05-11-2006, 02:21 PM
05-11-2006, 02:38 PM
I was listening to The Final Cut yesterday and it's bloody brilliant...the only thing is, Rogers vocals and lyrics go together perfectly with David's guitar work. (and vocals too, but we lost MOST of those after Wish You Were Here :( )
I have yet to hear Roger Waters solo material (aside from In The Flesh).
I have yet to hear Roger Waters solo material (aside from In The Flesh).
05-11-2006, 03:13 PM
You really should listen to Amused To Death then.
05-11-2006, 03:15 PM
omg Q, we're banning you for a week 'til you listen to all of it! :laugh:
05-11-2006, 04:29 PM
cevor Wrote:omg Q, we're banning you for a week 'til you listen to all of it! :laugh:believe me, I'm anxious to get some of his solo CDs...time will come. I'm trying to limit myself to how much money I spend...I already bought tickets to see Dave, Roger, On An Island CD, Atom Heart Mother CD and Broken China CD.
I wish money grew on trees! :D
05-11-2006, 04:36 PM
Don't miss out on Pros & Cons then. The only thing I'm not so wild on about Radio KAOS and Amused To Death is that Roger doesn't sound quite so...well, Roger. He's a bit hoarse on those albums. On Pros & Cons his voice is still as good as it was on The Final Cut (for obvious reasons.)
05-11-2006, 09:31 PM
Benny turned the dial on his shortwave radio.....
Anywho, Radio KAOS is the greatest, and Quincy better dern well go get it! And whomsoever disagrees, well, they best just watch there backs.
Anywho, Radio KAOS is the greatest, and Quincy better dern well go get it! And whomsoever disagrees, well, they best just watch there backs.
05-12-2006, 04:00 AM
Amused To Death is Roger's best album by far, it is simply a masterpiece. I like Pros & Cons and Radio KAOS very much as well.
05-12-2006, 05:16 AM
Amused to Death is definitely the one to get. Roger really got his musical act together for that one. Radio KAOS is also underrated. The production is very 80's, but once you get past that, it's a cool record. I agree that Roger's best solo singing was on Pros and Cons, but the album is severely lacking in melodies.
The only problem with this statement is that it's simply not true. Roger HAS used his PF connection in various ways over the years to promote his solo career--for example, his solo tour posters and his website bill him as being "the creative genius of Pink Floyd." Here in Japan, the stickers on his solo albums proclaim his Floyd connection (don't remember whether they did in the US or not but they certainly do here). Also, the cover of In the Flesh very unambigiously promotes the Floyd connection.
Of course, Roger has EVERY RIGHT to emphasize his Floyd connection, but so do other ex-Floyd members. It's not "selling out" for any of them to do so--if you were a major member of one of the most popular and influencial bands of all time, you'd be an idiot not to promote the connection. For example, I hope really hope Rick Wright's upcoming album has a big, fat "keyboardist, vocalist and songwriter" of Pink Floyd on it--even some PF fans don't realize the role he played in writing (and often singing) timeless PF classics like "Us and Them," "Echoes," "Time" "Great Gig in the Sky" and "Shine On You Crazy Diamond."
I think that a big part of Roger's problem is simply that Floyd were a very faceless band. Even in the late 70's, when they were at the height of their popularity, they could walk around on the street like normal people, something that bands like Zed Zeppelin could never do. They loved being anynomous, but it has serious consequences for their solo careers. About Face, for example, was an excellent and fairly accessible record, but it didn't sell well.
I'm really hoping that generations of PF popularity have made people more aware of who they are as people--I think that this helped the record sales of "On an Island" a lot, and I really hope it helps Roger's next record. He certainly deserves it--and I hope and expect to see a "the creative genius of Pink Floyd" sticker on the front cover!
Quote:I think the answer lies partly in the fact that he refused to associate his solo work with Pink Floyd. If there were stickers on his albums that proclaimed "the voice and bass of Pink Floyd" (kind of how a few of David Gilmour's are presented these days...) more people would probably buy them. I think it's good that he didn't take that route. That would have been selling out, using the name of Pink Floyd just to sell records.
