logo Sign In

David Gilmour: "No George Lucas Syndrome"

Author
Time
Here's an amusing snippet from an interview with one of my heros, David Gilmour of Pink Floyd. Funny how so many artists seem to "get it", and Lucas just, well...


Q: "Dark Side of the Moon" is one of the best-selling and most loved albums of all time. What would you change about it?
A: Oh, there's nothing I would change about it.
Q: What, you don't have George Lucas Syndrome?
A: Nope. We worked on it until we thought it was pretty well perfect. If one were to go change it, whatever you might add would be something you take away as well.
Q: It's like going back in time to the era of dinosaurs and stepping on a butterfly. The world would be totally different. There would be no laser light shows.
A: Exactly.


Author
Time
wow. thats amazing.

The George Lucas Syndrome.

Could be the name of a band that never settles on a final version for one of their songs....or never lives up to their earlier short burst of brillance.




Rest in Peace
Roger "Syd" Barrett
Jan 6 1946 - July 7 2006
Shine on
Author
Time
I love Gilmour!!!

You know what kills me the most......is why aren't more artists like this aren't coming forward and condemning this stuff. More so...why aren't film critics and preservationists coming out about this crap. Why isn't Leonard Maltin squacking about preserving important films like Star Wars? Probably cuz they're all industry hacks who suck off the powers that be........
Author
Time
As I've said, Gary Kurtz insulted him. We need more people like that. If we can't get GL's attention, then maybe we need to find other billionares who can. And it's probably because Lucas has so much power.

“What Orwell feared were those who would ban books. What Huxley feared was that there would be no reason to ban a book, for there would be no one who wanted to read one.”

Neil Postman, Amusing Ourselves to Death

Author
Time
Originally posted by: Cable-X1
Why isn't Leonard Maltin squacking about preserving important films like Star Wars?


Leonard has gone on record as hating the SE's.

Oh, and by the way... it could be worse. We could have Edward Van Halen syndrome.
Author
Time
At least Ed never went back and re-cut the classic tracks because he thought he could make them sound better with modern technology. Self-destructive alcoholic? Yes. Artistic revisionist? Nope.
Author
Time
Originally posted by: Ozkeeper
wow. thats amazing.

The George Lucas Syndrome.

Could be the name of a band that never settles on a final version for one of their songs....or never lives up to their earlier short burst of brillance.


I think I was in that band for exactly seven seconds.

I played electric triangle.
Author
Time
Originally posted by: jack Spencer Jr
Originally posted by: Ozkeeper
wow. thats amazing.

The George Lucas Syndrome.

Could be the name of a band that never settles on a final version for one of their songs....or never lives up to their earlier short burst of brillance.


I think I was in that band for exactly seven seconds.

I played electric triangle.


LOL
MTFBWY. Always.

http://www.myspace.com/red_ajax
Author
Time
I honestly believe the Academy should rescind their awards to George Lucas because of his blatent disregard for everything they stand for and the movies because they no longer worthy of Oscars.

Are there examples of other film people calling Lucas on this bs?

Take back the trilogy. Execute Order '77

http://www.youtube.com/user/Knightmessenger

Author
Time
Originally posted by: JediFlyer06
Funny how so many artists seem to "get it", and Lucas just, well...


I'm sorry, but nothing in that quote points to David Gilmour 'getting it', nor does it show what George Lucas did was wrong, almost the opposite.

Gilmour may not even know what the interviewer is talking about when he mentions GL Syndrome, sure he may, but he would give the same response whether he knew or not.

He then goes on to say he worked on Dark Side of the Moon until they thought it was 'pretty well perfect', something Lucas never had the opportunity to do due to money, technology, history and the industry.

Pink Floyd were pretty popular before DSotM and had seven studio albums in their past. There would have been plenty of money for it because the labels pretty much knew what they were getting (though likely underestimated its future popularity). Not that much money is even needed for an album, it mostly needs time from the individual band members. They didn't need to develop any technology as everything they needed existed. There hasn't been that much development in music tech so there wouldn't be anything new that they'd have wanted to use back then (apart from speeding up production).

George Lucas wasn't that well known, he had one hit movie, but his name wouldn't have meant much back then. Sci-fi blockbusters didn't exist as sci-fi wasn't very popular at all before Star Wars. Money was therefore fairly scarce; there is so much more to lose when financing a large movie compared to an album. This money was definitely needed because movies require long term commitment from hundreds of people. The technology pretty much didn't exist, Lucas had to spend a lot of his budget developing that technology. In the next twenty years the tech is leaps and bounds ahead of where it was then, the ten years after that even more. There is so much more he could do now than he could do then.

