Pink Floyd - The Division Bell

Discussions about Pink Floyd and Solo Official Album CDs and DVDs.

Rate This Album

5 - Best
25
20%
4
45
36%
3
23
18%
2
24
19%
1 - Worst
9
7%
 
Total votes: 126

battra
Blade
Blade
Posts: 131
Joined: Mon Oct 26, 2020 2:13 pm

Re: Pink Floyd - The Division Bell

Post by battra »

ZiggyZipgun wrote: Tue Apr 06, 2021 5:46 pm
theaussiefloydian wrote: Tue Apr 06, 2021 4:56 pmI must admit I've never been particularly fond of this sentiment.
Agreed. I would feel differently if anything that Roger wrote after he rage quit was even arguably on par with his previous work, but that is not the case. I've never heard one person sing along to any of his solo material, but crowds have been belting out songs from Momentary Lapse and Division Bell since those tours.
I agree wholeheartedly that he didn't do any solo albums that were on par with his best work.

But in fairness, he wrote: Dark Side of the Moon, Wish You Were Here, Animals, and The Wall all back to back to back to back!

I sing along to his solo work. :) I also sing along to Dave's solo work and Pink Floyd w/o Roger.

For me, it's no different than when Black Sabbath trudged on without Ozzy or Dio...nothing sounded like Black Sabbath, but they still used the name. Of course, a couple of those albums were never intended to be Sabbath albums.
battra
Blade
Blade
Posts: 131
Joined: Mon Oct 26, 2020 2:13 pm

Re: Pink Floyd - The Division Bell

Post by battra »

ZiggyZipgun wrote: Tue Apr 06, 2021 5:49 pm
battra wrote: Mon Apr 05, 2021 11:20 pm I got a vinyl copy...naturally.
This always makes me chuckle because both Waters and Gilmour would gladly replace all of their vinyl with SACDs, and never worry about making albums fit into those time constraints again, but they're not going to leave (your) money on the table.
The thing is, vinyl is my preferred way of listening...spinning Twisted Into Form right now by Forbidden...2021 repress.

I like albums being in that time limit. It's what I grew up with...45 minute albums. MOST 60ish minute albums tend to be a bit boring to me. Self editing is a good thing I think.
battra
Blade
Blade
Posts: 131
Joined: Mon Oct 26, 2020 2:13 pm

Re: Pink Floyd - The Division Bell

Post by battra »

theaussiefloydian wrote: Tue Apr 06, 2021 8:25 pm
ZiggyZipgun wrote: Tue Apr 06, 2021 7:57 pm I would say most of the semi-professional local bands in my area are making their albums available on vinyl. There are a number of "indie" labels in the Pittsburgh region whose main market happens to be the same ones using Bluetooth turntables.
It's more a cost thing than anything else. Pressing vinyl ain't cheap unfortunately.
Two of my friends here in St. Louis have pressed records onto vinyl and another from Phoenix. One of them told me they were selling the albums at only $2 more than they paid to have it pressed.

As more pressing plants open up again, I think there'll be a lowering of cost.
battra
Blade
Blade
Posts: 131
Joined: Mon Oct 26, 2020 2:13 pm

Re: Pink Floyd - The Division Bell

Post by battra »

ZiggyZipgun wrote: Tue Apr 06, 2021 7:57 pm
theaussiefloydian wrote: Tue Apr 06, 2021 7:20 pm ...none of my stuff will ever get pressed onto records...
I would say most of the semi-professional local bands in my area are making their albums available on vinyl. There are a number of "indie" labels in the Pittsburgh region whose main market happens to be the same ones using Bluetooth turntables.
I have a 1971 receiver, a 1975 turntable, and 1968 speakers.

I have made a few upgrades to the turntable though...sounds great.
User avatar
theaussiefloydian
Knife
Knife
Posts: 403
Joined: Mon Apr 17, 2017 6:57 pm
Gender: Male

