My thoughts

[Spinoza]

Let's first state some facts:
1. All people are different.
Explication: everybody grows up in his own context, with his own character, own background ( in general and in music ), own preferences concerning music, age, ...
Consequence: everybody will have their own criteria to judge music and songs and what they will find the most valuable in them.

2. The quality of a song or record is not defined by the ammount of people that listen to that song or buy that record.

3. Every group has a "Sound".
Explication: this sound is made up by the voices of the singer, the way they play their instruments, the way they improvise and write music.
Consequence: because people are different ( see 1 ), everybody will lay emphasis on certain aspects of the sound of that group, be it the voices, or some or all of the instruments.

4. Roger Waters left Pink Floyd in 1985.
Consequence: the others had the possibility to carry on.

5. Although there is a "Sound" in general, there is an evolution in the style of the music and the lyrics.
Explication: some members disappear , leave the group or don't write as much or don't push there preferences hard enough.
Consequence: Not everybody is going to like the change. Maybe their most vital contribution to the sound is no longer there, and they lose interest in the group.

6. There is no definition of good lyrics. There are only styles in lyrical writing.
Explication: Lyrics can be direct, indirect, metaphorical , can be about a well-defined actual topic ( war, money ) or just only about trivial matters ( a scarecrow ). Some lyrics can be written from the perspective of a child, yet still be really good art.

7. Music comes usually first.
This can be deduced from 3.
Explication: we are in fact speaking about musicgroups. Imagine one of your favourite records being performed in a musical style you tottaly hate or are disgusted by.
Exception: there are people that in the first place look for a group with a lyrical style they like, then listen to it and gradually come to appreciate the musical SOUND too. But what will happen when they discover other sides of the group: other style of lyrics ?

My view: My first record of Pink Floyd was the Wall. After a while i was really addicted to it, then i bought DSOTM and at first i really had to get used to it. There is really another feeling or mood on that record. I looked at credits and saw Roger Waters frequently there. Then i bought TDB and TFC. TFC was a real disappointment first. Cause i am not english-speaking, i had some difficulties in understanding what was meant. And were was all that music, and were was that other voice. My next record then was WYWH and on it i found the same mood as on DSOTM and TDB. Then i got SOS and AHM. They made my ears used to the other side of Floyd and the floydsound
I was never very well into other pop/rockgroups, but more in Classic music ( organ / baroque music ), so i guess from that background i did not have much to compare Floyd to other groups, and i laid more emphasis on the musical side. I do love the wall, i read some very indeep observations on the meaning of it, i saw the film many many times, but FOR me, due to my background, i love and need the musical richness of the floyd. I'm addicted to their sound. I went to highschool, then to university, i'm teaching "philosophy/religion" now for 16-18 year old kids, i talk with my fellow colleges on philosophy, politics etc and i'm now 29 y old. In those 9 years i have loved Pink Floyd, i gradually came to own some bootlegs, and i gradually came to lay more and more emphasis on the SOUND. Lyrics are great, and i love the direct lyrics of WYWH, (Animals), TW and TFC. EVen DSOTM has some nice lyrics, but in fact now when i'm 29 years old, i'm not searching for some deep insight in records. First comes the sound, then it can be really great to have a nice concept, it becomes even greater when you can have a story, like PACOHH or Radio KAOS.
Due to my background i have a distaste for hypocrites and in the years that i've learn to know Floyd and his history Roger has become in my view the incarnation of hypocrisy. Would he have lived in Athens during the life of Socrates he would have been called a sofist. Especially the lies and vices, the infantile behaviour he used in 86 and 87 when he heard that Pink Floyd would record ( Something he never thought would have happened ) didn't gave me a pleasant picture of Roger. BUT i make a distinction between the man and the work. NO i do not hate the wall, nor TFC. I don't have any Gilmour solo-records, i have Broken China of R Wright, and i have PACOHH, KAOS, ATD and ITF. BUT i like the Floydsound: something i find on TDB, TW, WYWH, Meddle and even More.

