Why was there so little Pink Floyd after 1994?

General discussion about Pink Floyd.
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 »

That's what I've done this morning, and it's just wrapping up. An excellent album for working from home, and it's actually shorter than Division Bell (and almost 20 minutes shorter than Amused to Death).
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 »

I’m probably one of the few who likes TER more than both AMLOR and DB. Simply because of the songs like Skins, Allons-y (1 and 2), Eyes to Pearls, Autumn '68 ... have far more energy and a psychological thrill than anything on the AMLOR, and especially anything on the DB. These songs on TER harkens back the thrilll of the 70's Pink Floyd.
Jimi Dean Barrett
Hammer
Hammer
Posts: 1326
Joined: Fri Apr 02, 2010 1:30 pm

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

Post by Jimi Dean Barrett »

space triangle wrote: Wed Aug 12, 2020 3:00 pm I’m probably one of the few who likes TER more than both AMLOR and DB. Simply because of the songs like Skins, Allons-y (1 and 2), Eyes to Pearls, Autumn '68 ... have far more energy and a psychological thrill than anything on the AMLOR, and especially anything on the DB. These songs on TER harkens back the thrilll of the 70's Pink Floyd.
Oh there's stuff between Sum/Skins that sounds like 1969 Umma Gumma. It's got more confident to make those references. TDB didn't seem to go further back than the 70's.
PinkPhishPhan
Embryo
Embryo
Posts: 16
Joined: Wed Jul 17, 2019 5:01 pm

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

Post by PinkPhishPhan »

ZiggyZipgun wrote: Thu Jul 30, 2020 11:10 am
space triangle wrote: Thu Jul 30, 2020 6:22 amWhat happened to his project(album) 'Heartland' (or whatever it was called..)? There was a lot of talk about it some 12-15 years ago, if I remember correctly.
'But like Neil, Roger has definitely done things that pissed off the record companies. He should have taken a cue from Bowie and created his own label so he could put out whatever he wants."
What's stopping him now? Maybe his own costs to produce it? Every band has their own label now.

Honestly I don't think Roger's new albums bring in enough $ these days with streaming so touring is the better. (Phish is an example, they make an album in the studio in 3 days and release it, but the tours are what fuels the fans and the band)
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 »

PinkPhishPhan wrote: Wed Aug 12, 2020 4:26 pmWhat's stopping him now? Maybe his own costs to produce it? Every band has their own label now.
Roger's been on Columbia Records since Amused to Death. I suppose in the old days, their contracts required a certain number of releases every so often, but that's clearly not the case with him - back then, they worked very well under some amount of pressure. I don't think he sees any way of working other than in very clever concept albums, so he wants to wrap everything up in a single, original, unifying idea, but I don't think he's found such a thing in a very long time (he even got sued for copyright infringement for the Is This the Life cover). He doesn't realize that he could just put out a disorganized collection of mostly acoustic, bare-bones songs, and that a lot of people would enjoy that; he may just be coming around to the idea now, due to the pandemic, but he's wasted more time than he spent in Pink Floyd.
User avatar
Hadrian
Knife
Knife
Posts: 356
Joined: Sat Sep 20, 2014 4:28 am
Location: Publius Enigma's living room

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

Post by Hadrian »

ZiggyZipgun wrote: Wed Aug 12, 2020 5:47 pm He doesn't realize that he could just put out a disorganized collection
I have to check this but I do believe that by now there is enough odds and ends (things like "Each Small Candle", ""Flickering Flame", "Lost Boys Calling", etc., orphans released only on various soundtracks, compilations, live albums, singles) to have a full album of just that type of material. If I was him I would release that for the upcoming tour that was postponed already due to C-19. That could be his rock album number 5, of sorts.
User avatar
Hadrian
Knife
Knife
Posts: 356
Joined: Sat Sep 20, 2014 4:28 am
Location: Publius Enigma's living room

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

Post by Hadrian »

I did a quick search to test my own theory above, and here is what I found for his solo years after he left the band in 1985:

01) 1986: "Towers of Faith" – 7:00
02) 1986: "Folded Flags" – 4:51
03) 1987: "Going to Live in L.A." - 5:50
04) 1987: "Get Back to Radio" - 4:46
05) 1987: "Molly's Song" - 3:22
06) 1998: "Lost Boys Calling" - 5:20
07) 2000: "Each Small Candle" - 9:18
08) 2002: "Flickering Flame" – 6:45
09) 2004: "To Kill the Child" - 3:31
10) 2004: "Leaving Beirut" - 12:29
11) 2007: "Hello (I Love You)" - 6:13

Total time: 69:25

There is definitely a full album there, and it would work even if he held back on the 03-05 above for some potential Radio K.A.O.S. special edition release. There might be more things out there, of course.
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 »

He should definitely issue a remixed version of KAOS, much like AMLoR, because it is a chore to listen to, and those three extra songs would improve the whole thing; I've always liked "Going to Live in L.A."

