DaveC said:
Note for note? Have you fucking seen the PULSE concert? I fail to see how a 9-minute version of a song (Comfortably Numb) live can be called a note-for-note rendition when the original is only 4 minutes.
Yes, I've seen
Pulse and even said "Comfortably Numb" was an exception (even though, as I also said, he plays pretty much the same extended solo every night, but then, U2 doesn't mix it up much over the course of a tour either). And yes, it's quite good, but not really life-changing stuff.
You've never heard much in the way of RoIO's from The Division Bell tour have you? Granted, the officially released shows are very close to the original renditions, simply because they were intended for release. It's the same with U2, they'll play a more standardised setlist if they intend to release the show onto DVD. On the non-officially taped shows, they played things like More Blues, which is an entirely improvised Blues jam. Hell, Pink Floyd invented the concept of the jam session.
Yes, I have several Pink Floyd bootlegs. With regards to the
Division Bell, there are some setlist changes across them (the Turino show has "Take It Back" and "Brothers In Ar"--I mean, "On the Turning Away," for instance, neither of which is on
Pulse). Nothing that really turns them into the Grateful Dead, but whatever.
An occasional jam is nice too but hardly affects the power and impact of a show, which is the area they lag behind U2. Their shows are far too distant and calculated as a whole. I'd take them more seriously if they could smirk a little and play "Party Girl" every now and again.
And Pink Floyd invented the jam session? How about jazz and the blues, which both existed well before 1967 and which basically created rock and roll? What's your definition of a jam session if not a bunch of musicians getting together and improvising, the heart of both genres?
Roger Waters' war concepts are about his dad getting killed when he was just born in Anzio.
I'm familiar with him.
Roger Waters has written consistently good, if not great music over the years. Sure, KAOS wasn't his high point, but there were some good songs on there (see The Tide is Turning). I think artists are allowed to have one album that doesn't stand out as well as prior material. See POP if you want to know more.
I also thought
The Wall and
The Final Cut would've been better without the stupid concepts (and with some help from Gilmour; actually, since
Wish You Were Here, Waters has had his head too far up his ass to realize he can't do it all by himself, and his music has suffered consistently since then, even if it has had some highlights).
I'm sorry if you've got a stick jammed too far up your ass to be able to appreciate good music when you hear it. You sound to me like one of those people who's all uppity that Pink Floyd has been eternally loved since their inception, and that you've had a favorite band who isn't popular anymore.
What's my favorite band? U2 or the Beatles? Both are still very popular. And I'm a huge Floyd fan, I'm just willing to criticize them.
They weren't a very interesting live band. Their work was too closely tied to their original arrangements, and they took themselves too seriously. The move to giant stadiums didn't help. Gilmour's recent live DVD is much more interesting than
Pulse.
They did some great stuff in the studio, but they were always too aloof to create anything personal and affecting. We're talking about a band that never recorded a single cover song. We're talking about a band Roger Waters described more or less like, "We were never good friends, we just worked well together." A simple but moving Dylan rip-off like "You've Got To Hide Your Love Away" is always going to mean more to me than a technically awesome but emotionally cold masterpiece like "Echoes."
