Talk:A Momentary Lapse of Reason/Archive 1

Archive 1

Discussion

I see some NPOV issues here. Bloodshedder 04:36, 26 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Indeed, a momentary lapse of NPOV... GRAHAMUK 04:38, 26 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Problem solved, I pretty much butchered the so-called "article". This should do for now. (note : I didn't know I wasn't logged in when I edited the article, hence the IP adress). Vanieter 02:37, 29 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Does anybody know about that 2005 remaster mentioned in the article? I don't see any information on it on the Internet or anywhere else, I'm starting to doubt the validity of the claim. --194.89.3.31 02:28, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

OK, since nobody answered I'll be bold. --194.89.2.184 21:31, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

I added the sentence about how many percieve this to be a de facto Gilmour solo album and also moved Richard Wright to the 2nd category of contributors as he did not write anything for the album, recorded very little in the studio and was not an official member of the band until after the album was completed and released. - December 23, 2005

Hi there, please sign your submissions and comments with four tildes (~~~~). Rick Wright wasn't listed on the initial release, but some later releases of the album show him as a member. AFAIK, the real issue wasn't so much how much he played on it (he is more present than Nick Mason, who basically only plays the drum fills on "Learning To Fly"), but the fact that Gilmour and Mason put up their own money to fight the lawsuits against Waters, while Wright did not wish to. Wright was included in the band photo sessions used on the album, but he ended being trimmed out of the version used on the initial album, so there had been some thought of including him, but Gilmour did not make him a full member again until later. ProhibitOnions 19:05, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Actually, the reason Nick Mason mentions in his book for Wright being a member is that his previous agreement with Waters and the band to leave Pink Floyd precluded him rejoining, and Gilmour did not wish to give Waters any further legal ammunition, even though having Wright on board would have strengthened the band's credibility as Pink Floyd. (I suspect it was a combination of this plus the factors mentioned above.) I don't have the book with me to give you a direct citation, sorry. ProhibitOnions 12:18, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Yup, that's correct — Richard remained out of the official band roster until Waters dissolved his management contract with Pink Floyd in December 1987. To list him with Dave and Nick would be to engage in erroneous revisionism. BotleySmith 03:33, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Genre

If I recall correctly, the album's genre was originally listed as "Progressive Rock," and was changed to just "Rock" later on. This is debatable, I guess, but I would still put progressive myself; although the song structure and heavy use of guitar and synth resembles pop music, they still have saxophone and other traditional Floyd instruments (even if they admittedly forced them in). This goes against the "David Gilmour solo pop album" comment in the article, but then again, I would take the word "pop" out too. ;) 169.139.1.20 16:50, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

why did mason and wright do so little on this record?

Next Album

I was reading through the Floyd chronology tonight, and got to Final Cut, and the "next album" was Momentary Lapse. I edited this to reflect Works. The reason I did this was that previous complations were in the sequence too (A Nice Pair & Relics). Given those were in the sequence, then Works should be as well, so I altered the previous next sequences on Final Cut, Works, & Momentary Lapse to reflect this. Dopefish

Nick Mason

So, in which songs of the album did he played? --200.118.220.29 01:20, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

From what I've read/heard (and I can't accurately source this, so I won't put it in), all he played were the drum fills on Learning to Fly. The rest of the drumming on the album is done by Keltner/Appice/Ezrin/machines... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.226.78.94 (talk) 14:13, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Learning To Fly CD-single

The article says: "It incidentally holds the distinction of being the first song to be released worldwide as a CD-only single." If this is true, why do I have an EMI pink vinyl-45 RPM-single (EMP26) then? Felix Atagong 19:37, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Because it's wrong! I have the pink single too, so I've deleted that bit.NH78.147.153.46 (talk) 15:00, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Reissue

It says the album will be reissued worldwide in future by EMI. Where was this info received? Good to know, but we need a reference. Sposato (talk) 04:10, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Lost for words?

