George Starostin's Reviews




Mike DeFabio <> (18.08.99)

It's really not that better than any other of their really good albums. It's AMAZINGLY FANTASTICALLY GREAT, but so is Wish You Were Here, and Animals, and the Wall. Why this stands out is beyond me. Their first truly GREAT album, but there were great albums after this one too.

But if you don't like this album I'LL KILL YOU!

Rich Bunnell <> (20.08.99)

Strange how this one has only garnered one reader comment so far but that's just one of those mysteries which is so common on the net these days. I was surprised to find that you'd heightened your opinion of this album after your bashing of it on Mark's site, and I suppose I'd give it a 9 also-- It's a fine album, once you get over the fact that it basically only has four songs on it ('Time', 'Money', 'Us And Them', 'Brain Damage') and the fact that "Money" is the only one of those four that stands out from the bombast. And all of the songs are overplayed, but that's a given. Everything else like "The Great Gig In The Sky" and "On The Run" pretty much just add texture to the songs, much like a more well-done version of Fragile by Yes--four normal songs, five shorter, less-filling pieces to round things out. A very well-made album, but not one I'd put on very often unless I was tired or watching the Wizard Of Oz or something.

As for the cliche about the album which I've seen a great number of times "It's basically a bunch of simple melodies covered by glitzy production!" that's really the POINT! What does it matter if the melodies are simple without the production techniques? The techniques are THERE, and with them the songs sound great! That's why Floyd didn't release an album with nothing but the melodies---because it would SUCK! Now that I've stomped out that cliche, I will now end this reader comment and go back to my exciting normal web browsing. Blah.

Marco Ursi <> (23.08.99)

This is the only Pink Floyd album I own so I'm judging this record against itself. But I think this deserves a 10. It's the most relaxing record I own. The songs are so smooth and flow so well into each other. Where there are melodies, they are great. The effects are used in a tasteful manner and the lyrics are simple but meaningful, just the way I like them.

Shor Bowman <> (23.01.2000)

Dark Side of the Moon is an album that I bought at a K-Mart with absolutely no idea of how it would sound. I bought it largely out of curiosity and because I had been so many places on the Net that had rated it as the best rock album of all time.

In retrospect, this album, in my book, receives a 9, which coincidentally is what you gave it (hmmm). "Breathe" is awesome--"On The Run" is great, too--and though it consists largely of noise, IT IS A SONG, GEORGE (it's got a cymbal in it, and a synth, doesn't it?). "Time" is excellent, and "Great Gig" is also superb. I must say that "Money" rocks too--I don't care if the solos are calculated down to the nanosecond, they give me a rush. "Us and Them" is beauty, and "Any Colour You Like" puts me on cloud nine (what's so wrong with it). I never listen to the last two songs, my opinion, they fit the album in theme and not in sound. Put that crap on The Final Cut. If not for these failures, I would have given it a ten, although I can't see how it's sold so many copies! It seems to me to be a very esoteric album with particularly esoteric songs that wouldn't appeal to most of the public. Oh well. Maybe "Money" did it all. My CD has scratches on it I listen to it so much. Great album--but at the same time a little bewildering...

Richard C. Dickison <> (25.01.2000)

Pink Floyd, Dark Side Of The Moon, K-Mart, I love these reader comments.

Very appropriate, well what can I add, you take every innovation made in rock up to this point, crumble it up, laquer it in the studio within an inch of it's life, take it all deadly serious and whaalaa.

I still regard the best part of this album to be Clare Tory, marvelous, beautiful, let's give these guys points for giving us her vocals.

I put this album on very infrequently, and for good reason, why listen to someone summing up innovation? I rather hear real innovation. Flawless studio tricks aside. This is the first really SLICK album I ever heard, I mean slick, slick, slick, you can't make anything stick to this one.

A true 10 out of 10, Teflon Non-Stick, Plastic as the day is long, Classic.

Glenn Wiener <> (04.02.2000)

I am not the biggest Pink Floyd fan on the plannet. I admire their creativity but find their music takes me to a place that is in alien territory. This is not always the most pleasant experience when lsitening to music. However, I find this to be a beautifully arranged album detailing the hustle and bustle of the recording industry. I even appreciate the instrumental forays such as 'Any Color That You Like'. 'Time' is my personal favorite with the ringing clocks, haunting percussion enhanced footsteps and hard hitting lyrics and vocals. 'The Great Gig In The Sky' has many different shifts in moods and tones that make it worthy. I don't even notice that all the vocals are are varieating shreiks. Its the emotions that permeate from the piece that speak to me. However, the lyrics on the other songs are quite effective and this should be an integral aprt of most record collections.

Bob Josef <> (12.02.2000)

This, for me, is one of those "quantum leap" albums. By that I mean, the group makes such a drastic leap in sound that it almost doesn't sound like the group that recorded the previous album or two. Who's Next is one of those albums -- who could have predicted that after Tommy and Live at Leeds? And this is another one.

Unlike the Who, though, Pink didn't make great strides in musicianship, although "Any Colour You Like" is their best played instrumental yet. The advances come in the incredibly intricate production -- before, even at their best, the albums were kind of murky. Here, there's a lot of attention paid to tiny sonic details, no doubt thanks to Alan Parsons' engineering. And, of course, the lyrics, which are halfway between total prog abstraction and straightforward rock lyrics. Which makes them lyrics people could identify with (unlike, say, A Passion Play.) The lyrics were a BIG reason why this album went over so hugely, and why it has dated far less than a lot of other prog albums.

Of course, they sacrificed a sense of humor for all this. "Money" could be considered a humorous song, but I find it just drips with cynicism. Which is why (aside from the fact that it still gets endless radio play), the album, and Floyd in general, don't spin constantly in my CD player -- cynics and depressed people aren't a whole lot of fun to hang around with.

Despite the fact that the Roger's lyrics are at the center, the album certainly gives the impression that the group is still working as a unit. And it was the last time -- you can chart the changes in the group by looking at the songwriting credits on the following albums -- as someone drops out of the credits, one by one, his influence on the sound decreases, and Roger comes more to the fore.

<> (30.04.2000)

I hate Pink Floyd but this album is one of my favorite albums. It's like a trip into a dark world. it's really awesome when you listen to it in pitch black darkness. 'Brain Damage' is such a cool song and I love all the shouts and subtle messages that give this album the paranoid feel. The only thing that sucks is 'Money'. It should either be replaced or thrown out. It truly messes up the album because it doesn't fit. It's not a terrible song but it's really more of a single that would belong on an album that was less of a "show," like a greatest hits. But otherwise its a crazy trip that's both scary and satisfying.

Ben Greenstein <> (08.06.2000)

Soft rock. I find it hilarious that no one else realizes that that's all this album is. The saxophones and girl backing singers were the big tipoff for me - but, when you look closer, it's in all of the songs - Steely Dannish loungey chords and interesting, but not necessarily fascinating, melodies. Only "On The Run" can really be called "experimental" - the rest is very pop. Which may be the fault of that asshole Alan Parsons, or it may be the groups idea. Who cares? I still don't like listening to it. It's funny that these guys have so many "goth" followers - I listened to this CD when I was the most depressed I'd ever been and it STILL just rubbed me the wrong way. It's soft rock, nothing else. And I REALLY hate that chick singer who shows off on just about every track.

Honestly, I can't see why this gets so much respect, but I still don't think it's awful. "Us And Them" is pretty cool, with an interesting chord change, and I dig "Money." In fact, all of the songs are more or less good, it's just the general sound (and atmosphere) that bugs me. Why do people make such a big deal out of how the record is "slick"? Backstreet Boys are "slick," so is smooth jazz. I despise slickness. It deprives records of edginess and emotion, which I think are very important things to have in good music. How people can worship Pink Floyd as atmospheric Gods (this stuff has got almost NO atmosphere, as far as I'm concerned) and despise the BeeGees with all their existence is beyond me. They're the same sort of watered-down bullshit, but at least the BeeGees had catchy songs.

Anyway, I want to give it a five, but I'll be fair and give it a six, just because I wasn't in the best mood when I wrote this comment. But any higher would be a joke!

Rich Bunnell <> (13.06.2000)

Dark Side of the Moon is pop??? Well, damn, and here I was thinking it was completely incomprehensible, inaccessible prog rock! More experimental than Beefheart! Thanks for cluing us in, Ben!

<> (27.07.2000)

I am a huge Pink Floyd fan. Johnny Rotten was nothing more than a piece of garbage who should of had his pansy ass kicked by Roger Waters for incriminating the Floyd name. I think that little talentless punk should of showed some appreciation. After all, if Floyd hadn't come around, there probably would never have been any Sex Pistols (Boy, that sure would have been a blessing!) This album is highly overrated, although it is one of their best. The most grandiose moment on this album is Gilmour's exquisite solo in "Time" (which damn near brings me to tears every time I hear it). Never before has Dave played with such beauty, passion, smoothness, and well-thought-out craftsmanship. I know you'll disagree with this, but I think that on this very song Gilmour surpasses the talent of all guitarists who came before him (yes, even Clapton & Hendrix) IMHO. I mean, can you honestly picture Hendrix playing something as slow, as beautiful, and as melodically precise as this? Never. Jimi was more of a flamboyant guitarist, he could never match emotional licks with Gilmour. "Money" is Floyd's most overrated song. But I do think that it was the most inspirational bass riff of all time (next to Cream's "Sunshine Of Your Love"). And it contains even more high-pitched Gilmour wailing. Yeah, I'm a big Dave Gilmour freak, in case you haven't noticed already. The guy is mesmerizing! Though THE WALL and ANIMALS are the two defining moments in Floyd history, DSOTM was the most influential.

Philip Maddox <> (01.10.2000)

Good album. I'd call it great if I didn't hate 'Money' so much. God, I HATE that song! Generic blues + awful lyrics - dark mood this album is supposed to have + dumb vocals = terrible song. It's totally out of place, too. This album is supposed to be really dark and creepy, and then those dumb cash register noises come in. And then it's back to 'Us And Them', which fits the album's mood perfectly. Why is it here?

OK, now that I've thoughroughly angered everybody, the rest of this album is really good. My favorite part is the concluding 'Brain Damage'/'Eclipse' suite, which is gorgeous. 'Eclipse' is great in particular, as the song is suitably epic and big, and provides a great finish to the album. I love 'Breathe', too. I'm in heaven when it pops up again in 'Time', which rules, too. That bended guitar note just sends me to aural heaven. Actually, besides 'Money', the only blight on the album is 'On The Run', which is just doodling synth noises. Oh, I forget 'Great Gig', which is often overlooked, but it shouldn't be. It's great! Those vocals are moving as all get out. Gets an 8.

Joel Larsson <> (02.10.2000)

Can't understand why people like this one so much as they do. Well, I really like the songs with vocals, 'Great gig in the sky', 'Money', 'Brain damage', 'Us and them', 'Time', 'Breathe'. But the instrumental numbers are sooo booooooring! My rating: An 8, and absolutley not higher!

Andrei <> (05.10.2000)

So-so album, to be honest. I know it was a big hit, but then again it's the sleekest of all of them, and some songs are quite good.. 'Time' is excellent, 'money' is a bit annoying but scores a point for novelty, same for 'great gig' (yeah I know everybody drools over it.. but I find the music to be average and the screaming part overrated). 'Brain damage' is merely okay, but 'Eclipse' is my second favorite on the record. The rest I usually skip. Overall it's the worst album I mentioned so far. Screw billboard rankings, I have my own brain and my own pair of ears, thank you.

Ben Greenstein <> (05.10.2000)

[In response to Rich Bunnell's comment:]

You would be surprised how many people think that this is the darkest and most expirimental that rock music ever got. Just check out some of the comments on these review sites you frequent. Plus, it recently was voted the "best Halloween album" on some site I went to twice, and I challenge you to find a "goth" anywhere in the world who does not swear by this album and own at least two t-shirts of it. Just because YOU know that this is pop,Rich, doesn't mean that there isn't a whole world of people out there not as enlightened as you. And there are a lot of folk who think that this album is way out on the edge, when in fact (to my ears) it sounds very comparable to mid-80's soft rock that a lot of people (rightly) despise. How can anything by Billy Joel be "miserable" if "The Great Gig In The Sky" is genius? And the lyrics? "The lunatic is in my MIND...." It reminds me of the scene from "Beetlejuice" where the goth girl is trying to write poetry. Have you seen that scene? See it!

Ah, that's just my opinion. I just think people are really ignorant when it comes to this album - holding it on a pedestal and all that without becoming aware of any of the other fine music out there, even Pink Floyd's (not much) better catalogue. Not you guys, of course, you certainly know what you're talking about, and rarely let any preconceptions of an album get in your way of making a decision. I just think that this album dissapoints - doesn't flow well like it should as a pop album, doesn't chart new territory like it would were it "expirimental." It just sounds like a joke to me - the way punk music sounds like heaven to some and sounds like mindless noise to otheres. But I think the main similarity between gross punk and this album is that fans of both have rarely listened to anything BUT gross punk or Dark Side, regardless of what great music may be out there. And that's just the way I feel.

Samuel Wayne <> (16.10.2000)

I totally agree that animals and the wall are much more thought provoking, and that meddle and obscured by clouds are more melodic. However, i entirely disagree with what you said about "Any Colour You Like". Any person who has ever sat down and listened to the album after some "herbal enrichment" will tell you that it is the best song EVER. My friend Karl had never heard the album under the influence, so when he burned himself a copy (which i find disgusting), he left it out so that he could couple the album with wish you were here on the same disc. at that point he said it was a garbage song. then we toked, and listened to DSOTM, and he was blown away by rick wright's blazing synth effects, as was i. and it gets better every time you do that.

<> (24.12.2000)

You know, all things considered I almost hate to say this, but I honestly believe that this album is the best thing Pink Floyd has ever done. I don't like to say it because this album is also the most commercially successful thing Pink Floyd has ever done, the most radio-overkilled thing Pink Floyd has ever done, etc. etc. etc. But in spite of all that, I believe that The Dark Side Of The Moon is nothing less than genius. Sure, it's easy to label this album "overrated" when you hear all the hype -- I'm a huge fan of Dark Side, but even I get disgusted with all the radio DJs who want to play "Breathe" a hundred times a week. I mean, God forbid they should ever play something from Obscured By Clouds by mistake. But in spite of all that, this is one of those rare occasions where good taste and popular opinion coincide.

The Dark Side Of The Moon is, from beginning to end, an album about the human condition. More to the point, it's about the human mind. It tells us that sanity and insanity are subjective terms, and demonstrates how so many different people can share the same universal fears and neuroses -- you can see fears of dying in there ('The Great Gig In The Sky'), and fears of pissing away the best years of your life ('Time'), you can see people's obsession with making money ('Money'), you can sense desperate futile chases ('On The Run'), latent paranoia and the need to belong to a faction ('Us And Them') -- all of it done with a degree of profound human resonance which the typical psychiatrist could never hope to achieve. It isn't some dry, clinical text book. It's the human condition explained in human terms, terms which the average person can relate to. From the everyday sounds of ticking clocks and cash registers, to the various comments by "ordinary people" throughout, to the heartbeat which the whole album begins and ends on, listening to Dark Side is like listening to the underlying pulse of humanity. It invents itself, builds on itself and, in the end, comes full circle to its own seamless-eggshell conclusion. I've never heard anything quite like it.

As for the music itself, I will admit it was their slickest, most market-oriented album to date at the time. But I really can't understand the logic of people who call it "pop." Come on folks, just because an album achieves a phenomenal amount of radio play does not make it a pop album. True, they do play a lot of stupid pop shit on the radio, especially these days. But I don't think any album that's remained on the charts for more than 25 years straight should be classified as "pop" -- only true classics last that long. Pop has a much shorter half-life.

I think the entire album is beautifully written, arranged, and played out. The highpoints for me would be "On The Run" (I always loved that surprise "AAAAH!" chorus in the middle), "Time" (sounds like my life story), and "Brain Damage/Eclipse." And while I will agree that "Time" is brilliant, I think "Brain Damage/Eclipse" is the true highpoint of the album, the best thing Pink Floyd ever did, and quite possibly my favorite song of all time... well technically it's two songs, of course, but I've never heard them played separately. It's the magnum opus of the album, the sum of everything else, where Waters explains to us that we're ALL a little crazy in one way or another, that we're all in need of analysis... we have seen the lunatic on the grass, and it is us. (For the record though, I don't entirely agree with this sentiment, because psychology is chancy at best, and usually produces more questions than answers. Hey, if it helps you, great. But it's not for everyone, and I think people who strut around smugly proclaiming "Anyone who isn't in therapy is in denial" basically have their heads up their asses. When you start to think something has all the answers, people, it has no answers. But I digress...) What I'm getting at is, while I don't entirely agree with all of Roger Water's ideas about humanity on Dark Side, I love the way he presents these ideas, especially his metaphors on insanity, which are second to none. "I'll see you on the dark side of the moon" sums it up more eloquently than any clinical terminology could ever hope to.

On your 1-15 scale, I'd give it the maximum of 15. In fact I'd probably add a "16" category just for this album. From the muddled background voices in the very beginning, to the incredible crashing finale of "Eclipse," where everything balances out and comes full circle, I've never heard anything so perfectly capture and express the poetry of reality, the very music of being alive. Simply put, probably the single greatest album of all time. And judging by its continued success, I'm hardly alone on that one.

Steve Hall <> (29.12.2000)

Firstly i would like to congratulate you on an excellent site,i have enjoyed reading many of your reviews and like your candidness and honesty,however up till now i have not felt the need to respond...that is until now.Your review of DSOTM om here and your comment on Prindle's record reviews concerning that album have an air of breathtaking impertinence and double standards.You state that the "songs"on the album are shown up to be weak when all the "gimmicks" are discarded.Don't you realise this is PART OF THE SONG.Why with Pink Floyd do you feel the need to do this.I don't recall you doing that with the Beatles.

I'll give you some examples,you said that the sax solo on "Money" is not floyd,but the strings on "Eleanor Rigby"are not the Beatles,does that somehow detract from the song or make it weaker,of course not.You state that"the great gig in the sky" is Clare Torry and not Floyd,so does that mean "While my guitar gently weeps" is Clapton and not the Beatles.Her vocals supplement Floyds "great gig in the sky"Claptons guitar supplements the Beatles "While my guitar gently weeps".You also grumbled about the "Noises" on DSOTM.THESE ARE USED AS PART OF THE SONG!!Don't the radio extracts and fade out on Beatles"I am the walrus" give the song an even greater atmosphere.Don't the jet engines opening and closing"Back in the USSR" give the song part of it's energy.Is not the feedback intro on"I feel fine"an highlight or just a gimmick...i could go on...i think you get the point,why are they there?as part of the song.Where is it written in stone that such things have to be taken out before a song can be truly appreciated.

You also said about the structure and concept.Of course the fact that DSOTM is well structured and conceptually tight adds to it's strength and if they are removed or altered the record will suffer.If Sgt Pepper opened with "A day in the life" and closed with "Within you without you" wouldn't some of the albums impact be lost?"A day in the life never sounds quite as good on the blue album as it does closing Sgt Pepper but does that make the album or individual songs weaker?!of course not!!

As for the production,yes it's true DSOTM is a triumph of production more than songwriting but i don't see how you can extract songs individually and criticise their weakness alone,that is exactly what an integral part of production is!!Isn't Abbey Road a triumph of production more than songwriting.It seems a nonsense to take out "Carry that weight" or "Polythene Pam" and asess them alone,so why do you insist on doing it with Pink Floyd?

I would like to stress i am in no way trying to compare the ability of Floyd with that of the Beatles as it would be a monumental folly(and also impossible)but people should at least review with an even hand.

One more point on Pink Floyd wich is so often overlooked regarding their lyrics in particular is reviewers (especially American ones)not mentioning probably the single most important feature in Waters lyrics on Animals,The Wall,and The Final Cut,in that he is writing from a post war BRITISH perspective.Now i am not being jingoistic here but i don't see how Americans can begin to comprehend the real feelings behind references to Mary Whitehouse on Animals or the kind of class distinctions referred to in Animals, of course such issues resonate through all types of societies but Waters nearly always writes from a very British point of view and this is never appreciated.The Wall has many allegorical references to British life after the war concerning loss of empire,the facist tendencies. The Final Cut while basically a poor album musically graphically relives the "Thatcher years" in Britain wich if you weren't there you simply can't understand.I don't profess to comprehend life in a mansion in Beverly Hills,or on a ranch in Texas or a farm in Kansas so why do so many U.S reviewers try to "Americanise"what they forget are a BRITISH band just as are The Beatles,Rolling Stones,Led Zeppelin,The Who,Black Sabbath,Radiohead the way i realise you are Russian and not guilty of this as of course are not all U.S reviewers.Anyhow i think i've made my point.

George Starostin (29.12.2000)

Fine, let's just settle it here and now before I receive a million more of similar comments. First of all, I would like to draw everybody's attention to this: my reviews on this site might (and usually do) differ from my earlier comments on the Prindle site, simply because the comments were written earlier and the reviews were written later. Nothing could be worse than a totally static, stale and constipated mind. That's why I tend to always insert dates next to actual comments - you never know when somebody might reach another maturation stage.

Now that that's out of the way, I'm ready to face the scorn. First of all, people like Steve and certain other gentlemen I could name treat me as if I were an active hater of this album. Apparently, the fact that I rated it just as high as, say, Genesis' Selling England By The Pound, my favourite prog-rock record of all time, means nothing to them. If that's the case, I invite you to re-read the general characteristics of albums with an overall rating of 13 here. Yes, my tone might sound a wee bit more harsh than the tone with which I depict Selling England, but that is due exclusively to the fact that DSOTM has long since been given its due and its overdue and needs a little correction of balance, while Selling England still remains criminally underrated by the general public as far as I can see it, remaining more of a cult favourite.

Second: I never said that all the gimmicks, special effects and treatments of DSOTM are BAD, RIDICULOUS, STUPID, POINTLESS, DUMB, or consciously COMMERCIAL. All of them are in their due place, just like all the special effects are in their due place on the Beatles' albums. What I said was: take away the gimmicks and special effects and you will have too few real musical substance. The same cannot be applied to the Beatles by all means. The Beatles' albums will definitely lose a lot if they are stripped down to the basics, but the basics will still consist of catchy melodies.

I'll try to demonstrate that using Steve's own examples. 1) If we take away the strings from 'Eleanor Rigby', we will be left with... nothing at all, because the strings aren't supposed to be a gimmick or embellishment here - they actually carry the main melody. Does the sax solo on 'Money' carry the main melody? 2) We can take away Clapton's solo on 'While My Guitar...', and the song will definitely lose some of its climactic power, but it will still have a great, purifying, cathartic melody written by George Harrison. Don't believe it? Listen to the acoustic demo of the song on Anthology III. If it doesn't bring you to tears, you have a heart of stone. 3) The noises on 'I Am The Walrus' and the jet engines on 'Back In USSR' are cool, but would the songs be unlistenable or unmemorable without them? Never. 4) While 'A Day In The Life' works fine indeed as an album closer to Sgt Pepper, I can hardly think that it will fail to move me when taken alone by itself. 5) I would definitely never rave and rant about the heavenly greatness of 'Carry That Weight' or 'Polythene Pam' if they were ripped out of the Macca symphony, but I would never try to deny both their unbelievable catchiness in any state whatsoever.

In other words, while much too often the total is greater than the sum of its parts indeed, this prerequires that the actual parts be musically solid at the least. Not that I completely deny DSOTM any kind of melodic strength. Like I said, some of the melodies are very interesting, and apart from 'Any Colour You Like', there's nothing on the record that I would call 'bad' or 'poor'. But for the most part, it does lack particularly grappling hooks, often substituting pathos, bombast and song length for this vital element, and while that does not prevent DSOTM from being a great album, it automatically prevents it from being one of the greatest ever made. (Not to mention other minor complaints - I could go on about the lyrical vision of Waters being highly overrated, about the slick commercial and crowd-pleasing values of the record, etc., etc., but I simply won't).

And a PS to the "cliche-stomping" Rich Bunnell: I TOTALLY agree with you on the point that 'the album would suck without the production effects', and that's EXACTLY why I didn't give it the highest rating possible. I can't give out the highest rating to an album whose main strength lies in the production effects. If I did that, my favourite band in the world would have to be Amon Düül II.

Adam Harrington <> (01.02.2001)

Let's see if I can be objective and do this without coming off as an insanely biased Pink Floyd fanatic (which I admit I am). In response to a few previously-posted comments: Ben Greenstein is right -- a lot of people do think this is the darkest and most experimental rock ever got, and it isn't. I'd say it walks perfectly on the line -- if it were darker, they would be entering the Cure's territory, which I think is still excellent, but so bleak that I think it's hard to take completely seriously. If it were more experimental -- well, if things push that limit too much, they become unbearable to listen to.

Pink Floyd reaches just the right balance between experimentalism and mainstream rock (I don't like to use the word "pop" when discussing them), and can get dark without losing touch with reality. That's why their stuff grabs me by the throat and doesn't let go. This is no average pop about mundane stuff like your girlfriend or car, which rock thrived on in the beginning. This is a testament to the harshest parts of reality and human life -- the ones that we want to deny, but we have to deal with whether we like it or not.

Roger Waters' lyrics are self-explanatory in that sense -- we work and get nothing in return, our life passes by without our noticing, we fall victim to the temptations of money, we are subject to division and belligerence. And it's a wonder we're all not insane after all that. Name one person who isn't effected by each and every one of these realities. And the soft-rock stands to support the whole thing -- it almost seems like it's trying to make fun of the elevator music we hear every day that suggests everything's fine, by turning it on its side and using it as a backdrop for these dark testaments. Thus it succeeds. The melodies may not all be first-rate, but the power of the music more than makes up for it.

And the other great feature of this album is that while it's unified and tied together as a general survey of the perils of life, it is never predictable. It jumps from the urgent and almost steamy "Breathe" (isn't there something sultry about that slide guitar?) 180 degrees to the high-paced sweat-jerker "On the Run" (I feel like I'm in one of those old video games when I hear it). And I've had this album for years and years, but every time I hear those clocks come in for "Time," out of nowhere, I jump out of my skin.

Dark Side of the Moon may not merit all the now-cliched claims people make about it. But I say it still has the power to break through emotional barriers -- you can deny all you want that there are things about life that suck, but when you hear this stuff, you gotta deal with it.

Per Bjurvald <> (07.03.2001)

This albuminvolves a masterpiece - 'Brain damage'.

It starts with anowadays almost forgotten guitarstyle -fourfingerpicking in Dmajor.Back to basic! And what happens?

He changes chord to g7. That's the perfect tune for introcuding the 'Lunatic': The singer tells us that he is sitting in the grass. The melody is beautiful - almost pastoral. The haunting pickning goes on, and now the Lunatic is in my hall. The threat is coming closer, but the beautiful guitar is a contrast. It could still be a nightmare that ends happily. Evenwhen the Lunatic has occupied your head, when the door is locked and the key is thrown away, youstill seem to have possibility to come out again. The song is describing something that millions of people can recognize. And they make this description in a musical form that just - fits.

Kevin Baker <> (13.03.2001)

Overrated, but I enjoy it. As background music.'Brain Damage' is my favorite on here.I can't add much to the chorus on this one. I agree with your rating.Slick, smooth, paranoid, but too gimicky.

Kevin Baker <> (03.04.2001)

OK, maybe I can add to the chorus here. I've given this one a few more listens, and it's grown on me a great deal. Rather, I've given some serios listens instead of the usual "I'm doing homework and I need something mellower than my usual fare so let's pop this baby in and see what I think" that DSOTM has gotten from me. Of course, it is still overrated.That's the problem with lesser great albums like this---if it gets idolized, it will be catapulted into the ranks of the immortals.That is what happened with DSOTM.A bunch of people fell in love with it when it came out and shabam.Great album with some genuinely genius-level lyrics and some smooth (in a good way) jazzy tunes. However, I totally agree witth George that the effects play too big a part. When that happens, melodies suffer. I'd love to see this one a notch higher because I personally like it so much, but does it honestly rank with Rubber Soul, Let It Be, and the other 14s?Take a look and listen.It's wonderful, but it's just too gimicky for a 14.

mom <> (02.06.2001)

Listen to this album on acid. Minimum 3 hits. Then you'll know why this is one of the greatest albums ever made. There is absolutly no flaws with this album when you listen to it under that condition, which is also why it was rated #1 to listen to on LSD...and Ive listen to a BUNCH of albums on acid. Not only that, but when you play it at the second roar of the lion on Wizard of Oz, it goes perfectly with the movie. This album is not only music for the every day listener, its a full explination and examination of life and all its perspectives, ups, downs, and everything in the middle. It starts with the intro, goes to 'On the Run' to drop you into the album, takes you out of the trip with an alarm clock and other clocks, brings you to a truely memorable experience with 'The Great Gig in the Sky', then back to take away your worries about money. Then the trip REALLY starts, 'us and them' is the most relaxing, scerene song ever. 'Any colour you like' is just a flat out color trip (yes, it does actually work), and finally Pink Floyd takes you right out of the trip with its last two tracks that actually leave you happy, even though the album is over. Dont judge this album like a normal music album before you listen to it with LSD in your system, you just don't know until then. Besides, thats the way they wanted you to listen to it. If youre the kind of person who has never touched the stuff, alright, but don't blame them for making an album with "annoying" sounds and such, because you just dont know why they did it or what it feels like to listen to it the way it was supposed to be listened to.

Joe H <> (17.11.2001)

Hmm well, fantastic album of course, and definatly deserves the mark as 'Quintessential album' as George has given it, coz its definatly a album to start with Pink Floyd first (although Piper at the gates of dawn did it for me, if you can believe that!). But anyways this album is like a movie to me. If listened all the way threw in one listen it really hits different moods and has a climax and everything like a movie would normally do, and all the songs are great! "Great Gig In The Sky" probably would of been better just an instrumental without that chick singer, but its still a beautiful song.

