Pink Floyd

The Final Cut

They finally cut us into little pieces

Review Score:

(6/10)
My first impression of this album was that it was missing something. I couldn't quite put my finger on it. Shortly after I got this CD, I purchased both the Division Bell and Momentary Lapse of Reason. Granted, these albums were years apart, and you might think the writer knows little of Pink Floyd, but that could not be further from the truth. I refrained from buying these works for years in sort of a passive protest for all the childish actions that the band has undergone in the 80's and 90's. Through several listenings of all three albums, a nagging feeling kept growing inside me. And then it dawned on me. None of these three albums are really Pink Floyd.

Pink Floyd is Waters, Gilmour, Wright and Mason. Each of these three albums is missing at least one of the necessary ingredients. Pink Floyd is not Waters with a bunch of studio musicians, and Pink Floyd is not the other three without Waters. This is yet again a case of the whole being much greater than the sum of its parts.

To me, Pink Floyd is Water's introspective, dark, and brooding lyrics tempered by a more positive mental outlook by Gilmour. It is Gilmour's tasteful guitar that intertwines very neatly between and around Wright's keyboard, all built around the foundation of Water's bass and Mason's drums.

Although each of these albums are "nice" in their own right, they could never achieve the status of being a Masterwork that "Dark Side of the Moon" and "Wish You Were Here" were able to garner. A band's sound usually evolves in the following manner; in the early days the music is usually something rather raw-or in Floyd's case relatively experimental ("Piper at the Gates of Dawn" and "Saucerful of Secrets"), it begins maturing as personal playing styles begin meshing with the other members ("Ummagumma" through "Obscured by Clouds"), until a certain mature style has been achieved ("Dark Side" through "The Wall").

Pink Floyd had the unique opportunity to evolve into something further had the members been able to set aside their differences for another decade or two. I would have loved to hear what these albums "could have been" with the complete, unrestrained, and heartfelt input of each of the four. Unfortunately, what happens to many bands happened with them. The Beatles were never as good individually as they were as the Fab Four, the same with Chicago and Peter Cetera, the same as Yes minus Squire, Anderson, Howe, or Wakeman. The list seems endless.

Why can't the promoters leave well enough alone? Can't they see that every time one creative member of a group is lured out of a band, that neither the lured nor those that are left succeed nearly as well as they had before the breakup?

More Reviews: