Gilmour and PinkFloyd.co.uk

[Keith Jordan]

I stand corrected.

just found this place and from what i've read theres more bashing coming from this guy than anything else.

You on about me??? I like to play a little devils advocate to provoke intelligent debate.

[Guest]

just found this place and from what i've read theres more bashing coming from this guy than anything else.

You on about me??? I like to play a little devils advocate to provoke intelligent debate.

no i meant the other guy. seems hes always badmouthing gilmour and then saying hes got nothing against him. seems a bit phony to me.

[Keith Jordan]

no i meant the other guy. seems hes always badmouthing gilmour and then saying hes got nothing against him. seems a bit phony to me.

Okay. I just want a nice friendly forum where I can learn more about Pink Floyd, solo members work and perhaps life in general. Bad language, defamatory posts and general nastiness is not really welcome.

I think the discussion about whether a solo member of Pink Floyd should or should not be using the Pink Floyd website to promote their own career is a legitimate one and should generally not degenerate into a David Gilmour bashing session. Bash the EMI group!!

Talking of EMI, there will be a 6 part series on BBC in England in November called "... and Me" and one of the programmes will be "EMI and me". It will feature lots of Pink Floyd on so my contact at the BBC tells me. She is producing the series. Something too look forward to. I will email her and ask if there is a conformed date and time for the programme. I will let you all know on this forum and the newsletter.

[quicksilver]

I guess I'm one of the few who appreciates all the different eras of Floyd music. I don't really like to get caught up on Gilmour/Waters debate; I like them both and feel lucky that they're still making music for us to enjoy. To many people the Pink Floyd ceased to exist when Barrett left the band and that the legacy ended at that point. I don't happen to hold that opinion though......The addition of Gilmour is what catapulted the band to such success. I don't believe that the band would have lasted much longer had Gilmour not joined. They were looking for a new direction and Gilmours talent got them going them right way. I think there was always tension between them and that probably brought out the best of their respective talents as well.

My favorite era of the band was when Waters was in the mix without a doubt but that doesn't mean I can't like any post waters material. I happen to like AMLOR & TDB quite alot. It's not the same- but I don't expect it to be if you get my drift.

Lets not forget that Waters is the one who left the band; it was his decision. That alone left the door open for the band to carry on. If anyone believes that the band should have ceased to exist at that point then you have to agree that when Barrett left, the band should have called it quits then as well.

[Keith Jordan]

My favorite era of the band was when Waters was in the mix without a doubt but that doesn't mean I can't like any post waters material. I happen to like AMLOR & TDB quite alot. It's not the same- but I don't expect it to be if you get my drift.

I really like the division bell myself. I live the music.

Lets not forget that Waters is the one who left the band; it was his decision. That alone left the door open for the band to carry on. If anyone believes that the band should have ceased to exist at that point then you have to agree that when Barrett left, the band should have called it quits then as well.

That is a good point about when Syd left but I think that the situation was different when Roger left because of the Wall and DSoTM. They were phonomenal. But then again, so was the development of British pshchadelic music by Syd Barrett.

I love all the eras of Floyd too.

[Real Pink in the Inside]

If anyone believes that the band should have ceased to exist at that point then you have to agree that when Barrett left, the band should have called it quits then as well.

See the thread "How Will People Look Back On Pink Floyd Many Years From Now?" in the Pink Floyd conference.

[Real Pink in the Inside]

I stand corrected.

just found this place and from what i've read theres more bashing coming from this guy than anything else.

Care to give some examples?

[Guitarplayer]

just found this place and from what i've read theres more bashing coming from this guy than anything else.

Care to give some examples?

now thats funny. what would be the point? you aren't capable of seeing your own bias. the examples are pretty much everything you write.

[Real Pink in the Inside]

Just as we're supposed to take everything blindly from David Gilmour and co., we're also supposed to blindly take what you say as truth, right?

Now, do you care to give some examples?

[dgsyd1]

"Now, do you care to give some example?"


Try reading virtually everything you've posted. And then do your routine of coming back on the board and denying that you've said anything negative about David Gilmour, and that you were actually saying something different. I'd be worried if you didn't.

[Real Pink in the Inside]

Virtually everything I've posted, huh?

Well, care to give just a few samples from my 212 posts then? Just a few? I would like to defend myself.

Bashing, in my eyes, is calling someone fat, or something along those lines (i.e., something real juvenile). I don't think I've bashed anyone on this message board. I have criticized, but not bashed. I have been objective. The same can't be said for some (*cough* like people who say they know Gilmour when they don't *cough*)

[Spinoza]

Real Pink Wrote " I have been objective"

Maybe towards Gilmour and Co, but not towards Waters.

[Guitarplayer]

Virtually everything I've posted, huh?

Well, care to give just a few samples from my 212 posts then? Just a few? I would like to defend myself.

