The Pink Floyd Thread

[KevShmev]

Personally, I wish my entertainers would stick to entertaining.  Just because someone has a huge platform doesn't mean they have the capacity to use it correctly or intelligently.  That goes for Nugent, Springsteen, Bono, Tim Robbins or any other entertainer.  Stick to your craft.  You don't tell me who I should vote for.  I won't tell you how to sing or act.

You know, if any of them wants to attend a rally, tape a commercial, or even campaign for someone, I don't care. But if I pay money for a ticket to a performance and then it becomes part of the performance, that's where I draw the line.

Well said (by both of you).

[cfmoran13]

Then again, there is one entertainer who I wish would would be more politically responsible and less entertaining.  He uses words like "bigly" and writes using words like "covfefe". 

But, I don't want to totally de-rail this thread.  So, I'll stop here.

[Mladen]

We need to get back on track, bigly.

[Orbert]

You asked for it.


I like Side One of Meddle more than Side Two.

"Echoes" is cool, but if you're sober that middle section just goes on too damned long.  The songs on Side One are all good.  Yes, even "Seamus" and even "San Tropez" (which is my favorite).

[Prog Snob]

Are you sure you're of sound mind?

[Orbert]

That's the problem.  When I'm baked, "Echoes" is a fucking masterpiece.  When I'm of sound mind, I like the versus well enough, but the middle section just drags.  Meanwhile, I can always listen to Side One.  Nowadays of course, it's CD or iPod, in which case I just press Play, and I noticed recently that I stop when I get to "Echoes" at least half the time.

[Mister Gold]

As embarrassing as it probably is to admit, I've never gotten baked in my life. So when I read about how Pink Floyd is an amazing band to check out when under the influence, especially that particular era of the band, I always find myself wondering if I'm missing out or not.

[Stadler]

I HAVE been baked, and drunk, and I much prefer Floyd sober. 

[TAC]

I don't know. Baked Pink Floyd looks pretty good.

[Mister Gold]

I don't know. Baked Pink Floyd looks pretty good.

That does look appetizing, but it's missing the flying pig from Animals...

[TAC]

If you were stoned, you'd be able to see it!

[Mladen]

One of these days is the only song on side one of Meddle that I really like. Side two is where it's at for me. 

[Azyiu]

One of these days is the only song on side one of Meddle that I really like. Side two is where it's at for me. 

I read an old interview back in the 90s that went something like, the band is aware of the fact that only half of Meddle sounds like the Pink Floyd most people come to think of from TDSotM onward.

[Prog Snob]

That's the problem.  When I'm baked, "Echoes" is a fucking masterpiece.  When I'm of sound mind, I like the versus well enough, but the middle section just drags.  Meanwhile, I can always listen to Side One.  Nowadays of course, it's CD or iPod, in which case I just press Play, and I noticed recently that I stop when I get to "Echoes" at least half the time.

I've never been baked, fried, or cooked, but still enjoy the fuck out of Echoes. It's my favorite PF song. However, I will say that the rest of Meddle is awesome, too. It's one of their most underrated albums.

[TAC]

I've never bothered to get Meddle. Hmm..

[Prog Snob]

Obviously, it's worth it for Echoes alone. A Pillow of Winds and Fearless are beautiful. The other songs are really good, too.

[Stadler]

Fearless. 

[Orbert]

One of these days is the only song on side one of Meddle that I really like. Side two is where it's at for me. 

I read an old interview back in the 90s that went something like, the band is aware of the fact that only half of Meddle sounds like the Pink Floyd most people come to think of from TDSotM onward.

That's probably true.  They used to write songs, and have albums with songs on them, and that was good enough.  Then Waters decided that every album had to have a grand unifying concept to it, which is a lofty goal, and the next several albums were great because of it, but there's still nothing wrong with just creating albums with regular songs.

[Mladen]

That's probably true.  They used to write songs, and have albums with songs on them, and that was good enough.  Then Waters decided that every album had to have a grand unifying concept to it, which is a lofty goal, and the next several albums were great because of it, but there's still nothing wrong with just creating albums with regular songs.

Absolutely. That's what makes Piper, A Saucerful of secrets and Atom heart mother such good albums.

[Prog Snob]

That's probably true.  They used to write songs, and have albums with songs on them, and that was good enough.  Then Waters decided that every album had to have a grand unifying concept to it, which is a lofty goal, and the next several albums were great because of it, but there's still nothing wrong with just creating albums with regular songs.

