Why was there so little Pink Floyd after 1994?

General discussion about Pink Floyd.
User avatar
Annoying Twit
Hammer
Hammer
Posts: 1259
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2008 1:26 pm

Re: Why was there so little Pink Floyd after 1994?

Post by Annoying Twit »

space triangle wrote: Tue Aug 11, 2020 6:08 am Roger realized that he would never be able to come out under a shadow of powerful name of Pink Floyd and stopped making solo albums for 25 years. David also realized the same thing, reformed Pink Floyd in 1987 and continued to release ‘his music' (AMLOR; DB) wrapped into the name of Pink Floyd.
Rather unfair to say that. Dave strove to make the albums as Pink Floyd as he could, and TDB is certainly more of a PF album than TFC was. And, TER, even more so. Dave also stepped out from PF with his own solo albums.
ZiggyZipgun
Knife
Knife
Posts: 386
Joined: Mon May 05, 2008 3:04 pm

Re: Why was there so little Pink Floyd after 1994?

Post by ZiggyZipgun »

space triangle wrote: Tue Aug 11, 2020 6:08 amDavid also realized the same thing, reformed Pink Floyd in 1987 and continued to release ‘his music' (AMLOR; DB) wrapped into the name of Pink Floyd.
Annoying Twit wrote: Tue Aug 11, 2020 6:35 amRather unfair to say that. Dave strove to make the albums as Pink Floyd as he could, and TDB is certainly more of a PF album than TFC was. And, TER, even more so. Dave also stepped out from PF with his own solo albums.
Gilmour was very clear in all of his interviews for David Gilmour and About Face that he had no intention of going solo full-time, and that Pink Floyd was still his main focus. Dave was well aware that he wasn't a household name; Roger really believed that he was, and said his budget for the Pros and Cons tour was based on every show being sold out...which is delusional. Dave even gave interviews in 1984 where he talked about how the next Floyd record would have to be made differently than The Final Cut, and that he and Nick were just waiting to see if Roger was coming back or not. Waters assumed his tour would be as successful as The Wall tour; Gilmour had been the musical director of that tour, and said he only took About Face on the road because he knew he'd be taking on even more responsibility for the next Floyd tour. Still, his tour did very well - canceling the first few dates in Canada due to lack of promotion, but adding more dates in the States based on high demand; Roger lost the modern equivalent of $1.6 million dollars on his tour.
space triangle wrote: Tue Aug 11, 2020 6:08 amRoger realized that he would never be able to come out under a shadow of powerful name of Pink Floyd and stopped making solo albums for 25 years.
Yeah, I don't buy this. He is and was a very prolific writer. So, even after deciding to not tour Amused to Death, getting divorced again, eventually going on tour again, getting divorced again, ad infinitum, he did come out from under that shadow...and still didn't put out a new studio album for another 17 years. The sheer volume of material and ideas that we have to assume was sitting there waiting to be turned into his next masterpiece boggles the mind. Even Gilmour had several hundred rough ideas recorded, and it took him a year and a half to sort through with Phil Manzanera to assemble On An Island. Roger seems to have started several albums (and I can speculate that some may have been rejected by the record company), but when he got together with Nigel Godrich in 2015 (who had to break it to him that his previous solo albums were "unlistenable"), he seems to have started over from scratch. And again, I can speculate that he may have compromised in order to make an album that was guaranteed to sell well, since he started working on it immediately after divorce #4 (Paul McCartney got divorced once and lost a fortune, so who knows how Roger has stayed afloat over the years). I particularly love albums that seem to reveal more and more detail with each listen, like Amused to Death...but with Is This the Life, all of the novelty had worn off by the third time I heard it, and the details that appear now are things that were borrowed from classic Floyd albums. It is utterly underwhelming, and it's the only music my wife will veto in the car (and she tolerates a lot of weird shit that I listen to - it's partly why I married her).
Last edited by ZiggyZipgun on Tue Aug 11, 2020 7:52 pm, edited 1 time in total.
ZiggyZipgun
Knife
Knife
Posts: 386
Joined: Mon May 05, 2008 3:04 pm

Re: Why was there so little Pink Floyd after 1994?

Post by ZiggyZipgun »

1984, while Roger was still a member of Pink Floyd:

User avatar
space triangle
Hammer
Hammer
Posts: 614
Joined: Tue Jan 21, 2020 1:25 pm

Re: Why was there so little Pink Floyd after 1994?

