Talk:Pink Floyd/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Pink Floyd played a lot of music genres

Dear all,

At this moment, only 2 genres are mentioned in this article to describe Pink Floyd's music: Progressive rock and Psychedelic rock. BUT, Pink Floyd was more than that.

I propose to make a difference between their early period and their later period, like mentioned below:

Psychedelic rock, space rock, experimental rock, avant-garde (early period)

Progressive rock, blues rock, ambient rock, (soft) rock (later period)

Ummagumma and Atom Heart Mother can be categorised as avant-garde. Meddle and even The Division Bell can partially be described as ambient rock. [1]

Even 'hard rock' can be mentioned, because Pink Floyd made also hard rock songs like:

• Nile Song, Ibiza Bar, Beset By The Creatures Of The Deep
• One of these Days, Echoes (partially), When You're In
• Sheep
• In The Flesh, The Thin Ice, Young Lust, Run Like Hell
• Not Now John

Pink Floyd wrote also different blues songs like 'More Blues', 'Detroit blues', 'Pink Blues', 'Blues Scene', 'Carrera Slow Blues', 'Drift Away Blues', etc. Don't forget that Pink Floyd began as R&B band...

I think it's clear that Pink Floyd's music is very diversified. And that we need to expand the infobox with at least the following genres: experimental rock, avant-garde, blues rock, hard rock, rock. Christo jones (talk) 19:10, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

This has been brought up before, for instance here. I personally think that the infobox is not the place to list every, or even most, genres which may be applicable to an artist. Genres can (and should) be discussed at length within the article itself with the infobox left to hold just the main, overarching genre (or two in exceptional cases) which can cover the majority of an artist's oeuvre. Otherwise there may be a danger of the infobox becoming cluttered and unwieldy. There is a pertinent paragraph within the MOS here which explains: "The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose". There is much written on the subject of infoboxes within WP, and I do not have time to comprehensively read it all, however, I do believe less is more when it comes to genres in infoboxes.

On the other hand, when attempting to see what constitutes "the norm" among other artist articles, I have found that among the dozen or so from Wikipedia:Fa#Music_biographies that I checked, the average is around 3 or 4 genres per infobox. well, I feel that they're all wrong too! Let's see if we can achieve some consensus here, before making changes to the article which would probably be swiftly reverted anyway. Careful With That Axe, Eugene ^Hello... 09:34, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I believe you,but I think that all the most important genres that characterize the artist in the course of his career must be put in the infobox;in Pink Floyd case I believe that only two genres are insufficient to describe their music during their career:in particular it's important to say that they are one of the most important Space Rock band and that they are the most successful Experimental/Avant-Garde Rock group of all time!So I believe it's useful to deline the most important details,as you said above,and for this reason I introduced the genres for which they became famous (for example,by not saying that they weren't an avant-garde or experimental rock group,people believe that "The Dark Side Of The Moon" and "Atom Heart Mother" were simple Progressive Rock albums,but we know they weren't only this).Thanks for the Attention.

Copyedit June 2011

Hi all

During the copyedit a few things came to light that may need attention:

Meddle

• "...growth track again",^[10] - dead link
• "Meddle is sometimes considered to be a transitional album between the Barrett-influenced band and the modern Pink Floyd." - The ref given appears to be a user-edited page. Not only that but it seems that the text is WP:SYN, or possibly OR disguised as a synopsis of the page.

The Dark Side of the Moon

• "Throughout March 1973 it featured" - what did?

Wish you were here

• "...their former bandmate: Because I wanted to get as close as possible..." - who said this?
• "during which Thorgerson recalled" - Who is Thorgerson and what has he/she to do with everything?

The Wall

• "In Inside Out (2005)," - what is it? an album? a newspaper? a book? "In the XXX Inside Out (2005),"
• "In Comfortably Numb (2008)," - same as previous what the hell is it?
• "the author states" - and the author is?
• "Mason says that Waters called O'Rourke" - who is O'Rourke? what does he do? (not mentioned previously anywhere in the article)
• "It was also their first album cover since The Piper at the Gates of Dawn not designed by Hipgnosis." - earlier it says that Waters produced the artwork for Wish You Were Here, so that would have been the first non Hipgnosis artwork album cover.
• "which lost about $600,000." - this should be in pounds with a conversion into dollars. (UK article)

The Final Cut

• "between Waters and Gilmour, who felt that the album should contain all new material, rather than songs not considered good enough for The Wall" - needs clarifying they were arguing so cannot both have had the same opinion.

A spent force

• Section header to match the actual quote
• "After Waters declared Pink Floyd "a spent force"..." - really should be some explanation of this, a quote, some comment, some context, anything really. It is basically where Waters leaves and is not even slightly explained as to how this came about.

A Momentary Lapse of Reason

• "on a weekly wage of $11,000." - same as before, in £ not $ with a conversion (UK article).
• "In a change from previous Floyd albums" - what? do people really think that every studio has the same equipment? of course equipment changes. If this is really about the "first Floyd use of Digital recording" then say so!
• "It was fantastic because ... the lawyers couldn't call in the middle of recording unless they were calling in the middle of the night." - who said this? It needs an attribution.

General

• A strange proclivity to include peoples names, and some other items, without explaining who and what they are in relation to the band or to the goings on at the time the text is discussing.

Finished. A good read, if a little heavy at times, but some interesting info in there - especially regarding the inter-personal goings on during the splits. Unfortunately not much info about Waters and his split?

Good luck with the FA! I hope it succeeds as PF are one of the most influential bands of my humble guitar playing and my adult life. Chaosdruid (talk) 23:03, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Changing of genres in infobox

I think the changes the IP user made make sense. Space rock, art rock; all of it. In my opinion it makes perfect sense. I understand that they were supposed to bring it up here, but can't we make an exception? Bravo! Alfa! Papa! 19:59, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

It might make perfect sense but, genre's are not formed on personal opinions. If anyone can produce verifiable sources of these genre's being applied to the bands anthology, then bring them here and we will have something to talk about. Mlpearc powwow 20:55, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Well,I have put all the genres with the relative source but someone cancelled them. Now I want to know the reason for this, because I have respected the entire procedure,and so I believe that this "someone" is changing the genres according to his "personal opinion". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.51.113.208 (talk) 07:10, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Changed back. Don't know what others have to say about these genre changes. Scieberking (talk) 07:54, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks.I'm sorry for my excessive tone,but I wanted to explain that every change I made was refered to a verifiable source and so it seemed to be wrong having cancelled them.Thanks again for having accepted my changes and sorry again for my excessive tone.

No worries at all. I only thought this should be extensively discussed on talk page as it's a featured article, and too many genres in the infobox would just look ugly. Actually, keeping aside the Allmusic profile, there are numerous other authentic sources calling them "space rock" and "art rock". Let's see what others have to say.

• Syd Barrett and Pink Floyd: Dark Globe - Page 138
• Guitar World Presents Pink Floyd
• Guitar Gods: The 25 Players Who Made Rock History - Page 91

Scieberking (talk) 10:46, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

• "Space rock" is nearly the same as "Psychedelic rock" and "Progressive rock", and "Art rock" and "Avant-garde" are nearly the same as "Experimental rock" and "Psychedelic rock". Those are almost parents. Any reason why we should include them anyway?--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫_{Share–a–Power}^{[citation needed]} 11:33, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi Orange. Better ask the IP. Like I said the infobox looks cluttered in its present state. The leopard is looking cool, btw :) Regards, Scieberking (talk) 11:37, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