Re: Pink Floyd - The Division Bell

Post by theaussiefloydian »

battra wrote: Sat Apr 10, 2021 5:01 pm They were trading on the name, and that's fine. Lots of bands have done it. Without the name they're not playing stadiums. I think that's why they played Dark Side in its entirety.
That's a very cynical way of looking at it, isn't it? Call me a blithering optimist, but I truly believe that David, Rick and Nick continued under the Pink Floyd name because they loved the band and wanted to see it continue to grow after what happened in the 80s. If they were truly only trading in on the name I somewhat doubt that Gilmour would have put his foot down and said that Pink Floyd was over after Rick's passing.
Furthermore if three of the four members of the band are playing together in the spirit of making music and doing what they love, why shouldn't they use the name? No one member has a monopoly on it, after all.
And I can already see a possible counterargument talking about Momentary Lapse, which is a good argument. My response is that I also feel that jumping into that album without properly resolving the issues around getting Rick back was not a good idea and that they should have waited until he was there to record it. It's why that album is much better in live performances and on the 2019 remix, because there it's somewhat transformed into a more Floydian sounding album.
battra
Blade
Blade
Posts: 131
Joined: Mon Oct 26, 2020 2:13 pm

Re: Pink Floyd - The Division Bell

Post by battra »

theaussiefloydian wrote: Sat Apr 10, 2021 5:51 pm
battra wrote: Sat Apr 10, 2021 5:01 pm They were trading on the name, and that's fine. Lots of bands have done it. Without the name they're not playing stadiums. I think that's why they played Dark Side in its entirety.
That's a very cynical way of looking at it, isn't it? Call me a blithering optimist, but I truly believe that David, Rick and Nick continued under the Pink Floyd name because they loved the band and wanted to see it continue to grow after what happened in the 80s. If they were truly only trading in on the name I somewhat doubt that Gilmour would have put his foot down and said that Pink Floyd was over after Rick's passing.
Furthermore if three of the four members of the band are playing together in the spirit of making music and doing what they love, why shouldn't they use the name? No one member has a monopoly on it, after all.
And I can already see a possible counterargument talking about Momentary Lapse, which is a good argument. My response is that I also feel that jumping into that album without properly resolving the issues around getting Rick back was not a good idea and that they should have waited until he was there to record it. It's why that album is much better in live performances and on the 2019 remix, because there it's somewhat transformed into a more Floydian sounding album.
I don't think it's cynical and I don't blame them.

I'm gonna be the guy that brings up all the quotes from dudes all over the spectrum for a minute...

Sammy Hagar said that he didn't want to do Van Halen Best Of because it was a cash grab. All compilations are cash grabs...and when he was challenged regarding the two he'd put out since then, he owned up to it. He said they were cash grabs.

So...in 1985ish, you've got Dave and Nick...Dave had been on tour recently solo, getting some pretty small draws. Then Floyd Inc is still reeling with the financial catastrophe of The Wall.

Roger is out there touring with Eric God Damned Clapton and couldn't fill big rooms.

Would Gilmour Mason and Friends draw?

Nope.

That's no slight on anybody here. Band names bring in more folks. I'm married to one of 'em. In 2018 (I think), I ask the wife, ya wanna go see Foreigner or the guy who recorded all those tunes you love?

What's she say?

Foreigner.

I would wager, and this might be cynical, that 80% of all fans of any band cannot dig too deeply into their history and couldn't tell you who wrote what, who played bass, or what the drummer's name is. (I know I fall into that category with at least 50% of my album collection.)

With Floyd, I think it's double trouble here because they were a band without a distinct leader and such.

As for continuing and making the music they love...they didn't need the Pink Floyd moniker to do so. Roger has done it for the past nearly 40 years, but he doesn't make nearly as much cash as they did.

I love all eras of the band, but naturally, I love some more than others.

I'd also go so far as to say, I prefer Waters's solo output to Pink Floyd's output without him and that includes Dave's solo work, save On An Island. That's better than Radio Chaos and maybe as good as Hitchhiking.

And for the record, the only Floyd albums I'm missing are Reason and Ummagumma...(on vinyl that is)...and the former is the one I'm going to get first as I really don't much care for the latter.

I also have 3 of 4 of Dave's solo albums...I didn't care for Rattle That Lock. I have 2 of 3 of Nick's albums, but zero of Rick's. I need to remedy that last bit and I need to not really much listen to Nick's records...because...wtf are they even anyway?

I bought the Pulse re-release, the recent Delicate Sound of Thunder, Nick Mason's Saucerful of Secrets, and, of course, US + THEM.

