Pink Floyd

Here's what I've found so far. Looks like quite a reissue program.
For me everything depends on the quality of the remasters by James Guthrie.
1. Discovery Edition 16CD Sept27 2011
2. Experience Edition DSOTM 2CD Sept27 2011
3. Experience Edition WYWH 2CD Nov8 2011
4. Experience Edition The Wall 3CD Feb28 2012
5. Immersion Edition The Wall 6CD/1DVD Feb28 2012
6. Immersion Edition WYWH 2CD/2DVD/1Bluray Nov8 2011
7. Immersion Edition DSOTM 3CD/2DVD/1Bluray Sept27 2011
8. A Foot In The Door: The Best of Pink Floyd 1CD Nov8 2011
9. Discovery Edition The Piper at the Gates of Dawn 1CD Sept27 2011
10. Discovery Edition A Saucerful of Secrets 1CD Sept27 2011
11. Discovery Edition Soundtrack "More" 1CD Sept27 2011
12. Discovery Edition Ummagumma 2CD Sept27 2011
13. Discovery Edition Atom Heart Mother 1CD Sept27 2011
14. Discovery Edition Meddle 1CD Sept27 2011
15. Discovery Edition Obscured by Clouds 1CD Sept27 2011
16. Discovery Edition TDSOTM 1CD Sept27 2011
17. Discovery edition WYWH 1CD Sept27 2011
18. Discovery edition Animals 1CD Sept27 2011
19. Discovery Edition The Wall 2CD Sept27 2011
20. Discovery Edition The Final Cut 1CD Sept27 2011
21. Discovery Edition A Momentary Lapse of Reason 1CD Sept27 2011
22. Discovery edition The Division Bell 1CD Sept27 2011

Yawn...

Double yawn

Why "yawn"? I don't much listen to "the Floyd," but surely everyone is entitled their fan threads. John

Another naked money-grab by the reord industry execs. However, the packaging and bonus matls. are somewhat interesting...

Triple yawn. When was the last time you tapped your toe while listening to Pink Floyd?

"the lunatics, are on the grass"...

some love for the Floyd please

Love the Floyd but I don't welcome the machine.

:-)

Quadruple yawn. Friend I love and respect think Floyd is it....I think next to the Dead they are the most overrated band. Buy I am happy for the folks who are willing to pay for a higher quality of this perennial stoner band. Enjoy!

OK, bad editing on above post...but I'm not stoned.

Most PF I have sounds good enough already.

PF and audiophilia have always had a pretty decent relationship.

Hey, but just because they sell it doesn't mean I have to buy it.

Only a semi-yawn at this point

WOW, tough crowd!

The Grateful Dead plodded on and on with a lot of mediocre performances and recordings for the faithful a lot more than Pink Floyd.

Pink Floyd's output is a lot more concise and meaty than the Dead's.

PF was at leat innovative in their day, FBOFW.

The Dead were, well, the Dead, whatever that is/was. I like some of their stuff.

Both were undeniably successful. Neither were probably overrated, at least by the press.

Both still worth occasional listens, but been there, done that for the most part. There is a lot of other new music (to me at least) to discover out there and listen to.

If you never saw the Dead live in concert, you don't know the Dead. Their studio recordings never matched their live performances.

I did see the Dead live once. Was greatly looking forward to it but was quite underwhelmed. It was a free concert at college graduation. Maybe that was part of it.

I also saw Robert Hunter and the New Riders of the Purple sage live back in college. I recall liking those a lot.

I was listening to a pretty decent Dead cover band live at a ruralfair this past weekend. They sounded pretty good and quite Dead-like doing the material they did, but kept thinking there was really nothing special or endearing about the material performed. There were a couple people listening but most were quite disinterested in the content despite the band actually doing a quite decent job.

I agree that the Dead are way overrated, (IMHO of course). Which is not to say they are a bad band, or even merely okay, as I consider them to be a good band, probably even very good. I just don't consider them to be a great band. (Sorry Deadheads!)

And yeah, I'd seen them twice. Once was one of the worst concert experiences I've ever had. (And no, I was not having a bad trip, merely a bad experience, as their playing was mediocre, and they seemed genuinely disinterested, as was the crowd). The second concert was much better, as they backed Bob Dylan, and it was a very fun experience.

On the other hand, Pink Floyd is one of the best bands ever, IMHO. (I rank them right up there with The Beatles, The Stones and Led Zeppelin.)

My two cents worth.

PS As far as the reissues go, if they are not going to utilise the original analog recordings, (which I have heard they are not), then I am just not too excited about it. I have most of their catalog on vinyl already, so for me, it is not a big deal.

Well maybe we should end this thread right now due to total and utter apathy! 8^)

I certainly agree with the comparison to the Gateful Dead as far as the "boring factor" is concerned.
After 35 or more years of being bombarded on FM radio with Pink Void's plodding dirges and embarrassingly trite lyrics meant to appeal to supposedly disenfranchised teenagers that are 50 years younger that they are now, I have had more than enough. And all the while, great talents like Johnny Winter and Jethro Tull, just to mention two, might as well have never existed as far as these stations are concerned.

