Nearly six months ago Princeton University doctoral students
Gilad Cohen and David Molk hosted "Sight, Sound, and
Structure", an academic Pink Floyd conference. The four-day
event was sponsored by Princeton University's Dean of
Graduate School, the Music and English departments, The Lewis
Center for the Arts, and the Council of Humanities. Pink
Floyd producer and engineer James Guthrie [right] was the keynote
speaker, Roger Waters' 5.1 Surround Sound mix of Amused to
Death was premiered, and experts from a variety of academic
disciplines spoke about the band. Pink Floyd and Roger Waters
keyboardist Jon Carin, Floydian Slip host Craig Bailey, and
high fidelity enthusiasts and Pink Floyd fans were among
those in attendance.
In recent weeks the conference website has been updated:
photographs and video clips from the event are being added
periodically, giving people who were unable to attend a sense
of what the conference was about. We followed up with Molk,
Cohen, and Guthrie for further reflection on the conference
in our exclusive interview with each, starting with James
Guthrie's fascinating thoughts and insights...
James Guthrie
Brain Damage: It has been a few months since the "Pink
Floyd: Sight, Sound, and Structure" conference at Princeton
University. The conference was a great success and one of the
most important parts was the premiere of Roger Waters' Amused
To Death in 5.1 Surround Sound (followed by playbacks of The
Dark Side of the Moon and Wish You Were Here in the same
format). What do you feel the conference's academic approach
and the depth with which all subjects were tackled says about
Pink Floyd and its fans? What did you think about the conference itself and was it difficult to be a part of such an intense endeavour given your busy schedule?
Probably, that the fans and their perceptions are as varied
and interesting as the music itself.
I really enjoyed the whole weekend and I'm grateful to Gilad
and Dave for essentially not taking 'no' for an answer. When
they called to invite me to participate in the conference
they caught me at a very difficult time. In addition to all
the pressures of project delivery deadlines, I had just
undergone spinal surgery and was flat on my back. I explained
that while being thrilled at the invitation, it was very
unlikely that I would be able to attend. They were not pushy
at all, but they also did not give up. Eventually I agreed to
be there and immediately started kicking myself. Phrases such
as 'what are you thinking?' jolted me awake in the middle of
the night. What did I know about delivering a keynote speech?
I put myself through a good deal of emotional distress that
nearly rivaled my back pain (well, perhaps not quite that
bad!).
I was very intrigued by the way academics approach the music
of Pink Floyd. A deep analysis of every facet of the
experience and a 'no stone unturned' M.O. is very healthy. At
times I was thinking, yes this is all very well, but it's not
how these records are made. We take a more spontaneous
approach of experimentation and letting the music and ideas
flow through us, while constantly referencing back to the
song, it's a feel thing. However, analysis is certainly one
avenue towards understanding and of course the common ground
is a shared deep love and passion for the music. They may
have been analyzing at the conference, but I know they've all
spent the time laying back and letting the music take them.
BD: The conference kicked off with a couple of events,
including a screening of "The Wall" film. Having played such
an prominent role in the music's production, "The Wall Tour"
in the early 1980s, and Roger Waters' "The Wall Live"
production in recent years, how do you feel the film and its
themes hold up in comparison to Waters' contemporary, live
version?
Well, Roger's latest version obviously emphasizes politics
far more than the original story of fear and personal
isolation, but it's the perfect vehicle for where he is right
now in terms of his life, his philosophy and his fight for
human rights. It is an inevitable progression.
For me, the problem with "The Wall" movie is that, even
though the wall comes down at the end, I don't feel any
relief. I don’t feel uplifted, possibly because some of the
earlier scenes are so depressing, they're still lingering and
I'm still somewhat in shock. There are parts of the movie I
really like, that I feel work very well and that are very
powerful, but what's missing is humour, which is strange
because Roger is incredibly funny. He has a wicked sense of
humour and can always make me laugh. Even he has lamented the
lack of humour in the film. There was a lot of conflict
during the making of the movie, particularly between Roger
and [director] Alan Parker and perhaps that was a
contributing factor to the lack of humour, but Roger tells me
he has remedied this in his script for the play.
The denouement during the live shows, both in 1980 and 2010, has the
desired emotional effect that the film didn't deliver for me.
BD: Was a lot of footage for "The Wall Live" DVD shot in
cities other than Athens?
