Roger Waters is going to tour The Wall again!

It's all arenas. If this was a stadium tour with the full Wall experience, I'd be interested.

Actually... the original Wall tour was all in arenas, not stadiums. The whole album/concept was a reaction to their hatred of playing stadiums.

The original also had what I consider to be the most crucial aural element: the rest of Pink Floyd. Waters is a great lyricist and conceptual artist, but Gilmour just fucking slays him in a lot of other ways. Namely the vocal and guitar components.

I'm sorry, but there's no way I wouldn't feel deflated on a tour/show like this when Comfortably Numb hits. Which of course, should be the highlight of the show.

Wow, I need to turn in my Pink Floyd badge.

I saw Waters just a few years back when he did all of Dark Side. It was a great show, definitely better than a post-Waters Pink Floyd concert. Gilmour may have the guitar skills but Waters has stage presence.

They're one of those bands where people obviously chose sides, and neither is necessarily "wrong" exactly.

I'm obviously a Gilmour man, and I'd take post-Waters Floyd any day over his incarnations of the group/material.

Granted, their albums never approached the classic stature of the "full" group, but as far as live performances go, they were head and shoulders above in my opinion. They continued to trailblaze and set new live standards during that era.

That said... I'd still go see the Waters show happily, and probably enjoy most of it.

Yeah, I saw the Division Bell tour in 93, and Waters' tour twice in 97 (I think?). The Division Bell show was visually and aurally incredible, with the lasers and special effects and Gilmour's incredible guitar and vocals. The Waters show, on the other hand, seemed to actually realize there was an audience in front of the stage. I'd go see either, honestly, they were both great for different reasons. Also, before you slag the guitar playing on Waters' tour, he usually brings Snowy White, along with some other pretty great players, and the rest of the Floyd add on band (Tim Renwick, John Carin on keyboards, etc.)

I'm sure the shows on the whole will be enjoyable, but I sort of feel like a Pink Floyd tribute band would be almost exactly as entertaining. Water's voice is shot to hell at this point and it's not like his bass playing was ever the star attraction.

I'm probably more a Waters than Gilmour man when it comes to material (though both were essential to the post-Syd Floyd's success) but I think I'd be more inclined to see a Gilmour show, just because he hasn't really lost a thing as a singer and guitarist. That said, I do love The Wall so I wouldn't have a problem seeing that in almost any form.

This sounds fascinating. If I can get some tickets for the DC show, I'll probably go check it out.

That said, a better name for this thread would've been: Roger Waters Rebuilds the Wall.

I don't agree. I haven't been interested in Pink Floyd since Waters left because there's been no reason to. Gilmour will always be a terrific guitarist. He's an OK singer, but frankly none of the members of Pink Floyd can sing anymore. Waters blew out his vocal chords a long time ago. Gilmour just sounds board. He was always the less-intense singer in the group (which is why he's not a good choice for most of the Wall; Waters voice is more shrill but it works for the material --- plus, he wrote all the songs and sings on most of the original album anyway).

Granted, none of Waters solo albums have been very good, but at least the guy tries and can be occasionally interesting. The two Water-less Floyd albums are exercises in cash-grab snooze-fests and I think their constant touring in set lists that consists mostly of material that Waters either wrote or strongly contributed to, is boring, predictable and more than a little greedy. Say what you will about The Final Cut; it's a fucking masterpiece compared with The Division Bell.

That said, you couldn't pay me enough to see this. But if I had a choice between a Waters solo show or Floyd, I'd go with Waters every time. Even if Richard Wright were still alive.

You know what though? On a lark last week I re-listened to The Wall front to back (which I hadn't done in years), and what surprised me was how much vocal counterplay between Roger and David exists on most of the songs. Most of the albums didn't have that back and forth nearly as much. Oh, and I totally disagree with you about David's voice, which I love, but that's an argument for a different thread.

All of Pink Floyd's previous albums feature different people sharing vocal duties, sometimes the lead vocal is from someone not even in the band. Animals has an equal measure of Gilmour and Waters. So does Shine On You Crazy Diamond and Dark Side (which also features some Richard Wright vocals, same as Meddle and Atom Hearth Mother). On The Wall, Waters sings lead on 16 of the songs. Yes, a couple of the songs are sung by Gilmour, even more have equal parts for both. I do think their voices compliment each other well on certain songs, but you can't deny that The Wall was Water's triumph. Not alone, mind you. It's like saying that Paul McCartney was the Beatle behind Sgt. Pepper.

No Gilmour, No deal.

