UntilWeSleep wrote:
Of course there is going to be a differnce between live and studio. In the studio, he is able to overdub & add effects. He also extends his guitar solos live so you can have an experience on improvisation on the guitar. As Tommy said I don't think you would want to hear the same exact thing live.
Please explain to me how Bramhall II "destroyed perfect David Gilmour guitar solos."
You stated that, and so I responded with, "I'm surprised you haven't noticed that even Gilmour can't perfectly emulate his own studio solos when he is performing live."
How did DB II destroy perfect DG guitar solos? By not perfectly emulating DG's studio solo recordings OR by simply just not being David Gilmour?
NewEarthMud wrote:Rick Wright...? How does he come into play? He did some "good" stuff early on but when I hear people act as if he had more to do with Floyd than Roger I just want to laugh! Rick early on did good things but slowly drifted away into drugs or whatever..
Just take a look at his solo records and then try and say he's a genius or that he was the "big part" of Pink Floyd.
O but nobody said that. Let's up until Animals. Just listen to bootlegs with Raving and drooling and Gotta be crazy. In the early years he was much more important, taking whole sections of songs and playing lead. In fact, a song like Interstellar Overdrive ( the long version of 16 min ) is mostly Barrett and Wright.
Not to open this debate again, but IMO the Pink Floydsound is defined by Dave and Wright. In that perspective ( if you listen to all Floydrecords, ), The Wall and TFC are not very Floydian.( Although the wall is Floyds first or second best selling album )
UntilWeSleep wrote:
Of course there is going to be a differnce between live and studio. In the studio, he is able to overdub & add effects. He also extends his guitar solos live so you can have an experience on improvisation on the guitar. As Tommy said I don't think you would want to hear the same exact thing live.
Please explain to me how Bramhall II "destroyed perfect David Gilmour guitar solos."
You stated that, and so I responded with, "I'm surprised you haven't noticed that even Gilmour can't perfectly emulate his own studio solos when he is performing live."
How did DB II destroy perfect DG guitar solos? By not perfectly emulating DG's studio solo recordings OR by simply just not being David Gilmour?
I think: because of the fact that every guitarplayer has his own style, in the early days, dave wanted to sound like Syd, but he never really sounded as if he was Syd, he only came in the neighbourhood. The same happens when others try to play and improvise like Dave. As long as they try to stick with the studioalbum-notes, they can succeed, but when they try to improvise, they fail.
I have to say that IMO the In The Flesh 2002-tour was better than the IN THE FLESH live albumversion of 1999
I think Doyle is a brilliant guitarist.. he brings his own style to PF classics. He obviously sounds slightly different to Dave - but not worse IMHO. On Each Small Candle it's nice to hear him play something original rather than doing Daves (or Jeff Becks) stuff all the time.
Besides I can't really see why people say that it's no good becasue it's not Dave, or Dave's better - or whatever. It's a Roger Waters concert for Goodness sake!! Not Pink Floyd! If Rog called himself Floyd you'd expect it to sound the same - but he doesn't, so it's not..
Not Now Neil wrote:
Besides I can't really see why people say that it's no good becasue it's not Dave, or Dave's better - or whatever. It's a Roger Waters concert for Goodness sake!! Not Pink Floyd! If Rog called himself Floyd you'd expect it to sound the same - but he doesn't, so it's not..
Agreed, but that does not prevent us, Floydfans, to think and to feel that it did not sound like we like it. The Sisters of Mercy once did a cover of CN, which i liked, but others could have found it horrible. IMO Pink Floyd is defined nowadays by the sound of Dave's Guitar, take that away, and i will not like it as much as the original.
Not Now Neil wrote:
Besides I can't really see why people say that it's no good becasue it's not Dave, or Dave's better - or whatever. It's a Roger Waters concert for Goodness sake!! Not Pink Floyd! If Rog called himself Floyd you'd expect it to sound the same - but he doesn't, so it's not..
Agreed, but that does not prevent us, Floydfans, to think and to feel that it did not sound like we like it. The Sisters of Mercy once did a cover of CN, which i liked, but others could have found it horrible. IMO Pink Floyd is defined nowadays by the sound of Dave's Guitar, take that away, and i will not like it as much as the original.
I take your point - I guess comparisons are inevitable.. however my enjoyment of the ITF dvd isn't clouded by it. I really like Doyle and Snowys guitar duet on CN - yet it probably isn't as good as Daves on Pulse (which is awesome) but what is? Saying that I really don't dig the way Dave sings Brain Damage/Eclipse on that record (you need to sound mad as a hatter!!)..
