Jump to content

Talk:Money (Pink Floyd song)/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

DAB

Perhaps should include disambiguation with Beatles, Kingsmen, etc. song of this name?--Samuel J. Howard 16:57, 3 May 2004 (UTC)

Perhaps... But as a note, there are well over 15 songs named money that aren't covers... It would be a long list. - Fizscy46 15:37, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

Time Signature

I disagree that the verse part is in 21/8. There is no triplet feel typical of a compound meter (x/8), the drums are playing a pretty straigtforward 7 beats without further subdivision (kick-snare-kick-snare-kick-snare-kick). I would argue 7/4, or maybe 14/8 to capture the quaver (8th note) in the second beat of the bassline. --Steve carlson 04:30, 13 November 2005 (UTC) 

- V Different user V -

Sorry to hijack your post, but I think it is 21/8. You can hear it in the drumbeat and in the bassline, each beat is clearly in triplets. However if that's true that means the solo is in 12/8, not 4/4. You can't have it both ways, right? Either they're both compound or they're both simple IMO. Mike Williamson

LEARN TO COUNT. It's in 21/8. No 'triplets' bullshit. If the entire song happens to use triplets, they become part of the time signature. 7 * 3 = 21. 7 beats per bar composed of triplets. It's based around the standard blues / RNB 12/8 thing, with one beat cut, hence the rhythm is kick, snare, kick, snare [1234] kick snare hi hat [123]. Pink Floyd are high is they think this is in 7/8. Jesus god. Also, there's no way in holy fuck this song is in 7/8. -Gates, pissed that someone keeps changing this back to 7/4 when there are clearly no offbeats.

LEARN SOME TACT! I don't appreciate your tone - I was just trying to generate some discussion and perhaps achieve some clarity around why nobody can agree on this. And I see the problem now, it's the same old problem with representing swung meter that we have with the blues. Some people write it 4/4 for simplicity, some people write it 12/8 to accurately capture the feel. I see both in professionally transcribed music. So for this song, both swung 7/4 AND 21/8 are correct, it just depends on your perspective. Maybe the article should mention BOTH and have a brief explanation of this, or link to an article that explains it? Steve carlson 16:33, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd be inclined to argue that it's in 21/8 (and then 12/8), but you could just as easily argue it's "swung 7/4" or whatever. I also agree that there's no way in hell it's in 7/8. Steve's probably right that this should be mentioned in the main article - nobody's going to agree if you just write either 7/4 or 21/8. It says 7/8 currently, which is rubbish. 86.43.91.105 17:47, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

(Sigh) Okay folks, I was the one who put it was in 21/8, which it is. There is no such thing as a swung 7/4, a swing feel immediately implies that it's being played with triplets. David Gilmour can say it's in 7/8, but either he mis-spoke, or he's mistaken. It's as much in 7/8 as it is in 7436.5/32.Andy Johnston 21:07, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Here's what I figure: The verse groove is in 7/4. If you count the bassline, you get quarter, eighth, eighth, quarter, quarter, quarter, quarter, quarter. The first two measures of the chorus are in 4/4 (half, eighth, eighth, quarter followed by four quarter notes) and the third measure is in 6/4 (Two eighth notes followed by 5 quarter notes).

No. If you're going to go by the note lengths like that, it would be dotted-quarter, quarter, eighth, dotted-quarter, dotted-quarter, dotted-quarter, dotted-quarter, dotted-quarter, dotted-quarter. The actual notes fall on 1,4-6,7,10,13,16,19 Andy Johnston 13:59, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Dudes, it's in 7/8 until the guitar solo in 4/4, then back to 7/8. This according to Roger Waters and critic David Fricke on Classic Albums: Pink Floyd - The Making of The Dark Side of the Moon (DVD), 2003.
Cheers, Rico402 (talk) 12:59, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

It is 7/4 - 6/4 - 4/4 - 7/4 Nicksesta (talk) 10:33, 5 July 2011 (UTC)Nicksesta

No, it's not. But since we'll never come to a consensus, there's no point arguing.Andy Johnston (talk) 23:41, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Portion Deleted

The text deleted belongs more properly in the existing article for The Wall - it is mentioned here as it is a reference to the song of the article, not intending to summarize the scene entire.Daemon8666 21:37, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Errors

The time signature is 7/4, as dfan stated above. The solo is in 4/4. David Gilmour himself stated on the DVD 'Making of Dark Side of the Moon' that it had a time signature of 7/8, but it is commonly known to be in fact 7/4. The sheet music also states 7/4 as well....