I actually think Waters sounds better live than in the studio--Is There Anybody Out There? is my preferred version of The Wall for this reason. They all sounded OK at Live 8, which yeah, was six years and plus one Richard Wright, but I'm willing to bet this ends up like the Live at Berlin concert, where you have a cast of other musicians singing various parts and characters.

So yeah, I'm seeing this.

Floyd's post-Waters output and Water's post-Floyd output both make excellent cases for why they all needed each other to do great things. Gilmour just puts out fluff without Waters around to add some weight and ambition, and Waters is musically pretty godawful without the others to help turn the music into something.

That said, I've heard the last Gilmour solo record was solid. It probably helps that he didn't have the pressure of living up to what he thinks the world expects from a 'Pink Floyd' record.

It also probably helps that no one expects him to live up to it either.

On an Island is fantastic, and sounds more like a "Floyd" album than Division Bell or Momentary Lapse, not that he needs to do Floyd material. It's just a nice, bluesy, jazzy mellow album that would have fit perfectly in the "More" or "Obscured by Clouds"" veins.

And Parker, what I was getting at, was that The Wall was a little more unique in that it has songs with the two actually trading verses. Other albums have them switching off who sings lead on different songs, this has them sharing duties a lot on the same song.

Ah, I see. They did trade vocal duties on Dogs too, though. And Gilmour used to partner up with Wright all the time in the past.

For all this talk of Gilmour having to live up to the "burden" of making a Pink Floyd album. You guys realize he made two "Pink Floyd albums" because he wanted to make some money, right?

I've seen a few people say things like this. Kind of funny that he apparently only managed to recapture the old Pink Floyd spirit when he stopped trying to 'do' Pink Floyd. Maybe if they'd just concentrated on writing good songs on those last albums (like One Slip, which I still really like) instead of imitating old ones and throwing in silly effects and half arsed concepts, they could actually have turned out okay.

Water's Dark Side tour was absolutely fantastic, at least with Water's you'll get songs from just about every era of Floyd, Gilmour refuses to play any Animals stuff.

Gilmour doesn't like singing Roger's parts, because they tend to be out of his range (Guy Pratt sings them when necessary), and, as Parker mentioned, with the exception of half of Dogs, Animals is all Waters singing. It was awesome seeing Waters do Dogs live, especially when he had half of the band sitting down playing cards during the one part.

By the way, the best way to view Momentary Lapse and DB is as Gilmour solo albums with guest stars Rick Wright and Nick Mason. Makes it go down a little easier.

All this being said, back to the topic at hand, I would love to go see this, and probably will. I wonder if Roger will bother with the "Surrogate Band" section, considering the whole thing is mostly a Surrogate Band.

Parker, you're really laying a lot of shitty motivation on Gilmour ("all for money!") that I don't think is there. Least of ways, you have no way of knowing that. The guy's proven himself to be a consummate artist over the years. As a very, very significant part of one of the greatest bands ever, I think he's earned the right to not have "greedy pig" leveled at him. (eta: anyone who's read up on the band knows there was a lot more behind him taking the band name than just money. I can understand how they all feel that Waters betrayed them and chose to "leave the band," rather than the other way around.)


But hey, I'm just glad that no fucking Syd purists have turned up yet. Jesus, what a looney and tasteless bunch that is. (I kid because I love).

Seriously though, that era sounds like half-assed, drug induced Beatles rip offs, and I can't ever fathom anyone that doesn't think they came to greatness with the addition of Gilmour. Barret did contribute a lot of attitude to the band in a psychedelic sense, but musically... ugh. "I've got a bike, you can ride it if you li...." no. No no no.

Roger didn't want to be in Pink Floyd anymore, and assumed that the rest of the guys didn't want to be in the band (that they'd been in for 20 years) either. When they told Roger they had no intention of starting over, Roger was pissed, but ultimately just wanted to make sure audiences knew the future output had nothing to do with them. Also, at least per Nick Mason, the media blew everything WAY out of proportion with the legal fight, and that the majority of the venom wasn't between bandmates, but mostly Roger trying to get out from under his management contract.

The shittiest thing I can level at Gilmour (who, is pretty much my idol, admittedly) was that he was so worried about people rejecting the post Waters output that he hired other people to help him "Floyd Up" the albums. Like someone above said, if he just trusted his gut the albums would have turned out a lot more natural and organic. On the other hand, Dave's last attempts at writing the bulk of an album resulted in About Face, so I can understand his anxiety.

WHATEVER!
All I know is three years ago Waters put on a fantastic fucking show. As long as it's just him singing this time around, I'm there. If it's another mish-mash of assholes like he did in Berlin, forget it.

Except Tim Curry. Tim Curry was awesome.



Also the scorpions.

