Released in November last year, the final Pink Floyd album had been sitting around for about 20 years before David Gilmour and Nick Mason decided to released these old sketches to the public. Here are some different critical perspectives from various news papers and blogs on the album. First some positive reviews:
This first article is a review in the Guardian newspaper by subeditor Molly Woodcraft. The article seems to have looked at a lot of the facts behind the album as members of the band and personnel for the album have said a lot of the stuff they mentioned in interviews. There is a chance that these fact might also have been included with a press release sent to the paper.
I feel that the review focuses too much though on the redeeming qualities of the album and doesn’t mention the cons at all such as the album being based on material that was essentially thrown away during the Division bells sessions and so if it wasn’t good enough then why is it good enough now. You could argue that they really released the album for the money alone. However to give them the benefit of the doubt they both seem like good people and released the album for the sake of former band member Richard Wright who died in 2008.
The next article is a review from the Financial Times written by Ludovic Hunter. The article mainly mentions the feeling of loss that reoccurs throughout Floyd’s discography and history, making mention of original front man Syd Barret’s departure and ruined mental state and also Roger Waters bitter leave after falling out with the rest of the band. This review also mentions the fact that the album was intended mainly to be a tribute to the late Richard wright.
The article itself is quite short, although it may be a shortened version of the one published in the paper that day as some websites do that from time to time. Again it is also too positive focusing only on the angelic idea of there being a new Pink Floyd album making the reviewer blind to the cons.
Both these reviews seems quite credible being from well established news papers but do give to much of an angelic view to the album instead of being constructive and focused. To Balance out the positive, lets see some negative:
Oh boy, this one sounds fun. This review comes from The Independent and is written by Andy Gill, a clear hater of anything post waters for the Floyd. The whole article is barely an actual review in the sense that it is just one biased opinion and does not really look that much at facts with the exception of the backstory of the album. Honestly, did David Gilmour shit in this guys coffee or something?
After many dated terms and half baked insults about the music he even makes a reference to original front man Syd Barret with the line “It would take a Barret-load of drugs to make this sound remotely interesting”, a reference to Barret’s mental deterioration which has been blamed on drug use.
We move across the Atlantic for our next stop, a review from the Los Angeles Times written by Mikael Wood. Again i think Gilmour dropped his guts in this guys mug or something as he comes off as one of the post-waters haters, even mention the lack of “bit-sized tunes” such as “Money”, “Wish You Were Here” and “Another Brick in the Wall (Part 2)”. These songs while good were all just commercially successful where as something such as “Echoes” is disputably one of their best works in terms of composition, team work, production and lyrical work; all coming from a song approximately 23 minutes long.
Again like before this ‘review’ is hardly that as it is too biased to his own view rather than thinking critically about the album itself. One of the stupidest things he says is that the album should not be called a Pink Floyd album and refers to it as “bait and switch” claiming that the album is a rip off to all Floyd fans. Some people really are not worth the time.
Now one thing is clear, reading those last two reviews my fan boy nature came out to defend the Floyd as best as i could so my view to is going to be bias on the album, therefore i shall try to conclude in a constructive and balanced way. But first, one more review:
This review comes from you-tuber Darren Lock from his series Prog Review. His review while giving it a lower rating looks at both the positive and negative in a balanced and constructive manor. To name a few things, he mentions about how to mixing and flow of the album is good. Looking at his personal feelings about the album i get the sense that he has listened to the album and that though i disagree with some of his points i can respect his view more by the way he delivers the review.
In my opinion i like the album, but it is by far a ‘good’ album. When they announced the album and slowly released interviews they mentioned it would be finished version of jam sessions from the archives and Division Bell sessions and so it would be stupid to expect a masterpiece. I feel that these reviews from the newspapers are too biased whether it be a post-waters Floyd hater or a Floydian fan boy but the review from You-tuber Darren Lock is more balanced and constructive.