When was 'Lost for Words' ever played during the '80s by Pink Floyd?

As far as I've seen, it's a track from the Division Bell and got its first play during the tour for that album.

It's written by David Gilmour and Polly Samson. Are the two known to have even met in/around 1986/7? Bfperez (talk) 21:19, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Reverted. Maybe someone has some weird foreign re-issue of the album with a bonus track? --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 03:13, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Cover Image

The image of the album cover in the article right now is from the CD release. I think it would be more fitting to use the LP design, so I'll upload that instead. Friginator (talk) 18:19, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

radio chatter

"The recording heard in the middle of "Learning to Fly" is of Mason talking to an air traffic control tower in his private aircraft." - anyone got a good source for that? Parrot of Doom 18:09, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Or this: " Rolling Stone magazine described the album as "a Floyd with a future"." Parrot of Doom 18:18, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Rights to The Wall

I didn't know this, "and Waters would be granted, amongst other things, rights to The Wall". I think this needs a citation and a little more explanation. How extensive were these rights? Were they sole performing rights? I would love to be told a little more. Graham Colm ^Talk 18:40, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Blake (2008) p334 - "Waters would get his slice, maintaining his control over, as Gilmour explained, 'various bits and pieces', most notably The Wall". Schaffner (1991) p276 - "Gilmour and Mason did agree to let Waters have sole jurisdiction over everything related to The Wall show." Parrot of Doom 20:31, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I haven't read Blake, but I have read Schaffner. I still think that "rights" is too strong a word—it gives the impression that Waters gets all the royalties from the album, which of course isn't true. I would prefer "control over" rather than "rights", and we need to explain that it is control/jurisdiction over the show, not the album, (or is it)? Graham Colm ^Talk 00:41, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

First sentence problem

The first sentence probably won't confuse many people because of context, but it certainly reads as this album being one of eleven all released in September 1987. It nneds to be split up in some way or changed so that "released in September 1987" doesn't read as modifying all albums mentioned earlier in the sentence.--162.83.176.193 (talk) 21:53, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

That'll be why there's a comma in there. Parrot of Doom 21:55, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually I probably sounded a little harsh there. I'll have another look at it. Parrot of Doom 21:58, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Suggested edit

I would change:

Waters had hinted at his future during a 1982 interview for Rolling Stone, in which he mused: "I could work with another drummer and keyboard player very easily, and it's likely that at some point I will", but in December 1985 he announced that he had left the band, and that he believed that Pink Floyd was a "spent force".[8][9]

to:

Waters had hinted at his future during a 1982 interview for Rolling Stone, in which he mused: "I could work with another drummer and keyboard player very easily, and it's likely that at some point I will". By December 1985 he announced that he had left the band, and that he believed that Pink Floyd was a "spent force".[8][9]

In the current form I have no idea why the word "but" appears linking the quote and the fact of his leaving, as if he did something to the contrary of his prediction, rather than fulfilling it. The reason I don't simply make the change is that I don't know which citation to match to the first sentence if I split the sentence into two as indicated.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:07, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

certain legal obstacles?

"Gilmour considered the request; the keyboardist had left the band in 1979, and there were certain legal obstacles to his re-admittance" - Isn't this a bit vague? What "legal obstacles" were there to prevent Wright from rejoining the band? Lugnuts (talk) 11:22, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Contractual matters that have never really been expanded upon by the other members of the band. See here. I thought it best not to go into too much detail, since not much detail is available. Parrot of Doom 14:16, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Whilst there was some truth to the "legal issues", there was also the fact that Gilmour and Mason were reluctant to bring Wright back as a full fledged member. This was likely because of his lackluster efforts during the recording of The Wall. (See the book, A Saucer Full of Secrets.)Mk5384 (talk) 05:11, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Date VS text

Well, I've stumbled over a little mistake (got to be) and I'm not sure which to believe in, because the single "On the Turning Away" should be the second single (it says so in the article of the single, and the single "One Slip" also says it's the third single from this album). BUT, it also says that "On the Turning Away" was released on the 8th of september, which makes no sence, if the first single "Learning to Fly" was released on the 15th or 14th which is not settled either? (the article on the single "Learning to Fly" says it was released on the 15th, this article on the album says the 14th)? --Dooba (talk) 07:10, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Learning to Fly was released in the US on 14 September 1987 (Povey p350). A promo version was released in the UK on 5 October.

