Dark Wader Posted November 7, 2014 Share Posted November 7, 2014 Never thought I'd see the day where I would be asking if anyone has heard the new album? (even though it's the last). Lot better than I expected it to be, a lot more than the just the Division Bell b-sides you'd expect. Some of it throws back to WYWH days, some Saucer influence. . .the fact its mostly instrumental helps a lot as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Lohr Posted November 7, 2014 Share Posted November 7, 2014 Just got it today. Haven't even had a chance to listen to it all, yet, but I do like what I've heard. What I don't get is the number of people criticizing them for not involving Roger Waters (to his credit, Waters was not one of them and actually defended the band a bit). It just doesn't make any sense to me at this point: this is now the fifth album released as Pink Floyd without Waters (3rd studio + 2 live). All four of those previous albums did very well (double, triple, and even quadruple platinum in the U.S. alone), so I think it's safe to say that a fare number of fans have not only accepted, but embraced, a Water-less Floyd. Hell, one of those albums ("Thunder") was even the first rock album ever played in space. How cool is that?!? The last studio album (whose sessions, of course, resulted in this album) came out twenty years ago and Waters had nothing to do with that album. Why on earth would he be involved in this one? Yet, I actually read one critic recently rattling on about how it's not the "real" Pink Floyd without Waters. Oh, well. I suppose, even after all this time, there's probably a few nutjobs out there still saying the same thing about Syd Barrett. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dark Wader Posted November 11, 2014 Share Posted November 11, 2014 Yeah I'm surprised at the amount of people bringing that argument up again, considering how far past it we are now. I'm just grateful we even got one last studio album, which I now genuinely think is the best Floyd album since Animals. While I think the Wall is still a better album, this feels like the first time Pink Floyd have sounded like a band in a very long time, as opposed to a Waters/Gilmour solo project with the others just tagging along. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryn Posted November 11, 2014 Share Posted November 11, 2014 I don't get the hate anymore either. But it's heartening to read the comments sections (like here) that put critics in their place. (One of the rare occasions a comment section is helpful.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest El Chalupacabra Posted November 11, 2014 Share Posted November 11, 2014 I definitely plan on getting this album. I was actually a fan of the Division Bell, and what I have read about the Endless River is that it is a lot of material that didn't make it into that album. The fact that it is mostly an instrumental sounds great to me. The last studio album (whose sessions, of course, resulted in this album) came out twenty years ago and Waters had nothing to do with that album. Why on earth would he be involved in this one? Yet, I actually read one critic recently rattling on about how it's not the "real" Pink Floyd without Waters. Oh, well. I suppose, even after all this time, there's probably a few nutjobs out there still saying the same thing about Syd Barrett. Yeah I'm surprised at the amount of people bringing that argument up again, considering how far past it we are now. I'm just grateful we even got one last studio album, which I now genuinely think is the best Floyd album since Animals. While I think the Wall is still a better album, this feels like the first time Pink Floyd have sounded like a band in a very long time, as opposed to a Waters/Gilmour solo project with the others just tagging along. Just to play devil's advocate, I wonder if most of the criticism isn't because Gilmour himself, after the one-off Live-8 reunion in 2005 basically said he wasn't interested in a reunion with Waters, and all but said he was done with Pink Floyd. Then a year later, he released his own album, On an Island, a year later, followed by the deaths of Syd Barrett and Rick Wright, I think people just naturally assumed Pink Floyd really was done for as a band. Then here 20 years after Division Bell, you have Gilmour releasing another Pink Floyd album, and I can see how some could see it as a money grab to cash in on stuff that he deemed wasn't good enough to release 20 years ago, but is good enough now. I am not saying that's how I see it, just I think that may be the argument of the critics. Personally, I am glad to see a new album, and I wouldn't have cared if it were released as either Pink Floyd, or a Gilmour solo project. I am just happy its there! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Metropolis Posted November 12, 2014 Share Posted November 12, 2014 Just finished listening to the new album. It almost loses me, but the last song (with lyrics) kinda pulls the album together. Don't know if the album was really necessary though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duke Posted November 12, 2014 Share Posted November 12, 2014 I really have a problem getting through the album in one sitting. I suppose the extremely keyboard heavy sound is sorta a tribute to Wright, but at its best, this sounds like leftover ideas from "Echoes". And as much as I love "Echoes", I´d rather listen to that again. I´m with Met about "Louder than words" being the standout moment. But that one DOES sound like a "Division bell" leftover. At least like discarded ideas for "High hopes" which IMO is the only really fantastic Floyd song since... what, "Comfortably numb" maybe? I love some of the old Floyd stuff, but can´t really see the upset on either side. It´s another OK album by yet another band that had its best times several decades ago and has different memebers now. It doesn´t suck unlike some such albums, it doesn´t sully the legacy. But somehow "High hopes" being the last ever song was a perfect ending with the lyrics making it full circle. Well, at least it´s not Zep´s "Coda" or anything Deep Purple has done since 1984. (I e horrible.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryn Posted November 12, 2014 Share Posted November 12, 2014 For me, it's like a soundtrack to something Floyd that doesn't exist. Especially the short sequence with "Allons-y (1)," "Autumn '68," and "Allons-y (2)." It sounds disparaging, which isn't my intent at all (and I'm sure there's a better, more accurate term), but a lot sounds like filler for previous albums. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts