PINK FLOYD

Message Bookmarked
Bookmark Removed
PINK FLOYD RULES
PINK FLOYD RULES
PINK FLOYD RULES
PINK FLOYD RULES
PINK FLOYD RULES
PINK FLOYD RULES
PINK FLOYD RULES
PINK FLOYD RULES
PINK FLOYD RULES
PINK FLOYD RULES
PINK FLOYD RULES
PINK FLOYD RULES
PINK FLOYD RULES
PINK FLOYD RULES
PINK FLOYD RULES
PINK FLOYD RULES
PINK FLOYD RULES
PINK FLOYD RULES
PINK FLOYD RULES
PINK FLOYD RULES
PINK FLOYD RULES
PINK FLOYD RULES
PINK FLOYD RULES
PINK FLOYD RULES
PINK FLOYD RULES
PINK FLOYD RULES
PINK FLOYD RULES
PINK FLOYD RULES
PINK FLOYD RULES
PINK FLOYD RULES
PINK FLOYD RULES
PINK FLOYD RULES
PINK FLOYD RULES
PINK FLOYD RULES
PINK FLOYD RULES
PINK FLOYD RULES
PINK FLOYD RULES
PINK FLOYD RULES
PINK FLOYD RULES
PINK FLOYD RULES
PINK FLOYD RULES
PINK FLOYD RULES
PINK FLOYD RULES
PINK FLOYD RULES
PINK FLOYD RULES
PINK FLOYD RULES
PINK FLOYD RULES
PINK FLOYD RULES
PINK FLOYD RULES
PINK FLOYD RULES
PINK FLOYD RULES
PINK FLOYD RULES
PINK FLOYD RULES
PINK FLOYD RULES
PINK FLOYD RULES
PINK FLOYD RULES
PINK FLOYD RULES
PINK FLOYD RULES
PINK FLOYD RULES
PINK FLOYD RULES
PINK FLOYD RULES
PINK FLOYD RULES
PINK FLOYD RULES
PINK FLOYD RULES
PINK FLOYD RULES
PINK FLOYD RULES
PINK FLOYD RULES
PINK FLOYD RULES
PINK FLOYD RULES
PINK FLOYD RULES
PINK FLOYD RULES
PINK FLOYD RULES
PINK FLOYD RULES
PINK FLOYD RULES
PINK FLOYD RULES
PINK FLOYD RULES
PINK FLOYD RULES
PINK FLOYD RULES
PINK FLOYD RULES
PINK FLOYD RULES
PINK FLOYD RULES
PINK FLOYD RULES

Badass Jak of the Cold Tites, Wednesday, 9 January 2002 01:00 (fourteen years ago) Permalink

Sh e says otherwise.

Tom, Wednesday, 9 January 2002 01:00 (fourteen years ago) Permalink

This reminds me of a Simpsons episode.

"I know all those words but that sign makes no sense!" -- Lisa referring to the Yahoo Serious Festival

electric sound of jim, Wednesday, 9 January 2002 01:00 (fourteen years ago) Permalink

tanya headon is my hero.

marek, Wednesday, 9 January 2002 01:00 (fourteen years ago) Permalink

there's a factory down the street from me that's been abandoned for well on 20 years now. people used to go there and get stoned, spray paint the place. the crowning piece is about 30 feet up the outside wall, in white, where some fan wrote in a narcotized stupor: PINK FLYOD.

your null fame, Wednesday, 9 January 2002 01:00 (fourteen years ago) Permalink

so he likes his gay irish music festivals

Tracer Hand, Wednesday, 9 January 2002 01:00 (fourteen years ago) Permalink

eight years pass...

i've been listening to a 1974 bootleg that smokes, w/ early versions of animals tracks + "crazy diamond" + full dark side + echoes! awesome. they sound kinda more raw/rocking here. not like the stooges or anything, but ...
Seems weird that the Floyd haven't put out a rad career-spanning live set or something.