Post by space triangle »

ZiggyZipgun wrote: Tue Aug 11, 2020 11:33 amYeah, I don't buy this.
Roger Waters: November 1987

''Waters has learned, to his chagrin, that many long-time Pink Floyd fans are also mystified by the creative dynamic that existed within the band, a negative side effect of the Floyd’s shadowy public profile throughout the Seventies. “It is frustrating to find out how many people don’t know who I am or what I actually did in Pink Floyd. We get on a plane, and people ask what band we’re in. I tell ’em I’m Roger Waters, and it doesn’t mean a fucking thing to them. Then I mention Pink Floyd, and they go, ‘Yeah, “Money.” I love The Wall.

ZiggyZipgun wrote: Tue Aug 11, 2020 11:33 amThe sheer volume of material and ideas that we have to assume was sitting there waiting to be turned into his masterpiece
And besides it, he goes on the multi-year tours playing the entire 'The Dark Side Of The Moon' and 'The Wall' albums? C'mon, Roger is not stupid. He knows very well how things stand, and how big a difference is between Pink Floyd name, and individual names of Pink Floyd band members.
User avatar
Annoying Twit
Hammer
Hammer
Posts: 1259
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2008 1:26 pm

Re: Why was there so little Pink Floyd after 1994?

Post by Annoying Twit »

space triangle wrote: Tue Aug 11, 2020 2:49 pm
ZiggyZipgun wrote: Tue Aug 11, 2020 11:33 amYeah, I don't buy this.
Roger Waters: November 1987

''Waters has learned, to his chagrin, that many long-time Pink Floyd fans are also mystified by the creative dynamic that existed within the band, a negative side effect of the Floyd’s shadowy public profile throughout the Seventies. “It is frustrating to find out how many people don’t know who I am or what I actually did in Pink Floyd. We get on a plane, and people ask what band we’re in. I tell ’em I’m Roger Waters, and it doesn’t mean a fucking thing to them. Then I mention Pink Floyd, and they go, ‘Yeah, “Money.” I love The Wall.

ZiggyZipgun wrote: Tue Aug 11, 2020 11:33 amThe sheer volume of material and ideas that we have to assume was sitting there waiting to be turned into his masterpiece
And besides it, he goes on the multi-year tours playing the entire 'The Dark Side Of The Moon' and 'The Wall' albums? C'mon, Roger is not stupid. He knows very well how things stand, and how big a difference is between Pink Floyd name, and individual names of Pink Floyd band members.
Yes, but both Dave and Roger managed to raise their profiles since 1987. At least among my generation. To the point where Roger can do his massive tours. And Dave can do his own tours which while not quite so big but probably as big as he wants.

Roger seemed to want to be a megastar right from 1984 or so. That wasn't true then, but todays people are much more aware of the members of PF, I believe.

Perhaps, however, I've been associating too much with people who know music too well. But, certainly in terms of album and ticket sales, things seem to have improved since 1987.
ZiggyZipgun
Knife
Knife
Posts: 386
Joined: Mon May 05, 2008 3:04 pm

Re: Why was there so little Pink Floyd after 1994?

Post by ZiggyZipgun »

Oh, Roger was definitely admitting in interviews during the Pros and Cons tour that he was shocked that no one knew who he was, and that no one was buying tickets except in New York and London. But I don't believe that he just accepted his fate and stopped making music. He spent an awful lot of time working on Ca Ira, possibly thinking he would appeal to the supposedly more high-brow audiences of opera and musicals (wrong again). I'm just surprised that he didn't see any number of opportunities to roll out another album - either in 1995, when it was clear Pink Floyd wouldn't be touring for at least a few more years, or in 2002, following his successful return to touring, or...anytime after that. Several aborted concept albums later, and we finally got...something.
User avatar
space triangle
Hammer
Hammer
Posts: 614
Joined: Tue Jan 21, 2020 1:25 pm

Re: Why was there so little Pink Floyd after 1994?

Post by space triangle »

Annoying Twit wrote: Tue Aug 11, 2020 3:00 pmYes, but both Dave and Roger managed to raise their profiles since 1987.
Yeah, thanks to the Internet. Without rising of the Internet, Pink Floyd members would still be completely obscured by clouds(pun imtended).

