Roger Waters has to be stupid

[/\/\3phist0]

You're telling me the Floyd albums' basslines didn't groove?

Certainly the ones that Gilmour played did.

 

[tbz]

They could print money without him, but not write. Sums it up well.

The post roger albums are like Ringo solo albums, in my book.

But it's just my preference, they are all so much more talented than I, I cannot judge further.

I'd say the fact that Gilmore gave his girlfriend lyric writing duties, in order to allow her to be independently wealthy, because she refused to marry him until they had some parity, speaks volumes.

Check the credits. Polly Samson is all over it.

She literally did nothing to earn that. Except date David.

Source: https://www.amazon.com/Comfortably-Numb-Inside-Story-Floyd/dp/0306817527

 

[Ric5]

The best concert that I ever saw was Pink Floyd on the Dark Side of the Moon tour circa 1973/1974

They had just made the transition from a 4 piece band into the big concert band that made them famous.

Their quadrophonic pa system was ahead of its time. The drummer had clear plexi drums with lights inside them. Most of the audience was too stoned to appreciate the quality of the convert they were seeing.

 

[tbz]

No, I got it. I guess my point was that playing like David Gilmour is one thing, but being David Gilmour and creating those musical ideas out of only your own thoughts is another thing.

But he didn't.

Most of his playing is stock late 60s early 70s blues based stuff.

He listened to Clapton, and Hendrix and copped their licks to the best of his ability, just like everyone else did then. What you hear is him attempting to do what they did, and instead actually accomplishing what he was capable of.

If he had innovated factually I'd give him credit. But imo he was lucky to be allowed to join Floyd when he did.

 

[Slinger]

Gilmour is among my favourite guitarists. Waters is not among my favourite bassists. That's all.

 

[Gully Foyle]

You know what I do like though?

Arguing about rock music, a real joy for about 36 years now.

Love the passion, the thought, and the love that folks have for music, and happy to be part of the conversation.

 

[Honch]

Waters, from what I understand, was simply done working with Gilmore. He wanted complete control.
Waters also, as the primary song writer, felt that Floyd, as a unit, was not viable without him at the helm.

These two statements I consider contradictory. If he wanted to be at the helm in Pink Floyd, he just had to continuing to work with Gilmour. Then he thought he could run Pink Floyd and sack Gilmour and find a replacement. If he was done working with Gilmour, how could he wanted to be the at helm in Pink Floyd? Pink Floyd was a unit that consisted of Gilmour a o, so he would have no choice.

This one beats me. What was said and mudslunged (!?) between the parts, is shrouded in mist and smokes and mirrors, but it sure ain't no "Roger did not want to play with Dave". It was all about who, in which manner to use the Pink Floyd name. Pink Floyd as a brand name was much more larger than both Roger and Dave together, and the others too. It's very little doubt that if Rog made "The Final Cut" as a solo album basically with a little help from main band members (which people has done a lot before, Yes mambers solo albums, Van Der Graaf/Peter Hammill solo albums, and numerous hard rock bands where the lead singer or others branch out for that occasional solo effort) and put the PINK FLOYD name all over it, he wanted continue with that, regardless of who really played on the albums. He damm well knew that any album with Pink Floyd name on it would sell thousands percent more, than anything with "Roger Waters" over it. They were quite anonymous and had no dedicated lead singer/frontman and didn't spray their albums cover with their faces. Didn't make publicity stunts, and that one stuck out above the others with their individual names. So people just knew "Pink Floyd" but never who was in it. They couldn't really care less.

Hence the real incident where actually a record company exec/manager asked them "Oh BTW which one is Pink?"

 

[Altitude]

But he didn't.

Most of his playing is stock late 60s early 70s blues based stuff.

He listened to Clapton, and Hendrix and copped their licks to the best of his ability, just like everyone else did then. What you hear is him attempting to do what they did, and instead actually accomplishing what he was capable of.

If he had innovated factually I'd give him credit. But imo he was lucky to be allowed to join Floyd when he did.

Fair enough. Nicely defended.

