In the Flesh vs. PULSE

I think that Roger's In the Flesh actually outshines PULSE. Roger's band doesn't just replicate the Floyd classics for a live format, they actually add a new depth to the songs and they have a refreshing and insightful quality about them. PULSE on the other hand is just Gilmour and company attempting to reproduce the same quality of sound of the classics in a live format. It has its own charm I suppose because the material is still relevant, but I think Roger's live discs actually breathe new life into the best Floyd songs.

Jack

I understand your opinion. However, I disagree. I will admit up front that I am HIGHLY sentimental about PULSE because it is my first album...so yes, I am strongly biased.

But I do think that there are some things PULSE certainly has in its favour that ITF does not. To me, the sound quality is better...it might be I just don't like analogue recordings so much.

But here's the big one. ITF simply gives me the creeps. I really wish that Mr. Waters would take over all vocal lines--because hearing someone else sing Mr. Gilmour's lines...someone who was never a Floyd member...is creepy. WYWH did a good job of avoiding this, because Mr. Waters himself sang. I also get the creeps, though, when I hear someone else's guitar or keyboard style on songs that should have a very distinctive sound to them. I am VERY sensitive to this. For me, PULSE is more faithful to the sound of it. I know you may say it does not change ENOUGH...but I thrive on subtleties. Even one note changed can have an effect. TOO much actually becomes hard to take. Sometimes, if you change the key of a song, I literally will be unable to recognise it until I hear the lyrics.

So it's just a matter of preferences, I suppose! :smile:

Nice one FW!

I agree with ya on this.
PULSE is about 15 times better than ITF.

ITF sucks in comparisment to PULSE.

Totally agree with ya FW!

i heard in the flesh the other day and wasn't too impressed. i remember being more impressed at the concert.

Thorin--could it be, as I alluded to in my original posts, differences that have to do with the recording and mixing techniques used?

Though I personally have certain musical likes and dislikes that are far more subjective, I think there could well be technical issues that make one superior to the other. But I am not sure...maybe Wrightkeys or someone with superior knowledge to mine could step in and explain!

For me, Pulse is 3x better than ITF, because there are 3x more Floyd members

Pulse:
Pros:
1. Gilmore playing and singing the parts he did on the original albums.
2. Astronomy Domine
3. DSOTM live

Cons:
1. Gilmore singing Roger's parts.
2. Songs post-Wall.
3. Comfortably Numb

In the Flesh:
(I don't own the cd, so i'm going by the dvd)
Pros:
1. Roger Waters
2. DOGS
3. More diverse works of Floyd (WTTM, Set the Controls)
4. Amused to Death Songs
5. It's a small thing, but using all of Happiest Days of our lives

Cons:
1. No Gilmore, and even I'm willing to admit it's just not the same (see Shine on and CN)
2. Bramhall - good guitarist, but I don't like his vocal style (Carin is so the man tho)

My Pick:
I'm biased. I like Roger more. I'll take In the Flesh.

Obviously you like Roger more.
It's G I L M O U R not Gilmore. Imagine that, spelling the guitar gods name wrong.

It's not the PULSE isn't a good album. If what you want out of a live album is a performance that duplicates the original recording then PULSE is for you, but if you want to hear a band actually shed new light on the songs and perform them with a slightly different approach that elevates the song then In the Flesh is the better choice. I guess it's all subjective as all opinions are. On In the Flesh, songs like "Welcome to the Machine" and "Set the Controls ..." benefit from the new arrangements and I actually think those song sound better on this disc than on the original recordings. I think that Roger did a good job of picking a great band that really puts an incredible touch on the Floyd classics by making the best choices concerning the arrangements. "Dogs" and "Comfortably Numb" are songs that really elicit excellent performances from this band. I don't see how anyone could argue that Roger's show isn't Floydian enough since Gilmour and company basically get session musicians to play most of the music. I admit PULSE is a good album simply because Gilmour is an excellent guitar player and really captures the classic Floyd sound very well in his playing. I just feel that In the Flesh is better live album because Roger's band actually makes an effort to bring these songs up to date instead of submitting to nostalgia.