On The Turning Away, there are lots of versions of this. I would say 14 December 1987 for that in the UK.

One Slip (UK EMI EM52) on 13 June 1988

One Slip (UK EMI 12 EMP 52) 12-inch single in poster sleeve on the same date as above, reached no.50.

As you can see its a little bit confusing. There are lots of promos, ltd editions, etc. I didn't put "On the Turning Away" in the list because the releases seem to be live versions. Parrot of Doom 07:23, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Well that makes a little more sence :) Now I can move on in my translations! :D --Dooba (talk) 07:29, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

In space

This edit is completely at odds with the source used in that section, Povey (2007) pages 243-244. Despite repeated requests in my edit summaries to provide a source, User:EarthBooundMisfit and 76.11.240.190 (undoubtedly the same person) have not done so. WP:3RR now prevents me from restoring the article as it was, can anyone shed light on this matter? Parrot of Doom 22:58, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Updated Packaging

I own the 1997 CD re-release of A Momentary Lapse of Reason and the artwork contains a photo of all three remaining members; Gilmour, Mason AND Wright. All the musicians are listed in the same font style with no notations such as "additional musicians." Wright is listed third, but in the same font size and style as every other musician, including Gilmour and Mason. Perhaps this should be noted in the "Packaging" section of this artice. Twineball (talk) 05:45, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Why? Parrot of Doom 07:50, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Because the packaging changed notably in later editions. I just explained that. Twineball (talk) 20:39, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

But this is the case with just about every album ever re-released. Unless of course you're inferring something from the change in style, which verges on WP:OR. Parrot of Doom 20:41, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I thought it was notable that in the original release, the photo was of only Gilmour and Mason, but in the re-release, it is a different photo from the same session including Richard Wright. I thought it was worth a mention. Twineball (talk) 03:38, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Small variations of the cover image

The cover image of my Canadian vinyl pressing is slightly different from the cover image in the infobox, as the man on the bed is holding a round mirror in his hands, in which one can see his face. Don't know the reason behind or whether it's notable; I just wanted to signal it here, as there is a detailed section on the cover artwork and it's currently not mentioned. – IbLeo^(talk) 13:57, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Its interesting but ultimately sounds a little too trivial to mention here - unless of course there's a pattern of differing album covers across the world, and a source which discusses said pattern. Parrot of Doom 22:31, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

I haven't myself seen such a source, which is why I didn't add it to the article. It's FA, let's keep the quality up there. Thanks for your reply. – IbLeo^(talk) 04:42, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Number of beds

My husband worked on this album cover and had to source the beds. He says there were only 680 of them not 800 as noted. They needed 1000 but couldn't get enough.86.27.4.211 (talk) 23:21, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Beds on a beach

It's very disappointing to see another, experience, editor repeatedly removing cited material (and thereby restoring an uncited fact contradicted by that cited material), apparently because he merely disagrees with the formatting of that cited material. Such behaviour is unacceptable. If the formatting is not to his taste, he is of course welcome to change it, without removing useful content. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:14, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

[moved from my talk page - Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:19, 15 May 2013 (UTC)]

With regard to this article, please cite things correctly and consistently, as required by FA criteria. I will not allow an article I spent many hours working on to lapse into a badly-written mess, as it once was. If you want to add things to the article, fine, that's great and I welcome your additions, but the onus must be on the person adding said material to make sure it's done properly and with due regard to the standards it met when it was promoted to FA. I have no intention of running around tidying up other people's edits, especially those of an experienced and valued content editor like yourself. Parrot of Doom 19:50, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Get off your high horse. You've been here long enough to know how Wikipedia works; and that's not how you describe it above. You don't get to remove cited content because you don't agree with how it's formatted, FAC or not. You're not protecting this article, as your edit summary arrogantly proclaimed; you're preventing it from being improved. And that's disruptive. In blindly reverting, you've restored a challenged, uncited statement. That should be removed; and the material you removed should be restored. You also reverted the addition of a note on the band photos in DSotM. The article is now again misleading, giving the false impression that the AMLoR packaging was the first to feature them since Meddle in 1971, not DSotM in 1973. Mention of the pictures in DSotM should be restored. You also removed the fact that the picture shows Gilmour and Mason; we cannot assume that readers will know them from their faces; nor indeed that they can see the photograph at all. This too should be restored. Additionally, you removed an entire section on Gilmour;s recent views on the album. And you're in breach of WP:3RR - I'm giving you the opportunity to revert yourself, rather than me reporting you. Your call. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:46, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Take your threats and shove them where the sun doesn't shine. If you want to add material here, do it properly, or lose it. Parrot of Doom 16:44, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

You have again reverted a set of unrelated changes, wholescale., You should know by now that this is unacceptable; as are the instructinos you seem to think you may issue. Please address each of the issues I raised above. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:59, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

I will do no such thing. If you want to add information to this featured article, do it properly and help maintain its featured status. I am sick of people expecting me to run around with a sweeping brush, correcting their mistakes. I do not have the time. Parrot of Doom 18:50, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

I do not expect you to do anything; indeed, you are free to refrain from all involvement. But if you choose to do something, like repeatedly reverting my edits, then you are required to engage in discussion. Featured articles are not exempt from Wikipedia policy (even when you embolden that term), and neither are you. Repeatedly mass reverting good-faith edits while refusing to engage in discussion (and your comments here so far do not constitute meaningful engagement) is disruptive, and may lead to you being blocked from editing. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:58, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

I have engaged in discussion but you're not listening. The article would not pass a featured review with your edits in situ. So either fix them or be prepared to lose them, because were it not for my input, this article would quickly fall back to the condition it was in before I started to improve it. This is my final reply on this subject. Parrot of Doom 19:27, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

This is not what I came here for, but . . . Just for the record, Andy Mabbett is obviously correct, and Parrot of Doom is WAY out of bounds, as if he's forgotten everything that Wikipedia's about. Parrot, this is not your article to protect. You need to learn to let go, especially when you're wrong, and you're VERY wrong in this case. I'm not going to tediously explain it to you when Mr. Mabbett has already done so quite clearly. If you can read, you can damn well re-read.

--Ben Culture (talk) 09:56, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

David Gilmour as reliable source regarding Roger Waters and the Floyd Wars? Explain that one!

Our article currently claims:

Gilmour saw matters differently; the guitarist refused to allow Pink Floyd to fade into history, and was intent on continuing with the band: "I told him [Waters] before he left, 'If you go, man, we're carrying on. Make no bones about it, we would carry on.'" Waters' warning was stark: "You'll never fucking do it."

The only source on this appears to be the late Nicholas Schaffner, who got to do some face-to-face interviews with David Gilmour, Nick Mason, and Rick Wright. Unlike most of Schaffner's Saucerful of Secrets: The Pink Floyd Odyssey, there is no endnote denoting this to another journalist. So, basically, this is Gilmour in the middle of a highly-lucrative (if controversial) Pink Floyd tour, "telling" Nicholas Schaffner how it was.

But God bless Schaffner, because he indicates just enough to allow us to suspect that Gilmour was full of shit:

1. David Gilmour's solo video, which featured a full concert from his failed About Face tour, also includes a documentary titled After the Floyd. This even includes reference to Gilmour as the "ex-guitarist for Pink Floyd".

