Division Bell Vinyl
Posted by: garyi on 16 September 2003
I just got Pink Floyds Division bell on vinyl.
Again proof to me that the vinyl medium is still very relevent, sounding sweeter, clearer and just better than the CD version. Its blue vinyl as well, which I would expect to sound like shite.
Again proof to me that the vinyl medium is still very relevent, sounding sweeter, clearer and just better than the CD version. Its blue vinyl as well, which I would expect to sound like shite.
Posted on: 16 September 2003 by bjorne
quote:
Originally posted by garyi:
I just got Pink Floyds Division bell on vinyl.
...sounding sweeter, clearer and just better than the CD version.
I'm not surprised
, quite good album also.Posted on: 16 September 2003 by Cheese
An Ummagumma on CD is still better than a Division Bell on vinyl
Cheese
Cheese
Posted on: 16 September 2003 by Rasher
Cheese - Yup, I'll go with that.
Posted on: 17 September 2003 by Pete
quote:
Originally posted by garyi:
Its blue vinyl as well, which I would expect to sound like shite.
Why? For years now all vinyl has been coloured, it's just most of it is coloured black. The material used hasn't been naturally black for yonks, and I can't see blue colouring will sound worse than black. Though there's probably some complete saddo who claims there's a huge and clear difference...
Pete.
p.s., Ummagaumma's live album is okay if you're after something acidic, but the studio one, Grantchester Meadows apart, is a load of tosh that the band themselves have pretty much disowned as awful IIRC.
Posted on: 17 September 2003 by garyi
Pete my suposition was not based in personal experience, I was always told that coloured vinyl sound shite.
As it goes I have a few now and they all sound fine, so nuff said.
I like umma guma, its a great album.
However I think floyd does need to be split into two or three groups, lets consider them floyd one: The Barret days, Floyd two, up to Wish You Were Here, or maby the Wall.
Then floyd three, momentry lapse and beyond, we won't clasify final cut. I like it but its not anything to do with floyd really.
I like floyd three as a seperate entity, i think its musical and impressive, good enough for me, can't see them doing a lot more though, any thoughts?
As it goes I have a few now and they all sound fine, so nuff said.
I like umma guma, its a great album.
However I think floyd does need to be split into two or three groups, lets consider them floyd one: The Barret days, Floyd two, up to Wish You Were Here, or maby the Wall.
Then floyd three, momentry lapse and beyond, we won't clasify final cut. I like it but its not anything to do with floyd really.
I like floyd three as a seperate entity, i think its musical and impressive, good enough for me, can't see them doing a lot more though, any thoughts?
Posted on: 17 September 2003 by Paul Ranson
IIRC part of what makes black vinyl black also makes it more slippery, which helps to reduce surface noise. So non-black or picture discs may be noisier. I'd have thought the basic quality was the same though, if they're pressed from the same stampers.
Paul
Paul
Posted on: 18 September 2003 by Kevin-W
Quote from Garyi
we won't clasify final cut. I like it but its not anything to do with floyd really.
The Final Cut is a much better record than Momentary Lapse or Division. It's much more of a Floyd album than Lapse. Final Cut is dominated totally by Waters, but Gilmour sings and plays guitar on it, and Mason plays on all but one track. It's as much a group effort as The Wall was. Lapse, in contrast, is completely dominated by Gilmour, Mason hardly plays on it and Wright makes a miniscule contribution. What is not played by Gilmour is played by session hacks. It's a rotten record, which superficially sounds like Floyd but which in fact is nothing of the sort. Lapse is the dog in the manger of their catalogue (the Derision Hell, while not great, is at least the effort of a group rather than a disparate bunch of hacks trying to recreate a sound).
can't see them doing a lot more though, any thoughts?
I spoke to Gilmour a while back and he said that he was a bit too old to take the whole circus on the road again. The problem with the Floyd is that it's all so massive - 800+ tons of equipment, 200-strong crew, 3 days to set the stage up, one and a half to take it down again, etc etc - that playing live only becomes viable on a mega-tour of the world (and of six months' or more duration). And who, apart from the Stones, wants to do that when they're in their late 50s? And with the Floyd, you can't do without all the lights and stuff - that's partyly why people go to see 'em. Although Gilmour solo can play the kind of stripped down intimate solo shows he did at the Festival Hall in 2001/2002, that's not Pink Floyd.
