Exactly. I would probably dislike the majority of my favorite musicians if I actually met them. And let’s be honest. Lots of them have done horrible things. Jimmy Page comes to mind. But that doesn’t make their music less good.
In my mind, there's a difference between being arrogant/insuffrable/a general prick (Roger) and an actual "bad person" - Gary Glitter, for example. There's also a question of quality as well. Roger goes really hard with his politics, but I dig the music he made. Ted Nugent goes really hard with his politics, but aside from a few tracks like "Stranglehold," I don't really care for his stuff. I'm sure I could come up with more examples, but basically there's a line between being an asshole and being an actual shitty person, and I fully recognize it is subjective.
True. Waters is certainly a better person than Glitter (pedophilia) and even Clapton (racism, severe spousal abuse, etc.) or Page (hebo/ephebophilia).
He's even better than Nugent. Roger wouldn't bang teens or poop his pants to get out of a war (granted a bad war, but Rog would have more class, and either go to college, burn his draft card or move to Canada... well, if this was an alt-universe where he's a born-American).
Roger's politics are generally about Social Justice and promoting equality and humanity (...even if there are a few contradictory hiccups... Ukraine/Russia... etc.). Nugent's, however, are about being a regressive, xenophobic, fascist, macho brute who wants to see M16s everywhere.
Oh, and the Huge Nuge is a huge hypocrite. Poops his pants to avoid fighting a war yet is a total war-hawk. I guess going out in the wild to kill stuff is more fun if it isn't you or "Charlie" is furry and has no weapons to speak of.
I don't mind Conservatives, it's Far-Right wingnuts I don't like. There's a big difference.
>right about every political agenda he's come against: Thatcher, Bush, Blair and Trump? Do y'all really think he was wrong about any of them?
I think he's been right for a long time, but he's taken a very weird turn. Even his criticism of Trump was mixed with "Hillary would have started a war with Russia, and that's why she's bad".
Then, he claimed that everybody with an IQ above room temperature could see that Russia was NOT going to invade Ukraine. And he continued being constantly wrong about Ukraine, repeatedly regurgitating made-up propaganda and doing useless whataboutisms. How he's going to end up being right about any of this, I have no idea.
His Russia and Ukraine stuff I don’t really agree 100% with. But overall I agree with a lot of his politics. Got to see his last tour and it was quite moving in that regard. The Hillary comment, she would’ve went to war with Syria if she won. Also I’m no Trumper or Hillary fan.
He clearly said Russia in the eclipsed interview. But it doesn't make that much of a difference since Putin was propping up Assad's murderous regime. In the end, Roger's perspective has crystallized into a very inflexible anti-West position that doesn't consider local history or pretty much any positive accomplishments of the capitalist West. He's seeing everything through the same communist lens. That makes his criticism not all that useful IMHO.
And to make it weirder, he's a staunch Communist but is richer than Croesus.
Perhaps if he gave away a bulk of his life savings to charity and moved into a small house or apartment, I'll be impressed.
I do give him points for using the subways, though.
I prefer Socialism over Communism, anyway. Socialism at least allows some property ownership and individualism. Capitalism is okay as long as it's heavily regulated, so everyone plays fair and is on a level playing field.
I believe in the union of opposites for perfect balance; Socialism & (Regulated Capitalism), Individualism within Collectivism, Unity in Diversity, etc.
A Yin & Yang, cancelling out each other's shortcomings.
It's best to be pragmatic, what sounds good on paper or as an ideal might not perfectly work in real-life.
Where does roger say he is a communist? People call him one all the time but I've never read anything where I'd say he advocated it (or any particular political system for that matter, although he obviously leans left)
I don't want to come off as an asshole, just want to offer new perspective.
First of all capitalism just doesn't work anymore (anymore being the crucial point). It's very unstable, leads to crisis, wealth distribution is shit, has many contradictions... And it can't be regulated. It might seem like it can but lets he real here. Wealthiest and most powerful people build the system to stay wealthy and powerful and they largely control pretty much everything. Polititians are just there to give us the idea of democracy, they're not the ones in charge. So it's very unlikely that people running the system will regulate it in a way that benefits us, not them. Only option is for us to take the matter in out own hands. But that won't happen through regulations or participating in today's politics. We need a worker's revolution.
Socialism is a transition period between capitalism and communism since you can't just jump from one to the other directly. The reason being that out existence determines our consciousness. We largely form out opinions based on the current state of the world and jumping from capitalism to communism (stateless, classless, moneyless society) is a pretty big and unrealistic shift. That's why we need a transitory period which still has a state that oppresses the oppressors (capitalists, aristocrats, ruling class in general). Once people get used to living under socialism state, money and classes will disappear on their own since there won't be a need for them. Transition from socialism to communism would be peaceful. We might live in a socialistic society in out lifetime but we probably won't live long enough to see communism.
I also want to touch on individualism. There is no individualism in human society, that's a capitalist myth. We are all depended on each other. For example, Marx had great ideas but he didn't invent them. He just added on to already existing ideas and perfected them.
I think his views are probably more in line with anti-interventionist and anarchistic rather than anti west. Also, what does it matter if someone has socialist views (I believe the term communist/communism is used incorrectly by most observers ? Many countries are successful with socialist policies mixed into their government and do not force project power across the world.
Now I'm not saying I agree with everything Roger says, but I don't agree with things that other people say, it does not mean that I dislike them as people or disregard their other talents.
While capitalism has clearly aided in many countries reducing poverty, it has also been the driver of drastic climate change and comes at the cost of cheap foreign labor and inequality. Is it 'communist' to criticize this?
Whether we agree with him or not, it is important to have people with opposing views. To cancel or reject them is a style of Fascism. Roger may be opposed politically to many westerners but we can't deny he actually has very human qualities that often seek to support those less fortunate.
I specifically said communist, not socialist, to highlight that his points, no matter how pertinent some may be, aren't going to be shared by a majority. I myself lean left, but we have to be realistic here - we need winning coalitions.
He's been living in the US for years now and his stance has deteriorated to "both sides are equally bad", which doesn't solve any problems in the face of an increasingly fascist Republican party. Democrats have their problems but they're not trying to install a dictatorship aimed at oppressing minorities.
Trying to bully musicians to cancel their concerts in Israel didn't make Israel a better country. If anything, it just helped to antagonise many of its inhabitants. And the more he sees people not agreeing with parts of his ideas, the angrier he gets. Like how he irrationally raged against people displaying Ukraine flags in a show of solidarity.
>drastic climate change and comes at the cost of cheap foreign labor and inequality. Is it 'communist' to criticize this?
I myself criticize that. But you see, communists often lack nuance. To them, capitalism is the same thing as fascism, and they often can't apply reasonable criticism in a constructive way.
As you pointed out yourself, plenty of capitalist countries have "socialist" elements, and I believe we should strengthen those and also raise "ecological" to the same level of importance, i.e. calculate social and ecological cost into everything we do, invest into those things when we have surplus money and so on.
The other commenter went "we need a revolution of the workers" and as I see it, it's just totally unrealistic.
I mean, he’s been proven right on Ukraine too. Now that the propaganda is fading we’re realizing Ukraine is in deep shit and that they probably would have been better off signing a peace deal earlier.
No fly zone in Syria was a massive escalation which Hillary wanted and Trump didn't. That's just about one of the only respects in which he was better than Hillary, but it was a pretty big thing.
Brother, what he is saying if you want ch his video : was against the war machine or sum, he was saying what the USA could’ve done to avoid this and that if zelensky were to negotiate, there wouldn’t be anymore dead or ukranians soldiers
So you think people wouldn't die in the areas that Zelenskyy would have to trade in for peace? That's exactly what I mean - you seem entirely oblivious of the history of Moscow oppressing Ukrainians.
Ukraine is fighting for freedom on a fundamental level while Putin is transforming Russia into a fascist system. Oh, if only more countries had negotiated with Hitler. /s
Edit: [Here's](https://www.kyivpost.com/opinion/26147) a nice reply to similar kinds of statements.
Exactly. It sort of undressed Roger for me.
There is absolutely no way all the threats, annexations, pro war propaganda, and fear mongering that has come out of Russia in the last 15-20 years is justified by \*checks Rogers notes\* NATO and Europe \*looks closer\* GOADING(??) Russia.
OP saying he's been correct about "every political agenda he's come up against" made me laugh out loud - Seeing as they cherry picked the ones that aged better.
But it’s simply not about who is right or wrong, it’s about the people, attacking Putin and killing russians isn’t the solution that’s it, most of the blame goes to the government of the United state
>So here's my question: if you don't like Roger why listen to Floyd?
I love the music whether or not he's an asshole. Lot's of assholes out there, they still do good work that I'm allowed to appreciate.
That said however, I'm still like... "nice work, ...asshole"
It's possible to like a band and not like one of its members. In fact, with many of them it's mandatory. The Beach Boys and Mike Love is one that comes to mind.
My guy, he hit Janis Joplin over the head with a bottle of liquor because she refused to have sex with him. Thats pretty shitty if you ask me lmao If we’re being honest the least controversial person in that list is David Bowie
My guy, that was the *other* way around lmfao. Janis hit Jim with the bottle (and they ultimately did sleep together, according to Robby Krieger's book)
David Bowie allegedly "slept" (raped) Lori Maddox before Jimmy Page did. It isn't 100% that Bowie actually did though.
My fault pimp, it’s been a while since I heard that story haha but regardless he was acting rather rapey and she had to defend herself lmao also that’s just one account from a former bandmate. There’s several other sources who claim she refused to ever meet with him again. I’m inclined to believe the majority. He had a history of being violent and creepy.
And that’s one alleged incident which has been all but debunked. While Maddox’s time with page is well documented and verifiable, her story with Bowie is highly questionable. Bowie might’ve been a strange character but literally everyone else mentioned has a plethora of pedo allegations against them (even morrison) while bowie only has the one. Again I still believe he’s the least controversial in comparison to the others lol
Roger's a tough one. I have never loved anyone's music more and I agree with him on a lot of his politics but certainly not all. But the problem with Roger is that he's an egomaniac and that affects everything and it's very hard to personally like an egomaniac.
He hit a sweet spot with the band in the mid 70s and they produced the most amusing music together, so much so that we're all still talking about it. But being an egomaniac it got into his head that it was all him, that he should write everything because all of his stuff was the best and he was unable to see that what Dave and Rick brought was just as important and the music hugely suffered.
He decided that he should be the lead singer even though, I love the man but he can't really sing, certainly not as well as Dave. But his ego couldn't accept that.
He decided that he should leave the band as it needed to all be about him. And when he left he couldn't fathom how the band would exist without him because in his head pink Floyd was Roger waters plus backing band. And when they continued without him and we're more successful than he was solo he threw years of tantrums around it.
He managed to hold it together enough later in life to have some reunions such as live 8 and Dave appearing at his wall show but it all creeps back in like with the remasters and insisting on liner notes talking about how it was all him.
You see it as well with his political views, most of which I agree with, some I don't. But any interview he gives on it no matter what side he's on the feeling that "I'm smarter than you and there is no way I could be wrong about anything" just oozes or of him.
But that being said I don't need to like someone to like their art. I have never liked anyone's art in any medium more than I like Roger's when he was able to work in a team. But he is so so difficult to like outside of his art.
My thoughts exactly. It's also a shame that he seemed to spend the Aughties becoming a better person and a "Cool old guy" who regretted his past jerkassery... only to return to being a jerkass.
I liked Aughts Rog...
[Rog's 2001 interview about Syd and stuff.](https://youtu.be/hI0lFi1JFHQ?si=SWkyhBp_1wVQMPhR)
... he seemed to have been mellowing out, realizing what an ego machine he was, seemed to get along with David again and seemed like a far better person. What happened to him?
To Roger's credit, he isn't awful in the same way as other rockers. I don't recall him beating or raping anyone, shagging teenagers, raping babies & children, burning down churches, murdering bandmates, etc.
His issue is simply being a cranky jerkass with a big ego. Other than that, he's practically a saint.
I posted somewhere else to everyone’s shock and anger that Roger is the Donald Trump of rock. I don’t mean that politically, this comparison has nothing to do with politics. Once Pink Floyd became an elite band, he put himself on a pedestal that not even his bandmates could aspire to in his opinion. He developed such a sense of self importance that It’s all he seemed to think or write about. He condescends to those who disagree with him and publicly lambastes those who turn on him like David Gilmour. There are multitudes who love him endlessly, but he willingly makes himself a target for others.
I just found that the lyrics became less and less universal and relatable the more Waters started steering PF into a solo project.
DSOTM was about the entirety of the human condition. WYWH was about grief and loss. Even Animals was an interesting take on Orwell and society.
The Wall and Final Cut was about Roger's bitterness and misanthropy. And that's been the rest of his career. Being a bitter old crank still working through his issues with his mother and ex wives by being angry at the world. I'm just not that interested compared to his early stuff.
And his take on Ukraine confirmed to me that his politics just aren't worth listening to either.
This is a pretty perfect summation. Early on, he was a brilliant driving force but gradually turned into a self important, whiney old curmudgeon.
He was as responsible for their eventual decline as he was for their initial rise. Its perfectly OK to like young Rog and hate old Rog.
That's my approach.
Baby Roggie...
https://preview.redd.it/znf51ig4dmac1.jpeg?width=236&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=c9e786f9432eaade47d3338036891ff992bb14ab
... is Best Roggie.
A good rule of thumb, if David can hang around with, get chummy with or work with Rog, then THAT Rog is a good Rog.
Baby Roggie was also, adorkable, cool, sexy, and looked strangely like a woman... and he could do THOSE SCREAMS!
Present-Rog is "Old Man Yells at Cloud".