The only problem with this statement is that it's simply not true. Roger HAS used his PF connection in various ways over the years to promote his solo career--for example, his solo tour posters and his website bill him as being "the creative genius of Pink Floyd." Here in Japan, the stickers on his solo albums proclaim his Floyd connection (don't remember whether they did in the US or not but they certainly do here). Also, the cover of In the Flesh very unambigiously promotes the Floyd connection.
Of course, Roger has EVERY RIGHT to emphasize his Floyd connection, but so do other ex-Floyd members. It's not "selling out" for any of them to do so--if you were a major member of one of the most popular and influencial bands of all time, you'd be an idiot not to promote the connection. For example, I hope really hope Rick Wright's upcoming album has a big, fat "keyboardist, vocalist and songwriter" of Pink Floyd on it--even some PF fans don't realize the role he played in writing (and often singing) timeless PF classics like "Us and Them," "Echoes," "Time" "Great Gig in the Sky" and "Shine On You Crazy Diamond."
I think that a big part of Roger's problem is simply that Floyd were a very faceless band. Even in the late 70's, when they were at the height of their popularity, they could walk around on the street like normal people, something that bands like Zed Zeppelin could never do. They loved being anynomous, but it has serious consequences for their solo careers. About Face, for example, was an excellent and fairly accessible record, but it didn't sell well.
I'm really hoping that generations of PF popularity have made people more aware of who they are as people--I think that this helped the record sales of "On an Island" a lot, and I really hope it helps Roger's next record. He certainly deserves it--and I hope and expect to see a "the creative genius of Pink Floyd" sticker on the front cover!
05-12-2006, 07:15 AM
That would have to depend on where you live, it seems. Here in Canada, I've not seen a sticker promoting Roger's association with Pink Floyd once on any of his solo albums. Doesn't matter which shop I go to, either, it's the same every time. The only time I ever saw a sticker advertising that Roger was a former member of Pink Floyd was on the In The Flesh DVD, but anyone could have realised that had they turned the box over and seen the tracklisting on the back. Even when I lived in England, I didn't see any. Now, tour billings are a different thing entirely as he does play a lot of Pink Floyd songs when he performs live. It would be a little silly not to mention the Floyd connection on concert posters. He could hardly call his tours purely "solo," now could he?
And I'm not saying it's entirely wrong for the band members to push the fact they used to be in Pink Floyd on the covers of their solo albums. They do have every right to, of course. But it does still seem to me to be a bit of a copout to maximise profits. And my word, is it ever irritating to see people fall for it. I was in HMV the other day near the On An Island display area. I overheard the conversation held between two of the guys in front of it. The one said, "Hey, this is the new Pink Floyd album!" and the other said "Oh, let's get it," then promptly marched off to the till with it. And I felt like tearing my hair out right there and screaming to tell them that On An Island is a David Gilmour album, not a Pink Floyd album. I didn't, of course, as that would have been terribly rude. Still, it's that gullible nature of people out there that really gets to me. That people could buy a David Gilmour album thinking that they're buying a Pink Floyd album. And all because of that little sticker...
And I'm not saying it's entirely wrong for the band members to push the fact they used to be in Pink Floyd on the covers of their solo albums. They do have every right to, of course. But it does still seem to me to be a bit of a copout to maximise profits. And my word, is it ever irritating to see people fall for it. I was in HMV the other day near the On An Island display area. I overheard the conversation held between two of the guys in front of it. The one said, "Hey, this is the new Pink Floyd album!" and the other said "Oh, let's get it," then promptly marched off to the till with it. And I felt like tearing my hair out right there and screaming to tell them that On An Island is a David Gilmour album, not a Pink Floyd album. I didn't, of course, as that would have been terribly rude. Still, it's that gullible nature of people out there that really gets to me. That people could buy a David Gilmour album thinking that they're buying a Pink Floyd album. And all because of that little sticker...