It seems appropriately encyclopedic to include it because as the article on Space rock makes clear, The Pink Floyd virtually invented and defined the genre. As to sources, don't musical tracks with titles like Astronomy Domine, Set the Controls ... and Cirrus Minor rather speak for themselves? Straw Cat (talk) 12:03, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry,bu I don't agree with Orange,because telling that Avant-garde and psychedelic Rock are almst parents it's absurd!Psychedelic Rock is a thing,and Avant-Garde is another!Sometimes there can be some connections between them,but substantially they are different:in fact not all the Psychedelic Rock bands were also Avant-garde bands(Pink Floyd is this case);besides Space Rock is not related in particular with Progressive Rock;Art Rock and Experimental Rock are parallel terms,but there some differences,because without these differences they were called with the same name!They share the same connections with Avant-Garde Music,but Experimental Rock is a generic term,in fact every rock genre (hard rock,for example)can be experimental,free in playing ecc.Art Rock instead is elevated in tone and emphasizes the use of phylosophical lyrics and is releted to Progressive Rock,but it's not Progressive at all(it's more experimental).All this explanations could be found in the same Wikipedia at the relative pages's genres,and also on Allmusic,in particular for the explanation of the difference between Art Rock and Progressive Rock and Experimental Rock.Regarding the infobox,I wanted to give a wide explanation of Pink Floyd genres to everyone(every genre related to his verifiable source),but someone doesn't want this(I don't understand why putting "important" informations is so fastidious)and so I decided to leave the page "alone" and to give the decision to the other readers.I hope that someone understand my reason,and I will always ready to answer to anyone is interested.Thanks for the attention. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.51.113.142 (talk) 19:53, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

2011 reunion?

I understand why the appearance of David Gilmour and Nick Mason onstage for one of the performances of The Wall during Roger Waters' tour is considered to be "effectively representing a full reunion of all living Pink Floyd members", but should this be classed as a reunion in the infobox? The only time the three actually "performed" together was during "Outside The Wall", and even then Nick Mason played nothing more than a tambourine. This is hardly a proper reunion in the vein of Live 8. So should this actually be classed as an official "reunion" of the band or should we just label it as an appearance, and thus remove it from the infobox? Burbridge92 (talk) 17:35, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

This can be considered as an official reunion since the official site of PF spents attention to the reunion. In fact, there was never an official end of Pink Floyd... There was never a pers communiqué that the band didn't exist anymore...Christo jones (talk) 17:44, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

If Pink Floyd's website drew attention to the reunion and labled it as such then yes, it most certainly is a reunion of the band, thanks for clearing that up. As for there never being an official end of Pink Floyd, a band does not need to officially announce if they are breaking up, that's only a pressing issue if it's an immediate thing, not if a band goes its separate ways and then just so happens to not get back together. They are officially over if only because Gilmour and Waters have both stated that they'll never do it again, and Nick Mason isn't planning on performing as Pink Floyd without them. Burbridge92 (talk) 16:07, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

While there has not yet been "an official end of Pink Floyd", Roger Waters legally agreed to leave the band in 1987. So really, Nick and David are Pink Floyd, but Roger is not, so the 2011 "reunion", could be considered Pink Floyd (Mason and Gilmour) appearing with Waters, but not really a Pink Floyd reunion, which would have to involve Waters becoming once again, a member of Pink Floyd, if just for one evening. Even the 2005 Live 8 performance was really just Pink Floyd appearing with Waters, not a reunion, IMHO. — GabeMc (talk) 03:14, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree with you in regards to the recent show in London, due to the fact that they didn't perform together properly. That's why I posted this topic. I don't, however, agree with you with regards to the 2005 show, as they all performed as members of Pink Floyd that day, it was a reunion, they all said so. Not once did they say that Roger Waters wasn't appearing as a member of Pink Floyd, in fact the opposite was stated. Burbridge92 (talk) 16:07, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, you changed my mind, I think you're right, 2005 was a reunion, Mason calls it a reunion in his book. — GabeMc (talk) 00:25, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Citation needed

There are three "citation needed" templates" in the article, does anyone have sources to them? 50.17.45.35 (talk) 03:05, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

• I added the needed cites and removed the tags. — GabeMc (talk) 21:35, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Band members section

I think this edit must stay because I took it from Metallica's article which is a featured one already. TGilmour (talk) 20:03, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a reason within itself. You should argue why it would benefit this article...