The only way I can see them playing again is if Roger Waters rejoined, as that would be - along with ed Zep - the biggest live draw in the universe. Although RW and Nick Mason are mates again, and relations between Waters and Gilmour have thawed slightly, I can't really imagine RW swallowing his (not inconsiderable) pride even if vast amounts of money were up for grabs.
Kevin
PS Ummagumma is the Floyd's best album. The live album is fab, the studio sides are actually far better than most people give them credit for. They're certainly more interesting the The Wall or any of the post-Waters albums.
we won't clasify final cut. I like it but its not anything to do with floyd really.
The Final Cut is a much better record than Momentary Lapse or Division. It's much more of a Floyd album than Lapse. Final Cut is dominated totally by Waters, but Gilmour sings and plays guitar on it, and Mason plays on all but one track. It's as much a group effort as The Wall was. Lapse, in contrast, is completely dominated by Gilmour, Mason hardly plays on it and Wright makes a miniscule contribution. What is not played by Gilmour is played by session hacks. It's a rotten record, which superficially sounds like Floyd but which in fact is nothing of the sort. Lapse is the dog in the manger of their catalogue (the Derision Hell, while not great, is at least the effort of a group rather than a disparate bunch of hacks trying to recreate a sound).
can't see them doing a lot more though, any thoughts?
I spoke to Gilmour a while back and he said that he was a bit too old to take the whole circus on the road again. The problem with the Floyd is that it's all so massive - 800+ tons of equipment, 200-strong crew, 3 days to set the stage up, one and a half to take it down again, etc etc - that playing live only becomes viable on a mega-tour of the world (and of six months' or more duration). And who, apart from the Stones, wants to do that when they're in their late 50s? And with the Floyd, you can't do without all the lights and stuff - that's partyly why people go to see 'em. Although Gilmour solo can play the kind of stripped down intimate solo shows he did at the Festival Hall in 2001/2002, that's not Pink Floyd.
The only way I can see them playing again is if Roger Waters rejoined, as that would be - along with ed Zep - the biggest live draw in the universe. Although RW and Nick Mason are mates again, and relations between Waters and Gilmour have thawed slightly, I can't really imagine RW swallowing his (not inconsiderable) pride even if vast amounts of money were up for grabs.
Kevin
PS Ummagumma is the Floyd's best album. The live album is fab, the studio sides are actually far better than most people give them credit for. They're certainly more interesting the The Wall or any of the post-Waters albums.
Posted on: 18 September 2003 by Rasher
Funny how Meddle, Obscured by Clouds & Atom Heart Mother are always overlooked. They, with Ummagumma, are my favorites. I always thought Wish You Were Here wasn't as good as most made it out to be.
But that's just me I guess.
But that's just me I guess.
Posted on: 18 September 2003 by Pete
Quotes from Kevin-W
It's much more of a Floyd album than Lapse. Final Cut is dominated totally by Waters, but Gilmour sings and plays guitar on it
It's dominated too much by the lyrical content at the expense of the music to be "more of a Floyd album" IMHO. WHere does DG sing on tFC? Must have missed it...
It's as much a group effort as The Wall was
Depends which version of history you listen to! I'm inclined to take the best approximation of the truth as Gilmour + Waters / 2 as far as story goes, and though Roger likes to make out he was very much in charge of everything on The Wall, nobody's even bothering to argue the case as far as tFC is concerned. So though I can't be sure, I think your above suggestion is probably wrong.
I don't think Lapse has stood up that well, but though I always preferred tFC I think Lapse is more like "the classic Pink Floyd sound".
Ummagumma is the Floyd's best album. The live album is fab, the studio sides are actually far better than most people give them credit for
Don't forget that "most people" include the band members themselves, and since each section was a solo project the others would play on it's not really much of a group effort either. The band members have similarly largely disowned AHM, and having got over a period of thinking it was wonderful I must say that in the harsh light of reality I must agree with them. It's a largely incoherent mish-mash of ideas that doesn't really hang together that well and is over-egged with experimentation for the sake of experimentation. Co-writer Ron Geesin still seems to like it, but again we're at a point where the presence of a co-writer takes away it's credentials as "pure Floyd", if you really care about that (can't say I do...). Compare and contrast to DSotM, where everything is clear, to the point, and just as long as it should be, or Meddle, where with Echoes the boys proved you could meander for 20 minutes and still come out with a rewarding song that held together well and was more than the sum of its parts. The parts of AHM aren't up to much, and adding them together doesn't really help... Fantastic cover, though!
