" I can't help other peoples frustrations. I don't owe people anything.If people would like to come to my concerts, I'd love them to come. And if they like the music that I make, I love that too. But I do not make music for other people. I make it to please myself. To go out and tour for months and months on end is not just what I want to be doing at my age. Sorry if you don't like that, but it's my perogative"
DG's reply to a Billabord question about the millions frustrated by the mid size venues he is playing
In March I will have been going to Pink Floyd performances for 40 years and I am incredibly saddened by these comments and find themk just a little insensitive to those fans that did not get tickets or have paid out all those millions over the years to make him a very rich man
I fully accept most of what he says...... it is his perogative to do as he wishes but I have to question why he is bothering to tour at all or even put out a new CD ......if he truly is making music just for himself. Somehow these statements do not sit well with the reality of what he does
Obviously he is doing it for purely commercial reasons??....perhaps he needs the money???
He writes for himself because he is not a slave to other people he doesnt know. What is the point in him writing songs for other people he doesnt know? His life would be over.
Keith Jordan wrote:He writes for himself because he is not a slave to other people he doesnt know. What is the point in him writing songs for other people he doesnt know? His life would be over.
No point at all unless it a love song or similar aimed at a specific person - but in that case why bother to perform them at all or to such a small audience
I just think his words were a little harsh and ill thought
He's said the same thing for years. I'm pretty sure Roger has too. And it's how it should be. Why would you wish an artist to compromise their art to consider (i.e. maximise) its audience? Leave that to the myriad manufactured acts out there.
mdp963 wrote:Obviously he is doing it for purely commercial reasons??....perhaps he needs the money???
Sigh. He could have sold the tour out ten times over. Probably more. He could have taken the hundreds of millions of dollars offered to get Pink Floyd back on the road. He could have kept the royalties resulting from the sales boost after Live 8. He could have slapped the Pink Floyd name on On An Island...
Damn!t wrote:It sounded like "i dont give a fuck about other people".
Sounded defensive to me. He's still right, though.
He's putting an album out that he wanted to make and so did. No one is obligated to buy it. He's doing a small tour. Yet the overwhelming response, certainly on the blog - which apparently he reads - is "Why aren't you coming to [insert name of country/city/remote village: population 3]?" "Why aren't you - a man of sixty, who after 40 years in the music business now find yourself quite happy to stay home and enjoy your roles of husband and father - committing yourself to an extensive and strenuous tour?" HE. DOESN'T. WANT. TO.
Selfish or not, he can do whatever the fuck he likes. We fans didn't buy the albums and go to the concerts to aid their bank balances. We did that for ourselves. Thus we are owed nothing and should stop being greedy.
it?s funny to see that Gilmour now wants to play small venues or not at all, while Waters suddenly enjoys playing in front of crowds and can?t get enough of it... both changed quite a lot it seems.
I have no problem whatsoever with what Dave said......in fact I understand completely where he is coming from.
But then I'm a Zappa fan and he had said on more than a few occasions...that he did what he did because it amused him and if others like it that's fine....that's icing on the cake and if they don't like it, fuck 'em there's plenty of other stuff out there for them to listen to.
I accepted that as the man's opinion and wasn't offended so what Dave said is quite tame in comparison. I'm not gonna judge the man.
Yucateco wrote:it?s funny to see that Gilmour now wants to play small venues or not at all, while Waters suddenly enjoys playing in front of crowds and can?t get enough of it... both changed quite a lot it seems.
I'm not 100% on the facts here, but wasn't Roger playing reasonably large but very often half-empty venues as a solo artist in the 80s? I think he would have probably preferred the vast audiences if he'd been able to attract them, not least to put one over on David and Nick. That's just what I think anyway. I'm not having a go at the man, there's nothing wrong with hoping that lots of people want to see you perform.
Vlad The Impaler wrote:
But then I'm a Zappa fan and he had said on more than a few occasions...that he did what he did because it amused him and if others like it that's fine....that's icing on the cake and if they don't like it, fuck 'em there's plenty of other stuff out there for them to listen to.
In fact it is strange that such an attitude was not only accepted from but even encouraged in a man like Frank Zappa, but frowned upon where it concerns David Gilmour...
If he made music for other people him and Roger would still be attempting to work together today. It's not harsh, it's being an artist with integrity. If the Beatles didn't break up when they did and continued for the fans, they'd either make a crappy album or strangle each other. No band or artist ever has (or should have) an obligation to their fans, they have fans because of the album they made on their own merits.
