Jul 11, Syd Barrett, the troubled Pink Floyd co-founder who spent his last years in reclusive The surviving members of Pink Floyd — David Gilmour, Nick Mason, Roger musicians including David Bowie — who covered the Barrett track “See Emily Play. “His impact on my thinking was enormous,” Bowie write. I don't think there's any coincidence that virtually every Pink Floyd album has . I' m glad to see that there's somebody else besides me who feels that Floyd is. Brain Damage" is the ninth track from English rock band Pink Floyd's album The Dark You re-arrange me 'till I'm sane". The line "I'll see you on the dark side of the moon", which became a famous metaphor of human think of anything to say", then Peter Watts' laugh and another sample "I think it's nice (ha ha ha)".
If Pink Floyd had not been such a phenomenon over the past quarter of a century, I suspect that George might have put them down as a very polished group that produces excellent music, but lack a little in spontaneity. He might even have boosted their score a few points for being 'generally underestimated'. But the problem is that Pink Floyd were not underestimated.
They were huge, which makes them an easy target for picking flaws. What is it that I like about Pink Floyd? In the final analysis, it is their music and nothing else. So maybe they are overplanned, overproduced, and overstaged. Perhaps they tend to be repetitive and don't always have strong melodies. They may be commercially driven.
Perhaps Roger Waters' lyrics tend to misanthropy. Despite their faults, which are legion, their music is, quite simply, extraordinarily listenable.
Their lyrics are thought-provoking and their sound carries you into another world. You let Dark Side of the Moon or Wish You Were Here wash over you as you ponder the lyrics, and it is always a surprise how quickly the experience ends. Even if the 'Pink Floyd sound' becomes predictable as it does in the post Roger Waters albumsit is a curiously satisfying sound.
The 'organ' sound in songs like 'Cirrus Minor' and 'Absolutely Curtains' is simple but wonderfully moving. The guitar work in pieces like 'Fat Old Sun' and 'The Turning Away' soars without building up to a cheap climax - they manage to wring every ounce of emotion out of every note.
The bells, insects, cornflakes, and helicopters are all part of the sound and don't annoy me like they do some people. In the end, their music may be totally planned and calculated, but it is amazingly effective in its appeal to the listener. Pink Floyd also has the indispensible virtue of bearing repeated listening. This is why I continue to buy Pink Floyd albums.
True, David Gilmour hasn't come up with anything new recently and some of the old magic is being lost. I admit that I probably buy them 'for old time's sake'. Despite this, they still make good music; I have yet to find a Pink Floyd album so abysmal that I would swear off buying one again. If being 'addicted' to Pink Floyd has a downside I would suggest that it is the same downside as being addicted to anything: There are better groups than Pink Floyd in the world and there are probably better ways to spend your precious time than to listen to Dark Side of the Moon times.
But that is the price of going back to any cherished experience, whether it be rereading a book, rewatching a movie, revisiting a scenic spot, or coming back to the same web site again and again.
Brain Damage (song)
The richness comes from the repitition of the experience. And Pink Floyd is a great band. But if they 'd stopped after The Wall, they would've been even greater.
It was a great Frenchman who once said: The same thing happened with Deep Purple even if their last 2 albums are not as bad as some people say. I saw them in 99 live in Bucharest and I must say I was very disappointed by Gillan's voiceas I was disappointed by Robert Plant's voice 2 years ago. But back to Pink Floyd. First, I think almost half of their fans are not sincere fans but snobs, because you know it's always been trendy or chic to pretend that you like Pink Floyd.
Somebody said they were the symbol of anti-commercialism. Maybe they tried to, but that's what's made them more commercial. A proof of that is that DSOTM spent like 10 years in Billboard Top it's a record and those fake occasional fans were amongst the ones who made that possible. But I think that the "psychedelic band" label didn't make them any good even though it helped them to get more money. About the "mathematical music" issue. I saw a short passage from a Bob Dylan early interview and he was saying: Maybe it has nothing to do with David Gilmour playing his solos with a mathematical precision but I liked it.
I can't judge their instrumental virtuosity because I'm not a musician or something, but I don't think that the value of a song is given by it's complexity or the guitarist's speed. Anyway, thanx for listening, pardon my English and forgive the errors from the 2 quotes but they were from my memory.