What i find disturbing on some Waters-fans is that they like in fact only a small side of Pink Floyd. Lets say the great albums of the seventies: DSOTM, WYWH, An, TW, sometimes TFC. They are usally not very well into PRE-DSOTM -records. From their point of view MLOR and TDB are bad, because they have a different style. I don't know why these people are into Floyd, maybe in the first place because of this particular style of Lyrics by Roger. In my point of view: Pink Floyd has always been at least 50 perc music. a song like HAC has 50 perc of the songslenght filled with a guitarsolo. I find that in TDB and MLOR. If i want to have deep thoughts, i read a good book ( Plato, Spinoza, Heidegger or Wittgenstein ...) or i talk with some collegues.


"And if i open my heart to you, will you still ......... ".

[NewEarthMud]

" 6. There is no definition of good lyrics. There are only styles in lyrical writing. "

There is no definition. But Bob Dylan writes good lyrics, N Sync does not.

" 7. Music comes usually first. "

I'm not sure exactly what this means? Do you mean you hear music first in a song rather than a voice? Or do you mean while writing the music usually comes first? Because most singers and songwriters have notebooks of lyrics that they write before they put it to music.

" What i find disturbing on some Waters-fans is that they like in fact only a small side of Pink Floyd. Lets say the great albums of the seventies: DSOTM, WYWH, An, TW, sometimes TFC. They are usally not very well into PRE-DSOTM -records. From their point of view MLOR and TDB are bad, because they have a different style. I don't know why these people are into Floyd, maybe in the first place because of this particular style of Lyrics by Roger "

I'm disturbed by these comments to be quite honest. First of all what die hard Waters fans do you talk with on a regular basis? Because I personally don't know any that dislike or are not into Meddle or OBC. It's as if you're saying the Waters fans are just like the "casual" Pink Floyd fan who hears all the "mainstream" hits and goes out and purchases DSOTM up thru the Wall.

I personally love most all of the Floyd records besides two. I even dig Ummagumma. I've said it on many Floyd boards in the past that Obscured By Clouds could quite possibly be my favorite Pink Floyd record. Some may find THAT completely absurd and disturbing. And who can say enough good things about Meddle?

I don't know which Waters fans you've been speaking with but apparently they are an odd bunch because, as I said, I don't know any who don't like anything besides DSOTM thru TFC.

" If i want to have deep thoughts, i read a good book ( Plato, Spinoza, Heidegger or Wittgenstein ...) or i talk with some collegues. "

I love to read a good book and think about what I just read..reflect on that. But there's nothing like understanding or trying to understand a great concept record such as ATD or The Wall. There's just so much there, especially in ATD, that it'd take for ever it seems to figure out the whole meaning. I enjoy that.

I also feel that you overrate a good guitar solo. Gilmour was obviously very underrated... but I mean a guitar solo doesn't make up a whole song.

I also don't even see how you could compare TBD and MLOR to OBC or Meddle. The work on OBC and Meddle is FAR superior to anything on those other two records. Songs like the country type vibe on Wots Uh The Deal with the beautiful vocals.. "Free Four"... "Stay".. "Echoes".. "One of These Days" "Fearless"... c'mon. There's no comparing the two records. Meddle and OBC really did define what Floyd was about. Those two records laid the foundation for the genius of DSOTM and WYWH. While TDB and MLOR are just pop recordings made for the mainstream.

[Keith Jordan]

Let's first state some facts:
1. All people are different.
Explication: everybody grows up in his own context, with his own character, own background ( in general and in music ), own preferences concerning music, age, ...
Consequence: everybody will have their own criteria to judge music and songs and what they will find the most valuable in them.

That is partly true. Criteria, in my opinion, is not the right word. Criteria may be what the lyrics do for you, what the music does for you and what the context the music is set in adds to the music, for example. Personal preference and psychological characteristics would be better than crtiteria as this allows more variance from person to person.

