Enjoy the benefits of a premium membership!
Upgrade Account
-
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
- Thread starter Ric5
- Start date
-
- Tags
- has roger roger waters
- Status
Respectfully (I mean it - I reeeeally don't feel like arguing today, am reading every post and recognising some point in most of them), that's just your bottom line. I don't keep track on all famous rock musicians' technical progress past their prime/"relevant" phase. I tend to give them a break and be grateful for those 2, 3 years they made great music.
The Final Cut was fantastic as was the Wall. Division Bells and Momentary Lapse were awful.
Gotcha. I'll explain
You're saying they're mediocre musicians who made great music. Your words. You're contradicting yourself. You're confusing technical ability and musical talent.
Musical talent is made up of not just technical skill, but also songwriting, arranging, production, creative vision etc.
Even in your first post, you mentioned they were good in the studio. Thats musical talent, that makes for great musicians. If your standard of a good musician is simply someone who can play crazy licks and is technically proficient you have a narrow view on what music is.
The other thing is i'm viewing Pink Floyd as a collective entity. They made awesome and very influential music thats stood the test of time. If you dont like how they play thats fine. If you think your bandmates are better because they are more technically proficient or because can rehash music that was created decades ago thats fine. But to think they're not musically talented(as a whole if anything) is just plain ignorant.
Sorry to be argumentative. I'm sitting in an airport burning time. So. Yeah....
You're correct. I use that as a delimiter. That's my personal bias. Not universal fact.
In my experience genuinely talented, dedicated musicians will continually progress on their instrument.
Danny Carey from Tool is a great example. He wins MD polls even when they haven't released an album in a decade.
Despite that, he plays in a bunch of jazz bands around LA as a hired gun, for fun.
I've watched him go from "still awesome because Danny Carey, but that ain't jazz" to "wow. That's Danny Carey shaging *nailing* those jazz tunes" in the last 2 ish years.
Legit talent means you don't have a stopping point. You aren't ever a finished product, musically.
But again. That's very much imo.
Have you ever seen Roger Waters actually play bass?
He has a backup bassist on stage with him on this tour. Great lyricist and creative talent. But he's just not a musician.
If you asked him as much he'd probably admit it.
Wright and Mason's playing can at best be described as workman like. I can name a slew of other active musicians from the same era, that are much less known, that are factually much more talented.
They just didn't have the gig.
So. Yeah. I don't see the musical talent.
Being in the room while music is made doesn't bestow talent.
Being an active musician during the most financially successful period of the music industry, ever, doesn't make one talented either.
So. Yeah. If music was a meritocracy I'd agree.
But it's not. It's essentially a popularity contest. Especially in the 60s-00s.
Not talent per se, dedication to that aspect of craft? A talented person might succeed and simply plateau, while a lesser talent might just stick to it and grow. Not commenting on mr Carey, just thinking about the difference between talent and dedication. He's likely chock full of both.
Honestly, that poses an interesting philosophical question of the nature of talent.
I'd argue people that plateau are functionally less talented than people that don't, but as you point out dedication and work are a huge factor there as well.
Someone untalented will plateau early regardless of work (IMO.) But so will someone that's talented but lazy.
So differentiating between the two can be hard.
I'd argue the fact that Mason never really got better, despite playing live as often as he did, could arguably be proof that he wasn't talented.
I went to HS with the drummer of Linkin Park. He's a much better drummer now than he was before playing 17+ years of tours.
So. I'd argue he's more talented than Mason, just based on progression. He got better. Mason never seemed to.
But, factually speaking, I'll admit that's just supposition on my part.
Pink Floyd happens to be the band that has most influenced my early playing on bass. How can you not love everything on Meddle? I love all the albums up till Waters left then it sounds like 80's drums and musical nightmare fuel. I have seen both Gilmore and Waters live and Waters was waaaaaay better IMHO (Gilmore was good, but didn't sound like Floyd to me as much) and he was playing bass when I saw him just fine. Also, played great on live from Pompeii.
That's because they have the name, and because Waters writes more challenging material.
IMHO, YYMV, and whatever other disclaimer I can put here.
Mind you, as a singer and guitarist, I LOVE Gilmore. I was reminded of this the other day listening to DSOTM on the occasion of the eclipse. I think his playing is able to convey emotion like few others, and his solo in Time has to be one of the all time best solos ever.
But Roger, as a lyricist and storyteller, is unsurpassed. I was also reminded of this listening to DSOTM the other day as well, Animals a week ago, and then today, listening to The Wall.
Of course, part of this opinion is based on the fact that I (unfortunately) see the world through similarly dark tinted lenses, much as I try to fight it. There are times I can't listen to some of my favorites (like Floyd, Paul Westerberg, and some others) because they bring me to dark places I try to avoid. I actually watched the last third of The Wall last night, and some of the things that resonated with me kinda freaked me out.
Without Waters's vision PF would have been yet another British group. BTW, post-Waters PF sucked whereas Waters released brilliant solo works.
Talentless? C'mon man. You can't really say that about anyone involved in a band like Floyd, much less their principal songwriter for their most successful period. Hate him all you want, but let's get real.
I would agree with all of that. However - it was Roger's vision and lyrics that gave the others the framework to work with. And all you need to do is listen to the post RW Floyd albums, and DG solo material, to realize that. As someone said earlier - they were better together than apart, no doubt. I can see however, how working with RW would eventually grow tiresome.
Absolutely, no doubt. That would be hard to be around.
Que up The Wall round about when "Pink" shaves off his eyebrows and watch up 'til The Trial. It gets downright scary, particularly in light of recent events.
Well, not sure I'd agree totally.
I will say, I saw RW and PF the same year, on the Radio KAOS tour and whatever PF was touring behind.
PF sold out the venue, I was able to get good floor seats for RW.
PF - with the exception of the light show and a few highlights like Comfortably Numb, bored me.
RW - Show was amazing, he was engaged with the audience, loads of energy, he was having fun, and the material was great.
No contest which was the better show.
If any of you get the chance go see Brit Floyd, they are one of the best floyd cover bands around by far. Their last tour they went on had over 1 million$ in stage/ lighting equipment! They are great musically as well though.
Pigs On The Wing is a smaller but great cover band, as is Floydian Slipps. All put on great shows.
Have you seen Pulse or The Delicate Sound Of Thunder? Both are amazing concerts with no Rogers, in fact I almost prefer those shows over earlier ones with Roger. Partly due to the amazing lightshows, but they are epic musically as well.
Pigs On The Wing is a smaller but great cover band, as is Floydian Slipps. All put on great shows.
Have you seen Pulse or The Delicate Sound Of Thunder? Both are amazing concerts with no Rogers, in fact I almost prefer those shows over earlier ones with Roger. Partly due to the amazing lightshows, but they are epic musically as well.
- Status