I don't know...I'm sort of with Doug on this one.

Since this is a tour, I doubt it. There might be guests at bigger shows, but probably not all.

joey,

When your main creative force leaves the band (chief songwriter and lead singer) why continue lumbering on as a dinosaur act? The answer is the cash.

I'm not arguing that Waters isn't an asshole, everyone knows he is. But look at Floyd post and pre-Waters and it's pretty obvious who was the person responsible for their creative drive.

You can talk about how great Gilmour's guitar solos are all day long. Even his sleepy-boy singing voice. I like it and I think they were excellent contributions to the band. But by the end, Waters was the songwriter and the driving creative force. If Pink Floyd were still Pink Floyd, the last two records they did wouldn't sound like boring AM Radio Bullshit. The writing is on the fucking wall. They called themselves Pink Floyd for the cash that came with the name. It certainly wasn't because they thought they could still "be" or "sound like" Pink Floyd. If they wanted to make music so bad, why not call themselves something else? Shit, I bet the only reason Gilmour is still not rolling out Floyd on tour is because Richard Wright died. And honestly, I wouldn't be surprised if he does eventually. It's a brand name, that is all. And when people use brand names, they're doing it for the cash. I'm not saying he doesn't have the "right" to do it. I'm saying it's pretty shitty on one level.

If going to see them live and seeing lots of flashing lights and flying inflatable pigs is going to be what convinces you to see a Pink Floyd show, fine. But to me, that's a huge fucking counterfeit and I believe that anyone that convinces themselves otherwise is kidding themselves.

And don't knock Syd Barret. He was always a better songwriter than Gilmour by far.

The shittiest thing you level at Gilmour is that he's not talented enough to be the leader of Pink Floyd. Your own paragraph proves this! As do the post-Waters Pink Floyd albums. They're beyond terrible. This pretty much proves my point, right here. I love Gilmour but I don't understand the fanboy attraction people throw at him. He's an excellent guitarist, an OK singer, but a shitty songwriter and a dreadful lyricist.

Waters was a much stronger lyrical/conceptual guy, but he's pretty much incapable of creating great music without the help of the others. His solo albums are pretty godawful, and Gilmour is stronger as a melodic composer.

I can't stand the post-Waters Floyd material aside from a small handful of decent tracks, but I don't have a problem with the idea of the others wanting to carry on in theory. They had as much right to continue after Waters as they did after Syd, and given that Waters pretty much took dictatorial control of the band I don't blame Gilmour and co for wanting their own time in the spotlight once he was out of the picture.

He botched it badly, and I basically agree that what they did was a lame attempt at trying to appear like the 'real' Pink Floyd by doing superficially Floydy things. But I also believe he and the others had the talent to create a worthwhile new period for Pink Floyd had they gone for a different approach, as Gilmour's last solo album arguably proves.

Well, at least we all agree that there's no denying that it's not "really" Pink Floyd without the combined efforts of Waters and Gilmour.

It's why the group was so powerful. They needed each other to reach the band's full potential. It's really too bad they couldn't get along better (or if you want to put it another way, that Waters couldn't appreciate his other band members a little more).

Well, speaking personally, I'm a guitar player who grew up listening to David Gilmour play. Guitar fanboys (whether they play or not, and there are a ton of them) tend to lean that way, songwriting capability or no. I don't expect David to write a great song, or need him to to appreciate his playing. I don't say any of this to slag Waters, either. They are definitely best when together, but I have never understood why people felt the need to draw party lines or get angry over it.

Have to say I was never the biggest fan of Gilmour's soloing. I think he's great on The Wall, but the rest of the time there's something weirdly sickly and anaemic about his tone, and he tends to drag their more ethereal spacey bits down to earth with his boring wankery. I like his songs though, except when he tries to 'rock out'.

Again, no denying he's an amazing guitarist. And I'm not getting angry about it, I'm just pointing things out and expressing an opinion. Excellent guitar solos don't make great songs. They just contribute to them. And even further, I'd argue that Momentary Lapse and Division Bell don't even really feature guitar solos that are that good!

Also, the situation with post-Barret Floyd and post-Waters Floyd is totally different. The band had anticipated Barret dropping out and had all started writing and singing considerably more. Hell, the entire reason Gilmour was hired was to "replace" Barret more or less. At that point, they all had an even hand creatively with the band.

During the Wall and Final Cut phases, it was all Waters. All this cry-babying about pepole saying Waters was acting like a dictator forget that nobody else was really writing anything worth bringing to the table (in fact, during the post-Animals period, a lot of the other members were working on solo efforts like ---hey! About Face). The songwriting credits that are shared are mostly because of musical contributions (like guitar solos) that Gilmour made. Gilmour constantly complains about not having enough direction in the band, but he wasn't exactly contributing anything. And what would have happened if he did? Probably something along the lines of his solo album, or the post-Waters Floyd albums. So thank god he didn't!

