Talk:Pink Floyd

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Featured article star 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. If you can update or improve it, please do.
Main Page trophy

This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on May 9, 2006.
This article was the featured article of the Music Portal in July 2006.
Maintained The following users are actively contributing to this topic and may be able to help with questions about verification and sources:
dharmabum (talk • contribs)
Pink Floyd 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.
This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and the next release version of Wikipedia. This Arts article has been rated FA-Class on the assessment scale.
Archive

Archives
  1. February 2004-February 2006
  2. February 2006 - May 2006
  3. May 2006 - July 2006
  4. July 2006 - December 2006

Contents

[edit] Members and Former Members of Pink Floyd

In the infobox, I don't feel that we should list the years of membership for each Pink Floyd member. That information is listed at the end of the article, and since that is the case, there is no need to list the same information twice. Tkd73 14:01, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Shouldn't Roger Waters be listed as either a current member of the band since he was in the band the last time they played?--Countertop 23:33, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

No I don't think so, he was more of a guest performer than part of the band. It would be nice for him to be officially declared as part of the band if they ever did play more shows though.... ( Davehard 13:47, 20 January 2007 (UTC) )

Bob Klose was never a member of Pink Floyd. He was a member of the Screaming Abdabs, a band prior to The Floyd with Syd, Roger, Nick and Rick in it.

He was, at the very least, in Tea Set, the band which actually became The Pink Floyd Sound and later just Pink Floyd. It appears to me that he was probably still involved after at least the first name change. And by the way, Syd was not in the Abdabs / Sigma Six / whatever name they happened to be using that week; he didn't join until shortly after Waters, Klose, Mason and Wright reformed as Tea Set. PurplePlatypus 05:41, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Bob Klose was indeed a part of Pink Floyd when they were known as "The Pink Floyd Sound" in 1965. This has already been documented. If you want to begin from the time Pink Floyd began as an official recording act, then stick with 1967 as that is the year they signed to EMI and released their first single.

[edit] American point of view

I find it somewhat disconcerting that the vast majority of this article is drawn from an American point of view, whereas Floyd were far more popular in Britain. This, coupled with the fact that they're a British band to begin with, is a little irritating. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.153.76.176 (talk) 18:18, 12 January 2007 (UTC).

Is it ? That should be changed. What specifically are you thinking of, though ? -- Beardo 20:31, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

If this person is still paying attention, I too would like more specifics, because as someone who is originally neither American nor British, I don't see it at all. Also, it's hard to imagine them being more popular than they are in the US. In fact, they're something like the sixth highest-selling act ever in the US; don't they rank, if anything, a bit lower in the UK? PurplePlatypus 05:44, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes they rank lower in the U.K quite bizzarely. The Wall and Dark side failed to reach number one in Britain while in America they bothed reached number one. The bands more avante garde work was pratically ignored at the time in America, for example A Saucerful of Secrets didnt even chart! The U.S loves English quirky music, while Britons themselves are not always keen on it - some find it indulgent. - Ummagumma23 15:32 27 February 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Album covers

I'm afraid the use of the album covers as in this article at present seems to contravene the fair use provisions of the images. --Guinnog 18:12, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

