David Gilmour Interview With Musician Magazine (1992)

[Real Pink in the Inside]

Here are some excerpts from an interesting interview between Matt Resnicoff, of Musician Magazine, and David Gilmour. The interview was published in the August, 1992 issue of Musician Magazine:

Gilmour:

I like the grand scale of Pink Floyd. A lot of people want to buy tickets and see that stuff...

Musician:

But even so, you did most of the work on Momentary Lapse. Nick Mason admits to being an ancillary part of the band and Rick Wright had for all intents and purposes been gone since 1980. That last Floyd album was a project you cooked up and realized with the help of session musicians and one other lyricist. Aside from the name Pink Floyd and the business considerations, it was a David Gilmour solo album.

Gilmour:

Well, I don't know what is a solo album and what isn't, really. I approached that album like I would a Pink Floyd album and I approach a solo album as I would approach a solo album. There's a difference in thought process in the way you go into these things. But yeah, in some ways it could have been.

Musician:

Some would say the band's (Pink Floyd) magic existed in the collaboration interplay.

Gilmour:

That is suggesting that if we carried on, it would be a good thing. No one is really arguing that point. The point is that I hadn't had enough of it, it was my career. Nick hadn't had enough of it. Why should we be forced not to do it anymore? Whether it's as good or not afterwards is really kind of beside the point to me.

Musician:

Really?

Gilmour:

Yes whether it's as good or to as many people's taste is beside the point. If they don't like it as much, they don't have to buy it. But no one can tell me to stop doing it. ... I still fail to see why morally I should be persuaded to give up something I've given most of my adult life to just because one guy doesn't feel like doing it anymore.

Musician:

Except simply the fact that you could both have gone on to solo careers and left Pink Floyd, the creative dynamic between you, as a very pleasing piece of history.

Gilmour:

Yeah, yeah, that's quite true; one could have done that. But why? Why would I want to do that? It's very, very hard work to struggle a solo career up to the level that Pink Floyd stands at.

Musician:

If Nick decided he didn't want to do it, would you still do it as Pink Floyd?

Gilmour:

Yeah, I think so, but I don't think that's a problem. I want Nick and Rick to do it. ... I liked it when Roger was there too, but that's out of my control. ... I always felt our two voices worked very well as counterpoints, but we don't have that option, so...

Musician:

So things are un-patchable between the two of you.

Gilmour:

Yeah. You could safely say that.

Musician:

And even after Roger, Rick's not been reinstated as an equal.

Gilmour:

No, Rick's in there. There are one or two legal things slightly unresolved from Rick's agreement when Roger threw him out in 1979 (Ed.: To which David agreed), and there are reasons of his. Mostly that he didn't want to get involved in the lawsuits, so he was not involved in the risk, in any possible loss financially, and consequently reaped less of the profits, which Nick and I took more of, as we were the ones who put all the money up to put the record and the tour together.

Musician:

Your prospects are better now.

Gilmour:

Yeah. As I'm not under any imminent threat of a lawsuit, it's not a problem.

Musician:

And Rick's not involved even after the disposal of those problems?

Gilmour:

Well, I'm a really selfish person, and Rick is not realistically going to put in as much effort next time as I do. I'm very happy for Rick to be part of it all, but I can't see any point, it's still my life, and a lot of my life, and I didn't fight my way through all that lot just to start handing out larger chunks than they deserve to anyone who comes around. (Laughs) If that sounds ruthless, it's not - its just the hard reality. Rick's happy to sail off on his yacht and be part of this thing, and earn very good money out of it. He doesn't like shouldering responsibility, so it's a very good arrangement.

--------

Any thoughts?

[FloydNZ]

Hey RPITI......a few threads back you denied having anything to do with starting the boring old Dave vs. Rog discussions......
This is exactly what I was talking about.....
Do we really need to go on living in the past?

Get over it and move on...... Roger almost has.....

[Real Pink in the Inside]

I said the interview is interesting and nothing more.

If you have no thoughts on the interview, perhaps you should not have bothered posting in this thread.

[FloydNZ]

yeah, whatever

[mosespa]

It seems to me just to be further evidence that Gilmour cares less about the quality of what is perceived as "Pink Floyd" than Roger does.

However, this is something both parties have admitted all along.

It's not really starting a "Dave Vs. Rog" argument so much as it is showing something that everyone already knows...Gilmour is a businessman...not an artist.

