Why was there so little Pink Floyd after 1994?

General discussion about Pink Floyd.
User avatar
space triangle
Hammer
Hammer
Posts: 667
Joined: Tue Jan 21, 2020 1:25 pm

Re: Why was there so little Pink Floyd after 1994?

Post by space triangle »

Hadrian wrote: Fri Aug 14, 2020 10:16 pmHowever, there is no reason why Pink Floyd couldn't do a Nick Mason's Saucerful of Secrets type tour as well. The Rolling Stones still play clubs when they tour around, for pure fun.
You seem to be forgetting some things, Hadrian. Rick Wright died in 2008. And, Roger and David can't stand each other. Who will then playing or touring as Pink Floyd? Dave and Nick alone? Or, Dave and Nick + Guy Pratt and Jon Carin? Sorry, but that wouldn't be Pink Floyd then. You can't lose 50% of the band and still continue to pretend and play under that name. Or, it would be as Roger said sarcastically recently: ''Just change the name of the band to Spinal Tap, and then everything will be hunky dory.” Jimmy Page and Robert Plant for example a few years ago did not toured and played as Led Zeppelin, but as Page & Plant. As far as the Rolling Stones are concerned, and as far as I know, they are still a complete group and not fragmented as Pink Floyd. Pink Floyd died with Rick Wright.
ZiggyZipgun
Knife
Knife
Posts: 413
Joined: Mon May 05, 2008 3:04 pm

Re: Why was there so little Pink Floyd after 1994?

Post by ZiggyZipgun »

From the same 2006 interview I just quoted in another thread:

"Pink Floyd is a massive brand name, but I don't want to be that big a brand name. My ambitions are now deliberately smaller. I'd be lying if I said I didn't want my record and tour to sell—of course I do. But I think it's a fairly safe bet that as a part-time solo artist, I'm not likely to get up into the stratosphere that Pink Floyd inhabited,” Gilmour said.

“The Pink Floyd thing was like this huge lumbering beast.
This is a much lighter load to carry.”
User avatar
Hadrian
Knife
Knife
Posts: 367
Joined: Sat Sep 20, 2014 4:28 am
Location: Publius Enigma's living room

Re: Why was there so little Pink Floyd after 1994?

Post by Hadrian »

space triangle wrote: Sat Aug 15, 2020 6:45 am You seem to be forgetting some things, Hadrian. Rick Wright died in 2008. And, Roger and David can't stand each other. Who will then playing or touring as Pink Floyd? Dave and Nick alone? Or, Dave and Nick + Guy Pratt and Jon Carin? Sorry, but that wouldn't be Pink Floyd then. You can't lose 50% of the band and still continue to pretend and play under that name. Or, it would be as Roger said sarcastically recently: ''Just change the name of the band to Spinal Tap, and then everything will be hunky dory.” Jimmy Page and Robert Plant for example a few years ago did not toured and played as Led Zeppelin, but as Page & Plant. As far as the Rolling Stones are concerned, and as far as I know, they are still a complete group and not fragmented as Pink Floyd. Pink Floyd died with Rick Wright.
Well, I disagree. I would have no problem with David and Nick going out there again as Pink Floyd, supported by the likes of Dick Perry, Jon Carin and Guy Pratt. We had been there before, when Waters left the band in December 1985, it was just the two of them as Pink Floyd for some time. Most of A Momentary Lapse of Reason had been completed without Rick, he joined at the very end of the studio sessions, and his contribution there is rather symbolic.

The last studio album by Genesis (Calling All Stations, 1997) was done by a band reduced to two original members (Tony Banks and Mike Rutherford), and they toured that record once it came out. If you look at the structure of the Rolling Stones, Mick Jagger and Keith Richards are the only ones there from the beginning. There are brands out there that never had more than two members (Pet Shop Boys, Autechre). It takes two to dance, minimum, to have a band. That said, I would probably have a problem with David Gilmour or Nick Mason releasing a Pink Floyd album on their own, but there are examples of even that (Tears for Fears, Elemental, 1993, Roland Orzabal as the band there - and the band had had only two members since 1987).

They key issue for any new material is that Nick Mason does not compose music or write lyrics (both Genesis members did regarding that 1997 situation). That does not prevent them from playing live what already exists of course, but the main overall problem is that David Gilmour does not want to do any of that anymore. The man is a retired senior by choice, which I understand and respect, but I certainly wish it was not the case. If your read between the lines Nick Mason's interviews since he started with Saucerful of Secrets in 2018, he simply got "tired of waiting" (for Dave to get out of the bed) and wanted to do something because he does not wish to be "a living museum exhibit". He is doing pure Pink Floyd stuff out there, on his own, because Dave is not interested.
ZiggyZipgun
Knife
Knife
Posts: 413
Joined: Mon May 05, 2008 3:04 pm

Re: Why was there so little Pink Floyd after 1994?