Ben Kramer <> (24.12.2001)

Ahhhh, the second most famous album of all time. Many hate, many worship and very few don't take a side. It was a best seller on the charts for 14 years, 10 of them consecutive. I would like to start by saying that my second Pink Floyd album bored me the first time I heard it. I expected something with this level of worship to change my life, end world hunger, solve all of our problems, etc, but I was bored. Maybe it was because I expected too much of it. So after I realized that we were stuck with world hunger, I gave it another try, and some of the songs began to catch on, particularly the bass line from 'Money'. I was never obsessed the way I was with The Wall, but I spoke pretty highly of it. It would have been a 14 or 15 6-9 months ago, but now I know better and I know more. The best song, in my humble opinion is 'Us and Them'. I just see it as the most emotional song on the album. 'Time' and 'Brain Damage/Eclipse' would be next. I don't particularly care for the sound effects and the voice talking in the background but I wouldn't take off any points for it. I used to hate 'Great Gig in the Sky' and I still think that it's too long, but I have to admit that the vocals are pretty powerful. 'Money' is also a nice little jam done by a mediocre band musically, more than I would expect from them. However, two songs (well really, instrumentals) degrade the album. 'On the Run' is fine for the first 30 seconds or so, but it gets dull after a while. 'Any Colour You Like' is just awful and they should have only used 15 seconds of it or so in order to have an introduction to the albums megahit, 'Brain Damage' which goes along with its little 80 second buddy (well it's really two minutes but it's just the heart beating and the guy talking) is a great song but it loses its power when heard on the radio more times than I can count. I only listen to the radio in the car so that really isn't a serious complaint. Overall, this record deserves an 8(12) or a 9(13), depending on my mood, but it could be higher or even lower. It is extremely inferior to Animals which I would probably give the honor of a 15, but that's another story. Oh yeah, there's a concept too, strong, but not interesting enough to listen merely for the concept. let the sounds embrace you, not the lyrics.

<> (26.01.2002)

as for our music-teacher in the mid seventies, it was kind of godness. and i still remember happily some pupils in our class in that times, as they torn this one into frazzles, discussing with the teacher, what musical invention means.

no one really had to buy this record,cause every radio station in my country poisoned the wire by playing these songs for 10 years again and again. be glad for the song has an ending now.

Eric Rogozin <> (12.06.2002)

The most overrated album in world's history of the most overrated band in world's history! "Time", "Great Gig In The Sky" and "Money" are good composition, but everything else is one big nothing. I suppose, I could write a song like "Us And Them" when I was seven.

Gage <> (28.07.2002)

I'm a big prog fan, not a huge Floyd fan, but the striking difference between this album and ANY other album ever made, is that there isn't a wasted note anywhere! Every single note, from every instrument, makes sense and ties in. The next time you listen, you'll see. Extraordinary musicianship and production.

This will date me but one of the greatest musical experiences was listening to this album at the edge of the Grand Canyon in the middle of the night looking out over the dark black hole of the canyon in a car listening to this on an Quadraphonic 8 Track.

Jon <> (01.12.2002)

I'm slowly learning George's "voice." If he sounds harsh and reluctant with praise, that frequently means the album is good, bet not for any good reason. Weird, and that's something that's hard to say in a review. I love this one because the Floydsters sare so lazy and laid back and even the songwriting is lazy-sounding, but it's not, it's great and fun and direct. It is a bit funny after all this time to still hear little jabs at the "production" making the album better than it is... isn't that kind of silly? The special noises mostly bookend things anyhow, and whoever said DSOTM unplugged would be fun was right. Songs like Time/Money/Usandem have the band and backup singers and that's pretty much it. But yes; call this jam boring, and this man a dentist (George nailed Gilmour's tone), but I still like that boring jam, and I love my dentistry just the way Gilmour puts it on (I often wait till about 18 mins or so on "Echoes" and mystify my friends by crouching in readiness for that great lick...). Does this make me a fanboy, or do my opinions just clash with George's? Dunno. I still fall asleep during Quadrophenia. That one's boring for no good reason. :) This one's a 14, point off for a general lack of energy on the drumming... I miss goo Mason drums (oxymoron?).

Robert Smith <> (13.03.2003)

Ah, hear ye maties, this here group of four lads decided they would do a lot of drugs, write interstellar melodies, make lyrics that served no purpose but to rhyme, and create musical backings that served as nothing but a puerile mother board for all these sonic effects. At least, that's what they'll tell you if they are one of these "Anything praised this highly has to be overrated" types that I just want to hang by their ears. It's usually the underrated albums that become overrated to me because everyone wants to overrate its underratedness, and it's just a mess. Their Satanic Majesties Request, anyone? Anyhow, to the music at hand. This is unquestionably one of the most creative albums to come out of the 70's, hence the Sgt. Pepper comparison it often receives, although it lacks Sir George Martin's orchestral backings and dance hall, but who wants to feed Roger Waters when he is sixty-four? We start with "Speak To Me," a random sound collage that flows into the psychedelia of "Breathe." This song starts the album out on a high note, with an intoxicating melody and the sort of simplistic lyrics that prove George Harrison wasn't the only writer with the ability to make simplicity mean something. David Gilmour's shimmering guitar is a highlight here, as it is on the entire album. Mr. Gilmour was no dentist, mind you. Even if his solos were calculated, it doesn't take away from their power. Richard Wright was also an amazing keyboardist, less showy than Wakeman of course, but I'm sure he'd at least give Ray Manzarek a run for his money. Roger Waters was the Brian Wilson of Pink Floyd, standing as the creative leader, sociopath, deranged lunatic, etc. Nick Mason just had no reason to be there. The man's drumming was often flat and pedestrian, but never offesive. Anyhow, back tthe music. Next, is the paranoic "On The Run," a dizzying instrumental that makes my head spin just by it's almost circular motion. Maybe it wouldn't stand so well on its own, but I am a firm defender of albums rather than collections of songs, and if something like this needs to be there to fit in with the artist's vision, I say more power to you. We then have "Time," probably the strongest song on here, filled with visual lyrics and one of the only truly fierce Gilmour vocal performances I can think of. The killer melody is interrupted by a terrific Gilmour solo backed by a choir of female voices, in the true tradition of 70's bombast. As the "Breathe" section is reprised once again, we have "A Great Gig In The Sky." Wow! Now, this is amazing stuff here. Gorgeous piano backdrops are heightened by an excellent slide guitar performance by Gilmour, topped off with one of the most orgasmic vocal performances that comes to recent memory. Claire Tony sounds like she has entered an orgy and she is being gangbanged by all four members of the band. Sorry for the vulgar references, but you tell me how else she could possibly give a vocal performance like that. Ah, yes. Then we have "Money," probably one of the most overplayed songs in history, next only to that song about stairways, the one about Bohemians, and maybe that one about Jude. Does it suck? Well, of course not. With its practically discoish rhythm, groovy sax playing, awesome Gilmour solo (this one I'm sure is calculated, but what calculation!), and pretty funny lyrics from Mr. Waters. I dig this here song, and if you don't, well then I guess you're missing out. "Us And Them," which follows, is perhaps the emotional high point on this album, filled to the bring with bombastic overproduction, layers of keyboards, gorgeous melodies, touching lyrics, a descent sax solo, and some great piano work from Wright. I always loved a good Floyd ballad. I'll admit "Any Colour You Like" isn't essential, but it surely isn't offensive. Let the boys jam. They've got to have some fun in the midst of this ultraserious attack on society and culture. "Brain Damage" is the closest this album comes to being "catchy" with a POP melody (what is the world coming to?), insane lyrics, hysterical laughing, and a paranoid vocal performance by Waters that gives way to a gospel like chorus that shall we say, proves Roger felt even the psychopaths in the world deserved a good hymn or two. The album closer "Eclipse" bothers me immensely. This gospel rave-up filled with perhaps the weakest lyrics on the record was just an unneeded piece of bombastic shit supposed to make us feel we are experienced, but if you're going to give me bombast, give it to me Rolling Stones style. They knew how to close their albums with great gospel that always had a beautiful melody. This is just a waste of tape. Oh well. This album is essential, and if you don't already own it, you need to lift up that rock you've been living under, and come to your senses, man. This album may change your life, or maybe it'll at least change your hairstyle.

Stephen Rutkowski <> (01.11.2003)

These comments could well prove useless as everything that can be said about this album, has been said about this album. Every little measure of overratedness, anti-hype etc. has been analysed to death. I recall the first time that I listened to it I had such a large expectation, that I was really disappointed. All I could think is “Why does everyone love this so much?” Via a combination of lowering my expectations and letting the album grow on me, I became very fond of the album, and it is now one of the favourites in my collection. Anyway, I will throw my hat into the ring and state that its biggest advantage is dark, but equally relaxing music, mixed with thousands of gimmicks and topped off with immaculate production. It became so popular because it was not that experimental, weird or bizarre. Consequently the average person was able to listen to it, but they could have the impression that it really is ‘out there’. The lyrics are clever enough, but easy to identify with. But anyway, I think you George or everyone else has mentioned things along these lines, so I won’t go into it in any great depth. Now lets get to the important bit: the songs. I could never say there are any real weak tracks here, although I am not too fond of ‘Brain Damage’ and ‘Eclipse’ and I’m rather indifferent towards ‘Any Colour You Like’. That means that the album finishes on a bit of a low point, but it’s not that bad. ‘Brain Damage’ is a nice acoustic track, but really lacks that extra something that I cant quite explain. Yeah I’d take ‘Fearless’ over this any day of the week. ‘Eclipse’ well… I can’t quite explain either, but it’s just a little simple bit of gospel. Not something that Pink Floyd were great at. ‘Any Colour You Like’ isn’t offensive or anything like that by any stretch of the imagination, I just find it a little boring.

As for the highlights, take any of the other tracks. ‘Breathe’ contains absolutely beautiful and almost soothing guitars. ‘Time’ is in the same vein, but with a heavier sound and more emphasis on the bass and drums. The ‘Breathe’ reprise is also very welcome. I’ve always been surprised by the hype surrounding ‘The Great Gig in the Sky’, sure it’s a nice song, and the vocals are at times extraordinary. It isn’t one of my favourites, but that’s ok. I’ve always believed in the saying “Different strokes for different blokes”. ‘Money’ features a damn fine bass line, but the track seems really out of place as someone else has already mentioned. Also I feel the saxophone at times almost ruins the song. I could especially do without the saxophone solo. Not so on ‘Us and Them’. Here the saxophone adds perfectly to the general atmosphere of the song. The lyrics, while quite simple are fantastic. Probably my favourite lyrics outside of Animals. I say that as the themes in the song are very applicable to the general British (and American… even Australian for that matter) xenophobic attitude. That is the government and media are often encouraging the general public to view foreigners (Them) as different to Us. It also deals with the soon-to-be Roger’s favourite subject: war. My favourite part is the “Forward he cried from the rear/and the front rank died/And the general sat, and the lines on the map/moved from side to side”. This is of course referring to the people who order wars are not the ones who fight it. And at the end of the day, the only difference is that a few borders move here and there. I don’t know, maybe I’m missing Roger’s point here. But I have never been a great interpreter of lyrics anyway.

Ok, that leaves us with ‘On the Run’. I was watching a documentary on this album, and Dave Gimour explained how the track was created. Basically a basic tune was played on the synthesiser, and the speed of it was changed depending on how fast the ‘foot steps’ were. There were things added like panning of the channels, and a Doppler effect to make it seem like the person was running past you. Anyway, if I was to sit here explaining every little gimmick, George would run out of webspace. Nevertheless I get a real kick out of many of the voices that are on the album. The band interviewed a number of people around the studio (including Paul McCartney) about their views on life, death, loneliness, insanity etc. The aforementioned documentary played a little bit of the full in! terviews. It was really cool to hear the voices without the music, and also to hear what context all the statements were in. Anyway, you don’t need to hear this. Just go out and buy the album now if you haven’t already done so.

Fernando Henrique Canto <> (02.11.2003)

TEN! TEN! TEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEENNNNN!!!... I mean, this is my favourite album ever. It's useless to try and "discuss" it. It just happens to match my tastes PERFECTLY. This is the album that I call perfect, but not just perfect: it's more than perfect. It manages to jump out of the speakers and get INSIDE my brain for eternity. This album has a mood, an athmosphere, a flow, it has a little universe inside itself. It IS an universe all of its own. As an album, it's VERY cleverly and meticulously constructed. It even flows like a song, with an intro, an outro, main "rocking" songs, lighter, soothing passages and weird transictions. Say, 'Speak To Me' and 'Breathe' work wonderfully as the intro, making a buildup of sorts, and then introducing the general mood of the album. What a wonderful introduction! I think that's a great theme. 'On The Run' is the first "transiction" in the album - fast, disturbing, and quite darn evocative. What kind of visions does this cast on me? How the hell should I know. 'Time' and 'Money' are the main rocking portions. I love both of them, of course. 'Time' has the intro, and those gorgeous harmonies at the chorus - and, yes, one of the most boring Gilmour solos ever. But I don't care. It's the *feel* of the song that captures me. And 'Money'... well, it's 'Money': Irresistible, clever and catchy. The soothing passages, 'The Great Gig In The Sky' and 'Us And Them' are priceless. The former is one of a kind, really. And the latter... Ooh, gorgeous, sublime. I love the soundscapes Wright creates with his organ and those soft, lushy guitars. And then, there's 'Any Colour You Like', the second "transition" of the album. I really dig it. There are those cool keyboard and guitar effects. I don't think it's pointless. And the closing of the album, the really beautiful 'Brain Damage' and the climax, 'Eclipse', REALLY leave a good impression after the album ends. You know, the reason why the album is special is not the SONGS individually. It's the whole THING. OF COURSE songs like 'Time' and 'Breathe' are NOTHING new on the Floyd catalogue, but for the first time, they are COMBINED, forming a more meaningful whole. You say 'On The Run' doesn't deserve to be placed in an album like this. Well, want it or not, this is a concept album. It has a meaning, and 'On The Run' is kinda crucial to make that point. Obscured By Clouds has no overall meaning, so it can go on without these conceptual pieces. You know, you could complain that Tommy has pieces like 'Fiddle About', 'There's A Doctor I've Found' and 'Tommy's Holiday Camp'. But they're there for a reason, whatever reason that might be. It's the same thing on here. It's that MEANING that really makes me love this album. This is the culmination of Floyd, for me. And look here, if you only want to relax to the sound of 'Us And Them,' go ahead and SKIP TO THE 6TH TRACK, and don't complain about the presence of 'Us And Them'. If YOU, George Starostin, really wants only to relax to 'Julie With', would you listen to 'Backwater', 'Kurt's Rejoinder' AND 'King's Lead Hat' anyway? Why don't complain about THAT in your Before And After Science review? Ha ha! I like hitting your weak spots, George! 'Tis fun! But I'm not angry. Believe me, I don't get mad when you complain about Rush, anymore. I'm a mature, grown-up man. And you know what? I LOVE IT! Especially because mature, grown-up men can also be Lisa Simpson fans without being called immature and infantile. I'M A NEEEEEEEEEW WOOOOOOOOOORLD MAAAAAAAAAN!

Or is that Third World Man?

Maréchal Lionel <> (27.02.2004)

There's a strange think I noticed about DSOTM: it is either called an absolute masterpiece (or at least a really great album), or a piece of crap. There's, for instance, the review of its last edition in Rock and Folk (the French one, I translated myself):

"Twenty years (and more) ago, for any young man with normal testicles, the albums of 70s Pink Floyd were no more, no less than music to test the speakers. The burguesses' speakers, of course, the other ones prefered to damage them with a Cramps' album (for the younger ones) or a Nuggets compilation (for the older ones). Thirty years after its release, the album is now in 5.1 so that the new audio-lovers - never really music-lovers - can test their 21st century equipment. We can ask the question, then... What would say someone between 15 and 25 years old, who'd listen for the first time this cosmic holy cow (just after having heard the BellRays or the fabulous Kings Of Leon) ? What's this shit ? is the most probable answer, the same causes having the same effects...

If one manages to forget all the absurd mythology surrounding this album of the dark side of the seventies - the album that stayed the longest ever in the charts, quadriphonic sound, all that crap to wash the brain of bollocks - what is left in this pretentious melting pot ? Shapeless songs with unspeakable weakness, female backing vocals that sound as forced and caricatural as this horrible sax, proto-mongoloid lyrics (as "run, rabbit run, ...don't sit down it's time to start another one" (NB : translated into French for more fun) ), and in the end, colossal boredom.

The same person who'd listen, today, to the band's first opus The Piper At The Gates Of Dawn (released in 1967) would have another kind of surprise : a breathtaking band full of savagery, inventions, and grace, much more invigorating than this exercise of upper-class artifices.

This mythical album was issued in 1973. Same year as Raw Power, Neu! 2, The New York Dolls, Aladdin Sane, Berlin, Paris 1919, and only a few months from Exile On Main St., Rock Bottom and Blood On The Tracks. Make your choice !"

A tough one, wasn't it ? Well, although I wouldn't be as offensive as them, I have to confess I belong to the second category : I really don't like this album. There are only, say, four songs in it! "Time", "Money", "Us And Them", "Brain Damage". Thanks to the CD, I know when each track begins and end, because otherwise I'd have no idea. They are all in the same tempo, there are two bass lines that deserve the name ("On The Run", "Money"), no riffs, soulless and generic solos by our dear dentist, and primitive, derivative melodies. I had heard no song bar "Money" before listening to the album, and I found it terribly predictible. When I heard "Us..." I thought : "Well, he's about to say 'and them', either higher or lower", it was higher, but I guessed half of the melody ! Some called "Eclipse" an orgasmic ending... what ? a two-notes melody that don't even changes on the last chorus, a boring midtempo groove, that is an orgasmic ending ? You all rave about the noise effects. OK, I admit the argument "So what if the melodies are simple, the noise effects MAKE the album". But they go nowhere, they are inserted to fill the empty space. The band probably thought : "hey, our album is too weak, we'll insert more random noises than anyone before so that people will think it's atmospheric" ; if you call this "genius", fine for you. And what about the lyrics ? the kind of cynical stuff that say "your life is nothing, you're only losing your time and it's no use 'cause you'll die anyway", I heard it long before, thank you Mr Waters (PhD in cynism and generic depressing crap). I admit that the above review exaggerates : there ARE some good moments ("The Great Gig In The Sky" is not bad although overlong, and the bass line of "Money" is for sure something), and it makes good background music. But twice I sat through the entire record, just listening, and at the end my reaction was "What, already finished ? Nothing has happened ! Gosh, 40 minutes of my life waisted".

Rating : 10/15, best song "Money". Most overrated album in rock history. I wonder HOW can it be the third best-selling album ever : it is not great, and not commercial (I don't think Thriller is fantastic, but it is a "commercial" record, ie the kind of music that usually sells well. And it's a great album to dance to.) Maybe the "pseudo-intellectual" attitude ("I listen to complicated music, so I am clever"), or the fear of general opinion ("Everyone says it's great, I must have missed something..." ; George, this was your first feeling, wasn't it ?). Now sue me!

Amanda Kenyon <> (15.05.2004)

Sure, maybe everybody was using strange time signatures then, but how many of them were putting CASH REGISTERS in 7/8 time? Maybe you won't be surprised to hear that the intro to "Money" is my favorite moment on the album, closely followed by the creepy laughter in "Brain Damage." Maybe you also won't be surprised to hear that I really enjoy the special effects. Many people, including yourself, maintain that they're a smokescreen to hide their lack of original ideas. Maybe there is some merit to that thought, but I think the use of the sound effects is incredibly creative itself. Some of it is amateurishly obvious, like the eighty-four thousand clocks at the beginning of "Time," but stuff like the previously mentioned cash registers in "Money" and the agitated footsteps running through your head in "On the Run" really round out the album. As for the lyrics, I agree with you that most of them are not earth-shattering brilliance, but there are some great ones. I! really like the entire lyric of "Brain Damage," and the verse (I'm not actually sure which song it technically belongs to) that goes "Far away, across the field/The tolling of the island bell/Draws the faithful to their knees/To hear the softly spoken magic spell." I think that's beautiful, especially set to that particular melody. Overall, it's probably not entirely deserving of all the adulation, but it's certainly a great, great chunk of music.

Laureano López <> (26.08.2004)

I'm sorry if you tend to shiver when you read that album title. Here, in Argentina, the album is not overplayed at all... at least at these times, which are the only ones I've lived at.

I will calmly disagree with you, not on your rating or even your opinion about the album, but on the criteria you apply to judge it.

It's rather difficult to establish what the hell is music and what's not (let's not even mention 'what's art and what's not'). I don't want to invent anything about this; music was here looong before myself. I just intend to figure out what's it from a... say 'historical' standpoint.

First, music is not an occidental phenomenon. You have music everywhere. We naturally tend to filter everything through our own cultural paradigms. See, in our half of the planet, music developed from melody. Somebody superposed many of them, inventing harmony. Baroque minds like harmony; classicist minds like melody. However, somewhere else things may have been different, and in fact were. Since I _am_ occidental, I prefer 'our' kind of music to the 'others', but it's just me.

That said, I'll have the courage to say that you're of the classicist kind. I may be wrong, so forgive me if I am. But you show a strong tendency to look for catchy melodies somehow dismissing a little every other element of music. I'm talking about the 'formal' elements; of course I see you care more about the emotional response that music produces on you, and the impossibility to predict the next bar; so do I. It happens that there is lots of music that rely more on texture than on melody. Basically, most baroque and impressionist music does. You won't find a certain, clear melody in a choral fugue, and you shouldn't, because it's not intended to have it. Sometimes two minutes of a program symphonic movement only serve to represent a scene and achieve a climactic tension. Which takes me back to the matter of Dark Side.

I think saying that the heartbeats and the cash register sounds and the symphonic explosions _hide_ the music is a sophistry. Heck, the heartbeats are *pulses*. The cash register sounds *drive the rhythm* at the beginning of 'Money'. I don't see why we should like it more if it was played with drums. Half of occidental music is made of symphonic explosions. 'Any colour you like' is an hypnotic work on texture (courtesy of meticulous studio edition, of course); trying to find a melody there is like trying to find cool water in a volcano. I don't agree neither disagree that the album doesn't feature very strong melodies. I think it's _not_ a work on melody, just that. You can say 'it just explains they weren't able to write a good one'; I don't care: if I want good melodies I have Beatles :D; if I want strange chords I have Genesis; if I want rhythm I have Brazilian samba and Spanish rumba; I have Dark Side, and I enjoy its beautiful and well-constructed textures. See my point?

Everything in the album _is_ music. It's sound, it follows a form, it intends to produce an emotion, and it does. So it's music.

I don't even try to see the album in other way than as _a whole_. It's obviously conceived in that way. It's not a product of exceptional genius; some people made better music in 1973; Gilmour solos are rather pointless (that's precisely my only serious complaint about the work). I won't waste my time deciding it's prog, pop, or 'lounge jazz' (?). I just listen to it really often, because it... takes me away. And that's not accidental. It's designed as an ascending catharsis from beginning to end. The last bars of 'Eclipse' are a burst of emotion. That's all.

Jacob W. <> (17.06.2005)

I disagree with the idea that, lyrically, Waters sounds like a detached Professor presenting a thesis on this album. I see it more as just some interesting, (pseudo)enlightening comments on life for them people living back in 1973 (and one possible reason why it's still so popular today is because us 2005 people can still relate to it) coming from a guy who's pretty intelligent and sure of himself. Who needs taking 3,000-year-old Eastern philosophies and putting them to modern music (*cough* George Harrison *cough*) when you can take some time, "Think For Yourself" and make something up on your own like Waters did? Whoops. I shouldn't have said that. Sorry to both Georges.

Alexey Provolotsky <> (24.06.2005)

I don’t even know what to say about this album. I like it and that is what really matters. Of course, if we make a song by song analysis, we’ll be left with some filler, like “On The Run”, “Any Colour You Like”. But the album should be taken as one whole thing and should be enjoyed as one whole thing. Speaking about the lyrics, they are good and very well written. The melodies are also solid. But the best thing about DSOTM is the atmosphere that is simply wonderful. Treasure every minute! The record was definitely meant to be perfect and while it’s not, it’s still an undisputed classic that deserves to be heard by every music lover.

The rating will be somewhat about a 13 and a 14.

Matt(the great)Byrd <> (13.07.2005)

Yeah, I don't exactly really like this album. It's praised quite a bit, and it deserves much of it...... but I definetely prefer some optimism a-la Stevie Wonder or even Paul Simon! But, hey, that's a minor quip. I think it's a fine album........... but I'd never place it in my 'triumvirate' (Blonde On Blonde, Pet Sounds, Born To Run). The songwriting? Well, at least lyrically, very simple, it's not too immpressive (it's really not THAT bad, though), making the 'pull-off' that much more immpressive!


John McFerrin <> (26.05.99)

Just a couple of things; first of all, I must give a slight correction about Roy Harper singing on 'Have a Cigar'. Originally, Waters was to sing it, but he sounded awful, just awful. Meanwhile, Harper was recording in the same building, and the other band members voted to bring in Harper to sing. Roger was pissed, of course, but he had to admit that Harper did sound better.

Anyways, I have to admit that I somewhat agree with you that they failed to keep, well, progressing when they made this album. And yet, I still like it. 'SOYCD', the first half is, of course, fabulous. And yeah, 'Welcome To The Machine' is really atmospheric, but it works for me. And 'HAC' is kinda weak, but I still like it. And yeah, it is the bombastic lyrics that make 'WYWH' the song a fan favorite. It's a little clumsy, sure, but it does have appeal. Anyways, the second half of 'SOYCD' starts out decently, but becomes really, really tired by the end, and I'm glad to hear it end.

Despite that complaint, tho, the lowest I could give this is an 8. A 9 when I'm in the mood, but for me, this is the weakest "great" album they ever put out.

[Special author note: the 'correction' is actually an 'addition' - both facts are historically proven.]

Richard C. Dickison <> (04.06.99)

Ok George, now you've done it, hold out your hand (WHACK).

No, No, No, You have come to see this problem like I have, one that Wish is a rewrite of Meddle and yet you give Meddle higher honors?!!!!

This calls for critic abuse, if you do it again we'll make you review more Jethro Tull albums.

But really, this one just drew me in, in a way that Meddle never could. Maybe it's the cigarette smoking jaded and done before sax on 'Shine On', maybe that unexpected static to radio to whisky drenched guitar plucking on the second side, the carnival barker singing on 'Have A Cigar', a sneering tribute to Syd's insanity. They were bone tired and doing music that ached and ached and you heard every throb of pain from a band that had no clue where it was going next. 'Welcome To The Machine' throbs like a bad hangover if you ask me, they had gotten drunk on the american hit machine and they were already tired of it and just a little scarred and yet that same machine loved this album.

Their song writing is no different from any other album, there are no surprises here but their are no big let downs either.

I put this album on a tier second to Dark Side and just above The Wall, its sincerity seems to be more real than either in my eyes though.

Mike DeFabio <> (18.08.99)


Okay, so maybe you don't like Pink Floyd. This album still kicks booty, though. I love it! Yeah, I'm a fan, AND I've heard all their early albums (many of them really suck, too. 'Specially More. Pheweee!)

[Special author note: hey people - don't you ever read more than two first lines of my reviews?]

Bob Josef <> (14.02.2000)

I don't agree that the album the album is a step backward. Rather, musically, it's almost as if Meddle was remade with the production values of Dark Side. In particular, while Rick is hardly Keith Emerson, he showed more prowess in playing and arranging synths than ever before here. And I really enjoy "Welcome to the Machine" -- I don't find it boring at all, but the lyrics are really kind of ho-hum for Roger ("He always ate in the steak bar/He always drives in his Jaguar" -- and how many times a day did he use the bathroom, Rog?). By the way, that's Dave on the lead vocal, not Roger. "Have a Cigar" should NOT have been sung by Roy Harper. I don't enjoy the lyrics here -- more rampant cynicism.

I really enjoy Dave's guitar work on "Shine On." One thing that tends to get overlooked is how much the blues has influenced Gilmour's playing, and that shows up here. And Roger's lyrics here and on the title track are very poignant and emotional when he talks about the loss of his friend. Unlike lyrics on following records, when other, more unpleasant emotions surface.

It's here that Nick Mason drops out of the equation here. He didn't write anything, and his drumming is solid, but nothing special.

Rich Bunnell <> (24.02.2000)

It's weird...people say that lots of tunes from this album get overplayed on classic rock radio, but I've only heard the title track played, and only a couple of times at that. The songs aren't as immediately-noticeable as on Dark Side, but I don't think that's the point this time. Whereas Dark Side presented a meaty, full atmosphere, this provides more of a light, dreamy atmosphere which comes to a head in both sides of the "Shine On You Crazy Diamond" suite. No matter how much I try to pay attention, though, it's really hard to concentrate on some of these melodies, which're almost nonexistent. Nevertheless, the album reaches what it aims for and I like it for that very reason. 8/10

Shor Bowman <> (28.03.2000)

Wish You Were Here is an album that leaves you asking yourself--"Why in the world do I not love this record? I like it, but why don't I love it?" Indeed, I find myself asking this question all of the time. It seems to have all the ingredients--a masterful suite of rock symphony, and synth battle with a screaming vocal, and hilarious rocker, and a world-famous acoustic hit. But there's something about it...and I'm not sure what it is...that really makes me indifferent to this record. WHY OH WHY? Ah, I don't know. The songs, taken alone, aren't that bad...I really don't think the album cooks overall, though. I really think that ALBUMS need to be continuous not only in content, but in sound--it's on greatest hits compilations that sound can vary. The main reason that I like Animals better than Dark Side of the Moon is because Dark Side closes with 'Brain Damage' and 'Eclipse', which suck mightily in my opinion, because if you put either of them beside anything from "Breathe" to "Any Colour You Like," the sound just ain't continuous! It's just not cool. Animals was Floyd's attempt at being a cynical punk band, and they never stray from that sound except for on 'Pigs on the Wing', which only accounts for what...3 and a half minutes? Thank goodness. I rarely listen to it either. And then we come to Wish You Were Here--Floyd goes from a rock symphony band (A Saucerful of Secrets, but not as...well...f***ing weird) in "Shine On" to a cynical shoot-me-in-the-head attitude in "Welcome to the Machine" (Animals with a synth's vengeance) to a jiving rock band in "Have A Cigar" (hints of Obscured by Clouds's "The Gold It's in the...") to the good ole' teenager-crazy folk ballad "Wish You Were Here" (what the hell is this? "Wots...Uh, the Deal" with a hint of "Pigs on the Wing"). So what do we have here? Not only discontinuous sound, but discontinuous theme. Yuck. Not good for an album. Of course, Floyd had problems getting the theme down on this album--well, maybe theme isn't the best word. Perhaps attitude. But that's why this album doesn't cook.

