Talk:Pink Floyd - Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by SilkTork (talk | contribs) at 12:36, 14 April 2024 (→Noble and Metcalfe left in 63 or 64?). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 12:36, 14 April 2024 by SilkTork (talk | contribs) (→Noble and Metcalfe left in 63 or 64?)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Pink Floyd article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12Auto-archiving period: 30 days

Pink Floyd is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Misplaced Pages community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.

This article appeared on Misplaced Pages's Main Page as Today's featured article on May 9, 2006.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
October 20, 2005	Peer review	Reviewed
February 15, 2006	Featured article candidate	Promoted
April 19, 2009	Featured article review	Demoted
December 4, 2009	Good article nominee	Listed
November 17, 2010	Good article reassessment	Kept
March 27, 2011	Peer review	Reviewed
June 4, 2011	Featured article candidate	Not promoted
October 2, 2012	Featured article candidate	Promoted
Facts from this article were featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on March 10, 2019, March 10, 2020, March 10, 2022, and March 10, 2023.
Current status: Featured article

This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

This

level-4 vital article is rated FA-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Biography: Musicians

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
	This article is supported by WikiProject Musicians (assessed as Top-importance).

Pink Floyd Top‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pink Floyd, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pink Floyd on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Pink FloydWikipedia:WikiProject Pink FloydTemplate:WikiProject Pink FloydPink Floyd

Top

This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article was a past project collaboration.

To-do list:

Fair use

Add fair use rationale to all images and sound samples (all except images already labeled free use).
Re-size large images around to 300 pixels (all "fair use" images), other than album covers (already done).

Articles

Expand all articles to at least Start class. Some song stubs can't be expanded and should be redirected to the relevant album article. Use the "Interstellar Overdrive" article as an example when editing a song stub.
Expand all of the Floyd's studio album articles to at least GA status.
See COTM for monthly collabs.

Project building

Add WikiProject Pink Floyd banner {{WPFloyd}} to all appropriate Talk pages.
Personally invite quality editors working on Pink Floyd articles to join the project.

If you complete one of these tasks, please remove it from the list.

This article does not yet have a related to do list. If you can think of any ways to improve the article, why not create one?

Rock music Top‑importance

	Rock music portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Rock music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Rock music on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Rock musicWikipedia:WikiProject Rock musicTemplate:WikiProject Rock musicRock music
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Progressive Rock Top‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Progressive Rock, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Progressive rock on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Progressive RockWikipedia:WikiProject Progressive RockTemplate:WikiProject Progressive RockProgressive rock
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

England Top‑importance

	England portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Semi-protected edit request on 4 October 2023

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

The first line should read Pink Floyd IS, not Pink Floyd ARE. Maximum757 (talk) 20:42, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Not done:. @Maximum757: This article is written in British English because Pink Floyd are a British band. "Pink Floyd are an English rock band" is correct. For American and Canadian bands, we would say " is an American rock band". Different types of English treat bands/groups differently. Bowling is life (talk) 21:11, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Were vs Are

The band hasn’t released any new material since April of 2022, and they’ve made no indication that they are still together and intend to release more music. This question was asked about a year ago when it was still somewhat unclear if Hey Hey Rise Up was a one-off single or the first of many, but a year and a half later I think it’s clear the single was a one time thing, and not an indication of a continuation of the band. The consensus in mid 2022 was to keep the header as “Pink Floyd are an English band”, but now as we’re entering 2024 with still no music from them, I think it’s wise to change the header to “Pink Floyd were an English band”. I mean how long are we going to keep the header in the present tense if we don’t change it now, even in late 2024, there are still people saying that Pink Floyd is an active band. Zvig47 (talk) 15:15, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Present tense.