 

[Biggbass]

Creative differences driving inflated egos in opposite directions
I like both of them, as artists. Not so sure either of them would make
a very good friend.

 

[tbz]

Fair enough. Nicely defended.

Thank you.

And to be 100% clear here I really like Floyd.

They're just a great example of people with minimal natural talent on their instruments, that somehow defy that limitation and go on to make timeless music.

The reality is that chops and good music aren't directly correlative. Chops wise they weren't amazing. But they made amazing music.

 

[tbz]

Creative differences driving inflated egos in opposite directions
I like both of them, as artists. Not so sure either of them would make
a very good friend.

Gilmore would be that dude that never calls you.

Waters is the dude that yells at you for your political differences.

I'd agree, they'd both be a handful.

 

[tbz]

These two statements I consider contradictory. If he wanted to be at the helm in Pink Floyd, he just had to continuing to work with Gilmour. Then he thought he could run Pink Floyd and sack Gilmour and find a replacement. If he was done working with Gilmour, how could he wanted to be the at helm in Pink Floyd? Pink Floyd was a unit that consisted of Gilmour a o, so he would have no choice.

This one beats me. What was said and mudslunged (!?) between the parts, is shrouded in mist and smokes and mirrors, but it sure ain't no "Roger did not want to play with Dave". It was all about who, in which manner to use the Pink Floyd name. Pink Floyd as a brand name was much more larger than both Roger and Dave together, and the others too. It's very little doubt that if Rog made "The Final Cut" as a solo album basically with a little help from main band members (which people has done a lot before, Yes mambers solo albums, Van Der Graaf/Peter Hammill solo albums, and numerous hard rock bands where the lead singer or others branch out for that occasional solo effort) and put the PINK FLOYD name all over it, he wanted continue with that, regardless of who really played on the albums. He damm well knew that any album with Pink Floyd name on it would sell thousands percent more, than anything with "Roger Waters" over it. They were quite anonymous and had no dedicated lead singer/frontman and didn't spray their albums cover with their faces. Didn't make publicity stunts, and that one stuck out above the others with their individual names. So people just knew "Pink Floyd" but never who was in it. They couldn't really care less.

Hence the real incident where actually a record company exec/manager asked them "Oh BTW which one is Pink?"

Riiiight.

Uh. But. How does that not boil down to "Roger wanted complete control and didn't want to have to negotiate with David, or accept his input". Which can be neatly summarized as "Roger didnt want to play with David anymore."

If he had been willing to do that, there wouldn't have been a dispute over the name.

After the Final Cut, but before Gilmore tried to revive Floyd, Roger seemed fine with the notion of just letting Floyd die.

As is the lawsuits started after David tried to revive the band without Roger

 

[Honch]

I don't believe that is true nor common knowledge. As far as I can tell, Roger played most of the bass tracks and Dave did a few of the fretless ones plus the cook one from Pigs.

Look, there's a difference between coming up with a bass line, recording it, and being overdubbed secretly by someone else in the band (or others) and then come back in the studio still thinking it's you that played. The Wall sessions were full of that sort of thing. There were times it was so off in timing it had to be re-recorded by someone else. The same line, the same sound, but played with better tightness and in the pocket. I rember Michael Kamen craved that. You can do that almost on all instruments, except for vocals, and guitar/instrumental solos. Drums, backing tracks can be replaced, overdubbed, re-recorded by someone else.

Remember that first Ozzy album?

Now the thing is, we as listener can't ever never know what happened in the studio sessions. If it's played by Dave or Rog or someone else. I think they used Jimmy "Flim" Johnson on some tracks on "The Wall" and never got any credit until years later. Porcaro is rumored to take care of the drumming. "Slow Disco Beat" as in "another brick in the wall II" wasn't Masons forte. Andy Newmark/Ray Cooper provided most drums on "Final Cut" and Mason was left to sound effects, and minimal percussion.

