General Rating: 4

Introduction

ALBUM REVIEWS:

• The Piper At The Gates Of Dawn
• A Saucerful Of Secrets
• More
• Ummagumma
• Atom Heart Mother
• Relics
• Meddle
• Obscured By Clouds
• Dark Side Of The Moon
• Wish You Were Here
• Animals
• The Wall
• Is There Anybody Out There? The Wall Live
• The Final Cut
• A Momentary Lapse Of Reason
• Delicate Sound Of Thunder
• The Division Bell
• P.U.L.S.E

VIDEOS:

• Live At Pompeii
• P.U.L.S.E

APPENDIX: SOLO PROJECTS

• Roger Waters: The Pros And Cons Of Hitch-Hiking
• Roger Waters: Radio K.A.O.S.
• Roger Waters: Amused To Death

This page also hosts comments from the following Certified Commentators: Jeff Blehar, Rich Bunnell, Richard C. Dickison, Ben Greenstein, Joel Larsson, Philip Maddox, John McFerrin, Nick Karn, Sergey Zhilkin.

I HATE PINK FLOYD. No, ladies and gentlemen, my name is not Johnny Rotten. And my motives for disliking this greatest symbol of the Seventies (second only to Led Zeppelin, it seems) differ greatly from those of the Sex Pistols. The Pistols and their kinsmen hated Pink Floyd because of their pretentiousness and overbearing complexity, and in this, it seems, their hate was purely conventional - in fact, they just experienced the same kind of things that they felt towards any other mature or non-mature prog rock band. Me, I have nothing against prog rock in general. But I do have something against Pink in particular.
What I honestly feel is that the Floyders are probably the most overrated rock band in man's history. Certainly, they are worthy. A very worthy band - even me, who's not a fan, could go on speaking of their advantages for hours. (I just don't want to because thousands of people have done so already). But the kind of praise given to them, the endless sell outs, monster radio hits, unrestrained critical and fan worship - none but the Beatles received as much, and even the Beatles don't seem to receive that much nowadays. The Beatles traditionally hold number one, see, so lots of people who get tired of the Beatles being number one start dismissing them as 'pop crap' or 'shallow' or 'dated', and praise Floyd instead. Ladies and gentlemen, let's all be cool-headed! If you want to really know who is first and who is second, be cool-headed! Okay, of course, it's impossible to tell who's first and who's next just because any judgement of the kind would be highly subjective. However, I'll still go ahead and try to explain why I don't like Floyd and at the same time give them a rating of 4 when I even gave Led Zeppelin a 3.
There is one major defect about Floyd - whether it be Barrett-led Floyd or Waters-led Floyd (and I don't even mention the Gilmour-led Floyd). These guys are (and were) very average musicians and so-so songwriters. Let's face it, the group never had a true musical virtuoso. Waters' bass playing is just okay, Wright and Mason don't qualify above your average session musicians, and Barrett's talents, you must admit, weren't in the sphere of picking the guitar. As for Gilmour, well, I just don't like the guy's guitar - I consider it generic and soulless. All of his 'classic' solos are so mathematically precise, counted out and adjusted that it almost makes me sick. He's no Steve Howe, and he's not even Steve Hackett. He's Dave, like we all know him: slow, meticulous and calculated. He's got some truly great guitar passages in his backpack (my favourite work of his is mostly located on Dark Side and Animals), but he also has a lot of pointless noodling, and he often selects the kind of generic highly distorted, yet not really 'heavy' guitar tone that I can't call anything but 'musical dentistry'. Sorry, Dave.
Neither could they make really creative melodies (a flaw which they share with Yes). In their Barrett days, when they relied on Syd, their songs were crazy and atmospheric, but not quite structured or memorable, except for a pair of hooks now and then. In their Waters days, when they relied on Roger, their songs were careful and... atmospheric. But still, the melodies were always kinda iffy. On the early albums they used to rip off everybody, starting from Simon & Garfunkel and ending with the Kinks, and they didn't exactly clear up even with their classic mid-Seventies hit albums.
No, even if you're willing to argue with me that the Pinkers actually wrote tons of classic melodies, you'll still have to admit that it isn't their songwriting that's the main attraction in Pink. The main attraction is the way, the manner in which they present their songs. While I certainly cannot call Floyd the most talented band in rock history, they were certainly the greatest experimentators on this planet of ours. From the early feedback and electronic drums experimentation to the mad laughters and ticking clocks on Dark Side to the shiver-sending spooky atmosphere of The Wall, they were always the impeccable masters of special effects - and it was certainly that side of them that attracted most of the audience. They were simply unpredictable. That said, I shouldn't have given them more than a 3 in the general rating. However, since I'm a great fan of unpredictability (and I do believe that only unpredictability and total irrationalism can save modern music from ruin), I'm willing to raise the rating to a 4. Simply because there are so many Pink Floyd tunes around that normally don't deserve a lot of attention, but still get it since they are so groovy, if the word 'groovy' is applicable to Floyd music.
Lineup: early Pink Floyd was formed in 1965 and included Roger 'Syd' Barrett (guitar, vocals); Roger Waters - bass, vocals; Rick Wright - keyboards; Nick Mason - drums. Barrett was forced out of the band by 1968 due to total ineffectivity, replaced by David Gilmour; band leadership switched to Waters. Waters quit in 1983; since then the band carried on as a trio, and their later days albums are often dismissed even by fans as tripe. I have all of these later albums (two studio ones and two live ones), and, although they probably don't deserve all the hate, they're pretty inane, mostly cashing in on the past glories. And why the hell did they need two live Waters-less albums? You got it, pal - the dough!
P.S. Due to its largeness, the page is now split into two parts (the 1967-73 albums and the 1975-1995 albums plus videos and solo projects). The "late period albums" can be accessed either through clicking on their titles or through the link at the bottom of this page.

General Evaluation:

Listenability: 4/5. The early 'avantgarde' stuff is sometimes too avantgarde for its own sake, but for the most part Pink Floyd were really conformists... I mean, the melodies aren't that great, but they're overtly listenable.
Resonance: 4/5. Again, bar the avantgarde stuff, it's easy to see how so many people are able to identify with Mr Roger.
Originality: 3/5. Lots of original ideas in the earliest days, but there's hardly anything truly innovative in the band's Seventies' catalog.
Adequacy: 4/5. Too often, the simplicity of the music is incompatible with the 'grandiosity' of the message.
Overall: 3.75 = * * * * on the rating scale.

What do YOU think about Pink Floyd? Mail your ideas

Your worthy comments:

John McFerrin <stoo@imsa.edu> (21.05.99)

A few things. First off, on a light note, I agreee with your assessment of much of Floyd's music as soundtrackish. I don't think there's any coincidence that virtually every Pink Floyd album has been linked with some film in a 'synchronicity'. Yes, DSOTM is infamous for its ties with The Wizard of Oz, but in my travails on the net, I have found links for almost every other Floyd film. Ummagumma links with Gigi (possibly cos there's an advertisement for it on the studio album cover), AHM links with Dr. Zhivago, Meddle links with Fantasia, WYWH links with It's a Wonderful Life, Animals links with Casablanca. And even if these are all just coincidences, the movie theme overtones of the albums can't be denied. Stanley Kubrick wanted to use parts of the AHM suite as the theme to Clockwork Orange, but Waters changed his mind at the last minute. Plus, Waters has stated in an interview that his biggest regret was that he was unable to write the musical score for 2001: A Space Odyssey (although there are reports on the net which say that Echoes matches up well with the final chunk of 2001, which is also supported that Echoes was orginally a _space_ theme, not an underwater theme, with lyrics starting "planets meeting face to face..."). So yeah, Floyd was a good soundtrack band, which explains why More and OBC are as good as they are; it was their forte.
Now, on to my rant. I do believe that Floyd should be regarded as one of the greatest bands in history, (though not in front of the Beatles, that's for sure). I do NOT, however, agree with the reasons that Floyd is as idolized as they are. There are SO MANY people who claim to be "hard-core Pink Floyd fans" who are only familiar with DSOTM, The Wall, and maybe WYWH. I mean, yeah, these are good albums, but if you were to listen to the radio, you would think these are the only things they ever did. And no band is worthy of this much praise based on only three albums. Heck, read the Rolling Stone album guide, look at the ratings they give each album, and you'll see that DSOTM and WYWH get 5 stars, The Wall and Piper each get 4, and everything else gets 2, 2.5, maybe 3. And yet, despite the fact that when you think about it, Floyd got toasted, RS still elected them to the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame and even devoted an entire wing to them. And I don't disagree with that necessarily, but I sure as heck disagree with the _reasons_ they give Floyd all this praise. I mean, just once, I'd like to hear 'One Of These Days' or 'Cymbaline' or even 'Astronomy Domine' on the radio, rather than 'Money', over and over and over agin. That being said, they wrote some good melodies, and when they didn't, they did everything in their power to cover it up. And by golly, they pulled it off! Whether it was the production, or calling on others to make great vocal performances, or even more production, they made the stuff really friggin interesting. Most of the time.

Richard C. Dickison <randomkill@earthlink.net> (23.05.99)

I can see where you guys are going with the SoundTrack idea, but I don't think it really states Pink Floyd's main greatness and weakness.
I think George hit it on the head with the phrase "mathematically precise, counted out and adjusted" in my mind I identify this with symphonic music. Thats what I like and dislike about this group, not one note, not one effect was out of place on any (Roger Waters) Pink Floyd album. It all had some weird or strategic reason, either to hide some fault or mostly to manipulate the listeners mood. They practised the fine art of making seamless rock symphonies in a studio with all the sonic help they could muster and people, even I, hate that excess at some point.
I think the worst critique you can launch at these dudes is that they really did not go beyond the album as concept and produce simply good songs, every song on their albums was to support every other song, ad nuseum, sometimes at the sacrifice of quality and indiviuality, we knew they could have though which makes me angry with them god damn it. I see it start on Meddle and proceed endlessly on till of course Roger leaves on The Final Cut.
On the flip side, the early outings with Syd were a dress rehearsal or is that character rehearsal for the Roger era and as with every one who has taste I refuse to even acknowledge the Gilmour led (remember when we had actual song writers and cared about our music) thingy group. I have no problem liking the Roger era albums for what they were, and as with every other prog band I hate the excesses too.
I will always enjoy them for being completly unique and off the wall on any of their albums (up to Final Cut that is) and I really believe that is what counts.

Valentin Katz <Valka324@home.com> (14.08.99)

First off, I'd like to congratulate you on job well done on a huge website. I run my own and I don't know how you could do all this work.
That being said, I can now engage in my criticism of the absolute rock heresy written in it. How can anyone in their right mind call Pink Floyd "fluff rock?!?!" Name one band that had more complexities in their overall point of music. I totally disagree with EVERYTHING you said about Pink Floyd, but I can understand that people have different tastes and some don't. But all those criticisms were unfounded. How can you say that they were average musicians, you're statements are so outrageous that I don't even have any words to combat them. They were the sentiment of anti-commercialism!
The Pink Floyd travesty is a almost-forgivable sin, but..what I cannot forgive is rating Led Zeppelin a 3!??! Along with Frank Zappa, what in the hell has Frank Zappa ever done? Why don't you stop taking these methodical, mathematical approaches to music and actually listen to something? Because, in the end it doesn't matter if you think its fluff rock or some other derogatory term, just sit down and listen to the music and hear how amazing it is. Think of adrenaline rush it gives you and how you just feel absolutely in awe afte listening.
You can't judge music like you desipher morse code, with no feeling and absolutely sturdy. When are you going to realize its only about the music?? If you can ever un-tighten your rear-end, you might realize that you are desecrately what is holy. So, instead of listening to music to critique it, I suggest you listen to it for its intention, enjoyment and entertainment. When you do that maybe you might be able to open your ears and even eyes and believe in the power of classic rock.
[Special author note: I already wrote a long answer to Valentin, so I won't bother putting another one on this site. I hope that all my constant readers will be easily able to see the flaws of this message and the primary ideological differencies between its author and me. For more information, see guidelines on comment posting]

Simon Hearn <simon@leehearn.freeserve.co.uk> (07.09.99)

I love pink floyd - sorry! Between 71 - 80 they were a class act. Later floyd is terrible though.
I cannot understand why some people do not think dark side of the moon is not the best floyd album. IT IS, no question. Their best "compiled" album is this one - it all works so well and 'the great gig in the sky' is pure bliss - clare torry is a goddess. 'Great gigg' does for floyd what 'gimme shelter' did for stones - augmenting their sound with female vocal arrangements. WYWH is cool as is animals, but I do not like the wall - too many fillers. Floyd should not have tried to do a white album, no one should imitate the fab 4 - oasis prove that!

Ashley <WishUwereHere3@aol.com> (24.10.99)

dear whoever said they suck~
Pink Floyd is SO talented! If anything they are under-rated. Roger Waters is the best song writter there ever was, same with Syd Barrett. Their music is much more then a catchie tune that say The Beatles would put out. They are totally in the music for the music. wow their lyrics are pure talent I bow down to ALL the Floyd

Ben Greenstein <bgreenstein@nctimes.net> (23.11.99)

Well, I'm glad to see that there's somebody else besides me who feels that Floyd is really overrated, but I just don't understand how you can give them a four and badns like Jethro Tull and Genesis (who you seem to like more) a three. If you don't like them, why do they get such a high grade? Makes no sense to me.
But we do agree about most. As a songwriter, Waters is really pretty weak, and Barrett is not that much better. In terms of musicianship, the guitar solos just bore me to tears, and nothing else really catches my attention at all. The melodies are next to nonexistent - actually I think the only song that I can remember really liking is that "Pigs" song. The rest of the band's stuff is REALLY unappealing. I couldn't give any of their albums a higher score than seven (and the ones I've heard are The Wall, Pulse, Animals, Dark Side, and Wish You..., all of which were borrowed from a friend), and for this band a seven would be generous. The only album I'd rate any higher is that first Barrett one, the only one I own, which gets an eight. I couldn't care less if I hear any of the other ones again - I'd rather listen to REM or Elvis Costello anyday.
Maybe they're good if you're on drugs, but if you HAVE to be stoned to enjoy it, it ain't good music. Valentin Katz makes me crack up - he honestly thinks that Floyd are more complex musically than Zappa - or even Led Zep? Waters knew, like, five chord progressions, tops! He's not sophisticated in the least! As a composer myself, I find it incredibly obvious that the guy never even bothered to try and expand his horizons beyond the average "Floyd" sound. No weird time signatures, very few eerie sound effects, NORMAL chord progressions - this stuff ain't prog! It's CRAP, made by a CRAPPY band who couldn't write a DECENT song to save their life.
Sorry to be so blatant, but that's the way I feel. I don't like Pink Floyd. And I've certainly tried.

Bob <Trfesok@aol.com> (12.02.2000)

There are a couple of overlooked reasons why Floyd caught on and became huge, aside from their increasingly theatrical live shows. One, with Dark Side of the Moon, Wish You Were Here and The Wall, they discovered how to consistently write good melodies, even on instrumental works. And two, Waters' lyrics, unlike most prog bands, tapped into the anxieties and frustrations of male adolescents and post-adolescents in an intelligent, but yet accessible manner. But they eventually lost both of those strengths -- the split-up of Waters and Gilmour only proves the adage that a great group is made up of more than the sum of their parts.

Greg Nordeng <floyd@chorus.net> (20.02.2000)

When I was reading your review with all due respect I felt like throwing up. You brought up some interesting points about the methodical mathematical style of Pink Floyd. I personally completely disagree with you. I would say the albums Piper at the Gates of Dawn, Saucerful of Secrets, Ummagumma, Atom Heart Mother, Meddle, The Wall, and The Final Cut kill that idea. Especially the first few I mentioned there. I would have to say that Pink Floyd is the exact opposite, do you really think Syd Barret even knew his times tables? To call Syd Barrets music "mathematical" is a complete contradiction to what the music stood for. The album was a complete demonstration of "psychedelia" and the "free spirit". I am pretty sure that had nothing to do with a scale, a metronome, a ruler, a calculator, or whatever... I do see where you can see that on some of there later material it was like that. That was a totally new feel for the band, David Gilmours guitarwork I will admit may not be complicated, but the amount of passion he incorporates in every solo surpasses ANY guitarist I have ever heard. I am sorry you won't allow yourself to appreciate his solos, every one is a masterpiece. I also find it interesting that you don't LOVE at least early Pink Floyd, this may come as a shocker to you... The Beetles used material that Pink Floyd originally wrote. There is NO question in my mind that Pink Floyd was a big inspiration to the Beetles, I wish I had a quote or something saying that. All I have is the direct use of Pink Floyd lyrics and a very similar sound to Pink Floyd's early music before the beetles really revolutionized there music.
Another thing about your mathematical aspect of what you say... How about Mozart? The fact that his music was so mathematical was the GENIUS behind his music. I sincerely hope you have the utmost respect for Mozart. So if what you say is true about Pink Floyd's music being that way, jeez, what a nice compliment!
Well Thanks for allowing me to post this, I hope that people listen to both what you have to say, and what I have to say, and take it into consideration. Pink Floyd to me will always be the SOURCE and epitome of originality in music.
[Special author note: well, Piper is not such a 'calculated' affair, of course, being dominated by Syd the Whacko. But every other Pink Floyd album in the catalog is - are you going to tell me that 'A Saucerful Of Secrets' (the track) is not meticulously calculated and planned? It is. Are you going to tell me that the mounting of tension on the live version of 'Careful With That Axe' in Ummagumma is spontaneous and not just the result of an immaculate technical craftmanship? Don't make me laugh.
Not that it's necessarily a bad thing, of course - like you pointed out, Mozart's music was also mathematical. But that's the main schtick of classical music: classical music is counted out and smoothed out par excellence, almost by genre definition. Rock music was initially opposed to it as basing more on spontaneity and improvisation. And, of course, I'm not saying that all rock music should be spontaneous and improvised, but there's gotta be a golden middle between the 'automatic' and the 'vivacious'. Pink Floyd don't have no 'vivacious' beginnings in them at all, and that's the band's main flaw (apart from the fact that Waters couldn't tell a good melody even when it hit him whack on the head, but that's another story).
As for the Beatles 'using material that Pink Floyd originally wrote' - I'm interested in that, but so far I haven't been able to find anything like that. Or maybe... no wait... shiver me timbers... don't you mean 'Revolution # 9'????!!!!]

Kathleen Keplar <rkeplar@norcom2000.com> (28.05.2000)

What is with everybody wanting to bash the Floyd these days?  My appreciation of music started with the Beatles. It moved slowly from there for the simple reason that the Beatles were a helluva yardstick to measure the next phase by.  At the time, the early 70s, I wasn't playing music yet, and I pretty well ignored the Floyd. They were just too weird. Pete Townsend referred to Pink Floyd as 'scary' in an interview once. When I started picking at guitar and bass I kept remembering that comment. I had to look a little deeper into the Floyd. I'm glad, as a musician, and an artist in general, that I did.
First off, I agree with most these days that they weren't  first rate musicians. Very tech, and even then, very limited.  Writing was very simple, often to the point of mundane. Gilmore was apparently a strict believer in the 'less is more' school of guitar. Water's bass playing...well...I'm not a 'professional' bassist and I could play rings around him. And the other two? Sidemen, in my opinion.  And what can I say about Syd? Poor chap. Wanted to be an artist but decided that going bonkers was better suited to his abilities. What a bummer.
So how in the Hell did Pink Floyd get so huge?
I think I figured it out some time ago. Musically speaking, the 60s was an optimistic period  in time. The world was going to hell in a hand basket (as it usually is anyway, at any given time.) and the art of the time was hope for the better things to come. The decade that followed was the backlash. The 70s were a dark period for serious music. I now understand why disco flourished, it was opium for the moronic masses. The Floyd started with the sixties but that weird off-the-wallishness of theirs had no place in that back to innocence and beauty mood of the time. When the hippie counter culture movement died (the novelty of it just wore out) all these people who thought they had had something to say at one time now found themselves speechless. The world was still going to Hell in a hand basket and now, what made things even worse, no one was paying any attention to them anymore.  All that was left was a dark, empty hole. I know because I was there myself.  Pink Floyd flourished in that dark hole.
The music was simple. The lyrics were vague. The mood was dark. The atmosphere was brooding. The history of the band was eerie. The titles and album covers were strange and  highly abstract.  We had to love these guys!
The only album I'll mention by name is Dark Side of the Moon, of course. I have the sheet music and over the years I wore out the original album, the 8-track tape, and cassette tape. Now I'm busy trying to wear out the CD and I'll bet anyone that I'll probably do it somehow. Like the Beatles, the Floyd were at the right place at the right time. There's no way to compare the two groups to each other, that's a given, but the one thing they did have in common was timing.  What the Floyd was saying was what the youth culture of the 70s wanted to hear. And they were saying it the way we felt about it. Simplistic terms underlying an overwhelming sense of  desperation and near hopelessness. We could smile at titles like 'Careful With That Axe Eugene'  because we understood the joke right away and could relate to it instantly. Getting stoned to the Floyd was the unwinding experience to the max. The cryptic lyric 'See you on the Dark Side Of The Moon'  was sheer genius. Intentional genius or just a lucky shot? Who cares...that one line alone stands out to place Pink Floyd towards the top of the pile.
Overrated? Hell yes. But what highly successful band isn't at one point or another? Even the Beatles produced some pure shit that most of us, myself included, chose to ignore for a long time. The Roger Waters era of the Floyd can be compared with any other monster band that had its day in the sun, and hold its own quite well. I just turned 40 and when I sit around with my Rickenbacker and play around with the DSOTM CD I have to grin at how dark and cynical my outlook was when I was a kid. I'm so surprised that I didn't take more careful notice of Pink Floyd when they were alive and kicking in their heyday. When my 18 year old daughter asks about the texture and mood of my younger days...(yes, she asks such questions, she's a born artist too) I have the advantage of playing DSOTM and telling her, "Listen closely to the words, and let the music float you around aimlessly."  I believe the Floyd will hold their own for some time to come. They'll always be back there in that dark and empty hole that we all have in us somewhere. And that is where Pink Floyd will always flourish.
[Special author note: this review certainly has a point. Pink Floyd were one of the darkest bands of their time. But they were not unique in that style - bands like the ultra-progressive Van Der Graaf Generator, on one side, or the robotic Krautrock Can, on the other side, painted a far bleaker view of the world than Floyd ever did. The problem with these bands, and the advantage of Floyd, was in that Floyd were far more accessible - one cannot deny the 'commercial' value of all of their Seventies' megahit albums ('commercial' here used in the bad sense of the word, which is 'popularisation for dorks'). And while they were certainly masters of both form and substance, I cannot see the sheer genial subtleties in their music that distinguish so highly the music of the Beatles. Believe it or not, Floyd used a far more straightforward approach.
And one more remark. What is with everybody thinking that everybody wants to bash Floyd these days? They still have innumerable legions of fans, don't they? For every critic, there's at least a couple hundred religious worshippers of the band. That's why a little salt on the wound is never harmful, especially since Pink do have such a lot of weak spots.]

