Pink Floyd & Money

x-rays · Post by **x-rays** » Thu Aug 28, 2003 1:21 pm

I've just read on a site about progressive rock (http://members.tripod.com/yvert/rock/pr ... prrock.htm) this:
"Money is a Crime.
Money kills Creativity - and Ideas - [...]
The Wall is a unique work, remarkable, but under the Music point of view is weak,
with simple harmonies, simple melodic lines, simple time signature and rhythms,
with a annoying commercial attitude towards the "Disco" mania of that time
- late 70's- begin 80's.
I think Pink Floyd could have created much better Music than they did, in the last two decades.

Did they lose inspiration, or did they earn too much Money ?...
and staying sitting down satisfied ?"

I'm a bit confused. I know PF advertised for a French drink on stage and, more recently, for a German car, but I don't think it really chanded their music.
David thinks the fans, sceaming "Play Money!", changed their music -listen to the interview on the site.
But isn't it a normal development? The music changes, so does PINK FLOYD music. I can't immagine them releasing a song such as "It Would Be So Nice" now!
What do you think?

Ridan · Post by **Ridan** » Thu Aug 28, 2003 2:14 pm

x-rays wrote: The Wall is a unique work, remarkable, but under the Music point of view is weak, with simple harmonies, simple melodic lines, simple time signature and rhythms, with a annoying commercial attitude towards the "Disco" mania of that time- late 70's- begin 80's.

The Wall being my favorite album, I stand here and defend it! I ask you, what IS wrong with the music? As you and I know, The Wall is about the wall people build around themselves, against the society, against other people! It's about the pressures of stardom! It's about drugs! I am sure you agree! If you do, then can you expect the music to be something like that from Green Is The Color, Julia Dream, A Pillow of Winds?

nosaj · Post by **nosaj** » Thu Aug 28, 2003 3:10 pm

Something has really changed in music (and the world); We now live in an age of professional music. In the old days it was fun, bands learned as they went along and made mistakes (there was no idea of stadiums, music stations...) I love early years PF, but really, Umma & AHM are transition albums that would spell the end in this day and age, maybe. Animals is musically good, even psychedelic, as is the Wall...the lyric content changed a lot. In fact they are way better albums in a lot of ways, its just the lyrics can distract from the free form journey of the music... The Final Cut is what everybody needs to listen to this Rememberence Day...where have we come from, where are we going? I sure hope I hear some good tunes along the way...

David Smith · Post by **David Smith** » Thu Aug 28, 2003 3:34 pm

With the wall being about hamanity stripped bare it's best that the music to is quite light with a concentration on lyrics and concept

x-rays · Post by **x-rays** » Thu Aug 28, 2003 4:09 pm

Ridan wrote: I ask you, what IS wrong with the music? As you and I know, The Wall is about the wall people build around themselves, against the society, against other people! It's about the pressures of stardom! It's about drugs! I am sure you agree! If you do, then can you expect the music to be something like that from Green Is The Color, Julia Dream, A Pillow of Winds?

Of course I agree! There's nothing wrong with the music. I love The Wall too; it's the first Pink Floyd's album that I've listened! Besides, I'm young, and pop music sounds to me more familiar than psychedelic music.
But I was surprising seeing that some people think late Pink Floyd is only commercial music; in my opinion it's time that changed their music, not money, although they must have earn an incredible amount of money during the last tour. And even though the music have changed, it was in a good way, contrary to other bands like Genesis.

Anna-Roza · Post by **Anna-Roza** » Thu Aug 28, 2003 4:48 pm

Pink Floyd making music only for money...

I think about "The Final Cut" commercial potential - lots of funny dancing hits on this album, isn't there?

David Smith · Post by **David Smith** » Thu Aug 28, 2003 5:52 pm

Anna-Roza wrote:Pink Floyd making music only for money...

I think about "The Final Cut" commercial potential - lots of funny dancing hits on this album, isn't there?

Well they did release a single of it, quite a commercial single to if you ask me

Anna-Roza · Post by **Anna-Roza** » Thu Aug 28, 2003 6:30 pm

Yes, it is always possible to find something more "listeable" than other songs, but I think that after surprisingly huge success of "ABITWp2", they did know quite well, what kind of song could become next #1. And they didn't produce next album full of songs like that, "TFC" is rather the opposite.

