My post-war dream comes true

June 12, 2005 8:43 AM

Pink Floyd to reunite!The rumours have been proven correct. In a last minute decision, Roger, Dave, Richard, and Nick have put their differences aside and will re-form in support of Sir Bob's Live8 concerts. They have made this Floyd fan's year!
posted by lazywhinerkid (131 comments total)

Where is Syd?
posted by mokujin at 8:47 AM on June 12, 2005

Guess the guys are running low on money again, eh?
posted by keswick at 8:49 AM on June 12, 2005

Sad, but I'm pretty certain Syd's not up for it. Poor guy.
posted by lazywhinerkid at 8:53 AM on June 12, 2005

Via AL Daily: Hungry, terrorized children of Africa are again called upon to rescue the sagging reputations of a needy group of balding, clapped-out rock stars... more»

The article is a cheap shot, but it made me laugh...
posted by LarryC at 9:00 AM on June 12, 2005

rock on
posted by Francesnash at 9:36 AM on June 12, 2005

Well, Sir Bob is right: With a second-tier lineup like U2, Coldplay, Elton John, Macca, Madonna and now a reunited Pink Floyd, he really can't afford to invite any African artists.
posted by docgonzo at 9:36 AM on June 12, 2005

Holy shit. I mean, Roger said a lot worse things about the possibilities of this reunion than "when hell freezes over." I adore this band, but even I can see that this must be a case of severe "not-rich-anymore-itis."
posted by shmegegge at 9:51 AM on June 12, 2005

> Sad, but I'm pretty certain Syd's not up for it. Poor guy.

Sad indeed. Syd used to be co-holder, with Brian Wilson, of the title "rock's most notorious mental basket case." But lately Brian has pulled himself together well enough to perform and even to finish and release the almost mythological Smile album, which turned out to be quite nice. Syd potters on in silent alone-itude.

Interesting that both of these men had remarkably childlike, naive and vulnerable personalities and both were shoved forward as geniuses by pushy parents, not to mention critics and fans. Possibly not the best combination for long-term mental health, though it does seem to make for some good music (if there's also a bit of talent in the mix, of course.)
posted by jfuller at 10:10 AM on June 12, 2005

Look, I know that this is Metafilter, and we all have to be cool and cynical and all, but please be reasonable. Pink Floyd is probably one of the few bands that DOESN'T need more money. They had an album that was on the Billboard 200 for, like, 20 straight years! Do you really, honestly think that these guys need the money that badly? And if they did, would they be doing a freakin' CHARITY concert?

That said, I'm absolutely thrilled about this development. PF is my one of my favorite bands, and, unfortunately, I've never had the chance to see them. (Well, I could have seen The Division Bell tour, but we all know that doesn't really count)

I mean, really, there's no reason why they SHOULDN'T get back together. I mean, they're all still alive. Combined with what I would affectionately refer to as a "rabid" fan base, it was really just a matter of time.

Here's to hoping that they enjoy playing together, and decide to do a tour!
posted by afroblanca at 10:11 AM on June 12, 2005

If this is a one-off concert than I will respect this as an altruistic act. If a reunion tour with $ 135.00 tickets follows, move over The Eagles, The Who, The Stones etc.
posted by harry hood at 10:16 AM on June 12, 2005

What afroblanca said. I look forward to it and I'm sure the money angle isn't even a consideration.
posted by peacay at 10:16 AM on June 12, 2005

If this is a one-off concert than I will respect this as an altruistic act. If a reunion tour with $ 135.00 tickets follows, move over The Eagles, The Who, The Stones etc.

Well, I wouldn't necessarily say that an expensive tour would prove that they're "only in it for the money." What if they just want to do a tour again? Of course the tickets would be expensive. If you could charge that much, you would, too!

Besides, I was reading an article in Rolling Stone about high ticket prices, and what a lot of it comes down to is the band & management figuring that scalpers will get most of the tickets, anyway. Although I think that is, in a lot of ways, a rationalization, they do have a point. I remember when Pearl Jam was playing $6 concerts at the height of their popularity. I don't think I knew a single person who paid less than $100 for their tickets.
posted by afroblanca at 10:23 AM on June 12, 2005

Well, here's the thing. Pink Floyd did a lot of concerts, including charities, for decades without Roger Waters. So why change now? Have the patched things up? Maybe. But when friends patch things up, there are plenty of ways to handle the announcement other than reuiniting a 30 year old band. For instance, Peter Gabriel and Phil Collins (who no one ever thought would even speak to one another again) are now friends again, and instead of reuniting under the Genesis banner of olde, Phil just invited Peter to be his best man at his latest wedding. Or maybe it was the other way around...

Either way, anyone who thinks that this couldn't be about money has seriously underestimated and/or willfully forgotten the ability of rock stars to lasciviously waste money, even late in their lives.

That said: I agree with harry hood on preview: If this is followed by reunion tour then I see dollar signs. If this is just one altruistic act, then I can see afroblanca's point of view.
posted by shmegegge at 10:25 AM on June 12, 2005

What afroblanca said. I look forward to it and I'm sure the money angle isn't even a consideration.

If George Harrison can have money worries, I'm pretty sure any member of Pink Floyd could too. Considering how vehement he's been about not appearing with the band in the past, I'd bet on Roger Waters.
posted by PinkStainlessTail at 10:28 AM on June 12, 2005

Well, here's the thing. Pink Floyd did a lot of concerts, including charities, for decades without Roger Waters. So why change now?

Actually, I've kind of seen this coming for a while. For several years, even Mason, Gilmour, and Wright didn't talk about performing as PF again. However, a few things have happened in the last few years:

- Wright played with Gilmour at one of his solo shows
- Mason played with Waters at one of his solo shows
- Wright, Mason, and Gilmour reunited for a one-off performance at their late manager's funeral
- Mason recently wrote a book about the band. Apparently, he went to great pains to have the book approved by Gilmour, Waters, and Wright, which meant getting them to agree (at least a little) on a single band history.

Besides, we all know that the Gilmour/Mason/Wright version of PF was a pale shadow of what the band once was. And don't even get me started on Waters's solo career.

In the end, even if they were only doing it for the money, which I doubt, I still wouldn't care. I'm just glad these guys are playing together again.
posted by afroblanca at 10:34 AM on June 12, 2005

Ditto to afroblanca. I'm crossing my fingers for a reunited world tour. Although it seems Waters may be the one who can't let past disagreements be just water under the bridge:

Col from Hull, England asks: If you walked into a pub and Rog was casually leaning on the bar would you go over and have a drink with him?

David: The last time that happened I was invited to a gig that Paul Carrick was doing at the Half Moon in Putney, quite a long time ago now. The person in front of me at the bar was Roger and I smiled and said "hello" and he gathered up members of his entourage and left!

