Eh, no thanks. The Final Cut is the one album they never should have made. If Roger was that hell-bent on doing his own thing, to the exclusion of everyone else, he should have left the band in 1981 after The Wall shows were over.

I think Ive read that their contract with the record company forced them to make another album.

(06-14-2010 11:31 PM)Arno Sluismans Wrote:  

(06-14-2010 09:41 PM)Sweetdaddy68 Wrote:  

(06-14-2010 12:04 AM)Arno Sluismans Wrote:  Uhm, you're exaggerating quite badly. I don't know how deeply you study music when you listen to it, but it's commonly known among critics that Roger is one of the better bassists in the history of rock. Also, why would Roger be disposible when Syd didn't even play the bass at all?

On another note, Roger's music was way more mainstream-acceptable than Syd's. Roger had concepts and a great sound (the latter of which Rick, and to a lesser extent David, are responsible for as well, though). Syd, on the other hand, relied on his strong compositions and guitar skills, but I think you can agree with me when I say that the music sounded rather rough and flawed. Personally, I like this a lot (and I am quite sure most people on this forum do) but for world success, Roger's work was simply more suitable.

(06-13-2010 06:25 PM)Sweetdaddy68 Wrote:  I'm not sure if we're communicating? I'm a big David Gilmour fan, but this really isn't about him. But since we're on Gilmour, let's get this straight: he is my favorite guitar player period. He's by far the best musician in the group (including Barrett) as he is one of the most influential guitar players in the rock world (Pete Townshend and Eric Clapton have actually said he influenced them). He can literally play anything (including bass, drums, harmonica, slide guitar). Now, having said that, Gilmour really isn't the focus of my point. Gilmour would be the first to tell you that the lyrics are not his forte! While he is a fantastic singer and can sing just about anything, his lyrics are nowhere near as thought provoking as Waters' or Barrett's. My point was that I feel Barrett was superior in creating lyrics and with the help of Gilmour would have been put down some incredible content (we got a taste of it with Barrett's solo albums that Gilmour helped produce)! Now of course, this is a "what if" scenario. But there is no denying that what Barrett did was groundbreaking. Waters simply took the next step. Would there have been room for Waters if Syd hadn't had the cheese fall off his cracker? Possibly. But remember that it was the consensus of the band (including Waters himself!) that Barrett was the true genious. You don't replace "genious" with very good! And finally, remember that although Barrett wasn't in the same league as Gilmour with a guitar, he was very competent and innovative. Waters, at BEST, was an average bass player (and that's being kind) and average singer. There are many stories of Gilmour having to play Roger's parts when recording because Roger simply couldn't get it right (i.e. the bass segment of "One of these Days"). Hey, I enjoy Roger Water's stuff and think it's fantastic! (I'm going to see The Wall in October). I simply wonder "what if" the "madcap" hadn't gone astray........ SD

I think this might be a bit exaggerated as well. :) First of all, there are some very irrelevant points. For instance, being influenced by one says more about one's musicality than about one's technical ability. Ringo Starr was technically mediocre, but he has influenced every single drummer who came after him.
Also, saying that he was a bass, drums and harmonica player is irrelevant to his skills as a guitarist as well. His bass playing has always been rather poor (with the exceptions of Sheep and Pigs on Animals), and his drumming is very basic and uninspired. His sax and harmonica playing is quite nice to hear, though.
Then about "Dave having to play Roger's bass because Roger couldn't play it", that's simply not true. No clue where you heard that, but it's untrue. I could as well say that Dave is a bad guitar player because it was for HIM that they switched Money's guitar solo to 4/4 instead of 7/8, and it was HIM who was not able to play the guitar part on Is There Anybody Out There?.

Another thing: Roger and Syd had splendid co-operation, contrary to Roger and Dave. Syd was amazing, but I don't think he could have done this without Waters. It's a bit like our dearest friends, Paul and John, would have been unable to make such great music seperately, even though they composed a great deal of it without the other's direct help.

Overall, I do agree that you have a point. Syd's departure was a terrible loss, and the world of rock 'n' roll would not be the same if he would have continued playing. Just be careful when you try to emphasize your point by giving too much credit to one person. :)

Jaco Pastorius, Geddy Lee, Victor Wooten, John Paul Jones, Flea....now there are just a few of what I would call very good bass players! I doubt you will find Waters on ANYONE's top 20! Hell, he wasn't even the best bass player on his own freaking band! Lol! Gilmour definitely played/plays a better bass! Could Waters play a fretless bass? Who do you think played the fretless bass on "Hey You?" GILMOUR! Read any interview from Gilmour about Water's ability as a bass play and he LAUGHS! At any rate, what would have made Roger expendable would have been the scenario that Barrett didn't flip and Gilmour joined the band. Since Barrett had been the creative force in the band and written virtually all of the material, Gilmour would have been a nice compliment as a true musician to the song writing abilities of Barrett. Perhaps Waters would have stuck around, but I think he was so focused on being a rock star and having control that he would have had a fit if he couldn't have had a bigger say in the music. You think that's crazy? Ask Gilmour or the rest of the band (including the recently deceased Richard Wright that was thrown out of the band by Waters) what they thought of life in the band from about the time "Wish You Were Here" was produced? Constant tension, which is a true pity. Hey, I too believe the "early" Floyd was a group effort, but it was quite clear as the years and albums progressed that Waters took more and more control. Hell, most people will acknowledge "The Final Cut" as a glorified Waters solo album! Fortunately, for Water's sake he had Gilmour there to make the album worth listening to. Much of Water's solo material really isn't worth listening to! SD

Never read about Gilmour laughing at Roger's bass skills. If he did, I think he was having a try at being as sanctimonious as Roger used to be.
And it's totally logical that Roger isn't in any top 20s. That's because top 20s are usually crowded by the technical genii, while Roger is musicality itself, similar to how Ringo Starr is one of the best drummers in the world without technically being very skilled. Roger's bass lines are always very subtle and appropriate, and perfectly played. I've always found David's bass lines excessively loud and taking too much of the listener's attention. That's mostly why I don't like his bass playing.

About playing fretless bass, what does THAT have to do with it? The fretless bass is very similar to a cello when it comes to how difficult it is, and when a bass player wants to play the fretless bass, he practically has to learn to play a new instrument. I'm quite sure it was simply David who felt like putting his time into learning to play that instrument.

And mentioning The Final Cut and Rick isn't relevant either. :P Roger has repeatedly been furious about the fact that David was simply not writing any songs anymore, and Rick was simply not doing anything anymore. He just set there, waiting until the day had passed so that he could go home. That's why Gilmour was removed as a co-producer, and why Wright was removed as a band member. I think that, if I was in Waters' position, being the only one of four people who does anything useful, I would have done exactly the same.

Rock Compact Disc Magazine, Issue 3, September 1992-read all about Gilmour's assessment of Roger's bass ability! Nevermind what I've said, read it yourself. The fact that you don't think being regarded as a premiere musician in your field isn't relevant is curious. I wonder if Gilmour hadn't been regarded as much of a musician how far he'd gone? Dave never had that problem as he's had guitar players the like of Pete Townshend saying that he had influenced them! But I digress....for each his own.
As for Waters being the only one doing anything "useful" with the band, that nothing but pure ego. Again, you don't have to listen to me...READ it for yourself! The fact that Waters has done virutally nothing since The Final Cut speaks volumes. I can point to several things that Gilmour has done (including his last solo effort) that have not only been worth listening to, but entertaining to watch perform live.

(06-19-2010 11:39 AM)Electrophile Wrote:  Eh, no thanks. The Final Cut is the one album they never should have made. If Roger was that hell-bent on doing his own thing, to the exclusion of everyone else, he should have left the band in 1981 after The Wall shows were over.

That's when he really left isn't it? IMO yes it was.

The following debate here is quite interesting. I find it curious how things always circulate back to the same thing. It's the main reason we discourage direct comparison discussions like the classic David v Roger stuff. Each person's opinion is a valid as any other no matter how well schooled you perceive yourself. Quite frankly my thoughts on the whole thing would seem trollish, so I keep them to myself. Perhaps the "think thrice, type once" concept would work well here or just a splash of humility, it's a forum for god sakes.

(06-21-2010 04:02 AM)cevor Wrote:  

(06-19-2010 11:39 AM)Electrophile Wrote:  Eh, no thanks. The Final Cut is the one album they never should have made. If Roger was that hell-bent on doing his own thing, to the exclusion of everyone else, he should have left the band in 1981 after The Wall shows were over.

That's when he really left isn't it? IMO yes it was.

