# David Gilmour Solo



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

I've been enjoying his solo albums lately. I kind of like the focus on lyrics, melody and song construction in every sense of what that could mean.

I think he's absolutely brilliant.

Any fans?


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

I have his first solo album from 1978 which I bought back then. It's an okay album but not great. I suppose I bought it because There's No Way Out Of Here was a minor radio hit and I was a Pink Floyd fan.


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

IMO neither Gilmour nor Waters produced solo albums that came even close to the quality of the Pink Floyd albums from 1967 to 1979.


----------



## Simon Moon (Oct 10, 2013)

I used to be such a huge PF and Gilmour fan, but I never thought his solo albums were any where near the quality of PF.

Now, both, PF and Gilmour, bore me to tears. 

I still own my entire PF collection, and the 1st Gilmour solo album, and play them every so often, in hopes that I will once again hear the magic (the whole is greater than the sum of its parts), but I think it may be a lost cause at this point. 

Lost of other bands and artists I listened to when I used to listen to PF, still hold up very well, so, it's not an age related thing.


----------



## NoCoPilot (Nov 9, 2020)

I've seen several Gilmour concerts on DVD and he's a master of understatement. He doesn't play a million notes per minute, but he gets an almost human singing quality out of his guitar. He doesn't present himself as a big flashy rock star. He seems like a fairly normal guy you could talk to.

That said, yes his solo work is pretty underwhelming. "On An Island," "Rattle That Lock" and "The Endless River" (which I consider a Gilmour solo album) all could have used some serious editing, some variation in the lugubrious tempo and maybe some input from somebody who did still care about selling records.


----------



## justekaia (Jan 2, 2022)

NoCoPilot said:


> I've seen several Gilmour concerts on DVD and he's a master of understatement. He doesn't play a million notes per minute, but he gets an almost human singing quality out of his guitar. He doesn't present himself as a big flashy rock star. He seems like a fairly normal guy you could talk to.
> 
> That said, yes his solo work is pretty underwhelming. "On An Island," "Rattle That Lock" and "The Endless River" (which I consider a Gilmour solo album) all could have used some serious editing, some variation in the lugubrious tempo and maybe some input from somebody who did still care about selling records.


I am probably one of the long-time and greatest fan of David Gilmour and agree with you that his solo efforts are not worth the trouble. Without the original members of PF Gilmour is lost in terms of composition. But then we must pay tribute for him to have persisted with the group after Waters' departure. They did well although they missed the genius of one of their key members. Gilmour is such an outstanding soloist.The one who is to blame is Roger, although i also deeply admire him. It was a battle of egos like very often in rock history. Roger should have put the interest of the group first. That is the way i feel a group should function. Roger and David were the ideal combination, Like John and Paul, Bono and the Edge, etc.. 
Peter Gabriel who in my eyes is the greatest with Robert Fripp (King Crimson) were able to be brilliant after they left their group.


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

Simon Moon said:


> I used to be such a huge PF and Gilmour fan, but I never thought his solo albums were any where near the quality of PF.
> 
> Now, both, PF and Gilmour, bore me to tears.
> 
> ...


You can still remember why you were a PF fan?, but it's boring now.. Is there a word or concept for this? We should coin a phrase for it.
I agree it's not always age related. 
I never listened much to PF back when they were trailblazing. What if I started today? What would be my reaction, I wonder. Nostalgia, kid's stuff, unnecessarily loud, old hat today? ...or clever complexities for novel mental experiences? 
With 70s rock I usually conclude that they could be so repetitive in their songs because the technology was so new back then. They sold a lot of recordings, so people were intrigued.


----------



## NoCoPilot (Nov 9, 2020)

Luchesi said:


> You can still remember why you were a PF fan?, but it's boring now.. Is there a word or concept for this? We should coin a phrase for it.


Yeah we should. Some music that absolutely BLEW ME AWAY when it came out became almost unlistenable a few years later: ELP. Gentle Giant. Mid-period Fleetwood Mac. Partly it was overexposure, partly it was lots of flash and no depth. Other "flashy" music from the era, however, has held up better I think: Genesis (and Gabriel solo), pre-DSOTM Pink Floyd (for me), most Krautrock, the Italian stuff, Yes.