Since the last RfC (which @TSP noted was "properly announced on the appropriate forums"), Pink Floyd has released:

a physical version of "Hey, Hey, Rise Up" that included a new version of "A Great Day For Freedom" (June 2022)
a new remix of an album, Animals: Deluxe Addition. It took years to complete that project, in part, because of disagreements between current and past band members. (September 2022)
a Dark Side of the Moon 50th Anniversary set, which included previously unreleased material and involved planetarium shows around the world (September 2023)
various social media contributions

If the concern is that readers might be confused about the band actively touring or that there is evidence that they are producing new music at the moment, the "Years active" section of the infobox should be sufficient to accurately inform the reader.

Otherwise, I agree with the previous RfC discussion that bands don't only exist when they're actively touring and then break up. Pink Floyd is an ongoing concern that has released new material recently, and may release new material in the future. Until there's a evidence of a permanent dissolution of the band, the present tense should remain.

In fact, it's more accurate and informative for the article to distinguish between the current members, Gilmour and Mason, and the past members, Barrett, Waters, and Wright.

“It’s Pink Floyd if it’s me and Nick." —David Gilmour, April 2022

@Zvig47, 13 months ago you opened a discussion on this very topic. The consensus was to disagree with you and you were asked that if you wanted to change that consensus, you should either reopen the RfC or properly create a new one. Rather than do that, you've taken to editing the page directly. That's not a constructive path forward. Davidwbaker (talk) 18:38, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

A deluxe version and remix version of an album is not new material. Thats like saying The Jimi Hendrix Experience is still an active band because a 50th anniversary version of Electric Ladyland came out. Pink Floyd has been radio silent regarding new releases since 2022. If they announce new music then we will say they are active again, but as it stands, they’ve been inactive for a year and a half, the band is no longer active. Zvig47 (talk) 20:29, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

I disagree with your edit to the Band Members section, for two reasons:

1. Roger Waters has not been a member of the band since 1985. His guest appearance with the band at Live8 did not make him part of the band. "We made suggestions and Roger made suggestions, and I didn’t care for Roger’s suggestions. In the end, I thought, Actually, we’re Pink Floyd and he’s our guest, and he can just do what we tell him to do or fuck off." David Gilmour, May 2021

2. The members of the band remain members of the band, even when they are not actively touring or producing music.

3. It adds no helpful information to a reader. If a reader wants to understand when the band has been active, it's in the info box.

I've added the disputed tag, rather than reverting your repeated addition to the article. Davidwbaker (talk) 20:43, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

I see that you've gone ahead and proceeded with your change, despite the conclusion of the previous RfC and request that you proceed with the change only after a new consensus with a new RfC.

I don't think your editing strategy is constructive, but rather than reverting, I put a disputed tag on the article and directed discussion here. Davidwbaker (talk) 20:47, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

1. The band reformed with Roger in 2005, even though it was for one night only, he did rejoin for that one night. It wasn’t just billed as a performance by members of Pink Floyd, it was billed as a Pink Floyd performance. In most cases even for just reunion concerts, members who previously left but participated in said reunion concerts are listed as having rejoined the band, even for a short period of time.

2. They do not remain members of the band if there is no band. From 94 to 05, there was no Pink Floyd. Having the specific years when the band was active and when the members were in the band is the most informative way of writing this. Plus it fits with the timeline that is displayed on the page as well.

3. It does help by being as informative as possible. Nick Mason was on every PF release, but he wasn’t doing anything in the band between the years of 2007 and 2012, or 2014 and 2022, save for maybe interviews and deluxe material. Point is it is the most descriptive way of listing the years the members were members.

Once again I have to add, the band has essentially ceased all operations. There are still deluxe and remix releases for albums, but the last new piece of material was in 2022, and before that was 2014, and before that was 1994, if they are active, then they are the most inactive active band out there. A one off single back in 2022 at the time raised the question if they had truly reformed, but after more than a year and a half of no further announcements, it’s clear it was a one time thing. If not now, when do we finally list them as inactive, because as it stands right now there is nothing alluding to further NEWLY RECORDED (not deluxes or remixes) material. Zvig47 (talk) 23:14, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Is Guy Pratt considered an official member? Plorangereal (talk) 17:24, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

At this point, with David Gilmour still producing great music, and Nick Mason doing some great jams with his wonderful spacey jam band, and Roger Waters keeping his rhythm going, as well, that as long as these great musicians are putting out that Floyd heartbeat, would you really lose sleep if we all said "Are"? This time is short. I find it enlightening when I think about it, that we still can say "are" about the Pink Floyd. Richard Wright lives on because of this. Even if you were to demand "were" it's still "are" to many of us, on principal!

