I stand corrected, sir...but why, I ask, why did the omission of of a three letter article lead to the commercialization of this once disturbingly brilliant band...was the "THE" the jagged edged between being truly insane and becoming comfortably numb?
Floyd's commercialization had less to do with the omission of the article "the" from their name and more to do with the mental meltdown of Syd Barrett. Had he been able to hold it together, they might not have gone the direction they took. Not that I have any problems with their music post Barrett. David Gilmour is one of the most creative, brilliant guitarists alive, and the band's music certainly ranks among the best of the era. "Meddle" is still timeless, and for all the pop radio play "Dark Side...""Wish you Were Here" and "Animals" were incredible albums. I think when Gilmour and Wright got on the outs with Roger Waters things took a dive. "The Wall" would have been their all time classic had Waters not insisted on making a double album out of ten really good tunes... padding it with another ten fillers. Gilmour insisted on arena venues for maximum paydays, Waters wanted intimate club settings for the music, and they fell apart. Or at least that's the way I read the obits. Hard to top their creative library of music, though, through the years. (and as far as commericialization goes, I still haven't heard their tunes hyping cars, or beer, or insurance like so many other bands of the day)
I have to admit that I am severely prejudiced when it comes to my ability to appreciate the post Barret work of Pink Floyd. I have Barrets solo records and there's something about the damaged outsider aspect to his work, much as I will always be a fan of Roky Erikson, though Erikson continues to exist and even thrive. I think it has a lot to do with my attitude about rock in the early 70's. It's more about me than the music, I have to admit. I like Gilmours playing and a lot of the further works of Pink Floyd, but the eccenticity, the disconnected bizarre expression of Barrett will always be more attractive to me than the slick work that made Floyd stadium superstars. As I said earlier, it's more about me than the music.
4 comments:
Not to quibble, but (quibble commencing) I believe they were called THE Pink Floyd in those happy daze?
I stand corrected, sir...but why, I ask, why did the omission of of a three letter article lead to the commercialization of this once disturbingly brilliant band...was the "THE" the jagged edged between being truly insane and becoming comfortably numb?
Floyd's commercialization had less to do with the omission of the article "the" from their name and more to do with the mental meltdown of Syd Barrett. Had he been able to hold it together, they might not have gone the direction they took. Not that I have any problems with their music post Barrett. David Gilmour is one of the most creative, brilliant guitarists alive, and the band's music certainly ranks among the best of the era.
"Meddle" is still timeless, and for all the pop radio play "Dark Side...""Wish you Were Here" and "Animals" were incredible albums.
I think when Gilmour and Wright got on the outs with Roger Waters things took a dive. "The Wall" would have been their all time classic had Waters not insisted on making a double album out of ten really good tunes... padding it with another ten fillers.
Gilmour insisted on arena venues for maximum paydays, Waters wanted intimate club settings for the music, and they fell apart.
Or at least that's the way I read the obits.
Hard to top their creative library of music, though, through the years. (and as far as commericialization goes, I still haven't heard their tunes hyping cars, or beer, or insurance like so many other bands of the day)
I have to admit that I am severely prejudiced when it comes to my ability to appreciate the post Barret work of Pink Floyd. I have Barrets solo records and there's something about the damaged outsider aspect to his work, much as I will always be a fan of Roky Erikson, though Erikson continues to exist and even thrive.
I think it has a lot to do with my attitude about rock in the early 70's. It's more about me than the music, I have to admit. I like Gilmours playing and a lot of the further works of Pink Floyd, but the eccenticity, the disconnected bizarre expression of Barrett will always be more attractive to me than the slick work that made Floyd stadium superstars. As I said earlier, it's more about me than the music.
Post a Comment