Pink Floyd

ARTICLE ABOUT Pink Floyd FROM New Musical Express, December 13, 1969

Here`s a real goodie for those of you who like the Floyd.
Read on!


Three years ago, when they started Underground they had a rough ride

Pink Floyd have the last laugh

By Nick Logan

When the Tremeloes can talk about playing progressive material then the day is dawning for the complete establishment into pop of a stream of music once laughed at and contemptuously dismissed as a short-lived fad.
Three or so years back when it was all starting, Pink Floyd were getting a rough ride from the pop pundits… but went on to do perhaps more than any other group to open the way for the new breed of pop musicians who in 1969 have made their presence felt in no uncertain manner.
As far as last laughs and all that, Pink Floyd have plenty to chuckle about.
“When we started in UFO it was a beautiful place to play,” recalled Floyd keyboard wizard Richard Wright when we spoke last week. “But when we went outside London nobody wanted to know. People used to throw bottles at us.
“At the same time we had a slight hit with See Emily Play and people expected us to play Top 20 stuff. Instead we came along with this strange music they didn’t understand.
“People just didn’t believe in us; I think they regarded us as a huge joke,” continued Richard without bitterness. “They saw us as a lot of freaks getting up on stage and playing freakish music.
“I’ll never forget Pete Murray saying on ‘Juke Box Jury’ that we were just a cult and would last for six months.”


From the groundwork laid by the Floyd and their contemporaries the whole Underground network, along with the University circuit, built up.
Could Richard forsee the progressive boom? “I knew it would happen some time but I didn’t know if it would happen quickly or slowly.
“I don’t think we could have seen it happening to such an extent where today the Underground is now the overground and Underground groups are getting better money than the teenyboppers.
“Yes I would agree that it is today’s pop music, and it is really nice because there are so many groups playing good music and it is accepted everywhere.”
Everywhere? “Well there are still a few places where a few people will walk out, but generally speaking it just gets better and better.
“Even Glasgow, which you might expect to be an incredibly bad scene for a group like us, is a really beautiful place to play.”
What did Richard think changed it?
It was UFO; it was groups like us and the whole hippie philosphy that was connected with it.
“And because the pop thing was then so shallow and empty and people wanted better things. Now because of it even straight pop is becoming better.
“Audiences now demand that you must he able to play your instrument — it’s not just a question of having a pretty face or wearing way out clothes. I should think it’s pretty hard to establish yourself as a teenybopper group now.
“It’s nice too that what has happened in the past three-four years has encouraged really good musicians to care about what is happening in pop and to form their own bands.
“It is very encouraging to find that what you believe in is commercial.”



After a couple of medium successes with singles, the Floyd dropped away from the market to make their name through albums. Their double set, “Ummagumma,” is at No 9 in this week’s NME Chart.
I asked Richard if the group had any inclinations to return to singles, with the successes of Fleetwood Mac and Jethro Tull in mind.
“Well we had that one hit and then two after that didn’t make it,” he replied. “Then we came to realise that it was not important to get hits and that, in fact, a No 1 for us might be a bit of a drag.
“I find the whole business of pop and Top Of The Pops a drag, and the singles scene is a dying market anyway.
“I’m not putting it down. If we got a single that went to No 1 it might be nice but it wouldn’t be important because that’s not what we are about.”
He see nothing wrong however, with other groups breaking into the singles field; nor does he feel it will do them any harm.
“It is rubbish to say they have gone commercial,” he maintains. “Bands like Jethro Tull and Fleetwood Mac believe in what they are playing and in the end it always comes down to the music.
“It is not a question of a sell-out — it means in fact that pop is growing up.
“From now on I believe pop music will be good music. There will be still more change but the standards have been raised and I cannot see them going down again.”
Pink Floyd, of late, have encountered a great deal of success in the film world with their scores for “The Committee” and “More,” released as their last hit album, and Richard sees this as further proof of the new acceptance for progressive music.
In this field they’ve recently completed the score for a TV cartoon series in the States — the producer asked them to do it after hearing “Saucerfull Of Secrets” — and for an Italian film to be released here in February.
An album of the music will be released at the same time and as the group will be recording a further album later this month there are plenty of Floyd goodies on the horizon.
“Film scores are very hard work,” commented Richard. “On the Italian film we worked solidly day and night for two weeks to produce 20 minutes of music. But it is very satisfying work and we’d like to do more of it.”
He went on to reveal that the score also contains some un-Floydian segments; the group using blues and country and western music at certain points.

