Originally posted by: C3PX
Nobody ever implied that this had anything to do with Star Wars other than the use of the term "George Lucas Syndrom" used by the interviewer, and the fact the George Lucas doesn't "get it"
You aren't getting what I'm saying. The whole reason why people are saying that Lucas doesn't 'get it' within this thread is because their presuming Gilmour is saying something that matches with their own opinion, when he doesn't. I better make it clear, I'm not saying that he is saying saying something contrary to most of our opinions, he just isn't saying anything related to it at all.
It wasn't a slam at OT.com, you misunderstood me. I fully support OT.com and its purpose. It was purely a jab at DSotM's supposed lack of changes. The original DSotM is as far gone commercially as the OOT.
Originally posted by: C3PX
Anyway I have wasted enough time with this. I was just annoyed at Gillean's limited focus and his odd sense of duty at proving Gilmour doesn't really get it, and that he is no better than Lucas.
Nobody ever implied that this had anything to do with Star Wars other than the use of the term "George Lucas Syndrom" used by the interviewer, and the fact the George Lucas doesn't "get it"
You aren't getting what I'm saying. The whole reason why people are saying that Lucas doesn't 'get it' within this thread is because their presuming Gilmour is saying something that matches with their own opinion, when he doesn't. I better make it clear, I'm not saying that he is saying saying something contrary to most of our opinions, he just isn't saying anything related to it at all.
Originally posted by: C3PX
and that he constantly changes what at one point we all felt was a near perfect movie.
The fact that we thought it was near perfect shouldn't be a factor for an artist if they aren't finished. The original quadrophonic mix of DSotM has become quite popular, many Pink Floyd fans love it (and I'm sure it's a great alternate mix, I haven't heard it though). If that was in the public domain before they started working on their 'final' mix and all their fans said they thought DSotM was already near perfect, then would we expect the band not to do any more work on it?
I really got to stop using sarcasm here; I need to remember that this forum is mostly visited by Americans. This isn't an attack on Americans, but simply the truth; Americans find sarcasm offensive or generally just don't pick it up, whereas people from most other western countries consider it affectionate and can sense it pretty easily. It is funny the shock American friends get when they visit here, they think we're all attacking each other when we're just having fun. Of course now I've written that I'll find out C3PX is from the home of sarcasm, Australia!
Sarcasm aside, as I already mentioned covers such as DSotM ARE regularly displayed in art exhibitions. Art is purely subjective though. The reason why Mona Lisa is in the Louvre isn't because it is one of the best paintings ever or that it is 'arty'. There are paintings that are heaps better, much more interesting in both content and technique, but they'll never end up in the major galleries, if they end up in galleries at all. It is purely cultural significance and as I already mentioned plenty of people important in the art world consider certain album artwork to be culturally important, so I really wouldn't be suprised if it really did appear in the same gallery as the Mona Lisa in a hundred years. There really isn't that much different between the Mona Lisa and the DSotM cover in the end. Both are commisioned works, both have been mass copied and both are burnt into the heads of most people in the western world. The cover will never be as important as the Mona Lisa (that's just stupid), but it is a lot more culturally significant that most of the great artworks (since really, how many paintings other than ol' Lisa can non-art historians name?).
Originally posted by: C3PX
That seemed like more of a slam towards the whole idea of the originaltrilogy.com to me. Perhaps I took it wrong. However if you think it is silly for people to try to perserve something "the great Master Lucas" doesn't believe to be a worthy representation of his now crappy sci-fi films, why do you come here?
and that he constantly changes what at one point we all felt was a near perfect movie.
The fact that we thought it was near perfect shouldn't be a factor for an artist if they aren't finished. The original quadrophonic mix of DSotM has become quite popular, many Pink Floyd fans love it (and I'm sure it's a great alternate mix, I haven't heard it though). If that was in the public domain before they started working on their 'final' mix and all their fans said they thought DSotM was already near perfect, then would we expect the band not to do any more work on it?
Originally posted by: C3PX
He gets it because when asked if he would change his album he says that there is no point in changing something that is near perfect.
Exactly, he says there is no point changing something that is pretty well perfect. I'm sure even Lucas would say and believe that. I'm asking how that applies to a work that production was forced to discontinue when it only met 50% of the creator's expectations. The answer is that it doesn't.
Maybe you haven't seen the hundreds of articles on the web by music fans bemoaning the digital music revolution and the coming death of album artwork. Maybe you haven't seen the hundreds of programs written to allow people to easily interact with their album artwork because of so many people asking for it. Maybe you haven't seen all the books in the library about cover artwork. Plenty of people, specifically artists and music historians do feel that certain album covers are important pieces of art. There's plenty of gallery and museum owners that feel they are important pieces of art, since they often appear in exhibitions. I doubt I'd be able to convince you of their importance so we're just going to have to disagree.
