Your 3 fav Pink Floyd instrumentals??

Tommy · Post by **Tommy** » Wed Jul 16, 2003 4:47 pm

Real Pink in the Inside wrote:It's up to Keef

i think Keith gave up trying to stop these

, but they are fun, i would join in if i had more knowledge

quicksilver · Post by **quicksilver** » Wed Jul 16, 2003 6:25 pm

Ah, just like the good old days

Sorry to get back on topic.

1. One of these days.........
2. Interstellar Overdrive
3. Marooned

white rabbit · Post by **white rabbit** » Fri Jul 18, 2003 2:46 am

uhhhh, after i list these, i'm gonna think of another one to put; but oh well, here goes:

atom heart mother
interstellar overdrive
cirrus minor

SomeGhostsStepOut · Post by **SomeGhostsStepOut** » Fri Jul 18, 2003 3:17 am

dove wrote:cirrus minor

Uh...Cirrus Minor is not an intsrumental track.

MikeWaters · Post by **MikeWaters** » Sun Jul 20, 2003 1:39 am

1. Any Color You Like ( Best song on Dark Side IMHO)
2. SOYCD part 6
3. One of These Days

atom · Post by **atom** » Wed Jul 23, 2003 3:23 am

1.atom heart mother
2.the great gig in the sky
3.one of these days

bye

VIVA CHILE MIERDA

_____________________________________________
the lunatic is in my head

Comfortably_Floyd · Post by **Comfortably_Floyd** » Fri Jul 25, 2003 10:23 am

Eclipse wrote:Here are mine: 1. Shine On You Crazy Diamond parts 1 to 3 (the part 3 is really good, Rick and the keyboards are great in this part)
2. Marooned (the original version, not the one from echoes tbopfloyd which is incomplete )
3. Main Theme (great...GREAT this one)

i noticed that about marooned on "echoes"....they cut out the best bit of the track.....grrrrr

Comfortably_Floyd · Post by **Comfortably_Floyd** » Fri Jul 25, 2003 10:25 am

careful with that axe eugine
great gig in the sky
shine on you crazy diamond

Post by **mosespa** » Fri Jul 25, 2003 6:24 pm

I was going to post...but I can't remember if this is the "favorite instrumentals" thread or the latest "Floyd-fraud" thread...

help

Spinoza · Post by **Spinoza** » Fri Jul 25, 2003 7:25 pm

Real Pink in the Inside wrote:
Pink Floyd was a totally different beast when Syd was essentially the entire "band." After Syd left, they became a totally different group. They easily could have changed their name (technically they did, from THE Pink Floyd to simply Pink Floyd) after his departure and most likely gone along the path they did. If that had happened, instead of talking about a band named Pink Floyd we would be talking about the same band with a different name.

You always come up with that nonsense argument. PINK FLOYD made the album PATGOD and the SAME group PINK FLOYD made the rest of the albums withoutSYD BARRETT. Simple as that. IN 1985, ROGER FREELY LEFT PINK FLOYD. All further records after 1985 are thus PINK FLOYD, wether you like it or not. NOBODY in the band after Syd left ever talked about this being Pink Floyd and the band with Syd to be called "THE Pink Floyd". You're talking nonsense.
Probably , you can even suppose that if ASOS would have been released under another name, it wouldn't even been reviewed at all, and they could have gone back studying architecture.

Spinoza · Post by **Spinoza** » Fri Jul 25, 2003 7:35 pm

Real Pink in the Inside wrote: Instead of Pink Floyd, we would be calling them something else today. In contrast, PWPF was all about USING the extremely powerful name of Pink Floyd to sell mediocre records, sellout football stadiums, etc. As a result, PWPF tarnished the legacy of Pink Floyd. People love it when great bands, actors, athletes, etc. "ride off into the sunset" BEFORE it is CLEARLY TIME to call it quits.

YOU call the PWPF albums crap-albums. There are a lot of people that don't have much praise for any Pink Floyd-album, and no, those people are not the MTV or Backstreetboys-followers alone. After the departure odf Syd, gradually fans got disappointed and new fans arrived. That's how it works.
You think that the Pink Floyd-legacy was hurt by PWPF. How can you know ? By reading crappy reviews on albums by paid reviewers ? By listening to YOUR Floydfriends ( who certainly agree completly with you ) ?
Pink Floyd sold well because, you say ( scream ), the name was powerfull in 1987. THE NAME WAS already powerfull back in 1975. You can easily applie the same logic to WYWH - ANIMALS - THe WALL - TFC. May i quote Roger himself for you, from an interview in 1975:

"I think having made it -- having become very successful -- was the starting point. But having made it, if we could all have accepted that's what we were in it for, we could then have all split up gracefully at that point. but we can't, and the reason we can't is, well there are several reasons. I haven't really thought about this very carefully, but I would say one reason is: - if you have a need to make it, to become, a super-hero in your own terms and a lot of other peoples as well, when you make it the need isn't dissipated -- you still have the need, therefore you try to maintain your position as a superhero. I think that's true of all of us.

Also, when you've been in a band eight years and you've all been working and plugging away to get to the top together its very frightening to leave, to do something else. Its nice and safe and warm and easy... basically its easy. If the four of us now got together and put out a record that didn't have our name attached to it it would be bloody difficult. The name 'Pink Floyd', the name not us, not the individuals in the band, but the name Pink Floyd is worth millions of pounds.

The name is probably worth one million sales of album, any album we put out. Even if we just coughed a million people will have ordered it simply because of the name. And if anybody leaves, or we split up, its back to our own resources without the name. None of us are sure of our resources; an awful lot of people in rock'n roll aren't sure of their resources. That's way they're in there trying to prove they're big and lovable...I mean, I know I'm big and loveable, Nick, but I'm worried about some of the other chaps...(Laughter)... that's why I stay in the group... I'm worried about the others, what's going to become of them... (More laughter) "

Roger already in 1975 knew the POWER OF THE NAME. So why is he in 1987 extremely surprised and angry on the others. In fact, Roger clearly states that the good sales of WYWH are largely due to THE NAME.

And there is nobody nor an objective criteria to know the point when it is time to call it quits. When there was one point in the Floydhistory to do it, it would have been DSOTM, WYWH or Animals. You tell everybody, on ground of the credits ( off course you look at the credits, cause you run after Roger all the time ) that Animals is largly Rogers. Have you ever listened to "Gotta be crazy" or "Raving and drooling ". The last one is almost in it's 1974-form a musical copy of "One of these days". That way, i can write songs too. It would be honest of you that songs like Gotta be crazy and Raving and drooling were for the most part SHAPED/created during the 74/75-tours. The definitive version is a lot better then that sketch that was played live in 74. So Rick did contribute to it. Only the way of giving credits changed a lot during Floyds history. Keep that in mind.

Real Pink in the Inside · Sat Jul 26, 2003 9:56 pm

Spinoza wrote: Probably , you can even suppose that if ASOS would have been released under another name, it wouldn't even been reviewed at all, and they could have gone back studying architecture.

Gee, you think SOS is that poor that nobody would have noticed it? Norman Smith produced it. It had everybody that was PF with the exception of Barrett. And PF wasn't even a very big name back then compared to how big of a name it was in 1987. Of course SOS would have got some attention, probably a little bit less than it did, and I do think it is a decent album, and most people who bought it probably felt/feel the same way. I feel it would not have been the end of Waters, Wright, Gilmour, and Mason. I think they still would have went down the path they did, for the most part.

After Syd left, they progressed. PWPF is just by the numbers through and through.

Real Pink in the Inside · Sat Jul 26, 2003 10:02 pm

I'm not even going to bother responding to your latest post in this thread as I have already gone over the points you put forth (See the thread Everything Could Be Different)

Post by **mosespa** » Sat Jul 26, 2003 10:35 pm

Spinoza wrote: And if anybody leaves, or we split up, its back to our own resources without the name.

Roger already in 1975 knew the POWER OF THE NAME. So why is he in 1987 extremely surprised and angry on the others. In fact, Roger clearly states that the good sales of WYWH are largely due to THE NAME.

Spinoza...with all due respect, you answer your own question here.

Look again at Roger's quote...he assumed that if "ANYBODY" leaves the group, everyone is left with no alternative but to go back to one's OWN resources without the name.

Roger was speaking from a place of "integrity," even in 1975 he understood that Pink Floyd (not the name, but the music, the "product" if you will) was down to the magic of the line-up. If any one of them left the band, it was over.

Granted, this is from the guy who, four years later, got rid if Richard Wright, but by that point, they had basically done two whole albums without any input from him. I suppose he didn't seem necessary.

MoreOrLess · Post by **MoreOrLess** » Mon Jul 28, 2003 11:19 am

I think your mis quoting him there mosespa he means that person would have to go it alone not that the band should spilt. I mean Roger himself carried on in the band after giving Wright the boot so saying that he felt that the band could only excist with the 4 of them there is just plain wrong.