The current Floyd-issue

General discussion about Pink Floyd.
Spinoza
Hammer
Hammer
Posts: 540
Joined: Wed Oct 30, 2002 5:35 pm

The current Floyd-issue

Post by Spinoza »

We all know them as the people thinking that Roger was 60 or even 75 percent of Pink Floyd. That's their axioma from which they start thinking and building up a rational argumentation based on "material from interviews" as if they could prove with this material that they are in fact masters of objectivity.

from this axioma they make a proposition based on this axioma and a pseudo-intellectual approach of reality: Pink Floyd was ( is ,? should be ?? ) WATERS WRIGHT GILMOYR MASON

Based on this facts they:

1. Condemn the current Floyd as being only in t for the money
2. Canonise the Floyd-albums: DSOTM, WYWH, Animals The Wall and TFC as being genuine Floyd-albums:

They "forget ", let's say they rape their own made-up ( pro-waters) definition, that Wright was kicked out fafter The Wall, yet TFC is a genuine Floyd-album, in their eyes.

They forget that Roger during THE WALL was extremely dictatorial and using psychological war techniques against the others, of which in the first place Wright was the victim. So that THE WALL is structurally far away from their earlier albums, eg ANIMALS only 3 long songs and 2 very small ones, just compare it to the first side of THE WALL. But no wonder, the foubdations of Animals were laid back in '74.

They forget Roger used Pink Floyd afrter the success of DSOTM ( of which Roger himself said that it fullfilled all their wishes ) to prove himself, to build up his own self-esteem, to use pink floyd as SELF-THERAPY to struggle with his frustrations of the past.

Conclusion: most of these people own TFC ( PINK FLOYD ( their definition ) minus Wright ) but they don't own TDB ( Pink Floyd minus Roger ): PROOF That they hold Waters higher than Wright.

Question is: what is their BASIS to think or propose this: credits ??? Personal affection, or some other irrational statement. ???
User avatar
Real Pink in the Inside
Judge!
Judge!
Posts: 2012
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2002 7:31 pm
Location: The Dark Side of Neptune

Re: The current Floyd-issue

Post by Real Pink in the Inside »

Spinoza wrote:We all know them as the people thinking that Roger was 60 or even 75 percent of Pink Floyd.


I hold the opinion he was more than simply 25% of Pink Floyd (i.e., 1/4th of the band).

Clearly NOBODY is going to argue he was NOT the one who contributed the most to the band...Am I not right in saying that? It is incredibly obvious he contributed more to the band than any other member. To drive this point home:

A) He wrote more lyrics than anyone else.

B) He wrote more music than anyone else.

C) He co-produced every PF album except PATGOD.

D) He sang more songs than anyone else.

E) He came up with numerous theatrical ideas for their live shows (More than any other member).

Since he contributed the most to the band, obviously he should be thought of as being more than merely 1/4th of Pink Floyd. As a result of contributing more to the group than any other member, it is logical to hold him higher than any other member. Some will argue he was even more than 50% of the band, which means they hold him higher than the sum of the other three.
from this axioma they make a proposition based on this axioma and a pseudo-intellectual approach of reality: Pink Floyd was ( is ,? should be ?? ) WATERS WRIGHT GILMOYR MASON
Gee, are you going to argue Pink Floyd was NOT a band made up of Roger Waters, Richard Wright, Nick Mason, and David Gilmour?
Based on this facts they:

1. Condemn the current Floyd as being only in t for the money
It's so blatantly obvious money was the primary reason for the "re-formation." Does someone else care to make this point clear to Spinoza? I certainly do not feel like wasting the time in doing so...
2. Canonize the Floyd-albums: DSOTM, WYWH, Animals The Wall and TFC as being genuine Floyd-albums:
I see The Wall as being the final "genuine Pink Floyd album," as it reportedly does have SOME playing from Rick on it. I think it would have been respectful and honest if they had officially disbanded after the tour for The Wall. HOWEVER, I do like to compare Pink Floyd to a marriage, with The Final Cut being the divorce papers. I think carrying on after The Wall Tour, without Rick, was a bad idea, and I am not sure why they did so. It has been said that Roger Waters was more than willing to do The Final Cut under his own name, on his own, but Nick and David insisted the project carry on under the "Pink Floyd" banner, for whatever reason(s). In 1985, Steve O'Rourke, the manager of "Pink Floyd," gave Roger some flak over some contractual obligations for a future Pink Floyd product. Due to this fact, one can infer that perhaps contractual obligations "as a member of Pink Floyd" were involved in the decision to carry on as Pink Floyd for The Final Cut. The fact they did not tour without Rick could also lead one to believe that, indeed, putting out The Final Cut under the name Pink Floyd was all about just fulfilling some contractual obligations. Roger knew releasing The Final Cut under the banner Pink Floyd was rather preposterous at least by 1985, when he decided he would never partake in a pseudo-Floyd project again.
They "forget ", let's say they rape their own made-up ( pro-waters) definition, that Wright was kicked out fafter The Wall, yet TFC is a genuine Floyd-album, in their eyes.