New Tour

In February they start a concert tour at London’s Albert Hall and plan to develop more the Azemuth Co-ordinator used on previous dates.
Richard explained it is a stereo system with either four or eight speakers that can be set up around a concert hall so that the audience is completely immersed in the sound — 360 degrees stereo if you like.
They would also like to work with an orchestra. “We want to write a complete work for the orchestra and ourselves so that the group is another part of the orchestra.”
Then, if it is possible, the orchestra would be split up and positioned around the hall — along with the speakers — so the audience would he sitting in the middle of the music.
I don’t think they fear any competition from the Trems with that!



ARTICLE ABOUT Pink Floyd FROM SOUNDS, September 6, 1975

Now, this review is a surprise! First hand reaction to this album is baffling, seeing as it today may be counted as one of rock history`s greatest albums ever.
Read on!


Album review:

Pink Floyd: `Wish You Were Here` (Harvest) (35:30)

Is two and one half years too long for any rock band to spend between albums? Was Rome built in a day? Architecture is, after all, as important to the Floyd as music. Not that they`ve lain idly around since `Dark Side Of The Moon`. There has been steady touring to consolidate their new-found position, the abandoned recording of an album that did away with all musical instruments, and the composition of songs – some have ended up on this platter. But two and a half years? This album is light years better than `DSOTM`. That album was patchy, a first attempt to formulate all the bits and pieces of ideas from previous works into one coherent whole, presenting an album rather than a series of songs. It was also a bit light in inspiration. This record achieves all those aims, synthesising nearly all their post-`Umma Gumma` thinking into one melange, from `One Of These Days` to `Atom Heart Mother` to `Alan`s Psychedelic Breakfast`. The record opens with an almost Mahler like overture, all sounds courtesy of Rick Wright, sequelling into a long, guitar dominated intro to `Shine On Crazy Diamond`. At times Gilmour repeats himself from `Echoes` and he is never unpredictable, though I don`t mean to belittle his limitations – with the exception of Wright, virtuosity isn`t important within the confines of the Floyd. Like good architects they`re concerned with form, with structure. That`s all this album is. `Diamond` is a measured homage to Syd Barrett, the spectre they can`t shake off, a (lack of) presence that seems to be felt more and more as they continue to add increasingly refined arabesques to the niche they have carved since his departure. The lyrics aren`t the most inspired, but fit the bill. A boozy sax solo undercut by a nicely juxtaposed repeating guitar figure takes us out to the corridor, through a series of doors, into the engine room and `Welcome To The Machine`, which is downright weird.

Apart from a 12-string, Wright is the only man present, providing great sound effects throughout, perfectly punctuating the lyrics. This is his showpiece, though his work throughout makes him the hero of the platter – no idle fingers on his hands. The lyrics could almost be about Syd again. `Have A Cigar` is a conversation from manager to group. The one track that sets no higher pretension than to boogie down, in three short verses its scalpel sharp lyrics expose the exact philosophy of Seventies rock. Certainly the chorus deserves to become this decade`s anthem. The tune is cut short by a blast of synth, reappears on a radio, someone twists the dial and then we`re lifting into `Wish You Were Here`, all multitracked acoustics and French horns and piano. The scouring pad vocal is back, singing Dylan via Ian Hunter. Cosmic wind moves into a long passage that could be either the outro to the previous song or the intro to a reprise of `Shine On Crazy Diamond`. Building from a bouncing synthi bass line we soon find ourselves, engulfed in echo, in a typical Floyd construction. Mason and Waters hold down a remarkably funky rhythm line while Wright and Gilmour go quietly crazy. Although Gilmour`s lead work is fairly standard his rhythm is terrific, constantly weaving and interacting with Mason-Waters Overdrive. From `Shine On` they move into another instrumental piece which features a moderately funky clarinet solo – you can even bump to parts of it – and then the epilogue leaves us much as we entered. There isn`t the grandiose pomposity of `Moon`, nor is there the same bombastic power. Things have been tightened up, surfaces smoothed, interfaces blurred. That there are only four skeletal songs is irrelevant; we`re not dealing with songs on a record anymore but environments, creations of mood through specific textures of sound. Ultimately, this album forces the question: where do they go from here? Although slow, are they moving into a new realm of music? Or are they just running out of ideas?


