New David Gilmour album!

[kjek1]

I'm amazed people are only just now realising that "5am" and "And then" are linked.

With all due respect danielcaux, that came off very pretentious. I'd suggest it's you who doesn't really understand song crafting. A lot of people seem to find tiny similiarities between different songs and thus conclude that X is a rip off of Y. It's nonsense.

I also found it crazy that you ripped on In any tongue and Faces of Stone but praised Yellow dress. Yellow dress is an absolute bore, very cliched lyrics and it was a huge misfire in his live shows too. I bet your saying you like it purely because it's not typical Gilmour and he's experimented with a different style.

For me this is why I'm happy for him to do what he does best, I want him to do that, not mess around with Jazz numbers and ultimately not get much of an impact. I'm a big fan of Faces of Stone, i love the melody, emotional impact behind the lyric, and i love that opening with the piano. That's good stuff, the bog standard Jazz line with cliche lyrics of two people admiring each other in a club is what I'd call generic to be honest. Rattle That Lock isn't anything groundbreaking or earth shattering, it's a nice listen for fans of Gilmour though.

Also, for Roger knowing what makes a tune memorable, he's had a shocking lack of memorable tunes since he left Pink Floyd, make of that what you will.

[Follix]

Well Flathead I don't expect anything good about next Roger album... I don't care who produce it, it could be a 40 year old George Martin or Alan Pearson in his prime it won't change much of anything because Roger alone just can't get it done...

His voice is gone since over 20 years and music never been his strong point I don't see how it can make a good record... Yes he might come up with a very good melody but we all know he is gonna do some kind of acoustic or piano version of it and it's gonna be bad. I agree he was the edge but since nobody will stood up to him I don't see how it can be good.

Like I said earlier, without Rick and Dave ''Pigs'' would be a 4:30 acoustic song, no doubt about it.

[Flathead]

i agree with a lot of that, but it was Roger who steered the band into long songs thanks to Bob Dylan's "Sad Eyed Lady of the Lowlands".

[danielcaux]

I'm amazed people are only just now realising that "5am" and "And then" are linked.

It has something to do with only listening to the album for the first time just a couple of weeks ago But you are right, the similarities between the three tracks jump straight at your face.

I also found it crazy that you ripped on In any tongue and Faces of Stone but praised Yellow dress. Yellow dress is an absolute bore, very cliched lyrics and it was a huge misfire in his live shows too. I bet your saying you like it purely because it's not typical Gilmour and he's experimented with a different style..

Nope. I simply like it because while the song plays I do enjoy listening to the sounds that are coming out from my headphones. I don't really care if it's new or old ground being explored, me liking it is not the product of rational analysis but rather a pure emotional/sensitive reaction to the song. And that does not happen at all with the other tracks, Tongues and Faces, when I'm listening to them the only emotion that I get from that is an almost uncontrollable urge to press the skip button... both are so B.O.R.I.N.G! Lyrically and musically.

But believe me, I really really really wanted to like this album, I have nothing against Gilmour (other than letting his wife write trite lyrics on his albums over the past 20 years). But I just can't, it's not my type of music, I'm just not into that kind of AOR vibe that's so prevalent here and in OAI and that Gilmour seems to love now. The songs lack punch and memorable hooks, there's no dynamics, the album soundd dull and stagnated..

I totally can understand that some people like this kind of thing though. So, good for them I guess. Me? I will pass this one for now. Maybe in 20 years, when I'll be also old and in search of safe/predictable/easy listening music, I will "get it"... maybe.

[Flathead]

I have nothing against Gilmour (other than letting his wife write trite lyrics on his albums over the past 20 years). But I just can't, it's not my type of music, I'm just not into that kind of AOR vibe that's so prevalent here and in OAI and that Gilmour seems to love now. The songs lack punch and memorable hooks, there's no dynamics, the album soundd dull and stagnated..

Yep.

I keep thinking of Gilmour banging away on his guitar strings in Pompeii...and then this. Even the best fall to mediocrity. It's what happens when you surround yourself with Yes-Men.

[Follix]

^ Problem is you are comparing a 25 yo to a 69 yo... Musicians are in their ''prime'' between 20 and 40.

Also this album is decent but it's not fair to compare it to Pink Floyd, Guy Pratt is no Roger Waters and Phil Manzanera is no Rick Wright. Decent album imo just lack some bitterness and consistency.

[Jimi Dean Barrett]

And he's finally out of the Top 100 Album Chart. He did well to hang on over Christmas. And I think he did 14 or 15 weeks.
Probably bubbling around 107 or lower.

[kjek1]

Daniel, that's fair enough then mate. Was just a gut feeling but if you genuinely prefer it then that's absolutely fine. It really was a misfire live though, you could feel all the energy he had built up in the crowd subside a bit after that number.

Flathead, since when did Gilmour surround himself with yes men though? He does what he wants when he wants. If he was surrounded by yes men he'd currently be on tour with Roger and Nick as Pink Floyd and making his team an absolute fortune a long with everyone involved, or at the very least releasing a lot more material than he has been post 1994. If you're going to criticise the guy, at least do it with something substantial and not airy fairy assumptions.