I'm glad I figured that out. 7 out of 10--I concur.

mjcarney <> (16.07.2000)

This is perhaps the most overrated album in rock and roll. It is hailed more so by fans and critics because of its excellent, and masterful production than really its songs, and the production is just that--excellent. From the moody sound of the opening piece, to the strange noises on "Welcome to the Machine", and the brilliant transistor radio effects throughout, the production of this album is perhaps the best of all Pink Floyd albums--even better than Dark Side and The Wall. It is brilliant, and that is the highlight of the album. But why then is it overrated? Well, basically because the songs are a huge step downwards from Dark Side, and because"Shine On..."is well one of the most boring songs ever written. This album--Echoes and parts of what I consider a classic in Dark Side--are the material that can give the soundtrackish reputation of Pink Floyd some merit (although I don't agree with that opinion of the band entirely). "Shine On You Crazy Diamond" features a brilliant, moody guitar part by Gilmour to open with, but then it just falls flat although the lyrics are pretty good. It is boring, and stuff like this is why the Punk Movement started to attack Pink Floyd. I don't understand how people can continue to claim this the best Floyd album. I am a huge fan the Floyd is in my top three of bands and I listen to a lot of different music, I also own all of their albums (although I have sold the after Roger ones), and this is one of my least favorite ones. It takes all the bad parts of Dark Side, extends them, and overuses them, and the opening and closing tracks remind you of this fact. The second track, "Welcome to the Machine"though, is tied for the highlight of the album. This is only because of the beautiful effect that is put on Gilmour's guitar. I just love that, aside from that, it isn't really a true Floyd classic, but a strong song nonetheless. "Have a Cigar" is mediocre. I agree with you George that the lyrics are rather poor here for Roger compared to his growing mastery of lyrics at this time. Roy Harper does add some refreshment with his lyric, but it can't quite carry this poor tune too far. "Wish You Were Here" is an alright song, this, "Money" and "Comfortably Numb" are probably their best known songs, and of the three this is their best one. Ithas some good Gilmour acoustic guitarwork, beautiful effects, and terrific lyrics, and isa Floyd classic. Finally, the end of "Shine On" at the end just makes the first part sound worse. This just adds more of a boring flavor to the song, witha few more lyrics, andit meanders along to close the album. Pretty much then to sum up the album, there are 2 wothwhile tracks, about 5 minutes--out of 25 minutesof a good song in "Shine On.."and nothing elseis that good. What a let down compared to Dark Side. I know that this is the favorite album of the average Pink Floyd fan, but thatis mostly because ofeither a) the production or b) the marketing behind this album. The Floyd extended there corporate rock stance here even when they tried to make themselves looklike they hadn't with Roger's anti-establishment lyrics, it didn't work. A huge letdown, this was the second album I bought by the Floyd, and I didn't buy another one for 4 years because of this one. I would rate it a 5/10--sue me for being honest, butit is just such a letdown, although millions of people will think otherwise,all I say is listen to it again, and compare it to your other favorites. It isn't that great.

Philip Maddox <> (01.10.2000)

This album is oh-so-overrated. I never really want to listen to it. It may be sacrilege, but 'Shine On You Crazy Diamond' has never done too much for me. The vocal bits are quite pretty, but the long atmospheric noodling that eats up 20-some odd minutes puts me to sleep. It's nice and all, but I don't really need it. 'Welcome To The Machine' totally sucks. It's just a long, long, long, torturously long atmospheric piece with nothing particularly interesting going on. The melody is pretty feeble and the synth noises are, well, synth noises. Like the other 2 songs quite a bit, though. 'Have A Cigar' is a pretty good tune. I like the odd, unconfortable synth melody in between the sung parts, which don't bother me at all like they do some people. It's generic blues, but I really do like that synth line. Then you've got the title track, which is absolutely one of my favorite songs and the only reason I ever pull this record out. That acoustic guitar melody is stunning, and Dave actually sounds expressive and emotional. A beautiful song in all respects. Basically, I'd have to give this album a low, low, low 6. I'd give it a 5 if not for the fact that I like the sung part of 'Shine On'. And if the title track weren't here, who knows what I'd give it?

Andrei <> (05.10.2000)

This is my favorite PF album, owing it all to one song: 'Shine on'. It is too long, and the 2nd part is whacko, (except for intro, it's simply amazing), but the buildup, the lyrics, the feeling roger puts into it when he sings 'your eyes like black holes in the sky', is worth more to me than all of more, which I consider one of their best albums. You must've noticed already that I tend to rank favorite songs ahead of whole albums of less favorite ones - that's right, and I don't see anything wrong with that. Anyway, title track is very good, by the way they let then overweight Syd listen to it and he reportedly commented that 'doesn't it sound kind of old?'. I wouldn't say that the melody is outstanding, but as you listen to it, without being distracted by details, lyrics, vocals, and music work very well together for me. 'Machine' is far too harsh for my tastes but it's not awful. If you're feeling angst, that's the song to listen to. That's why it's 'ugly'. Angst songs are supposed to be like that, it's quite deliberate. I do skip it usually, though :-).

<> (29.12.2000)

A great album. It's full of those enigmatic little "Floyd-esque" touches that old-school fans seem to love so much, both on the cover and within the actual music. The strange cover images suit this album. On the front, two men in suits shake hands in the road, one of them apparently on fire... on the back, an invisible man in a visible suit and derby hat stands in a desert, his foot on a suitcase, holding a clear record in his hand. Inside, a strange red shape floats wraithlike in midair across an orchard, possibly a veil on the breeze, possibly something else. Nonsense imagery? Or is there some deeper meaning? With any other band, stuff like this would probably come across as wacky gimmicks, but with Pink Floyd you could never be sure. I always got the feeling there was something more, some deeper message behind the spaced out facade. The signs were there. I remember the first time that I picked up and looked at Wish You Were Here some 20 years ago. I still remember the little rip in the back of the album, with the tiny stream of sand pouring out. Of course this rip in the back was just part of the cover art, because obviously the thing wasn't really spilling sand on my shoes. But it was unlike anything I'd ever seen on any other album, more subtle and far more compelling than the gaudy excesses of so many other bands we liked at that age (KISS comes to mind). The optical illusion of sand pouring from the back of a rock album struck me as so unusual that I never forgot it. It was one of the first things that peaked my interest in Pink Floyd (okay so maybe I'm weird). It suggested that they weren't your ordinary rock group with ordinary ideas. And when I finally heard the album, I was not disappointed.

IMHO, everything on here is at least good, and much of it is great. I can't think of any other band who could do "Shine On You Crazy Diamond." The way it begins, the sustained synth note, then more noises blending in, up to those incredible four notes on the guitar... I can't listen to that song without getting chills. If it was indeed a tribute to the genius of Syd Barrett, as some claim, then it was a worthy one because this song is a minor work of genius in itself, particularly the first half (parts I-V). "Welcome To The Machine," while maybe the weakest track on here, is still very effective ... the lyrics and the grim, mechanical sound of the music compliment one another well. "Have A Cigar" is just a great song, even if you don't care for Roy Harper's wheezy voice. I mean you gotta admit, if nothing else it does have one of the coolest opening riffs of all time.

But the title track is the highpoint of the album for me. Consider the segue -- the volume of "Have A Cigar" suddenly tones down to suggest a song being played on a radio, someone tunes through the stations until coming across a melody being strummed on an acoustic guitar... they wait for a few moments and then begin to play their guitar along with it, playing a lead to the rhythm track on the radio... and then the guy playing along to the guy on the radio begins to sing, and it builds from there into the full song. No matter how you feel about the "production values" of this album, no matter how much you want to slander it as overproduced gimmickry, that segue from living song to radio play to living song again is just brilliant (at least in my book it is, and my book is the only book I happen to have handy). And it leads into one of the most beautiful songs the Floyd ever recorded. The words, the music, the whole thing just reaches me on a level almost nothing else can (Zappa's "Watermelon In Easter Hay" is one of the few other songs that comes to mind). Anyone who wants to bitch about this album being gimmicky or overproduced should sit down and really listen to the title track again. And if it still doesn't do anything for them... well hey man, what can I say?

Simply put, this album gets a high 9 from me at the very least, possibly even a weak 10. An overall 14 on the 1-15 scale seems about right to me, equal to or maybe slightly above Animals.

--- Oh yeah, an innerestin' side note -- the cool image of the sand pouring out of the back was left off the CD version I bought. Typical industry shortsightedness, no doubt. It's the same sort of mentality that would put a picture of a guy covered with light bulbs on a Pink Floyd live album and deem it "sufficiently bizarre enough" to maintain the band's image, while Gilmour no doubt nods in artistically exhausted assent as he pens the next Pink Fraud album. Oops, I mean Pink Floyd. Did I say that? ---

Joe H <> (17.11.2001)

Slightly inferior to Dark Side Of The Moon, but still very good. The title track and "Have A Cigar" are worth the price of admission alone. They are classics. "Shine On You Crazy Diamond" and "Welcome To the Machine" are these huge proggish suites that get kinda tedious and i hardly really wanna play those songs again and again, but i definatly respect "Shine On..." cuz its about Syd, and i love poor Syd. Anyways, i agree with the 11.

Ben Kramer <> (21.11.2001)

A couple of weeks ago, Echoes, the best of Pink Floyd was released. I wasn't preparing to buy it because I have all of their albums, but just out of curiosity, I look at the track listing to see what songs made it. I expected a couple from the early days, a ton of songs from The Wall and The Dark Side of the Moon and a couple from Animals and Wish You Were Here. Wish You Were Here has five songs on it. Four (you are reading correctly) are on Echoes. Now, If I ran the record company, I would never do that because I wouldn't sell the album. This was popular, and a fan favorite (band favorite as well). But 4 songs? No best of album should contain 80% of an album. And, it's actually more than 80% because 'Shine On'... has parts 1-7, not just 1-5, so that brings it to almost 90%. Wow!

Ok, Got that info off my chest. This is a good album, maybe it's a great album. It was my favorite album of all time (then again, I could say that about 10 or 12 albums) for a while. It does contain great work by PF. 'Shine on...' is spectacular, especially parts 1-5. 'Wish You Were Here' is a great acoustic song (funny how an experimental band did so many quality acoustic songs, 'Fearless', 'Wish You Were Here', 'Mother', 'Wots...Uh the Deal...'). 'Welcome to the Machine', while not one of my favorite Floyd songs, is one of their songs I have always loved for the atmosphere, mood, ... whatever you want to call it. 'Have a Cigar' has an ok bass line, but corny lyrics. I would give this a 8(12) but, if you asked me 6 months ago I would have given it an easy 10(15). I now realize its flaws and I have also discovered more strengths.

Gopher731 (23.02.2002)

This is certainly not one of Pink Floyd's best records. No, it's not at all boring, and it's not too long... the real problem is it's just too slick and shined up for its own good, and that the two tracks which together make up more than half the album -- "Shine On You Crazy Diamond" parts 1 and 2 -- are tiresome multimillion dollar retreads of Floyd's earlier 23-minute classic "Echoes," employing similar melodies and the same "space-rock" atmosphere. Okay, fine, they're not tiresome. They're pretty damn great in places. But if you've heard "Echoes," which goes on half as long and feels twice as real, there really isn't any comparison.

The best song here is, obviously, the title cut, and "Wish You Were Here" truly is a classic. The first fifty times you hear it, at least, it will send chills down your spine, and whether or not the pretentious lyrics really mean anything is beside the point, because they sound so wonderful. "Welcome to the Machine" is a good song as well (especially that beautiful acoustic guitar strumming), but it's so lathered up in production gimmicks that they become the focus, which is really the case for this whole album. "Have a Cigar" is the worst thing on here; it's still sort of enjoyable, just for its kicking blues guitar, but the vocals (by an outsider to the band) are insufferable, and it is no classic.

Compared to earlier records like the fun but overrated PIPER and the severely underrated MEDDLE, WYWH really leaves something to be desired -- namely, real feeling. It's all so robotic and processed. Besides, although DARK SIDE suffered the same problems of inhumanity and spaceyness, at least it was lyrically *about* something related to actual humans, and furthermore, it had almost ten real songs with real melodies whereas this album has just four. You can't conceal a lack of interesting songwriting ideas behind even an immaculate production, and Pink Floyd demonstrates that very well here.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not kicking the use of electronics, but rather the intentional spaceyness they evoke here. Nobody really enjoys thinking about the great, impossible-to-comprehend depths of the Milky Way and our tiny place in it, but that's precisely the feeling you get listening to this stuff. The Floyd were smart and restrained, so nothing here is quite to the level of cheesy. That said, I'm forever saddened to think about how lesser talents perverted Floyd's ambition and ripped off their smooth-as-butter sythns, vocals, and saxes on this album and DARK SIDE and then went on to create such behemoths of cheesy unlistenability as the hair metal scene of the '80s and Kansas-Styx (and now Dream Theater) style operatic prog. Those bands disgust me, and they unfortunately owe a huge musical debt to the insufferably silky production style of this album. Somehow, Floyd can pull it off (they have some humor about their music, for one thing) but I can't help but feeling the music world would be better if WISH YOU WERE HERE had never been made.

But if you don't mind an almost sickeningly slick production and a good measure of pretension, go right ahead and buy the album. It's really quite enjoyable despite its many, many flaws. But pick up MEDDLE first, so you can hear the Floyd before their overrated smooth jazz phase.

Glenn Wiener <> (12.04.2002)

Maybe this recording is not an outright classic, but it sure has creative moments. Like yourself, I favor the title track with the touching lyrics and the good instrumental blend. As a matter of the fact, the high point of this record is the belnd between the guitars, drums and special effects. David Gilmour proivdes many captivating solos on here.

The record is dominated by the ten movements of 'Shine On You Crazy Diamond'. Whereas this song is not quite for everybody, I will admit that Pink Floyd stretches out the jam on this to the max. The different speeds and rhythms are quite interesting. Even the saxaphone solo on the fifth movement as I call it is kind of odd in a good way. A little long, yes, but certainly plenty good.

'Have A Cigar' is a cool bluesy romp but 'Welcome to the Machine' is a little too creepy for my tastes. At nine minutes plus, it definitely grates on my nerves.

In general, not up to the high standards of Dark Side of the Moon but certainly loaded with good moments.

Eric Rogozin <> (12.06.2002)

Overrated! "Shine On Your Crazy Diamond" and "Have A Cigar" are a good songs but that's all.

Bruno Müller <> (24.08.2002)

Hi, George

Right now I don't have too many new arguments to oppose to your review. You just don't like this album very much, it's a matter of taste, not of objective analysis. Objectively, you seem to get its meaning quite well, except when you say it kind of ricycles other Floyd's tunes. I strongly disagree with that. Nothing previously sounded like "Shine On...", that takes half of the album, and absolutely nothing sounded like "Welcome to the Machine". Indeed, "Have a Cigar" and "Wish You Were Here" were experiments already made - blues and acoustic. But if we say it makes it unimaginative, then what's imaginative, anyway? There are different ways to make old things.

Anyway, I love this album, it's a fully deserved 10, is actually my favorite Pink Floyd album, Gilmour and Wright are playing their best (they already played their best in Dark Side, but it's a completely different album) and Roger was really inspired. Yeah, that's right, I'm one of that crazy lunatics that love "Welcome to the Machine". I love its atmosphere, it sounds unlike anything I've heard before and I absolutely love its lyrics. Believe it or not, it's my second favorite song from the album. The title track is oh so beautiful, I can only agree that it's not the band's best song, but it's certainly among them. Haven't you noticed the irony of "Have a Cigar"? How come you say its lyrics aren't that good? "Shine On..." - well, I love all its nine parts, and like I said before, it's like real "classic rock", how classic should sound played by rock instruments. I see nothing equal in rock history. Most progressive songs emulate classic music (Yes and ELP, or even Atom Heart Mother) or go directly to classic instruments to create a mixture. "Shine On..." is a completely different expierience, it creates a "classic" piece in a totally new way, since the two previous ways were the only known crossing between classic and rock, at least as far as I'm concerned.

The concept of the album is magnificently developed, and the way Roger turns his expierience and the homage to Syd into a whole critic of the society... Pure genius.

Anyway, that message was only to state my respectful disagreement with you. Ideed, this is one of the few albums I'd call perfect. I count only about ten of them, and it's not that I don't know rock that much, it's that perfection is something special. If it really exists, here is one of the places where it displays itself. Actually, Wish You Were Here is my second all-time favorite, toppled only by Abbey Road.

Jon <> (01.12.2002)

Silly songs, but beautifully arranged. Gilmour's lyrics are dumber than Waters' (whose are pretty dumb, but have high points on this album!), but together their music was phenomenal. The title track has good good lyrics. A little simplistic, but to-the-point and not evasive like so many of the ol' epoch. "We're just two lost souls swimming in a fishbowl/year after year/running over the same old ground/what have we found?/the same old fears/wish you were here" is great, I don't care how many John Lennon or Bob Dylan lovers come after me wanting colored animals with various condiments or pie-ingredients dripping from various orifices. I's likes my musical lyrics straightforward and good-like, not 2nd-rate Beat-like (though Dylan has some beautiful lapses into the former). "Have a Cigar" and "Welcome..." are pretty stupid, though. I get along alright with 'SOYCD', though. George is right about that one, for sure. Worth more than an eleven, for sure. But I guess it would be a weak twelve.

Michael Danehy <> (03.02.2003)

Ahhhh, this one's pretty and boring (pretty boring?). Jesus, man, if you can count on anything, it's that a Floydsters album will have few if any musical ideas. You can count the chords on two fingers and generally have a finger left over. What saves the dreck is heavy atmosphere. "Shine on You Crazy Diamond" is as resonant as Floyd gets. Sure the second part puts me to sleep because it doesn't know when to shut the fuck up but the first part gives me shivers. It gives most everyone shivers doesn't it? David Gilmour's usual contrived emotionalism really super duper works as do the deliberately emotionally charged synths. It's great, great, great.

I don't hate "Welcome to the Machine" as much as you do. I dunno, the guitar strums are pretty enough. The synths are no Keith Emerson but they are atmospheric. If you just kinda mellow out, it's not so bad. I enjoy the filler of 'Machine' and 'Cigar' far more than the bullshit on "Meddle." I don't get how you can almost approve of "Seamus" and despise this.

The title track is, uh, good. But it's too short. Maybe because it's so short, it seems less boring in comparison with what comes after it eh? I can't imagine why else it is so hugely popular while the far superior "Fearless" is never played on the radio at all. Oh well. People are stupid.

My rating: 12/15... Definitely overrated by Floyd fans.

Stephen Rutkowski <> (01.11.2003)

Yeah I think this is a great album, but it really seems to be missing something. I probably agree with the general consensus that the thing that is missing is new musical ideas. How else can you explain having forty four minutes with only four different songs? And I’m not referring to something like Thick as a Brick. That has musical ideas all over the place. Anyway, ‘Shine On You Crazy Diamond’ is a beautiful song… that atmosphere is so exquisite. Really, I could say this about the entire album. It’s the atmosphere on most of the tracks that make them seem so good. Is that a crime though? However, I wouldn’t praise ‘Shine On…’ as much as most Floydians. I can easily sit through all twenty three minutes of ‘Echoes’ but my patience gets tested with ‘Shine On…’. The thirteen minutes of parts I – V are perfect, but my patience gets sorely tested when reaching say parts VIII and VI. I’m not too big on the saxophone solo in part V, but then again I didn’t like it on ‘Money’. Possibly the saxophone gives me memories of 80s contemporary adult pop? *shudders* Anyway, ‘Welcome to the Machine’ is a decent track. It shouldn’t be considered a classic or anything, and is probably overlong, but I like those synth tones. Some people might consider it drowned under all the special effects and synth noises but it’s ok to my ears. ‘Have a Cigar’ is a heavy, funky blues piece. I really like this track, but then again you probably know that I really the funky blues part from ‘Echoes’. I’m probably the only one, but I’ll happily say I’m impressed with Roy Harper. His voice suits the song well enough. The synth parts are fantastic in this song as well. Seriously, I have been praising the synths so much, maybe I am listening to the wrong genre… The lyrics are well… yeah everyone is allowed to deride them. They are very accessible, which is probably why the song is so popular. Hell they must be simple if humble old me ! was able to understand that song (interpreting lyrics is not my strong point).

‘Wish You Were Here’ is an absolutely beautiful acoustic ballad. The way in which ‘Have a Cigar’ segues into this track is ok I guess. The only problem is that they have intentionally put static on the introduction, and something like this can greatly annoy a perfectionist like me. But not to worry, the rest of the song more than makes up for this ‘blemish’. As far as comparing it to ‘Fearless’, I would take ‘Wish You Were Here’ but only just. I have already spoken out in favour of ‘Fearless’ but at least ‘Wish You Were Here’ doesn’t have something as annoying as the football chant. Damn Liverpool supporters. Instead it chooses a relaxing windy part. Another strong link with Meddle perhaps. Remember the beginning and ending of ‘One of These Days’ and the end of ‘Echoes’? This segues into the less interesting part of ‘Shine On…’ A slightly disappointing way to finish an otherwise excellent album.

Fernando Henrique Canto <> (02.11.2003)

Aww, now you're being mean. I love this album. It is very special. Not the kind of "easily likeable" album, but I easily like it. Why? I don't know. Again, it isn't because of the SONGS themselves - even if I happen to like 'Have A Cigar' and the title track a lot. The former has that jerky, fast-against-slow rhythm and the synth riffs - besides that, a GOOD Gilmour solo! And the title track is, well, really beautiful. And it has a riff that I can PLAY on a guitar. Er... that is, it has a riff that ANYONE can play on a guitar. Thus, making it the perfect song for groups of 18-year-old kids to sing and play around bonfires on the beach. Yuck, what a horrid imagery. But the song is good. I guess those 18-year-olds would treat it as a love song, when it was written for Syd "Who?" Barrett. 'Welcome To The Machine' is cool, too. I guess it's more "meaning" than "music", but they pull it off so well. The noises speak for themselves. Just listen to it again and try to work out for yourself what's going on. It's quite creepy! Just listen as the machine processes you, than leaves you for public exposure, for the press to use and abuse you for a while, and forget you shortly after. Heh heh! But the centrepiece of the album is definitely THAT good. The first half of 'Shine On You Crazy Diamond' is utterly flawless and gorgeous. And hey... am I the only one to enjoy the second half just as much? The sixth part is a relentless jam, the kind of thing we don't hear Pink Floyd play very often! But it's the last part that hits right on the head of the nail. How can anyone call this "pointless keyboard noodling"? It's gorgeous! It's wonderfully sad and mournful, yet it ends in that magnificent major chord and gives me goosebumps. Gee, that must be the best part in the entire record. Sorry, I rambled on for too long. I give this a definitive 9.

Amanda Kenyon <> (15.05.2004)

I refuse to be embarrassed that this is my favorite Floyd album. There is merit to everything you say, but in spite of its flaws I still love it. It did take me a looong time to appreciate the brilliance of "Shine On," but once I finally came around I was amazed that I ever disliked it. (I actually sang it at a karaoke bar last week, believe it or not. Not one of my better moments.) I do admit that I despise "Welcome to the Machine." It says and does absolutely nothing interesting. I love "Have a Cigar," though. Getting Roy Harper to sing it was a terrific move; nobody in the band could have put that kind of inflection into the lyrics. Maybe it doesn't need to be quite as long as it is - the whole song is summed up by the line "We're so happy we can hardly count" - but I enjoy the hell out of it from beginning to end. And then....I can't even express how much I love the title track. It's one of Waters' best lyrics (which really isn't saying much - I don't think much of ! him as a lyricist in general) and the guitar work is beautiful. I don't even care that it's endlessly repetitious; I could listen to that guitar line for hours. The melody combined with the lyrics, if you catch me at the right time, will make me cry. Unfortunately, it's followed by the weaker half of "Shine On." Still great, but not QUITE as great as the first half. This album, to me, is representative of the band itself: the whole is so much greater than the sum of the parts.

Ron Andrews <> (25.05.2004)

ok, i've listened to pink floyd in a drugged out, boozed up stupor for years. i understand that that's what it's good for. i followed you through your punishing analysis of meddle, my favorite floyd album. i heard you loud and clear through your take on DSOTM. but how can you stomp on the song, not the album, wish you were here. the lyrics are "pretentious??" compared to what? every lyric i've ever heard is pretentious, then, save for the indie shit nobody ever hears about. comparing a green field to a cold steel rail. that tells a lot. there's so much meaning in the song, perhaps not beautiful, but on a certain level, not quite political or social or important in any way, save for the fact that the dumb people like me can understand it. god bless the morons.

Alexey Provolotsky <> (24.06.2005)

This was my first album by Pink Floyd, so it’s a special Pink Floyd album for me. The sound is very melancholy and truly beautiful. Frankly speaking, I’m not that keen on long moody instrumental passages, but WYWH does it for me. “Shine On You Crazy Diamond” (all those 10 parts!) thrills me every time I listen to it. It never gets boring or something; just don’t play this record when you feel very happy (goes without saying). “Welcome To The Machine” is probably slightly inferior to the rest, but that crazy atmosphere is bound to get you (oh, really!). I will never understand any criticism towards “Have A Cigar”: a great pulsating and angry rocker. Plus, it’s catchy as hell. The title track is a real classic, of course. Try to play it on guitar, it’s fantastic!

Okay, not quite a fifteen, but a high fourteen is not a bad thing either, I guess.

Tim Blake <> (14.07.2006)

This was my favourite Pink Floyd album for a long time, but being as I am, my favourite of anything at any given time seems subject to frequent change, so it isn't really my favourite anymore. But, it's still up there. Seems to be one of those polarizing records which people either love or hate...I'm inclined to love it. Although I agree that the album opens brilliantly and then gets crapper with that sax solo (worst bit on the song), and that Welcome To The Machine is a somewhat uncomfortable listen (not for it's sense of atmosphere, but it's half-baked electronic sound...but it's ok), Have A Cigar is an absolute classic to me. I love Roy Harper's performance, and the lyrics are fantastic. I don't like when it goes fuzzy at the end though. Wish You Were Here is, of course, another classic. This song is fantastic, lovely! The melody is subtle yet oh so effective, the lyrics and delivery rule...I don't think anything off Meddle compares. In fact, if acoustic guitar and general vibe is a full substitute for performance, melody and lyrical content, that's news to me. The Meddle songs are much less compelling in numerous aspects. Finally the second half of Shine One is probably my favourite part of the record, which seems to be rather unliked around these parts! I love the sliding keyboard and guitar solos that segue into that great vocal theme, multiple eargasms...and the final long extended jam is so ridiculously chillout 70s I can't help but love it. The song was so structured previously that it is nice to hear a jam-out in the finishing section.

So, if I was feigning objectivity I'd give it around an 8 with 2 off for the bits and pieces that either outstay their welcome or are too gimmicky. But if I was to follow my inclination I'd probably have to say this is one of the greatest albums ever. Alas, I know that isn't the case, thanks to its flaws, but I prefer it to Dark Side (overexposure to it mainly) and Animals (it's AWESOME, but I just don't feel like putting it on that often), although at the end of the day, they are both probably better albums. Wish You Were Here has a warmth and also a perfectly measured cynicism to it that I appreciate greatly. Atmospherically, it is the best Pink Floyd album. Though I must admit, Syd Barrett remains my favourite Floydian (the poor, poor bastard).


John McFerrin <> (26.05.99)

OK! I won't disagree. I still like DSOTM slightly better, but if that can't get the 10, I would be happy to see this get it. This album rules. 'Dogs' completely deserves to be 17 minutes long. 'Pigs' is an extremely enjoyable jam, if you will, and 'Sheep' ... crap, that prayer is spooky, hilarious, just wow. And the lyrics are fantastic throughout.

And 'POTW' gets stuck in my head a lot too. Heck, the vanity tag I recently ordered is gonna be POTW 3, I love this album so much.

Dan Watkins <> (24.07.99)

I'll second that 10! This is my favorite Floyd album ever! There's not a single moment on this album I don't fully enjoy. I love that groovy 'Pigs' song!

Mike DeFabio <> (18.08.99)

Yeah, yeah, it's great, it's great, it's really great, you've said it all, I agree, there. I'm just trying to get into the Hall of Fame.

Shor Bowman <> (25.11.99)

I was as pleased as punch to see the rating that this album was given. I agree entirely. The free-form organ introduction to "Sheep" is extremely mellowing to me, and it really relaxes me--thank goodness I know how to play it. I think that everyone really came together well on this album. It's also a tribute to David Gilmour--awesome solos on 'Pigs (3DO's)' and 'Dogs'. He's also singing high F, G, and even A's, and that's a BIG tribute to his vocal ability. Great album.

<> (02.01.2000)

I am very please to see the rating that you gave this album. It is by far my favorite Pink album, though i do love The Wall (both sides). I think that this album is not to long and drawn out like some of Pink's work. It is catchy instead of somewhat boring, and most importantly it has something to say. The whole album is a metaphor, or whatever you want to call it, fro our country's society, then and still today. As much good that I have to say about the whole album, i have bad to say about 'Sheep'. The song is crap, and furthermore i would love to smack it was that had the great idea of making A Collection of Great Dance Songs. It was ebarrasing to me as a Pink fan to think " Hey, I liked that song and they categorize it as 'dance'". However if it had to be made, 'Sheep' deffinitely belonged on it.