It really isnt like calling the earth flat. Let it go. We've got this brother... 174.233.16.142 (talk) 22:58, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Buddy that’s not at all how that works. You can’t just use the present tense because you feel like it. Like what even are you saying with “Even if you were to demand "were" it's still "are" to many of us, on principal!”? I love the band, but I’m not going to use the present tense just because I love them, it doesn’t work like that. If the members are active separately and doing their own thing, that doesn’t equate to their band being active. Others disagree with me in this discussion and I’m fine with that, but at least I understood their argument. Zvig47 (talk) 01:04, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

I find that I can simply quote myself from a year ago, because the situation is identical:

"The May 2022 discussion was a request for comments, properly announced on the appropriate forums, with 11 people taking part, and made a unanimous decision for present tense. If you want to change that, I'd suggest re-opening that RFC or starting a new one. I don't think it makes sense that a decision made by 11 editors through a properly-publicised process can then be reversed by two editors without announcement in the same forums. (And, in fact, even this discussion is now majority in favour of present tense, if I correctly interpret Floydian's view.) TSP (talk) 17:50, 25 October 2022 (UTC)"

Nothing has changed. A decision was made through a properly-advertised RFC, unanimously, with 11 editors. You tried to change it unilaterally a year ago without an RFC, and most people who commented disagreed with you. It can't be reasonable to say that people who disagree with you have to go through weeks of effort holding an RFC, then you can change it to your preferred version with no consensus whenever you feel like it and we have to keep holding more RFCs to be allowed to disagree with you. And once again, you are now in a minority even in this discussion section.

Please leave it at the version established by RFC consensus, or hold another RFC to change it. TSP (talk) 01:27, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

I've restored present tense per WP:CONSENSUS and particularly WP:CCC - "in most cases, an editor who knows a proposed change will modify a matter resolved by past discussion should propose that change by discussion". I don't see any new consensus here to overturn the previous well-established one.

For what it's worth: Present tense. TSP (talk) 01:35, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

@TSP: In the "Hey, Hey, Rise Up!" and conflicts section of this article it says: "Hey, Hey, Rise Up!" was a "one-off for charity" and that Pink Floyd had no plans to reform." And this is supported by a source. David Gilmour said this himself. The lead and infobox should reflect this. The article itself says they are not active and that song was just a one-off. So this shouldn't even be a discussion. I suggest changing it to past tense until they release anything else. If they announce a true reunion later on, then we can change it to present tense. Leaving the article in present tense right now is assuming they are active and will release new material in the future when a band member himself said this isn't happening. Bowling is life (talk) 17:29, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Honestly, having read the source, I think that part of our article is somewhat putting words into Gilmour's mouth. The relevant section seems to be:

Are you considering more Pink Floyd music? How did this fit into the rest of the music you’re working on? This is a one-off for Pink Floyd. I’m casually working away all the time. I’m hoping to get an album finished at some point, but my focus at this very moment is just on this.

Linking his statement on whether this release is a one-off to whether the band is "reforming" is inference on the part of the editor. The band existing is different to the band actively putting out music; compare to the hiatus after 1983 ("they had had several hiatuses before", our article says).

He also says, talking about the band in the present tense:

"It just struck me that here we are, with our name and this platform, and we could use it more."

And, as has been quoted elsewhere,

“It’s Pink Floyd if it’s me and Nick."

My view is that the band still has a present-tense concept of itself; it has a clearly-defined membership; and it is capable of releasing new music; therefore it is a band that currently exists, just like it did in 1985, even if there are no specific plans to record or tour. TSP (talk) 22:05, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Dispute tags

Broken out into a separate section to make it easier to find, because it's not in the main flow of the conversation above TSP (talk) 09:28, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

I have no opinion on this matter, * but I will say that putting gigantic orange tags on what's supposed to be a featured article makes Misplaced Pages look amateurish and a bit of a laughing stock. I could understand if this was a major point of contention about the proportion of contributions Waters and Gilmour gave to the band, or how much due weight the article should spend covering all of the group's history. But it's trivial spat over a minor wording issue. Parkinson's bicycle shed comes to mind. Ritchie333 10:44, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

* While I have expressed views on this before, I am bored of the subject now, have said everything I want to, and would rather look at more interesting things such as just what exactly is my favourite live version of "Careful With That Axe, Eugene". Ritchie333 10:49, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I agree, I don't think there is any significant accuracy dispute here. The question is basically just one of interpretation - exactly what does "active" mean for a band? We don't need an article tag every time there is a talk page discussion. TSP (talk) 17:20, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

I'm digging the Pompeii version this evening. The deepest version. 174.233.16.142 (talk) 23:03, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

I've removed the dispute tags, per this conversation. As I said in my edit summary, it's not really accurate to say "The factual accuracy of part of this article is disputed." The facts aren't at issue, the dispute is one of definitions - what constitutes "active" for a rock band? - and it's not helpful to casual readers to suggest the article might contain significant factual errors. TSP (talk) 09:23, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Dates active

(This is referred to in the section above, but in my view is a separate issue - or should be - so I'm creating a new section for it.)

Dates active have recently been changed from a format of broad ranges during which band members took part in all band activities, e.g. (1967–present), to ones highlighting each individual occasion the band has been actively recording or gigging, e.g. (1967–1994, 2005, 2007, 2013-2014, 2022).

Thoughts? To me, this is far less helpful to the reader - the dates the band was active are already listed in the infobox, so there is no new information in laboriously repeating them for every band member, and it makes it pretty much impossible at a glance to see the difference between, say, Gilmour (active in all Pink Floyd activities since 1967) and Wright (left the band from 1981-1987, died in 2008). (I'm also not sure it's really accurate - if you were going to mark out periods when no-one was performing as Pink Floyd, what about the periods between 1983-7 when they stopped touring, Gilmour was still planning for Momentary Lapse of Reason to be his solo album and no-one even agreed who owned the name?)

To me, the proposed format is unreadable, and verging on breaching Misplaced Pages:Do not disrupt Misplaced Pages to illustrate a point. TSP (talk) 01:49, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

I agree that showing dates that show the intersection of band membership and when the band was actively performing is less readable and less informative. If you wish to see when the band was actively performing, that's available under "Years active." If you want to see who was a member of the band throughout its history, you look to the "Band members" section.

I would also point out that the current revision is inaccurate with regard to Roger Waters. Waters was not a member of the band in 2005. He was invited to perform as a guest with the band, but was not invited to rejoin the band. "We made suggestions and Roger made suggestions, and I didn’t care for Roger’s suggestions. In the end, I thought, Actually, we’re Pink Floyd and he’s our guest, and he can just do what we tell him to do or fuck off." The membership of Pink Floyd is something that's clearly defined and was even tested in a court of law based on legal action initiated by Waters. Davidwbaker (talk) 02:04, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

@TSP: Changing it to 1967–present implies that the member has been active in the band that entire time which is not accurate. The current years active reflect the band member timeline at: List of Pink Floyd band members timeline. Changing this is pointless and will lead to inconsistencies. Every other article for a band that has reunions lists the year the band reformed in the band members section. Maybe we could change it to 1967–2022, not present because it actually says in the Pink Floyd article: "Hey, Hey, Rise Up!" was a "one-off for charity" and that Pink Floyd had no plans to reform." Adding a note next to 1967-2022 would be a nice compromise as it would clean the section up and the detail would only be revealed if you click on the note. It's hard to explain what I mean by adding a note so I'll provide an example. I know this example probably makes no sense in this discussion but I can't think of how else to describe it. See how the note organizes the mess in the genre section of this article. Something like this could be a nice compromise to resolve this dispute. Along with this, we should address the inaccuracies mentioned in this discussion. Bowling is life (talk) 02:14, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

"Changing it to 1967–present implies that the member has been active in the band that entire time" - no, it doesn't. It states that person has been a member of the band that entire time. To look at another example, Pink Floyd didn't record or perform between 1983 and 1985, but that didn't mean all the members left - then in 1985 Waters did leave. Following your model, his leaving was meaningless, because there was no band to leave.