I couldn't imagine that they need the money, and granted this interview was ten years ago, but it doesn't seem like Gilmour at least could be in such dire straits. Personally, I wouldn't care if money was the sole reason (unlikely as that is) for a tour, if it meant I could see Pink Floyd again, and for the first time with Waters.
posted by blendor at 10:35 AM on June 12, 2005

Holy mutherfucking shit.
posted by Tullius at 10:36 AM on June 12, 2005

Hmm maybe. I'm not particularly holding any pie in the sky holy beliefs in their longer term future - my comment was about the Live8 concert. We shall see, I guess.
posted by peacay at 10:41 AM on June 12, 2005

Since we're flaming ancient bands with their goodbye and farewell and reunion tour antics, how about that Cher? Her farewell tour lasted three years.
posted by clyde at 10:53 AM on June 12, 2005

geriatric pink floyd has about 1*10^25 times the goodness as does geriatric rolling stones.
posted by nervousfritz at 11:04 AM on June 12, 2005

What afroblanca said. I look forward to it and I'm sure the money angle isn't even a consideration.

I'll take metafilter cynicism over complete naivety. Ignorance really is bliss.
posted by justgary at 11:13 AM on June 12, 2005

I really love you .....and i mean you .......the star above you ...is crystal blue.......
syd barrett is the real deal .....the rest of pink floyds output is completely irrelevant , music to drive yer volvo to,
a soundtrack that covers the inside of the bubble.
Brian Wilson covering Terrapin , now that would be something.
posted by sgt.serenity at 11:13 AM on June 12, 2005

afroblanca summed it up for me. When you have Gilmour doing stuff like donating a £3.6MM house to charity, I question if he really needs the money. Maybe Roger needs it to pay debt from his money-losing solo career. Really though, I would rather be ignorant and happy in this case!
posted by lazywhinerkid at 11:25 AM on June 12, 2005

who cares about another tour? ... pink floyd didn't do anything musically live they didn't do in the studio better, at least after dark side ... they're just one of those bands that function better in the studio ...

now if they actually did a new record that could be interesting ... or not ...
posted by pyramid termite at 11:32 AM on June 12, 2005

Also important to the legitimacy of a reunited tour is if they play new material. Tours with Roger Waters were never greatest hit tours, to the contrary they were always about performing new, edgy, vital music. Heres hoping...
posted by harry hood at 11:44 AM on June 12, 2005

The memories of a man in his old age
Are the deeds of a man in his prime.
You shuffle in gloom of the sickroom
And talk to yourself as you die.

Life is a short, warm moment
And death is a long cold rest.
You get your chance to try in the twinkling of an eye:
Eighty years, with luck, or even less.

So all aboard for the American tour,
And maybe you'll make it to the top.
And mind how you go, and I can tell you, 'cause I know
You may find it hard to get off.
posted by fixedgear at 11:47 AM on June 12, 2005

But lately Brian has pulled himself together well enough to perform and even to finish and release the almost mythological Smile album, which turned out to be quite nice

I saw Wilson perform on the symphonic Pet Sounds tour. It was incredible.

Syd's abscence notwithstanding, this lineup of Floyd did produce some monumental work, and it's all of them back, unlike a lot of reunions, and Floyd was never a young and sexy act like the Stones or The Who, so this reunion could work out better than most.
posted by jonmc at 12:02 PM on June 12, 2005

sgt. serenity wrote:

syd barrett is the real deal .....the rest of pink floyds output is completely irrelevant

Utter nonsense.

jonmc wrote

Floyd was never a young and sexy act like the Stones or The Who

True, for the most part, but check Gilmour in Live at Pompeii.
posted by Tullius at 12:15 PM on June 12, 2005

I think that the band is the same in a relative way, but it's older. Shorter of breath and one gig closer to death.

wooah wooah woaaaaaw a woooooo.
posted by seanyboy at 12:15 PM on June 12, 2005

Sorry for the repeated use of the 'Return' key, but it seemed appropriate.
posted by Tullius at 12:15 PM on June 12, 2005

if youre gonna talk about Syd, its best just to shut the fuck up.
posted by Satapher at 12:18 PM on June 12, 2005 [1 favorite]

seanyboy : "I think that the band is the same in a relative way, but it's older. Shorter of breath and one gig closer to death. "

They're probably just reuniting because they're tired of lying in the sunshine, staying home to watch the rain.
posted by Bugbread at 12:22 PM on June 12, 2005

True, for the most part, but check Gilmour in Live at Pompeii.

Well, what I meant by "young and sexy," was that they weren't angry young men like the Who or sexy prancers like Mick Jagger, so what Floyd does dosen't look quite as silly when done by men approaching 60.
posted by jonmc at 12:27 PM on June 12, 2005

That's hallucinogens for ya...
posted by hototogisu at 12:41 PM on June 12, 2005

Perhaps what you're getting at is that, while they may have been young and/or sexy, that was never a focus of the band's appeal, image, or music, so even if they are no longer young and/or sexy, it doesn't affect the band's appeal, image, or music.

(Not having seen Gilmour in Live at Pompeii, and my image of the band largely made by their photos on Ummagumma, I am having an insanely hard time imaging them ever being sexy in any way...Young, maybe, but not sexy. I think I'll be avoiding Live at Pompeii then)
posted by Bugbread at 12:42 PM on June 12, 2005

sgt.serenity: "Brian Wilson covering Terrapin , now that would be something."

That's a great idea!
posted by kenko at 12:52 PM on June 12, 2005

A reunited Pink Floyd, even if for only one concert could rock. I never went to a Pink Floyd concert expecting to see them doing a little jig on stage or any other feats of athletisism. I went to see a solid performance and they never failed to deliver. Part of the performance is the light, lasers, fog and flying pigs (or beds more recently).

I don't know whether there will be a tour, I doubt it. David Gilmour was on record as saying he had enough material for a new album. He wasn't sure if it'd be Pink Floyd or a David Gilmour effort. I really can't see Roger Waters playing Gilmour's material.
posted by substrate at 12:57 PM on June 12, 2005

my image of the band largely made by their photos on Ummagumma, I am having an insanely hard time imaging them ever being sexy in any way...

You should have been this particular 14 year old girl back in the day, then, when the photographs on Ummagumma caused me many a sleepless night. I can absolutely vouch for the sexiness of the young PF.

I saw them back in '75, I think, though I'm not sure if that qualifies me for bragging rights or not, given that I can't remember the band lineup at that point. I do remember that some guy threw up on my friend's shoes, and another friend drank cough syrup and passed out. Ah, youth.

Oh, and Live at Pompeii rocks! Of course I haven't seen it since I was a teenager, and never saw it without liberal applications of pot, so I might not be the best person to comment. Set the controls for the heart of the sun...
posted by jokeefe at 1:04 PM on June 12, 2005

bugbread you are disserving you there
because yesh they are young and i guess sexy
but really PF at pompeii is a great experience..
when mason loses a stick during "one of these days" weeeee!
posted by zenzizi at 1:11 PM on June 12, 2005

I can absolutely vouch for the sexiness of the young PF.

Being partial to the ladies, I'll take your word for it. But what I meant was this: wiggling your hips like Mick Jagger or striking angry young punk poses like Johnny Rotten look kind of ridiculous and grotesque on a middle-aged man. But that was never Floyd's stock in trade, so they can avoid that.

And for the record, I love me some Floyd, even if I never need to hear The Wall again.
posted by jonmc at 1:12 PM on June 12, 2005

jonmc: I agree, absolutely. I always went for the sensitive artiste type (preferably with beard and a copy of Keats under his arm) over the sexual aggression of a Jagger or a Plant.