Brian Blacklow <> (26.01.2000)

It's good to find out that there is someone else who feels Animals was their best album.

PLH, Brian (who think the Wall is a load of crap... go listen to Berlin by Lou Reed and hear what the Wall ripped off!)

Bob Josef <> (14.02.2000)

Well, I don't agree that it's their best, but I will say that it tends to get vastly underrated.

This time, Wright drops out (or, just as likely, got pushed out) of the songwriting team. Which means that his keyboards are more there to provide atmosphere than to be a lead instrument. Which is fine, because now Dave is at the center of the sound. And I agree, this is the reason the album ROCKS -- as you said, unlike every other Pink Floyd record. The guitar is just killer -- crunchy chords, ferocious leads. And great, if dark, minor key melodies.

However, it's a tough listen, because of the lyrics. He crosses over the line of cynicism into downright misanthropy, except on the plaintive love song, "Pigs on the Wing". Such a dour record. If I want to be challenged, I'll put it on, but if I'm looking to be cheered up or have my faith in humanity reaffirmed, this is definitely the wrong place to go!

Rich Bunnell <> (24.02.2000)

What a cool concept! Lyric-wise, Waters is at his all-time height-- though I haven't really listened to the lyrics on The Final Cut yet, which explains why at this point I don't like it too much. I'm not much of a lyrics man, especially when the lyrics are so covered and distorted by the music surrounding it that it's hard to pay attention to both. Here, though, the concept is clear enough to appeal to me-- Pigs use dogs to terrorize sheep, in a metaphor for the human race. Plus, what cool songs! I agree that "Dogs" merits its 17-minute length, "Sheep" rocks relentlessly, and "Pigs (Three Different Ones)" is groovy without being stupid. The animal sounds used throughout are really effective too. I don't care much for the "Pigs On The Wing" intro and outro, but that's what? 3 minutes of the whole album, total. Besides, they still serve as a good "calm before and after the storm." I'm not sure if this is as good as Dark Side but lyrically, it's a lot more interesting by far. 9/10

John Caulfield <> (29.08.2000)

I cannot agree that Animals is the best Floyd album. The album definetly as a hard edge which I enjoy, but in my not so humble opinion, it lacks moments of real beauty which abound on most other Floyd albums and especially on Wish You Were Here and The Wall.

I also feel that this period was not a high point in their musical creativity. The music for two of the long tracks on the album were in fact wrtitten before 'Welcome to the Machine' and 'Have a Cigar' and were to originally intended to make up one side of WYWH with 'Shine On You Crazy Diamond' making up the other side.

(They can be found on some RoIO live recordings as 'Raving and Drooling' and 'You Gotta Be Crazy')

It was Water's idea rather to split the 'Shine On' set into two parts and write new material on the same theme to link the two parts. The only relevance of this in this context is that Floyd were obviously not that musically creative between WYWH and The Wall.}

I have been a fan of Floyd since 1979 and it is difficult to choose their "best album" as I find that one's opinions constantly change (and then change back again). But Animals has never been a favourite of mine and I would rank it below The Piper, WYWH, The Wall, Atom Heart Mother and Dark Side of the Moon.

Paul Stadden <> (03.09.2000)

Thank You! I am so dang sick of hearing about The Wall! Every time I tell someone my favorite Pink Floyd album is Animals, I am hit by a drawn out "Huh?" Every time I mention that one of my favorite guitar solos of all time is the one from Pink Floyd's 'Dogs' I am again hit with "Huh? Is that off The Wall?" I am finally glad to see someone actually having heard of and liking Animals.

Andrei <> (05.10.2000)

Second best album - 'pigs on the wing' are so-so, they're like 'meadows' minus great guitar lead. Or 'cymbaline' without great music and great vocals. You get the idea. It's good filler, though - nothing more, nothing less. That's no excuse, however, they could put another soft song instead, like the 'meadows', in fact, why the hell didn't they? I suppose because it wouldn't look too good: 3 new songs and 1 rehash, not really an album, but then again, is this filler any better? Anyway, 'Dogs' must be my second favorite song after 'shine on', (did you notice how I coincide best/second song with best/second album? Not a coincidence!), with guitar and dogs howling being the highlights. I think the song starts out unpromising until the guitar starts the main tune about 2 minutes into the song. This tune is just as good as shine on's but vocals and lyrics aren't quite as good, that's why it's #2 here. 'Pigs' are great, except for that 'Ha-Ha' part that sounds a little silly, but he makes it work. The music itself is near damn perfect. I like intro to 'sheep', but the song itself.. sheep's Baa'ing.. in short, I don't enjoy listening to it. Hold on to your seats: I often skip it. Overall, second best album, due mostly to 2 great songs.

Jeff Heller <> (27.11.2000)

There's no real way to rate Pink Floyd albums. You seriously have to be in the same mood as the tones of the albums in order to give them high ratings. Dark Side is a 10 for the mellow, yet rocked out. The Wall is a 10 for the depressed and angry. Wish You Were Here is a 10 if you're just plan depressed to death (figures why Radiohead covered it). Animals, I will agree, is fabulous. It's a 10 (or 14 in your case) for the romantic ('Pigs on the Wing' as my witness), the depressed (parts of 'Dogs'), the rocked out ('Sheep'), and the angry ('Pigs 3DO').

I hate the fact that it's so underrated. You never hear it on the radio. Never once. I still have yet to hear it anywhere. I was lucky enough to even find the album by checking out the songlist of Collection of Dance Songs and seeing "Sheep" there, to which I found out about Animals. The lyrics are a Roger Waters masterpiece. He's much more specific, to the point that everyone who listens finally knows what he's talking about! I don't think it makes a perfect segway to Orwell's Animal Farm, but the relevance can not be denied.

'Pigs on a Wing' is a lovely tune, though it is a bit out of step from the other tracks (lack of sound effects, track length, etc.). 'Dogs' is brilliant in its lyrics. The entire album is, but this track especially. No catchy hooks, however, not much to remember musically. 'Pigs3DO' is crafted well, taking the pig metaphor seriously and criticizing people left and right. Also not too memorable musically. 'Sheep' is the musical kicker. Not the best lyrics of the album ('Dogs' takes it, by far), but still better than other albums. The music is outstanding. A dark, droning tone to Water's wail on the tail of the sheep, then the long midsection. The creepy prayer is both funny and scary. Good thing the Pope never checked out those lyrics. The end of the piece is the best, in my opinion. Crushing guitar on the last riffs is what Gilmour is best known for. If only this album wasn't so underrated. 'Pigs on the Wing' comes back, complimenting the first part and providing a nice end.

Dark Side's fine, The Wall's great, but Animals is excellent rock. Pink Floyd certainly go through lots of styles, but when it comes to rocking out hard, this album takes it. A well deserved 14, if you ask me

Sergey Zhilkin <> (16.01.2001)

Aaaaargh!!! This is too depressing for me. I don't want to say that this album has any flaws or something like that.In fact, Animals is very good example of how guitar chords should be placed to take your breath away and return it only in the end of last track. Besides, there's a wonderful cycle conception. I mean that in the end of album your here the same song as in the beginning but it has different effect. That were my thoughts while listening to this album but now I nearly hate it because it caused my depression (thanks it came to the end). No, I won't listen to any hard albums anymore (in near future at least). Now I'll go and buy some Beach boys' albums or maybe Animals or something in such style. I'm too tired of concept albums, sorry. Though, Animals is classic. 10/10.

Federico Marcon <> (22.04.2001)

It' s clear that this time you' ve really missed something if you say that Animals is better than DSOTM and expecially if you say it in this way.My first reproach is that, in Animals review, you say about the lyrics :"I won' t go into details ; suffice it to say that I consider the lyrics among Waters' best ever....".Maybe it' s true, I' m not going to consider the lyrics of DSOTM better for the simple fact I believe so, but you must explain why you think so ( also because the lyrics arefor you a "point off"to DSOTM)and you have to go into details if you want readers comprehend your choice.At this point, if there isnone motivation of your statement and if I don' t know who are you, I may say that this is the so called "ultra-subjective factor".Before starting, I want to point out that I don' t disagree with your review of Animals : I like it for the same reason ( the lyrics, the music, as you said ) of you and from a subjective point of view I prefer Animals to DSOTM but I' m ready to recognize the superiority of the latter ( even if Animals glides softer on my ears than DSOTM, and I agree with you when you say that here you can find the best Gilmour' solos, in fact here the guy is more fluent and passional ).

And so what did you miss in DSOTM? According to me the concept; you simply skip it and don' t say you did so because the album is so well known, becausein this case you have to skip the description of it( as you did ) and not the judgement.Not that the Orwellian parody of Animals is bad ( have you noticed that the factory in the cover is the same of the one in aphoto of Quadrophoenia booklet ? ), you perfectly pointed out its most remarkable features, but it' s absurd to avoid to compare it with the themes of the other album, or better it' s absurd if you want to claim the superiority of one album on the other on this ground.

Personally I think DSOTM is better because it includes the concept of Animals, and it' s better balanced and projected, starting from the cover : the uniform light coming from the sun in divided by a prism into its components ; and this is what Pink Floyd do : they analize the society and divide it into its components, or better into its fears, dreams, illusions and weaknesses.The album begins with some whispering voices saying "You always been mad, we are all mad but you have to explain why you are mad.....".Yes, you have to explain why you are mad ( Uhm, R. Waters is the most rationalist "rock-star" I' veever seen ) ; since the beginning it' s clear how the purpose of this album is to explain the condition of the whole humankind and to analize the "male di vivere" typical of the XX century man [ I use this italian term to indicate the particular feeling towards the world expressed by artists like Munch, Baudelaire, Mallarme, Shopenhauer, Majakowsky and I. Svevo, the one of "La coscenza di Zeno" ; feel free to translate - another word may be "spleen" ].The album is divided in two part, separate from some seconds of silence between the "Great Gig In The Sky" and "Money" ; this because the first part analizes the man as single entity and the secon in his relationships toward the world and society.For example "Breath" deals withthe condition of the man whochoses mediocrity in order tosafely live ( and this concept is told with the metaphor of a rabbit who goes even deeper in work, refusing to see the sun - that represents the high ideals - ) and avoid to look for strong emotions."On The Run" is a breathtaking eletronic jam that createson you the sense of hurry that dominates the contemporary world ; "Time" is about time ( obvious!!! ) and reprises partially the same themes of "Breath" expecially in the lines "...staying home to watch the rain...", and "The Great Gig In The Sky" is about the fear of death, even if it' s more remarkable for the fantastic guest-vocalist and one of the most inspiredWright.Then we have the social critic: here we see how the men are guided by presunted immortal entities, politicians...etc..etc in "Us And Them", how the money' importance grows in modern society ; "Brain Damage" is a softbut angry song in which Waters explains the main reasons of modern man' s madness : it' s clear how mainly the loss of theidea of God ( think to "...if there is no room upon the hill..." ) caused this madness.These are only the most evident themes of DSOTM and as you can easily seesome of themconstitute most of the themes of Animals ( the reproach against the sheeps can be found in "Breath" and "Us And Them", some of the social critic to the world of bussinesscan be noticed in "Money"and maybe in "Us And Them").

At this point you may say that DSOTMare simply more pretentious than Animals, and the fact that it carries more universal meanings ( I hope we don' t star a discussion about universal/particular ! ) doesn' t mean that its themes are better treated or developed than Animals does ; yes, you are right on here, but this is another matter ( and a subject for a future mail : prepare yourself, I think it will be VERY LONG! ) and the purpose of this mail is toexpress to youmy disappointmentfor the different treatments you reserved to the two albums.As anticipation ofmy future comment I say that for meDSTOM is superior because, in Animals Watersleaves the symbolism degenerates into allegory and the result is that allthe concepts areexposed in a too didactical way, and you know there are two ways to say a thing : the "artisitic" one and the "punkish" one.Don' t you need I tell youwhat is the best and the most intelligent ( even if this not means that Animals is a gritty and clumsy ). Sorry if my words sound aggressive and angry, it' s not my intention to offend you, maybe I got too involved in the discussion.Hi George.

George Starostin (22.04.2001)

Animals are less straightforward than the overtly commercial DSOTM ('Time' is almost like a didactic lecture from a bad sci-fi flick). Animals have more interesting melodic ideas. Animals have better guitar solos. Animals have a cute album cover. Otherwise, it's your dime.

Anonymous <> (07.07.2001)

Animals is one of the best albums ever.

By analogy, it ranks up there with Citizen Kane.

Needless to say, I thought Roger was a big cry baby whem the The Wall made its debut.

It was the beginning of the end.

Ben Kramer <> (24.12.2001)

Yep, when you really get down to it, this is really the best Pink Floyd album ever. Not only that, but I give it the honor of being the best concept album ever (excluding rock opera's which are stories, not concepts, but if they counted I'd give the honor to Quadrophenia). Waters' lyrics are angry, the mood set by Gilmour is extraordinary, the music is simple, yet enjoyable, the list goes on and on. The first song, 'Dogs' ('Pigs on the wing' is too short to be actually counted as a song when compared to the monster tracks on Animals) is currently my favorite sidelong track ever. Well, if 'Pigs on the wing' weren't on the same side of it, it would have been, but I can safely say that it is the greatest song that exceeds 15 minutes in rock an roll history. The anger, the imagery, I love it! Dave spits out the lyrics with feeling and the guitar playing, while not brilliant, is certainly great by Gilmour's standards. I could go on and on but you already covered the highlights of this song. 'Pigs (Three Different Ones)' is next and although it isn't as good as its preceder, it is another favorite of mine. It's angry, and emotional like 'Dogs', but in a different way that I can't quite put my finger on it, but believe me, all of the elements that make a great song are there and all but one elements that make a hit are there (11 minute songs never get radio play). 'Sheep' is even better than 'Pigs'. The opening keyboard riff is simple, yet it works (keep in mind that despite the length of these 3 songs, I would not consider this to be progressive rock because it is a simple album musically overall and the lyrics don't fit prog lyrics. 'Sheep' basically closes the album in the classic Pink Floyd style, with a lot of emotion and pain. The concept is quite simple which helps to make the album run more smoothly. It basically is a philosophical statement based on the classic novel Animal Farm by George Orwell. Waters takes the ideas and transforms them. This is not a substitute for the book, but both can be used to help understand each other more clearly, at least that is what happened in my case and as a high school student, I read Animal Farm. It's a great book. Overall, I would give this masterpiece a 10(14) or even give it the honor of being that last true 15. Either way, both grades are great, this album is great, and buying the album is a choice that I would consider to be great.

Joe H <> (10.01.2002)

I love this album. The concept is extremely interesting and has to be one of the best concept albums ever (although i love The Wall too). First it starts things off folky and quiet with an acoustic guitar with the sweet "Pigs On The Wing" and then in comes an acoustic guitar, but this time you know this aint no folk your about to hear! "Dogs" comes in aggressively and kicks your ass for a whole 17 minutes (definatly deserves to be that long), then my favorite song on the album "Pigs (3 Different Ones)". What a great fuckin song. "Sheep" is a noisy, pissy rocker, then it all comes crumbling down for good for the sweet "Pigs On The Wing 2" again. What an outstanding record! Waters is pissed off, and it sounds damn good. I wish there was at least one more song though, i enjoy this shit too much. Definatly a 9!

Eric Rogozin <> (12.06.2002)

No reason to get excited! Overrated! There are some beautiful moments on this album, but generally this album sucks.

Joe <> (31.10.2002)

Two things. First, 'WATCHING TV' is his attempt to personalize Tieneman Square, the last line of the song spells that out. I agree with everything else.

Second- I also think Animals is their best album, HOWEVER... I also think the bootleg of Animals on 7/6/77 is about 10 times better than the album! Apart from the sheer intensity on that particular performance, most notable are things like:

*Playing the songs in the order they did on tour- 'Sheep', 'Dogs', 'Pigs'- works better.

*"Bleeting and babbiling I fell on his neck with a scream"... I can repeat that part over and over forever!

*The climax to 'Dogs', including the gradually building drums and vocal accompaniement... the sheer power is beyond comprehension!

*'Pigs': The whole damn thing kicks major ass! And it's 18 minutes long (an additional 7 minutes) and has more words in the end "Come back! All is forgiven!" is truly classic stuff!

*The "for fuck's sake" line where they stopped 'Pigs On The Wing' to tell everyone to "stop lighting off fireworks and shouting and screaming- I'm trying to sing a song!" is awesome! I reccomend the 7/6/77 Pink Floyd show to all! They then take a break and come back and do 'Wish You Were Here' which for me is little more than the icing on the cake... the show rocks! I can never get tired of hearing it!

Federico Fernández <> (15.11.2002)

George: the greatest moment I experienced when reading your website for the first times was to find the "Best album" print on top of the Animals review. It was so unexpected, yet so damn just that I couldn't do nothing but cry!!! Well, no, not really! but it's still one of the major agreements I had with your reviews. I considered Animals as the best Pink Floyd album before finding your page and I was totally annoyed about its being underrated by many people.

What I like about this album? Basically, that it really GRABS YOU BY THE NECK AND KICKS YOUR BUTT MERCYLESSLY like few, very few albums can. Plus, it has a cool cover art. The pissed-off lyrics, the oh! so dark tones, the menacing atmospheres, the horryfing screams, the violent rage and anger that trembles painfully in every note make this one (and not The Wall) the ultimate Floyd experience. If someone ever felt disgusted and sick to death with the whole humanity, this is the correct album to express those feelings and vomit your fears.

Musically it is also superb; not very catchy but with some of the most powerful, angry and frightening musical passages of the history of rock: I love the three main tracks equally. I'm atonished at each part of each song!

Here's a list of the things I like the most.

DOGS: The dark acoustic intro and the wonderful way the song kicks in with those electric ass-kicking bursts that scare the shit out of me, the jazzy but heavy jams in the middle, the melodic and depressing main solo which is better than anything on Dark Side, the spooky synth break with the "stone, stone, stone" obsessive refrain which is the most hypnotic and sad soundscape ever concieved and the effective way it unleashes the reprise to the intro.

SHEEP: The somewaht soothing but menacing, distrubing keyboard intro which gives the feeling that something not very pleasant is about to happen; the main track with an ultra-heavy groove, ear-splittering electric explosions at the end of each verse, the angry, mad, psychotic Roger's vocals, the spooky middle section with that terryfing prayer and the abnormal, powerful and glorious electric solo in the end.

PIGS: the magnificent, bloody-as-hell vocals that (not literally) scream "I HATE YOU" all over the place, the ferocious Gilmour solo at the end and the frightening, depressing and decadent middle crescendo with all the pigs chanting.

PIGS ON THE WING: Two short love tracks that bookend the album with some sort of light that contrast with the horrors of the rest. A tear may rise in your eye at the very end when Roger sings to the beloved one: "So I don't feel alone on the weigh of the stone, now that I found somewhere safe to bury my bone".

Yes, the world is a shit, but if you love somebody things may get a little better.


This is a wonderful, claustrophobic and highly emotional experience. If you like rock albums to kick your ass and leave you totally shocked and sweated, this is an obligatory pick. George says that the best album since Quadrophenia is Before And After Science, but I'd say that THIS ONE deserves the prize.

Jon <> (01.12.2002)

There are parts in WYWH that sound dinosaury, but this album really gets the ol' big lizard feet stompin'. It's great, the songs are long but justifyably so, the guitarwork is good and everyone seems into it, but wait a minute... where's the expansion? Waters is getting louder but less interesting, Gilmour's playing better but more cliched-like (The "Comfortably Numb" solo has its prototype here, George! You can almost hear him thinking: "awright then, ah'll play bluddy fahster awlready!!") and Rick (despite some nice synth playing, he played much better on WYWH) and Nick (he used to be genially lazy behind the drums, now he's comatose!!) could be mannequins. The two folk song-bookends are LOUSY. Oh man they are terrible. The "stone" is great, though. There are a lot of parts like that, but overall you feel the band running down and changing into something with a big tail and two tiny little forepaws and gnashing teeth. Look out Tokyo!!! It's sponsored by VW!!!! This is a 12, for sure.

<> (07.03.2003)

There is no doubt in my mind that Animals is the best Pink Floyd album. The lyrics are Water's best, the melodies are tight and the band just gells together perfectly. Both of the 'Pigs on the Wing' songs are absolutely and Roger actually sounds authentic not just spouting some b.s. line that he didn't even believe in. I think this is the only Pink Floyd album that was released in the 1970s that wasn't done as a cash in. I love Pink Floyd, but I hate their overt commercialism and Roger's bullshit hate of the fans. Fuck Roger. That being said I think the man is a lyrical genious who was able to take control of the band and created a remarkable comeback after the seemingly lackluster WYWH. "Dogs" is the best Pink Floyd song of all time. Everything just comes together. The song has amazing lyrics and Dave's solos are breathtaking. Roger's voice is also in excellent form and he sounds so menacing and I think he might actually believe what he's singing. The end of "Dogs" is one of the best lyrical endings to a song ever!!! Great lyrics that totally tell the tale of despair that anybody could be going through. "Pigs" has the best basswork of any Pink Floyd song and like "Dogs" has great sound effects and haunting lyrics. That snapping bassline by Roger throughout is steady and self-assured and I think that Roger defenitely improved on bass between 75 and 77. The ending of this song brings tears to my eyes and can only be described as musical ecstasy. First of all that ripping solo by Dave who plays like he is possesed (I think it's Dave's equivalent of Eric Clapton's "Crossroads" solo) when that reaches a climax, (oh my GOD!!!) Roger's bass solo. I don't know what it is about this solo that gets me. The first time I heard I cried. I think there is actually desperation in that bass riff that goes up and down. I just imagine Roger going at it with that bass getting everything that he could out of it. And the guitar is going at the same time still going at a frenetic pace. I think they knew it was the end of Floyd as a group, they let their guard down and just played rock and roll. Pink Floyd fucking ROCKS on this album!!! I usually skip "Sheep" because I'm too exhausted to go through the album and that song just has no let up. The Wright solo at the beginning is awesome and its the last hurrah for I guy that I love. That riff that drives the whole song is insane. The sound effects wow. Then finally "Know I don't feel alone, nor the weight of the stone.." Roger is amazing. Animals is my favorite album of all time. I gotta give it to Floyd; I love them.

Sergey Suslov <> (03.09.2003)

Sure it is their best one! Take my pig's (a dif'rent un's) word for this. It is just perfect in composition and really admiring in music, arrangements, words, etc.

Stephen Rutkowski <> (01.11.2003)

Being such a cynical person, naturally the lyrics appeal to me. However, I’ve always been a bit sceptical because the lyrics seem to much like an Orwellian rip-off. But dig a little deeper and you will realise that Waters’ visions are somewhat more general than Orwell’s in Animal Farm. Specifically, Orwell’s novel was mostly in relation to communism whereas Waters deals with everybody. This isn’t quite true since Orwell’s tale could well be extended to other domains. But what am I writing about here? This is a rock album review site, not a classic novel site. I won’t mention the lyrics from here, suffice to say they are the greatest you will find on a Pink Floyd album.

Let’s get to the more important part: the music. The best way to tell that these tracks are great, is that even though three of them are over ten minutes, can anyone possibly say the songs seem too long? The two part of ‘Pigs on the Wing’ are just inoffensive little acoustic ditties that bookend the album. Pink Floyd have continued their trend of always finishing an album at the same place as they begun. (The other cases being the wind on Meddle, the beating heart on Dark Side of the Moon, ‘Shine On…’ on Wish You Were Here and the greatest example is the broken sentence on The Wall.) But then the real deal begins with 'Dogs', a seventeen minute multipart epic. (Really the word epic is not applicable considering the lengths of the three tracks on this album) It tends to meander around a little, but it never ever bores the listener. There are some typical Pink Floyd Moments, like the animal sound effects. (Well, what’s a Pink Floyd album without sound effects? Even The Final Cut has the planes flying overhead and other war whatnot.) ‘Pigs (Three Different Ones)’ is my personal favourite. The bass line is utterly fantastic and Gilmour employs minimalistic, almost Andy Summers style guitar work. The ‘pig’ solo is a surprise. Yeah they managed to make it sound exactly like a pig squeal. ‘Sheep’ is the most rocking track on the album. The introduction is fairly soft and slow… yes the sheep are waiting quietly in the meadow, unknown to them they are about to get exploited by the pigs. The guitar tone in the introduction sounds very much like the ‘scratchy’ guitar used in ‘One of These Days’. There is some small but very quick panning of the channels (you will probably need to listen to it on headphones to realise). Pink Floyd were still up to a couple of their old tricks. Then the song proper begins with a very hard edge. The rumbling bass line, although not quite as good as ‘Pigs’ is the foundation of the song. The song takes a break for a while for the shee p’s prayer and then back to the rumbling bass line. Gilmour throws in some gritty high pitched guitar work towards the end before the fade into ‘Pigs on the Wing 2’. And thus finishes a highly satisfying album. It is better than its predecessors and the album that follows it? Ultimately, I think that’s a matter of personal taste. I definitely think it is better than The Wall but I might get a bit edgy if I am told it’s better than Dark Side of the Moon. No true Pink Floyd fan could live without it though.

Fernando Henrique Canto <> (02.11.2003)

You know what? I had a kind of prejudice against this album, initially. But that was before I realised it was GREAT. I'm not in love with every second of it, mind you. When I'm not on the right mood, parts of it can drag a bit too much - especially on 'Dogs'. But when I'm on the right mood, I enjoy this album a hell of a lot. 'Dogs' is, indeed, awesome, and both 'Pigs' and 'Sheep' are quite eccentric and great. I dunno what exactly to say about them, because there are so many distinct parts in each of these three songs, it becomes impossible to discuss them in detail. But I'll just say this: You said it ALL about the album. I couldn't express my feelings any better. Yes, Roger's lyrics are among his absolute best, indeed. I really love this album. I give it a very high 9, or maybe even a 10. Not that it equals Dark Side Of The Moon, mind you.

Jason Saenz <> (30.07.2004)

Yeah George, I agree with you 100%, this is probably one of the greatest (not the greatest) rock albums of all times, even though not the most recognized. ANIMALS is highly underrated, that's because most people only know about 1 or 2 albums from each good rock band and the rest of the bands works are left obscurity, well this is one of those albums left in obscurity, at least by mediocre music critics. The first track is probably the only "weak" tune here but even that is nice and melodic. Things start getting excellent at track 2 and it just's get better and better. This is Floyd's conceptual album (Not THE WALL, just horrible and overrated) and it's complete ear satisfaction. If anybody doesnt have this album, run to the nearest cd shop and trade in your copy of THE WALL for this album, you wont regret it.

Alexey Provolotsky <> (24.06.2005)

While I would never call it their best album (could be in my top three, though), this is obviously a solid effort. There are only 3 real songs here, but they’re so HUGE, so melodically substantial, so damn catchy and lyrically interesting that one can’t really resist them. Great atmosphere (a Pink Floyd album), too. Also, let’s not forget about two short acoustic cuts that cleverly open and close Animals: they are very nice. But those epics!.. THOSE EPICS!!!

Highly recommended; 14/15.

Tim Blake <> (14.07.2006)

Hrm, this is a tricky one to think about. I don't think it is Floyd's best album, but I can't make an argument for it not being so, whereas I can with Wish You Were Here...but...not with Dark Side Of The Moon. So...basically I have no fricken' idea what the best Pink Floyd album is. I'd give to the nod to Dark Side, but I don't enjoy that one as much as Wish You Were Here or Animals. But still, the nod goes to Dark Side, for it's unity and consistency.

As for Animals...I think the concept is weak. It's so simple and bone-headed. However, having said that, the execution of it is excellent. And the idea manages to yield many great lyrics, so this is a case of taking a bad idea and making it good, if that makes sense to you. The Wall on the other hand has an astoundingly spectacularly great concept, but suffers in places from poor execution. The music on Animals is definitely some of the best Floyd ever created, but it is a lot different than Dark Side and Wish You Were Here, but what's wrong with difference? Well, a couple things. Mainly that the production is much, much drier and can grate on you a little, and that it exudes inaccessibility. It still gives me a sense of inaccessibility, and I know every nuance of it from listening to it for so long! And aurally it isn't even inaccessible, it just somehow makes me feel that it is, through it's dark lyrics and dry, distant, emotionally mechanical music. The only respite are Pigs On The Wing (Parts 1&2), and even then the dry production somehow sucks the warmth out of them. The Wall had just as nihilistic an idea, but in execution it still felt somewhat warm. Sometimes it even made you feel happy, despite the lyrics. Animals, on the other hand, is an extremely bleak record, to it's very core.

The music itself is fantastic. Dogs is pure brilliance, with some of my favourite lyrics, and bombastic, soaring (albeit dry and cold) guitar lines. The middle 'stone' section...ehh...I don't like it much. My least favourite part on the album, and yes, it makes my brain doze off. It simply isn't interesting. Pigs (Three Different Ones) is by far the most drony, repetitive song.'s farkin' cool, and it holds my interesting. It is so cool it can get by on such repetition, and I love it. Sheep is another friggin' awesome song that rocks very hard. Like Dogs it has a long ambient-ish keyboardy section. Unlike Dogs, I really enjoy that part, because it feels like it has more atmosphere, subtle melody, and purpose.

Animals is a great album, but it feels too cold. I've heard all kinds of doom metal albums that aren't even near as depressing. I don't feel that The Wall even approaches the mood Animals gives off. And the album is mean, it's cold, and it won't let you in even once you've digested everything there is to know about it. For that reason I don't like it as much overall as Dark Side Of The Moon, but I do like the music better, and listen to Animals way more often. Weird I know, but that's that.


John McFerrin <> (02.06.99)

I don't necessarily disagree, although I would give it an 8 ((10+6)/2). You're right, as a psychological thriller, the first half is awesome. And when I think about it, I agree with you that 'Don't Leave Me Now' is the best song there.

