Pink Floyd - General - Facepunch Forum

:smug: [editline]5th July 2011[/editline] [img]http://files.sydbarrettpinkfloyd.com/uploaded_images/pink-floyd-animals-759834.jpg[/img]

[QUOTE=AK'z;30909203]It is a great experience, but critically speaking I can't say it's great. Was the "message" or "expression" really there as it was on records like Animals or Moon? They could say it is a communication themed album but I didn't [I]feel[/I] it within that record. On Animals it was really obvious that the theme was about communism, on Moon it was clearly about insanity. I guess the really good Floyd albums centred around an intent, but I couldn't say Wall was as creative as some suggest. Sorry for the blasphemy. :([/QUOTE] If you take it as a concept album about Roger Waters it has a lot of message and expression :v: I think however that Wish you Were Here has the most solid and understandable concept of them all Oh thread's closing soon

[img]http://i54.tinypic.com/e025qt.gif[/img]

That's going to be my new avatar

[QUOTE=En-Guage V2;30909928]That's going to be my new avatar[/QUOTE] won't fit.

[QUOTE=AK'z;30909512]If I said Roger's solo work was better in creativity than Gilmour's Floyd, would people hate me? :( In reality, he did manage to get Eric Clapton AND Jeff Beck to play on records of his.[/QUOTE] yeah cept Eric Clapton quit after half a tour and said it was too constrictive I don't think they were as creative, but they were still creative. They were very dense and heavy and needed some lightening up Gilmour's music was a lot better and a lot more creative but Roger had more ambition with his solo work, I've always seen it as Gilmour doing music for music's sake whereas Waters being more concerned with using music as a medium for his ideas, both are as good as each other, just different in the way they should be appreciated

I thought they got shrunk down or something

[QUOTE=killerteacup;30909947] Gilmour's music was a lot better and a lot more creative[/QUOTE] I liked his solo work, but I really can't compare them to the way Roger's albums move. Fair enough he isn't the greatest guitarist of all time, neither can he sing as well as Gilmour, but he thinks philosophically a heck of a lot.

Roger's solo stuff lacked the soul. Gilmour's Floyd lacked the brains.

[QUOTE=AK'z;30909983]I liked his solo work, but I really can't compare them to the way Roger's albums move. Fair enough he isn't the greatest guitarist of all time, neither can he sing as well as Gilmour, but he thinks philosophically a heck of a lot.[/QUOTE] Yeah but that's more reflected in his ideas his lyrics and the structure of his albums, not in his music I'm saying Gilmour's work was musically more creative, not philosophically, there's no argument that Waters was a much better thinker. Although there's something really blunt and direct about High Hopes that I like a lot [QUOTE=Mr._N;30909996]Roger's solo stuff lacked the soul. Gilmour's Floyd lacked the brains.[/QUOTE] That's more what I mean yeah

Gilmour does have heart, which is probably why Pink Floyd ended up really popular towards the end. [editline]5th July 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=killerteacup;30910003] I'm saying Gilmour's work was musically more creative, not philosophically, there's no argument that Waters was a much better thinker. [/QUOTE] The way that the music made you "feel" was present in most of Gilmour's efforts so you're actually right in some way. On An Island is a good example of how Pink Floyd makes you feel, just like Dark Side in the way it's uplifting.

Almost there

true lies.

Thats a good Schwarzenegger movie

[IMG]http://i121.photobucket.com/albums/o202/akayz_people/meddleturtle.png[/IMG] [IMG]http://i121.photobucket.com/albums/o202/akayz_people/meddlewhat.png[/IMG] [editline]5th July 2011[/editline] it's all yours.

...forever and ever.