Not because they were the symbol of Seventies instead of any ex-Beatle. To me their music seems to be boring. Well, I wanted to say that some tunes are wonderful and I don't even know how they managed to write them but these mini-gems are hidden under thick layer of electric guitars and strange noises I mean such songs like 'Time', 'Shine on your crazy diamond', 'Money' and etc. You just listen whole 6-minute song for these gems that last for seconds!
And some songs don't have these gems at all! I must admit that maybe I'm missing point here because I don't have all their albums but I've got two compilations and four albums Wish you were here, A momentary lapse of reason, Atom Heart Mother and The wall.
I can't say I hate these albums but I really can't find any drive there.
20 Facts You Probably Didn’t Know About Pink Floyd
Ther's too much filler for me. I won't buy any other album of Floyd because it's a waste of money. Once I even bought their film was I drunk? In my opinion they deserve 3 stars and ONLY because they influenced great number of people. I am a rabid fan of PF - in the sense that I rank any of their average songs, like, say, 'green is the color', or I could name 30 or 40 others, as far more important than all the songs I've heard from those 3 bands I mentioned.
I'm not on crack at the moment! The reason probably is that I just haven't heard much by those bands. I got one best hits of bob dylan collection that i think is unlistenable, but it's probably a lousy collection cause I have 'hurricane' mp3 and I think it's very good. I only have white album by beatles and I heard an assortment of other songs like michelle, eleanor rigby, yesterday, and a bunch of others, mostly love songs.
White album leaves me unimpressed, with one exception of 'my guitar gently weeps' or whatever it's called, which is a quite good song, and reminds me of more songs by PF alot. I've heard even less of Rolling Stones - one nice song 'love is strong' and that's all I can name at the moment, but chances are I heard at least others.
So, anyway, while I do agree with all the criticism of PF you give, not to mention the criticism that you don't give but I could easily add, I still rank them as the best band ever, with closest competition follow- ing a few light years behind in a tight formation.
To put this into a more scientific notation, I'd give PF a 5 or 4. Anyway, here's a nice little theory why you may not give PF all they deserve kindly speaking: After all, PF is very atmospheric, ambient, with all the surreal sounds and special effects. I haven't found any description of your sound system on your site, and I think it's of utmost importance when reviewing music.
I mean, beatles and dylan can sound pretty nice but PF takes you into another world all- together! On the other hand, I don't want to sound too sure - maybe you do have a fairly good system and I simply overrate PF, due to general lack of music-listening experience. But I did not stop respecting PF even after the short period of obsession! That sets it apart. It's just that beside the flaws, they have grandiose and majesty nobody else could approach.
Okay, I don't, but I'm less and less enamored of these guys than I used to be. I will admit that, for better or for worse, I'm now turned off by the fawning mobs of uneducated fans who slobber all over Floyd as "the greatest band ever" but haven't even heard of Syd Barrett, much anything by art-rockers who I think were much better Roxy Music, Eno, Bowie, etc.
No, the reason I don't like them is because the sound effects don't do it for me the way they did when I was younger. The sound effects are only there to distract you from that. I like Barrett a lot, and his era ranks highly with me, but chalk me up as another music-lover and musician who is put off by Gilmour's "dentistry" what a perfect coinage.
Sometimes he gets it really right - "Comfortably Numb" would be one such time, and "Dogs" would perhaps be the best moment he's ever had - but by and large I find him grating. His voice irks me too - the epitome of pleasant professionalism, and the unfortunate archetype for a thousand heavyish lead singers to come.
Frankly I prefer Waters' tuneless but distinctive bleating to Gilmour. He DOES write good melodies, however, which often esp. I'm sure I sound really tough on the Floyd, but I'm uncharitable only because they're so obnoxiously overrated.
All the enthusiasm of my youth for these guys has faded away. That's such an infuriatingly superficial and inaccurate comparison! Radiohead will never be as influential as these guys, by simple fact of having come later, but I think that if they maintain their quality control they'll end up being BETTER by a significant margin.
I had to work in a shop where the owner played nothing but the pretentious gits. One day I will eat his liver, just kidding his spleen would be better. You are completely wrong to say that Pink Floyd is sold out. Bands like the Beatles whick many people think is the supposed "best band ever" is bullshit to me. So any way all I am saying is Fuck You! Pink Floyd is the shit and everybody who disagrees has no idea what Floyd is really about. And not a good Trip!
All these bands are given way more credit than they deserve in my opinion. In the words of Alice Cooper: They were the ultimate psychadelic band". And I fully agree. That title would maybe have to go to the Doors, but Floyd were still great. Roger Waters was of course a Greek god on the four-string, and a top-notch songwriter as well.
