Red Mosquito

Oh and Pink Floyd suck. The only song I can listen to by them is that version of Comfortably Numb with Van Morrison.

Birds in Hell wrote:

harmless wrote:

Birds in Hell wrote:

harmless wrote:

Birds in Hell wrote:

harmless wrote:...I think Floyd at least does the former. As you've said, their excess is part of their surreal, progressive aesthetic. They are deliberately strange, poetic, and everything supports that, including their lyrics.

Harmless, I think you should probably stop talking about Pink Floyd now.

harmless wrote:As far as the shows go, I have no idea, but the show's I've seen on TV (albeit recent ones) are absolutely over-the-top (though brilliantly executed), theatrical pieces of art which some people will be into for the spectacle but other people won't, choosing instead to sit at home and listen to the CDs without the added theatrics.

...

According to everyone I've spoken to, the sheer expense Pink Floyd go to to achieve all of this on stage makes their ticket prices impossible for anyone who isn't white, probably male, upper middle-class and part of the right circles. And everyone I know (at least in the UK) who is a Pink Floyd fan has been that kind of person.

I don't even know where to begin with this nonsense.

Why not? What makes any of this wrong? Provide a counter-argument against my experience of Pink Floyd, or leave me alone.

Hey, don't get unnecessarily sensitive about it: your posts aren't you. Though I would've imagined this goes without saying, if I've ever taken issue with something you've said, it's merely in regards to those ideas or arguments you've put forward and nothing at all to do with you as a human being.

So, to begin with, Pink Floyd (in terms of the classic Gilmour/Waters/Wright/Mason line-up) haven't played a (full) show for over 30 years.

That's not what I've heard, or seen on TV. I might be talking about reunion shows. Or something. I don't know, and I've admitted I don't know. Just that people have told me they couldn't afford Floyd shows. One of my friends told me he goes to see the famous Pink Floyd tribute band (whose name I've forgotten) because he can't afford the shows. So, I don't know, maybe I've just been hideously misinformed.

I don't know, maybe the Roger Waters solo tours? He's done a few of those in recent years.

Yes, maybe. When I remember the relatively little I've heard from Pink Floyd, there's a huge increase in bombast, production excess etc., in the 80s material and forward. It seems to me.

lecherouslittlestump wrote:Oh and Pink Floyd suck. The only song I can listen to by them is that version of Comfortably Numb with Van Morrison.

eddie vedder does a good job w/ that song.

also, pink floyd is awesome. some people may not like them, but they are undeniably awesome.

harmless wrote:I'm probably just gonna give this forum a break for a while. Everything is pissing me off. Have fun.

This is going to really slow down the ol' post count.

harmless wrote:

Birds in Hell wrote:

harmless wrote:

Birds in Hell wrote:

harmless wrote:

Birds in Hell wrote:

harmless wrote:...I think Floyd at least does the former. As you've said, their excess is part of their surreal, progressive aesthetic. They are deliberately strange, poetic, and everything supports that, including their lyrics.

Harmless, I think you should probably stop talking about Pink Floyd now.

harmless wrote:As far as the shows go, I have no idea, but the show's I've seen on TV (albeit recent ones) are absolutely over-the-top (though brilliantly executed), theatrical pieces of art which some people will be into for the spectacle but other people won't, choosing instead to sit at home and listen to the CDs without the added theatrics.

...

According to everyone I've spoken to, the sheer expense Pink Floyd go to to achieve all of this on stage makes their ticket prices impossible for anyone who isn't white, probably male, upper middle-class and part of the right circles. And everyone I know (at least in the UK) who is a Pink Floyd fan has been that kind of person.

I don't even know where to begin with this nonsense.

Why not? What makes any of this wrong? Provide a counter-argument against my experience of Pink Floyd, or leave me alone.

Hey, don't get unnecessarily sensitive about it: your posts aren't you. Though I would've imagined this goes without saying, if I've ever taken issue with something you've said, it's merely in regards to those ideas or arguments you've put forward and nothing at all to do with you as a human being.

So, to begin with, Pink Floyd (in terms of the classic Gilmour/Waters/Wright/Mason line-up) haven't played a (full) show for over 30 years.

That's not what I've heard, or seen on TV. I might be talking about reunion shows. Or something. I don't know, and I've admitted I don't know. Just that people have told me they couldn't afford Floyd shows. One of my friends told me he goes to see the famous Pink Floyd tribute band (whose name I've forgotten) because he can't afford the shows. So, I don't know, maybe I've just been hideously misinformed.

I don't know, maybe the Roger Waters solo tours? He's done a few of those in recent years.

