valeriozappa

Well, the live version of Ummagumma is a snapshot of how people could experience Pink Floyd's concerts back in the day. Moreover, the recording is excellent! I like the studio album so-so; it's interesting regarding the individual experiments, not to mention the excellent "Grantchester Meadows." However, just having one great song for an entire second album feels a bit lacking, doesn't it? Anyway, I didn't say it's crap! No Pink Floyd album is crap for me; forgettable, yes, crap, no. I've been listening to them since I was born, practically; they are part of my growth. Saying an album is crap is like saying a part of my life is worthless. I've kind of exaggerated this time, but it was just to make the point clear! :)
Anyway, come on, how can you not appreciate '80s pop? :) By the way, how old are you, Enea, just to get an idea of why you like some things and less of others, even if it might not be that relevant.

In "Childhood's End," moreover, Waters already experiments with the tick-tock effect on the bass strings that he will use as an introduction in "Time." Musically, "Childhood's End" actually resembles "Time" a bit, in terms of rhythm and cadence.

me too, and for that matter, also the prophilax (but maybe only for those born in Rome) and even the great pop music of the 80s. new wave stirs something inside me...

I hope there is for you, guevo. Who knows?...

I know everything too, guevo. The studio album of Ummagumma may be forgettable, perhaps. That’s quite a mishmash of who knows what, even according to the same protagonists. Forgettable is "A Momentary Lapse of Reason," forgettable is "The Division Bell"... (except for "High Hopes," I must say...).

Well, who doesn't like some junk!...

Well, easy, I just can’t stand it when I hear these extremist talks. They think they’re alternative, but they’re just like all the other extremists, nothing more. What enjoyment do they find in that... a bit more imagination, at least!

whatever.

a useless record, a useless record... what a jerk you are.

I realized that I said Waters is an asshole.. in reality, I meant to say "that Waters is considered by many to be an asshole." I don't see him that way. A bit dictatorial, yes, but I can imagine the frustration of working with people who no longer believed in Pink Floyd like the rest of the band. And perhaps having to keep going despite the many debts that accompanied the band. Waters wanted to make a grand exit, and maybe he succeeded. For a few, he did succeed. He wasn't entirely wrong to want to end the Floyd, given the totally soulless productions that came after Waters. That's where Pink Floyd are scandalous, not when Roger Waters was "being bothersome." In my opinion, of course. Anyway, go read the book "Inside Out." Here’s an excerpt on this matter: "Why were we willing to tolerate what seemed to be a power grab by Roger? Back then, we accepted as inevitable things that, looking back now, probably weren’t. That cowardly acquiescence may have been the result of gradual changes to the band's structure over the previous ten years. Perhaps lacking confidence in his composing abilities, David must have felt that if we addressed these issues, we risked losing Roger and no longer being able to continue. Or, after Rick's departure from the band, we feared being marginalized and then hired individually on contract. I'm sorry to admit it, but whatever our reasons, the tendency to label Roger as the villain of the piece, despite the strong temptation, is probably misplaced." Words by Nick Mason.