Nick Mason was an average drummer who was talented, but incomparable to the greats Paice, Bonham, Baker, Ward, etc. And of course, there's Mr. I sincerely believe Dave to be the 2nd greatest guitarist of all time second only to Santanaregardless of what anyone says.
I just don't see how you can call his playing "soulless and generic", but to each his own I guess. When I listen to Gilmour's playing, I'm always stunned.
For he was the first guitarist that proved that you don't have to play miles a minute to be impressive are you listening Van Halen, Blackmore, Iommi? He just flows from one heart-felt note into another, letting the emotion do the talking, instead of freaking out and playing lightning-quick licks, which countless guitarists have done over the years. Gilmour was the first guitarist who 'proved that you don't have to play miles a minute to be impressive'? Practically none of the fabulous guitarists in the Sixties played at miles a minute - bar Hendrix, perhaps, but that wasn't Jimi's main specialty anyway.
It's nearly the same as to say that 'the Clash were the first band that proved you don't have to write long-winded songs to sound serious'. And while Gilmour's solos usually don't run for too long, I reiterate that he completely lacks improvisation, which is so vital for a truly impressive guitarist.
His live solos just sound like they're copied and pasted from the studio records, with a couple minor variations. I certainly do not dislike all of his solos or anything the soloing on stuff like 'Time' or 'Dogs' is really greatbut this inability to stick to anything outside a predefined pattern automatically excludes him from garnering my utmost respect. Is sybilr a real person? How did someone that disturbed manage to operate a computer for long enough to get the email to you?
Then I rallied somewhat, and contemplated putting forth the reasoned, eloquent defence that the sensible level-headed critique cried out for.
Then I read that message again, and decided nothing is worth siding with someone like that over. I'm selling all my Pink Floyd albums and moving to Greenland.
What do you think of german bands like Can or Faust? Have you heard them? I hear them being referred to as being humorless alot but Faust easily had more of a sense of humor than Floyd as well as more fun. Yeah,fun experimental music and oh so mad! Can were also stronger and maybe more confident in their playing,it sounds like it to me. Floyd had some humorous stuff in the early years but after Barret left well Floyd introduced me to experimental music and I have them to thank for opening my mind to other sounds.
I like experimental,avant-whatever, alot more than punk or standard MOR rock. They weren't the only ones though,just an example.
Or maybe fans' comments were way too offensive to post them I don't know either why the comment by 'sybilr' was posted.
Really, this might turn somebody off Pink Floyd completely, as it did with David Lyons As far as I understood from your guidelines, George, you don't often post the messages like this one I don't either like to agree with the reviewer and the majority of commentators but this time I don't have another choice Or they are too complicated for me.
But that doesn't mean THEY are bad. That might be because I'm nothing but a dumb suburbian. And I don't want to show myself wizer by loving Pink Floyd This would be a hypocrisy The dislike for Pink Floyd, it seems to me, might lay on the basis of the fact that some people compete them with the Beatles. Those are just different things.
But Kathleen Keplar has already said it.
There is no use in the war Another reason for the dislike for Pink Floyd, it seems to me, lays on the basis that there are many Pinkfans who say that "if you don't think that Pink Floyd are great, you're just dumb and you can't understand the real music". Yes, it is repugnant to hear from somebody that you're dumb just because you have the other opinion. Yes, Pink Floyd is "en vogue", yes, some people listen to them just to show themselves more wize than they actually are. Not all Pink Floyd fans are so.
Some of them really fell in love with this music. Yes, they are pretentious. I can't say that it is so bad. Especially if so many people do like it Alot of time, exactly, will show. It could take a hundred years. I don't want to be rushed.
I can't even say I hate them.
- Navigation menu
They just don't give me shivers. In other words, I could have said 2 years ago that I hated the Beatles 'cuz they did give me shivers. But it's only my attitude. Have you looked at some of your favorite bands lately? I personally believe that the title of most overrated belongs to The Rolling Stones. Just a quick thought When I say "overrated", I don't mean overrated by the likes of Spin or Rolling Stone magazines; I mean overrated by people like you and me and other commentators and people who I speak with and write to.
Brain Damage Lyrics - The Lunatic - Pink Floyd - Dark Side of the Moon Lyrics
If you're interested to know, every young dumb jerk in Russia has heard about how great Dark Side Of The Moon is, but very few people have actually heard about the Rolling Stones. I do not suppose there is a big difference in the rest of the world. You had some good points, though. I think Pink Floyd deserves their place amongst the Great Ones because of their willingness to experiment in the early years and their classic later albums. They tried everything, and although not everything worked they deserve credit for doing it.