In terms of multiple cameras, principally Athens, Buenos
Aires, and Quebec City, but Sean Evans was also shooting solo
at most of the gigs.
BD: What is your preferred audio format and why?
Well, I still love analogue and I use a combination of
analogue and high resolution digital in my studio. I want
something that breathes, something that is engaging and
involving, something that transports you. Unfortunately there
are some digital formats out there that tend to play at you,
rather than drawing you in and moving you.
As far as consumer release formats are concerned, I enjoy
vinyl and SACD and I hope that hi-res downloads will turn out
well in the end. Just as we have to be vigilant in our
management of digital audio in the studio, consumers have the
same responsibility. Digital can go bad very easily if you're
not careful with the timing and the interface. Just because
something says 'hi-res' or 'uncompressed' doesn't
automatically make it good. I've heard 24/96 [bit/kHz] sound
better than 24/192, if the 192 is not done properly.
BD: A number of people at the conference mentioned Neil
Young's Pono Music (PonoMusic) format, which is supposed to
deliver higher quality audio downloads. On another end, you
have Norwegian service WiMP which apparently delivers HiFi
streaming quality (but is not available in the UK or the US).
Do you feel there is space for an audio format that will
nurture the type of relationship people had with albums in
the past or do you feel too many elements of what constituted
a proper album are disappearing, irreversibly rendering the
music-listening experience a completely different beast?
The two feed each other. At the time we all felt 'proper'
albums were being made, we were listening differently. We
treated the album listening experience more as some may view
a movie today. You would sit down and immerse yourself.
Certainly there are pieces of technology currently that are
at odds with the finely crafted song, but there are also some
very positive technologies out there too. We need to be
selective and discerning. And people need to dispel this
crazy notion that music should be free. Songwriters and
musicians – that's their job, they have families and have to
put food on the table like everyone else. If people continue
to expect music for free, then those who have the talent to
be able to finely craft a song will be a dying breed.
I haven't heard Pono yet, but I applaud what Neil has done to
raise awareness.
BD: Could you tell us a bit about your role in this year's
The Division Bell box set release?
I just helped [engineer] Doug Sax with the vinyl. They also
included some of the work that Joel [Plante, assistant
engineer] and I did for the Why Pink Floyd…? campaign, but
that's it.
BD: Many fans are aware a track titled "Peace Be With You"
was (apparently) completed during the recording of A
Momentary Lapse of Reason - is there any chance that track
will be released in the future?
"Peace Be With You" exists as a demo only. To my knowledge,
it was never completed as a song, so would probably need a
lot of work if they were going to release it.
BD: Is there anything you can tell us about "Peace Be With
You", i.e., what it sounds like or what type of track on A
Momentary Lapse of Reason you feel it resembles most?
I suppose in a way, it sounds like a missing link between
About Face and A Momentary Lapse of Reason.
BD: According to Nick Mason, the band voted to decide
which tracks to include on The Division Bell and after a
handful of voting rounds they ended up with 15 tracks,
dropping four of those in the final cut. Do you feel it is
possible those four tracks might be released sometime in the
future?
Apart from mastering, I wasn't involved in The Division Bell,
so I can't really answer the question, other than to say, if
they had felt those songs were important, then they could
have included them in the 20th anniversary box set.
BD: How different is your approach when working with a
band like Judas Priest or Queensrÿche given the musical
distance between them and a band like Pink Floyd - how is
production different in that genre of rock music?
The process is actually similar because you are always
serving the song. The musical styles may be different, but my
approach of trying to do what's right for the music and
trying to make the best album possible, remains.
Interestingly, many of the same challenges exist, regardless
of how different the artists may be. Obviously, there are
specific and unique tests that relate to a particular band or
musical style, but that’s all part of the allure.
Dealing with different personalities can be delicate at
times.
BD: Finally: is there a particular album outside the Pink
Floyd catalog you would really like to hear (and perhaps
personally remix) in 5.1 Surround Sound?
Kate Bush's Hounds of Love.
Gilad Cohen and David Molk:
BD: What sparked the idea for the conference, and why Pink
Floyd?