And I never need to hear anything by them ever again unless it's something pre-Dark Side of the Moon, an album that by the time I was 17, back in 1976, I over-dramatically declared in a 7-11 parking lot that I would hang myself if I ever had to sit through again. Fortunately nobody held me to it.
posted by jokeefe at 1:24 PM on June 12, 2005

I always went for the sensitive artiste type (preferably with beard and a copy of Keats under his arm) over the sexual aggression of a Jagger or a Plant.

Oh, I love Jagger and Plant's aggressiveness too, but everytime I see footage of an over-50 Mick wiggling his ass, it demeans the memory (experienced in footage only by this 34-year old, although I did see the Stones in '89 and they still rocked) of the young Jagger in Gimme Shelter who probably caused many men to rethink their devotion to heterosexuality.

It's odd that in rock and roll, we have such an aversion to watching our legends age. Blues and country singers performed into their seventies and nobody gave it a second thought.
posted by jonmc at 1:30 PM on June 12, 2005

the young Jagger in Gimme Shelter who probably caused many men to rethink their devotion to heterosexuality.

Classic quote from Ian Hunter of Mott The Hoople: "Elvis had animal magnetism. Elvis was even sexy to guys. I can't imagine what the chicks used to think."

Could apply to Jagger as well.
posted by jonmc at 1:32 PM on June 12, 2005

jonmc : "It's odd that in rock and roll, we have such an aversion to watching our legends age."

Probably due to the fact that so many rock musicians, unlike blues and country singers, sell themselves based on their youthful image.

(Youth is the camouflage that talentless musicians hide behind. Britney Spears, Back Street Boys, Mick Jagger. Yeah, I just said that about Jagger. Talentless. Hack.)
posted by Bugbread at 1:39 PM on June 12, 2005

*sharpens icepick to shove under bugbread's eye, while singing "Rocks Off"*

it's kinder this way.
posted by jonmc at 1:43 PM on June 12, 2005

But nobody's answered my question: "Which one's Pink?"
posted by wendell at 1:48 PM on June 12, 2005

I can tell Ian Hunter exactly what chicks used to think, should he care to find out. Heh.

It's odd that in rock and roll, we have such an aversion to watching our legends age.

Rock and roll, as you know, is so much about sex, and masculine display, and virility, that it doesn't surprise me at all. I'm in love with The Libertines at the moment, but if I imagine a reunion tour thrown together some 10 or 15 years from now, it can't strike me as anything other than a bit humiliating, imagining a graying Carl Barat and a bloated, a hundred-times-in-rehab-and-it-never-took Pete Doherty. Which seems hypocritical of me, as I despise ageism in any other form. But there it is.

But again: with bands that don't conjure nearly as much with that kind of youthful magic, it matters far less. The Pixies? They're older, Frank Black is heavier: it mattered not at all to me, seeing them last year. Gang of Four? Same thing. Older and so what; they still kicked the earth to its foundations live. But Elvis' slide into grotesquerie felt like a kind of offense against his natural beauty. Not that growing older was within his control, of course, but we try to look away from that, I think.
posted by jokeefe at 1:51 PM on June 12, 2005

But nobody's answered my question: "Which one's Pink?"

Pink Anderson is Pink. There was nother bluesman named Floyd Council that the guys were fond of, so they combined their names.

on preview: jokeefe, I hear ya. I saw an over-40 Paul Westerberg perform a while back and he was as cool as ever, as were the Ramones (heh) when I saw them in their late 30's and 40's. And Dolly Parton and BB King still are cool and sexy in old age.

But Elvis' slide into grotesquerie felt like a kind of offense against his natural beauty.

But that was because of the drugs. The comeback special Elvis is still a ball of molten sexuality, and guys like Frank Sinatra managed to remain cool into septugenarianism.
posted by jonmc at 1:57 PM on June 12, 2005

I can't be the only person who wishes these classic rock bands would go away for good, can I? Yes, they made some great albums but really, does anyone need to hear Careful With that Axe, Eugene, Another Brick in the Wall, or Money ever again? (Hint: if you do, just turn on a classic rock radio station and wait five minutes.) *shivers*

I wonder if 35 years from now people will be creaming themselves when Radiohead (or whoever) get back together.
posted by dobbs at 2:34 PM on June 12, 2005

I hope the first song is "Pigs on the Wing, Part 2."
posted by swift at 2:38 PM on June 12, 2005

I can't be the only person who wishes these classic rock bands would go away for good, can I?

Actually, dobbs, there's tons of people who think that, but in my experience they do it for all the wrong reasons. Good music is good music, regardless of what era or genre it's from. But I'm very impressed by how hip and iconoclastic you are. Really.

I wonder if 35 years from now people will be creaming themselves when Radiohead (or whoever) get back together.

Yeah, and they'll be the same people who make fun of Pink Floyd fans for cheering their reunion. God, I hate genre partisans.
posted by jonmc at 2:39 PM on June 12, 2005

dobbs : "does anyone need to hear Careful With that Axe, Eugene, Another Brick in the Wall, or Money ever again? (Hint: if you do, just turn on a classic rock radio station and wait five minutes.) *shivers*"

Yeah, some of us need to hear Careful With That Axe, Eugene again, but I find listening to the CD / mp3 far more reliable than waiting for the classic rock radio station to play it. For that matter, does anyone need to hear any Radiohead songs again, because all you have to do is turn on the radio to listen to them too. Or any band, for that matter. But that said, according to your arguments, the only bands that should play live are the ones who have released no albums, because if they've released an album, hey, you can just listen to their CD.
posted by Bugbread at 2:44 PM on June 12, 2005

Though it usually makes me very sad to think about it, I feel a little better that Uncle Joe died when I read something like this. Because my favorite band can never pull this kind of shit on me. Sorry, Floyd fans-- you're about to be offered a sad, hollow impersonation of the band you love and most of you won't have the strength not to take it. Even though you know better. I'd do the same thing, but fortunately I know that can't happen.
posted by Mayor Curley at 2:45 PM on June 12, 2005

Don't bugbread, dobbs is too busy congratulating himself for being such a cool exception to the masses. It must get lonely for him.
posted by jonmc at 2:46 PM on June 12, 2005

God, I hate genre partisans.
posted by jonmc at 5:39 PM EST on June 12 [!]

Just wanted to see that again...
posted by trey at 2:46 PM on June 12, 2005

trey, you can call me a lot of things, but "genre partisan" is not among them. I'd lay dollars to donuts that my collection covers more territory than just about anyone's. But if you want to use that to ignore the substance of what I said, you go right ahead, and I won't think any less of you, I promise.
posted by jonmc at 2:49 PM on June 12, 2005

I wonder if 35 years from now people will be creaming themselves when Radiohead (or whoever) get back together.

Personally, I'll be breaking out of the nursing home and camping out in the lineup for tickets, and fighting off with my cane any well-intentioned attempts to drag me back. But that's just me. :D
posted by jokeefe at 2:59 PM on June 12, 2005

I'm with jokeefe.
posted by Tullius at 3:20 PM on June 12, 2005

Tuillius, it's a date.

