|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Flaming (song) article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
|WikiProject Pink Floyd||(Rated Start-class, Low-importance)|
Great, so EMI decide to hold a contest featuring this song in the question to be answered, and within minutes someone comes and vandalises the Wikipedia article for it. How low some people stoop never ceases to amaze (and disgust) me. Anyway, in case it gets vanadlised again, the song was released on the debut album, The Piper At The Gates Of Dawn, not A Saucerful of Secrets. Also, feel free to remove this warning once the contest is over (April 4th, 2012). --Sny83 (talk) 17:07, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
What the hell is this article? really short.
Anyone any idea why it's called 'Flaming'? Martyn Smith 23:06, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
I think its pretty obvious that this song is about the uses of LSD. I also think that 'flaming' might be an old term used by drug users to describe the effects of hallucenogens. I honestly have never done LSD or magic mushrooms, so I wouldn't know.
I always thought the song was about smoking marijuana ("Alone in the clouds all blue, lying on an eiderdown"), and that would certainly explain the 'flaming' part. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 15:04, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Discussion of the content of the song is wrong
1) The quoted lyric is not correct; it's lazing in the foggy dew, not flaming through the foggy dew (see lyrics here)
- Regarding (2): The lyrics strike me as a sort of "hide-and-seek in fantasyland" scenario. Yes, first he's hiding "alone in the clouds all blue", but soon enough revels in it with "Yippee! You can't see me, but I ... Can ... YOU ...!" And eventually, "Too much! I won't touch you, but Then . . . I . . . Might . . . !"
- What I'm saying is, he could be sneaking off by himself as part of a game, while never truly losing contact, or truly being alone.
- --Ben Culture (talk) 03:11, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
Amazingly unenthusiastic, extremely unhappy
Is that an appropriate statement? Wouldn't something like "...and the lead vocals were delivered by David Gilmour in an unenthusiastic manner" and "video bootlegs of the song in 1968 show Gilmour with a bored expression on his face as he sang it" be more appropriate?
- I think the whole article could do with a rewrite. It's quite POV and seems to rely too much on analysis of alternate bootleg versions; a problem also seen in other Pink Floyd articles on WP. Is there any evidence Gilmour always sang it without enthusiasm? Is it not possible that he was distracted by something on the particular occasion that was caught on video? The article implies there are multiple bootleg videos of this song being performed in more than one show, which is doubtful. And the question of whether he had a bored expression is just an opinion. I would rather see the article focus on the record. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 23:11, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
- With regards to bootleg videos, there are at lest two to my knowledge, and he looks rather bored in both. There's a DVD with various French and Belgian TV broadcasts on, so there's a chance that there's more than just those two as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattybigback (talk • contribs) 21:54, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
NO, no, no, no, no, no, NO. It is not neutral to interpret the look on David Gilmour's face. It is not encyclopaedic to guess how the singer was feeling during the performance! I removed the following, and will do so repeatedly if necessary:
Post-Barrett live incarnations of the song are often mocked by fans; its happy, surreal lyrics were entirely different from anything in Pink Floyd's setlist that year, and the lead vocals were delivered by David Gilmour in an unenthusiastic manner (video bootlegs of the song in 1968 show Gilmour with a bored expression on his face as he sang it).
None of that is appropriate -- NONE of it! As A Knight Who Says Ni pointed out, the expression you see on Gilmour's face could mean ANY NUMBER of things. Personally, I think Gilmour fucking always looks bored, whether he's singing "Flaming" or "Comfortably Numb"!
Especially offensive was the "often mocked by fans" bullshit. Where'd THIS gem of an observation come from? The contributor's favorite Internet message board?!? Pink Floyd is a WORLD-WIDE phenomenon; what a few dozen loudmouthed Americans or Brits might say about them on the Internet is statistically meaningless. With the numbers Pink Floyd move, you need a minimum of ten thousand people mocking the song to have anything significant. And we all know 10,000 haven't mocked the song.
Likewise, the "entirely different" lyrics aren't so damned different, really. What was "Julia Dream" but a bad attempt at being Syd Barrett on Roger Waters's part? This is also a matter of sheer opinion. I think the lyrics to "Flaming" are pretty typical of its era.
In summary: NO, it's all opinion, keep it OUT.
And don't anybody tell me to calm down!
- I'd like to update on this topic, as I've actually gone and found two TV performances of the song on YouTube. One of them is fairly high-quality Belgian television, and the cameras focus tightly on Gilmour's face for most of the performance.
- What I saw was a very young man, who had just joined an already-successful group, making rock-star faces, attempting to look wild and wicked, steamy, sexy, snarly, and even a little snotty. My favorite bit was right after he sang "Too much / I won't touch you, but then / I / might". I mean, it's funny! I think he picked up these facial expressions from the Rolling Stones. Gilmour was reported to have availed himself of groupies from time to time. I think he was mostly thinking about all the pussy this TV appearance was going to get him!
- Point being, there's more than one way to interpret these facial expressions. Yet another is this: Gilmour sounds just plain bad singing the song. Did he used to smoke heavily or something? I've never seen him photographed with a cigarette, but he sounds all harshed out. It's not his range, it's not his style, it's not good. Maybe he knew that all along. Not necessarily bored, but unhappy with his performance.
- The insinuations of the removed material was that this song wasn't good enough for the new Pink Floyd. I think that's exactly backwards.
- --Ben Culture (talk) 21:58, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
What does this shorthand mean? b/w - between?
For some reason, whoever wrote this article used some shorthand, which I don't think is appropriate for an article page on Wikipedia. But, anyway, the shorthand used is 'b/w' which can mean 'between' or 'black and white'. Not trying to sound stupid or anything, but I am having trouble clarifying the sentence. It is used in the following sentences in the introduction: This U.S. single was released in place of "Apples and Oranges" b/w "Paint Box" which had just recently failed to break into the U.K. charts. It was the first of two U.S. Pink Floyd singles released on the Tower Records label that were not released on a single in the U.K. The other U.S. single not released in the U.K. was "Let There Be More Light" b/w "Remember a Day" (Tower 440). Can someone clarify and fix this? I don't know if the writer is trying to say 'before' (as in the song mentioned coming before another on an album) and used the wrong abbreviation. This is not one of my pages I edit. I just came to this page as I'm listening to Pink Floyd's early music. Thanks so much. CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 08:55, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
Update: I just realized that the reference is to the B-side of one of the band's singles. Is there another way to write this? I think 'b/w' is confusing because not many people know that means "backed with". I've also been around when albums were still popular. I edited this page with the clarification. Feel free to edit if there is a better way to phrase the sentences. CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 09:19, 5 August 2010 (UTC)