tylerw, Tuesday, 26 October 2010 19:26 (five years ago) Permalink

ps pink floyd rules

tylerw, Tuesday, 26 October 2010 19:27 (five years ago) Permalink

name of bootleg, please?

iago g., Wednesday, 27 October 2010 02:29 (five years ago) Permalink

tylerw otm

kamerad, Wednesday, 27 October 2010 02:42 (five years ago) Permalink

(and tyler, ps -- just checked your blog to see if you'd posted the floyd show . . . to answer your keef question, i think johnny depp's supposed to be reading the audio)

kamerad, Wednesday, 27 October 2010 02:51 (five years ago) Permalink

i think i am going to post the floyd bootleg soonish! it's manchester 1974 ...

tylerw, Wednesday, 27 October 2010 03:45 (five years ago) Permalink

thanks!

iago g., Wednesday, 27 October 2010 04:55 (five years ago) Permalink

double thanks!

kamerad, Wednesday, 27 October 2010 12:18 (five years ago) Permalink

Tylerw, what is your blog address? Thanks in advance
Iago G.

iago g., Friday, 29 October 2010 00:46 (five years ago) Permalink

http://doomandgloomfromthetomb.tumblr.com
will probably put this floyd thing up this weekend. it is pretty great stuff.

tylerw, Friday, 29 October 2010 01:15 (five years ago) Permalink

That's great--thanks so much

iago g., Friday, 29 October 2010 02:08 (five years ago) Permalink

heyyy, i just finally got around to posting that floyd show on my blog if y'all are interested.

tylerw, Tuesday, 9 November 2010 20:36 (five years ago) Permalink

eight months pass...

need this so bad

tylerw, Thursday, 28 July 2011 20:25 (five years ago) Permalink

also

tylerw, Thursday, 28 July 2011 20:26 (five years ago) Permalink

PINK FLOYD RULES

Euler, Thursday, 28 July 2011 20:42 (five years ago) Permalink

PINK FLOYD RULES
dang are those images not showing up.
www.pinkfloydplatinumcollection.com

tylerw, Thursday, 28 July 2011 20:45 (five years ago) Permalink

they don't need to show up because

PINK FLOYD RULES

Euler, Thursday, 28 July 2011 20:51 (five years ago) Permalink

Euler, Thursday, 28 July 2011 20:51 (five years ago) Permalink

christ

Trip Maker, Thursday, 28 July 2011 20:52 (five years ago) Permalink

talk about dark side of the moon

Euler, Thursday, 28 July 2011 20:52 (five years ago) Permalink

pink floyd rules. i was drunk and wanted to know the lyrics!!!!THNKS SOOOOOOOOOO MUCH!!!! YOU FUCKIN RULE FOR POSTIN THE LYRICS. I WROTE THEM DOWN AND I LOVE YOU NOW>>!!!! EMAIL ME AND ILL MARRY YOU. DONT WORRY IM HOT!!!hahahahaha
love always, shaina

tylerw, Thursday, 28 July 2011 20:53 (five years ago) Permalink

yea pink floyd rules!!! once i heard this kid in my school say that they suck and i almost kicked him in the teeth. i had to point out to him that they invented almost every style out today. one they didn't was rap, and well i hate rap..... ~out~

tylerw, Thursday, 28 July 2011 20:54 (five years ago) Permalink

[fuck this guy and his question mark]
Pink Floyd Rules?
I've actually felt better about Pink Floyd. After listening to a lot of their songs on radio, I've developed a liking to them. I still some of their songs are crap, but "comfertabally numb" "another brick in the wall, pt 1, 2, and 3", "Money", "Hey You" and other songs are very good. They're pretty good, let them pass.

My brother hates Pink Floyd, but a lot of my friends like them. Some user (Bart247) suggested once I listen to the Dark Side Of The Moon. All I've heard is Money, but that's a good song. I will put these guys on my "Master's Of Rock" series, and expect to see more episodes in the future.