Yes, maybe. When I remember the relatively little I've heard from Pink Floyd, there's a huge increase in bombast, production excess etc., in the 80s material and forward. It seems to me.

Pink Floyd weren't really an active band during much of the 1980s.

The Final Cut, their last record with Roger Waters, was released in the early part of the decade; they partially reunited in the late 80s (minus Waters) and put out two further records but they're not generally held in the same regard as the band's classic material.

The periods of the band that are really key are the Syd Barrett-led period (1965-1968) and the Gilmour/Waters-led band that they subsequently developed into (1968-1982).

jforte20 wrote:If i wanted songs that sounded just like Vitalogy, I'd just listen to vitalogy.

No defeating this kind of logic.
Unless someone wants songs that sound like Vitalogy, but are also completely new.

lecherouslittlestump wrote:Oh and Pink Floyd suck. The only song I can listen to by them is that version of Comfortably Numb with Van Morrison.

VM's Comfortably Numb is a fucking musical abortion.

I'm fairly ignorant of pre-1970's Floyd (despite AndySlash's thoughtful guidance in the PF thread I'm yet to take the plunge into the pre-"Meddle" portion of their catalog), but from a pretty exhaustive knowledge of (and lifelong appreciation for) everything thereafter, I think any lasting image of them as a band given to "excess" or "overproduction" likely stems from the scope and ambition of their work--the concept albums, the rock operas, the track lengths, etc.--more than the actual sound production, which was certainly intricate, layered, and rewarding to attentive listening, but almost the direct opposite of the types of accusations people are leveling against "Sirens." Pink Floyd are some of the early poster boys for using the recording the studio as a tool for sonic experimentation--adding peripheral effects to help tell a story, manipulating the angles and directions of the sound--but in the end I think their records sound like a reasonable approximation of what all those things actually sound like--for example, that middle section in "Money" while the sax solo is wailing away, those cash register sound effects are clinking away in the background, and the band is romping through that wonderfully rhythmically askew rhythm, while those keyboard vibratos ring out--there's a lot going on there, but none of it by itself feels unduly altered in any way. Their "excess"--which I suppose is a linguistically accurate description of it--simply amounts to the consideration and application of a lot of details. What's happening in "Sirens," for better or for worse, is basically just applying artificial grandiosity and studio gloss to very little detail, in effect obscuring what little of it there is.

I suspect that's why there were so many people, in the beginning, who said, "I really like this song but can't wait to hear a live version," because there's an obvious recognition that those base elements are going to sound markedly different once they get out from under Brendan O'Brien's blanket of pretty. With Pink Floyd's stuff, provided you can get enough people onstage to make all the sounds, it really isn't going to suffer from being in a live setting as opposed to a studio setting, despite the largesse of the work--the sounds are what they are and speak for themselves. One of the many components of their genius.

stip wrote:I think lighting bolt is the second coming of given to fly

I wouldn't go that far, but it's grown on me more than any other song we've gotten so far (excluding my 40-minute Sirens conversion, as that's an entirely different beast). I think it's pretty great. Looking forward to blasting it on the highway someday, whenever I find myself behind the wheel of a car again.

Kevin Davis wrote:I'm fairly ignorant of pre-1970's Floyd (despite AndySlash's thoughtful guidance in the PF thread I'm yet to take the plunge into the pre-"Meddle" portion of their catalog), but from a pretty exhaustive knowledge of (and lifelong appreciation for) everything thereafter, I think any lasting image of them as a band given to "excess" or "overproduction" likely stems from the scope and ambition of their work--the concept albums, the rock operas, the track lengths, etc.--more than the actual sound production, which was certainly intricate, layered, and rewarding to attentive listening, but almost the direct opposite of the types of accusations people are leveling against "Sirens." Pink Floyd are some of the early poster boys for using the recording the studio as a tool for sonic experimentation--adding peripheral effects to help tell a story, manipulating the angles and directions of the sound--but in the end I think their records sound like a reasonable approximation of what all those things actually sound like--for example, that middle section in "Money" while the sax solo is wailing away, those cash register sound effects are clinking away in the background, and the band is romping through that wonderfully rhythmically askew rhythm, while those keyboard vibratos ring out--there's a lot going on there, but none of it by itself feels unduly altered in any way. Their "excess"--which I suppose is a linguistically accurate description of it--simply amounts to the consideration and application of a lot of details. What's happening in "Sirens," for better or for worse, is basically just applying artificial grandiosity and studio gloss to very little detail, in effect obscuring what little of it there is.

I suspect that's why there were so many people, in the beginning, who said, "I really like this song but can't wait to hear a live version," because there's an obvious recognition that those base elements are going to sound markedly different once they get out from under Brendan O'Brien's blanket of pretty. With Pink Floyd's stuff, provided you can get enough people onstage to make all the sounds, it really isn't going to suffer from being in a live setting as opposed to a studio setting, despite the largesse of the work--the sounds are what they are and speak for themselves. One of the many components of their genius.

Posts like this.

stip wrote: I think lighting bolt is the second coming of given to fly and no one but phatj is backing me up on that

Musically I agree. Not lyrically. LB has some clunkers thrown in. If Ed tightened up the lyrics it could have been.

LetMeSleep wrote:

Kevin Davis wrote:I'm fairly ignorant of pre-1970's Floyd (despite AndySlash's thoughtful guidance in the PF thread I'm yet to take the plunge into the pre-"Meddle" portion of their catalog), but from a pretty exhaustive knowledge of (and lifelong appreciation for) everything thereafter, I think any lasting image of them as a band given to "excess" or "overproduction" likely stems from the scope and ambition of their work--the concept albums, the rock operas, the track lengths, etc.--more than the actual sound production, which was certainly intricate, layered, and rewarding to attentive listening, but almost the direct opposite of the types of accusations people are leveling against "Sirens." Pink Floyd are some of the early poster boys for using the recording the studio as a tool for sonic experimentation--adding peripheral effects to help tell a story, manipulating the angles and directions of the sound--but in the end I think their records sound like a reasonable approximation of what all those things actually sound like--for example, that middle section in "Money" while the sax solo is wailing away, those cash register sound effects are clinking away in the background, and the band is romping through that wonderfully rhythmically askew rhythm, while those keyboard vibratos ring out--there's a lot going on there, but none of it by itself feels unduly altered in any way. Their "excess"--which I suppose is a linguistically accurate description of it--simply amounts to the consideration and application of a lot of details. What's happening in "Sirens," for better or for worse, is basically just applying artificial grandiosity and studio gloss to very little detail, in effect obscuring what little of it there is.

I suspect that's why there were so many people, in the beginning, who said, "I really like this song but can't wait to hear a live version," because there's an obvious recognition that those base elements are going to sound markedly different once they get out from under Brendan O'Brien's blanket of pretty. With Pink Floyd's stuff, provided you can get enough people onstage to make all the sounds, it really isn't going to suffer from being in a live setting as opposed to a studio setting, despite the largesse of the work--the sounds are what they are and speak for themselves. One of the many components of their genius.

Posts like this.

Indeed.

LooseGroove927 wrote:

stip wrote: I think lighting bolt is the second coming of given to fly and no one but phatj is backing me up on that

Musically I agree. Not lyrically. LB has some clunkers thrown in. If Ed tightened up the lyrics it could have been.

Such as? The lyrics seem pretty on point and there are some great lines

Jaeti wrote:

stip wrote:I think lighting bolt is the second coming of given to fly

I wouldn't go that far, but it's grown on me more than any other song we've gotten so far (excluding my 40-minute Sirens conversion, as that's an entirely different beast). I think it's pretty great. Looking forward to blasting it on the highway someday, whenever I find myself behind the wheel of a car again.

It's a total road song. It wasn't until I blasted it on the highway that it really became a great song for me.

Kevin Davis wrote:I'm fairly ignorant of pre-1970's Floyd (despite AndySlash's thoughtful guidance in the PF thread I'm yet to take the plunge into the pre-"Meddle" portion of their catalog), but from a pretty exhaustive knowledge of (and lifelong appreciation for) everything thereafter, I think any lasting image of them as a band given to "excess" or "overproduction" likely stems from the scope and ambition of their work--the concept albums, the rock operas, the track lengths, etc.--more than the actual sound production, which was certainly intricate, layered, and rewarding to attentive listening, but almost the direct opposite of the types of accusations people are leveling against "Sirens." Pink Floyd are some of the early poster boys for using the recording the studio as a tool for sonic experimentation--adding peripheral effects to help tell a story, manipulating the angles and directions of the sound--but in the end I think their records sound like a reasonable approximation of what all those things actually sound like--for example, that middle section in "Money" while the sax solo is wailing away, those cash register sound effects are clinking away in the background, and the band is romping through that wonderfully rhythmically askew rhythm, while those keyboard vibratos ring out--there's a lot going on there, but none of it by itself feels unduly altered in any way. Their "excess"--which I suppose is a linguistically accurate description of it--simply amounts to the consideration and application of a lot of details. What's happening in "Sirens," for better or for worse, is basically just applying artificial grandiosity and studio gloss to very little detail, in effect obscuring what little of it there is.