Post by ZiggyZipgun »

Hadrian wrote: Mon Aug 17, 2020 7:50 pmWe had been there before, when Waters left the band in December 1985, it was just the two of them as Pink Floyd for some time.
That wasn't widely publicized at the time; the tour started two days after the album came out, and there was Rick. The vast majority of listeners never knew or cared who or how many people had been in the band anyway, as Roger sadly found out.
User avatar
Hadrian
Knife
Knife
Posts: 367
Joined: Sat Sep 20, 2014 4:28 am
Location: Publius Enigma's living room

Re: Why was there so little Pink Floyd after 1994?

Post by Hadrian »

The original album cover from 1987 had a photo of the band featured on it for the first time since Maddle (1971) - and it was just David and Nick.
ZiggyZipgun
Knife
Knife
Posts: 413
Joined: Mon May 05, 2008 3:04 pm

Re: Why was there so little Pink Floyd after 1994?

Post by ZiggyZipgun »

"In the Flesh" at Live 8? That sounds like a terrible idea.

From the same 2015 interview with Gilmour that I quoted elsewhere:

What are your memories of Live 8?
"I thoroughly enjoyed it, though we had a few days of very tense rehearsals. We hadn’t spoken to each other for years."

How did you decide what to play?

"We made suggestions and Roger made suggestions, and I didn’t care for Roger’s suggestions. In the end I thought, actually, we’re Pink Floyd and he’s our guest, and he can just do what we tell him to do or fuck off."

What did he suggest?
"He wanted to do 'Money' – which we all did actually – and 'Another Brick In The Wall' and 'In The Flesh'."

And he was overruled.
"Basically, yes."

"...But it has run its course, we are done, and it would be fakery to go back and do it again. And to do it without Rick would just be wrong. I’m all for Roger doing whatever he wants to do and enjoying himself and getting the joy he must have had out of those Wall shows. I’m at peace with all of these things. But I absolutely don’t want to go back. I don’t want to go and play stadiums… under the [group] banner. I’m free to do exactly what I want to do and how I want to do it. I don’t know if it’s as good as Pink Floyd or worse than Pink Floyd or better than Pink Floyd. I don’t give a shit. It’s what I want to do and it’s what I will do."
User avatar
Master_Chief
Axe
Axe
Posts: 71
Joined: Sun Jan 09, 2011 7:39 pm

Re: Why was there so little Pink Floyd after 1994?

Post by Master_Chief »

ZiggyZipgun wrote: Fri Sep 04, 2020 9:49 am "In the Flesh" at Live 8? That sounds like a terrible idea.
Admittedly that song would probably have been a terrible idea considering the audience and the topics being raised, however Another in Brick in the Wall (Part 2) would've been a great idea. Not only was it the Floyd's only number one single in the UK, but it's topic and satirical meaning (which probably would've been lost on the audience) would've gone down a treat.

Not only would David and Roger have been able to harmonise on the vocals, we could've had a small keyboard solo from Rick and maybe the cameraman would've realised he's a core member. Plus with Roger harmonising with David a-la the 1980 Wall concerts maybe we could've had David singing Wish You Were Here in it's entirety and not the jarring second verse by Roger.

My ideal setlist would've been:

1) Breathe
2) Time
3) Breathe Reprise
4) Another Brick
5) Wish You Were Here
6) Comfortably Numb

I know at lot of you will quickly point out that the set was very time restricted, but I distinctly remember Floyd's set starting incredibly late so by that time who cares 8)
User avatar
Annoying Twit
Hammer
Hammer
Posts: 1284
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2008 1:26 pm

Re: Why was there so little Pink Floyd after 1994?

Post by Annoying Twit »

Master_Chief wrote: Fri Sep 04, 2020 11:08 am Not only would David and Roger have been able to harmonise on the vocals, we could've had a small keyboard solo from Rick and maybe the cameraman would've realised he's a core member. Plus with Roger harmonising with David a-la the 1980 Wall concerts maybe we could've had David singing Wish You Were Here in it's entirety and not the jarring second verse by Roger.
In which songs does Roger harmonise with Dave? And, is it Roger singing the harmony parts? Or Dave?
ZiggyZipgun
Knife
Knife
Posts: 413
Joined: Mon May 05, 2008 3:04 pm

Re: Why was there so little Pink Floyd after 1994?