Greg Pringle <pengrui@163bj.com> (13.09.2000)

Pink Floyd is one of four groups/artists that I rush out to buy when a new album comes out. (The others are David Bowie, Kate Bush, and Zelda, the last being an obscure all-girl Japanese rock group that lasted from 1980 to 1996). I did start to collect a number of other artists, but somewhere along the line my commitment would inevitably flag.
The four 'must-buys' followed a pattern. I would hear their music a few times and perhaps record one of their albums, without, however, being struck with a desire to follow them religiously. A few years later, I would come across some other work, become completely hooked, and go out and get all their albums. In the case of Pink Floyd, I heard one early song - it may have been 'Set the Controls for the Heart of the Sun' - on the radio in about 1972, listened to Dark Side of the Moon a lot in 1974, heard 'Furry Animals grooving with a Pict' in about 1977, and generally felt Pink Floyd were an OK group. I think I also recorded Meddle in 1976. It wasn't until 1979 when I rented another Pink Floyd album (I don't remember which) that I developed a passion for the group. From then on I collected every single album, going back to Piper at the Gates of Dawn. When The Wall, The Final Cut, A Momentary Lapse of Reason, and The Division Bell came out I bought them all without hesitation.
Through all this, I would be happy to call myself a Pink Floyd fan. However, I don't 'adulate' the group. I like their music but I certainly don't consider them gods. Perhaps this is what has saved me from erring in the opposite direction. If Pink Floyd had not been such a phenomenon over the past quarter of a century, I suspect that George might have put them down as a very polished group that produces excellent music, but lack a little in spontaneity. He might even have boosted their score a few points for being 'generally underestimated'. But the problem is that Pink Floyd were not underestimated. They were huge, which makes them an easy target for picking flaws.
What is it that I like about Pink Floyd? In the final analysis, it is their music and nothing else. So maybe they are overplanned, overproduced, and overstaged. Perhaps they tend to be repetitive and don't always have strong melodies. They may be commercially driven. Perhaps Roger Waters' lyrics tend to misanthropy. Despite their faults, which are legion, their music is, quite simply, extraordinarily listenable. Their lyrics are thought-provoking and their sound carries you into another world. You let Dark Side of the Moon or Wish You Were Here wash over you as you ponder the lyrics, and it is always a surprise how quickly the experience ends. Even if the 'Pink Floyd sound' becomes predictable (as it does in the post Roger Waters albums), it is a curiously satisfying sound. The 'organ' sound in songs like 'Cirrus Minor' and 'Absolutely Curtains' is simple but wonderfully moving. The guitar work in pieces like 'Fat Old Sun' and 'The Turning Away' soars without building up to a cheap climax - they manage to wring every ounce of emotion out of every note. The bells, insects, cornflakes, and helicopters are all part of the sound and don't annoy me like they do some people. In the end, their music may be totally planned and calculated, but it is amazingly effective in its appeal to the listener.
Pink Floyd also has the indispensible virtue of bearing repeated listening. Even a Roger Waters album like The Final Cut, tuneless as it tends to be, grows on you over time. This is why I continue to buy Pink Floyd albums. True, David Gilmour hasn't come up with anything new recently and some of the old magic is being lost. I admit that I probably buy them 'for old time's sake'. Despite this, they still make good music; I have yet to find a Pink Floyd album so abysmal that I would swear off buying one again.
If being 'addicted' to Pink Floyd has a downside I would suggest that it is the same downside as being addicted to anything: it prevents you from going on to experience better things. There are better groups than Pink Floyd in the world and there are probably better ways to spend your precious time than to listen to Dark Side of the Moon 400 times. But that is the price of going back to any cherished experience, whether it be rereading a book, rewatching a movie, revisiting a scenic spot, or coming back to the same web site again and again. The richness comes from the repitition of the experience.

Marius Popescu <mariusp@electricaph.interplus.ro> (15.09.2000)

I think the problem with the great bands is that they don't now when to stop. And Pink Floyd is a great band. But if they 'd stopped after The Wall, they would've been even greater. It was a great Frenchman who once said: "What is exaggerated becomes insignificant".
The same thing happened with Deep Purple even if their last 2 albums are not as bad as some people say. I saw them in 99 live in Bucharest and I must say I was very disappointed by Gillan's voice as I was disappointed by Robert Plant's voice 2 years ago.
But back to Pink Floyd.First, I think almost half of their fans are not sincere fans but snobs, because you know it's always been trendy or chic to pretend that you like Pink Floyd.
Somebody said they were the symbol of anti-commercialism. They were not. Maybe they tried to, but that's what's made them more commercial. A proof of that is that DSOTM spent like 10 years in Billboard Top 200 (it's a record) and those fake occasional fans were amongst the ones who made that possible. I'm not trying to say that DSOTM is a bad album, because it's not, it's one of my favorites too. But I think that the "psychedelic band" label didn't make them any good even though it helped them to get more money.
About the "mathematical music" issue. I saw a short passage from a Bob Dylan early interview and he was saying:"I'm a kinda mathematical singer, I use words like other people use numbers".
Maybe it has nothing to do with David Gilmour playing his solos with a mathematical precision but I liked it. I can't judge their instrumental virtuosity because I'm not a musician or something, but I don't think that the value of a song is given by it's complexity or the guitarist's speed.
Anyway, thanx for listening, pardon my English and forgive the errors from the 2 quotes but they were from my memory.

Sergey Zhilkin <sergey_jilkin@mail.ru> (02.10.2000)

You know I hate Floyd, too. Not because they were the symbol of Seventies instead of any ex-Beatle. To me their music seems to be boring. Well, I wanted to say that some tunes are wonderful and I don't even know how they managed to write them but these mini-gems are hidden under thick layer of electric guitars and strange noises (I mean such songs like 'Time', 'Shine on your crazy diamond', 'Money' and etc.). You just listen whole 6-minute song for these gems that last for seconds! And some songs don't have these gems at all! I must admit that maybe I'm missing point here because I don't have all their albums but I've got two compilations and four albums (Wish you were here, A momentary lapse of reason, Atom Heart Mother and The wall). I can't say I hate these albums but I really can't find any drive there. Ther's too much filler for me. I won't buy any other album of Floyd because it's a waste of money. Once I even bought their film (was I drunk?) The wall. That's the thing I really HATE! In my opinion they deserve 3 stars and ONLY because they influenced great number of people.

Andrei <sill@redconnect.com> (05.10.2000)

I highly enjoyed your reviews site and in particular PF/Syd reviews.
I agree with most of what you say, with one notable exception of ranking PF below Bob Dylan, Beatles, and Rolling Stones.
I am a rabid fan of PF - in the sense that I rank any of their average songs, like, say, 'green is the color', or I could name 30 or 40 others, as far more important than all the songs I've heard from those 3 bands I mentioned.
Quick note: I'm not on crack at the moment!
The reason probably is that I just haven't heard much by those bands. I got one best hits of bob dylan collection that i think is unlistenable, but it's probably a lousy collection cause I have 'hurricane' mp3 and I think it's very good. Lyrics are very impressive, story telling is even more so, music is good even considering that I *hate* country and it has slight traces of that.. I only have white album by beatles and I heard an assortment of other songs like michelle, eleanor rigby, yesterday, and a bunch of others, mostly love songs. White album leaves me unimpressed, with one exception of 'my guitar gently weeps' or whatever it's called, which is a quite good song, and reminds me of more songs by PF alot. I've heard even less of Rolling Stones - one nice song 'love is strong' and that's all I can name at the moment, but chances are I heard at least 3-4 others.
So, anyway, while I do agree with all the criticism of PF you give, not to mention the criticism that you don't give but I could easily add, I still rank them as the best band ever, with closest competition follow- ing a few light years behind in a tight formation. I'm really picky.
To put this into a more scientific notation, I'd give PF a 5 or 4.5 and I'd give other bands I like from 2.8 to 3.2 at most. These would include bowie, waters, barrett, bryan ferry, dubtribe sound system (mostly under- ground band in style of 'DUB' which is vaguely related to house), alan parsons (some of his stuff is *really* cheesy, though..), Delerium (ambient/techno/pop but far better than this would normally imply), Euphoria (totally unknown band which is something like a cross between PF and Delerium).
Anyway, here's a nice little theory why you may not give PF all they deserve (kindly speaking): your sound system is not all that great! After all, PF is very atmospheric, ambient, with all the surreal sounds and special effects. I haven't found any description of your sound system on your site, and I think it's of utmost importance when reviewing music. My assessment of music, and of PF in particular changed immensely when I got an entry-level midfi system (paradigm monitor 3's and NAD cd player/integrated amp). I mean, beatles and dylan can sound pretty nice but PF takes you into another world all- together!
On the other hand, I don't want to sound too sure - maybe you do have a fairly good system and I simply overrate PF, due to general lack of music-listening experience. I never even heard of 8/10th of the bands you review, not even counting the 'misc' section at the bottom. I did change my tastes alot in last 5 years, going through pet shop boys, depeche mode, bunch of eurodance (what was I thinking), rap (now this one I'll stand by - there's pop being played on the radio that everybody with any taste hates, but there's also quite a few gems nobody ever heard), pink floyd, and finally techno/ambient. But I did not stop respecting PF even after the short period of obsession! That sets it apart.
I also doubt I am just another deluded fan who can't stand criticism of his idol - PF has *tons* of flaws. It's just that beside the flaws, they have grandiose and majesty nobody else could approach.
Okay, </deluded rabid fan rant>.

glennryder <glennryder@satyam.net.in> (14.11.2000)

Gilmour sold out ! .... Waters rules !
yeh yeh

Jeff Blehar <jdb3@jhu.edu> (20.11.2000)

I HATE PINK FLOYD! Okay, I don't, but I'm less and less enamored of these guys than I used to be.  I will admit that, for better or for worse, I'm now turned off by the fawning mobs of uneducated fans who slobber all over Floyd as "the greatest band ever" but haven't even heard of Syd Barrett, much anything by art-rockers who I think were much better (Roxy Music, Eno, Bowie, etc.).
But holding the Floyd responsible for its fanbase or the monolithic popularity of Dark Side (yeah, yeah, it's GOOD.  Really GOOD.  But that's IT.) is unfair. No, the reason I don't like them is because the sound effects don't do it for me the way they did when I was younger. It's not their actual MUSIC or their melodies (i.e. lack thereof) that necessarily bother me, and sound effects and production are always key to boosting a piece's presentation.  No, it's (what I perceive to be) the unrelieved SAMENESS of their basic sound.  The sound effects are only there to distract you from that.  You got yer mellotron/synth, your mediocre and largely superfluous bass, your utterly pedestrian drumming, and then there's the Guitars.  I like Barrett a lot, and his era ranks highly with me, but chalk me up as another music-lover (and musician) who is put off by Gilmour's "dentistry" (what a perfect coinage).  Sometimes he gets it really right - "Comfortably Numb" would be one such time, and "Dogs" would perhaps be the best moment he's ever had - but by and large I find him grating.  His voice irks me too - the epitome of pleasant professionalism, and the unfortunate archetype for a thousand heavyish lead singers to come.  Frankly I prefer Waters' tuneless but distinctive bleating to Gilmour.  He DOES write good melodies, however, which often (esp. in later years) ended up being Floyd's saving grace. 
I'm sure I sound really tough on the Floyd, but I'm uncharitable only because they're so obnoxiously overrated.  They're STILL a "great" band (read: deserving of that 4), and there's something on almost all of their LPs which appeals to me, but I find them unexciting these days.  All the enthusiasm of my youth for these guys has faded away.
Oh yeah, and will people please STOP comparing Radiohead to Pink Floyd?  That's such an infuriatingly superficial and inaccurate comparison!  Radiohead will never be as influential as these guys, by simple fact of having come later, but I think that if they maintain their quality control they'll end up being BETTER by a significant margin.  

John Trenor <jtrenor@goosenet.net> (02.12.2000)

Hello
I hate them as well,and i'm 45.I had to work in a shop where the owner played nothing but the pretentious gits.One day I will eat his liver,(just kidding) his spleen would be better.

email <sybilr@denveronline.com> (03.12.2000)

First off all I would like to say that Pink Floyd is the best band today and in their time.  You are completely wrong to say that Pink Floyd is sold out.  Bands like the Beatles whick many people think is the supposed "best band ever" is bullshit to me.  So any way all I am saying is Fuck You! Pink Floyd is the shit and everybody who disagrees has no idea what Floyd is really about.  And not a good Trip!

<Sabbath246@aol.com> (12.12.2000)

Why does everyone insist on bad-mouthing Floyd? Sure, they were over-rated, but for Chrissake look at the Stones, AC/DC, Zeppelin, and of course the Beatles! All these bands are given way more credit than they deserve in my opinion. In the words of Alice Cooper: "There was no one like Pink Floyd. They were the ultimate psychadelic band". And I fully agree. Well, maybe not. That title would maybe have to go to the Doors, but Floyd were still great. Roger Waters was of course a Greek god on the four-string, and a top-notch songwriter as well. Nick Mason was an average drummer who was talented, but incomparable to the greats (Paice, Bonham, Baker, Ward, etc.), Rick Wright was one of the best and most creative keyboardists ever. And of course, there's Mr. Gilmour. I sincerely believe Dave to be the 2nd greatest guitarist of all time (second only to Santana), regardless of what anyone says. I just don't see how you can call his playing "soulless and generic", but to each his own I guess. When I listen to Gilmour's playing, I'm always stunned. For he was the first guitarist that proved that you don't have to play 100 miles a minute to be impressive (are you listening Van Halen, Blackmore, Iommi?), and I know his solos never last too long, but the amount of passion he incorporates into every note more than makes up for it. The best examples are songs like "Time", "Shine On You Crazy Diamond pt. 1", "Hey You", and of course "Comfortably Numb". He just flows from one heart-felt note into another, letting the emotion do the talking, instead of freaking out and playing lightning-quick licks, which countless guitarists have done over the years. I do agree with you that ANIMALS is their greatest album, however. 'Dark Side and other albums like that are great, but ANIMALS is the pinnacle of pink if you ask me. Later.
[Special author note: Excuse me. Gilmour was the first guitarist who 'proved that you don't have to play 100 miles a minute to be impressive'? Practically none of the fabulous guitarists in the Sixties played at 100 miles a minute - bar Hendrix, perhaps, but that wasn't Jimi's main specialty anyway. It's nearly the same as to say that 'the Clash were the first band that proved you don't have to write long-winded songs to sound serious'. And while Gilmour's solos usually don't run for too long, I reiterate that he completely lacks improvisation, which is so vital for a truly impressive guitarist. His live solos just sound like they're copied and pasted from the studio records, with a couple minor variations. I certainly do not dislike all of his solos or anything (the soloing on stuff like 'Time' or 'Dogs' is really great), but this inability to stick to anything outside a predefined pattern automatically excludes him from garnering my utmost respect.]

David Lyons <d.t.lyons@btinternet.com> (14.12.2000)

Good heavens. Is sybilr a real person? How did someone that disturbed manage to operate a computer for long enough to get the email to you? You know, I started reading the Pink Floyd section convinced I was a huge fan with all the albums and many emotional connections to the songs, but soon after reading *that* message, I began to realise I didn't like them half as much as I'd thought. Then I rallied somewhat, and contemplated putting forth the reasoned, eloquent defence that the sensible level-headed critique cried out for. Then I read that message again, and decided nothing is worth siding with someone like that over. I'm selling all my Pink Floyd albums and moving to Greenland.

Year Of Release: 1967
Record rating = 8
Overall rating = 12

The Bible of Astral Psychedelia. Very fucked up, very turned on. Get it at your own risk.
Best song: ASTRONOMY DOMINE

Their first album obviously took Are You Experienced? as a model rather than Sgt Pepper. It can also be viewed as an antithesis to Disraeli Gears: the two albums symbolized the two ends of one stick: psychedelia. While Sgt Pepper and Gears took the 'flower' aspect of psychedelia and developed it into coloured, rainbowish forms of music, Piper took the 'mind-blowing' aspect. It's not exactly an acid album, although there certainly was a lot of acid dropped on it. Rather it takes up Hendrix's 'cosmic' line, featured in 'Third Stone From The Sun', and carried it further, especially in two of their most famous early compositions - 'Astronomy Domine', my personal favourite on this record, and the instrumental 'Interstellar Overdrive'.
'Astronomy Domine' is a truly fantastic song. The introductory microphonic voices, the mantras on astronomy, the totally un-Earthly riff, the incredible echoey sound (how the hell did they manage such a sound in 1967?), all of these things are not just revolutionary, I guess they continue to be intriguing and scary even now, in the age of total computer techniques when normally it would take about a couple minutes to reproduce all of these effects in the studio. But there's a spirit and a flame, you know, the only things which can't be modulated at any cost. Forget that. Of course, the honour of being the magnum opus on record falls to the astral trip 'Interstellar Overdrive'. The only problem with the song is that it's about five or six minutes too long for me: I'm generally not a fan of sound collages, and neither this one nor 'Revolution # 9' nor, say, CCR's 'Rude Awakening # 2' impress me much. Still, the rumbling, growling riff on which the song is built is extra-mundane, and my favourite part comes right there at the end, when they imitate a motor cooling down. Ride's over. Welcome to Alpha Centauri, I guess?
Unfortunately, the main problem with the year 1967 was that any music was called art at the time - as long as it was 'experimental'. Hell, if Lennon's Two Virgins were deemed as modern art at the time, what can be said about bands who tried to incorporate at least some musical elements on their records? And Pink also fell victim to the general 'technological' vibe. Which means that for every successful element on this album that continues to sound fresh and attractive even now, you get a 'failed experiment'. The worst of the lot is Roger Waters' first composition, 'Take Up Thy Stethoscope And Walk', with a melody that pretty much defines the word 'atrocious'. I'm no musician, but I can write a melody that tops this one in about twenty seconds. Of course, they thought they could get away with it? 'Achin' head... Gold is lead... Choke on bread... Underfed...' berk! And don't even try to flame me for it: even Roger himself admitted later the song was a piece of shit. Oh, well, his songwriting still had a lot to go at the time. Another misguided experiment is the lengthy instrumental 'Pow R Toc H', the first part of it, featuring some cool jazz piano, is enjoyable, and the second degenerating into a load of crappy screams soon afterwards. It ain't music, and I hate it.
The good news is that the 'astral' groove was only one side of Syd's personality. Behind the totally frigged up, drug-soaked 'space traveller' he actually hid the identity of a little child! Otherwise, how would you explain the existence of lots of little children ditties on this album? 'Gnome', 'Scarecrow', 'Bike', 'Matilda Mother' - these are all the kind of songs you'd likely to meet on a Greatest Lullabies Collection. Not that they are all good. In fact, I far prefer 'Lucifer Sam' to them - a strong contender for the best song on the album, this ode to Syd's Siamese cat is built around a threatening riff not unlike the ones of 'Astronomy Domine' or 'Overdrive', and the actual melody is no slouch, either. It's one of the few really rockin' tracks on the album, in fact. But the mellower, gentler childish songs aren't that good, primarily because they were all products of Syd's erratic ego and you never can tell which way they're gonna go. I mean, I said in the introduction that I do like unpredictability in rock music, but this is schizophrenia, not unpredictability. Both 'Bike' and 'Matilda Mother' have their charms, of course: 'Bike' is very funny, and the ringing clock symphony, followed by duck cackling, is just hilarious, while 'Matilda Mother' is tender, with the refrain 'Oh mother, tell me more' reflecting the psychology of a little child. But I can't stand the others: 'The Gnome' and 'Scarecrow' are silly throwaways with nothing to recommend them, although they're not horrendous like the second half of 'Toc H' or 'Stethoscope'.
The album also has one of Syd's 'intellectual' compositions, 'Chapter 24' which is actually the lyrics of the 24th chapter of Yi-Jing (the Chinese sacred book of divination) set to a rudimentary melody. I'm just saying this so you wouldn't attribute the text to Mr Barrett in person. Just a warning. The song is okay, I guess. But forget all my critiques, dammit. I'm perfectly willing to admit that the album was one of the most important ones in 1967, probably making the imaginary Top Ten along with Sgt Pepper, Satanic and others. It's just that it shares all the disadvantages of 1967, more so than any other album in this Top Ten.