I suspect that's why there were so many people, in the beginning, who said, "I really like this song but can't wait to hear a live version," because there's an obvious recognition that those base elements are going to sound markedly different once they get out from under Brendan O'Brien's blanket of pretty. With Pink Floyd's stuff, provided you can get enough people onstage to make all the sounds, it really isn't going to suffer from being in a live setting as opposed to a studio setting, despite the largesse of the work--the sounds are what they are and speak for themselves. One of the many components of their genius.

That's a really well-considered post which interpreted correctly then addressed what I was saying. Thanks. Whether you think the "sonic experimentation" and instrumental palette of Pink Floyd was excessive (and I do, sometimes), it's undoubtedly true that it was all appropriate to what they were going for lyrically and thematically. That's why, for all the production excess of this song, it would have seemed more "Pink Floyd-esque" if we'd had lyrics to match it. I happen to think that this song is more than a Top 40 love song, but still, the "Hear the sirens" line, as well as the "circus profound" phrase, had me expecting a really bizarre trip down a rainbow road of surrealism a la Pink Floyd. If that's what we'd got, Brendan O'Brien's production wizardry might've matched that and seemed appropriate. What we've got is a plain old rock ballad (a good one) dressed as Pink Floyd. It betrays Pink Floyd's aesthetic and themes, the deeper attraction people have for their music, but takes from a superficial understanding of "what Comfortably Numb sounds like, sorta". Also, after Mike said that he went away from a Waters gig wanting to write a "dark Pink Floyd kinda thing", my heart hurt because I wondered what that might've turned into during the Binaural era. And yet... I enjoy the song for what it is. Pearl Jam have written many songs in the past which were less than what they could've been.

stip wrote:

LooseGroove927 wrote:

stip wrote: I think lighting bolt is the second coming of given to fly and no one but phatj is backing me up on that

Musically I agree. Not lyrically. LB has some clunkers thrown in. If Ed tightened up the lyrics it could have been.

Such as? The lyrics seem pretty on point and there are some great lines

There are some fabulous lines. "Crashing stormy waves" through the end of the song are great. The first few lines of the song are cringeworthy though. Pretty much as soon as the rest of the band starts to kick in it becomes a 5 star song for me.

stip wrote:

LooseGroove927 wrote:

stip wrote: I think lighting bolt is the second coming of given to fly and no one but phatj is backing me up on that

Musically I agree. Not lyrically. LB has some clunkers thrown in. If Ed tightened up the lyrics it could have been.

Such as? The lyrics seem pretty on point and there are some great lines

"u got urself some sand"

LooseGroove927 wrote:

stip wrote:

LooseGroove927 wrote:

stip wrote: I think lighting bolt is the second coming of given to fly and no one but phatj is backing me up on that

Musically I agree. Not lyrically. LB has some clunkers thrown in. If Ed tightened up the lyrics it could have been.

Such as? The lyrics seem pretty on point and there are some great lines

There are some fabulous lines. "Crashing stormy waves" through the end of the song are great. The first few lines of the song are cringeworthy though. Pretty much as soon as the rest of the band starts to kick in it becomes a 5 star song for me.

I think if you're interpreting "she" as nature itself, mother Earth maybe, the lyrics fit into place and the cheesy stuff becomes less so. And I like that the song begins in a friendly, safe and inviting way (Mother Earth saying "Hey you, surf here, it's safe!") but then becomes more dark, ominous and eventually about nature being the ultimate killer as well as sustainer. The casualness is fitting to begin with.

LooseGroove927 wrote:

stip wrote:

LooseGroove927 wrote:

stip wrote: I think lighting bolt is the second coming of given to fly and no one but phatj is backing me up on that

Musically I agree. Not lyrically. LB has some clunkers thrown in. If Ed tightened up the lyrics it could have been.

Such as? The lyrics seem pretty on point and there are some great lines

There are some fabulous lines. "Crashing stormy waves" through the end of the song are great. The first few lines of the song are cringeworthy though. Pretty much as soon as the rest of the band starts to kick in it becomes a 5 star song for me.

The 'she's your rock and roll, she's your lightning bolt' as well. I love that last verse, too, and there are some good lines throughout, but it's lyrically spotty. Nothing that's the end of the world or anything, but yeah.

Oh, Jimmy wrote:

lecherouslittlestump wrote:Oh and Pink Floyd suck. The only song I can listen to by them is that version of Comfortably Numb with Van Morrison.

VM's Comfortably Numb is a fucking musical abortion.

The fuck?!