| Author |
 Topic  |
|
DeFrag
Moderator
USA
3409 Posts |
 Posted - 12/06/2007 : 16:05:33
|
| Animals is one of their best IMO. |
 |
|
|
FRANZONI
Double Platinum Member
Ireland
3543 Posts |
Posted - 12/06/2007 : 20:19:11
|
quote:
Originally posted by visserman
quote:
Originally posted by FRANZONI
Yes i have gilmours new album on mp3 and i managed to get his live show with some of the new and old stuff live at the bbc onto mp3 last year....have you checked out www.gilmourish.com good site if you are a fan of his and his gear.... i find roger waters stuff a bit more 'cutting edge' especially the lyrics,and off course the amazing mr beck lending a hand is just the icing on the cake.... but gilmour is a big hero and influence for me..'animals' to me is really one of the floyds overlooked gems... the guitar playing and lyrics are superb....
Hey do you still like Pink Floyds lyrics?? Really??
I find them very teenage orientated. I think they may appeal a lot to people searching for an identity.
I do like the sound of the Floyd, but the sound remains the same.Also whether you have a Floyd album, a Waters Solo one or a Gilmore Solo one, it is all the same, it seems they just do that sound.
I do like "Pros and Cons", not because it is so orginal, but it is like a Wall album, but with much grittier guitarwork [Clapton should do this more, this is what I love him for, and if you would not know it is him you would think it is Gilmore playing-- Clapton is so good at mimicking other people, what is his own style really!!??]
I also love "About Face";feel this is a little different from some Floyd stuff. lyrics here are perhaps more what you would expect from a grown up guy.
Really I see Waters still as an angry young man kicking against society with all its problems. Not bad, but you could do this also is a more subtle manner, and the incrowd would still get it whereas the majority would just hear a good song.
i like their simplicity and honesty..... i agree that the early stuff was very basic but 'teenage orientated'.??.but i don't agree that by 'animals' they still were....the lyrics in dogs about big business 'the club tie and the firm handshake' and 'when they turn their backs on you ,you'll get the chance to put the knife in' are classic.. as are the references to mary whitehouse(for those of you who don't know mary whitehouse was a moral campaigner in the 60's and 70's in england who thought the was no sex in the world until the dawn of television and rock n roll music...... ) and surely visserman your not really suggesting that 'the wall' and ' the final cut' where waters was one of the few people brave enough(apart from the prime minister of ireland at the time) to say thatcher was wrong to go to war and her policies and of her friend ronnie reagan were nuts are teenage stuff....?? I remember paul macartney being quizzed over his lyrics and why so many of his songs were about love and girls and he said something to the effect of that it was important to a lot of people in the world....some people like the way dylan writes obliquely to a subject and skirts around the issue but i thought on 'amused to death' waters was really in his stride on 'what god wants' and 'it's a miracle' and if you have heard the record what about the start where they interviewed a suvivior of the first world war and his experiences..if that doesn't show people the futility of war nothing will......sorry but to me waters solo stuff leaves the last two floyd albums in the dust..although 'the division bell' was a vast improvment over 'momentary lapse of reason'.... as good a guitar player(and hero of mine) that gilmour is...the ideas man was obviously roger waters....mason would rather be off racing his ferarri's and wright was so coked out of it he was slipping after animals and contributing nothing to the music....it's the same in every band usually there is one or two people pushing it forward and then there comes a time where you say to yourself 'why should i carry the rest..??' a band should be a team effort and if someone constantly refuses to pull their weight........ ...... |
Edited by - FRANZONI on 12/06/2007 20:21:28 |
|
|
|
zestystrat
Silver Member
USA
283 Posts |
Posted - 12/07/2007 : 17:53:35
|
Here we go....the debate begins 
visserman - I would take your comments and apply them to the Stones but that's just me. Not so much on DG last solo work - less pressure to sounds like Floyd but surprisingly sounds like some stuff from Meddle and that era. Someone else is writing most of the lyrics and that helps too.
But these guys wrote the Floyd stuff so it's only natural that their solo work will sound like the band stuff (isn't that why we are buying it anyway??)
I think to truly have Floyd you need RW's lyrics/writing and angst (I could live without every album being a concept album) AND DG's voice, guitar and writing.
Otherwise you get half baked CD's like Momentary Lapse or (wait for it) The Final Cut. Both have their high points but they both feel like solo records with the Floyd name.