Pete.
It's much more of a Floyd album than Lapse. Final Cut is dominated totally by Waters, but Gilmour sings and plays guitar on it
It's dominated too much by the lyrical content at the expense of the music to be "more of a Floyd album" IMHO. WHere does DG sing on tFC? Must have missed it...
It's as much a group effort as The Wall was
Depends which version of history you listen to! I'm inclined to take the best approximation of the truth as Gilmour + Waters / 2 as far as story goes, and though Roger likes to make out he was very much in charge of everything on The Wall, nobody's even bothering to argue the case as far as tFC is concerned. So though I can't be sure, I think your above suggestion is probably wrong.
I don't think Lapse has stood up that well, but though I always preferred tFC I think Lapse is more like "the classic Pink Floyd sound".
Ummagumma is the Floyd's best album. The live album is fab, the studio sides are actually far better than most people give them credit for
Don't forget that "most people" include the band members themselves, and since each section was a solo project the others would play on it's not really much of a group effort either. The band members have similarly largely disowned AHM, and having got over a period of thinking it was wonderful I must say that in the harsh light of reality I must agree with them. It's a largely incoherent mish-mash of ideas that doesn't really hang together that well and is over-egged with experimentation for the sake of experimentation. Co-writer Ron Geesin still seems to like it, but again we're at a point where the presence of a co-writer takes away it's credentials as "pure Floyd", if you really care about that (can't say I do...). Compare and contrast to DSotM, where everything is clear, to the point, and just as long as it should be, or Meddle, where with Echoes the boys proved you could meander for 20 minutes and still come out with a rewarding song that held together well and was more than the sum of its parts. The parts of AHM aren't up to much, and adding them together doesn't really help... Fantastic cover, though!
Pete.
Posted on: 18 September 2003 by garyi
To be honest I think I could like Atom Heart if the recording had been even slightly good.
Its th sort of album you like as a young floyd fan, but like myself tend to disregard after a while. I found it in good quality on vinyl, but still don't play it.
Regarding momentry lapse. Another poor effort on the recording quality, all digital I think. But I do like a few songs off it.
I didn't really make my self clear, I really like the final cut, its bloody miserable but gets aired about once a month. If the band are telling the truth though, its basically a waters solo, so in that context should be considered as un floyd like as momentry lapse, at least mason was involved with that one.
Its th sort of album you like as a young floyd fan, but like myself tend to disregard after a while. I found it in good quality on vinyl, but still don't play it.
Regarding momentry lapse. Another poor effort on the recording quality, all digital I think. But I do like a few songs off it.
I didn't really make my self clear, I really like the final cut, its bloody miserable but gets aired about once a month. If the band are telling the truth though, its basically a waters solo, so in that context should be considered as un floyd like as momentry lapse, at least mason was involved with that one.
Posted on: 18 September 2003 by Pete
quote:
Originally posted by garyi:
Regarding momentry lapse. Another poor effort on the recording quality, all digital I think. But I do like a few songs off it.
I always thought it sounded great... it's not all digital, the drum and bass parts were recorded analogue.
Terminal Frost is a cracker and the music, if not really the lyrics, of One Slip and Learning to Fly are very good. Yet Another Movie could be called Yet Another Generic Song AFAICT and A New Machine seems pretty pointless. Rest strikes me as okay but not great, though I'm happy to listen to any of it.
quote:
I didn't really make my self clear, I really like the final cut, its bloody miserable but gets aired about once a month. If the band are telling the truth though, its basically a waters solo, so in that context should be considered as un floyd like as momentry lapse, at least mason was involved with that one.
I quite agree, and think the band do too: they've never shown any interest in playing material from it on subsequent tours, for example, and I read one interview where the questioner said "I was forgetting the Final Cut" in response to something to which DG immediately quipped "we like to".
Pete.
Posted on: 18 September 2003 by Kevin-W
OK chaps
When I said Final Cut was as much a group effort as The Wall was, I meant that The Wall wasn't really much of a group effort. It's in the public domain (I once wrote a piece for a magazine to this effect) that Rick Wright barely played on it; that session players like Jeff Porcaro, Michael Kamen and Harvey Mandel were heavily involved.
