loblollyboy wrote:As far as i can see pink floyd is history, it's over. Being in posession of the band name is now just necessary for still making money with the old stuff.
I cannot say that you are wrong, but I strongly disagree.
disagree with: pink floyd ist history or the other part?
both... I am an optimist when it comes to hoping that another Floyd album come out, and I refuse to think that its over for good.
I also think that its incorrect to say that the the only reason to have the Floyd name is making money with the old stuff. Roger, Dave, Rick, or Nick could play any of the old Floyd tunes under their own names if they wanted too. But having the name enabled Dave, and the others to continue their musical interests with success. And it allowed Dave to establish that Pink Floyd was not Roger. I'm not saying that this is all fact, just my take.
O.K., you are definitly right that the fact of Gilmour and hrest of the band having won the legal dispute enabled them to continue their artistic work for a while. But now ist seems to me just a juridical matter who holds the name, not an artistic any more. Rick played on Daves Solo Concert, Nick with Roger. It seemed to me that Nick was unhappy with the fact that Dave shows no attitude to start work on a new album, as i could learn from a short interview that Nick gave to a german news magazine some time ago. (some months later he played with roger!). I have no hope for another floyd album , and so i think it would be the most honest thing for dave to do: declare the band dissolved. Because that's what the Band in fact already is.
Theres a point that Im not entirely clear on. When Dave went though all the leagal mumbo-jumbo to get the name, did he actually get the name, or just establish that they could use the name? Does he actually own the name?
I am not sure, too, and i don't know juridical details, but there may b e some hints that Dave has indeed the control over the name. I've got a book that was part of the "Shine On" Box. The book contains a 1992 Interview of Dave ; after they discuss the prospects of a new album (Division Bell) he is asked: "If Nick decided that he didn't want to do it, would you still do it as Pink Floyd?" Dave:" Yeah. I think so. But I don't think that's a problem. I want Nick and Rick to do it. (...)" So it may be concluded, that he in fact posessed the warrant to use the name at will. To bear in mind is the fact that Rick was in 1987 no official bandmember. At that time only Nick and Dave officially formed Pink Floyd after Ricks dicharge. So I don't know what role he played in the court case between Dave and Nick against Roger.
For what I know, Dave AND Nick are the legal owners of the name "Pink Floyd", and Rick is only part of the "publishing society" ('Pink Floyd Music Ltd') or however it is called, so he gets royalties, but have NO legal rights on the band's name... correct me if I'm wrong, but I guess that's how it is by now...
Location: In the editing bay...working on the final cut...
Postby mosespa »
Let's look at a few things here.
First...most of the complaints I have seen about AMLOR center around it sounding like "typical 80's pop crap." While I agree that AMLOR is an inferior album, it has nothing to do with the '80's sound.
Next...The Divison Bell, most agree, is somewhat better than AMLOR. But, there are some who opine that it sounds a bit "nineties-ish," rather than recapturing the "classic" seventies Floyd sound.
We need to face up to the fact that the seventies are over and the world has largely moved on. NOTHING will ever sound like the seventies except those things which were recorded in the seventies.
I think everyone here knows how I feel about the Floyd Feud. I can see both sides and each has it's own merits and it's own drawbacks.
Whatever anyone wishes, it has been decided that the Pink Floyd name was not to be retired following the release of The Final Cut.
Now...as to the "contemporary" sound of the last two studio albums, think of it this way. Times have changed, tastes have changed. If Pink Floyd (whoever may comprise the band) wishes to continue selling copies of it's back catalogue, it has to continue to give the teenyboppers a reason to be interested.
This is why new albums are made with "contemporary" sounds. So that "the kids" will be interested in picking up the new album (since it's the only one record companies will be interested in promoting heavily) and hopefully be convinced to check out the back catalogue.
It IS true that many Pink Floyd fans are inaugurated through DSOTM or The Wall or some other "back catalogue" album...but not everyone.
Some new Pink Floyd fans only became fans after TDB...some only after AMLOR.
It's the old double edged sword...these new albums don't live up to the classic albums (depending on your opinion, of course)...but these new albums DO bring in new fans.
The more fans you have, the longer you stick around.
Pink Floyd was syd barrets band to be hoinest. Roger was a spare part in those days! Roger left pink floyd after 1983 legally so has no right legally to the name. Morally, it wasnt really rogers band and legally he left anyway - hence he could not stop the band from performing.
Those morals aside, i think it a little cheeky for the pink floyd to play rogers songs (and they are his morally but not completely legally) but to go on using the name is not morally incorrect, nor legally!! It is just a little sickening to some fans.
Saying all that, if somebody gave me a ticket to see the current floyd in action i would not spit mu dummy out and complain, oh no, i would spit my dummy out and have a bloody good smiling session!!
I would spit the dummy out for smiling because there would be some heavy breathing and, ipso facto, that strategy would render me asphyxiated!!
I completely disagree with anyone who says Gilmour needs to give up the Floyd name. Roger Waters may have been a major factor in hte concepts of the songs but the music comes from Gilmour and the others. Listen to a Post-Floyd Waters live album to the Pink Floyd songs. Now listen to Pulse or a post Waters Floyd album. There is most definitly more Pink Floyd in the sound Gilmour, Wright, and Mason produce than the stuff Waters does solo. And frankly, I think Waters really acted like a jerk about the whole thing with the law suit. He wanted out and then he wanted to take Pink Floyd to the grave with him. Unfortunatly it just doesn't work that way. While I have great respect for his writing and concept talent, I do not believe for one minute that Roger Waters is Pink Floyd and enjoy very much the albums that followed his leaving. And for anyone who has heard The Final Cut it is good music, but not Pink Floyd music. And as much as I love The Wall, I think the same thing can be said for a good number of songs off of that album too. So my vote goes to Gilmour rockin' on.
Location: Edinburgh or Aberdeen depending on the time of year
Postby David Smith »
Keith Jordan wrote:Those morals aside, i think it a little cheeky for the pink floyd to play rogers songs.
Correct me if i'm wrong but the only songs PWPF that they didn't have any credits for were AD, Money and (which they had to play cause they were doing DSOTM and it's got one of Gilmour's most celebrated riffs) and Hey You
But at the same time didn't Roger play GGITS on his Radio Kaos tour? He also did Arnold Layne aswell, 2 songs by pink floyd that he had no writer's credit for, at leas with Dave doing the songs at least half the band who originally did them was there
there all old men as gilmour himself said the tank is empty. So who really cares if the name exists. Its not like the record companies are going to quit printing the albums. In the next five or ten years when they all drop dead!!
