Okay, I finally got to see the Pink Floyd reunion from the Live8 show. That was just great to see those guys together again. Floyd is the only band I would pay to see in a big stadium show, if they're all together again. I hope they put out something new and tour with this lineup again. Dave Gilmour is the most underrated guitarist in rock history. He is that rare guitarist who actually knows how to make a solo that makes sense within the structure of the song. Unfortunately, that was followed up with....Paul McCartney.
Paul....please....for the love of all things decent in this world....just stop. Since the Beatles broke up, you've written one song that isn't brutally painful to listen to (Live and Let Die) and that song was done far better by other people. In the meantime, you have foisted such crap as Band on the Run, Silly Love Songs, Pieces of Eight, The Girl is Mine, Ebony and Ivory and Say Say Say on the world. I know the Beatles changed rock and roll, I know that earns you a lot of benefit of the doubt, but it's been 30 years and your music has continually sucked since the moment you left. Time's up. Go home and get off my TV screen.
- Log in to post comments
I mostly agree. But I thought Band on the Run was okay. It's embarrassing that it was put out by Paul McCartney of the Beatles. But I thought it was okay.
I don't know how enthusiastic I'd be about a new Floyd album with Roger Waters, but I'd pay a fortune for good seats at a show.
Ed
Unfortunately, I read an interview with Gilmore not too long ago and it sounded as if he was completely uninterested in making another Floyd album (too much work, he said). Sounded to me as if Floyd was finished with respect to making new music, though who knows -- they could always do a "goodbye" tour with Waters in tow. I'd pay. I've seen them before live and they are the best in the business.
CP
I can't believe how badly Gilmour has aged. He used to be a male model for God's sake.
Waters used to be the "ugly" one. But he's aged the most gracefully!
and your music has continually sucked since the moment you left.
It's almost as though he suffers from some kind of fear of dissonance or something since he left. Or, perhaps his music always did suck without the tangy bittersweet dissonance contributed by the real genius (you know who I'm talking about, folks) behind his little garage band deal thingy he had going for him before he rose to stardom with Wings.
Waters used to be the "ugly" one. But he's aged the most gracefully!
He looks almost like Richard Gere with bad teeth and a scowl, huh?
It's not really fair to pick on people as they age - we all do.
J, we all do, if we're lucky ;-)
I agree completely about Gilmour, especially w/r/t the early Floyd records (i.e. pre-DSotM). But I wouldn't see a stadium show under any circumstances (and I have no interest in Live8). Also, you are too harsh on Paul. Naturally his hits suck; but there are a number of odd little tracks on the 70's-era records which are perfectly good.
I never really cared for Pink Floyd. In fact I usually change the station when one their songs comes on...
Yeah, what the last guy said... [running and ducking]
Yes,
I too noticed the Gere resemblance.
I also think Ed is being too hard on Paul. I think the early post-Beatles stuff is good, but he sort of lost it in the 80s.
I too thought that maybe Lennon carried him in the Beatles, but then after learning how they wrote their material, I concluded that this couldn't be right.
With rare exception, the songs that each of the Beatles sang were "their" songs, meaning that Paul wrote all of the songs he sang, John, all the songs he sang.
And there's lots of great "Paul" songs. The second half of Abbey Road is some of the best Beatles material period, and that was mainly Paul's work.
I'm thinking about a post in the future trying to explain why Ozzy Osbourne, who isn't the creative talent or the musician that McCartney is, has produced consistently better material over the long run than McCartney.
The bottom line: Because Ozzy, unlike Paul, was never a creative genius, he has ALWAYS relied on other people to either write or cowrite his material. And he has also aways made the best choices in terms of the musicians with whom he writes and performs.
Simon Cowell made a similar point on Bill O'Reilly's show. Most or many creative songwriters only have so many good songs in them. If they insist on writing all of their material, eventually they'll run out of creative juices and start producing bad material. Other guys, like Sinatra (the example they used) and Ozzy (my example) can flourish for longer periods by relying on other people to write their material and hiring good songwriters and musicians.
I tend to think that it's amusing that you young people are still talking about aging rockers from my childhood. (I'm 56)
I actually preferred The Who, particularly Tommy and the Leeds albums.
(I'm being cheeky, so no flaming, please. But I am serious about The Who.)
Tommy http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/B000002OZY/103-2819485-6364667?v=glance
I saw them do it live, in concert in Columbus OH
Oh, btw, regarding Pink Floyd, there are such things as--CDs. If you want to listen to them, buy their CDs.
Unfortunately, Floyd has stated that they will not tour. They were offered the equivalent of $175 million to tour the stats and they didn't turn it down.
Pretty dissapointing.
Waters is my favorite, but Gilmore is a close second. His solo stuff is pretty good too. About Face is a very enjoyable album.
Dave Gilmour and Pete Townsend did some great stuff together as well. Personally, I couldn't care less how bad Gilmour looks. He's still got a fairly strong voice and he's still a great guitarist. They are one of the very few bands I think can still pull it off at their age. You couldn't pay me to go see the Rolling Stones, as great as they were long ago. Their music, in my view, is made for the young and at their age now, Mick just looks ridiculous strutting on stage. But Floyd's music is more cerebral and not as prone to decaying with age. Their shows never required physicality or displays of machismo, so age doesn't really change it for them.
re: Paul McCartney. This is a somewhat tangential peeve I have with the McCartney clan: When P.M. was inducted into the Rock n Roll Hall of Fame, his daughter Stella wore a shirt saying 'About F***ing Time' -- her opinion being that Paul should have been inducted years before. Of course, Paul WAS inducted years before -- as a Beatle. The idea that Paul deserved any separate RnRHoF recognition for his post-Beatles output is highly questionable, put to complain that it came too late was ludicrous.
(Nevertheless, Paul McCartney does earn some kudos (from me) for at least one post-Beatle song: his collaboration with Elvis Costello on "Veronica" -- although nowhere near Elvis's best, it was a well deserved hit for him in the midst of a very long dry spell.)
...they could always do a "goodbye" tour with Waters in tow.
What would they call it? "The Really Really Final Cut -- and We Mean It This Time!"
As for judging rockers by their looks, I would like to point out that that's how we got Milli Vanilli: the real talents in that group were too "ugly" to be stars in their own right, so they got paid to let others pretend to own their voices instead.
Well Lennon too was intolerable after he went solo. There's so much of the Beatles I can listen to every now and then before I get bored. Thank God there's so much else to R'n'R. The next time I am going to give an intense listen to Sgt.Pepper's. I am determined to find what's so great about it. And Sir Paul why don't you do something else? Pleeeese!