The original music paper this article came from (pictured at the top) is for sale!
1. Send me an e-mail if you are interested. Send it to:
2. The offer should be 20 $ (US Dollars) to be considered. (This includes postage).
3. We conduct the transaction through my verified Paypal account for the safety of both parties.


ARTICLE ABOUT Pink Floyd FROM SOUNDS, November 9, 1974

A really nice preview of the show that Pink Floyd were about to unveil on the world. What a lucky man Mr. Peacock was, to be able to see this in its early stages from the front row. Read on!


The moon in… November

As the Pink Floyd set off on their British tour, Steve Peacock sneaks behind the scenes for a preview and predicts yet another triumph.

Have you ever wondered what Pink Floyd would sound like when they`re just jamming around – warming up while technicians fiddle with the PA system?
It`s somewhere between Booker T and the MGs and the Who – at least that`s the way they sounded in the early part of Friday afternoon at Elstree. The start of their British tour was just more than three days away, and in one of the big hangar-like buildings at the studios, it was last-chance day for the Floyd and their tour crew.
Quite honestly, it amazes me how a band like the Floyd ever gets on the road: Arthur Max – the `big chief` of the road crew – must have nerves of steel and a quad brain to co-ordinate the sound, the lights, the films, the people… and inevitably, Friday brought its share of teething problems. Equally inevitably, It Will Be All Right On The Night.
The Floyd have long had an enviable reputation for sound quality on tour, and this time – as Nick Mason explained – they have new refinements to the PA which they hope will advance that reputation one stage on. From Friday`s evidence, I`d say that will be the case.
In other ways too, this tour looks like pushing forward the Pink Floyd`s reputation – as a band. The first half of the programme will be entirely new stuff – 45 minutes or so, which divides roughly into three pieces: “Shine On You Crazy Diamond”, “Raving and Drooling”, and “Gotta Be Crazy”. Roger Waters` new lyrics for these songs are among the best he`s written – still with the barbed directness of his “Dark Side Of The Moon” words, but with subtler, and consequently greater, effect.

“Gotta Be Crazy” is perhaps the strongest, lyrically – a kind of catechism of traps and pitfalls – and the music fits it perfectly: it alternates between angry, fast, chopping sections with Dave Gilmour playing fast, savage chord parts and slow, almost sombre sections led by Roger`s bass parts. Dave Gilmour and Rick Wright have excellent solo breaks, and towards the end there`s a section where they make the best use they ever have of the group`s voice power, with Roger singing the lead lines and Dave and Rick echoing.
The second half is “Dark Side Of The Moon”, with the new tricks and jerks. Earlier this year the Floyd tried “Dark Side” with film during a French tour and decided the idea was sound: during the Summer they worked out new pieces of film and they`ll use these for the first time on the British tour.
The screen is like a giant bass-drum skin which stands centre-stage behind the band, with the film back-projected. As the heart beat starts, a moon appears on the screen, growing bigger and bigger until it fills the whole area and disappears, to be followed by a moving development of the sound wave pattern that runs across the centre-fold of the album cover.



The second, and most outstanding film sequence, comes during “On The Run” and leads into “Time”. It starts with lights – street lights, car lights, flashing lights on top of police cars, airport and aircraft lights… a bewildering, dazzling succession. You then move through a kind of cloud tunnel towards a planet and just as the camera gets close to the surface the film switches to animation, skimming over the planet surface, over cities, between high buildings: it`s inter-cut with various scenes of urban destruction.
To introduce “Time” there`s a fantastic clock sequence which ends up with an avenue of swining pendula. Tick, tick, tick, tick… “Ticking away the moments…”


Written down it looks somewhat literal and corny but the film and the music combined is anything but corny. “Great Gig In The Sky” is accompanied by some of the underwater shots from the “Crystal Voyager” movie which uses “Echoes” in its soundtrack. Venetta Field and Carlena Williams sing the “Great Gig” part, and Dick Parry again plays sax.
“Money” has an appropriate film section, with some neat contrasts between actual notes and coins and the people who use them – or can`t get enough. And later there`s another excellent piece of staging. As they come to the end of “Brain Damage”, Roger sings “There`s someone in my head and it`s not me”, which cues in film of various politicians. The effect is frightening.
That`s the show – the new stuff, and the new “Dark Side”, which is obviously much changed as a production, but also quite heavily amended as a piece of music. The girls are used more, and more effectively, and… well, new tricks and jerks. There will be no oldies.
Oh – a word about the programme. Doubtless you will be assailed outside the hall by people trying to flog you two-colour reproductions of old Press cuttings and all the other garbage that gets touted as “special Pink Floyd souvenirs”. You are of course welcome to consume as much as you wish, but I suspect you`ll find it worth waiting for the official programme, on sale inside the hall: it`s in the form of a comic, with our heroes in various strip exploits, plus a remarkable cartoon by Gerald Scarfe, lifelines, a quiz, and the words to the three new songs.
Accept no substitute.