What parts of fair use do you believe were breached with the inclusion of these images ? --Kind Regards - Heligoland 22:18, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Hi. It came up at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions#Fair use of album covers in band articles a few days ago. The boilerplate text in the copyright tag reads:
"This image is of a cover of an audio recording, and the copyright for it is most likely owned by either the publisher of the album or the artist(s) which produced the recording or cover artwork in question. It is believed that the use of low-resolution images of such covers
  • solely to illustrate the audio recording in question..."
I was quite surprised as a good few band articles use the images this way. However, as I understand it they cannot remain. I came here because someone just tried to add similar cover images to The Who's article, citing this one as a precedent. I hope that explains where I'm coming from here. Best wishes, --Guinnog 22:29, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
It's a bit of a grey area, I would say, certainly the images do make the article look nice, but it could be argued they also provide a reference for people to know which album is which, and if commentary was placed into the thumbnail caption, it could be argued they are being commented on and not simply being used to decorate the article. I'd certainly be interested in hearing your thoughts on the matter however. I was expecting your reason for removal to have been lack of fair use rationale which I'm disappointed to see still hasn't been added to those images (I'll probably end up doing it myself). --Kind Regards - Heligoland 23:22, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Oops I hadn't checked! I was relying on evidence from my previous discussion of this. I have mixed feelings; I think judicious use of them would be nice, but I'm not keen on seeing them as a routine decoration on every band's article. On the other hand, there is considerable commentary and analysis of the albums in this particular article - does that make them fair use here? I'd say on balance no, and have sought wider comment and that seems to be the way of it. Maybe the answer would be to put the detailed description of the albums into the album articles alone, which is where the images are unambiguously fair use in. The album covers are beautiful and my removal of them is done regretfully; I'm just thinking of the intellectual property rights of the copyright holders who made them. --Guinnog 01:10, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

You can re-add the album covers now "Provided that the content of the albums is discussed and the covers aren't sheerly used as a decoration, then using albums in band articles is acceptable. See recently promoted FAs Pixies or Megadeth." (Quoted from Teemu08 - Talk:Queen (band)) — miketm - Queen WikiProject - 19:00, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Anything else to add?

Is there anything else we could possibly add to this article? I dont think there is, and if that is the case maybe we should stop editing it. Im not sure this article can be improved at all any more, because theres nothing else to add - Ummagumma23 27 January 2007.

There is this one small thing. The article says "David Gilmour is known to have referred to the group as "The Pink Floyd" as late as 1984, though they never released any recordings under that name." The latter is incorrect, I think. I have a copy of the "More" album that mentions on the front "played and composed by the pink floyd", and at the back again "produced by the pink floyd". I will not make any changes myself at the article, as I am new to Wikipedia (and not a Pink Floyd expert at all), maybe somebody else would want to make a move? - Donald Weber 14:35, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

There is another small thing. Ref to 1.4 "Waters led era 1976-85" mention is made to the band's "parlous financial state". There's nowt in the article explaining why these very rich people suddenly found themselves not very rich. Shouldn't there be a brief explanation? Something to do with a dodgy accountant, wasn't it? - Bunty and Reggie 5th March 2007

[edit] covers???

i think we should have a section in the artical for covers. my real reason for writing tho is i would like to find out wat bands have done covers of pink floyd songs, and what songs were they. should this be in a seperate artical?? or not?? - Fleta000

This information is in the trivia section for Pink Floyd, Pink_Floyd_trivia#Tributes. ErleGrey 23:03, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that, y isnt it one artical considering they are both about pink floyd. consider a real encyclopedia. they dont have a main artical under "P" for pink floyd, then a seperate one under "T" for trivia pink floyd. so y should wiki have the same. wat are the advanteges/disadvanteges of haveing seperate articals - Fleta000

It would just have been too long. Pink Floyd is a featured article, so it is more important for the article not to be overly complex. The trivia article is on the Pink Floyd template, so it is linked easily.ErleGrey 14:36, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] DVD and Video

I think that a DVD and Video section is worthy for Floyd's discography summary on this article to outline the fact they have DVDs aswell as albums and singles but whenever someone has added it, it gets removed. What does everybody think? Davehard 17:37, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

A full list is available in the main discography article. Anyway, I wish to see here more opinions.--Dr. Who 12:56, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
As I was the last to add the Pink Floyd DVD's to the list, I guess I'm obliged to agree with you. Not all Pink Floyd Videos should be included, but the two essential ones (Pompeii and The Wall) should be included with an extended list in the discography site. Pompeii and The Wall are two of the major Pink Floyd pieces. I consider them both to be more important pieces of works than the soundtrack albums that is on the main page at the moment. Coq Rouge 13:45, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Ok, I agree, let's include Pompeii & The Wall. You dislike that More and OBC are here? I strongly disagree with that, they are full albums, most of their pieces had their own life in live performances before the soundtrack-albums were released. I've never watched those films, but it is reported that their soundtracks are slighly different from the 2 LP. Zabriskie Point's tracks are commissioned works.--Dr. Who 13:59, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
I do not dislike the fact that More and OBC are there, but I consider Pompeii and The Wall to be as important in the history of Pink Floyd. The other videos are not essential and should just be in the discography, but Pompeii and The Wall are essential. I'll dig up my previous added DVD list and add it if noone beat me to it. Coq Rouge 14:07, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
If someone should remove, please re-add again. We have reached "consensus" here (3 editors). Add (see discussion) to the edit summary.--Dr. Who 14:11, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Another user has added "La Carrera Panamericana". It's ok, i believe, let's do not remove it.Dr. Who 16:40, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pink Floyd asteroid