I love it all.
ZiggyZipgun
Hammer
Hammer
Posts: 967
Joined: Mon May 05, 2008 3:04 pm

Re: Pink Floyd - The Division Bell

Post by ZiggyZipgun »

battra wrote: Sat Apr 10, 2021 5:01 pm I think that's why they played Dark Side in its entirety.
I guess you missed this on the Pulse thread:
ZiggyZipgun wrote: Thu Mar 25, 2021 9:28 am Interesting comments from Gilmour in 1995, about plans for a Dark Side of the Moon concert or tour some years after the original tour:

"The reason for Pulse is Dark Side of the Moon, obviously. We weren't going to do a live album for this tour; it seemed a bit superfluous having just done one a few years ago. But, as we started out on the tour, we were looking for ways to change the show around and make ourselves a little more flexible and have a little fun, and Dark Side of the Moon was one of the ideas that came across. We thought, 'That'll be easy, we're already playing half the songs.' But it took us about three months to put all the bits of sound-effect tape into it, besides getting all the old film and making one or two new bits of the ones that were too ancient or damaged. So we did it on the end of our American tour, and then when we carried it over to Europe, we started thinking, 'Well, it would be nice for us - and for posterity - to have a live version of Dark Side of the Moon,' which I always particularly wanted. We, infact, discussed it years ago - even when Roger was still in the band - about putting a live version of Dark Side of the Moon back together and recording it, because we don't have a record of it ourselves. So, I thought that would be a very nice idea. Of course, discussing it, we finally thought it was daft to just put out Dark Side of the Moon - we might as well put out the whole thing."
User avatar
theaussiefloydian
Knife
Knife
Posts: 403
Joined: Mon Apr 17, 2017 6:57 pm
Gender: Male

Re: Pink Floyd - The Division Bell

Post by theaussiefloydian »

ZiggyZipgun wrote: Thu Mar 25, 2021 9:28 am We, infact, discussed it years ago - even when Roger was still in the band - about putting a live version of Dark Side of the Moon back together and recording it, because we don't have a record of it ourselves.
With this info, it's curious to me that they didn't release Live at the Empire Pool back in 1974. A double LP set of the Dark Side set at least would have sold I'm sure.
ZiggyZipgun
Hammer
Hammer
Posts: 967
Joined: Mon May 05, 2008 3:04 pm

Re: Pink Floyd - The Division Bell

Post by ZiggyZipgun »

theaussiefloydian wrote: Sat Apr 10, 2021 8:41 pm With this info, it's curious to me that they didn't release Live at the Empire Pool back in 1974. A double LP set of the Dark Side set at least would have sold I'm sure.
That recording did have a lot of technical problems that were much easier to edit in the digital realm 30 years later.
User avatar
azza200
Judge!
Judge!
Posts: 2231
Joined: Wed Jan 07, 2004 2:18 pm

Re: Pink Floyd - The Division Bell

Post by azza200 »

battra wrote: Sat Apr 10, 2021 5:01 pm
theaussiefloydian wrote: Tue Apr 06, 2021 4:56 pm

I must admit I've never been particularly fond of this sentiment. Are they the same Pink Floyd that wrote Dark Side and Wish You Were Here? Of course not. But the album is still very much Floyd to me. The 'conversations' between Gilmour and Wright have been in my mind a staple of the Floydian sound, and we get those here. Great instrumentals. Tracks like High Hopes and Marooned. It's a different Pink Floyd for sure, but it's still recognisably Pink Floyd.
I disagree.

What made Pink Floyd "PINK FLOYD" was absent to me.

They were trading on the name, and that's fine. Lots of bands have done it. Without the name they're not playing stadiums. I think that's why they played Dark Side in its entirety.
The fact that also David and Nick put a lot of their own money up as collateral to cover the early 1987 tour says a lot as in interviews they both said they were not sure if it would be profitable and what the fan reactions would be they actually were taking a financial risk. The 87 leg of the tour sold out straight away showed fans wanted too see PF live regardless of the line up and was the first actual tour since 1981. Big demand in that sense aside from David's & Rogers solo tours.

The 94 tour was specifically a stadium tour because of the production i believe apart from the only indoor gigs at Earls Court
Last edited by azza200 on Sun Apr 11, 2021 1:42 pm, edited 1 time in total.
ZiggyZipgun
Hammer
Hammer
Posts: 967
Joined: Mon May 05, 2008 3:04 pm