But yeah, disc 2 is much, much weaker. However, I give it a 6 as opposed to your 4 for two reasons: 1. I like 'Comfortably Numb' quite a bit. Yeah it's just atmosphere with a solo, but in Gilmour's style, it's about as good a solo as your gonna get. 2. 'The Trial' may be the most hilarious thing I have ever heard on any album. Yeah, it's corny as hell, but the scary thing is that Waters probably took it seriously, which makes it all the more hilarious. Besides, I enjoyed sneaking up on one of my friends last year before we went off to college and starting to wail "THE EVIDENCE BEFORE THE COURT..." and he'd start in and we'd scare everybody off. It was great.

Where was I? Oh yeah. Needless to say, I disagree with Herr Prindle giving it a 10, but it's not really bad by any means. But, when people try to pretend that The Wall is the be-all end-all of existance, I get really pissed. And when they start acting like it's the greatest teen angst album ever, I tell them to go listen to Quadrophenia and come back later.

Brian D. Burks <> (05.06.99)

Congratulations, George, you've written the best analysis of The Wall that I've read so far. The problem comes down to not enough good material, which most double albums suffer from. However, if the songs were trimmed to a single album, the story would be even more incoherent than it is I could theoretically justify the boring songs as "moving the narrative forward". I'm not sure how to solve this dilemma, since with the Floyd the songs' context within the albums are very important.

Aside from my liking a certain two songs on the second disc that you don't, I pretty much agree with your assessment of this album, and Pink Floyd's career as a whole. Yes, the film is horrid; it's the type of flick that potheads get stoned while they watch and pretend has "deep" meaning, when in fact it's nothing but random, senseless images of sex and violence set to a Pink Floyd soundtrack. The only interesting thing about the movie is how closely Bob Geldof's voice sounds like Roger Waters' (if you play the Boomtown Rats' Greatest Hits and the movie of The Wall at the same time, you'll notice that they are perfectly synchronized!) Actually, I made that last bit up.

Mike DeFabio <> (18.08.99)


Jeez Louise. Is there something wrong with your copy?

And the movie is great. There are no gentle moments. If you think there are, listen again.

P. S. One more thing, the movie has PLENTY of artistic value. It's WAY too deep for a simple blood and guts fan to appreciate. Just watch it a few times, you'll get it.

Nick Karn <> (09.10.99)

Wow, it sure is totally amazing how a few people can have COMPLETELY different opinions and views of the same album, isn't it?

I was a bit disappointed with this album compared to the three that came before it (especially Animals, which just completely blew me away), but that's not to say there aren't a lot of amazing moments. Yeah, the story is kind of dumb and overblown somewhat, but damn it, I don't think there's any band better than Pink Floyd at truly keeping the listener at the edge of their seat and hitting them exactly in the right spot, and, for the most part, The Wall is no exception.

Both you and Prindle seem to be moved tremendously by the impact of Disc One. There are some exceptional emotional moments there (including "Don't Leave Me Now"), and "In The Flesh?" is absolutely brilliant for an opener (strong melody and drama). The "Another Brick In The Wall" songs are quite exciting, and "Goodbye Blue Sky" and "The Thin Ice" are nice ballads. And I actually like the rocker "Young Lust". The rest of disc one, however, seems a bit too insignificant to me (especially "Mother", which I think is very overrated and dull, and is one of the few times I'd agree with you about Waters' lack of melody) and as a whole does not move me anywhere near as much as their best efforts. I would give this part of the journey an 8.

Disc two, though, is a different story. Sometimes it's hard to believe that I even listened to the same album as you after experiencing this part. I love the opener "Hey You", and I think that one and the next four tracks on the disc do a masterful job at building up to "Comfortably Numb". I think "Is There Anybody Out There" is VERY worthwhile for its' beautiful acoustic melodies, and "Nobody Home" a high quality ballad (the next two short tracks aren't songs, but sound to me very significant in the overall dramatic effect - anything else coming before "Numb" just wouldn't have worked).

I know I'm probably gonna sound like a bandwagon jumper for this, but I think "Comfortably Numb" is the most brilliant song on the album, the majestic centerpiece which gives every other track coming before it purpose. Yeah, it may be all atmosphere, but it's a timeless atmosphere in my opinion, one of the greatest moody workouts I've ever come across - making this song a duet between Gilmour and Waters only heightens the drama, and yeah, I KNOW Dave's guitar style is calculated, but that doesn't mean the solos here don't tremendously move me.

And that 'banal' ending you speak of in the space of the last few songs, I can see why you hate it, but there's just something about that section that really strikes a chord inside me when I listen to it. The reprise of "In The Flesh" for me has absolutely glorious adrenaline and life to it, even more so than the first (maybe the lyrics here which are tremendously racist and violent mar it a bit, but not too much), and I always thought of "Run Like Hell" as a piece that best captures the experience of a live show in song. "Waiting For The Worms", meanwhile, ties in effectively with "In The Flesh" and has a whole lot of feeling to it; the song sounds so "final", like Pink's time has truly come.

I agree with whoever said the cartoonish song "The Trial" is a song that's so corny as hell and ridiculously overblown it's hysterical, so I get tremendous enjoyment out of it singing along to it - it even has a REALLY fun melody!!! I also like how the short closer "Outside The Wall" leaves things unresolved and unsatisfying... probably one of the greatest things about this album is that it's really open to interpretation. Anyway, I give disc two a 10.... yes you heard me right... for a total score of 9 (8+10/2). I feel like an idiot now... haha! ;-)

<> (16.12.99)

How could you call the guitar solo in 'Comfortably Numb' boring? That is probably my favorite two minutes in all of music! The rest of the song is just building up to the moving and brilliant guitar part by Gilmour. The more you listen to it, the better it gets, unlike 'Another Brick in the Wall Part 2' (which is still a cool song, don't get me wrong) and the rest of the album. In fact, The Wall is certainly no better than Meddle, Dark Side of The Moon, Wish You Were Here, or Animals. It is Pink Floyd, though, so I'd give it a 7 [(6+8)/2].

Ryan Maffei (01.01.2000)

...oooohhh-kayyyy...calm down there, Georgie. I think we've got a little bit of a disagreement here. Several key points made in your little critique were a bit blasphemous, even for a non-floyd fan, and so I'll just fix them up for you, okay? I must say, though, I do agree that the first disc is better from a psychological standpoint. The effects are not as superb as those presented on Dark Side Of The Moon, or even Wish You Were Here, but I do love the 'Another Brick In The Wall', 'On Of My Turns', 'Mother', and 'Look, mummy, there's an airplane..." so very dearly. But the emotional anxiety is missing here, even in the redundant "Dont Leave Me Now' (which I believe is too bloated and hurried a follow-up to 'One Of My Turns'), and ''In the Flesh?', which is better on the second side. Then of course, as you say, the first disc presents the fleeing of Pink's wife (and is that her depicted on the back with the flaming hair? it doesn't seem like the character shown here), and it is given to us in a way through which we cannot follow. I'm lost with the concept up to the second disc. Third of all, I despise your lambasting of 'Comfortably Numb', which sounds more than Elton John like "The Acid Queen', with that impish Waters-esque twist. He has a delightful voice and absolutely steals the show from 'One Of My Turns' up until the abrupt ending. This leads me to my final point, which clearly states that the vaudevillian tendencies on the second disc RULE!!!!!!! Sure, it's a bit Gilbert-and-Sullivan-esque, but I'm a fan of theatrics s well as music. They should have used this kind of thing in the movie. And Waters sounds on 'The Trial' like a very demonic and Machievellian John Cleese, in his Monty Python days. The whole idea of a STORY rather than a concept, even from the beginning, certainly blows away your precious Animals...and by the way, to close my statement, I shall hope you recall the Sacred Mathematical Guitar Solo on 'Dogs'. I admit I enjoyed it, but for the man who proclaims Gilmour too mathematical within his guitar playing, how is it that you overlook the totally unmathematical and emotionally tense guitar work on 'Comfortably Numb?' There, that clears up the controversy presented in your little review, which, stripped down, states that The Wall is a work that, though simply pretentious at worst, I shall lambast because I have a bias against Pink Floyd and I can't stand the praise and commercial success that has overcome this subtle masterpiece.

Ladies and Gentlemen of the Jury, I rest my case.

[Special author note: I don't have a bias against Pink Floyd. If I had a bias against Pink Floyd, I would have given them an overall rating of TWO, rate Dark Side as a six or seven and dismiss The Wall entirely as a piece of pretentious, simplistic muck. It really hurts me when I try to be as honest as possible and still get comments that accuse me of being biased and 'out of the right way'. True, I can't stand the praise that has overcome this album (I could care less about its commercial success, though), but it's simply because I consider it overrated and I think I know how come it came to be overrated: it's the same story as with Floyd in general and Dark Side in particular: too much flashiness, not enough substance.

Some more objections (Stephen's comment was too good and cleverly crafted to let it pass unnoticed):

a) I don't understand how the idea of a 'story rather than a concept' can be a priori better than the idea of a 'concept rather than a story'. To me, it is obvious that a good 'abstract' conceptual album is a far more difficult task than a straightforward story; and the concept of Animals, while it is highly derivative of George Orwell, is still more thought-provoking than the Tommy-derivative story of The Wall.

b) About 'Comfortably Numb' (which sounds like 'Acid Queen'???? Typical Blue Moves-era Elton John, even the synths and strings coincide.) Sue me, but I don't see Gilmour's guitarwork on that one as unmathematical and emotionally tense, not any more so than on 'Dogs'. As usual, every note is checked twice and thrice here: just your typical bombastic, arena-rock-style power chords to drive the crowds to ecstasy. Not the slightest bit of improvisation or true emotion: fakery stemming out from every note. This is why I prefer the solo on 'Dogs': it's far less 'crowd-accessible' and I would rather have Dave display his guitar technique (and all these weird ideas like 'laughing guitars' and such that abound on 'Dogs') than stating: 'come on, boy, now put your hands above your head, sway with the crowd and bring those tears out of your eyes'. Blah. Might as well listen to Brian May or the Scorpions. Of course, you might continue to despise my attitude; likewise, I despise the blind adoration of fans towards this song which pretends to be emotional but is actually bland and generic. So much for the 'controversy'.

c) 'Don't Leave Me Now', on the other hand, is very much autobiographic, and this is the one song on the album where I can hear real bits of emotion. Put it on when your girlfriend leaves you, and you'll see what I mean.

d) AND I'LL SAY IT OVER AND OVER AGAIN: I HATE THE WORD 'BLASPHEMOUS'! Until Roger Waters and David Gilmour are canonized, I 'completely despise' the use of this word in anybody's critiques of poor little me. Sorry, Steve. I'm calm, really. I just put that in upper case for everybody to see.]

Brendon McDonnell <> (21.01.2000)

Agreed that "Don't Leave Me Now" is a hi-lite. A correction, the "ooooooooohhh, babe......." at the climax of the song where the guitars are spinning and the keys are droning is totally Dave. You critique Floyd quite a bit and I simply don't care to argue with all that but you should at least be aware of the dramatic differences in Wateres' & Gilmours' lyrical and tonal qualities. Waters soundes nasaly, small and always with a bit of angst (not a knock on Roger, I feel his lyrics and his execution are brilliant). Gilmour is characterized by his smooth, airy and very rich vocal timbre viz. harmonies on "Blue Skies", pre-chorus & chorus of "Comfortably Numb", and again, the"ooooooooohhhhh, babe" at the climax of "Don't Leave Me Now". These distinctions are important in a good critique.

One last correction, during your intro on Floyd when you were somewhat bashing them for their lack of proficiency on their instruments, it should be noted that Gilmour actually played the Bass on most of their recordings as Roger admittedly didn't have much interest in progressing as a player. All of those wonderful bass-grooves on tunes like "Hey You", "Money", part 2 of "Shine" and the intro of "Pigs" were all Gilmour compositions and played by him as well. Roger was a great lyricist and driving force behinsd the creative direction of Floyd. And although I fully understand the division among those who recognize the Waters-Floyd and those who prefer the Gilmour-Floyd, the truth must be acknowledged that without the two, Floyd lacks tremendously as is evidenced by the mediocity (as compared to Floyd at their peak) of both Waters & Gilmour solo efforts.

I for one am quite thankful for Floyd as a whole. Either way, their influence and their legacy is pervasive.

Bob Josef <> (14.02.2000)

The music is stretched a bit too thinly over the course of the whole thing, but it's a powerful album. "Mother" is just brilliant, and the lyrics to the rest are as terrific as those on the other albums. Some of the tracks certainly don't stand alone outside of the concept of the album. And I don't agree about the second side -- the musical changes and settings, culminating in the bizarre "Trial," very well illustrate the descent into madness of the character.

And while the ideas behind the record are not entirely original, they are put together in a very original manner. When I first heard it, I wondered what the hell he was going on about with that fascist stuff. But Roger was remarkably prescient -- as alienation and isolation increase, people look for a way to fit in and belong. And with the small but disturbing number of young folks here in America turning to white supremacist groups and, in Europe to neo-Nazis, was Roger really so "banal" in recognizing that?

As for the film, I saw it three times and also think it's a powerful piece of work. But if one isn't familiar with the album, I don't know how the hell anyone could follow it!

Chris Cormier <> (19.06.2000)

How in god's name can you call the solo in 'comfortably numb' 'boring'? Because it's played with grace and emotion? It's a beautiful melody! The point isn't to show how fast you can play, it's what you play! Maybe some people don't like melodies, I guess, if you think keith richards is 'musical' I guess you mean it must look culturally 'cool' and be somewhat grating. Just like I like to look at a green meadow or a sunset, but that's sissy crap i suppose. Yes there are a few moments in the movie with blood that I found to be unnecessary but for the most part the movie was horrifying because a lot of people recognize their own lives in it, to some of us it's a real shame and horror that life can be as unnecessarily brutal as it is. You must be like that elf that forgot how to love.

Rich Bunnell <> (02.07.2000)

It's taken me the longest time to be able to comment on this behemoth. It's so frickin' LONG and DIRE that it's hard to sit through it all in one sitting, and I barely feel like I know it now because so many of the melodies are so sparse. Nevertheless, this album hits right where it aims and it throws enough classics into the mix to keep almost any set of ears listening.

Personally, I think that the two discs are about equal in quality to one another. Each one has a few absolutely stunning songs mixed in with a lot of atmospheric between-song stuff, and the first disc just happens to contain more disco rhythms than the second one. I do NOT understand your bashings of "Hey You" or "Run Like Hell" at all; to me it just seems like you needed to make some sweeping point about how much weaker the second disc is, and even the strong songs got slammed in the process. I DO however agree with you on the "Comfortably Numb" guitar solo-- what the hell is so special about it? Have I just been desensitized to solos like that through all of the crappy hair metal ballads of the '80s? Because the solo doesn't sound really that different from a solo you might find in one of those songs. [*INSERT FAN LYNCHING HERE*}

Still, overall I'd give it an 8. Despite the album's shortcomings there're loads of reasons to buy it and listen to it all the way through, even if you might feel a little more like commiting suicide coming out than you did going in. And "The Trial" is hilarious! People who don't like that song are humorless robots. Seriously, if evil space robots came to Earth disguised as humans, all we'd have to do is play "The Trial" to everyone and kill the people who don't like it because it would mean that they're part of the intergalactic robot death squadron. But no one else sees the danger but me........

Just in case you're calling the mental hospital right now, that was a joke.

<> (09.08.2000)

Perhaps the most stunning 'concept album' in all the world. True, it was very overrated, but there's no denying it's a work of art if there ever was one. My pick for the best song on here would without a doubt be "Hey You", due in part to the fact that it features one of the most beautiful guitar solos in recorded history. The way Gilmour bends those high notes never ceases to send a chill down my spine! Downright gorgeous guitar playing! And of course, "Comfortably Numb" also contains an exquisite solo (like you really needed to be told that). Here's something fun to do: When it's nighttime, turn all the lights out and play "Is There Anybody Out There?" through the headphones, full volume. I did it, and it practically scared the piss out of me! Those eerie sound effects and Roger's creepy vocals, which are followed by yet another emotional guitar solo, this time acoustic. And, I care not what anyone says, there is NOBODY better than Dave Gilmour on acoustic guitar. "Goodbye Blue Sky" is just another example of that. And one more thing- how could you possibly not enjoy the movie?! I can't get enough of it. It was way over my head at first, but I eventually got it. It's definitely one of those movies you have to watch 'while under the influence', if ya know what I mean...

Paul Stadden <> (03.09.2000)

I saw the movie. I had a nightmare about walking hammers and animated creatures getting their heads bashed in. It was a sick mess of the delusional and the offensive. In retrospect, I wish very much that I had not watched it, but instead watched my tape of The Black Sabbath Story for the fortieth time.

Philip Maddox <> (01.10.2000)

Oddly inconsistent. The best stuff here rules totally unquestionably. I'm pointing at 'In The Flesh' (with it's awesome, majestic riff), 'Mother' (which is beautifully heartrending), 'Comfortably Numb' (which I love to pieces. I don't care if it's pieced together, that solo still moves me even after I've heard it a hundred thousand times), 'Hey You' (which is very effectively dark), and the 'One Of My Turns'/'Don't Leave Me Now' set (which is very dark and emotional - it always just kind of passed me by before, but now I really GET it). A lot of very good stuff here too, like 'Young Lust', 'Another Brick In The Wall', 'Goodbye Blue Sky', and 'Empty Spaces', which I contend creates a mood much darker than anything on Dark Side. After all this great stuff, the odd filler is even more remarkable. Who needs the whole 'Vera'/'Bring The Boys Back Home'/'Is There Anybody Out There?' filler marathon? Those songs don't do anything for me. I don't like 'Run Like Hell', either. Generic repetitive disco rock. Boring. Plus, why does Roger song most of this album? Dave's got a much better voice than Roger's caterwauling. Oh well, this still gets an 8 for the extremely high quality of the best stuff.

And you're definately right about that movie - it sucks, big time. Totally pointless. I do like the animation, though. I'd give it a brownie point or 2 for that. Still, I have no desire to watch 2 hours of odd, disjointed images set to the music of Pink Floyd.

Andrei <> (05.10.2000)

3 main highlights: 'hey you', 'is there anybody out there?' and the guitar in the 'another brick' (I don't like the chorus too much). Besides, the idea that 'we don't need no education' is something that I've thought alot about, that is, education *system*, as we have. Roger itself backtracked on DVD commentary (which is excellent and a must to any self respecting ... etc.), saying that he meant *that* kind of teachers, and as a proof he recited 'no dark sarcasm in the classroom'. As far as education goes, I think it should be voluntary. No grades, no schedules, no tests. What we have right now makes nearly everybody hate *learning*, and when we're finally faced with real need to learn something later on in life, we hate the process itself so much it becomes a torture. I believe it was Einstein who commented that school made him hate learning and sciense so much it took 2-3 years to wear off that hate after graduating. Anyway, roger backtracked and also commented that kids used in filming the movie all said they like school (what a damn liar). It's like that joke 'what's the definition of a hypocryte?' 'a student who comes to school with a smile on his face'. The rest is mostly crap, but some songs are okay: 'in the flesh', 'thin ice', 'comfy numb' (overrated, and dave is a jerk to say it's his favorite.. it's probably just easy to play, what a punk), 'the trial'. 'The trial' is sort of a one-time number, I really enjoyed it for first few listens, but then it.. how do you say the opposite of 'grow on you'? 'shrink on you?' :-) So, to round it up: it shoulda been a one disc album of about 30-35 minutes. Then it'd be great. I recently seen on VH1 that it's 3d best selling album in the world, after elvis and eagles I think (oh boy was I surprised to hear about these 2, especiallly eagles). I'd rate it much lower than even ummagumma, and it only comes out ahead of DSOTM because of 2 first tracks on 2nd cd. By the way, I know you had been smoking crack when you rated the first cd ahead of the second, but what sort of crack and how did you take it? [That crack is called "intuition and unbiased analysis" - G. S.] I'm not flaming, I'm just curious..

Oh, and by the way, I bought live album too and it's quite good. Unfortunately these 2 songs I love are not as good, but the rest sounds alot better than studio album, I'm not sure why.. I only listened to it 2 times so far.

Steve Hall <> (11.01.2001)

You give the second disc a rating of 4???? FOUR!!!?????? That's lower than all the album reviews you did of groups like The MONKEES!!!!AND IRON BUTTERFLY!!!! You ought to buy another copy and make sure they gave you the right disc 2!!!!.How can an album have songs like "Hey you" "Comfortably numb" "Run like hell" and "Nobody home" ...and it gets a FOUR.Are you absolutely sure you don't have a bias against poor little pink??????? Oh yes,another thing,the song "Comfortably numb" is refering to an actual event involving Roger Waters when he was suffering stomach cramps before a show and was given drugs to numb the it IS autobiographical,just like "Don't leave me now".Ok,ok,ok so Dave's guitar work is perhaps a bit too slow and precise but nevertheless it is still stirring and emotional and i think his playing compliments the track beautifully."Run like hell" works brilliantly at what it is meant to be,a live stadium rocker,that is it's role in the concept.It works at what it is meant to be which is exactly why i think this album is a success,it reaches where it intended to,if someone don't like where it's taken them(even if it is to the sink)that's fine,but i don't understand that something is rated lower purely because it don't take you where you wanna go,and yes it is pretentious,self indulgent,pompous and bombastic.Yeh it's all of those things and great for it.I like it when you can see and feel artists through their work,rock should provide a diversion from the "goody two shoes" feel of pop with all it's manufactured smiles and public relations exercises.Is it a story is a concept?Who cares,it gets it's message accross and that's what matters.The worst music is the kind that is formulated,doesn't inspire comment and gives you that "i've heard it all before" feeling.Yes yes,i've heard the album Tommy and it carries a similar theme,but it presents and tackles it completely differently to my ears.Writing about love and relationships has been written from millions of different perspectives,many of them interesting and not rip-off's,i certainly don't believe The Wall to be a rip-off of Tommy.It's not the Floyd's very best work and it isn't the meaning of life today,but it sure is better than the Monkees and Iron Butterfly.

<> (14.03.2001)

Often great, but it could be better. There's way too many tracks that do little more than push the story along, particularly on disc 1. I wish Roger would have tried to find an equilibrium between the full-fledged songs ("Mother," "Hey You," "Comfortably Numb") and the "filler" tracks. He could have stretched some of the numbers out a bit as well, "Goodbye Blue Sky" for instance, is beautiful, but too short. Another verse or too could have easily been added. Oh and I certainly don't think Gilmour is a jerk for considering "Comfortably Numb" his favorite. It's an extremely moving song. If I wrote something that great, it would be my favorite too.

Anyway, it's quite a good album, but could use some polishing I think. It ends brilliantly however, with "The Trial" and "Outside the Wall." "The Trial" is awesome, hillarious but also disturbing, and "Outside the Wall" is a very pretty song that wraps things up nicely.

Georgala Fungerk <> (22.03.2001)

Hello again,

I'm writing about the rating of The Wall. I agree with the rating of 10 for the first CD, but the rating of 4 for the second I disagree with. I certainly would admit that it's inferior to the first. But I think songs such as 'Hey You', 'The Trial' (which is quite funny, although as an individual song I wouldn't wish to listen to it more than once in a great while), and 'Outside The Wall' (which makes me want to cry), should redeem to at least past a 4 (8). The songs are also quite tolerable, at least for me (but mostly just above average, not really good). I would think the second side easily surpasses, Division Bell and A Momentary Lapse Of Reason, both of which got a 5 (9).

Personally, I'd rate the album overall 12/15 (10 for the first part, with a weak 7 for the 2nd).

Alan Gardner <> (28.11.2001)

This is concerning the Wall - a pink floyd classic. This has to be one of the best albums ever!!! Not quite a sgt pepper, but still, definitly a classic. The reviewer shares my opinion for a steller proformance on the first cd, but he loses his interest for the second cd. Maybe the ideas just flew over his head, and he couldn't understand the concepts? Anyways, my main concern was your discription of gilmour''s solo for "Comfortably Numb." Boring? When i listen to the solos, i cling on to every note, as if it were the last thing i were every to hear again!! Or maybe, I can tell when i am listening to good music. Maybe you should learn what is good music and what is bad music before you go and review something???

Luke Redgen <> (11.07.2002)

Well, I for one totally disagree. The first disc's biggest downfall is it's lack of true feeling and emotion, as well as pure boredom. OK, so we start with the wonderful, bombastic 'In The Flesh', and I even don't mind 'The Thin Ice' (although we're at the second track of the album, and already we have a story filler track). 'Another Brick In The Wall Pt. 2' has to be one of rock's most over-rated and truely boring HIDEOUSLY COMMERICAL songs. Isn't it sad to here middle-age millionaires whinging about the education system (oh, OK, I know, it's a rock opera, and maybe Roger did have a terrible schooling life... but come on... and how monotonus) then a few tracks of filler ('Mother' being the most boring and overl-long of these, and they remove the rockiest and song with the most wonderful lyrics on the whole thing, 'What Shall We Do Now?'... bastards!). 'Young Lust' picks up the pace again, even if it is a little generic sounding. Finally, we get to the first great song on the album, 'One Of My Turns', but we're already nearly at the end of disc 1... what a damn shame. And they call this the greatest rock album of all time. Truly though, this song is damn powerful, the clever little introduction ('Are all these your guitars?), and the contrast between Rog sounding calm and collected, yet utterly depressed and manic, to going totally insane is breath taking. I will agree with you about 'One Of My Turns Though', what an atmosphere! Lovely little guitar solo outro too, even if it sounds a little generic. Then, the best of the 'Another Brick In The Walls', just because of the more sensible lyrics, nice little intro, and the fact it's shorter. Finally, 'Goodbye Cruel World' is short, clever filler, which adds nicely to the story. Overall, a 6 to the first disc. Shall we move to the second? We begin with an incredibly powerful cry for help, 'Hey You'. It even sounds sincere ('But it was only fantasy/The wall was too high, as you can see' beautiful). Sure, the whole song's music sounds blantantly ripped off the intro to 'Dogs', but who cares, the music on this entire thing is nothing new anyway. Next, 'Is There Anybody Out There?' is truly a beautiful little song, even if not musically breathtaking, you can feel the emotion that Pink is going through, longing so obvious in the music. 'Nobody Home' declares once and for all that Pink is alone, and is an absolutely beautiful little balad which almost drives me to tears, honestly. The next couple of songs, well truly they are filler, are sort of musically interesting, 'Vera' is sorta not fitting with the story, but lovely all the same, and 'Bring The Boys Back Home'... well, OK, you got me there, but it has some lovely percusive sounds. Then 'Comfortably Numb'. Another over-rated one, but brilliant all the same. One of those 'don't set your expectations so high and you'll find yourself pleasently suprised and happy' type songs, it really is pretty damn good, just gets boring after a million and one listens. Next is an under-rated little masterpiece, beautiful vocal showcasing, and that wonderful deeply concerned Pink, not at all interested in going onto stage to sell a message which isn't his to begin with, just after a drug overdose. You can hear it, and it's sincere. This isn't filler, it deserves to take it's place here. 'In The Flesh' is a BRILLIANT reprise, the greatest rock reprise. Works on it's own, and in the story. Pink sells his message hapilly, high as a kite, and the fans hapilly buy it. But you can HEAR Pink's disgust. And the sincerity is still somehow there. Then 'Run Like Hell' is his final testament before going completely insane, again this is supposed to be 'directed to the fans', he's on stage. And it's brilliant, Gilmour and Water's vocal sharing works perfectly, piling more and more on top, til a thrilling vocal conclusion ('There gonna send you back to Mamma, in a carboard box!'). People love it for the wrong reasons, and I think you're comming at it from the wrong direction. Next, 'Waiting For The Worms', clearly filler, and the weak point of this disc, but still can be fun, with that deep voice supposedly directed to a crowd in Pink's head. 'Stop'... what a rush. What a rush to hear Pink scream out that word. Pink's fed up, he's sick of it all... and Roger's sincerity is as real as hell... this relates as much to him as his character, and this is where the similarties are most apparant. You look at 'The Trial' the wrong way, just like most others. It's supposed to be the 'thrilling conclusion', it is amusing, but to me, it's more than just amusing. Clever, and far from insipid. This sells the album to me. Finally, 'Behind The Wall' might just be the greatest epilgoue of all the rock operas. Again, I cry, I understand where Roger comes from ('After all it's not easy, banging your heart against some mad bugger's wall'). This is Roger speaking now, no longer Pink.

Yes, the sound effects are pretty, the album is poppy in places, but this isn't what makes this album so great. It's great because it's sincere. Not Floyd's best, mainly because of disc 1, and not disc 2.

(Disc 1 6/10, Disc 2 10/10, 16/2 = 8)

<> (03.08.2002)

While I won't even try to give any rating on The Wall (not necessarily even among my favourite PF albums, the record has yet somehow been of such personal impact to me that I just can't bring myself to analyze it in rational terms), there was however something I can't pass without commenting... Yeah, that little bit of questioning Roger Waters' abilities as a thinker, you had it coming. :)

Are the fascist themes in The Wall actually all that banal? The sheer thought of a rock star experiencing drug-hazed hallucinations of his egotistically twisted feelings of power and agitation -- now I don't know what that is if not banal and, uh, quite hitleresque. Ok, the presentation may not be of the most refined kind, but it does fit the concept, and Roger's obvious disgust... Even the dark side to the power performing artists can have over their audiences doesn't seem too far-fetched, "charismatic leaders" and all... even if mainly symbolically, the connotations definitely are there. And alienation, on a personal and larger scale, could go very wrong as we know, taking the course of fascist feelings and being the very root of those problems, etc etc... I guess there's no need to reprise as Roger sure went on and on underlining these things with a very heavy hand, but actually I think the distaste serves the purpose (and I'll cling to believing it was intentional...). Same with the film (which Roger, btw, reportedly wasn't too pleased with). Like Clockwork Orange, or watching all those Vietnam films... the bothering, brain-trigging disturbance that makes you cherish your own sense of humanity.