2. The quality of a song or record is not defined by the ammount of people that listen to that song or buy that record.

That is exactly true in my opinion but, being from a statistical/econometric background, I could argue quite effectively that there is a positive correlation between the number of albums sales and the "quality" judged by a set criteria. The best albums in the world tend to sell more than the average piece of ribbish. There are outliers or exceptions, of course. The spice girls! But a counter argument to that is that individuals will not buy what they do not like so it must be good. Who is an individual to judge the whole impace on a listening audience?

3. Every group has a "Sound".
Explication: this sound is made up by the voices of the singer, the way they play their instruments, the way they improvise and write music.
Consequence: because people are different ( see 1 ), everybody will lay emphasis on certain aspects of the sound of that group, be it the voices, or some or all of the instruments.

That seems to be a strong premise.

4. Roger Waters left Pink Floyd in 1985.
Consequence: the others had the possibility to carry on.

This premise is not as strong as it is based on assumptions. You are assuming away morality, respect and the wider context in general. A possibility it was, perhaps, but perhaps not one that should have been possible.

5. Although there is a "Sound" in general, there is an evolution in the style of the music and the lyrics.
Explication: some members disappear , leave the group or don't write as much or don't push there preferences hard enough.
Consequence: Not everybody is going to like the change. Maybe their most vital contribution to the sound is no longer there, and they lose interest in the group.

I like this point. It relates to personal preference and psychological effects of the songs. Perhaps the stimulus, the happiness inducing "preferences" pushed in the band were lyrical depth. Of course, the best art is a mirror and allows the oberver to see himself and not the artist.

6. There is no definition of good lyrics. There are only styles in lyrical writing.
Explication: Lyrics can be direct, indirect, metaphorical , can be about a well-defined actual topic ( war, money ) or just only about trivial matters ( a scarecrow ). Some lyrics can be written from the perspective of a child, yet still be really good art.

I disagree. Opinions have variance but have a mean also. If the spread of opinion is not too wide this gives us a general consensus on what good lyrics are.

7. Music comes usually first.
This can be deduced from 3.
Explication: we are in fact speaking about musicgroups. Imagine one of your favourite records being performed in a musical style you tottaly hate or are disgusted by.
Exception: there are people that in the first place look for a group with a lyrical style they like, then listen to it and gradually come to appreciate the musical SOUND too. But what will happen when they discover other sides of the group: other style of lyrics ?

The psychological effects on the brain for the listener will not be the same. Music is a stimulus to thought and feeling. If the "language" or "encoding" the message takes is not understandable to the receiver of the message then the brain will disregard the communication - the art - as irrelevant.

I was never very well into other pop/rockgroups, but more in Classic music ( organ / baroque music ), so i guess from that background i did not have much to compare Floyd to other groups, and i laid more emphasis on the musical side. I do love the wall, i read some very indeep observations on the meaning of it, i saw the film many many times, but FOR me, due to my background, i love and need the musical richness of the floyd. I'm addicted to their sound. I went to highschool, then to university, i'm teaching "philosophy/religion" now for 16-18 year old kids, i talk with my fellow colleges on philosophy, politics etc and i'm now 29 y old. In those 9 years i have loved Pink Floyd, i gradually came to own some bootlegs, and i gradually came to lay more and more emphasis on the SOUND.

As an individual, your psycological effects on your brain are more sensetive and responsive to sound. You are an indivudual.

Floydsound: something i find on TDB, TW, WYWH, Meddle and even More.

I think the division bell is a departure from the "loyd sound" as I preceive it to be. Has elements of it though from the parts of floyd ssuch as the guitar solos.

What i find disturbing on some Waters-fans is that they like in fact only a small side of Pink Floyd.

I think is about the weights individuals attach to parameters in the "utility function" of listening to music. If Lyrics are the only important thing, then each song wil be judged 100% by lyrics. I expect, for most people, that there is slightly more equal balance of the "weights" attached to lyrics and music. I listen to Pink Floyd post obscured by clouds for lyrics - until after the final cut. I listen to the beginning and end of Floyd for music. Different flavours for different psychological effects - like food I suppose.