Since 1987 there's been 2 versions of Floyd on tour - both lacking something: EACH OTHER!! I suppose that's obvious though ..?
Spinoza wrote:
Agreed, but that does not prevent us, Floydfans, to think and to feel that it did not sound like we like it. The Sisters of Mercy once did a cover of CN, which i liked, but others could have found it horrible. IMO Pink Floyd is defined nowadays by the sound of Dave's Guitar, take that away, and i will not like it as much as the original.
I take your point - I guess comparisons are inevitable.. however my enjoyment of the ITF dvd isn't clouded by it. I really like Doyle and Snowys guitar duet on CN - yet it probably isn't as good as Daves on Pulse (which is awesome) but what is? Saying that I really don't dig the way Dave sings Brain Damage/Eclipse on that record (you need to sound mad as a hatter!!)..
Since 1987 there's been 2 versions of Floyd on tour - both lacking something: EACH OTHER!! I suppose that's obvious though ..?
I have a much easier time listening to Dave sing songs that Roger sang originally than the other way around. Now I will admit that Dave's vocals don't sound right to me on songs like BD/Eclipse but the music sounds good and that's enough for me. At least there's something from the original product. On ITF Roger just butchers WTTM and WYWH, IMO. Plus the music doesn't sound right to me. Yes, he wrote the lyrics, but it's the music and the way it's played that brings those songs to life.
On all the songs that I associate Roger with STCFTHOTS and POTW he does a great job.
NewEarthMud wrote:Rick Wright...? How does he come into play? He did some "good" stuff early on but when I hear people act as if he had more to do with Floyd than Roger I just want to laugh! Rick early on did good things but slowly drifted away into drugs or whatever..
Just take a look at his solo records and then try and say he's a genius or that he was the "big part" of Pink Floyd.
I don't think anyone said Rick was a genius, but he was a huge part of the sound that Floyd became associated with. Early floyd was dominated by Ricks organ; listen to some live concerts or even watch Pompei and you'll see how important his contributions were. I think that Roger had great ideas and knew what he wanted the song to end up like but didn't know how to get there. That's where Dave and Rick came in. They were more important to the "sound" of Floyd than Roger was, IMO
NewEarthMud wrote:Rick Wright...? How does he come into play? He did some "good" stuff early on but when I hear people act as if he had more to do with Floyd than Roger I just want to laugh! Rick early on did good things but slowly drifted away into drugs or whatever..
Just take a look at his solo records and then try and say he's a genius or that he was the "big part" of Pink Floyd.
I don't think anyone said Rick was a genius, but he was a huge part of the sound that Floyd became associated with. Early floyd was dominated by Ricks organ; listen to some live concerts or even watch Pompei and you'll see how important his contributions were. I think that Roger had great ideas and knew what he wanted the song to end up like but didn't know how to get there. That's where Dave and Rick came in. They were more important to the "sound" of Floyd than Roger was, IMO
NewEarthMud wrote:What exactly is the Pink Floyd sound? I don't get that..
Since the only two records that sound remotely similiar are DSOTM and WYWH.
You are forgetting Animals, Meddle, Obscured By clouds. Call it the Pink Floyd style or Pink Floydsound, but for true fans , there is a similarity hidden in the diversity.Of course they sound different, but there are also similarities: Dave's guitar and vocals, his singingstyle, Wright's keyboard and style, the fact that we mostly get more music than signing, Masons drumming, Rogers voice and bassplaying. These are constants. Pink Floyd was no Neil Young who played very different STYLES OF MUSIC. Of course The Pink Floydsound exists, although some elements did change in importance, however THE keystone of Floyd is IMO the fact that you get more music than Lyrics. This is the trademark of floyd untill ANIMALS.
Spinoza wrote:For true fans, there is a similarity hidden in the diversity.
I agree. There is a homogeneity in their music through the years, which I find even in Lapse and Division Bell, although this continuity might be a bit superficial in places.
I have to agree with Quicksilver & Spinoza that Pink Floyd does have thier own sound.You can tell a P-F song just about anytime you here 1,nobody has been able to come close to thier sound.It really is unlike any other.
Real Pink in the Inside wrote:Spinoza is just one of those people who can't even listen to any instrument in a song other than the guitar. Not a musical note in his body, I bet
Just bet RPITI, keep on living in your own dreamworld, safe behind your wall of self-made certainties. I pity you. After all this debating you don't even seem to learn something, but maybe it's just the fact that you are too young.