It's not really a PF album in the "classic" sense either. In fact, it's less of a PF album perhaps than even Final Cut is. (BTW, Gilmour sings on "Not Now John" on TFC). The reason why the "group" (ie Gilmour) disowns TFC is because it's really a Waters record with Gilmour and Mason playing on it. You wouldn't expect the post-Waters Floyd to play it, would you? But that doesn't make it a terrible record.
Momentary Lapse is a fucking awful record, a desperate attempt by assorted hacks to recreate the "classic" PF sound. The only remotely Floydian thing about it is Gilmour's guitar and singing. It's music by committee. Full stop.
Kevin
When I said Final Cut was as much a group effort as The Wall was, I meant that The Wall wasn't really much of a group effort. It's in the public domain (I once wrote a piece for a magazine to this effect) that Rick Wright barely played on it; that session players like Jeff Porcaro, Michael Kamen and Harvey Mandel were heavily involved.
It's not really a PF album in the "classic" sense either. In fact, it's less of a PF album perhaps than even Final Cut is. (BTW, Gilmour sings on "Not Now John" on TFC). The reason why the "group" (ie Gilmour) disowns TFC is because it's really a Waters record with Gilmour and Mason playing on it. You wouldn't expect the post-Waters Floyd to play it, would you? But that doesn't make it a terrible record.
Momentary Lapse is a fucking awful record, a desperate attempt by assorted hacks to recreate the "classic" PF sound. The only remotely Floydian thing about it is Gilmour's guitar and singing. It's music by committee. Full stop.
Kevin
Posted on: 19 September 2003 by Richard S
The Echoes boxed set gives a clue to how the Floyd consider their back catalogue. Although they didn't sit in the same room at the same time it does represent a collaborative compilation.
MLOR and TFC both merit one track each. TDB gets two entries. Nuff said.
Agree that a Floyd with all 4 members would be the biggest live attraction going. Last time I saw Floyd at Earls Court they were awesome.
Sadly though I think we have seen the last of them. Be delighted to be proved wrong............
MLOR and TFC both merit one track each. TDB gets two entries. Nuff said.
Agree that a Floyd with all 4 members would be the biggest live attraction going. Last time I saw Floyd at Earls Court they were awesome.
Sadly though I think we have seen the last of them. Be delighted to be proved wrong............
Posted on: 19 September 2003 by Rasher
Nick - I'm with you. And Satanic Majesties is the only Stones album I have. I have never heard The Final Cut,and have no desire to do so really. Apparently, Obscured is Nick Masons fave album.
Posted on: 19 September 2003 by Pete
quote:
Originally posted by Kevin-W:
When I said Final Cut was as much a group effort as The Wall was, I meant that The Wall wasn't really much of a group effort.
But the fact remains that other people bar Waters had some real input into the project at various levels, where they didn't with tFC aside from playing notes as requested. So it isn't fair to say it's got the same level of "groupness" about it.
quote:
The reason why the "group" (ie Gilmour) disowns TFC is because it's really a Waters record with Gilmour and Mason playing on it. You wouldn't expect the post-Waters Floyd to play it, would you? But that doesn't make it a terrible record.
Never said it was terrible: I think it's very good, but it isn't really a PF record either musically or lyrically. I think that the actual sounds coming out of the speakers are more important than the semantics of the personnel.
quote:
Momentary Lapse is a fucking awful record, a desperate attempt by assorted hacks to recreate the "classic" PF sound. The only remotely Floydian thing about it is Gilmour's guitar and singing. It's music by committee. Full stop.
It's effectively a DG solo album, where tFC was a RW solo album. But DG's musical sensibilities and writing mesh with PF's "sound", where Roger's at the time of tFC simply didn't. The most importnat facet, the writing of the music, comes primarily from DG, not a "committee of assorted hacks".
Pink Floyd, more than most bands, have always been more than the sum of their parts. So DG plus a bit of NM would never have the same effectiveness as a true band effort (why DB is so much better). But at least 1.5 members working in the band's nominal terrain comes across as more like PF than 1 member wanting to do something totally different and not letting anyone else along for creative input, as was the case with tFC. I don't think Lapse is anything more than "mostly okay, good in parts, poor in others", but that's a whole lot better than "Fucking awful".
