Shine

Ah, (in a low voice) Steven Seagal!

I read the comments on a review of an album by that guy with the ponytail who competes with (in a whisper) Chuck. What's his name?

What a shame, you stood me up. Yet Chuck Norris had assured me that you were coming...

Come on, I like you too!

Well, from someone who "can't read" and who interprets "the little he can read in his own way," you have to expect a bit of nonsense, right? Lucky you, who never writes nonsense and who is the very embodiment of logic and coherence. I have a lot to learn from you...

For Jim. Clearly, we have very different views on Pink Floyd, and it's not just a matter of taste. It’s really the way we see the dynamics of the band that changes. Writing great lyrics is certainly a significant artistic merit, but FOR ME, the ability to interpret a piece and arrange it is also a form of art (even if some call it a craft): most people know very little about this work, and this is what I consider to be unrecognized merits. Perhaps you acknowledge them but don’t give them the importance I do: maybe part of the divergence of opinion between us stems from this. The rest is a matter of taste: perhaps you love the feverish and painful aspect mainly associated with Waters, while I, alongside this, love the ethereal and dreamlike quality mainly brought forth by Gilmour and Wright. Speaking of commerciality, it seems to me that "Not now John" and the entire "Radio Kaos" are "crowd-pleasing and easy listening," much more so than TDB. And remember that for me these adjectives do not necessarily have a negative connotation. To think about it, "The Wall" is partly that way too. It’s certainly not true for "Animals" (I can already see the DJs playing "Dogs"!). And some songs by the Doors are that way too (or maybe they have become so). Unlike you, I would like to know what others think about this discussion. No hard feelings, and I return the titles of "intelligent" and "great person." I still have the impression that you’ve fallen into contradiction and don’t want to admit it.

Correction: "By the way, I've never mentioned NEITHER the number of signatures NOR Gilmour's skill as a lyricist." There, now there's no misunderstanding.

You are sterile and arrogant. You carefully avoid all my statements, can't admit that you have contradicted yourself with the sentences I have transcribed above, and above all, you intentionally subvert the meaning of my assertions. By the way, I have never talked about the quantity of signatures or about Gilmour's skill as a lyricist, and this says a lot about your bad faith. Moreover, my argument was precisely that people tend to attribute the merits of songs just by looking at the credits when, in fact, there is more to it: you, on the other hand, don't even do this, attributing the mini suite "A Saucerful of Secrets" solely to Waters, and this is a mistake. If you don't at least admit that you were wrong on this last point (and everyone can confirm it), for me the discussion ends here. As for tastes, I can say that "Sheep" is a great piece and that there are many tracks in "The Division Bell" that surpass in beauty many tracks from "The Final Cut." Specifically: "Paranoid Eyes," "Get Your Filthy Hands Off My Desert," and "One of the Few" are MUSICIALLY some of the worst Floydian productions. Conversely, I find "Marooned," "Wearing the Inside Out," and "High Hopes" from "The Division Bell" to be very beautiful.

For Jim: is the phrase "Well, going way back I see Barrett. Then, following that, I see a lot of Waters with Barrett influence and some scraps of 'others'" yours? If so, were you referring to the period before Dark Side of the Moon? I imagine so, since immediately afterward you state: "Then I still see three commercial albums with Waters dominating and the participation of the 'others'." Look, the crux of my argument has always been that you undervalue the contribution of the others, specifically in the pre-Dark Side era. Therefore, the statement: "no one has denied the work of the others" contradicts "a lot of Waters with Barrett influence and some scraps of 'others'." By the way, you're also arrogant because you talk about "blinders" and claim that I'm "daft." You're the classic type who always wants to be right: You're just talk and no substance, talk and no substance!

For Saputello: we understood each other, I was wrong to compare your position with Jim's. If I mentioned Sheep, it was only to emphasize that merits are not only seen through credits.