Re: Pink Floyd - The Division Bell

Post by ZiggyZipgun »

azza200 wrote: Sat Apr 10, 2021 9:41 pmThe fact that also David and Nick put a lot of their own money up as collateral to cover the early 1987 tour says a lot as in interviews they both said they were not sure if it would be profitable and what the fan reactions would be they actually were taking a financial risk.
The fact that their record company didn't put up the money also says a lot. Roger and Dave's first solo tours had about the same sized crowds, but Dave's was planned accordingly in small venues, while Roger's was the same scale as The Wall. The band were used to losing money on their tours, as the did for the Animals and Wall tours, because they always made it back with album sales. After The Final Cut bombed, the record company did not want Roger to tour Pros and Cons and refused to finance it, but again, he was sure he'd make it back with album sales. Dave's tour didn't sell well initially in Quebec, but like his two recent tours, he ended up adding nights in a number of American cities, despite only playing two or three Floyd tunes. Roger's 1985 tour was scaled down and officially titled Pros and Cons Plus Some Old Pink Floyd Stuff, then hoping to recoup his loses from the previous year. There really was no reason at that point for anyone to expect a Waters-less Floyd to do well, unless they were confident that the new material was up to snuff. Another Final Cut would have gone over about as well as The Velvet Underground's Squeeze or those two albums The Doors made after Jim died.
User avatar
theaussiefloydian
Knife
Knife
Posts: 403
Joined: Mon Apr 17, 2017 6:57 pm
Gender: Male

Re: Pink Floyd - The Division Bell

Post by theaussiefloydian »

azza200 wrote: Sat Apr 10, 2021 9:41 pm The fact that also David and Nick put a lot of their own money up as collateral to cover the early 1987 tour says a lot as in interviews they both said they were not sure if it would be profitable and what the fan reactions would be they actually were taking a financial risk.
Exactly. Mason ended up selling some of the cars in his prized collection to make the tour happen. Not something someone would do if they were banking on the name alone.
battra
Blade
Blade
Posts: 131
Joined: Mon Oct 26, 2020 2:13 pm

Re: Pink Floyd - The Division Bell

Post by battra »

ZiggyZipgun wrote: Sat Apr 10, 2021 8:28 pm
battra wrote: Sat Apr 10, 2021 5:01 pm I think that's why they played Dark Side in its entirety.
I guess you missed this on the Pulse thread:
ZiggyZipgun wrote: Thu Mar 25, 2021 9:28 am Interesting comments from Gilmour in 1995, about plans for a Dark Side of the Moon concert or tour some years after the original tour:

"The reason for Pulse is Dark Side of the Moon, obviously. We weren't going to do a live album for this tour; it seemed a bit superfluous having just done one a few years ago. But, as we started out on the tour, we were looking for ways to change the show around and make ourselves a little more flexible and have a little fun, and Dark Side of the Moon was one of the ideas that came across. We thought, 'That'll be easy, we're already playing half the songs.' But it took us about three months to put all the bits of sound-effect tape into it, besides getting all the old film and making one or two new bits of the ones that were too ancient or damaged. So we did it on the end of our American tour, and then when we carried it over to Europe, we started thinking, 'Well, it would be nice for us - and for posterity - to have a live version of Dark Side of the Moon,' which I always particularly wanted. We, infact, discussed it years ago - even when Roger was still in the band - about putting a live version of Dark Side of the Moon back together and recording it, because we don't have a record of it ourselves. So, I thought that would be a very nice idea. Of course, discussing it, we finally thought it was daft to just put out Dark Side of the Moon - we might as well put out the whole thing."
Oh, I saw that.

I don't necessarily believe it, but I saw it.
battra
Blade
Blade
Posts: 131
Joined: Mon Oct 26, 2020 2:13 pm

Re: Pink Floyd - The Division Bell

Post by battra »

azza200 wrote: Sat Apr 10, 2021 9:41 pm The fact that also David and Nick put a lot of their own money up as collateral to cover the early 1987 tour says a lot as in interviews they both said they were not sure if it would be profitable and what the fan reactions would be they actually were taking a financial risk. The 87 leg of the tour sold out straight away showed fans wanted too see PF live regardless of the line up and was the first actual tour since 1981. Big demand in that sense aside from David's & Rogers solo tours.

The 94 tour was specifically a stadium tour because of the production i believe apart from the only indoor gigs at Earls Court
I think that they were willing to do so says that they thought it would be profitable.

Nick, at least according to the Brian Johnson interview, talked about the car he put up as collateral.

You don't put up your most prized possession like that if you're not sure.
Arnold Lane
Embryo
Embryo
Posts: 11
Joined: Sun Apr 11, 2021 7:20 pm

Re: Pink Floyd - The Division Bell

Post by Arnold Lane »

This came out around the time I got my 1st hi-fi half at through high school and my dad bought me this . I loved it at the time and I still do . It's in my top 5 Floyd albums . Gets a 5 from me