Pink Floyd - Favorite Song?

[Cosmic Harmony]

Re: Favorite Pink Floyd Song

Well, if you ask Neil, he'll tell you he is a part of Crazy Horse. Those guys were in a band together before Neil met them and Crazy Horse was an autonomous group pretty much as soon as they started playing with Neil, they had (their own) record in the works in 1970 if not earlier.

Well you can ask Neil whatever you want really but that doesn't change how the masses see him and Crazy Horse. The reason the group is called (and I no doubt blame the record for this) Neil Young and Crazy Horse is because Neil is marketable. To have an "and" in the middle their in semantics says that they are not implied as a unit and the "and" brings them together. From a non semantical aspect Crazy Horse needs Neil much more than he needs them. Yeah, he may say differently but that doesn't change the facts.

Kurt Cobain is the guitarist, singer and songwriter of Nirvana. The others contribute, but he calls the shots and it's his vision. Neil Young is the guitarist, singer and songwriter of Neil Young & Crazy Horse. The others contribute, but he calls the shots and it's his vision. Syd Barret was the guitarist, singer and songwriter of Pink Floyd. The others contributed, but he called the shots and it was his vision.

If Syd called the shots then how is it he managed to get kicked out of his band. Yes he played guitar, he sang, he wrote the songs, and it was his vision but he clearly did not call all of the shots.

Which goes back to what I said about the quality of the output. If Nirvana ditched Kurt and promptly put out a record that is both their commercial and critical height, "Nirvana" would become this other guy's band in many people's minds. What I'm saying is I think the circumstantial occurrences should be overlooked. In my eyes, it only depends on who is making the music and calling the shots. In theoretical terms I don't see a difference between if a member dies, quits, or gets kicked out, as the effect on the music is identical either way.

The difference is that Nirvana didn't kick Kurt out and Floyd did kick Syd out. That is a pretty big difference.
And the differences between a member dying, quitting, and getting kicked out are also very big and the effect isn't the same. If someone quits then that implies that they don't feel that they need the band or doesn't want to work with them anymore, if a band kicks someone out then that means that they don't feel that they need them or doesn't want to work with them anymore, and if a member dies then it's a completely different can of worms. What about those three scenarios is the same?
How about this, Bon Scott died and AC/DC's following album "Back In Black" and it was dedicated to him. Had the band kicked him out or had Bon left on his own then the material on "Back In Black" wouldn't have been dedicated to him so that is a perfect example of the effect of the music NOT being identical in any of those scenarios. The members of Floyd knew all too well that their vision was an extension of Syd's and respected that but as I said Syd's influence was much more important in idea than with the musical direction he went in. That's why their sound is so drastically different.

I don't think Syd's stuff is better. Piper is one of Floyd's worst records by far if you ask me. But when Syd was in the band it was his band. He invented the whole thing. If he hadn't buckled under the pressure, and he had decided to make Pink Floyd a bluegrass band or a 30 piece symphony orchestra, that's exactly what Pink Floyd would have become. When Floyd ditched Syd, the label dropped Floyd and picked up Syd; that's how important he was at the time.

Well first of all Syd didn't "buckle under the pressure". The drugs that he was taking combined with his ever worsening schizophrenia made him completely unable to do anything productive.
I bet when Richie Blackmore was in Deep Purple he would've told you it was his band, but how many years now have Deep Purple been without him? Quite a few. The point I'm making with that is that someone can play a key role in a band but it's not their unless they play all of the music themself (or maybe if their name is in the title). Otherwise the group can drop them and take on a different direction and while it may not sound exactly the same it's still the same name so it's still the same band in one way or another.

All I'm saying is that the level of time Syd spent at the band's helm is the only difference between post-Syd Floyd and post-Jim Morrison Doors, post-Shannon Hoon Blind Melon, post-tragedy Skynyrd, etc. etc. etc. I agree that Floyd went on to much greater heights and that the band became their own. It's just that I can completely understand if anyone considers Syd's Floyd to be the only true Floyd because it was Syd's band and Syd's vision. In the annals of history, Floyd's other members far overshadow Syd and all his work. But for a little while there, Floyd was basically just cashing in on Syd's work.