I have personally transcribed this from the original paper. Any errors in the text from the original magazine may not have been corrected for the sake of accuracy. If you have a music-related web-page where this fits – please make a link to the article. With credits to the original writer of the article from all of us music fans!

This number of Sounds also contains articles/interviews with these people: Ken Boothe, Van Morrison, Pete Brown, George Harrison, Roger Glover, David Puttnam, Mott The Hoople, Bad Company, Phil Spector, Thin Lizzy, Janis Ian, Elton John.

The original music paper this article came from (pictured at the top) is for sale!

1. Send me an e-mail if you are interested. Send it to:
2. The offer should be 20 $ (US Dollars) to be considered. (This includes postage).
3. We conduct the transaction through my verified Paypal account for the safety of both parties.

ARTICLE ABOUT Nick Mason (Pink Floyd) FROM SOUNDS, October 28, 1972

It is very fascinating to read this interview with a very down to earth man who would soon become one of the most successful musicians in the known universe through what would become one of history`s most beloved albums ever. The style of this interview is also “different” as it looks more like an conversation between two friends than a series of questions.
All in all, this is a great read.


Nick Mason in the talk-in

Interview by Steve Peacock

First it was called “Dark Side of The Moon”, then they discovered that Medicine Head had an album out under that name so they changed it to “Eclipse”. But by now it has taken – not unusually – a lot longer to record than they`d anticipated, and the Medicine Head album is long past, so the Pink Floyd have changed the title of their next album back to the original.
Also not unusually, Nick Mason confessed that there wasn`t really much to say about the album at this stage – they`re just grinding away at it, translating the piece from stage performance terms into studio terms.
What is unusual though, is that they`ve been performing the album live for some time before they recorded it.

Is this the first time you`ve worked this way round? You normally get something together in the studio, and then take it out on the road.

Right, that`s what we normally do. With “Atom Heart Mother” we had the piece a little before we recorded it and worked on it a little bit, but this was definitely a major change in terms of technique for us – normally we get into the studio and stagger about for days wondering what to put down. I think this is a better way of doing it, because you spend more time making a good record.
And also usually even if you use a late take when you`re recording, the tenth take or something, by the time you`ve taken it out on the road for a few months you`re starting to regret the way you handled it on the album.

That seems obvious for a fairly straightforward rock and roll band, but I wouldn`t have thought it necessarily applied to the Pink Floyd.

Well it doesn`t apply to everything – some things we never perform live for a start, and some things have a different quality in the studio that gets altered. But I think “Atom Heart Mother” is a prime example of one of the things we would have liked to have started again once we`d had it on the road for a while, because that was very much a case of learning by our mistakes, the techniques of recording it were quite extraordinary.
One of the things we did on that just as a starter was that Roger and I put down the whole thing, just bass and drums, which was a crazy thing to do. We used parts of that, but basically it all got chopped up anyway so it was a totally unnecessary, amazing feat of brilliance; totally useless.

Would you say the “Dark Side Of The Moon” piece was more straightforward, and rather more a “live” concept that most of the things you`ve done in the past?

Well, it is at the moment, because it was written that way, but I think there`s a lot of scope for doing other things with it. Like we keep talking about giving ourselves more time to do things like “Dark Side Of The Moon”, to get them a lot further than that was got before it was performed – though that was the furthest we`ve got anything I think. That`s one thing, and the other thing is that we`ve only recently started to get interested and find a use for synthesisers. We`ve had one around doing odd blips and burps for quite a time, but we`ve never really used it. We did a little on “Obscured By Clouds”, and I think we`ll use them more on this piece.


“Obscured By Clouds” was done in quite a short time, wasn`t it, and within tighter structures than you usually use? How well do you think it came out?