At their best there was collaboration and a unified mindset which resulted in their best work. By the time the Wall comes out one guy is fired and the band is very much moving (or already moved) to a non-collaborative unit.
I will also say (with all due respect) that I can very easily hear the difference btw EC and DG's playing (on P&C's and any anywhere else)and while they are both blues based pentatonic players (that use Strats) I think they have very different voices and sounds. Just my $0.02
|
Edited by - zestystrat on 12/07/2007 17:54:39 |
|
|
|
FRANZONI
Double Platinum Member
Ireland
3543 Posts |
Posted - 12/08/2007 : 11:44:15
|
I will also say (with all due respect) that I can very easily hear the difference btw EC and DG's playing (on P&C's and any anywhere else)and while they are both blues based pentatonic players (that use Strats) I think they have very different voices and sounds. Just my $0.02
100% with you on this 'bro....first off gilmour is a more laid back player and uses the tremolo bar a lot for vibrato and dive bomb effects as in 'sorrow' or the end solo of 'comfortably numb' where as clapton is unique IMHO as a guitar player,instantly recognizable with his use of(as you pointed out) the pentonic scale and classic riffs that must be required study for any guitar player wanting to play blues/rock guitar,now some people might point out that clapton 'borrowed' a lot of his blues based licks from B.B or buddy guy but he has taken them to a new level and if you listen to his solos on songs like 'i shot the sheriff' on the 2004 crossroads version no one else sounds like that or if the do they are copying clapton.........and has that fat,thick mid range lead tone or his 'blackie' twang sound thanks to the clapton strat(i have the same system in one of my 'home reliced'.. squier strats.... ...gilmour on the other hand uses his fuzz pedals or tube drivers to get there probably with some echo or on the mellower stuff his whammy pedal(a genius using this effect.... )or listen to his intro to 'shine on you crazy diamond' lately where he has used a long echo with a volume pedal to create swells and plays the intro over it...WTF else is doing this s**t...!! then on 'amused to death' waters had beck ,again a very different and unique player also a guy called geoff whitehorn a session man who has played with various bands over the years mostly U.K. based,he has also used snowy white and doyle bramhall II on the live stuff,and if you listen to snowy playing on some of the gilmour solos,he doesn't ape them note for note but brings his own thing to them,using his les paul goldtop and vox AC 30.... and you can see waters looking over and nodding his approval so maybe he's chilling out in old age or he's not the megalomanic we have been led to believe......all these guys are amazing in their own way nd i think because they have their own 'voice' on the guitar and thats why they are where they are........ |
|
|
|
visserman
Platinum Member
1072 Posts |
Posted - 12/09/2007 : 15:54:04
|
Hi Franz and Zestystr.
Yes I did put up some of those remarks to make you guys think about a few things, I know I did put it rather black and white.
First of all, I do like Pink Floyd, Gilmore, Roger Waters and Eric Clapton.
Right, so many comments, just let me see:
Franz, you are right about the bandsound and it being a teameffort.
I feel that Roger is the main guy, and that Gilmore perhaps has borrowed a few of Roger's ideas.
The Wall: Yes, great story, and this is not really teenagestuff, more the story of a young man growing up. Very ambitious and good, and Roger brings out more of this sort of stuff. Hey I like him being an agry man, agree about the comments about Tacher, Reagan, and you should hear the man about Irak and Afganistan. Yes, it seems that nothing has changed, only that less of us get worked up about the mess we create, but then again, this is as old a mankind, but still we can be angry about this and try to be honest and write good songs about all the silly stuff which goes on in the media, politics and the bigger scheme of things.
Zestyst. The Stones? Oh who is the creative genius behind them? Keith?? I do love Mick's solo stuff, catchy melodies, good production and sound ideas, but then that may not give you dirty Rock 'n' Roll. So my guess is Ron Wood!!
Okay Clapton and Gilmore do sound different, yes they do. Who do you like most of all? Like em both, prefer Clapton when he plays great songs instead of the bluesstuff, as his playing seem to fit well in the neat short songarrangement. The man has even done some kind of stuff like Joe Satriani, but under a different name. Heared only a snippet of this stuff during a doc. a while ago. It was from a time he was in trouble about his career and not sure what to do next.
Off course, none of those guys can escape our acknowledgment eh? Otherwise the whole world would be wrong about how great both of them are.
