OFF Pink Floyd

[Stephen Swann]

Maxine Wesley writes:
>

Since this *is* so wildly off topic, this will be the last post I make
on the subject...

> > From:    Stephen Swann <swann at MINDVOX.COM>
> > Subject: Re: OFF - Pink Floyd
>
> > Well, he was their lyrical and conceptual creativity.  Personally,
> > I think the real musicianship was in the hands of the other guys.
>
> I agree.. there are some marvellous musicians out there but if they
> havn't got anything interesting to play then they might as well call
> themselves Take That (or somethin!)

Oh, I pretty much agree on that point.  I think that the Floyd are
fairly crap without Waters.  But I also thought that Waters was a
stranded genius since he left - no way of communicating his ideas
through music without them.  The head separated from the body; both
are pretty useless without the other.

> I agree... again.. and I also love Dave Gilmours Solo stuf for what it is
> - a 'Soft' Rock album with some beautiful tunes, cheerful ditties and
> lyrics.

Well, I wouldn't call it soft rock.  In this country, that encompasses
such music as Michael Bolton, and Phil Collins' recent solo work
<shudder>.  :-)

 [ quotation from "Cruise" - tbe most beautiful (beautifully
     cynical) ballad ever written to a nuclear missile ]

> But it's the Pink Floyd stuff that 'grabs you by the throat' and shakes you
> upside down that I associate with RW... music for the mind?

Oh, I know.  We'll never hear another _Wish You Were Here_ from them,
without Waters.  I don't listen to modern Floyd much: _Momentary
Lapse of Reason_ had some fine musical moments, but not much depth,
and _Division Bell_ didn't spark more than a flicker of interest
in me.

> I'll shut up now on this topic coz I've pissed everyone off :(

I don't think anyone was pissed off.  The Floyd thing is kind of
old news by now, and everyone's pretty much made up their minds
what they think about it...  :-)

Steve
swann at panix.com