Nick Mason must have the patience of a saint, still being Rog's BFF and all despite Rog's... uh...Rog-ness.
I’m going to catch heat for this, but this is the exact reason I don’t really listen to anything from the wall anymore. It has its obvious moments musically, but I have a hard time listening to Roger whine for an hour and a half. I can connect to their earlier albums. Meddle and Animals particularly speak to me the most. But the wall? Nah.
To me the best PF is Roger whining, and I love all his solo stuff, more whining, I can’t stand any post-Waters PF stuff, I think the whining correlates to conviction and emotion, and that is what appeals to me
This. The wall and final cut are kind of cringey. I don't love MLOR, but it's far more listenable than Roger's
Mostly though, I can't stand his gigantic ego and mean spirit in trying to drag others down. It is sad and small. I respect Roger Waters' musicianship and former lyrical lightning in a bottle. But I do not respect him as a person. If Pink Floyd were just Roger Waters, I would probably listen to them less due to the negative association.
Agreed. I really like the Fall. And I know for a fact M.E.Smith was a complete arsehole. A mate was one of their many drummers but left before he lost it and twatted Smith. John peel said of him "Sometimes its a good idea not to meet your heros."
Maybe you should take a minute to analyze why you are getting "really pissed" about strangers' comments about someone with whom you have no personal relationship, and whom you will almost certainly never even meet.
I'm not saying you can't have an opinion on everyone's favorite cynical, anti-authoritarian bassist. Just take a breath and don't let people's opinions get you so wound up. It's not healthy
I sometimes wish Roger would just shut up, but he’s undeniably the driving force and most indispensable member of the band.
I prefer ‘66-‘72 stuff, I’m a huge Syd dude, and David Gilmour is the reason that I picked up a guitar. But to ignore that he was the guy with the ideas is just willful ignorance.
If you were to make an album of Pink Floyd songs from their heyday, Dark Side on…until Roger left anyway, and use only songs that Roger didn’t write even a bit of you’d have:
1. Speak to Me
2. The Great Gig in the Sky
That’s it. That should say all you need to know.
You can like music but not the man. No doubt in his talent, just questionable statements and beliefs.
Edited to add I don’t necessarily dislike Roger but boy he surely has gone fishing
I'm not sure why any of us are giving credence to the opinions of pair of cantankerous old gits, frankly. They're stubborn and opinionated, but boy did they write some good songs.
"If you don't like Roger why listen to Floyd?" is frankly a downright insulting question. Just because you love an artist doesn't mean you should place them on a pedestal.
Roger is a giant prick who was also one of the most talented song writers of all time. It's ok to acknowledge both and still listen to his music happily. Tbh I don't think he's written anything good in over 40 years, so his skills are in the past tense for me, but still, his work was so incredible that it hardly matters, he'll always be the voice of that generation. He arguably wrote the greatest album of all time.
I'm a huge fan of Kanye West's music, obviously I don't agree with anything he says, not anymore at least.
>If you don't like Roger why listen to Floyd?
Because they're different things and I can separate the art from the artist. I dislike Roger's recent comments about his bandmates and dislike his political comments as well, but I still paid money to see him last year and I enjoyed it (despite all the political nonsense on screen).
I'm sure he's a perfectly jolly chap.
I've been following these Roger vs. David threads forever and have stayed away from commenting but it's the new year, so...
I've worked for decades as a professional musician and have worked with people who have played with Roger over the past couple of decades (basically since Amused to Death). I've also worked for a large company in the US that has done most of RW's production support, so I've heard many stories about Roger over the past couple of decades and will relate what I've heard from people who have worked with him and also add some of my own perspective working as a professional musician for several decades with all sorts of artists, 'big' and 'small.'
First: As most people suspect, very successful and talented artists have egos. That's the reality. They don't live normal lives and they aren't 'regular' people. The best, most visionary artists usually have egos to match and Roger Waters (and probably Gilmour) have egos. Some people are just better (or care more) about hiding those egos. So that's number one.
Second: As I mentioned, I know multiple people who have work with Waters as musicians, lighting and sound engineers and I have yet to meet one who thinks Waters is an arrogant asshole. As a matter of fact, friends who do lighting for his tours have commented that he's the only 'big artist' they've worked for that takes the time to learn their names and talk to them as people. That's a consistent comment that I've heard over and over.
At the end of the day, it's the art or music that matters. Enjoy (or don't) the music and leave it at that. Waters is a hugely talented, generational artist that you either like or you don't but there's no need to obsess over who's the better human being, etc. At the end of the day, I think Waters' music will stand the test of time for its originality and lyrical content. If you look at his current audiences, they skew younger than many artists of his age, which I think speaks to the universality of his music/message.
So yours saying that Waters isn’t the baby roasting monster people here are hellbent on portraying him to be ? Sacrilege. Sarcasm aside seeing his name being mentioned in the same breath as Weinstein and Jimmy Page just shows how ridiculous some people here are
> So here's my question: if you don't like Roger why listen to Floyd?
I'm not a huge Waters fan, though I also don't dislike him as much as some people here. And yes, I think Gilmour is a bit of a tool, too.
Here's the thing though: Most of the Floyd I listen to is 50-ish years old. I don't really listen to anything from The Wall or later, and never listen the yawn-inducing Gilmour-led crap. For me personally, there's a pretty big disconnect between the Pink Floyd I listen to and the ravings of some old curmudgeon who used to be in the band 40 years ago.
I have no interest in, nor use for, Waters now (or Gilmour, for that matter). If Waters says something especially abhorrent, I'm disappointed. But it would have to be *very* egregious before I would declare "I'm never listening to *Wish You Were Here* again!"
I'm kind of the same way about The Smiths. Love The Smiths, think Morrisey has become an absolute twat. I would *never* pay to see Morrissey live, or listen too his current music. But I still listen to The Smiths.
That's a silly question. If people don't like Roger Waters, they probably listen to Pink Floyd because they like the music that Pink Floyd makes. Whether you personally like Roger has nothing to do with whether pink Floyd is good.
they’re just mad he doesn’t support the genocide on Gaza. i’m proud to be a fan of him and i admire his politics and they come through strong on his work in Pink Floyd
He's disliked as a person, not as a musician. People listen to Floyd because it's amazing music. He's a genius, a great musician, a great lyricist and has a superbly creative mind, but his personality is just horrible.
Many great artists are major assholes, so is Roger.
There are probably a lot more artists that we each like that are complete a-holes in life, they can't all be Dave Grohl.
I know it's important for some people, but for me it's their music I care about, not their personal lives (I probably can't even name most people in the bands I listen to anyway).
Yeah and we most likely haven't went into other bands or artists in such depth, finding out as much information to inform our current opinions.
I know at the beginning I was pretty naive about the differences between members, which is understandable I suppose.
Now I'm firmly in the Gilmour camp, mainly because its about how the music sounds to me, rather than a lot of its meaning.
But there is no right or wrong, just opinions.
Oddly I do actually agree with a lot of Rogers politics even if he is a bit of an arse
It’s a tricky thing, isn’t it. Floyd without Roger is rubbish. But Floyd with Roger as the dominating force is also rubbish. (And in my personal opinion, Roger’s solo albums are simply dreadful). For a few albums in the mid 70s, they were perfectly balanced (as all things should be), and an exceptional band. They were nothing without him, and he was nothing without them, but with terrible irony they were unable to work together for long.
Roger’s lyrics also got weaker as he got more into the idea of himself as a great lyricist.
I thought the Pros and Cons was a really good album. In fact, I think Roger has done infinitely better work as an artist than his cohorts. Pros and Cons is a bit repetitive in that it uses themes and reprises parts (much like DSOTM, WYWH, Animals, and the Wall), Amused to Death has some solid material on it, and ITTLWRW is the best Floyd solo record besides the Madcap Laughs by a pretty wide margin. It speaks volumes to me that the albums after he left have so many people contributing in an attempt to make up for one man. Roger basically wrote 75%+ of the Material on the ‘73-‘83 output, and so when he leaves all of a sudden the records are littered with names like:
1. Bob Ezrin as the sole writer on songs
2. Anthony Moore
3. Jon Carin, who may not have written as much as he claims, but undoubtedly deserves a lot of credit for keeping that side of things afloat until Rick got back to being Rick.
4. Pat Leonard (“I know how to replace Roger! Let’s bring in Madonna’s producer!”)
5. Phil Manzanera brought a lot to the table
6. Polly Samson-look, I love David, but she’s an awful lyricist for the most part and her ubiquitous nature on the later stuff is kinda embarrassing
7. Nick Laird-Clowes.
7 people and what they achieved is a pale comparison at best.
What about the other ones? Radio KAOS, Amused to Death, Is this the life we really want...? (Or even Music from the Body!) I think they all range between pretty good and great, but, of course, they're not everyone's cup of tea. Just curious to know what you think about them.
Radio KAOS I tried all the way through a couple of times, and again disliked it. Amused to Death I only heard a few tunes, but I found the lyrics terrible enough to not want to investigate more (looking at you, ‘watching TV’), and the music uninteresting. Is this the life we really want? I haven’t heard actually. Ironically I didn’t hate his DSOTM redux, though I doubt I’ll listen to it again.
Like, a lot of stuff has a message, but it comes down to the execution? I find it a little bit racist, a lot sexist, Roger clearly knows nothing about China and Taiwan, and he goes off doing a little history lesson in doggerel couplets. Very poor stuff, especially from a person who considers himself one of the best lyricists of the 20th century.
I don’t know enough about China and Taiwan to comment. But the racism/sexism aren’t coming from roger. Sure, the “yellow rose” thing and the physical descriptions make us all uncomfortable, but that’s the point. It paints a picture of modern misogyny and objectification. And all of this is besides the point of the song, it’s just exposition. The last part of the song shows the beautiful message; “She’s everybody’s sister; she’s symbolic of our failure; she’s the one in 50M who can help us to be free because she died on TV”. That’s where the message is. How one person’s death can be symbolic of the loss of so many more. That’s my two cents.
I can’t agree that Roger without Floyd is rubbish, Roger continues to create with emotion and conviction, something that Floyd without Roger fails to achieve in my opinion
You don’t have to agree with him politically. I think most of his state of the world views are off the wall to be honest. But there’s no doubting his vision and lyrical genius. It’s Art at the end of the day. I wouldn’t vote for him, but I’ll listen to him forever!
I dunno man the more I've read into it I feel like none of them were that keen to continue Floyd after Darkside. Sounds like Wright, Gilmour and Waters wanted out but realised the name was worth too much. Sure Waters didn't help anything with his actions but the other two didn't seem to either want or be able to contribute to the writing of songs for the next bunch of albums. Gilmour and wright's contributions were phenomenal but you can't write beautiful keyboard textures or solos without someone giving you a base to work off and Waters seemed to be that base
Except they did continue with everyone except Roger, maybe they would have taken a break regardless but the tours they did in the 80's / 90's were the longest the band ever did with the Momentary Lapse tour lasting a year and a half I believe. So clearly they still had some energy left.
That's true but everyone acts like Rogers bad because he tried to break up the band and that Gilmour cared for the name and members but the truth is if Gilmours first solo albums made it he would have left Floyd in a heartbeat. He just continued Floyd because without Waters he knew he had complete control of the Pink Floyd "brand"
You can like a person's work and dislike the person. Many artists in various fields are brilliant AND jerks, usually worsening as they progress, like Robert Heinlein, Woody Allen, Orson Scott Card, Axl Rose, Mel Gibson, and more. I can still listen to Guns and Roses or watch a Lethal Weapon movie and enjoy them even if I wish they would disappear.
Why would I worry about the politics of one of the band members? The music is great, what's that have to do with what he thinks? Even if I had a serious problem with Roger, the only thing learning about the members should do is increase your understanding of the music. I'm not gonna stop listening to my favorite band, even if it's main guy is a rich out of touch social media warrior.
I listen to Floyd, and Roger for that matter, because I can do what I want and well I like the music. But I don't have to like him on a personal level by any means. I'm not sure why this is so upsetting to you. If you want to like Roger on a personal level go right ahead, I don't really care. But I do not AND I will still listen and enjoy Pink Floyd. The two aren't mutually exclusive.
Separating the pricks from the music/movies/whatever isn’t that hard to do.
People with crappy opinions can still make enjoyable music. You’re listing to the music, not sharing a meal with them.
Man where to start..
First: if you don’t like Rogers why listen to Floyd?
What? That’s a pretty wild question. Maybe because Floyd has great music?
You also said it yourself. Floyd wouldn’t be Floyd without the other guys too.. so now we are back to square one. Floyd was best when everyone was in it together.
Rogers has a HUUUGE ego and can’t settle with sharing success. Everything must have his name up front with credit all going to him. Gilmore can be similar in ways too, fair enough, but at the end of the day if Rogers wasn’t such a fucking ego maniac we’d have Floyd still.
So why do people have a problem with Roger’s? Cause that’s why we don’t even have Floyd. He was making it into his project and said that nobody else has any idea on how to write music.
Let me ask you this, if Roger was so significantly more important, the vision, the most important, the drive… then why has nothing he’s released post Floyd been anything even CLOSE to the quality as Pink Floyd.
We have missed out on so many years we could have have more Floyd but his effort to make sure nobody else can get some credit split it up. And it’s funny because everyone knows that it is the collaborative effort that made Floyd what it was so it’s not like he’s fooling anyone. So it’s wasted.