What sheet music?? I don't doubt that the correct time is 7/4, but stop referring to "sheet music" unless you can't cite it. Rico402 (talk) 05:46, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Also, why is there a section labelled "Dark Side of the Moon"? There is no need for it, as we already know which album it comes from. Also, the information in that section is erroneous. Roger states on 'Making of Dark Side of the Moon' that the originally demo was not bluesy, and that it didn't have the bluesy transatlantic twang as the released version did. "Roger Waters created the early version of Money in a house in his garden." In a house in his garden? This doesn't make sense... if anything, it was created in his garden at his house.

I'm going to make these corrections... please consult me if you have problems with it but I have researched this and I do believe I am correct. Naturrien 23:14, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I believe that by "house in his garden" he meant a toolshed. If I recall correctly, he first thought of the coin dropping sounds for the opening of the song while storing tools and made a tape loop of the several coin sounds he recorded. antiuser 22:45, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Not a house in the garden, and not a toolshed either. On the 'Classic Albums: The Making of Dark Side of the Moon', Waters states: "...And my wife had this pottery shed back behind the house...", and also that for the first recording of this song, he tracked himself throwing loose change into a large kettle that was in the pottery shed. Also, Waters discusses the time signature in 'The Making of' video, stating "[the song] was in 7/8, but [the band] decided to go into 4/4 for the solo so that I wouldn't have such a hard time writing it". Hope this helps.

Covers

Does anyone know who did covers for this song? There is no way to tell from the disambig page. I know the used one in The Italian Job, but I don't know who it is. Akrabbim 03:09, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Velvet Revolver—I've just corrected the existing info on them covering Money. —Rotring 14:11, 20 May 2006 (UTC)


I added the Phish cover. They did the whole album in 1998, including Money. N8pilot16 (talk) 01:47, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Single Cover

Shouldn't the picture representing this be the single cover? With the one dollar bill between the stain glass window frames? And one of the band members' reflection staring at it? It's more representative than the album's cover.

Thats just the Dark Side of the moon template. --Akrabbim 13:25, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Spoken word samples

Does anybody know who did the spoken word bits at the end?

Gerry O'Driscoll (I certainly was in the right); Puddie Watts (That geezer was cruisin' for a bruisin'); Henry McCullough of Wings (I don't know I was really drunk at the time) Chris Adamson (Yes absolutely in the right).NH78.147.153.46 (talk) 12:23, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Plagiarism?

This site (in the part where they explain 7/8) has the same exact paragraph on the time signatures of the song. I have no idea who copied whom, but the site does say when it is quoting from books. 201.19.36.136 04:36, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, our version is slightly different now, because for the sentence, "Critics have commented that the change in dynamic (maintaining tempo but changing from seven beats to the bar to 8 beats making the song feel quicker) is one of the track's strengths.", I removed the "(maintaining tempo but changing from seven beats to the bar to 8 beats making the song feel quicker)", because in fact the actual tempo does speed up, quite a lot, in fact. Band members and Alan Parsons have both commented on it Parsons mentioned that, while the band recorded the backing track of drums, bass, and rhythm guitar, he gradually faded the "money metronome" tracks out of their headphones (casual listeners might not even notice the sound effects disappear). Consequently, the band gradually sped up the tempo. At one point later on, he faded the tracks back in, and the cash register just happened to ring on a beat, a "happy accident". The tempo speeds up before it even gets to the solo, then the solo is significantly faster, and then the last verse slows down a bit, but is still much faster than the beginning. (I don't know if this was deliberate, but it's a good thing, I say. It's perhaps PF's most lively and passionate performance on record. And IMO this is due to Roger Waters's aggressive and domineering style of bass playing. If you'll excuse a little "general discussion".)
--63.25.26.25 (talk) 06:35, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Errors in booklet

Is that section really that notable? i think it should be either deleted or condensed into one or two sentinces and merged with something else. I can understand if there was some serious lyrical errors perhaps due to different versions of the song. but grammatical and layout errors are hardly notable. i suggest the section is removed.--Paradox CT 00:47, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Answer song for "Money"?