I'd thought I'd post this up to tell you my changed opinions on Pink Floyd. Although they might not be the best band ever, they're one of the best. I have The Wall album already, but maybe I'll look forward to listening to them more.

tylerw, Thursday, 28 July 2011 20:55 (five years ago) Permalink

Euler, Thursday, 28 July 2011 20:59 (five years ago) Permalink

that RULES

tylerw, Thursday, 28 July 2011 21:00 (five years ago) Permalink

Euler, Thursday, 28 July 2011 21:03 (five years ago) Permalink

≝ (Pleasant Plains), Thursday, 28 July 2011 21:05 (five years ago) Permalink

kids these days!

tylerw, Thursday, 28 July 2011 21:06 (five years ago) Permalink

tylerw, Thursday, 28 July 2011 21:06 (five years ago) Permalink

^^^ just the kind of thing I was looking for

Euler, Thursday, 28 July 2011 21:08 (five years ago) Permalink

hee hee

tylerw, Thursday, 28 July 2011 21:08 (five years ago) Permalink

^^^ WOW

Euler, Thursday, 28 July 2011 21:10 (five years ago) Permalink

belly dancing for floyd. that rules.

tylerw, Thursday, 28 July 2011 21:11 (five years ago) Permalink

when I saw that my hs physics teacher had a Dark Side poster in his classroom, I knew that I'd really made i

Euler, Thursday, 28 July 2011 21:11 (five years ago) Permalink

er: made it

Euler, Thursday, 28 July 2011 21:11 (five years ago) Permalink

tylerw, Thursday, 28 July 2011 21:11 (five years ago) Permalink

PINK FLOYD RULES

Trip Maker, Thursday, 28 July 2011 21:11 (five years ago) Permalink

RULE #1: PINK FLOYD RULES

tylerw, Thursday, 28 July 2011 21:12 (five years ago) Permalink

internet, never change

(not really safe for work fyi)

tylerw, Thursday, 28 July 2011 21:18 (five years ago) Permalink

FLOYD IS NOT SAFE FOR WORK

Euler, Thursday, 28 July 2011 21:20 (five years ago) Permalink

Euler, Thursday, 28 July 2011 21:21 (five years ago) Permalink

Euler, Thursday, 28 July 2011 21:22 (five years ago) Permalink

i kind of dig that the division bell dudes have been incorporated into the floyd iconography. must make waters so mad.

tylerw, Thursday, 28 July 2011 21:22 (five years ago) Permalink

I've been thinking the same thing. High hopes etc.

Euler, Thursday, 28 July 2011 21:23 (five years ago) Permalink

who the fuck is rontoon?

Mr. Snrub, Sunday, 31 July 2016 22:44 (three weeks ago) Permalink

He appears to be a well known Pink Floyd collector but I only know the name from the thread over on Hoffman.
I think he was talking about possibly being viewed as a bootlegger at one point.

Stevolende, Sunday, 31 July 2016 23:00 (three weeks ago) Permalink

Rontoon is the guy who originally sourced a massive, massive amount of the stuff that's going to show up on the set. Without his input a lot of the stuff that's on this set wouldn't be present, because Pink Floyd don't really have an archive as such.

Maybe it's weird of me but the thing I'm most excited about is finally getting a proper version of "Seabirds".

a confederacy of lampreys (rushomancy), Sunday, 31 July 2016 23:27 (three weeks ago) Permalink

JESUS CHRIST @ all this

brimstead, Sunday, 31 July 2016 23:52 (three weeks ago) Permalink

inclusion of 7" singles is kinda weird, though. this set is all about the actual content, no need to festoon it with 'collectible' crap.

brimstead, Sunday, 31 July 2016 23:56 (three weeks ago) Permalink

for the record, the stuff from this set that I haven't heard/seen on bootlegs is:

John Latham Recordings
Song 1/Roger's Boogie
'More' Non-Album Tracks (exist only taken from the film soundtrack- and Schroeder used music wholly diegetically in that film)
Possibly some Zabriskie Point unreleased recordings? Hard to tell.
Atom Heart Mother Early Studio Version
Nothing Part 14
Obscured By Clouds 2016 Remix (if that counts..)