Now by the end of this post it's pretty clear that the difference in our opinion is that I don't agree with anyone who thinks that that the only "true" Floyd was with Syd (or the better Floyd). Sure it was Syd's vision but vision alone doesn't make a band. The other members were just as much Floyd as he was because they were the ones who played Syd's music and took it to places that no one ever could have dreamed.

 

[AboutAGirl]

Re: Favorite Pink Floyd Song

Well you can ask Neil whatever you want really but that doesn't change how the masses see him and Crazy Horse. The reason the group is called (and I no doubt blame the record for this) Neil Young and Crazy Horse is because Neil is marketable. To have an "and" in the middle their in semantics says that they are not implied as a unit and the "and" brings them together. From a non semantical aspect Crazy Horse needs Neil much more than he needs them. Yeah, he may say differently but that doesn't change the facts.

Sounds like mere semantics to me. 'Course it was originally written "Neil Young with Crazy Horse," but all we seem to be arguing about here is to what extent people would be interested in hearing one without the other. That's got nothing to do with the music itself. A rose by any other name, no? You could call The Beatles "Pete Best & Friends," but that would not make Pete Best the leader of The Beatles.

If Syd called the shots then how is it he managed to get kicked out of his band. Yes he played guitar, he sang, he wrote the songs, and it was his vision but he clearly did not call all of the shots.

Because they literally just stopped picking him up for gigs, and by this point he was going through too much to do anything about it. It was his band and they kicked him out, just like if circa 1994 Dave & Krist decided that Kurt was a lead weight because he was going through a lot of shit and was unreachable, so they picked up another singer/guitarist and had "Nirvana" finish their tour regardless of what Kurt had to say about it. Granted, Floyd was very supportive of Syd afterward, but they did slick him out of his own band.

The difference is that Nirvana didn't kick Kurt out and Floyd did kick Syd out. That is a pretty big difference.
And the differences between a member dying, quitting, and getting kicked out are also very big and the effect isn't the same. If someone quits then that implies that they don't feel that they need the band or doesn't want to work with them anymore, if a band kicks someone out then that means that they don't feel that they need them or doesn't want to work with them anymore, and if a member dies then it's a completely different can of worms. What about those three scenarios is the same?
How about this, Bon Scott died and AC/DC's following album "Back In Black" and it was dedicated to him. Had the band kicked him out or had Bon left on his own then the material on "Back In Black" wouldn't have been dedicated to him so that is a perfect example of the effect of the music NOT being identical in any of those scenarios.

Umm... right, because who an album is dedicated to has anything to do with what an album sounds like. How a member makes their departure from a band has very little to do with it because in every case, the band is given the identical task of finding a replacement. If Bon had quit, if Rog had died, if the driving forces of Lynyrd Skynyrd had decided to retire in Australia, it wouldn't have altered the remaining members' ability to write new music or their prospects for finding a replacement. It may have an effect on how the fans feel about a band carrying on (which means nothing in terms of music), but I suspect the main factor is only whether or not the new music is good. The point is that Floyd carried on without the person who invented their music, just like Skynyrd, Ten Years After, etc. That's all that I am saying.

The members of Floyd knew all too well that their vision was an extension of Syd's and respected that but as I said Syd's influence was much more important in idea than with the musical direction he went in. That's why their sound is so drastically different.

Yep, no doubt about it. All I'm saying is that they kicked out the person who was Pink Floyd until they made a whole new name for themselves. Timeframe is basically the only difference between what Floyd did and if Krist & Dave decided to take Nirvana on the road while Kurt wallowed alone in '94.

Well first of all Syd didn't "buckle under the pressure". The drugs that he was taking combined with his ever worsening schizophrenia made him completely unable to do anything productive.

I'm sure you know better than his very own sister, who denies claims that Barrett was mentally ill. Truth is that nobody knows for certain what happened to Syd, and he did indeed have a nervous breakdown (potentially among other things).

I bet when Richie Blackmore was in Deep Purple he would've told you it was his band, but how many years now have Deep Purple been without him? Quite a few. The point I'm making with that is that someone can play a key role in a band but it's not their unless they play all of the music themself (or maybe if their name is in the title). Otherwise the group can drop them and take on a different direction and while it may not sound exactly the same it's still the same name so it's still the same band in one way or another.