And I don't cheer the Floyd reunion, but it's not like I've lost any respect for those who do. Hell, I still respect jonmc, despite the Ramones thing.
posted by jokeefe at 3:28 PM on June 12, 2005

Actually, dobbs, there's tons of people who think that, but in my experience they do it for all the wrong reasons.

Well, jonmc, in my experience, if you're to be believed, everyone but you always does everything for the wrong reasons.

But that said, according to your arguments, the only bands that should play live are the ones who have released no albums, because if they've released an album, hey, you can just listen to their CD.

No, that wasn't my argument at all. I just don't understand the appeal of hearing song X for the millionth time. Doesn't matter if it's Floyd, the Beatles, Billy Bragg, the current flavor of the month, or whoever. Anything that I can close my eyes and literally hear in my head note for note... well, I don't understand what's to get excited about--and that's pretty much the case with PF's entire catalog. If anything, I think nostaligia is the main draw but most people who I know who love classic rock deny this.
posted by dobbs at 3:30 PM on June 12, 2005

I can't tell anymore whether this is News-filter or Your-favorite-band-sucks-filter. Sigh.
posted by .kobayashi. at 3:31 PM on June 12, 2005

I just don't understand the appeal of hearing song X for the millionth time.

A truly great song can withstand however many plays you give it, and I've found that if you avoid the old warhorses for a while (like a couple years) then listen to them again, you can rediscover what made them classics in the first place. If you can't, we'll then I've got to figure that you're some kind of countercultural yuppie who's appreciation of a song is based on something other than musical quality.

Well, jonmc, in my experience, if you're to be believed, everyone but you always does everything for the wrong reasons.

And if you believe that then your miscomprehension of me is not only sad, but comical.
posted by jonmc at 3:39 PM on June 12, 2005

dobbs : "No, that wasn't my argument at all. I just don't understand the appeal of hearing song X for the millionth time."

Ah, sorry, I misinterpreted you there. Your argument makes a lot more sense to me now. (That said, though, I don't understand the value of live shows at all except in the cases of bands like Gwar or Crash Worship...but that's another can of worms)

jonmc : "And if you believe that then your miscomprehension of me is not only sad, but comical."

Um, jonmc, not to be abrupt or anything, but I gather that's pretty much what most people think of you. I know it isn't what you really believe, but it certainly comes off as you thinking everyone's reasons are wrong if they don't like what you like. So it may be a sad and comical miscomprehension, but I suspect it's pretty common, and it's how you come across unless someone looks at your posts pretty carefully.
posted by Bugbread at 3:46 PM on June 12, 2005

Um, jonmc, not to be abrupt or anything, but I gather that's pretty much what most people think of you.

That's their problem not mine, and their reaction to what I say reveals more about them than it does about me. And plenty of people here do get what I'm getting at, and oddly, they're often people who disagree with me. But dobbs has always struck me as an indie-yuppie so I doubt he'll ever get it.

*cranks Anti-Nowhere Leagues "So What,"*

*slams around room helplessly*
posted by jonmc at 3:51 PM on June 12, 2005

jonmc : "That's their problem not mine, and their reaction to what I say reveals more about them than it does about me."

You haven't gotten the memo? "That says more about them than it does about me" has been replaced by "That's very telling".

I just meant that it isn't so comical if a bunch of people make the same mistake. Sad, maybe, unfortunate, maybe, their-own-damn-fault, maybe, but as a joke it kinda falls flat due to repetition. That's all.
posted by Bugbread at 4:05 PM on June 12, 2005

If they don't bring the giant flying pigs, then you can just count me out.
posted by fungible at 4:10 PM on June 12, 2005

Why even bother? Every single discussion of music here becomes "Your favorite band sucks, my favorite band sucks."

Mick Jagger is a talentless hack? Just Dead Flowers alone disproves your point.
posted by fixedgear at 4:11 PM on June 12, 2005

Note to self: listen to Dead Flowers.
posted by Bugbread at 4:28 PM on June 12, 2005

What fixedgear said.
posted by keswick at 4:59 PM on June 12, 2005

Since we're flaming ancient bands with their goodbye and farewell and reunion tour antics, how about that Cher? Her farewell tour lasted three years.

Isn't KISS still waving goodbye?
posted by QuestionableSwami at 5:32 PM on June 12, 2005

Can I just say I used to know every lyric ever by Pink Floyd and would sing entire albums on the way to school. And the Rolling Stones are, and always have been, utter pants.

No? Well, forget I mentioned it then.
posted by Sparx at 5:33 PM on June 12, 2005

interesting that that wikipedia link hasn't been updated with this yet...

pink floyd were basically the first band I ever discovered, and looking at the wiki info, I probably discovered them right around when they were splitting (or waters was leaving anyway). But at the time I basically thought of anything after the wall as not really counting, and in my head they were solidly a band from the '70s (which at the time was pretty much in their favor, as it took me a few more years to catch on that not all 80s music sucked).

Seeing them together seems kind of abstract to me... I never really imagined them live, and when I think back to listening to them it was just sitting alone in a room with the volume cranked up and probably my eyes closed. I guess I kind of think of them as a studio band. But my curiosity might be piqued...

woulda been fun (pointless, but amusing) to see douglas adams playing guitar for them (gilmour them) in '94, tho!
posted by mdn at 5:49 PM on June 12, 2005

Gee, yet another version of the "Live at Pompeii" dvd is being released this Tuesday in the US. What coincidentaly great timing. Or something.

and jonmc - you're the only reason I hesitate in reading any Mefi posts about music. Glad to see things haven't changed.
posted by FreezBoy at 5:59 PM on June 12, 2005

well, there goes my night's sleep.
posted by jonmc at 6:30 PM on June 12, 2005

........
posted by jonmc at 6:36 PM on June 12, 2005

Oh no, not again. I saw the boys play during the Division Bell tour and was wholly unimpressed -- can't they leave well enough alone? I wish I could have seen them play in support of Dark Side or the Wall.
posted by killdevil at 7:27 PM on June 12, 2005

I'm certain that a few hundred years in the future Wish you were here and say Exile on Main Street will be the staple of Music Appreciation 101 classes everywhere.
(Jesus, Jagger a "talentless hack?")
Artists from the current crop? Can't think of one, sorry... I just don't see the Arcade Fire having the staying power...
posted by Finder at 8:35 PM on June 12, 2005

damn you wendell.
posted by quonsar at 11:02 PM on June 12, 2005

Jesus, Jagger a "talentless hack?

with fat lips.
posted by quonsar at 11:05 PM on June 12, 2005

Is this a bad time to add I'm a monster Alan Parsons fan?
posted by OneOliveShort at 11:59 PM on June 12, 2005

I'll never forgive myself for not seeing them when I could.
That said, I can't make the g8 either..
Pink Floyd has changed, or at least impacted, the way I see the world, over and over.

I wish the best to "Syd" wherever he may wander.
posted by Balisong at 11:59 PM on June 12, 2005

I am scared right now, mainly for the universal significance of this. I am convinced I will get up, go to the window, and see frogs or locusts raining down from the sky.