Bashing, in my eyes, is calling someone fat, or something along those lines (i.e., something real juvenile). I don't think I've bashed anyone on this message board. I have criticized, but not bashed. I have been objective. The same can't be said for some (*cough* like people who say they know Gilmour when they don't *cough*)

bashing? yes you have. biased? yes you are. rationalize your own behaviour? yes you do. rationalize waters behavior and words? oh yes you do. hold gilmour accountable for his? oh yeah. criticize? yes you do....usually only gilmour though which brings us back to being biased and the end result is bashing whether you define it that way or not. my first day alone here reading these posts told me as much and also tells me you'd rather be evasive than admit your bigotry in the matter. like i said once before....you seem very phony. genius you are? not likely. more like charade you are.

[Real Pink in the Inside]

Oh no, don't huff and puff and blow my house away.

I'm still waiting for some examples from you...

[Guest]

- Please forgive the length of this post, but it needs to be said -

At what point does a fan cross the line into fanaticism?

Fanaticism is described, among other things, as irrational enthusiasm or zeal.

Irrational is the key word here. People do not become fans for nothing. Fanaticism can arise out of a strong relationship that the object of devotion has with the potential fanatic's mind and psychology...whether it be the music, or the artist involved in the music. There are cases that when the artist is the center of the fanaticism, it's not unusual that the potential fanatic identifies closely psychologically in some way with his or her idol, and in some cases the extreme negative or positive attributes of these shared traits can be manifested outwardly by the potential fanatic in either unpleasant or pleasant ways.
Most of the reasons for this transformation from fan to fanatic are tightly connected to a fan's own subjective experiences - i.e. everyday tensions, boredom, problems, a lost love, whatever - and under these circumstances even what would seem to some as the dullest band on Earth for example, will eventually find a radical, devoted supporter.

Fanaticism is good as long as it serves a particular person - if unlimited devotion for your favorite band actually helps you get along in life and solve your personal problems, that's great. But on the flip side, fanaticism becomes a real problem when it starts interfering with other people's interests and when you get the insistent, raging urge to spread your own fanatical beliefs onto others. It's not saying one can't try and convince one's friends to try out something new, but if such a propaganda campaign is initiated with the attitude of...'Hey man, The Division Bell sucks, dump those stinking records into the trash can and pick up Amused To Death instead', it is not an effort to open up somebody's mind, it is nothing but a subconscious expansion of *your* fanatic devotions onto another person.

When a person accuses a "non-devotee" of being limited or stupid for not agreeing with him, it is because of that person's severely limited understanding or ignorance that music is a matter of personal tastes, a matter they are incapable of accepting due in fact to their own fanaticism. Their "argument" list can be endless. Most folks try to ignore people like that - trying to pass fanaticism for objectivism is a cheap and unconvincing trick, and when it's particularly hostile it's always doomed to failure.

Denial is an integral part of the program as well. Denial, "an ego defense mechanism that operates to resolve emotional conflict, to relieve anxiety by refusing to accept unpleasant aspects of an external reality. It serves to protect a person from experiencing the discomfort of having no control over that external truth." In other words, the truth is denied because the truth is painful or unacceptable.

In order to keep their illusion intact, some will go to extreme lengths to try to discredit or destroy anyone who reminds them of the "external reality". "Projection" is a word used in psychology to describe these acts...it's known as the attribution of your undesired impulses upon another...example: a person who knowingly lies will accuse another of being a liar.

Denial added to the mix becomes one that can grow into a particularly long-lived and poisonous 'campaign'...for a fanatic will passionately insist that all he wants is "the truth" to be known...but he will reject the possibility of a truth he does not agree with...or, if he is willing to grant that it does exist, he dismisses the notion that it can be known.

Knowledge is not what they are really after. They want freedom to ask questions...over and over and over again...endlessly. But an answer...any contextually final answer...is the last thing they want. They hide behind the mirror of reason yet refuse to face it directly. To do so would be to reveal the exact nature of their error.
In an attempt to "save" reason but in the process undercut its very meaning and foundations, the person disguises his abandonment of reason by giving lip service to rationality then doing his utmost to deny the validity of perception, identity, logic, and existence.

Every answer given to their questions increases the level of their vehement insistent outcry condemning any attempt to reveal basic principles or facts that have been clearly presented. Though they supposedly seek answers, they reject you precisely because you have answers. For them to ackowledge that you know something with certainty, to acknowledge that such truth is even possible, would destroy the illusion which they strive to maintain. It's why they evade answering directly any questions that may be put to THEM.

They also frequently ask people to have an 'open mind'. One would need an 'open mind' to accept what they say since their statements are clearly biased and sometimes usually nothing more than mere assertions.
Did I say that they refuse to accept any answers? That constriction, of course, does not apply to any answers which THEY might supply. Somehow their philosophy does not apply to itself OR to them. Any questions as to what they used to reach their answers are, of course, dismissed. After all, of what value are self-evident principles to the "real world"? Of what value is the truth?

There is no room in any aspect of life for the subjective in the sense of the arbitrary, in the sense of placing one's wishes, hopes, whims, or fears above facts, for believing that reality can be altered by one's own beliefs or bias or the inability to accept. It certainly has no place in the world of people's choice of music. It's utterly illogical and quite frankly, a bit silly.