I've never ever ever ever ever understood the appeal of this band. To me, the music sounds dull, anti-human, arrogant, and completely devoid of any of the things I look for in music (rhythm, noise, interesting lyrics, "swing," humor, etc.) Although the early stuff sounds considerably better to me, it is completely overwhelmed by the inchoate crappiness of the later stuff.

Also, having a children's choir sing about not needing an education was asinine and irresponsible (I could definitely overlook the latter were it not for the former).

Oh yeah, and I trace the whole "agony of stardom" bullshit pose now adopted by so many bands back to that shitty Pink Floyd movie.

Minor waffle to Roger Waters for calling an album "The Pros and Cons of Hitchhiking."

whore house wrote:piper at the gates of dawn - (fucking gay beatles rip off/psychedelica gay)

please stop posting

-mgmt

total asspus.

Crap

Ike

The Floyd are not doing so well here, are they.

The secret to Pink Floyd, for me, is that it is music to listen to. You put it on and really listen to it; to the keyboards and the guitars and the drums and the bass playing - you listen to the sounds of all of those instruments and the sounds are good. And then there is singing and it is also good for listening. So Pink Floyd, you are NOT CRAP.

The recently re-released Live at Pompei DVD shows what a mighty force the Floyd was in their day. I fail to see anything crap about it, except all the dumb CGI shit that was added to the director's cut.

its a losing battle i fight with many of my friends but this band will never ever be crap to me. of corse everything post waters is fucking dreadful. but still to this day i get uncontrollably excited when i hear the opening cords of dark side of the moon.

i'm talkin crazy here, but i say a definite NOT CRAP for pink floyd. it's my opinion that pink floyd ended with syd. the band kept the name, but it sure as hell wasn't pink floyd. HE was pink floyd. so NOT CRAP. P! I! P-E-R! PIPER! PIPER!

I don't know about all this. i am definitely a huge Syd fan. but that does not mean that i can not see what is good with the rest. I must say that i think animals and The Wall are amazing albums. I think Wish You Were Here is really good and Dark Side is okay (not a favourite of mine). But then we also have the brilliant Saucerful of Secrets and Meddle. I would say a definite NOT CRAP and that is including that I admit several really shitty albums.

But hey, people look beyond Syd, that is the same as saying that Back In Black is crap because it is Brian Johnson, or that Motorheads Overkill, Ace Of Spades, Bomber is crap because Lemmy is the only original member on those albums, maybe not the wolds best examples. but still you get my point.

But hey, people look beyond Syd, that is the same as saying that Back In Black is crap because it is Brian Johnson, or that Motorheads Overkill, Ace Of Spades, Bomber is crap because Lemmy is the only original member on those albums, maybe not the wolds best examples. but still you get my point.

not the best examples, true. because while i think bon scott was hugely important to ACDC for his vocals, i think the rest of the band was no less important. i mean, angus? right? and lemmy in motorhead, he was pretty key, himself. and the difference with floyd is that, again just my opinion here, piper was awesome, but 90-something percent of that was syd. his vocals and guitar. the rest of the guys were important as a supporting cast, and did well. but it was really all about him. even take into consideration the fact that after he became unusable to them, they still used stuff he had written, they wrote albums *about him*, and later on they had to fight about whose band it really was. because it was all about Syd.

ps - bon scott wasn't the original singer of ACDC, neither. i mean he's clearly important to their initial success. but he replaced their original singer. so, y'know...

I hear you, and you definitely have a good point. What I am trying to say is that I think that they were a great band even without him and that they all turned in to very important figures for what Pink Floyd was. But maybe they should have, just like Joy Division/New Order, become a "new" band. Since I actually do not see any resemblence between Syd-era and post Syd-era, it is basically two different bands, who I think both are great. So maybe the problem is just bigger than that. I do not know, english is not my first language so maybe I make no sense. But still, I think Pink Floyd is a great band with or without Syd. I know they have created a lot of shit, but all in all a great band.

everything you said makes perfect sense, to me anyways. your joy division example is exactly what i meant, and that's a perfect example. i actually like post-syd floyd as well. but i just don't think it's right to call it pink floyd.

and your english is quite good, by the way.

cheers!