Now overall, I'm not one to claim that Roger is the greatest lyrical mastermind of modern times, there's a great deal of bluntness and naivete in his writing, but something very humane as well... What has made him a success, I think, would be his willingness to put himself on the line and to deal with personal issues in a way which people can relate to, even find comfort in (what I don't get is the ever-present "cynic" label... nuh, too much idealism, too many tears in his eyes for that). And plenty of people. Just how valuable is that? In a sense, worth much more in my books than the elitist hard-to-access "poetry".

And really now, just how many rock musicians have come up with "a *really* original philosophic idea" you were calling for?... When was the last time *anyone* came up with one, come to think of it? Umm, er... must've been that time Pete Townshend came up with the theme of alienation! (Har, har, sorry :) Seriously, all these themes of isolation, pacifism etc. have been chewed over a billion times before... My respect to Rog or anyone even *trying* to say something worthwhile, even if they've stumbled a few times... only so few musicians even care to try.

My 2 rambling cents, sorry for going a bit off the tangent... But a wonderful site and great insight you have here, I've really enjoyed your reviews. :)

[Special author note: many of these remarks certainly hit home - but I just wanted to stress that it is not the egotistically twisted feelings of a rock star that I'm decrying as a banal thematical move, but the very Hitleresque analogy itself. The Hitler theme has become so cliched and stereotypical over the years that I almost instinctively shun everything connected with it. (Speaking of Pete Townshend, he actually could have easily introduced the Hitler thing into the Tommy concept - but had the good taste not to do so).

As for the other objection, I'm not calling on rockers to be original in the philosophic plane of thing. Even philosophers have a hard time doing that nowadays, so what's to be asked of people who are primarily musicians? No, all I'm asking for is a special, uncliched way of presenting those same old ideas - which is actually a possible task. People like Peter Gabriel, Peter Hammill, and Kate Bush, have been able to tap into the same old pool of thoughts in new and exciting lyrical AND musical ways. Roger Waters doesn't rank too high in that respect on my personal scale - even if he's far, far, far from the worst of the lot.]

Jon <> (01.12.2002)

Yeah... your dissing of Rog's little concept is a little silly--what do you expect from rock stars? They have ridiculously simple "intellectual" concepts (Townshend, Gabriel, Waters) or basic I-need-an-excuse-to-exercise-my-smooth-songwriting-but-later-I'll-forget-I-need-the-songwriting-part concepts (Mr. Davies--I feel like I'm swinging in a nice, simple Hammock during Arthur and TKATVGPS, but the later stuff... yikes, Raymond), but neither are meant to be taken SERIOUSLY, that's why they're set to rock music--no one would give a damn about them otherwise. Critiquing the "vision" is like beating up a little person... anybody could, yeah, but that's no reason to. That is why the Wall is a big confusion--because of the concept. Gilmour described the demo tapes as "a shitty mess," and though they probably took the shitty mess a ways, not too far. The opening series of songs goes forward, pauses in midair, and then drips slowly forward through time and a dream sequence and a stage show (real careful structure, Mr. Waters) and some other nonsense. The songs feel painfully cramped and when they are repeated they look (er, sound) lousy. A few tracks stand out as oddities that don't seem to fit ("Comfortably Numb", "Young Lust", "Hey You"), and others are such concept slaves they aren't music ("Waiting for the Worms", "The Trial"). Notwithstanding those issues, there are good moments. Listen to George about "Nobody Home"--Gilmour is so important, the refrain ties the whole thing together. But the biggest problem about this is... too much singing!!! Who ever needs to listen to Roger Waters for two discs? Give me some of Floyd's renowned instrumental prowess in Meddle, Dark Side or Animals over this collection of Fractured Pop Songs any day! George's review and rating are both accurate though, although there isn't that much difference in quality between the two discs. "Bring the Boys" and "Vera" suck, though. hard.

Erin Long <> (06.03.2003)

You have written the best critique I've seen, however, I disagree wholeheartedly. Many people would agree with me that The Wall is definitely one of the best albums they've ever released. It's what made them famous (besides Dark Side of the Moon, but when most people think of PF, they think of "Money", "Comfortably Numb", and of course, "Another Brick in the Wall Pt 3"). All of the lyrics were absolutely BRILLIANT. All of them, including the "filler songs". Your comments seem rather shallow when describing most of the songs. EVERY lyric is a big piece of the puzzle. I understood the significance right off the bat (including the movie), but perhaps that's just me. I was surprised at your comments about certain songs not correlating with the plot and was beginning to think that you are way too shallow to understand. Nevertheless, you've written a wonderful review.

I found a website that had a complete analysis of The Wall (songs and film), but I'm not sure if it's still up or not. Anyway, perhaps if you looked at it you could broaden your horizons. (I can't get the direct link, but if you go to a search engine and type in "Pink Floyd The Wall: A Complete Analysis", it's kinda hard not to miss.)

PS. The Complete Analysis of Pink Floyd's The Wall:

Alexey Provolotsky <> (09.04.2003)

Hi George! I found your reviews some weeks ago and I can't stop reading them. I like your reviews. I highly appreciate your opinion. Why? Because you've got it. Sometimes I try to find some musical reviews but very often I get the same: "DARK SIDE OF THE MOON is the greatest album ever". I've had enough. So, thanks for your 9 (though, in my opinion, it deserves an 8, a strong 8).

So, what about the WALL? Firstly, I'd like to mention that we have too many contradictions in your Pink Floyd reviews. Especially in this one. In my point of view, the WALL is one of the greatest (I like this word) and most important creations in the history of music. Really so! The music on the WALL is rather dark (maybe, it is the influence of the movie) but when I listen to this album it becomes so light in my soul.

Both discs are equal and I can't mention any letdowns in the WALL. Not a single. By the way, would you like to know what is your biggest problem (in my opinion, of course)? I guess you'd like to. - I think that you've listened to TOO many albums. TOO many! That's why you could give a 4 to the second CD. I'm firmly convinced that we can find something similar in practically every album of every group. That's why your comparison of "Comfortably Numb" to Elton John in the mid-eighties is just funny. Nothing more.

And in the end I'd like to mention that you should put on the second CD much more often. Maybe you'll like it. OF COURSE, YOU'LL LIKE IT!!!

My rating- 10 Overall- 15

Michael H. <> (15.08.2003)

A lot of people do not understand the Wall or why it was done. I just thought I would tell this story variation: When Pink Floyd were an underground band, concerts were different. They would perform and the audience would listen. After Dark Side propelled Floyd into mega-band status (like Queen, Rolling Stones, The Who, Kiss, ect...) members of the band were adjusting to the atmosphere of the concerts they would do. Dave was a little upset that the audience would make noise during the shows, but Roger-who became the driving force behind Pink Floyd gradually after Syd left-was the most affected of them all. He was a little shocked that something so personal as his song's were just a mindless ritual of people coming to shows to scream, shout, whistle, and light off fireworks during the concerts. During the 1977 Animals tour, Roger took to yelling at the crowd during concerts to "Stop it", among other things. During the last date of the tour-Canada (which is avaliable on bootleg)-At one point Roger stopped performing to berate an audience member for lighting off a firecracker "Oh for fuck sake stop lighting off fireworks and shouting & screaming I'm trying to SING A SONG!....I mean I don't care.......If You don't want to hear it.. you know....FUCK You. I'm sure there are a lot of people here who DO want to hear it...So why don't you just be quiet...If you want to light your fireworks off... go outside and light them off out there... and if you want to shout and scream well then go and do it out there.... but .. I am trying to sing a song that SOME people want to listen to.... I WANT to listen to it." During another song, a fan in the front row tries to climb to the front of the stage, and Roger Waters spits in the kids face. Other details abound but Roger made a statement that the next time Pink Floyd do another concert extravaganza, it would be literally from behind ...a wall.

Stephen Rutkowski <> (01.11.2003)

I must say that I don’t rate The Wall that highly. There are some absolutely great tracks here, but there is way too much filler. First of all, with twenty six tracks, that’s equal to the amount of tracks on the previous 4 albums, so there is bound to be a lot of filler. Fortunately, most of the filler is short so they can be excused, but they all add up at the end, particularly on the second disc. I was really disappointed when I first bought the album, but it has certainly grown on me. Still I would prefer Meddle, Dark Side of the Moon or Wish You Were Here.

The first disc starts off well. ‘In the Flesh?’ is a pretty hard introduction, with a ‘sweeping’ riff. ‘The Thin Ice’ is a fairly good ditty, but I feel the piano is rather silly. ‘Another Brick in the Wall part 1’ is inferior to its brothers because of that extremely boring guitar solo at the end. ‘The Happiest Days of our Lives’ is a great way to segue into ‘Another Brick in the Wall part 2’. I don’t care how many times I’ve heard that song on the radio, it is still great to me. And this time, the solo is much more interesting than the first version. ‘Mother’ is a great acoustic track, with fantastic ‘deep’ vocals. However, then the filler sets in for me. ‘Goodbye Blue Sky’ is a rather boring ballad, ‘Empty Spaces’ is a boring atmospheric piece (you may get some excitement if you run it backwards though). ‘Young Lust’ is an utterly generic rocker. At least ‘Don’t Leave Me Now’ is a wonderfully emotional song as George has described. The third version of ‘Another Brick in the Wall’ is the most rocking one and is a much better rocker than something like ‘Young Lust’. It’s too short however. The highlight here is ‘One of my Turns’. The song starts off in a very relaxing, but ominous manner. It is obvious that not everything is ok with Pink. Then the explosion in Pink’s behaviour is met with an explosion in the music and the aggressive vocals. A fantastically structured song in my eyes.

The second disc also starts off well but this one descends into filler much quicker. ‘Hey You’ is a fantastic opener, but ‘Is There Anybody Out There?’ is another boring atmospheric piece. It contains a nice little haunting solo at least. Then there is just filler after filler, with the only highlights being ‘Comfortably Numb’,  the reprise of ‘In the Flesh’ and ‘Run Like Hell’. I realise that a lot of the filler on this album is here to carry the storyline, but when I’m sitting at home I want quality music, not ‘Vera’ and ‘Bring the Boys Back Home’. Ok ‘Nobody Home’ can be salvaged, but it is little more than average. I really like ‘Comfortably Numb’ but I’m mostly indifferent to the ‘heavenly’ guitar solo. It just doesn’t do anything for me. I can’t fault the remainder of the song though. ‘In the Flesh’ is much like its counterpart, so there is no complaints there. ‘Run Like Hell’ isn’t anything special, and ! not very Pink Floyd either, but amongst the other stuff it is pretty good. ‘The Trial’ may be hilarious, but musically it has a lot left to be desired. Much like ‘Allen’s Psychedelic Breakfast’ and ‘Seamus’, humour wanes over time, quality music does not. That said, at least the album finishes on a high note with ‘Outside the Wall’. A very fitting way to finish the album, musically and conceptually.

Fernando Henrique Canto <> (02.11.2003)

Cripes. I'm even impressed that you consider the first disc to be so good. I don't enjoy this album NEARLY as much as I wished to. For me, I think there's WAY too much meaning, and WAY too little music. I know that, at times, I really enjoy the MEANING itself, ignoring the music, like it was a little story being told rather than a music album being played. But I prefer the musical side of Floyd. While Dark Side Of The Moon combined meaning and music, The Wall forgets about music. Though I do agree that there are many great moments on here. I dunno if I can mention individual songs, but I think that the triad of 'Another Brick In The Wall' part 1 and 2 and 'The Happiest Days Of Our Lives' is a killer. I LOVE 'Another Brian In The Wall part 2', and I don't feel any embarrassed about it. 'One Of My Turns' is kinda dead on the first half, but the second half is a KILLER rock song. 'Don't Leave Me Now' is outstanding, 'Mother' is quite good, 'Hey You' is quite beautiful, I think. But after that? Well, there isn't much. I despise 'Comfortably Numb', because it's SO overrated. There's hardly any actual melody on there, and the solo that everybody lauds so much... was actually made by SPLICING TOGETHER little snippets of solos. That is, David didn't even come up with this thing at once. He merely engineered this thing. Where's the emotion? I hate this. When do you see Steve Hackett doing a similar thing? Give me 'Firth Of Fifth' over this any time of the day. Well, I said already that I'm not going to talk about about the individual songs on here much, but I think 'Young Lust' is VERY inadequate. It's parody, okay, but it completely destroys any mood the album was trying to create. And the ending of the album was funny the first times around, but now, I really ignore them. Heck, this one gets a 6 AT BEST.

Amanda Kenyon <> (15.05.2004)

You're absolutely right about the psychological manipulation. The moment that always makes me jump, though, is the vocal in "Is There Anybody Out There?" I'm going about my business, doing whatever I'm doing, and then that menacing voice growls out of the speakers and scares the living shit out of me. But really, the album is not nearly as great as it's made out to be. I'd say this one is far more overrated that Dark Side. Not only is it entirely too long, most of the songs aren't memorable in the least. If you told me just the titles of at least half the album, I would not be able to pull up the song in my head. The good songs, though, are great! My favorites are basically all the ones you hear on the radio with the addition of "Goodbye Blue Sky." However, six great songs do not a great double album make. The definite beginning of Roger's monster ego rearing its ugly head with utter disregard to quality.

Jason Saenz <> (21.07.2004)

The Wall, everybody thinks that this is the only album that Floyd ever put out (it's not even a Floyd album, it's a Water's solo junk), this is a highly overrated peice of shit, it's just filler full, only 'BLUE SKY' is listenable, not good, only listenable. Water's voice spoils everything, but wait there's nothing to spoil the music sucks all over I just dont see anything here, this is not Floyd's masterpeice, NO WAY!! Animals was great but here Water's starts getting really desperate for commercial coverage so it occures to him to put out a big PITTY-PARTY album, and movie!! How pathetic. I just feel sorry for the lover's of this filler waste of money, it's no good to overrate this, people like this better than Meddle, well at least Meddle wasnt trying to feel sorry for itself, this one does and unfortunately it reflects on the music. The only reason this album is so well known is beacause of the media coverage that the movie brought (and the movie isnt that good either) and the fact that everybody want's to think that they are Pink, "Oh yeah, my life is just like Pink's", Rogers just messed up bad trying to look so messed up. Now let me say that this album is not "the worst" of all times because it isnt, it's just a big let-down and dissapointment, I have this album just to have it but I don't listen to it, three listen's in a lifetime is enough, that's just my opinion.

David Dickson <> (06.01.2006)

Vince Young RULES.

As does this album, needless to say. I have counter-objections to raise to your points a.) and b.) in this review (like who doesn't in the reader comments, heheh). True, the 'Nazi' themes you rail against here don't seem fit it with the main theme AT ALL, but when you take into account some of the more obscure happenings in the rock world at the time, they make a hell of a lot more sense.

Consider: Roger decides to make an album about rock-star alienation after he spits on a fan at a concert around 1977. Who else was having the same problem with their "wall" as it were? Many, undoubtedly. . . but chiefly David Bowie. Waters apes him on both "In the Flesh" (es) (no one seems to point out that both those songs are glam imitations)--and it was Bowie who greeted crowds with mock Nazi salutes around the time he began recording the Berlin trilogy. Hence the sieg heils, the marching noises, and Pink Floyd's own degeneration into megalomania on side 4--concurrent with the placement of "In the Flesh II". Coincidence? Doubtful.

And, of course, until this album came out, Bowie's own Ziggy Stardust was widely considered the ultimate statement on rock-star alienation. Come to think about it, THAT'S who Waters was probably taking off on, thematically, not necessarily the Kinks or the Who. Both those bands were more down to Earth in their similar stories--as far as I know, even on Quadrophenia, they never quite approached alienation from the perspective of a celebrity. As far as I've read, most critics have less of a problem with the unoriginality of celebrity alienation--again, it was Bowie who first brought it to public attention in his music--than with the concept itself. Celebrities? Whining about alienation? Pish posh! They have no right!! They rake in the millions, are loved by billions, and live the life all us simple folk dream of, and they WHINE about it?? BLAH! (See the All Music Guide review for a similar reaction.)

And then there's the music. Well, I'm not going to be original in my arguments here. *deep breath* You say (in a comment before) the guitar solo on "CN" is fake and has no real emotion. Maybe it's my lot in life not to distinguish real emotion from fake. Then again, I was able to distinguish the fake emotion in my ex last summer, so I have some capacity there. Anyhoo, I believe "CN" to be as real an emotional song as they get, and many post-modern underground songs to be as gleefully emotionless as they get. Gimme attempted real emotion over mock-ironic false emotion any day of the year (unless it's a catchy song).

I agree when you say "Bring the Boys Back Home" and "Vera" are filler--but that's okay--much of disc 1 is filler, too--but it's all SPECTACULAR filler. Short linking pieces that serve in the same way recitatives do in Act 1 of the Messiah (tho' not act 2 and 3--berf.) Yes, I just compared Roger Waters to Handel. I'll stop now.

And "Run Like Hell" is indeed a landmark in rock--one of the first examples (probably not the first, but my God--this was 1979!) of an big-time arena "dinosaur" applying the New Wave innnovative guitar stuff to their own genre. Come on, don't you LOVE those pre-Edge echoey guitar lines? Tell me who did it before like this in the mainstream and I give you a free sundae. The Gang of Four does not count.

Okay, there's your sundae.

I guess the main reason I love this album as a whole, musically, is there's so many different things to love. It's Pink Floyd striving to make their own White Album at the same time they make their penultimate lyrical statement. And in many ways, they one-up the Beatles at the same game. While the Fab Four covered far more styles on their own double-vinyl monstrosity, you could tell it was the Beatles playing on almost every track. Here, you can't tell. The vibe, arrangement, and even vocals are just SO DIFFERENT from song to song. They cover everything from glam ("Flesh") to disco ("Brick in the Wall") to cock rock ("Young Lust") to stomping funk ("One of My Turns") to folk strummery ("Mother," "Anybody Out There,") to synthy ambience ("Don't Leave Me Now, Empty Spaces") to Irish drinking song ("Outside the Wall") to power ballad ("Comfortably Numb") to New Wave ("Run Like Hell") to orchestrated Broadway schmaltz ("Nobody Home") to Beach Boys ripoffs ("The Show Must Go On") to marching patriotic tunes "Bring the Boys Back Home" to Les Miserables itself ("The Trial"). And they (or, rather, Roger and his session-men) sound absolutely and utterly at home in all of it, with barely even a hint of parody to stink up the works (save "Flesh" and two other tunes). And they even have repeating themes! IT'S AN OPERA! Hot dogma!!

Anyhoo, I think disc 2 neatly equals disc 1 musically, if not lyrically (save the "Trial"--what an awesome, perfectly apt resolution.) And I think I can give it a low 10. Not as high as Quadrophenia's high 10, though--Wall may have a better plot, but it don't have John Entwhistle or Keith Moon. In conclusion, The Texas Longhorns kick mucho ass. Sorry, we would be all about "normal" football here in the states if it weren't so dang undramatic. Damn that Brazil for making it look like a chess game. I'm just kidding. Brazil is not damned. Brazil is super.

Except for soccer.


I'll shut up now.


Thomas Norton <> (04.06.2003)

I was browsing through the Reader Comments Section for Floyd and noticed that no-one has commented on Is There Anybody Out There?, the 1980-1981 live version of The Wall. So I thought I would...

Frankly, I am a little surprised you gave the album 5(9). I own the studio version as well and I prefer this version. I feel that it has much more tension - especially from the outset when "In The Flesh?" is belted out to the unprepared audience; what better way to grab the their attention?

I never managed to go to the shows in person, due in principle to the fact that I wasn't even in embryonic form at that point in time, so when listening to the CD all I can do is judge the music and not the visual effects they utilised.

In your way of demonstrating which tracks you rate, I thought I would borrow your system. However, instead of it being a rating of the track per se, it is a rating relative to the studio version - i.e. does the live piece improve on the original in some way?

1) MC: Atmos; 2) In The Flesh?; 3) The Thin Ice; 4) Another Brick In The Wall (part 1); 5) The Happiest Days Of Our Lives; 6) Another Brick In The Wall (part 2); 7) Mother; 8) Goodbye Blue Sky; 9) Empty Spaces; 10) What Shall We Do Now?; 11) Young Lust; 12) One Of My Turns; 13) Don't Leave Me Now; 14) Another Brick In The Wall (part 3); 15) The Last Few Bricks; 16) Goodbye Cruel World; 17) Hey You; 18) Is There Anybody Out There?; 19) Nobody Home; 20) Vera; 21) Bring The Boys Back Home; 22) Comfortably Numb; 23) The Show Must Go On; 24) MC: Atmos; 25) In The Flesh; 26) Run Like Hell; 27) Waiting For The Worms; 28) Stop; 29) The Trial; 30) Outside The Wall.

+ 'In The Flesh', as I described earlier, takes the audience by surprise and they take to the show immediately. First impressions always count, and what better beginning have you heard?

+ 'The Thin Ice' continues in the same vein and goes to the complete opposite end of the spectrum with respect to 'In The Flesh'. It is much softer, and the singing is very pure.

+ 'The Happiest Days of Our Lives' serves as an excellent prelude to 'Another Brick in the Wall pt. 2'. It has a much improved, or at least pronounced, piano in it, and it benefits. It has a much better rhythm. It is a pity that 'Another Brick in the Wall pt. 2' didn't continue in the same streak...

+ 'Mother', + 'Goodbye Blue Sky' and + 'Empty Spaces' are all far more harrowing than the studio versions. In the live versions the bass comes through far more and they have a much darker feel as a result.

+ 'What Shall We Do Now' is a nice little extension to + 'Empty Spaces' and I wish it had been included on the studio album. It gives the music a much denser feel, a similar attribute to which I greet the live version of + 'Hey You'.

+ 'Young Lust' has great guitar extensions in it. I always like this song anyway, and the additions only serve to improve it in my opinion.

+ 'Is There Anybody Out There' and + 'Nobody Home' have had chunks re-written for the live version, and the darker version of the former juxtaposed with the beautiful piano of the latter. It is very clever and I was a sucker for it.

I included the + 'MC: Atmos' in red because I find it quite funny - " ..yet". It's very satirical - something that appeals to me a lot.

+ 'Run Like Hell' always sounds good live, so I had to include it in the red section. The interplay between Waters and Gilmour is great singing.

In black, I enjoyed all the tracks, however they do sound very similar to the studio versions. Yet if they were working down to the bar with regards to co-ordinating effects, then so be it. The only song I dislike is - 'Vera'. I didn't like it on the studio version and this version has done nothing to change my mind.

In all, I would give the compilation an 8(12). The packaging is very smart; I like the little passages written by the four principle members.

The sound quality is something I disagree with you about - it is astounding quality for a live recording 20 years ago! The Wall was an excellent album and this is an excellent representation of that album.

Might I suggest that when you review live albums, you do so with the original in mind. Let's face it, if one didn't like the studio version, then one is unlikely to appreciate the live version too, no? Certainly there is enough in this compilation to be unique enough and intense enough to warrant having it in addition to the original.

Michael H. <> (15.08.2003)

In a way, its understandable about why you reviewed it like this, but there are other bootleg audio's (along with one known video of a NY performance) that is slightly different and variation of the music and performance. This is good for the booklet, history sake, and the information contained within. ect...


Richard C. Dickison <> (08.06.99)

Yes, your Right.

Hear it is in all it's ugliness, the real weakness of Pink Floyd in all it's glory.

Roger can only write and think in one album increments. If they had stopped at The Wall I might be more forgiving of this group and have thought more highly of them.

Here is what happens when every song has to prop up every other song, and not one song on this album is strong enough to stand on it's own. If your going to create seamless rock symphonies you still need good music, not just a bunch of ideas. It's like The Wall fell and the dust choked off the creativity of the group itself.

Why did we have to listen to another album of Waters whining about his father? There was just no point to any of these ideas or points of view, this album was just numb, comfortable or not.

This just proved that by this point neither Waters or Gilmour could carry on the quality or creativity to keep this group going. No matter who was really the asshole.

I have bought and gotten rid of alot of albums by these guys after this (hoping). I just find it so disappointing.

All any of them seem to be doing is re-living their past glorys with tribute albums and live rehashing of their better years. Does anybody really need another latter day Beach Boys or Rolling Stones?? There ought to be a law

John McFerrin <> (08.06.99)

You're right; substitute the lyrics for random crap and I would hate the album. But the lyrics are fantastic beyond belief. And it's a good thing too, since the music is a little dull at times. But this man had skills. Unfortunately, he needed every bit of those skills to salvage the project, as demonstrated on Pros and Cons.

Where was I? Oh yeah, I give it an 8. I like it better slightly more than The Wall, believe it or not. *shrug*

Simon Hearn <> (09.09.99)

I'll be short with this comment, as it hurts me to even think of this album. As you know, I love Floyd but this effort stinks. Nothing redeems it from the bottom of the Floyd cd collection pile (hell, even the cover is c***) This is Floyd's funeral - on cd. They were never the same after The Wall. A great, great shame

Greg Bischoff <> (19.10.99)

You people really disgust me, I mean really! Just because this doesn't sound like Darkside or Meddle or any other mellow crap you all just love to hear from the Floyd, doesn't mean it sucks. I think this is one of the best albums in history. Just because it has a lot of lyrics and because you don't hear something like 'Breathe' or 'Money', doesn't mean you should turn it down. Try to hear it with a sense of compassion instead of expecting to hear someone like LL Cool Jay come in and do some jazzy thing. The Final Cut is the best Floyd album I've heard next to Animals, and I think you people should be ashamed for always expecting the something like Darkside.

Rob Davies <> (08.11.99)

I have read and re-read your summary of Final Cut, and while you do make some interesting points, I just can't agree with the rating. I actually consider Final Cut to be the best Floyd album after Animals, and the main reason is because it is an album that compels you to listen to every part of it. Some of the earlier Floyd stuff was fairly easy to like to because you could stop listening for five minutes and not miss a thing. Doing that here is courting disaster, because the small nuances will slip away and you will not be able to enjoy this. While I certainly don't listen to it every day, I do give it a spin at least once a month, and preferably when I've had a joint. This makes it much easier to relax completely and catch every little breath or twang that the Pinksters, or probably just Rog, immortalised here.

I'm probably gettting all muddled now, but this album deserves more than a five. 'The Gunner's Dream' is truly amazing, ditto the title track and 'Two Suns In The Sunset'. Actually all the tunes except that godawful 'Not Now John' are fantastic.

Sorry about the length, but I feel I have to stand up for this gem.

Noam Klar <> (05.12.99)

You're review is a real travesty towards the album, and the talents of Roger Waters in general. Definitly one of the three best musicians\songwriters to come out of England along with Lennon and Bowie (maybe also McCartney).

How can you say that this album has no worthy music ? Alright, maybe not all songs on it are masterpieces, but listen to "The Final Cut" for example, one of the most sincere, beautiful songs to come out of Pink Floyd and rock in general. 'Not Now John' is great also, with it's raging fury and the ending is particulary great when Roger shouts: "Oi, where's the f****** bar John ?"

True that this album shares the atmosphere of The Wall but it's very differant in concept and structure. It's not as invested, most songs are simply accoustic guitar accompanied by bass and piano, but that is a part of it's greatness, the simplicity. I would say this album is one of Floyd's four greatest along with The Wall, Dark Side, and WYWH. Instead of calling this Pink Floyd's funeral, I would call it their encore. Instead of maybe The Final Cut, this album should be remembered as The Final Note, and what a beatiful note it is.

Bob Josef <> (14.02.2000)

Pretty much in agreement here. Roger is increasingly losing his sense of melody -- some tracks are mere fragments, like "Southampton Dock." There was a good balance between Roger and Dave lead vocals on The Wall, but Roger's voice is really hard to take over the whole course of the album. I think "Not Now John" is the best one, because it's the only tune that rocks, and the only one Dave helps to sing.

The title track, "Two Suns" and "The Gunner's Dream" are powerful ballads, but the rest can be really grating.

The lyrics are indeed brilliant. If Roger's megalomania hadn't taken hold and could have seen fit to include Dave as singer and composer (instead of, for all practical purposes, using him and Mason as just more session men on what is, indeed, a solo album), it could have been Floyd's best work.

Dimitri T. <> (01.05.2000)

An excellent album. The music’s sweet and melancholic. Whatever some of you people say, this is yet another great job of Pink Floyd (and Waters in particular).

Andrei <> (05.10.2000)

Well there are some 'true fans' </sarcasm> who insert second 'n' in this title, (oh, the subtlety), but I rather like it. It's surely not much worse than, say, DSOTM. Sure, it doesn't have 'time' but it has 'the hero's return' (excellent), 'paranoid eyes'(nearly as good), first 2 tracks (quite good), '2 suns' (very good musically but lyrics and vocals.. uh.. something's annoying about either one or both), and, yes, 'not now john'. I think that last one is quite decent, it's a bit like 'nile song' but more polished and generally better. So, this is one of their worst albums, but still a very good one. Is it roger's solo album? Not in the least: Cons suck big time compared to this. But yes, it's not quite classic PF as we know it, but neither is The Wall. I think The Wall was the beginning of the end for the band, however successful it was.

Steve Hall <> (10.01.2001)

I'm a really keen,avid Pink Floyd listener but this is really hard to defend.The lyrics are still excellent but the theme is a tired one.I can tolerate that but what i can't tolerate is Roger running off with himself regarding the music,singing and credits.For one i realise Gilmour's contributions on Animals and The Wall were fairly minimal when you look at the writing credits but his influence can certainly be felt in the music on those albums and his singing is a welcome aside from Roger and by his own words he was still very much involved in the production.But this time they were a shadow of what they were before.It's a Roger solo album in all but name(didn't someone disagree with that above?)honestly it is.Pink Floyd should have finished as a group after The Wall because they WERE finished with each other personally and musically(obviously referring to Waters/Gilmour who basically are Pink Floyd)by this time.What a shame some people just can't stand back and look at a situation and see it just don't work no more,and quit.

