BLOG

Chris Dahlen's picture

By Chris Dahlen

September 16, 2009

The Undeniable Case For Pink Floyd: Rock Band

The year was 1967, and the house band of the London underground was Pink Floyd. They were progenitors of space rock, headlining shows that were as much psychedelic spectacle as rock show. In his prog rock study The Music’s All That Matters, Paul Stump describes a gig at the Queen Elizabeth Hall: “[Roger] Waters hurled potatoes at a gong, [Nick] Mason sawed wood, eggs were fried onstage.” They grew into a globe-straddling rock dinosaur, but it all began with four guys with the guts to start a food fight.

Now that Harmonix Music Systems has shipped The Beatles: Rock Band, they have nowhere to go but down. PR guy John Drake says they spent 17 months on research and development for the game, investing more personnel than they’d ever sunk into a single title. Who else deserves that kind of treatment? Led Zeppelin? U2? Herman and the Hermits?

My money’s on Pink Floyd. Not only could they move enough copies to make it worth everyone’s while: they would also push the music game genre in directions that even the Beatles couldn’t muster.

Now, normally I try not to be one of those journos who goes off on some wild game design idea that would either never work or never sell, e.g., “What if you set Super Smash Bros. Brawl … in the Vatican?” Bringing Pink Floyd’s music to Rock Band seems plausible – EMI is already talking about it, and though drummer Nick Mason is sniffy about music games, he never said he’d turn down the cheques. But a whole game about the Floyd that uses their likenesses? Two of the members, Syd Barrett and Richard Wright, were forced out of the band and have since died. And Roger Waters and David Gilmour are, let’s just say, not chummy. You’d never, ever get the cooperation that the Beatles and their widows brought to their own game.

But let’s chew over the potential. The Beatles: Rock Band added little to the basic Rock Band platform. We got three-way harmonies, but otherwise it’s the same line-up of drums, guitar and bass, with no new support studio effects, chamber instruments or even keyboards. Harmonix has thought about adding keyboards to the mix in the past, but they still haven’t crossed the line; one reason I’ve been given is that not enough songs could take advantage of them.

But keyboards have been crucial to Pink Floyd’s sound from the start. Richard Wright played terrific but accessible solos, eschewing the Rick Wakeman workouts that would drive players batty on a little toy keyboard. And he also conjured the textures, synthscapes and unusual sound effects that were key to the band’s sound: think of Shine On (You Crazy Diamond), or the sonar effect on Echoes.

A Pink Floyd game would also break the length barrier. Rock Band and Guitar Hero have shied away from anything over ten minutes, and the side two medley from the Beatles’ Abbey Road will be the genre’s first lengthy suite. Will it pave the way to more prog? Can gamers handle 17 minutes of Dogs, or a whole side of Dark Side of the Moon? I say, sure. Each song has sections that don’t need the full band, giving the lazier players a chance to chill. You could also take a lesson from Left 4 Dead: if someone needed to check the brownies in the middle of Atom Heart Mother, they leave their part on auto-pilot while they’re gone.

But a Pink Floyd game could also break down a bigger barrier: it could help players grow from performers to arrangers. The early Floyd setlists were full of improvised and indeterminate pieces. What about using Natal – which is already on the radar for Rock Band 3 - to play theremin-like effects or shape the sound effects in the abstract section of Echoes? How about a remixer using the loops from Several Species Of Small Furry Animals Gathered Together In A Cave And Grooving With A Pict? Or why not let the players decide when to ramp up to the climax of Careful With That Axe, Eugene?

The Beatles’ game was about love: our love for the band, the love in the songs, the love that you make and you take. But Pink Floyd was the world’s biggest acid rock band, and they built their career on experimentation. Where the Beatles let you mangle their vocals, Pink Floyd should let you fool around with the sounds, samples and ideas that they fooled around with night after night on stage and month after month in the studio. The guitar solo in Comfortably Numb would move the merch – but the screwing around that inspired the band could make this the most progressive Rock Band yet.

And if you the beat the game? An animation plays, showing Waters and Gilmour sitting at a pub, chatting like old mates. And as the screen fades to black, they share a little fist bump.

I know, I know … it’ll never happen. At least we can get lit and play Audiosurf. Or perhaps there's some other band or person you'd like to see in a game?

Chris Dahlen writes about games, music, pop, and tech. You can find him online at @savetherobot, or drop him a line at chris [at] savetherobot.com.

zakrocz's picture

Don't recall any keyboard solos in my Pink Floyd collection, sure you're not thinking of that prog rock rubbish Yes & Genesis that for some reason Floyd have been associated with by the music press.

edshot's picture

You're kiddin', right?

Ben_Lathwell's picture

After Guitar Hero 5 outsold Beatles Rockband the past couple of weeks i would be suprised to see another major release in the same style as Beatles Rockband.

