Should Dave Gilmour give up the pink floyd name?

[Flame-Sky Diver]

1. 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.

2. 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.

3. 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.

1. In my view, there are some eighties-styled pop songs - One Slip and Learning To Fly. A decent touch of eighties in some other songs, but I don't think this is the main problem. The fact is that some of the songs on it are really weak: A New Machine, Dogs Of War, and that the album is somewhat more commercial than the seventies albums and therefore a "musical compromise", unlike most of the best Floyd songs. Compare AMLOR to Final Cut or KAOS to Pros And Cons and you probably know what I mean.

2. Division Bell has stronger material and is a partial return to the original mysterious chemistry of the band. So I like it better. The ninetieish argument I don't understand, for it does not sound like 1990-1995 pop or like Nirvana and such bands, it does not have such arrangements (save Take It Back).

3. This is true, however I would expect them to keep the cult status and don't destroy the good name of the band. I think the right way lies somewhere between Amused to Death and Division Bell.

[nosaj]

if the band you're in starts playing different tunes...

[Meddler]

I'll see you on the dark side of the moon?

[frozen dream]

hey come down. Division bell is a group effort. The Final cut was only a solo album from roger. What was the last pink floyd?
I it's not Division bell, then it's Wish you were here...
In animals Roger became already too powerful. In wish you were here you find all the musicians together in perferct tune...
But in Animals you already feels the loss of rick...
In the wall Rick left the group, thanx to Roger...
in the final cut the division was completed. I agree that AMLOR isn't a good album, but don't tell me that DB isn't a great album...
I like roger, but I've been dissapointed by his behaviour with the others.

[Moment Of Clarity]

Guitar solos are a "dime a dozen" in most people's eyes, and that is why they will not harp back on the solo in Money).

Damn right. it's the song that counts. Always. Listen to the Division Bell for example. Lots of technically great guitar work but it's all just decorating the worst excuses for songs. And the result? an album of complete dung.

What's that expression? 'you can't polish a t*rd'.

Whereas I think your talking absolute rubbish. The Division Bell is a great great great album, and I know where Waters can shove his pretentious depressing god damn excuse for music...right up his arse.

[David Smith]

What was just said in that last post is likely to raise a few eyebrows, but rather than creating an argument please just post more personal opinions rather than arguing it

That's my work here for the day done

[ganaffe]

3. 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.

3. This is true, however I would expect them to keep the cult status and don't destroy the good name of the band. I think the right way lies somewhere between Amused to Death and Division Bell.

Still another possibility is that they actually liked to update their sound, tried to grasp some things that were changing/had changed over the years. It doesn't have to be a cheap compromise to get the attention of teenyboppers and make money.
I mean, David Bowie does this as well. In my opinion with more succes than Pink Floyd, he's better at digging new trends and still succeeds in staying on top of the musical development.
But the amount of succes in trying, doesn't change the genuine intention to try something new. And I still think this could be the case with AMLOR and TDB: a genuine, but rather unsuccesfull, intention to renew themselves.

[guy]

The fact is Gilmour, Waters, Wright, nor Mason is Pink Floyd. Its the four of them doing there thing like they do. They're all great artists, and that may be why they had successful solo works. Gilmour should give up the name. HE IS NOT PINK FLOYD. although i do feel he is an absolutely wonderful artist and preformer.

Cant we all just get along and play those classic floyd tunes i we all know and love.

[Ef.U.if.U.Dont.Like.it]

Pink Floyd has been dead and gone for over 20 years now. Hell, I don't think they had any right calling "The Final Cut" a Pink Floyd LP. That was Roger's first solo LP.

Pink Floyd=
Roger Waters
David Gilmour
Rick Wright
Nick Mason

That is Pink Floyd. The ONLY other person that could possibly be added is Syd. Pink Floyd with out Roger is not Pink Floyd & Pink Floyd without Rick (Final Cut) is not Pink Floyd.

David should have never been allowed to put out solo LP's with the name Pink Floyd on them just so he could sell a few million LPs.

Controls are set.

[lightning]

I agree completely with k-a-o-s, David Gilmour was the only one holding Pink Floyd together and with Roger Waters gone, his solo efforts tend to be almost futile.

[asdamaso]

yes, i think

[hillbilly]

[b ] Im guessing most of the people that talk bad about david ..have never been to a floyd concert...division bell was a great show..im not taking anything away from roger waters as a writer....but no one can say that david gilmour isnt a brilliant solo artest!...... [/b]

[jizhomer]

For me, I don't think Dave should give up the Pink Floyd name. As it stands they are still a band, (I know, I know, they haven't done a lot "recently" as a band) but if Dave officially announces it... thats it. The greatest band in the world is gone. It's over...

For me there is still a glimmer of hope that someday soon the band will give us one last album and tour.


And the Division Bell ain't that bad is it?! I think its great!!

[hillbilly]

actually i thought division bell was wonderfull...but i am some what biased...all we can do is dream that floyd finds the fountain of youth.. seeing them leave the seen is going to hold such a great impact....but maybe we will all keep the floyd experiance alive after there retyred...i suppose no one wants to work forever.....

[SomeGhostsStepOut]

I'll give up my name...