Gilmour's First Solo Album

I haven't actually seen this discussed too much here.

The guy in the record store who sold it to me four or five years ago said it was the best rock album he'd ever heard. That's probably a little over the top, but I still REALLY like the music on it.

The whole feeling of the album, from personal photos inside the sleeve, and the sound of the songs, is laid back and...well...just very honest.

The first tune...Mihalis...has Dave plugging away at his guitar for a good four or five minutes, and is one of the most relaxing and pleasant songs I've heard.

Anyone else care to offer their opinions on this terribly under-rated / under-discussed work from the Floyd Stable.

Dave's first album is the best of the two. There's nothing really floydish about, its a bare guitar driven album...but it works. Mihalis is soothing and shows Dave just mucing around, while my favourite, There's no way out of here, is a beautiful song. Overall it's worth the search and the money to own it. One interesting note, listen to the guitar beginning on Raise my Rent - shades of What do you want from me there. Have a listen.

_________________
...there's no dark side of the moon really,...matter of fact its all dark....

SHADES you think...its pretty much the same.

....well it's not EXACTLY the same...it dirfts of into something else :smile:
Driven, do you know which song form the germs of CN. Was it ever recorded?

Yeah I realise it drifts off, but the first bit is very similar.

No Comfortably Numb was never recorded 'cause he ran out of time. Triple J did a 'J File' on the Floyd a few years back and they played Gilmour's original sample of CN (which didn't have words, just him singing the tune with an accoustic). It wasn't quite the song we've all come to know and love!

I have an MP3 of a good chunk of that song, from an interview with Nicky Horne that David did some time ago. I think it's an interesting listen, if only to hear what such a classic tune emerged from.

Cheers,

GeeDub#1

You hit the nail on the head, Driven. Couldn't have said it better myself. While it's not "the best album ever" and is not very Floydian, this album would definitely be in my top ten favourites. This album gets a lot of playing time in my stereo. I have it on CD and vinyl (which has two additional photos, which were removed from the CD booklet to fit the liner notes). I totally love this album, both musically and visually. I agree that the album artwork gives it a personal feel that is just right for the album. About Face isn't even close to this one.

It's an alright album, although top ten albums is way over the top. There's nothing too special really, just a collection of some solid guitar-driven songs.

I said MY TOP TEN ALBUMS. You're entitled to your own opinion, don't criticise mine.

APerfectLusk, great call mate. I'd say this is in my top ten as well. Maybe it would make my top five depending on how I was feeling at the time.

Unlike Momentary Lapse and Division Bell, I am TOTALLY glad that Roger Waters had nothing to do with this album. I don't think I would change anything about it.

I have no idea what Gilmour was thinking when he made About Face, but he didn't come close to his first effort.

Pedge wrote:
"Dave's first album is the best of the two. There's nothing really floydish about, its a bare guitar driven album...but it works."

Hmmm... Not very Floydish, eh? So tell me, what makes a piece of music "floydish?" The compositions, the playing, the lyrical themes? Would you call an album such as Pipers at the Gates of Dawn "floydish?" How about The Division Bell? If they are BOTH Floydish, how do you reconcile the fact that the instrumentation on those albums was completely different (given the fact that they were recorded more than two decades apart)? And the personnel was pretty different as well, with only a few of the musicians playing on both albums and many appearing on the second who were not on the first - and vice versa.
Just trying to learn something here....

i think you could call those albums floydish cause pink floyd did them. it can't be floydish if its david gilmour. but i don't really care i just want to stick it to you.

" i think you could call those albums floydish cause pink floyd did them. it can't be floydish if its david gilmour. but i don't really care i just want to stick it to you."

Well, you'll have to try harder if you want to "stick it to me," since your logic is quite flawed, ole' chap. If Pink Floyd records an album, then the album is, by definition, a "Floyd" album. On the other hand, anything that resembles the Pink Floyd (but isn't the genuine article -like maybe a solo album by one of the Floyd memebers) has the potential to be "floyd-ish" if and when the resemblances to the original Pink Floyd exist. Just like a tangerine wil always taste like a tangerine, although and orange may be said to taste "tangerine-ish" on quite a few occasions. Get it? I hope so.

do you really hope i get it. thats the problem with things. i hate when people say this is like this or this is like that. i think any band that is floydish to you should be its own thing. it shouldn't resemble something else. i hope that is not what the band wants. and whether my logic is flawed or not i still stuck it to you whether you agree or not.

Okay guys here's the answer. Floydish to me is a piece of music that has many textures and layers and an atmosphere. Echoes is the best "floyd" song because of this, and Dave's first album is a rock album as i mention. Guitar compositions (not surprisenly) that are bare and rough. Even something as rocky as the wall or animals or TFC have textures and atomsphere and Piper also has this. So there's you answer Pinkanderson, and thanx for the attempted help thorin, cheers mates.