Take up thy stethoscope and mail your ideas

Your worthy comments:

Daniel Streb <dstreb@neo.rr.com> (27.10.99)

"POW R. TOC H." and "Bike" are great because they're funny. You can even hear the band start to crack up when they do the chicken cluckings in the middle of "POW R.". And "I know a mouse and he hasn't got a house. I don't know why I call him Gerald." is soooo weird. I don't know why but it makes ME laugh. You? Piper At The Gates of Dawn is their best album. Probably my all-time favorite. If you'd like to know more about it, I suggest you read my stupid (and wayyy too profane) review of it at Mark Prindle's site under "Syd Barrett". Everybody, DO NOT listen to this guy. Pink Floyd does NOT suck. You hate Pink Floyd because the band are average musicians. Hey if playing 50 googol notes a second is all you care about then go listen to the Dave Matthews Band or something. The cool thing about Floyd is that they showed that you don't HAVE to be virtuosos to play good prog-rock. Duh! 14.
[Special author note: Like the good, solid dork I am, I'd only like to point out that I don't hate Pink Floyd because the band are average musicians, I don't care about bands playing 50 googol notes a second, I don't listen to the Dave Matthews Band, I do not consider Piper to be a prog rock album because there were no prog rock bands in 1967, and I don't care much about people who can't take a hint. Now sue me.]

Valentin Katz <Valka324@home.com> (17.11.99)

I was wondering, what about the song "Flaming". Have you forgotten about it. It's poignancy is mixed with psychedelic, acid filled allusions and further exploits Syd's creepy voice. Also, I was wondering, if you hate Pink Floyd, why do you have practically every album they ever released. Just so that you can write website reviews, how chivalrous!
[Special author note: 'Flaming' is okay, I guess. As for the second question - no comments on that one...]

mjcarney <mjcarney@netzero.net> (28.06.2000)

An incredible debut.  Syd Barrett shines on his magnum opus, his career started almost as soon as it ended.  This alongside the Beatles' (dare I say it) Sergeant Pepper's are the two greatest pure psychedellic albums ever released.  Sure Revolver by the Beatles ranks up there( although it isn't all pyschedellic), along with Pet Sounds, Love's Forever Changes, and even Frank Zappa's We're Only In It For the Money?, but this album has it all.  It has the whimsical "Scarecrow", and "Bike" and the creepy "Astronomy Domine", with its spaced-out background noises, followed by with the surging, energetic guitar crashes.  What is that? Energetic guitar and Pink Floyd?--well yes, see this was a different Pink Floyd.  Full of energy, and liveliness.  Pink Floyd would never again have a record with such a lively atmosphere, the next closest album by the group in terms of liveliness is Animals, recorded 10 years later however that one still sounds a bit too calculated to really be inventive.  Piper is just great, albeit strange. "Interstellar Overdrive" is IMHO the greatest instrumental in rock and roll. I love it, it rarely seems like it is 10 minutes long, each time I hear it I hear something new, there is so much going on in this song even if Syd is not quite as technically good as Hendrix, Clapton, Page etc., he and the band rock out here.  There are some weaker tracks, "Matilda Mother"--which is not necessarily weak, just extremely dated (I really love the song but hate the background vocals), and "Pow R Toc H" although alright, can get on one's nerves easily.  Roger Waters' first composition "Take Up Thy Stethoscope" is easily the weak moment, and really should have never been released.  However, the James Bond-ish (and I don't know why I always feel this when describing this song) "Lucifer Sam" and "The Gnome" remain other strong highlights.  Despite its weaker moments in the three songs listed above, the album is actually very strong.  The other 8 tracks are incredibly original, and alluring.  Buyer Beware though, this album is very strange, it will take a good number of listens before you can get beyond the weirdness of the album and it isn't really an album that you can listen too every day due to its insanity.  But, it is a classic historical piece of an  artsy album that truly brings the meaning of psychedellic music to the listener. I would rate this one a 9.5/10!  Any fan of any psychedelic music should check this one out.  

<Justinekrnz@aol.com> (17.08.2000)

god i must really have nothing in common with critics of rock.favorite track:take up thy stethascope and walk.why?because its a fun jammin' track.when i listen to music i take into account things other than "is the melody good"...i listen to the energy and the sound...thats all music is to me energy and sound...if you expect anything form music that can be judged your denying yourself the experience.

Andrei <sill@redconnect.com> (05.10.2000)

This one has magic that no other album I know can match, including all the other by PF. In particular, 'Flaming' and 'the Gnome' are my favorites, made special by respective lines 'you can't see me but I can you' and 'look at the sky, look at the river/isn't it good?'. I'm not talking about lyrics, of course, but about the feeling with which these were sung. 'Astronomy domine' is very good, other childish songs are nearly as good, 'bike''s lyrics are great but music is rather too simplistic for me, 'lucifer sam' and 'pow r toc h' are equally good and I wish Roger would take his stethoscope and .. er, anyway. On the whole the album is one of their best.

jeffrey b.good <tull_fan@mail.ru> (06.10.2000)

I really like this album, and I think, Pink ended after Barret had to go(the truth is, Dave Gilmor put him out). At first, have you heard all their early fourtyfives(you can find them, for example, on Early Singles compilation, released in 1993)? Some are very good. Of course almost all of them are about drugs(for example, "Interstellar Overdrive" is musical demonstration of feelings, that came after LSD), but all are great. My favorit is "Matilda Mother"(there's really something magical in it's sound and in Barret's voice there. It's one of my favorite songs of all times together with "Penny Lane" and "Strawberry Fields"). "Astronom Domine" and "Interstellar Overdrive" are SHORT versions of live perfomances, that could last an hour, two, or all night long. How they created that flying sound in 1967? It was a srecial guitar option(Barret learned it from Kit Row, guitarist of avangart band AMM).
One of the best albums of all times. Rating: 10+

Ted Goodwin <Ftg3plus4@cs.com> (19.11.2000)

Once many years ago I heard the RELICS compilation and it piqued my curiosity about the early Floyd. So I picked up a cheap copy of A NICE PAIR (which is basically PIPER plus SAUCERFUL, except with the UMMAGUMMA version of "Astronomy Domine" substituted for the original for some reason). I found PIPER to be a disappointment; none of it packed the weird, creepy punch of "Arnold Layne". "Bike", at the end of RELICS, came as a hilarious contradiction to everything I knew of the Floyd. But hearing the same song at the end of PIPER, which slides all too inevitably toward it, drained the charm out of it for me; I was left with the impression that Syd could have written the song SERIOUSLY.

Jeff Blehar <jdb3@jhu.edu> (20.11.2000)

What makes Piper At The Gates Of Dawn such an immortal album?  Well aside from the already-mentioned psychedelic pioneering of Syd Barrett, Piper, to these ears at least, benefits from two key factors.  First off, it's got an utterly FAAAABULOUS production.  The boys were working with Norm Smith, who was of course one of The Beatles' right-hand-men in EMI studios (as recording engineer) all the way up until the Revolver era, right before which he voluntarily ceded his position to that other engineering God, Geoff Emerick.  Smith left after Rubber Soul, to paraphrase, "because the direction they were going on that album wasn't my thing."  Obviously he had a change of heart, because Piper's sound is off-the-wall experimentalism, something which obviously came from the band but also was received very sympathetically by Smith.  That wonderful topsy-turvy stereo panning at the end of "Interstellar Overdrive" was his idea, as was the opening hoodoo of "Astronomy Domine" and the final cacophony of "Bike."  The engineering and sound-quality is first-rate throughout - for a debut album this sounds as crisp as The Beatles' contemporaneous stuff.  Floyd got very lucky to get a house producer like Smith, who was used to working with experimental geniuses; though some fans accuse him of being slightly befuddled by the group's approach to music-making, I think he tackled it with real verve.
The other thing that makes Piper still sound fresh, aside from the sound, is the lyrical matter.  Notice how, for a psychelic 1967 album, this disc is totally free of flower-power hippesque lyrics?  Not a one.  Most of this the stuff is either paranoiac allegory ("Astronomy Domine" relates a particularly harrowing acid trip of Barrett's where he imagined a bowl of fruit was the solar system, peaches revolving around plums.  His universe collapsed when someone ate the plum.  Hilarious, eh?) or children's song material.  Just about the only song that seems stuck in 1967 is "Chapter 24," perhaps the weakest lyrical piece on Piper next to "Take Up Thy Stethscope And Ram It Down Your Throat, Roger," which is beneath contempt.  (And yeah, I know "Chapter 24" is based on the I-Ching or Book Of Changes, but that doesn't make the lyrics and the spirit in which they were appropriated any less grating.)
All that makes Piper At The Gates Of Dawn one of the few "revolutionary" albums which still SOUNDS current to this day, both sonically and thematically - whimsy never goes out of style, even acid-based whimsy.  I won't even pretend it's perfect, what with "Stethoscope" and "Pow R. Toc. H" as well as some of the weaker Barrett lullabyes, but songs like "Astronomy Domine" (Barrett's greatest tune, and in my Floyd top 10), "Lucifer Sam," "Scarecrow," "Matilda Mother," and "Bike" are classics with inflections both naive and sinister, and "Interstellar Overdrive" is pretty much the only freeform acid-inspired freak-out ever made worth listening to.  I still wish they'd included the classic singles from this era, "See Emily Play" and "Arnold Layne," but Piper as it is remains good enough to earn a 9/10 from me.  

Ben Greenstein <bgreenstein@nctimes.net> (15.12.2000)

I like this one a lot more than anything they ever recorded. Don't get me wrong, it's not THAT good - there's a bit of filler, and it sounds dated - but it sounds like the first album of some group that would have gone on to be fantastic. However, after Barrett collapsed, they really lost all of the fiery playing that they have on here, not to mention the wierd, edgy songwriting. I give this one a very high 7/10.

Year Of Release: 1968
Record rating = 6
Overall rating = 10

More cosmic rockers: move on to this if you want to hear something like 'Interstellar Overdrive', but worse.
Best song: A SAUCERFUL OF SECRETS

Syd went totally loony before they even started recording this one, so they just finally had to dump him and get Dave Gilmour instead. Sure enough, their sound was never the same after that; but they still had a long way to go before Dark Side. This, their second and one of their most bizarre albums, marks a transitional phase: there's only one Barrett composition here (although his guitar is featured on a couple more), but neither can we call Waters a 'despot' - he gets only three of his solo numbers. The album's really a group affair: they truly went over their heads trying to demonstrate they could easily outbarrett Syd or, at least, manage to carry on without him quite easily. Of course, they couldn't. Out of the seven titles, maybe only a couple resemble 'songs' at all, most of the others either featuring long, spacey, nutty jams that would from now on become their trademark for at least five years or just being progressive sound collages (title track).
There's still a lot of youthful hippie romanticism here, of course, mostly courtesy of Mr Rick Wright ('Remember A Day'; 'See-Saw'). It's not bad, but it isn't particularly impressive, either: both of these songs are just slow, echoey and full of sweet vocal harmonies that lull you off to sleep. Good, but nowhere near as innovative as Syd's children songs (I know I said I'm not a fan of 'Matilda Mother', but it does have some historical importance, after all). On the other hand, if Wright voted to inherit Syd's 'lightweight' approach, Roger obviously chose his 'cosmic' facet, because two of his most important songs on here both sound like space mantras. If they weren't so damn long and hypnotic, they could have been entrancing. 'Let There Be More Light' begins with a famous bassline (hey, there was a time when Roger could play that instrument), suddenly turns into a mystical chant ('far... far... far... far away...') and finally, degenerates into a noodling, ponderous 'jam'. 'Set The Controls For The Heart Of The Sun' certainly is a mantra: its one and only line (well, I know the lyrics are rather long, but they all sound the same and that same is 'hardly audible') gets repeated for maybe a couple thousand times, and your choice would be meditation or falling asleep. Since I refuse to be forced to meditate by a band like Pink Floyd, I take the second choice. It's just the intrusive bass line that prevents me from doing so (Waters again). But if you manage to stay awake, good for you, 'cause it's a good song, actually.
Oh! Yeah! You thought that Roger Waters had already become a great songwriter? That he overcame his banal 'Stethoscope' ambitions and ventured off into the new and unknown, dragged on by his talent? Well, no, not that fast. I just wanted to bitch a little over his third solo composition, the dreary anti-war song 'Corporal Clegg'. Its first seconds, with that screeching guitar, forebode a good ol' rock song, but you never can tell with Floyd: it suddenly turns out to be a hodge-podge of unfinished musical ideas which never were that good in the first place. The only thing that makes this bunch of pseudo-scary and pseudo-sweet noises worthwhile is the silly brass solo, otherwise it's almost as horrible as 'Stethoscope', only a bit more complex.
Finally, to tell you the truth, I don't like Syd's 'Jugband Blues' at all. The song was obviously written in his 'Apples And Oranges' state, when he couldn't play the same melody twice, and it's one of the best documents to illustrate his schizophrenia. The 'jugband' don't help at all. However, it probably was a nice gesture to finish off the album with such a commemorative number. To sum up: two mediocre hippie Wright songs, two good cosmic Waters songs, one horrible anti-war Waters song, one bad psychic Barrett song. How could this band be as good as it had been one year ago, with most of the talent clearly sucked out?
Answer is: only by putting all their efforts together and adding Dave's talents to match their own. Thus, they manage to come up with the totally groundbreaking and shattering title track, and it's no wonder that 'A Saucerful Of Secrets', the best composition on the album, is credited to all four members: with no Barrett around, they just didn't have enough strength on the individual level - not yet. 'A Saucerful Of Secrets' is a lengthy instrumental suite (not a jam by all means) which, according to Gilmour, represents a battle and its consequences. It starts off slowly and moodily, with an unstandard use of the cymbals (preparation for battle), then kicks off into a Mason drum tape-loop while Gilmour annihilates his guitar against a microphone stand (the battle), and finally turns into something more of a requiem, a good requiem, with Wright's organ-playing scaring the soul out of you. It's overlong, repetitive, and pretentious, of course, but, first of all, it's one of the first, if not the first, avantgarde experiments of the kind, and, second, it's listenable - quite unlike thousands of avantgarde collages inspired by it, it's good. It's music; at least, parts of it are. I think that in some way it's the title track and none other that catch up Barrett's legacy, not in the musical sense (Syd would never come up with anything as meticulously planned and produced as this), but rather in the experimental one. It was like a statement - we're gonna continue to push musical barriers forward and make music any kinky way we can. The kind of statement that unites at least twenty years of Pink Floyd's existence and also links The Piper to Dark Side Of The Moon.

Let there be more light on this album: mail your ideas

Your worthy comments:

mjcarney <mjcarney@netzero.net> (16.07.2000)

No doubt about it, this was a transitional record, however, it still is one of their better early records and IMHO the best the Sydless Floyd would do for 3 or 4 years.  The album opens up with a purely energetic, metal roaring bass line by Roger on an exceptional start with "Let there be more light".  Clearly Roger had greatly improved as a songwriter from his first awful song.  Also, just to mention that just because the bass sounds ferocious, doesn't mean that it is actually tough to play--it is really rather simple--but still Roger's forte wasn't his playing or singing, it was his conceptualism and his brilliant lyrics.  "Let there be more Light" is still a terrific opener for the Floyd.  They then follow with a throwaway from Piper, the rather dreamy "Remember a Day".  This song is only behind "The Great Gig in the Sky" as my favorite Rick Wright tune, and that is probably due--like the "sky" was-- because of some outside help.  Syd plays an excellent bizarre guitar which complements this song perfectly, and adds to its dreamy effect.  Another strong highlight here even if it ain't perfect.  "Set the Controls for the Heart of the Sun" is also a highlight, and it is the beginning of the new Floyd's fascination with the denser sounds, and architecture of music they would use so well (and sometimes too much) on their later releases.  A good song, but the live versions on Ummagumma and on Live at Pompeii clearly outdue this one.  "Corporal Clegg" is the first real let down on the album.  It is Roger's first anti-war song, but there really is no substance anywhere--and the vocals/lyrics are irritatingly dumb--I'm sorry but its true.  The solo though is rather interesting--correct me if I am wrong but it sounds like a kazoo, which is kind of cool, but the track is well; pretty bad.  The title track is next, and it is fine.  This gave hope to listeners that Pink Floyd would be able to continue after Syd's departure.  It is dense, moody, dark, atmospheric, pyscedellic, and enthralling all in one, and remains the Syd-less highlight of this album.  "See Saw" is alright, although as the title might suggest to those who haven't heard it--it is nothing special.  And then finally the album closes with the most bizzarre song I think that Syd has ever written--including his often talked about "Scream thy Last Scream" and "Vegetable Man".  I believe that this is the third in a series of artitistic--or insane depending on how you see it--depictions that Syd has given of his mental state.  The lyrics like "I'm wondering who could be writing this song" and especially the ending and depressing "What exactly is a dream, and what exactly is a joke?" lines show Syd realizing that he is being kicked out of the band, and losing his mind.  It is quite a depressing song, and also quite insane.  However, its insanity is overshadowed by its pure originality.  The jugband bit in the middle is bizarrely good, and it remains my favorite on the album.  A Saucerful of Secrets is not the greatest album ever, but Pink Floyd will not make a better album--although some are about the same--until Dark Side.  Due to its highlights it deserves a strong 7/10.

Andrei <sill@redconnect.com> (05.10.2000)

'Saucerful' is nearly perfect, but a bit too long. The rest range from average to crappy, with one exception of 'saucerful' itself, which ranger from crappy to average to beautiful in that succession throughout the track.

Ted Goodwin <Ftg3plus4@cs.com> (19.11.2000)

Only heard most of this once; some thought from what I can remember: "Let There Be More Light" and "Set The Controls" I found to be too dang repetitive. Title track was done better on UMMAGUMMA. "See Saw" was annoyingly jerky and pointless. "Jugband" was depressing, pointless, and weird in an unenjoyable way. "Clegg" I didn't find to be bad so much as just not what I expected from the Floyd. (Does anyone else see THE WALL's war theme being anticipated by this track?) My favorite by far was "Remember A Day"; I agree that Syd's weird guitar adds a lot to this track.

Jeff Blehar <jdb3@jhu.edu> (20.11.2000)

A confused hodgepodge, but a FASCINATING confused hodgepodge.  The band was quite obviously poking around for a valid musical direction, and the uncertainty shows in the mixture of Piper-era rejects like Wright's "See Saw" (so many wasted minutes off my life) and "Remember A Day" (which, while similarly subdued, has much more merit, with Barrett's eerie guitar and the slightly ominous echoed vocal) with unresolved gropes towards something new like "Let There Be More Light" (a waste of one of the greatest repeating bass-lines I've ever heard) and "Set The Controls For The Heart Of The Sun" (a fan favorite, but I gotta be, like, INTENTLY FOCUSING on it not to miss it completely).  "Clegg" is to A Saucerful Of Secrets as "Stethoscope" was to Piper, and that leaves the two real masterpieces of the album.  The first of course is the title track, which is as self-concealingly unspontaneous as anything Frank Zappa ever put to record.  As a pure sound collage it really works in maintaining my interest, but I think it would gain immensely in live performance - the last "requiem" section is much better on the Ummagumma performance, complaints about Gilmour's off-key singing or no.
That leaves "Jugband Blues."  Wow.  One of my problems with much of Floyd music to follow is its emotional sterility, or perhaps emotional SELFISHNESS (you know, Roger's working out his demons, but he doesn't give a shit about what YOU the listener thinks of it), but this one track is almost enough to work as ballast for all of that.  It's unbelievably moving...again and again I keep asking myself, "how did this ever get released to the public?"  The chaos of the song and its lyrics tell the story perfectly: not only is Syd Barrett losing his mind, but what makes it so ghastly is that he KNOWS it...he doesn't know quite how to put the words into coherent shape anymore, but all he can think and all he can share is that somehow, something has gone horribly wrong.  Yes, it's depressing, but it's quite possibly the most sincerely depressing song I have in my collection: there, right there on track 6, is a REAL tragedy being played out ON TAPE, captured for eternity.  Grim.  I get shudders whenever I hear it.    As a whole the album is certainly uneven, but the strength of the two aforementioned tracks plus the other semi-successes boosts this one up to a 7 or maybe even an 8 for me.  I like to think of it as the In The Wake Of Poseidon to Piper's In The Court Of The Crimson King.  Similar cover, too.
Note: around this time Floyd released three singles which have yet to make it to any album except the horrendously overpriced and overpackaged boxed set: "Apples And Oranges" (Syd's last single), "It Would Be So Nice," and "Point Me At The Sky."  Fans love to spit all over them because they're unabashed pop-rock, but I think all three of them are just ace, especially "Point Me At The Sky" which should be sought out at all costs.