A laugh at people who moan about their lack of instrumental abilities. The only thing that matters is what the completed work sounds like, not how Roger Waters plays his bass which he does quite well. Their music can be described as worthless or brilliant, but only in their later years would I find it appropriate to use the term boring. Nobody comes close to making anything like the Floyd. They have their own style and nobody else comes close to them. Who cares if Floyd wern't fucking virtuosos?
Most groups with virtuoso musicians like Yes, cared only about showing off rather then creating a feel. Not to mention how cheesy some of these other prog bands sounded- all totally overridden with cheesy keyboard effects.
People don't listen to Pink Floyd because they want to hear virtuoso playing, but because their music creats atmosphere, unlike most other groups were capable of doing.
Pink Floyd is one group that didn't sound like every other band out there. If anything, Floyd was the least pretentious of all the Progressive Rock groups of that time. Floyd should really be in a category by themselves. To even mention them is the same paragraph as ELP or Yes just isn't right. You refer to most of Floyds albums as pretentious, then you go and give albums like Tarkus and Brain Salad Surgery 8's and 10's.
Give me a fucking break! Don't get me wrong, I love ELP and they are also one of my favorite prog rock bands, but they were pretentious as all hell. Brain Salad Surgery is one of the most pretentious, chessy and overrated albums of the Progressive Rock movement its also ELP's worst early period album in my opinionyet you give that and 8, whereas WYWH gets a 7?
To call him a "so-so" song writer baffles me. You also consider Dave's guitar playing to be "Generic", yet you praise the guitarwork of Steve Howe and Steve Hackett. That makes a lot of sense.
Can you name any prog rock guitarists that didn't sound somewhat generic? It's Progressive rock for fucks sake, its not the blues! And why should it really matter if the groups music is structured or not.
Does every group have to make "structured" music in order for it to meet your standards? Perhaps some of Floyds music from their later albums was overplayed, but is that really the groups fault? Roger wasn't looking to make albums that would sell in mass quantitites, but they just sold well because its good music.
I mean,jesus, Like the Beatles arn't overrated and overplayed to some extent? Led Zeppelin was probably the most unoriginal group from the 70's, yet they got way more attention then they deserved. In my opinion, any person with real musical taste would simply dismiss Zeppelins music as "cock rock", just like Van Halen was in the 80's.
Pink Floyd made intelligent, cerebral, unpretentious in their cult years music, not "cock-rock". Floyd were innovators and they deserve more credit then any of the other prog bands like Yes now THEY are overrated. In my opinion, Floyd is one of the most underrated groups of the 70's. So many people look at this music as being nothing but aimless "stoner" music, but that is quite the contrary. Pink Floyd is thinking mans music and is a fuck of a lot deeper then anything Zeppelin, Yes or any of those other self-indulgent bands were making.
Pink Floyd, along with CAN were without a doubt the most grounbreaking bands of the 70's! I wouldn't expect a person who reviews ABBA albums with '10' ratings to necessarilly agree with me.
What's all that hyperbolization about? Also, it's very interesting to find a person who considers prog rock guitar playing 'generic' and blues rock guitar playing 'non-generic'. And anybody who calls Steve Hackett's playing "generic" has to reconsider the meaning of that term. There's an ABBA argument in here! I should have expected that final note. I think you're on the ball with most of your reviews, but I would like to say a bit about your criticisms on Pink Floyd.
It seems that you and those who agree with you believe Pink Floyd is overrated. That may be the case but it is unfortunate. Pink Floyd are misunderstood. Their legions of fans, unlike those of the Grateful Dead and Phish, cannot be stereo-typed into the druggie vagabond category, but they do share a certain view of aesthetics, a view which admittedly isn't the most sober.
The poets you probably wouldn't call them that, eh? Lots of their stuff must've been done in good humour. You use the term "atmospheric" like it's a bad thing, and chastise PF for their lack of good melodies. Melodies weren't their cup of tea.
Maybe it's just my take on what it means to be an artist, but I don't think there is any real need for a band like PF to cater to the masses anyway, especially if a few best-selling albums has made them financially secure. I use the term "masses" in a derogatory way but not as to suggest that PF is meant for the intelligent. God knows there are many thousands of stoner Floyd-heads whom I would classify as being anything but intelligent.