Sean Rodgers <> (08.07.2001)

I think your review is a bit too harsh on this album. It's not perfect, but I still think this is a far better album than The Wall, or any other Floyd album with the exception of Animals. Of course, I think our differing views boil down to opinion- I personally think there is an incredible amount of emotion displayed on this album, especially the first six songs. "The Gunner's Dream" in particular is one of the most incredible songs I've ever heard. Of course, if you're new to Floyd, or dislike Roger's voice or philosophy or his general songwriting, then you probably won't like The Final Cut. Also, take another look at "Not Now John"- I dismissed it out of hand on the first listen as total crap, and certainly Floyd could never do a convincing rocker, but further listens have let me appreciate it a little. For example, the "One of the Few" reprise in the middle is done very convincingly, with Roger's wearier, more cynical voice providing a perfect foil to Dave Gilmour's bluesier, crasser lyrics. The rest of the song is pretty bad, but I can stand it just to hear that inspired part.

Ben Kramer <> (13.04.2002)

Whoa, a nine. I normally don't like an album much more than you, but this is a MAJOR exception. I mean, yes this is a work of science and yes, Waters may not be able to prioritize in some people's eyes, but still, I can't help but love this album. For one, I would have to say that it is THE MOST depressing album in my collection. I think that the lack of musical ideas actually makes it even more depressing. Second of all, there are songs on here, whether you can admit it or not, it does have songs. By saying this has no music on it, you are comparing it to Winds Of Change. You gave that a 4!. This does have musical ideas, though none of them are original (stolen from The Wall). You have to understand that the music on here has to take a back seat to the lyrics. The music isn't supposed to be memorable, and the only song that is memorable musically is one of the worst songs in the entire Pink Floyd catalog, 'Not Now John', a song that totally ruins the mood of the most depressing album ever. The music does get very good at certain spots though, particularly during 'Two Suns In the Sunset' and 'The Gunner's Dream'. The album take a lot of attentive listening when first purchased, as well as understanding the music's place on the album is not to be great, but to set the atmosphere for the album. Well, I give it a 13, a 14 if 'Not Now John' was chucked. Also, I listened to this a lot when I first heard it, but now I limit my listens to once ever 6-12 months because it is so depressing and emotional. Once the listener can understand that this isn't an album to get into, then one can understand its importance in the world of music.

Stephen Rutkowski <> (01.11.2003)

This album really is dire. The tracks just run into each other, with Roger Waters lisping the lyrics drearily over the most simplistic of arrangements. I don’t care how great the lyrics are, if I want quality text I could go and buy some poetry. I want some quality music, but it is just not here. All three of the guys had run out of ideas, and possibly if Gilmour and Mason had some remaining, Waters wouldn’t have let them contribute anyway. This comment is going to be very short, because I just don’t have anything to say about such mind-numbing music. The only respite is the last two tracks. They actually contain music (Oh Lord, sweet, sweet music). ‘Not Now John’ is merely a cock rocker, but it is like finding diamond in a coal mine. In reality I haven’t heard a song quite like that one, so I will let it pass. ‘Two Suns in the Sunset’ is a pleasant ballad with wonderful drumming (incidentally not performed by Nick Mason. He must hav! e been extremely bored during the recording sessions for this album, if he was there at all). This album seems to be one that splits a lot of people, you either love it or hate it. I almost died when I saw that another review website gave it a 10/10 but I now see that it’s just a matter of taste. If you like Roger Waters ‘soft’ voice over ‘emotional’ backing instruments and place a lot of emphasis on lyrics then I’m sure you will like it. Myself, I don’t care too much for lyrics (with a few exceptions), so this album inevitably falls flat. I only own it for completist purposes, just like the next two studio albums.

Fernando Henrique Canto <> (02.11.2003)

Okay, I really like this one. I dunno exactly why, but I do. If Roger didn't exactly bother to write very strong musical content on here, at least there's a very strong athmosphere on here. The lushy orchestra arrangements, the piano, the inobtrusive sound effects... and no 'Young Lust', 'Empty Spaces' or 'Bring The Boys Back Home' in sight! I think this is a beautiful record. There are really great moments on here - yes, actual songs. 'Paranoid Eyes' deserves mention. The "and you hide, hide, hide... behind paranoid eyes" moment gives me the creeps. The duo of 'Southampton Dock' and the title track must be the best moment in the album, though. 'Two Suns In The Sunset' is good, too, and 'The Hero's Return' is quite solid, too. But 'Not Now John' is quite cringeworthy. It reminds me more of 'Young Lust' than of 'The Nile Song', but that doesn't matter. It's the stupid, horrible, rotten female backing vocals that absolutely annihilate any fun that the song could grant. Without them, the song would be passable. Aside from that, well... I should say that I don't enjoy the album just because of the lyrics or the singing. The lyrics are good, and Roger has a nice, pleasant voice. But it's the beautiful arrangements. RollingStone gave THIS album the five-star rating. The heck? I dunno, this gets a 7 from me. THIS album, the five-star rating, and not Dark Side Of The Moon? Not Animals? Heck, not even The Wall?

Oh, well, Kurt Loder said that U2's The Unforgettable Fire is one of their worst. The bastard!

Alexey Provolotsky <> (24.06.2005)

This is what I call my record. This album happens to be my biggest disagreement with George on his site. And that’s easily understandable. It’s one of those albums that you either love or hate (or should I say get or don’t get). I love it! I find tons of great melodies here, and I can sing any line from The Final Cut even if you wake me in the middle of the night and ask to. No songs, George? Come on, what IS a song? Anyway, brilliant lyrics (I want to cry every time I hear “The Gunner’s Dream” and the title track), absolutely gorgeous melodies, Waters’ emotional singing (very sincere; it seems, I can almost feel what Roger feels) make it an unforgettable experience. Plus, the album has always been something like a source of inspiration to me. Not enough atmosphere? Well, I don’t know. Really, George!..

My heart would give this work of art the full score, but my brain forces me not to give this anything at all (same goes to Berlin). To sum it up: it’s thrilling, beautiful, deep and very very sincere. Give it a try. Please.

Neil Eddy <> (12.08.2005)

I like this Floyd album far more than most other Floyd recordings with the exception of Animals. I have always regarded TFC as the album where Waters really worked out the themes he sketched in The Wall - particularly his feelings towards the loss of his father in WW2, and the betrayal of the 'land fit for heroes' (and by extension their fatherless offspring). The Wall began developing these ideas but sprawled around everywhere and is essentially an unfocussed mess. Here on the TFC, similar themes are more focussed and economically expressed, making the album a far more satisfying experience than its overblown predecessor. The exit of Rick Wright meant that Waters had to strip back the sound and this works too. The somewhat sparse arrangements augmenting the strength of most of the lyrics.

This was the last Floyd album I ever bought and I have always thought of the substantive Floyd as ending after Water's exit ..

Tim Blake (25.07.2006)

Well, I've tried and tried to enjoy this album...but in my opinion it is by far the worst Pink Floyd album. Worse than even Momentary Lapse, the next worst (I really, really do not enjoy either of these albums). Division Bell I didn't really mind, not great, but a vast improvement nonetheless, on either of these pieces of shite.

The Final Cut suffers incredibly from simply having some of the dullest music I have EVER heard. It almost has ZERO redeeming musical value. It isn't because the songs are offensive (as in, bad cheese or discordant crap or *insert what is unlistenable to you*)'s because the music is almost 100% filler for Roger to recite his intelligent but extremely sterile lyrics over. The review here is pretty right, it's more like a scientific/sociological/historical treastise than anything resembling artistic expression. Zero emotion. Every song is basically innocuous piano, bland bland bland soft orchestration in the background, and a never ending spiel about war and maggie and his dad and stuff that may sound cool to Roger, but bores the bejezuz out of me due to lacking any emotion punch. The Wall was great because it balanced excellent MUSIC with it's themes and ideas...and sharing vocal duties with Gilmour really help to flesh things out...his voice is warmer and more emotional. Here it is just Waters whining's horrible.

Momentary Lapse sounds terrible because it is cheesy and bland. Final Cut is cold, boring and bland. Division Bell is just a bit bland. I still think Momentary Lapse had more of a right to be a PF album than Final Cut because it at least sounds a lot more like Pink Floyd, though of course a stale imitation. Final Cut proved that Waters seriously did not have what it takes to run the whole band himself. I guess Gilmour showed that too, but Waters made even worse a pig's ear of it, in my opinion. The weakest Floyd album, definitely. I like only the first song because it has a memorable vocal and buildup...Not Now John because it at least sounds like a song...and The Fletcher Memorial Home...cos I like the melody.


Boris <> (25.08.99)

I actually have a lot of things to write to you about your site, but I don't have time now. I just wanted to make a correction, Momentary Lapse of Reason is not a Dave Gilmour solo album, its a Pink Floyd album without Roger Waters. Unless you mean that he composed all the songs, which isn't exactly true, there were some collaborations. I agree with it being the worst though, except maybe A Collection of Great Dance Songs. He does have some solo stuff, as does Roger Waters, but they are not released under Pink Floyd's name.

[Special author note: well, Gilmour's solo albums which had 'Dave Gilmour' on them also included collaborations (with Pete Townshend, for instance), but that doesn't mean they're Gilmour-Townshend albums, right? Essentially MLOR is a pure Gilmour solo album.]

Stanislaw Kozlowski <> (01.10.99)

I am surprised with Your comments. For me it is a very good album absolutely coherent with other Pink Floyd records. And completely different from Gilmour's solo albums - so no, it is not single Gilmour. Gilmour indeed had proven that Waters was not Pink Floyd alone. Maybe songs are not very diverse but I can see a lot of good work in them. And I like the ominous mood which is there. My favourite one is 'Sorrow'.

We do not need to talk much about record quality, it is enough to compare MLOR with Waters solo achievements - dull and wearisome in listening.

Mike DeFabio <> (05.10.99)

Wow, for someone who hates Pink Floyd you sure rated this one high. Most people hate the living (insert something here) out of it, but you only rated it 2 lower than the Wall! Which is currently my favorite Pink Floyd album, but that'll probably change again. Anyway, I'd give this a eight. I'M SERIOUS, I really like this album. I see NOTHING wrong with any of the tracks you've described as bad. But, see, everyone else in the entire universe hates those songs, so there's obviously something wrong with ME. I've listened to it OVER AND OVER, trying to hate it, but I just can't. Sorry.

Bob Josef <> (14.02.2000)

I'll stick up for you, George! Yes, this is a Gilmour solo album disguised as a Pink Floyd record, much as the last was a disguised Waters solo album. The fact that Mason and Wright appeared intermittently (not totally absent, George) is irrelevant -- they add nothing to the sound or to the songwriting.

That said, I think this is a more enjoyable record than the last. Unlike Roger, Dave has not forgotten how to sing or how to write a good melody. And even on the most tedious stuff ("Round and Round," "Yet Another Movie"), at least the melodies are catchy. And the album is strongly produced by Bob Ezrin, with the sort of smooth, cool surface somewhere between Meddle and Wish You Were Here.

Where the record falls down for me, like a lot of fans, is with the lyrics. "On the Turning Away" is actually very moving words-wise, but the rest is merely serviceable at best -- just there so the music would have SOME words. Except, of course, the utterly bad "The Dogs of War." Maybe Anthony Moore thought he could outdo The Final Cut with this one, but he should have been exiled permanently after this one. Plus the music recycles "Welcome to the Machine." And the video is dumbo, too!

Andrei <> (05.10.2000)

'Signs of life' is great, the rest is average at best. I don't mind 'dogs of war' that much, though, nearly as much as most people. It's kind of like 'the machine' to me. Worst solo album. Oh wait, 'learning to fly' is fantastic, so it's not worst, can't be. Okay, 2 good songs.

Steve Hall <> (05.01.2001)

Yeh the title sums it all up.What on the earth was Dave thinking????A Pink Floyd album without Roger?????Cut me a break.Dave may have had the moral high ground during their legal battles at this time but he sure doesn't have the musical high ground.

Just like the Final Cut, how sad it is to see a once great band stumbling over one another to prove how useless they are without each other,what a pity.

Eric Rogozin <> (12.06.2002)

One of the best Pink Floyd albums, it's better than Meddle, better than Dark Side Of The Moon, better than Wish You Were Here, better than Animals (IMHO). And it's good because Gilmour is the main force here. You know, I always respected David Gilmour and always considered him to be a very good musician, but other Pink Floyd members (especially Waters) are so-so musicians. I dare even to say, then Roger Waters is a bad bassist and vocalist. And how much dirtiness has he said about his colleagues in the press! I really dislike the man! All, that was good in Pink Floyd, came from Gilmour!!! Or Barrett sometimes.

Federico Fernández <> (16.11.2002)

Currently I have a collection of 120 CD's or something like that, and when asked to point out the very worst among them I say without hesitation: A MOMENTARY LAPSE OF REASON.

There are no words to express how much Pink Floyd's reputation was spoiled but this crap. The Final Cut and The Division Bell are also less than stellar albums but sometimes they are glorious compared to this one (Well, actually I don't own TFC, so I cannot speak about that one) I can't figure out how David and the others thought that this album could be released. Pink Floyd albums, no matter how calculated Gilmour solos could be, used to be highly emotional, but this is the most dull and cold piece of music I ever heard (KING CRIMSON is more emotive than this) But, if you want to put emotions apart, the music is ABSOLUTELY HORRENDOUS; no melodies, NO MELODIES!!!, no good riffs, stupid,stupid,stupid atmospheres, booooooooring solos, fake anthems and the worst sound effects I've heard in my life. No, the music has NOTHING TO DO with what Pink Floyd is suposed to be. The only decent track is "Learning To Fly", but nothing spectacular. But then... "The Dogs Of War" is the most horrible, disgusting and banal song ever written. The arrangement is awful and Dave's roars grate my ears till the point of pain. I just can't understand why you get a guilty plesaure with it! I get a guilty torture. But the bad songs are all over: "One Slip" is somewhat catchy but I hate those synths and the way they're used in the intro: they simply sound too vacuum and "eighties crap" for me. "On The Turning Away" is often regarded as a reason why I should like this album but my opinion is: It is a stupid and annoying anthem-like attempt to be emotional, but it is fake, the melody is embarrasing and the synth arrangements are a shameless sell out. "Sorrow" is boredom musicalizated, "A New Machine" is crap and "Terminal Frost" is a generic instrumental piece that seems like a XXX-film soundtrack.

Conclusion: I HATE this album with venom and I would rank it with a 2, not a 5, not in my wildest dreams. And sorry to bore you, but if you really, really, really think this is equal to News Of The World or Second Helping... I'm speechless.

Jon <> (01.12.2002)

Music like the Wall--lyrics like something really worse than Waters' (ur, yeah). If you like the Wall's music, you should like this. It has all the appropriate isms of that Brontosaurus. Same goes for Division Bell, but that's more like WYWH and the Wall had a stunted child as far as music and the lyrics suddenly thought they were smart and grew third eyes and extra limbs of hideousness. :)

Gerard Nowak <> (04.03.2003)

This is truly Gilmour's solo album - he himself confirmed that both Mason and Wright weren't virtually present on it ("I played most of the keyboards myself pretending it's him [i.e. Wright]"). And the very fact that Gilmour wanted it so much to be a Pink Floyd record was his crucial misjudgement, I think. Only "Terminal Frost" sounds almost Pink enough, the rest I find overblown (the arrangements) and insubstantial at the same time (the compositions). It's a pity, I always prefered Gilmour to Waters, but it seems the band needed them both, ultimately.

Stephen Rutkowski <> (01.11.2003)

Yeah, I had a momentary lapse of reason when purchasing the album... (But that joke is expected...) Trying to decide which you prefer least: A Momentary Lapse of Reason or The Division Bell is no easy task. If someone held a gun up to my head I would say The Division Bell is worse, but only just. They both suffer from CD syndrome (hey, we can fit more than 45 minutes on an album now! That means we can draw every song out for another three minutes or so!), although The Division Bell is much worse in this respect. A Momentary Lapse of Reason has at least two quality tracks whereas The Division Bell has only one. The highlights here are ‘Learning to Fly’ and ‘On the Turning Away’. It’s true that ‘On the Turning Away’ sounds fake and as though the band (Gilmour?) are really trying to make it sound sincere and uplifting. It isn’t the greatest song ever made but on this album it produces the goods. ‘Learning to Fly’ is quite rightly the only post Waters track regarded as a classic. The synthesiser sounds oh so 80s, but for some reason it works perfectly. Gilmour’s vocals are also rather impressive. As for the other tracks, there are songs I absolutely hate (the horrendous ‘Dogs of War’ and the stupid ‘A New Machine’) and the rest of the tracks are mostly overlong filler. ‘Dogs of War’ is the nadir of anything Pink Floyd ever released. I would rather listen to ‘Alan’s Psychedelic Breakfast’ five times in a row than listen this garbage. The synthesiser, the awful saxophone, it just screams 80s. ‘A New Machine’ is extremely crap, with Gilmour doing a little ‘experimenting’ with his vocals. Fortunately the two parts together are still rather short. I don’t think ‘Signs of Life’ is too bad. I have always found it as a nice relaxing introduction to the album. That would be ok if the rest of the album actually had quality music. As it is ‘Signs of Life’ doesn’t have a! leg to stand on. ‘One Slip’ features the unnecessary alarm clock at t he beginning (trying to recreate ‘Time’ eh Davy? Not on your life). I can’t believe they somehow managed to make this song stretch for five minutes, it is so damn boring. Actually I could say that about the rest of the tracks. ‘Sorrow’ is the only other somewhat decent track here and that goes for an agonising eight minutes. And for some reason Gilmour thought this song was good enough to become a staple at the life shows. Another thing I really dislike about the album is the myriads of session musicians. Look at the liner notes and you will see that there are nineteen musicians and singers listed. Nineteen! How many people does it take to make an album? How many different saxophonists do you need when only one was enough in Dark Side of the Moon? It’s not like the saxophone sounds any good anyway.

Fernando Henrique Canto <> (02.11.2003)

Aiieee! I think you overrated this one, George! Come on, couldn't you have saved all your venom for THIS album instead? Sheez, this is REALLY a disgusting album. Dave was trying SO hard to sound like HE was the brains behind Pink Floyd... Of course, because Roger Waters was the evil villain in the whole story, and David Gilmour was the poor victim. But he just forgot the importance that RICK WRIGHT has in the sound of Pink Floyd. HE is the man behind it all, along with Roger Waters. But NOOO, Dave had to inflate his ego and produce THIS. Mind you, when you say you can get dorky pleasure from 'Dogs Of War', I can't help but yell ARE YOU NUTS?! Damn, this stuff is embarrassing. Did Dave really think he could outwaters Waters? With those "hum-de-hum-hum-de-hum-hum" synths and that corny saxophone? The hell! And then, 'A New Machine' is a really offensive thing. What the hell is THIS, then? I don't care if it's short. What is it supposed to mean? 'Sorrow' and 'Yet Another Movie' are just so slow, lifeless and dull... Heck, for the first time, Pink Floyd has done something downright BORING. Geez. The good points in the album? Well, 'Learning To Fly' is very pleasant and quite memorable, in fact. 'One Slip' is a great pop song - shame it's placed RIGHT NEXT TO 'DOGS OF WAR'. 'On The Turning Away' can be vaguely beautiful, before the solo comes in. And actually 'Terminal Frost' is quite good. But no, I refuse to give this album a rating higher than a 4. Sorry, George, but you didn't need to try and sound modest on here. ;)


Bob Josef <> (14.02.2000)

I saw the concert, and I got the CD as a Christmas present. I'm glad I didn't buy it, and I wish I hadn't pay for a ticket to the show.

I don't agree that the sound was cacaphony. On the contrary, the only fascination with the live show was hearing how precisely the musicians duplicate the studio versions. But that's it! They didn't really DO anything else. If it wasn't for all the flying props and light shows (which had NOTHING to do with the songs), the show would have been totally boring instead of mostly boring. And since you don't get the visuals with the CD, you might as well not waste your time if you own the studio albums.

And I agree, they put too much of the last album on the first disc. In the concerts, they played EVERY song. Mainly for real nutcases.

Stephen Rutkowski <> (01.11.2003)

All I can say is trust George on this one. He is usually correct and this is one of those times. Although I would say giving it an overall 10 is way too high. The album is mostly drivel, with way too many A Momentary Lapse of Reason songs on it. If you were uncertain about how bad ‘Dogs of War’ is, this life performance proves it is the most horrid song that Pink Floyd could ever produce. Enduring this monster for six minutes is torture. There are fairly good performances of ‘Learning to Fly’ and ‘Wish You Were Here’ on the album, but not much else. And what is with the light bulb concept or whatever it is? It seems like they got the work experience kid in to think of a concept. The album artwork seems like a parody on Pink Floyd…


Mike DeFabio <> (05.10.99)

Okay, this one's a little weaker than AMLOR. They've done lots of mediocre songs, but 'A Great Day For Freedom' and 'Wearing the Inside Out' are the worst songs they've done since... (scrolling up the page... still scrolling....) 'SEE-SAW'! Remember that one? It's on Saucerful of Secrets! That was from '68! These songs are REALLY BAD. POO-FOO!

Everything else is cool, though. They haven't TOTALLY lost it yet.

Hey, Roger Waters is touring the West Coast next year! WOOO! I'm there!

Bob Josef <> (14.02.2000)

Pretty much in agreement here. Wright's presence on keyboards and in the songwriting does make the album sound more like classic Pink Floyd, but even so, half the time his work isn't all that distinguishable from session guy Jon Carin.

One major improvement over the last record is the lyrics, thanks to Gilmour's wife Polly Samson. She's no Roger Waters, but she's no Anthony Moore, either. Some of them, interestingly, like "Lost for Words","Coming Back to Life" and "A Great Day for Freedom" seem to be veiled messages to Waters about the toll their conflict took on Dave. The lyrics are thoughtful and there's nothing approaching the awfulness of "The Dogs of War," including Moore's one contribution, to Wright's "Wearing the Inside Out." However, it is a boring song, and they once again broke the rule of "Don't let Rick Sing!".

I agree, though, that that the album is lacking in strong melodies. And they should have taken back "Take it Back" if this dreary song is the best "upbeat" tune they could come up with -- at least AMLOR had "One Slip" and "Learning to Fly." And none of the ballads soar like "On the Turning Away." This album is a strong indication that PF's time has come and gone, so please leave it at that before a Calling all Stations materializes from this band.

mjcarney <> (03.08.2000)

Well, it is an improvement, but not by much. This is a marketing album, meaning it made it by the corporate sponsorship that backed it. Sales should not determine whether something is good, and this album (amongst others) proves it. But I did say it was an improvement, it is better than AMLOR, and that is true. At least this one has "What Do You Want From Me" which is actually quite good, a very strong track from a weak album and the best song on the disc. "High Hopes" also shows signs of life on this album and is a highlight albeit not a classic by any means. "Take It Back" reminds me a lot of U2, it was a relative hit and its at least decent, but nothing special. Finally, "Cluster One" is listenable and a decent instrumental I must admit.. "Wearing the Inside Out", "A Great Day For Freedom" etc, are just awful and stupid AND DID I MENTION BORING! Also, what happened to Gilmour's voice? He used to be pretty decent, but now he just sounds rather thin, not exactly awful but nothing what it used to be--maybe it's just the songs, I don't know. There is a strong glossy, production on the album, which should be expected,this is why likely so many people bought it when it came out. I waited a while. I had few expectations when I purchased this one years ago, I gave it several serious chances (honestly) especially after all the hoopla, but it stinks. A 2/10--not the worst album I have ever bought by any means, but definately not worth the money spent for the disc. At leastitspopular in the used CD bins now. There are countless better ways to spend $15, don't waste it here.

Andrei <> (05.10.2000)

Instrumentals are fine, if nothing spectacular, but one song is one of my favorites of all solo albums: 'wearing inside out'. The way main vocal, supporting vocals and music blend together is so magnificent, it nearly makes me cry. Wright had far more responsibility for making PF shine than he's usually credited with. Overall, better than MLOR, but not by much. 'High hopes' is just too cheap and the rest of songs are irrelevant.

muralee <> (24.03.2001)

I dont agree with the author or the readers. Though the Div Bell album doesnt have a constant mood throughout and the tracks are kind of disjoint, it's got some great tunes. Basically I just love the atmospheric, relaxed and peaceful nature of this CD. I dont understand how people dont like songs like 'Wearing The Inside Out' or 'Great Day For Freedom'. The former has a beautifully soothing sax solo and the latter has well written lyrics. I consider 'High Hopes' to be one of the best Floyd songs ever along with 'Time' and 'Comf. Numb' just because of the nostalgic lyrics and the absolutely amazing guitar lead at the end. That piece is according to me unparalleled by most of the soft guitar leads in the history of music. Songs like 'Take It Back', 'Coming Back to Life', 'Poles Apart' all sound extremely pleasing and perfectly crafted out. I dont know about the Bob Dylan similarity on 'Lost for Words' but the bottomline is this album hasnt really been given a good listen. Either that or listeners have been too prejudiced by the break ups in the band and the somewhat mediocre nature of Momentary Lapse. According to me TDB is a very pleasing album to listen to and is definitely worth a stupid 15 bucks.

Chris Boehm <> (22.04.2001)

First of all, I must say that your site is the best on the net, IMHO. I enjoy reading your reviews and check frequently for new ones. Although I am a huge Pink Floyd fan, I can see your arguments against them, and take solace in the fact that even though you dislike the band, you still rate them very high compared to other bands on your site. I think for the most part your reviews are on target, witty, and just the right length. One aspect I do disagree with you is your evaluation of David Gilmour. I believe that he is a very talented guitatist, while some of his lyrics may be lacking, and respect him for taking up the initiative after Waters had left the band. And as for the two post-waters live albums, as Nick Mason commented, "we are musicians, we sell albums for a living. If you believe two live albums is cheap and selfish, don't buy them."

However, I must disagree with you on a few of your comments on The Division Bell.

I am a big Dylan fan and have heard 'Desolation Row', and though the melody is somewhat similiar to 'Lost for Words', Gilmour in no way lowers his voice to sound like Dylan. I also think the song is mostly a tongue in cheek message to Waters, and shouldn't be taken seriusly.

My second disagreement is your immediate dismissal of Rick Wright's tune 'Wearing the Inside Out'. I think the lyrics of this song are absolutely spectacular, even if he has lost most of his voice. The song itself seems to be about Rick himself and his cocaine addiction during his last days with Waters-led Floyd. When I listen to the song, I can actually envision Rick crouching in the corner, as the anger and frustration over Waters' tyranny builds and builds inside him, wearing his insides out. I get goosebumps every time I hear it.

I agree with your assessments of 'Keep Talking' and 'A Great Day for Freedom', however.

All in all, I think The Division Bell is an above average Floyd album, certainly better than any of Waters' solo albums, and a very enjoyable listen.

Keep up the good work

Sergey Zhilkin <> (01.02.2002)

Actually I easily can understand people who worship (I've met some) this album - it's so nostalgic and by 'nostalgia' I mean the feeling of good old Pink Floyd. But the worst thing about this album is that it has few songs crying 'take look at us, we're supposed to be great hits!!!' and the others are here just to bore you. And if you look a bit closer you'll see that these hits are separated from each other by pointless instrumentals and dull songs, which are not really rip-offs, they are just dull and that's it. And please don't say rip-off - 'Lost For Words' is not a Dylan parody/rip-off although it has some same notes. You know, it's like saying that 'Sympathy for the devil' is a cheap copy of 'Can't explain' (yes, the have same chords - E, D and A). Alright, let's look at the sunny side of life - I mean three good songs - 'What do you want from me', 'High hopes' and 'Take it back' (btw, the video clip for song was awful). 'What do you...' was meant to be a mmm.. pun (?) towards fans who demanded too much from the band, and does it sound great (looks like it was an outtake from Wall). Two other tunes are a bit inferior but good anyway. So if you don't care about your wallet, take this, but my advise is - find a very cheap copy like I did. And I really don't see the reason why a casual non-fan should own this record. 4/10.

PS. Oh yeah, gotta say that there were TONS of different album covers. What a nasty trick to drag attention.

Eric Rogozin <> (12.06.2002)

Another good one! If only A Saucerful Of Secrets, A Momentary Lapse Of Reason, The Division Bell and one more album made of the good songs from the other albums existed from the entire Pink Floyd catalog then Pink Floyd would be really a great band.

Jon <> (28.11.2002)

Just like to point out Rick Wright's vocals are one of the few high points on this album.  Um, yes.  Listen to George otherwise.

Stephen Rutkowski <> (01.11.2003)

This album is frankly terrible. It is filled with six minute monster after six minute monster. The ‘band’ (Gilmour) was still suffering from CD syndrome and had no problem drawing out every song for as long as possible. But Gilmour, you only used sixty six minutes, I’m sure there was enough room for another “quality” song. I am not sure how you managed to give the album a 9 overall considering bad, but still much better albums like Presence, News of the World and Zinc Alloy (T. Rex) got scores equal or less. The album contains the obligatory instrumentals (‘Cluster One’ and ‘Marooned’). Remember, Pink Floyd are an experimental band! But the remainder seems like adult contemporary sludge. The songs all progress at the same slow plodding tempo. I am just dying to hear something like ‘One of These Days’ or ‘Money’ to break the monotony. Well, at least the lyrics aren’t that clichéd and accessible as most adult conte! mporary. ‘Cluster One’ is an ok song, but it serves the same task as ‘Signs of Life’ from the previous album. That is, it is a nice relaxing introduction, but without any quality tracks following it, it just falls flat. ‘What Do You Want From Me’ seems like a laughable attempt at a funky blues piece like ‘Have a Cigar’. Gilmour’s voice sounds terrible to boot, and will those damn back up singers shut up. The back up singers are almost as annoying as Gloria Jones on a T. Rex album. But the difference is of course that the T. Rex songs she ‘ruined’ were pretty good to start with. Here the back up singers just serve to make the songs even worse. ‘Poles Apart’ is a fairly nice song, but does it really deserve to go longer than seven minutes? ‘A Great Day For Freedom’ is a horribly boring piano piece. ‘Wearing the Inside Out’ at least offers something different from the rest of the songs, but that isn’t saying much. ‘Take it Back’ is a fairly pleasant pop song. Hmm… I really can! ’t say too much about the rest of the tracks, they are all terrible. The only thing that sticks out is the fact the Steven Hawking’s voice is used in ‘Keep Talking’. Again, that is not a good thing. Paradoxically the only noticeable exception is the longest track on the album – High Hopes’ (that’s if you have stayed awake long enough to listen to it). Although it is lengthy, and subsequently boring at times, it features Gilmour’s greatest vocals on the album. And the total number of musicians and singers has been reduced to only 14 this time. All those extra saxophonists were not needed were they? But that list of musicians includes the bane of most Pink Floyd fans – Guy Pratt on bass. Only buy this album if you are a completist, and even then try and get it as cheap as possible, I’m glad I did.