2. Gilmour did not treat About Face the way he did the David Gilmour album. It's not a temporary departure to blow off steam. It wasn't recorded quickly and easily by a small band. Gilmour recruited the very best musicians he could get, be they Jeff Porcaro on drums, Steve Winwood on organ, and former Wall producer Bob Ezrin to arrange the orchestra along with Michael Kamen, and to co-produce the album with Gilmour. This album, and its supporting tour (in which the album was performed in full) was absolutely Gilmour's very best attempt at becoming a solo artist.

3. Gilmour subjected himself to interviews with pretty much anybody who wanted one. He promoted this album to the fullest of his ability. Hell, photos from that era even show Gilmour wearing lipstick and other subtle makeup, just to make for effective photographs!

4. His solo concerts were by no means a Pink Floyd retrospective. He performed all of About Face, about half of David Gilmour, and a mere THREE Pink Floyd songs. Even Roger Waters, with a full-concept theatrical show to do, managed to perform more Pink Floyd songs than Gilmour!

. . . All of which indicates Gilmour had no such certainty about carrying on in Pink Floyd without Roger Waters. It was only when he failed to make a buttload of money as a solo artist (he had to cancel several dates due to poor ticket sales), that he decided "I haven't spent twenty years building up my name; I've spent twenty years building up Pink Floyd's name." This, in his view, convinced him he was entitled to make a Pink Floyd record anytime he wished. And when Roger refused to return to the fold on Gilmour's schedule, he, Nick Mason, and CBS records threatened a major lawsuit, which forced Waters to formally resign, in order to protect himself from the lawsuit.

So, in other words, this "we will carry on" statement is belied by all his pre-Momentary behavior (I haven't even mentioned the scores of artists he guest-appeared on, everybody from Pete Townshend and Grace Jones to Duran Duran and Berlin!)

Waters may have turned out to be wrong -- Gilmour did "fucking do it" -- but I do not believe this conversation took place, not at that time. More importantly, Gilmour should NOT be considered a credible source concerning Roger Waters (and vice versa)

--Ben Culture (talk) 10:56, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

That all sounds quite sensible to me although I wrote this article several years ago and have forgotten much of the detail. I have the source material though, so if there are problems you'd like addressed, let me know. Parrot of Doom 14:38, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

It already WAS a good article, as you left it, but I made some changes in the early parts of it, in the hope that I could put Momentary, and how it came to be, in perspective. I mean, my understanding is, after Gilmour complained about Roger's Final Cut demos (especially the inclusion of some songs that were written for The Wall but dropped -- you know, "Nobody thought they were that good then, what makes them so good now?" Creepiest goddam thing I've EVER heard my guitar-hero say), Roger allegedly (and gallantly, in my view) offered to do it as a solo project instead -- as personal as it was to him, why not? But Gilmour and Mason said no, because "songs don't grow on trees", as Roger put it. So they wanted it to be a Floyd album. Roger said, (NOT A QUOTE):Fine, but no WAY do I want to spend every day of making this album arguing with you, Dave, so you're not co-producing this one. Which was apparently fine with Gilmour, because he got to keep the co-producer royalties. So, it got to the point where Gilmour wasn't doing much besides crafting some truly-great solos, and that was about it. YET, the album put tons of MONEY in his pocket because of the co-production royalties.

Furthermore . . . since when is it cool for a musician to bash his band's latest release?

So, I tried to work some of that in, without letting my animosty for Gilmour show (it's SO weird; NOBODY has influenced me more as a guitarist, but the man himself gives me the creeps.)

Probably, some of my added material will be trimmed away. I would greatly prefer that to some wholesale reversion. Most of what I added was relevant. Maybe overwritten at spots, but not at all tangential.

AND, it's a mystery! If Dave and Nick hated The Final Cut so much, why were they willing to file a lawsuit to make Roger come back and do another album with them?!?

--Ben Culture (talk) 17:32, 2 September 2013 (UTC)