CHUD.com Community › Forums › MUSIC › Music › Pink Floyd -- Was Roger Waters Right?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Pink Floyd -- Was Roger Waters Right?

post #1 of 17
11/9/07 at 8:57pm
Thread Starter 
Okay, so I was eating a Taco Salad and thinking about Pink Floyd. These two events coincide more often than necessary, but I digress.

It occurred to me that perhaps Roger Waters was right back in 84 when he declared Pink Floyd a spent force creatively. Consider:
  • Dave Gilmore has retired the Pink Floyd brand
  • The last two albums were basically dreck
  • Roger Waters is still touring, but most people go to his shows to hear old Floyd music
  • Thier high-point was, arguably, in the 70's, and neither camp has produced any thing all that great since Animals

These items, taken in the aggregate, indicate to me that Pink Floyd in 1984 was basically dead. And had if he hadn't made the whole thing with Gilmore personal, The Final Cut would probably have been Floyd's last record.

Thoughts?
Reply
post #2 of 17
11/9/07 at 11:23pm
Thread Starter 
Sorry I spelled his name wrong. Of course it invalidates my point...

Look, I'm not suggesting that GILMOUR is a poor musician. What I am saying is, apparently, Pink Floyd was a spent force creatively. The last two albums were not as good as their output in the 70's, and they appear to be reactions to Waters than legitimate albums. In fact, I think they're terrible (Learning to Fly and Division Bell excepted).
Reply
post #3 of 17
11/10/07 at 12:29am
I am quite fond of Learning to Fly, but it doesn't feel much like a Floyd song. I think there's some merit to this theory. Looking back over their run, it doesn't seem as if they've been considered important or relevant again after The Wall.
Reply
post #4 of 17
11/10/07 at 1:22am
The Wall tour they did, complete with construction of an actual fucking wall between them and the audience, pretty much destroyed Floyd. I think they were mentally and emotionally wrecked during that tour and they never really recovered.
Reply
post #5 of 17
11/10/07 at 2:00am
I've said before in the many Floyd threads we chewers start, the best way to view Momentary Lapse and Division Bell is Gilmour albums with "Special Guest Stars Rick Wright and Nick Mason!!!" Personally, once I detach those two albums and treat them like another band, they sound different, and better.

You're probably right that it's a spent force, but that's a rather moot point, isn't it? I think Floyd's sound came from the combination of Roger's songwriting and David's musicianship, so the only way to test your theory would be to get the two to record together again, and that will NEVER happen.

What amazes us about us Floyd fans is how this keeps coming up. We give the band we love so much shit. I can't think of any band that gets this much "will they or won't they" 23 years after they last recorded together, and over 14 years since the last official album.
Reply
post #6 of 17
11/10/07 at 3:03am
why can't we argue like this about ELO?
Reply
post #7 of 17
11/10/07 at 3:06am
Sid Vicious gave his life to save us from this.
Reply
post #8 of 17
11/10/07 at 9:47am
12 years (from Piper at the Gates of Dawn to The Wall) is a pretty damn good run, especially considering they had to weather the meltdown of Sid Barrett about half way through. So what if they ran out of steam towards the end (and I'll still defend The Final Cut as a worthy album)? Which long-running band hasn't?
Reply
post #9 of 17
11/10/07 at 11:05am
Final Cut is a very strong album, but most of the tracks do sound closer to solo Waters. (Which, in my opinion, is not neccessarily a bad thing.) Waters' albums can be a bit light on musical innovation and a bit heavy on concept, but there's generally some great tracks to be found.

Don't kill me, but I actually enjoy Pros & Cons of Hitchiking and Amused to Death far more than the last two Floyd albums.
Reply
post #10 of 17
11/10/07 at 11:20am
Thread Starter 
And that's the point. It seems like the narrative in the 80's after the split was Dave Gilmour proved Waters wrong in that there was still some juice left in the tank. It doesn't appear that was correct.
Reply
post #11 of 17
11/10/07 at 11:23am
I think Waters and Gilmour need each other. You can't deny the high level of musicianship on the post-Waters Floyd albums (and on Gilmour's solo albums), but they're pretty vacant lyrically. Waters had the big concepts and the ability to tell stories, while Gilmour and the rest could musically enhance those thoughts.
Reply
post #12 of 17
11/10/07 at 12:29pm
If Roger Waters said that Pink Floyd is dreadfully boring, then he is right!
Reply
post #13 of 17
11/10/07 at 1:46pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nick Nunziata
If Roger Waters said that Pink Floyd is dreadfully boring, then he is right!
That's pretty much what he said...

And I have to agree. Well, at least far as "post Roger Waters" Floyd goes. I don't even find their live shows that interesting. They're a carnival act. Lots of pretty lights and things to look at, and slow, boring, renditions of their old standards performed without energy.

The other guys are good musicians, particularly Gilmore. But without Waters pushing the songwriting envelope, they just developed into a dinosaur act.

Waters is a gigantic prick though, so the other guys have that going for them.
Reply
post #14 of 17
11/10/07 at 2:46pm
Thread Starter 
I'd be really curious to see the behind the scenes legal wrangling that went on in 1985-86. Like, did Waters leave the corporation behind Floyd? If retained a significant interest in the corporation (which, I imagine he did -- the main aint stupid) could he resurrect the Pink Floyd brand Name?

Of course, now that Waters is playing a lot of Floyd stuff (and why shouldn't he) , it doesn't really matter. But it is interesting that the Floyd brand is what's strongest of all three camps (Floyd, Waters, and Glimour). In theory, anyone can be in that band and it'd still sell-out stadiums. Maybe when they're old and shit, they'll license it to some new young punks and FLOYD WILL NEVER, EVER DIE.
Reply
post #15 of 17
11/10/07 at 5:48pm
And thus The Wall comes true.
Reply
post #16 of 17
11/10/07 at 6:18pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richason
Don't kill me, but I actually enjoy Pros & Cons of Hitchiking and Amused to Death far more than the last two Floyd albums.
They're both excellent albums, from start to finish. Pros & Cons is easily one of my favourite albums.
Reply
post #17 of 17
11/11/07 at 3:37am
The band was very tired at the time of the split, but I think there could have been some interesting music made if they had hung together. The band’s take on Glasnost, Tiananmen Square, Iraq and the other issues of the late ‘80s and ‘90s could have resulted in I some good albums. I have Amused to Death, but haven’t listened to it in years. It was just way to much of a downer. Gilmore’s music always seems to have a bit of hope built into it, even if it is only a guitar lick and not a lyric, that I think Waters’ music needs to keep you listening.

That said, I still love Final Cut and most of Momentary Lapse and Radio KAOS. Division Bell had a couple of moments, but like Amused to Death, I haven’t listened to it in a long time.
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Music
CHUD.com Community › Forums › MUSIC › Music › Pink Floyd -- Was Roger Waters Right?