My question for British Pink Floyd fans is if you were an up-and-coming musical artist in the late 1960's and early 1970's and an American music executive, wearing a suit and tie, smiling at you and shaking your hand asked you "Oh, by the way, which one's Pink?"Would you really take offense to that? He was just an executive trying to grease the wheels. He's just trying to understand the men that he's going to represent. So he made a mistake, who cares? Is it really that serious?
>>543513356Syd would have said 'we're all pink man'
>>543513432Was Syd around when the incident happened, or was that later?
>>543513488Presumably not or he would have said it
>>543513530Fair enough.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8EZ_YbD5GZ4&list=PLijPiy4xM0hdYOaVZ1DVFog1gTlL6JQ13&index=12
Roger Waters is actually pretty based. His being a leftist fag is overall cringe, but he is pretty woke on the jews and has been for a long time. And woke on the ZOGbot issue.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QDFTHiJR63U
>>543513356I doubt anyone in the band was insulted or took it very seriously, even Waters. It's honestly not an unreasonable assumption to make for someone who wasn't already very familiar with all of the lore and inside references of just another up and coming psychedelic band. The band named themselves after two blues musicians, Pink Anderson and Floyd Council. "Pink Floyd" sounds much more like a person's name than like "Strawberry Alarm Clock" and all the other retarded boomerslop names bands were naming themselves back then.The band themselves even named the protagonist character of "The Wall" Pink Floyd to continue the meme that the band is some guy named Pink.
>>543513865Yeah, Roger Waters is obviously redpilled. This song proves it undeniably:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZUEGeWYWbuU>>543513931And the American executive who was just trying to be friendly probably had no idea about Pink Anderson and Floyd Council. I don't blame him, honestly. I'm fairly well-versed in blues and I've never heard of them.
>>543514034making fun of Mary Whitehouse and Margaret Thatcher is redpilled? I mean I love the song a lot but it's not one of the ones I really would say he is "redpilled" in particular... unless it is just generally anti-rich / anti-elite.I'd say something like Fletcher Memorial Home is more redpilled. Possibly one of the most redpilled songs he ever wrote, realizing there is no political solution.
>>543513931ZZ TOPis BB KINGbut with a ZZ and a toprather than a BB and a crown
>>543514248I'm just going to be honest. I'm not entirely familiar with the songs that you're referencing. Are these Roger Waters' solo tracks that you're alluding to, because I'm less familiar with those. If so, I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm just not as familiar. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e7t7aQLcik0
Nick is Pink.
>>543514374I'm talking about his solo stuff more, but Animals through Final Cut were fairly based.Gilmour makes amaazing music too, honestly a better musician than Waters, but Waters will always be my favorite for being eternally mad at society.
>>543514464Can you expand on this thought?
>>543514524Just look at all that pink and tell me he's not pink?
>>543514522I know nothing about Gilmour other than he hates Waters and will NEVER reconcile with him until the day he dies. Maybe I'll look into Gilmour someday, but I think that art is USUALLY collaborative. Yeah, there are solitary geniuses, but they're very rare.
>>543513488>the incidentchecked, idk there was a specific single incident (unless some interview with Roger or Nick/David/Rick confirmed one), seems like just a general impression Roger had of establishment suits stereotyping pop musicians during that era. It's a sarcastially funny line in that song, not 'serious' as other parts of that album tend to be.Song was released on the 1975 WYWH album so presumably the line was a reference to (as the song's subject implies) PF's newfound mass audience success from the 1973 release DSOTM. i.e. it wasn't from or about Syd, that era (although "Wish You Were Here"<--the song obviously was). The band had already been around for more than half a decade and released several albums, but garnered a relatively smaller or 'cult'-like fanbase compared to their contemporaries such as Beatles, Rolling Stones, The Who that were far more widely known and mass media famous among NPCs pre-1973. PF was prior to that only known to people that frequented London clubs 1966-70 and-or read pop music magazines like NME, Creem and Rolling Stone; avid followers and devotees of that culture. PF had developed during 1969-72 a decent following outside of the U.K. from repeated tours of Europe and Japan but even then, just the market recognition and sales from album and concert fans there (they weren't The Beatles / Stones tier)DSOTM changed all of that for them, and suddenly this 'old' band from what was the mid- 60s era of rock (that had changed a lot in half a decade) culture was in the global spotlight. In addition, from the perspective of music biz execs the concept of millionaire successful rock music stars was still a novel one back then; a culture shock / clash (that was cognitive dissonance for them). That seems to be the main observation of the song lyrics to "Have A Cigar">American music execIdk if all were. At the time PF was signed to EMI/Harvest England at least pre-1975 that would have been much of their business dealings
>>543514248Waters is kind of his own thing and doesn't fit perfectly into any standard kind of political or philosophical paradigm. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=97kmT6FQNi0
>>543514774You basically said that Pink Floyd were super duper popular at the time, but you don't know if the incident actually happened or not. They claimed that was an American executive who shook their hand and asked "Oh, by the way, which one's Pink?" I'm not judging this executive. He was doing the best he could with the intel that he had at the time. But in no instance of Floyd lore have they ever said that this was a British music executive.
This thread was moved to >>>/bant/25093495