Year Of Release: 1969
Record rating = 7
Overall rating = 11

An album that demonstrates: when the band doesn't show off, it is still able to produce great music.
Best song: CYMBALINE

This strikes me as being, well, not exactly a masterpiece, but a hell of a lot more interesting than it's usually considered. Oh, I mean, it isn't usually scolded or anything like that. Problem is, the album's a soundtrack to a French late-Sixties avantgarde movie about heroin, and soundtrack albums aren't usually considered as potential masterpieces just because they're soundtracks. A ridiculous superstition, this - after all, do not forget that A Hard Day's Night and Help! were both soundtracks just the same. And many a minor chef-d'auevre was buried in this way - take Dylan's Pat Garrett, for instance, which turns out to be one of his best creations of the Seventies... but let us return to more important matters at hand.
The very fact that Pink Floyd, a band with a less than two year musical legacy and a somewhat uncertain status, were approached with the idea of a soundtrack, showcases their significant cultural position at the moment. However, the music that you're gonna hear on the album has little to do with the kind of stuff they were now expected to do. If cosmic rock is what you're looking for, look someplace else. Out of the thirteen compositions on here, only one has something to do with their trippy, 'space rockers' image, and it turns out to be one of the worst on the album: the lengthy, hypnotic, space-effect-laden instrumental 'Quicksilver'. Maybe it sounded good in the film, but on record it just doesn't go anywhere - it's just a bunch of energy-less keyboard/percussion noises going on for seven minutes. Then again, in a certain perverse way it does predict ambient music, except that I still find its appearance on this record rather inadequate. If you want to make something ambient, do something ambient. Period.
Other drawbacks include Floyd's sudden attempt at a 'heavy' sound - the proto-metallic rockers 'The Nile Song' and 'Ibiza Bar' which both have the same melody (no kidding - I still have problems distinguishing the intros to both songs) and feature Gilmour's cock-rock shouting over a grumbling, pedestrian layer of riffage. I hate the songs, most of all because they sound exactly like the kind of generic hair metal you'd be a-hearin' on every street in the Eighties, maybe a little slower, but that's it. Does that mean that Pink Floyd invented hair metal? you're sure to ask me. Not necessarily, I should respond, because they didn't have their hair that long, at least, not at the time. Let's get calm on that and proceed to the good ones. The ones that deserve an 8.
The good ones are not just good ones, in fact: they're groundbreaking ones. The album finds Roger painfully trying to create a style, a thing he hadn't been able to do on the previous two albums. Here, though, he finally succeeds. From now on, Roger would be a... folk rocker. Yup, you heard right. I don't really know where did the others take their inspiration from, but Roger clearly took his from nobody other than Simon & Garfunkel. 'Cirrus Minor', 'Crying Song', 'Green Is The Colour', 'Cymbaline' - these songs are simply beautiful, and the only category which they can be fitted in is 'progressive folk rock'. 'Progressive', because all of them receive a slight trim of Pink Floyd Treatment, which means they're stuffed with moody sound effects, bits and pieces of Gilmour's electric guitar playing (although most of them are built on an acoustic rhythm track), and reflect Roger's musical ideas and slowly growing lyrical wit. My favourite is 'Cymbaline', with its radical contrast between the quiet verses and the climactic, shrill screaming in the chorus (notice the eerie resemblance between this and the 'and it's hello babe...' part in Genesis' 'Supper's Ready', by the way), but I guess we all can have different opinions. 'Green Is The Colour' distinguishes itself by sounding even McCartneyish in places. Dark Side Of The Moon, eh? Forget that! Of course, these numbers aren't all full of joy and suchlike, but they're lightweight (in the good sense of the word) pop songs! Trust me, you really need to hear this album if you believe everything Pink Floyd ever managed to do was write mournful dirges about a world that sucks like nothing else.
Besides, there's a ton of other goodies waiting for you here, due to the pieces' relative shortness and diversity: Dave's ridiculous pseudo-Spanish phrases on the mercifully brief 'Spanish Piece' (mercifully, because I simply can't stand Spanish guitar, the most overabused musical element in history), Dave's cleverly crafted mounting of guitar tension on 'Dramatic Theme', Mason's re-recording of the drum battle from 'A Saucerful On Secrets' on 'Up The Khyber' and a good avantgarde collage in 'Main Theme', strangely similar to whatever was happening on the Krautrock scene at the time - guess the band was paying some attention to their German colleagues. All of these moments, even though not climactic by any means, manage to draw your attention and turn the supposedly dumb 'soundtrack' into a fascinating listening experience. And dig 'More Blues', the witty re-interpretation of simplistic blues patterns by the geniuses of modern technologies! Believe it or not, this period might have been one of the best for the band, now that Roger finally quit writing garbage like 'Take Up Thy Stethoscope'...

Dramatic theme, isn't it? Mail your ideas

Your worthy comments:

John McFerrin <stoo@imsa.edu> (09.05.99)

YES! You agree with my opinions almost to a tee. I love 'Cymbaline', in fact I consider it one of the top ten Floyd tracks. But yeah, 'Nile Song' and 'Ibiza Bar' suck mighty. Oh well, 7 is right.

<SKendon@aol.com> (25.02.2000)

Next to Ummagumma More is the absolute worst Pink Floyd album (when I speak of Pink Floyd I mean w/Roger Waters). Saucerful had some great tracks (i.e., 'Corporal Clegg') even though it is a bit strange. What were you thinking?

Andrei <sill@redconnect.com> (05.10.2000)

Very good, in fact great. I'd say it's as good as piper, although very different. Ballads are the best, 'cymbaline' being my favorite, 'spanish theme' is okay (i was never overabused with spanish guitar, besides I think they play it really well here), * theme(s) are both excellent, and on top of that I even like the 2 hard rockers - I guess because they keep the album from being overly quiet and mellowed out. Also, I was never overexposed to metal rock excessions of 80's, being but a wee child at the time. OTOH, i'm not dumb and i won't claim that these 2 tracks are anything special, even by my highly limited metal standards. They do give album the energy it, let's be frank, needs. Otherwise it'd sound a bit like Simon&Garfunkel album (well, I only have one - greatest hits), and although these guys are okay, they are far too mellowed out for my taste. Great album, far underrated.

Jeff Blehar <jdb3@jhu.edu> (20.11.2000)

Eh.  Too much nondescript instrumental music here, George.  "Dramatic Theme" is perhaps the best of these (it also features a brilliantly inventive title), but the much-vaunted "Quicksilver" is nothing but a self-indulgent waste of time.  Perhaps if I was shooting smack I might see the parallels of that song to the heroin experience, but other than that, no thanks.  "Up The Khyber," on the other hand, is an example of a purely experimental track that not only justifies its reason for existing, but also has the good sense to be short.  "More Blues" is frustrating, but that's obviously the point - every time it's about to get going, the whole thing just crashes to a halt.  Intellectually interesting, perhaps, but it doesn't make for fun listening.
The actual "songs" aren't all great either; we're all agreed that "The Nile Song" and "Ibiza Bar" are just fetid pieces of metallic tripe (and yet the former made it onto Relics!  In favor of "Cymbaline!"  WHY?), but I think that "Green Is The Colour" is sub-par folk and "Crying Song" is too lethargic by at least half a Quaalude.  "Cirrus Minor" is indeed a minor masterpiece, however, with Wright's static organ being put to excellent use near the end along with some nice bird calls.  And of course there's "Cymbaline."  It's down to a steel-cage match between this one and "Summer '68" (from Atom Heart Mother) for the prize of Most Criminally Underrated Floyd Song.  You never hear it on the radio, nobody but hard-core fans could tell you about it, but it's so easily the best short song they did during this era that its anonymity is frustrating.  That's what you get when you throw it away on a soundtrack album.  Strangely, the first time I heard it, it sounded distantly familiar to me - that chorus and the ruminescent rhythm groove which opens the song are perhaps worth the price of the album on their own.
Perhaps not, though.  Strange that you should say that this is the album to get if you believe that all Floyd ever did was mournful dirges, since this album is SUCH a relentlessly down experience that it's almost hard to sit through.  More is completely sedated, a reflection I'd wager of what happens when you write music to fit the soundtrack of a film about French smack addicts (and the music WAS written specifically to fit the scenes - Waters & Co. watched clips and wrote around them).  It's slow, lethargic, and barely rises above a whisper most of the time.  I would really rank this one low on the Floyd totem pole, because even though it has two neglected classics the rest of it is terribly soporific: 5/10.

Year Of Release: 1969
Record rating = 8
Overall rating = 12

The triumph of Experimentation, this is probably the most successful of all avantgardist albums I'm aware of.
Best song: CAREFUL WITH THAT AXE, EUGENE

Hey, Jefferson Airplane, eat your heart out! Pink Floyd set the controls to 'frig out unlimited', and this album cooks with a vengeance! At no other time in their career did they ever release a record so bizarre. Painfully searching for their style (which they, unfortunately, weren't to find until 1973), they decided to let things go as they were supposed to go by themselves. The normal order of things was (a) excessive touring in their already overabused image of cosmic rockers, (b) unrestrained experimenting in the studio, trying to synthesize every possible sound on the planet and reproduce every possible situation on a record. And this is exactly what you get on Ummagumma, which means 'sex' in some kind of slang (if it ain't really a put-on by Nick Mason).
The first record of this double-set is live, containing just four tracks: one of Syd legacy, two from Saucerful Of Secrets and a new composition. 'Astronomy Domine' is terrific, and even if it loses a bit of its charm on stage (it's bound to, anyway - God only knows how many overdubs and technical gimmicks they inserted into this one), all the main elements are there: that echoey, boomy sound, the apocalyptic riff, the un-earthly vocals, and it also has a couple spare solos courtesy of Mr Rick Wright. 'Set The Controls For The Heart Of The Sun' is even improved upon: the climactic passages in the middle result in its sounding less like a lullaby and more like a Robot Rocker. And 'A Saucerful Of Secrets' sounds less artificial and much more energetic in the live context, the only letdown being Gilmour's uneven vocal harmonies in the 'requiem' part - I wonder who sang the original harmonies on the studio version. At least he doesn't sing off key.
However, all of these three live versions, good as they might be, pale in comparison to what I'd call the ultimate in avantgarde jamming. You know what I'm talking about, don't you? 'Careful With That Axe, Eugene' is nothing short of a perfect composition, and I do mean perfect: in the sense that not a note is wasted, the song and its structure are almost mathematically calculated. It begins as a slow, bass-based shuffle with little or no melody, punctuated by little 'pricks' on the cymbals, after which begins the slow and intoxicating build-up: Wright's synth noises, then the drums slowly replace the cymbals, Gilmour starts picking the guitar, Rick starts playing short passages on the organ, then in come the moody, angelic vocal harmonies and you're almost lulled to sleep - that is, if you don't feel the potential danger in the song, and then suddenly the bass comes throbbing faster and faster, the guitars and keyboards also become louder, Waters whispers the murky line 'careful with that axe Euzheeeeene', and after that... well, if you haven't heard the song, I'll just leave this as a secret in order to intrigue you. Suffice it to say that the tension is just as carefully lowered as it mounted: Dave's screeching guitars fade away slowly, the organ almost dissolves itself, and the song ends just as it started - having come full circle. Magnificent, utterly magnificent and one of Floyd's best compositions ever - this is just the perfect example of music's influence on one's mind.
Certainly, the studio album can't even hope to coming close to how 'Careful With That Axe' sounds. But it's intriguing nevertheless. It all consists of the band members 'solo spots', since for some reason they weren't able (or just didn't want to) work together. The result is a patchy, but in places very worthwhile progressive collage. The best songs on here are Waters'. 'Grantchester Meadows' is done in his by now solid Simon-and-Garfunkelesque style, a panoramic ballad depicting the beauties of British rural life together with birds chirping, peacocks cooing (or doing whatever 'em peacocks doo) and flies buzzing. The ending is also typical Floyd showing off - somebody rushes into the studio and thumps the poor insect with a newspaper. And 'Several Species Of Small Furry Animals Gathered Together In A Cave And Grooving With A Pict' (which rivals the Beatles for the longest song title) is just funny. Of course it's not a song and it ain't music and I don't normally appreciate this kind of sound, but this is oh so oh so oh so funny and technically brilliant that I can't help liking it. Not that I'd want to listen to this stuff that much, but it's just curious. Good sound. Lots of chatter and pratter which is totally impossible to decipher. Can you? Don't even try, it's probably all mixed backwards or in some other direction, unknown to the unprogressive part of humanity.
Now the other members' stuff is less interesting, dragging this record's rating down at least two points. Wright's four-part 'Sysyphus', based on some obscure classical pieces and spiced with modern playing techniques, has its moments, most notably the opening bombastic part, but it also becomes incredibly dull in the middle. Gilmour's 'The Narrow Way' is an unimpressive exercise in guitar technology; all I can say about it is that the first part is lazy and soothing, the second part sounds like a rocked-up version of 'Set The Controls For The Heart Of The Sun' and the third part presages the band's sound on Dark Side Of The Moon. All of these things don't impress me that much. Finally, Mason's 'The Grand Vizier Garden Party' is a grand name serving to mask the lack of ideas; virtually the only thing that it does is introduce us to the principle of a drum solo enhanced by electronic effects. Listening to this for seven minutes might have some sense first time around, but from a historical point of view this seems all too close to the 'music for immediate consumption' idea (yeah, like George Harrison's Electronic Sound). Nevertheless, it ain't nasty, and I like the little flute bits which open and close the main section.
Overall, I must say that even if the album does have its poor sides (which is inevitable - what could you expect from a late Sixties experimental album in the hands of such a band as Pink), one has only to consider the guts and the nuts in order to appreciate it. Really, I can't imagine any other record in this world that took the 'do everything you want to do, and do it in the most unpredictable manner' vibe and carried it further. And please don't mention Zappa here - this is not a comical record, this is some serious stuff. Some deadly (whoah) serious stuff made by notably intelligent people. Yup, I'm talkin' intelligent people here. This is an intelligent album, even if Dave Gilmour can hardly be called an intelligent person. Oh, okay, not as intelligent as Waters. You satisfied now? Buy Ummagumma today. Forget about it tomorrow, but enjoy it today.

The narrow way is to leave this as it is. The good way is to mail your ideas

Your worthy comments:

Valentin Katz <Valka324@home.com> (22.12.99)

This live compilation (if you can call 4 songs such) is a true masterpiece. The band picked amazing songs to represent them. 'Astronomy Domine' opens strong although it doesn't have the same power as presumably a Barrett version would. It slows down in the middle and the Dave's vocals aren't suited for Syd's songs. 'Careful with that Axe, Eugene' is brilliant although I would have liked it to go longer. Roger's high pitched screams are incredible, truly frightening. 'Set the controls for the heart of the sun' is very quiet and mellow, yet at the same time very cosmic. And then 'A Saucerful of Secrets' comes in and I'm in heaven. The perfect end to a near-perfect live album. It's basically divided into two sections, the first is a very psychedelic, Barrettesque jam with Nick probably drumming the semi-solo of his life. And then out of nowhere it all stops and you come into this morose, melancholy tone. This is finished beautifully by Dave's singing at the end which has much more emotion than the studio version where they used professional singers. 'A Saucerful of Secrets' is by far the superior song on here and I can't get enough of it.

Shor Bowman <jwbowman@naxs.com> (28.03.2000)

Ok, it's time to put in my two-cents worth on another Floyd album...my third-favorite album, Ummagumma, and album I bought used with some birthday money AGAIN without having heard anything from it.  I would like to say, up front, that when I play this album, there are only two tracks I never listen to: 'Sysyphus Part Three' and 'the Narrow Way Part Two'.  Everything else is awesome!  "Astronomy Domine" is excellent, especially with the addition of Wright's soothing, quiet synth solos.  They don't just make the song longer, they make it stronger (although I prefer the rocking version on P.U.L.S.E.).  "Careful with That Axe, Eugene" is wonderful, and the tension is wonderful, George--I agree.  But my favorite song on here is "Set the Controls for the Heart of the Sun"--appropriately mellow, a nice little drum semi-solo, and then--ah!  more synth solos by Wright.  He really knows how to do it!  Wonderful!  It's almost Egyptian.  And "A Saucerful of Secrets" rocks hard too, and I love Mason's drumming!  Good gracious!  It's harder than it sounds.
Sysyphus--Beethoven's "Pathetique," a gnome king's fanfare, and the opening music to Romero's "Night of the Living Dead" all mixed together.  It cooks, except for Part 3, although after Wright's live performance I expected better.  "Grantchester" and "Several Species"...I must smile.  Relaxation and smiles.  Just tremendous.  "Narrow Way"?  Really good, really good.  Acoustic and electric...very good, more fanfare for the gnome king.  And "Grand Vizier's Garden Party" is nice...the flute, the drums at the end of entertainment...real royalty.  I must give it an 8.5, just shy of Dark Side's majesty.

mjcarney <mjcarney@netzero.net> (15.07.2000)

Well, all of Pink Floyd albums seem to be a hit-or-miss affair for me.  Some of them, Piper at the Gates of Dawn, The Wall(most of), Animals and Dark Side are brilliant, some albums: Wish you Were Here(too boring!!), Meddle, and all of their post-Waters material are overrated, and some albums: More (a few alright songs, but not much), and this one (not the live disc though) just plain stink.  But before you stop reading this, I can explain it.  There is some value in this record, and if you are a fan, you unfortunately need to purchase it for the live album alone.  The live album of this set is just a bit shy of being a perfect masterpiece.  It has four beautiful soundscapes in true Pink Floyd cosmic weirdness.  "Astronomy Domine"--though lacking Syd's presence--is actually quite impressive.  Gilmour's guitar work on here is great and the band seems to be in great form.  It is missing some of the energy from the original, yet they have added a few small segments, and the version holds up well (almost equivalent) to the classic original.  "Careful with that axe, Eugene" is an amazing bit of sheer terror.  The dynamics of the song, of the steadily quickened pace, and that horrific shriek by Waters are amazingly good.  I never thought that this song could be topped live--as it clearly beats the studio recording, but the version on Live at Pompeii is just a little bit better.  "Set the Controls..." and "Saucerful of Secrets" are also brilliantly recorded here, and crush their previously good studio versions.  And overall the live album is tough to beat, and a must hear for any Floyd/pyschedellic music fan.  They have clearly stepped away from Syd's shadow live, but they are yet to release a really credible--and strong--release without him, and unfortunately Ummagumma (Studio) is no exception.  Sure its avant-garde, so sure I should expect weirdness, but this is just plain dated avant garde.  If you want to hear some good avant garde, there is some on White Light/White Heat by VU, Sonic Youth also have some brilliant recordings in the genre, and even Yoko Ono can have her great moments, but the Floyd were never true avant gardists.  Back to the album though, the studio album starts off with  a four part epic by Rick Wright, which has its moments--from 1-the beginning of 3 but then just meanders along before you just get tired of it.  Sure its weird, and it doesn't sound really like anything the Floyd have done before or since, but it is also innesential. After this starts Roger Waters' part on the album.  He offers two songs the first is  the strong, dreamy, acoustic "Grandchester Meadows" which is easily the highlight of this album even if it is a bit long.  This song holds up well with Roger's other strong material well, and is really the only salvagable track on here. The next song is the BIZARRE "Several Species....Pict".  This song has so much going on, and is some fine avant garde work, but it is too bizarre for me.  The fly being caught and all the weird noises finishing with the Scottish accent ending is perhaps one of the strangest "songs" I have ever heard.  It is definately an interesting listen for the first 1 maybe 2 times, but really you can't listen to it more than that it just gets so old and dated.  David Gilmour is next with his musical pieces, culminating in what is his best song to this point with "The Narrow Way".  This song has a slight hook to it, but although it is Gilmour's best song to this point, it is still not too memorable he still has much room to improve.  The other instrumental bits are alright, but nothing spectacular compared with Floyd's classic instrumentals earlier and on the live release.   Finally, Nick Mason puts a boring finish with his closer which ends the album suitably since it is probably their weakest.  So now to review:  The live disc is a strong 8/10--brilliant, but Live at Pompeii has slightly better versions of 3 of the 4 songs which are still superb here, and they could have maybe added some extra bits on the CD re-release(minor squibble though).  The studio disc would get a 3/10.  It has a few moments and a few parts of songs, but is FULL of FILLER, and sounds so dated today--and I am a fan of the 60's era.  OVerall then that makes for a  5.5/10.  Unfortunately, not for completists due to the tremendous live album, but reserve this CD until you either really like their early material, or you see it used.  Buyer Beware!

Andrei <sill@redconnect.com> (05.10.2000)

Live one is perfect, 'cept for all the songs being a bit too long. But then again, how many PF songs aren't too long? One exception is probably 'Eugene', I actually found it scary to think that he'd use his axe to cut the song's length. Those were *my* screams :-).
Studio one is utter crap 'cept for 'furry animals' that are just great, 'specially on a trip, and 'meadows' that are the best PF's song in the venue of fold ballad style. The guitar is just.. perfect. I don't care if robert plant or whoever plays much more complex chord combinations, I don't care if he plays 'em standing on his head and I don't even care if he played it with his feet.. actually that would be kind of cool. But the point is that all I *do* care about is how the song influence me, and this one puts me right in heaven. And for that matter, guitar sounds quite complex and unusual to me, can any musician comment on it? I never heard anything like that, except for maybe 'hey you' and 'is there anybody out there?', but even these are not quite as good. I'd rate this album higher than Relics, but it does cost 2 times as more..

Nick Karn <glassmoondt@yahoo.com> (12.10.2000)

Errgghhh... this is easily one of the most uneven and frustrating albums I've ever heard - how anyone can rate it over Wish You Were Here or The Wall is way beyond me. For me, when 25-30 minutes of a double set as a whole borders on unlistenable, that is NOT a good sign. If the live disc is all the live Floyd that I need, then Floyd just sucks as a live band. OK, that's not entirely true - "Careful With That Axe, Eugene" is an absolute masterpiece, and outside of the lyrics, it is a PERFECT example of why they are among my three or four favorite bands. Just amazing precision on that one, with the scream and all. But "Astronomy Domine" is much more effective in its' original 4 minute length (even without all the gimmicks) than the needlessly extended 8 minute repetitiveness that is the concert version, the dissonance in the middle of "A Saucerful Of Secrets" is simply unbearable (utterly destroys more than half of the already average 12 minute performance for me), and "Set The Controls For The Heart Of The Sun", which effectively presents the atmosphere of a concert setting, is also overlong in the middle.
I'm probably one of the few who actually prefers the studio album, and that's mainly because of Roger and Dave's contributions. Don't even get me started over that amateur haunted house music crap that is "Syssyphus" or Nick Mason's wretched drum solo with the fancy title and the stupid distracting noises. "Grantchester Meadows", though, is a fabulous Roger Waters acoustic ballad with lyrics in the chorus that are among my favorites of his, "Several Species Of Furry Animals..." is one of the most disturbingly hilarious things I've ever heard (what the hell kind of acid was he on??), and Dave's "The Narrow Way" I think is somewhat underrated, with the nice acoustic part 1, the cool apocalyptic dark riff in part 2, and an attempt at a melodic extended song in part 3. But regardless of those highlights, I couldn't give Ummagumma any more than a 6 - it's just far too inconsistent. The good stuff is really good (sometimes in "Eugene"'s case awe-inspiring), but the bad stuff is amazingly horrible. I guess I'm just not a fan of their hugely experimental stuff - to me the 'calculated' aspect of Floyd rather than the 'irrational avant garde' aspect is what really draws me in. I probably even prefer More over this one.

Jeff Blehar <jdb3@jhu.edu> (20.11.2000)

Goodness gracious!  Ummagumma an 8?  Someone was in a good mood when they wrote that review!
Well no, I'm sure you have your reasons, but as far as I see it, the ONLY redeeming aspect of Ummagumma is the live disc, which is, from beginning to end, stunning.  In fact, despite at least 3 more pointless live albums released later in the band's career, THIS is the only one you'll need.  Four tracks, each one a perfectly representative selection, and each one improving in SPADES over its studio counterpart (except perhaps for "Set The Controls"...too much Wright noodling in there).  You single out "Careful With That Axe," and rightfully so, but my favorite is "Astronomy Domine," which trades up the almost unbearable tension of the Barrett version for a much spacier, dare I say SWEETER sound (for example, instead a dissonant organ buzz between choruses, Wright instead plays a pleasant harmonic pattern).  And I think Gilmour does a stand-up job with Barrett's vocal - as a matter of fact, one of the reasons for including the track, and for putting it up at front, was to show that Gilmour could fill Barrett's shoes more-than-adequately.  I don't understand your complaint about Gilmour's "off-key" singing at the end of "Saucerful Of Secrets;" to me, that's the best part of the piece, and it's a marked improvement over the anonymous massed chorale of the studio version.  Ah, but we nitpick - this is Floyd's greatest live album.  If you don't have it, you have no idea how good they could be a taking noise and creating something awesome out of it.
Unfortunately it comes tacked on to this shitty studio album.  Now I'm no reactionary, and I love my avant-garde experimentalism, but man, only if it's done RIGHT.  At least 1/2 of the studio disc is dismissed by most fans RIGHT OFF the bat ("Sysphus," which actually holds my interest for its first two parts, and "The Grand Vizier's Garden Party" which is just a boring drum solo, sonically enhanced to become...a sonically-enhanced boring drum solo) and that remaining half ain't great either.  "Grantchester Meadows?"  Why do people like this song?  I hear an interminable folk song without much of a melody and some snazzy musique concrete.  Which leads me to "Several Species Of..."  Okay, what can I say, it's awesome.  Not the kind of thing I'd want to listen to everyday, but as a extremely well-executed sound collage it's weird without being stupid and "avant-garde" without also being "hopelessly pretentious."  (It undercuts itself, actually.  Slow the record down and you can hear to chimpmonk voices resolve themselves into Roger Waters and Dave Gilmour shouting back and forth things like "Give me back my guitar!" and "That was pretty avant-garde, wasn't it?")  Gilmour's pieces were B.S.'ed by his own admission, but "The Narrow Way Part 3" is actually fairly interesting.
But man, for me to make a case for the studio album requires me to HUNT for good points.  There are some, but so much of it is the worst kind of unengaging experimentalism.  The live disc showed Floyd at its unified best, the studio disc showed what they were reduced to when separated from one another: almost nothing.  Their solo careers bear this out as well.  6/10, and only because of the live disc and the smallest isolated parts of the studio disc.   

Year Of Release: 1970
Record rating = 6
Overall rating = 10

Pink Floyd as a 'classical' band in the original sense of the word, this is their 'peak' as a 'progressive' band.
Best song: the FATHER'S SHOUT part of ATOM HEART MOTHER

Well now, this certainly isn't even a rock record by any means. There's a big classical suite, a folk song, two evident pop songs and a psychedelic sound collage. But that's actually not a reproach. The reproach is that this record is seriously flawed, and below I'll try to give you a fairly objective view on the album (hell, wasn't that the kind of thing I already tried to do for 350 albums? Okay, so they're not totally objective, I confess, but let's just pretend they are).
'Atom Heart Mother' isn't exactly the first sidelong piece, but maybe it's one of the first really entertaining fusions of rock and classical. Its primary inspiration was certainly Deep Purple's Concerto For Group & Orchestra, but the idea was to outdo them. In that respect they probably succeeded 'cause it's hard to imagine anything more appalling than Concerto. Also, this resulted in probably the only Pink Floyd record that could to a significant degree be dubbed 'progressive' - their earlier albums were certainly more schizophrenic than progressive, and since Dark Side Of The Moon they abandoned these progressive tendencies totally. 'Atom Heart Mother', however, doesn't really work on any level other than 'progressive'.
Written in collaboration with partner Ron Geesin (who was responsible for most of the arrangements and orchestral trimmings), the suite is fairly impressive but, unfortunately, it shares all the defects of any song that goes over twenty minutes (actually, the only flawless twenty-plus minute track I've ever heard was 'Thick As A Brick Part 1'). It is diverse enough to not lose your attention, consisting of six different parts. These vary in style and in quality. The main theme ('Father's Shout', later reappearing in 'Reemergence') is terrific, with the classical horns line probably borrowed from some unknown Russian chef-d'aeuvre (okay, it might be Wagner just as well). Moreover, Gilmour contributes a whole guitar paradise both here and on a couple following parts; it sounds a little artificial, of course, but what Gilmour guitar part doesn't? It's really very nice. 'Breast Milky' with its requiem-like chorus sounds a bit too banal, but it's listenable. The only thing I have against it, in fact, that they're repeating themselves on a weaker level: the way they did the requiem part on 'A Saucerful Of Secrets' was much better. BUT... the middle parts (especially 'Funky Dung') are a huge letdown: this is where the 'classical' vibe suddenly disappears and is replaced by experimental synth noises that are prime bullshit compared to even the worst moments on Ummagumma. These parts just do not merge at all, and I can only excuse them by considering the background (remember, it was a time when butchering classical music with crazy avantgarde experiments was considered fashionable and artsy). Now, though, the suite would sound much better if these middle parts were extracted and deleted. You can't even skip them because they aren't indexed separately on the CD - what interest would I have in pushing and holding the 'fast forward' button every time? Blah. Overlong, that's what that one is.
Plus, the second side is almost totally trite. Roger's 'If' is a good song, another of his Simon & Garfunkel impersonations, this time with a strong pessimistic flavour. I wonder, what would happen if Roger quit the band and went on the road with an acoustic guitar in hand (and maybe Art Garfunkel on backing vocals)? Would he be as revered today as he is? I dunno, I just think he has a genuine talent for writing bittersweet acoustic ballads (see 'Pigs On The Wing' for one of the greatest examples of this, oh, and 'Mother', too). 'If' is no exception. But Rick contributes a clumsy, senseless love song ('Summer '68', with the title really saying it all), and Dave suddenly extracts a Ray Davies rip-off: 'Fat Old Sun', besides having a title closely reminiscent of the latter's 'Lazy Old Sun', is sung in an entirely Ray Davies style, with Gilmour even imitating Ray's intonations. Only he didn't have just as much talent for writing songs as Ray Davies had, so it's really a failure. Wise persons have also pointed out that the ringing of the bells that introduces the song is ripped off of the Kinks' 'Big Black Smoke'. Me, I wouldn't know about that, but Gilmour ripping off the Kinks? Sounds like one of the craziest ideas in the world.
I'm also not a fan of the closing 'Alan's Psychedelic Breakfast' featuring one of their roadies' (or sound engineers, who cares) daily activities' sounds over a couple primitive musical themes. The sounds of running water, frying bacon, chewing and swallowing may sound hilarious first time around, but it kinda begins to grate on my ears when I listen to it for the second one. It was probably very much fun as a stage number when they had real tea and bacon on the stage; but on record it's just dull and dated. Although you should take at least one listen to it, I think.
The album is also innovative in that it's the first one where the band members don't appear on the front cover. The meaning of that was to make the music as 'impersonal' as possible, although to my mind this was just a big put-on: since 1973 the music became hugely personal and it remained personal to the very last studio album. This one, I agree, is not personal, though, so the cow on the cover fits it just fine. Funny thing that the cow inspired the subtitles in 'Atom Heart Mother' ('Breast Milky', 'Funky Dung', etc.): that's how circumstances influence art, eh?

If you want, mail your ideas

Your worthy comments:

John McFerrin <stoo@imsa.edu> (13.05.99)

I must emphatically disagree about your assessment of 'Summer '68'. I have never heard a song which captured the emptiness of the one-night stand so friggin well. In my mind, if it weren't for those damn horns, it would be a total classic; as is, in my mind, it's the best track on the album. Otherwise, yeah, the title suite is a clunker, but parts of it are really interesting. And I really like 'Alan's Psychedelic Breakfast', I really do. I'd give it an 8. A low 8, but an 8 nonetheless.

Dan Watkins <dan_watkins@hotmail.com> (24.07.99)

Man, is this one unfairly under-rated. Most of the people I know who have heard this album dropped the needle on the first side of the LP and said "Ew, classical music! Yucky!" No, it's not really a rock album, but the first side is nothing like classical music aside from the fact that an orchestra is present. The first side is long, but there are enough different themes in the suite to not make it seem so long. I like it. Yeah, it's pretentious, but what progressive rock album isn't at least a little pretentious?
The second side is pretty mellow. It sorta reminds me of the weaker tracks on Meddle. I agree with you that 'If' is a good song, but the rest of it is pretty forgettable. I still think that this album never gets the credit it deserves. I'll give it an 8/10.

José Humberto Mesquita Filho <humberto@fcm.unicamp.br> (25.09.99)

My Rating: 8/10 (in your rating system, a 12/14, I guess...)
Atom Heart Mother is one of those albums that grow on the listener like a fungus, it all depends on the listener. I slept the first time I heard it, and man, did I hate the breakfast and the suite... I thought: "'If' and 'Summer '68' are ok, but the rest sucks". I happened to buy the album, anyway, and I got a little more surprised at each new listen. I understand it now: the first four parts of 'AHM' are fabulous! The last 10 minutes are there just to make it into a side-long track, but all the other parts have many great tiny little bits: the organ and choral duel, the guitar solo, the violins, they're all beautiful! The rest of the album goes OK, and the breakfast is just plain good fun. Gotta love that glorious ending. What else could we expect from an album with a cow on the cover? Weird stuff, that's for sure.

mjcarney <mjcarney@netzero.net> (15.07.2000)

This is the start of the classic Floyd--albeit not the whole album, actually only the first side and a bit of the second.  The album, is also adorned by their best cover to this point--and one of my favorite covers ever for its simplicity, and stupidity.  I just laugh to myself thinking that there were probably some kids that had this cover on thier walls, but hey it is a great cover nonetheless.  Anyway, the album opens with what is clearly their greatest-and most underrated-epic instrumental, the title track.  This has to be the best fusion of classical and rock and roll that I have ever heard--well in an instrumental because everyone knows George Martin mastered that in a pop song.  It might be a little long for some people, but anything that is 26 minutes long is going to be, all I say is put it on while you are working on something, and it will grow on you.  Ron Geesin definately deserves some credit here, as he took what probably would have been another Floyd boring jam like "Echoes" and added some brilliant additions of horns and strings to turn this song around.  It also features an incredible solo by Gilmour--one of my favorites by him, towards the middle (unfortunately I only have the CD so I can't tell you exactly if its like 'Funky Dung' or whatever) but its in the middle.  The rest of the band sounds great--even if Waters' clumsy bass riff routine is reused to death--it stil works--but one could wonder what Paul McCartney, or a Jack Bruce could have done with the song. The band might have been disappointed with it, but I will still say that the first side is a true masterpiece in my book, and it will give the album a relatively strong review by itself, but there is more--if only a little bit on side two.  Basically side two should have just been "If".  If that was the case, this would have been really short, but classic.  "If" is Rogers first real masterpiece.  Great lyrics, and a nice little piano bit in the middle, also really laid back.  He expanded on the success of "Grandchester Meadows" and his songs from the Body soundtrack and perfected it here.  The rest of the material is slight.  "Summer 68" is catchy as hell, but it is one of those horrible catchy songs.  Just plain stupid, Rick has by now lost all of the writing talent he once had with "Remember a Day" his early singles (some were good) and supposedly the Syd Barrett sung "Two of a Kind".  "Summer 68" is just horrible and it is starting to get stuck in my head now so I will stop writing about it.  Gilmour is still trying with "Fat Old Sun"--although I do not really hear much of a Ray Davies type thing here, even if the title is close to "Lazy old Sun" I think that is pure coincidence.  Gilmour could not come close to sounding anything like Davies if he tried, because Davies voice is brilliant--at least for his music.  Anyway "Fat Old Sun" is another one of his More like songs, but really I could do without it.  Finally, the "Alan's Psychedellic Breakfast" is almost a return to Ummagumma, yet better most of what is on there.  Still though, that is not saying much, and this song is more or less the band messing around with studio gimmickery.  It ends the album poorly, like all the Floyd albums would be until Dark Side--"Echoes" should be split in half.  I would rate this album a strong 7/10.  Easily there best album since A Saucerful of Secrets, and maybe a nod above that album too. 

Nick Karn <glassmoondt@yahoo.com> (13.09.2000)

I definitely echo John McFerrin's opinion of "Summer '68". It may be somewhat clumsy due to the fact that there's no attempt by Rick Wright to rhyme anything in the song, but the one night stand idea is conveyed effectively, and his vocals go exceptionally well with the main melody. The thing I love most about it, though, is how the song transforms itself from a normal, little generic pop tune into something special, with that great 'how do you feel' echoing bit and the horns (which I actually feel benefit the song, contrary to John) being a fantastic bridge between the verses. I think it's a truly spectacular song. The remaining two middle songs I also enjoy quite a bit, as Roger's "If" is very nice, sparse and powerful in its' lyrics (foreshadowing the 73-77 period), and Dave's "Fat Old Sun" has his typical great guitar work that I love so much, and is a well constructed song... although I never thought of the vocals as Ray Davies-ish... hmm...
Oh yeah, the two longer epics (title track and "Alan's Psychedelic Breakfast") I feel could have been edited a little, as they do get slightly monotonous in places, which prevents me from giving the album a higher rating, but the former's horn melodies and chanting are for the most part engaging, and the latter, despite the occasionally distracting mumbling and sound effects, has some nice instrumental melodies to hold my attention. I'd probably give it an 8(12) overall - I really don't think it's any worse than Meddle, maybe roughly the same quality IMO.

Andrei <sill@redconnect.com> (05.10.2000)

Unquestionably the most underrated album. Title suit is nearly perfect, although it took me a long time to even begin to appre- ciate it, it's got enough themes for 2-3 first rate albums, this one suite alone. I'd rate this album after Animals, only because of the suite, although both 'summer '68' and 'fat old sun' are great. In 'summer '68', horn in the middle really saves it as well as 'how do you feel' refrent, while fat old sun might be ripped off some guy I never heard of, but it sounds good to me, it reminds me of 'pillow of winds', only done right. I suppose they were wrong to stop ripping others off by meddle :-). 'if' is a bit like 'green is the color' and other songs of that kind but not half as good. 'Alan psychodelic breakfast' is every bit as good as any of the crappy 'studio' ummagumma tracks, which is to say, it's not any damn good at all.

Jeff Blehar <jdb3@jhu.edu> (20.11.2000)

Gads, another one I can't really get into anymore.  The two long tracks which bookend it are more than faintly ridiculous attempts at something serious in the fields of classical fusion and musique concrete, respectively, which fall flat on their asses.  ("Atom Heart Mother," for all its inordinate bloat, at least has that catchy main horn riff, but "Alan's Psychedelic Breakfast?"  Is this a put on??)  So what saves this album are those three ostensibly "throwaway" songs hidden in the middle of the album.  "Fat Old Sun" is neither here and there for me: a big "whatever."  "If," on the other hand, is the first truly pretty and memorable song Roger Waters had written since "Cymbaline," with probing lyrics and a fragile delivery.
But man, what MAKES this album for, what actually will bring me to sit down and endure the 25 minute entirety of "Atom Heart Mother" even, is "Summer '68."  I'm not kidding when I say that this might be my favorite Floyd song.  No, really.  Stop laughing.  Rick Wright was an underestimated songwriter, and he was quite ruthlessly shoved out of the way by Roger Waters on his way towards dominance, but songs like this prove that there was another worthwhile composing voice in the band.  The lyrics a GREAT, pinpointing that sense of hollow "what now?" disillusionment with one-night-stands, and the music matches.  The "how do you feel" chorus showcases Gilmour at his finest vocally, and the agitated piano comping keeps the song rooted on that feeling of melancholy.  The ersatz-horns don't really hurt the song in my opinion - perhaps they're a bit too bombastic, but they don't destroy the material around them.  Perhaps it's just me, but this song stands out boldly from the more or less disposable music surrounding it. 5/10

ADAMS <gjadams@mymail.emcyber.com> (14.12.2000)

Summer 68' is my favorite song by the floyd and i consider it to be the most moving piece by them not just some "stupid love song". i also think that richard wright is totally underrated for his songs and his musical talent in general.of course im not surprized that you dont understand atom heart mother (the album) because most people wouldnt they're not open minded enough to give it a chance .the album is full of goodies from start to finish and i love it for it's uniqueness and bizzarre theme .i would have much less respect for floyd if they didnt experiment with their music and revolutionize "rock and roll"  the way they did with particularly ummagumma,atom heart mother,and dark side of the moon.

Year Of Release: 1971
Record rating = 7
Overall rating = 11

Rarities and re-releases, all sounding quite well.
Best song: ARNOLD LAYNE

This isn't actually a new album, but I can't strictly place it in the compilations section, because it contains quite a large bunch of early singles previously unreleased on LP, plus a new Waters composition unavailable otherwise ('Biding My Time'). With a bit more intelligence, they could have included all the other Barrett-era rarities like 'Candy And A Currant Bun' or 'Apples And Oranges' and thus have a totally magnificent new studio album. But for some reason, the company preferred to dump them in favour of the already well-known and previously LP-issued tracks like 'Interstellar Overdrive' (this one they could have edited radically for as much as I care), 'Remember A Day' (who needs stupid Wright hippie dreams?), 'Bike' (great song, but why not 'Astronomy Domine' then?), 'Cirrus Minor' (ooh, why this and not 'Cymbaline') and 'The Nile Song' (crazy jerks). The rest, however, is for the most part essential to any self-respecting Pink fan, especially since it's otherwise either totally unavailable or can only be acquired on the Early Singles CD off the Shine On boxset (and you wouldn't want to pay for it, now would you?)
Okay, let's talk about these ones. First of all, there are two gorgeous A-sides, their first recorded production ever. 'Arnold Layne' is the best of the two, a funny song about a transvestite (quite a dangerous subject for 1967, and in fact the song was banned on the radio at the time) where Syd is already starting to display flashes of ingenious madness: on the surface, it looks like a simple pop song, but in reality it goes through several complex sections, so that any serious prog musician would be proud of such a number. In its function of 'single', one should add here, it was completely groundbreaking: quite possibly one of the first UK-released singles to which you couldn't really dance even if you tried real hard (although I suppose the Beatles beat the poor guys even here, with 'Strawberry Fields Forever'). With its weird, 'broken' rhythm, psychedelic sound effects and dangerous lyrics, all crammed together within the standard three-minute limits, it set a new pattern, not to mention introducing the whole rich British underground scene to the world.
'See Emily Play', on the other hand, looks like a gentle love ballad, and was mistakingly counted as such by the general record buying public in 1967, which led to the band being often booed on stage for playing the unexpected and unknown 'Interstellar Overdrive' instead. Me, I still wonder that the record-buying public overlooked the obvious trippy nature of this very song. 'Float on a river for ever and ever', hmm. And what about the crazy psychedelic, feedbacky solo in the middle? Could the pop-loving public be so primitive that it managed to overlook the differences between the singles of Pink Floyd and the singles of, say, the Hollies? Dumb. Then again, it's marvelous that 'Emily' actually dented the public tastes so much. Those were the days...
The rest is mostly Waters-era songs, and they don't seem to mesh easily with Syd's numbers. 'Julia Dream' is a gloomy, dreary Roger ballad where he did try to emulate Syd's style, but couldn't. Why? Because Syd was mad and Roger was sane. It's as clear as anything, and the result is 'boring'. Much of Syd's output might have been ugly and musically unsatisfying, but even the ugliest numbers were always interesting - you never knew what to expect in the next few moments. This, this is just... bah. Completely predictable. It also goes without saying that Wright's 'Paintbox' is weak (much like most of his stuff from the late Sixties), and the studio version of 'Careful With That Axe, Eugene' is a real disappointment in comparison with the live recording: it's short, it sounds rushed, Roger's scream is mixed badly, and the mathematical precision with which they managed to build up and relieve the tension so incredibly in concert is almost absent here. Bah! Who needs this? Get your Ummagumma copy today, I say! Still, a great song.
Finally, 'Biding My Time' is a strange jazzy number with next to no lyrics, a weird brass solo played by Rick Wright and lots of hard rock guitar wanking by Dave. The tempo is fine, and the lyrics are okay, but, all in all, the song is forgettable because the band didn't really have much more skill at playing blues jams than it did at playing hard rock.
Nevertheless, despite all of my critiques, I still give the record a rather high rating cuz, with the exception of 'The Nile Song', there ain't one truly bad number on here, and quite a large percent of the selections is totally, totally great. And, if you're a relatively recent fan and haven't ventured far beyond Dark Side Of The Moon, I highly recommend this album. Piper can be somewhat frightening, and Ummagumma will take some time to appreciate, but this one's a rather easy listen. And who on Earth would want to stay without adding 'Arnold Layne' and 'See Emily Play' in his or her collection?

Biding my time, waiting for you to mail your ideas

Your worthy comments:

Andrei <sill@redconnect.com> (05.10.2000)

Nice collection, 'Arnold Layne''s not bad, so is 'Emily Play' (although to me it sounds too much like beatles), 'Paintbox' is actually rather good, I believe! 'Julia dream' is too cheap, and 'biding my time' is too kitsch. Or 'biding my time' too cheap, 'julia dream' to kitsch, whatever. These are two potentially very good tunes wasted, IMNSHO. The rest is from elsewhere. Overall, not their best but not their worst either (more on that later).

Jeff Blehar <jdb3@jhu.edu> (20.11.2000)

A pretty okay compilation of singles and album cuts which the band assembled themselves during a break from sessions for Meddle. They were going to include the famous Barrett outtakes "Vegetable Man" and "Scream Thy Last Scream" but after listening to them the band felt that they cut a little too close to the bone of Syd's insanity for comfort.  I wish that they'd shown a little more thought in some of the selections, however - "The Nile Song" is stupid, wholly out of place on an album of psychedlic curios, and available on More anyway.  I don't mind the inclusion of B-sides like "Careful With That Axe, Eugene" one bit, even if that one's available in a much better live version on Ummagumma, because I like having my studio rarities collected in one place, but WHY WHY did they not include the three post-"See Emily Play" A-sides?  'Twas no accident; indeed, they pointedly included the B-sides of those singles, at least one of which (Rick Wright's "Paintbox") is wonderful, but only the grumpiest of acid-eyed Floyders can deny the wacky catchiness of "Apples And Oranges," "It Would Be So Nice" and "Point Me At The Sky," which are now only available on that dang boxed set.  Otherwise, this album is well assembled and sequenced (other than the ending "Bike" it's actually chronological, and I love the way "Interstellar Overdrive" is inserted between "Arnold Layne" and "See Emily Play"), with a lovely cover.  By the way, that's Roger Waters playing the trombone, not Rick Wright.  Or so I've been told.  8/10.

Ted Goodwin <Ftg3plus4@cs.com> (19.11.2000)

I don't have this anymore but I'd say it was a pretty good album. It obviously could have used more rarities and less repeats. "Arnold Layne" sounded to me like it must have been the only thing Syd wrote while still in full possession of his faculties, and it made me mourn his lost potential. Beyond that my favorite tracks were "Remember A Day" & "Paint Box". Though these are Rick's songs, it's interesting how Syd makes his weird presence known in both of them. (Speaking of Rick, I'm apparently in the minority in that I don't think his singing is any worse than, say, Roger's.)

Year Of Release: 1971
Record rating = 7
Overall rating = 11

One more progressive album over there, but there's just too much soundtrackish music for me.
Best song: ONE OF THESE DAYS

This is often called Pink Floyd's first 'genuine' Barrett-less album, since Saucerful was Syd-inspired, Mother was Geesin-inspired, More was a soundtrack, and Ummagumma was a bunch of half-baked solo projects. Of course, this is a rather vague speculation, but it does have a grain of truth. What strikes you about Meddle first of all is the music. While the lyrics still 'aren't there', if you know what I mean, the music is already one hundred percent 'classical Seventies Floyd', so much that at times the record seems like a blueprint for most of the later albums. Can't you see traces of 'On The Run' in 'One Of Those Days'? Or don't you see that the first parts of 'Shine On You C.D.' were actually just a re-write of the first part of 'Echoes'? Dave finally breaks through with his Patented Heaven Guitar, Roger takes on a 'universalist' face and Rick slowly emerges as the old, wrinkled church organ playing dude he really was (that's a metaphor, you gotta understand that). Even the album cover gets really 'psychologically frightening', although in reality it ain't nothing but a good ol' swine's ear.
The album is still frigged out, so I guess I'll call it 'progressive' as well - at least 'Echoes' is genuine prog rock, and that's already half of the album. Yes, you heard right: yet another twenty-plus minute long rambling suite, and I get more or less the same feelings towards it as towards 'Atom Heart Mother'. It's also multipart, said to be based on more than twenty melodies, but I don't hear these twenty melodies. Maybe just a couple. Okay, three or four, not including the avantgarde middle part. Because it really begins and ends on a high note. Like I said, the singing essentially presages the superior 'Shine On', but it's still pretty, and the guitar/keyboard context in which it is set is more than impressive: Dave's pompous tone might get on your nerves sometimes, but objectively it's just a very well written guitar melody, and I don't mind pomposity or anything. He also gets to perform a couple breathtaking solos... before the song turns into a pedestrian blues improvisation that leaves you half asleep only to awaken you with the 'seagulls/crows' section: a melodyless piece which is probably meant to be the culmination because it embodies the main 'sea' theme, but I don't get any genuine feelings from listening to it. Why? Because it's the kind of sound you'd readily hear in any average movie soundtrack that deals with sea themes (come to think of it, any themes). That's the trouble with Floyd music: quite a good bit of it was supposed to represent 'art' but ended up sounding in a totally 'applied' manner. The mid-section of 'Echoes' is a perfect example. Thankfully, it all reverts to the beginning in the end. Anyway, since I'm such a big fan of comparisons, I'd say that this still beats 'Atom Heart Mother' - the main theme is more interesting, and the mid-section is at least listenable, even if musically unsatisfying.
As for the first side, it's also a slight improvement over Atom Heart Mother's solo-style numbers. The opening composition is a deserved classic. You probably all know that one, where Dave and Roger both play bass and Nick Mason utters the song title with the tapes slowed down and Rick gets these 'whooooooOOOOSH!' keyboard noises and then Gilmour steps in with some dentistry, but it's okay, it's eventually tolerable, and the whole thing rocks and shakes and burns the house down and then it dies down itself and these winds fade away leaving you to scratch your head in bewilderment and think about what the hell was actually going on. It's called 'One Of These Days I'm Gonna Cut You Into Little Pieces'. Authorship goes maybe to Eugene and his axe?
The other four songs aren't that interesting, actually. Roger contributes yet two more of his Simon & Garfunkel pastiches, but the well of acoustic inspiration was already running dry: 'Fearless' might be good, with a wonderful descending guitar line (although I find the football fans' cries at the end painfully distracting and totally unnecessary), but 'A Pillow Of Winds' is ultimately forgettable. Maybe it's because the lyrics suck. Maybe it's just because the melody ain't distinctive. Maybe it's because I'm a jerk and can't tell a good song from 'Corporal Clegg'. (But I'd prefer to forget that last phrase). And the two little ditties at the end of the first side that everybody finds so nasty, the jazzy 'San Tropez' and the doggy 'Seamus', well, you know, I'm rather fond of such ditties inserted among overbloated prog compositions because they help relieve the atmosphere and show that even the deadly serious guys have a sense of humour. Consider 'em tiny fillerish jokes. 'Seamus' is actually a lot of fun - what other band has made a dog sing the blues so convincingly? Of course, you shouldn't think I'm seriously considering these two songs to be masterpieces - they're just cool. But not enough cool for their names to be engraved in gold on the front door of the Rock Songs Pantheon if they'll ever get enough bucks and guts to open one. Let us draw the final line, now: that makes one half-baked epic, two good songs, one mediocre song and two silly, but funny throwaways. Beats Atom Heart Mother all to hell. Well, okay. Not to hell. To purgatory. An interesting album. But not one of their best.

One of these days I'll finally receive your ideas on this album

Your worthy comments:

John McFerrin <stoo@imsa.edu> (14.05.99)

'Echoes' rules. Period. Perhaps I'm just biased towards it cos I've run a synchronicity with Fantasia, but for me, it's all perfect. Even if it's just really cool soundtrack music, it's _still_ really good music. And about the middle 'boring blues jam'; just watch the fairies dancing to it when watching Fantasia, and you'll realize that it's not regular blues, but extremely _druggy_ blues. And even before I attached visuals to the piece, I really enjoyed the middle part.
Anyways, the rest is the rest. 'One Of These Days' (which in Fantasia features Mickey chopping up the axe as you hear "one of these days I'm gonna cut you into little pieces) is awesome, even though the guitar work is, as you like to say, dentistry. And 'Pillow Of Winds' is kinda boring, but for me, it's a good calm after the storm. And I really like 'Fearless'. But 'San Tropez' and 'Seamus' ... huh .... borrring. As I pointed out on Prindle's site, you chop those two pieces out, you still have a 41 minutes album, which is a decent enough length. Anyways, I'd give the album an 8, but it's your site.

The DeFabios <defab4@earthlink.net> (18.08.99)

Hey! I hate 'A Pillow of Winds' too! Most of side one could be thrown away too but 'ONE OF THESE DAYS' AND 'ECHOES' ARE ON HERE!!! Everything between those two songs could be fart noises for all I care, this would still get a thumbs up from me because 'ONE OF THESE DAYS' AND 'ECHOES' ARE BOTH ON HERE!!! Go out and get it, and program the middle songs out if you don't like 'em and think of this as a real expensive EP. It's worth it.

Kevin <ShastaBull@aol.com> (21.11.99)

Fearless Fearless Fearless!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
have you forgotten "Fearless"? by far the best track on the album. nothing else to say now..

Bob <Trfesok@aol.com> (12.02.2000)

This is, as far I'm concerned, their first fully formed album. Before this, the Floydsters get high points for relentless experimentation, but sooner or later, experimenters have to produce solid results. They almost did it with the last album, of which this one is a revised, improved upgrade. And, unlike Dark Side and beyond, it's never an overwhelming listening experience, even pleasant and lighthearted (at least for Floyd).
"Echoes" removes the cacophony of the "AHM Suite" and replaces it with a cool melodicism. But I don't find it boring at all; slow doesn't necessarily mean dull -- slow can be compelling, hypnotic, like here. The "sea" sounds are keyboard noises mimicking the albatross mentioned in the lyrics. And four melodies is more than enough -- better than trying for 20, like Yes on stuff like "The Ancient,"and ending up with zero!
A disagreement on "A Pillow of Winds," too. The lyrics are evocative of just lying on your back staring up at the sky, watching the clouds drift by, accompanied by another of those gorgeous melodies. "Fearless" is very moving, the best lyrics on the album, "One of these Days" effectively creates a darker, menacing mood, but I have to believe it's a product of the band's sense of humor. And I like '"San Tropez" -- that's probably the LAST time ol' Rog showed the world a sense of humor before he started writing those marathons of depression! "Seamus" is really the only dog -- oh sorry, the only howler -- well anyway, it's highly skippable.

Nat Cassidy <Drmwvrs@aol.com> (22.08.2000)

I gotta say that Pink Floyd's most revolutionary album (and, more that matter, tied with Animals and topping both Dark Side and Wish You Were Here) is Meddle. I don't think anyone can deny that 'Echoes,' the last track is really the song Pink Floyd's career revolved around (especially after Barrett). It's lengthy as hell, it builds, falls, and builds again (and, honestly, should get everyone, even those who've never done drugs, on an acid trip), and, like the rest of the album, foreshadows in every way the more popular Dark Side. I mean, jeez, hearing 'Pillow Wind' before 'dark side' came out must've been just as, if not more, revolutionary. On top of that, it's got the gorgeous 'Fearless,' which is another of Floyds essential tracks, and a song that should never be played in a dark room, the freaky-as-shit 'One of These Days.'

Rich Bunnell <taosterman@yahoo.com> (29.09.2000)

A very soothing album, even though it's "soothing" in a way that doesn't let the melodies jump out at you, like on say, Dark Side. "Fearless" and "A Pillow Of Winds" are good examples - they're both gorgeous songs and I like them, but I can't remember how either one goes for the life of me, and can't imagine ever being able to. "San Tropez" is funny, though, and "One Of These Days" and "Echoes" just completely blow me out of my seat. Maybe the latter is a bit more atmospheric than necessary, but as a 23-minute piece, it's very, very impressive - a lot more so than "Atom Heart Mother." Forget "Seamus" though - who needs a completely generic, boring blues song with an annoying dog howling over it? An eight.

Andrei <sill@redconnect.com> (05.10.2000)

D'oh, nearly forgot this one. Anyway, to make things short: 'Echoes', beginning and end brilliant, lyrics great, music great, middle albatrosses suck big time. But then, I don't think they were payed for their performance so it's not fair to blame it all on them, I say it's completely PF's fault. For shame. 'Fearless' is quite good and 'Seamus' is just plain cool, even if not very good. The rest is <skip>. Really, nothing to talk about, I won't even spend time naming their titles. Overall this is nearly the worst album, second only to 'final cut', and in fact, i'd even say it's just as bad. No wait.. yeah it is a bit better. 'Echoes' intro is just sooo good. Many many fans consider it the best Floyd song and I quite understand them, if not agree. Lyrics to it are one of the best too, second only to 'Shine On'.

Jeff Blehar <jdb3@jhu.edu> (20.11.2000)

Strange.  Despite the presence of all these humungoid "epics" in early Floyd history ("Echoes," "Atom Heart Mother," "A Saucerful Of Secrets," "One Of These Days"), it's their smaller, quieter "pop" moments that really stick with me.  Stuff like "Cymbaline," "Summer '68," and, in the case of Meddle, the gloriously serene "Fearless."  For once Roger writes a set of positive, inspirational lyrics, and Gilmour (who wrote the music) holds up his end of the bargain with a lovely acoustic framework and ascending chord sequence.  "Echoes" may be the great track that it is (though overlong by at least 8 minutes), and "One Of These Days" cannot fail to kick my ass on ANY of these days, but it's "Fearless" that I keep returning to on this album.  The other songs are all throwawayish ("San Tropez" is funny, but that's it), and it's on the three songs I mentioned that my rating of this album rests: 7/10.

Year Of Release: 1972
Record rating = 8
Overall rating = 12

A beautiful soundtrack that is unjustly forgotten, but any fan of DSOTM should really hear this at least once in their lives.
Best song: WOT'S... UH THE DEAL

Didn't I mention earlier that quite a lot of Pink Floyd music sounds 'soundtrackish'? Well then, no wonder this is their second genuine soundtrack album in four years (third, actually, if you count the few compositions in Zabriskie Point). And being a soundtrack, it's no wonder nobody ever pays much attention to it. Neither did I at first - this was the last Floyd album I ever bought, yes, even later than the post-Waters celebrations of mediocrity. And oh what fools, total fools are we, and what a particular fool I have been.
Actually, most of these things were recorded during the Dark Side sessions - they'd already played the first preliminary Dark Side concerts before this one came out. So quite a lot of these songs sound much alike the better known ones, and it's much closer to Dark Side, in fact, than Meddle. Meddle solidified their 'experimental' side, with sound effects, tricky production values and groovy synth lines that all came up later in 1973; Obscured By Clouds is much more important, however (to me at least) in that it neglects the experimentation in favour of search for good melodies, thus presaging the melodical side of DSOTM. And forgive me for my heresy, but I say it loud and I don't say it just for fun: most of the melodies on DSOTM don't hold a candle to this forgotten soundtrack. Yup, I'm serious. There are ten songs on here, and about two thirds of them contain some of the most attractive music I ever heard from Pink.
The instrumentals are mostly superior, like the immediately-pleasant title track that sets the necessary gloomy, "pre-apocalyptic" atmosphere with its gritty synth patterns and Gilmour's patented dentistry, and 'When You're In' that it segues into: the latter, in particular, subdues me with its minimalism, showing that sometimes a pair of three-chord riffs can provide a larger emotional flurry than a solo of six billion lightning-speed notes. And 'Mudmen' features one of the few examples of Gilmour the Dentist soloing that is, you know, great to listen to. Again, essentially just a lot of atmosphere, moody, relaxed atmosphere - but a really really sympathetic atmosphere. Like on More, you know, only less frigged out - more accent on playing than on making sound. Maybe it's the fact that this album was recorded in two weeks time that helps the music so much? Surely they just didn't have time to spoil all of these numbers, to feed them up with dated sound effects? Yeah, that's probably it. They just hastily put together some half-baked (but more than half-brilliant) melodies and pushed them forward without much afterthought. In the process they created a minor and underrated masterpiece.
Yup, you can really see quite a lot of DSOTM traces on here. Take Gilmour's 'Childhood End', for instance. Do you really want to tell me that this song is not based on the same musical (and lyrical, by the way) ideas as 'Time'? Come on now, it even features the same "clock-work" drum pattern in the beginning! And the fascinating 'Wot's... Uh The Deal', with its lyrics about getting old and melody that would fit on DSOTM as easy as anything? I tell you, whoever adores DSOTM and neglects this one is making a fatal mistake. Forget the hype and agree with me that this is, well, maybe not a better, but easily just as good a record. Only without the clocks and the beating heart and the clanging cash registers and the flying beds... get my drift?
Now, of course, there are some misfires on the album, or I would have given it a higher rating. The closing instrumental 'Absolutely Curtains' is way too flaccid for my tastes, and the New Guinea aborigines' singing at the end is a silly extract from the film (something about disillusioned hippies coming to dwell among primitive people, I think; I've never seen it, of course, and I don't have the least desire to look for it) that lasts way too long for it to form a simple forgettable gimmicky coda - instead, it just goes on and on for ages, as if they thought that any fan of Pink Floyd should naturally be a tribal music lover as well. Same goes for Wright's 'Stay', another so-so pop ballad in the vein of 'Summer '68' and even based on the same lyrical subject ('strange' relations between man and woman).
But the other songs, good, uh oh, some even great - they all compensate for that, like 'Burning Bridges' that gives us the pleasure of hearing 'Echoes' reprised once again (and serves as a natural precursor to 'Breathe', too); the hilarious upbeat hard rocker 'The Gold It's In The...'; and a Waters' throwaway called 'Free Four' that might have passed for silly country if not for the ominous synth notes at the end of each phrase and Roger's bitter lament for his dead father, full of hideous death imagery, that stands so glaringly at odds with the lightweight, happy melody. They are not spectacular, of course. There are no DSOTM-like 'climaxes', and the arrangements are often elementary - but I guess that's exactly the reason that makes me like this one so much. The lack of pretension. The lack of universalism. Good, clear guitars. Minimum electronics. And, of course, absolutely no hype or all that 'greatest rock album in the world' stuff. Funny. It's like, you know, a little brother to Dark Side - less proud, less braggart, and less handsome, but just as diligent and laborious.

