So my usual bone to pick with Pink Floyd is that Roger Waters is too much of a downer, especially in later years. (And don’t get me started on his whacked-out solo albums.) On the other hand, he was plainly the guiding light of Pink Floyd, because it just wasn’t the same without him. There’s been some heated debate as to whether or not David Gilmour was worthy enough to get custody of the name in the acrimonious split-up of the old partnership. There’s a lot of emotional side-taking involved. My opinion is, since what Gilmour produced under the Floyd banner after Waters left sounded a lot more Floydian that what Waters could come up with on his own, it was a just decision. I’ll also give it to Gilmour that The Division Bell was a lot more enjoyable an album than The Final Cut, or anything Waters has done in the meantime. Nevertheless, there was a sense of something missing, some spark of vitality that probably had less to do with Roger Waters being so great and all, and more about missing the friction of the collaboration itself. Gilmour followed through on a lot of favorite Pink Floyd themes; alienation, nostalgia, the passage of time. The atmosphere he achieved was mostly a kind of rueful melancholy, which is fine, but without Waters’ customary bitterness and anger it did get a bit boring. As there hasn’t been any new Floyd since 1994, someone must have realized that the band was more than the sum of its parts and should be allowed to die with as much dignity as Waters and Gilmour’s feud would allow. Like a lot of people, I certainly wish those two had figured out some way to continue getting along, but after so many years of behaving like a pissed-of divorced couple, a reunion seems like a bad idea.