Talk:Pink Floyd

Current Band Members... are Mason and Gilmour, why doesn't the page list them that way?

I have been visiting this page for years and thought it was appropriate that the page listed "Current" and "Former" band members at some point. I see the page now lists "Past Band Members," however Pink Floyd has never disbanded and there are two "Current" members, legally: Nick Mason, and David Gilmour. "Past Band Members" should include Bob Klose. It seems this is pretty common knowledge (it would be easy to provide citations proving each of these points, but that it would be subject to discussion seems a bit silly). I'm just curious why the page is lacking these distinctions. Listing when the band has been active or not is helpful but doesn't quite represent the whole story, or is at least not fully accurate. Please note: I haven't made a change on the page and I also realize this may have been discussed before. I found some discussion in the Talk archives but those are not discussions that can be edited in order to continue or bring the discussion back, which is why I am posting this here as a new discussion. Can someone help me understand why it was decided to list the band as a set of "Past Band Members" despite the fact that Pink Floyd still exists legally as a unit comprised of Mason and Gilmour? Why is Bob Klose not listed as a former band member since the only difference between him and other band members, other than longevity in the band, is that he wasn't a member when the band released its first single? I think it would be more correct to list the two current band members and to include Klose in the past members list.--Nm156shown (talk) 23:47, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

• Pink Floyd is now defunct: there are no current members. Bob Klose was never in a band called Pink Floyd, he was in a band called the Tea Set. We don't include him for the same reason that we don't include Pete Shotton as a past member of the Beatles. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:49, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Is there an official press release or statement that the band is "defunct" or otherwise disbanded? Could a link be posted and a narrative of that announcement be included in this article? Otherwise, "defunct" seems to be a misnomer for "inactive." If the article could include a statement specifically quoting something to the effect, as you (GabeMC) put it, that "Pink Floyd is now defunct," it would make the article stronger - particularly if it's to reflect your strong views about the band's history, which may be accurate, of course. As recently as 2006, Nick Mason stated the band had not disbanded yet. As recently as 2011, the band and EMI Records were issuing press releases together, e.g., "Pink Floyd and EMI Music, whose association dates from 1967, announce a comprehensive release schedule, to be launched on September 26, 2011, encompassing CDs, DVDs, Blu-ray discs, SACD, an array of digital formats, viral marketing, iPhone Apps and a brand-new single-album ‘Best Of’ collection. The legendary band, who are still one of the most successful and iconic artists of all time, recently signed an agreement with EMI which has allowed the development of a multi-format programme of packages, many containing archive material that has been collated during an extensive process between EMI and Pink Floyd for a range of media formats." (See original release here: http://www.emimusic.com/news/2011/pink-floyd-redefine-their-emi-legacy/). I'm just wondering if other editors would want to contribute an official press release on the band's disbanding - hopefully something after that 2011 press release. That said, there's another press release discussing a lawsuit that seems to imply the band (an existing entity) sued EMI in 2011 - resulting in a contract between EMI and the band that runs through 2016: http://newsok.com/pink-floyd-and-emi-settle-legal-differences/article/feed/232754. There is another press release, regarding "Dark Side of the Moon" from 2013... so any announcement they have disbanded may need to be something more recent, even: http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20130318006533/en/Rediscover-Dark-Side-Moon. If the band merely exists as a legal unit - wouldn't that legal unit have the right to perform and record again under that name, regardless of whether they have been inactive since 2005's Live 8 reunion? Maybe there should be a section explaining how the band continues to exist as a legal entity, and continue re-releasing statements and materials as a unit though they are "defunct" or disbanded, if such a press release can be added to this page, please?

