Talk:Pink Floyd

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Biography / Musicians (Rated FA-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.
Featured article FA  This article has been rated as FA-Class on the project's quality scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Musicians (marked as Top-importance).

This article has comments here.

WikiProject Pink Floyd (Rated FA-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This Pink Floyd-related article is within the scope of WikiProject Pink Floyd, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pink Floyd and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
Featured article FA  This article has been rated as FA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Progressive Rock, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Progressive rock on Wikipedia.
WikiProject Rock music (Rated FA-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Rock music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Rock music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Featured article FA  This article has been rated as FA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article has comments here.

WikiProject Progressive Rock (Rated FA-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Progressive Rock, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Progressive rock on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Featured article FA  This article has been rated as FA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
Wikipedia Version 1.0 Editorial Team / v0.5
WikiProject icon This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
Taskforce icon
This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia.
Note icon
This article is included in the 2006 Wikipedia CD Selection, or is a candidate for inclusion in the next version. Please maintain high quality standards and, if possible, stick to GFDL-compatible images.
Featured article FA  This article has been rated as FA-Class on the quality scale.
This article has an assessment summary page.
Featured article Pink Floyd is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on May 9, 2006.

Semi-protected edit request on 2 May 2014[edit]

Years active[edit]

RE the active years should it not say 1965-1996(floyd played at rnr hof in 96)2005 2013-present?(live 8 was 2005 and the recording sessions for the new LP started around a year ago?)

OR-1965-1996,2003,2005,2006,2007,2011,2013-present:- floyd techically played live in 2003(managers funural),2006(gilmour tour)2007(syd barrett concert)and 2011(the wall encore),and according to Mason,never actually split,so a case could be made for 1965 present? KPS — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:39, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Another consideration is the possible addition of Durga McBroom, Guy Pratt and/or Polly Samson to the members section, as it is apparent that they have made contributions to this album and potentially to the Division Bell as well. Also, considering that Pink Floyd never officially went on hiatus at any point, wouldn't simply 1965–present be suitable now? - Floydian τ ¢ 20:15, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
They are still just personnel, not full members. If the new album lists any of them as members when it comes out, then we can talk. I wouldn't object to your second suggestion. --Bongwarrior (talk) 22:09, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Good point... though I wonder what the reissue of Division Bell lists as well, since that was obviously done as a tie-in with this announcement... prime the pumps if you will. - Floydian τ ¢ 23:38, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
I agree, I think the years active should be 1965-present. Nazarino13 (talk) 01:06, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

1965-present would make the most sense KPS

1965-present is my vote as well. There was never a point where they said that there was no more Pink Floyd. Roger tried to say that circa 1987 but I can't recall any point where they definitively said that the group was no more. Dismas|(talk) 10:25, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
I share the same opinion, Pink Floyd is active since 1965 and is still active (so 1965-present).Christo jones (talk) 14:46, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

I disagree that the years active should be 1965-present, because Pink Floyd did break up in 1996, even Nick Mason states that in his autobiography. I think the years active should be 1965-1996; 2005; 2013-2014. The last should definitely not be 2014-present, because according to the reports by the musicians involved, Gilmour and Mason reunited in the studio in early 2013, so it should be noted as the year active period. Also, the "-present" should be removed since there are not yet reports of any band activity following the album release in October.--Milosppf (talk) 14:41, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

