mikoyan29 Wrote:I actually like On An Island. Does it compare to Gilmours earlier solo work? Yes. Does it compare to the two Waterless Floyd Albums? No, but then it shouldn't. Floyd had something special. Everything meshed just about right. As I have said before, take the Gilmour solo stuff and Waters solo stuff and you'd have a decent Floyd album. Instead you have two good bodies of work that could have been better.

I don't know, OAI is far superior to any Floyd album since The Wall IMO

You've also got to consider that Pink Floyd marked a very special time in history that probably won't be repeated again. Late sixties to early mid -seventies was a different society than compared to right now. Believe me I grew up in the seventies and many, many things have changed now. People back than were more easy going and less anal-retentive. You didn't have the internet or computers so people on a whole would go out more to be entertained. There was a sense of un-discovered magic in the air back than.
These things need to be considered that co-incide with when Pink Floyd was in the light along with all the other bands back than.

mikoyan29 Wrote:I actually like On An Island. Does it compare to Gilmours earlier solo work? Yes. Does it compare to the two Waterless Floyd Albums? No, but then it shouldn't. Floyd had something special. Everything meshed just about right. As I have said before, take the Gilmour solo stuff and Waters solo stuff and you'd have a decent Floyd album. Instead you have two good bodies of work that could have been better.

5+5=10
Why should I be satisfied with 5 if I can enjoy 10?
Gilmore and Waters are two poles that are excellent together, but inferior as alone.
What opportunities does the bicycle give you, compared to monocycle?

Irresistible Pastime Wrote:

mikoyan29 Wrote:I actually like On An Island. Does it compare to Gilmours earlier solo work? Yes. Does it compare to the two Waterless Floyd Albums? No, but then it shouldn't. Floyd had something special. Everything meshed just about right. As I have said before, take the Gilmour solo stuff and Waters solo stuff and you'd have a decent Floyd album. Instead you have two good bodies of work that could have been better.

5+5=10
Why should I be satisfied with 5 if I can enjoy 10?
Gilmore and Waters are two poles that are excellent together, but inferior as alone.
What opportunities does the bicycle give you, compared to monocycle?

Pink Floyd wasn't a simple equation and your analogy fails.
Some of your statements in this thread dance very close to trolling, inferior? Please.

Grumble grumble... clears throat annoyingly several times.

So anyways, Sonny, if yer young people have a monopoly on rock'n'roll relevance nowadays, when in hell are they a-fixin' to prove it?

Move on up now. Try for further, the man said.

We're waiting...

I knew it. I knew it. It's gonna take one of us spent out irrelevant old coots to show you the way. How much you wanna bet?

carefulwiththataxeEugene Wrote:I have to say, I've been to a fair number of concerts by the great artists of the past. Bob Dylan, Neil Young, The Guess Who, Ringo Starr, and, most recently, Jethro Tull, to name a few. But although I always enjoy the shows, I always leave them feeling a bit sad.

Two reasons. First, and most obvious, their age is apparent, and although their passion for their work cannot be denied, their physical ability to express that passion has dwindled. Second...well, by now they have become comfortable with what works for their audience (many of whom first saw them during their first tour), and have a specific set list with little or no surprises. Now, I love the music they play, but I also get a little down that they can find so few selections from their modern works (if any) to perform. This could be because their newer work is just a pale shadow/immitation of what they once had, and this makes me sad as well. As far as I'm concerned, very few of my favorite bands (that are still playing, obviously) are capable of making new music TODAY that I listen to and think, "Wow...that's really good." Neil Young springs to mind, and at the moment no one else does. He blends old favorites with new material better than anyone I've seen, in such a way that he's not rehashing old glories, but actually adding to his legacy, and showing why he's still relevant.

I guess a lot of people like to see the old guys up there doing their songs from thirty years ago for the nostalgia value. But as someone who is too young to have seen them back in the day (damn it), I guess I want to go to these concerts and see them give me something I've never heard before, something that adds to their stature, and something that, while it perhaps harkens back to the old times, is not just reminiscent of the "glory days." I want to go to see them and feel that the glory days aren't over yet.

I agree with you about Neil Young: he's definitely in the here and now, and I never feel like he's rehashing old glories. He may well be the old rocker who's aged best--seems that he's living up to his surname!

Having said that, I was really pleased by David's 2006 tour: we got a mix of material from the 60's, 70's, 80's, 90's and 00's--five decades of material mixed together. Hearing stuff from OAI and TDB rubbing shoulders with stuff like Astronomy Domine and Fat Old Sun gives me a sense of history, of the artists' (Dave and Rick's) development and evolution. You got to hear Dave and Rick blending their voices on Echoes from 1971, and then The Blue from 2006. Plus, the songs are often reinvented and reimagined. In contrast, while Roger usually does a good job of rearranging old songs, it's been sad for me to see him playing sets mostly comprised of Floyd oldies, especially considering that Amused to Death was a really good album. I'm hoping for a new album from Waters and a setlist that shows a more complete version of his history.

As for Dave, his setlist will have to change now that Rick is gone, but I'm very optimistic that the next time he tours, we'll get an equally balanced mix of his great musical career, delivered in a fresh way.

Of COURSE its differnt. Of course it can be sad now and again to see players not being able to emote as they did in the milky frolic of youth. I can't listen to Daves latest solo offerings for very long in one "pop," but I can hear and respect the work and effort he places into it, and some of the guitar work is stunning. When I hear the treatments of the classic line on Floyd songs in his shows? I can hear how he's went back and given the guitar parts new treatments and honed them well, and one sees the what could've just mabey have been, one more time, but thats a mute point right now.

I watched "Remember," last night, and after the solo stuff, albeit well done was making me a tad weepy, I place on good ol' "Pompeii," and yes, seeing Nick just playing with confidence and meaning is just so nice. They say youth is wasted on the young, and I bet ONE of the things they fellows think when they look at those old films? is perhaps they regret not brushing their teeth more often, and perhaps not being able to fit into that butterfly shirt anymore.

Remember, they did say much the same? the grass was greener, the light was brighter.