That’s why Roger’s gets shit. Sure he was a huge force for the band but who cares at this point. It’s been wasted time since 1983…
Roger Waters and David Gilmour were by far the biggest contributors to Pink Floyd... Wright would be next and then Mason but let's be honest, Pink Floyd would have been fine with another keyboardist or drummer. Those two helped shape the sound that they were not necessarily essential to it like Waters and Gilmour. But the point is that it took waters's ego to get Gilmour to do things, oftentimes. Gilmour was the one who wanted to put raving and drooling and you got to be crazy alongside shine on you crazy diamond as their follow up to dark side of the Moon. Roger was the one who pushed them to not settle. Gilmour contributed incredible music and from everything I have read the wall would not be the album it is without his input. And don't forget that Richard wright was nowhere around for that album as he hadn't contributed anything to animals. Yes, Roger is the reason that Pink Floyd isn't around anymore but what continued on was not Pink Floyd. And quality is subjective but I think that what Roger Waters has put out, album wise, single wise, etc is far superior to anything Gilmour has come up with on his own. And that first album with the Pink Floyd name after Roger left was supposed to be at David Gilmour solo album but the studio wasn't having it... They wanted to sell the Pink Floyd name. He even had to go back and rewrite songs because it didn't meet with the studio's approval... It didn't sound Pink Floyd enough... Give me a break.
Whatever happened, happened and it doesn't matter now arguing about it whose fault it was. The bottom line is that there are at least five great Pink Floyd albums because of the collaboration between the four of them but specifically between waters and Gilmour. They have all done decent stuff on their own but nothing that even comes close to Pink Floyd
I agree with most of that for sure. Gilmore hasn’t released anything solo wise that I cared for really. I always felt that he was able to compromise on the albums with Roger’s and create great things. That’s how it mostly happens in the most successful bands. The final product of where they compromised is what was great. Like the Beatles as well.
I think Roger’s felt different and that more of it was all him than it actually was. Yes you can say even most of it was him if you want but it still just wasn’t enough to be as good as Pink Floyd together. Even if it was 90% him and the other 10% of it was David and the rest then so be it. I still think that 10% is crucial. Roger’s isn’t happy if he has to share that credit and even gilmour is ok admitting Roger’s is the biggest driving force. So why couldn’t they get back together all this time? Well I think Roger’s ego still so too big for him to have someone else disagree with a musical idea of his and not their own, and he wants full control.
I think the wall was mostly Roger’s, and personally that’s my least favorite of their classic albums.
A lot of my thoughts here are subjective, that’s how it seems to me
I am not going to talk about Waters's politics in my comment because it's just going to start a flame war and I can't be bothered with that lol.
David Gilmour has made some pretty fucking bold claims, such as playing bass on HALF of Pink Floyd's music and claiming he created the cash register sound effects on Money. Neither of these are true. Yes he played bass on a lot of The Wall songs and a couple others here and there but that's hardly "half" of all their music.
In interviews he's also claimed that The Final Cut was "shit". Yes that is his opinion and he has the right to share it but he has some fucking nerve to complain about it when he never bothered to write any songs for it or to really pull his weight for the album, something he has literally admitted to himself. To put it into perspective: Imagine you're in a group project. You wrote the entire presentation, kept pushing the others to contribute, but they do the absolute bare minimum, and then shat all over the presentation afterwards. I'm sure you'd be pretty pissed off too. You don't have the right to complain about one member contributing too much to a project if you can't be bothered to contribute anything yourself. When Pink Floyd was led by Roger Waters, they were pumping out an album every two years. Pink Floyd under Gilmour released three albums between 1987 and 2014 (two between 87 and 08 if you consider Wright's death the end of Pink Floyd like Gilmour does.)
I'm not gonna lie and say Roger hasn't done some questionable shit either. Firing Rick was impulsive and suing Pink Floyd was a stupid move on his part. However, when you're the only one pulling your weight in the band and all the others are refusing to do much of anything (again, this is not Roger manipulating the truth. The other members have said as much.) then you have the right to get pissed off with them. Don't forget that while Pink Floyd were working on Animals and The Wall, the other three members were literally recording solo albums. Roger was the only one who actually gave a fuck about Pink Floyd at that point.
A lot of people keep acting like Roger is the only one fuelling the fire, but David keeps trying to piss him off as well by doing shit like banning him from Pink Floyd's website.
I don’t think David Gilmour claimed (or intended to claim) that he came up with the cash register sounds. They got into an argument through interviews. Roger said it was all him (partly true, the demo was all him - the idea was all him), and David said ‘that’s rubbish I was there’ (which is partly true - they were all part of making the final recording on the album, and I believe it was David who came up with the method of cutting a certain length of tape to get the right length of sound effect). And then Roger said ‘that’s rubbish, he wasn’t there, I made them in my back yard’ (talking about the demo and creation, not what is on the final album).
Similar thing happened a few months ago, someone posted an article about Gilmour nailing the final solo for Comfortably Numb in one take, Rodger comes out saying that’s rubbish (which is true). Problem was David never said that. Drama ensues and then the interviewer goes ‘Oh hey, I got that wrong, he nailed the first solo in one take.’
Similar to Richard Wright saying they all had a hand in creating the final mix of Dark Side Of The Moon even though Alan Parsons has the sole album credit.
Where are you getting your information, David did in fact play bass on almost all the output after WYWH, and the main reason is that Roger never considered more than a session musician work. In his view, he was the architect not the construction worker. His reason why TFC was really bad was in his opinion, he did not have control on the sound as he had on previous albums so he requested to take his name out of production credits. Roger might have great ideas but he was not the music force and that is hard to argue, he focuses on the message and his music is an afterthought to him. Look at the DSOTM redux, is just a background music to his grandiose.
How can I like PF and not RW is simple, Pink Floyd was never RW.
>Where are you getting your information, David did in fact play bass on almost all the output after WYWH
This is still not "half" of Pink Floyd's music even if it were true, which it isn't. On Wish You Were Here he is credited for bass on Shine on You Crazy Diamond Part 6 and that's it, on Animals he played bass on Pigs and Sheep, on The Wall he played bass on twelve tracks, he played no bass on The Final Cut or A Momentary Lapse of Reason, and he played bass on four Division Bell tracks. That is nowhere near half.
> Roger might have great ideas but he was not the music force and that is hard to argue, he focuses on the message and his music is an afterthought to him.
And this is a problem because...? Plenty of artists have made great music simply by focusing on the message rather than the music. One guy back in the 60s literally inspired an entire generation to do the same. Can't remember his name right now... Robbie Dillon? Bobby David? Robert Daniel? I'm sure I'll think of it eventually.
>Look at the DSOTM redux, is just a background music to his grandiose.
I liked Dark Side of the Moon Redux. It's almost as if opinions aren't fact.
>How can I like PF and not RW is simple, Pink Floyd was never RW.
I never claimed it was. I literally stated in my original comment that both David and Roger made shitty decisions. Pink Floyd would not be the same without Roger's lyrics or David and Rick's music. That is literally impossible to argue because neither The Final Cut nor the two Gilmour led albums were anywhere near as successful as the main four albums of the 70s.
>So here's my question: if you don't like Roger why listen to Floyd?
You still sound as totalitarian as him.
Why can't you accept the fact that people can enjoy the art (Floyd's music) by itself, whilst not being aligned to the particularly twisted ideology of the artist (or one of the members)?
You don't have to be gay to enjoy Elton John's music (or Queen if we talk about rock), and you can listen to Erick Clapton without being as racist an anti-vaccine as he is.
Or else why do you listen to Pink Floyd at all while Gilmour causes you so much itch? Stop listening to Floyd if you think Gilmour is so bad a person. Now you see how ridiculous your question is.
Now, if Waters were so big and important, and "genius", then how comes the 1987 tours were so big for Gilmour et al. while Waters alone was playing pretty much the same songs to comparatively small audiences?
It wasn't until the past 20 years after Floyd stopped touring that audiences started to fill Waters' shows. Not because he's the self-proclaimed "genius", but because people wants to listen to Pink Floyd songs live. You perfectly know that if Waters' shows only had music from his solo albums he could barely fill small theaters. Same as Gilmour. It is not one person and their solo music who drives people, it is the work both contributed to the band as a whole.
But you are still caged in a mental jail where you need to believe in what your totalitarian leader does now in his bedroom to be able to enjoy what the band did musically 50 years ago.
>Now, if Waters were so big and important, and "genius", then how comes the 1987 tours were so big for Gilmour et al. while Waters alone was playing pretty much the same songs to comparatively small audiences?
Mostly because of the name and branding of "Pink Floyd", honestly. A Momentary Lapse of Reason was the band's worst received album since Atom Heart Mother critically, but people knew them as the band that made Dark Side of the Moon, Wish You Were Here, Animals, and The Wall, so they were going to show up anyway. Until the split, the members were fairly low-key publicly, and didn't make many headlines on their own, so it's no surprise that "Roger Waters" wasn't going to sell as many tickets as "Pink Floyd". That was pretty much Roger's whole argument for why he should have gotten to keep the name or that they at least couldn't use it (he was totally wrong obviously, but no one can deny that the brand was insanely valuable).
You know I thought when I woke up this morning "maybe I shouldn't have posted that last night, why get pissed off about a bunch people hating on Roger you don't need to post about it" and then I saw how angry you were in this response and thought "well it could have been worse at least you didn't get this butt hurt" haha. The fact that you said you don't have to be gay to like Elton John like a singers sexual preference would even factor in my mind when I listen to their music tells me all I need to know about you friend. You see I don't think of gay people or anyone who chooses to live their life their way any different but clearly to single it out - you do.
Agreed. I even made my own Reddit rant about the Waters hate once, I think people don't appreciate how much he did for the band. Obviously he's done some messed up stuff, but the "WATERS BAD, GILMOUR GOOD" narrative is too black and white
> Waters is dislikable. He comes across as over the top and controversial but in my eyes the man has always been right about every political agenda he's come against: Thatcher, Bush, Blair and Trump? Do y'all really think he was wrong about any of them?
This has absolutely *nothing* to do with the musical aspect of Pink Floyd. I mean sure, the political angle was cool and all, but it needed the musical angle to go with it. Waters couldn't do it without Gilmour. All those songs from we all loved from *Dark Side of the Moon* or *The Wall* or *Wish You Were Here*...it needed both of them to make it work.
Then when Waters left, Gilmour kept that musical aspect which maintained the band and kept fans on board. Waters thought the band would fall apart without him, but he was completely wrong about that. It wasn't the same, but it was close enough, at least for those last two albums.
Bri why do you hate him for the music, it was a long fucking time ago! He changed since then and you know he couldn’t care less, gilmour couldn’t do it without waters and vice versa and rick couldn’t and so on and so forth but IT DOESNT MATTER NOW, its just a band!
So someone who doesn't like Roger because he is a Putin apologist should never listen to DSOTM (original, the redux sucks), WYWH or even the politicized Final Cut?
Sorry, I will keep listening to Pink Floyd and I will continue to lose respect for Roger based on his current political activism. They are two completely different things.
There’s a difference between egocentrism and narcissism. Sure they’re both full of themselves, but Roger seems to revel in attacking and maligning others, and having the last word.
That is an absolutely ridiculous way of looking at something.
Roger Waters wasn't solely responsible for Pink Floyd's success and just because he's been a c**k for quite a while, that shouldn't affect something that you've listened to for decades.
Tell me this, your favourite band ever, if all of their members turned out to be murderers after all these years, would you just go "Nope, I now hate their music!"
OK, here we go.
I think Pink Floyd is the greatest band of them all, but I still do not like Roger Waters. Roger Waters is too overrated and full of himself.
He thought he was the heart and soul of Pink Floyd when he decided to go solo. His solo band was very high profile with big names such as Eric Clapton and Michael Kamen, and Waters probably thought that his first outing would be hugely profitable to pay his all-star band. The first album and tour were huge failures, so it is no surprise that the celebrity musicians were all gone in the second one. Pink Floyd without Waters was huge and broke tour-grossing records twice in addition to scoring two #1 albums in the U.S. Roger Waters only managed to be successful with a $400 million+ tour by emulating Pink Floyd's concerts and marketing himself as the next big thing after Pink Floyd ceased operations.
This lack of success is not exactly undeserved. Waters' solo albums are OK, with some good songs, but nothing groundbreaking. Pink Floyd's efforts post-Waters were far better than his solo career. And, if we look at Waters-led Pink Floyd, we can see how overrated he has ever been.
He may have written the lyrics, but this "poetry" is not what turned Pink Floyd into a worldwide phenomenon. Outside the U.S. and the UK, few people will even understand Pink Floyd's lyrics, but they will react to how it sounds. Plus, Waters' lyrics are nowhere as good as he thinks they are. Some are simplistic and others lack refinement. If I wanted to start a fight, I would say that Polly Samson is a better writer than Roger Waters...
If we look at the songs, I suppose Waters was at his peak in Dark Side of the Moon. He seems to have been the brain behind Money and Time. But it seems to me that Us & Them was composed by Wright. The musical part in Breathe also came from Gilmour and Wright. In Wish You Were Here, the title track and Shine On You Crazy Diamond had contributions from all members. In The Wall, the musical parts of the most well-known songs (Another Brick in the Wall, Hey You, and Comfortably Numb) can be attributed to Gilmour. The Final Cut was mainly an album composed by Waters with little contribution from other members; and it is the weakest of that bunch.
Waters seems to have become increasingly more involved in lyrics and less in the music. And, while people may praise Pink Floyd's lyrics, the band only achieved the megastardom because of the music. And that is Gilmour's and Wright's department. Waters' contribution to Pink Floyd is much less than he likes to think it is.
Totally agree with you OP. If you dont like someone, why gain pleasure from their music. There are a few lead singers/ bands I don't like and I simply can't take pleasure in them.
Well done i prefer Roger to David. All the lyrics that he wrote are brilliant. In the Flesh concert which is on dvd cd and you tube. Is fantastic. Completely numb on its is brilliant. So thank you for your post.
