Now all of that is interesting in terms of how we got here and who's here and the like, but it tells us very little about the music presented on this set and it's the music that makes this such a worthwhile and amazing experience.
Gilmour opens the show with a couple Pink Floyd songs for the faithful before performing On An Island in its entirety. It's a smart way to open the show and while most Floyd fans will gravitate towards the album's Floyd-dominated second disc, it is a mistake to ignore the first disc. I had never heard anything from Island until I listened to Gdansk, and the presentation of that album with band and orchestra on stage is flawless and engaging. I'd thought about picking up Island a time or two, but it wasn't until I heard the music in this live setting that I finally pulled the trigger.
When I listen to On An Island, I would never think to put that material on a Pink Floyd record. It is amazing how well these songs fit together when performed by Gilmour onstage. Cynics will say it's because Gilmour has sanded and smoothed the Floyd songs too much, but that is nonsense. What is most amazing about this performance is the way he and his band blend cool, competent professionalism with passion and intensity. No, this isn't the sound of a hungry young band looking for a shot at the title, but there is plenty of energy, joy, and vitality in this performance. Some of the best examples of this come on the album's first half, but can also be found in the perfect, brilliant performance of "Echoes."
This is the best thing Gilmour has done in a quarter century and it makes me hope we don't have to wait another 22 years for another solo album and tour.
Article comments
1 - Derek Currie
Regarding the 'who is Pink Floyd' argument:
What is missing from the 'There is no Pink Floyd without Waters' point of view is a perspective on the Pink Floyd sound after Syd Barrett left and before the 'Animals' album, when Waters took creative control. This was the era of group collaboration. The sound of the final two Floyd albums, after Waters' departure, is consistent with that earlier period. Certainly the missing contribution of Waters is somewhat evident, despite the reproduction of his bass licks. But the result is by no means 'not' Pink Floyd. It is a return to the older spirit of collaboration.
I encourage Pink Floyd fans to scour the music of that earlier era, which I find extremely enjoyable. Even the dozens of bootleg recordings of their live work from that time are worth a listen. You might begin to realize that the Waters dominated era itself was 'not' the real Pink Floyd sound. That is certainly my opinion.
2 - Gibby
I'm a longtime PF fan, having seen my first Floyd show in 1971 when they were still working out the kinks in Dark Side. I have to say that the whole "Roger is Pink Floyd" argument has been slightly disingenuous since the truth is that anything after Dark Side was on a decidedly downward and more Waters-centric twist. By the time the wall came out, the music was all about Roger and his unrequited depression over the loss of his father. And despite the title, the Final Cut was anything but the final word in coming to grips with Roger's loss. In many ways Wish You Were Here and Animals were prequels to The Wall and The Final Cut a series of outtakes.
So while I'll certainly agree that Roger was "Pink" as in the character in The Wall, I certainly disagree that Roger was the soul of Pink Floyd. He was no moreso the Band than Syd was, or Nick was, or David was... It was a band for crying out loud, not some kind of funky marriage arrangement...
As for what Nick, Rick and David did with the name Pink Floyd after the split, that's a little more problematic. I would tend to agree that David should have discovered (or rediscovered) his true love for being a solo act sooner and done it his way instead of mounting the massive machine that was The Pink Floyd every time he wanted to play out.
I think even he'd agree with that today.
And as far as a reunion, I was with David even before the loss of Rick -- why bother? David is a fantastic guitarist and a great stage presence. Nick is still fun on the drums. Roger, on the other hand, has devolved to playing Pink Floyd tribute concerts and taking years to put out almost zero new material.
Whoa, touched a nerve there, didn't you? LOL!
3 - Allen Ramirez
PINK FLOYDS ALBUMS ARE ALL GREAT NO MATTER WHOS AT THE CONTROLS. MOMENTARY AND DIVISION ARE ABSOLUTELY MAGNIFICENT IN THIER OWN RIGHT,ESPECIALLY DIVISION.
NOW WHEN IT COMES TO SOLO ALBUMS GILMOUR DEFINITELY TAKES HOME THE CROWN FOR WATERS ALBUMS TEND TO BORE AFTER A LISTEN OR TWO...THOUGH WATERS ALBUMS MAKE PERFECT SENSE THEY LACK THE MELODY THAT FLOYD AND GILMOURS ALBUMS POSESS.
MY FAVORITE ALBUMS IN ORDER NO MATTER WHO'S IN CHARGE OF WRITING CREDITS.
1. WISH YOU WERE HERE
2. MEDDLE (COMING INTO THERE OWN)
3. ANIMALS (SPITTING INTO OUR FACE)
4. DIVISION BELL
5. WALL
6. THEN DARK SIDE (GREAT ALBUM BUT MOVES TO SLOW)
7. ON THE TURNING AWAY (GREAT W OUT WATERS)
LAST....GILMOURS MUSIC HAS DEPTH AND WILL STAND THE TEST OF TIME AND IS UP THERE IN RADIOHEAD TERRITORY AS FAR AS MELODY AND CREATING A SOUNDSCAPE.
ALTHOUGH ABOUT FACE AND DAVID GILMOUR ARE GOOD, JUST NOT AS DEEP AND ADVENTUROUS AS ISLAND.
4 - Allen Ramirez
WOULD LOVE TO HEAR GILMOUR AND DOYLE BRAMHALL HARMONIZE ON THE CLASSIC DOGS.
5 - Priscilla Handzo
I too wondered why David Gilmour was taking so long with a new album. But Live at Gdansk with the new songs and the old ones was I have to say terrific. I hope to hear David play more often as 63 is not over the hill today. I also have the DVD of Remember that Night at the Royal Albert Hall...Worth the money for sure. I personally like tunes like Marooned, Echoes and Sorrow. Never tire of them.