• TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
    Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
    Join free Log in
    Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.

Roger Waters has to be stupid

Status
Not open for further replies.
#141
tbz said:
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.
Click to expand...

Perhaps my wording was poor-I completely agree with you.

Edit: meaning, I agree you have every right to have your opinion, not that I (necessarily) agree with that opinion. I don't think I'm familiar enough with the music in question to have formed one yet.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: tbz
#142
The Wall was the last Pink Floyd album. Final Cut was horrible, but Momentary Lapse and Division Bell aren't a lot better. The thing that made Pink Floyd what it was:

  • The times
  • The chemistry between the band members
    • Wright's organ/piano touches
    • Wright's harmonies
    • Mason's big drum style
    • Waters songwriting and approach to bass
    • Gilmour's guitar and production
  • A Little Bit of Magic
The Wall didn't have all the ingredients, but it still managed to be great. Meddle, Obscured by Clouds, Dark Side and Wish You Were Here have "the Pink Floyd sound." Animals and the Wall have a bit of their own sound mixed with the Pink Floyd sound, and the later albums just fall a bit flat for my tastes.

I do enjoy early Floyd, though. Barrett era through Atom Heart Mother.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Joe Ty and tbz
#144
First of all, I love pretty much all Pink Floyd. From their early stuff to the division bell, but if there are any albums I can do without it's the Roger's heavy albums, The Final Cut is probably their worst album by far.

I love parts of the wall but once again I think it's pretty overrated compared to some of their deeper stuff like Atom Heart Mother or Meddle. I have no doubt Roger's was a great song writer, but I think he gets too much credit as well. Nick Mason and Rick Wright were a huge part of the "floyd" sound, as was gilmour. And Rogers was a dick to them all thanks to his ego. Honestly I even think the bassist who replaced him was better all around, Guy Pratt is an excellent bassist.



PULSE is hands down my favorite Floyd concert, it's just all around spectacular. I love the old songs and the new stuff, they all sound great live. I would even say they sound better then they did with Rogers.

Here is another killer live tune with Guy Pratt:



Guy isn't just a great bassist he has some great stage presence as well, that's easily my favorite version of Money by far, they are just on fire.
 
#145
tbz said:
Rick wasn't a great pianist and the guys I pay $100-$200 to play in my band for joke gigs can play Gilmore's parts note for note, and do a ton of stuff he can't.

They made great music, but you have to be really incorrectly calibrated to think any of them are musically talented.
Click to expand...

They made great music, but you have to be really incorrectly calibrated to think any of them are Technically exceptional.

You have incorrectly calibrated the definition of musical talent, but i fixed that for you. If you make great music, you are by definition musically talented.

If the people in your band were (collectively) as musically talented as Pink Floyd, they wouldn't be playing joke gigs.
Creativity + technical skill = Musical talent; but Creativity>technical skill ALWAYS.
 
  • Like
Reactions: LCAirPasta, BuzzCanyon, steamthief and 2 others
#146
funkymonk13 said:
They made great music, but you have to be really incorrectly calibrated to think any of them are Technically exceptional.

You have incorrectly calibrated the definition of musical talent, but i fixed that for you. If you make great music, you are by definition musically talented.

If the people in your band were (collectively) as musically talented as Pink Floyd, they wouldn't be playing joke gigs.
Creativity + technical skill = Musical talent; but Creativity>technical skill ALWAYS.
Click to expand...

The people I hire are more creative than Gilmore's bare bones, stock 60s/70s licks.

So I'm unclear what point you're trying to make.
 
#147
tbz said:
The people I hire are more creative than Gilmore's bare bones, stock 60s/70s licks.

So I'm unclear what point you're trying to make.
Click to expand...

You have incorrectly calibrated the definition of musical talent, but i fixed that for you. If you make great music, you are by definition musically talented.

This part mainly. The other was just my opinion on music. Where did i lose you?
 
#149
funkymonk13 said:
You have incorrectly calibrated the definition of musical talent, but i fixed that for you. If you make great music, you are by definition musically talented.

This part mainly. The other was just my opinion on music. Where did i lose you?
Click to expand...

You failed to explain how participating in the making of popular music makes you legitimately talented as a musician.

I don't see a lot of people claiming Ringo was particularly talented. For example. Usually the discussions about him are to the contrary.
 
#154
Slinger said:
Actually, Ringo was probably the most accomplished musician out of the four of them when they started out, he then kept pace with all of the stylistic changes that the other three threw at him over the years. I'm not saying he was Gene Krupa, but he was definitely not a bad drummer, as people like to make out he was.
Click to expand...

Honestly that's 100% true. But John and Paul both seemed to think he wasn't very talented by 66/67.

You've heard John's documented response to the question "is Ringo the best drummer in the world?" Right?

(If not, his answer was, verbatim, "He's not even the best drummer in the Beatles.")
 
#155
tbz said:
Except on the 20+ songs in their catalogue where Paul played.

Or. All the times he very noticeably dropped a fill.

I can pull up a few YouTube videos that outline his missed fills. It's all there if you listen.
Click to expand...

Technically flawless, nope. Invented drum parts that fit the song, yes. Every song? No. People make mistakes, and not everyone is on every recording. Does not change the macro picture
 
#156
HaphAsSard said:
I'll concede there are a lot of discussions where the premise is his lack of musicianship, but I see a lot of people praising him for his talent.
Is it time to re-evaluate Ringo Starr?
Is it sacrilege to say Paul McCartney isn't a great bass player
Click to expand...

Those are a drop in the bucket compared to even his own band mates comments though.

He's not terrible but he wasn't really good either.

Bottom line, did the man become a better musician after acquiring fame, or did he just tread water? Imo it was the latter.
 
#158
Lennon said a lot of things, some of them he even meant as serious comments. This could go on for ever. There's no definitive answer just opinion. A lot of drummers seem to think Ringo had/has talent, that's my opinion too. You tagged some of his mistakes but if you can show me a musician that has been as much under the spotlight as a member of the Beatles and hasn't made mistakes I'll be very surprised. John, Paul, and George all fluffed things on occasion too.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back