Comparing his current output as a solo artist to what he was doing as a 20 something year old with Pink Floyd is completely nonsenical. Why would his current output match what he was doing in collaboration with 3 other musicians? This is why I started that thread about Pink Floyd fans pretentiously shitting over their own favourite band, we're seeing people desperately looking for a stick to beat the band members with, it's absolutely hilarious as much as it is tragic. When you read this forum you'd almost be forgiven for thinking the band never really knew what they were doing and the members of this forum would have been a greater success as a band. Is there a point to it? Is it because you secretly hate him (or any of the other 4) or is it that you simply want to display your (alleged) intellect to everyone here?

None of them will ever do anything as good as they did in their prime with Pink Floyd, and they'd be foolish to even attempt to recreate it. It was all done at a different time in a different place under a different set of circumstances when they were all different people. Even Bob Dylan admitted that he couldn't do now what he did back then, and he had to accept that (his example was It's Alright Ma, saying he doesn't have it in him to write a song like that anymore)

[brell]

Very well put, kjek1

[twcc]

Very well put, kjek1

+1

[Flathead]

Flathead, since when did Gilmour surround himself with yes men though? He does what he wants when he wants.

And now he sounds like adult contemporary. TDB and TER had Rick and Nick.

Comparing his current output as a solo artist to what he was doing as a 20 something year old with Pink Floyd is completely nonsenical.

Artists' current work will always be compared to their best. To not comprehend this shows childlike naivety.

None of them will ever do anything as good as they did in their prime with Pink Floyd, and they'd be foolish to even attempt to recreate it. It was all done at a different time in a different place under a different set of circumstances when they were all different people. Even Bob Dylan admitted that he couldn't do now what he did back then, and he had to accept that (his example was It's Alright Ma, saying he doesn't have it in him to write a song like that anymore)

Yeah, but Dylan still sounds like Dylan. Gilmour sounds like Yanni or Sting.

[kjek1]

Flathead, since when did Gilmour surround himself with yes men though? He does what he wants when he wants.

And now he sounds like adult contemporary. TDB and TER had Rick and Nick.

Comparing his current output as a solo artist to what he was doing as a 20 something year old with Pink Floyd is completely nonsenical.

Artists' current work will always be compared to their best. To not comprehend this shows childlike naivety.

None of them will ever do anything as good as they did in their prime with Pink Floyd, and they'd be foolish to even attempt to recreate it. It was all done at a different time in a different place under a different set of circumstances when they were all different people. Even Bob Dylan admitted that he couldn't do now what he did back then, and he had to accept that (his example was It's Alright Ma, saying he doesn't have it in him to write a song like that anymore)

Yeah, but Dylan still sounds like Dylan. Gilmour sounds like Yanni or Sting.

Artists change and evolve, read what I wrote before. Also were you not one of the ones who prattled on about him not showing versatilty/diversity or something? It wouldn't surprise me, that means we'd have "He's not doing anything new" and "he's too different" now from the same group, HA.

Childlike naivety? Explain that please. Nothing you can say will change the fact that it is utterly stupid to compare 20 something Gilmour with Pink Floyd and 69 year old Gilmour solo. Yes they will always be compared, but only by people with little sense. You're pissing in the wind and it's blowing all over your paws.

Dylan's current records sound nothing like what he was putting out in the 60's. The truth is you don't know as much about music as you'd like to believe and by trying to sound like a great intellect on the subject you've backed yourself into a corner. Stop embarassing yourself, not just for your own good but for the rest of us because it's painful to watch.

[mastaflatch]

Dylan never stood still artistically or stylistically, that's what I love him so much and honestly, I don't see any validity in the argument that he still sounds like Dylan. I mean, have you listened to the guy's voice as of late? He sounds like Tom Waits' mother with a bad cold. Still great though.

On the other hand, Gilmour still has a magnificient voice and his guitar playing, to me, feels better than it had since the early 80s. Gilmour may not choose the most original canvasses to paint music on but his palette is richer and warmer than most of his contemporaries'. There's nothing wrong with that - a lot of people would kill to be so talented and given the fact that he's far from being a natural songwriter, his latest album is quite impressive in that aspect.

[danielcaux]

That's the problem, Gilmour is a really really great musician that during the past 30 years has also been trying to pretend that he's an actual songwriter too. Problem is, he's just not. After Pink Floyd he should have teamed up with some talented songwriter and start to attach his great solos and guitar work and production skills to some actual good songs. Too bad his hurt ego and grudge against Roger Waters led him in another direction, that of trying to prove to the rest of the world that he, and not his ex-bandmate, was the creative force behind Pink Floyd. Truth is, as their solo albums has proved, that in order to make good music he needed Roger (or some other strong willed bandmate) as much as Roger needed him...

Oh well, that's old news I guess.

[kjek1]

Dylan never stood still artistically or stylistically, that's what I love him so much and honestly, I don't see any validity in the argument that he still sounds like Dylan. I mean, have you listened to the guy's voice as of late? He sounds like Tom Waits' mother with a bad cold. Still great though.

On the other hand, Gilmour still has a magnificient voice and his guitar playing, to me, feels better than it had since the early 80s. Gilmour may not choose the most original canvasses to paint music on but his palette is richer and warmer than most of his contemporaries'. There's nothing wrong with that - a lot of people would kill to be so talented and given the fact that he's far from being a natural songwriter, his latest album is quite impressive in that aspect.

I agree with all of this.