Went with the late, great Richard Wright. Could have gone with any of them. Even Roger. I have always felt sorry for him.

Roger for me too...

david gilmour. he was very easy going and never really fought with the other members. roger was an ass and syd was too much of a druggie.

Without Roger, the other ones would have spent their lives working in a garage for their living. Roger also is (together with Syd) the only real songwriter of the bunch.

(03-18-2010 01:10 PM)Arno Sluismans Wrote:  Without Roger, the other ones would have spent their lives working in a garage for their living.

What a rude, insulting and factually incorrect statement. Here's a newsflash for you -- Roger Waters wasn't Pink Floyd, as much as you'd like to think he was.

How in the hell can you claim to be the fan of a group you don't think had any talents or contributions outside of one person? That's not a band, that's a solo artist and a bunch of session players.

(03-18-2010 03:09 PM)Electrophile Wrote:  

(03-18-2010 01:10 PM)Arno Sluismans Wrote:  Without Roger, the other ones would have spent their lives working in a garage for their living.

What a rude, insulting and factually incorrect statement. Here's a newsflash for you -- Roger Waters wasn't Pink Floyd, as much as you'd like to think he was.

How in the hell can you claim to be the fan of a group you don't think had any talents or contributions outside of one person? That's not a band, that's a solo artist and a bunch of session players.

x 2.
I've said this before and I'll say it again, The Division Bell is the only Floyd LP to go No 1 in both the US and the UK. It's also the LP where there one and only Grammy was lifted from, without any input what so ever from Roger.
When Roger left the band and then tried to stop the other three from continuing, instead of playing in there garage (have you seen Nick's garage? very nice, Davids Barn looks cozy as well) they went and played to the public. A world tour that lasted 19 months.
There is more to music than lyrics, it's called music.
Cheers mate and you are entitled to you option, but I don't agree with it.

Does it really matter who my favourite member is (there is a rude joke in there somewhere) ? The thing is , all of their best material occurred when they were able to work together as a group . When they were able to get past their differences and use them to reach new sounds and ideas . Would the Darkside of the Moon be the phenomena it is if only Roger had his way with it ? Would the Final Cut sound better if Gilmour had more of a say ? Would there be more cohesion if Roger had been part of the band when they made the Division Bell ? As it stands , these guys did their best work before all the trappings of stardom got to them . Too bad , but that is just the way it is .

(03-18-2010 03:09 PM)Electrophile Wrote:  

(03-18-2010 01:10 PM)Arno Sluismans Wrote:  Without Roger, the other ones would have spent their lives working in a garage for their living.

What a rude, insulting and factually incorrect statement. Here's a newsflash for you -- Roger Waters wasn't Pink Floyd, as much as you'd like to think he was.

How in the hell can you claim to be the fan of a group you don't think had any talents or contributions outside of one person? That's not a band, that's a solo artist and a bunch of session players.

Please do an effort to understand what I'm saying before feeling offended.

I always say the same thing about John Lennon and Paul McCartney: if one would have not existed, the other wouldn't have had nearly the success he actually had. There's more about a band than playing good music, or writing good music; there's also the commercial part. John Lennon's music was very progressive and extremely good, but people would have been repulsed by it if it weren't for McCartney's more casual, commercial music. One would have been useless without the other.

In Pink Floyd, Roger is John Lennon and Paul McCartney combined (with his symbols like The Wall or the flying pigs), and David is merely McCartney (beautiful guitar solos, nice voice, and always there to remind Roger of the fact that they were supposed to play pure rock, sometimes). If David Gilmour would have released A Momentary Lapse of Reason as his debut album in his 20s, and be EXACTLY the same, you would not listen to it. Believe me, you wouldn't, and the rest of the world wouldn't either. It's a fact that Floyd's last two albums were, strictly musically, poor compared to the rest of the band's music. You can be a Gilmour fan as much as you want, and after this post I probably won't argue any further, but this is a given fact. Gilmour's contribution to Pink Floyd was mainly the good old rock 'n' roll (which is awesome, just listen to Comfortably Numb, for example), and extraordinary guitar solos.

I think you can also compare Pink Floyd to Bruce Springsteen and the E Street Band, but not fully. Bruce's band is about his own music, though the E Street Band is one of the most competent bands ever. And their arrangements indescribable. I'm not saying Roger was the front man in Pink Floyd the way Bruce is in his band, but to some extent, they are alike.

And to end my post, I'd also like to say that, despite all this, I still think Floyd was at its best during the period around The Dark Side of the Moon; when they all really worked together as a group of composers. I guess 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 = 5. :)

(03-19-2010 08:49 AM)Arno Sluismans Wrote:  

(03-18-2010 03:09 PM)Electrophile Wrote:  

(03-18-2010 01:10 PM)Arno Sluismans Wrote:  Without Roger, the other ones would have spent their lives working in a garage for their living.

What a rude, insulting and factually incorrect statement. Here's a newsflash for you -- Roger Waters wasn't Pink Floyd, as much as you'd like to think he was.

How in the hell can you claim to be the fan of a group you don't think had any talents or contributions outside of one person? That's not a band, that's a solo artist and a bunch of session players.

If David Gilmour would have released A Momentary Lapse of Reason as his debut album in his 20s, and be EXACTLY the same, you would not listen to it. Believe me, you wouldn't, and the rest of the world wouldn't either. It's a fact that Floyd's last two albums were, strictly musically, poor compared to the rest of the band's music.

Believe me, yes I would. I love that album, the same as I love the solo album David DID release in the 70s. Just because you think it's garbage doesn't mean everyone else has to or does agree with you.

Also, your opinion is the not the same as a fact. You don't like the latter two PF albums. That's fine. I don't like the two PF albums that precede them. That's fine too. However, I don't think my opinion of The Wall and The Final Cut are the final say. I understand that people disagree with me and I don't tell them "No you're wrong, they're crap".


You can go on believing Pink Floyd was one man, I'll go on knowing they were 4.

While everyone has and is welcome to their opinion, it's quite easy to take it beyond the bounds of reality. Predicting the future does nothing to bolster your position Arno, actually quite the opposite. Consider that Floyd fans were quite tired of Roger's endless politico and war dirges. The post-Waters era is easier to relate to and superior musically to many previous Floyd releases. All of the players had evolved as musicians with time and I'm sure another element is the topic matter ripping Waters that turns off Roger fans. I love Roger and his solo works, but one man does not make a band and he certainly deserved the shots taken at him.