This is my favourite story on 'Pink Floyd and anonymity' taken from the 1974 Rick Wright interview:

''People don't recognize os on the streets and even if they did it wouldn't be a problem. Sometimes I get prople trampjng through my garden and asking for my autograph because they've heard I'm in a rock group, but they didn't know what Floyd do. They probably think we're like Elton John. Just a couple of weeks ago I was visited by a very kind neighbor. Someone told him that I was a member of the music group. He carried with him several music albums on the LP, including Dark Side and Meddle. He kindly advised me to listen to those records he took with him saying that there are great things to learn which can benefit me as musician.'' :lol:
User avatar
space triangle
Hammer
Hammer
Posts: 614
Joined: Tue Jan 21, 2020 1:25 pm

Re: Why was there so little Pink Floyd after 1994?

Post by space triangle »

Annoying Twit wrote: Tue Aug 11, 2020 3:00 pmYes, but both Dave and Roger managed to raise their profiles since 1987.
Yeah, thanks to the Internet. Without rising of the Internet, Pink Floyd members would still be completely obscured by clouds(pun imtended).

This is my favourite story on 'Pink Floyd and anonymity' taken from the 1974 Rick Wright interview:

''People don't recognize os on the streets and even if they did it wouldn't be a problem. Sometimes I get prople trampjng through my garden and asking for my autograph because they've heard I'm in a rock group, but they didn't know what Floyd do. They probably think we're like Elton John. Just a couple of weeks ago I was visited by a very kind neighbor. Someone told him that I was a member of the music group. He carried with him several music albums on the LP, including Dark Side and Meddle. He kindly advised me to listen to those records he took with him saying that there are a great things to learn which can benefit me as a musician.'' :lol:
ZiggyZipgun
Knife
Knife
Posts: 386
Joined: Mon May 05, 2008 3:04 pm

Re: Why was there so little Pink Floyd after 1994?

Post by ZiggyZipgun »

space triangle wrote: Tue Aug 11, 2020 4:59 pmYeah, thanks to the Internet.
This isn't entirely true.

I first heard Pink Floyd around 1995, when I was 11 or 12. I ended up with Relics, Dark Side, and Division Bell, in that order. At first, I wasn't sure the albums were made by the same band - maybe there was more than one! Also, Mr. Roger Waters wasn't in the credits for the more recent one, so he must be dead - and a lot of people my age made the same assumption. We just missed all of that drama, and any mention of it on MTV, by a few months. We knew useless trivia about The Beatles, The Doors, and Hendrix, and were still finding out details of Kurt Cobain's final days on a regular basis, but Pink Floyd was still a mystery that inhabited that gap between "classic rock" and the crap that was just coming out. I saw the In the Flesh tour in 1999, in a very rural area that's somehow included in "the Greater Pittsburgh Area" - and it was packed. No real internet at the time, just local rock radio stations and guitar magazines. More than a few people somehow managed to buy tickets - over the phone, or at the customer service counter at JC Penney's (what a weird time that was) - and still thought they were going to a Pink Floyd concert. Either way, it was a well-attended and well-received show, and only #18 of a grand total of 105. Everyone knew who Roger was, but a lot of them weren't familiar with The Final Cut or anything from his solo albums. My own snobby disappointment aside, he had managed to get reach a completely new audience, and could have done anything he wanted after that. What he did do was take a year off to get divorced again, then took the same tour to South America and Europe. Following the enormous publicity of Live 8, he basically started that same tour all over again, but like the Division Bell tour, he finally managed to fit all of Dark Side into the setlist. I can see the point of touring The Wall again with modern technology, but everything else he did in between, he could've done at a residency in Las Vegas.
User avatar
Yucateco
Supreme Judge!
Supreme Judge!
Posts: 3055
Joined: Sun Aug 10, 2003 11:23 am
Gender: Male
Location: Munich, Germany

Re: Why was there so little Pink Floyd after 1994?

Post by Yucateco »

Annoying Twit wrote: Tue Aug 11, 2020 6:35 am
Rather unfair to say that. Dave strove to make the albums as Pink Floyd as he could, and TDB is certainly more of a PF album than TFC was. And, TER, even more so.
Sorry, TFC has at least finished songs. Gilmour didn´t even bother to finish the jam sessions into songs for TER, it´s a farce really. I can fully accept AMLOR and DB as Pink Floyd albums but TER is just an endless parade of intros going nowhere, that´s nothing what Floyd was about.
User avatar
Annoying Twit
Hammer
Hammer
Posts: 1259
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2008 1:26 pm

Re: Why was there so little Pink Floyd after 1994?

Post by Annoying Twit »

Yucateco wrote: Wed Aug 12, 2020 8:55 am Sorry, TFC has at least finished songs. Gilmour didn´t even bother to finish the jam sessions into songs for TER, it´s a farce really. I can fully accept AMLOR and DB as Pink Floyd albums but TER is just an endless parade of intros going nowhere, that´s nothing what Floyd was about.
I disagree. It's not like PF didn't have instrumental tracks, and quite a few of them, before Roger took over.

TER is definitely not a normal PF album, in terms of history or content. But, it's, in my opinion, a very good representation of one aspect of Pink Floyd. And, the tracks were finished. They may not have been made into 'songs' with lyrics, but instrumental music is most definitely a 'thing' and a thing that PF have done over their history.
User avatar
Yucateco
Supreme Judge!
Supreme Judge!
Posts: 3055
Joined: Sun Aug 10, 2003 11:23 am
Gender: Male
Location: Munich, Germany

Re: Why was there so little Pink Floyd after 1994?

Post by Yucateco »

Annoying Twit wrote: Wed Aug 12, 2020 10:27 am
Yucateco wrote: Wed Aug 12, 2020 8:55 am Sorry, TFC has at least finished songs. Gilmour didn´t even bother to finish the jam sessions into songs for TER, it´s a farce really. I can fully accept AMLOR and DB as Pink Floyd albums but TER is just an endless parade of intros going nowhere, that´s nothing what Floyd was about.
I disagree. It's not like PF didn't have instrumental tracks, and quite a few of them, before Roger took over.

TER is definitely not a normal PF album, in terms of history or content. But, it's, in my opinion, a very good representation of one aspect of Pink Floyd. And, the tracks were finished. They may not have been made into 'songs' with lyrics, but instrumental music is most definitely a 'thing' and a thing that PF have done over their history.
i agree, but.... all the instrumentals on previous Floyd records had a purpose, everything was building to something. Songs like Cluster One or Signs of life or ACYL have a beginning and an end, a structure. There were also long live improvisations in the early Floyd but those always built to a climax. Stuff like On Noodle Street, Unsung, Ebb and Flow or The Lost Art of Conversation have nothing of that. Just when you think it´s an intro to a possible song it just ends. There are other examples on TER like "It´s what we do" that i can accept, but a lot on it is just unfinished and lazy (in my opinion of course).
User avatar
Annoying Twit
Hammer
Hammer
Posts: 1259
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2008 1:26 pm

Re: Why was there so little Pink Floyd after 1994?

Post by Annoying Twit »

Yucateco wrote: Wed Aug 12, 2020 10:36 am i agree, but.... all the instrumentals on previous Floyd records had a purpose, everything was building to something. Songs like Cluster One or Signs of life or ACYL have a beginning and an end, a structure. There were also long live improvisations in the early Floyd but those always built to a climax. Stuff like On Noodle Street, Unsung, Ebb and Flow or The Lost Art of Conversation have nothing of that. Just when you think it´s an intro to a possible song it just ends. There are other examples on TER like "It´s what we do" that i can accept, but a lot on it is just unfinished and lazy (in my opinion of course).
Just out of curiosity, have you ever listened to Brian Eno's 'Neroli' all the way through?

TER is a long album and not everything on it is great. But, I find it a satisfying listen as a whole. And, it's a real document as to how great those three were and the music they made.
ZiggyZipgun
Knife
Knife
Posts: 386
Joined: Mon May 05, 2008 3:04 pm

Re: Why was there so little Pink Floyd after 1994?

Post by ZiggyZipgun »

The four sections of The Endless River were made much in the same way as "Echoes", where they started out with twenty-four unrelated bits and pieces and assembled them into a dynamic structure. I think they split the album up into smaller tracks simply because sites like iTunes won't treat anything longer than ten minutes as a "single" - I know Bowie trimmed the title track of Blackstar down for that reason. I saved the album as four tracks, but I usually end up listening to the whole thing every time anyway. I personally think they did an excellent job - part of me would've preferred the Division Bell double-album, but then it might not have been the first CD I ever bought.
User avatar
Annoying Twit
Hammer
Hammer
Posts: 1259
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2008 1:26 pm

Re: Why was there so little Pink Floyd after 1994?

Post by Annoying Twit »

I'd like to give TER another spin now with this thread in my head. But, it's very long and I have so much to do right now.