Gilad Cohen: Pink Floyd and The Beatles were the soundtrack
of my childhood, thanks to my elder brothers, and
appropriately, my Ph.D. dissertation is about large-scale
structure in the music of Pink Floyd. I decided to initiate
the conference as an opportunity to share my research and
love for Pink Floyd. My friend and colleague Dave Molk joined
me early in the process, and together we decided to create an
event to bring together scholarly work, new live music (since
both of us are first and foremost composers), and listening
sessions, aiming for a mixed audience of scholars, musicians,
and fans, instead of the standard format of talk-after-talk
targeted at academic audiences.
David Molk: Gilad knew that I love Pink Floyd (I kept bugging
him to let me look at drafts of his dissertation) and
approached me about joining his efforts and co-organizing /
co-producing the conference. Hope that covers the question –
I think the Floyd themselves settled the 'why Pink Floyd'
part of it with their wonderful box-set campaign.
BD: Interest in the conference was quite strong. Did you
anticipate that level of response?
GC: Pink Floyd is one of the most popular bands in the world,
so surely we hoped for a large audience. That being said, we
were overwhelmed by the positive response from both academic
departments at Princeton University and businesses in town,
which generously contributed to the event and made it
possible and special. We are also grateful to the band's
devoted fans, who quickly spread the word and helped it to go
viral quite early in the promoting process. The biggest
pleasure for me, though, was the wide variety of people who
showed up both to the surround playback sessions and to the
talks, including press, amateur musicians, audiophiles, and
devoted fans. It is a very special experience to give a talk
about Wish You Were Here, forgetting which type of
synthesizer Richard Wright used in one song, and being able
to ask the audience and get an immediate answer.
DM: Yes and no (like "Us and Them"). Everyone we talked to
during the early stages of planning the conference,
regardless of his/her background, immediately replied with
something along the lines of 'that's so cool!' Still, the
buzz that started building, even before we released any of
the details surrounding the event, was incredible and the
stories that people included in their registration emails
were really touching, so that the interest vastly exceeded
our expectations.
BD: What do you feel the level of response to an academic
Pink Floyd conference says about the band and the type of fan
it draws?
GC: In my view, Pink Floyd is one of the most interesting and
influential rock bands of all times (next to The Beatles,
which is my second true love and, if I may say so, arena of
expertise). I like musical acts that aim to say something
original and seek to reinvent themselves regardless of
commercial pressures. I believe that Pink Floyd achieved
these goals in much of their music, which explains both its
tremendous popularity around the world and the attention it
draws for serious analytical examination from academia. The
latter can be seen in a series of academic publications about
the band, including excellent writings by Russell Reising
(University of Toledo) and Shaugn O'Donnell (City College of
New York).
DM: Many participants told us that they felt validated and
even vindicated in their long-held esteem for the band after
attending the conference. For our part, we appreciated the
support and enthusiasm; taking Pink Floyd 'seriously' in an
academic context seems ripe for barbs revolving around the
"Another Brick in the Wall (Part II)" lyrics but this was
never an issue for us. I think it speaks quite highly of the
rich musical legacy that Pink Floyd has created and the
discerning yet open-minded fan-base.
BD: The conference name made reference to 'sight, sound,
and structure'. What is it about each of these elements that
you wanted to explore at the conference?
GC: One of the interesting things about the band is that its
artistic statement does not stay in the lyrics and music;
rather it offers a multifaceted experience combining
groundbreaking sound work, legendary visuals, and unique
musical architecture. Dave and I wanted to explore these
elements by offering talks that cover these topics, including
composer and filmmaker (also a Princeton Ph.D. student) Troy
Herion's fascinating research about what makes music more
'visual', my research about the emotional and musical
structure of "Shine On You Crazy Diamond", and, of course,
James Guthrie's talk and presentation about the concept of
sound in Pink Floyd's music.
DM: We feel that each of these elements represents a major
focal point within Pink Floyd's work. Gilad's dissertation
looks at the Floyd's large-scale songs from a
structural/architectural point of view, and my thoughts on
Gilmour's soloing style also uses a structural framework in
some sense. Troy Herion spoke about the visuals (a huge part
of the band's legacy… just look at those album covers!), and,
of course, James Guthrie spoke about the actual sound. None
of these is completely severable from the other and we had no
intention of suggesting so. Subtitling the conference this
way merely gave us some interesting ways into the music.
BD: Do you feel Pink Floyd is in a unique place,
historically and artistically and relative to other bands,
which lends itself to an in-depth, academic discussion of the
band's work, i.e., are there other bands you could devote an
interdisciplinary study to successfully or does Pink Floyd
fit into a unique place in this regard?
