PemmicanHoosh wrote:I must admit, I wasn't being strictly serious. Sure I'd like to hear that stuff but I agree, they are not going to go over old ground again. I do wonder just how thoroughly they went through everything and did they really listen? Perhaps. I think about when Mark Lewishon went through every Beatles' tape as a fan and wrote about it as fully as possible. It certainly fuelled the growing interest in their archive. I don't get that with PF, more a reluctant sort of 'I suppose we ought to do something then' vibe, although I might be being letting my desire cloud my judgement.
I have a lovely book of Leonardo Da Vinci drawings. I'm not sure even the mighty Floyd bear comparison to the great man, but his sketches and scribbles are considered important as works of art in their own right, giving new insights to the familiar and changing the way they are viewed, as well as fleshing out the story of the man himself. Nick Mason also said he was happy to listen to umpteen takes and false starts of his favourite jazz musicians. There is a great demand among true fans of anyone and anything to just have more and I've yet to hear of some artist or musician's work actually losing status from having their sketches and fumblings made available to the public.
I know they don't owe us a thing, I certainly don't feel that, but I do feel that they underestimate the value of 'their stuff'. So I'd take anything they've got to offer, thank you, providing they don't give Storm the job of presenting it, unless he's heavily sedated first.
I think for a long time the members of Pink Floyd had an almost perfectionist opinion, basically:
"Our albums are fine as they are - they're the definitive statement, and we don't want 'work sketches' released", and that was the drill - you'd get remastering after remastering of the officially released albums.
Sadly this refusal to open the vaults even extended to vintage live recordings - and sure there are some where parts of the performance is less than stellar. (Some of Davids singing can be especially dicey) HOWEVER there's plenty of live recordings where the playing and singing are fine AND recording quality is ok - as we all know by the better ROIOs circulating.
Maybe they were just too close to their own work to make an objective assessment? It's good to see them reassess that old policy now, and realise that there is an interest in how that music was sculpted into shape (especially if some interesting ideas were dropped on the official release), and how it developed on the road after the albums were released..
You make a good point about Lewisohn - the Beatles Recording Sessions book marks a real turning point in that band's fanbase.
Ever since then, we've known exactly what was recorded, when, and what tapes exist in the EMI archives.
It's a shame that Pink Floyd haven't had a similar amount of light shed on their sessions (as many artists have had 'studio session' books written since the Beatles) - because even though there's a list of tracks we'd all love to hear, we only know about them in very vague details.
Mind you, future "Why Pink Floyd?" releases may give them the chance to reveal some of those details...
1970) to be released since it's in pristine quality and is a very good live show of theirs.