Maybe the term should be "flash in the pan" or "all hat no cattle" or something like that.


----------



## justekaia (Jan 2, 2022)

Luchesi said:


> You can still remember why you were a PF fan?, but it's boring now.. Is there a word or concept for this? We should coin a phrase for it.
> I agree it's not always age related.
> I never listened much to PF back when they were trailblazing. What if I started today? What would be my reaction, I wonder. Nostalgia, kid's stuff, unnecessarily loud, old hat today? ...or clever complexities for novel mental experiences?
> With 70s rock I usually conclude that they could be so repetitive in their songs because the technology was so new back then. They sold a lot of recordings, so people were intrigued.


PF were never repetitive in their songs and were innovative musicians who explored new avenues, experimented with sound technology and the use of new instrumental, voice and sound effects. Their vocals and instrumental virtuosity are unique in the history of popular music. Moreover the content of their work, whether it be sociological, political or geopolitical is unequalled in Western popular music. So i think you are missing the point. I was listening to PF in the sixties at the same time i was fascinated by Xenakis and i think both are still relevant now and will stand the test of time. This is not a matter of nostalgia, but simply the recognition of musical quality.


----------



## NoCoPilot (Nov 9, 2020)

I don't think anyone has ever accused PF of being virtuosos. They made do with the skills they had. And apart from Roger's constant harping on his dad dying in WWII, and David's constant missing of Syd, I don't think their lyrics ever mean much. Musically innovative, yes, in the beginning. Important, yes.

But Roger screwed the pooch when he left and thought PF would die without him. He was, at that point in the band's history, more of an anchor than a wing.


----------



## justekaia (Jan 2, 2022)

Luchesi said:


> You can still remember why you were a PF fan?, but it's boring now.. Is there a word or concept for this? We should coin a phrase for it.
> I agree it's not always age related.
> I never listened much to PF back when they were trailblazing. What if I started today? What would be my reaction, I wonder. Nostalgia, kid's stuff, unnecessarily loud, old hat today? ...or clever complexities for novel mental experiences?
> With 70s rock I usually conclude that they could be so repetitive in their songs because the technology was so new back then. They sold a lot of recordings, so people were intrigued.


i think you are the ultimate AH


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

justekaia said:


> PF were never repetitive in their songs and were innovative musicians who explored new avenues, experimented with sound technology and the use of new instrumental, voice and sound effects. Their vocals and instrumental virtuosity are unique in the history of popular music. Moreover the content of their work, whether it be sociological, political or geopolitical is unequalled in Western popular music. So i think you are missing the point. I was listening to PF in the sixties at the same time i was fascinated by Xenakis and i think both are still relevant now and will stand the test of time. This is not a matter of nostalgia, but simply the recognition of musical quality.


Now that you've expanded about all that I'm leaning towards agreeing with you. It's so easy to become jaundiced and looking back, seeing all the successful groups as stereotypical youthful exuberance. But there's surely nothing wrong with youthful exuberance!, even though fans at the time would balk at me.


----------



## pianozach (May 21, 2018)

It's funny, but once *Waters* started asserting himself in the band (or thinking of himself as BEING the band), starting with *ANIMALS*, there was a shift. For awhile *ANIMALS* didn't really grab me all that much, except for *Dogs*. 

*THE WALL* blew us all away for awhile. We played it non-stop. And suddenly, I was bored with it, the whole paranoia and mental illness thing, and especially all the whiney *Roger* vocals. And we ALL stopped playing about the same time. It just vanished.

Somehow I heard the story of how Waters held *THE WALL* ransom, threatening to take his baby and go home if they all didn't agree to fire *Rick Wright*. And suddenly, I was "over" *Pink Floyd*. I wouldn't even listen to *THE FINAL CUT* in its entirety until decades after it was released. I just despised Waters that much.

After *PF* reconvened after *Waters* tried to permanently dissolve it, I enjoyed their music again, but didn't actually buy any albums. 

In fact, I pretty much subconsciously catalog all those post-Waters releases as *David Gilmour* solo albums. They sound a lot like *Pink Floyd* albums, though, as though *Gilmour* and *PF* are almost interchangeable. Yeah, there are differences, but if you leave out *The Wall* and *The Final Cut*, those differences are pretty minor.