Originally posted by: C3PX
You act like the bloody thing is hanging next to the Mona Lisa in Rome.
He gets it because when asked if he would change his album he says that there is no point in changing something that is near perfect.
Exactly, he says there is no point changing something that is pretty well perfect. I'm sure even Lucas would say and believe that. I'm asking how that applies to a work that production was forced to discontinue when it only met 50% of the creator's expectations. The answer is that it doesn't.
Originally posted by: C3PX
I have never heard the Dark Side of the Moon album art to be a very important piece of art.
Yet you just quoted me saying it was voted the fourth greatest of all time.
Actually, people here were doing exactly that, it seems most people here do find the cover and poster artwork important and worth preserving. The reason you may not have seen it is because it was a relatively easy task to do. There aren't too many variables when it comes to scanning a single image when compared to the preservation of the thousands of images via old laserdisc reading equipment.
Originally posted by: C3PX
And it is honestly laughable to call the DSotM album an important piece of art.
I have never heard the Dark Side of the Moon album art to be a very important piece of art.
Yet you just quoted me saying it was voted the fourth greatest of all time.
Originally posted by: C3PX
It is an album cover. You don't see us rallying to preserve our old VHS covers for the Star Wars Trilogy.
It is an album cover. You don't see us rallying to preserve our old VHS covers for the Star Wars Trilogy.
Actually, people here were doing exactly that, it seems most people here do find the cover and poster artwork important and worth preserving. The reason you may not have seen it is because it was a relatively easy task to do. There aren't too many variables when it comes to scanning a single image when compared to the preservation of the thousands of images via old laserdisc reading equipment.
Originally posted by: C3PX
And it is honestly laughable to call the DSotM album an important piece of art.
Maybe you haven't seen the hundreds of articles on the web by music fans bemoaning the digital music revolution and the coming death of album artwork. Maybe you haven't seen the hundreds of programs written to allow people to easily interact with their album artwork because of so many people asking for it. Maybe you haven't seen all the books in the library about cover artwork. Plenty of people, specifically artists and music historians do feel that certain album covers are important pieces of art. There's plenty of gallery and museum owners that feel they are important pieces of art, since they often appear in exhibitions. I doubt I'd be able to convince you of their importance so we're just going to have to disagree.
Originally posted by: C3PX
You act like the bloody thing is hanging next to the Mona Lisa in Rome.
I really got to stop using sarcasm here; I need to remember that this forum is mostly visited by Americans. This isn't an attack on Americans, but simply the truth; Americans find sarcasm offensive or generally just don't pick it up, whereas people from most other western countries consider it affectionate and can sense it pretty easily. It is funny the shock American friends get when they visit here, they think we're all attacking each other when we're just having fun. Of course now I've written that I'll find out C3PX is from the home of sarcasm, Australia!
Sarcasm aside, as I already mentioned covers such as DSotM ARE regularly displayed in art exhibitions. Art is purely subjective though. The reason why Mona Lisa is in the Louvre isn't because it is one of the best paintings ever or that it is 'arty'. There are paintings that are heaps better, much more interesting in both content and technique, but they'll never end up in the major galleries, if they end up in galleries at all. It is purely cultural significance and as I already mentioned plenty of people important in the art world consider certain album artwork to be culturally important, so I really wouldn't be suprised if it really did appear in the same gallery as the Mona Lisa in a hundred years. There really isn't that much different between the Mona Lisa and the DSotM cover in the end. Both are commisioned works, both have been mass copied and both are burnt into the heads of most people in the western world. The cover will never be as important as the Mona Lisa (that's just stupid), but it is a lot more culturally significant that most of the great artworks (since really, how many paintings other than ol' Lisa can non-art historians name?).
Originally posted by: C3PX
That seemed like more of a slam towards the whole idea of the originaltrilogy.com to me. Perhaps I took it wrong. However if you think it is silly for people to try to perserve something "the great Master Lucas" doesn't believe to be a worthy representation of his now crappy sci-fi films, why do you come here?
It wasn't a slam at OT.com, you misunderstood me. I fully support OT.com and its purpose. It was purely a jab at DSotM's supposed lack of changes. The original DSotM is as far gone commercially as the OOT.
Originally posted by: C3PX
Anyway I have wasted enough time with this. I was just annoyed at Gillean's limited focus and his odd sense of duty at proving Gilmour doesn't really get it, and that he is no better than Lucas.
That isn't what I'm trying to prove, I have no interest in proving who is better than who. All I'm trying to get across is that Lucas' and Gilmour's situations were completely different and they shouldn't be compared. Actually, that's not right; they should be compared.
Gilmour said 'We worked on it until we thought it was pretty well perfect.'
Lucas said 'Well Episode IV was not really finished because I didn't have the money, the time or the technology to finish it. At the time I was kind of upset about it. People were going, "It's marvellous! How do you feel?" And I was saying, "I feel it's only 50 or 60% of what I wanted".'