Absolutely. That's what makes Piper, A Saucerful of secrets and Atom heart mother such good albums.

Three exceedingly underrated albums.

[rumborak]

Listening to the new Waters album. I dunno, while it has some good moments, it feels like he's covering his old songs. For a 25 year gap, I was hoping for some musical evolution.

[Cool Chris]

Good assessment. Haven't heard all of it, like what I have heard to an extent, think it's largely good, better than some of his other solo work. Still impressive a man his age can put out a quality product, having not written an album in 25 years.

And there is plenty wrong with Piper and Atom Heart Mother.

[home]

What's wrong with Piper? It's such a unique mix of psychedelic and experimental rock mixed with beatles like pop.

[Cool Chris]

Personal preference. Though to be fair, I will try and give it a good listen this weekend, it has been a while for me.

[Mladen]

I'm enjoying the new Roger Waters album so far. The second half kind of loses me, but the first half comes across as pretty gritty and in-your-face. Picture that and the title track are very menacing and intense.

[Fritzinger]

Listening to the new Waters album. I dunno, while it has some good moments, it feels like he's covering his old songs. For a 25 year gap, I was hoping for some musical evolution.

You serious? From a 70 year old?

I think it's a very good album. Sure, sometimes you think you're listening to Mother or Amused To Death, but the overall album ist great imho.

[Progmetty]

I think it's a very good album. Sure, sometimes you think you're listening to Mother or Amused To Death, but the overall album ist great imho.

I'm pretty excited to get it, is it safe to assume it's a concept album?

[Mladen]

I'm still trying to figure out the concept, but I think there's a shift in the storyline after the track. It seems to me like it turns into a love story, could it be about his recent divorce? I could be waaaaaaay off, though.

[Skeever]

Personally, I wish my entertainers would stick to entertaining.  Just because someone has a huge platform doesn't mean they have the capacity to use it correctly or intelligently.  That goes for Nugent, Springsteen, Bono, Tim Robbins or any other entertainer.  Stick to your craft.  You don't tell me who I should vote for.  I won't tell you how to sing or act.

You know, if any of them wants to attend a rally, tape a commercial, or even campaign for someone, I don't care. But if I pay money for a ticket to a performance and then it becomes part of the performance, that's where I draw the line.

I do not understand this at all. If you've gone decades listening to Pink Floyd never feeling like they've been challenging the way you think - I'm sorry - you've never listened to Pink Floyd. Waters is certainly lacking subtlety that he's never been particularly known for to begin with, but these latest statements should come as no huge surprise.

[Progmetty]

Spot on Skeever.

[Fritzinger]

I think it's a very good album. Sure, sometimes you think you're listening to Mother or Amused To Death, but the overall album ist great imho.

I'm pretty excited to get it, is it safe to assume it's a concept album?

I think yes, though I don't know what the actual concept is about. He mentions a lot of political stuff though.

[Samsara]

Personally, I wish my entertainers would stick to entertaining.  Just because someone has a huge platform doesn't mean they have the capacity to use it correctly or intelligently.  That goes for Nugent, Springsteen, Bono, Tim Robbins or any other entertainer.  Stick to your craft.  You don't tell me who I should vote for.  I won't tell you how to sing or act.

You know, if any of them wants to attend a rally, tape a commercial, or even campaign for someone, I don't care. But if I pay money for a ticket to a performance and then it becomes part of the performance, that's where I draw the line.

I do not understand this at all. If you've gone decades listening to Pink Floyd never feeling like they've been challenging the way you think - I'm sorry - you've never listened to Pink Floyd. Waters is certainly lacking subtlety that he's never been particularly known for to begin with, but these latest statements should come as no huge surprise.

Respectfully, I think you understand it pretty well. Note you said "subtlety." Waters hasn't shown any. There's a line for me, just like there is for TAC and others. It's hard to pinpoint it, but you know it when you see it. I was going to Waters' show this month in my area. I sold my ticket after hearing it is basically an anti-Trump rally. That wasn't the primary reason (I had plans made after buying it that are more important to me than the concert), but it heavily contributed to it. And...I'm NO FAN of Trump. Did not vote for him, do not like him and how he conducts himself. And I know, obviously, Roger's political leanings and that he can be extremely overt.