Sensational, actually. I thought the album was an amazing improvement on the film music, and I thought the film music was really good. But then I thought the same about “More”. It`s one of the annoying things in a way that the difference between something we`ve spent a week on and something that takes nine months isn`t that great – I mean the thing that takes nine months isn`t four times nine, 36 times as good. Obviously nine months doesn`t mean nine months solid recording, but even so…

I felt the tightness of it brought out a whole different quality in the music, and in the playing. More intense in a way.

Sure, I thought it was particularly good from that point of view, it had a good, together feel. It was a fairly relaxed album but it was… well, tight. I like that sort of short, scheme thing – it`s less disappointing in a way. Whenever we finish an album I always think it could have been better, but with things like “More” and “Obscured By Clouds” I tend to think it`s really not bad for the time – perhaps it`s just there`s more excuses.

Looking back over what you`ve done, eight or nine albums now isn`t it, can you see much that you`d originally thought were good ideas, but that you`ve now discarded?

Not much, actually. For instance we haven`t discarded the idea of orchestra and choir after “Atom Heart Mother”, if that`s what you mean, sort of “we tried it, and we don`t want to do that again”.

Not as specific as that really. More in your general approach.

There isn`t much really. We`ve made lots of mistakes, I know, but they`ve been filed under “Experience”, and there`s not much that we thought of as complete disasters that we`d never go back to. I can`t think of anything that really sticks out as a discard.


The music does seem to have got less violent – says comparing “Echoes WITH “Interstellar Overdrive” or “Careful with That Axe, Eugene”. I suppose that could be just old age…

(Laughs) … creeping up, yes. I don`t know – I think the thing that bothers me more than anything is that we seem to get stuck into a slow four tempo for nearly everything we do. Like the speed of “Meddle” is the speed of nearly everything we`ve done for too long. That has something to do with it, that penchant for slow tempos, but again I think in some ways things are becoming more aggressive – there`s more aggression in the way we do “Careful With That Axe” on stage now than there ever was when we first recorded it. Our original recordings of that were extremely mild, jogalong stuff.
Even if it doesn`t always come off, there`s meant to be a lot of very heavy vibes coming off the stage during “Dark Side Of The Moon”. We`re well into putting on a lot of effect in order to make the whole thing heavy, really, in the true sense of the word. I`m not expressing that very well, but I don`t think it`s getting any lighter, put it like that: it might have got a bit slower, but I don`t think it`s getting any lighter. And I don`t think the intention is to make it light either. It`s all a bit abstract really.

Yeah. I suppose what I was really trying to get at was how you felt you`d changed over the years – moving through that UFO/Middle Earth scene up to now.

One doesn`t really feel that it has changed much because you`re in it you tend to feel you`re just the same and it`s everyone else that`s different. I think we just take for granted all kinds of things that happen to us, things like our attitude to what the show should be like.
I can`t remember exactly what we were saying in 1967, but I`m sure it was something to the effect that “there`s the light show, and we`re really incidental to the whole event; we should be in the background somewhere and we don`t approve of people rushing about the stage jumping up and down.” Ostensibly we still don`t jump up and down, but the pyrotechnics and everything on stage now are arch-showmanship really. When we were in America we did a show at the Bowl where it was only marginal whether it was us or a sort of Barnum and Bailey carnival night – fireworks, searchlights, the lot.
I suppose the real thing is that there are so many more facilities available to us now: five years ago we thought that you should do almost anything to increase the power of what you were doing, and it`s just that now the whole thing`s turned into this gigantic circus of steel machinery.



I think one fairly obvious difference is that with clubs like UFO, people came as much for the event as to see you, whereas now – despite the sound in the round and everything – they come and sit and watch the stage.

Right, because there`s all sorts of things to bring their attention to the stage, like the lighting towers and so on. I think that`s inevitable though, because apart from anything else it`s to do with the size of the place you`re playing. At UFO – now we`re really sounding like old age pensioners – but at UFO there was this kind of community feeling about it all. There were other events going on while we were playing, the light show were doing their thing as well, rather than just lighting us, and so on. But really, there`s no magic in some of the horrible places we play at now, baseball stadiums and so on, so that`s one reason why we centre a lot more on the stage. And then obviously there`s all sorts of other reasons as well – ego drive, and success…

Because the more people know your names and faces the more they want to look at you, sure. But it hasn`t changed the effect you want to have on the audience?

No, I don`t think so. I think we`re clearer now than we ever were about what we want to do – we used to have very vague aspirations. Like when we started all we were into was Top Of The Pops and a hit single, and then when we attained that, it was an amazing disappointment and very nearly exploded the band.