I think that we need to be really careful here, and not confuse hiatus (periods of inactivity) with being official disbanded i.e. not existing as an entity. Pink Floyd never official disbanded since 1965, although there were many hiatus periods in-between. After all, how do we define what being active means? There are essentially three types of band activity: concerts, recording sessions (which, as illustrated by the work on The Endless River in 2013-2014, public may not be even aware of at all), and promo activities officially involving the band (band press conferences, band attending events, etc.). For example, Pink Floyd as a band did attend the launch of the Pulse DVD at the Vue cinema in London’s Leicester Square on July 3, 2006. There we there as a band (as Pink Floyd), all three band members were present, and they spoke of the band in the present tense (here is one report, for example: Did Pink Floyd exist on July 03, 2006? I would definitely say yes. However, that event (or day) is not included in the years active section at all (?). One could find similar instances to this one, if s/he looks hard enough. My point is this - they exist until they officially call it quits, something that they have not done so yet. Until that happens, either by conscious choice or due to natural causes (death of members), they can come out of hiatus and do things as Pink Floyd whenever they want to. (talk) 17:50, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Then, according to you, Led Zeppelin were "active" in 2012 when they received the Kennedy Center Honors, because they were labeled there as "Led Zeppelin." Now go to their Wikipedia page and see if there is 2012 in the "years active" section. Therefore, I would agree that there are two activities: recording new material and performing, either of which have not been done by the band since 1996, not including Live 8 reunion and the new album sessions.--Milosppf (talk) 18:07, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
I am not that familiar with Led Zeppelin history to comment, but what I can point to is The Beatles - they officially disbanded (ceased to legally exist as a band) on December 29, 1974, when all four band members finally signed the 'divorce' papers on the matter. Their last band activity was the band photo shoot at Tittenhurst Park on August 22, 1969, and had they decided to work together again from August 22, 1969 to December 29, 1974, the break would have simply been a hiatus. Pink Floyd never went through the disbanding process since forming in 1965 (Roger Waters formally left the bend in December 1985), that is yet to come. (talk) 18:36, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
I am familiar enough with Zep history to know that within days of (if not the day after) Bonham's death, Robert Plant read a statement saying that Led Zeppelin cannot continue to exist without him. That was an official disbanding. Pink Floyd never did this. However, I can agree on using 1965–2014 as a compromise (though again, I feel that until they formally disband, they are together). It really comes down to the meaning of "Active years". - Floydian τ ¢ 18:44, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
"Years Active" is a bit of a misnomer here, because Pink Floyd does exist as an entity (a music band) from 1965 to present, but they were certainly not active for that entire period. If we define 'being active' as recording sessions and concerts only, even that 1965-1995 block needs to be revisited (for example, there were no concerts or recording sessions in 1984 and 1985, so why is that included?). I think that defining band activity as only recording sessions and concerts is far too restrictive (and unimaginative), there are many other activities a band can do as a band. Going back to The Beatles example, August 22, 1969 photo session at Tittenhurst Park was the very last thing The Beatles did as a band, and if one was there, he or she was with The Beatles, and witnessing history. (talk) 19:17, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
My last point and I am out of this debate. This is a section from Nick Mason's book: "David would, I think, freely admit that he was the one who was the least eager to return to the fray. He seemed to have little appetite for all the ramifications of cranking up the whole machinery of touring yet again. But I did hang on to the hope that this was not necessarily the end of Pink Floyd as an active force. There were various things we had never done. We never developed the idea David had for a twist on the unplugged concept. We never released the "ambient" tapes from the Division Bell sessions. And – to date at least – I have never appeared in the "Identity Parade" round on Never Mind The Buzzcocks. After so much relative inactivity, musically speaking, I had been wondering how to end this book. However, I was unexpectedly provided with the material for a proper postscript, and shortly afterwards by the best of all possible dénouements." [he then goes into the Live 8 reunion, Wright's death, etc.] If this does not imply that there was a breakup, then it is 1965-present, but I would interpret this as quite the opposite.--Milosppf (talk) 19:24, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
There is also an interview with Gilmour, during the 'On an Island' tour period, in which he said about Pink Floyd: "I don't wish to shut any doors too firmly..." (look for it on YouTube). He never formally disbanded Pink Floyd - that we would have definitely heard about, it would have been on the news (like Waters officially leaving in December 1985). All we need to do here is find a common denominator on how to define "Years Active", and why should we include this and not that in it. (talk) 19:41, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Ok, I deleted my joke, it was a joke. I have stated my opinion and am leaving the discussion, officially.--Milosppf (talk) 22:33, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Can't tell if serious or trolling. Nick (talk) 20:15, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

