1983 - A Thread for the Final Cut Haters!

General discussion about Pink Floyd.
User avatar
David Smith
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 7074
Joined: Thu Jul 11, 2002 12:54 pm
Location: Edinburgh or Aberdeen depending on the time of year

Re: 1983 - A Thread for the Final Cut Haters!

Post by David Smith »

Well on the solo front i shall consider myself to be massively in the minority here. As much as i like the album i find them horrible
User avatar
JackRegan
Knife
Knife
Posts: 432
Joined: Thu Jan 28, 2010 11:02 am
Gender: Male
Location: Flying Squad, a branch of the Metropolitan Police

Re: 1983 - A Thread for the Final Cut Haters!

Post by JackRegan »

David Smith wrote:As much as i like the album i find them (guitar solos) horrible
vice versa
User avatar
jtull
Supreme Judge!
Supreme Judge!
Posts: 3354
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2009 7:55 pm
Gender: Male

Re: 1983 - A Thread for the Final Cut Haters!

Post by jtull »

Agreed with David, the solo's on The Final Cut sounds somewhat uninspired really.
User avatar
The Gunner's Dream
Lord!!
Lord!!
Posts: 3906
Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2005 12:58 am
Gender: Male

Re: 1983 - A Thread for the Final Cut Haters!

Post by The Gunner's Dream »

The solos on this album are horrible? That's harsh. Of course, there's no accounting for tastes. And the quality of music is incredibly subjective. Performance-wise Gilmour's playing on the album is no better or worse than it had been on any previous album. So what it must come down to is you not liking the actual notes Gilmour plays. But of course only a lunatic would suggest that one note is better than another. And I don't get a sense of a "soaring 80's style" solo when listening to these solos, whatever that is. I'm hearing a musically very simple solo based off of a five note scale. My only real criticism of these solos is that Gilmour limited himself to five notes.

I simply fail to see how those solos could be classed as "horrible" under any circumstances. And "uninspired" is just one of those generic words we throw around when we can't think of a better description. I mean really. What kind of criticism is that? It doesn't tell you anything. Uninspired in comparison to what? Is there a universal standard for what IS inspired?
User avatar
David Smith
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 7074
Joined: Thu Jul 11, 2002 12:54 pm
Location: Edinburgh or Aberdeen depending on the time of year

Re: 1983 - A Thread for the Final Cut Haters!

Post by David Smith »

To my musically-untrained but still perfectly valid listening ear they sound totally generic of Gilmour, appear to go nowhere and only appear so Pink Floyd can put in their signature guitar sound
User avatar
The Gunner's Dream
Lord!!
Lord!!
Posts: 3906
Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2005 12:58 am
Gender: Male

Re: 1983 - A Thread for the Final Cut Haters!

Post by The Gunner's Dream »

Yes, anyone who listens to music is a "valid" judge of it. I've simply tried to rationalize the reasoning of your dislike of the solos from a musician's point of view. That was foolish of me, because it didn't work. As dreadfully cliché as it is, we will simply have to agree to disagree.
User avatar
mosespa
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 11555
Joined: Thu Sep 12, 2002 5:54 pm
Location: In the editing bay...working on the final cut...

Re: 1983 - A Thread for the Final Cut Haters!

Post by mosespa »

The Gunner's Dream wrote:1. My only real criticism of these solos is that Gilmour limited himself to five notes.

2. Uninspired in comparison to what?

3. Is there a universal standard for what IS inspired?
1. So, given that any (non-chromatic) scale is typically made up of seven notes, that means that Gilmour only left out two in any given solo.

I've never understood the argument that the pentatonic scale is "inferior" somehow because it only has five notes. Or maybe it's because it's usually the first scale that anyone learns, so maybe it's "inferiority" comes from it's commonality?

I dunno. *shrug*

The same people who make this argument will also point out that there's a difference between a sus2 and an add9, even though the two chords contain the same exact notes.

It's as if an octave means a different note in a chord...but not in a scale.

2. "Uninspired" compared to the rest of Gilmour's guitar solos.

3. I dunno. Some people (not saying that you're one of them, Gus, lol,) would say that the use of the pentatonic scale alone is "uninspired" and that a flurry of random notes played very fast is "inspired."

I say it's all down to the melodic structure.

I think that what David's getting at is that on The Final Cut, Gilmour could almost have just phoned his solos in from home...in his opinion.

Which is just as valid as anyone else's opinion.

Even yours. :P
User avatar
JackRegan
Knife
Knife
Posts: 432
Joined: Thu Jan 28, 2010 11:02 am
Gender: Male
Location: Flying Squad, a branch of the Metropolitan Police

Re: 1983 - A Thread for the Final Cut Haters!

Post by JackRegan »

Ummm....so album is great, only Gilmour playing is crap? Yeah, right....
User avatar
Idisaffect
Judge!
Judge!
Posts: 2039
Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2007 8:20 am
Gender: Male
Location: here now

Re: 1983 - A Thread for the Final Cut Haters!

Post by Idisaffect »

mosespa wrote:So, given that any (non-chromatic) scale is typically made up of seven notes, that means that Gilmour only left out two in any given solo.
Two is a lot when subtracted from seven. It's quite significant. Almost one third.

It's still just a matter of taste, though. One note can be played in a more sophisticated manner than seven notes, depending on what you're doing. And not all tastes require sophistication. Most don't. Hell, I like Johnny Thunders!