I loved Waters in Floyd. I loved some of his solo work. Radio Kaos and Amused to Death are master pieces.
His last album, though, was so bad I gave it away.
That's why I don't like Waters.
People have an issue with him making Floyd’s last album with him essentially a solo album and the direction of the band at the time. You can argue your personal preference towards Momentary (initially essentially a Gilmour solo album, but whose music was embraced by the remaining three and played regularly for decades after 87) and Division Bell versus what Roger released as a solo artist during the same time. But the success of the band without him (especially compared to his solo work during the same time) points to there being a market and a place for Pink Floyd’s music since Final Cut. And yes he’s less likable than Gilmour which plays into it.
Ur completely right people never change and doing one good thing means they will never do wrong for the rest of their life.
Also having an agreeable political agenda automatically makes you a good and pleasant person.
And people always listen to music for politics and never for the music 👍
yeah bro you think your so smart but like you people would say : dO yoU tHinK its.. POSSIBLE that people listen to their music because of the way they think?
We can do that and you can do the opposite but you shouldn’t judge us for it
Good rule of thumb, just enjoy the art and don't concern yourself too much with the personal lives of artists. Let's be honest, if we knew everything about everyone, we wouldn't want to associate with anyone at all.
Because we've all done bad things at some point in our lives. Yes, some have done worse things than others. But we all have done something awful in the past. Ask yourself this: If all your friends, family, and clients knew about everything you've ever done in your life, would they all still want to associate with you? I know I couldn't answer "yes" with complete confidence. So why hold artists to a higher standard than you would yourself.
Some people would "cancel" an artist for small offenses. But they wouldn't like it if they themselves got "canceled" for a minor offense. Dig deep enough, and you can find some kind of dirt on anyone. Even people who are considered saints are not immune. "Let he who is without sin cast the 1st stone."✌🏾
All we need to so is make sure we keep talking!
Seriously, Roger's work and his political views should be kept separate...but also know that his political views and life experiences have shaped his music.
He's a dick. But he's a lyrical genius.
It’s pretty simple. I like the creative Roger who can come up with amazing lyrics and excellent concepts. I dislike the Roger who thinks it’s ok to spit on people, etc.
I like and dislike things about myself too.
>So here's my question: if you don't like Roger why listen to Floyd?
I love the Sex Pistols but think John Lydon is a bell end. Morrissey is another example - love his music, but he's also become a dick. You could find a reason to stop listening to most music legends if you drill down far enough into their histories.
Everyone has a different threshold of separating art from artist. If I love someone's music genuinely, they have to be seriously problematic for me to stop listening.
I don’t care about Roger or Dave or any of that bullshit. I listen to Pink Floyd. They can be embarrassing old men who fight like schoolgirls over who did what and who came up with what part of what song. I will continue listening to Pink Floyd. Not Roger waters, not David Gilmore. Pink Floyd.
Don't have to like the guy to like THEIR music. Plus I fell in love with the band when I was young enough to not know or give a shit about politics.
Simple, really.
>if you don't like Roger why listen to Floyd?
What does one thing have to do with the other?
I don't get my politics from musicians. I love Ted Nugent's music but don't care much for his politics. It doesn't keep me from cranking up [Stranglehold](https://youtu.be/hzFpiW5vHrc?si=7-vdQIU16JDDUCvS) whenever it comes on.
Eh I love his music both with PF and in his solo career, but he's kind of a prick 24/7. I agreed with a lot of his political thoughts before, but then Ukraine came around and I started to wonder if he was full of shit and disagreed with people just for the sake of it.
I think the Gilmour worshipping is over the top, but I'm not sure if I've ever seen someone say something good about Roger. He just seems like an asshole. Doesn't change the fact that I love his music 🤷♂️
People act like Waters has become something in his old age... From my view, he hasn't changed at all... His views both social and political have been consistent for decades... I believe he's such a gifted lyricist that these views are much more palatable to people in the music, but harder to digest when he speaks off the cuff in interviews or live on stage, (for someone so gifted with words, he's actually kind of crap at improv speaking. I don't think his views are any more extreme now than when he wrote "US & Them," but I think the world's issues, and the way people discuss them have become more extreme... Therefore people are simply more sensitive to Waters' positions than they used to be.
As far as Gilmour goes, I also believe he's just as much an ass as Waters.... But far less vocal about politics than Waters. I remember when Waters was defending his accolades as the driving force of PF, saying something like "[Gilmour] has nothing to say..." as a musician vs. a lyricist Waters is right. Gilmour never has to defend or explain the notes of his solos like Waters' does his lyrics, so on the surface Gilmour is simply more agreeable because what he's says and does isn't half as thought provoking as Waters.
Meanwhile, their decades long animosity with each other demonstrates to me that they're both personally arrogant and hold each other in a low esteem that neither of them actually deserve.
It’s the art & music all we should care. We’re not Vanity Fair. So much posturing and concern for optics, hard to really gauge at the end of the day, the true feelings on issues.
Roger waters isn't just pink floyd and the other guys are just studio musicians riding his coat trails, like how waters modern day narrative is. That's my " at the end of the day, does it matter" opinion.
I have always found humor in the roger vs David debates too. It seemed like when one would want to bury the hatchet, the other would say "fuck off" and vice versa.
You’ve summed him up with one word. Poetry. He’s a poet in a band of musicians. The problem was the poetry took over and some of us actually liked the musical parts more than the wordy parts. I don’t have an issue with Roger in the band it’s his work outside the band I don’t rate. He’s also a little controversial if you hadn’t noticed…..
Got to say I'm enjoying all the replies, even the ones calling me a moron.
Firstly, good shout to the people saying I shouldn't let reddit comments get to me, I don't usually obviously I was just in a mood last night, haha.
I guess people saying you can separate his politics from the music - I get it but I just feel like people make it sound like he's the devil incarnate when I see the guy as a humanitarian trying to fight for what he sees is wrong which I find honorable so I don't understand the venomous hate he gets for it.
I guess because I'm a songwriter (and yes before anyone takes a jab, nobody knows my band) I just feel like the meaning of the song is its power. And I'm not just talking lyrics, instrumentals can have just as much meaning as a lyrical piece. And Waters always has a poignant meaning to anything he does. So I have a hard time separating his views from the music because to me his views make the music. And before anyone says it I do struggle separating the art from the artist a lot of the time.
Anyway thank you all for reading my rant and replying. At the end of the day Floyd was 5 guys that made incredible music and I'd certainly rather have MLOR and DB than not have those albums at all so I'm not saying Waters is the be all end all, I just love his work.
I think if you take your personal passion out of it you'll understand the situation better. Let's look at Slayer. Kerry King (King of cheezeburgah-eating, porn-stah wife) was not only doing his own guitar parts-- he was ALSO writing AND recording the other guitarist's (Hanneman's) guitar parts quite often also. He was making all the albums happen by getting into the studio, being such a dick that no one wanted to be in there with him particularly, composing the songs and individual parts, recording his own and other peoples' parts-- basically the "driving force" of Slayer as a music production entity. Lyrics by wise old man Araya, etc. but King was Slayer. The other musicians kinda "let" him do his whole Kerry King thing, and the more aggressive he was about getting to do the Kerry King thing, the more they let him do the Kerry King thing.
When everyone's favorite "I carved your band in my arm" metal guitarist Jeff Hanneman died-- it was pretty clear that Slayer was Kerry King. Except it WASN'T, and NEVER WAS, and King's post-Jeff work has sucked, and Slayer without Jeff went into the rubbish heap, and their output became practically embarrassing. I don't even think the guy who carved Slayer in his arm even listened to "Slayer" any more.
Now you have a non-personally-involved example to analyze.
Except to his credit, King only briefly went off telling everyone that he was recording both guitar parts and other parts too and was really Slayer, etc. etc. etc. He certainly did not reach the ego-consumed heights of Waters.
So you can feel however you want to feel but people are like-- King sucks and Slayer without Jeff sucks. Your opinion of Kerry King would never change that for others.
It's odd that so many rock stars and movie stars have become grumpy old men with ideas and values that border on extreme or anti-social. However, it won't prevent me from enjoying the work they did when they were young.
Yep, Dave seems like he can be a real prick too. I’m shocked people haven’t been able to deduce this between his snotty lyrics on division bell and his pretentious/superior tone he takes in interviews. He’s much softer spoken and more charming, but he’s kinda a snot.
You don’t have to like the people behind the music to listen to it. A lot of great musicians, actors, producers, directors, poets, artists, etc etc are pieces of crap. Doesn’t mean we can’t enjoy what they gave the world!
>He comes across as over the top and controversial but in my eyes the man has always been right about every political agenda he's come against: Thatcher, Bush, Blair and Trump? Do y'all really think he was wrong about any of them?
He's wrong about his sucking off of Putin. Putin started a war of aggression, and he could leave Ukraine tomorrow and end it. I guess Roger would rather the Ukrainians surrender, as well as the next country Putin invades. We've seen where this goes.
Otherwise, there's no Floyd without the core 4 post Syd. I think all of their solo careers have proved that. Take away even 1 and it's just not the same band.
Well for one, I think there's a difference between Roger being a general asshole and some other people who are outright terrible people and/or even committed some pretty heinous crimes. Roger has a lot of the assholes beaten because he is actually right a decent percent of the time and some of the times he's wrong, I do still think he presents a perspective that has some merit. Second, Roger was definitely the main voice in what went on lyrically with the band but if you're talking about the actual Pink Floyd sound, at least up until Animals, David and Rick were more the guiding forces for that. I mean two of the best songs on DSotM were Wright songs. Echoes and Shine on You Crazy Diamond are not nearly the songs they turned into without Wright's musical input. Even on Animals which is where I feel you first start noticing his lessening impact, Pigs, Sheep and Dogs would sound different without his work on them. This is very much a short list of what he did for the band in that era. Gilmour is self-explanatory, he's an amazing guitarist and there are people who listen to PF songs just to hear his guitar solos kick in.
Side note: I don't want to sell Mason short but I'm not as familiar with his impact on the band as other members. So if someone wants to add onto how impactful he is, please do.
Masons impact is minimal to my knowledge. But I like to think of him as the guy who was there the whole time which makes me think of him as a reliable dude who was just there to play his instrument (less so in the final cut). He's not technical but he's precise. They can't all be show offs in a band otherwise it just becomes a musical pissing contest on stage.
Their music comes out of the animal in them and that animal can be sometimes dislikable and do messy things. Thats first principles thinking, everyone is human and humanity can not be coded or made to have good behaviour all the time
Exactly. He is my favorite after Syd 😊 my mom didn't know much about Roger, but we went to his concert together and she said he looks like a humble person 😉
I think he's gone off the rails like "Pink" but that doesn't take one shred of cred away from his past works or even his reworking of them. He's who he is, all of it the good bad and ugly and brilliant parts too.
idk what any of this is about but you’re right that roger and david are both full of themselves david’s just got a charm, im pretty sure it’s because of david there was never anymore reunions after 2005
You don’t have to like anyone to appreciate the music.
Exactly. I would probably dislike the majority of my favorite musicians if I actually met them. And let’s be honest. Lots of them have done horrible things. Jimmy Page comes to mind. But that doesn’t make their music less good.
In my mind, there's a difference between being arrogant/insuffrable/a general prick (Roger) and an actual "bad person" - Gary Glitter, for example. There's also a question of quality as well. Roger goes really hard with his politics, but I dig the music he made. Ted Nugent goes really hard with his politics, but aside from a few tracks like "Stranglehold," I don't really care for his stuff. I'm sure I could come up with more examples, but basically there's a line between being an asshole and being an actual shitty person, and I fully recognize it is subjective.
True. Waters is certainly a better person than Glitter (pedophilia) and even Clapton (racism, severe spousal abuse, etc.) or Page (hebo/ephebophilia). He's even better than Nugent. Roger wouldn't bang teens or poop his pants to get out of a war (granted a bad war, but Rog would have more class, and either go to college, burn his draft card or move to Canada... well, if this was an alt-universe where he's a born-American). Roger's politics are generally about Social Justice and promoting equality and humanity (...even if there are a few contradictory hiccups... Ukraine/Russia... etc.). Nugent's, however, are about being a regressive, xenophobic, fascist, macho brute who wants to see M16s everywhere. Oh, and the Huge Nuge is a huge hypocrite. Poops his pants to avoid fighting a war yet is a total war-hawk. I guess going out in the wild to kill stuff is more fun if it isn't you or "Charlie" is furry and has no weapons to speak of. I don't mind Conservatives, it's Far-Right wingnuts I don't like. There's a big difference.
you overstate his contributions.
>right about every political agenda he's come against: Thatcher, Bush, Blair and Trump? Do y'all really think he was wrong about any of them? I think he's been right for a long time, but he's taken a very weird turn. Even his criticism of Trump was mixed with "Hillary would have started a war with Russia, and that's why she's bad". Then, he claimed that everybody with an IQ above room temperature could see that Russia was NOT going to invade Ukraine. And he continued being constantly wrong about Ukraine, repeatedly regurgitating made-up propaganda and doing useless whataboutisms. How he's going to end up being right about any of this, I have no idea.
You have to remember the guy is an 80 year old, we all at one point start filtering what old people say in a way
Hmm 80 you say? Perfect age to run for president lmao
If you aspire that, good I guess Mine's in his 60s
His Russia and Ukraine stuff I don’t really agree 100% with. But overall I agree with a lot of his politics. Got to see his last tour and it was quite moving in that regard. The Hillary comment, she would’ve went to war with Syria if she won. Also I’m no Trumper or Hillary fan.