I have to agree that the band's status should be 1965-Present. I know it has been debated here many times, but the band never made any official announcements that they broke up. They've made statements, individually, as to their whims regarding the band and how they might feel about touring or recording, but the last line-up to tour was Gilmour, Mason, Wright - that same line-up made an appearance on Gilmour's "On an Island" tour (even if not as "Pink Floyd"), and later played Barbican as well. I realize there are a lot of strong opinions on this subject but excepting some press release that ever stated they had officially disbanded and broken up, or whatever, I'm not sure there's a strong enough case for that. I hope, at least, that consensus moves in that direction, ultimately. --Albertrosenfield1956 (talk) 20:37, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

The problem is in the wording. It should really say "Existing: 1965-present" (or something to that effect). "Years Active" is something different, and open to debate, as witnessed by the discussion above. (talk) 21:32, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Good point, it may be fair to differentiate "existing" as opposed to "active."--Albertrosenfield1956 (talk) 22:20, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
I have no problem with the inclusion of both categories ("Existing" and "Years Active") on the front page, but there are definition issues with "Years Active" as it stands. As already stated, there were no recording sessions or concerts in 1984-1985, and that is included in the active block period 1965-1995. On the other hand, in January 1996 Pink Floyd was inducted in the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame; all three band members were present, and Pink Floyd went on stage that night and performed an acoustic version of "Wish You Were Here" - you can label that as a live performance, however that is not included. (talk) 15:38, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
I totally disagree with those who think Pink Floyd should be said to be active. They are talking about an album which is based on 20 years old sessions! No touring plans have been made. There's no new material, and they haven't toured since 1994! The lineup is also unclear: the official lineup (the ones who have the right to use the name "Pink Floyd") are the members who were touring in 1994: David Gilmour, Nick Mason and Richard Wright. In 2005, there was a reunion (the term "reunion" indicates that the band has broken up, but performs again, also pointing in the direction that the band has disbanded) also featuring Roger Waters. But was he then a member of the band at the time? Officially not, in fact yes. In 2007, there was also a de facto reunion featuring Gilmour, Mason and Wright, but they didn't use the name "Pink Floyd". In 2011, there was also a reunion, not featuring Wright, as he was deceased, and then the lineup was Waters, Gilmour, Mason (although they didn't use the name "Pink Floyd" then either). I think this question should be up to debate. And Pink Floyd are still disbanded according to most people. Te og kaker (talk) 16:06, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
While the album is based on the Division Bell sessions from 20+ years ago, Gilmour and Mason have gone in the studio and recorded more on those sessions according to McBroom. There was no official disbanding of Pink Floyd, and we can't use "according to most people" as a source that they did. Nazarino13 (talk) 17:36, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Bob Klose/Past Members section[edit]

Perhaps Bob Klose should be included as one of the founding members of Pink Floyd, as well as the Past Members section? He was a member as Pink Floyd formed in 1965, and when they started performing as The Pink Floyd and/or The Pink Floyd Sound?

Also, may I suggest re-arranging the Past Members section to put Barrett's name above Waters, alphabetically speaking?

Bob Klose left the group in July 1965, but there is little evidence that they actually used the name Pink Floyd (or a variation thereof) up to that point. They started performing again (as a four piece, without Bob Klose) in early October 1965, as The Pink Floyd Sound (it seems that Syd learned about the American band called The Tea Set during the summer, and they dropped that name). Once Klose left there was also a major musical shift, moving away from standard r'n'b covers (the real musical start of Pink Floyd). I am not entirely convinced that Bob Klose should be treated as a former member of Pink Floyd. Rather, he was a member of an earlier band that evolved into Pink Floyd. (talk) 16:25, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Could we include some section that discusses that ambiguity? Sometimes I feel articles on Wikipedia water down one opinion vs. another when it may serve readers best if the ambiguity on a point like this is discussed. --Albertrosenfield1956 (talk) 20:51, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Pink Floyd, blues rock[edit]