I can see a debate on whether Klose was a member of the band that became Pink Floyd (which went through a number of names, as you allude to... including changes as subtle as going from "The Pink Floyd Sound" to "The Pink Floyd" and eventually "Pink Floyd," I don't think anyone is contesting your knowledge of the band, which is laudable (hey - if they had a "Barnstar" for Floyd editors... you would be a great candidate for it).--Nm156shown (talk) 01:05, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

This isn't an article about a franchise. If it were, it would be called "Pink Floyd Music Ltd." This is about the group of musicians--not the legal entity representing them. To my knowledge, nothing in the article explicitly states that the band is "defunct" or has "disbanded". It shouldn't need to be clarified. It should already be abundantly clear to anyone who reads the article that the band is inactive. Friginator (talk) 01:42, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

There's no such thing as a Pink Floyd "franchise." This group of musicians was called, is still called, and never ceased to exist as Pink Floyd. Unless you can actually cite something to the contrary it reduces Wikipedia to an unreliable source. While the article doesn't state that the band is "defunct" or "disbanded" the case has been made that there is no listing of current members - which are in fact Nick Mason and David Gilmour - on the basis of the semantics in this discussion. It would strengthen the editorial character of editors on this page and would add credibility if they clarified this point in the article. I, for my part, agree with the more factual view that the band still exists, whether one likes the form that it exists in or not. On a personal level I feel the band would have a weak case for a live performance or a studio recording as a band at this point without Richard Wright and so long as a feud with Roger Waters continues. But the legal entity (or "franchise" as you would call it) existed in the form of two members when they went into the studio in 1986: Nick Mason and David Gilmour were in fact the only members of Pink Floyd, who brought Richard Wright in on a contract basis until other legal issues allowed him to become part of the "franchise." I understand the sense of ownership those who have worked on the page for a long time feel. Unfortunately, that doesn't change the facts. That Nick Mason has stated as recently as 2006 that the band has not disbanded and the authors of this article cannot produce evidence to the contrary says a lot about the passions that go into writing these Wikipedia articles as opposed to the actual factual bases. It's a great article otherwise. But this point deserves to be reconciled. Writing a lot, and flaunting Barnstars only means you write a lot on Wikipedia. Getting it right is probably more important. If you like your article this way, and it floats your boat, than right-on, Buck Rogers! But it's a good thing there is at least a recorded discussion of this factual inaccuracy for those who wish to dig a little bit deeper. Ta Ta! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nm156shown (talk • contribs) 02:48, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

nm156shown, you're right. the sarcasm comes through but you're right. http://pinkfloydhyperbase.dk/info/faq.htm#exist: "Pink Floyd does still exist, but..." http://www.brain-damage.co.uk/miscellaneous-articles/pink-floyds-a-momentary-lapse-of-reason-25-years.html: "Nick Mason has stated that Pink Floyd never officially disbanded." a more appropriate note for the article might be that whether the band still exists or not is an "enigma." http://www.pinkfloyd.com/history/biography.php: "So is that the end of the Floyd's road? Do they still exist? Will they perform and record again? It now seems highly unlikely that the surviving members will ever convene under the name chosen by Syd Barrett, nor under it make new music. But who's to say? For at the heart of Pink Floyd, there has always been an enigma..." on 9/28/2011 rolling stone magazine recognized that "technically" david gilmour and nick mason "are still pink floyd", to which nick mason responded "I think it’s one of those things where I’m not quite ready to say it doesn’t exist anymore - http://www.rollingstone.com/music/news/nick-mason-i-cant-let-go-of-pink-floyd-20110928#ixzz2XZqGaE5W. I would say, if what is TECHNICALLY one half of the band says it still exists ms156show has the facts on their side --ElZorroChapin (talk) 04:44, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

• I smell sock trolls and sleeper accounts. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:30, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

• Gilmour says no Pink Floyd reunion. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:34, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
• "Gilmour, perhaps more forcefully than the others, and in view of the success of his recent solo album and contentment with his family lifestyle, has categorically stated that Pink Floyd is over". GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:41, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
• "The band? It's over. Reunited because of the good cause, to get over the bad relationship, and not to have regrets ... I think I've had enough. I am 60. I don't want to work much anymore. It's an important part of my life, I have had enormous satisfactions, but now it's enough. It's much more comfortable to work on my own ... The issue about Roger is irrelevant, because even without him I don't want to go on as Pink Floyd. I'm happy with my life. Playing as Pink Floyd is a business too big for me now. When you move as a band, all is gigantic, the expectations are enormous, the pressures very high. We have been asked to play one hundred gigs! I am fine as I live now. It was fantastic but now I don't feel like any more." GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:44, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
• Roger Waters Says Pink Floyd is Over. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:55, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
• For The Millionth Time, David Gilmour Says Pink Floyd Is Over. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:58, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
• "I can’t," Waters said, emphatically. "I’m having dinner with Nick tonight. He’d jump back in a heartbeat. But I left Pink Floyd for very good reasons and it was the right and proper thing to do. It was over in 1985 and it’s still over." GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:00, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
• "they have remained more than usually inactive". GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:16, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
• "There's absolutely no likelihood of (a reunion) happening at all ... It is irrelevant to me." ~ Gilmour GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:16, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