The soundtrack style of PF is what they perfected and it's what I like about them. It takes a certain type of person to appreciate this soundtrack style, a certain state of mind heha certain perfect time and mood. Again, this was done so as to "trip out" their fans, to make the PF experience as different as possible, as opposed to the act of listening to a melody. I hope you agree that PF ought not to be compared to the Beatles or the Stones who built a different kind of mythos around themselves, and especially not to the true "originators" and precursors of psychedelic rock whoever they may be because they didn't have the fame and popularity to create a mythos or legend.
Did PF and LedZep "rip-off" other musicians? No, they were "inspired" by them. I'm not a musician myself, but I think I have a pretty keen ear and I must say that not a single member of PF deserves a seat on the Mt. Olympus of musical heroes. As professional musicians they pale in comparison to the better of their contemporaries, especially when it came to live performances.
Again, I wouldn't hold this against PF, because their live performances are misunderstood for the same reasons I mentioned above.
The crazy visual effects that PF's shows were known for were amazing and central to the whole event. For the sober individual these shows may have seemed chaotic and irrational, but they were works of art, and there were many popular studio tunes whose live renditions were quite memorable and well-crafted on their own. For the record, everything after and including The Final Cut, in my opinion, sucks.
The atmospheric style at least the good soundtrack stuff of Pink Floyd died with the dismissal of Rick Wright from the band during The Wall. In conclusion, let me comment on your decision to rank PF a "4". I think you made a good choice, considering theres only five others ranked higher. I find it somewhat suspect that you do so because PF are "groovy". If I'm understanding your choice of "groovy" correctly, you are attributing the rank of "4" to very thing I've been preaching about this whole time- their mastery of the soundtrack, and I've been arguing that PF are the best, or at least the most important, example of such a style.
Of course, judging them merely by the standard I laid out above, wouldn't Pink Floyd be worthy of a "5"? However you are wrong on every point. They succeed every time and at the same time overwhelming the audience to the point that the listener is exploding with emotions that they can't control. Do you get my message load and clear. They are not like other bands. Let me give you my personal experience I grew up in the 70s.
I remember getting high and listening "hey man taking a toke from a joint That song tugged on every emotion inside of me. Every time I hear that song,it brings tears into my eyes thats how good it is. I look back on the earlier albums and realized a depth that I never saw before.♫ Pink Floyd - Echoes [Lyrics]
Gilmour is brilliant too. I know that many don't like to do this and it seems like a waste of time, but Pink Floyd does need to be experienced. Originally I thought it was crap and would have entirely agreed on your reviews; however in time as I read lyric sheets and analyzed the works, things changed.
I began to understand the music and have a thirst for more. The songs evoke so much emotion after you take the time to know them by heart.
Pink Floyd - Wikiquote
What I do agree with you however is how disappointing they can be when it comes to improvisation. Many great musical interludes could be easily expanded upon, yet they are left unchanged. I know that you dont have the time to sit and analyse every album by every band, but the floyd can not be judged by critics.
It just wont tell the whole story. Pink Floyd is about the greatest band on this here planet. Do you even know who you are talking about. Richard Wright has been haled as one of the greatest living pianists. Of course there is David Gilmour. Yes, his work is meticulous and perfect, but it is perfect. Dave is one the best axe-men around. His tone is unmatched. Nobody can touch this guy in asolo. David Gilmour took Pink Floyds stage show to another level.
Copper lasers and huge video screens, not mention millions of blazing colours all around. Have you ever noticed the sound on a Floyd album? It sounds better than most music out today. Dark Side of the Moon is nearly thrity years old and I would match it up against any album that just came out.
The recording is perfect. Once again, thanks to Gilmour. How could you not love this band? Every song on every album is great. Dark Side of the Moon and The Wall are two of rocks greatest albums. As for the other albums, they don't get the credit they deserve. What about using a hound dog to sing harmony on 'Seamus'?
This is Floyd at there best. My friend you are a fool. Which makes me feel glad. I've just read your introduction about Pink Floyd. They are my favourite band after Beatles but I agree with you on most part of you write about them. But I'd like to spend two words in David Gilmour's favour: Gilmour is the man who taught us all the physical and technological experimentation of the sound My favourite guitar-player is EC just like youand he's often as slow as Gilmour, but you know far better than me that he's slow just because he prefers to give prominence to the emotions.