Interstellar Overdrive: Das Universum Des Ichs
Interstellar Overdrive with Frank Zappa
Maybe some of those Roland Petit Ballet news reports and/or "24 Hours: Bootleg Records"

so really, the vast majority of this is already circulating in pretty superb sound quality. probably just as well they threw in the "collectible" crap, particularly at that asking price. :)

a confederacy of lampreys (rushomancy), Monday, 1 August 2016 01:55 (three weeks ago) Permalink

Might have been mentioned upthread but this also strikes me as an all-at-once way of beating the overall 50 year copyright deadline for a few years, which is why those initial '65 sessions surfaced at the end of last year.

Ned Raggett, Monday, 1 August 2016 02:07 (three weeks ago) Permalink

That's something people have been saying in the thread at Hoffman. But have been raising a few tracks that are not on this including some 66 demoes which would presumably need to be out by the end of this year.
People have posited the likelihood of a 50th anniversary Piper set to mop up even more stuff. Followed by a Saucer 50th.

I'm left wondering how many units you need to press of a release in order for it to fulfill the 50 year copyright vs public domain thing. That's in general not just this set.

Stevolende, Monday, 1 August 2016 08:25 (three weeks ago) Permalink

15. Vegetable Man (2010 mix)† 2.32
16. Scream Thy Last Scream (2010 mix)† 4.43

Funny, they (re)mixed it in 2010, but it didn't get a release..

Mark G, Monday, 1 August 2016 08:27 (three weeks ago) Permalink

People have said that it could have been for the Syd best of that came out that year. But wound up being held back. I take it that's the set we got Bob Dylan Blues on instead where Syd sings the blues about wearing his Bob Dylan hat.
Was that 2010? Think its the release people have suggested things were prepared for though.

Stevolende, Monday, 1 August 2016 08:44 (three weeks ago) Permalink

Right got th ewrong release, the one I was just talking about was 2001 I thought it was earlier than 200 anyway.
BUt there was an Introduction to Syd Barrett released in 2010 that covers Pink Floyd too
https://rateyourmusic.com/release/comp/syd_barrett/an_introduction_to_syd_barrett/
and had several tracks given fresh mixes.

Stevolende, Monday, 1 August 2016 09:07 (three weeks ago) Permalink

Sorry, should have posted the sleeve which is presumably the other selling point for the release

Looks like Storm Thorgersen went into decline towards the end.

Stevolende, Monday, 1 August 2016 09:11 (three weeks ago) Permalink

Funny, that one had 'Rhamadan' as an extra track, download only.

(I'd have bought the double album if they had added that as a "side 4" track, but they didn't it just had four sides of the same tracks as the CD, making four quite short sides.

Mark G, Monday, 1 August 2016 11:25 (three weeks ago) Permalink

I'm trying to think of the known-to-exist (which in Pink Floyd's case has a strong overlap with "fan circulating") material _not_ appearing on this set. So far I've got:

The cut acetates of Arnold Layne/Let's Roll Another One
The instrumental version of "Vegetable Man" played by Nick Mason in a 1969 interview
The two minutes of Syd's Pink Floyd live in the 1968 film "DOPE"
There's also an alleged 1966 instrumental demo of "Let's Roll Another One" but that might be a fake.
Interstellar Overdrive (recorded at Mother's in 1969 for the "Ummagumma" live album)

Anything I'm missing?

a confederacy of lampreys (rushomancy), Monday, 1 August 2016 12:01 (three weeks ago) Permalink

so really, the vast majority of this is already circulating in pretty superb sound quality.

"Seabirds"?

Aw naw, no' Annoni oan an' aw noo (Tom D.), Monday, 1 August 2016 12:06 (three weeks ago) Permalink

... oh right, I see you mentioned that, ignore that post.