Just like he set aside songs for Animals so he could make two coherant albums, he should have built a whole project around "Each Small Candle". "Leaving Beirut" would fit easily into that, though it needs reworked to remove the George W. Bush references (I think "To Kill the Child" is similarly dated, but I can't be bothered to listen to it anytime soon). "Flickering Flame" and "Crystal Clear Brooks" are also great songs that could have a place in there.

The When the Wind Blows songs should stay with the instrumentals on that soundtrack, which some versions made them all one 24-minute-long track (also, Clare Torry and Mel Collins are in there!).

"Lost Boys Calling" and "Hello, I Love You" are...not great. They can stay on Flickering Flame, Volume I.
User avatar
Hadrian
Knife
Knife
Posts: 356
Joined: Sat Sep 20, 2014 4:28 am
Location: Publius Enigma's living room

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

Post by Hadrian »

Radio K.A.O.S. is such a convoluted mess. I have purchased the original edition, of course, but I would never put it on for a casual listen (it would just be an informative one). Adding the three 1987 songs we mentioned somewhere in it, raising the number of songs from 8 to 11, could help for a remix edition. What that album really needed was another guitar maestro, the approach Waters used with Eric Clapton on the previous album and with Jeff Beck on the follow-up album (surrogate Daves, I call them). Unfortunately he should've allowed them both to play and play on those records, especially Clapton (he got them for the albums, but musically kept them restrained - why oh why?).
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 »

Hadrian wrote: Thu Aug 13, 2020 6:19 pm Radio K.A.O.S. is such a convoluted mess. I have purchased the original edition, of course, but I would never put it on for a casual listen (it would just be an informative one). Adding the three 1987 songs we mentioned somewhere in it, raising the number of songs from 8 to 11, could help for a remix edition. What that album really needed was another guitar maestro, the approach Waters used with Eric Clapton on the previous album and with Jeff Beck on the follow-up album (surrogate Daves, I call them). Unfortunately he should've allowed them both to play and play on those records, especially Clapton (he got them for the albums, but musically kept them restrained - why oh why?).
I agree. The standard Radio K.A.O.S. is enough for me. I don't need any bonus tracks for that if they are diminishing returns. Which, for me, they are.
User avatar
Hadrian
Knife
Knife
Posts: 356
Joined: Sat Sep 20, 2014 4:28 am
Location: Publius Enigma's living room

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

Post by Hadrian »

I'll give it one thing, the shakuhachi use. That was musically new and interesting.
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 »

Hadrian wrote: Thu Aug 13, 2020 6:43 pm I'll give it one thing, the shakuhachi use. That was musically new and interesting.
Is it a real Shakuhachi, or a DX7?
User avatar
Hadrian
Knife
Knife
Posts: 356
Joined: Sat Sep 20, 2014 4:28 am
Location: Publius Enigma's living room

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

Post by Hadrian »

Waters signed himself as the player of it in the album credits, which reads like he mastered the instrument enough to record those passages. It is on "Going to Live in L.A." as well (if we think of it as an affiliated non-album track)
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 »

Hadrian wrote: Thu Aug 13, 2020 6:50 pm Waters signed himself as the player of it in the album credits, which reads like he mastered the instrument enough to record those passages. It is on "Going to Live in L.A." as well (if we think of it as an affiliated non-album track)
it's been a long time since I read the credits :D Thanks.
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 »

Hadrian wrote: Thu Aug 13, 2020 6:43 pmI'll give it one thing, the shakuhachi use. That was musically new and interesting.
It was, anyway. It sounds like a cheesy synth sample, now - I'd be very surprised if it isn't, especially because of the very close harmonies on a monophonic instrument...it's something that a lot of musicians would do on a keyboard, but it'd be very weird to stand there overdubbing an occasional minor second and nothing else.

Then again, I keep forgetting that Clare Torry is featured prominently on that album, but like I said, the whole thing is a chore to listen to - it feels like I'm watching an episode of 24.