I whish the Floyd would get back with Roger Waters, and that they would try to create something new and contemporary with the productiontstandards of today. If they could pull this one off they would create new fans and all the older fans would love it too. Okay may not be easy, but I am sure it should be possible, but that may be the reason why Roger prefers being solo. Right, I may have overlooked the human element, as this is usually the hardest one in bands. |
|
|
|
StratoSphere
Double Platinum Member
Canada
2232 Posts |
Posted - 12/09/2007 : 16:55:15
|
good points so far. PF is one of my alltime favorite bands and probably my favorite classic rock band(with the possible exception of Uriah Heep!)
as for Waters lyrics, i dont really see how they are teenage oriented. i find them to be mature, clever, thought out, indirect, and very subliminal. Waters lyrics are like poetry. if anything i would call them non teenage oriented. i found bands like Black Sabbath and Zeppelin have direct and more "song like" lyrics in my opinion. they tended to sing more about girls, sex, and drugs. of course i like both bands and thats not a bad quality.
although i think Waters was a little heavy on themes like his fathers death in the war and Barrett's ejection from the band but on the whole i found his lyrics to be one of Pink Floyds string points. not to mention Gilmores perfectly composed solos.
i find bands with their own sound tend to sound repetative to the average listener. people that arent fans of bands like RHCP, Floyd, Malmsteen, almost every metal band etc. will tell you that it all sounds the same. but thats just because they arent into the music enough to tell it apart. ive been listening to RHCP and Floyd for years and if someone were to put on a song, i can tell you what song and album in the first 3 seconds..
on the other hand, take ACDC. i wouldnt really call myself a fan of their music. because of that, im not very familiar with their music and to me every song kinda does sound the same.
thoughts? |
Edited by - StratoSphere on 12/09/2007 16:57:02 |
|
|
|
FRANZONI
Double Platinum Member
Ireland
3543 Posts |
Posted - 12/09/2007 : 20:27:35
|
| hi strato...yes good point about the 'band sound' personally it has to do with the artists but a lot of record companies encourage this because it's easier to market a band if they fit nice and neatly into a category they can sell ..i.e blues,jazz,rock,country etc.... how many times have you seen a song by a different artist that when you read the small notes on the cover you find it was written by another famous artist but it wouldn't be in a style you would think they write in...i heard songs bono of U2 has written for other people that wouldn't sound anything like something U2 would come up with and he probably realized it wouldn't work for them so he gave it to someone he liked or admired 'cause it's still a good song...a lot of artists try different things and it's very healthy for music but most seem to go back to what made them famous in the first place..why did gilmour,wright and mason take waters to court...over the name 'pink floyd'...guaranteed to sell at least a couple of million albums either good or bad....look at the amount of bands getting back together with some of the more famous members either dead or missing but the name still generates massive interest....in ireland on the caberet circuit there has been a least three or four versionds of the 'four tops' touring at different times...the same with 'the hollies' and i could go on..i don't want to be to cynical here but there is a certain mentality that prevails 'if it ain't broke.........' if you know what i mean,thats why i have a lot of admiration for waters thats he stood on his own two feet and didn't try to cash in on the name but went out under his own banner,and by his own admission he struggled at the start because no one except for real floyd fans knew who he was..... the song 'have a cigar' has a line 'the band is just fantastic that is really what i think,oh by the way which ones pink..?' this is supposed to of happened to them in states during the early 70's after 'dark side of the moon'because they were famous as the faceless band.... record companies don't care as long as it sell records.... |
Edited by - FRANZONI on 12/09/2007 20:28:11 |
|
|
|
visserman
Platinum Member
1072 Posts |
Posted - 12/10/2007 : 12:34:57
|
Strato, good points about bandsound and Franz good indepth info about Waters and Floyd, I can see you really like them.
The bandsound thing is partly a commercial venture, look at the Red Hot Chil. at first they were a punkskate band and they catered for that audience. First albums did have that raw sound, then from "Mothers Milk" onwards they tried to get a larger audience and experimented with their sound.
From "Californication" onwards it seems that there soundexperimentation gets less and less, as the band got bigger and bigger. It is interesting to see the music of John Frusci. solo, which is very different and more diverse than the Chili sound. This could be seen a little like what Franz mentioned about Bono writing songs for other people [or rather giving them the songs which do not work for U2].
AT the end of the day people just love playing and creating music, but we also need bills to pay, so once you have your bandsound, keep it, modify it a little but do not ditch it.