Aw naw, no' Annoni oan an' aw noo (Tom D.), Monday, 1 August 2016 12:06 (three weeks ago) Permalink

THis is a list that somebody on that lthread put together of things know to exist that weren't included

"Interstellar Overdrive (1966 demo) *
Untitled (Sunshine) **
Vegetable Man (alternate takes)
Jugband Blues (alternate overdubs)
Reaction In G (studio version)
Bike (RM1, alternate vocals/lyrics, no harmonium)
Lucifer Sam (RM1, early version)
Chapter 24 (alt take 5)
Pow R Toc H (RM1, alt mix)
The Gnome (alt mix)
Take Up Thy Stethescope and Walk (alt mix)
Interstellar Overdrive (rough mix, take 2 unedited)
Paintbox (early version)
Remember a Day (alternate mono mix)

* Bootlegged from a good tape source.
** Short fragment was bootlegged in poor quality.
Everything else is totally unheard."

I was thinking there was an Interstellar Overdrive mentioned from '66 which presumably must need to be reissued in some form by the end of the year to avoid the 50 year thing with public domain.

This guy was also saying that Joe Boyd was vehemently against releasing stereo versions of Arnold Layne and Candy and a Currant Bun

Stevolende, Monday, 1 August 2016 12:36 (three weeks ago) Permalink

oh yeah, forgot about that '66 interstellar overdrive (also heard on the soundtrack to the film "San Francisco", and as heard on the Rhamadan bootleg). these alt mixes... you know, i am a huge nerd, but i do consider "alt mixes" to be the shittiest form of bonus tracks. 90% of the time they're completely functionally identical to the released versions. the alt mixes on those zep and sabbath "deluxe editions"... so boring! i'd rather listen to the 11 cd Gaseneta box set. mind you, i am a little hyped for quad atom heart mother and "echoes". if there was actually a tape of lucifer sam with "percy the ratcatcher" lyrics, or "she was a millionaire", or whatever, that'd be great, but i do consider sh.tv message board posts, even really authoritative sounding ones, with a certain amount of skepticism.

a confederacy of lampreys (rushomancy), Monday, 1 August 2016 13:02 (three weeks ago) Permalink

I AM ANTICIPATING THIS RELEASE QUITE HIGHLY.

Mr. Snrub, Monday, 1 August 2016 13:40 (three weeks ago) Permalink

I'm left wondering how many units you need to press of a release in order for it to fulfill the 50 year copyright vs public domain thing. That's in general not just this set.

That first Dylan set in that vein barely existed IIRC. Something like 25 copies? Whatever it was, it wasn't much, but it was enough to fulfill the brief.

Ned Raggett, Monday, 1 August 2016 13:57 (three weeks ago) Permalink

THanks, I'm assuming they must be commercially available in order to fulfil the thing too and find it odd that something that limited could be. but don't know the ins and outs.
I mean presumably if you were coming to the end of the 50 year thing and printed up copies of something and only distributed them internally to chief executives or something it wouldn't fulfill the necessary criteria.

Stevolende, Monday, 1 August 2016 14:12 (three weeks ago) Permalink

Yeah they have to be commercially on sale, and that's what said first Dylan set was, directly via a small clutch of stores. Ergo, on sale, for purchase, and purchased.

Ned Raggett, Monday, 1 August 2016 14:17 (three weeks ago) Permalink

And sold on ebay by some of those members of the general public.

Mark G, Monday, 1 August 2016 14:30 (three weeks ago) Permalink

let's get this thread back on track please

tylerw, Monday, 1 August 2016 14:41 (three weeks ago) Permalink

"Only 250,000 copies of this were sold, but everyone who bought one didn't go on to form a band."

Ned Raggett, Monday, 1 August 2016 14:50 (three weeks ago) Permalink

Curious about the Zabriskie Point stuff, what about all those tracks like the Red Queen? Are they here under different names?

I'm still thinking the 2010 "remix" of Vegetable/Scream is the version that Peter Jenner did for fun and played on the radio once?

dan selzer, Monday, 1 August 2016 15:07 (three weeks ago) Permalink

did peter jenner play those mixes on the radio? the story i heard (and this all gets very hazy) is that jenner made those mixes in 1974 for a possible third barrett record, at which point they leaked, _possibly_ via syd superfan bernard white? and that the other set of mixes, from 1987, were made by malcolm jones in 1987 for possible inclusion on "opel".