that Roger during THE WALL was extremely dictatorial and using psychological war techniques against the others, of which in the first place Wright was the victim.


You are forgetting that we do not know what REALLY happened during the recording of The Wall. What David Gilmour, Bob Ezrin, Nick Mason, and Richard Wright say on the issue should not be blindly accepted as the truth.
So that THE WALL is structurally far away from their earlier albums, eg ANIMALS only 3 long songs and 2 very small ones, just compare it to the first side of THE WALL.
In case you forgot, all of Pink Floyd's records are quite distinct from one another (Unless one considers MLOR and TDB). Go listen to Ummagumma and then The Dark Side of the Moon...I think that's ESSENTIALLY the same idea as comparing the first side of The Wall to Animals.
They forget Roger used Pink Floyd afrter the success of DSOTM ( of which Roger himself said that it fullfilled all their wishes ) to prove himself, to build up his own self-esteem, to use pink floyd as SELF-THERAPY to struggle with his frustrations of the past.
Uhhh...Do you have a problem with this?
Conclusion: most of these people own TFC ( PINK FLOYD ( their definition ) minus Wright ) but they don't own TDB ( Pink Floyd minus Roger ): PROOF That they hold Waters higher than Wright.
While I do hold Waters higher than Wright (For reasons I have stated at the start of this post), I still consider Pink Floyd to have once been a band made up of Roger Waters, David Gilmour, Richard Wright, and Nick Mason. I feel if you take away one person from that group, they are no longer Pink Floyd. However, I also feel that the members were not all equal, for reasons I have stated already...
User avatar
dgsyd1
Knife
Knife
Posts: 345
Joined: Wed Aug 28, 2002 1:52 am
Location: Michigan, US

Post by dgsyd1 »

Post DARK SIDE, Roger certainly became increasingly prolific as a singer, especially as his songs became more and more personal. Before 1973 though his voice was much less prominant on the bands albums than David Gilmour's, and he didn't become the most prominant until ANIMALS. The two of them have very different voices, but that often worked to the bands advantage, and in the case of "Comfortably Numb" helped to produce arguably the bands peak.
I still feel though that musically the most important element in the Pink Floyd sound has been David Gilmour, ANIMALS, and THE WALL especially would have been much lesser albums without his input. DARK SIDE and WYWH benefit from the input of Rick Wright as well, and it's part of what makes them so great, combined with Roger's lyrical genius.
TFC, AMLOR and TDB are good albums, but the fact that they are dominated by one band member takes something away from them. But when they're good they are VERY good ("The Fletcher Memorial Home", "Two Suns In The Sunset", "Learning To Fly", "Sorrow", "High Hopes"). But I still think the only classic album they produced with one member dominating is PATGOD, but you could make the argument that that was really another band.
User avatar
Real Pink in the Inside
Judge!
Judge!
Posts: 2012
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2002 7:31 pm
Location: The Dark Side of Neptune

Post by Real Pink in the Inside »

dgsyd1 wrote:Post DARK SIDE, Roger certainly became increasingly prolific as a singer, especially as his songs became more and more personal. Before 1973 though his voice was much less prominant on the bands albums than David Gilmour's.
Yep. David sang the majority of Obscured by Clouds, More (He's the only one who sings on it actually), Meddle, and The Dark Side of the Moon.
dgsyd1 wrote: and he didn't become the most prominant until ANIMALS.
The first album with more singing from Roger Waters than David Gilmour is Wish You Were Here.
dgsyd1 wrote: The two of them have very different voices, but that often worked to the bands advantage,
I agree.
dgsyd1 wrote: I still feel though that musically the most important element in the Pink Floyd sound has been David Gilmour
I feel Roger Waters was more central to the music from '77 to '83 than anyone. I also feel he, along with Wright and Gilmour, came up with some great stuff prior to '77.