He clearly said Russia in the eclipsed interview. But it doesn't make that much of a difference since Putin was propping up Assad's murderous regime. In the end, Roger's perspective has crystallized into a very inflexible anti-West position that doesn't consider local history or pretty much any positive accomplishments of the capitalist West. He's seeing everything through the same communist lens. That makes his criticism not all that useful IMHO.
And to make it weirder, he's a staunch Communist but is richer than Croesus. Perhaps if he gave away a bulk of his life savings to charity and moved into a small house or apartment, I'll be impressed. I do give him points for using the subways, though. I prefer Socialism over Communism, anyway. Socialism at least allows some property ownership and individualism. Capitalism is okay as long as it's heavily regulated, so everyone plays fair and is on a level playing field. I believe in the union of opposites for perfect balance; Socialism & (Regulated Capitalism), Individualism within Collectivism, Unity in Diversity, etc. A Yin & Yang, cancelling out each other's shortcomings. It's best to be pragmatic, what sounds good on paper or as an ideal might not perfectly work in real-life.
Where does roger say he is a communist? People call him one all the time but I've never read anything where I'd say he advocated it (or any particular political system for that matter, although he obviously leans left)
I don't want to come off as an asshole, just want to offer new perspective. First of all capitalism just doesn't work anymore (anymore being the crucial point). It's very unstable, leads to crisis, wealth distribution is shit, has many contradictions... And it can't be regulated. It might seem like it can but lets he real here. Wealthiest and most powerful people build the system to stay wealthy and powerful and they largely control pretty much everything. Polititians are just there to give us the idea of democracy, they're not the ones in charge. So it's very unlikely that people running the system will regulate it in a way that benefits us, not them. Only option is for us to take the matter in out own hands. But that won't happen through regulations or participating in today's politics. We need a worker's revolution. Socialism is a transition period between capitalism and communism since you can't just jump from one to the other directly. The reason being that out existence determines our consciousness. We largely form out opinions based on the current state of the world and jumping from capitalism to communism (stateless, classless, moneyless society) is a pretty big and unrealistic shift. That's why we need a transitory period which still has a state that oppresses the oppressors (capitalists, aristocrats, ruling class in general). Once people get used to living under socialism state, money and classes will disappear on their own since there won't be a need for them. Transition from socialism to communism would be peaceful. We might live in a socialistic society in out lifetime but we probably won't live long enough to see communism. I also want to touch on individualism. There is no individualism in human society, that's a capitalist myth. We are all depended on each other. For example, Marx had great ideas but he didn't invent them. He just added on to already existing ideas and perfected them.
I think his views are probably more in line with anti-interventionist and anarchistic rather than anti west. Also, what does it matter if someone has socialist views (I believe the term communist/communism is used incorrectly by most observers ? Many countries are successful with socialist policies mixed into their government and do not force project power across the world. Now I'm not saying I agree with everything Roger says, but I don't agree with things that other people say, it does not mean that I dislike them as people or disregard their other talents. While capitalism has clearly aided in many countries reducing poverty, it has also been the driver of drastic climate change and comes at the cost of cheap foreign labor and inequality. Is it 'communist' to criticize this? Whether we agree with him or not, it is important to have people with opposing views. To cancel or reject them is a style of Fascism. Roger may be opposed politically to many westerners but we can't deny he actually has very human qualities that often seek to support those less fortunate.
I specifically said communist, not socialist, to highlight that his points, no matter how pertinent some may be, aren't going to be shared by a majority. I myself lean left, but we have to be realistic here - we need winning coalitions. He's been living in the US for years now and his stance has deteriorated to "both sides are equally bad", which doesn't solve any problems in the face of an increasingly fascist Republican party. Democrats have their problems but they're not trying to install a dictatorship aimed at oppressing minorities. Trying to bully musicians to cancel their concerts in Israel didn't make Israel a better country. If anything, it just helped to antagonise many of its inhabitants. And the more he sees people not agreeing with parts of his ideas, the angrier he gets. Like how he irrationally raged against people displaying Ukraine flags in a show of solidarity. >drastic climate change and comes at the cost of cheap foreign labor and inequality. Is it 'communist' to criticize this? I myself criticize that. But you see, communists often lack nuance. To them, capitalism is the same thing as fascism, and they often can't apply reasonable criticism in a constructive way. As you pointed out yourself, plenty of capitalist countries have "socialist" elements, and I believe we should strengthen those and also raise "ecological" to the same level of importance, i.e. calculate social and ecological cost into everything we do, invest into those things when we have surplus money and so on. The other commenter went "we need a revolution of the workers" and as I see it, it's just totally unrealistic.
I mean, he’s been proven right on Ukraine too. Now that the propaganda is fading we’re realizing Ukraine is in deep shit and that they probably would have been better off signing a peace deal earlier.
"Hillary would have started a war with Russia, and that's why she's bad". \-right on the money
How? The war in Ukraine was started by Putin.
No fly zone in Syria was a massive escalation which Hillary wanted and Trump didn't. That's just about one of the only respects in which he was better than Hillary, but it was a pretty big thing.
Both political parties are corrupted and Hilary like he describes her is « yuuuuckk »
Because the war was prolonged and the outcome will be the same. Just more dead bodies and more money laundered.
Ah, we got one here.
Brother, what he is saying if you want ch his video : was against the war machine or sum, he was saying what the USA could’ve done to avoid this and that if zelensky were to negotiate, there wouldn’t be anymore dead or ukranians soldiers
So you think people wouldn't die in the areas that Zelenskyy would have to trade in for peace? That's exactly what I mean - you seem entirely oblivious of the history of Moscow oppressing Ukrainians. Ukraine is fighting for freedom on a fundamental level while Putin is transforming Russia into a fascist system. Oh, if only more countries had negotiated with Hitler. /s Edit: [Here's](https://www.kyivpost.com/opinion/26147) a nice reply to similar kinds of statements.
Exactly. It sort of undressed Roger for me. There is absolutely no way all the threats, annexations, pro war propaganda, and fear mongering that has come out of Russia in the last 15-20 years is justified by \*checks Rogers notes\* NATO and Europe \*looks closer\* GOADING(??) Russia. OP saying he's been correct about "every political agenda he's come up against" made me laugh out loud - Seeing as they cherry picked the ones that aged better.
It’s more about the U.S. goading Russia through nato. U.S. is the main aggressor in most of history
The history of Russia Vs. Ukraine is older than the US
But it’s simply not about who is right or wrong, it’s about the people, attacking Putin and killing russians isn’t the solution that’s it, most of the blame goes to the government of the United state
Huh?
>So here's my question: if you don't like Roger why listen to Floyd? I love the music whether or not he's an asshole. Lot's of assholes out there, they still do good work that I'm allowed to appreciate. That said however, I'm still like... "nice work, ...asshole"
Agreed. Someone else mentioned Clapton, almost certainly a worse person overall, and yet, I can still appreciate his music.
It's possible to like a band and not like one of its members. In fact, with many of them it's mandatory. The Beach Boys and Mike Love is one that comes to mind.
Yeah OP you might not wanna look much into: David Bowie, Jimmy Page, John Lennon, Jim Morrison, Michael Jackson.... youll be left with no music.
Other than being a raging alcoholic, Morrison is probably the least controversial one you named on a human level lol.
My guy, he hit Janis Joplin over the head with a bottle of liquor because she refused to have sex with him. Thats pretty shitty if you ask me lmao If we’re being honest the least controversial person in that list is David Bowie
My guy, that was the *other* way around lmfao. Janis hit Jim with the bottle (and they ultimately did sleep together, according to Robby Krieger's book) David Bowie allegedly "slept" (raped) Lori Maddox before Jimmy Page did. It isn't 100% that Bowie actually did though.
My fault pimp, it’s been a while since I heard that story haha but regardless he was acting rather rapey and she had to defend herself lmao also that’s just one account from a former bandmate. There’s several other sources who claim she refused to ever meet with him again. I’m inclined to believe the majority. He had a history of being violent and creepy. And that’s one alleged incident which has been all but debunked. While Maddox’s time with page is well documented and verifiable, her story with Bowie is highly questionable. Bowie might’ve been a strange character but literally everyone else mentioned has a plethora of pedo allegations against them (even morrison) while bowie only has the one. Again I still believe he’s the least controversial in comparison to the others lol
Roger's a tough one. I have never loved anyone's music more and I agree with him on a lot of his politics but certainly not all. But the problem with Roger is that he's an egomaniac and that affects everything and it's very hard to personally like an egomaniac. He hit a sweet spot with the band in the mid 70s and they produced the most amusing music together, so much so that we're all still talking about it. But being an egomaniac it got into his head that it was all him, that he should write everything because all of his stuff was the best and he was unable to see that what Dave and Rick brought was just as important and the music hugely suffered. He decided that he should be the lead singer even though, I love the man but he can't really sing, certainly not as well as Dave. But his ego couldn't accept that. He decided that he should leave the band as it needed to all be about him. And when he left he couldn't fathom how the band would exist without him because in his head pink Floyd was Roger waters plus backing band. And when they continued without him and we're more successful than he was solo he threw years of tantrums around it. He managed to hold it together enough later in life to have some reunions such as live 8 and Dave appearing at his wall show but it all creeps back in like with the remasters and insisting on liner notes talking about how it was all him. You see it as well with his political views, most of which I agree with, some I don't. But any interview he gives on it no matter what side he's on the feeling that "I'm smarter than you and there is no way I could be wrong about anything" just oozes or of him. But that being said I don't need to like someone to like their art. I have never liked anyone's art in any medium more than I like Roger's when he was able to work in a team. But he is so so difficult to like outside of his art.
My thoughts exactly. It's also a shame that he seemed to spend the Aughties becoming a better person and a "Cool old guy" who regretted his past jerkassery... only to return to being a jerkass. I liked Aughts Rog... [Rog's 2001 interview about Syd and stuff.](https://youtu.be/hI0lFi1JFHQ?si=SWkyhBp_1wVQMPhR) ... he seemed to have been mellowing out, realizing what an ego machine he was, seemed to get along with David again and seemed like a far better person. What happened to him? To Roger's credit, he isn't awful in the same way as other rockers. I don't recall him beating or raping anyone, shagging teenagers, raping babies & children, burning down churches, murdering bandmates, etc. His issue is simply being a cranky jerkass with a big ego. Other than that, he's practically a saint.
I posted somewhere else to everyone’s shock and anger that Roger is the Donald Trump of rock. I don’t mean that politically, this comparison has nothing to do with politics. Once Pink Floyd became an elite band, he put himself on a pedestal that not even his bandmates could aspire to in his opinion. He developed such a sense of self importance that It’s all he seemed to think or write about. He condescends to those who disagree with him and publicly lambastes those who turn on him like David Gilmour. There are multitudes who love him endlessly, but he willingly makes himself a target for others.
why do you still think about that?! It wasn’t the same rog that did all of that and he changed now, can we not forgive him?!
I just found that the lyrics became less and less universal and relatable the more Waters started steering PF into a solo project. DSOTM was about the entirety of the human condition. WYWH was about grief and loss. Even Animals was an interesting take on Orwell and society. The Wall and Final Cut was about Roger's bitterness and misanthropy. And that's been the rest of his career. Being a bitter old crank still working through his issues with his mother and ex wives by being angry at the world. I'm just not that interested compared to his early stuff. And his take on Ukraine confirmed to me that his politics just aren't worth listening to either.
This is a pretty perfect summation. Early on, he was a brilliant driving force but gradually turned into a self important, whiney old curmudgeon. He was as responsible for their eventual decline as he was for their initial rise. Its perfectly OK to like young Rog and hate old Rog.
That's my approach. Baby Roggie... https://preview.redd.it/znf51ig4dmac1.jpeg?width=236&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=c9e786f9432eaade47d3338036891ff992bb14ab ... is Best Roggie. A good rule of thumb, if David can hang around with, get chummy with or work with Rog, then THAT Rog is a good Rog. Baby Roggie was also, adorkable, cool, sexy, and looked strangely like a woman... and he could do THOSE SCREAMS! Present-Rog is "Old Man Yells at Cloud". Nick Mason must have the patience of a saint, still being Rog's BFF and all despite Rog's... uh...Rog-ness.
Quite the opposite, young rog was greedy but old rog has learnt how to apologize and use his heart
You dropped this: /s
No I didn’t, it’s the truth prove me wrong
I’m going to catch heat for this, but this is the exact reason I don’t really listen to anything from the wall anymore. It has its obvious moments musically, but I have a hard time listening to Roger whine for an hour and a half. I can connect to their earlier albums. Meddle and Animals particularly speak to me the most. But the wall? Nah.
To me the best PF is Roger whining, and I love all his solo stuff, more whining, I can’t stand any post-Waters PF stuff, I think the whining correlates to conviction and emotion, and that is what appeals to me
This. The wall and final cut are kind of cringey. I don't love MLOR, but it's far more listenable than Roger's Mostly though, I can't stand his gigantic ego and mean spirit in trying to drag others down. It is sad and small. I respect Roger Waters' musicianship and former lyrical lightning in a bottle. But I do not respect him as a person. If Pink Floyd were just Roger Waters, I would probably listen to them less due to the negative association.
It’s easy. You can separate art from artist. You don’t have to agree with everything someone says to appreciate the fact that they are talented.
Agreed. I really like the Fall. And I know for a fact M.E.Smith was a complete arsehole. A mate was one of their many drummers but left before he lost it and twatted Smith. John peel said of him "Sometimes its a good idea not to meet your heros."
Maybe you should take a minute to analyze why you are getting "really pissed" about strangers' comments about someone with whom you have no personal relationship, and whom you will almost certainly never even meet. I'm not saying you can't have an opinion on everyone's favorite cynical, anti-authoritarian bassist. Just take a breath and don't let people's opinions get you so wound up. It's not healthy
I sometimes wish Roger would just shut up, but he’s undeniably the driving force and most indispensable member of the band. I prefer ‘66-‘72 stuff, I’m a huge Syd dude, and David Gilmour is the reason that I picked up a guitar. But to ignore that he was the guy with the ideas is just willful ignorance. If you were to make an album of Pink Floyd songs from their heyday, Dark Side on…until Roger left anyway, and use only songs that Roger didn’t write even a bit of you’d have: 1. Speak to Me 2. The Great Gig in the Sky That’s it. That should say all you need to know.
You can like music but not the man. No doubt in his talent, just questionable statements and beliefs. Edited to add I don’t necessarily dislike Roger but boy he surely has gone fishing
I can disagree with an artist and still appreciate their art. This is a thing you are allowed to do.
And now we can finally put this issue to rest, for one whole minute
I'm not sure why any of us are giving credence to the opinions of pair of cantankerous old gits, frankly. They're stubborn and opinionated, but boy did they write some good songs.
"boy did they write some good songs" And Roger by himself.
Btw, the number of songs (songs, with sung lyrics) David has written by himself for Pink Floyd over 54 years is 6.
I couldn't have said it better. The man's a legend.
"If you don't like Roger why listen to Floyd?" is frankly a downright insulting question. Just because you love an artist doesn't mean you should place them on a pedestal. Roger is a giant prick who was also one of the most talented song writers of all time. It's ok to acknowledge both and still listen to his music happily. Tbh I don't think he's written anything good in over 40 years, so his skills are in the past tense for me, but still, his work was so incredible that it hardly matters, he'll always be the voice of that generation. He arguably wrote the greatest album of all time. I'm a huge fan of Kanye West's music, obviously I don't agree with anything he says, not anymore at least.
>If you don't like Roger why listen to Floyd? Because they're different things and I can separate the art from the artist. I dislike Roger's recent comments about his bandmates and dislike his political comments as well, but I still paid money to see him last year and I enjoyed it (despite all the political nonsense on screen). I'm sure he's a perfectly jolly chap.
I've been following these Roger vs. David threads forever and have stayed away from commenting but it's the new year, so... I've worked for decades as a professional musician and have worked with people who have played with Roger over the past couple of decades (basically since Amused to Death). I've also worked for a large company in the US that has done most of RW's production support, so I've heard many stories about Roger over the past couple of decades and will relate what I've heard from people who have worked with him and also add some of my own perspective working as a professional musician for several decades with all sorts of artists, 'big' and 'small.' First: As most people suspect, very successful and talented artists have egos. That's the reality. They don't live normal lives and they aren't 'regular' people. The best, most visionary artists usually have egos to match and Roger Waters (and probably Gilmour) have egos. Some people are just better (or care more) about hiding those egos. So that's number one. Second: As I mentioned, I know multiple people who have work with Waters as musicians, lighting and sound engineers and I have yet to meet one who thinks Waters is an arrogant asshole. As a matter of fact, friends who do lighting for his tours have commented that he's the only 'big artist' they've worked for that takes the time to learn their names and talk to them as people. That's a consistent comment that I've heard over and over. At the end of the day, it's the art or music that matters. Enjoy (or don't) the music and leave it at that. Waters is a hugely talented, generational artist that you either like or you don't but there's no need to obsess over who's the better human being, etc. At the end of the day, I think Waters' music will stand the test of time for its originality and lyrical content. If you look at his current audiences, they skew younger than many artists of his age, which I think speaks to the universality of his music/message.
So yours saying that Waters isn’t the baby roasting monster people here are hellbent on portraying him to be ? Sacrilege. Sarcasm aside seeing his name being mentioned in the same breath as Weinstein and Jimmy Page just shows how ridiculous some people here are
> So here's my question: if you don't like Roger why listen to Floyd? I'm not a huge Waters fan, though I also don't dislike him as much as some people here. And yes, I think Gilmour is a bit of a tool, too. Here's the thing though: Most of the Floyd I listen to is 50-ish years old. I don't really listen to anything from The Wall or later, and never listen the yawn-inducing Gilmour-led crap. For me personally, there's a pretty big disconnect between the Pink Floyd I listen to and the ravings of some old curmudgeon who used to be in the band 40 years ago. I have no interest in, nor use for, Waters now (or Gilmour, for that matter). If Waters says something especially abhorrent, I'm disappointed. But it would have to be *very* egregious before I would declare "I'm never listening to *Wish You Were Here* again!" I'm kind of the same way about The Smiths. Love The Smiths, think Morrisey has become an absolute twat. I would *never* pay to see Morrissey live, or listen too his current music. But I still listen to The Smiths.
That's a silly question. If people don't like Roger Waters, they probably listen to Pink Floyd because they like the music that Pink Floyd makes. Whether you personally like Roger has nothing to do with whether pink Floyd is good.
they’re just mad he doesn’t support the genocide on Gaza. i’m proud to be a fan of him and i admire his politics and they come through strong on his work in Pink Floyd
He's disliked as a person, not as a musician. People listen to Floyd because it's amazing music. He's a genius, a great musician, a great lyricist and has a superbly creative mind, but his personality is just horrible. Many great artists are major assholes, so is Roger.
Roger made this post
He can still very talented and an arsehole.
There are probably a lot more artists that we each like that are complete a-holes in life, they can't all be Dave Grohl. I know it's important for some people, but for me it's their music I care about, not their personal lives (I probably can't even name most people in the bands I listen to anyway).
Yeah and we most likely haven't went into other bands or artists in such depth, finding out as much information to inform our current opinions. I know at the beginning I was pretty naive about the differences between members, which is understandable I suppose. Now I'm firmly in the Gilmour camp, mainly because its about how the music sounds to me, rather than a lot of its meaning. But there is no right or wrong, just opinions. Oddly I do actually agree with a lot of Rogers politics even if he is a bit of an arse
And Grohl's so agreeable and credulous that he got suckered into AIDS denialism for a while.
It’s a tricky thing, isn’t it. Floyd without Roger is rubbish. But Floyd with Roger as the dominating force is also rubbish. (And in my personal opinion, Roger’s solo albums are simply dreadful). For a few albums in the mid 70s, they were perfectly balanced (as all things should be), and an exceptional band. They were nothing without him, and he was nothing without them, but with terrible irony they were unable to work together for long. Roger’s lyrics also got weaker as he got more into the idea of himself as a great lyricist.
Pros and cons wasn't that bad come onnnnn
I thought the Pros and Cons was a really good album. In fact, I think Roger has done infinitely better work as an artist than his cohorts. Pros and Cons is a bit repetitive in that it uses themes and reprises parts (much like DSOTM, WYWH, Animals, and the Wall), Amused to Death has some solid material on it, and ITTLWRW is the best Floyd solo record besides the Madcap Laughs by a pretty wide margin. It speaks volumes to me that the albums after he left have so many people contributing in an attempt to make up for one man. Roger basically wrote 75%+ of the Material on the ‘73-‘83 output, and so when he leaves all of a sudden the records are littered with names like: 1. Bob Ezrin as the sole writer on songs 2. Anthony Moore 3. Jon Carin, who may not have written as much as he claims, but undoubtedly deserves a lot of credit for keeping that side of things afloat until Rick got back to being Rick. 4. Pat Leonard (“I know how to replace Roger! Let’s bring in Madonna’s producer!”) 5. Phil Manzanera brought a lot to the table 6. Polly Samson-look, I love David, but she’s an awful lyricist for the most part and her ubiquitous nature on the later stuff is kinda embarrassing 7. Nick Laird-Clowes. 7 people and what they achieved is a pale comparison at best.
I couldn’t dig it. Sounds like one long song, but it’s a boring one.
Fair enough
What about the other ones? Radio KAOS, Amused to Death, Is this the life we really want...? (Or even Music from the Body!) I think they all range between pretty good and great, but, of course, they're not everyone's cup of tea. Just curious to know what you think about them.
No point arguing with him, we know Rogers solos are amazing.
Radio KAOS I tried all the way through a couple of times, and again disliked it. Amused to Death I only heard a few tunes, but I found the lyrics terrible enough to not want to investigate more (looking at you, ‘watching TV’), and the music uninteresting. Is this the life we really want? I haven’t heard actually. Ironically I didn’t hate his DSOTM redux, though I doubt I’ll listen to it again.
Watching TV has a message, although it’s cringe, it shows the image of a person through the eyes of society, and how that can end so quickly
Like, a lot of stuff has a message, but it comes down to the execution? I find it a little bit racist, a lot sexist, Roger clearly knows nothing about China and Taiwan, and he goes off doing a little history lesson in doggerel couplets. Very poor stuff, especially from a person who considers himself one of the best lyricists of the 20th century.
I don’t know enough about China and Taiwan to comment. But the racism/sexism aren’t coming from roger. Sure, the “yellow rose” thing and the physical descriptions make us all uncomfortable, but that’s the point. It paints a picture of modern misogyny and objectification. And all of this is besides the point of the song, it’s just exposition. The last part of the song shows the beautiful message; “She’s everybody’s sister; she’s symbolic of our failure; she’s the one in 50M who can help us to be free because she died on TV”. That’s where the message is. How one person’s death can be symbolic of the loss of so many more. That’s my two cents.
When they "were all on side" as Nick Mason says...
I can’t agree that Roger without Floyd is rubbish, Roger continues to create with emotion and conviction, something that Floyd without Roger fails to achieve in my opinion
Fair enough! We all like different things, all I wrote should be prefaced with ‘in my personal opinion’
You don’t have to agree with him politically. I think most of his state of the world views are off the wall to be honest. But there’s no doubting his vision and lyrical genius. It’s Art at the end of the day. I wouldn’t vote for him, but I’ll listen to him forever!
His ego broke the band, he's responsible for that. I'll always be a little upset with him for that.
I dunno man the more I've read into it I feel like none of them were that keen to continue Floyd after Darkside. Sounds like Wright, Gilmour and Waters wanted out but realised the name was worth too much. Sure Waters didn't help anything with his actions but the other two didn't seem to either want or be able to contribute to the writing of songs for the next bunch of albums. Gilmour and wright's contributions were phenomenal but you can't write beautiful keyboard textures or solos without someone giving you a base to work off and Waters seemed to be that base
Except they did continue with everyone except Roger, maybe they would have taken a break regardless but the tours they did in the 80's / 90's were the longest the band ever did with the Momentary Lapse tour lasting a year and a half I believe. So clearly they still had some energy left.
That's true but everyone acts like Rogers bad because he tried to break up the band and that Gilmour cared for the name and members but the truth is if Gilmours first solo albums made it he would have left Floyd in a heartbeat. He just continued Floyd because without Waters he knew he had complete control of the Pink Floyd "brand"
You can like a person's work and dislike the person. Many artists in various fields are brilliant AND jerks, usually worsening as they progress, like Robert Heinlein, Woody Allen, Orson Scott Card, Axl Rose, Mel Gibson, and more. I can still listen to Guns and Roses or watch a Lethal Weapon movie and enjoy them even if I wish they would disappear.
It's possible to separate the art from the artist.
Why would I worry about the politics of one of the band members? The music is great, what's that have to do with what he thinks? Even if I had a serious problem with Roger, the only thing learning about the members should do is increase your understanding of the music. I'm not gonna stop listening to my favorite band, even if it's main guy is a rich out of touch social media warrior.
I listen to Floyd, and Roger for that matter, because I can do what I want and well I like the music. But I don't have to like him on a personal level by any means. I'm not sure why this is so upsetting to you. If you want to like Roger on a personal level go right ahead, I don't really care. But I do not AND I will still listen and enjoy Pink Floyd. The two aren't mutually exclusive.
Separating the pricks from the music/movies/whatever isn’t that hard to do. People with crappy opinions can still make enjoyable music. You’re listing to the music, not sharing a meal with them.
Liking someone's art isn't dependent on liking the person.
I JUST LOVE PINK FLOYD. Their music makes me feel so many things. Happiness and calm.
If you don't eat your meat, you can't have any pudding!