Is it possible that The O'Jays' "For the Love of Money," lyrically speaking, had been written as an answer to "Money," given that the group was recording their Ship Ahoy LP (which contained the song) at the point where "Money" was already well-known from exposure on FM radio? –Wbwn (talk) 23:00, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

If that's the only reason you have for thinking this, I'd say surely not. Is there anything else? Musical similarity? Common lyrical phrases? Anything? --63.25.26.25 (talk) 05:44, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Trivia

"Parts of the introduction to this song are used on the Dave Ramsey Show, which gives financial advice.". Americanocentrism. Who cares? The introduction to this song was used for zillions of financial advice programming around the world; and Dave Ramsey is not even from the same country as the band. Should we include 12 shows from Poland, 3 from Ghanda and 18 from Uruguad that also had part of "Money" in their intros, or remove this one? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.210.22.98 (talk) 17:03, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, absolutely. Let's remove stuff like that. --63.25.26.25 (talk) 05:42, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

But surely Pink Floyd is American isn't he?!NH78.147.101.158 (talk) 00:57, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Are you trying to be funny? --63.25.26.25 (talk) 05:42, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

No. I AM being funny. NH79.121.143.143 (talk) 00:45, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Music Video

I've seen a music video for this song that looks very much like it could have been compiled at the time of the single's release in the US (that is, 1973). It's easy enough to find it on youtube, etc. Given the average Floyd fan's devotion to minutia, someone must surely have the details on his video's origin (who was the director, etc) , the source of some of the images (is that film of mine workers getting paid in S. Africa? who is that appearing shot lying on the ground? whose records are getting blown up? etc) and so forth. This information isn't easily found anywhere else on the web and would, I think, be a useful addition here (one I'd make myself if I was one of those aforementioned Floyd fans who knew this stuff, which I'm not). --Free-world (talk) 04:26, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

That video was what played behind the band when they played the song live in the mid-70's. Friday Night Videos and then eventually MTV used that as a music video (and did a similar thing to the clips played behind the band for "Time" and "Brain Damage/Eclipse"). These videos are frequently played on VH1 Classic. As far as I know, Storm Thorgerson directed these videos. Doc StrangeMailboxLogbook 19:35, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Solo -- Doubled/Dry/ADT'd, despite what Gilmour says.

Elsewhere we've discussed how Gilmour was mistaken in describing the time signature as 7/8.

I've seen Gilmour make a simple mistake in describing the recording of the guitar solo. It isn't an issue right now, but I figure somebody who reads the same guitar magazines as I might decide to add it to the article. In some interview or other, with some magazine or other, sometime in the late 80s or early 90s, Gilmour got mixed up and described the solo this way: The first solo being ADT'd (Artificial, or Automatic Double Tracking), the second being singular and dry, and the third solo being naturally double tracked.

Well, he's just mixed up. It's the first solo which is naturally double tracked (i.e., there are two takes of him playing the same solo note-for-note, but with natural variances in tone and phrasing, which gives it a "fattening" or "larger than life" effect), and the third solo which is ADT'd. I have no source on this, but it's plain to hear. You can use your player's balance control on the first solo to listen to the right and left channels separately, and you will hear a different lead guitar in each channel. Simple as that. And you won't hear this on the third solo -- you'll just hear the same solo with a delay effect, which is what ADT is.

It's a simple and understandable mix-up, for a guy in his fifties (now sixties) talking about the details of a record he made 25 (now 35) years ago. But it was a pretty comprehensive interview that got reprinted later, not to mention circulated on the Internet, so probably lots of PF fans read it, and took it as gospel.
--63.25.26.25 (talk) 06:11, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Gilmour just got it backwards, easy mistake. Very good of you to clear this up. On The Making of The Dark Side of the Moon DVD, Gilmour describes how he recorded the doubled guitar tracks on "Money". He says that he couldn't use his Stratocaster for the 3rd solo because there are at least two notes (I think it's the same note; correct?) that are too high. He played the Lewis (sp?) guitar he used along with the Strat on the 1st solo, and it was doubled using ADT.
He could have played the same solo twice on the same guitar, even adjusting the EQ and effects to construct two different sounds. It's done all the time with vocals and other stuff. (Well, not all the time, but you get the point.) The only reason I can think of is that the solo was too demanding to play it exactly the same way twice through, bending the strings at the same rate to just the right tension each time all the way through, slight variations in timing creating the fat doubled sound. But I could well be wrong; I don't get to work with guitarists of Gilmour's caliber.
Cheers, Rico402 (talk) 23:25, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
PS- The article on Automatic Double Tracking (or is it "Artificial Double Tracking") a disaster; click the "Discussion" link for a better explanation (several actually).
Rico402 (talk) 16:34, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Blacklisted Address

The web site is hubpages.com

(This is where I found the time signature). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Greg D. Barnes (talk • contribs) 17:33, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I found nothing at hubpages.com. In any case, a domain name is a painfully insufficient source. You might as well cite "yahoo.com." Rico402 (talk) 10:11, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Redirection

"Money (song)" doesn't redirect here anymore... 190.19.18.61 (talk) 21:48, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Fixed. Manning (talk) 00:24, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry

I'm sorry that all of you seem to forget Clare Torry. Please give the lady some credit. Figure out how to play the song later!

Jami P. Hopkinsville, KY —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.51.197.61 (talk) 02:10, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry dude, wrong song, youre probably thinking of 'The Great Gig In The Sky'. As far as I know Clare Torry had no contributions to this track. Emcee george (talk) 04:29, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

'Are You Being Served?'

Are You Being Served premiered in September 1972 with a cash register beat in its theme song. I don't know who inspired whom, but given that the two songs were created on the same island in the same year with the same unusual distinction, it does seem likely that one composer heard the other's music. Does anyone know the connection? You can hear the AYBS theme here[2]. 98.246.191.164 (talk) 19:50, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Voice at beginning

Someone on the Steve Hoffman forums pointed out a voice at the very beginning of the song. "I'll take it" seems to be what it's saying. Has this been documented or debunked anywhere? —mjb (talk) 07:40, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Please use this information on the time signature and on musical analysis in general

Hello to you all. Since English isn't my native tongue, I won't edit the main article. I know that the following is not an argument per se, but I've taught music theory for many years on a conservatory. So please bear with me. You can never say that a piece of music is in 7/8 or 7/4. Even Bach rewrote (reused) his own music while changing the time signature, for example form 6/4 to 6/8. You can at most say that the first section of Money is in 7. So when the article says: 'It was composed in 7/4', that's hardly possible, even if Roger Waters or David Gilmour have said something like that. It's not that they're wrong, but you don't compose in a specific time signature, you compose 'in 3' or 'in 4', etcetera. Most of the time, you realise the times per beat even only later in the process, but that can be personal. Well then, the first section of Money is in 7, that is, '7 counts in the bar'. Time signatures in 7 are allways compound, with possible subdivisions of 3+2+2, 2+3+2 and 2+2+3, or 4+3 or 3+4. But the miracle, if you like, of the first section of Money is that none of these subdivisions seem to apply. Now it gets a little more subjective. As I hear it, Roger Waters uses a very old trick, the bar that bites itself in it's tail (some children's songs use this as a pun to create an 'endless' melody). You could say it is an incomplete 4/4 signature, with one missing eight. You can show this by adding an extra eight note b at the end: it kills the song, but proves the point. So I would say: it is a three and a half to four time signature (I can't type that with cyphers). Another misunderstanding (refering to the 21/8- and triplet-discussions): it is a very common phenomenon that bars of a piece of music group to greater entities. Sometimes this is written in sheet music by 3x3/4 for example. Again it's no math, it's to a great extent to the musician who writes the music down how to notate time signatures. Beethoven, for example had a peculiar liking for using 3/4 in groups of four bars with very fast quavers; even most of his contemporaries would have used triplets in 4/4 instead. So there's a lot of personal style and likings in music notation en very little is. In pop and Rock music most composers can't notate music, so published sheet music is just a second or third hand reflection of the music itself. An infamous example is a very well spread 'Beatles complete' songbook, in which the music editor, presumably not a guitar player, changed nearly all the keys of the songs, not realising the inplayability of say 'Yesterday' in E-flat on a guitar.

