Why was there so little Pink Floyd after 1994?

General discussion about Pink Floyd.
User avatar
azza200
Judge!
Judge!
Posts: 2123
Joined: Wed Jan 07, 2004 2:18 pm

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

Post by azza200 »

Master_Chief wrote: Fri Sep 04, 2020 4:17 pm
space triangle wrote: Fri Sep 04, 2020 2:52 pm What you exactly mean?
When Money came out most fans at their North American concerts in particular wanted to hear Money, and Pink Floyd usually played a work in progress version of the forthcoming album on tours.

I'd have to delve into my various Pink Floyd books to find the exact quote, but I've read numerous sources that once Money became successful on air the fans would screech at concerts "play Money", to which the band (most prominently Roger) would get antsy about and understandably so. This either led to, or made worse his feelings of resentment to the audience and led to his spitting in the fan and eventual wall concept.

Money definitely had it's place in the setlist during the years of late 72, 73, 74 and 75, but after that Floyd came up with Animals and I feel that when I listen to concerts from that era that Money and Us and Them just doesn't gel well with the rest of the set. Plus it's heavy use in the post-Waters Floyd jars with me slightly.
Why?? people probably expected too hear that song its a hit song along with Brick P2 and WYWH. Roger has played it too death just as much as the 87-94 tours did.
User avatar
Master_Chief
Axe
Axe
Posts: 71
Joined: Sun Jan 09, 2011 7:39 pm

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

Post by Master_Chief »

All very valid points, and I did say it was only my opinion. Of course when you look at songs like Comfortably Numb its very hard to comprehend Live 8 or any other concert without it.

But if Roger and Pink Floyd had never broken up in 1985 and instead stayed together and plunged straight into another concept album and supporting tour, it's not entirely unlikely Comfortably Numb would've been dropped or at least played intermittently instead.

Only the post-Waters Floyd tours truly made Comfortably Numb this nine-minute behemoth that concludes a gig. Of course each rendition is fantastic, particularly the second solo as we all know. But it's fascinating to look at how it could've been shaped without the split.

As for Money and the Live 8 crowd, yes of course people were expecting their greatest hits. But for someone who prefers their lesser known content, I'd much prefer a concert along the lines of Muse at Shepherds Bush Empire in 2017 where fans could vote on the set list. In that instance several songs that weren't played live before or in several years were played live.
User avatar
space triangle
Hammer
Hammer
Posts: 679
Joined: Tue Jan 21, 2020 1:25 pm

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

Post by space triangle »

Master_Chief wrote: Fri Sep 04, 2020 4:17 pmI'd have to delve into my various Pink Floyd books to find the exact quote, but I've read numerous sources that once Money became successful on air the fans would screech at concerts "play Money",
It's true, but I also listened Gilmour say that ‘Money’ is the most important song in the band’s history. 'Money' song allowed them to break on the American market, and enter the world's elite of Rock bands according Gilmour's words.
User avatar
azza200
Judge!
Judge!
Posts: 2123
Joined: Wed Jan 07, 2004 2:18 pm

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

Post by azza200 »

@Master_Chief I agree with what you say about Money & Us and Them on the 77 tour as encores. I like the 25 min set they played at Live 8 covers all boundaries DSOTM their biggest album everyone knows Wish, rounded off with an epic Comfortably Numb rendition. That set alone got them so many new fans
ZiggyZipgun
Knife
Knife
Posts: 419
Joined: Mon May 05, 2008 3:04 pm

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

Post by ZiggyZipgun »

I didn’t want to hijack this thread, so here's one to cook up alternate set lists for Live 8:

viewtopic.php?t=25440
ZiggyZipgun
Knife
Knife
Posts: 419
Joined: Mon May 05, 2008 3:04 pm

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

Post by ZiggyZipgun »

Annoying Twit wrote: Fri Sep 04, 2020 2:58 pmIf Rog is singing harmony lines in tune, that implies a bit more of an ear than he is usually credited with.
On the BBC's The Record Producers special on Pink Floyd, Gilmour explained why he and Rick usually double-tracked their vocals, rather than singing harmonies together:
"We of course only had two people who could really effectively sing harmony, which was me and Rick. Rick's timing and my timing were very different, you know - where I would put a syllable or a bent note in the middle of a syllable or a word, Rick's was always completely different. And that, probably, is part of why it's great, but it was also really difficult to get these things right."
User avatar
DarkSideFreak
Blade
Blade
Posts: 175
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2015 4:22 pm
Gender: Male