So how much did you feel a part of that 1967, community thing at UFO? Was it just a case of playing those places because that`s where you got gigs?

I think I played them because that`s where we were – I didn`t know what the f–k was going on. Peter and Andrew (Jenner and King of Blackhill, the Floyd`s first managers) and the kind of Joe Boyd figures that were around then were probably part of it in a way that I certainly wasn`t; all four of us – we were the band, that`s all, rather bizarre, sometimes very inward looking people who lived in a world of our own. There was no community spirit whatsoever; all we were interested in was our EMI contract, making a record, being a hit.
At UFO we felt like the house band, it was by far the nicest gig and it was what everyone asked about at interviews and so on, but I certainly wasn`t into the lifestyle of the whole thing. One knew the people one came up against of course, people like Joe Boyd and Hoppy, and once there one ran up against people that one still sees occasionally, but I don`t think I felt part of The New Movement, because I was too busy being part of the new rock and roll movement, which was a different thing.

So one day it was the Roundhouse and the next it was Sheperd`s Bush TV studios, and apart from the obvious differences it wasn`t that strange for you?

Well yes, obviously there was an amazing difference, but then you just took it in your stride. I think today I`d probably have a nervous breakdown because the two places are totally opposed, but then it just all seemed part of your life.

Would it be fair to say then that the Pink Floyd`s music has grown out of whoever`s been in the band, from the inside, rather than being a product of – whatever you care to call it – some kind of outside cultural changes in the past few years?

Basically, yes, but it isn`t quite as simple as that. The launching of it had a lot to do with Syd, his writing and his songs were what did it really because as a band we probably weren`t very good, in fact I`m sure we weren`t. That was part of it, and another part of it was Peter and Andrew – like the light show was more their idea than ours, and that was an amazing leapfrog forward because even if we had the worst light show imaginable, no-one had seen anything like that before. This is psychedelia, man.
I think we were all in a fairly confused state – it was only long after all that period was over that we really started to talk about what we were going to try and do. Vague attempts were made at that time, with “Games For May”, to do a show of our own, but then we didn`t manage to follow it through and do another one until two years after, and that`s really a long time not to do something you were intending to do. It was just muddle and finances and being out of control really – just muddling along.


You do have the reputation anyway of taking quite a long time to get things together. Do you find you need that time just to keep the hassles at bay, give yourselves some room to breathe?

Well, the trouble is that there are so many things to do and any new thing takes so much time. It`s true that we do get stale if we work too much. It`s very simple really – if we work too hard then we all get very tired and we stop doing anything creative, we go into a sort of zombie, bash-it-out state which is really dangerous. It`s the easiest way, possibly, of blowing up a band because the whole thing becomes pointless and you lose all interest in what you`re doing.
That`s for us – in the words of the Scottish guru (Ron Geesin) we`re all humans, and what some people get off on, others don`t. There are some bands who can work 300 days out of the year doing live shows and that`s when they`re happy, but it doesn`t work like that for us. We try and work live as much as we can, and record, which takes so long, and so it gets very heavy to try to find really long periods of time to write new things without rushing them. Like for “Dark Side Of The Moon” we did give ourselves a reasonable amount of time, and it still wasn`t long enough. We could always use more time.
We don`t work all that much in England, it`s true – it tends to be one tour a year or something. But for a long time we suffered terrible embarassment here because we felt we were just going out all the time and doing the same things. “Ummagumma” was supposed to be a farewell gift of all those live numbers – goodbye, that`s it. We still do bits of them now in fact, but that`s because we like to do them, but for three years or something we did them because we had nothing to replace them. I just felt embarassed in England, because people would shout out for what we were going to do next, because they knew what we were going to do next. There just wasn`t anything else.


Though even when you put new stuff in they still shout for the oldies.

Yeah, but at least we`re splitting it now. But that is one of the dangers of being an elderly band – anything over three years, and particularly the 1967 syndrome, because you`re history. “Darling, they`re playing our tune, it brings back that summer in Hyde Park, doesn`t it?”
Really. The younger ones come along and wants to know what it was all like then, because they didn`t have mothers and fathers tell them about it, but they certainly had elder brothers and sisters saying “when we were young, there was the Pink Floyd, you know”.

Does it surprise you that you`ve stayed together so much longer than most bands?

