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?
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?
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.