Fernando Henrique Canto <> (02.11.2003)

Oh, well. I actually quite like this one. Yes, there's nothing really offensive on here, Rick and Nick are back into action... and I don't think it's really insipid. There's quite a lot of stuff on here that I can enjoy. I think 'Poles Apart' is particularily wonderful, excluding the middle "pseudo- Floyd" moment. 'Coming Back To Life' and 'Lost For Words' are quite pleasant, and 'Wearing The Inside Out' has some mighty fine Wright athmosphere... and vocals! That's nostalgia for ya. 'What Do You Want From Me' is a quite good slow rocker, 'Take It Back' sounds a bit like it was lifted from U2's Achtung Baby, but it's quite nice, too. 'Keep Talking' is a bit stupid, though, and Mark Prindle says 'High Hopes' sounds like a Madonna song. I'm not too keen on it, either. It sounds too overdramatic to me, even though I can get most references to past Floyd (the buzzing fly from 'Grantchester Meadows', the bells from 'Fat Old Sun' on total disorder, the acoustic guitar melody from 'Welcome To The Machine', the marching drums from 'Bring The Boys Back Home', I guess, and "the endless river" from 'See Emily Play'). Well, I'd give this one a 6, or even a 7. Not particulary great, but not deserving of the same rating as A Permanent Lapse Of Reason. Definitely not.

Alexey Provolotsky <> (24.06.2005)

To tell the truth, I got the album by accident. I was not going to spend my money on post-Waters efforts, but I gave this a couple of listens in the end. So, what’s with TDB? It’s okay. But it’s also evident that it’s very bland, generic and absolutely unnecessary. Grew on me a little, though. At first, I cursed myself for listening to this shit, but then I found some painfully good moments in this overall monotonous and dull product. For example, both the rocker “What Do You Want From Me” and “Poles Apart” are quite solid and catchy. I would also mention the interesting “Take It Back”, it’s fine (although words can’t tell how I hate U2). But the best cut happens to arrive at the end, with Gilmour’s “High Hopes” – it’s just a very memorable pop song and there’s nothing really outstanding about it, but I still like it. Not that the rest are total crap (well, “Cluster One” and “Keep Talking” ARE crap, of course), but they just don’t sound interesting to me.

All in all, this record simply lacks any worthwhile musical ideas. Still, I’d prefer this over More. Gets a good 10 overall.


Bob Josef <> (14.02.2000)

An even bigger waste of time than Delicate Sound. I rented the video, and I'm glad I didn't shell out dough for the CD or the concert. Dull, boring and endless. Again, the same band playing the same songs in exactly same way as the studio albums. Pointless, especially the complete Dark Side. And, I agree, too much EXACT repetition from Delicate Sound. And the constant special effects on the video just get numbing after a while. "Astronomy Domine" is by far the best song, just because it's the only classic song that hasn't been worn out by constant radio play (wonder who does the lead vocal -- I have the track as the B-side to "Take it Back").

The original "On the Run" was created by Mason in the studio from overdubbing tape loops, like the Beatles "Tomorrow Never Knows." So, if they actually created a live version, Carin and Wright would have had to program sequencers or something. But I somehow doubt it.

Floyd can never perform the complete Wall live ever again. As part of the court settlement with Roger over the band's name, he gets to keep the concept behind the album. In return, he cannot use the band's name to promote his solo albums or live shows. Unless they reunite. But pigs will have to be on the wing before that'll happen.

stavanger jenter <> (21.03.2000)

I totally disagree with You in the review of P.U.L.S.E. I don't know who has written the review at, but it is surely someone that don't know what good music is.

My opinion is that this album is really great, as the other Pink Floyd albums. I think this page needs a bit more neutral reviewer. The critics are totally absurd. I have to laugh of this pages!!!

[Special author note: hell, I am a neutral reviewer. It's you who are a rabid fan, isn't it?]

<> (28.11.2000)

I dont know what the hell your talking about in your review of PULSE because it is by far Pink Floyd's best live recording. Almost every song is made better than its original version. Just listen to 'Sorrow', 'Coming back to life', 'Keep Talking' and even 'Learning to Fly'. The solos in most of these songs are INCREDIBLE as well I haven't heard a Floyd album with better guitar work than this. I have to say that I completely disagree with this review.

Dihua Guo <> (13.04.2001)

Well...I wouldnt say that this writer isnt neutral cos he has praised some albums and criticized others. And I must agree that the DSOTM part of Pulse is unnecessary and boring. Its not an exceptionally good live recording, one may as well listen to the studio versions. But that said, Pulse's other CD and the tour are awesome.

Stephen Rutkowski <> (01.11.2003)

This album is a definite improvement on The Delicate Sound of Thunder. Apart from gimmicky things like flashing LEDs and a cardboard case, there are more quality tracks and there is nothing disgraceful like ‘Dogs of War’. The complete Dark Side of the Moon part is risky, but it works for me. And it gave the boys a bit of a break during ‘On the Run’. They do most of the tracks similar to the originals even with the majority of the sound effects in the correct places. There isn’t anything particularly remarkable about the them, just that ‘Us and Them’ is vastly inferior to the original version. There are some quality cuts on the rest of the album including ‘Astronomy Domine’, ‘Learning to Fly’, ‘Hey You’ and ‘Wish You Were Here’. ‘Comfortably Numb’ sounds pretty good, but it is overlong. I don’t want to listen to Gilmour’s ‘heavenly’ solo for such a long time. The same goes for ‘Run Like Hell’ but that wasn’t that good in the first place. There really isn’t any need to have all the scratchy guitar bits at the beginning. The amount of songs from The Division Bell can ruin the first disc, particularly hideous tracks like ‘What Do You Want From Me’, but at least they play ‘High Hopes’. ‘Another Brick in the Wall’ while a crowd pleaser, is still a great track in whatever context. I was told to buy this album by a friend who said it was classic Floyd… I can’t believe I waited until my last Pink Floyd purchase to hear the live side of Ummagumma. Although that only contains four tracks from Pink Floyd’s early career, it is much much better than anything the multitude of backing musicians on this album can cook up.


Michael <> (17.05.2001)

A wonderful live esibition by Pink Floyd into the incredible atmosphere of the Roman Amphyteatre, where all songs were played greatly! 'Echoes' is divided in two parts, so the film begins with 'Echoes part. I' and finishes with 'Echoes part II'. The second song is a early single, that you can find in Relics too, "Careful with that axe, Eugene": this is played quite different and Waters insered some lyrics that I can't understand. The third song is the incredible "A saucerful of secrets", an instrumental of 9 minutes completely different from the song that you can find into the second Pink Floyd's album, "A saucerful of secrets". This song is divided in 4 parts, and the last one Gilmour screams with an angelic voices!

So see and listen to this important Pink Floyd's work!

Jon <> (01.12.2002)

'Echoes' solo--Gilmour the dentist does the most pleasurable root canal ever heard by the souls of shake-'n'-bake Romans--how anyone can like the "While my Guitar Gently Weeps" solo and not like Gilmour... it shouldn't be possible. And here also is proof positive that Gimlour improvs quite successfully... planning each note in advance indeed! My favorite part is where Roger tries to sound all musically inclined: "Rick, are you doing the run down from D?"--proceeds to sing something. Rick "You mean this?"--plays something entirely different. Roger "That's the one." No wonder Rick had to tune his bass for him on stage... hee hee. This also reminds me how much I like Rick's chording around on 'Us & Them'. Fun player.


No reader comments yet.


Richard C. Dickison <> (17.01.2000)

Well, gee can I say they both suck mighty wind. The total mindnumbing vacuum of originality is overwhelming. Underwhelming. whatever.

Roger has got some serious issues and I really think he took them out on his fans. I'd be more inclined to say these were the dreck songs that even the band would not let on a Pink Floyd album. Roger being the humble and ever thoughtful soul he is obviously took their advice into consideration. I dumped this album 2 weeks after it came out. Stink, Stank, Stunk.

Bob Josef <> (14.02.2000)

Definitely cons! Musically an even weaker retread of The Final Cut -- if you can call this music. The same group of sessioneers as on that record, except for Clapton. But he adds nothing -- how can he, when Roger gave him no melodies to work with? I read that Eric now files his work on the album and tour in the "What was I thinking?!" folder.

And, as on The Final Cut, Roger's voice is very hard to take over the length of this thing. And the major redeeming factor on Cut -- the lyrics -- is not here with this group of mope-a-thon themes. I'm sure glad I've never had any dreams like Roger's -- some of these are horribly bitter ("Gone Fishing") and downright ugly (that stupid track about West Germans and Arabs, "Sexual Revolution"). The title track would be OK if not for that annoying disco beat. The best song by far is absolutely "Every Stranger's Eyes/The Moment of Clarity," which has the album's only stately, human moments on the whole thing.

Small wonder the Floydsters rejected this. They were smarter than Roger.

Mike DeFabio <> (21.07.2000)

Definitely underrated, but how can an album that always ends up on "worst album ever" lists NOT be underrated? It's not a terrible album, there's just not much to it. There're a few songs that are pretty good -- 'Sexual Revolution' is pretty good, especially the part at the end when she eats the dog, and the music all of a sudden gets really quiet and you hear this terrible crunching noise. The rest of the album is, well, like I said, not terrible, but they're certainly not very memorable. The one exception is the title track. Not only does it not fit in with the rest of the album (by the way, why did he think it was such a good idea for the whole album to be based on the ticking of a clock?) it's just plain bad. Very bad. It's a disco song! Aiiiiii! Anyway, I'd give this album a perfect 5 (out of ten.) It's a completely average album, with the lone good song and lone bad song cancelling each other out.

mjcarney <> (03.08.2000)

This must be in the top10 most disappointing albums ever released. Some others that I can think of by a major artist who wanted to make a major statement apart from their other works off the top of my head (now that's a mouthful) are Their Satanic Majesties Request (which was dissapointing for many, but I think it is definately underrated), another one is Paul McCartney's debut--well at least it had its moments and typical McCartney melodies, and then there's this one. Sure, some might have been prepared with the second disc of the Wall, and the Final Cut, which is a decent album, although the melodies are sliding in favor ofstrong lyrics. However, it seems that many--including the critics were surprised by this one. It seemed that Roger was Pink Floyd at this point, but this album left people dumbfounded. Even Eric Clapton cannot help, his bluesy guitar adds much texture in some parts, but without a melody to enhance, it ultimately is unrewarding, despite some EXCELLENT playing. The album opens with 4:30 AM (Apparantly they were travelling abroad), which is a total rip-off of Lennon's excellent "Working Class Hero". Despite this, it is a strong highlight, and one of the few sort-of melodies on the album--even without a hook. Then there is a huge gap of lyrics, guitar notes, and density--poetry recitals with some emotion but no real songs. This goes on until the title song--track 10. Here, the album starts to roar, it has a pop flavor to it which gives it a little bit of a dated feel today, but "The Pro's and Con's" is a strong song--with the terrific backup singing that Roger needs in his material. "Every Stranger's Eyes" and "The Moment of Clarity" are also pretty strong tracks on here--basically, the album starts off well enough, then sags, but finishes beautifully. In between though there is a bunch of repeated noises, and reused melodies, but nothing remains too memorable. The concept is not too well developed, but like you said it is intriguing. It is a great idea, but it just is not executed very well, the lack of melodiesare one thing, but I have a lot of trouble relating to this one. A huge disapointment for thousands, this album gave all the Gilmour fans some strength in sticking with the band. But, at least this one has the artistic integrity whereas new Pink Floyd doesn't--that is a whole other story altogether though. Still, it is hard to give this album a score higher than a 4.

Andrei <> (05.10.2000)

Pure crap, plain and simple. The only song that is actually quite good is #2, which is intense and musically sound, while the rest seems either too inept to provoke any feeling or worse: out of tune shouting over non-existant melody.

I remember that david said this project sounded better musically than 'the wall when roger presented it, but they chose the wall cause it was interesting conceptually. I don't get it.. I guess roger gave them that #2 track to listen, or something. I'm sorry i bought it, the only one of all PF and member's albums I bought, including all other water's albums and 2 gilmour's and even one wright's.

Eric Rogozin <> (12.06.2002)

The most pretentious crap I've ever heard! And I listened to it three times whole through! Let's put it straight: Roger Waters is a pretentious dumbhead who lacks the hook-making abilities of Mr.Jeff Lynne, the intellectual level of Mr.Ian Anderson and the contrivance of Mr.Robert Fripp.

<> (03.08.2002)

Now I'll stand tall and state that I actually like Pros & Cons. The album may not be Roger's best solo work by "quality," I guess that would go to Amused, but personally this is the one I enjoy the most. I can't quite point out what it is, but there's something oddly fascinating to P&C... the Alice in Wonderland-ish sneak peek into subconcious just sends my mind reeling. And there's no denying that to me, as a female, the concept of the ever-so-decorous Roger putting out at least somewhat sexual material has certain appeal... that heavy breathing and all, "taking out the dagger"... I'd believe most of you guys miss this aspect. ;)

But as noted, there are tonloads of raw emotion here, and that's always an interesting factor. P&C is amazingly personal. For all we know, here we get Roger exposing his feelings towards some of the most delicate personal issues, insecurity, fears and weaknesses, through projective symbolic presentations... I wouldn't necessarily call that "incredibly dumb" or "surrealistic nonsense," it's a short trip into one man's psyche. (Of course I do realise many have little interest in Roger Waters' psyche... :) And I must say I enjoyed Roger, for once, not being so gloom-infested... we even get something of a happy ending here!

And yes, there is substance! I wouldn't dwell deep on interpreting, as for I feel I don't have the qualifications (and after all, to quote the master himself, "basically it was just a record about sex"), but the songs definitely suggest there's more to them than just random nonsense... The story actually seems quite solid (for a sequence of dreams clunked together anyway), if you just care to look into it and listen. It seems to carry similarities to The Wall in that through putting himself through the ordeal breaking apart from the reality and losing it all, playing the blaming game and traveling to the outer limits of personal distress, the protagonist finally finds the fault in *himself*, and experiences the moment of clarity (even in Wall, the final breakdown actually was a moment of clarity in that sense). Again, it's partly back to that struggle of communication and the failure to express one's feelings that was the core of The Wall and, come to think of it, one of Roger's main themes ever since at least 'If' I guess, and it's always a worthy subject to take on. And come on! There *is* even music in there, and it's not all that bad. Maybe not too original, either, but hey, what is? Clapton adds warmth to the atmosphere in a way David never could have (no offense, I have high respect to Dave as well, he's just different), very pleasant to the ear. And the vocals... I can see why some get bugged, but there's just something charmingly anarchistic about Roger's tendency to constantly disregard the limitations of his vocal range... :) Plus, 'Every Stranger's Eyes' is a wonderful song, even if ever so slightly corny, one of the most humane things I've heard... just beautiful. I guess it would make to my, uh, top 15 songs of all time. (Yes I'm serious. The other universalist comment, 'Echoes', would also rank up there). That's the often overlooked flipside to all that agonising alienation, personal isolation and suffocating behind communicative walls that Roger kept on portraying -- the realisation that hope, love, and reaching out for other human beings are the only things that will keep us sane and going in this world. And you'll have to admit, Roger sure was onto something there.

Ted Goodwin <> (23.09.2003)

Well, I have to admit that my youthful curiosity was piqued by that oh-so-offensive cover (the original uncensored one, which you mercifully do not display) when the album was new. I listened to it exactly once and that was enough; bye-bye it promptly went. (Actually, too promptly -- because it was the "collectible" cover I think I could have sold it for more if I'd waited longer!) I don't remember much except for Roger always either screaming or mumbling, and that "Every Stanger's Face" was the best song out of the whole miserable lot. The idea of having the "story" (or "dream") take place in "real time" (4:30 to 5:12 AM, i.e., the length of the album) is so obvious I'm surprised I haven't seen something similar elsewhere.

Fernando Henrique Canto <> (02.11.2003)

We, Brazilians, can be quite lucky in some aspects: In here, the cover for The Pros And Cons of Hitchhiking is UNCENSORED! Take THAT, stupid censors. We also got the kiddie cover for U2's Boy, but THAT one isn't much surprise. After all, if we're not scared of a lady's butt, why should we be frightened of a little kid? Hee hee. Silly North-Americans. Anyway, I don't hold any bad feelings about this record. Y'see, it's not like we should take Roger's ramblings SERIOUSLY. This album passes on like a man's dream, and dreams don't really make much sense, do they? So, the album is supposed not to make much sense. The Arabs with knifes, Yoko Ono and all that stuff, you know. And Roger, come on, he was just having a bit of FUN with this record. It isn't serious - at least, I don't take it seriously. And looking at it on that light, the album is quite nice. It has some really beautiful passages, it has some really fun passages, too. And all the vagueness and weirdness just makes it even sillier and more lightweight. I can enjoy it a lot. And 'Every Stranger's Eyes' rules, you know. But overall, it's just lightweight bluesy fun. Nothing original, nothing new... but charming, in its own way. My guess is, only Roger Waters could come up with something like that.

Stephen Rutkowski <> (20.11.2003)

I just thought I would add my little bit about the album covers. The censors are fairly lax in Australia I suppose. The Pros and Cons cover is uncensored, as well as Houses of the Holy and Boy. I’m not too certain about Blind Faith’s album though, that might be censored.

Anyway, back to more pressing matters. This album certainly picks up exactly where The Final Cut left off. Obviously the theme is now much more obscure, and I dare I say it, ridiculous. The melodies are atrocious leaving Roger to recite the lyrics in a monotone voice over slow and boring acoustic strumming. At least now there are a couple of brighter moments, with Eric Clapton’s electric providing some respite at times. But during the heavier moments, Roger chooses to yell the lyrics in a monotone voice rather than his usual whisper. I’m not the biggest Eric Clapton fan (sorry guys) but he certainly picks this album from the depths of despair, and places it in the realms of mediocrity. For this reason alone I would say it is easier to listen to than The Final Cut. And the album has some nice female back up singers if you like that kind of thing. Not me however, I think I am allergic to female back up singers after listening to too much T. Rex.

Now the actual songs… the funny thing is that no matter how many times I listen to this album, I still can’t remember many of the songs. Twelve tracks and not one of them stands out. The only thing that differs between the tracks is the percentage of Roger’s trademark whisper compared to his newfound yell. In addition the songs are occasionally punctuated by a saxophone or guitar solo.  For example ‘Gone Fishing’ contains mostly yelling interspersed with short whispering moments, and a few saxophone bits. Whereas, say, ‘Apparently They Were Traveling Abroad’ is almost completely just Roger’s whispering.

This album is just not for me, I only have it because I was curious about Roger’s solo career. Suffice to say I won’t be buying any of the others, even if they are better. There are way too many great albums out there for me to be wasting my time and money on Roger Waters’ solo albums.


Bob Josef <> (14.02.2000)

Well, pretty much in agreement here. As least he's TRYING to write melodies. Even if he doesn't succeed, there are a few more here and there as compared with the last album. I've read that Roger has now pretty much disowned the album because of the production style imposed on him by the producer. Of course, it had nothing to do with the songs themselves, did it, Roger? And I agree -- only "The Tide is Turning" is really moving.

What you don't mention is how much Roger's voice has deteriorated. It was already pretty unbearable on the last album and on The Final Cut, and here he simply cannot carry what tunes there are. "Radio Waves" is actually a fairly catchy single, but Roger straining his way through it ruins it.

I will say, though, that the Radio KAOS tour was terrific -- far more entertaining than then the simultaneously touring Pink Floyd show. The album was performed in its entirety, with live interaction between DJ Jim Ladd and "Billy," represented by a giant electronic bulletin board. Floyd tunes were cleverly interwoven throughout, with lead vocals widely ceded to keyboardist Paul Carrack, fortunately. And the band was great. It even included an ancient, very funny promo video for "Arnold Layne," starring the original Pink Floyd. Now THIS is a show that should have been released on video.

Andrei <> (05.10.2000)

I first heard it when I was about 8 or 7 and this was my first exposure to PF (and only one for next ten years). I guess it's not really all that good, but I can't judge it harshly cause I just got introduced to it in such tender age and it simply sunk in.. My faves here are 'information', 'me or him', 'powers', 'home', and the rest is almost as good, 'cept for radio waves that are abit worse. Roger sure got his shit together after 'Cons', I mean.. at the very least it doesn't make you want to throw up. I'd rate it higher than TFC, maybe even the wall, cause it doesn't have any stinkers that abound in the wall. Well rounded album, but nowhere even near the old PF albums.


Noam Klar <> (25.01.2000)

Come on man, 'Watching TV' is the best song here????

Not on my copy it isn't. And for the record you know not EVERYONE is trying copy Dylan all the time. Although you are right there are some Dylan references here the most blatant one being: "everybody has a price Bob, and your's was pretty low..." (actually, most people now think this reference is not to Bob Dylan, but to Floyd long-time co-producer Bob Ezrin, and Waters himself prefers it that way - G. S.)

Now to the album. Well to be honest I havn't heard any of Roger's previous solo efforts but I just think this one is absoloutly great. I agree with what the man himself actually said once that: "if this one was under the Pink Floyd name it would have been up there with The Wall and Dark Side Of The Moon." This is truely a great piece of work musically, lyrically I don't really know...

Sometime Roger has the tendency to think of himself as a crusader of all world injustices. For example when he talks of the situation in China (i.e Watching TV) or the situation in the middle east. He sometimes generalises the issues and as a result it often comes through as patronization. But I'm not saying the lyrics are bad or anything there are some great parts too ('Amused to Death', 'Perfect Sense part 1') that show Rogers skill to show real feelings at times.

Now musically... I really don't understand why you keep saying that "there are no real melodies" in here because if you listen carefully there are, and a lot of them ! The opener 'The Ballad'... has some awesome guitar work on it and so does the next one 'What God Wants', which the whole saga of it has a very nice tune. The following two are also great tracks with the declining piano riff on the first and the spacey sound as the monkey looks at the stars. The next one has a very nice hymn like chorus and in general the women singing throught the record is very nice (an old trick from Dark Side). Througout the whole 72 minutes it has a feeling as if you are on some musical journey through places and moods and that is one of the things I like best about it. The ending is magnificant when they rhythem starts to pick up and we are left with the repeating mantra: "amused itself too death" and then the narrator from the beginning.

What's funney is the number of floyd reminders for example the beginning of 'Too Much Rope' taken from 'Echoes' or as you mentioned the beginning of 'The Ballad'... which resembles 'Shine On'. I think on the last one Roger subconciously wrote:

oooohhhh western women

oooohhhh western girl

Dosn't this remind anyone of:

oooohhhh I need a dirty women

oooohhhh I need a dirty girl

But in this case I think it can be fogived.

mjcarney <> (03.08.2000)

This album, simply is the one album that Roger and all Pink Floyd fans should expect from him. It is near brilliant and highly intelligent. There ARE strong melodies throughout. "What God Wants", "Perfect Sense","The Bravery of Being out of Range", "Too Much Rope" all featurequalities that have been missing from Roger's work since the first disc of the wall, that is STRONG MELODIES, A SURPRISING AMOUNT OF EMOTION, AND BRILLIANT Lyrics.The albums major highlight is "Watching TV." Here, Roger is protesting about people watching the Tianammen Square massacre, and corporations like Turner Broadcasting profiting from this, it is sickening that people can watch these things, or war;( news is one thing, but to watch this stuff as it is happening, almost like entertainment is ridiculous--and believe me it happens).Other than these strong melodies (which are reprised in other forms 2-3 times), this album features Roger's best ever lyrics. Instead of simply lecturing and complaining about things, Roger adds some emotion which adds even more depth to the songs. His voice still isn't the best, but it is amazing how much stronger it sounds with strong musical backings--courtesey of Jeff Beck andthe terrific backup singers.The backup singers add a rich flavor to Roger's words, and it is refreshing to hear himuse that format again, especially since it was so well done on Dark Side, and on The Body Soundtrack--it seems he forgot about that little trick to aid hisvocal shortcomings. Also, Jeff Beck musically steals the show (he even does a much better job than Clapton did on Pro's and Con's--although Clapton had the disadvantage of working with no melodies).On a slight history note,Roger originally wanted/askedBeck to replace Barrett in the 60's, but either Beck did not want to do so, or the other membersvoted for Gilmour or what, but it never happened which will somewhat discredit the critics claim. However, after hearing how great Beck's guitar sounds with Roger's voice, I am curious what it could have been like (not to say that Dave is a poor guitar player, but Jeff Beck isn't so calculated with his guitar, and is well just a better player but he's one of the best in rock history).Overall, Amused to Death, is definately Roger's high point in his solo career. It is the equalto most of hisPink Floyd output as well. The lyrics, music, terrific sound effects have improved so much it is unimaginable--and this is from an artist who always has pretty strong lyrics. The only slight problem with the disc is the length, it would have been betteras a specially priced two CD set where the songs were split (which is the problem with CD technology), but that is a minor squabble especially with songs this great. It is too bad that he couldn'tput his old moniker on it, because if he did, this easily would have brought the band back to their old artistic credibility--they have kept the popularity through the marketing Pink Floyd utilizes.This albumis probably the most underlooked masterpiece. I would rate it a 9/10, if you haven't heard it and you claim to be a Pink Floyd fan, then you are really missing something.I'll even go so far to say it isequal to the Wall's terrific first disc! People are just so biased against Roger with all the bad press hehas received (which he probably deserves to some extent, andthe poor albums he released in the past, butthis is a great album. George, you really have to listen to this one again!

Nick Einhorn <> (12.09.2000)

The "every man has his price, Bob" reference is a dig at Bob Ezrin for ditching his work on Radio KAOS to go work on Momentary Lapse Of Reason, which needless to say pissed Roger off.

Andrei <> (05.10.2000)

Nearly perfect, especially from the standpoint of sound quality, and effects quality. Good system is a must to appreciate this record. Vocals often leave much room to improvement, and the whole thing is far overblown, but music is quite good, far better than the wall, and the lyrics are rather good also. Okay, social over-commentary does weight it down.. but even that taken into account, this one is up there with the better PF albums, like more and Obscured. Songs I like: 'bill hubbard' (nicely contrasting sad guitar line with rough, casual, tv-sounding commentary), 'what god wants' (music's great, and so are lyrics), 'perfect sense' (female vocals are almost, but not quite annoying, while music is great), 'bravery' is good, 'too much rope' is okay, 'watching tv', 'three wishes', 'it's a miracle' and title track are all excellent. Damn, if Roger fixed it up only a little bit - it'd be as good as anything PF ever done. It's outstanding how nearly every song is excellent, and none are bad. I literally know no other album with such consistent quality. In old PF days, they'd always put at least a few filler-type songs on every disc, even if the total count of songs was 5. Here, 14(sic) instant classics. Roger was right when he said that if the album had PF printed on its cover, it'd be ranked as the best of PF albums, but I'd add a little correction that if it were so, it'd be slightly overrated, due to the fact that it's a more slick, form-over-substance and overblown.

<> (08.06.2003)

No melodies at all...? I know you're obsessed with the melodic element in music, and I don't agree btw, since even noises and dissonances can say a lot (you know, 'Requiem' by King Crimson and 'European Son' by Velvet Underground in your opinion are crap and in mine are stunningly powerful), but here is not a matter of tastes, it's a matter of facts: you can say you don't like ATD melodies but c'mon, but you can't say these songs AREN'T melodic.

About the concept: it is about a plenty of things, but mostly about the role of the media nowadays, the way it makes a show out of everything, especially war (the main obsession of Mr. Waters after all, isn't it?), remember this album was composed in the days of the first Gulf War. He obviously didn't miss the oppurtunity to take on other things (religions, soldiers, Lloyd-Webber, globalization, ex-bandmates and collaborators etc...).

Watching TV does not "deal with an author's long-lost Chinese love", it is about the killings in Tiananmen Square, a tragic moment in history like many and many others, but a particular one too: it was witnessed by the televisions, that girl with "shiny hair", "perfect breasts" etc... is therefore "half victim/half superstar", cos she died under media's eye.

There would be so many more things to say and considerations to do about the lyrics of this album, I guess noone but hardcore Waters' fans would care tho. If anyone's interested it would be enough to put the words - "amused to death" + analysis - on a search engine (i.e. Google) to find out several pages on that subject.

Alexey Provolotsky <> (24.06.2005)

Oh, that damn Roger Waters knows how to make albums that appeal to me. Amused To Death is really good. Actually, not as good as The Final Cut, because it’s not so satisfying melodically, but the lyrics and the fantastic atmosphere are still here; and in very good quantities. The highlights for me are “What God Wants”, “The Bravery Of Being Out Of Range”, “Watching TV” and the title track. But there’s nothing to dislike here. Sure, “Late Home Tonight” is rather forgettable (still pleasant enough) and “It’s A Miracle”, while nice, is a bit overlong. I’ll admit, though, that there’s no point in the individual songs, they flow so well into each other and make such a solid album overall that I don’t really pay attention to these minor flaws.

Roger’s voice is obviously rather weak here (but effective!). Never mind, this still gets a nice 12 for me. Get this if you’re a fan of The Final Cut. It just sounds more human to me. What a complaint!

Return to the main index page