And all this time I thought Bjork doing a duet with Sheryl Crow was going to be the signal for the end of the world (and I do not mean that in a bad way...I mean that in terms of the fact that they have worked with just about everyone except each other).
posted by deusdiabolus at 12:07 AM on June 13, 2005

When that fat 'ol bulge in your wallet whithers,
reunion concerts, come thy hither.

Summer's concert allays fears,
The sound of music in my ears

Wilson, Wonder, now the Floyd...
Sounds so sweet!
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 12:10 AM on June 13, 2005

Coming a bit late to this (and now, even later, as JRun currently isn't...), but wanted to ask: shmegegge writes ... Peter Gabriel and Phil Collins (who no one ever thought would even speak to one another again) are now friends again, and instead of reuniting under the Genesis banner of olde, Phil just invited Peter to be his best man at his latest wedding...

Um. When did this happen? You know, the falling out and all? I mean, was it after the band broke up in 1974? Or after Collins played drums on Gabriel's third solo album? Or after the 1982 Genesis Reunion show (in aid of a struggling WOMAD)? Or when Phil played his drums behind Jerry Morotta at a Crystal Palace gig in 1980, as Morotta was suffering food poisoning? Or when the band got together in 1999 to rerecord "Carpet Crawlers" for an upcoming box set?

Phil said in 2004: "... people ask if we like each other !!! I love Pete and would play with him in a second if he asked."

So, just wondering what I (and Phil) missed?

(And surely Bob Geldof was Pink?)
posted by benzo8 at 3:23 AM on June 13, 2005

Yeah, Floyd isn't what it used to be, but no one is forcing you to see them so I don't get what all the disgust and vitriol is about. I for one think it would be cool to see the reunited Floyd. For one thing, they'll probably not perform anything from their later efforts which were pretty lackluster. The Division Bell was mediocre, although there were a couple of songs I liked on it. I blame David Gilmour's girlfriend who cowrote the album with him.

BTW, I've seen Live at Pompeii, and David Gilmour (owner of the first Start made) did look really cool back then.
posted by Devils Slide at 3:43 AM on June 13, 2005

Start Strat
posted by Devils Slide at 3:46 AM on June 13, 2005

(And surely Bob Geldof was Pink?)

Bob Geldof was awful. Never speak of that frog-voiced deadpan shitpile of acting again. Gah. GAH. I long for a vicious point-by-point: which was worse for poor judgement, The Wall film or Live in Berlin?

Did you HEAR what Van Morrison did to Comfortably Numb? GAH!

It takes a lot of nerve to out-bad Roger at his own game. Great work, Bob.

In high school I would have given my left nut to see a proper Floyd show. Now...eh. Haven't the heart to contemplate an unlikely American tour that would cost too fucking much to attend in good conscience. I love the PF, but what a crapshoot, what an overpriced spectacle these aging bands have become.
posted by cortex at 4:14 AM on June 13, 2005

Actually not the first Strat made, even though it's numbered 001. Strats were first made in March 1954, and "001" was made in September (the 28th, by the masking tape label inside, and supported by the style of neck joint)... And, of course, Gilmour wasn't the first to own it - he bought it from his own guitar tech (who had bought it from Seymour Duncan) in 1978. And again, of course, Hank Marvin had the first ever Strat in the UK, which he bought mail order, thinking it was a Broadcaster, and immediately hated it - he gave it away to Cliff Richard...
posted by benzo8 at 4:15 AM on June 13, 2005

Is it only a dream that there'll be
No more turning away?

How much money each band is making? For God's sake, I just can't believe you bother to open your mouths to say that wide universal sh*t. You didn't get a single millimeter of what Pink Floyd is doing, already did and will do. Not a clue. Not a cl. Maybe in your wildest "fake smart logic thinking" is just Bono raising money for Pink Floyd to live easily like billionaires, isn't it? Oh boy, way to go, you're just the last on the line to truth!

No more turning away
From the coldness inside

Oh I got it, it's just you trying to say "I know what's really going on here", or maybe "look mom, with no brains!". (Applause).

Roger Waters is alive and he's a genius. Each one in his own matter, also is David Gilmour. Be a dogmatic and stand and stare in your bubble of beliefs, ignoring the best pieces of music ever. There's no place for dogma anymore, it's the new wind of change, just listen to the disc, maybe you'll too get a momentary lapse of reason.

On the wings of the night
As the daytime is stirring
Where the speechless unite
In a silent accord

Floyd and music lovers, see you there.
posted by nandop at 5:37 AM on June 13, 2005

nandop : "You didn't get a single millimeter of what Pink Floyd is doing, already did and will do. Not a clue. Not a cl."

I've got more than a just a cl, I can answer almost all of those definitively: Pink Floyd is reuniting. They have, so far, played music, worked on some films, put on a lot of stage shows, and released multiple albums. They are going to play at Live8. I think that pretty much covers your issues.

nandop : "Roger Waters is alive and he's a genius."

He may be a genius. Shame he wrote such awful music for so long, though.

(And, nandop, please tell me English isn't your first language...)
posted by Bugbread at 5:52 AM on June 13, 2005

Benzo8, I stand corrected. I knew about the serial number and I just assumed that meant it was the first one made. But that raises the question: what's the serial number on the actual first Strat, -027?
posted by Devils Slide at 6:26 AM on June 13, 2005

I remember discussing the whole "accoustic" bandwagon with a friend in the 90's, with him dismissing anyone out of hand who considered it. Inconceivable to him was the idea that some musician might be exposed to the idea (yes, by others doing it) and think: you know, this would really suit ___ song, or this one... NO. They ALL had to be in it for the fad of the moment, no exceptions.

Me, I hate most accoustic albums by pop/rockers as much as I hate comeback tours. But let's say it's not impossible that these guys just want to recreate a bit of the magic (and if they get really ambitious, create some new). Ever been in the limelight? It's addictive.
posted by dreamsign at 6:46 AM on June 13, 2005

oh, and

If you can't, we'll then I've got to figure that you're some kind of countercultural yuppie who's appreciation of a song is based on something other than musical quality.

These are not the hipsters you're looking for.
Please move along.
posted by dreamsign at 6:55 AM on June 13, 2005

Bugbread: easy to say, ah? No, it is not. Sorry. At least can you understand what I say? (thanks!).

BTW, nevermind. It was not a post to you, you *seem* to be a music lover (and yes, Roger Waters IS a genius, you MAY like him or not, but his talent is not a matter of individual taste).

P.S.: There's no such think as "hearing song X for the millionth time". You never enter the same river twice. It's an illusion. Even if you count as that, probably it would be just another "same" light bulb to another "same" shadow. The fact that some song stay alive, and some of them even stronger than ever before, is a sign of change.

Talking about McLuhan, the reunion of Pink Floyd (after all we've seen) is the message per se (hope it is written correctly).
posted by nandop at 7:07 AM on June 13, 2005

Artists from the current crop? Can't think of one, sorry... I just don't see the Arcade Fire having the staying power...

dunno if it's 'current' enough, but I'd bet on the electronic / post-rock stuff (matmos, godspeed ybe)... though having said that, it's hard to deny that what pink floyd did was in a lot of ways the beginning of that - sampling, electronic keyboard, using noise / sound, long instrumental bits, 15 minute songs, and in general, popular music that is really about listening, not dancing or having it on in the background or whatever.

