Talk:The Division Bell

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Albums, an attempt at building a useful resource on recordings from a variety of genres. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.

	This Pink Floyd-related article is within the scope of WikiProject Pink Floyd, a collaborative effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Pink Floyd, their members, associates, albums and songs. You can help! Visit the project page, discuss an article at the project talk-page, or even join us!
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.)
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.

 

Who did the speech synthesiser on 'Keep talking'? 207.189.98.44 00:13, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Its not a sythesizer, its Professor Steven Hawkings voice. I'll add that to the page. - Fizscy46 00:37, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)

The text concerning Stephen Hawking isn't quite correct. He's more of a theoretical physicist than mathematician and he speaks in the outro and between verses on 'Keep Talking'. Sorry to note this here, I couldn't think of a good way to phrase the latter point. - 82.41.26.114 02:40, 31 Aug 2005 (UTC)

Contents 1 Cluster One/Publius Enigma 2 Roger Waters Interpretation 3 Hawking? 4 Publius Enigma

[edit] Cluster One/Publius Enigma

Does anyone know in which frequency range (ELF/VLF/ULF) the crunching noises at the beginning of Cluster One are actually in? It might be a neat thing to have on both pages.

Also, I think it might be appropriate to have a little blurb about the Publius Enigma bit that links to the actual article page, because it was a major thing revolving around this album. Anyone want to write that up before I take a (rather poor) stab at it? 24.138.53.20 03:36, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Query about "Current status of the Enigma". This article cites it as having been "apparently solved within a few years" but the article on the Enigma article itself says it remains unsolved. I'm unsure as to which is correct, having no direct knowledge of the events, but I thought this should be brought to attention. I intend to post a similar message on the talk of the article for the Publius Enigma. Gamesmaster 18:59, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Roger Waters Interpretation

Why the hostility toward adding a comment about the (pretty obvious to me) interpretation that the lyrics were written about Roger Waters? You may disagree that the album is about their relationship, but I find it puzzling that any reference at all to it is automatically deleted by various fans.

In my second edit, I acknowledged that some people think it's not correct. So what's the problem? Should people not be allowed to make up their own mind? Nairebis 21:16, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

It is a biased opinion with no official source. As I see it, it violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view. I remember reading a David Gilmour interview in a guitar magazine some years ago where he stated that Division Bell was about miscommunication issues (and also talked about how Douglas Adams picked the album title, and other information about the album). I will try to locate the reference (or maybe some online interview with him) and, if I find it, I'll add a paragraph mentioning the "official" intention of the album. From all that I know about Gilmour, Waters and Pink Floyd, Gilmour would not be so childish to "offend" Roger and use a Pink Floyd album to fuel their differences, so I find your interpretation very unlikely. I suggest you only place it in the article if you have a citable source from Pink Floyd (musicians, producers). Fan opinions are clearly non-NPOV. Fbergo 22:53, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Most lyrical interpretations are "biased opinions with no official source", unless the artist specifically wants to make his/her intentions known. An illustration of this is the song American Pie. Don McLean has specifically refused to offer interpretations of his lyrics, yet that doesn't stop fans from offering interpretations. If you view the American Pie wikipedia entry on the song, you will note there are opinions offered on the lyrics.

I think it's a little silly to have a policy that there shall be absolutely no lyrical interpretation on any song or album unless it's specifically cited by the artist.

As for whether Gilmour would reveal his personal feelings in an album, well, they've already discussed their feelings about Syd Barrett. Unless you're Gilmour in disguise, I think it's pretty presumptuous to speak for him on what he would or wouldn't do, especially with the notoriously bad feelings among everyone. Nairebis 23:30, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

• My concern is about turning album articles into long sequnces of speculations. Here are some bits taken from Gilmour interviews, where he states that while there are a couple of possible references to Waters, the album isn't an allegory to the split. Here are: a Transcription of the entire interview [Interview] and comments about the intention of the album [Division Bell Concept] and I quote a couple of relevant question and answer pairs:

Interviewer: The album could easily be interpreted as an allegory about the split with Roger.

David Gilmour: I don't think that it is. There are a couple of hinted mentions that could or could not have something to do with him. But all that I read from people working out what they think it's about has been either fairly or wildly inaccurate. I enjoy that. I'm quite happy for people to interpret it any way they like. But maybe a note of caution should be sounded because you can read too much into it. 'A Great Day for Freedom,' for example, has got nothing to do with Roger or his 'wall.' It just doesn't. What else can I say?"

Interviewer: In "High Hopes", the lyric suggests that the seeds of division were planted in Floyd's early days.

David Gilmour: I think it's more about my early days and leaving my hometown behind. There is an enormous amount of stuff about communication or lack of communication on the whole album. But that's accidental. We started finding there were one or two songs like that, and other songs emerged that had it within them. It seemed to take over the album at some point and dominate the thinking.

Gilmour is also reported to have said (second link above) "I suppose you could say that, you know, there's a, a theme throughout the album which involves communication. And um, all, pretty much, all the songs are connected to the theme of communication, in some way or another.".

Since Gilmour specifically denies that the album is an allegory to Waters or to the split, maybe we should add a note to the article along the lines of "Despite some interpretations from fans that take this album as an allegory to the estrangement between Roger Waters and the rest of the band, Gilmour mentions communication as its central theme and denies the allegory intention, except for 'a couple of hinted mentions' (external link to interview, cited as a source)." I'll edit the article tomorrow if no one is against the proposed note. Fbergo 07:43, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the quotes; that sheds some light on the subject. To be fair, Gilmour does say that there are "hinted mentions", which at least argues that there is some validity to the interpretation, if not a central theme. If the song "What do you want from me" (one line of which says, "Sell your soul for complete control") doesn't refer to Waters, then Gilmour at least had to know that he was skating pretty close. [though, bizarrely, your second page's guy seems to think it's referring to the artist/audience gulf, which seemed pretty farfetched to me]

So perhaps there's a reasonable middle ground where it's stated that the album is not "at heart" about the breakup, but that Gilmour admits to some hidden references. Nairebis 05:17, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Edit done, sorry for the delay. Fbergo 12:12, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Hawking?

Does anybody know how they came to get Stephen Hawking to be on the album? Did they just ask him and he said yes, or did they know someone who knew him? Would be interesting if anyone had some info on this.

It says in the article it is sampled from a BT Telephone advert, rather than getting Hawking to do the lyrics himself specially. Apart from that, not a clue, sunshine--Cowards 16:15, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I seem to remember that it was actually the other way around, and remember a Stephen Hawking interview from the time where he was saying how thrilled he was to be on the album - I think that BT used the same text from Hawking subsequent to the release of the album, but will try to find evidence for this. Ndaisley 09:45, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Publius Enigma

Who wrote that snipit about the Publius Enigma, and can anyone confirm it? I've read that the thing was organized by an EMI employee... but I think that story about him/her working for the Government is hogwash.. needs a citation or confirmation.

65.223.239.66 23:00, 12 December 2006 (UTC)edgood1