Best Pink Floyd Concert

What was it like being at a Pink Floyd concert?

In many ways, it was quite ‘normal’. Those of us who were there at the time could go & see big concerts by major bands at the few big venues available regularly. ( In the US there were large sports arenas, but in London we had Wembley [football] stadium, the Empire Pool ( also part of the old Olympic complex ) & 2 large exhibition halls ).These, and, for example concerts by the likes of Led Zeppelin or Genesis had yet to acquire the mythological status they now have.You knew that you were going to get a major ‘experience’ of loud music you recognized, lights, music, smoke, pyrotechnics & whatever stagecraft they had to offer.I saw them several times, although not as many times as an obsessive fan. Twice at Knebworth, Animals, ‘The Wall’ twice, ‘Momentary Lapse of Reason’ twice. It didn’t change my life, except to say that I’d been there, & I had the memories.[It’s possibly worth noting that in ‘those days’ a tour would be announced, tickets bought direct via post, the concert attended, all within a matter of a few months. Not like now, where you need to take out another mortgage to buy tickets for a concert in a year or so’s time, via an agency who want £10 for the privilege of selling you the ticket, rather than going into the world of the ‘scalpers’.. ]

Why were Pink Floyd's concerts better than Led Zeppelin's?

First of all, recognize that “better” is always in the eye of the beholder. There are plenty of fans of one or the other of these bands that would take their guys’ worst show over the other guys’ best.But, having seen both bands live, and heard extensive concert recordings, I think I know what you mean.Pink Floyd were always about the show more than the band. The band members themselves were relatively faceless (a fact they parodied themselves both in aspects of The Wall and in throwaway lines like “by the way, which one’s Pink”*) and did not in any way rely on traditional rock-star charisma to put over the performance. Even early on, they were focused on the experimental nature of the music, the light show, and the sound production. Syd Barrett’s excesses aside, the band were relatively straight-edged, even geeky, and very inwardly focused (seldom even acknowledging the audience). The result was consistent technical excellence, perhaps at the expense of spontaneity and immediate connection.Led Zeppelin were nearly opposite to all these traits. Page and Plant were capital-s Superstars and the experience of a Zep concert was all about being in their presence, charisma, and swagger. Where their records were mostly immaculate, onstage the only thing that was tight was their pants. Zeppelin shows were deliberately under-polished, under-planned, and spontaneous, favoring the long blues-based jam and extended solo time. They personified rock-and-roll excess (whole books have been written about their debauchery, and you sure can’t say that about Floyd), and didn’t always come on straight. The result was a wildly variable, often shambling live show **, but one with undeniable rock-and-roll pedigree and a direct connection with the live audience.So, heard in retrospect, without fan bias, and without the benefit of actually being in the golden glow of either band, the Floyd concerts are going to seem “better”. How the two actual concert experiences compared is impossible to say and fully subjective.*Sung by a guy who wasn’t even in the band (not that anybody noticed or cared).** See JG McLean's answer to What was it like to attend a Led Zeppelin concert?

Is a Roger Waters concert better than a Pink Floyd concert without Waters? Why?

Well, you aren’t going to see another Pink Floyd concert, with or without Roger Waters, so it’s a moot point. I’ve seen the Waters-less Floyd twice (Momentary Lapse of Reason and Division Bell Tours) and Waters solo a bunch of times.The two Floyd concerts I saw were absolutely fantastic - no expense spared on the sound or the lights as you would expect and were well paced - open with the hits, play the good songs on the new album then all hits.Waters also puts on a great show, his recreation of the Wall was a superb piece of theater (so good to see the giant marionettes) and the technology has clearly advanced since I saw Floyd in 1994. Waters was very much about playing the hits, not too much solo stuffUltimately, it comes down to performance and song choice. For Performance, hands down this goes to Floyd. Gilmour, the strongest musically of all the band has the voice and guitar, and with Rick Wright on board for some of the backing vocals (but not really stretching out on keys) they sound closest to the “classic” band. Roger has great sidemen - musically better that the real thing, but the guitarists are forced to copy Gilmour’s solos and thus don’t get to stretch out as much as they could. I also strongly suspect that Roger was lip synching through some of the songs (fair enough, he is mid 70s now). They were also a little sterile for the first hour or so, missing that live spark.Song choice though, I’d have to give it to Waters- he’s happy to play some of the stuff that Gilmour is unwilling to - on the last tour, we got most all of Animals, and some bits from the Final Cut, Dark Side and etc. Gilmour naturally leaned on the new albums for a third of the shows and, well, the songs just aren’t as good.To summarize - I’m going to give it to the Waters-less Floyd, be thankful that I was able to see them some 25 years ago, and eternally regret that I never got to see the classic lineup.