JimMorrison

Kid, this one gets me...

I repeat that for me Pink Floyd are the greatest of all time, perhaps only on par with Soft Machine, and I assure you that my listening sessions are far from few. I won’t hide the fact that when I read it, it made me laugh. About the banality of Tfc, I could say no more; I’m waiting for you to explain the opposite, if anything. But you have said nothing. You brought this up, and you still need to explain. If anything, later I can dismantle your thesis while explaining my own. And then what would you like to say, that TFC is better just because it was created by Waters? Oh well, then this whole thing about Final Cut just doesn’t get through to you. While I'm trying to explain something, you’re showcasing some of your gaps. I explain. You associate that concept with the discussion. Aouh. Gilmour's voice may have declined but for me, it’s still at high levels, good at Live Aid and excellent in his live concerts. I would say less than decent. If you don’t explain to me what is complex or non-trivial about those songs, then it’s better to end it here. Ah, here I find myself in agreement, look. @tom traubert: The genius of easycure: "And do you think they had backing vocalists thirty years ago?" Answer: Obviously, yes, the backing vocalists were already there on the Dark Side Of The Moon tour. There’s no need to go further. Go kill yourself. You know nothing about Pink Floyd. Setting aside easycure’s obvious oversight, the concept doesn’t change. And already TDSOM is a tacky album. Back then, you would buy the detergent and find the single of Money as a gift.

long live the living

Given your last post, I'll add: Dave's voice has taken a crazy downturn, just listen to the performance at Live Aid... At some points it was truly unbearable. Please Dave, open your eyes, time passes for them too. Even in bed, I think Dave is not what he used to be, can you refute that?

The limited number of your listens is clear from the comments, Dave, there’s not much to say. Someone who says that the Floyd are the best band ever is definitely someone who listens to little music. You talk about trivialities but keep failing to explain; you brought this up, so explain it, and it doesn’t matter a damn whether you studied music or not—what counts is the listens. There are plenty of people here who have never touched an instrument but would probably eat me alive in a head-to-head. Then this point of yours doesn't make sense: <<<both albums were produced in the studio, what would the problem be? And then you’re the one who first wants to emphasize the superior quality of TFC by justifying it with the time available>>> What does that have to do with anything? Did I perhaps mention live albums? What are you referring to? I meant to say that The Final Cut is a solo album by Roger, completely written by him, and it’s even stated on the cover of the album: Written by Roger Waters, Performed By Pink Floyd. Their role is limited to studio recording. Clear, right? And I’m not trying to justify anything with the time available, and I’ve already explained that to you twice. Please, read it again, I don’t intend to rewrite it. Yes, you’re the one grasping at straws, and I’m not the only one pointing it out to you. No hard feelings, though; I’ve even liked some of your reviews.

This, of course, is a 5! The Necks... I will take care of it, of course...

Dave, I believe that with this answer you've put an end to our discussion. It clearly emerges the limited number of listens that you have behind you; you know the Floyd and just a bit of other stuff around it, you're not very objective, and thus you evaluate without understanding the context. On top of that, you read the posts superficially. So <<<I said that the banality is greater in TFC compared to WYWH precisely because in TFC there are those four tracks I mentioned that have the musical part (the entire musical part, not just a simple passage) which I find banal and not very varied, what more should I explain to you?>>> You should explain to me why it is banal and not very varied. <<<Are you referring to WYWH? And what should they have done?>>> Oh come on, Dave, it was so clear that I was referring to The Final Cut! Anyone who knows a bit about the Floyd would have made the connection. Even rocks know that in that album the Floyd simply recorded the tracks in the studio. Period. It’s all Roger Waters’ work, it’s even written on the record, do you have the original? Huh? Then this is hilarious: <<<it wouldn’t mean anything, precisely because the quality of ideas does not depend on the time taken to realize them, you see.>>> --->>> Look at what I wrote a little higher up... <<<Those of 5 minutes can be genius just like those of three years can be crap. And vice versa, obviously.>>>

Dave, you keep climbing on mirrors; your responses are absolutely unsatisfactory because you don't explain, practically, anything. <<<The banality of the albums as a whole is greater in The Final Cut.>>> Yes, you've already said that, but I'm missing a serious reason for this statement. Then <<<I've already expressed myself on the banality of the tracks in question.>>> Okay, and I also replied by asking you what you find banal about them. Tell me a passage, a melody, anything that you think might seem banal; maybe I'll even agree with you, but you need to specify. It's too easy to cite three or four titles without explaining. <<<The preparation time for the albums for the Floyd was almost identical.>>> Ah, what did the Floyd do on this album besides playing in the studio? <<<Some ideas can come to you in 5 minutes, others in 3 years.>>> Those that come in 5 minutes can be brilliant just like those that take three years, and vice versa, obviously. Add everything from easycure under my post.

Antonino91, where have you been? Come back, please, we promise you a place of honor in the human cases of Debaser, but come back. :D

<<<especially if you listen carefully to the lyrics and nuances in Waters' voice, they're not boring at all.>>> My earlier statement was an exaggeration; The Final Cut is an album that I like a lot, so of course, I don't find it boring. But anyway. I don’t understand what you find trivial in certain musical parts of those tracks; I just can’t wrap my head around it. They aren't as predictable as they might seem, and I say this as someone who knows music very well since I've been studying it for various reasons for years. I'm sorry; I hope your comment isn’t a trivial attempt to justify your statement. Have A Cigar, on the other hand, is a piece that borders on uselessness, while Welcome To The Machine is yet another postcard for the past of an album that endlessly recycles the same theme to the point of addiction. WYWH: an album made because it had to be made and had to be sold, TFC a deeply felt record, born and developed over time. Now tell me what’s more banal.