Lets say the great albums of the seventies: DSOTM, WYWH, An, TW, sometimes TFC. They are usally not very well into PRE-DSOTM -records. From their point of view MLOR and TDB are bad, because they have a different style. I don't know why these people are into Floyd, maybe in the first place because of this particular style of Lyrics by Roger.

Hopefully after reading my posts you will now know the answer to your question. Psychological effects upon indivuduals from the lyrics and the music. I attach more weight to lyrics than I do to music. Saying that, an important point is that the music has the important role of setting the mood in which to contemplate the music. Music is of all importance but, when judging pink floyd - it is important to bear in mind why we listen to pink floyd, for me it is for depth and not entertainment - I attach more "importance" to the meaning in my perception of the art.

In my point of view: Pink Floyd has always been at least 50 perc music. a song like HAC has 50 perc of the songslenght filled with a guitarsolo. I find that in TDB and MLOR. If i want to have deep thoughts, i read a good book ( Plato, Spinoza, Heidegger or Wittgenstein ...) or i talk with some collegues.

Your opinion is deeply respected. If true depth is desired then introspection with the aid of music is only one option. We are discussin music here and you switch to another art/medium in your closing statement. In my opinion, more depth can be sought from books and discussion but, for music, I listen to Pink Floyd for depth. Bot entertainment. For that, I may listen to Supertramp or something. Although I relate to many of their songs on some depth other than the superficial.

Spiznoa, I found your points very interesting and a reward to read. I hoep you enjoy my opinions.

[Spinoza]

" 6. There is no definition of good lyrics. There are only styles in lyrical writing. "

There is no definition. But Bob Dylan writes good lyrics, N Sync does not.

Right, you could point at the originality of the lyrics. In fact i was comparing eg. Scarecrow, Vera , and Coming back to life. All three are from a different style. Which one is the best is totally subjective.

" 7. Music comes usually first. "

I'm not sure exactly what this means? Do you mean you hear music first in a song rather than a voice? Or do you mean while writing the music usually comes first? Because most singers and songwriters have notebooks of lyrics that they write before they put it to music.

Well, i could give you a nice conceptalbum like "Prometheus" by Emperor. Good concept, nice lyrics, but unfortunatly for a lot of Floydfans the music is BLACK METAL. How many Floydfans will listen to it, although the concept may be great ??

I love to read a good book and think about what I just read..reflect on that. But there's nothing like understanding or trying to understand a great concept record such as ATD or The Wall. There's just so much there, especially in ATD, that it'd take for ever it seems to figure out the whole meaning. I enjoy that.

Indeed, but when you are like me, who will put up music sometimes for only 5 min i want some good ( understand what i feel under "Good" ) music. Indeed, ATD is full of those references, but does that make up a good concept. To quote Roger from back in the seventies about the fact that Floyds lyrics are to clear and not deep enough: "Critics tend to forget that people usually don't have 3 degrees in English literature." Well, i love tw and TFC, maybe more because they are personal. ATD is good, but in my opinion, the music is mostly very weak and not unique ( The sound on TDB is in my opinion more unique. I don't know any other group with that sound ).

I also feel that you overrate a good guitar solo. Gilmour was obviously very underrated... but I mean a guitar solo doesn't make up a whole song.

I was also looking at Echoes, Shine On, One Of these days etc. In fact half of WYWH is in fact MUSIC. You are right in saying that a guitarsolo doesn't make a whole song, but take it away, and you don't have Pink Floyd anymore. Fact that people love PInk Floyd is due to those long musical sounsscapes of them.

I love that Gilmourguitarsound, so that's why i occasionally listen to MLOR and TDB too. Mostly i listen in periods. In fact, since last August, i have been mostly listening to bootlegs of the 77 IN THE FLESH tour. Now, it's more shifting towards MLOR, - MLOR-tourbootlegs and live recordings of the DSOTM-tour. What will be next ? depends on the mood.

Thank you for the nice civilised discussion, and feel free to answer.

[NewEarthMud]

Very true. But if you take away ANY guitar from ANY rock group you don't have "that" band. Take away Page from Zeppelin and what's left? Robert Plant solo records which aren't so hot.

My point is that you take away any guitar from any group and something will be missing, obviously.

But I feel that if you take away the lead singer and songwriter you also aren't left with that much. I guess you're just left with songs that are based more about the "music".. and even that doesn't compare, imo, to the music on Meddle, OBC, or WYWH.

But I'm just sorta tired from arguing this for now. You know how I feel and you know how I feel and something tells me our opinions will never change no matter what happens.

[David Smith]

" 6. There is no definition of good lyrics. There are only styles in lyrical writing. "

There is no definition. But Bob Dylan writes good lyrics, N Sync does not.

I'll write a proper reply later, but come on, NSync don't write their own lyrics man, to correct you, their writers do poor lyrics.

[NewEarthMud]

" 6. There is no definition of good lyrics. There are only styles in lyrical writing. "

There is no definition. But Bob Dylan writes good lyrics, N Sync does not.

I'll write a proper reply later, but come on, NSync don't write their own lyrics man, to correct you, their writers do poor lyrics.

I was just making a point between good lyrics and bad lyrics.

I'm sorry that I do not keep up with N Sync closely and who writes their songs.

However, I thought that was the "big deal" over their last record... that they had wrote their own songs. Maybe I'm wrong..

Anyhow..

Cyndi Lauper writes bad lyrics, Roger Waters does not.

how's that for an example?

Or... Johnny Cash writes great lyrics, Kid Rock does not.

[flashback]

I myself prefer good music over lyrics.Music is the backbone of any band.Music is the most important part ,just look at all the music that was done in classical without lyrics.When I was growing up I went to a private school where there was kids from around the world so I was exposed to many different styles & types of music.I liked a lot of eastasian(Japan-Thi-China-Indian)though I could not understand the words.The music draws you in.Whitout good music lyrics wouldn't be worth shit.I will listen to an album if it has good music & not good lyrics because I can block out a lot of the singing,i cannot listen to an album with good lyrics & bad music.What I like about P-F is they give you both but usually more music than lyrics.I enjoy the songs(if you can call them that without lyrics)where the music goes on & on better than those with lyrics.Even the songs with lyrics with breaks of nothing but music better than those with music &lyrics all the way through.This is all based on my personal taste and in the context of what I was exposed to at times in my life.

[NewEarthMud]

So you're saying without good music the lyrics wouldn't be worth shit?

Does that mean that Bob Dylan's first few records where it's just him and an acoustic guitar and harmonica are far greater than the lyrics?

Blowin in the Wind, one of the greatest songs ever written was written and recorded by Dylan and featured him with an acoustic guitar. The music is very simple and very low key compared to the lyrics and the way he delievers them.

[MoreOrLess]

Couldnt agree with you more Spinoza the sound of the band is always what iv loved most. Rogers biggest contribution to the band if you ask me was not his lyrics but his ability to provide the structure to the music.

[flashback]

Dylan's first albums were folk music.It can be done in a spartan stye with little or no music,but the little or no music sets the mood or tone.Just because folk music can be simple doesn't mean it isn't good.

[grateful pink]

Alot of whta Spinoza and Keith are saying are true. But...

Keith, I feel that it is difficult to mix statistical analysis with art. I just do not see that they work together---alot of high sales music (top40,etc)--suck. I would not listen to it if you paid me.Take DSOTM. It was high selling and it was a great album? What gives?That is a rarity. I do not think that math and science can explain everything (although I used to think that they would be able to eventually, I am not so sure anymore).

It is difficult to apply statistical analysis to art. I find that there are too many anamolies and it is just up to the individual and not the masses.