The style of the game obviously took along time to develop, providing many different character models, settings etc, only to be outsold by Guitar hero, which essentially just provided more of the same.

Its my opinion that if another band specific game is released it would follow the style of the Metallica or Aerosmith games, basicly just a large add on pack. It makes more economic sense to do it this way as the cost of development and securing licenses to The Beatles music/images clearly hasn't paid off in terms of the games initial success.

Im not saying Beatles Rockband isn't a successful games but Guitar Hero 5 was more successful for what i would imagine would be less cost.

Personally i think its a shame, not really a Beatles fan but i appreciate the care and attention that has gone into the game. Unfortunatley when you make a band specific game you alienate anyone who is not really a fan of that bands music. The Beatles are the most popular band on earth and they couldn't out sell GH5, honestly, financially, either Harmonix or Activision will have a tough time making a success of a Pink Floyd or Led Zeppelin (as has been discussed) game, as the fan base, who will also want to buy the game, while huge just isnt big enough.

Ben_Lathwell's picture

K seems the chart has changed somewhat since i wrote this so i will eat some humble pie.

However some of my points are still valid, Beatles rockband would have cost more to develop and the royalties would have been higher. Approval for likenesses etc would have been difficult, especially as Courtney Love appers to sign anything then whine later.

OmegaVader's picture

Oh I don't disagree, Beatles definitely cost more to make than GH5 or just a normal RB game would have. Again, though, I think Harmonix will recoup with the improved sales (they're eating into Activision's marketshare at this point) and, perhaps more importantly, the DLC.

Ben_Lathwell's picture

I think what helps is Harmonix have 'pulled a Nintendo', by this i mean they have attracted people to the game who normally would never be interested in music games or indeed games in general. I honestly don't think a Pink Floyd or Led Zepplin game could do the same.
Still i totally agree that Harmonix were onto a winner as soon as the royalty deals were signed

OmegaVader's picture

I agree. The Beatles is one of those rare bands that both had mainstream appeal and spectacular talent, pushing music forward. Led Zeppelin is phenomenal but they don't have the same army of fans (well, they have an army, it's just the difference between the USA and, let's say, China).

As an RB and music fan though, I would love love love RB Led Zeppelin. Or just Led Zeppelin as DLC. Just get them in the game, dammit! Each of their albums is crying for it.

Ben_Lathwell's picture

Which brings me back to my original post, if a Led Zeppelin game happens i believe it will be more like the Mettalica or Aerosmith games, thats even if they can get Zeppelin to agree, bearing in mind we are talking about a band that never even released a single

oh and dont get me wrong i would spend hours with a lz game

OmegaVader's picture

even if it's LZ, I would never buy a GH game. If Harmonix picks them up, they would almost certainly do something in the vein of The Beatles if not outright DLC, because it is simply how they do business (unlike Activision). The AC/DC release is but a minor oversight, as they had an exclusivity deal with Wal-mart and thus had to comply, rather than making an outright DLC release.

OmegaVader's picture

http://vgchartz.com/aweekly.php

yeah, on my count, Beatles is ahead around 70k units in the week ending Sept 12th. Which is only 3 days of release, compared to GH5's twelve days.

none of this is firm of course until we got some solid NPD numbers and more than two weeks has passed (let's say, at least 3 months), but you're probably going off Activision's recent hype report, which if you don't know yet, is always hot air. In any case, you shouldn't count your chickens before they hatch. Not to mention you have no idea what it costs to make these games -- it could be that 500k sold for GH5 is enough to recoup the investment. It's not like GH5 is leaps and bounds ahead of GH:WT, development-wise. In the case of the Beatles, the main cost is probably the massive royalties, something that likely wouldn't be as much of a problem with a Zeppelin game since they don't have an Apple Corps equivalent fronting them, along with a huge slew of contractual entanglements.

Also, I think you're discounting the sales Harmonix has been making and will be making from DLC. In The Beatles case, I think it's very likely a great deal of people (myself included) will go ahead and buy everything. After all, the Beatles have a limited catalog and I imagine it'll eventually be up there in its entirety. Three albums are already on the way. All You Need Is Love is already Harmonix's fastest selling DLC track.

EDIT: woops, seems the chart updated to the week ending september 19th. GH5 has fallen off the top 10 altogether. Beatles is still in it and now 170k units ahead.

Rudeboy Stu's picture

I would love a Pink Floyd game like this. That is all

OmegaVader's picture

I'm all for Pink Floyd in Rock Band, but an entire title devoted to it? Pink Floyd fills a proper niche but it is by no means such a massive or exploratory effort to warrant an entire title to it. What's more, I don't think most of the songs in their library would even play well in Rock Band. Don't get me wrong, listening to them can be a joy, but sometimes they proceed at a decidedly deliberate and slow pace that it wouldn't lend itself well to the RB format, of which the point is interactivity and engagement, not holding down notes for a significant amount of time.