Yes, it does, mainly because you always think it`s your band that`s got the nutters in it. You occasionally meet people from other bands and they seem very nice, and you start thinking “I wish I worked in a band with real people like that in it”; and then you find out that they`re all much worse than the lot you`re thrown in with, much worse, and they all attack each other with ice-picks and so on.

Right. I don`t know whether it`s because I`ve known you as the Pink Floyds for so long, but I can`t imagine any of you moving off to form a new band of your own somehow.

I think it could always happen – there`s always various hurdles that you either get over or you don`t, say the first year, or the third year, or relative to money or success or something, or people feeling that they`re not getting the credit for something they`ve done, or they could do better by themselves. I think “Ummagumma” was a great thing in that respect, because everyone got a chance to show what they could do.
There are still a lot of things, too, that we could all do together that we`re all aware of, and someone said they wanted to go off and do something on his own, then it would be cool to do that as well. There are bands where if someone wanted to do that everyone else would say no, but I`m sure we wouldn`t now.

Or they say “yes, but we`ve all got to do it.” But perhaps also it`s because you have been able to take time over what you want to do. After the initial hit single thing, it`s been a fairly un-hysterical, gentle climb upwards rather than the very fast David Bowie kind of situation.

True, but it`s all surmise really. I think that`s one of the most interesting things about rock and roll bands, is the way they work together, the psychology of the group. It`s equivalent to families, and various things I`ve never been in but I`d imagine would be similar, one being a small army unit, and another a prep school.
Because you can oscillate so easily between love and hate – real love and real hate. At one moment you can feel really close to them, or to one of them, or you can hate them. It`s never two against two, either, it`s always three against one, it really is amazing to watch sometimes. Jokes, and the way they become teasing, and bullying – that`s what it gets down to.
And again it`s surmise, but think we`ve been lucky in that we`ve used our managers when there`s been a lot of aggression instead of always ganging up on each other. Steve O`Rourke (their present manager) can take a lot of aggravation from us – we can be incredibly spiteful, and he can channel a lot of that from us without actually breaking, and beating us about the heads with clubs. That seems to be fantastically important.


I`d never thought of that – that could be one of a manager`s most important functions, because you can`t take it out on other people, like roadies. Apart from anything else they`d leave immediately.

Right, and anyway that would be like going out into the audience and finding somebody very small and beating them up, it wouldn`t be fair. And you couldn`t pick on anyone bigger because you might lose. You need someone of equal stature. All that, of course, is particularly true when you`re on the road.

Staggering through some kind of strange nightmare, like the first American tour, which appears to have been the prototype nightmare American trip.

I`m sure that was a dream, in fact, and we all seemed to share it, which is the most alarming thing. That`s it, I suppose – there`s such a wealth of things that we`ve been through, that after a certain point you feel almost obliged to stay together just so you can tell each other funny stories about “do you remember when…”


I have personally transcribed this from the original paper. Any errors in the text from the original magazine may not have been corrected for the sake of accuracy. If you have a music-related web-page where this fits – please make a link to the article. With credits to the original writer of the article from all of us music fans!

This number of Sounds also contains articles/interviews with these people: Melanie, Roxy Music, Medicine Head, Jimmy Cliff, John Entwhistle, Paul Simon, Fleetwood Mac, Yes, Steve Tilson.

The original music paper this article came from (pictured at the top) is for sale!

1. Send me an e-mail if you are interested. Send it to:
2. The offer should be 20 $ (US Dollars) to be considered. (This includes postage).
3. We conduct the transaction through my verified Paypal account for the safety of both parties.


ARTICLE ABOUT Rick Wright (Pink Floyd) FROM SOUNDS, June 3, 1972

A very interesting article for Floyd fans, I should guess. Rick Wright speaking of their plans and wishes at the time, including their plan for another name for the “Dark Side Of The Moon” album.


Floyd: Wright on cue

By Steve Peacock

One step forward, half a step back; well, not back exactly, but you have to watch that you don`t lose something important in the process of moving on. It`s easy to do under the pressures of the rock and roll business, easy to find yourself going not forward, but round in ever-decreasing circles.
The Pink Floyd seem to be one band who are constantly aware of the dangers, always vowing to make time to stop and think hard about the next move, to give themselves room to take stock occasionally. It`s not easy – this year they`re managing to take the first real holiday they`ve had for three years – and there`s always the conflict over whether to push ideas to their logical conclusion and risk becoming too narrow, or to keep starting again.