If somebody is overwhelmingly the mastermind and artisan of a piece of work, it is their work. I'm not denying, nor have I ever denied that a band can carry on and take things in a different direction. What I am saying is that Pink Floyd was Syd Barrett's band. Was.

Now by the end of this post it's pretty clear that the difference in our opinion is that I don't agree with anyone who thinks that that the only "true" Floyd was with Syd (or the better Floyd). Sure it was Syd's vision but vision alone doesn't make a band. The other members were just as much Floyd as he was because they were the ones who played Syd's music and took it to places that no one ever could have dreamed.

They sure as heck took it in brave new directions and IMO vast, vast heights. I ain't denying that. But during Syd's time in the band, the other members of Floyd played no larger role than Crazy Horse or Krist & Dave or the other members of Ten Years After (sans Alvin), etc.

 

[Abraxas]

Re: Favorite Pink Floyd Song

Us And Them

 

[METALPRIEST]

Re: Favorite Pink Floyd Song

That's some wild conversation Harmony and AAG..I've always felt that Jesse Katsopolis would have been nothing without the Rippers or the Monkey Puppets.

..and Viper made the Monkey Puppets.

Have Mercy...

 

[Džedaj]

Re: Favorite Pink Floyd Song

Haha, yeah, really constructive conversation you two. It's nice to see you two stand for your opinion so strong and restless. Also, if anyone is such Floyd fan as I am to dig through net for good bootlegs, such as "Stranger Than Fiction","Cruel But Fair" or that amazing "BBC Session" from 1970-1971 probably knows how bootlegs can have great value.

 

[METALPRIEST]

Re: Favorite Pink Floyd Song

I am one who finds the Final Cut to be very overrated and YES it's a Pink Floyd album!!

 

[Sweaty]

Re: Favorite Pink Floyd Song

Yeah, Meddle was my first introduction to the "non commercial Floyd". It radically changed my notion of just what the Floyd were. Before i heard it, I had been listening mostly to DSOTM and the Wall. I thought they were just some deep, dark, spacey outfit. Soulless and obscure. But Meddle is a fresh breath of pastoral air, just like its predecessor Atom Heart Mother. Which includes a Rick Wright masterpiece, Summer 68!

I agree, I listened to the others before I heard Meddle and was blown away, love that album to pieces man

 

[LG]

Re: Favorite Pink Floyd Song

I really like how dark and cynical Roger Waters' songwriting is. While it may not be Floyd's greatest album "The Final Cut" would probably rank at either number three or four for my favorite Pink Floyd albums.

We have gone over that in detail in the PF thread Cosmic.

I like Roger okay, but the sheer "Dark Nature" and obsessions with those topics contributed to the band fracturing. The others were accomplished writers in their own right and were tired of his domineering ways in the studio. It was after all Pink Floyd, not Roger & Friends.

I agree with Lynch, about Jackory's comment, the band did change after the acrimonious split, but I enjoyed the post Waters era as well. I got to see the "Division Bell" tour, one of the highlights of my concert going career for sure.

I don't think we will ever see a reunion now that Richard is gone though, unless something happens between David and Roger to finally put things in order.

Sweaty, Meddle is my second favorite album, DSOTM will always be number one for me.

 

[jackory]

Re: Favorite Pink Floyd Song

So much to respond to, so little time.

There would be no Pink Floyd were it not for Syd Barrett. He was their driving force. Practically everything about them was the result of his genius and vision. Waters even implies as much throughout the course of the Wish You Were Here album. All you have to do is listen to the post-Barrett albums to see that they became a completely different entity after he was retired (which was a matter or necessity and not a reflection of his ability or importance within the band's structure). It was only natural that Waters would step up to the plate and write lyrics. Gilmour just isn't as good. Gilmour definitely influenced the musical style...most post Barrett fans will say it was for the better. I say not so much "better", just different. They really were a different band.