It also doesn't help that they're not quite as widespread or diverse as the Beatles. There's some real growth in the Beatles, musically, and while Pink Floyd does diverge here and there, it does it in a much more narrow corridor, and one that is uniquely their own rather than influencing so many others the way the Beatles have.

I very much doubt that Harmonix will bother to invest such significant resources into a one band title again. The Beatles may be the only band with enough popularity to even warrant it. The only possible exception I can conceive of is Led Zeppelin, which is such a tremendous fusion of all four roles that the product would be pure bliss...what that band represented more than any other was chemistry. Whereas the Beatles could get away with McCartney filling in for Ringo or Lennon taking on lead guitar, if someone was missing from Zeppelin, it simply wouldn't be Zeppelin. What's more, all four performers can be quite the virtuousos -- they are ideal for a game like RB. They also sufficiently fulfill the desire for 10+ minute tracks, and without the slow periods of Pink Floyd, via their live albums (and it wouldn't be just if you didn't have a few live tracks in such a game). Add in the fact that Zeppelin has been perhaps as reluctant (if not more so) as the Beatles were initially, the only thing to convince them to finally let their music out is to show them the kind of love that HMX showed the Beatles. It seems pink floyd is already sufficiently convinced -- now someone needs to convince Zeppelin before Activision does so with a massive check instead.

Chris Dahlen's picture

You've got a good point about the Floyd's catalog - even though they're an album band, they have plenty of albums that I wouldn't want to play straight through in Rock Band. Even "The Wall" kinda kills me during side three. They're also not as diverse as The Beatles. But as tragic as it is, they do have a story, and they are monstrously huge for an art band.

You're dead on about Zeppelin though, and while I've heard that the band was reluctant to give up their masters, The Beatles game must be giving them ideas. I can't even imagine the kind of launch you wuold plan for "Stairway to Heaven." That's not something you send a press release about - I think you'd have to just shut off the Internet for a day before you announce it, just to match the gravity of it.

OmegaVader's picture

I think what was largely considered the 'big three' in the pre-GH3/RB era had always been Metallica, The Beatles and Led Zeppelin. With the other two finally giving in, Zeppelin as the last man standing has perhaps become the holy grail of rhythm games. What would I do upon such news? Effectively snap my RB2 disc in two as there simply wouldn't be enough time apart from the Zep game to warrant any need for RB2.

Okay, maybe that's a bit of an exaggeration, I love my RB2 disc and am not willing to part with the 100+ DLC songs I've bought. However, with the maturation of the rhythm genre, exclusives worthy of bullet points on the back of the box are quickly drying up. I imagine both Harmonix and Activision are trying to court the band in what could be the last major 'land-grab' for band games. If Activision ever gets exclusivity, I'll weep...and still resist their copycat titles from an inferior (at least as far as music games are concerned) developer.

I can't imagine what could come next after a Zeppelin release. I suppose Pink Floyd could follow, but it would all be downhill from there.

Would be nice if Harmonix finally netted Velvet Underground for DLC, though...

ztrapwn's picture

I think you're a bit off here to be honest.

When I was playing GH3 the most I always thought about what songs would make good GH tracks when listening to them on my iPod. And seeing as I listen to Pink Floyd a lot, I had this idea too. But then it struck me that despite the awesome solos of say Comfortably Numb or Time, there's so much about Pink Floyd that just doesn't fit the genre.

You mention Echoes for example. It's a 20-minute track or so. But half of it is filled with audio experiments and wacky sounds.
Shine on you Crazy Diamond? Sure, also an awesome, epic track of about 20 minutes. But again, the sounds. And large parts of it is just floating-in-space ambience.

Another thing is the saxophone. Us and Them, Shine on, Money, they all have saxophone solos. What instrument would play that? Preferrably the keyboard, but it would still be a bit odd.

I always figured that instead of insisting on making or keeping the boring and useless part of songs, GH or Rockband creators should pick out solos from songs, and just have them for playing alone. Imagine an "Epic Solos" option on the main menu, where you jump straight into the solo. Many songs are just riff riff riff riff solo riff riff riff with the riff being extremely tiresome and the solo the only fun part of the song.

Anyway, can't say I wouldn't buy a Guitar Hero: Pink Floyd. But that's just because I love the band, I don't really see millions of others buying it for that reason alone.

Alex Walker's picture

I think you've just described a Guitar Hero game rather than Rock Band. From the EDGE review of Rock Band 2:

"Those expecting the likes of music-making functionality perhaps aren’t quite on Rock Band’s wavelength, which is about performance, not creativity. That Harmonix has stayed absolutely true to that idea has demonstrated that sequels don’t necessarily need to innovate to succeed, after all."

This (beyond presentation issues and the awful singing mode in Activisions title) is why I play Rock Band over Guitar Hero. I have no pretensions at being a musician. I'm simply bashing away at a play drum set because it's fun. One word put in brackets after a song title turns it from 'must buy' to 'won't buy' and that word is 'Live'. I want to play a song that is lodged in my head, not the evolved form from 20 years of touring. If I can't face that, I'd have a heart attack from the game asking me to change the song myself.

Play, create, share works for Little Big Planet, but would be terrible for Mario. In the same vein, I think Rock Band should steer clear of music creation. The fun is in the play, specifically, playing a song you love.

Chris Dahlen's picture


I agree - creativity isn't exactly "fun." And I wasn't impressed by the studio in GH either.

But you could invite people to be arrangers without asking them to write songs from scratch. I'm imagining that they could use samples to make a music toy in the middle of the game - basically, just take the freestyle sections one step farther. Later Floyd records are pretty immutable and familiar. There's not much you can change about The Wall. (Same with Beatles: Rock Band - the new fadeouts still bug me every time.) But they recorded a lot of versions of the early murky psychedelic stuff, and there's room to play with what they did.

Alex Walker's picture

I tend to play the exact same drum fill for each song, for two reasons. It fits with 90 % of the beats and ends on green. I'm told Beatles has removed the fills for star power, but if it's replaced it with Guitar Hero style cymbal hitting I fear I'll never activate star power again.

I'm also yet to understand the freestyle sections in Guitar Hero. When singing I just hum the tune to the song and it seems to give me the most points, which doesn't really strike me as being particularly freestyle.

To be honest I think that the Big Rock Finish is all the playing about I need. I would only ask that for RB3 they let the singer score points for wailing into the mic. This means I can score points for swearing profusely.

wordsmythe's picture

So I'm a drummer by training, and I'm always jealous of the way singing is implemented, since singers in Rock Band get the chance to make small changes at about the level of adding back in the edited-out swears. If I'm on non-plastic drums jamming with friends, and if we really get into a song, a few things happen. First, I'll often play louder, but I'll also rock out a bit--switch from hi-hat eighths to quarters on the crash, maybe, or funk out the snare beat. I dig it, my jam-partners dig it, and everything gets that much more fun. The only important thing is that I keep the beat and time and don't mess with the general rhythm too much.

Easy-access example: Green Day's Tre Cool plays fairly standard punk and rock beats in a lot of songs, but he accents those beats with a crash symbol much more often than most. It'd be neat if a music game 1) didn't punish me for this, and 2) realized what I was doing and subtly changed the audio output to match.

Also: I vote for a Punk Band release, full of everything from the Ramones, Dead Kennedys, and 7 Seconds to Pennywise, Lagwagon, and the Dropkick Murphys. It can be musically broad, too, hitting the NY Dolls, Pegboy, Lucky Boys Confusion, and The Tossers. I wouldn't mind ska or even reggae in there, for good measure. Not sure how many people would want to sing along with NoFX, but I bet we'd all enjoy some Me First And The Gimme Gimmes.

-Erik

Alex Walker's picture

I'd still argue that if you want to not be punished for adding in things that aren't in the song, then you're playing it wrong.

Still, as far as the punk bit goes, I'm all for that.

michael_sylvain's picture

Agreed. The initial joy of (say) the first GH was feeling like you were playing these songs regardless of whether you could play them on real instruments. The games aren't (and probably shouldn't be) about improvisation, adaptation, or re-interpreting the songs - the creation modes just don't work, and part of the reason is that it's at this point you have to face how huge the disconnect is between the toy instruments and real ones outside of the playalongs.

The playlists get bigger, and the two strands of game have diverged between the more po-faced and the more cartonish but at their best neither of them are simulations; they're a different kind of karaoke crossed with parappa the rapper, social gaming and certain types of record collections. Or they're wish fulfilment or fun. Which is fine. But when I want to play something different, I'll play that on a real instrument, rather than a game built around drawing you into the illusion of playing the songs.

michael_sylvain's picture

I'm not sure I can afford the frying pan and gong peripherals required to do justice to Set the Controls... And please don't give Activision any more ideas for cash-in add-ons, they seem far too fond of that already.

It'll all just end up with Rick Wakeman's Guitar Hero on Ice, anyway, and no one needs that. Prog Rock will Eat Itself. (In 17/5 time, over 14 courses...)

Chris Dahlen's picture


Guitar Hero on Ice is the greatest idea ever.

But I really just want his cape.

michael_sylvain's picture

Rick Wakeman's cape was incredible, but he scares the bejesus out of me.

I shall freeze the floor, invite some mates over, and prototype this brave new musical-game extravaganza...

gsotomusic's picture

Pink Floyd Rock Band would be rad - I'd sign the petition!

G-L-O-R-I-A