For instance, they`ve been experimenting with quadraphonic sound systems for years now, and it`s got to the point where they can say they`ve got their concert set-up working pretty well – quadsound, lights, effects and music.
The obvious next step, as Rick Wright points out, is to extend what they can actually do with the machines they have: “It still could be improved a lot – not the actual equipment, but what we put into it. There`s still an awful lot we could do. At the moment, we`ve just been able to use tapes and effects in quad, and now I`d like to be able to have the whole band playing in quadrophonic, so that the stage is no longer the centre of the sound.”
And that of course brings its own peculiar problems; like there can be up to a second`s delay between playing a note and hearing it come back through the far speakers. That makes playing anything in time rather difficult, and Rick says one solution might be to have everyone wearing headphones on stage. But then you have to bear in mind that that would lead you into a fairly drastic change in the band`s approach to live concerts. – almost bringing a studio to an audience, rather than the usual rock and roll division between technique in the studio, energy on stage.
“It`s just a bit worrying sometimes – you can get very involved with sound and equipment and so on, which is a really good thing, it`s really exciting to work with, but at times I miss the simplicity of just going out and playing. At times you`re so worried about everything working, about whether everything`s going to come in on cue, that the actual performance can suffer, and I think it does with us sometimes. Occasionally, I feel I`d like to go back to just having a stage and us playing.


“I`m not trying to put down what we do, because I think it`s really good that we should be trying to do it; it`s just sometimes I feel it`s overwhelming us. I don`t know how the others feel, maybe it inspires them to play better, and it does me when it`s working well. But sometimes I look at our huge truck and tons and tons of equipment and think `Christ, all I`m doing is playing an organ`.”
That aside, the other constant problem faced by the Floyd – and many other bands – is that of finding the time to develop their ideas as much as they want to. It`s the old problem of finding a way to stop the roundabout – tour, album, tour, album, tour – for long enough to keep out of the rut, and it`s ironic that as the Floyd have become more and more successful, so they`ve had less and less time to themselves. The prospect of having July and August completely free of all committments, the first such break for three years, is highly attractive.
“I just feel like I`ve been rushing around not knowing where I am, living in hotels, in planes, on American tours – it all got highly confusing, doesn`t do your head any good. I thought I`d get away for a couple of months and not think about the Floyd at all – well, I will of course, but I`ll have the freedom not to think under all the pressure.”
Before they go, they have next month in the studio to record their next album “Eclipse” – which is the piece they did on the last tour, originally called “Dark Side Of The Moon”, until they found out Medicine Head had called their album that: “and also Eclipse is a better title for it.” When they come back, there`s an American tour, and – at last – the long-projected ballet with Roland Pettit.


“He`s decided to use “Eclipse” as the music for that. We`ve been talking with him about doing something for years and years, and he`d bring up an idea and then decide not to use it. It went on and on until we practically gave it up as a lost cause, but we sent him a tape of a live performance, and he said it was what he wanted. So we`ll be doing that in Marseilles with him, and hopefully a French tour as well.”
Which means that the rest of this year is pretty well accounted for. Before they go on the road next year though, and certainly before they play in London again, they want to take enough time to get together a new project, this time incorporating film into their stage performance. “With Eclipse it`s very important to be able to hear the words, and it works very well in England and America, but playing it abroad they just don`t understand what`s happening – obviously not because they don`t understand the words.
“So the next thing we want to do is to use film, so that it`s an international thing – it`s visual so everyone can understand it. But then once you start getting into film it takes a lot of time and a lot of money; I don`t know how long it`ll take but I hope we`ll be able to set aside enough time early next year to do it.”


I have personally transcribed this from the original paper. Any errors in the text from the original magazine may not have been corrected for the sake of accuracy. If you have a music-related web-page where this fits – please make a link to the article. With credits to the original writer of the article from all of us music fans!

This number of Sounds also contains articles/interviews with these people: Steve Marriott and Alexis Korner, John Lodge (Moody Blues), Joni Mitchell, Eddie Davis, Quintessence, Richard Thompson, Osibisa, David Essex, Chris Farlowe, Todd Rundgren, The Watersons.

The original music paper this article came from (pictured at the top) is for sale!

1. Send me an e-mail if you are interested. Send it to:
2. The offer should be 20 $ (US Dollars) to be considered. (This includes postage).
3. We conduct the transaction through my verified Paypal account for the safety of both parties.