As to music vs lyrics, if the music sucks, I don't care how great the lyrics are, the song sucks. If you want to put out good lyrics and want to publish it, put out a poetry book, don't set it to music. There are many songs with inane lyrics that are still good songs because the music is well done and i will enjoy it. But if the music is inane or of poor quality or is not of substance (IMO) then, I will not even listen to it. By substance, I do not mean detailed or difficult to write or play. There is not much to the Beatles early music as to it's complexity, but it is the feel and the beat that get me. I Want to Hold Your Hand did not contain the best lyrics but the Beatle SOUND is what got me going. The lyrics are sophomoric but the music and beat (rhythm and tempo) are great and even the simple music sounds sublime. I can listen to Robert Wyatt with some silly lyrics and a few piano notes or even Syd for that matter. It is still the music that gets me first. AS to Syd, he may be the only one that I can think of that the lyrics really do help make the end result DOUBLY richer. I cannot think of another artist like that but who can think of another artist like Syd?

IMO, someone like Bob Dylan has great lyrics and often great music. But even if it is simple music (like some early Dylan) it can still be great music with the lyrics.

Just for me, the basis is the music and the lyrics are secondary and a having great lyrics with a great tune makes it all the greater, IMHO.

Then again, iI do seem to be equivocating and rambling a bit here so maybe I am not so sure of my opinion after all but the statistical analysis of art just sticks in my craw. It's like apples and oranges (not the song )

[Pugs on the Wing]

The discussion on statistics and art/music reminds me of something I heard on National Public Radio once. Somewhere, somewhen, somebody did a study on what people like to hear in music. Those surveyed mentioned certain elements: love in the lyrics, patriotism, a certain quality of male voice and female voice, certain instruments, etc. All these popular qualities were combined to create what *statistically-speaking* would be a "great" song, and some studio musicians were used to create said song. The result was absolutely atrocious! (and funny!)

I think they did the same thing with visual art...a painting was created based on what people in a survey said they liked in art (certain subject matter, colors, etc.), and it turned out to look like some dreadful kitsch.

Some great music sells well. Some great music remains obscure. Some bad music sells well. Some bad music remains obscure. I really don't know if there's any equation for it!

[pfco]

Let's first state some facts:
1. All people are different.
Explication: everybody grows up in his own context, with his own character, own background ( in general and in music ), own preferences concerning music, age, ...
Consequence: everybody will have their own criteria to judge music and songs and what they will find the most valuable in them.

I agree 100% with that. And I think that most people would agree with it. It only becomes a problem for a small minority of people who seem to not be able of accepting that fact...which can become a problem in some cases, such as among your peer group, friends, and especially on public forums or usenet groups since the advent of the Internet.

Each of us has our own favorites with music. We each hear a piece of music differently than anyone else, it affects us uniquely...it has private meaning for us that nobody else can share, even though at the same time it can also have meanings that can be shared. The problem occurs when someone attacks a piece of music that we love, it is as though WE ourselves, are being attacked. When that happens, we are quick to defend it, or, to counterattack.

The practice of focusing on destroying the source of the offending 'opinion'... the person...rather than merely accepting the fact that we ALL have different opinions, likes and dislikes, is really quite immature and it absolutely serves no useful purpose at all.
Ignoring the reality that all people are different with uniquely different tastes and instead opting for attacking a persons character never achieves anything but arguments. It assumes that the person who has an opposite opinion is *wrong*, so they must have serious character flaws and in the attackers mind, gives him the 'right' to assasinate. This practice is not only unjust, and as I said, it makes the attacker look socially immature and *some* times just plain stupid.

We don't live in a perfect world, but in the case of one's personal choice in music it *should* be perfect, for them...and it truly is not a matter that is ever up for debate or ridicule by anyone else. Music is a joy, it should rightfully be, and anything else is never acceptable.

Sandy

[Spinoza]

Couldnt agree with you more Spinoza the sound of the band is always what iv loved most. Rogers biggest contribution to the band if you ask me was not his lyrics but his ability to provide the structure to the music.

Very nice your last thought. That's indeed what the post-waters Floyd is lacking in my opinion: the ideological basis.