Tough crowd is right! Can't get no respect! Bah dah boom!

This is one band that has been so overexposed who could blame all the yawns? Its a money grab that I am not going to contribute to.

Grab that cash with both hands...

I'd have thought that Tull and Floyd were equally accomplished in the art rock genre of "dirges." At least that's the impression I got from constantly hearing tracks of Aqualung, when I listened to FM radio.

Just heard a funny story about Ian stopping play in the middle of a song to yell at a woman who had gotten up to go pee. Apparently, only allowed between songs . . . . Whatever you say about the music, one thing I liked about Dead shows was being allowed to answer the call as needed ;)

To each their own, of course!

John

Ironically, Pink Floyd will probably live on for a long time like the Beatles in that they have a core set of compositions that will continue to appeal to new youths over time while the aging original fans lose interest somewhat compared to other music that may hold more meaning to elders and age well in that regard. I think new releases down the road will target and appeal more to the young than codgy aging audiophiles. So kudos to PF for that in addition to all the enjoyment I have reaped from their music over time, even if that is somewhat waning these days.

I think the Grateful Dead will prove to be more dated and be more of an endangered species as time moves on. Just a hunch though....

Ok, what level of yawn are we up to? :-) I've had the Pink Floyd library in hi-rez for decades. It's called vinyl.

"I've had the Pink Floyd library in hi-rez for decades. It's called vinyl."

Another reason why I suspect these releases are targeting younger, newer PF fans ( a much bigger and I suspect profitable target audience) and not aging audiophiles to whom PF vinyl recordings have represented some of the best vinyl recordings in the rock/pop genre for at least 4 decades now.

That definitely helps explain the yawn factor here at least.

Yeah. There is another thread full of excited folk. I decided to let them have their fun. :-)

"Whatever you say about the music, one thing I liked about Dead shows was being allowed to answer the call as needed ;)"

For sure, at a Dead show they were either too stoned to notice or too much into "jamming" to even care, take pictures, record do what ever you want, we're just gonna play....I mean who else played 5 hour concerts er..jam sessions?

As Jerry Garcia once said, the Grateful Dead are a lot like licorice. Many people don't like licorice, but those who do really like it a lot. Count me as one who likes licorice. If you hadn't seen them live enough times, you can't weigh in here, sorry. The appeal of the Dead was the lack of a standard setlist, the idea that out of chaos and cacophony could come beauty. Yes, there were many nights they weren't "on" but when they were, they were one of the best live bands of all time, sorry folks. They had certain periods (68-74, 77-78, 88-89) in which they were really "on" due to their sound, personnel, sobriety, lack of sobriety, etc. The Dylan (86) era wasn't their top form. Their songbook of original compositions is a huge contribution to American popular music, too. And, Pink Floyd is awesome. No yawns here.

No doubt Deadheads are a special breed!

Dead concerts were like a 3hr sound check and for those who excuse them when they were often "off" pros get paid to always be "on" thats what seperates them from common men. Color me unimpressed but half the crowd is so stoned (and simple) they dont know what is going on anyway. They only worry about somebody hogging the bowl or whippet balloon.

How'd we get from Floyd to Dead? And I don't mean that literally. :-)

"I've had the Pink Floyd library in hi-rez for decades. It's called vinyl."

Too funny, and spot-on accurate!

You can all say what you want and feel what you want about Floyd. But I heard a concert (The Delicate Sound of Thunder tour) they did back in the late 80's that had the clearest and most powerful outdoor system I've heard to this day. It was at Ohio State Stadium "the Shoe" and it rated at the top for mei in sound, production, performance, bass, clarity, everything.. It was everything you'd ever want to hear at an outdoor concert. So impressive...The atmoshphere was electric .. not boring at all. I'll always remember the excitement of hearing such an awesome show.

Dead concerts were like a 3hr sound check

This is a remarkable overstatement. I caught around 35 or so shows in the 80s-90s (not many, by the standards!): While there certainly was unevenness, shows ranged from well put together professional efforts to "Wow!" with only a couple of clunkers (all with an excellent sound system).

To each their own -- I don't listen to Dead much anymore -- but I suspect anyone who equates then with a bar band either hasn't seen much of the Dead, much of bar bands, or not much of either.

Interesting question, how the Dead wandered into a Floyd thread.

John

John,

"...but I suspect anyone who equates then with a bar band either hasn't seen much of the Dead, much of bar bands, or not much of either."

Maybe you were just being polite, but there is another explanation.

Any given listener may - without any need to explain him or herself - choose to like or dislike any given performance, but that doesn't justify being dismissive of the performers. Like the songs or not, find the extended improvisations exhilirating or mind numbing...that's a matter of taste. But, there should be NO DENYING that those guys can play.

BTW, I used to work with a bunch of Dead fanatics. It was a 24/7 kind of job, so we'd have music on after hours. It was a constant struggle for me to limit the amount of Dick's Picks that I'd have to sit through.

For much the same reason, I've been talked into seeing The Dead twice. I really don't have the appetite for five hours of that material at one sitting, but I'll still give them their due. They're a great band working a particular corner of a particular genre that has limited appeal for me.

