"Pink Floyd shows are more relient upon the lights and effects rather than the talnet of the musicians. The songs are totally over produced (especially the wall) and i wouldn't be surprised if the band could just go on stage and put on a few sound effects tapes and walk off.

On albums they don't sound like they're playing that much and even Riger's voice sounds like it's been put through something, especially Anaimals and Shine On. Pink Floyd are totally over produced."

So are Pink Floyd just over produced and more reilient of the effects and production rather than their own musical skills? Discuss. And no, this isn't my opinion, but the opinion of someone i know.

Typical. People in some irrational way love or hate a group ( in this case Pink Floyd ) and then try to come up with some "rational arguments" to prove their case. If he doesn't like overproduced records let him listen to DARKTHRONE'S " A BLAZE IN THE NORTHERN SKY"

I think what he's merely saying is that the band sound totally over produced and not that they're crap.

Echoes was a brilliant song right. but do you think it would be brilliant if the song was done using a piano, a guitar, a bass, drums and a singer? No it would probably be crap. The song relied VERY heavily on effects and it's this that he claimed ruined the band while the Jimi hendrix experience could make totally unique music without using any production tools or little effects. They could also manage a great live show wthout spending loads. Keep in mind the wall cost 6 million or so to make and the shows were also expecnsive, this being while Roger sings about socialism.

So tell me how that's hating them in an irrational way.

And again, these aren't my personal opinions, althouygh to a degree i have to agree.

Id say the 2 post waters studio albums have definatly been over produced. Im not a big fan of either album because of this much preffering the live versions of the new material espeically those on pulse. As for the ealier stuff id not call them overproduced but they certainly have a unique sound to them. I spose its because the level of most of the instruments is pretty even compaired to most bands studio work where 1 or 2 instruments/vocals will normally be dominate in the sound at any one time.

I feel that alhough a lot of their stuff is over produced (The Wall being by far the worst offender) i think it helps the albums. Every song begins and ends with a bit of studio production normally, which is fine. As long as the main body of the song can be repeated on stage then it doen't matter. As for the concerts? hmm

Although all the props used are relevent to the mood of the concerts i hardly see why a flying pig is needed on TDB tour. The Animals tour maybe but anything after that and it was just showing off.

Actually looking at the pulse video most of it was just showing off. CN comes to mind here. Sure it looks good, but that huge glitter ball was like the star of the show. And The Wall concerts had a lot of timing put in to them which basically meant there could be no improvising, so the audience were confined to nothing more than the CD with it sounding slightly more raw. Ok, and a VERY impressive stage show to.

I can't follow you on Echoes. What's overproduced on that song. Look at it being performed at Pompeii. That's just a band like there are other bands. ??? Second: The show-element has nothing to do with production.

Are we meaning musical production or arrangement of the songs? Echoes is a simple song to be honest. It is just like a load of simple songs joined together. Patterns.

Yeah, pink floyd didn't ever need anything besides the music to be any damn good

My least favourite PF albums (and there aren't many) tend to be the ones I'd describe as over-produced. I lay the blame squarely on Bob Ezrin. Whenever he's involved with an artist, the album turns into an Ez-travaganza. I like producers who understand the concept of subtlety.

Bob Ezrin is about as subtle as a flying melon.

I do understand the whole "Pink Floyd's overproduced" topic. If you think about it nobody else goes to the lengths PF does for their music, tho my take on the issue is for what they tried to do in the music, most bands don't do. Echoes for example, how many bands have that much extra music/sounds/whatever term you want to use in their songs? Not that many, tho PF isn't like most other bands.
Take Comfortably Numb...the use of ambient tracks and noises, the symphony going in the background, the soung sounds so majestic and peaceful with all the extras in there alongside the guitar, bass, drums, and vocals. So once again, I guess the "over produced" sound is just a matter of opinion.

The reason i chose echoes is because so much of that song relies on the keyboard to make noises a band couldn't possibally make without a top of the range keyboard and equitment. It may have a simple basis but it does sort of have a load of unnecessary sounds and probably cost more to make than your average album.

On CN i feel the the production was spot on, just like A Day In The Life cause the orchastra added so much to it, it would be insane to do the song without it.

Welcome To The Machine could definitly be looked at as an over produced song (note: i did NOT say it IS) because again, it's a song that could never be performed live as it is wihtout barriages of sound effects from top of the range equitment and tapes e.t.c And lets be hinest, on this song the sound effects do slightly take over at times.

Over-produced means 'too much', really, doesn't it. I think Pink Floyd were, more often than not, models of restraint when it came to instrumentation, arrangement and overall production.

The Dark Side Of The Moon is the perfect example. It's economical; everything has its place, like Animals and The Piper At The Gates Of Dawn. They are perfectly produced rock albums.

I mean, it can't be that often that one listens to a Pink Floyd song and thinks, "That guitar sounds TERRIBLE." For a start, the music was always competently performed. It was well played.

It's easy to think of Pink Floyd as technology freaks. I'm not sure why. It's a 'view' that seems to have been cultivated by their critics. They, and others who haven't done their homework.

Dark Side Of The Moon and Wish You Were Here aren't so far removed from Meddle and Obscured By Clouds. They're just more focused (sic?) musically. The vocal sound, organ and stinging guitar solos are all present and correct (see 'Echoes', 'Free Four' and others), but the music is being communicated far more succinctly...

I seem to be arguing about something else entirely here.

I've got an irregular head.

I love the sound-scapes throughout their careers.

Like David Gilmour says in Pink Floyd in Pompeii, they may rely on technology quite a bit, "it's all extentions of what's coming out of our our heads... you've gotta have it inside your head to be able to get it out anyway".

Sure, they do rely on all sorts of effects and whatnot. If anything, it makes their stuff even more creative and original (if used well).