Roger's a wonderful songwriter, and I feel David built some great stuff off the foundations Roger laid (The same holds true for Rick prior to Animals [His intro bit on Sheep is great though]).

I feel they all created some very magical music together. I think they were much more than a "pop band making pop music."
dgsyd1 wrote: , ANIMALS, and THE WALL especially would have been much lesser albums without his input.
Almost surely, but Animals and The Wall would be virtually nothing without Roger Waters.
dgsyd1 wrote: DARK SIDE and WYWH benefit from the input of Rick Wright as well, and it's part of what makes them so great, combined with Roger's lyrical genius.
Yep.
Spinoza
Hammer
Hammer
Posts: 540
Joined: Wed Oct 30, 2002 5:35 pm

Post by Spinoza »

Real Pink wrote about Roger: "A) He wrote more lyrics than anyone else.

B) He wrote more music than anyone else.

C) He co-produced every PF album except PATGOD.

D) He sang more songs than anyone else.

E) He came up with numerous theatrical ideas for their live shows (More than any other memb"

You state this from this time, the year 2002. Just have a look at all the albums. You could easily argue that Pink Floyd in fact should have stopped after Dark Side ( as Roger himself stated. After that, Floyd became an obligation, to get more money, and in the case of Roger to build up his own self-esteem. Imagine the Floyd stopping in 1973. At their highpoint. Would your analysis still be THAT correct ??

I pinpoint you again on the fact that you own TFC, even when it states Pink Floyd without Wright. You don't own MLOR nor TDB.

Look, all that nice rational argumentation is just a smokecurtain to hide the fact that some people assume that Roger was more equal than the others. I state that he MADE himself forcefully and on a dictatorial basis more equal..

I retake: from this axioma they make a proposition based on this axioma and a pseudo-intellectual approach of reality: Pink Floyd was ( is ,? should be ?? ) WATERS WRIGHT GILMOUR MASON.
Spinoza
Hammer
Hammer
Posts: 540
Joined: Wed Oct 30, 2002 5:35 pm

Post by Spinoza »

RPITI wrote: "Almost surely, but Animals and The Wall would be virtually nothing without Roger Waters."

They ( the albums ) would have been different. look, both Gilmour and Wright released albums in 1978.
Spinoza
Hammer
Hammer
Posts: 540
Joined: Wed Oct 30, 2002 5:35 pm

Post by Spinoza »

RPITI: "Go listen to Ummagumma and then The Dark Side of the Moon...I think that's ESSENTIALLY the same idea as comparing the first side of The Wall to Animals."

Nope, In the first case, there is a whole group that is evolving and changing, working together. In the secondcase let's say from DSOTM on, you get a growing dictatorial behaviour. Animals is in my view "saved" by the fact that it's foundations were build up in '74. During THE WALL, Roger even wanted to denie credits and material from others ( a group ??? ); TFC was made without Wright.

So when you state that ASOS is different from Meddle, you can't parallel that to WHWH in comparison with The Wall or even TFC. I don't make a problem of that, cause i have a diffrent view on 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

Post by David Smith »

God this bloody argument again.

Ok, it's obvious real pink holds Waters above Wright, and can you give him a good reason not to. I hold Waters above Wright because he was the lyrical and in many ways the musical genius behind pink floyd (and you may argue the second point bu th e was more so than anyone else.)

Your thoughts of Roger being a dictator are irrelivant when you don't also make the point of gilmour being more of a dictator. Wright was a session man on AMLOR, why wasn't he just rehired fully?

Why was pink floyd a 2 man band with one of them not even being the drummer on more than half the album?

Animals to the wall was a logical progression musically, and if you had a story for the wall would you really want to do it in less than 26 songs. How could it be done in 5 songs? It couldn't. Although it was mostly Roger's evolution i'm sure the others could have all quit if they wanted to. And why didn't one of them write an album and become a dictator? Because to be honest, Roger was the only one with enough skill to do so.

Roger wanted to decline songs thought up by others? So did Gilmour on TDB.

"imagine Pink floyd had stopped in 1973, would you analysis still be that correct?"

This is probably the most irrelivant point ever raised on the history of this forum, why? Because Pink Floyd didn't stop in 1973.

Roger also wasn't a dictator yet, and no the analysis couldn't be seen as correct because he was yet to takeover completly. Up until then there was no dictator, but it's what happened after that that should be argued about.

Oh, Gilmour also got his chance to make himself forcefully more than others, look how that turned out.

Pink Floyd not being Pink Floyd without Rick Wright? Surely then The Wall wasn't a pink floyd album as he was fired for not contributing enough to it. And surely AMLOR wasn't a Floyd album cause he wasn't a member.

All such great points you brought out, but none to considered, Pink Flpyd without Rick Wright was TFC and AMLOR. I wonder which was better. Lets be honest, the pink floyd story is not a story of equality, it's the story of dictators and who publically gets called one the least. Roger's input was probably about 50%, Gilmours is probably around 65% and his albums aren't as good.
Spinoza
Hammer
Hammer
Posts: 540
Joined: Wed Oct 30, 2002 5:35 pm

Post by Spinoza »

David wrote: "All such great points you brought out, but none to considered, Pink Flpyd without Rick Wright was TFC and AMLOR. I wonder which was better."

I'm not going to decide which was better ! Fact is: i have all floyd-albums, i consider them Floyd-albums . Others got TFC because it states Pink Floyd ( their definition: PINK FLOYD = WATERS MASON GILMOUR WRIGHT ?????????????????????? ), but don't consider AMLOR nor TDB as being Pink Floyd.

Still not got my point: it's all centered around hypocrisy, irrational points of view, tried to be made Objectiv and Logical Truths by "facts" taken from articls, interviews etc. They present their view as a LOGICAL and COHERENT SYSTEM, which in fact is a lie. I defend the current floyd just on the simple fact that ROGER WATERS LEFT THE BAND IN 1985. That's the only objective truth in it. The rest just doesn't matter: why he did that? what he assumed to happen with the band ? how much other collaborators there were on MLOR ? Is MLOR a group-effort or a David Gilmour Solo-album ? Was there a Floyd-legacy, and was it destroyed by continuing ??? ALL THE ANSWERS on these question will be very SUBJECTIVE, so here our roads separate.
User avatar
Real Pink in the Inside
Judge!
Judge!
Posts: 2012
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2002 7:31 pm
Location: The Dark Side of Neptune

Post by Real Pink in the Inside »

Spinoza wrote: You state this from this time, the year 2002. Just have a look at all the albums. You could easily argue that Pink Floyd in fact should have stopped after Dark Side ( as Roger himself stated. After that, Floyd became an obligation, to get more money, and in the case of Roger to build up his own self-esteem. Imagine the Floyd stopping in 1973. At their highpoint. Would your analysis still be THAT correct ??
I would still believe Roger Waters contributed more to the band than anyone else even if they had stopped with DSOTM, although he certainly would not be THAT much greater than the others. Why? All of the lyrics to DSOTM were written by Roger, and if you were to add up who wrote the most lyrics for the band even to the end of DSOTM, Roger would come out on top. Songwriting-wise, Rick, David, and Roger would be pretty much equal. Theatrical-wise, Roger would probably still come out on top. Vocal-wise, David would come out on top.
I pinpoint you again on the fact that you own TFC, even when it states Pink Floyd without Wright. You don't own MLOR nor TDB.
Actually, I do own MLOR and TDB, I just do not keep them in my record collection. My parents bought them for me for Christmas many years ago, and that's the only reason I have held on to them.
Look, all that nice rational argumentation is just a smokecurtain to hide the fact that some people assume that Roger was more equal than the others.
Whatever. If you want to pretend everyone in the band was equal when they clearly were not, go to it. If you think that way, to be consistent you must think everyone in society is equal: Everyone has the same IQ, everyone contributes the same amount to society, everyone is the same height, everyone is the same weight, etc.

To believe all the members are equal is extremely silly.
I state that he MADE himself forcefully and on a dictatorial basis more equal..
If that's what you choose to BELIEVE, good enough.
User avatar
Real Pink in the Inside
Judge!
Judge!
Posts: 2012
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2002 7:31 pm
Location: The Dark Side of Neptune

Post by Real Pink in the Inside »

Spinoza wrote:RPITI: "Go listen to Ummagumma and then The Dark Side of the Moon...I think that's ESSENTIALLY the same idea as comparing the first side of The Wall to Animals."

Nope, In the first case, there is a whole group that is evolving and changing, working together. In the secondcase let's say from DSOTM on, you get a growing dictatorial behaviour. Animals is in my view "saved" by the fact that it's foundations were build up in '74. During THE WALL, Roger even wanted to denie credits and material from others ( a group ??? );
Rick himself has admitted he did not have much to contribute to Animals or The Wall. Roger had a very clear idea of how he wanted The Wall to be, and the finished product is close to what he wanted. David Gilmour's contribution to the album is very great, as is Bob Ezrin's. I think it's quite ridiculous to state he totally denied material from others for The Wall.

As for The Final Cut, Roger has said David did not have much to contribute to the album. Roger has also said he was more than willing to do the album on his own under his own name, but the other two wanted to stick with it being a Pink Floyd album.
TFC was made without Wright.
I have already responded to the point of TFC, and you have chose to ignore my views on the subject. Stop beating the drums like I'm saying "Wright meant nothing."
So when you state that ASOS is different from Meddle, you can't parallel that to WHWH in comparison with The Wall or even TFC. I don't make a problem of that, cause i have a diffrent view on Pink Floyd.
I feel all Pink Floyd albums are quite different from one another, although they all have similar characteristics. One can go listen to DSOTM and then WYWH and notice quite a bit of differences. The same holds true for Animals compared to The Wall, and The Wall to The Final Cut, or Meddle to Obscured by Clouds, etc.
User avatar
Real Pink in the Inside
Judge!
Judge!
Posts: 2012
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2002 7:31 pm
Location: The Dark Side of Neptune

Post by Real Pink in the Inside »

Real Pink in the Inside wrote:
Spinoza wrote: You state this from this time, the year 2002. Just have a look at all the albums. You could easily argue that Pink Floyd in fact should have stopped after Dark Side ( as Roger himself stated. After that, Floyd became an obligation, to get more money, and in the case of Roger to build up his own self-esteem. Imagine the Floyd stopping in 1973. At their highpoint. Would your analysis still be THAT correct ??
I would still believe Roger Waters contributed more to the band than anyone else even if they had stopped with DSOTM, although he certainly would not be THAT much greater than the others. Why? All of the lyrics to DSOTM were written by Roger, and if you were to add up who wrote the most lyrics for the band even to the end of DSOTM, Roger would come out on top. Songwriting-wise, Rick, David, and Roger would be pretty much equal. Theatrical-wise, Roger would probably still come out on top. Vocal-wise, David would come out on top.
BTW, I think it interesting to note that in 1975 Brian Humphries had this to say in an interview with Circus Magazine (See Pg. 206-207 of Pink Floyd: The Press Reports):

"...Eventually though, on Dark Side, they got so fed up with the mixing process that they finally called somebody else in. On 'Wish You Were Here,' I think it will mainly revolve around Dave, Roger, and myself. Nick's contribution is fairly minimal on this one, and Rick will be involved somewhat, I think. In the end, I leave it down to Roger. I think of Roger actually being Pink Floyd, as much as I regard and respect the other three. He's really in control of the studio part of the group..."
Spinoza
Hammer
Hammer
Posts: 540
Joined: Wed Oct 30, 2002 5:35 pm

Post by Spinoza »

rpiti wrote : " Whatever. If you want to pretend everyone in the band was equal when they clearly were not, go to it. If you think that way, to be consistent you must think everyone in society is equal: "; I never said that; i only use your definition which states: PINK FLOYD = MASON GILMOUR WATERS WRIGHT. Again, no talk about equality, or some people being more equal than others, that conclusion cannot be drawn from your defintion. Yet i never heard you call TFC a Pink Fraud-album.Be honest and change your definition of "Pink Floyd".
User avatar
Real Pink in the Inside
Judge!
Judge!
Posts: 2012
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2002 7:31 pm
Location: The Dark Side of Neptune

Post by Real Pink in the Inside »

