1983 - A Thread for the Final Cut Haters!
-
- Moderator
- Posts: 7074
- Joined: Thu Jul 11, 2002 12:54 pm
- Location: Edinburgh or Aberdeen depending on the time of year
Re: 1983 - A Thread for the Final Cut Haters!
Well on the solo front i shall consider myself to be massively in the minority here. As much as i like the album i find them horrible
-
- Knife
- Posts: 432
- Joined: Thu Jan 28, 2010 11:02 am
- Gender: Male
- Location: Flying Squad, a branch of the Metropolitan Police
Re: 1983 - A Thread for the Final Cut Haters!
vice versaDavid Smith wrote:As much as i like the album i find them (guitar solos) horrible
-
- Supreme Judge!
- Posts: 3354
- Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2009 7:55 pm
- Gender: Male
Re: 1983 - A Thread for the Final Cut Haters!
Agreed with David, the solo's on The Final Cut sounds somewhat uninspired really.
-
- Lord!!
- Posts: 3906
- Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2005 12:58 am
- Gender: Male
Re: 1983 - A Thread for the Final Cut Haters!
The solos on this album are horrible? That's harsh. Of course, there's no accounting for tastes. And the quality of music is incredibly subjective. Performance-wise Gilmour's playing on the album is no better or worse than it had been on any previous album. So what it must come down to is you not liking the actual notes Gilmour plays. But of course only a lunatic would suggest that one note is better than another. And I don't get a sense of a "soaring 80's style" solo when listening to these solos, whatever that is. I'm hearing a musically very simple solo based off of a five note scale. My only real criticism of these solos is that Gilmour limited himself to five notes.
I simply fail to see how those solos could be classed as "horrible" under any circumstances. And "uninspired" is just one of those generic words we throw around when we can't think of a better description. I mean really. What kind of criticism is that? It doesn't tell you anything. Uninspired in comparison to what? Is there a universal standard for what IS inspired?
I simply fail to see how those solos could be classed as "horrible" under any circumstances. And "uninspired" is just one of those generic words we throw around when we can't think of a better description. I mean really. What kind of criticism is that? It doesn't tell you anything. Uninspired in comparison to what? Is there a universal standard for what IS inspired?
-
- Moderator
- Posts: 7074
- Joined: Thu Jul 11, 2002 12:54 pm
- Location: Edinburgh or Aberdeen depending on the time of year
Re: 1983 - A Thread for the Final Cut Haters!
To my musically-untrained but still perfectly valid listening ear they sound totally generic of Gilmour, appear to go nowhere and only appear so Pink Floyd can put in their signature guitar sound
-
- Lord!!
- Posts: 3906
- Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2005 12:58 am
- Gender: Male
Re: 1983 - A Thread for the Final Cut Haters!
Yes, anyone who listens to music is a "valid" judge of it. I've simply tried to rationalize the reasoning of your dislike of the solos from a musician's point of view. That was foolish of me, because it didn't work. As dreadfully cliché as it is, we will simply have to agree to disagree.
-
- Moderator
- Posts: 11561
- Joined: Thu Sep 12, 2002 5:54 pm
- Location: In the editing bay...working on the final cut...
Re: 1983 - A Thread for the Final Cut Haters!
1. So, given that any (non-chromatic) scale is typically made up of seven notes, that means that Gilmour only left out two in any given solo.The Gunner's Dream wrote:1. My only real criticism of these solos is that Gilmour limited himself to five notes.
2. Uninspired in comparison to what?
3. Is there a universal standard for what IS inspired?
I've never understood the argument that the pentatonic scale is "inferior" somehow because it only has five notes. Or maybe it's because it's usually the first scale that anyone learns, so maybe it's "inferiority" comes from it's commonality?
I dunno. *shrug*
The same people who make this argument will also point out that there's a difference between a sus2 and an add9, even though the two chords contain the same exact notes.
It's as if an octave means a different note in a chord...but not in a scale.
2. "Uninspired" compared to the rest of Gilmour's guitar solos.
3. I dunno. Some people (not saying that you're one of them, Gus, lol,) would say that the use of the pentatonic scale alone is "uninspired" and that a flurry of random notes played very fast is "inspired."
I say it's all down to the melodic structure.
I think that what David's getting at is that on The Final Cut, Gilmour could almost have just phoned his solos in from home...in his opinion.
Which is just as valid as anyone else's opinion.