The "copyright loophole" thing is something that causes me no end of amusement. I'm not actually aware of any recordings that have been commercially issued to exploit this supposed 50 year loophole, and the legal status of it is a little uncertain to say the least. A classic "Y2K" thing, where fear of the unknown leads to overreaction.

As far as I can tell the thinking here seems to rest on the infamous "20 year loophole" in Italy that was responsible for much of the boom of the early CD era- but that loophole didn't result in any recordings being placed in the public domain.

But this flood of releases does nicely belie the conflicting motivations between anti-bootleg sentiment- on the one hand, wanting to protect the brand from being tainted by low-quality bootleg dross, and on the other, not wanting anybody else to profit from their work. Sixties musicians these days seem very happy to release low-quality bootleg dross at high prices, knowing full will these releases will do little to taint their corporate brand, so these releases must be largely attributed to the latter motive. Which is darkly hilarious, the notion that they hold the belief that some unspecified "people", no doubt dead ringers for Martin Shkreli in their fevered imaginations, will become millionaires on the back of a dodgy "Interstellar Overdrive" outtake that's been freely available on the net for well over a decade. Shades of Dave Clark!

a confederacy of lampreys (rushomancy), Monday, 1 August 2016 16:48 (three weeks ago) Permalink

Lots of labels have released jazz recordings via the law.

Cosmic Slop, Monday, 1 August 2016 17:04 (three weeks ago) Permalink

The "copyright loophole" thing is something that causes me no end of amusement. I'm not actually aware of any recordings that have been commercially issued to exploit this supposed 50 year loophole, and the legal status of it is a little uncertain to say the least. A classic "Y2K" thing, where fear of the unknown leads to overreaction.

Like Cosmic Slop said, this is a major thing in jazz. I have a dozen or so cheapo box sets on my shelf that are called something like Art Pepper: Complete Albums 1952-1962 or whatever, and they'll combine eight albums from a bunch of different labels into one four-CD box for like $15. None of the bonus tracks that previous reissues might have come with - just the original vinyl track listing - but still, it's all material that's no longer under copyright.

Don Van Gorp, midwest regional VP, marketing (誤訳侮辱), Monday, 1 August 2016 17:23 (three weeks ago) Permalink

sure i have some of those recordings myself but those aren't specifically _bootleg_ recordings, they're commercial recordings that have fallen into the public domain. which does lead to the potential of a somewhat amusing scenario where, say, "dark side of the moon" is in the public domain but the copyright holder maintains the sole right to legally sell that recording of pink floyd fucking around with wine glasses. unlikely to actually happen, as lawmakers' current attitudes towards copyright law tend towards never letting anything lapse into public domain again, but it would be funny!

a confederacy of lampreys (rushomancy), Monday, 1 August 2016 17:29 (three weeks ago) Permalink

Somebody on Hoffman was saying that the public domain only had rights to the recording rather than the post production processes added. Which might be why people would be interested in releasing mixes since those would remain protected whereas a straight recording wouldn't.

Stevolende, Monday, 1 August 2016 17:32 (three weeks ago) Permalink

probably true, but not super relevant imo. yes, those 2016 mixes of obscured by clouds will likely remain under copyright until after we're all dead. but if the 1972 release falls into the public domain, how much does that matter? are people really going to pay for the 2016 mix at a premium when the 1972 version is readily available to them for a pittance?

the issue with public domain, and probably one of the major reasons legislators fear it, is that the only practical way to make a profit with it is to maintain a monopoly on its means of production (which is where shkreli becomes relevant). maintaining copyright on unique copyrighted variants of public domain works has value for under two circumstances: first, when this prevents direct copies of your releases (which has a certain utility, though usually not a tremendous amount unless the copyright holder can somehow make public domain editions of the work unobtainable), and second, when those unique variants are highly desirable in ways the public domain versions are not.

a confederacy of lampreys (rushomancy), Monday, 1 August 2016 17:51 (three weeks ago) Permalink

pink floyd rules

who is extremely unqualified to review this pop album (BradNelson), Monday, 1 August 2016 18:05 (three weeks ago) Permalink

Other thing that people have said relevant to this is that for something to be practically in public domain there has to be an available version of the recording to be traded. I think it may have all been hypothetical but thinking about unreleased an unavailable tracks being hidden away in vaults wherever and only being released as whatever year's mix which would therefore mean that the track in question while not being protected per se because it hadn't been officially released would remain unattainable for anybody to release as public domain.

Not sure if that would be anything other than hypothetical though. Though it does appear that several tracks in this box are not otherwise in circulation. So that's 50 years nearly.

& the idea that one could prevent a track from leaking once in any way available also seems to be largely hypothetical doesn't it.
Not sure how successful anybody's been in actually blocking the circulation of tracks while in copyright anyway.

But I guess it stops somebody releasing a sub par version commercially. But if it was sub par anyway , would anybody be buying it?

Stevolende, Monday, 1 August 2016 18:10 (three weeks ago) Permalink

trusting vaults to be non-porous is a foolish assumption, particularly when the vaults in question aren't controlled by the band to begin with.

a confederacy of lampreys (rushomancy), Monday, 1 August 2016 18:39 (three weeks ago) Permalink

Thing is, like that double single of 1965 Pink Floyd, limited edition, high price.

So, either pay £200 on ebay (record company only got the original purchase price out of that deal), or someone shares an upload recording which gets effectively bootleg distribution.

I guess that's against a legitimate public domain release, like those Beatles' "Love Me Do" 'collectors' editions (heart shaped, pic-disc, etc)

Mark G, Tuesday, 2 August 2016 11:50 (three weeks ago) Permalink

listening to this right now. man, pink floyd really does rule.

tylerw, Tuesday, 2 August 2016 14:19 (three weeks ago) Permalink

Is there a commercially available dvd of promo films? I can't believe the Gerald Scarfe "Welcome to the Machine" has been removed from YouTube

Iago Galdston, Monday, 8 August 2016 16:08 (two weeks ago) Permalink

there are dvds with the "immersion editions". pink floyd are pretty brutal about taking their stuff off streaming sites.

a confederacy of lampreys (rushomancy), Monday, 8 August 2016 16:41 (two weeks ago) Permalink

I saw the "Syd's first trip" DVD got withdrawn as well.

Mark G, Monday, 8 August 2016 22:43 (two weeks ago) Permalink

OK, thanks, Rushomancy, Mark

Iago Galdston, Tuesday, 9 August 2016 00:56 (two weeks ago) Permalink

two weeks pass...

Didn't get thrown a rope out of the gig economy. Feh. Listening to Manchester 1974

Elvis Telecom, Friday, 26 August 2016 08:06 (fifteen hours ago) Permalink

wave upon wave of demented avengers marched cheerfully out of obscurity into the outfield

mookieproof, Friday, 26 August 2016 14:52 (eight hours ago) Permalink

tylerw, Friday, 26 August 2016 14:57 (eight hours ago) Permalink

...rules?

great Canadian prog-psych debut from 1969 (Sparkle Motion), Friday, 26 August 2016 15:06 (eight hours ago) Permalink

getting pretty close to not ruling there

tylerw, Friday, 26 August 2016 15:17 (eight hours ago) Permalink

Not pigs on the wing then?

Mark G, Friday, 26 August 2016 15:19 (eight hours ago) Permalink

that picture rules imo

niels, Friday, 26 August 2016 16:04 (seven hours ago) Permalink

this video definitely rules
https://www.facebook.com/pinkfloyd/videos/10153823948907308/

tylerw, Friday, 26 August 2016 19:21 (four hours ago) Permalink

hehe, "psychedelic is a silly term"

niels, Friday, 26 August 2016 23:15 (eight minutes ago) Permalink


You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.