I put on dark side of the moon for the first time in ages because of this thread, and while I know there is a nostalgia element in there for me, I still think it is just plain good music. Yes, it's a little melodramatic, and it is heavily dependent on guitar & voice as opposed to other instruments. But what they do with guitar & voice is pretty fucking awesome.

pink floyd definitely has its straight rock/metal intensity, and when I first got into them and began looking around for other bands I would like, I was directed to lots of stuff that in my opinion was only superficially similar - and for me, largely missed the point. They still seem like a pretty unique band to me, and to write them off as just another bunch of rockers doesn't really seem justified.
posted by mdn at 7:28 AM on June 13, 2005

Devils Slide writes "Benzo8, I stand corrected. I knew about the serial number and I just assumed that meant it was the first one made. But that raises the question: what's the serial number on the actual first Strat, -027?"

Heh - well, some Strats do have "negative" serials - some serials between 16000 and 30000 (1957-1958) were prefaced with a "-" sign for some reason, so they do read as negatives! But I guess the ones manufactured before 001 were just not serialised - a lot were given to staff as gifts, for instance (as 001 itself was), or were testers, demonstration models, show models and the like...

001 was made on the 28th September 1954, with final assembly done by "Mary" (who signed the tape inside). It was a custom job (and possibly the first custom, and thus the first serial). It was originally given to a worker at Fender (who, or why is unknown) who then passed it onto his son. Seymour Duncan - he of the pickups - bought it some years later and then, in 1977, sold it to Phil Taylor - Gilmour's guitar technician. Gilmour fell in love with it and convinced Taylor to sell it to him for an undisclosed, but undoubtedly huge, amount... Gilmour's kept it ever since.

It's the guitar the plays the famous rhythm sound on Another Brick In The Wall, Part II...
posted by benzo8 at 9:06 AM on June 13, 2005

it's hard to deny that what pink floyd did was in a lot of ways the beginning of that - sampling, electronic keyboard, using noise / sound, long instrumental bits, 15 minute songs

Ahem. The Beatles?
posted by jokeefe at 10:00 AM on June 13, 2005

"it's hard to deny that what pink floyd did was in a lot of ways the beginning of that - sampling, electronic keyboard, using noise / sound, long instrumental bits, 15 minute songs

jokeefe :"Ahem. The Beatles?"

I think (hope) that the original comment was refering to PF being one of the first, not the first.
posted by Bugbread at 1:04 PM on June 13, 2005

Ahem. The Beatles?

I knew suggesting anyone was "the beginning" of something would just invite other people to bring up other or earlier examples. I was not trying to say they were alone in their experimentation. But I also don't think the beatles are a particularly good example for what I'm talking about. Almost all of the beatles's songs are a standard 2-4 minute length, without much emphasis on instrumental exploration (the only instrumental of the beatles I know is just about two minutes long, and while enjoyable, not especially memorable). I can't think of noises used to particular effect in the beatles, while pink floyd used clocks, cash registers, animals, and many examples of people talking, yelling, or otherwise vocalizing. The only sampling I can think of in the beatles is revolution #9... and by 'electronic keyboard', I meant 'for electronic sounds' - the beatles coulda used a piano in general. pink floyd has songs with the blips and beeps and electronic sound.

I dunno, I'm sure there's good reason to suggest that the beatles were a forerunner, but it's not "what they're known for" - what they did most and best was create catchy pop songs. What pink floyd did most and best was create long, structured but still quite instrumental, explorations-on-a-theme type of songs. They have a lot of songs released at over 10 minutes, and at least two of their albums were composed as units (so they tend not to work as well as singles because they seem to cut off or start abruptly when removed from context). While many of the lyrics are great (though some are pretty bad), pink floyd is largely enjoyed for the instrumental bits, and would've been appreciated even without words. I don't really think the same could be said of the beatles.

So all in all, I think pink floyd had greater influence on the 20 minute, instrumental, heavy sampling /electronica / sound play type of music known as post-rock, than the beatles did.
posted by mdn at 1:31 PM on June 13, 2005

Their first album was a psychedelic pop masterpiece, but after Roger Waters took over primary songwriting duties, the music became more and more boring with each successive record. I'll take a sparkly three minute pop gem like "Arnold Layne" over a plodding, bloviating twenty-three minute song suite from Atom Heart Mother any day.
posted by gigawhat? at 2:29 PM on June 13, 2005

I'll take a long, varied twenty-three minute song suite from Atom Heart Mother over a forgettable piece of pop fluff like "Arnold Layne" any day...which makes us like Stevie Wonder and Paul McCartney, ebony and ivory, living together in perfect harmony.
posted by Bugbread at 3:56 PM on June 13, 2005

I'll take a long, varied twenty-three minute song suite from Atom Heart Mother over a forgettable piece of pop fluff

Poor bugbread, you just don't get it. Any band of jagoffs can fart around with their instruments for twenty minutes (although Floyd do it better than most), but it's far more difficult to create compact pop masterpieces like "Arnold Layne."
posted by jonmc at 4:36 PM on June 13, 2005

mdn, I can't stay and argue with you point by point here (gotta birthday party to get to), but at least admit that without Sgt. Peppers there never would have been a Pink Floyd, at least not in the form we know today. Sgt. Peppers' Lonely Hearts Club Band, if it didn't wholly invent the genre of art rock (and some will argue that it did), was, at the very least, the work that gave rock/popular music permission to be experimental.

and many examples of people talking, yelling, or otherwise vocalizing

And Marvin Gaye beat them to that in What's Going On, one of those sublime pop masterpieces jonmc is talking about. I don't hate PF by any means, and I think they certainly expanded upon the vocabulary of sound collage and art rock, but I can't think of them as being particularly original or as songwriting geniuses, the way the Beatles were in their greatest creative years.
posted by jokeefe at 5:06 PM on June 13, 2005

And I'll add that Floyd were more successful at their art-rock experiments than most precisely because they never ignored either side of the equation. Gilmour's roots were in very basic rock (he credits "Rock Around The Clock," with making him want to be a guitarist) and there was still plenty of BB King in his guitar playing however obscured by all the sound & fury, and rather than just amplify bombastic symphonies like Emerson, Lake & Palmer, they chose artistic traditions (like the avant-garde use of noise and speech) that worked better within a rock framework.
posted by jonmc at 5:26 PM on June 13, 2005

Although, when Syd left the Floyd, he took the sense of humor with him, sadly.
posted by jonmc at 5:27 PM on June 13, 2005

jokeefe: "mdn, I can't stay and argue with you point by point here (gotta birthday party to get to), but at least admit that without Sgt. Peppers there never would have been a Pink Floyd, at least not in the form we know today. Sgt. Peppers' Lonely Hearts Club Band, if it didn't wholly invent the genre of art rock (and some will argue that it did), was, at the very least, the work that gave rock/popular music permission to be experimental."

This is certainly true, and if you asked Syd Barrett, he'd probably agree. "Piper at the Gates" was recorded a few months after "Sgt. Pepper's," right?

