Biggest mistake a band ever made

[tbz]

Sure whatever.

You might want to stop using the YMMV in your posts though. Clearly you've too much invested in internet discussions.

Uh yeah. Sure. I guess asking for you to elucidate on your opinion, when mine is informed is being too invested?

Take care?

 

[Papalampraina]

I'm confused. How is Waters and their management hiring Gilmour and then having Gilmour take the band from Waters not a d-bag move?

First of all, Gilmour joined the band in 1968 and Waters left in 1984. That wasn't the same management. Second, Gilmour stated the obvious that because Waters left (left, not kicked the others out), why couldn't they continue as Pink Floyd? Also, having 3/4 of the band I think they were entitled to the name. Waters could have just fired everyone (imagine the bass player firing everyone) and get replacements.

 

[Oneud]

I might get some hate for this, but on the discussion of Floyd solo albums, I think "Amused to Death" by Waters is on the same level as the best Pink Floyd albums. The only other solo work I really enjoyed by any of the members was Syd's stuff.

 

[tbz]

First of all, Gilmour joined the band in 1968 and Waters left in 1984. That wasn't the same management. Second, Gilmour stated the obvious that because Waters left (left, not kicked the others out), why couldn't they continue as Pink Floyd? Also, having 3/4 of the band I think they were entitled to the name. Waters could have just fired everyone (imagine the bass player firing everyone) and get replacements.

I don't see you presenting an argument here.

Waters, the guy that wrote basically all of the lyrics after Barrett went crazy, and held the band together despite that tragedy said "this is over, I'm done."

Gilmour, who was added as a hired gun after their initial success then was given full member status due to his contributions, said "nah. It's my band now dude."

I don't see how your argument justifies that behavior. Waters didn't either and I'm of the mind to side with him.

 

[Papalampraina]

I might get some hate for this, but on the discussion of Floyd solo albums, I think "Amused to Death" by Waters is on the same level as the best Pink Floyd albums. The only other solo work I really enjoyed by any of the members was Syd's stuff.

10 years ago I would probably write a 10,000 word essay about how wrong you are, but music is a taste. I hold Syd's solo albums really high too.

 

[blue4]

I've seen them both live. Wall tour 2010 and Rattle That Lock tour 2016.
Waters decided to do a second tour with pre-1983 material and a third with mostly pre-1983 material. Also his new "Us and Them" tour is going to be 75% Floyd stuff and 25% solo. This means that he is not happy with his solo records or that people don't know him as a solo artist, so he's depending on the Floyd name to get a big audience. Don't forget the title "The creative genius of Pink Floyd", because "One of the two singers and one of the bassists of Pink Floyd" just doesn't cut it. I agree that the Wall tour was astonishing, but he's done it before. Upgrading the effects to the 2010s and adding a couple indifferent songs, is not bringing the Wall up to speed. It is just him trying to be relative again, because no one's paying attention to him, and I mean this lyrically, not as an artist.
In the meantime, Gilmour is just playing guitar. And a little bit of singing. Yes, he's enjoying his time while he is alive, he's not giving a dime about politics (I disagree but that's what he wants) and he still promotes his solo stuff. I didn't like On An Island or Rattle That Lock, but seeing him do some Floyd stuff was awesome. But he is not stage effect heavy any more. He's too old for this poopie, plus his solo stuff don't require effects like Waters' shows.
I don't like their solo works. I love them up to Animals, because that was the last album they produced as a band.
About that Gilmour and usurping, you have your info wrong. Gilmour was a friend of Barrett's and he was actually the person who showed him a lot of stuff on the guitar. Waters, who wanted to be famous, decided that an unstable Barrett was a liability, so decided to bring in Gilmour to cover for Syd, while Syd was on stage, without singing or playing guitar, just standing there, staring at the audiences. And guess who decided to kick Barrett out of the band. Yep. Waters, not Gilmour.

I'm like you, I think it's a simple matter of two people doing different shows with two different goals in mind. Gilmour's style has been laid back for decades, now that he's ancient and filthy rich it's a sign of cashing out? I think it's just a guy doing what he wants to do without the bother and complexity of trying to be PF again.

 

[tbz]

10 years ago I would probably write a 10,000 word essay about how wrong you are, but music is a taste. I hold Syd's solo albums really high too.

You're aware of how Syd's albums were recorded *around* him and his contributions were minimal? Right?

Calling those solo albums is like calling a Beyoncé album a solo album.

 

[Papalampraina]

I don't see you presenting an argument here.

Waters, the guy that wrote basically all of the lyrics after Barrett went crazy, and held the band together despite that tragedy said "this is over, I'm done."

Gilmour, who was added as a hired gun after their initial success then was given full member status due to his contributions, said "nah. It's my band now dude."

I don't see how your argument justifies that behavior. Waters didn't either and I'm of the mind to side with him.

Chronology:
1967 - Barrett is starting to become erratic.
1968 - Waters brings Gilmour in and after a while kicks Barrett out
...
1980 - Waters kicks Wright out
1984 - Waters says he's too tired, but the others shouldn't keep the name?

You realize that by the time Waters wanted to end the Floyd, Gilmour was a member for 16 years already? If that was 1969 and Gilmour did the same, I would say "yeah, you're right". But in 1984 Gilmour and Mason were not only tired, but also bitter with Waters, that's why they decided to keep the band going on. I think Gilmour said do at some point, that if Waters hadn't tried to keep the name, he would just have continued solo, but Waters acted really bad.