• FTR, this is already properly summarized in the article text:

Though Pink Floyd turned down a contract worth £136 million for a final tour, Waters did not rule out more performances, suggesting it ought to be for a charity event only.[222] However, Gilmour told the Associated Press that a reunion would not happen, stating: "The [Live 8] rehearsals convinced me [that] it wasn't something I wanted to be doing a lot of ... There have been all sorts of farewell moments in people's lives and careers which they have then rescinded, but I think I can fairly categorically say that there won't be a tour or an album again that I take part in. It isn't to do with animosity or anything like that. It's just ... I've been there, I've done it."[225][nb 55]

GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:20, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

• Regarding Bob Klose as a member of Pink Floyd: According to Mason, Blake and Povey, Klose quit a band called the Tea Set during the summer of 1965 and early versions of the name Pink Floyd weren't invented until later that year, during the autumn. Therefore, it would be no more appropriate to add Klose than it would be to add Keith Noble, Clive Metcalfe and Chris Dennis. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:32, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

roger waters hasn't been in the band since the 80s. unless he joined Floyd again officially, his views on whether the band disbands or not are just opinion. all the citations you provide are merely instruments proving that the band is not active they don't prove that there has been an official announcement the band has officially disbanded. i'm still gonna side with ms156show on this. rolling stone magazine's quote confirms that officially, and 'technically', there are two current members of the band. it seems that's ms156shows main point, that there is still a valid claim that the band exists (ms156show: are you still interested in chiming in?). gilmour's quotes here, as gabemc has included in his dialog just point to gilmour's lack of desire to carry on with work as a band. that's fine. but it doesn't change the fact ascertained by rolling stone mag and nick mason's response. gilmour never states the band has dissolved officially, only that he thinks there's no activity left in them. one of the problems with wikipedia, and a reason i don't really spend much time editing here is people feel too much ownership over pages to the point where they fight facts to the max (call me a sleeper if you want, dude, but no one has given anyone here authority to present a pink floyd biography with the band's blessing); most u can do is present as many facts as possible, from as many points of view as possible, as objectively as possible. this is a page that could easily fall into a waters vs gilmour battle, for example. surely, a waters fan would argue the band is done, over with and was in the 80s but it doesn't change the fact that there have been lineups following his leaving the band. that may not be the point in dispute but it illustrates an issue with wikipedia. it seems to me the most objective step would be to not get panties in a twist when someone makes a reasonable point, and especially since no one has actually altered your work on the page. calling people sleepers or whatever is defensive. at the end of the day, wikipedia is a hobby for a lot of people but it continues to be an unreliable source. it will only overcome this perception when more than four of us take these discussions on and when the dialog can move toward finding a way to reflect, if necessary, two competing interpretations. ultimately, only people that expend the same amount of time as gabemc on here will be sympathetic to accusations made of others who wish to make contributions. as i read ms156shows first entry, they seem to be polite and interested in the subject. rather than making a terse response that the band is defunct, a constructive dialog on how ms156shows legitimate point could be reflected seems in order, but that includes realizing he's referring to the infobox. i still feel they are right on that. there are current members in the band, like it or not. we will all agree the band is inactive but the rolling stone piece represents good journalism, stating a fact that matches what ms156show has made an effort to bring to light, and politely at that. the most "official" statement you can find from gilmour is on his website: there are no plans for live pink floyd shows. fair enough. but that statement is not the same as 'pink floyd will not perform again because they disbanded in the year x.' again, this is a hobby, not an officially sanctioned thing. that actually begs for greater objectivity and a fuller illustration of viewpoints.--ElZorroChapin (talk) 01:31, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