I realise that my view on the time signature can't be used, it is 'original research'. But that's anyway a huge problem with most musical analysis in Wikipedia. Original research or a subjective element slips in very quickly. In the article it can be found in the word 'dramatic' in The song is also notable for its dramatic change to 4/4 time. So, I would suggest to just choose 7/8 or 7/4, or maybe say: 'it is in 7/8 or 7/4' and leave it at that, as far as the time signature is concerned (saying it is 'in 7' is just not common language). The fact that it's uncommon in pop music is far more interesting, but then again: isn't it necessary to reference that? It now says: Most rock music is written in 4/4, or common time, and most of the exceptions are in 3/4 or a similar triple meter. This actually is original research, but it is also a truism, and I don't know what the policy is to that... Another danger is 'upgrading by exception'. In this case some people feel that the fact that the first section of 'Money' is in 7 and therefore exceptional, adds something to the greatness of the song, I mean that merely the exceptionality adds something. --Dunglisher 11:23, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

^This is easily the most reasonable explanation of time signatures on here. What's a bit hilarious is how much people are saying that they're right for x reason and so-and-so is wrong for y reason, when it's clear to anyone who actually writes music that none of these people throwing around their music "knowledge" have any clue about what they're talking about. There would be a slight difference between 7/4 and 7/8 if it was written out on sheet music (the same notes would be expressed as 1/8 or 1/4 notes), but it doesn't even seem likely it was composed that way. I wrote a piece with rather complex rhythms recently and when explaining the time signatures, I just use the nearest denominator to the numerator, like 13/16, for a section that's "in 13". Why? Because I didn't at any point notate the rhythms during composition and it conveys the concept in a way that people with a limited understanding of music are able to grasp easily. Time signatures and keys are tools for composition and performance, not for analyzing recorded music. *update* One other aspect that could be different between the two would be the tempo (which is infrequently notated on sheet music and would be the same if the time signature denominator is the basis for the tempo, rather than quarter notes). If you use 120 BPM as something of a "standard" tempo AND the tempo follows the quarter note convention, under those very specific circumstances, Money would more likely be notated as 7/4. - Maya Zimmerman

Another different user

Isn't it just 7/4 played in triplets? ( It's clearly phrased as 7 beats ). Each bar is played as 7 sets of triplets ( 3 8th notes played in the space of 2 ). In traditional notation these would be bracketed above with a "3" and in reality the duration of each 8th note is 2/3 of a "normal" 8th note. 21/8 would be the triplets "undone" and doesn't represent the emphesis of the beat. Same deal with the solo part, only it's 4 beats not 7. So I think it's just 7/4 and 4/4. I'm no expert though...

Mike Evans.

I am an expert, and I agree that it is indeed just a swung 7/4, not 21/8. I don't feel like joining an edit war, though, so I'm just leaving my opinion here in case it is of use to future editors. dfan

An expert would be aware that a 'swung' time signature doesn't exist. If the music is being played with what is commonly referred to as a 'swing feel' it's actually being played using three eighth notes instead of two eighth notes. The emphasis of any such feel still stays on every fourth note, ONE-two-three FOUR-five-six SE'EN-eight-nine TEN-eleven-twelve etc etc. Andy Johnston 14:27, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you're wrong. I study music theory, and it IS indeed acceptable to notate this one in 7/4 with a note at the top indicating swing time. It's the 21st century -- sheet music, and discussion of music, should be USEFUL. It is not useful to notate, discuss, or even think about "Money" in 21/8 time. It's a fun toy of an idea to play with, but that's all. I can imagine a different kind of composition might actually be more properly notated in 21/8, but for this song 7/4 is far more appropriate and useful. If that isn't interesting enough for you, may I recommend you check out Frank Zappa?
--63.25.26.25 (talk) 05:38, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Exactly, like you won't say a 2:1 swung 4/4 must have a time signature of 12/8, it just doesn't work this way. Gamerktc12 (talk) 14:26, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
What sheet music?? I don't doubt that the correct time is 7/4, but you shouldn't reference the "sheet music" unless you can't cite it. So far, no one has. Rico402 (talk) 05:55, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Although the sax solo has a lot of "triplets" in it suggesting a possible 21/8, the other instruments (drums and bass in particular) hardly play anything on what would be the 2nd, 5th, etc beats in a 21/8 bar during the verses. This to me suggests that the verses are in a swung 7/4 time. The guitar solo however sounds like it is in 12/8 time - deduced by listening to closely to drum beat. There are clearly three high hats to each of the four beats in the bar which indicates 12/8 rather than a swung 4/4. Rattus

Regarding 7/8, remember that none of the band members ever studied music. Well, okay, Rick Wright did, but since when does what Rick Wright thinks count for anything? It ain't in 7/8, even if the band thinks it is. --63.25.239.112 18:10, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
lol, really, it's in 7/4 Gamerktc12 (talk) 14:26, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
That there was me, before I registered. I still like it, although I might not have written it if Rick had been dead. Still, I want credit for saying it. --Ben Culture (talk) 16:55, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

7/4 time, not 7/8-reference found

I found this:

Here's the 4 paragraphs for reference:

Money by Pink Floyd

This song is in 7/4 time as well and is was the hit single off of Dark Side of the Moon, Pink Floyd's most influential work and one of the most influential musical pieces in the 20th century. The song begins with a sample of a cash register "cha-ching" and then a loop of 7 different money related sound samples, each occuring at one of the 7 beats in the measure. Then the bass comes in with the main riff of the song (arguably the best riff in all of odd-time-signature-dom). Counting each beat in this song is fairly simple because the beat is slow, deliberate, and made painfully obvious that it is abnormal. Knowing a bit of Pink Floyd history and their ideology, I believe that the odd timing is supposed to represent the crooked, ugly side of people that is greed. Whatever the interpretation, the odd time signature in this song gives it a most peculiar and interesting sound.

To count this song, you can count each beat ONE through SEVEN or split it up into groups of 3 and 4 like I did in Solsbury Hill. Money is best split into a group of 3 beats then 4, sounding like this: ONE TWO THREE ONE TWO THREE FOUR. Because this beat is swung, each quarter note is subdivided into three eighth notes as opposed to just two eighth notes. These three eighth notes are called triplets and you would count them in this song like this: ONE 2 3 TWO 2 3 THREE 2 3 ONE 2 3 TWO 2 3 THREE 2 3 FOUR 2 3. Notice, in that first bass riff of Money, that there is one note hit on each beat except for the first "TWO" which has two notes.The two bass notes within the second beat fall on the 1st and 3rd triplet subdivision (the 1st triplet being a stronger beat and the 3rd triplet a weaker beat) which is common in swing rhythms.

Just like Solsbury Hill, Money changes time signature from 7/4 to 4/4 during the saxophone solo section. The drums do not change tempo but each triplet eighth note is accentuated by the ride cymbal meaning thicker drum texture and the illusion of a faster paced drum beat. This is the most "hectic" part of the song even though the time signature is an even 4/4 as opposed to a crooked 7/4. This interpretation is the opposite of Solsbury Hill in which the beat evens out conveying closure, peace, and going "home"; this further demonstrates the importance of rhythmic variations in music.

ASIDE: Not to rub it in too hard, but Peter Gabriel was originally in the band Genesis which happens to be one of the top most influential Progressive Rock bands of all time, alongside Pink Floyd, Yes, Emerson, Lake and Palmer, King Crimson, and the Moody Blues. It is within this small group of bands that many of the most interesting musical ideas from the Classical and Romantic era were able to survive and be utilized in future genres like fusion, metal, electronica, and even some popular music.

It's in 7/4, trust me, I'm a musician.

I'm going to wait for feedback before I change the article.--Greg D. Barnes (talk) 17:31, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't think "... Money changes time signature from 7/4 to 4/4 during the saxophone solo section" adds much to you or the author's credibility. Even if the above was accurate (it's not), it would still be useless because you don't give the name of the author, an indication of his/her authority or expertise, the name of the publication or Web site, the publication or posting date, etc. This has been the problem all along; until recently, nobody has provided an authoritative source for the 7/4 time. Not to be impolite, but you've found nothing. Anyway, the article already states it's in 7/4, and now includes reliable references, including Gilmour.
"... trust me, I'm a musician." Surely you jest. (I've worked with musicians for 30 years, and don't call me Shirley. ;)
Cheers!, Rico402 (talk) 09:59, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
I'm very glad this got settled, but I just wanted to add, seems to me the beat divides up 4/4 + 3/4, not 3/4 + 4/4. Actually, it's more like 6/4 + 1/4, but that's not very useful
-Ben Culture (talk) 16:59, 23 July 2012 (UTC)


It will never be settled, but I gave up on fighting with people about it, when they do not know their time signatures. Andy Johnston (talk) 12:55, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

When sources disagree like this, it is a good sign that nobody really knows the answer. In such situations we should strenuously avoid filling in the answers ourselves. --John (talk) 13:10, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Notable intro.