But I have to say that, for those of us who are somewhat interested in where pop music went in the 80s, Pink Floyd is important. That spacey synthesizer really was influential. Sure, their influence had to be cleansed of its bloatedness; that's what punk was for. Johnny Rotten insists to this day that he was 'discovered' one day when he was wearing a "I hate Pink Floyd" t-shirt. The anti-war sentimentality, the hatred of authority, the bitterness at the record industry; these were all pretty important themes in the decade after Pink Floyd. They don't stand alone-- there were a lot of bands in the seventies that pushed this stuff along-- but you can't deny that they bridged an important gap. The Beatles might have freed pop music to experiment (personally, I think Rubber Soul did this more than any of their other records, though it's more subtle and wasn't percieved at the time), but the Beatles remained a pop band. They're the reason the seventies weren't a pop decade. They opened the door for Pink Floyd and Led Zeppelin to create the things that would become stripped-down and popularized in the eighties.

And aside from 'influence,' which doesn't account for a hill of beans in the final run anyhow, I like Pink Floyd for the same reason I like stuff like Brian Eno and Jean Michel Jarre: I like spacey atmosphere. It's fun. Also, David Gilmour, like Jimmy Page (although not quite as much), had that rare talent for playing old blues and country things and making them sound beautifully strange and new.
posted by koeselitz at 6:14 PM on June 13, 2005

gigawhat? writes : I'll take a sparkly three minute pop gem like "Arnold Layne" over a plodding, bloviating twenty-three minute song suite from Atom Heart Mother any day.

If you ever get the chance, listen to one of the live renditions of AHM that they did without the help of the famous "We can play out of tune!" orchestra. The live version is, in my estimation, so far superior to the album version that it's almost a completely different song. (Same goes for Fat Old Sun)

/bootleg nerd
posted by afroblanca at 6:25 PM on June 13, 2005

afroblanca: I'm not (and I don't think jokeefe is) saying that improvisational jams are always without merit (you'll get my copy of the Allman's Live At The Fillmore East when you pry it from my cold dead hands, for instance) merely that it's far more difficult, and often more satisfying (for listener and creator) to behold something like "Louie Louie" or "Wooly Bully."

Not that it can't all be great at times, like i said.
posted by jonmc at 6:30 PM on June 13, 2005

jonmc: I definitely see where you guys are coming from. Still, it is a shame that live versions of AHM and FOS never made it to an official release. If the only versions of these songs I ever heard were from the album, I doubt that I would think very much of them at all. As it is, I feel that the bootleg versions represent some of the Floyd's finest work.

(mourning the loss of EasyTree and queuing up 04/29/70)
posted by afroblanca at 7:00 PM on June 13, 2005

jonmc : "Poor bugbread, you just don't get it. Any band of jagoffs can fart around with their instruments for twenty minutes (although Floyd do it better than most), but it's far more difficult to create compact pop masterpieces like 'Arnold Layne.'"

You're right, I apparently don't get it. Any band of jagoffs can fart around with their instruments for twenty minutes, and I've heard countless bands who prove that that's true. However, it takes a good band to fart around and make it sound good. Pink Floyd was one of those bands (though, personally, I don't think they farted around with their instruments). And while it's more difficult to create compact pop masterpieces, to me that seems like saying it's more difficult to do your hair just right, or scoop up a handful of 473 grains of sand, both of which may be true but which I don't give a toss about. I don't listen to music based on how difficult it is to create, but how much I like it. I personally find (most of) Pink Floyd's first album nice and fine and pleasant, but not very moving or engaging, regardless of how incredibly difficult it may or may not have been, and I find Dark Side, UmmaGumma, and Saucerful of Secrets to be really engaging, interesting, and emotional, regardless of how easy it may have been to make.

Same way with most things, actually. I never cared for teachers who graded for effort. If someone spends 10 hours working on a paper and it turns out good, I never thought they deserved a better grade than someone who banged out the paper in an hour and produced something equally good.

I'm not saying their pop stuff is bad (my response was just a flippant counter to gigawhat's flippant dismissal), it's just that, to me, it doesn't matter one whit how hard something is to make, just whether I like it or not (though I admit a weakness for technical proficiency, which will be my downfall).
posted by Bugbread at 7:36 PM on June 13, 2005

And I'll add that Floyd were more successful at their art-rock experiments than most precisely because they never ignored either side of the equation.

yeah, this is true. They are one of the few bands I really connected to which also had a huge following, and I don't doubt that that's because they were solidly loyal to rocknroll even while getting a little weird.

Sgt. Peppers' Lonely Hearts Club Band, if it didn't wholly invent the genre of art rock (and some will argue that it did), was, at the very least, the work that gave rock/popular music permission to be experimental.

I'll respect this opinion since it seems quite widespread (I wasn't around and perhaps it was more groundbreaking at the time than it looks in retrospect), but I think it's worth noting that by the time the beatles "got experimental", other experimental bands (including pink floyd) were already active. And while Sgt Pepper's is officially a 'concept album', it doesn't stick close to a theme, and to an outside observer seems mostly like a collection of unrelated pop songs, except for the opening & closing tracks.

BUT, I definitely did not want to get off onto a this vs. that tangent; I absolutely recognize that lots of people did lots of experimental stuff before pink floyd - there were great electronic / samply soundtracks of sci fi movies in the 50's, for one thing... I just kinda felt that the beatles aren't the best example of really changing the way music works. They were extremely good at what they did (and as jonmc suggests, perhaps it's harder to do, tho' that's arguable & wouldn't make it better anyway) ) which was creating catchy songs, not experimenting with sound collage.

It's probably fair to say that nothing about music would be exactly the same as it is without the beatles, because they were so big that anyone was probably influenced to some extent, and, they had the power to popularize lesser-known musical experiments. But, I'm not sure they deserve greater credit for the future of instrumentalism / sampling than bands which actually repeatedly and centrally used such techniques, just because they dipped their feet in that water.
posted by mdn at 8:01 PM on June 13, 2005

Well, it's a bit of a tangled web. From what I've read, Sid fairly idolized the Beatles, and his goal in Piper at the Gates of Dawn was emulation of the Beatles. So, the Beatles deserve credit for inspiring Pink Floyd, who, going back to the basis of the tangent, deserve credit for inspiring all the people doing long, electronic, textury stuff today. Which is how things usually go with music: everything can be traced back ad nauseum.
posted by Bugbread at 8:13 PM on June 13, 2005

From what I've read, Sid fairly idolized the Beatles, and his goal in Piper at the Gates of Dawn was emulation of the Beatles.