GC: There are definitely other bands that deserve careful
analytical study, and many of them have received it already –
The Beatles and Genesis are two examples that come to mind. I
would love to take part in an academic conference about The
Beatles; I actually wouldn't be surprised if one has happened
already, I haven't checked.
DM: I think there are other bands that warrant such an
interdisciplinary-based study, although I believe each would
need to have the 'interdisciplinary mix' specially tailored.
The Floyd is definitely unique in its particular blend of
sight, sound, and structure and so our approach here can't
map directly onto another band. We had lots of fun
incorporating Floydian elements throughout the last day's
events, some of which people commented on and many of which
no one did, either because people found them too mundane to
mention or because they went unnoticed. Still, Gilad and I
had loads of fun planting all these 'Easter eggs' into the
conference.
BD: Did you reach out to any members of Pink Floyd when
you decided to organize the conference and if so did you get
any response?
GC: We did not. In regard to bringing them in, our modest
budget would have definitely not been enough for such an
undertaking. This conference started as a small idea I had
one afternoon while talking to a friend; months later Dave
and I realized it was going to be a much bigger event than we
had anticipated, but it was already too late to reach out to
band members… That being said, I would be very curious to
hear their thoughts on the event, the talks, and the live
music. They definitely heard about it through James Guthrie,
among others.
DM: Jon Carin made a surprise appearance the last day of the
conference!
BD: At the University of Rhode Island I took a course that
analyzed President John F. Kennedy's assassination from
several academic perspectives: history, physics, chemistry,
and political science, among others: how wide a net do you
feel could be cast in terms of academic disciplines to
analyze Pink Floyd – what other disciplines do you feel show
potential for interesting and substantive analysis of the
band's work? Could you see academic disciplines such as
Economics, Political Science, and Psychology contributing to
this discourse in a substantive way?
GC: At the conference we heard a wonderful talk by Princeton
English Professor Nigel Smith, and his enthusiasm clearly
shows the potential for academic discussions of Pink Floyd's
art from this point of view. I was always curious about
discussing the band's musical space and structure with
architecture scholars – I'd be very interested in finding a
common ground with them under the umbrella of both musical
form and sound in space. Political and cultural discussions
are another obvious choice, especially in regard to albums
such as The Final Cut, The Wall, and Amused To Death. I would
also like to see further exploration of the connection
between visuals and Pink Floyd's art, in a similar fashion to
what my friend Troy Herion presented in his talk; I find both
his creative and scholarly work in that arena to be unique
and original, and I'm sure many people would be interested in
hearing more about it.
DM: I think there's plenty of room within academia to expand
the Pink Floyd discussion and any of the disciplines you
named have plenty to contribute, I'm sure.
BD: Do each of you favor a particular period in Pink
Floyd's history – and if so, which?
GC: I enjoy various albums from their different periods; in
general, I appreciate a band that tries to explore new ground
in every album. My favorites are Wish You Were Here, The
Piper at the Gates of Dawn, and Animals, although I also love
The Dark Side of the Moon, A Saucerful of Secrets, Meddle,
and The Wall. I'm also a fan of Waters' early solo album, The
Pros and Cons of Hitch Hiking. I think it has a fascinating
architecture as a concept album, and some wonderful guitar
work by Eric Clapton.
DM: For me, not really – no specific period. I first got into
The Dark Side of the Moon, Meddle, and Atom Heart Mother, but
Animals is definitely my favorite (at the moment, at least).
BD: Have you all had the opportunity to see the band
live?
GC: Unfortunately not… In the single time Waters played in
Israel, I happened to be in New York…
DM: Not yet!
BD: Gilad, an article on the 'large-scale structure'
structure in Pink Floyd music was published in the summer:
where was it published and how would you summarize the topic
for average fans?
GC: My article analyzed large-scale structure in the song
"Dogs", including detailed transcriptions of the guitar solos
and the accompaniment patterns, as well as a comprehensive
examination of the arrangement throughout the song and its
relationship to the lyrics. More importantly, my Ph.D.
dissertation examined how Pink Floyd used such a small amount
of thematic musical material in their large-scale songs
("Echoes", "Shine On You Crazy Diamond", and "Dogs") while
keeping these songs interesting through such extensive
scopes. The article about "Dogs", published in the summer, is
part of a collection of essays in Hebrew about the band and
edited by Ari Katorza; the book is aimed at a non-
professional audience. I certainly hope to be able to publish
my dissertation in English in the US or the UK.
