If we intend to judge any group fairly, and estimate their impact on
music, we must be objective in looking at the questions they force us to
answer.
Should an album reflect a band's style,
or their ideas? Many bands develop a certain "sound",
and seem more concerned with producing that sound in every song they record
than with producing excellent music. You have probably heard a new
song on the radio and immediately known who was doing it, because their
style is so distinctive, it's easy to recognize. Though Pink Floyd
has those definable characteristics {CPFS},
they frequently alter their music to better communicate the idea they are
trying to get across. You'll be hard pressed to find another group
that uses as many different styles. Some people might consider this
a weakness, since it forces the group's followers to go along with the
band's concept, but it is the only way to advance the quality of
music.
Is there a significant difference between sound
and music? The members of Pink Floyd have always had the
ability to sense the musical quality in almost any sound. What you
or I might judge to be noise or simple conversation had, for the band,
the potential to be worked into a musical context. {CPFS}
They recorded thousands of sounds, and made many others with their instruments,
that add depth and complexity to their music. It might be criticized
as distracting, but again adds an element of development to the music that
most groups totally ignore.
Should technical proficiency or lyrical
flow be the standard for measuring a band's quality? This
question is like trying to argue about who your favorite guitarist is,
and may be best explained that way. Technical work is often about
how many notes you can play in a given time period. Jeff Beck is
very technical, and Jimmy Page can be. The difference is that Beck
often gets so busy playing that you lose track of any melody
there should have been. Page gets lost once in awhile, but he also
helped Led Zep create some amazing melodies within their songs. Eric
Clapton is more lyrical, putting more
effort into the flow of the tune most of the time, so that the playing
is obviously following a musical "path" that we can follow.
David
Gilmourhas the technical ability, but is probably the most
lyrical player out there. His playing is much more focused on the
flow and feel of the music than showing off his skill. It can be
criticized when the music moves so slowly that it almost puts you to sleep,
but the simplicity and subtlety of it
all can also be amazing.
Are the words or the music more
critical in determining a band's quality? Some artists are renowned
for their poetic imagery, and others are famous for their great melodies.
(Which is Brittney Spears?) Either style can
be taken to extremes, as the lyrics can become so obtuse that we don't
know what the band's communicating, or the melody can become so simplistic
that it amounts to a ditty. In an era when most bands don't really
seem to have anything important to say, it seems odd to look back on Pink
Floyd and realize that most songs try to get some important point across.
In an era when melodies are primarily written to get people's feet tapping,
it may seem odd to listen to Pink Floyd, whose music requires an active
listener of a very different sort. The best Floyd work always
has an effective balance between the words and the music. Maybe all
groups should try that (but maybe it would take too much work).
How much experimentation should a band do?
It's probably a moot point these days, since so much of the music is synthesized,
but Pink Floyd and other bands of their era were working in an entirely
different medium. Guys were learning how to bounce items off their
guitar strings, hit their drums with various objects, and even what the
capacity of keyboard synthesizers were. The Floyd were famous for
trying all sorts of experiments live {CPFS},
then talking with their audience afterward to see how the effects worked
out. Now, it can all be computerized and tweaked 400 times until
the "artist" is satisfied with it, but what about the audience? Does
the music of Pink Floyd sometimes get so experimental that it loses its
way? Probably. Is that better than having no experimentation
at all? I think definitely.
What does the term melodic truly mean?
In the oldest times, melody was the line of notes by which we could identify
the tune of a piece. As music became more complex, the melody was
given "disguises" to keep the listener interested and active. Rock
music usually is pretty straightforward, either putting the melody in a
lead instrument, or the lead vocal. Pink Floyd makes melody a bit
more complex again, often using combinations of vocals, instruments, and
ambient
sounds to achieve a very different sort of melody than we might usually
hear. Can that be confusing? Yes. Still, it is also quite
intriguing.
How do changes in personnel effect a band's vision?
Pink Floyd is an archetypal example of a group that has experienced a major
change (or two) in membership, while maintaining the essence of its musical
vision. Early on, the band was more mainstream psychedelic in musical
form, but became unique in their heyday. Eventually, they became
more mainstream again. When Syd Barrett
dropped out, the band's direction changed from his to Roger's. When
Roger
dropped out, the vision became
Dave's.
Considering the personality cult surrounding Syd, it's amazing that the
group could keep going after he left, but it became, in fact, better.
As long as Roger kept the band pretty evenly balanced between an emphasis
on music and an emphasis on lyrics, their career worked out pretty well.
They actually suffered more slippage in quality as he became the dominating
personality than they did during the other major changes. Dave's
vision brought the band back more to the mainstream, and without the uniqueness,
there was little point in continuing.