(12-08-2010 06:35 AM)Lady Floydian Wrote:  

(12-07-2010 03:43 AM)Arno Sluismans Wrote:  Do realize, though, that some things are simply essential for people.

I can understand that. However for me it's not so much people saying they don't like AMLoR or The Division Bell because Roger's not on it, and maybe I didn't make my point well enough, but it's the people who don't like them because he's not on the albums AND because they think it's not Pink Floyd without him. So it's two-fold. To say you don't like something not just because so-and-so isn't there but because so-and-so isn't there it's not Pink Floyd and thus you can't like it.....I never got that.

I don't believe Roger made Pink Floyd anymore than David did or Nick did or Rick did or even Syd did. They're all responsible for what they became, each in their own way.

That's completely true. I think that the presence or absence shouldn't mean that much to people, unless they can actually put their finger on something they hear and say "That's where I miss this person".

(12-08-2010 02:58 PM)Arno Sluismans Wrote:  

(12-08-2010 06:35 AM)Lady Floydian Wrote:  

(12-07-2010 03:43 AM)Arno Sluismans Wrote:  Do realize, though, that some things are simply essential for people.

I can understand that. However for me it's not so much people saying they don't like AMLoR or The Division Bell because Roger's not on it, and maybe I didn't make my point well enough, but it's the people who don't like them because he's not on the albums AND because they think it's not Pink Floyd without him. So it's two-fold. To say you don't like something not just because so-and-so isn't there but because so-and-so isn't there it's not Pink Floyd and thus you can't like it.....I never got that.

I don't believe Roger made Pink Floyd anymore than David did or Nick did or Rick did or even Syd did. They're all responsible for what they became, each in their own way.

That's completely true. I think that the presence or absence shouldn't mean that much to people, unless they can actually put their finger on something they hear and say "That's where I miss this person".

I can listen to parts of The Wall or The Final Cut and feel the same way about Rick that some people feel about Roger, in relation to the latter two PF albums. I guess the difference for me is that while I miss what Rick contributed to the band and his absence in most ways was in places quite glaring, I don't believe that what PF put out on The Wall or even The Final Cut shouldn't be called a PF record, even if The Final Cut basically sounds like a Roger Waters solo album.

I guess I'm just overprotective of their latter two albums since they get dumped on so much.

I am probably in the minority from what I have read but I love it all. Post waters included. While there are some songs post that arent as good as others there is some amazing stuff on those two albums. The only time I really think about one or the other is when I see either live. Seeing PF live post roger I so missed his voice and seeing Roger post floyd I so missed Daves voice as well as his guitar cuz no matter who Roger has had play guitar they havent been able to replicate daves sound and style close enough.
But that being said, I'm a huge fan and don't get into the which one is better. I just love em all.

(12-09-2010 08:06 AM)Lady Floydian Wrote:  I guess I'm just overprotective of their latter two albums since they get dumped on so much.

Heh, just like I'm protective of TFC and The Wall, I guess. That's why I didn't like you calling TFC a Waters solo album earlier. :P
Anyway, I don't think it even sounds like solo stuff. It sounds more like Animals than anything else he's done, in my opinion.

they've done*

He's*. Including his solo stuff, I mean. I don't mean to say he did Animals on his own or anything like that.

I think I'm at the other end of the spectrum. I tend to view even the solo albums as Pink Floyd albums.
It's impossible to listen to David, Rick or Roger without hearing traces of all the elements of what they did together. It's also very interesting, since it gets quite obvious who brought what to the table.

It also amazes me how much AMLOR and Radio KAOS have in common. Dig deeply into those two albums and you'll get the feeling they were in the same studio at the same time, secretly collaborating.

it's ok.
not so good as early stuff, but millenniums ahead anything that Roger Waters done after 'The Wall'

---

i really like Sorrow, Marooned & Coming back to life

(12-11-2010 09:43 AM)silverpot Wrote:  It also amazes me how much AMLOR and Radio KAOS have in common. Dig deeply into those two albums and you'll get the feeling they were in the same studio at the same time, secretly collaborating.

This is rather interesting. I personally don't hear it, but you aren't the first person who has said this. I think a lot of it can be chalked up to the fact that David and Roger really do work best together, even if what they put out by themselves (or in the case of this album, with Nick and Rick) isn't that shabby either.

(12-13-2010 06:28 AM)Lady Floydian Wrote:  

(12-11-2010 09:43 AM)silverpot Wrote:  It also amazes me how much AMLOR and Radio KAOS have in common. Dig deeply into those two albums and you'll get the feeling they were in the same studio at the same time, secretly collaborating.

This is rather interesting. I personally don't hear it, but you aren't the first person who has said this. I think a lot of it can be chalked up to the fact that David and Roger really do work best together, even if what they put out by themselves (or in the case of this album, with Nick and Rick) isn't that shabby either.

I wouldn't put it the way Silverpot put it, but I definitely hear a lot of similarities between those two albums. And your post hit the nail on the head explaining why it is like that. :)

I personally consider Pro & Cons and AMLoR to be Roger's and David's worst effort at song writing... They really missed each other in the studio, despite their difficutlies together.