only other point i will make is that the bob klose dialog was undisputed. it seems ms156show gave you credit for making your case early in the dialog. y'all need to chillax. it's just a rock band people! — Preceding unsigned comment added by ElZorroChapin (talk • contribs) 01:34, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Holy verbosity Batman (please see WP:TLDR); reminds me of someone ... anyway, ElZorroChapin, how about you produce a reliable source that specifically states that Pink Floyd are an active band; they need not be deemed officially defunct, we present inactive bands the same as legally dissolved ones. Per Template:Infobox musical artist/doc#current_members: "This field is only relevant for active groups". GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 04:31, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

active and inactive are not the point of debate. they are inactive. read the thread here again. the point of dispute is "current" and "past" members. ms156show raises the point, which is verified by rolling stone magazine, that there are two current members in the band, regardless of activity. mason and gilmour. the burden of proof is actually on you and your article. i think it's fair that ms156show makes a case for listing current and past members accordingly. it's evident you want to see the band's current status a specific way. absent a more legitimate, formally published source this is the only way you can put what you feel is the way others should look at the band in some context. so where's your proof the band has disbanded and has no current members, and, really, where do you derive your sense of ownership of this article, robin?--ElZorroChapin (talk) 05:02, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

According to Template:Infobox musical artist/doc#current_members: Current Members: "This field is only relevant for active groups."(emphasis added) GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 05:16, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

According to Template:Infobox musical artist/doc#past_members: Past Members: "If a group is inactive, all members should be listed here, and none in the "current_members" field."(emphasis added) Any questions? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 05:19, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I've got one. How much time do you think this discussion has wasted? Friginator (talk) 05:45, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

More than enough I would say and I believe it is now over ... for the time being anyway. Makes me wonder why this is fun for them, as they are so utterly pathetic in their attempts. Though I'm sure you saw above that I relented and added art rock if for no other reason than to remove one of their time-waster tools. Feel free to revert me of course, since you know how I feel about the matter. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 05:50, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

kids, kids, relax. it's just an article about a rock band. let me take this a step beyond where nm156shown took us (nm156shown, not sure you are reading this but it you are sorry I keep butchering your screen name - just realized it's a queensryche reference - nice!). i will take this a step beyond and say that active and inactive should be the point of debate, and that in turn, "current" and "past members" should reflect a convergence of the most logical reflection of facts under the circumstances: the current members of pink floyd are still mason and gilmour and they are active if we are to look at what they have done most recently and how it is recognized by more significant and credible journalistic and media sources: "Roger Waters, David Gilmour and Nick Mason are members of Pink Floyd which recently released the 40th anniversary edition of Dark Side of the Moon." http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2013/06/23/pink-floyd-royalties-pandora-column/2447445/. "The surviving members of Pink Floyd reunited onstage tonight at London's 02 Arena during a stop on Roger Waters' Wall tour" http://www.rollingstone.com/music/news/pink-floyd-reunite-at-roger-waters-show-in-london-20110512#ixzz2XfqpBCiQ. this reunion took place within a current tour, which is about to enter its second leg, meaning this is a current tour and not some footnote from the past. i don't have questions, i am challenging your sense of entitlement here and the ability you seem to lack to ponder points you don't agree with. here's what's clear: you like to look at the current state of the band through your lens. you see the band as inactive (the preponderance of the evidence is that there is band activity, no matter how limited, even if that was not the point that was being pondered and even if i actually disagree with nm156shown on this point). remember: i am agreeing with nm156showns position on the "current members" issue and acknowledge that his view is that the activity level of the band was not his point of debate. if we want to qualify current membership based on activity, a usatoday piece that acknowledges the band as the authors of an opinion piece and as having recently re-released dsotm is evidence of activity. mason and gilmour have the legal rights to the band and behave accordingly, acknowledging publishing rights that waters retained and acting in tandem. what i see here is part of a larger problem though (see: "Wikipedia appears to have a strange undefined organisational structure, or lack thereof. It seems to be run by some Mad Max-like community stuck in the middle of the desert. Contributors have to submit to many editors that follow meticulously baroque editorial guidelines, which are imposed in an inconsistent fashion." "Wikpedia is not a community conducive to creating content. The site is open to abuse. The number of times I have had to edit my own Wikipedia page because of some blatant libel, I lose count. The site is probably edited by 14-year-olds." http://www.zdnet.com/blog/btl/wikipedia-losing-contributors-fatal-flaw-the-community-editors/54144. http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2013-03-17/business/37795767_1_wikipedia-editors-web-site-direct-dialogue). gabemc, if you're point is to make sure the article reflects your personal opinions, no one is as hellbent on this as you are because ultimately everyone looks at wikipedia content with a great deal of skepticism and few invest the time that you do in it. for that matter, no one has tried to edit your pink floyd article, there are two of us pointing out what is ultimately an error in your article. given your passion for writing and investing yourself in wikipedia, you should take the suggestions given by others a bit more seriously if there's reason to - and there is. that you feel there's no point to consider here and that you merely advocate to preserve your position on any of these issues rather than to entertain what might make the article stronger is evidence of the concerns these articles express. it's very clear you derive a great deal of personal pleasure and maybe other things from writing here. that's great that you do. but you would be a much better editor if you actually took the time to treat others with a more objective approach. you seem to be more of an author than an editor. the latter would ask questions and make sense of a point he or she might disagree with in order to reach the most objective consensus. frankly. i don't blame nm156shown for putting their time into something else, since they are clearly disinterested in this dialog at this point(you out there, nm156shown?). but seriously, go listen to some floyd and take it easy--ElZorroChapin (talk) 06:09, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