U2 may be a classic example of this, and they still modify their sound after all those years, they even go back from time to time to ideas they tried earlier on.
Perhaps we do not see enough older bands doing this kind of thing, apart from the ones mentioned above.
Hey Strato, interesting to see that you like Urah Heep. They seem to be one of those classic rockbands who have slipped from the radar. |
|
|
|
StratoSphere
Double Platinum Member
Canada
2232 Posts |
Posted - 12/10/2007 : 13:29:30
|
| ^^^ ya big time. even some of my classic rock friends never even heard of them. i think theyre still around today actually but theyve had more lineup changes than Megadeth! |
|
|
|
FRANZONI
Double Platinum Member
Ireland
3543 Posts |
Posted - 12/13/2007 : 19:34:19
|
| anyone in europe see the programme on B.B.C.1 last night about the floyd...? i'm not sure if the rest of you guys and gals have the B.B.C on the sat......??... |
|
|
|
visserman
Platinum Member
1072 Posts |
Posted - 12/14/2007 : 11:22:54
|
quote:
Originally posted by FRANZONI
anyone in europe see the programme on B.B.C.1 last night about the floyd...? i'm not sure if the rest of you guys and gals have the B.B.C on the sat......??...
Hi Franz,
This programme, does it contain same info as the radio docum. on Floyd? |
|
|
|
visserman
Platinum Member
1072 Posts |
Posted - 12/14/2007 : 11:25:22
|
quote:
Originally posted by StratoSphere
^^^ ya big time. even some of my classic rock friends never even heard of them. i think theyre still around today actually but theyve had more lineup changes than Megadeth!
Yeah I had that feeling that a lot of folks do not really know much about the Heep.
I know, it is amazing to see that a lot of the older bands are still around, still tour and they still have there hardcore fans who visit their gigs. |
|
|
|
FRANZONI
Double Platinum Member
Ireland
3543 Posts |
Posted - 12/14/2007 : 13:25:48
|
quote:
Originally posted by visserman
quote:
Originally posted by FRANZONI
anyone in europe see the programme on B.B.C.1 last night about the floyd...? i'm not sure if the rest of you guys and gals have the B.B.C on the sat......??...
Hi Franz,
This programme, does it contain same info as the radio docum. on Floyd?
it was only on for an hour,i think it covered a lot of the same ground but there was some rare footage from backstage at 'the wall' tour in '78/79...... |
|
|
|
visserman
Platinum Member
1072 Posts |
Posted - 12/15/2007 : 17:15:26
|
alright, sounds good!!
|
|
|
|
zestystrat
Silver Member
USA
283 Posts |
Posted - 12/17/2007 : 21:03:41
|
quote:
Originally posted by visserman
The bandsound thing is partly a commercial venture, look at the Red Hot Chil. at first they were a punkskate band and they catered for that audience. First albums did have that raw sound, then from "Mothers Milk" onwards they tried to get a larger audience and experimented with their sound.
From "Californication" onwards it seems that there soundexperimentation gets less and less, as the band got bigger and bigger. It is interesting to see the music of John Frusci. solo, which is very different and more diverse than the Chili sound.
cut
AT the end of the day people just love playing and creating music, but we also need bills to pay, so once you have your bandsound, keep it, modify it a little but do not ditch it.
U2 may be a classic example of this, and they still modify their sound after all those years, they even go back from time to time to ideas they tried earlier on.
Perhaps we do not see enough older bands doing this kind of thing, apart from the ones mentioned above.
Funny but I find RHCP latest to be somewhat simmilar to BSSM - one of their best IMO. I think they just lost their way after BSSM and the lineup change didn't do anything for them.
That said, I think the latest effort has some really great sounds on it and if you can find it there is a really great article in GP on how he got the sounds and the effort it took to get there.
Also, sometimes artists mature, change, want to play different styles - Rush is a good example. It's not always about selling out, sometimes it's just about keeping it interesting within the band context. I can tell you that U2 are not doing it anymore for the $ you can hear that they are working on new sounds and that takes work. (I'm not a big U2 fan btw) With some other older bands it sounds phoned in, stale and just lacks fire.
And speaking of the Stones  , I'm not sure I understand your reply. I will say that I have never been a big Stones fan (while there are a few albums that I really like) but their new stuff is just mind numbingly boring, even for them.
|
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
MOre on the Floyd.
