinely fantastic DRAMATIC work, that happens to be primarily aural — but “great music” (compositionally speaking) it is not — or not the majority of it, anyway. The Wall is unique, and was a great success (deservedly) — but the majority of it isn’t much like Pink Floyd (stylistically), or a product of the kind of “band-collaborative” process that created everything that preceded it. Bully for Roger that it was such a grand success and all, but it wasn’t really “Pink Floyd” to my way of thinking. But it was a striking and important work, I’ll certainly grant that. The most “Pink Floyd” part of The Wall, to my ears, was the extended version of “The Last Few Bricks” — particularly the 13-minute version played on 7-Feb-1980 in Los Angeles — and perhaps arguably David Gilmour’s tunes from The Wall (though even then, I’d argue “The Last Few Bricks” is more Floydian than everything else, save perhaps “Comfortably Numb”). I’m NOT arguing good vs. bad, just more Floydian vs. less Floydian.
It's quite impressive given their very spotty recorded output. Here are a few thoughts off the top of my head to explain their standing: Syd Barrett - although only spending a short time with the band, he cast a great shadow over them and helped define them and their material. The mystique surrounding him is woven into their image as a band. Dark Side Of The Moon - this one album is so brilliant that they might have been able to rest on its merits alone without having to produce another single piece of work. It took them a long time to arrive at this point in their career, with several uncertain missteps along the way, and ironically, it was probably responsible for the unraveling of the band, not immediately, but over time as each band member responded to the success of that album. Drugs - whether intentional or not, the psychedelic foundation of the band, the dreamy, spacey, atmospheric sounds produced by their original leader and keyboardist Rick Wright, in particular, was well-suited for listeners who indulged in certain mind-altering substances.
Well, this is a matter of opinion, but....... Unique sound Great writing (a lot of what Wright contributed was very counter-intuitive from a compositional standpoint) Great engineering of their records Aura of mystique Great lyrical themes Amazing live shows
I've been thinking about this for a couple days, and here's what I've come up with. For perspective, I entered high school about the same time The Wall was released, so that was the only one of their classic albums that I experienced "in real time," but they were very much established as one of the legendary bands of arena rock by that time (in the conventional wisdom, as expressed by my peers), alongside Zeppelin, the Who, the Stones, et al. One thing about Pink Floyd is that they were probably the first "art rock" band (or one of the first) that a lot of people ever heard. Of the huge artists of the day, they were pretty much the only one that was about sitting down and listening to the music (with or without chemical enhancement) as opposed to dancing, boogieing, rocking out or partying down. At the same time, their music (from the 1973-79 classic era) was a lot more accessible than most "art rock" or prog rock bands. It was nice and mellow, easy on the ears, with none of the virtuosic displays of flashy musicianship that characterized groups like ELP or Yes. That probably made it easier to appreciate for fans of the mid-70s editions of, say, Fleetwood Mac or the Steve Miller Band. Add to that lyrics about alienation, regrets, depression, all kinds of subjects that weren't usually fodder for major rock bands (but which are very appealing to those of a certain temperament, especially during one's youth). Put all this together and you have a band with a very distinctive, creative sound, but one that's still very accessible to fans of mainstream rock. Even as musical trends changed and their fanbase continued to grow in the 80s and 90s, their music sat right in that sweet spot for fans of "classic rock" who wanted something a little different, but not *too* different.
They were a psychedelic/prog band that deeply understood the importance of space, mood, and connecting emotionally? Therefore they appealed to a broader spectrum?
they were still unique. Just cuz you aren’t a fan doesn’t mean they weren’t unique. They’ve always been unlike any other band.
Yes their early stuff is really great too. Probably better the The Wall, so I think I’d have to ageee with you. (Although I have to say the solo on comfortably numb Malone makes the wall a worthy inclusion!)