WP:TLDR. Sometimes less is more, like maybe a penny instead of a dollar? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 06:34, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

well, you can always edit on twitter.--ElZorroChapin (talk) 07:44, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Straw poll

The question here is whether the current listing of current and/or past members is reflective of the following Wikipedia guidelines:

According to Template:Infobox musical artist/doc#current_members: Current Members: "This field is only relevant for active groups."

According to Template:Infobox musical artist/doc#past_members: Past Members: "If a group is inactive, all members should be listed here, and none in the "current_members" field."

Support listing all members as past

1. Obviously, and per above. Pink Floyd is an inactive band and we should list all members in the "Past_members" field per Template:Infobox musical artist/doc. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 06:21, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
2. Per Gabe. Best, yeepsi (Talk tonight) 09:37, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
3. I completely agree with Gabe. Each member has equally played their part in making the band what they are today. Listing them in the "Past members" section" would be the correct thing to do. -- Cassianto^Talk 11:10, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
4. Pink Floyd is a past band, so all its members are past members. Rothorpe (talk) 13:20, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
5. Completely agree. Per Gabe and/or common sense. Or both. Friginator (talk) 15:59, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
6. No reliable source, at least as far as I have seen, supports the idea that the group is currently in existence. The circumstances of their dissolution are well-known publicly, so I can't see any reason to treat them as anything other than a defunct band. This would include utilising the "Past members" field of the infobox template in the way in which it's supposed to be used. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:03, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
7. I would agree, all members are past. If the band decides to re-group for another album or tour then those would be the 'current' members (and who knows who they might be). So for now all should be listed as past members in the info box which is summary, at a glance format. In the body of the article one could elaborate on who was left standing, so to speak when the band finally dissolved, broke up etc. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:45, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Support listing Mason and Gilmour as current and Waters, Wright and Barrett as past

sock. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
:# wouldn't it be more objective to state: "the question is whether the current listing of current and/or past members is reflective of these Wikipedia guidelines." but the effort is appreciated and it's definitely an improvement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ElZorroChapin (talk • contribs) 06:26, 30 June 2013 (UTC) striken !vote from confirmed sock GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:22, 30 June 2013 (UTC) :# Per me. What Zorro said. That would be more objective a question. I'll have to agree with Zorro on whether the band is active. Thanks for making this point. Who really reads this stuff anyway? It will probably stay as is until someone who is bored enough, and lacking things to do in real life, puts more time than the current authors into this article. No big deal. The world has bigger problems. And probably better resources, as Zorro points out. --Nm156shown (talk) 10:25, 30 June 2013 (UTC) striken !vote from confirmed sock GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:22, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Extended discussion