----------



## NoCoPilot (Nov 9, 2020)

The message of "The Wall," if you read the lyrics, is the story of a rock star who has had some success but can't come up with any new material, so he puts out some crap that he knows is crap, hoping his audience will stop pestering him. To his dismay, the crap is greeted with cheers and awards and becomes even more popular than his previous hit. In response he builds a wall to isolate himself from this undiscerning audience of idiots.


----------



## elgar's ghost (Aug 8, 2010)

My favourite David Gilmour song is _Fat Old Sun_ - yes, it's on _Atom Heart Mother_ but as it was one of the rare songs from the Rog years for which he wrote both the music and lyrics and played most of the instruments himself it's more or less a solo song which just happens to be on a Floyd album. For me it certainly knocks spots off _The Narrow Way_ and _Childhood's End_ anyway.


----------



## justekaia (Jan 2, 2022)

david is an incredible performer, someone who can mesmerise his audience; peter gabriel can do that as well, write incredible songs about subjects that touch american indians, african minorities, social problems in european countries, etc..; his voice has an emotional depth that beats david's; david had an incredible partner who defected (roger); afterwards he was not able to carve out a new career for himself with his own new songs; gabriel did all this.
nevertheless i think those two with bono, bowie, jimmy page and robert fripp are the most significant rock musicians of all time


----------



## Simon Moon (Oct 10, 2013)

Luchesi said:


> You can still remember why you were a PF fan?, but it's boring now.. Is there a word or concept for this? We should coin a phrase for it.
> I agree it's not always age related.
> I never listened much to PF back when they were trailblazing. What if I started today? What would be my reaction, I wonder. Nostalgia, kid's stuff, unnecessarily loud, old hat today? ...or clever complexities for novel mental experiences?
> With 70s rock I usually conclude that they could be so repetitive in their songs because the technology was so new back then. They sold a lot of recordings, so people were intrigued.


I originally liked them because they were innovative and creative. But as I started discovering more bands of the time, that are often placed in the same musical category, in comparison, PF became kind of mundane and simple to me. Behind all their studio magic, their compositions themselves became boring. 

But I still love much of the other music I was listening to at the time I was still a PF fan.

Gentle Giant still holds up incredibly well for me, as does: Genesis (before Hackett left), Yes, the Canterbury scene (National Health, Hatfield and the North, Matching Mole, Picchio Dal Pozzo, etc), the vast majority of the Italian prog bands (PFM, Banco, Il Balletto di Bronzo, Arti e Mestieri, Museo Rosnebach, Area, etc), Magma, and the avant-prog bands (Univers Zero, Art Zoyd, Thinking Plague, Henry Cow, etc).

And since I have almost no nostalgic feeling connected to music, these various bands (and subgenres) do not hold up for me, for any reason other than for their musical merit.

As far as PF goes, and the reason why I am no longer a fan, it may be several things. But their lack of great musicianship, the lack of complexity of their music, the over use (in my opinion) of blues scales, are certainly part of it.

People always tall about feeling and emotion as being what makes PF so good. But I know of dozens of bands with just as much feeling and emotion as PF, and also have much higher levels of musicianship, higher levels of complexity, less repetitiveness.


----------



## NoCoPilot (Nov 9, 2020)

Musical taste is such a personal thing. Who can say why we like what we like?

It’s primarily emotional, no matter how much we try to intellectualize it.


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

Simon Moon said:


> I originally liked them because they were innovative and creative. But as I started discovering more bands of the time, that are often placed in the same musical category, in comparison, PF became kind of mundane and simple to me. Behind all their studio magic, their compositions themselves became boring.
> 
> But I still love much of the other music I was listening to at the time I was still a PF fan.
> 
> ...


You're knowledgeable and the post helps me understand fans who are my friends. Thanks.


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

NoCoPilot said:


> Musical taste is such a personal thing. Who can say why we like what we like?
> 
> It’s primarily emotional, no matter how much we try to intellectualize it.


Yes, primarily. Have you explored 'taste' with a scientific approach? The explanations of why and how?


----------