Right now, there is a clear difference between the status of Gilmour and Mason, and the status of Waters - as Gilmour says, "it's Pink Floyd if it's me and Nick". Listing their membership doesn't imply they are actively making music as Pink Floyd, but there is a clear position, both legally and in published statements from the band, about who is currently in the band and who is not.

1967-2022 is at least more concise, but I'm not sure it's much better for accuracy - Gilmour was much clearer that the band had broken up permanently before 2022 than he has been since. Nevertheless when they decided to record again, it was very clear who was a member and who was not.

(I find it hard to have any strong feeling about Waters in 2005, in honesty. I think legally it was clear - Waters was not a member, the court case established that, just as Wright wasn't a member when playing on A Momentary Lapse of Reason and the following tour, even though the band was billed as "Pink Floyd" not "Pink Floyd and Richard Wright" - but I don't have a massive problem with him being listed as one given that was the popular perception and it's very notable that he rejoined the band on stage for that performance.) TSP (talk) 02:45, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

On further thinking about this, we could do something like

Roger Waters – bass, vocals, rhythm guitar, synthesisers (1965–1985, 2005 (guest)) ?

Thoughts?

However, this has now got me thinking about how best to represent Wright's line. He left as a member some time during the Wall sessions (do we actually know when? The lead says 1981 but it was clearly earlier given the need to rehire him for the tour); was hired as a session player for the tour from 1980-81; but, as I understand it, was not contractually a member any time after his initial departure - it's mentioned as a source of tension in our The Division Bell article. He was listed as a session musician on the cover of A Momentary Lapse of Reason (which even includes a band photo of just Gilmour and Mason), but as a member on The Division Bell. We probably need some kind of note on Wright's membership too, even if just a footnote - however, I'll leave it until we've addressed the more general question, lest we end up with dozens of versions of this section. TSP (talk) 22:55, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

As you suggest, listing Waters's inclusion as a "guest" in 2005 would seem clear and accurate to me.

I agree with you that Wright's listing needs some work. Wright was fired from the band (very regrettably, IMO) prior to 1981. I think it was in 1979. If Waters was a "guest" in 2005, it would follow that Wright should be listed as a "session musician" from 1980-1993, as he was formally reinstated within the band in 1994. Davidwbaker (talk) 03:02, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

"Wright was fired from the band (very regrettably, IMO) prior to 1981. I think it was in 1979." - Misplaced Pages doesn't work on what "you think", it works on what is verifiable to reliable sources. Povey 2007 p. 232 says "November 1979". Blake 2008 doesn't say directly but it suggests between August 1979 and when The Wall was released. Anyway, the bottom line is if you don't know things like this, which should be concretely referenced in a featured article, you'll just get challenged by people who do have the source material. Ritchie333 13:11, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

My apologies for the casual language on the talk page, and thanks for your guidance.

When I said "I think," I meant that I wasn't looking at the reliable source to reference at the moment, and the substance of my comment was to point out that 1981 was an incorrect date.

The existing article uses Simmons, Sylvie (December 1999). "Pink Floyd: The Making of The Wall". Mojo Magazine. 73.

In addition, there is Mason, Nick (2004). There Is No Dark Side Inside Out: A Personal History of Pink Floyd (New ed.). Widenfeld & Nicolson. p. 246. ISBN 0-297-84387-7, which says "Rick acquiesced" to the demand that he leave the band, with a timing of just prior to when The Wall was being mixed in August of 1979.