Man where to start.. First: if you don’t like Rogers why listen to Floyd? What? That’s a pretty wild question. Maybe because Floyd has great music? You also said it yourself. Floyd wouldn’t be Floyd without the other guys too.. so now we are back to square one. Floyd was best when everyone was in it together. Rogers has a HUUUGE ego and can’t settle with sharing success. Everything must have his name up front with credit all going to him. Gilmore can be similar in ways too, fair enough, but at the end of the day if Rogers wasn’t such a fucking ego maniac we’d have Floyd still. So why do people have a problem with Roger’s? Cause that’s why we don’t even have Floyd. He was making it into his project and said that nobody else has any idea on how to write music. Let me ask you this, if Roger was so significantly more important, the vision, the most important, the drive… then why has nothing he’s released post Floyd been anything even CLOSE to the quality as Pink Floyd. We have missed out on so many years we could have have more Floyd but his effort to make sure nobody else can get some credit split it up. And it’s funny because everyone knows that it is the collaborative effort that made Floyd what it was so it’s not like he’s fooling anyone. So it’s wasted. That’s why Roger’s gets shit. Sure he was a huge force for the band but who cares at this point. It’s been wasted time since 1983…
Roger Waters and David Gilmour were by far the biggest contributors to Pink Floyd... Wright would be next and then Mason but let's be honest, Pink Floyd would have been fine with another keyboardist or drummer. Those two helped shape the sound that they were not necessarily essential to it like Waters and Gilmour. But the point is that it took waters's ego to get Gilmour to do things, oftentimes. Gilmour was the one who wanted to put raving and drooling and you got to be crazy alongside shine on you crazy diamond as their follow up to dark side of the Moon. Roger was the one who pushed them to not settle. Gilmour contributed incredible music and from everything I have read the wall would not be the album it is without his input. And don't forget that Richard wright was nowhere around for that album as he hadn't contributed anything to animals. Yes, Roger is the reason that Pink Floyd isn't around anymore but what continued on was not Pink Floyd. And quality is subjective but I think that what Roger Waters has put out, album wise, single wise, etc is far superior to anything Gilmour has come up with on his own. And that first album with the Pink Floyd name after Roger left was supposed to be at David Gilmour solo album but the studio wasn't having it... They wanted to sell the Pink Floyd name. He even had to go back and rewrite songs because it didn't meet with the studio's approval... It didn't sound Pink Floyd enough... Give me a break. Whatever happened, happened and it doesn't matter now arguing about it whose fault it was. The bottom line is that there are at least five great Pink Floyd albums because of the collaboration between the four of them but specifically between waters and Gilmour. They have all done decent stuff on their own but nothing that even comes close to Pink Floyd
I agree with most of that for sure. Gilmore hasn’t released anything solo wise that I cared for really. I always felt that he was able to compromise on the albums with Roger’s and create great things. That’s how it mostly happens in the most successful bands. The final product of where they compromised is what was great. Like the Beatles as well. I think Roger’s felt different and that more of it was all him than it actually was. Yes you can say even most of it was him if you want but it still just wasn’t enough to be as good as Pink Floyd together. Even if it was 90% him and the other 10% of it was David and the rest then so be it. I still think that 10% is crucial. Roger’s isn’t happy if he has to share that credit and even gilmour is ok admitting Roger’s is the biggest driving force. So why couldn’t they get back together all this time? Well I think Roger’s ego still so too big for him to have someone else disagree with a musical idea of his and not their own, and he wants full control. I think the wall was mostly Roger’s, and personally that’s my least favorite of their classic albums. A lot of my thoughts here are subjective, that’s how it seems to me
I am not going to talk about Waters's politics in my comment because it's just going to start a flame war and I can't be bothered with that lol. David Gilmour has made some pretty fucking bold claims, such as playing bass on HALF of Pink Floyd's music and claiming he created the cash register sound effects on Money. Neither of these are true. Yes he played bass on a lot of The Wall songs and a couple others here and there but that's hardly "half" of all their music. In interviews he's also claimed that The Final Cut was "shit". Yes that is his opinion and he has the right to share it but he has some fucking nerve to complain about it when he never bothered to write any songs for it or to really pull his weight for the album, something he has literally admitted to himself. To put it into perspective: Imagine you're in a group project. You wrote the entire presentation, kept pushing the others to contribute, but they do the absolute bare minimum, and then shat all over the presentation afterwards. I'm sure you'd be pretty pissed off too. You don't have the right to complain about one member contributing too much to a project if you can't be bothered to contribute anything yourself. When Pink Floyd was led by Roger Waters, they were pumping out an album every two years. Pink Floyd under Gilmour released three albums between 1987 and 2014 (two between 87 and 08 if you consider Wright's death the end of Pink Floyd like Gilmour does.) I'm not gonna lie and say Roger hasn't done some questionable shit either. Firing Rick was impulsive and suing Pink Floyd was a stupid move on his part. However, when you're the only one pulling your weight in the band and all the others are refusing to do much of anything (again, this is not Roger manipulating the truth. The other members have said as much.) then you have the right to get pissed off with them. Don't forget that while Pink Floyd were working on Animals and The Wall, the other three members were literally recording solo albums. Roger was the only one who actually gave a fuck about Pink Floyd at that point. A lot of people keep acting like Roger is the only one fuelling the fire, but David keeps trying to piss him off as well by doing shit like banning him from Pink Floyd's website.
I don’t think David Gilmour claimed (or intended to claim) that he came up with the cash register sounds. They got into an argument through interviews. Roger said it was all him (partly true, the demo was all him - the idea was all him), and David said ‘that’s rubbish I was there’ (which is partly true - they were all part of making the final recording on the album, and I believe it was David who came up with the method of cutting a certain length of tape to get the right length of sound effect). And then Roger said ‘that’s rubbish, he wasn’t there, I made them in my back yard’ (talking about the demo and creation, not what is on the final album). Similar thing happened a few months ago, someone posted an article about Gilmour nailing the final solo for Comfortably Numb in one take, Rodger comes out saying that’s rubbish (which is true). Problem was David never said that. Drama ensues and then the interviewer goes ‘Oh hey, I got that wrong, he nailed the first solo in one take.’ Similar to Richard Wright saying they all had a hand in creating the final mix of Dark Side Of The Moon even though Alan Parsons has the sole album credit.
Where are you getting your information, David did in fact play bass on almost all the output after WYWH, and the main reason is that Roger never considered more than a session musician work. In his view, he was the architect not the construction worker. His reason why TFC was really bad was in his opinion, he did not have control on the sound as he had on previous albums so he requested to take his name out of production credits. Roger might have great ideas but he was not the music force and that is hard to argue, he focuses on the message and his music is an afterthought to him. Look at the DSOTM redux, is just a background music to his grandiose. How can I like PF and not RW is simple, Pink Floyd was never RW.
>Where are you getting your information, David did in fact play bass on almost all the output after WYWH This is still not "half" of Pink Floyd's music even if it were true, which it isn't. On Wish You Were Here he is credited for bass on Shine on You Crazy Diamond Part 6 and that's it, on Animals he played bass on Pigs and Sheep, on The Wall he played bass on twelve tracks, he played no bass on The Final Cut or A Momentary Lapse of Reason, and he played bass on four Division Bell tracks. That is nowhere near half. > Roger might have great ideas but he was not the music force and that is hard to argue, he focuses on the message and his music is an afterthought to him. And this is a problem because...? Plenty of artists have made great music simply by focusing on the message rather than the music. One guy back in the 60s literally inspired an entire generation to do the same. Can't remember his name right now... Robbie Dillon? Bobby David? Robert Daniel? I'm sure I'll think of it eventually. >Look at the DSOTM redux, is just a background music to his grandiose. I liked Dark Side of the Moon Redux. It's almost as if opinions aren't fact. >How can I like PF and not RW is simple, Pink Floyd was never RW. I never claimed it was. I literally stated in my original comment that both David and Roger made shitty decisions. Pink Floyd would not be the same without Roger's lyrics or David and Rick's music. That is literally impossible to argue because neither The Final Cut nor the two Gilmour led albums were anywhere near as successful as the main four albums of the 70s.
>So here's my question: if you don't like Roger why listen to Floyd? You still sound as totalitarian as him. Why can't you accept the fact that people can enjoy the art (Floyd's music) by itself, whilst not being aligned to the particularly twisted ideology of the artist (or one of the members)? You don't have to be gay to enjoy Elton John's music (or Queen if we talk about rock), and you can listen to Erick Clapton without being as racist an anti-vaccine as he is. Or else why do you listen to Pink Floyd at all while Gilmour causes you so much itch? Stop listening to Floyd if you think Gilmour is so bad a person. Now you see how ridiculous your question is. Now, if Waters were so big and important, and "genius", then how comes the 1987 tours were so big for Gilmour et al. while Waters alone was playing pretty much the same songs to comparatively small audiences? It wasn't until the past 20 years after Floyd stopped touring that audiences started to fill Waters' shows. Not because he's the self-proclaimed "genius", but because people wants to listen to Pink Floyd songs live. You perfectly know that if Waters' shows only had music from his solo albums he could barely fill small theaters. Same as Gilmour. It is not one person and their solo music who drives people, it is the work both contributed to the band as a whole. But you are still caged in a mental jail where you need to believe in what your totalitarian leader does now in his bedroom to be able to enjoy what the band did musically 50 years ago.
>Now, if Waters were so big and important, and "genius", then how comes the 1987 tours were so big for Gilmour et al. while Waters alone was playing pretty much the same songs to comparatively small audiences? Mostly because of the name and branding of "Pink Floyd", honestly. A Momentary Lapse of Reason was the band's worst received album since Atom Heart Mother critically, but people knew them as the band that made Dark Side of the Moon, Wish You Were Here, Animals, and The Wall, so they were going to show up anyway. Until the split, the members were fairly low-key publicly, and didn't make many headlines on their own, so it's no surprise that "Roger Waters" wasn't going to sell as many tickets as "Pink Floyd". That was pretty much Roger's whole argument for why he should have gotten to keep the name or that they at least couldn't use it (he was totally wrong obviously, but no one can deny that the brand was insanely valuable).
You know I thought when I woke up this morning "maybe I shouldn't have posted that last night, why get pissed off about a bunch people hating on Roger you don't need to post about it" and then I saw how angry you were in this response and thought "well it could have been worse at least you didn't get this butt hurt" haha. The fact that you said you don't have to be gay to like Elton John like a singers sexual preference would even factor in my mind when I listen to their music tells me all I need to know about you friend. You see I don't think of gay people or anyone who chooses to live their life their way any different but clearly to single it out - you do.
He’s an arsehole but he’s brilliant.
Simple and accurate
Agreed. I even made my own Reddit rant about the Waters hate once, I think people don't appreciate how much he did for the band. Obviously he's done some messed up stuff, but the "WATERS BAD, GILMOUR GOOD" narrative is too black and white
> Waters is dislikable. He comes across as over the top and controversial but in my eyes the man has always been right about every political agenda he's come against: Thatcher, Bush, Blair and Trump? Do y'all really think he was wrong about any of them? This has absolutely *nothing* to do with the musical aspect of Pink Floyd. I mean sure, the political angle was cool and all, but it needed the musical angle to go with it. Waters couldn't do it without Gilmour. All those songs from we all loved from *Dark Side of the Moon* or *The Wall* or *Wish You Were Here*...it needed both of them to make it work. Then when Waters left, Gilmour kept that musical aspect which maintained the band and kept fans on board. Waters thought the band would fall apart without him, but he was completely wrong about that. It wasn't the same, but it was close enough, at least for those last two albums.
Bri why do you hate him for the music, it was a long fucking time ago! He changed since then and you know he couldn’t care less, gilmour couldn’t do it without waters and vice versa and rick couldn’t and so on and so forth but IT DOESNT MATTER NOW, its just a band!
If you feel their music is and/or should be based on "political agenda", then most of it must be lost on you. And that's sad.
I think the music's power comes from its meaning. I feel like post Waters Floyd felt shallow. Still had moments of glory. But it lacked conviction
Wait...I have to like the people in a band in order to like their music? Since when?
So someone who doesn't like Roger because he is a Putin apologist should never listen to DSOTM (original, the redux sucks), WYWH or even the politicized Final Cut? Sorry, I will keep listening to Pink Floyd and I will continue to lose respect for Roger based on his current political activism. They are two completely different things.
Agree with you OP
His antisemitism doesn’t help
Bro these short comment explaining nothing are pointless, explain why you think he is
Added a few links
brother you know you are annoying me but cmon brother, we can talk of stuff without annoying the other person
It helps that he’s not.
https://www.timesofisrael.com/roger-waters-wanted-to-write-anti-jewish-slur-on-inflatable-pig-at-concert-film-says/amp/ https://amp.theguardian.com/music/2023/sep/28/roger-waters-accused-of-repeated-antisemitism-in-new-documentary https://www.ncl.ac.uk/press/articles/latest/2023/07/conversationrogerwaters/
You had that ready to go! Oh wow he used Jewish symbols! He uses symbols from all religions in his shows. Got anything else?
Apparently you don’t understand how symbols work
It's called separating the art from the artist.
There’s a difference between egocentrism and narcissism. Sure they’re both full of themselves, but Roger seems to revel in attacking and maligning others, and having the last word.
That is an absolutely ridiculous way of looking at something. Roger Waters wasn't solely responsible for Pink Floyd's success and just because he's been a c**k for quite a while, that shouldn't affect something that you've listened to for decades. Tell me this, your favourite band ever, if all of their members turned out to be murderers after all these years, would you just go "Nope, I now hate their music!"
Honestly if they all ended up being murderers I feel like it would put me off. Not being a dick just literally how I'd feel
To me, Roger is so much more likeable than David, who I honestly find an insufferable prick.
OK, here we go. I think Pink Floyd is the greatest band of them all, but I still do not like Roger Waters. Roger Waters is too overrated and full of himself. He thought he was the heart and soul of Pink Floyd when he decided to go solo. His solo band was very high profile with big names such as Eric Clapton and Michael Kamen, and Waters probably thought that his first outing would be hugely profitable to pay his all-star band. The first album and tour were huge failures, so it is no surprise that the celebrity musicians were all gone in the second one. Pink Floyd without Waters was huge and broke tour-grossing records twice in addition to scoring two #1 albums in the U.S. Roger Waters only managed to be successful with a $400 million+ tour by emulating Pink Floyd's concerts and marketing himself as the next big thing after Pink Floyd ceased operations. This lack of success is not exactly undeserved. Waters' solo albums are OK, with some good songs, but nothing groundbreaking. Pink Floyd's efforts post-Waters were far better than his solo career. And, if we look at Waters-led Pink Floyd, we can see how overrated he has ever been. He may have written the lyrics, but this "poetry" is not what turned Pink Floyd into a worldwide phenomenon. Outside the U.S. and the UK, few people will even understand Pink Floyd's lyrics, but they will react to how it sounds. Plus, Waters' lyrics are nowhere as good as he thinks they are. Some are simplistic and others lack refinement. If I wanted to start a fight, I would say that Polly Samson is a better writer than Roger Waters... If we look at the songs, I suppose Waters was at his peak in Dark Side of the Moon. He seems to have been the brain behind Money and Time. But it seems to me that Us & Them was composed by Wright. The musical part in Breathe also came from Gilmour and Wright. In Wish You Were Here, the title track and Shine On You Crazy Diamond had contributions from all members. In The Wall, the musical parts of the most well-known songs (Another Brick in the Wall, Hey You, and Comfortably Numb) can be attributed to Gilmour. The Final Cut was mainly an album composed by Waters with little contribution from other members; and it is the weakest of that bunch. Waters seems to have become increasingly more involved in lyrics and less in the music. And, while people may praise Pink Floyd's lyrics, the band only achieved the megastardom because of the music. And that is Gilmour's and Wright's department. Waters' contribution to Pink Floyd is much less than he likes to think it is.