He also had a big Dylan complex. At one point, he refused to go on Top of The Pops because Dylan didn't have to do it.
posted by afroblanca at 10:28 PM on June 13, 2005

Got the Bob Dylan blues
And the Bob Dylan Shoes
And my clothes and my hair’s in a mess
But you know I just couldn’t care less

Goin’ to write me a song
Bout’ what’s right and what’s wrong
Bout’ god and my god and all that
Quiet while I make like a cat

Cause I’m a poet
Don’t ya know it
And the wind, you can blow it
Cause I’m Mr. Dylan, the king
And I’m free as a bird on the wing

--excerpt from The Bob Dylan Blues, Syd Barrett
posted by afroblanca at 10:33 PM on June 13, 2005

They're going to take away my Pink Floyd Appreciation Club card. "Mr. Bugbread, we've told you countless times before, 'Sid' is for 'Vicious', 'Syd' is for 'Barrett'"
posted by Bugbread at 1:31 AM on June 14, 2005

I have seen Pink Floyd, the Ramones, and Radiohead live (the last two in rather intimate venues), still like listening to their songs, and would have no qualms whatsoever about paying to see any of them again (in a fantasy world, obviously, WRT the Ramones).

I have no taste. I have no standards. I suck.

Signed,
A Music Fan
posted by LondonYank at 2:00 AM on June 14, 2005

One day when I was about 14 (1971), I put my headphones on and listened to Echoes, from Meddle. I found myself in another place.

Things were seen, things were done. Words were spoken. The world has never been the same since.

Glory be to the Pink.
posted by Goofyy at 2:42 AM on June 14, 2005

Glory be! Another Echoes fan - outstanding piece of work - both sides...
posted by fairmettle at 3:39 AM on June 14, 2005

(and as jonmc suggests, perhaps it's harder to do, tho' that's arguable & wouldn't make it better anyway)

*ties mdn to chair a la Clockwork Orange and plays "Surfin' Bird," "Sugar Sugar," "Speedo," and "Wig Wam Bam," on endless loop*

Sure you don't want to reconsider that position, young lady?
posted by jonmc at 6:40 AM on June 14, 2005

(actually, you acknowledged that making such songs is an Art, even if it's not's your bag. It was more the "pop fluff" dismissal of bugbread's that aroused my ire. But I'm cool.)

oooh child, things are gonna get easier....
someday, we'll get it together and we'll get it undone..
posted by jonmc at 7:02 AM on June 14, 2005

jonmc : "It was more the 'pop fluff' dismissal of bugbread's that aroused my ire."

And that was just taking a devil's advocate position in response to gigawhat's "plodding, bloviating" dismissal. Honestly, I like PF's first album just fine (it's not quite pop fluff), I just highly prefer their non-pop stuff.
posted by Bugbread at 7:59 AM on June 14, 2005

Holy shit, jonmc. Where'd that video come from? I think I see many high school friends in that video, and half expect to see myself. I am going to have to go over this video a little closer and see who I recognize.

Damn, I hated the Crap Centre, but it was the local place to see big touring bands.

"Reston, VA. Mayberry USA!" Wow that was a long time ago.
posted by terrapin at 9:17 AM on June 14, 2005

That video was called Heavy Metal Parking Lot, it was filmed at a Judas Preist show in Largo, Maryland (although it could be nearly anywhere)in 1986. The video seems to be intending to make fun of them, but the burnout galoots (and the 16-year-old jonmc was just like these kids) look like they're having such a good time, that it makes you want to crack a beer and sing Preist songs with 'em.
posted by jonmc at 9:41 AM on June 14, 2005

Sure looks earlier than 1986. I grew up in that area and went to plenty of metal shows at the old Capital Centre (which was in Landover, not Largo), and I swear I recognize old friends and advisaries in that footage. I forwarded the link to various friends from the era. Thanks.

The 20-year-old making out with the 13-year-old is way creepy though
posted by terrapin at 9:55 AM on June 14, 2005

I before E except when it isn't, jon. "Priest" would be the correct spelling.
posted by five fresh fish at 10:03 AM on June 14, 2005

jon, unfortunately the only song of those I recognize by name is sugar sugar, so I can't properly suffer the horror of your proposed torture...

I think what Gooffy said above is kinda the point for me. When I was a kid, my parents played the beatles and the rolling stones and even some new wave-ish pop, and I thought it was fun, pleasing, generally good, but I never thought it was important. I also heard 80's pop on the radio, and hated it. I drew the conclusion that I was just not a particularly musical person, but if anything, I liked "oldies."

When i discovered pink floyd, it was a revelation to me: music could be interesting - not just enjoyable, but full of different layers and tangents, full of meaning and emotion and exploration. Music could bring up the kind of feelings that only paintings or books (or nature) had brought up before. Maybe one can argue that if you're naturally musical you catch onto this without such obvious examples as pink floyd, I dunno. But it really changed my understanding of things.

And like bugbread, i don't care what's harder or easier to produce. You can argue that it's easier to paint impressionistic than realistic paintings, but that doesn't change the fact that van gogh touches me in a way that rembrandt just doesn't.

I'm not trying to say that van gogh is better, or that pink floyd is better, by the way. I think you can judge a certain amount of skill/talent semi-objectively, and I think there is also a matter of pure subjective response. Sometimes people with similarly respectable levels of talent will just affect different people different ways.
posted by mdn at 10:33 AM on June 14, 2005

And that was just taking a devil's advocate position in response to gigawhat's "plodding, bloviating" dismissal.

Perhaps that was a bit harsh. Would you prefer "pretentious and overwrought"? ;-)
posted by gigawhat? at 11:07 AM on June 14, 2005

gigawhat? : "Perhaps that was a bit harsh. Would you prefer 'pretentious and overwrought'? ;-)"

Very. Then I could change "pop fluff" to "empty-headed and undercooked ditty" ;-)
posted by Bugbread at 11:15 AM on June 14, 2005

jon, unfortunately the only song of those I recognize by name is sugar sugar, so I can't properly suffer the horror of your proposed torture...

Ever see Full Metal Jacket? Surfin' Bird(audio) is the song flaying when they see the evacuation copter. It's pure nonsenical distilled anarchic pleasure, something to torture Allan Bloom & Tipper Gore with. Speedo(audio) is featured in Goodfellas when young Henry Hill is selling hijack smokes on the streetcorner. Pure streetcorner symphony fun. My dad used to have the 45 from when he was a kid.* Wig Wam Bam(audio) is from British Glamsters Sweet, and Glam wasn't nothin' but bubblegum pop coated in distorted guitars and power chords. Enjoy your tortune, honey.

Read this for further elucidation.

*tangentially, god I miss CBS-FM, which is what I was raised on. The last great oldies station in NYC, and it's gone now. *sniff* I miss Cousin Brucie, although he's probably just a head in a jar at this point.
posted by jonmc at 11:38 AM on June 14, 2005

Thanks for all the info, benzo8. I think it belongs on the sideblog.
posted by Devils Slide at 6:20 PM on June 14, 2005

mdn: Being a musician, one falls in love with performance issues. This is separate from the meaning of the music.

In a sense, Pink destroyed my music, because what I was performing wasn't as meaningful to me in that way. It took me a couple years to realize that had happened.

The skill of the pop hit is certainly a skill. But so is the skill of creating long works that appeal to those used to the short radio numbers, or putting together an album which plays as a coherent whole where the goodness of the album is greater than the sum of its parts.

But different music is written with different intent. Some is feel good light stuff. Some of it is intended to be spiritual. Rick Wakeman expressed the idea in No Earthly Connection: "Let music evolve to guide man to his soul".
posted by Goofyy at 12:05 AM on June 15, 2005