The claim that Pink Floyd should be classified as a blues rock band (amongst too Progressive rock, psychedelic rock, art rock) has been challenged by User:Te og kaker. Here are just a few references for the blues rock connection: Bruno MacDonald, Pink Floyd: Through the Eyes Of-- the Band, Its Fans, Friends, and Foes, Da Capo Press, 1997, and another: Paul Hegarty, Martin Halliwel, Beyond and Before: Progressive Rock since the 1960s, Bloomsbury Publishing USA, 2011. There are many more references. I will be back with More shortly. Coldcreation (talk) 02:39, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Here are a couple More:

And this is from Money (Pink Floyd song)

The form and chord progression are based on the standard twelve-bar blues in the key of B minor, with the vocal melody and nearly all of Gilmour's soloing based on the pentatonic and blues scales. (Pink Floyd: The Dark Side of the Moon (1973 Pink Floyd Music Publishers Ltd., London, England, ISBN 0-7119-1028-6 [USA ISBN 0-8256-1078-8])). Two twelve-bar verses are followed by a twenty-bar instrumental section that features a blues-style tenor saxophone solo (played by Dick Parry) along with keyboard, bass and drums and a further two-bar intro in 4/4 leading to the guitar solo, which is structured like a twelve-bar blues, but doubled to a twenty-four-bar length. Source: Guitar for the Practicing Musician magazine, Collector's Yearbook: Guitar Classics VI, Cherry Lane Music Company, Inc., 10 Midland Avenue, Port Chester, N.Y., 10573-1490. ISSN 1061-4400.

Coldcreation (talk) 02:59, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm not arguing that they made music in that genre, but they also made music within the genres hard rock, space rock, electronic music, folk rock, psychedelic folk and psychedelic pop. However, you can't mention all the genres a band operated in throughout their career. Progressive rock, psychedelic rock and art rock fits good for a general description, because those are the most prominent genres that the group operated within. Te og kaker (talk) 20:10, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
Arguably, Money is the most well-known work by the band world-wide. It is based on standard blues. Very many other works written and played by Pink Floyd are indeed blues-based. In addition to Progressive rock, psychedelic rock and art rock (and much more so than the genres you mention above) Pink Floyd is most certainly classifiable as a blues rock band. Coldcreation (talk) 11:34, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
But it wasn't just the music that had within it at its root the blues: The name Pink Floyd itself is derived from the names of two blues musicians whose blues records Barrett had in his collection, Pink Anderson and Floyd Council. Coldcreation (talk) 11:42, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
I have to agree with Te og kaker, it is not a significant enough part of their music to be singled out of mention. The main genres are well covered.--SabreBD (talk) 19:33, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

You have a right to your opinion and I respect it. But it remains just that, nothing more. You need to examine the relevant literature. Coldcreation (talk) 13:38, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 August 2014[edit]

Pink Floyd were active from 1965-1995 and then the reunions happened in 2005, and 2014-present (talk) 03:38, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Please see the above discussion Years active. Mlpearc (open channel) 05:48, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
I've cancelled the request. As Mlpearc mentioned, see Talk:Pink Floyd#Years active for an ongoing discussion regarding this statistic. We welcome your opinion as to why you believe these dates should be used, as most of us have differing opinions on the context of "active" in the case of Pink Floyd. :) Cheers, Floydian τ ¢ 05:51, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

I must add that I think the "ongoing discussion" is pretty stupid. Almost every other article describing a band that has been active and inactive at times uses a clear set of dates. In example: "1965-199X, 2014-present". I'm not going to act like one way is correct but there's conflicting opinions about something that seems pretty simple. Swim Jonse (talk) 09:03, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

I just want to point out that the public does not have clear insight into all band activity, as clearly demonstrated by the 2013-14 recording sessions for the Endless River we knew nothing about. Here is another example, showing that Pink Floyd did exist in 2008. Upon the already seriously ill Richard Wright's request, Pink Floyd wanted to play once more at an open-air festival, in particular, in Glastonbury in 2008. The organizer of that event refused Pink Floyd's request. See: (talk) 21:11, 19 August 2014 (UTC)