Talk:Ummagumma/Archive 1

Talk
Just a thought... This album is 1 disk live, 1 disk studio. The orange studio album table doesn't fit it appropriately in this case... - Fizscy46 00:16, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Capitol Records is NOT the original label for this album. RedWolf 16:30, Sep 19, 2004 (UTC)

The sleave notes for the CD say that the live recordings were made at Mothers and Manchester College of Commerce in June, 1969; not April and May. What is the source for the April and May dates, and which is correct?
 * Many sources (here's an example) mention that the correct dates are the April/May dates, and the album sleeve is wrong. I can't find a primary source for it but it's likely part of long discussions and comparisons of audience-recorded sources and concert dates on forums like the Echoes mailing list over the past couple decades. It's a bit of triva too widespread to be overly suspect, although a good source is always welcome for the article. - dharmabum 05:16, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Genre
Which are the most appropriate categories for this album? Disk one is psychedelic rock, disk two is mostly experimental music, Waters´ song is a sort of folk ballad, Gilmour´s track(s) can be seen as prog rock, imho. So, we could change accordingly the description of this work. --Doktor Who 17:00, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Listing it as both psychedelic rock (to cover the live album) and art rock seems the wisest to me, as the latter "genre" covers all of the experimental avant-garde stuff they did on the studio album. - dharmabum 00:28, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree with you, anyway, IMHO we should be free to tell that each track has its own style and genre. The same applies to all PF albums from 1967 to 1977.  --Doktor Who 02:47, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 * That's true; that's the kind of thing that should be discussed in the body of text discussing the album and its tracks, not these (IMO, somewhat arbitrary) genre listings in pre-formatted infoboxes, of course. - dharmabum 06:17, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Revisiting the question in 2008, in response to recent edits: As has been discussed on music project talk pages (Albums, etc.), the genres field is often misused and altered needlessly. There are many opinions on how it should and should not be used. I tend to agree with arguments that (a) the infobox is intended to summarize what is in the article, so if the infobox lists 4 genres and none of them are mentioned in the body of the article, the field is being misused; (b) one genre is the ideal. It is acceptable to mention just one genre in the infobox and several others in the article. In practice we tend to do the opposite, and this is a trend we should try to reverse. When trying to cut down, we should consider whether a genre such as "progressive rock" is flexible enough to encompass other genres that could be mentioned. In my opinion, it is. Prog rock is a very wide field, and includes experimentation, etc. It's my belief that Pink Floyd can be classified as "psychedelic" during their years with Syd Barrett, and for every album made after his departure, "progressive rock" is sufficient to cover the album as a whole. A Saucerful of Secrets and compilations with a mixture of Barrett and post-Barrett years could have both. Sub-genres can be mentioned in the body of the article, and individual songs that veer off into other areas can be categorized in other ways on their song article pages. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 07:18, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok, thank you for your comment. I've noticed that I opened this paragraph in a messy way, hopefully none will complain that I've changed it a bit. Doktor Who (talk) 00:46, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I think it best to put both "psychedelic rock" and "progressive rock" on this album, since disc one is songs from their early, psychedelic period. But disc two is so experimental that "progressive rock" will cover for it Mysterieorgel (talk) 17:06, 18 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I disagree; only the first song from disc one is from their psychedelic pop era, and it's a very different arrangement. I'm going to revert the change for now.  Please look at this: Genre policy proposal, where I gave a detailed proposal for genres for all Pink Floyd albums (and the main Pink Floyd article).  I am willing to re-open the discussion, but would want to see a resolution that is consistent across all Pink Floyd album articles. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 19:54, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Ah, ok. I'm sorry for not reading the Genre policy. I still think the album is quite psychedelic in many ways. But it dosen't matter anyway. Ummagumma is a great album, no matter genre. And besides, I think you're right after all. "Progressive rock" is the best way to describe this album :) (talk)


 * Thanks. It's too bad the archiving system used on certain talk pages hides policy decisions, and I'm not sure if there is a way around that. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 11:45, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Sysyphus
Can't understand why the 'parts' were altered on CD. Musically the part breakdown as per the original vinyl makes much more sense.

Also, did Wright really mean for the piano in the old Part 1 to sound like he'd recorded it in his bathroom? :-) Martyn Smith 22:11, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Gilmour
Is incorrect in saying that The Narrow Way was the first thing he'd written for The Floyd. That was 'A Spanish Piece' from 'More'. He says he doesn't like Atom Heart Mother yet he plays 'Fat Old Sun' a lot these days live and states that he wanted it included on the 'Echoes' compilation Martyn Smith 22:11, 19 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I think he means the Atom Heart Mother Suite 82.176.194.151 11:19, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * IMO, no Pink Floyd member like Atom Hearth Mother suite.--Doktor Who 15:28, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Even thou I think that it's a wonderful piece! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 201.35.226.126 (talk) 03:27, 14 December 2006 (UTC).
 * Its a wonderful piece indeed, awesome for comeing down of apropriately psychedelic adventures. Not convinced its really a true 'floyd' album however.

Tribute Bands Named 'Ummagumma'
There are currently at least two PF tribute bands named 'Ummagumma'- one in Brazil which plays mid-period songs, see YouTube for example, and a UK-based band who perform early songs including Syd songs like 'Bike'. I have seen them so I know they are worth going to see. See BBC review: http://www.bbc.co.uk/lancashire/going_out/2004/09/14/kiteclub.shtml

No website active for UK Ummagumma at time of writing. 81.86.144.210 10:28, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup

 * I've adopted this article. I'll try and fix up this article. --ASDFGHJKL=Greatest Person Ever+Coolest Person Ever 23:56, 11 April 2007 (UTC)


 * You need to remove the miscellanea section, because its trivia. Encorporate it into the main body of the article.

- Ummagumma23 3rd June 2007 (UTC).

Studio album
WHY did the group all do individual songs on the studio album? I seem tro remember there was some political/legal/contractual reason behind it.
 * Nope, it wasn't for any of that. It was just all the band members were allowed a section of the album to write, sing, and play their songs by themself. --ASDFGHJKL=Greatest Person Ever+Coolest Person Ever 00:56, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Name
The title Ummagumma comes from a British slang word for sexual intercourse as the album was about experimentation.

Huh? Sexual intercourse equals experimentation? 72.75.68.76 06:29, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Yea, I don't really get it eitheir, I'll remove the experimentation. --ASDFGHJKL=Greatest Person Ever+Coolest Person Ever 12:18, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Unsourced quote
"Once released, critics have been quoted as saying it sounded like 'Rick Wright and Roger Waters had sex on a bunch of instruments and recorded the sound they made.' Fact" Same line added repeated by an editor whose edit history appears to be vandalism only.   We might want to presume this is vandalism until a source is provided. The fact that "critics" plural are credited with this distinctive image certainly suggests it is made up. / edg ☺ ☭ 10:37, 24 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes indeed most (if not all) of that ips contributions are vandalism (such as this). Without a cite, that "information" should not be in the article.--Alf melmac 10:44, 24 February 2008 (UTC)


 * (10:37, 24 February 2008 Alasdair blocked "69.180.6.136" (anon. only, account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 2 weeks ‎ (Vandalism: Shown disregard for warnings given) - blessed preventative medicine :)--Alf melmac 10:46, 24 February 2008 (UTC)


 * That editor will be back. This is a months-long history of the same edit. / edg ☺ ☭ 10:51, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Track listing
I've made some fixes to the track listing. If anyone has any questions, comments or objections, let me know. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 14:24, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Put back timings for both LP and CD for "Sysyphus". Whoever removed them may not have read the explanation under the listing; they also neglected to remove the comment, "Both track times are listed above".  BTW, I removed that comment, because it's not really necessary.
 * Formatted the sub-sections of disc 2 as per disc 1, because I like that formatting better.
 * Removed the comment that 3 tracks on disc 2 were originally "single tracks", because it gives the impression the original edition did not mention the sections on cover or label. What the writer meant is that the parts were not banded separately.  I contend this is an unimportant point, as banding is not necessarily under the control of the artist, and may vary from one pressing to another, and from country to country.  The parts were mentioned on the original covers and labels, and "Sysyphus" is banded on my UK and Canadian copies (the latter probably being the same as USA's), and explicitly listed on USA / Canada covers as "band 1" through "band 4", with the other 2 tracks on side 3 being bands 5 and 6.  Saying it wasn't split into parts originally, contradicts the whole discussion of the old vs. current way "Sysphus" is split up.
 * The writer who claimed the 3 songs were originally unsplit, listed timings for the whole tracks, which are just the CD timings for the parts, added up. The timings on the USA LP labels are not the same, which is rather common in vinyl vs. CD pressings, and does not mean they are really different playing lengths.  For example, "The Grand Vizier's Garden Party" is listed as being 11 seconds longer on the LP label, but probably isn't really.  The UK LP edition does not list track times at all.
 * The explanation of changes to the way "Sysphus" is split, has been reworded for clarity. BTW, these tracks are banded the "original" way on both my vinyl copies.
 * Changed reference to copies containing an early track list, from "bootlegs" to "test pressings", as that's surely what they were.

Alan Stiles, or Styles?
An anonymous IP changed the spelling of Stiles' name to "Styles" on March 4. Another anon IP made the same change to the "Alan's Psychedelic Breakfast" (song) page on January 2. His name is still spelled "Stiles" on the "Atom Heart Mother" page. I've always seen it spelled "Stiles". These are the only edits either IP has ever made. I'm planning to change both articles back to "Stiles", but invite comments before I do so.

--A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 14:29, 23 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Unexplained changes that clearly contradict sources can be reverted immediately. If it seems worthwhile to encourage the editor to make a case for their change, tag their Talk pages with Uw-unsourced1 or Uw-error1. (In the case of an anon IP, this is probably not worth doing unless it's done immediately, or their edit history suggests the same editor retains the same address long-term.) / edg ☺ ☭ 16:03, 23 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree, but wanted to check with others, because I'm not 100% certain which is right. I intend to give it 48 hours before reverting.  Thanks. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 16:29, 23 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Reverted. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 20:14, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Nick Mason's book "Inside Out" spells it 'Styles' and though it has been spelt: 'Stiles' in other books, I would personally trust one of the band members rather than someone who had never met the person concerned. Revert again? NH78.147.104.165 (talk) 18:55, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Well that explains where the other spelling probably came from. But who's to say the other people who quote his name never met him? Mason could certainly have mis-remembered the spelling of the name of a roadie, or it could be a publishing typo. By the way, "Mr. NH", I see you contributing to these pages all the time, and since you sign your initials and are not completely anonymous, I keep wondering when you're going to get an account. It's nice to have a user page for communications and customizing. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 02:05, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

You asked for comments regarding the two spellings. I gave an example of the less common spelling. I have got a user page.NH78.147.156.124 (talk) 20:23, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

You (or someone) changed the name to Styles, but it's not been changed on other WP pages (including the article on the person), and a wikilink to the article was removed. As an interim solution, I have changed the article so it notes both spellings, with preference given to "Stiles", and put back the link. Hope this doesn't come across as me being stubborn; I realize that insisting on either spelling is less than ideal when we don't know for sure which is right. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 05:20, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Funnily enough I was just going to suggest the same thing but you beat me to it. I agree that where there is no absolutely definitive source, then both spellings should be noted for the sake of accuracy, however I would err towards Nick Mason's knowledge as PF were actually his employers and Inside Out even shows a photo of the band with Styles (or Stiles) on holiday in St Tropez in around 1970. Most books do refer to him as Stiles but in the same way that some of the band members' dates of birth were listed as different years for decades until Mason set the record straight, I would say that Mason is more likely to be accurate.NH78.147.110.170 (talk) 11:15, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Allmusic guide
Recently there has been a mini edit war over whether the Allmusic rating should be 3.5 or 5. I notice a similar problem involving the same user on a Supertramp album page, and have posted a comment on Talk:Even in the Quietest Moments and invited the editor to comment there. He seems to have a reason for believing the ratings on the website are wrong, and I'm asking him to explain. The website says 3.5 for Ummagumma, and I've changed the article back to that for now, pending further info. I may have more to say, depending on what happens next. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 20:59, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Voices on "Sysyphus"
Wright is credited with vocals on Sysyphus; however, I'm fairly certain that the choir heard at the end is a mellotron. I also cleaned up the Personnel section a bit, removing wiki-links for the songs, as those are already in the "Track listing" section above. -- 87.165.252.194 (talk) 13:26, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Cassette edition
I'm pretty sure that the cassette release was not much different from the LP one, the 1st cassette contained the live album, and the 2nd the studio album, the order of the songs was different.--Doktor Who (talk) 20:07, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I never really noticed that section. Probably the person who added it, has a copy.  Cassettes could very well have been released differently in different countries.  Why not ask the person who added the info where his copy was made, and if he can make a guesstimate of when it was manufactured?  The section was added in late July. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 22:30, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Other album art
There is another image used somewhere on the album (back or inside cover) of the band posed with their entire array of musical instruments in a ornate arrangement. I think this image would contribute greatly to the article, especially since it shows the instruments mentioned before they were stolen in New Orleans. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.153.132.151 (talk) 00:33, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Copyright is a problem. Cover art is used under "fair use" rules, and these have been interpreted to mean that only the front cover should be used, for the purpose of identifying the album.  I agree that it would be nice to show the back cover, but copyright rules are against it. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 00:51, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

CD
I'm thinking of adding the track list to the article for the CD version. Simply describing it in the Release history area may be a bit confusing. I think its just more simple to write it all out, all 16 tracks. --TangoTizerWolfstone (talk) 16:06, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi, and yep, i've since done it --TangoTizerWolfstone (talk) 15:45, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Edit warring
There appears to have been some large scale content changes in the last couple of days, and reverts. What's going on? If things get worse, I might have to consider asking for the article to be delisted from GA as we can't have unstable good articles with edit warring on them. -- Ritchie333 (talk)  (cont)   15:34, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
 * User:Lachlan Foley changes (among other things) the reference style, and tracklisting, I don't see how this helps the article. yeepsi (Time for a chat?) 15:38, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay. Lachlan was bold. You reverted. Let's discuss! I haven't a good look but I'm pretty sure changing "UK" to "United Kingdom" is against WP:MOS, but I can never remember. -- Ritchie333 (talk)  (cont)   15:51, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
 * In one of the edits, Lachlan did remove the template. yeepsi (Time for a chat?) 16:03, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Hmmm. Explanation please, Lachlan. -- Ritchie333 (talk)  (cont)   16:09, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Tracklist templates
Is it really necessary for the main tracklist to be in the template? (Just the tracklist for the Live&Studio albums, not the cass or CD ones.) I mean, it's just song title and length (and recording date for live album), not as (I can't think of the right word here>) full as say The Concert for Bangladesh (album). yeepsi (Time for a chat?) 18:50, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Credits
To the IPs who've just started edit-warring on the article, consensus previously agreed (admittedly mostly by Yeepsi and myself, but others were welcome to comment) is that the credits are cited to the sleeve notes, unless the wording is substantiated by another reliable source, such as Lindy Mason playing flute, cited in Mason's autobiography. Please don't make changes unless you have a corresponding source for them, and when you do, ensure you explain why you're making the changes on the edit summary or here. Cheers. Ritchie333 (talk)  (cont)   10:02, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Sysyphus
Why the Sysyphus article was deleted? Amb1997 (talk) 21:56, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
 * It wasn't, it was redirected to here because the majority of the article (bar one source merged in here) was unsourced original research. I think we'd like to hear more coverage of it in reliable sources, but there just doesn't seem to be the coverage out there. Ritchie333  (talk)  (cont)   22:27, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks for the info. Amb1997 (talk) 18:15, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Edit Warring
Guys, stop it. I appreciate isn't making the greatest contributions in the world, but I don't see any obvious bad faith or vandalism edits from them. Insulam Simia and Yeepsi, you're both good editors, and that's what I'm reluctant to take the IP to WP:AN3 for excessive edit warring, as the boomerang might come back and whack the pair of you on the noggin. WP:BRD applies to everyone - as soon as there is contention, you go to talk, and stop reverting yourself.

Now, everyone, please summarise what the points of contention are, as I'm confused. Ritchie333 (talk)  (cont)   15:15, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm confused myself and to be frank, I just saw this edit on my watchlist and noticed that the IP had had made a substantial and non-consensual edit that required consensus. I tried to talk to him about it, but I didn't get any response. The IP now appears to be taking a different path of changing the lead to include a part that states it's a studio album and shuffling the track listing upside-down, when the Allmusic track listing has it with the live album first.


 * From his talk page, it appears the IP has a prolific history of adding erroneous information. Insulam Simia (talk/contribs) 15:28, 22 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Okay, I see what's going on. The IP seemed to confuse the sourced description of the album with popular opinion against some fans, which is a great live album with some weird studio stuff as an extra. There seems to have been a bit of a flurry of IP edits over the last couple of days adding unsourced stuff - the other IP editor,, seems to be a BT internet customer, and a completely different person. If things carries on, we can look at semi protection as a next step, but admins tend to be reluctant to do that unless a group of IPs are intent on vandalising or POV pushing.


 * Anyway, to summarise for everyone, my current understanding of consensus is as follows :
 * All personnel credits are cited to the original album, or to another reliable source that lists them. The main reason I like this is because otherwise people keep turning up and adding bells and whistles to the credits and it gets out of hand. If it was important to credit Roger Waters playing cymbals in the middle of A Saucerful of Secrets, while Rick Wright was playing with the "Azimuth Co-ordinator", a source would have said so by now.
 * Ummagumma is a double album (or CD, or, in these modern times, download). One part is live, one part is studio. No part is more or less important than the other. You might share my personal view that the version of Astronomy Domine presented here is definitive, while The Grand Vizier's Garden Party is what the "skip" button was invented for, but that can't go in an encyclopedia.
 * If anyone disagrees with the above, say so! Ritchie333  (talk)  (cont)   15:53, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Sysyphus
An IP keeps trying to copy the old Sysyphus article (which was sent to AfD and closed as merge with this one) back in. As well as being mostly unsourced, it is technically a copyright violation as there is no attribution for the original articles. Can we get a consensus on what to do? <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  19:13, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Restore it. Either as an article, or as a section in here. Note that the AfD did not close as delete (as has frequently been claimed), but as "redirect w/o prejudice to merging verificable content" Andy Dingley (talk) 22:22, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Who claimed the AfD closed as delete? It is restored at the moment, but of the added text, the only thing that is not unsourced, redundant or already in the article is the note that the track timings and section splits are different on CD compared to LP. I'm okay in including that (provided it gets sources but I can do that) but that's about it. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  08:27, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * As there has been no other comment, this has now been done. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  16:31, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Ron Geesin and "Several Species"
We've got a problem here. The source for Ron Geesin doing the Pictish rant at the end is cited to AllMusic, which is normally considered an acceptable source. I can't find a reliable source that suggests otherwise, but having closely listened to the track (that was pretty avant garde wasn't it?) it does sound like Waters. (Compare and contrast with the Teacher in The Wall ten years later, and any of the bootlegs of Careful with that Axe from c. 1972 that show Water in full Pictish rant). What should we do? <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  17:21, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Genres
Why the genres "avant-garde and experimental rock" couldn't be if the sources describe it so? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 36.3.86.109 (talk) 21:55, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Search me, as you probably know, Several Species of Small Furry Animals Gathered Together in a Cave and Grooving with a Pict has Waters saying "that was pretty avant-garde wasn't it?" (albeit sped up to sound like a chipmunk). <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  22:26, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

You can't attribute either genre to the album based on this material alone.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 22:39, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
 * 
 * 
 * Ultimate Classic rock and Allmusic aren't exactly the greatest sources in the world - have you had a look in Povey, Schaffner or Manning, for example? Personally I think Schaffner has the edge when it comes to narrative and basic ideals and concepts, whereas Povey is the leading source for raw facts. Anyway, it's not original research to listen to the album (particularly the studio side) and conclude there is some seriously wacky stuff in it, including tapes being sped up backwards and forwards (indeed, I have remarked that "Several Species" is one of the few songs that sounds just as good backwards as forwards). <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  22:47, 17 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Also, the lead has had "progressive rock" in there for ages, for Ummagumma in particular it's certainly appropriate. Manning specifically refers to the album as "a progressive rock folly". <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  23:01, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
 * There's a general, unwritten consensus that Pink Floyd are a rock band associated with psychedelic and progressive styles. They aren't necessarily reduced to either genre, and it's totally a matter of opinion as to whether this is a "progressive", "experimental", "psychedelic", or "avant-garde" album. One could argue that "psychedelia" is an "avant-garde" genre. It's all relative. And "progressive" is not an equivalent term for "avant-garde". Why are we privileging "prog" over everything else? It's been many years since I've listened to Ummagumma, but I remember 90% of this album being purely avant-garde noise. That's not what progressive rock is.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 23:21, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Well I thought since we're having this discussion, I'd listen to it now! (And if you email me using the "Email this user" link, I'll send you my covers of "Astronomy Domine" and "Careful With That Axe, Eugene" that quite a few Wikipedians have now - and they aren't avant garde noise). In any case, it's always best to defer to what the expert sources say. Interestingly, a discussion from 10 years ago seem to suggest that "progressive rock" was okay. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  23:39, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Band opinions
I just don't get all the hate and negativity that the Floyd have for "Ummagumma" and "Atom Heart Mother" and why they hate them so much. Whether those two albums are as good and appealing as "Dark Side of the Moon" or not is a matter of individual opinion and I don't care what critics think of those albums because, as I said, it's up to individual opinion. If Waters, Wright, Gilmour and Mason disliked "Ummagumma" and "Atom Heart Mother" so much, then why did they release them in the first place? I just think it's hypocritical for bands and singers to dislike and publicly malign certain albums, despite investing time, effort, money and enthusiasm into its recording - this is my own personal viewpoint, so nobody should misconstrue it for fact. 61.69.217.3 (talk) 07:37, 19 December 2017 (UTC)