Even yours.
-
- Knife
- Posts: 432
- Joined: Thu Jan 28, 2010 11:02 am
- Gender: Male
- Location: Flying Squad, a branch of the Metropolitan Police
Re: 1983 - A Thread for the Final Cut Haters!
Ummm....so album is great, only Gilmour playing is crap? Yeah, right....
-
- Judge!
- Posts: 2039
- Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2007 8:20 am
- Gender: Male
- Location: here now
Re: 1983 - A Thread for the Final Cut Haters!
Two is a lot when subtracted from seven. It's quite significant. Almost one third.mosespa wrote:So, given that any (non-chromatic) scale is typically made up of seven notes, that means that Gilmour only left out two in any given solo.
It's still just a matter of taste, though. One note can be played in a more sophisticated manner than seven notes, depending on what you're doing. And not all tastes require sophistication. Most don't. Hell, I like Johnny Thunders!
We could also argue about the definition of sophistication, but I'll pass.
I think commonality is often a sign of inferiority. Not always.mosespa wrote:Or maybe it's because it's usually the first scale that anyone learns, so maybe it's "inferiority" comes from it's commonality?
Let's face it, certain guitar scales, played a certain way, have been rubbed into the ground. Listen to the average blues guitarist, if you can bear it, then listen to the guitarist in the band Can. One of them is inspired. Which brings me to this....
Yes. When the music starts to play itself and the player is merely a tool used to transmit the sound. In other words, when the music is being beamed into your consciousness from a fucking golden beam of cosmic light, dude. hahaThe Gunner's Dream wrote:Is there a universal standard for what IS inspired?
Practice your guitar more and you'll probably figure it out.mosespa wrote:I dunno
Jack. We get it. You like Gilmour and you don't like Waters. Can you play some different notes for awhile? You're like a redundant blues guitarist. Play a new tune!*JackRegan wrote:Ummm....so album is great, only Gilmour playing is crap? Yeah, right...
* I hate smilies but you're a new member and I want you to to know that you should never, under any circumstances, take my posts too seriously
Edit: I spelled "bear" wrong. I couldn't bear it. Or bare it.
Last edited by Idisaffect on Fri Mar 05, 2010 7:58 am, edited 1 time in total.
-
- Lord!!
- Posts: 3906
- Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2005 12:58 am
- Gender: Male
Re: 1983 - A Thread for the Final Cut Haters!
Add9 chords consist of a major triad and a 9th. They have a 3rd. Suspended chords don't. Suspended chords either consist of the 1st, 2nd and 5th degrees of the scale (Sus2) or the 1st, 4th and 5th degrees of the scale (Sus4). But a Sus2 is really just an inverted Sus4. So some would say that a suspended chord always refers to a suspended 4th and that the term "Sus2" only describes the order of notes in the inversion of a Sus4 chord.mosespa wrote: The same people who make this argument will also point out that there's a difference between a sus2 and an add9, even though the two chords contain the same exact notes.
-
- Judge!
- Posts: 2039
- Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2007 8:20 am
- Gender: Male
- Location: here now
Re: 1983 - A Thread for the Final Cut Haters!
That kind of talk will surely make the commoners contemptuous.
-
- Knife
- Posts: 432
- Joined: Thu Jan 28, 2010 11:02 am
- Gender: Male
- Location: Flying Squad, a branch of the Metropolitan Police
Re: 1983 - A Thread for the Final Cut Haters!
1983 - A Thread for the Final Cut Haters!Idisaffect wrote:
Jack. We get it. You like Gilmour and you don't like Waters. Can you play some different notes for awhile? You're like a redundant blues guitarist. Play a new tune!*
Get it? Besides i wasn't talking about Gilmour at first. What tune you would like to hear?
-
- Judge!
- Posts: 2039
- Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2007 8:20 am
- Gender: Male
- Location: here now
Re: 1983 - A Thread for the Final Cut Haters!
JackRegan wrote:What tune you would like to hear?
Free Palestine by The Dead Soldiers
-
- Knife
- Posts: 432
- Joined: Thu Jan 28, 2010 11:02 am
- Gender: Male
- Location: Flying Squad, a branch of the Metropolitan Police
Re: 1983 - A Thread for the Final Cut Haters!
Dunno that one. How about Ahab the Arab by Kinky Friedman?Idisaffect wrote:JackRegan wrote:What tune you would like to hear?