Semantics aside, I think that your version looks better than the current version. I'm restoring that version as it was reverted with equally poor reasoning. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 21:17, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Content wise, I object to including the year 2007: that was not an official PF reunion, and it is not consistent with the years active in the infobox on top of the page. 81.83.137.238 (talk) 21:27, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Agreed as well. The years active has definitely been a point of contention, and that should be discussed before being changed. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 21:44, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Under the heading "Gilmour replaces Barrett", a custom-made yellow Fender Stratocaster is mentioned as Gilmour's first Strat. The first Stratocaster Gilmour owned was the white one with a rosewood fingerboard which is seen on the back of Ummagumma. A standard late 60's model. This was stolen on 16th May 1970 as outlined in Phil Taylor's book: "The Black Strat". The references to a yellow Strat are wrong on several counts. 2.96.234.223 (talk) 22:57, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

I think the order of the band members in the infobox needs to change. Under Wikipedia's guidelines (see: Template:Infobox_musical_artist#past_members) it is suggested that members should be "listed in order of joining with no other notation than names". That would put David Gilmour at the bottom for a start, as he was the only one of the six official Pink Floyd members that was not a founding member. I would suggest that the ordering of the other five goes by either how long they were in the band overall or how long their original stint in the band was. This would mean Nick Mason comes first (as the only continuous member of the group), Roger Waters and Rick Wright come second and third (which way around depending on whether we go by length of original stint (Waters) or overall length of time in the band (Wright)), Syd Barrett comes fourth, and Bob Klose fifth. This would make logical sense as it would be consistent with other pages on Wikipedia (hence the need for the guidelines) and would have members like Klose listed below more important and longer-lasting members aswell. Burbridge92 (talk) 17:43, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

According to Mason, 2005, Bob Klose left the band during the summer of 1965, while it was still calling itself the Tea Set. Mason goes on to say that the name Pink Floyd, or variations thereof were not used untill the fall/autumn of 1965, after Klose had already left the band. Therefore, Bob Klose was never in a band called Pink Floyd, so he really should not be included anymore than Metcalf or Noble. — GabeMc (talk) 20:58, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

It's a debatable point. This article clearly states that Bob Klose was an early member of Pink Floyd, back in the days when the band used the name "The Pink Floyd Sound" before shortening it down. I've also seen Bob Klose mentioned as a member of Pink Floyd in documentaries and other books on the band with reliable sources. So it is debatable as to whether Klose was a member of the Floyd or not. Burbridge92 (talk) 11:57, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Mason says Klose left in the summer of 1965, so does Povey and Blake. Schaffner agrees with Mason, in that variations of the name Pink Floyd didn't come about until the end of 1965. Blake believes the name to have originated during Dennis's tenure, possibly as early as Feb 1965, and while Dennis remembers Syd coming up with the name Pink Floyd, Dennis does not ever remember the name the Tea Set, so his memory of the time is suspect. Povey suggests they used the name the Tea Set at times through early 1966. Can you point me to the sources that have Klose still in the band after Syd came up with the name Pink Floyd? Like I said, why not include Noble, Metcalf, and Dennis, if one is to include Klose. — GabeMc (talk) 21:08, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Bob Klose played on (I'm A) King Bee, Lucy Leave and the other three songs recorded in late 1965 according to the Wikipedia List of unreleased Pink Floyd songs . Not sure why this article claims they're from "December 1964". If (big if!) he was still in the band in "late" 1965 he can't have left in the summer.2.29.162.169 (talk) 00:51, 17 September 2011 (UTC)AlMiles, 17 Sep 2011

@2.29.162.169, according to Nick Mason, Inside Out (2005, page 26 (US) page 29 (UK)), the demo was recorded around Christmas 1964, so the Wikipedia List of unreleased Pink Floyd songs does not agree with Mason, though it's claims of a late 1965 recording for the demo are in fact sourced to his book, so the list is not in agreement with it's source. — GabeMc (talk) 02:50, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

FA

This article is close to being an FA, but it lacks the "Musical Style" section. Can anyone add it? 50.17.45.35 (talk) 03:07, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Added experimental rock as a style. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prenigmamann (talk • contribs) 00:33, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Discovery box set