David Smith · Post by **David Smith** » Thu Aug 28, 2003 6:35 pm

Anna-Roza wrote:Yes, it is always possible to find something more "listeable" than other songs, but I think that after surprisingly huge success of "ABITWp2", they did know quite well, what kind of song could become next #1. And they didn't produce next album full of songs like that, "TFC" is rather the opposite.

I would think following the wall TFC was guaranteed to make a lot of money and sell well

Meddler · Post by **Meddler** » Thu Aug 28, 2003 6:35 pm

The Wall was more of a Rock Opera to me, its one of my favorites, I always thought it was a deep album, but thats IMO.

Post by **mosespa** » Thu Aug 28, 2003 6:46 pm

*Ahem*

Roger has stated numerous times that the real reason PF stayed together after DSOTM was because being in PF was easier than starting over...this translates into: Money is easier to make in Pink Floyd than it would be if each started over as a solo act.

David Gilmour has said about as much as the reason why AMLOR was a Pink Floyd album.

Don't get me wrong...I LOVE what they were putting out while they were being money grubbing (WYWH, Animals, The Wall, TFC, TDB)

And how many of us actually believe that Pink Floyd would have continued beyond Sigma 6 if they weren't getting paid for it?

NOW...

In PF's defense, it could be said that the only reason ABITW Part 2 became a single (it started off sounding very much like Part 1) was because they were releasing a double album (I'm sure the record comany had SOME trepidations about that...double albums of all new material were a pretty radical concept in the late 1970's)...and the Animals had sold less than it's precedents.

Also, due to the Norton/Walburg crash, the boys needed money...and quickly. After all, their net worth had been knocked down to just thier homes and art collections.

I wonder what made the company choose Not Now John for TFC's single, though.

I understand the reasoning that they had released a single from The Wall...actually, another couple of songs were released as singles, so the record label knew they could be swayed into it...despite the fact that Pink Floyd were not in it for the money.

x-rays · Post by **x-rays** » Thu Aug 28, 2003 7:30 pm

Ridan wrote:
It's about the pressures of stardom! It's about drugs! I am sure you agree! If you do, then can you expect the music to be something like that from Green Is The Color, Julia Dream, A Pillow of Winds?

"A butterfly with broken wings
"Is falling by your side
"The ravens all are closing in
"There's nowhere you can hide
"Your manager and agent
"Are both busy on the phone
"Selling couloured photographs
"To magazines back home"

What is Cymbaline (aka Nightmare) all about?

I love The Wall's music

x-rays · Post by **x-rays** » Thu Aug 28, 2003 7:44 pm

mosespa wrote:
double albums of all new material were a pretty radical concept in the late 1970's

What do you mean?

Brand new or old-fashioned?
"Tales From Topographic Oceans" (Yes, 1972) and "The Lamb Lies Down On The Broadway" (Genesis, 1974) were released a couple of years before and there are few double albums nowadays!

David Smith · Post by **David Smith** » Thu Aug 28, 2003 8:23 pm

x-rays wrote:
mosespa wrote:
double albums of all new material were a pretty radical concept in the late 1970's
What do you mean? Brand new or old-fashioned?
"Tales From Topographic Oceans" (Yes, 1972) and "The Lamb Lies Down On The Broadway" (Genesis, 1974) were released a couple of years before and there are few double albums nowadays!

Well Pink Floyd were total dinosaur rock back in 1979 when The Wall came out and it was just after punk

JML · Post by **JML** » Fri Aug 29, 2003 10:01 am

Everybody has to earn his money somehow. i don't understand this music for money -thing. Of course they make music for getting money, it's their job. I don't think musicians should live in some carboardbox outside the Abbey Road Studios. They have wrote lyrics and music so why shouldn't they get paid for it, if they think they have done some catchy song, why shouldn't they release it as a single?
And I don't think that musician will continue his career if he has released about ten albums but doesn't get paid for it because it would be music for money...

But you see: Easy Money *duiyng*

Pink Floyd & Money

Pink Floyd & Money

Re: Pink Floyd & Money

Re: Pink Floyd & Money

Re: Pink Floyd & Money