BD: Gilad, how did the scale structure in Pink Floyd music
change over time and each period in the band's history?
GC: During their early years, large-scale forms were a result
of their extensive live jam sessions (e.g., 45-minute
versions of "Interstellar Overdrive"), starting in 1970, the
band became more interested in the 'organization' of their
music and in creating a solid structure that would hold
together lengthy compositions. I think one can see a clear
line between "Interstellar Overdrive", "A Saucerful of
Secrets", "Echoes", "Shine On You Crazy Diamond", and "Dogs",
not to mention the entire The Dark Side of the Moon and Wish
You Were Here, which are, in many ways, long compositions as
a whole. By the way, the band members themselves described
this evolution, as you can see in each of the Nicholas Schaffner and the Mark Blake biographies.
BD: How has Pink Floyd's music impacted and influenced your composition work?
GC: My piece "Ten Variations" for oboe, piano, and string
quartet includes coloristic quotes from both the last guitar
solo in "Shine On You Crazy Diamond" and the closing texture
of "Echoes". Furthermore, the debut album of my band, Double
Space, features some panning of acoustic guitars in a very
similar way to what is found in "Dogs". I think that the
impact of Pink Floyd on both my concert and my rock music is
quite clear.
DM: When I was younger, I wrote a song that totally ripped
off "Dogs", but I think the most overt impact is a concern
for pacing and motivic unity.
BD: Gilad, in your presentation on "Shine On You Crazy Diamond," you discussed how the music may reflect the five stages of grief: to what extent do you feel the band was cognizant of the feelings they were projecting in this work, i.e., how much of this do you feel was conscious vs. subconscious?
GC: The question of whether musicians are aware of
sophisticated harmonic, rhythmic, or formal sections as they
create music is a popular one, especially with respect to
rock music, which is considered more 'intuitive' than
classical music. I doubt that Pink Floyd planned on
structuring an 'orderly map' of emotions. I do think,
however, that the success of both the lyrics and music in
Wish You Were Here is partially due to their sincerity in
provoking such a wide range of emotions, which arguably
reflect the actual reactions that the band members, and
mainly Roger Waters, felt at the time in regard to Syd
Barrett. For me, this is one of the magical aspects of music:
something can be created completely intuitively, while making
an impression of lengthy, detailed planning. It is part of
both the magic and the power of a successful piece of music,
whether it's a jazz solo by Keith Jarrett, a 19th-century
symphony, or a Pink Floyd masterpiece.
BD: Gilad, to what degree did the fact that Syd Barrett was still alive impact that expression of grief?
GC: Most of the research in the field of 'grief' that I
encountered analyzes it from an inclusive perspective, not
limited to death, rather to diverse applications of loss. My
suggested viewpoint of the album is largely based on the way
the band members themselves viewed Barrett. For them, he was
clearly not there anymore, as Waters once said in regard to
writing "Shine On You Crazy Diamond": "I wanted to get as
close as possible to what I felt… that sort of indefinable,
inevitable melancholy about the disappearance of Syd; because
he's left, withdrawn so far away that, as far we're
concerned, he's no longer there".
BD: Dave, you talked about the evolution of David Gilmour's guitar-playing and you specifically mentioned his work can be "less intimidating" for aspiring guitarists to learn: do you feel his guitar work (composition, etc.) became more complex over time and did something change substantially when the band moved into the 'Gilmour era' (did anything become more pronounced, complex, subtle, etc.)?
DM: I think his playing became more refined. Here's something
to try: do a blind listening test of Gilmour solos and try to
guess which album they are from. There's a world of
difference from his starting years to the middle/end ones.
The further the band moves beyond the Syd years, the more
Gilmour develops what most people think of when they refer to
his 'sound.' To be sure, he has identifiable phrases that
he's playing from the first album on, but overall there seems
to be a major break in terms of tone, scope, structure,
overall sense of phrasing/shape from The Dark Side of the Moon onwards compared to what comes before. With that
identifiability comes in some sense of uniformity, at least
in approach. There is a sense of spacing within the solos
that isn't seen in some of the earlier, more frantic ones,
and less of an emphasis on exploring noise/extended
techniques. There's a major crystallization in terms of his
pentatonic playing, which makes up the bulk of his solos,
especially from The Wall onwards. The solos on Animals in
some ways are a step to the side from what starts with The Dark Side of the Moon and continues through The Division Bell. Animals is a fantastic album, very guitar-heavy, both in terms of solos and in terms of background/harmonic support.