Spinoza wrote:rpiti wrote : " Whatever. If you want to pretend everyone in the band was equal when they clearly were not, go to it. If you think that way, to be consistent you must think everyone in society is equal: "; I never said that; i only use your definition which states: PINK FLOYD = MASON GILMOUR WATERS WRIGHT. Again, no talk about equality, or some people being more equal than others, that conclusion cannot be drawn from your defintion. Yet i never heard you call TFC a Pink Fraud-album.Be honest and change your definition of "Pink Floyd".
As I have already said (All of which you have ignored):

I see The Wall as being the final "genuine Pink Floyd album," as it reportedly does have SOME playing from Rick on it. I think it would have been respectful and honest if they had officially disbanded after the tour for The Wall. HOWEVER, I do like to compare Pink Floyd to a marriage, with The Final Cut being the divorce papers. I think carrying on after The Wall Tour, without Rick, was a bad idea, and I am not sure why they did so. It has been said that Roger Waters was more than willing to do The Final Cut under his own name, on his own, but Nick and David insisted the project carry on under the "Pink Floyd" banner, for whatever reason(s). In 1985, Steve O'Rourke, the manager of "Pink Floyd," gave Roger some flak over some contractual obligations for a future Pink Floyd product. Due to this fact, one can infer that perhaps contractual obligations "as a member of Pink Floyd" were involved in the decision to carry on as Pink Floyd for The Final Cut. The fact they did not tour without Rick could also lead one to believe that, indeed, putting out The Final Cut under the name Pink Floyd was all about just fulfilling some contractual obligations. Roger knew releasing The Final Cut under the banner Pink Floyd was rather preposterous at least by 1985, when he decided he would never partake in a pseudo-Floyd project again.

------

You apparently believe Pink Floyd is merely whatever the album sleeve tells you. You apparently have a problem with "the fact" Roger Waters was an egomaniac on the album The Wall, but appear to have no problem whatsoever that David Gilmour was "even more of a dictator" on A Momentary Lapse of Reason and The Division Bell than Roger was with The Wall. OK.

If you feel all the members were NOT equal, I would like to hear who you hold "the highest" and WHY!
Spinoza
Hammer
Hammer
Posts: 540
Joined: Wed Oct 30, 2002 5:35 pm

Post by Spinoza »

RPTI wrote: "You apparently have a problem with "the fact" Roger Waters was an egomaniac on the album The Wall, but appear to have no problem whatsoever that David Gilmour was "even more of a dictator" on A Momentary Lapse of Reason and The Division Bell than Roger was with The Wall. "

Not at all, i listen to all the three records, even to TFC. I never canonised Roger nor Dave as being Saints, being unfailable. Probably Gilmour is as much as a egocentrical person, thinking that his guitar and vocals are Floyds trademark. Fact is, mostly Dave keeps this thoughts for himself, certainly not bashing on current floydmembers, maybe keeping up an illusion that TDB was made in a democratic way; could be, i enjoy the record, i enjoy THE WALL, which was the album that got me into Floyd. The Sleeve states Pink Floyd and to my ears both sound like Pink Floyd in the broadest sense of the word. I'm not Anti-Waters, i just look at the history of Pink Floyd, people making music, together, sometimes one is doing more than others, sometimes some are doing nothing, but the sleeve states Pink Floyd, some people leave the group, albums sound different, but the sleeve states Pink Floyd. And as long i can hear that distinguishable Floyd-sound ( of which a definition is very hard to give ), i say Pink Floyd. Just listen to the first 2 min of Cluster One and you know it: Pink Floyd, different than Meddle or ASOS, different from THE WALL, different from MLOR but still Pink Floyd. I own all the records, my third purchase, shortly after my second purchase ( DSOTM ) was TDB, maybe that's why i appreciate the current floyd too; After THE WALL, i did need quite some time to get used to DSOTM, which is for a non-floydian quite different from THe Wall. But when i was used to it, the step to TDB was not that great.

What i always loved about Floyd is the quantity of Music in comparison to Lyrics. I always "judge" others songs by stating that after that verse there needed to be a great solo. Music, that's what i think is 1 of the great pillars of Floyd. Intro - outro, chorus, solo .... like in PIGS, SET THE CONTROLS, ECHOES, ..., Mother especially ITAOT