Marty

Sure, the Floyd material is dated. It is 2011 and they were late 60's to 80's band, essentially. They were not a stoner band but that was the era.

They were extremely talented musicians that put together an incredible library of multi-layered recordings that set a standard for sound excellence and aritistry that still exists today. The band's meticulous attention to detail and the mastering abilities of Sax, Guthrie, Parsons and Andy Jackson became legendary.

Many top recording artists still use Astoria because their gear is like none other. Skywalker Ranch in SF followed the benchmarks they set for sound in developing their own studios and gear. Tim DeParavicini (EAR) re-worded the power supplies in Astoria's Studer Master decks.They invested in expensive electronics, power and cable systems because Gilmour cared about getting the best sound. The Floyd started an era that contributed to sound-quality mattering; to sound engineers, musicians and audiophiles alike.

If they are still making money from re-issues, they deserve it. As for talent, in concert, I never saw anyone slay an audience the way Gilmour could with his guitar solo's. His Live 8 Concert Comfortably Numb solo a few years back ( on U-Tube) brought back great memories.

Does anyone know anything about James Guthrie?

James Guthrie begun his career working with Greg Walsh (Tina Turner etc) at Mayfair Studios London. James Guthrie now has his own studio called Das Boot in Lake Tahoe and he uses ATC's (like David Gilmour). Pretty much all the remasters of Pink Floyd (like the SACD stuff) and newer solo related stuff (such as "On an Island" etc) were all done on ATC's. Greg Walsh was one of the early users of ATC along with Hugh Padgham (Police, Peter Gabriel, Phil Colins etc.) A large portion of UK music made in the 80's was done on ATC's whilst the USA were still using horns. Nowadays both sides of the pond have many ATC users.

I believe James Guthrie uses EMM Labs DAC's and preamps

So nothing new about James association with Pink Floyd - so you can expect more of the same.

Just another quick historical note - Alan Parsons is the one responsible for the sound behind the original masterpiece DSOTM. Alan still uses B&W speakers, as far as I know, and swears by them.

Might check out Division Bell out of curiosity, like that tune with Steven Hawking.

According to the principles at Astoria, Parsons was not responsible for the "sound behind the original DSOTM" in any significant way. Further, when it came time for the remasters, Guthrie was the unanimous choice because he knew the project better-- inside and out. There as a tiff over that, of course.

According to the studio, the band played the lead role in assuring top sound quality for that particular masterwork, not the mastering engineers. The Studio felt Guthrie was the talent behind the panel, not Parsons, though Alan did get accolades and a lot of the credit.

Guthrie and Doug Sax still work together today and there is no love between those two and Parsons.

Samuel,

Possibly, though Alan Parsons has produced some other really good sounding stuff - so it is hard to believe he did not play a significant role. It wasn't until "The Wall" that James Guthrie became directly involved with PF.

exhilirating or mind numbing...that's a matter of taste. But, there should be NO DENYING that those guys can play.

This sems just right to me Marty, for the Dead or Floyd!

John

"They were not a stoner band but that was the era. "

That's right. PF didn't really want 20,000 fans that were drunk and high and yelling "crank-it -up"!!. Save that for Lynard Skynard.(awesome band too, not trying to "dis" them in anyway, but you know the fans they have) PF, was hoping for a more cerebral audience that would appreciate the music for what it is , which is great, and pay attention during the performance and then give a short polite clap (in a researved British way) at the end.

PF, imho , IS the greatest band ever and transcends the basic rock band format. The music stands 100% on its own without vocals. Given the first few albums WERE crap and are dated, everything post "wish you were here" is a timeless masterpiece and is in no way dated - it like the closest we have to modern Bach.

A DEAD concert was more of an three ring circus event, more about what went on in the parking lot than the stage. Fake dead heads would show up to act like real Dead Heads and general on-lookers would come over to see both types acting weird. The DEAD had a very limited amount of really great songs and IIRC, about have the albums were "greatest hits" or live recording, mostly tending to release the same ol' songs again.

It amazes me how the Beetles, which were more marketing than music and rarly toured after 1966 can remain so highly popular and sell so many box sets and reissues. That, I think people would find boring and really not care anymore.

I don't know if Beethoven is rolling over, but I am sure that Bach must be. To compare Pink Void to Bach is just silly.

Pink Floyd a modern Bach?

Mahler would be a better analogy though still a very loose one perhaps.

The Beatles are the only rock act that are a lock to retain a place long term musically up there with the classical and other masters. Pink Floyd might also, but time will tell.

Listen to any Floyd prior to DSOTM and tell me they weren't stoners in the studio.

Hum, after my comment I see a few holes in my library. :-)

My wife always tells me I'll never grow up and I guess she's right. I'm 54 and still dig PF. I've been wanting a SACD copy of WYWH, Meddle and the Wall for a long time.

Yeah, I've mellowed with age and am actually listening to Tony Bennett duets as I write, but the old rockers can still get me going. Just not as often as they used to. :0)

Someone mentioned the Delicate Sound of Thunder concert and I would forgo all SACD's for a remastered copy of that concert on Blue Ray. Best concert ever IMO.