Stay and mail your ideas

Your worthy comments:

John McFerrin <stoo@imsa.edu> (17.05.99)

I'm very pleased. I was afraid that you wouldn't like this album, which would have made me annoyed. But yeah, this is an essential for anybody who is a fan of DSOTM. Although 'Childhood's End' annoys me a lot, and 'Stay' is weak, and 'Absolute Curtains' is boring, the rest of the album is great. 'Free Four' is absolutely hilarious, and 'The Gold It's...' and 'Wot's , Uh, The Deal' are wonderful. Although I won't agree with criticism of DSOTM's electronic and aural conceits, I will agree that this album works well with their diminished role. A good 8.

Bob <Trfesok@aol.com> (12.02.2000)

I like the album, too, but I hear it entirely differently To me, it sounds like Meddle's fraternal twin brother rather than the next album. But that's good -- the instrumental pieces sound like the ideas of "Echoes" placed in shorter forms, which should please those who don't have the patience to sit through that piece.
"Free Four" is hardly a throwaway, but actually, the contrast between the happy, jaunty melody and the incredibly bitter lyrics is striking. And "Stay" is a relatively weak number primarily because of the weak lead vocal of Wright -- they should've avoided letting him sing. But agreement on the chant at the end of "Absolutely Curtains" -- they've should have hid the faders long before that point. And, I agree that this one is not to be missed for those who love the melodies of Dark Side.

Greg Pringle <pengrui@163bj.com> (20.08.2000)

Reading this site, it's hard not to be poisoned against Pink Floyd. The negative comment strikes home because much of it has a kernel of truth. But every so often you come across something that makes you realise that George is only sprouting his personal views. In this case, what he says about 'Absolutely Curtains' only tells me that our opinions have come to a parting of the ways.
Out of all the tracks on Obscured by Clouds, 'Absolutely Curtains' is the one that affects me most. For me, the plaintive singing of the tribesmen is so ineffably sad that it almost leaves me breathless with emotion. The track finishes much too early and the lingering tristesse is so powerful that I just want to lie there, I don't want to get up and change the disc.
If dark pessimism is the hallmark of Floyd, then this track, expressed through the art of primitive tribesmen, perfectly matches their music. It is a magnificent ending to the album.

Andrei <sill@redconnect.com> (05.10.2000)

Quite good - I love 2 first tracks, 'mudmen', 'childhood's end' and 'stay', 2 last being my favorites. Yes, 'stay' is very good, I don't know what's wrong with you people, it's quite as good as 'childhood's end' (well okay maybe a bit worse.. but the rest comes after it). 'Free four' is very good and inventive, but not very enjoyable, 'Wots Uh' comes after 'Stay' and probably deserves more but I don't like country.. The highlight being two lines 'hear me shout come on in/what's the news where you've been' that have the most feeling in all of the record. Overall this album is better than Umma but perhaps a little behind more.

Year Of Release: 1973
Record rating = 9
Overall rating = 13

Hey, I'm not that stupid to try and make any generalization about this album, at least not in one line of text. Even if it's bold.
Best song: TIME

Tsk, tsk. Here comes the moment you've been waiting all your life - to hear me prattling on the subject of Dark Side Of The Moon. Well, first of all I guess that whoever you are, gentle reader, you already heard this album in its near or full entirety - whether it be CD, tape or (most probably) radiowaves. So I don't think it's necessary to introduce you to the songs. I guess it would also be of no use saying all kind of things everybody said a hundred times - that this is one of the greatest bestsellers, that it introduced a new kind of music, revolutionized all there was to revolutionize, converted millions of fans to Floyd music, etc., etc., etc.
Of course, an album that's rated as high as this one can't help being overrated. You might shrug your shoulders or anything like that, but this is an undeniable fact. The only album that ever comes close in the level of worshipping is Sergeant Pepper, of course, and that's overrated too (I might also name Live At Leeds, but it shares a specific kind of popularity, a much more solid kind - while the former two are the 'official greatest', the Brahma and the Vishnu of the musical press, Leeds' popularity is mainly based on ordinary listeners - I've never heard a single bad opinion about the album. But I digress). So in this here review I'll try to analyse the album's popularity and make some conclusions about why and how much it is really overrated. So as not to lose direction, I'll try to speak separately about (a) lyrics, (b) music and (c) special catches of the album. Okay? Ready?
(a) So, the lyrics. This is maybe the main innovation to the music of Pink Floyd. All of them are written by Waters, and thus the album initiates a period of Waters domination over the band: musically the other members are still there and active, but the lyrical genius is one and only one. Even more important is the fact that these lyrics have nothing to do with typical 'prog lyrics'. They all have their special kind of meaning. Roger is presenting his philosophy of life, trying to express his opinions on all of its uncomfortable sides: schizophrenia and paranoia, time and aging, money and corruption and suchlike. In fact, the album could just as well be called Dark Side Of The Earth, but I guess one more metaphor couldn't hurt. The lyrics are good, and I can't deny the fact. But there's also a very serious flaw about them, a flaw that prohibits me from regarding them as real poetry. Truth is, they resemble a philosophical treatise much more than the outlook of an emotion-full poet. This is not Sir Roger Waters spilling beautiful imagery on us. Rather this is Doctor R. Waters, Ph.D., who has just finished adding rhymes to his latest thesis. Unfortunately, he's no Bob Dylan and often ends up sounding rather banal ('Time'; 'Eclipse') or preachy ('Breathe'). Maybe this was the kind of poetry the world was expecting in 1973: to demonstrate that art rock could be really clever and not just irreasonably pompous. In retrospect, though, I don't see why we should rate this poetry higher than the much more fascinating contemporary lyrics of Pete Townshend or Keith Reid. These dudes managed to be philosophical and poetic at once, although I can see where some people would be slow to appreciate their lyrics as opposed to those of Roger.
(b) The music. The music is great. There are moments on the album that are totally unique, not only for Pink Floyd, but for mankind. The bombastic introduction to 'Time' (the one that goes 'BOOM - BOOM - BOOM - bo-boom-BOOM') is enough to make me take off my hat. The bass line on 'Money' is something special, although I'm sick of hearing praises for that stupid 7/4 time (everybody was using weird time signatures at the time). But on the other hand, behind the hype too many people seem to forget that most of these musical ideas are borrowed from older albums - Meddle and Obscured By Clouds, in particular. Both 'Breathe' and the chorus of 'Time' once again reprise the main theme of 'Echoes'; 'Us And Them' is a 'traditional' Rick Wright keyboard shuffle, even if a little improved; and 'Brain Damage' isn't seriously better than some of the most effective Waters acoustic ballads ('Fearless', for example). Try to understand me: I'm not saying the actual songs on DSOTM aren't good. The only weak tunes for me are the pointless jam 'Any Colour You Like' and the closing 'Eclipse' which is still good (of course, I do not include neither 'Speak To Me' nor 'On The Run' here because they're not songs). What I'm trying to point out is that in no way does the music stand out among the general row of Floyd albums: while some of the tunes are better, some are definitely worse (I far prefer 'Childhood's End' to 'Time' 'cause it's less pretentious and doesn't feature any dentistry). The only serious innovations on here are 'The Great Gig In The Sky' (which is hardly Floyd at all, it's a song that owes its charm to Clare Tory) and yes, the weird tempo of 'Money'. All the other musical innovations were thought of several years earlier. I agree that this album might be the quintessence of these innovations: a tight and compact compendium of all the good things Pink Floyd have thought of for the past three or four years. But that only means that the album is a little more consistent than the previous ones and nothing more. It's no wonder that anybody who starts his Pink Floyd education with this album will treat all or most of the others somewhat more coldly: but if you start from the beginning and listen first to Meddle or even Ummagumma, you won't get such a shock, I tell you.
(c) Now about the special catches. If the lyrics aren't really groundbreaking in the end, and the music was really mostly a rehashment of elder successes, then the catches are what makes this album. I'll admit that the level of jack-in-a-boxery is at an all time high: no previous album boasted such an immaculate production or such a huge load of special effects. Beating hearts, wild laughter, strange maniacal phrases, airplanes exploding, money ringing, clocks ticking, and a symphonic 'Ticket To Ride' at the end (I can't guarantee this one: there really is something vaguely sounding like an orchestra in the background at the end of 'Eclipse', but there's no way I could guess the melody) - all this is enough to convert any unexperienced new-buyer. But this is also my main complaint, you see? The music gets lost behind all these things! And, okay, maybe it's fun to endure 'On The Run' a couple of times, but do you really want to hear that 'do-do-do-do-DO-do-do-do' every time you'd like to relax to the sound of 'Great Gig In The Sky' or 'Us And Them'? Maybe you do. I don't. I know it's supposed to symbolize paranoia, so what? This piece of noise-making doesn't deserve to be placed on this record. Yes, it's a great pleasure to write phrases like 'the wonderful heartbeat on the album lets us know that the music is devoted to human relationship' and suchlike (this is actually a misquotation from Gilmour), but once you've written all that you find out that the only thing these effects do is preventing you from enjoying the music. Of course, this might have been just the plan: 'shut off' the music so that the clocks and cash registers would hide from your eyes the obvious weaknesses of the tunes. The special effects are a mask - a thing that is mistakenly taken for 'art' when in reality it's just a screen masking the lack of truly innovative 'art'.
You might ask, of course, why I'm still giving the album a 9 if all I did was scold it. Okay, apart from the fact that it's not true, I'll apologize by saying that all the critique above serves only to deprive DSOTM of the title '(one of the) greatest rock album ever', just because there's no such thing and there never can be, and even if there was, DSOTM wouldn't be worth it. Apart from that, it's certainly a great album: at one time I was ready to give it a 6, but I guess I was anti-hyped at the moment. To be frank, apart from being bored with most of the special effects and particularly the whole 'On The Run', I don't like 'Any Colour You Like' and some other moments on record ('Money' could be a very good song, but it seems to me that the band preferred to take it as an opportunity to jam, and Gilmour's solos are quite detestable). But 'Time', 'Us And Them', 'Breathe', 'Brain Damage' and especially 'Great Gig In The Sky', with ultra-amazing vocals from guest vocalist Clare Tory, these are terrific songs that quite redeem the bad moments. Still, all the kitsch elements result in my putting on Obscured By Clouds much more often. Too bad. And one final word to the casual listener: don't run ahead so as to raise your voice in the general chorus. Better buy a couple of albums preceding it and a couple of albums following it, have a dozen listens to each one and use your head. Don't idolize it. Be cool. Have a life.

Speak to me! Mail your ideas

Your worthy comments:

The DeFabios <defab4@earthlink.net> (18.08.99)

It's really not that better than any other of their really good albums. It's AMAZINGLY FANTASTICALLY GREAT, but so is Wish You Were Here, and Animals, and the Wall. Why this stands out is beyond me. Their first truly GREAT album, but there were great albums after this one too.
But if you don't like this album I'LL KILL YOU!

Rich Bunnell <cbunnell@ix.netcom.com> (20.08.99)

Strange how this one has only garnered one reader comment so far but that's just one of those mysteries which is so common on the net these days. I was surprised to find that you'd heightened your opinion of this album after your bashing of it on Mark's site, and I suppose I'd give it a 9 also-- It's a fine album, once you get over the fact that it basically only has four songs on it ('Time', 'Money', 'Us And Them', 'Brain Damage') and the fact that "Money" is the only one of those four that stands out from the bombast. And all of the songs are overplayed, but that's a given. Everything else like "The Great Gig In The Sky" and "On The Run" pretty much just add texture to the songs, much like a more well-done version of Fragile by Yes--four normal songs, five shorter, less-filling pieces to round things out. A very well-made album, but not one I'd put on very often unless I was tired or watching the Wizard Of Oz or something.
As for the cliche about the album which I've seen a great number of times "It's basically a bunch of simple melodies covered by glitzy production!" that's really the POINT! What does it matter if the melodies are simple without the production techniques? The techniques are THERE, and with them the songs sound great! That's why Floyd didn't release an album with nothing but the melodies---because it would SUCK! Now that I've stomped out that cliche, I will now end this reader comment and go back to my exciting normal web browsing. Blah.

Marco Ursi <zeppelinwho@hotmail.com> (23.08.99)

This is the only Pink Floyd album I own so I'm judging this record against itself. But I think this deserves a 10. It's the most relaxing record I own. The songs are so smooth and flow so well into each other. Where there are melodies, they are great. The effects are used in a tasteful manner and the lyrics are simple but meaningful, just the way I like them.

Shor Bowman <jwbowman@naxs.com> (23.01.2000)

Dark Side of the Moon is an album that I bought at a K-Mart with absolutely no idea of how it would sound. I bought it largely out of curiosity and because I had been so many places on the Net that had rated it as the best rock album of all time.
In retrospect, this album, in my book, receives a 9, which coincidentally is what you gave it (hmmm). "Breathe" is awesome--"On The Run" is great, too--and though it consists largely of noise, IT IS A SONG, GEORGE (it's got a cymbal in it, and a synth, doesn't it?). "Time" is excellent, and "Great Gig" is also superb. I must say that "Money" rocks too--I don't care if the solos are calculated down to the nanosecond, they give me a rush. "Us and Them" is beauty, and "Any Colour You Like" puts me on cloud nine (what's so wrong with it). I never listen to the last two songs, though...in my opinion, they fit the album in theme and not in sound. Put that crap on The Final Cut. If not for these failures, I would have given it a ten, although I can't see how it's sold so many copies! It seems to me to be a very esoteric album with particularly esoteric songs that wouldn't appeal to most of the public. Oh well. Maybe "Money" did it all. My CD has scratches on it I listen to it so much. Great album--but at the same time a little bewildering...

Richard C. Dickison <rdick@mag.com> (25.01.2000)

Pink Floyd, Dark Side Of The Moon, K-Mart, I love these reader comments.
Very appropriate, well what can I add, you take every innovation made in rock up to this point, crumble it up, laquer it in the studio within an inch of it's life, take it all deadly serious and whaalaa.
I still regard the best part of this album to be Clare Tory, marvelous, beautiful, let's give these guys points for giving us her vocals.
I put this album on very infrequently, and for good reason, why listen to someone summing up innovation? I rather hear real innovation. Flawless studio tricks aside. This is the first really SLICK album I ever heard, I mean slick, slick, slick, you can't make anything stick to this one.
A true 10 out of 10, Teflon Non-Stick, Plastic as the day is long, Classic.

Glenn Wiener <Glenn.Wiener@Entex.com> (04.02.2000)

I am not the biggest Pink Floyd fan on the plannet. I admire their creativity but find their music takes me to a place that is in alien territory. This is not always the most pleasant experience when lsitening to music. However, I find this to be a beautifully arranged album detailing the hustle and bustle of the recording industry. I even appreciate the instrumental forays such as 'Any Color That You Like'. 'Time' is my personal favorite with the ringing clocks, haunting percussion enhanced footsteps and hard hitting lyrics and vocals. 'The Great Gig In The Sky' has many different shifts in moods and tones that make it worthy. I don't even notice that all the vocals are are varieating shreiks. Its the emotions that permeate from the piece that speak to me. However, the lyrics on the other songs are quite effective and this should be an integral aprt of most record collections.

Bob <Trfesok@aol.com> (12.02.2000)

This, for me, is one of those "quantum leap" albums. By that I mean, the group makes such a drastic leap in sound that it almost doesn't sound like the group that recorded the previous album or two. Who's Next is one of those albums -- who could have predicted that after Tommy and Live at Leeds? And this is another one.
Unlike the Who, though, Pink didn't make great strides in musicianship, although "Any Colour You Like" is their best played instrumental yet. The advances come in the incredibly intricate production -- before, even at their best, the albums were kind of murky. Here, there's a lot of attention paid to tiny sonic details, no doubt thanks to Alan Parsons' engineering. And, of course, the lyrics, which are halfway between total prog abstraction and straightforward rock lyrics. Which makes them lyrics people could identify with (unlike, say, A Passion Play.) The lyrics were a BIG reason why this album went over so hugely, and why it has dated far less than a lot of other prog albums.
Of course, they sacrificed a sense of humor for all this. "Money" could be considered a humorous song, but I find it just drips with cynicism. Which is why (aside from the fact that it still gets endless radio play), the album, and Floyd in general, don't spin constantly in my CD player -- cynics and depressed people aren't a whole lot of fun to hang around with.
Despite the fact that the Roger's lyrics are at the center, the album certainly gives the impression that the group is still working as a unit. And it was the last time -- you can chart the changes in the group by looking at the songwriting credits on the following albums -- as someone drops out of the credits, one by one, his influence on the sound decreases, and Roger comes more to the fore.

<JohnnyDiLascio2@aol.com> (30.04.2000)

I hate Pink Floyd but this album is one of my favorite albums. It's like a trip into a dark world. it's really awesome when you listen to it in pitch black darkness. 'Brain Damage' is such a cool song and I love all the shouts and subtle messages that give this album the paranoid feel. The only thing that sucks is 'Money'. It should either be replaced or thrown out. It truly messes up the album because it doesn't fit. It's not a terrible song but it's really more of a single that would belong on an album that was less of a "show," like a greatest hits. But otherwise its a crazy trip that's both scary and satisfying.

Ben Greenstein <bgreenstein@nctimes.net> (08.06.2000)

Soft rock. I find it hilarious that no one else realizes that that's all this album is. The saxophones and girl backing singers were the big tipoff for me - but, when you look closer, it's in all of the songs - Steely Dannish loungey chords and interesting, but not necessarily fascinating, melodies. Only "On The Run" can really be called "experimental" - the rest is very pop. Which may be the fault of that asshole Alan Parsons, or it may be the groups idea. Who cares? I still don't like listening to it. It's funny that these guys have so many "goth" followers - I listened to this CD when I was the most depressed I'd ever been and it STILL just rubbed me the wrong way. It's soft rock, nothing else. And I REALLY hate that chick singer who shows off on just about every track.
Honestly, I can't see why this gets so much respect, but I still don't think it's awful. "Us And Them" is pretty cool, with an interesting chord change, and I dig "Money." In fact, all of the songs are more or less good, it's just the general sound (and atmosphere) that bugs me. Why do people make such a big deal out of how the record is "slick"? Backstreet Boys are "slick," so is smooth jazz. I despise slickness. It deprives records of edginess and emotion, which I think are very important things to have in good music. How people can worship Pink Floyd as atmospheric Gods (this stuff has got almost NO atmosphere, as far as I'm concerned) and despise the BeeGees with all their existence is beyond me. They're the same sort of watered-down bullshit, but at least the BeeGees had catchy songs.
Anyway, I want to give it a five, but I'll be fair and give it a six, just because I wasn't in the best mood when I wrote this comment. But any higher would be a joke!

Rich Bunnell <taosterman@yahoo.com> (13.06.2000)

Dark Side of the Moon is pop??? Well, damn, and here I was thinking it was completely incomprehensible, inaccessible prog rock! More experimental than Beefheart! Thanks for cluing us in, Ben!

<Sabbath246@aol.com> (27.07.2000)

I am a huge Pink Floyd fan. Johnny Rotten was nothing more than a piece of garbage who should of had his pansy ass kicked by Roger Waters for incriminating the Floyd name. I think that little talentless punk should of showed some appreciation. After all, if Floyd hadn't come around, there probably would never have been any Sex Pistols (Boy, that sure would have been a blessing!) This album is highly overrated, although it is one of their best. The most grandiose moment on this album is Gilmour's exquisite solo in "Time" (which damn near brings me to tears every time I hear it). Never before has Dave played with such beauty, passion, smoothness, and well-thought-out craftsmanship. I know you'll disagree with this, but I think that on this very song Gilmour surpasses the talent of all guitarists who came before him (yes, even Clapton & Hendrix) IMHO. I mean, can you honestly picture Hendrix playing something as slow, as beautiful, and as melodically precise as this? Never. Jimi was more of a flamboyant guitarist, he could never match emotional licks with Gilmour. "Money" is Floyd's most overrated song. But I do think that it was the most inspirational bass riff of all time (next to Cream's "Sunshine Of Your Love"). And it contains even more high-pitched Gilmour wailing. Yeah, I'm a big Dave Gilmour freak, in case you haven't noticed already. The guy is mesmerizing! Though THE WALL and ANIMALS are the two defining moments in Floyd history, DSOTM was the most influential.