Face it...Dave's a "Dog."

[Stilgar]

Well, for me it isn't new that Dave had an "I'm Mr Pink Floyd" position back in the 1986-1993 times, and then he suddenly changed it from 1993 until now (right now he says that Rick is very important, a part of the band, and that he wolud like to talk with Rog again, and... all of this stuff). I's obvious that he is a bussinessman AND an artist. I guess, back on 1985, he saw his solo career was going to nowhere, and he wanted money, so he released his solo album (AMLOR) under the Pink Floyd banner. I wouldn't deny it, as I woludn't deny the fact that Roger wanted to do everything on the band since, I believe, the success of TDSOTM, back in 1973-74. It's obvious in the sound of the band, especially since Animals.

Why did I say all that Dave-Rog stuff??, to make clear a point that is common to MANY Pink Floyd fans all over the world: I DON'T CARE if Dave is selfish, a bussinessman or a fat-old-man. I love his music. He made some great songs (Comfortably Numb, High Hopes... and so many), and a lot of crap too (almost all "About Face"). He is the best guitar player on this planet I think, and very underrated. And so, I DON'T CARE if Rog was a selfish "I-wanna-make-it-all" guy, I love his music too, and he have good (The Wall, ATD, parts of TFC) and bad (Radio KAOS, in my opinion) albums and songs released. Why I'm saying all of this?, because I'm a little tired of seeing that, ALWAYS, the topics begin or end with some Rog vs Dave stuff. Is the music of the band the thing that makes us happy, and the thing we share, besides the personal opinions about some particular albums (I like TDB as I like Piper or WYWH).

And, hey, RPITI, you know I respect you, because you always use good arguments to express your opinion, but it's really obvious to me that you are always attacking Dave and defending Rog. Every time you post some article review of Roger, is a favorable one, or you make a favorable interpretation of it. But if it's a Dave article, is a bad one, and you make disfavorable intepretations of it. Sorry, pal, but now you look like a Roger fanatic to me, too.

[Real Pink in the Inside]

I am a Pink Floyd fanatic first and foremost.

It is obvious to me that Richard Wright, Nick Mason, and David Gilmour (In particular) TRULY have little respect for Pink Floyd other than what it can do for them monetarily (At least that was the case up to The Division Bell Tour. Perhaps that is no longer the case among all three members, but I doubt it). It bothers me how they treated Pink Floyd as if it was just their personal moneymaking machine. Do not get me wrong, I think there is absolutely NOTHING wrong with making money, but to care ONLY about the money and have no respect whatsoever for the work the band created prior to "Roger Waters' departure" – in my eyes, that is extremely disgusting. In my opinion, we are not dealing with a mere pop band. The work of Pink Floyd is not merely pop music on par with, for example, the drivel The Bee Gees and John Travolta put out. In my eyes, they were the definitive musical group of the 1970s and only The Beatles are in the same league (That is, they're the only other musical group that stands toe-to-toe with them). I think Pink Floyd deserves more respect than "the band" (i.e., David Gilmour, Richard Wright, and Nick Mason) has given it as of late.

[Real Pink in the Inside]

Every time you post some article review of Roger, is a favorable one, or you make a favorable interpretation of it. But if it's a Dave article, is a bad one, and you make disfavorable intepretations of it. Sorry, pal, but now you look like a Roger fanatic to me, too.

You are asking me to show the utmost respect for David Gilmour. I have stated in the past that he is my favorite guitarist and that he was an integral part of Pink Floyd. That is how I truly feel. However, I do not have the utmost respect for David Gilmour because he has, in my eyes, merely a grain of respect for Pink Floyd. To be brutally honest, I think he feels Pink Floyd is merely his personal moneymaking machine, and so I, a fan of Pink Floyd who recognizes he claimed to be the definitive member of Pink Floyd on the last two "pink floyd" tours and albums, have little respect for him. In contrast, I think Roger Waters has a great amount of respect for the work of Pink Floyd, and so I have the utmost respect for him.

[FloydNZ]

yes....and you've stated your point of view on the subject countless times......why keep going on about it?

[Real Pink in the Inside]

yes....and you've stated your point of view on the subject countless times......why keep going on about it?

Because I am still called an Anti-Gilmour, Roger Waters fanatic, which I am not. I am a Pink Floyd fan first and foremost.