Can you imagine? As much as I enjoy Waters' lyrics, Syd was by far the superior song writer (certainly a better musician!). With the help of Gilmour, it's hard to believe the band wouldn't have become the preeminent super band of the 70s and 80's. I am always amused at Water's bitter feud with Gilmour for continuing Pink Floyd when that's exactly what he did when Syd left the band! And let's face it, without Syd Barrett, there would have been no Pink Floyd! If anyone disagrees with this, think about the material that Pink Floyd produced after Syd left the band. Nearly all of it, it some way shape or form was inspired by Barrett (Dark Side, Wish You Were Here, The Wall, etc). Waters is a fantastic lyricist, but Barrett was a superior musician and without question the creative mastermind that propelled Pink Floyd into the band we know today. By all accounts Syd (until he cracked up) was the better band mate with far more charisma. I can't imagine that we would have seen several more albums than what we have. A more prolific band would have given us all more incredible music to listen to instead of dreaming of it because the band (principally Waters) could not get along. One final thought, had Barrett stayed in the band it's quite possible Waters would have been disposable. He simply didn't have anything to offer as a musician and his creativity was nowhere near that of Barrett.

Syd was indeed a great songwriter and a talented musician, but he was nowhere near as good as David. Nor did he IMO, have a better voice. That said, it's nearly impossible to say what kind of music they would have done, had he not lost control of his faculties and been replaced by David. Would they have evolved musically and done new things or would they have kept on with the sound that they were utilizing at the time Barrett left?

As to your point about Roger being the expendable one........as much as I'm a Gilmour Girl, there's no way in hell you can say Roger was expendable. He wasn't John Entwhistle when it came to bass playing no, but his lyricism could NOT have been replaced. Like I said, I love David and I love the songs that he wrote......but Roger's lyrical contributions were far more anthemic, powerful and visceral. Where the musical creativity came from was David and Rick. I don't know if Syd and Rick could have created anything near what those two did.

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 know what you were saying and I answered you.

Had Syd stayed with the band and not gone crazy, and subsequently not been replaced, I don't think Pink Floyd would have moved much further creatively from where they were at the point he did leave. I don't think Syd had that kind of ability in him. David was and is, a much more proficient player and writer. That's not saying Syd sucked or anything or that the music he did with them was crap.

I also responded to your point about Roger being the expendable one. You're wrong. Period. Roger's lyrical contributions to the band far outweigh any criticisms of his singing or his bass playing.

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. :)

I'm not a "what if" kinda guy. Syd went mad and that is that.

(06-14-2010 05:27 AM)Floydy Wrote:  I'm not a "what if" kinda guy. Syd went mad and that is that.

LOL...True that brother! Probably the most sensible thing that's been said! I'm not much of a "devil's advocate" myself, but the thought of what might have been for this band is intriguing. SD

---

(06-13-2010 07:28 PM)Electrophile Wrote:  I know what you were saying and I answered you.

Had Syd stayed with the band and not gone crazy, and subsequently not been replaced, I don't think Pink Floyd would have moved much further creatively from where they were at the point he did leave. I don't think Syd had that kind of ability in him. David was and is, a much more proficient player and writer. That's not saying Syd sucked or anything or that the music he did with them was crap.

I also responded to your point about Roger being the expendable one. You're wrong. Period. Roger's lyrical contributions to the band far outweigh any criticisms of his singing or his bass playing.

Syd didn't have that kind of ability in him? What? Virtually everything up until the point he left the band was written and created by him! No, creativity was never an issue with Syd, just a few thousand hits of acid and an "irregular head!" As far as "proficiency" with a guitar, I agree (I think most would as well) that David was/is a much better guitar player. But writing? Gilmour provided VERY little to Pink Floyd (not all his fault as Roger was certainly a control freak). After Syd left Waters virtually wrote all of the Pink Floyd material. The material of the "new" Pink Floyd post Waters was ok, but you can't compare it to Barrett's or Water's. In fact, much of the lyrics Dave needed help with (i.e. "Momentary Lapse of Reason" was co-written with Anthohy Moore). I agree with you that Roger's lyrical contributions outweigh his mediocre musical ability, but my arguement centered around the "what if" Barrett had stayed sane and remained in the band. If you know your Floyd history, what the band worried about most after it was clear that Barrett could not continue was who was going to write the lyrics? So, if Barrett had continued to write the material and Gilmour had joined the band Water's contributions would have never been realized.
Hey, it's a devil's advocate, "what if" scenario....I love the band the way it turned out. I just wish there would have been more material produced and will also wonder what might have been...SD

(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

If Syd hadn't gone mad and stayed in the band? Then things would have taken another direction and quite possibly PATGOD would be all but forgotten today. In all honesty, how many would even know of that record today if it wasn't for what the Floyd achieved later on?

(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.