Why should a musician play instrumental passages, without words, if he doesn't give preminence to the emotions? David isn't a great composer, but he's an eminent player. Waters you know what does it mean!!! Not that anybody's interested Hello Vedran, I think maybe my attitude towards Floyd would become a little more clear to you if you'd read my "credentials" - some of the stuff displayed in the introductory pages the proper introduction and the guidelines to comment postingas well as some of the essays, essentially essay 3 where I have tried to define the differences between objective and subjective approaches.
I do consider myself a neutral reviewer when it comes to Floyd, or, in fact, most of the bands I review here, apart from some of the five-star rated ones, maybe. I do not of course hate Pink Floyd - people who do not sense the irony in that opening line are like people who'd accuse Mick Jagger of Satanism or dub John Lennon as Antichrist.
You said something about 'balance' in one of your letters, and this is exactly what I'm trying to do. I seriously feel that for many people, Floyd have overshadowed a whole world of different and equally good, or even better music, and that is why the tone on my Floyd page is often bitter whereas, say, on the Kinks' page it is rarely bitter. Same goes for Led Zeppelin. On the other hand, I say a lot of good things about Floyd as well, don't I?
And I have my arguments. Having opinions is one thing - being able to defend them is another, and I'm always ready to defend my opinions because otherwise - as far as I see it - opinions aren't worth anything, at least not if you're willing to offer them to public view. I understand you when you say you adore Floyd for the reason that they never wrote love songs or never "preached violence" although far too many bands have been accused of "preaching violence" when in reality they were just ironising on the subjectbut it's hard to understand why writing a love song or an aggressive song is a crime against good taste in music.
On the other hand, everything exists in comparison. I don't think that the lyrics of Roger Waters are particularly bad, but compared to his colleague lyricists like Lou Reed, Ian Anderson, Keith Reid, and, of course, Dylan, they are way too straightforward - often sounding like something you'd read in an old philosophy manual.
Certainly, many people find it easy to identify with these lyrics because they're easy to understand - but to me, this reeks of an intentionally commercial approach. Gabriel carries through a lyrical message often similar to Roger's messages, but dressed up in a more complex, original and exciting way, allowing for different interpretations and connotations.
Not so with Roger, who doesn't leave much choice for his listeners. Because, unfortunately, there are way too many listeners among Pink Floyd fans who don't want to think about their own interpretations, ready to literally accept anything that's shoved down their throats. And, by the way, I also agree with the lyrics of Roger. And I share his political views - I can easily put my signature under just about anything he wrote on The Final Cut.
But you see, I also agree with lots of stuff people write in newspapers and say on talk shows. The God is not in the contents, the God is in the way you put it. And Roger doesn't put it the way that a serious, respectable XXth century artist should. He grew better in later years - Amused To Death, for instance, shows a certain maturity - but of course, it was already too late.
Likewise, I don't like the general "calculated" style of Gilmour not because it IS calculated - but because it is intentionally calculated, drawing on "emotional guitar cliches", never really changing with the years, always predictable and never fresh. As for the ratings themselves - I have discussed this problem many times, so I'll be quick about that one. On one hand, the ratings are relative - when I say "eight", it could mean "nine on a particularly good day, seven on a particularly bad day" or so.
I think i can see why you feel the way you do about Pink Floyd particularly when you have an appreciation for so much other music which lives in the shadow of them Selling england by the pound seems your biggest grievance. The song seemed to be partially inspired by their former band member Syd Barrett who had endured a mental breakdown. The piece represents Waters' association with acoustic-tinged ballads, and along with " If " and " Grantchester Meadows ", "Brain Damage" uses a simple melody and delivery.
David Gilmour actively encouraged Waters to sing the song, even though at this time he wasn't particularly confident about his vocal abilities. It is in the key of D major and features a recurring lyrical pattern and chorus. Themes[ edit ] Roger Waters has stated that the insanity-themed lyrics are based on former Floyd frontman Syd Barrett 's mental instability, with the line "I'll see you on the dark side of the moon" indicating that he felt related to him in terms of mental idiosyncrasies.
The line "And if the band you're in starts playing different tunes The song has a rather famous opening line, "The lunatic is on the grass The lyrics' tongue-in-cheek nature is further emphasised by Waters' assertion in the documentary Classic Albums: Waters said that the particular patch of grass he had in mind when writing the song was to the rear of King's College, Cambridge. The German literary scholar and media theorist Friedrich Kittler attaches great relevance to the song, referring to its lyrics as well as to its technological arrangement.