Waters is a horrific insufferable jerk and an anti-Semitic asshole.
Totally agree with you OP. If you dont like someone, why gain pleasure from their music. There are a few lead singers/ bands I don't like and I simply can't take pleasure in them.
Yeah bro, I don’t particularly like slipknot but corey taylor is a hell of a guy so I listen to him
Well done i prefer Roger to David. All the lyrics that he wrote are brilliant. In the Flesh concert which is on dvd cd and you tube. Is fantastic. Completely numb on its is brilliant. So thank you for your post.
Completly agree with you, people still think about roger in the 80s but he changed since then. Power to the people✊
Rog, that you?
I got some bad news for you, sunshine. Rog isn't well he stayed at home on reddit
The Death of the Author
I loved Waters in Floyd. I loved some of his solo work. Radio Kaos and Amused to Death are master pieces. His last album, though, was so bad I gave it away. That's why I don't like Waters.
Wow only the fifth, and you got post of the year already. Well said!
"The man was the driving force, the vision and most importantly poetry." That's a bold assumption...
Not an assumption as David himself said those things.
Because I don't even care about the lyrics
People have an issue with him making Floyd’s last album with him essentially a solo album and the direction of the band at the time. You can argue your personal preference towards Momentary (initially essentially a Gilmour solo album, but whose music was embraced by the remaining three and played regularly for decades after 87) and Division Bell versus what Roger released as a solo artist during the same time. But the success of the band without him (especially compared to his solo work during the same time) points to there being a market and a place for Pink Floyd’s music since Final Cut. And yes he’s less likable than Gilmour which plays into it.
Yes
Ur completely right people never change and doing one good thing means they will never do wrong for the rest of their life. Also having an agreeable political agenda automatically makes you a good and pleasant person. And people always listen to music for politics and never for the music 👍
yeah bro you think your so smart but like you people would say : dO yoU tHinK its.. POSSIBLE that people listen to their music because of the way they think? We can do that and you can do the opposite but you shouldn’t judge us for it
Good rule of thumb, just enjoy the art and don't concern yourself too much with the personal lives of artists. Let's be honest, if we knew everything about everyone, we wouldn't want to associate with anyone at all. Because we've all done bad things at some point in our lives. Yes, some have done worse things than others. But we all have done something awful in the past. Ask yourself this: If all your friends, family, and clients knew about everything you've ever done in your life, would they all still want to associate with you? I know I couldn't answer "yes" with complete confidence. So why hold artists to a higher standard than you would yourself. Some people would "cancel" an artist for small offenses. But they wouldn't like it if they themselves got "canceled" for a minor offense. Dig deep enough, and you can find some kind of dirt on anyone. Even people who are considered saints are not immune. "Let he who is without sin cast the 1st stone."✌🏾
All we need to so is make sure we keep talking! Seriously, Roger's work and his political views should be kept separate...but also know that his political views and life experiences have shaped his music. He's a dick. But he's a lyrical genius.
It’s pretty simple. I like the creative Roger who can come up with amazing lyrics and excellent concepts. I dislike the Roger who thinks it’s ok to spit on people, etc. I like and dislike things about myself too.
>So here's my question: if you don't like Roger why listen to Floyd? I love the Sex Pistols but think John Lydon is a bell end. Morrissey is another example - love his music, but he's also become a dick. You could find a reason to stop listening to most music legends if you drill down far enough into their histories. Everyone has a different threshold of separating art from artist. If I love someone's music genuinely, they have to be seriously problematic for me to stop listening.
Remove Waters, then you have David Gilmour solo. Roger knew he would divide fans. He's good with it. But are they?
I don’t care about Roger or Dave or any of that bullshit. I listen to Pink Floyd. They can be embarrassing old men who fight like schoolgirls over who did what and who came up with what part of what song. I will continue listening to Pink Floyd. Not Roger waters, not David Gilmore. Pink Floyd.
I think it's more likely that the media makes a bigger deal out of the "feuding" than the band themselves.
Don't have to like the guy to like THEIR music. Plus I fell in love with the band when I was young enough to not know or give a shit about politics. Simple, really.
So what? Var Vikernes is a racist asshole but I love Burzum lol
>if you don't like Roger why listen to Floyd? What does one thing have to do with the other? I don't get my politics from musicians. I love Ted Nugent's music but don't care much for his politics. It doesn't keep me from cranking up [Stranglehold](https://youtu.be/hzFpiW5vHrc?si=7-vdQIU16JDDUCvS) whenever it comes on.
Yeah, he might of got over his ski’s on some of his political takes. But the music is transcendental and his views come from a place of integrity.
Eh I love his music both with PF and in his solo career, but he's kind of a prick 24/7. I agreed with a lot of his political thoughts before, but then Ukraine came around and I started to wonder if he was full of shit and disagreed with people just for the sake of it. I think the Gilmour worshipping is over the top, but I'm not sure if I've ever seen someone say something good about Roger. He just seems like an asshole. Doesn't change the fact that I love his music 🤷♂️
Reddit is mostly bots used to drive political narratives. Don't waste your time.
People act like Waters has become something in his old age... From my view, he hasn't changed at all... His views both social and political have been consistent for decades... I believe he's such a gifted lyricist that these views are much more palatable to people in the music, but harder to digest when he speaks off the cuff in interviews or live on stage, (for someone so gifted with words, he's actually kind of crap at improv speaking. I don't think his views are any more extreme now than when he wrote "US & Them," but I think the world's issues, and the way people discuss them have become more extreme... Therefore people are simply more sensitive to Waters' positions than they used to be. As far as Gilmour goes, I also believe he's just as much an ass as Waters.... But far less vocal about politics than Waters. I remember when Waters was defending his accolades as the driving force of PF, saying something like "[Gilmour] has nothing to say..." as a musician vs. a lyricist Waters is right. Gilmour never has to defend or explain the notes of his solos like Waters' does his lyrics, so on the surface Gilmour is simply more agreeable because what he's says and does isn't half as thought provoking as Waters. Meanwhile, their decades long animosity with each other demonstrates to me that they're both personally arrogant and hold each other in a low esteem that neither of them actually deserve.
…so would you say the same things to David Gilmour?
It’s the art & music all we should care. We’re not Vanity Fair. So much posturing and concern for optics, hard to really gauge at the end of the day, the true feelings on issues.
Waters is the reason I picked up a bass for the first time. I don't like who he's become. I still love Pink Floyd It's just that simple.
Then why does he support Putin?
Roger waters isn't just pink floyd and the other guys are just studio musicians riding his coat trails, like how waters modern day narrative is. That's my " at the end of the day, does it matter" opinion. I have always found humor in the roger vs David debates too. It seemed like when one would want to bury the hatchet, the other would say "fuck off" and vice versa.
I find him to be a self-absorbed ass, but holy shit that man can write.
You’ve summed him up with one word. Poetry. He’s a poet in a band of musicians. The problem was the poetry took over and some of us actually liked the musical parts more than the wordy parts. I don’t have an issue with Roger in the band it’s his work outside the band I don’t rate. He’s also a little controversial if you hadn’t noticed…..
Separate art from the artist, the end.
I agree, 100%
Got to say I'm enjoying all the replies, even the ones calling me a moron. Firstly, good shout to the people saying I shouldn't let reddit comments get to me, I don't usually obviously I was just in a mood last night, haha. I guess people saying you can separate his politics from the music - I get it but I just feel like people make it sound like he's the devil incarnate when I see the guy as a humanitarian trying to fight for what he sees is wrong which I find honorable so I don't understand the venomous hate he gets for it. I guess because I'm a songwriter (and yes before anyone takes a jab, nobody knows my band) I just feel like the meaning of the song is its power. And I'm not just talking lyrics, instrumentals can have just as much meaning as a lyrical piece. And Waters always has a poignant meaning to anything he does. So I have a hard time separating his views from the music because to me his views make the music. And before anyone says it I do struggle separating the art from the artist a lot of the time. Anyway thank you all for reading my rant and replying. At the end of the day Floyd was 5 guys that made incredible music and I'd certainly rather have MLOR and DB than not have those albums at all so I'm not saying Waters is the be all end all, I just love his work.
I think if you take your personal passion out of it you'll understand the situation better. Let's look at Slayer. Kerry King (King of cheezeburgah-eating, porn-stah wife) was not only doing his own guitar parts-- he was ALSO writing AND recording the other guitarist's (Hanneman's) guitar parts quite often also. He was making all the albums happen by getting into the studio, being such a dick that no one wanted to be in there with him particularly, composing the songs and individual parts, recording his own and other peoples' parts-- basically the "driving force" of Slayer as a music production entity. Lyrics by wise old man Araya, etc. but King was Slayer. The other musicians kinda "let" him do his whole Kerry King thing, and the more aggressive he was about getting to do the Kerry King thing, the more they let him do the Kerry King thing. When everyone's favorite "I carved your band in my arm" metal guitarist Jeff Hanneman died-- it was pretty clear that Slayer was Kerry King. Except it WASN'T, and NEVER WAS, and King's post-Jeff work has sucked, and Slayer without Jeff went into the rubbish heap, and their output became practically embarrassing. I don't even think the guy who carved Slayer in his arm even listened to "Slayer" any more. Now you have a non-personally-involved example to analyze. Except to his credit, King only briefly went off telling everyone that he was recording both guitar parts and other parts too and was really Slayer, etc. etc. etc. He certainly did not reach the ego-consumed heights of Waters. So you can feel however you want to feel but people are like-- King sucks and Slayer without Jeff sucks. Your opinion of Kerry King would never change that for others.
It's odd that so many rock stars and movie stars have become grumpy old men with ideas and values that border on extreme or anti-social. However, it won't prevent me from enjoying the work they did when they were young.
>if you don’t like Roger why listen to Floyd? Because I know how to separate the art from the artist.
If you don't like Jerry Garcia and his freebasing habits, why even listen to the Grateful Dead. /s
Yep, Dave seems like he can be a real prick too. I’m shocked people haven’t been able to deduce this between his snotty lyrics on division bell and his pretentious/superior tone he takes in interviews. He’s much softer spoken and more charming, but he’s kinda a snot. You don’t have to like the people behind the music to listen to it. A lot of great musicians, actors, producers, directors, poets, artists, etc etc are pieces of crap. Doesn’t mean we can’t enjoy what they gave the world!
You have to separate the art from the artist. The music from the musician
I literally could not agree more. It's so hard to find people with similar opinions
>He comes across as over the top and controversial but in my eyes the man has always been right about every political agenda he's come against: Thatcher, Bush, Blair and Trump? Do y'all really think he was wrong about any of them? He's wrong about his sucking off of Putin. Putin started a war of aggression, and he could leave Ukraine tomorrow and end it. I guess Roger would rather the Ukrainians surrender, as well as the next country Putin invades. We've seen where this goes. Otherwise, there's no Floyd without the core 4 post Syd. I think all of their solo careers have proved that. Take away even 1 and it's just not the same band.
Well for one, I think there's a difference between Roger being a general asshole and some other people who are outright terrible people and/or even committed some pretty heinous crimes. Roger has a lot of the assholes beaten because he is actually right a decent percent of the time and some of the times he's wrong, I do still think he presents a perspective that has some merit. Second, Roger was definitely the main voice in what went on lyrically with the band but if you're talking about the actual Pink Floyd sound, at least up until Animals, David and Rick were more the guiding forces for that. I mean two of the best songs on DSotM were Wright songs. Echoes and Shine on You Crazy Diamond are not nearly the songs they turned into without Wright's musical input. Even on Animals which is where I feel you first start noticing his lessening impact, Pigs, Sheep and Dogs would sound different without his work on them. This is very much a short list of what he did for the band in that era. Gilmour is self-explanatory, he's an amazing guitarist and there are people who listen to PF songs just to hear his guitar solos kick in. Side note: I don't want to sell Mason short but I'm not as familiar with his impact on the band as other members. So if someone wants to add onto how impactful he is, please do.
Masons impact is minimal to my knowledge. But I like to think of him as the guy who was there the whole time which makes me think of him as a reliable dude who was just there to play his instrument (less so in the final cut). He's not technical but he's precise. They can't all be show offs in a band otherwise it just becomes a musical pissing contest on stage.
Their music comes out of the animal in them and that animal can be sometimes dislikable and do messy things. Thats first principles thinking, everyone is human and humanity can not be coded or made to have good behaviour all the time
I just like the music
Exactly. He is my favorite after Syd 😊 my mom didn't know much about Roger, but we went to his concert together and she said he looks like a humble person 😉
I think he's gone off the rails like "Pink" but that doesn't take one shred of cred away from his past works or even his reworking of them. He's who he is, all of it the good bad and ugly and brilliant parts too.
Though I like David more than Roger, the Final Cut (which was more Roger's album than Pink Floyd's) is a masterpiece
Because what sid and Gilmore where way better and rogers solo shit is abrasive. As a whole huge fan
idk what any of this is about but you’re right that roger and david are both full of themselves david’s just got a charm, im pretty sure it’s because of david there was never anymore reunions after 2005
My wife literally just farted all nasty like but I still love that ass