The Final Cut was basically Roger's "coming out" as a solo artist. Which is fine, if you enjoy that album and Roger's subsequent solo material. I just happen to think it doesn't add much to the PF canon, and of all their works could be considered the most expendable.

As to your other point about the David vs. Roger stuff.....I agree. I mean, my preference is rather obvious, but it's not like I hate Roger or something. There are people out there though, who vehemently love one and hate the other. THAT I don't understand, but what can you do?

Its a pity that discussions like these always turn into mud slinging, because I think its rather interesting to compare the two and analyse their respective contributions to what PF became.
Its equally interesting to talk about the work they did without each others input.
For instance, I love both AMLOR and Radio KAOS, and I find them almost eerily similar. Im not talking about the 80s sound here, its something else that I cant put my finger on.

It is an interesting discussion. As for what makes AMLoR and Radio KAOS so similar......they're both the sounds of someone trying to do it without the other. Roger told David that he wouldn't go on with Nick as Pink Floyd without him [Roger]. Not that he couldn't, but that he wouldn't. Essentially saying, "you don't have the balls to do this without me." So David set out to prove that Pink Floyd was a band, not a person and that Roger's absence wasn't going to mean the end of the group or a lack of quality music their fans would love. That it would just be another version of the band, much like the incarnation that was fronted by Syd was another version. What made Pink Floyd so magical would still be there, there would just be one less person. Roger was trying to prove that he WAS Pink Floyd and that when he left, so did the talent. His solo album was basically him saying "I am Pink Floyd, without me they're nothing, listen to this and think about how good they had it."

Both David and Roger were trying to prove something; to themselves, to each other, to their fans, to the general public at large. That's what those two records were. I personally don't care for Roger's solo career as his songs are too "beat you over the head" lyrically and I prefer the more swirling soundscapes that David & Rick were known for. That doesn't mean however, that it's crap or that by default, Pink Floyd is better. It's just different.

The eerie thing about AMLoR and KAOS is two men trying to make seperate albums without the input of the other.
But just that's just my opinion

I think that the world would explode.

My reasoning? Syd Barret would continue churn out material that got better and better, yet retaining its raw, LSD driven sound. He would get super popular and all musicians and music would try to copy his sound and fail, he would rise to godly power. He would buy an island and continually make money with good marketing decisions, then move to more nearby islands in the southwestern pacific, beforing gaining enough money to buy australia, yet the australians didn't sell it, so Syd took his master army to slaughter the Australian politicans then take control of the land. He continued to do this until he took control of the world. Then a rag-tag band of independant armyfolk create a homebrew Atomic bomb, then bomb it upon Syd's atomic bomb carrier building in Australia. THe amount ofbombs in the building is underestimated an the world explodes.


Ohh... you mean albums? oh.. well... I dunno?

(06-19-2010 11:39 AM)Electrophile Wrote:  Eh, no thanks. The Final Cut is the one album they never should have made. If Roger was that hell-bent on doing his own thing, to the exclusion of everyone else, he should have left the band in 1981 after The Wall shows were over.

Not sure what you mean here -- do you mean that he should have just released it as a solo album after leaving Pink Floyd? No opinion about that to be honest, though as I've said before, it's pretty much my all time favorite album.

To SweedDaddy: The thing is that top 20 lists of bassists are always, almost per definition, incorrect. The wording might be a bit too blunt, but it's a fact nevertheless. To be in such a list you need to catch people's eye by playing your instrument in such a way that it isn't very natural anymore. Guitar players can distinct themselves from others by playing extreme solos and all that. Same goes for drummers, keyboardists, etc. But bass players are only good when they do NOT try to distinct themselves in their music. You could compare it to rhythm guitar playing; it's very important that you do not take a lead role in the music you play, if you're a bassist. In my life I have never seen an accurate "top 20 rhythm guitar players" list, or something like that. Which is logical. The concept of making a top 20 list for bassists just fails; there's no purpose because the criteria are always wrong. The fact that you mention people like Flea, confirms that. Flea is an amazing bass player - technically - but if he'd been Pink Floyd's bass player, they'd have either reschooled him, or fired him.

Also, I don't know who it was who said it (I can't seem to find the post again), but saying that Roger Waters did virtually nothing after leaving Pink Floyd is simply not true. He released several albums, staged one of the biggest concerts of all time, and to top that, he released an opera. I don't think there's a rock artist who has done something similar after leaving the band that made him swim in money.