Post by ZiggyZipgun »

Annoying Twit wrote: Fri Sep 04, 2020 11:29 amIn which songs does Roger harmonise with Dave? And, is it Roger singing the harmony parts? Or Dave?
I suppose unison is technically a harmony, maybe? I'm pretty sure they're singing the same melody.
User avatar
Master_Chief
Axe
Axe
Posts: 71
Joined: Sun Jan 09, 2011 7:39 pm

Re: Why was there so little Pink Floyd after 1994?

Post by Master_Chief »

Maybe I'm getting my wires crossed with David and Guy Pratt during A Momentary Lapse and Division Bell tours. Either way Another Brick and Time would've been better than Money. Undoubtedly the song which kickstarted their demise in my opinion.
User avatar
space triangle
Hammer
Hammer
Posts: 667
Joined: Tue Jan 21, 2020 1:25 pm

Re: Why was there so little Pink Floyd after 1994?

Post by space triangle »

Master_Chief wrote: Fri Sep 04, 2020 2:35 pm Undoubtedly the song which kickstarted their demise in my opinion.
What you exactly mean?
User avatar
Annoying Twit
Hammer
Hammer
Posts: 1284
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2008 1:26 pm

Re: Why was there so little Pink Floyd after 1994?

Post by Annoying Twit »

ZiggyZipgun wrote: Fri Sep 04, 2020 11:37 am I suppose unison is technically a harmony, maybe? I'm pretty sure they're singing the same melody.
Erm, it probably depends on how technically you're speaking. But, I think that very technically it isn't.

(goes and gets definition of harmony)

From Britannica.com, Harmony, in music, the sound of two or more notes heard simultaneously.

I was thinking that when I'd heard them singing it's typically unison. But, I wasn't sure - hence my question.

If Rog is singing harmony lines in tune, that implies a bit more of an ear than he is usually credited with.
ZiggyZipgun
Knife
Knife
Posts: 413
Joined: Mon May 05, 2008 3:04 pm

Re: Why was there so little Pink Floyd after 1994?

Post by ZiggyZipgun »

Annoying Twit wrote: Fri Sep 04, 2020 2:58 pmIf Rog is singing harmony lines in tune, that implies a bit more of an ear than he is usually credited with.
It would, but on "Another Brick in the Wall", he's not. On "Young Lust", he sings an octave above Dave - which is also technically in unison, and not a harmony. I had to look it up, since I haven't had a theory class in about 15 years. "The unison is also the easiest interval to tune." Sorry Rog. I believe he does harmonize with himself in various parts of Animals, but then again, they had just built their own studio [maybe specifically] so they could take as long as needed to get it right.

One of the many versions of the story of Syd showing up during "Shine On" claimed that they had just played the same line over and over, as Roger tried to get a decent take, and he asked to hear it again - to which Syd replied, "Why? You've already heard it once."
User avatar
Master_Chief
Axe
Axe
Posts: 71
Joined: Sun Jan 09, 2011 7:39 pm

Re: Why was there so little Pink Floyd after 1994?

Post by Master_Chief »

space triangle wrote: Fri Sep 04, 2020 2:52 pm What you exactly mean?
When Money came out most fans at their North American concerts in particular wanted to hear Money, and Pink Floyd usually played a work in progress version of the forthcoming album on tours.

I'd have to delve into my various Pink Floyd books to find the exact quote, but I've read numerous sources that once Money became successful on air the fans would screech at concerts "play Money", to which the band (most prominently Roger) would get antsy about and understandably so. This either led to, or made worse his feelings of resentment to the audience and led to his spitting in the fan and eventual wall concept.

Money definitely had it's place in the setlist during the years of late 72, 73, 74 and 75, but after that Floyd came up with Animals and I feel that when I listen to concerts from that era that Money and Us and Them just doesn't gel well with the rest of the set. Plus it's heavy use in the post-Waters Floyd jars with me slightly.
ZiggyZipgun
Knife
Knife
Posts: 413
Joined: Mon May 05, 2008 3:04 pm

Re: Why was there so little Pink Floyd after 1994?

Post by ZiggyZipgun »

This is all true, but for all of those reasons, we can see why they thought people would want to hear that at a one-off reunion where they're only playing four songs. Roger was the one to suggest it, having played it on every solo tour, and then started his Dark Side of the Moon tour the following year; Gilmour didn't play it all on his next tour, but did bring it back for Rattle That Lock. Imagine if they hadn't played "Comfortably Numb"...people would've lost their shit! Kinda like they did during the Radio KAOS tour (since he refused to play anything that was co-written by Gilmour). But that was a much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much smaller crowd.