A user I'm familiar with removed a statement (which I don't believe was mine, but it might have been) about the seven-beat cash-related sound-effects tape loop that opens the song. The statement asserted it was a notable element of the song. His Edit Summary? "Not really"

Ah. A wit.

But I disagree. The very first sound of the recording is the "DING!" of a cash register, and then the loop starts with its stereo panning -- Hey! Who among us is familiar with DSOTM but has never listened to it on headphones? That's right, exactly nobody. I should mention the stereo panning, which was engineered specifically for quadrophonic release, but I'll stop short of doing that, on grounds that it might be fancruft. Panning aside, the sound effects are a notable, even crucial aspect of the song. (It was, after all, the band's metronome in beginning the rhythm track.)

Ever sat in a stadium with 60,000 other people, and heard that first "DING"? Lord, how the crowd goes wild at the sound of it! Because with that one sound, they all instantly know they're going to get well and truly rocked with "Money". Yeah, I say it's notable. And I can probably find where somebody like David Fricke or whoever has said so -- it's probably on that Classic Albums DVD, along with everything else in this article -- so I could cite a source for this assertion, if I absolutely have to, but I really shouldn't have to, not for this. It's like asking for proof that David Gilmour replaced Syd Barrett. I believe a statement should only be challenged on its merits -- i.e., remove the statement if you disagree, and make your case, but don't remove it simply because there's no citation.

--Ben Culture (talk) 00:13, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

something isn't right

"Roger Waters and David Gilmour stated that the song had been composed primarily in 7/8 time;[2] it was composed in 7/4" doesn't make any sense. i'm guessing it was recorded in 7/8 but composed in 7/4 or something? 195.66.94.4 (talk) 20:59, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Drums on the re-recording

http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Talk:A_Collection_of_Great_Dance_Songs#Drums_on_the_re-recorded_.22Money.22

I am pretty sure that Dave didn't play the drums on the re-recording of "Money". He proved that he can do better than that already on "The Narrow Way" in 1969. Instead, the drum part was programmed, probably by him. You can hear it in the way the cymbal crashes always sound the same, and the figures constantly repeating, without any fills and breaks, and the stiff (i.e. not constantly changing) timing 89.204.135.98 (talk) 12:14, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Money (Pink Floyd song). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:30, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Money (Pink Floyd song). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:43, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Money (Pink Floyd song). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:36, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

24-bar blues guitar solo structure

In May, someone edited the text about the guitar solo's structure from saying that it's a 12-bar blues doubled to 24 bars, to saying it's a 12-bar blues "with the 8 first measures doubled, so it is a 20-bar length". (In the edit summary they said: "The guitar chorus isn't 24 bars, it's 20, like the sax solo".)

As far as I can tell that's incorrect, so I undid that revision. I don't have access to the magazine that was referenced in the version of the text I restored (Guitar for the Practicing Musician magazine, Collector's Yearbook: Guitar Classics VI, Cherry Lane Music Company, Inc., 10 Midland Avenue, Port Chester, N.Y., 10573-1490. ISSN 1061-4400.), and according to the Wikipedia article on the referenced magazine, the "Money" transcription/article was printed in 1985. Does anyone know if there's an in-print publication that mentions the song's blues-like form, which could be cited instead of (or in addition to) that magazine?

This can't be used as a reliable source to reference, but here is a YouTube video by the music theory channel "12tone" explaining that the guitar solo is a 12-bar blues, but with each chord held for double the usual number of bars (and also with the minor scale descent occurring on the Em chord six bars from the end, instead of at the end where a blues turnaround would normally go): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ws38mFWmOl8#t=5m43s --Nick RTalk 23:13, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Triplet feel

This was mentioned in earlier versions of the article but deleted at some point. I think it should be there. It's also worth noting that during the Lapse and DB versions, Nick would play straight 8th notes against the beat (which I always found a bit off-putting). Jules TH 16 (talk) 10:12, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Money_(Pink_Floyd_song)/Archive_1&oldid=1052918275"