Philip Maddox <slurmsmckenzie@hotmail.com> (01.10.2000)

Good album. I'd call it great if I didn't hate 'Money' so much. God, I HATE that song! Generic blues + awful lyrics - dark mood this album is supposed to have + dumb vocals = terrible song. It's totally out of place, too. This album is supposed to be really dark and creepy, and then those dumb cash register noises come in. And then it's back to 'Us And Them', which fits the album's mood perfectly. Why is it here?
OK, now that I've thoughroughly angered everybody, the rest of this album is really good. My favorite part is the concluding 'Brain Damage'/'Eclipse' suite, which is gorgeous. 'Eclipse' is great in particular, as the song is suitably epic and big, and provides a great finish to the album. I love 'Breathe', too. I'm in heaven when it pops up again in 'Time', which rules, too. That bended guitar note just sends me to aural heaven. Actually, besides 'Money', the only blight on the album is 'On The Run', which is just doodling synth noises. Oh, I forget 'Great Gig', which is often overlooked, but it shouldn't be. It's great! Those vocals are moving as all get out. Gets an 8.

Joel Larsson <joel.larsson@privat.utfors.se> (02.10.2000)

Can't understand why people like this one so much as they do. Well, I really like the songs with vocals, 'Great gig in the sky', 'Money', 'Brain damage', 'Us and them', 'Time', 'Breathe'. But the instrumental numbers are sooo booooooring! My rating: An 8, and absolutley not higher!

Andrei <sill@redconnect.com> (05.10.2000)

So-so album, to be honest. I know it was a big hit, but then again it's the sleekest of all of them, and some songs are quite good.. 'Time' is excellent, 'money' is a bit annoying but scores a point for novelty, same for 'great gig' (yeah I know everybody drools over it.. but I find the music to be average and the screaming part overrated). 'Brain damage' is merely okay, but 'Eclipse' is my second favorite on the record. The rest I usually skip. Overall it's the worst album I mentioned so far. Screw billboard rankings, I have my own brain and my own pair of ears, thank you.

Ben Greenstein <bgreenstein@nctimes.net> (05.10.2000)

[In response to Rich Bunnell's comment:]
You would be surprised how many people think that this is the darkest and most expirimental that rock music ever got. Just check out some of the comments on these review sites you frequent. Plus, it recently was voted the "best Halloween album" on some site I went to twice, and I challenge you to find a "goth" anywhere in the world who does not swear by this album and own at least two t-shirts of it. Just because YOU know that this is pop,Rich, doesn't mean that there isn't a whole world of people out there not as enlightened as you. And there are a lot of folk who think that this album is way out on the edge, when in fact (to my ears) it sounds very comparable to mid-80's soft rock that a lot of people (rightly) despise. How can anything by Billy Joel be "miserable" if "The Great Gig In The Sky" is genius? And the lyrics? "The lunatic is in my MIND...." It reminds me of the scene from "Beetlejuice" where the goth girl is trying to write poetry. Have you seen that scene? See it!
Ah, that's just my opinion. I just think people are really ignorant when it comes to this album - holding it on a pedestal and all that without becoming aware of any of the other fine music out there, even Pink Floyd's (not much) better catalogue. Not you guys, of course, you certainly know what you're talking about, and rarely let any preconceptions of an album get in your way of making a decision. I just think that this album dissapoints - doesn't flow well like it should as a pop album, doesn't chart new territory like it would were it "expirimental." It just sounds like a joke to me - the way punk music sounds like heaven to some and sounds like mindless noise to otheres. But I think the main similarity between gross punk and this album is that fans of both have rarely listened to anything BUT gross punk or Dark Side, regardless of what great music may be out there. And that's just the way I feel.

Samuel Wayne <sw222@cornell.edu> (16.10.2000)

I totally agree that animals and the wall are much more thought provoking, and that meddle and obscured by clouds are more melodic.  However, i entirely disagree with what you said about "Any Colour You Like".  Any person who has ever sat down and listened to the album after some "herbal enrichment" will tell you that it is the best song EVER.  My friend Karl had never heard the album under the influence, so when he burned himself a copy (which i find disgusting), he left it out so that he could couple the album with wish you were here on the same disc.  at that point he said it was a garbage song.  then we toked, and listened to DSOTM, and he was blown away by rick wright's blazing synth effects, as was i.  and it gets better every time you do that.  

Year Of Release: 1975
Record rating = 7
Overall rating = 11

A bizarre collection of aimless jams interspersed with revelational moments of beauty on occasion.
Best song: SHINE ON YOU CRAZY DIAMOND (parts I - V)

This is gonna be a tough one, but I'm not gonna leave the battlefield defeated. After all, didn't I just admit that Dark Side really deserves a 9? Well then, I have to confess that I can't give Wish You Were Here more than a 7, much as I'd wish to raise this rating. Yes, I know that the album was almost as huge as its predecessor and still is a 'fan' favourite (especially for those 'fans' who don't know of the existence of any other Floyd albums). But IMHO, there's very little about the album that permits us to regard it on the same level.
Where do I begin with this second mega-monster in the band's history? Well, for starters, there are several moments on here ('moments', I say, not 'songs'), that I utterly admire and that certainly no other band would be able to pull off, not in 1975 at least, when making 'serious' music was already starting to be regarded as an offense against 'good taste'. Unfortunately, these are 'moments', at the best 'periods', just because the songs are so damn long and they never deserve to be that long. It all starts with the incredibly beautiful 'Shine On You Crazy Diamond' - a respectful and worthy tribute to the 'late' Syd Barrett (who actually gave the boys a visit in the studio while they were recording the song, as if by irony: were they really paying tribute to that fattened old guy? Go figure!) The first parts of the song might be one of the most evident epitomes of 'gorgeous beauty' in rock: Gilmour's calculated, but nevertheless inspired guitar notes playing over the moody synth backing perfectly convey the feeling of majesty, sadness and inescapable tragedy that the song's all about. And the lyrics depicting Syd's (or, let us be less concise, 'the Artist's') decline and demise are truly heartfelt - why didn't they record a song like this earlier?
However, the song ends in a rather feeble saxophone solo, and then off we go into loads of moody and atmospheric garbage. Honestly, I don't know how anybody can love 'Welcome To The Machine' and 'Have A Cigar', two of Waters' worst anti-establishment anthems. The elevator noises that are supposed to carry you 'into the machine' usually carry me to the sink, and the whole song is built on dirty electronic gadgets that totally eliminate any cathartic feelings you could have generated during 'Shine On'. Yeah yeah, I know they are supposed to give the impression of the record business industry being similar to a robotic monster, but that gives the song about the same value as a museum exhibit: look at it, listen to it, but God forbid you touch it or use it. How can you be entertained by this crap? Nah. The best thing about the song is probably Waters' lachrymose intonation, and that's no big deal. As for 'Have A Cigar' that's sung by Roy Harper because Dave didn't want to sing it since he didn't like the lyrics (he had a point, too), it's probably okay by any average band standards, but consider it a Pink Floyd highlight? It's just a mid-tempo bluesy tune with nothing that stands out - just your standard rhythm, drums and singing. Kinda like the Gilmour-sung part of 'Time', only weaker because Harper just isn't that expressive, and the lyrics kinda suck.
That leaves us with 'Wish You Were Here' (whose was the atrocious idea to link it to 'Have A Cigar' with that squeaky radio sound?) which is also gruesomely overrated as a song. It's good, but how come it deserves its reputation of one of Floyd's best songs? I could name at least four or five early Waters acoustic tunes that aren't any worse! Maybe it's because of the pretentious lyrics? Could well be, but for me, the best part in the whole song is the charming 'doo-doo-doo' singing near the end. Finally, we reprise 'Shine On You C. D.', and the final parts are also much weaker than the intro. What the hell?
I mean, c'mon, it ain't an unworthy album. But there's an interesting thing that you may discover if you listen to all Floyd albums in chronological order: Wish You Were Here is the first album that shows genuine signs of 'regression', in the sense of 'going backwards', not necessarily 'worsening'. They reached their zenith on Dark Side and just couldn't go any further: neither Gilmour nor Wright were able to contribute new musical or conceptual ideas. So this album, wrought and produced with so much pain and tension over the course of two years, is a stalemate. Curiously enough, it's much more close in sound to Meddle than to anything after it. Come to think of it, quite a few songs and bits of songs are just re-writes of tunes from that album: thus, the main theme of 'Shine On' creates the same mood and has almost the same melody as the main theme on 'Echoes'; 'Have A Cigar' sounds just like the part I called 'boring blues jam' on same 'Echoes'; Part VI of 'Shine On' recreates the bass thumping and dentistry soloing of 'One Of These Days'; and isn't it possible to trace 'Wish You Were Here' to some of the folkish songs on that one, like 'Fearless'? I think it is... Conclusion? Wish You Were Here is but a slightly more sophisticated re-write of Meddle with (consequently) a lot less innovation (if any) and a lot more pretentiousness and preachiness. That would make a 6 (one point less than for Meddle), but I kindly raise it one point just because the album begins on such an incredibly gorgeous note.
Have you ever wondered why this was the last album with any significant contributions by Gilmour and Wright, with Roger stepping in and taking full control over everything after that? No? Because they were exhausted. If Roger had been able to gain total control over the band five years earlier, he'd have done that. He wasn't, because there were lots of ideas in these two pots. This album amply demonstrates that Roger was the only guy with something left to say... (not that everything he said was good, of course)... (let us proceed to Animals and see what happens)...

Wish you were here and presented your ideas

Your worthy comments:

John McFerrin <stoo@imsa.edu> (26.05.99)

Just a couple of things; first of all, I must give a slight correction about Roy Harper singing on 'Have a Cigar'. Originally, Waters was to sing it, but he sounded awful, just awful. Meanwhile, Harper was recording in the same building, and the other band members voted to bring in Harper to sing. Roger was pissed, of course, but he had to admit that Harper did sound better.
Anyways, I have to admit that I somewhat agree with you that they failed to keep, well, progressing when they made this album. And yet, I still like it. 'SOYCD', the first half is, of course, fabulous. And yeah, 'Welcome To The Machine' is really atmospheric, but it works for me. And 'HAC' is kinda weak, but I still like it. And yeah, it is the bombastic lyrics that make 'WYWH' the song a fan favorite. It's a little clumsy, sure, but it does have appeal. Anyways, the second half of 'SOYCD' starts out decently, but becomes really, really tired by the end, and I'm glad to hear it end.
Despite that complaint, tho, the lowest I could give this is an 8. A 9 when I'm in the mood, but for me, this is the weakest "great" album they ever put out.
[Special author note: the 'correction' is actually an 'addition' - both facts are historically proven.]

<dickison@us.ibm.com> (04.06.99)

Ok George, now you've done it, hold out your hand (WHACK).
No, No, No, You have come to see this problem like I have, one that Wish is a rewrite of Meddle and yet you give Meddle higher honors?!!!!
This calls for critic abuse, if you do it again we'll make you review more Jethro Tull albums.
But really, this one just drew me in, in a way that Meddle never could. Maybe it's the cigarette smoking jaded and done before sax on 'Shine On', maybe that unexpected static to radio to whisky drenched guitar plucking on the second side, the carnival barker singing on 'Have A Cigar', a sneering tribute to Syd's insanity. They were bone tired and doing music that ached and ached and you heard every throb of pain from a band that had no clue where it was going next. 'Welcome To The Machine' throbs like a bad hangover if you ask me, they had gotten drunk on the american hit machine and they were already tired of it and just a little scarred and yet that same machine loved this album.
Their song writing is no different from any other album, there are no surprises here but their are no big let downs either.
I put this album on a tier second to Dark Side and just above The Wall, its sincerity seems to be more real than either in my eyes though.

The DeFabios <defab4@earthlink.net> (18.08.99)

SEVEN????
Okay, so maybe you don't like Pink Floyd. This album still kicks booty, though. I love it! Yeah, I'm a fan, AND I've heard all their early albums (many of them really suck, too. 'Specially More. Pheweee!)
[Special author note: hey people - don't you ever read more than two first lines of my reviews?]

Bob <Trfesok@aol.com> (14.02.2000)

I don't agree that the album the album is a step backward. Rather, musically, it's almost as if Meddle was remade with the production values of Dark Side. In particular, while Rick is hardly Keith Emerson, he showed more prowess in playing and arranging synths than ever before here. And I really enjoy "Welcome to the Machine" -- I don't find it boring at all, but the lyrics are really kind of ho-hum for Roger ("He always ate in the steak bar/He always drives in his Jaguar" -- and how many times a day did he use the bathroom, Rog?). By the way, that's Dave on the lead vocal, not Roger. "Have a Cigar" should NOT have been sung by Roy Harper. I don't enjoy the lyrics here -- more rampant cynicism.
I really enjoy Dave's guitar work on "Shine On." One thing that tends to get overlooked is how much the blues has influenced Gilmour's playing, and that shows up here. And Roger's lyrics here and on the title track are very poignant and emotional when he talks about the loss of his friend. Unlike lyrics on following records, when other, more unpleasant emotions surface.
It's here that Nick Mason drops out of the equation here. He didn't write anything, and his drumming is solid, but nothing special.

Rich Bunnell <taosterman@yahoo.com> (24.02.2000)

It's weird...people say that lots of tunes from this album get overplayed on classic rock radio, but I've only heard the title track played, and only a couple of times at that. The songs aren't as immediately-noticeable as on Dark Side, but I don't think that's the point this time. Whereas Dark Side presented a meaty, full atmosphere, this provides more of a light, dreamy atmosphere which comes to a head in both sides of the "Shine On You Crazy Diamond" suite. No matter how much I try to pay attention, though, it's really hard to concentrate on some of these melodies, which're almost nonexistent. Nevertheless, the album reaches what it aims for and I like it for that very reason. 8/10

Shor Bowman <jwbowman@naxs.com> (28.03.2000)

Wish You Were Here is an album that leaves you asking yourself--"Why in the world do I not love this record?  I like it, but why don't I love it?"  Indeed, I find myself asking this question all of the time.  It seems to have all the ingredients--a masterful suite of rock symphony, and synth battle with a screaming vocal, and hilarious rocker, and a world-famous acoustic hit.  But there's something about it...and I'm not sure what it is...that really makes me indifferent to this record.  WHY OH WHY?  Ah, I don't know.  The songs, taken alone, aren't that bad...I really don't think the album cooks overall, though.  I really think that ALBUMS need to be continuous not only in content, but in sound--it's on greatest hits compilations that sound can vary.  The main reason that I like Animals better than Dark Side of the Moon is because Dark Side closes with 'Brain Damage' and 'Eclipse', which suck mightily in my opinion, because if you put either of them beside anything from "Breathe" to "Any Colour You Like," the sound just ain't continuous!  It's just not cool.  Animals was Floyd's attempt at being a cynical punk band, and they never stray from that sound except for on 'Pigs on the Wing', which only accounts for what...3 and a half minutes?  Thank goodness.  I rarely listen to it either.  And then we come to Wish You Were Here--Floyd goes from a rock symphony band (A Saucerful of Secrets, but not as...well...f***ing weird) in "Shine On" to a cynical shoot-me-in-the-head attitude in "Welcome to the Machine" (Animals with a synth's vengeance) to a jiving rock band in "Have A Cigar" (hints of Obscured by Clouds's "The Gold It's in the...") to the good ole' teenager-crazy folk ballad "Wish You Were Here" (what the hell is this?  "Wots...Uh, the Deal" with a hint of "Pigs on the Wing").  So what do we have here?  Not only discontinuous sound, but discontinuous theme.  Yuck.  Not good for an album.  Of course, Floyd had problems getting the theme down on this album--well, maybe theme isn't the best word.  Perhaps attitude.  But that's why this album doesn't cook.
I'm glad I figured that out.  7 out of 10--I concur.

mjcarney <mjcarney@netzero.net> (16.07.2000)

This is perhaps the most overrated album in rock and roll.  It is hailed more so by fans and critics because of its excellent, and masterful production than really its songs, and the production is just that--excellent.  From the moody sound of the opening piece, to the strange noises on "Welcome to the Machine", and the brilliant transistor radio effects throughout, the production of this album is perhaps the best of all Pink Floyd albums--even better than Dark Side and The Wall.  It is brilliant, and that is the highlight of the album.  But why then is it overrated? Well, basically because the songs are a huge step downwards from Dark Side, and because "Shine On..." is well one of the most boring songs ever written.  This album--Echoes and parts of what I consider a classic in Dark Side--are the material that can give the soundtrackish reputation of Pink Floyd some merit (although I don't agree with that opinion of the band entirely).  "Shine On You Crazy Diamond" features a brilliant, moody guitar part by Gilmour to open with, but then it just falls flat although the lyrics are pretty good.  It is boring, and stuff like this is why the Punk Movement started to attack Pink Floyd.  I don't understand how people can continue to claim this the best Floyd album.  I am a huge fan the Floyd is in my top three of bands and I listen to a lot of different music, I also own all of their albums (although I have sold the after Roger ones), and this is one of my least favorite ones.  It takes all the bad parts of Dark Side, extends them, and overuses them, and the opening and closing tracks remind you of this fact. The second track,  "Welcome to the Machine" though, is tied for the highlight of the album.  This is only because of the beautiful effect that is put on Gilmour's guitar.  I just love that, aside from that, it isn't really a true Floyd classic, but a strong song nonetheless.  "Have a Cigar" is mediocre.  I agree with you George that the lyrics are rather poor here for Roger compared to his growing mastery of lyrics at this time.  Roy Harper does add some refreshment with his lyric, but it can't quite carry this poor tune too far.  "Wish You Were Here" is an alright song, this, "Money" and "Comfortably Numb" are probably their best known songs, and of the three this is their best one.  It has some good Gilmour acoustic guitarwork, beautiful effects, and terrific lyrics, and is a Floyd classic.  Finally, the end of "Shine On" at the end just makes the first part sound worse.  This just adds more of a boring flavor to the song, with a few more lyrics, and it meanders along to close the album.  Pretty much then to sum up the album, there are 2 wothwhile tracks, about 5 minutes--out of 25 minutes of a good song in "Shine On.." and nothing else is that good.  What a let down compared to Dark Side.  I know that this is the favorite album of the average Pink Floyd fan, but that is mostly because of either a) the production or b) the marketing behind this album.  The Floyd extended there corporate rock stance here even when they tried to make themselves look like they hadn't with Roger's anti-establishment lyrics, it didn't work.  A huge letdown, this was the second album I bought by the Floyd, and I didn't buy another one for 4 years because of this one.  I would rate it a 5/10--sue me for being honest, but it is just such a letdown, although millions of people will think otherwise, all I say is listen to it again, and compare it to your other favorites. It isn't that great.

Philip Maddox <slurmsmckenzie@hotmail.com> (01.10.2000)

This album is oh-so-overrated. I never really want to listen to it. It may be sacrilege, but 'Shine On You Crazy Diamond' has never done too much for me. The vocal bits are quite pretty, but the long atmospheric noodling that eats up 20-some odd minutes puts me to sleep. It's nice and all, but I don't really need it. 'Welcome To The Machine' totally sucks. It's just a long, long, long, torturously long atmospheric piece with nothing particularly interesting going on. The melody is pretty feeble and the synth noises are, well, synth noises. Like the other 2 songs quite a bit, though. 'Have A Cigar' is a pretty good tune. I like the odd, unconfortable synth melody in between the sung parts, which don't bother me at all like they do some people. It's generic blues, but I really do like that synth line. Then you've got the title track, which is absolutely one of my favorite songs and the only reason I ever pull this record out. That acoustic guitar melody is stunning, and Dave actually sounds expressive and emotional. A beautiful song in all respects. Basically, I'd have to give this album a low, low, low 6. I'd give it a 5 if not for the fact that I like the sung part of 'Shine On'. And if the title track weren't here, who knows what I'd give it?

Andrei <sill@redconnect.com> (05.10.2000)

This is my favorite PF album, owing it all to one song: 'Shine on'. It is too long, and the 2nd part is whacko, (except for intro, it's simply amazing), but the buildup, the lyrics, the feeling roger puts into it when he sings 'your eyes like black holes in the sky', is worth more to me than all of more, which I consider one of their best albums. You must've noticed already that I tend to rank favorite songs ahead of whole albums of less favorite ones - that's right, and I don't see anything wrong with that. Anyway, title track is very good, by the way they let then overweight Syd listen to it and he reportedly commented that 'doesn't it sound kind of old?'. I wouldn't say that the melody is outstanding, but as you listen to it, without being distracted by details, lyrics, vocals, and music work very well together for me. 'Machine' is far too harsh for my tastes but it's not awful. If you're feeling angst, that's the song to listen to. That's why it's 'ugly'. Angst songs are supposed to be like that, it's quite deliberate. I do skip it usually, though :-).