I am wondering why the Discovery box set that was released on 26 September 2011 is not mentioned under the compilations header in the PF navigation template, while the compilation album A Foot in the Door (yet to be released on 7 November 2011) is. I know there is no article on this box set so far, but it should be included (perhaps with a temporary link to the Why Pink Floyd...? article, until an article dedicated to this box set is created). Regards. 81.83.139.181 (talk) 21:15, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Ridiculous amounts

"US$1M ($4,942,149 today)" is silly. How about: "US$1M (about $5M today)" 193.162.155.202 (talk) 12:02, 14 October 2011 (UTC) Jeppe Burchhardt

I'll second that. AndrewJFulker (talk) 12:13, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

 Done - unfortunately the live inflation calculator can't output "5 million", but the value is now $5,000,000. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 14:27, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Verb agreement

The use of 'were' as in "Pink Floyd were a " is ungrammatical and wrong. It is claimed this is British English but that is false as the rule is quite simple governing verb and nouns. It is true is probably uttered in that way but demotic usage is not correct, not for print.

Plurals will take were, the third person plural. Third person singulars such as as Pink Floyd take 'was'. For example "The Beatles were a group..." ; "Cream was a group. The verb agrees with the noun and tense.

It is often believed by speakers that entities such as bands or even corporations comprising many individuals should take the plural. For example "IBM were." But IBM is a third person singular and takes 'was' as the correct verb. The variant English language custom governing uncountable nouns, such as government or even amounts of money being singular does not apply here as is the grammatical unit of a band is quite simple. Evelyn1974 (talk • contribs) 20:25, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Timeline

Can someone update the timeline to go past 1997? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.200.1.106 (talk) 15:32, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

FA

Personally, I think this article is on the verge of becoming FA. The only thing that could interfere with this may be the absence of the "Musical Style" section. Could someone write it? 107.22.64.234 (talk) 07:18, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

External links

Are the external links of http://www.neptunepinkfloyd.co.uk/ or http://www.progarchives.com/artist.asp?id=364 allowed? I would hazard by reading "Please do not add links to any site not officially maintained by Pink Floyd or their employees/collaborators, as endless arguments have forced a strict interpretation of WP:EL in regards to fan sites. The policy makes provision for a single link to a collection of fan sites in the cases where there are a particularly large number, provided below. Thank you" NO.Murry1975 (talk) 14:00, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Reunions

2011 - reunion or not. I say no: Wright was already dead. Radiopathy •talk• 01:07, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

It's not because one of the main members of the group is dead, that a Pink Floyd-reunion could not be possible. Between 1985 and 1987, Nick Mason and David Gilmour were in fact the only members of Pink Floyd. If Roger Waters reunites with Gilmour and Mason, than this can surely be determined as a reunion.Christo jones (talk) 23:13, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Christo, in theory perhaps, but in practice I agree with Radiopathy. What happened in 2011 was a guest appearence not a reunion. — GabeMc (talk) 06:45, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

A Pink Floyd reunion is still possible for a one-time occasion (a good cause). Wright was an important member of the group, but not the frontman of the group (it would be not the same as "Queen touring without Freddie Mercury"). If David Gilmour, Roger Waters and Nick Mason would reunite (together with Dick Parry, Jon Carin, Guy Pratt, etc), than this can be surely determined as a Pink Floyd reunion. If Led Zeppelin would play some concerts (without John Bonham), than this will also be determined as a Led Zep reunion and so on. In theory a PF reunion is possible and in fact also in practice if David Gilmour agrees with it (and this can be the case for a one-off performance such as Live 8).Floydian Tree (talk) 19:05, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't matter that Wright wasn't the frontman of the group, and it wouldn't matter if it was the frontman who was gone. The fact of the matter is a band doesn't need to have every member present to continue. Brian May and Roger Taylor are still "Queen" as long as they say they are (Queen are still officially active as a band) and the same goes for Gilmour, Mason, and Waters being "Pink Floyd". One thing that can't be said is that it's a reunion of the classic lineup because, as is the case with Queen, that's not possible when a member of that lineup cannot be present. Gilmour and Mason could work together again as Pink Floyd, as could Waters and Mason without Gilmour. Whether the fans accept one of those incarnations to be "Pink Floyd" is up to them, but it doesn't mean that it's not the band. In this particular scenario, I agree with Radiopathy and GabeMC, purely because Gilmour and Mason were guests at Waters' show and it was not treated as a reunion by them. If the three were to perform classic Pink Floyd music together under the banner of "Pink Floyd" then it would be a different scenario. Burbridge92 (talk) 15:50, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Infobox issue