Could we consider removing the rather aimless Pink floyd asteroid from the info box. Surely its not really related to pink floyd in any way, and is just an excuse to put something else in that box. A type of flower is named after the band too - is that going to be put in as well? Putting in support artists in the info box would to me make more sense than putting in an asteroid or even a flower for that matter. Does anyone agree with me? Ummagumma23 14th February 2007.

Infoboxes are overabused. In this case imho the asteroid and the flower must be mentioned elsewhere, maybe in the trivia article only. --Dr. Who 16:28, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Btw, I can't see any asteroid here. Some clues about this?--Dr. Who 22:47, 14 February 2007 (UTC) (just kidding here, :P )
The asterios is "19367 Pink Floyd", and I agree that it be moved to the trivia section. I also would propose the moving of "Publius Enigma" and "Dark Side of the Rainbow" be moved to the trivia section, and the Live 8 link be deleted from the infobox completely, as it's not exactly intimately related to Pink Floyd.ErleGrey 23:17, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Ok, later I will create a page within WP:Pink Floyd listing every article relevant to the PF "world". Anw, such talks belong to their most appropriate page [1].--

Dr. Who 12:54, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The hopes of Storm Thorgerson

In the final section of the article it mentions that Storm Thorgerson hoped that the band "Will do something" for its 40th anniversary. Is this really at all relevant? Since when has Storm Thorgerson triggered events in the Floyd world - he's just another fan whose hope for some kind of renunion has not yet been extinguished. (I know he's their cover designer but still). Does his opinion count that much? Also the red link for the fansite A Fleeting Glimpse should be removed - Wikipedia would never allow it - Ummagumma23 21:31 22nd February 2007.

[edit] no bob close wasnt in pink floyd

bob close was never in pink floyd I have read the biography called insideout written by nick mason THE DRUMMER! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.134.226.84 (talk) 23:54, 25 February 2007 (UTC).

I agree that no-one named Bob Close was in the band. Bob Klose, on the other hand...
Okay, a bit more seriously. I've read Mason too, as, I would hope, has anyone contributing to this article in any serious way. Also Schaffner's and Dallas' books and the relevant bits of several others. While technically he does not seem to have been around when they were called Pink Floyd, Mason makes it abundantly clear that he was in Tea Set - the same band, modulo a name change.
That's if Mason is correct. You do realize that one reason his book was delayed for about ten years after its originally anticipated release date was the huge number of errors in the early drafts, right? I realize that sounds odd given that he was there, but truth is stranger than fiction sometimes. PurplePlatypus 01:18, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes the book was delayed. The other band members disagreed with much that he had written which is why it wasnt released until 2004 when it should have been released in about 1996. Not everything in that book is completly true, all the band are a little bit confused about the past. In fact archivists and collectors are often more reliable sources for information, Mason in fact went to many of thme asking for help with events etc. Bob Klose was in The Pink Floyd i think, he certainly gets a mention in many Floyd related texts. Ironically Bob Klose was actually one of the most talented musicians in the band - Ummagumma23 15:21 27 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rock and Roll Hall of Fame 1996

Roger Waters did not attend the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame introduction in 1996. So please, do not change this. He did attend by satelite in 2006, but not in 1996. Coq Rouge 10:11, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Genres

According to the edit by Special:Contributions/156.34.232.31 (156.34.232.31) there is an consensus on the genres that Pink Floyd belong to. I have yet to find anything on these talkpages about this, but it is probably something we should have.