You may think that he should be happy, he got most of his script on film and it is the writing stage that is so important and equally as cheap as writing music for an album. But while bands really have no limitations to work within while writing a song (except self-imposed limitations), Lucas had to consider a heap of limitations when writing his script. We really have no idea what Lucas actually wanted in his film back then.

Another thing to take into consideration is the nature of music artists. Generally they don't dislike their own past tracks because of a particular part of the track, usually they'll dislike the entire thing or the even the entire time period the track was made in! The reasons they end up disliking tracks are because their music tastes change and they end up embarrassed by the tracks of their youth or they simply get sick of it from playing it hundreds of times at concerts. Either of these reasons wouldn't make an artist want to touch that previous work again, quite the opposite, they want nothing to do with it. It spurs them on to creating entirely new pieces. Lucas on the other hand didn't have to 'perform' his own work hundreds of times and it is highly unlikely he would ever dislike the entire work even if his tastes changed a lot since there is usually so much more variety in a two hour visual and audio work compared to a five minute audio piece. I'm sure there could be early works of his he does totally dislike, but none of them were ever popular so very few people care.

While I don't agree with a few of Lucas' changes or his unwillingness for the original versions to be in the public, this quote gives no reasons why it is wrong or even backs your point of view; except for the fact that some unnamed interviewer feels the same.

Hmmm, just thinking about Lucas' unwillingness to re-release the work he doesn't like... Why is it fine that hundreds of music artists don't re-release their old works when they sell out because they don't like them?

http://www.kineticpast.com/starwars/thecheatlaserdisc.gif
Ooh, a laserdisc. The Cheat's playin' something on a laserdisc.
Everything is better on a laserdisc. Whatever happened to the laserdisc? Laserdisc!

Author
Time
No, everything in the quote implies that Gilmour gets it. We're not talking about the narrow focus of just SW. I'm sure Gilmour could give a shit. He's talking about art in general...music, movies, etc. When you change something that was created in the past, whatever you add takes something important away from the work. That's what this whole thing is about. Gilmour understands that and the quote demonstrates that.
Author
Time
Originally posted by: JediFlyer06
No, everything in the quote implies that Gilmour gets it. We're not talking about the narrow focus of just SW. I'm sure Gilmour could give a shit. He's talking about art in general...music, movies, etc. When you change something that was created in the past, whatever you add takes something important away from the work. That's what this whole thing is about. Gilmour understands that and the quote demonstrates that.


Nothing in that quote implies he's talking about art in general, he only specifically talks about his own album. You're just reading your own opinion into the quote; stop and read it again without bringing your own bias.

http://www.kineticpast.com/starwars/thecheatlaserdisc.gif
Ooh, a laserdisc. The Cheat's playin' something on a laserdisc.
Everything is better on a laserdisc. Whatever happened to the laserdisc? Laserdisc!

Author
Time
Gillean, many of your claims on the process of recording Dark Side of the Moon and the members of Pink Floyd feelings about some of their previous work are in fact wrong. Even a basic search of wikipedia will show you that . There are also a few good books on the band, which I can't be bothered finding and quoting at the moment. Pink Floyd was in our record collection at home before Dark Side was released. It wasn't a matter of a bunch of stoners going into a recording studio and following a set of rules. They were breaking totally new ground with the techniques they used.

The time travel scenario the person asking the questions mentions is from A Sound of Thunder , by Ray Bradbury, first published in 1952. With Delicate Sound of Thunder being the name of the Pink Floyd live album released in 1988 while under the leadership of Gilmour, it would be a stretch of the imagination to think he is not aware of the story. I have no doubt Gilmour is familiar with the concepts presented in this story and mentioned by the interviewer, as they have been presented many times in various media (perhaps most widely seen by visitors to this forum on one of the Simpsons Halloween episodes, with the malfunctioning toaster). I also have no doubt that Gilmour knows who Lucas is and his attempts to re-write Star Wars 'history'.

Author
Time
Originally posted by: Ozkeeper
Gillean, many of your claims on the process of recording Dark Side of the Moon and the members of Pink Floyd feelings about some of their previous work are in fact wrong. Even a basic search of wikipedia will show you that . There are also a few good books on the band, which I can't be bothered finding and quoting at the moment. Pink Floyd was in our record collection at home before Dark Side was released. It wasn't a matter of a bunch of stoners going into a recording studio and following a set of rules. They were breaking totally new ground with the techniques they used.

The time travel scenario the person asking the questions mentions is from A Sound of Thunder , by Ray Bradbury, first published in 1952. With Delicate Sound of Thunder being the name of the Pink Floyd live album released in 1988 while under the leadership of Gilmour, it would be a stretch of the imagination to think he is not aware of the story. I have no doubt Gilmour is familiar with the concepts presented in this story and mentioned by the interviewer, as they have been presented many times in various media (perhaps most widely seen by visitors to this forum on one of the Simpsons Halloween episodes, with the malfunctioning toaster). I also have no doubt that Gilmour knows who Lucas is and his attempts to re-write Star Wars 'history'.


Now you're misrepresenting what I said!

I made NO claims about Pink Floyd's feelings about previous work. I didn't need to do 'a basic search of Wikipedia' because their thoughts on previous work has nothing to do with my point.

I made only two claims about their recording process. My first, they had money backing them. 'A basic search of Wikipedia' tells me they were popular and they were backed by labels, enough to get into one of the best studios. Hmmm, seems I was right. And my second, they didn't develop any new technology for this album. Hmmm, I can't find any 'good books' that tell me they invented the synthesiser, the clock or the cash register; can you point me in the right direction to one that does? They certainly developed a heap of new techniques, they did amazing work, but they weren't limited by technology or money. They were only possibly limited by time, but as Gilmour himself said, 'We worked on it until we thought it was pretty well perfect', so that proves they weren't even limited that way.

I made no claims Gilmour didn't understand the butterfly analogy as again it is beside the point. He is talking purely about making changes to a work he already considered 'pretty well perfect'. The analogy works in that instance, but doesn't apply to the Lucas scenario at all. That said, as I previously mentioned concerning the Lucas question, we can presume Gilmour understood the butterfly reference, but it can't be proven by just that quote. His responses would be the same whether he knew the source of the references or not. Heh, now I'm bringing in arguments with no bearing on my point!

To clarify my point, Gilmour's responses tell us nothing on his thoughts on Lucas' changes. It only tells us that he thinks there is little point changing near perfect works. If you're going to post about an artist 'getting it' then find a quote about them actually referring to the same or a similar situation.

Hehehe, now I'm just going to be a jerk! JediFlyer06, if Gilmour was talking about art in general then can you find some of his complaints about the continual changes to a very culturally important piece of art, the DSotM cover artwork (voted fourth greatest of all time)?

Speaking of the multiple editions of DSotM; none of them are actually unchanged from the previous! Track divisions move back and forth (by up to 13 seconds), fades appear and disappear, The Beatles make guest appearances and then go absent, track credits list and unlist people, completely different audio mixes replace older ones, and tracks are significantly altered on live editions. You can't find a new unaltered original version of DSotM in any stores. I think I better start a website dedicated to the preservation of this important classic!

http://www.kineticpast.com/starwars/thecheatlaserdisc.gif
Ooh, a laserdisc. The Cheat's playin' something on a laserdisc.
Everything is better on a laserdisc. Whatever happened to the laserdisc? Laserdisc!

Author
Time
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" and that he constantly changes what at one point we all felt was a near perfect movie.

Gilmour gets it
Q: What, you don't have George Lucas Syndrome?
A: Nope. We worked on it until we thought it was pretty well perfect. If one were to go change it, whatever you might add would be something you take away as well.

George doesn't.

That seemed to be the point of this thread. Nobody read their own opinion into anything. 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.


Quote by Gillean
"Hehehe, now I'm just going to be a jerk! JediFlyer06, if Gilmour was talking about art in general then can you find some of his complaints about the continual changes to a very culturally important piece of art, the DSotM cover artwork (voted fourth greatest of all time)?"


I have never heard the Dark Side of the Moon album art to be a very important piece of art. It is an album cover. You don't see us rallying to preserve our old VHS covers for the Star Wars Trilogy. You don't see an "www.theoriginalindianajonestrilogy.com" trying to petition Lucas to release his Indiana Jones films with their original covers. Covers change on everything. Every album of DSoTM I have ever seen still has the triangle with the rainbow, even if it has a different border or background color. Not to mention the original album art of DSotM is availible in great quality from numerous sources. I am sure if you search google for it you can view the original art with no problem. It is an entirely different concept to change the cover of something instead of changing the actual thing itself. And it is honestly laughable to call the DSotM album an important piece of art. You act like the bloody thing is hanging next to the Mona Lisa in Rome.

Quote by Gillean
I think I better start a website dedicated to the preservation of this important classic!

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?

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.

Just a little recap as to the relevance of this thread.

Gilmour gets it: "Oh, there's nothing I would change about it." "Nope. We worked on it until we thought it was pretty well perfect. If one were to go change it, whatever you might add would be something you take away as well."

Lucas doesn't get it: "The other movie, it’s on VHS, if anybody wants it"

"Every time Warb sighs, an angel falls into a vat of mapel syrup." - Gaffer Tape

Author
Time
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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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".'

http://www.kineticpast.com/starwars/thecheatlaserdisc.gif
Ooh, a laserdisc. The Cheat's playin' something on a laserdisc.
Everything is better on a laserdisc. Whatever happened to the laserdisc? Laserdisc!

Author
Time
My apologies, I didn't intend to start a battle here. You have some very good points, I still think the initial quote from this thread was a valid comparison; you don't seem to be seeing our point of view, but neither I nor anybody else really cares. It really isn't important enough to waste anymore time on.

Originally posted by: Gillean
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. Again, I owe you an apology for that. Seems there are a lot of members around here anymore who like to mock the idea of OOT preservation.

Originally posted by: Gillean
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!


Ha! That is a pretty funny observation. From my experience in America, Americans can be pretty sarcastic. I must admit some of them are unbelievably dry; I can't count how many times I have received confused or annoyed looks from one after making some facetious comment. Especially the office workers or computer tech types, they all seem to take everything seriously. All around Europeans are a lot more fun and laid back. But generalizing in such a way is pretty pointless; I have known people from plenty of other places that take life way too seriously also. It is very hard not to realize that regardless of being American, Australian or whatever else, sarcasm can be a bit hard to pickup in written from. Also the line about Dark side of the Moon hanging next to Mona Lisa was meant in an ironic tone.

Also I thought it was funny that I mistakenly said "Next to the Mona Lisa in Rome." When I have been to the Louvre in France and have seen the real thing.

"Every time Warb sighs, an angel falls into a vat of mapel syrup." - Gaffer Tape

Author
Time
Americans can be plenty sarcastic- but yes, it's true that sarcasm doesn't come across in print very well and can be easily misinterpreted.

Author
Time
Originally posted by: C3PX
My apologies, I didn't intend to start a battle here. You have some very good points, I still think the initial quote from this thread was a valid comparison; you don't seem to be seeing our point of view, but neither I nor anybody else really cares. It really isn't important enough to waste anymore time on.
Phew! I'm glad I was 'battling' a gentleman (gentlelady?), I'm too much of a stubborn git to let something go, even something so trivial! I was relieved to see this thread off the first page as it meant no on was going to read my post and then see it as an attack. I let out an 'Oh no!' when I saw it was back, 'who had I rubbed up the wrong way this time?'; thankfully I had nothing to worry about. Hehe, 'git'; funny how differently I write and really speak!


Originally posted by: C3PX
Originally posted by: Gillean
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!

Ha! That is a pretty funny observation. From my experience in America, Americans can be pretty sarcastic. I must admit some of them are unbelievably dry; I can't count how many times I have received confused or annoyed looks from one after making some facetious comment. Especially the office workers or computer tech types, they all seem to take everything seriously. All around Europeans are a lot more fun and laid back. But generalizing in such a way is pretty pointless; I have known people from plenty of other places that take life way too seriously also. It is very hard not to realize that regardless of being American, Australian or whatever else, sarcasm can be a bit hard to pickup in written from.

Yeah, re-reading my paragraph, I way over-generalised the point I was trying to make. I think that had I read what I wrote the first time I would have replaced the emboldened bit with 'this isn't an attack on Americans, but I find that a lot of them either see sarcasm as offensive or just don't pick it up, whereas people from most other western countries tend to consider it affectionate and can sense it pretty easily.' I dunno, something like that. My opinion on this was actually formed because American friends told me that was the case and then I just observed it many times. I do know plenty of Americans that definitely aren't offended by it and pick it up fine though; they don't use it themselves much (which is really better for everyone!).

I'm positive that sometime since finishing schooling some fuse between my brain and my hand broke, I'm often reading things I've posted and finding they didn't match up at all with what I was thinking! A couple of days ago I was reading something I'd just posted on a Mac forum and, well, what I was reading wasn't even English, somehow I'd replaced random words with other random words! I must remember 'and' doesn't equal 'had'.

Originally posted by: C3PX
Also I thought it was funny that I mistakenly said "Next to the Mona Lisa in Rome." When I have been to the Louvre in France and have seen the real thing.

Hehe, I didn't notice that at all. Maybe we've both read The Da Vinci Code and Rob Brown's severely messed up geography and factless facts have muddled our brains! Rome is right next to Paris right?

http://www.kineticpast.com/starwars/thecheatlaserdisc.gif
Ooh, a laserdisc. The Cheat's playin' something on a laserdisc.
Everything is better on a laserdisc. Whatever happened to the laserdisc? Laserdisc!