We could also argue about the definition of sophistication, but I'll pass.
mosespa wrote:Or maybe it's because it's usually the first scale that anyone learns, so maybe it's "inferiority" comes from it's commonality?
I think commonality is often a sign of inferiority. Not always.
Let's face it, certain guitar scales, played a certain way, have been rubbed into the ground. Listen to the average blues guitarist, if you can bear it, then listen to the guitarist in the band Can. One of them is inspired. Which brings me to this....
The Gunner's Dream wrote:Is there a universal standard for what IS inspired?
Yes. When the music starts to play itself and the player is merely a tool used to transmit the sound. In other words, when the music is being beamed into your consciousness from a fucking golden beam of cosmic light, dude. haha
mosespa wrote:I dunno
Practice your guitar more and you'll probably figure it out.
JackRegan wrote:Ummm....so album is great, only Gilmour playing is crap? Yeah, right...
Jack. We get it. You like Gilmour and you don't like Waters. Can you play some different notes for awhile? You're like a redundant blues guitarist. Play a new tune!*


* I hate smilies but you're a new member and I want you to to know that you should never, under any circumstances, take my posts too seriously

Edit: I spelled "bear" wrong. I couldn't bear it. Or bare it.
Last edited by Idisaffect on Fri Mar 05, 2010 7:58 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
The Gunner's Dream
Lord!!
Lord!!
Posts: 3906
Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2005 12:58 am
Gender: Male

Re: 1983 - A Thread for the Final Cut Haters!

Post by The Gunner's Dream »

mosespa wrote: The same people who make this argument will also point out that there's a difference between a sus2 and an add9, even though the two chords contain the same exact notes.
Add9 chords consist of a major triad and a 9th. They have a 3rd. Suspended chords don't. Suspended chords either consist of the 1st, 2nd and 5th degrees of the scale (Sus2) or the 1st, 4th and 5th degrees of the scale (Sus4). But a Sus2 is really just an inverted Sus4. So some would say that a suspended chord always refers to a suspended 4th and that the term "Sus2" only describes the order of notes in the inversion of a Sus4 chord.
User avatar
Idisaffect
Judge!
Judge!
Posts: 2039
Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2007 8:20 am
Gender: Male
Location: here now

Re: 1983 - A Thread for the Final Cut Haters!

Post by Idisaffect »

That kind of talk will surely make the commoners contemptuous.
User avatar
JackRegan
Knife
Knife
Posts: 432
Joined: Thu Jan 28, 2010 11:02 am
Gender: Male
Location: Flying Squad, a branch of the Metropolitan Police

Re: 1983 - A Thread for the Final Cut Haters!

Post by JackRegan »

Idisaffect wrote:
Jack. We get it. You like Gilmour and you don't like Waters. Can you play some different notes for awhile? You're like a redundant blues guitarist. Play a new tune!*
1983 - A Thread for the Final Cut Haters!

Get it? Besides i wasn't talking about Gilmour at first. What tune you would like to hear?
User avatar
Idisaffect
Judge!
Judge!
Posts: 2039
Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2007 8:20 am
Gender: Male
Location: here now

Re: 1983 - A Thread for the Final Cut Haters!

Post by Idisaffect »

JackRegan wrote:What tune you would like to hear?

Free Palestine by The Dead Soldiers
User avatar
JackRegan
Knife
Knife
Posts: 432
Joined: Thu Jan 28, 2010 11:02 am
Gender: Male
Location: Flying Squad, a branch of the Metropolitan Police

Re: 1983 - A Thread for the Final Cut Haters!

Post by JackRegan »

Idisaffect wrote:
JackRegan wrote:What tune you would like to hear?

Free Palestine by The Dead Soldiers
Dunno that one. How about Ahab the Arab by Kinky Friedman?
User avatar
Parpa
Blade
Blade
Posts: 106
Joined: Thu Jun 19, 2003 1:02 pm
Location: Chicago, USA

Re: 1983 - A Thread for the Final Cut Haters!

Post by Parpa »

RE: Gilmour's playing on the Final Cut--

I love The Final Cut--I take it for what it is--basically Roger's first solo album--but with David Gilmour playing guitar on it. Which in and of itself--is pretty cool. I very much view the Final Cut as a companion piece to the Wall--despite the fact that these are two totally different albums/pieces of work. Yes, TFC began as a Wall spin-off--but obviously it took on a life all its own and stands up quite well as the follow up to The Wall. (in fact, if I have to choose one or the other to listen to today--I always pick the Final Cut)...

Given that these albums were recorded closely together--and given the fact that The Wall was a double-album, followed by a state-of-the-art tour followed by a film--The Final Cut was bound to have some of that...LARGENESS to it somehow. And yes, it's the same (exact) formula Roger employed for The Wall (in terms of narrative and how the piece comes together to tell the story).

So to get to my point...

Those of you that "hate" Gilmour's playing on The Final Cut--must also have a distaste for David's playing on the Wall as they are very similar (just as similar as Roger's vocal approach--laiden with sound effects, explosions, screaming, whispering, et al) -- The Final Cut takes The Wall formula and says--let's do this again.

Is David's playing uninspired on TFC? I don't think so. In fact, I think quite the opposite. Gilmour sounds pissed off. His playing is angry--visceral--chilling at times. I love it. If you like his playing on the Wall--then I can't understand how you wouldn't like his playing on TFC. Granted, Gilmour plays a lot LESS on TFC. His solos are short--and he barely plays at all on some songs. But some of them are masterpieces (see Fletcher Memorial Home).

I see The Wall, The Final Cut and Pros & Cons of Hitchhiking as all being cut from the same cloth - in terms of song writing. After Pros and Cons, Roger seemed to take some different approaches (Radio Kaos-being a fairly drastic sonic departure). But these three records--if all recorded by Pink Floyd proper--would all sound very much the same to me. Not that this is a bad thing necessarily--it's just that (incredibly) Roger wrote all of this material in a relatively short time span.

If pressed, I might rate The Final Cut as one of the three best pieces Roger Waters ever created...