• From www.pinkfloyd.com: "So is that the end of the Floyd's road? Do they still exist? Will they perform and record again? It now seems highly unlikely that the surviving members will ever convene under the name chosen by Syd Barrett, nor under it make new music." GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 06:40, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

sock. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
the entire quote: "So is that the end of the Floyd's road? Do they still exist? Will they perform and record again? It now seems highly unlikely that the surviving members will ever convene under the name chosen by Syd Barrett, nor under it make new music. But who's to say? For at the heart of Pink Floyd, there has always been an enigma..." it's actually quoted in the thread. who's to say? nick mason said as recently as 2011 that the band has not disbanded. there is no official statement to that effect. the band just wrote an op-ed column in the USAToday with roger waters. mason and gilmour joined waters during this wall tour that is about to enter a second leg. i just wouldn't want to correct mason or speak for the band on this issue and would stick to what can be recorded as fact, otherwise, if we apply the 'who's to say', i would have to side with mason or any official statement to the contrary which seems to be the only thing that would trump mason's statement given that it most conforms with legal fact and with most recent activity.--ElZorroChapin (talk) 06:48, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

FWIW, the end of that quote is a poetical-rhetorical question, not a definitive answer. Also, FYI the enigma thing is a reference to a record company hoax related to the Division Bell tour. It was a publicity stunt to generate buzz and it absolutely does not go back further than their final album. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:50, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 4 July 2013

The opening paragraph states that "After Barrett's departure, Waters became their primary songwriter and lyricist." This is misleading at best. All band members, and especially David Gilmour and Richard Wright, contributed musically to the songwriting through the glory years of Dark Side of the Moon and Wish You Were Here. Wright's contributions waned after that, but Gilmour made significant contributions to Animals and The Wall. Likewise, Waters did eventually become the primary lyricist, but this was years after Barrett left. Throughout the LPs Ummagumma, Atom Heart Mother, Meddle, and Obscured by Clouds, Waters, Gilmour and Wright were on equal footing regarding lyrics, and each contributed complete songs written solo. There are no sources needed to confirm this. Just have a look at the writing credits on the various LPs mentioned here. For example, nobody examining the writing credits on Ummagumma or Atom Heart Mother would conclude that Waters was the primary songwriter at that time.

Gilmour wrote a grand total of three songs during the entire time he was in the band with Waters. This is backed-up by numerous sources, but I suspect you are not concerned about that. Anyway, the sources back this statement up in spades. Read Mason 2005, pp. 106–107, 160–161, 265, 278. Mason: "Once Syd left the band in 1968, the onus had fallen on Roger to write the majority of our lyrics."(p.161) Or Blake 2008, pp. 3, 9, 113, 156, 242, 279, 320, 398. Blake: "Waters ... [was] their most prolific songwriter and acknowledged ideas man".(p.3) Blake: "For nearly twenty years [1968-1985], Waters had been the group's dominate songwriter, devising the original concepts ... [and] writing the bulk of the band's lyrics".(p.9) GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:26, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Dear GabeMc, there's an important difference between writing the lyrics for a song and writing music. Roger Waters wrote almost all the lyrics for every album and this declares why he is always mentioned in the credits. But David Gilmour has written or co-written the music to a lot of songs: The Narrow Way, Fat Old Sun, Childhood's End, Wish You Were Here, the guitar parts of most of the songs such as Shine On You Crazy Diamond, Comfortably Numb, Young Lust, Run Like Hell etc. Gilmour was surely one of the main songwriters in the band. Roger Waters was the creative genius of the band, but the real talented musicians in the band were Gilmour and Wright. Changing the opening paragraph into "Waters became their primary lyricist" seems more accurate to me.Christo jones (talk) 20:00, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Fine by me. Cheers! GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:14, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Just a grammar correction

I leave the debate about who should be named, or not named, as in the band whenever. All I have is a simple change of grammar in the original article.

In Paragraph Two it states, beginning near the end of Line 3:

   "...After Barrett's departure, Waters became the band's primary lyricist and by the mid-1970s, their dominate songwriter..."

Dominate is a VERB. The sentence calls for an ADJECTIVE and the proper form is: dominant

The segment should read:

   "...After Barrett's departure, Waters became the band's primary lyricist and by the mid-1970s, their dominant songwriter..." 

Someone with editing powers should correct this and, then, the existing debate can rage on.

thejazzmonger

Barbican 2006 concert - the last ever Pink Floys show

Sorry, new to this wiki thing (well altered something 6 years ago but forgotten how to change things now!). Anyway, why is there no mention of the Barbican 2006 gig? Very strange not to mention this considering it was their final ever Pink Floyd public show!Riddleben (talk) 20:56, 28 July 2013 (UTC)