Pink Floyd - where do they fit in?
Posted: Sun Jan 06, 2008 3:01 am
Brian and I discussed Pink Floyd a bit when he and Penny were over here in December and even watched a DVD by The Aussie Pink Floyd Show - a brilliant tribute band if ever there was one.
But where does Pink Floyd fit into the scheme of things?
I suggested 'post psychedelic rock' to Brian and Wikipedia proposes that they went from 'psychedelic rock' to 'progressive rock' during the time that they were together. Certainly they were somewhat 'experimental' early on when Syd Barrett was the driving force behind the band. So was Syd himself for that matter..... drugs and Syd probably got on too well together!
There is little doubt that each member in his own right can lay claim to being a top notch musician. Gilmour's haunting leads have always had a hold on me - though some say that if he cut his solos down by 90% he'd have it about right!
His latest DVD recorded at the Albert Hall is undeniable proof that he's still got it and continues to attract some of the best musicians around for his gigs. Even Crosby and Nash did backing vocals at that one!!
I didn't give Richard Wright's keyboard work much attention early on but hearing and watching him these days gives me a greater appreciation of his ability and contribution to the band. Dave Mason was (and still is) a great drummer and of course Roger Waters is almost legendary - both as a player and composer.
So where does Pink Floyd fit in for you? Do you love 'em (like me), hate 'em (I believe some do) or simply have a passing interest in or mild appreciation of them? Were they an important element of rock's progression or simply another band that rode on a couple of hits, some albums and a film. Can they be be counted amongst the few bands that made a significant contribution to the evolution of 'rock music' and the many genres that those words encompass these days?
Over to you................
But where does Pink Floyd fit into the scheme of things?
I suggested 'post psychedelic rock' to Brian and Wikipedia proposes that they went from 'psychedelic rock' to 'progressive rock' during the time that they were together. Certainly they were somewhat 'experimental' early on when Syd Barrett was the driving force behind the band. So was Syd himself for that matter..... drugs and Syd probably got on too well together!
There is little doubt that each member in his own right can lay claim to being a top notch musician. Gilmour's haunting leads have always had a hold on me - though some say that if he cut his solos down by 90% he'd have it about right!
His latest DVD recorded at the Albert Hall is undeniable proof that he's still got it and continues to attract some of the best musicians around for his gigs. Even Crosby and Nash did backing vocals at that one!!
I didn't give Richard Wright's keyboard work much attention early on but hearing and watching him these days gives me a greater appreciation of his ability and contribution to the band. Dave Mason was (and still is) a great drummer and of course Roger Waters is almost legendary - both as a player and composer.
So where does Pink Floyd fit in for you? Do you love 'em (like me), hate 'em (I believe some do) or simply have a passing interest in or mild appreciation of them? Were they an important element of rock's progression or simply another band that rode on a couple of hits, some albums and a film. Can they be be counted amongst the few bands that made a significant contribution to the evolution of 'rock music' and the many genres that those words encompass these days?
Over to you................
). In the early '70's more of a progressive rock band, the mid to late '70's a stadium rock band, they lost the plot a bit for a few years after that and then came back as a mega classic rock band.