But there comes a point where things get to be overboard, where you need to just draw the line in the sand and say "no more." I saw Roger Waters put on the most incredible concert I have ever seen when he did The Wall. Just visually spectacular. Greatest thing I have ever seen. It was incredible. It led to me buying a ticket to his current performance last November for a show this month, and spending a good sum to do it. But he's lost me because of how overt he is being.

I go to a show to immerse myself in the music and lose touch with "the real world" for a while. I'm not naive, I realize some things are said and referenced during the shows I see all the time (Living Colour comes to mind immediately). But there's just a personal line for me, and for many people where it goes overboard. Roger has done that. I respect him as a musician and songwriter, and I admire his passion for issues he feels deeply about. But I wasn't attending a show to immerse myself in a political rally. I was going to sing along to songs I love and see a visually stunning show.  Roger went to far, so I bowed out, without regret, and without bias to the future (well, if he ever came around again, and that is a big IF, given his age, I actually wouldn't buy a ticket immediately -- I'd wait and see what the show is like first, so there is a pinch of bias).

[Progmetty]

Well Samsara I think this is truly the first time anyone has presented an argument against Waters that I can respect, hats off! But that's really usual of you.
I disagree with your overall point, but that's just a matter of personal taste though. I wouldn't want my entertainment to be meaningless disconnect from the real world, I like it to help me take a break from seeing the real world in it's raw dry ugly form and have me lost in the artistic take on it. Not that I don't like some solid silly entertainment, but there's plenty of that to go around.
Also I think Roger Waters opinions on Zionism are very humanitarian, not just "extreme leftist" views. I actually just saw an interview where someone asked him if he got rid of The Wall touring set/stage and he said he didn't cause he promised his Israeli friends to do a one off/last performance of The Wall in Israel if they change their apartheid policies and remove the segregation wall in the West bank.
If you guys wanna continue discussing Waters politics I'd really appreciate it if we please take it to P&R, there's a lot of good musical discussion on this thread and I wouldn't wanna muddy it, please.

I'm still trying to figure out the concept, but I think there's a shift in the storyline after the track. It seems to me like it turns into a love story, could it be about his recent divorce? I could be waaaaaaay off, though.

Good, if there's no clear concept I can throw the album in a shuffle playlist with Rattle That Lock, which I haven't heard yet either, and pretend it's the new Pink Floyd album

[Mladen]

The second half of the album is slighty more subtle lyrically, but it could still very well follow the same concept. I just need to dig deeper into those words and try to interpret them. The lyrics that are obvious and more direct, however, are mostly good, but as much as I support Roger's expression and admire his passionate activism, the preachiness does get a bit too much sometimes. It didn't bother me at first, but I'm kind of starting to see the line as well.

[Stadler]

Personally, I wish my entertainers would stick to entertaining.  Just because someone has a huge platform doesn't mean they have the capacity to use it correctly or intelligently.  That goes for Nugent, Springsteen, Bono, Tim Robbins or any other entertainer.  Stick to your craft.  You don't tell me who I should vote for.  I won't tell you how to sing or act.

You know, if any of them wants to attend a rally, tape a commercial, or even campaign for someone, I don't care. But if I pay money for a ticket to a performance and then it becomes part of the performance, that's where I draw the line.

I do not understand this at all. If you've gone decades listening to Pink Floyd never feeling like they've been challenging the way you think - I'm sorry - you've never listened to Pink Floyd. Waters is certainly lacking subtlety that he's never been particularly known for to begin with, but these latest statements should come as no huge surprise.

Spot on Skeever.

Not exactly spot on, though.   I have been VERY challenged by Pink Floyd, but there has been as much personally and intimately challenging about it as there has been overt political reference.  Even the two political "biggies", Animals and The Final Cut, have a personal aspect to them that make them touch.   Maybe it's just me, but the "Liberal/Conservative" aspect of A and TFC aren't the points that stick with me.   It's the way that the macro - the politics - and the micro - the personal - touch.   Politics - of either stripe - kill people (in this case, Eric Waters).   The subtitle - on the album cover - of TFC is "A Requiem".  That's a remembrance of the dead.  THAT'S what that was about, not the "politics of Great Britain".    And when you set those albums in the context of The Wall, WYWH, and DSOTM, you have an INCREDIBLY personal experience.   THAT'S why Floyd touched all those hearts, not because there are a million fans that love Roger's socialism.