Free Palestine by The Dead Soldiers
-
- Blade
- Posts: 106
- Joined: Thu Jun 19, 2003 1:02 pm
- Location: Chicago, USA
Re: 1983 - A Thread for the Final Cut Haters!
RE: Gilmour's playing on the Final Cut--
I love The Final Cut--I take it for what it is--basically Roger's first solo album--but with David Gilmour playing guitar on it. Which in and of itself--is pretty cool. I very much view the Final Cut as a companion piece to the Wall--despite the fact that these are two totally different albums/pieces of work. Yes, TFC began as a Wall spin-off--but obviously it took on a life all its own and stands up quite well as the follow up to The Wall. (in fact, if I have to choose one or the other to listen to today--I always pick the Final Cut)...
Given that these albums were recorded closely together--and given the fact that The Wall was a double-album, followed by a state-of-the-art tour followed by a film--The Final Cut was bound to have some of that...LARGENESS to it somehow. And yes, it's the same (exact) formula Roger employed for The Wall (in terms of narrative and how the piece comes together to tell the story).
So to get to my point...
Those of you that "hate" Gilmour's playing on The Final Cut--must also have a distaste for David's playing on the Wall as they are very similar (just as similar as Roger's vocal approach--laiden with sound effects, explosions, screaming, whispering, et al) -- The Final Cut takes The Wall formula and says--let's do this again.
Is David's playing uninspired on TFC? I don't think so. In fact, I think quite the opposite. Gilmour sounds pissed off. His playing is angry--visceral--chilling at times. I love it. If you like his playing on the Wall--then I can't understand how you wouldn't like his playing on TFC. Granted, Gilmour plays a lot LESS on TFC. His solos are short--and he barely plays at all on some songs. But some of them are masterpieces (see Fletcher Memorial Home).
I see The Wall, The Final Cut and Pros & Cons of Hitchhiking as all being cut from the same cloth - in terms of song writing. After Pros and Cons, Roger seemed to take some different approaches (Radio Kaos-being a fairly drastic sonic departure). But these three records--if all recorded by Pink Floyd proper--would all sound very much the same to me. Not that this is a bad thing necessarily--it's just that (incredibly) Roger wrote all of this material in a relatively short time span.
If pressed, I might rate The Final Cut as one of the three best pieces Roger Waters ever created...
I love The Final Cut--I take it for what it is--basically Roger's first solo album--but with David Gilmour playing guitar on it. Which in and of itself--is pretty cool. I very much view the Final Cut as a companion piece to the Wall--despite the fact that these are two totally different albums/pieces of work. Yes, TFC began as a Wall spin-off--but obviously it took on a life all its own and stands up quite well as the follow up to The Wall. (in fact, if I have to choose one or the other to listen to today--I always pick the Final Cut)...
Given that these albums were recorded closely together--and given the fact that The Wall was a double-album, followed by a state-of-the-art tour followed by a film--The Final Cut was bound to have some of that...LARGENESS to it somehow. And yes, it's the same (exact) formula Roger employed for The Wall (in terms of narrative and how the piece comes together to tell the story).
So to get to my point...
Those of you that "hate" Gilmour's playing on The Final Cut--must also have a distaste for David's playing on the Wall as they are very similar (just as similar as Roger's vocal approach--laiden with sound effects, explosions, screaming, whispering, et al) -- The Final Cut takes The Wall formula and says--let's do this again.
Is David's playing uninspired on TFC? I don't think so. In fact, I think quite the opposite. Gilmour sounds pissed off. His playing is angry--visceral--chilling at times. I love it. If you like his playing on the Wall--then I can't understand how you wouldn't like his playing on TFC. Granted, Gilmour plays a lot LESS on TFC. His solos are short--and he barely plays at all on some songs. But some of them are masterpieces (see Fletcher Memorial Home).
I see The Wall, The Final Cut and Pros & Cons of Hitchhiking as all being cut from the same cloth - in terms of song writing. After Pros and Cons, Roger seemed to take some different approaches (Radio Kaos-being a fairly drastic sonic departure). But these three records--if all recorded by Pink Floyd proper--would all sound very much the same to me. Not that this is a bad thing necessarily--it's just that (incredibly) Roger wrote all of this material in a relatively short time span.
If pressed, I might rate The Final Cut as one of the three best pieces Roger Waters ever created...