The measure of a band is not necessarily the talent of the personnel. It's the DYNAMIC between the individual members. When you hear Journey you KNOW you're listening to Journey because of that unique style which is the culmination of the DYNAMIC between those five guys. You take even one member out and there's going to be an alteration in that sound, even if it's only perceptible to the band's biggest fans. When you remove a pivotal member like Syd Barrett from the Pink Floyd line-up it's only logical that the style of the band is going to drastically shift. Not from good to bad, except maybe in terms of personal preference. But almost radically different.

It's like when you go to the club to see a show from some classic rock group whose name is owned by the bass player, and he's out touring with that name as the only original member. The other guys in the re-animated band know their parts and may be very good at what they do. But as much as the songs may resemble the originals, you still can tell the difference, almost as if you're listening to a cover band or a tribute band.

Maybe the difference with post-Barrett Floyd and post-Waters Floyd is this: to my knowledge Pink Floyd never performed many, if any, Barrett songs after he was out of the band. Whereas Gilmour is always trotting out old Floyd chestnuts to fill time and draw fans to his version of the band. Even Waters' Floyd tunes, which is kind of disingenuous, IMO, seeing that there is so much animosity between the two of them.

The best case for my theory of DYNAMIC is the Live8 concert reunion. Did that performance sound like the Gilmour Floyd? NO. It was Pink Floyd, and not just because Roger was on board, it was because the DYNAMIC was back in place.

Anyhoo, I'm rambling. Piper at the Gates of Dawn is a great album and a relic from the days when contemporary music took a turn towards the experimental. It's no big surprise that Piper was recorded in the same studio and around the same time as the Beatles' Sgt. Pepper. John Lennon himself was inspired by the band to write "What's the New Mary Jane", which was never officially released (until the Anthology series), but was no better or worse than other songs they were putting out at the time. It's a product of it's time and has aged accordingly (in both the positive and negative sense of the word). The Waters' era material, if you look at it in context of modern music itself, has done the same. We sort of have a myopic vision of these things, seeing as how we're congregated on a forum dealing with classic rock with people who probably like classic rock more than other genres (though you can't really call it an actual "genre").

Piper comes from a phase of Pink Floyd. The Waters stuff is a phase of Pink Floyd as well. It's very difficult for me to think of Gilmour's Floyd as the logical progression. I see at as a Pink Floyd tribute band lucky enough to have three original members. That sounds wacky. It is. And it's really too late for Gilmour to do anything about it, what with Wright's passing, but until/unless this current Floyd incarnation ditches the Waters material it will never be Pink Floyd.

Okay, so you can say "well, there's no Waters material on their albums"...granted. But it would be interesting to see how all the music on those records stands up, BY ITSELF in concert settings. Until they do an entire tour with no Waters songs they are riding on the back of his enormous input and as long as Waters doesn't want them to go by the name, they SHOULDN'T and as far as I'm concerned, they AREN'T really Pink Floyd.

I do like a couple of songs from post Waters Floyd. I choose to call it The David Gilmour Band, and put it in the same category as his solo records.

 

[architect]

Re: Favorite Pink Floyd Song

Syd Barrett was the guitarist, singer and songwriter of Pink Floyd. The others contributed, but he called the shots and it was his vision.

This is absolutely true. When the band was formed, the only member who had any kind of musical knowldege was Rick Wright, but he was too quiet to assert himself as a main songwriter. Also, Mason and Waters were architecture students who used to draw out song structures as architectural diagrams! Where's the muse???? Syd. The others had no vision as to what their band should sound like. They were used to playing blues and the Peter Gunn Theme, albeit badly.
So Syd turned them in the direction of free form jams, where it didn't matter if you were not technically proficient on your instrument. Also 8 of the 11 songs on Piper were written soley by Syd. In that first year, he was the driving force.

So they rode Syd's coattails all the way to the bank. But when he started to crack in late 1967, they realized that their main drive was slipping away and in order to save the band they needed someone with some musical knowledge. Enter David Gilmour.



As for the Final Cut, I have always considered it a Waters solo album- Dave has a few great solos, Nick is prctically non existent on the LP because Roger didn't think his playing was up to par, and Rick was out of the band!

It's definitly not something I ever listen to!