The genres that are pretty obvious belonging to Pink Floyd are Psychedelic rock and Progressive rock. They are also categorized as Hard Rock (even though I can't see this connection (maybe a couple of songs, but not as a general for the band)). But the "wars" when it get to Pink Floyd are the Art Rock/Electronic music. Personally, I have NEVER thought of PF as playing electronic music. They may have influenced many persons in the electronic music genre with their extensive use of electronic instruments, but they are basically a rock band that have an ocational electronic song.

So in my opinion the Psychedelic rock, Progressive rock, Art Rock and Hard Rock (even though I feel that this last one should be away to. Coq Rouge 09:47, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Hard rock has nothing to do here in my opinion. I don't know where it come from. I don't have any problem with electronic music being one of the genres, but I think there shouldn't be to many genres. I think it's enough with Psychedelic rock, Progressive rock and maybe Art rock. Floyd(Norway) 09:06, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Pink Floyd are pretty unique and so it's awfully hard to classify them at all. The most similar band I can think of is Porcupine Tree and one sees the same debates arise over them, so they're no help as a reference point. I personally don't think Floyd even qualify as prog, much less any of the other genres mentioned here (except psychedelic, and that only in the early days). If you compare Floyd directly to the best-known clear examples of any of the listed genres, they don't have much in common with them, not even the prog ones (but then, those don't tend to have much in common with each other either). PurplePlatypus 20:21, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
I am the user that put here Electronic music, indeed there are some songs (not more than 3 or 4) that can be seen as "pure" electronic music and 3 or 4 show hard rock features; Atom Heart Mother is a Symphonyc rock suite, I hope we agree on this. The term progressive rock is the most inclusive, but we are free to issue a poll, or quote just "prog" in this main article and mention different terms for each song.--Doktor Who 17:47, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
I think you can say the songs Not Now John and possibly In The Flesh? are Hard Rock, but it really only works with maybe one or two other songs, so Hard Rock really shouldn't be listed as genre. Plus, maybe I'm just crazy, but Welcome to the Machine sounds like Electronic (around the end), but, just like Hard Rock, only one or two other songs work with that genre and so it shouldn't be listed. Art Rock, Progressive Rock, and Psychedelic Rock should be the only listed genres in my opinion.--ASDFGHJKL=Greatest Person Ever+Coolest Person Ever

20:50, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Pink Floyd's hard rock:

The Nile Song
Ibiza Bar
Sheep (loosely...)
In the Flesh?
Another Brick in the Wall part 3
Young Lust
Run Like Hell (loosely...)
Not Now John (loosely...)
by Doktor Who 21:08, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Another song that's Hard Rock is One of These Days. Plus, Not Now John is Hard Rock in my opinion. --ASDFGHJKL=Greatest Person Ever+Coolest Person Ever 19:44, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Pink floyd are a progressive rock band, because they fuse together a whole host of different styles and genres. They are certainly not hard rock, in fact i would suggest that they are the opposite of hard rock. Like many bands of the late 60s and early 70s, Pink Floyd moved from being a psychedelic band to being a progressive rock band - Ummagumma23 23:43, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Why the opposite? Some works by Deep Purple and Led Zeppelin overlap styles of progressive rock, they often crossed the border between the two genres. None can have any doubts that the list of songs that I provided above is nearer to hard rock than prog, nevertheless, if we should link PF with only one genre, of course prog rock is the most appropriate. We are still free to label each song according to its real structure and style, I guess, right? I am open to any choice, unless someone will write here Ambient, cos I would certainly oppose.Doktor Who 02:34, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Pink Floyd have produced a whole variety of different types of song. Some of their stuff is what you might call space rock, there is also psychedelic rock and pop, Hard rock like whats listed above, electronic (quicksilver for example), ambient (signs of life) and normal rock and roll. In the early days they did quite a bit of pastoral and folk peices and Rick Wright created a cod classical peice on Ummagumma entitled Sysyphus parts 1-4. Their music also includes sound collages and strange noises and effects. They have also produced what could only be described as art rock in the Final Cut, and they have even created a bizarre operatic peice for The Wall called The Trial. Their music is so eclectic that it could be listed under several different rock genres and prehaps they defie tradtional classification because of this variety in music styles. Ummagumma23 09:50, 1 April 2007 (UTC).
  • Pink Floyds ambient rock;