Also, it's not like Waters was such a dick that he said "WE'RE DOING THE WALL!" He gave them a choice based on material prepared and asked the entire band what they were more interested in doing (the Wall or the Pros and Cons of Hitchhiking). The band chose the Wall (good choice, band) and the rest is history.

ETA: I will admit that all of Waters solo ablums are pretty much terrible (with a few bright spot songs here and there). But at least they're interesting and expressing his unique point of view, and at least he cares about something. I'd rather hear a song about someone worried about the state of the world than someone piloting his fucking private jet. And, the dude wrote a fucking Opera! A modern Opera from a rocker that was well received in the super-critical Opera world. So that's a pretty big deal and a point for Waters.

Again, here you're veering way into territory that people outside of the band members don't really know about. I've heard Waters say this in interviews, but who's to say what exactly "not contributing anything" means?

Plus, as I understand it, Wright was the one that criticism was mostly leveled at around The Wall era.

Yeah, and that's why he was fired.

joey, we're talking about one of the biggest bands of the past forty years. Their exploits have been well detailed and documented by the individual members and people they worked closely with.

Besides, it's not difficult to see how things shook down. There have been several interviews where Gilmour have complained about Waters being something of a dictator. All I'm suggesting is that Floyd didn't really have a choice. After Animals came out, they were all almost broke (thanks to bad investment deals they put their money into to avoid paying high taxes that come with being a wealthy British citizen, AKA, The Beatles conundrum). They needed another album and tour quickly. Gilmour went to make About Face. Waters worked on The Wall and the Pros and Cons of Hitchhiking for Floyd. Whatever creativity Gilmour had went into making that album. So he didn't have a lot to contribute (and, seeing as how piss poor About Face is, that's probably for the best).

Rick barely appears on The Wall. Most of the piano is played by Bob Ezrin and James Guthrie.

Waters should have been a dictator. He was the one with the most talent and vision.

Honestly, I think The Wall is an overrated piece, there are some good to great songs in there but the whole thing crumbles under it's own weight. I can barely listen to the last half of the album.

It's a shame Rick get's overshadowed by the power duo of Gilmour/Wright. Rick's organ is an absolutely essential piece of the floyd sound, just as much as Gilmour's guitar or Roger's lyrics.

Greatest organ tone of all time:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tMpGdG27K9o

How does it crumble under its own weight? I'd argue it holds up stronger as a concept, as a record and as a story better than TOMMY. And why can't you listen to the end?

Overrated? The Wall? Really?

I mean, don't get me wrong, I hated it in high school when every other lonely mother fucker started singing "Hey You" in study hall because they stumped on an older brother's copy and thought they just discovered this deep thing that spoke right to them, but in a way that's part of the appeal. It's a pretty amazing album in its scope, sound, songwriting, and theme of alienation, despair and loneliness. Just because a lot of people love something doesn't make it overrated.

The Wall is not easy, but it's the best concept album ever made.
You think it derails by Side 4 (lol I'm old), but it doesn't. It simply shows the rippling effect of isolating yourself from the world. There's a lot of other shit going on, but I don't have the energy to play pretentous music pundit right now.

This we can agree upon wholly.

We'll always have Paris.

And I do want to say that this conversation made me listen to my copy for the first time in quite a while and I agree with what Chris pointed out about Gilmour and Waters singing together on certain songs. In particular, I appreciate the choices made about who sings what material. Their voices are perfectly suited for the songs/parts of songs they sing.

My only complaint with The Wall musically, is that Nick Mason (by his own admission) really phoned everything in. It's noticeable especially when you listen to any of his earlier drumming. Also, I don't get why "When The Tigers Broke Free" was left off of the studio album, it's such a thematic tone setter.

I'm glad you re-checked this out. It's so nice to hear Roger being the voice of despair, the voice of anger, the voice of impatience, the voice of madness, all to get soothed over by David's soft band-aid of a voice. It makes the whole album (which has never been my favorite Floyd offering, but was my first exposure) shoot back up in appreciation for whole new reasons for me.

If I recall correctly, it wasn't written for the album and was added for the movie.

I'm gonna be the guy who raises his hand and says he actually likes About Face.

Fucking Dickson. Coincidental the same guy who proposes we make bad music mix tapes for each other. Hmmmm.

It's certainly nowhere close to anything he did with Floyd, but it's hardly the musical blight it's being cast as here.