I will agree with you that "Set the Controls" and "Welcome to the Machine" are phenomenal--along with "Wish You Were Here", those are the three older Floyd songs I really like on In the Flesh.

It is NOT a bad album...I just have certain preferences when it comes to musical tastes.

I am not sure about the session-musician thing, though I would say in the drum section (PF), the session musicians are the most prominent.

However, to me, DG and RWr are just as clear as can be. I DO tend to like something close to the original (in MOST cases), though to my ear there is a distinctive sound to a live performance...it DOES change--just not quite as much as on ITF. I do not know why...but to this day, the PULSE version of "Comfortably Numb" is STILL musically more powerful to me than the original studio version.

(BTW--has anyone noticed the moment of "poetic justice" during the PULSE version in that song? Pay close attention to the singers. I'll admit to an evil laugh when I figured out... )

I gonna have to say that, in my opinion, that PULSE is better then ITF. But I agree that Set The Controls........ and Welcome To The Machine is very good on ITF, in paticulary Set The Controls. But the version of Comfortably Numb is not bad. There is something about hearing Roger's voice again, and using two guitars on the final solo is a good idea, but it is not Gilmour. The PULSE version is so powerful during the last couple of minuts. I also prefer the aqoustic version of WYWH rather than the electric intro.

Pulse:
I agree that the songs sometimes sound too faithful...it also bothers me that there are enough people on stage to make a few extra Pink Floyds, but Roger does that too. But things sound RIGHT...Gilmour plays his solos and sings his vocals (and does a good job with Roger's, I think...like FloydWaters, this was my first Floyd album, so that might have something to do with it). It's not terribly essential, since most of the songs sound a bit like you remember them (except...older), but I just think it's more solid overall. My only complaint is that the set reeeeeeaaally didn't need Keep Talking and Another Brick, but the versions of High Hopes, Brain Damage/Eclipse, and Comfortably Numb are enough to win me over.

In the Flesh:
The songs sound...different. When I first heard Roger had made some interesting changes to them, I was interested and picked it up...but then I found out most of the changes are unnecessary. I think they're there more as Roger's way of reclaiming the songs in his own style than because they really sound better that way...as someone else mentioned, the electric solo in Wish You Were Here is just weird. Stuff like the acoustic guitars in Breathe are great. The female mother in Mother is also awkward for anyone who remembers how the song sounds with Gilmour, but it makes sense and sounds alright. I was expecting Roger to take most of the vocals, but his voice really sounds weak (on Amused To Death as well)...who covers most of Dave's (and all of Wright's ) vocals on this? That guy killed Comfortably Numb for me. I think his solo songs generally sound better here than they do on the studio versions though. The smaller locale is supposed to make it more intimate, but he still has that huge backing band...

Conclusion: Is There Anybody Out There? If there's still a major difference in opinion here, I'm sure we can all join in and trash Delicate Sound of Thunder together.

(Oh, and FW, doesn't Pulse say "This is an analogue recording." in the booklet?)

Concur: Is there anybody out there? = awesome.

Don't even get me started on the Delicate Sounds of Thunder.

I've never seen Delicate Sound of thunder. What's so bad?

I haven't heard much from DSoT. But I heard LTF. BLEHHHH.

I stand corrected. It is an analogue recording--but digitally mastered in Q-Sound, which gives it a lot of fullness.

BTW--here's the thing about CN.

Mr. Wright apparently has had me thorougly brainwashed since my very first listening to Floyd. Now that I fully realise its significance, I cannot help but think it is a BEAUTIFUL instance of poetic justice.

Guess who sings the part of the Doctor? Yep...my favourite keyboardist in the world!

I STILL respond twice as well to that version than to any other.

He should be proud of winning someone over that completely...of making it seem that NO ONE else could possibly have sung that line!