It takes a lot of self-assurance to dismiss an entire genre. In fact, it takes a lot of self-assurance to dismiss a singular artist, because often, you’ve got to come up with reasons beyond the typical “I just don’t like them” that go into the why, even if sometimes it’s harder to explain to someone you know likely won’t understand. Obviously, though, David Gilmour doesn’t experience such obstacles.
That said, this probably doesn’t come as a surprise to anybody. Details of his forever feud with his ex-musical collaborator aside, some might say Gilmour has more than earned his place as a leading voice, especially when it comes to the purpose of art and how to put on a good show. Sometimes, musicians use this as an opportunity to appease their audience, which is entirely understandable, but to Gilmour, it’s criminal.
“I don’t consider an audience member’s views because that’s the death of art, if you ask me,” he explained to the LA Times. Quite a bold choice, but one that makes sense when you sit with it – Gilmour believes in the artistic value of all his work, and when something means something specific to him, that’s all that matters. It’s not about what the people love or want, but what makes him shine on stage singing about the things he feels especially magical about.
Maybe that’s also why he hates the term or label prog-rock. For many, it’s likely one of the best compliments you could receive, especially today, when being prog isn’t necessarily about adhering to a subset of specific musical sensibilities but an attitude about pushing boundaries and being free from the pressures of structural expectation. In Gilmour’s world, being deemed prog (“I hate that word”) is more restrictive than it seems, which is strange, considering it represents quite the opposite.
But this ability to detect pretences in every corner of music is also what probably places him in a good position to talk shit about certain eras and genres, not just because he lived through most of them but because he also has a good idea about what holds meaning and what doesn’t. And while most people would likely glare at someone with complete and utter disdain for even suggesting the punk genre holds no meaning, that’s exactly how Gilmour feels.
“I thought [punk] was quite lively [when it first came out],” he once said, boldly admitting he didn’t think it “had a particularly lasting significance.” He added, “It wasn’t the first time it happened, either. I mean, people being incredibly rude and playing music incredibly badly and being incredibly obnoxious has always been a teenage sort of thing.”
For many, this take is probably akin to a breath of fresh air. Punk isn’t for everybody, regardless of the political and societal significance that much of it holds. People like Gilmour view it as nothing more than a means to, as he put it, play aggressively without much musical proficiency and pass it off as “punk” because it dared to be loud, even if this kind of loudness was only about shouting about the cause rather than anything sonically impressive. It’s a perspective you could get behind, but only if there’s enough justification for dismissing the idea entirely.