BD: Do you both feel there was a palpable difference between the "Comfortably Numb" track on Delicate Sound of Thunder and the one on PULSE? Is there a difference in the cadence or vocal harmonies? The Delicate Sound of Thunder version is much 'grungier', right?
GC: First of all, the singers in the verses are different.
Different singers were tackling the lead in each the
Delicate Sound of Thunder and PULSE performances. This
explains the difference in the vocal harmonies. Regarding the
overall sound and the sound of the guitar in particular – the
sound in a live recording is the result of a diverse series
of factors: the sound equipment, the venue, the location of
the speakers, the source of recording (the mixing, separate
from the mixing used for live amplification), and (obviously)
the sound engineers, for each the live concert and the
released recording. The sound of Delicate Sound of Thunder is much clearer, with louder high frequencies, which makes
everything sound brighter. YouTube clips for each concert
video also present completely different volumes, which is a
common source of confusion when comparing two recordings.
Regarding differences in the Gilmour solos, his second solo
(the one that is based on the verse's chords) is completely
different in each the Delicate Sound of Thunder and PULSE
versions. In PULSE, the second solo is arguably less edgy
than that on Delicate Sound of Thunder: it fits both the
meter and the chords in a much 'cleaner' way, while that in
Delicate Sound of Thunder is freer and more aggressive.
DM: Regarding the two "Comfortably Numb" tracks, I think
Gilad does an excellent job of summing up the differences.
The effects rack looks quite different too as you can see in
the gilmourish.com website. There, you can see each of the Delicate Sound of Thunder and the PULSE racks.
BD: Do you hope to hold a similar conference again and if so, how often and what other subjects do you hope to tackle at a future conference?
GC: There are definitely topics that I would love to explore
if future opportunities arise. As Dave said in an interview a
few months ago, we've just begun to scratch the surface. I
also think that the combination of analytical talks, live
music, visual art exhibitions, film screenings, and listening
sessions is a unique format that is very appropriate for this
music. I would love to develop this format further, and now
it is clear that there is an audience for such an event.
However, keep in mind that Dave and I produced this four-day
event out of sheer joy and love for music, with a lot of help
from an enthusiastic group of volunteers; I think that the
next time such event is happening anywhere in the world, it
would need a much stronger body of funding and organization.
I'm very proud of what we achieved this year, but this is not
something we could allow ourselves to do again without a
considerable back-up. Were someone interested in taking up
the glove, I would certainly love being a part of it.
DM: After the conference we spent some time cleaning up
(returning equipment, dealing with thank-you cards/gifts, and
all that) and it took a while to even touch the conference
recordings for editing/archival purposes, so I needed some
time to digest this before thinking about future endeavors.
BD: How much does the likelihood of an ongoing yearly Pink Floyd conference at Princeton University depend on the continued presence (at the University) of those who organized it this year?
GC: After five wonderful years at Princeton, I'm wrapping up
my Ph.D. effort. Dave has a few more years at Princeton as a
Ph.D. Candidate, so I wonder what he might say. While we
received a lot of support from Princeton, I don't think any
of its departments would produce a similar event without the
initiative of a devoted person or people who would choose to
take it upon themselves to do this again.
DM: It's hard to say. Princeton is a very special place in
that the faculty and institution encourage independent
research and creative endeavors such as this (while having
the infrastructure to make it possible). At the same time,
Gilad and I have by far been the biggest Floyd fans in the
Music Department and I'm unsure of our plans/availability
later this academic year, so it's too early to comment.
Our thanks to James, Gilad and David for their time and efforts providing this special look at the event, and in James's case, a rare look at his thoughts on a number of subjects. All pictures are courtesy of Marie Lopez-Reyes. We hope you have enjoyed this article! You can see the "Pink Floyd: Sight, Sound, and Structure"
website at pinkfloydconference.princeton.edu. Gilad Cohen can be found at giladcohen.com and David Molk can be found on Facebook at facebook.com/molkmusic.
|