Cluster one
Signs of life
Quicksilver
Parts of Shine on you crazy diamond
by Ummagumma23 1 April 2007 (UTC)


Never heard this term, ambient rock, it's an oxymoron; let's keep things straight: the word "ambient" refers to a kind of background-atmospheric music that can be either ignored or actively listened to. It is a functional definition, and none can see how Pink Floyd deep evocative sounds can be ignored. From a technical point of a view, also, ambient music features low dynamics, that means that every instrumental has a costant volume along its duration. Possibly Quicksilver only, if listened from its original vinyle release, satisfies these features. Since early 1990s a sort of "cabal" (haha, funny) , despite every copyright issues and laws, and despite any minimal sense of semeiotic, is obsessed with the term Ambient overabusing its use, almost giving that fucking word a sense of mistic and divine. If this inappropriate philosophy should prevail even on this site, please let me know, so that I will stop contributing to music topics, and I'll continue my honest search of truth elsewhere.Doktor Who 11:35, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
You have to admit though, both Cluster one and Signs of life are instrumentals which relie heavily on an ambient atmosphere in order to create an opening mood. Their music is quite soundtrackish, especially some of the longer pieces like A Saucerful of Secrets and Careful with that axe, Eugene. (For example Listen to the middle section of Echoes - its really just a load of ambient noises made in order to fill the song out). Ambient rock was perhaps a bad definition, and believe me their music can be ignored, just listen to the instrumentals on the More soundtrack, Quicksilver is enough to make anyone fall asleep - Ummagumma23 15:16 1 April 2007 (UTC).
Ehehe, you are right, Quicksilver is an ambient piece, but the others are atmospheric music- space music. When you can hear the beats and the drumming, it's space rock; incidental music and ambient music are 2 different types of background music (why are you not logged? :( apparently you are an anon).Doktor Who 15:34, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Credits

I have just noticed that someone has changed the layout of the credits section in the Meddle album article. Could we decide on a definitive layout for every album credit section, so that some sort of continuity can be maintained across the whole Pink Floyd album project. Should every credit section look like the one found in the Meddle article? Can i have your opinions please. - Ummagumma23 17:49 2 April 2007 (UTC).

The Wikiproject PF 's talk page is the most appropriate place where we can discuss such general topics and also issue a debate if needed. Or we can also definitely delete that project.--Doktor Who 17:20, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Ok ive moved this topic over to that talk page - Ummagumma23 20:03 2 April 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Editors

I really wish that unregistered users wouldnt keep editing this page - its getting on my nerves. This article should be afforded semi-protected status - Ummagumma23 4 April 2007 (UTC).

What is happening? what are they doing? I would nominate it for protection.--Doktor Who 12:24, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
My argument is that the article doesnt need anymore editing done to it - its an FA class article why should it need altering? Wikipedia has recognised it as one of the best products of the community shouldnt we too? (Although i have to admit some of this article does sounds a bit POV) - Ummagumma23 13:06 5 April (UTC).
Semi protection is used for vandalism. You cant stop the article being edited by people trying to imporove it and even if a really good article it can always be improved (esp if it has POV problems) and the idea thaty no mopre editing is needed is completely contrary to the wikipedia ethos, SqueakBox 14:19, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Articles shouldn't be locked just because the article has FA status; it can be improved significantly even when this status has been achieved, and doing so would be against the general policy that Wikipedia adheres to.

--FrasierC 22:51, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

It gets edited constantly though - its stupid. I cant believe there hasnt been edit dispusts before now - Ummagumma23 13:07 6 April 2007 (UTC).
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../p/i/n/Talk%7EPink_Floyd_7829.html"