In the "Label" field of the infobox, there is a wikilink to EMI, which isn't a label, but a group of labels; if EMI Records is meant, then the link should be fixed, otherwise EMI should be removed, as it is incorrect. Hula Hup (talk) 19:26, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Did I miss something

As far as I am aware consensus is the band were together in some form, until 2008, and never fully broke up. There are IPs editing that they split in 1996. Any sources for this date? Murry1975 (talk) 18:35, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Pink_Floyd/Archive_8#Dates_active yes. Murry1975 (talk) 18:45, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Hard rock

I would like to propose hard rock as a genre of Pink Floyd. They have many hard-rocking songs (e.g. The Nile Song, Young Lust, Hey You, In the Flesh? and In the Flesh). Ledheadtilldeath 02:54, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Not sure bud, what about Fat Old Sun, Wish you were here, IF, free four, matilda mother, mother, and more. Do you have a source stating that they fell into that genre? That would be a good starting place. Murry1975 (talk) 03:00, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps Mother. Not so much WYWH. Ledheadtilldeath 03:30, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Pink Floyd released indeed some real hard rock tracks such as 'One of These Days' (1971) and 'Run Like Hell' (1979). In the following video [2], Pink Floyd is mentioned as one of the Greatest Hard Rock Artists of All Time. Pink Floyd wrote and played also several blues songs such as Seamus, More Blues, Blues Scene, Carrera Slow Blues, Pink Blues, Drift Away Blues, Just Another Twelve Bar, etc. Originally Pink Floyd played rhythm & blues so it should be logical if we include also 'blues' as genre of Pink Floyd.Christo jones (talk) 17:31, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Repeatng "Do you have a source stating that they fell into that genre?". Murry1975 (talk) 18:57, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

The video from VH1 is a source. Another source: http://www.rollingstone.com/music/artists/pink-floyd/biography or http://www.allmusic.com/artist/pink-floyd-mn0000346336 Christo jones (talk) 21:41, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

The allmusic site seems good enough to me. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 17:37, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Generally the genre lists on Allmusic artist articles are not considered reliable (note that Frank Sinatra used to be listed as "soft rock"), because they are not put together by the article writer. The Rolling Stone article just says "touches" and if we relied on this, logically, we would have to include other genres like Country. I don not think there is enough here to support this case.--SabreBD (talk) 17:51, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree the RS article doesn't support it strongly enough, and if you say Allmusic isn't reliable, then I believe you. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 17:53, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Just to be clear, the text of an Allmusic article or say a list of chart ratings, are generally considered reliable, its just those lists of genres or the lists of say top ten articles in a genre (these change as they are computer generated). I think those lists of genres were created out of record descriptions, so one track could throw them up for the band.--SabreBD (talk) 18:01, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

I tend to think Floyd was very much, at times anyway, a hard rock band. Also pop, rock, acid, art, experimental, prog, even country, etcetera. Animals for example, is almost entirely a hard rock/prog rock mix. I also agree that allmusic is not a RS in general. Glen Povey says they were playing "hard rock material" when Syd was still in the band, while they toured with Hendrix.(2008, p.72) — GabeMc (talk) 22:09, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Just a grammar correction

I leave the debate about who should be named, or not named, as in the band whenever. All I have is a simple change of grammar in the original article.

In Paragraph Two it states, beginning near the end of Line 3:

   "...After Barrett's departure, Waters became the band's primary lyricist and by the mid-1970s, their dominate songwriter..."

Dominate is a VERB. The sentence calls for an ADJECTIVE and the proper form is: dominant

The segment should read:

   "...After Barrett's departure, Waters became the band's primary lyricist and by the mid-1970s, their dominant songwriter..." 

Someone with editing powers should correct this and, then, the existing debate can rage on.

thejazzmonger