In your judgment, is that sufficient clarity to modify the date for Wright from 1965–1981 to 1965–1979?

As far as "1980-1993," Mason p. 246 describes Wright as a "salaried performer" with the band. Is that sufficiently concrete, or would it be helpful for me to find additional sources? Davidwbaker (talk) 17:10, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

I think there are a few separate periods there, and a fair bit of fuzziness!

1965-79: unambiguously a full member of the band
1980-81: salaried touring musician for the Final Cut tour (the only member/ex-member to make money from the tour!)
1982-5: I think it's reasonably clear that he had no involvement? His touring contract was only 80-81, he doesn't appear on the Final Cut and Gilmour had to persuade him back for Momentary Lapse.
1986-90: paid session musician for the Momentary Lapse of Reason recording and tours (he's not in the band photo in Momentary Lapse, and his name appears in the same size font as Bob Ezrin, not the larger font of Gilmour and Mason)
1991-93: nothing? Our article notes that he was paid a weekly fee of $11,000 to do Momentary Lapse - was that just for the recording period? The recording and tour? Unlike a band member, I think a session musician's involvement does end when the tour or album ends, even if they are then re-engaged for the next.
1993-2008: band member (contractually, still not, as noted in our The Division Bell article; but he is listed as a member in the Division Bell album sleeve, and the distinction seems to disappear from public view at this point? Similarly, in the 2007 Arnold Layne video, we hear them introduced as 'Dave and Nick and Rick - Pink Floyd'). Because this was a presentational change, not a legal one, it's hard to put an exact date on it.

So: (1965-79, 1980-81 (session), 1986-90 (session), 1993-2008)?

Probably still needs a footnote, at least noting that from 1993 he was still contractually not a member, but was presented as one.

This is part of why I don't want the current confusion of listing every separate performance - because the situation is already confusing enough without that! TSP (talk) 19:27, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

...even more complicated, I'd forgotten Delicate Sound of Thunder, released in 1988, which listed Wright as a member!

It seems like Floyd had very little idea post-1985 who their own members were.... (or, more accurately, the legal situation and the public one didn't match). TSP (talk) 01:54, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Mason's book (p 289) gives some indication of the complexities at play. In regards to initiating work on what would become MLoR, he writes:

"Rick joined the proceedings quite late in the day and was quarantined from any costs or legal repercussions from Roger. This was mainly a practical matter. There was some confusion over Rick's position within the band. When David and I first wanted to talk to Rick we discovered that buried in his leaving agreement from 1981 was a clause that prevented him rejoining the group. Consequently we had to be careful about what constituted being a member of the band; only David and I appeared on the cover of the album."

Summing the sources mentioned here, Wright accepted expulsion in 1979, worked as a salaried performer on The Wall live performances, and signed some sort of severance agreement in 1981 that complicated his return to full member on MLoR. In 1988, he's credited as a member of the band. Per Blake (pp 354-355), during the production of Division Bell, "Despite his involvement, Wright was still not contractually a full member of the band; something that clearly rankled." So, while the published music credits him as a member of the band from 1988 onward, in some legal sense he was not a "full" member, which could be that he did not achieve full financial or group governance standing. Davidwbaker (talk) 02:35, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Noble and Metcalfe left in 63 or 64?

In Preceding the band we have: "In 1964, as Metcalfe and Noble left to form their own band..." and "Noble and Metcalfe left the Tea Set in late 1963...". Both statements are cited to the same source - Mark Blake's Comfortably Numb. One of the statements is likely to be a typing error. SilkTork (talk) 11:55, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Blake, page 41: "The arrival of guitarist Bob Klose in the summer of 1964 proved timely. His arrival prompted Clive Metcalfe and Keith Noble to return to working as a duo." Noble and Metcalfe are not mentioned on pages 42-44. (ISBN 978 0306 81752 6) Mark in wiki (talk) 12:02, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

I've gone with Nick Mason who says Sept 1963. SilkTork (talk) 12:36, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Categories: