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. :)