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

Post by DarkSideFreak »

Hadrian wrote: Mon Aug 17, 2020 7:50 pm The last studio album by Genesis (Calling All Stations, 1997) was done by a band reduced to two original members (Tony Banks and Mike Rutherford), and they toured that record once it came out. If you look at the structure of the Rolling Stones, Mick Jagger and Keith Richards are the only ones there from the beginning. There are brands out there that never had more than two members (Pet Shop Boys, Autechre). It takes two to dance, minimum, to have a band. That said, I would probably have a problem with David Gilmour or Nick Mason releasing a Pink Floyd album on their own, but there are examples of even that (Tears for Fears, Elemental, 1993, Roland Orzabal as the band there - and the band had had only two members since 1987).
I always love it when somebody other than me brings up TFF (box set release tomorrow, yay! <ii> ). Worth noting in this case that although the band was officially a quartet on the first two records, it seems they were signed as a duo, and although Curt did sing all the big hits, Roland was always the main writer (the debut was written completely by him, although Ian Stanley had a lot of input on the second). So that would be more akin to Roger retaining the name Pink Floyd and releasing albums with new creative partners under the name...

Genesis really died on their feet doing that tour. It's a shame because that line-up with Ray Wilson could and should have developed into something interesting, but Phil Collins had become such a big star that people weren't really interested in the band without him anymore, despite Tony and Mike being the main writers all throughout the band's career.
User avatar
DarkSideFreak
Blade
Blade
Posts: 175
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2015 4:22 pm
Gender: Male

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

Post by DarkSideFreak »

Hadrian wrote: Wed Aug 05, 2020 9:11 pm That is an interesting one. Did they? Realistically, A Momentary Lapse of Reason and The Division Bell were closest to More, a mix of songs and instrumentals without any attempt to produce a conceptual or narrative album.
I can't say I agree with that...
ZiggyZipgun wrote: Fri Aug 14, 2020 1:05 pm "Each Small Candle" is easily the best thing he's written since The Final Cut
Agree.
Hadrian wrote: Fri Aug 14, 2020 10:16 pm What I am trying to say is - for someone like Pink Floyd, hating the idea of another world tour is not the reason to stop working altogether. Somebody like Vangelis never had any type of tour at all, and just a handful of ad hoc concerts during his entire career (simply not interested).
Your comments made me think of Talk Talk / Mark Hollis. First they stopped touring after 1986 because "Spirit of Eden" was an album made up of spontaneous things that, according to Mark, should not be learned and reproduced live. Then, after one more album, Mark resurfaced as a solo artist explaining his long inactivity by stating that he wanted to be with his family. By that point, he hadn't been on a stage for over ten years, so it's an odd thing to say! And after that, he disappeared from the scene almost completely until his death.

I don't know why I said all that. Talk Talk were a great group and their later work is recommended to anyone who likes Pink Floyd.
User avatar
space triangle
Hammer
Hammer
Posts: 679
Joined: Tue Jan 21, 2020 1:25 pm

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

Post by space triangle »

```
Enya also never toured or played live, still she sold about one 100 million albums. [-D-]
ZiggyZipgun
Knife
Knife
Posts: 419
Joined: Mon May 05, 2008 3:04 pm

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

Post by ZiggyZipgun »

DarkSideFreak wrote: Thu Oct 08, 2020 3:35 pmI don't know why I said all that. Talk Talk were a great group and their later work is recommended to anyone who likes Pink Floyd.
And Rick Wright was a big fan!
User avatar
DarkSideFreak
Blade
Blade
Posts: 175
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2015 4:22 pm
Gender: Male

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

Post by DarkSideFreak »

ZiggyZipgun wrote: Thu Oct 08, 2020 4:18 pm
DarkSideFreak wrote: Thu Oct 08, 2020 3:35 pmI don't know why I said all that. Talk Talk were a great group and their later work is recommended to anyone who likes Pink Floyd.
And Rick Wright was a big fan!
I had forgotten all about that, you're right. When I defended The Endless River on another forum, I likened it to Spirit of Eden because, somehow, the albums strike me as somewhat similar in their structure. There's more singing and no electronic keyboards on Spirit of Eden but I kind of like the idea that Rick's unfinished work ended up in such a manner. I think he would've approved.