 

[Papalampraina]

You're aware of how Syd's albums were recorded *around* him and his contributions were minimal? Right?

Calling those solo albums is like calling a Beyoncé album a solo album.

Ok. That's it for me. There's no reason to discuss Pink Floyd with someone who doesn't know the subject. Better discuss the Gilmore Girls, their first run though.

 

[tbz]

Chronology:
1967 - Barrett is starting to become erratic.
1968 - Waters brings Gilmour in and after a while kicks Barrett out
...
1980 - Waters kicks Wright out
1984 - Waters says he's too tired, but the others shouldn't keep the name?

You realize that by the time Waters wanted to end the Floyd, Gilmour was a member for 16 years already? If that was 1969 and Gilmour did the same, I would say "yeah, you're right". But in 1984 Gilmour and Mason were not only tired, but also bitter with Waters, that's why they decided to keep the band going on. I think Gilmour said do at some point, that if Waters hadn't tried to keep the name, he would just have continued solo, but Waters acted really bad.

He was graciously made a member. Then he betrayed the person that brought him in.

I'm unclear on how a timeline changes that fact.

 

[Papalampraina]

I'm like you, I think it's a simple matter of two people doing different shows with two different goals in mind. Gilmour's style has been laid back for decades, now that he's ancient and filthy rich it's a sign of cashing out? I think it's just a guy doing what he wants to do without the bother and complexity of trying to be PF again.

Even Momentary and Division Bell sound relaxed and not neurotic like Waters.

 

[tbz]

Ok. That's it for me. There's no reason to discuss Pink Floyd with someone who doesn't know the subject. Better discuss the Gilmore Girls, their first run though.

I've read at least 5 bios about them and have studied them for years.

I asked that to determine if you had factual knowledge about the band, and were speaking from a stance of logic.

It's clear you aren't since you aren't aware that Barret was really not involved in his solo albums, which is documented fact.

 

[matante]

this was a show about what really happens. The false reality bubbles, cabals, exhaustion, and Non Communication. The worst was Kajagoogoo who fired their vocalist because it cured their embarrassing popularity with teens "problem". Forever.

This is post #127 you're the first person in this thread to bring up a band that debuted in the last 20 years.
What is up with Talkbass?

Edit: Whoops, they're from the '80s. I was thinking of another band. OK back to searching to see if anyone in this thread brings up a band from this century.

 

[swafran]

Seeing them live I can say that Waters does not need Gilmour.

Before I couldn't and would not have. Ymmv I guess.

To me in live performance Gilmour clearly has the edge, he is a soloist. Waters shines more in the studio, cherry-picking Gilmour's ideas, writing lyrics, arranging, coming up with synth parts, etc.

Happy to disagree, but hey so are you happy they broke up then, or would you still agree their best work was when they were together?

 

[tbz]

A fellow member by the name of tbz likes Roger Waters a


To me in live performance Gilmour clearly has the edge, he is a soloist. Waters shines more in the studio, cherry-picking Gilmour's ideas, writing lyrics, arranging, coming up with synth parts, etc.

Happy to disagree, but hey so are you happy they broke up then, or would you still agree their best work was when they were together?

Animals and the Wall are their best work, together or separate.

The Wall would still be the Wall without Gilmour, minus 2-3 tracks.

Animals would not. Musically that was Gilmour's best work.

The Wall would not exist without Waters. At all.

Animals would not either.

So. I feel one was essential. The other was less essential.

I'd prefer if the less essential one calmed his ego the hell down and contributed without argument, more often. Then we'd all be better off.

Imo it was hard to see Gilmour as a soloist live since his solos and musicianship weren't even marginally impressive in this last tour. It all felt phoned in.

 

[rodv66]

here where your wrong:

1. some of us prefer Dio sabbath.

2. gimmicks (makeup) only get you so far, if the songs werent enjoyable they would not have not lasted over 40 years

3. Welcome To My Nightmare? mush? seriously? if that was the only album he made after the original group it would still prove you wrong. sure he's had ups and downs like any artist, but the majority of coops stuff is great.

4. I (and others) love what Duff has done since Gnr. plus he would be dead if he had stayed in the group. sounds like that was a win for him. he turned his life completely around in many ways after GnR.

How about Tony Iommi's revolving door lineup of B.S. in the 1980's?

 

[prowla]

I'm not sure about that one? The Dio stuff was excellent and the Tony Martin recordings were pretty good as well.

Tyr is a good album (with Cozy on drums)!

 

[prowla]

How about Tony Iommi's revolving door lineup of B.S. in the 1980's?

I think it's universally acknowledged that Gillan's stint was not the greatest.

 

[rodv66]

You're aware of how Syd's albums were recorded *around* him and his contributions were minimal? Right?

Calling those solo albums is like calling a Beyoncé album a solo album.

 

[knumbskull]

Not a band, but a player.

Jason Everman was involved with Nirvana, Soundgarden, and I think even Pearl Jam. Talk about coming close to grasping superstardom on several occasions and not achieving it.

There was a good article about him in Rolling Stone (no, see below) - he became a special forces sniper.

EDIT not RS at all. here it is: Invalid Link Removed