I know numerous session musicians that are brought in to sub, whenever a famous band recording has stalled and due to some idiosyncrasies in the players playing they hire more tight and solid players to fill in and cover up certain flaws. Mostly due to that the band's too wasted, or drug addicted. And they always sign a discloser, that they can't never ever reveal anything about what album they played on. For chrissake, even Robben Ford played on a Kiss album. Could you really tell? I know for sure I couldnt' spot him, and neither could anyone else. Those ones that are able to mimick someone else at the drop of a hat.

 

[CarpeBasso]

Waters was the edgy wordsmith, but for Dave it was all about the music. I read an article that said one time Bass Player Magazine readers voted Roger bassist of the year, largely on the strength of the song "Hey You", but Gilmour had actually conceived and recorded that excellent fretless bass part. Waters told Gilmour, "Thanks for the award, mate."

 

[tbz]

Waters was the edgy wordsmith, but for Dave it was all about the music. I read an article that said one time Bass Player Magazine readers voted Roger bassist of the year, largely on the strength of the song "Hey You", but Gilmour had actually conceived and recorded that excellent fretless bass part. Waters told Gilmour, "Thanks for the award, mate."

David definitely claims it's all about the music.

The fact that he seemingly hasn't learned a new lick since 1974 seems to dispute that unfortunately.

 

[Kitsapbass]

Roger is an outstanding talent. So is Dave. I'd love it if they were able to work it out, but doesn't seem likely. Until then, I'll listen to such wonderful works of art without complaint, including Momentary Lapse and Division Bell, and dream of a possibility that they finally bury the hatchet and work together again.

 

[LowDownHawkeye]

Anyone who paid money to see either live has sufficient standing to critique their live acts, IMHO.

I've never understood the mindset "you can't have an opinion about X unless you've done something that achieved the same level of success." Yet it shows up so often on Internet forums...

 

[Honch]

That being said, if you look into the difficulties they had making music after Roger left, you see hints that his absence had a dramatic impact.

Mainly because Dave wanted Momentary Lapse to be a solo album first, but the record company not. Note, they were still under contract, and obliged to make more albums. So he had basically no choice.

But there's where I agree with you. I do think that when Roger was involved there was more "impressionistic drama" involved in the music. It was film music without film. I think The Wall succeeds as a film movietrack light years better than it stands on its own. By itself that double album I find a real ardous listen. I do think that Gilmour led Floyd lacked a sense of drama, that Rog continued a bit with his solo albums, and showed some more sense of dramatic impact showed through music. He could be as bombastic, pompous and overdone, as well as Gilmour Floyd would be. But I think the "solo album" that was called "Final Cut" was that final statement that they needed to go separate ways. It was NO way a Floyd album by my standards. The post Waters Floyd albums where way more Floyd to me, than anything on Final Cut.

 

[tbz]

I've never understood the mindset "you can't have an opinion about X unless you've done something that achieved the same level of success." Yet it shows up so often on Internet forums...

When you have to drop $150 to see David Gilmore stand still for 100 minutes, while playing the songs note for note (to the point that you really can't tell if it's dubbed and they're just playing to a track) you've earned the right to think he's sub-par.

 

[tbz]

Mainly because Dave wanted Momentary Lapse to be a solo album first, but the record company not. Note, they were still under contract, and obliged to make more albums. So he had basically no choice.

But there's where I agree with you. I do think that when Roger was involved there was more "impressionistic drama" involved in the music. It was film music without film. I think The Wall succeeds as a film movietrack light years better than it stands on its own. By itself that double album I find a real ardous listen. I do think that Gilmour led Floyd lacked a sense of drama, that Rog continued a bit with his solo albums, and showed some more sense of dramatic impact showed through music. He could be as bombastic, pompous and overdone, as well as Gilmour Floyd would be. But I think the "solo album" that was called "Final Cut" was that final statement that they needed to go separate ways. It was NO way a Floyd album by my standards. The post Waters Floyd albums where way more Floyd to me, than anything on Final Cut.

I've never read that David wanted Momentary Lapse to be a solo album, nor was that why said album was hard to make.

All of the takes I've read basically say they had a hard time sounding like Floyd, without Roger around to provide direction.