Pete.
Posted on: 19 September 2003 by Rasher
Maybe Floyd are too old and big to tour now, but that wouldn't stop them making a new album would it?
Posted on: 19 September 2003 by garyi
Gilmour pulls in 10 million a year doing nothing. I wouldnt be busting a gut either.
Posted on: 21 September 2003 by Richard S
I hear Dave Gilmour has donated £3.6 million from the sale of one of his homes to A housing charity. An impressive act of generosity I think.
Posted on: 22 September 2003 by Rasher
I played both Meddle & Atom Heart Mother this weekend, and aside from the main event on each, the songs on the second side are much better on AHM than those on Meddle, IMHO, of course. I mean, Seamus the dog for Chrissakes, and St Tropez - AAaahh. Horrid.
Fat Old Sun, If & Summer'68 are among the best Floyd anywhere.
Fat Old Sun, If & Summer'68 are among the best Floyd anywhere.
Posted on: 22 September 2003 by Pete
Rasher, though I agree Summer '68 is a fine song, Alan's Psychadleic Breakfast isn't, and you seem to have rather bizarrely overlooked "One of These Days", which is an absolute corker and better than anything on AHM. And as far as the "main event" goes, of course, even the band themselves think AHM isn't up to much where Echoes is far more universally loved.
Pete.
Pete.
Posted on: 22 September 2003 by Simon Perry
Out of all the Floyd albums, the one I keep coming back to (and I don't really know why) is Animals. Yet when I was a big Floyd fan this was never my favourite. How do you guys feel about Animals?
Posted on: 22 September 2003 by Richard S
Animals is a funny one.
Climbing the twin peaks that were DSOM and WYWH was always going to be nigh on impossible.
Played it recently and must admit I think it is under-appreciated, me included.
Anyone got info on the best pressing to obtain as my copy is showing it's age ?
Climbing the twin peaks that were DSOM and WYWH was always going to be nigh on impossible.
Played it recently and must admit I think it is under-appreciated, me included.
Anyone got info on the best pressing to obtain as my copy is showing it's age ?
Posted on: 22 September 2003 by Rasher
Good point. I have had Animals since its release, but not any more. I have probably never, ever, played it all. Very odd as I am a big Floyd fan. I've never heard Final Cut either.
I must go get Animals. It's about time. Good point.
Pete One of These Days is great. I was thinking that when people talk of Meddle & AHM, they primarily consider the content on the first sides and forget the songs on the back. Because AHM - (the track) is so disliked, the other tracks are never heard or aired.
I must go get Animals. It's about time. Good point.
Pete One of These Days is great. I was thinking that when people talk of Meddle & AHM, they primarily consider the content on the first sides and forget the songs on the back. Because AHM - (the track) is so disliked, the other tracks are never heard or aired.
Posted on: 22 September 2003 by garyi
I first heard animals when I got it from the Library (do they still do that?)
I loved it, all the floyd stuff you need.
I have about 4 version knocking about now, but by far the best is an original I have. This has no bar code on it, on vinyl of course and I was lucky enough to find it brand new the other week (as in never played new old stock)
Its a really good album
I loved it, all the floyd stuff you need.
I have about 4 version knocking about now, but by far the best is an original I have. This has no bar code on it, on vinyl of course and I was lucky enough to find it brand new the other week (as in never played new old stock)
Its a really good album
Posted on: 24 September 2003 by domfjbrown
Oh god - thanks for reminding me - time to re-register at a library now I've moved...
Sorry to be negative, but the Final Cut should have been; the Derision Bell and Delicate Sound of Chunder are not even a small patch on stuff like The Wall...
I need to dig out my 8tracks (he he) - the guy I scored a loud off has Obscured by clouds and a couple of others, home recorded, so I'll re-foam/splice those and give them a listen
When the music's over turn out the lights
Sorry to be negative, but the Final Cut should have been; the Derision Bell and Delicate Sound of Chunder are not even a small patch on stuff like The Wall...
I need to dig out my 8tracks (he he) - the guy I scored a loud off has Obscured by clouds and a couple of others, home recorded, so I'll re-foam/splice those and give them a listen
When the music's over turn out the lights