I don't think that strumming away on an accoustic guitar, like Roger does on Granchester Meadows, can be called lead guitar playing.

If Roger had been able to play lead, he would have done that. There would've been no need to hire a guitarist, would there?

According to the ever reliable Wikipedia, Gandchester Meadows was written and peformed soley by Roger himself. Roger didn't help Dave with The Narrow Way so why should Dave help out Roger with Ganchester Meadows?

---

(08-08-2011 04:08 AM)silverpot Wrote:  I don't think that strumming away on an accoustic guitar, like Roger does on Granchester Meadows, can be called lead guitar playing.

If Roger had been able to play lead, he would have done that. There would've been no need to hire a guitarist, would there?

I don't recall saying that Roger was such an exeptional lead guitarist that David Gilmour was not needed.

(08-09-2011 01:51 AM)Floydy Wrote:  According to the ever reliable Wikipedia, Gandchester Meadows was written and peformed soley by Roger himself. Roger didn't help Dave with The Narrow Way so why should Dave help out Roger with Ganchester Meadows?

---

(08-08-2011 04:08 AM)silverpot Wrote:  I don't think that strumming away on an accoustic guitar, like Roger does on Granchester Meadows, can be called lead guitar playing.

If Roger had been able to play lead, he would have done that. There would've been no need to hire a guitarist, would there?

I don't recall saying that Roger was such an exeptional lead guitarist that David Gilmour was not needed.

I'm not accusing you of saying that. It's only my first paragraph that was indirectly pointing towards your post. And I didn't quote you, did I?

Of course it counts as lead guitar! There's actually a solo in there! Roger is good, but he's not exceptional...let's just leave it that way.

Roger has tremendous musicianship. His actual playing skills would be listed at the bottom of the list, as to why he's an astounding musician, though playing skill definiately makes the list. It's everything above that that makes him a musician in every sense of the word. He's the best rock songwriter in the history of rock, in my opinion. And this may seem like an odd tip of the hat to Mr. Waters, but he sounds more like a monkey than a monkey I heard at the L.A. Zoo. I saw an interview wherein Roger said he hoped people would associate Pink Floyd with him, "but they don't". I would love to tell him that of coarse they do. It's the songs, man. Of coarse I'd also be tempted to ask him why that's so important to him in the first place. Not saying the reason wouldn't be valid, just that I'd love to get into his head. And hope to God I could get back out.

He is a very good bass player, and he plays simple acoustic guitar stuff fine, but you can also judge musicianship by songwriting ability, of which he has a lot. I'd say he's not as talented as David Gilmour, or even Rick Wright in terms of raw playing talent, but he is not a bad musician by any stretch.

He is a very good bass player, and he plays simple acoustic guitar stuff fine, but you can also judge musicianship by songwriting ability, of which he has a lot. I'd say he's not as talented as David Gilmour, or even Rick Wright in terms of raw playing talent, but he is not a bad musician by any stretch.

Musicianship encompasses so many things other than the actual playing skill of an instrument. That's just one component....

Actual songwriting in my opinion is really a lost art. How a song is put together with the lyrics and music, vocals.............that's an incredible creative process.

Agree !

(05-30-2011 08:26 AM)Cabbage Love Wrote:  

(05-30-2011 12:14 AM)Arno Sluismans Wrote:  Syd was barely a good lead guitarist? I really, really disagree with that. I'm quite sure that he was able to do a lot of things that David and Roger would never have managed to. Just listen to Interstellar Overdrive.

Yes. Syd is actually one of my favourite guitar players of all time. And that has very little to do with how complicated his parts were. He had a very unique and creative style.

---

(02-04-2012 08:14 AM)donaldbond Wrote:  He is a very good bass player, and he plays simple acoustic guitar stuff fine, but you can also judge musicianship by songwriting ability, of which he has a lot. I'd say he's not as talented as David Gilmour, or even Rick Wright in terms of raw playing talent, but he is not a bad musician by any stretch.

---

(02-20-2012 02:10 AM)davidmatk Wrote:  He is a very good bass player, and he plays simple acoustic guitar stuff fine, but you can also judge musicianship by songwriting ability, of which he has a lot. I'd say he's not as talented as David Gilmour, or even Rick Wright in terms of raw playing talent, but he is not a bad musician by any stretch.

Everyone's entitle to their own opinions, however, David Gilmour and Bob Ezrin were working with tons of musicians while making of MLOR but still were in need of Rogers input. Here is a quote from Penthouse Magazine back in 1988: "I won't tell you that there weren't times when I didn't say to David or David didn't say to me; this would be easier if Roger were here or 'Roger would know what to do, or Roger could give us that flavor"

If they were "the musicians" why would they need Roger ??? Roger was the driving force indeed,as it states on The Guardian in 2002
"Gilmour, Mason and Wright would together achieve commercial success with MLOR and TDB but neither album could hope to recapture the magic and enduring mass appeal that the three created with Waters, John Lennon of the group" Now you be an honest judge and decide who was the true musician of the band !!!

I actually have brought up a similar idea in one of my classes. I asked "Does anyone here consider themselves a musician?" (The class was Musicianship & Analysis) And everyone but two people including myself raised their hands. I don't consider myself a musician even though most anyone would. I don't know why. It's a personal preference, I presume. Anyway, we discussed what makes a musician and of course realized everyone has a different definition of musicianship. Really though, I would consider anyone involved in the process of creating/playing/making/theorizing/conceptualizing music as a musician. If you are part of the process, even the recording engineer, you are a musician as you have a vision and contribution to the final output of said music. Roger, David, Nick, and Richard are all musicians in my book, and everyone involved with PF really. For different reasons, sure. But they are all incredibly skilled in some way in this musical conception. Basically, if you create music on some level, especially as a profession, whether it is deemed good or bad, you are a musician. Thoughts?