FInal Cut: A PF or Waters album?

The Final Cut is, to me, a blatant Roger Waters outing. There were huge "This is Roger Waters" overtones in The Wall, and The Final Cut just made it worse.

Personally, I've always felt annoyed by Roger's voice, and I don't know how many people will agree with me on this, but I prefer to consider The Division Bell as the last Pink Floyd album. At least TDB has some elements which harken back to Floyd's golden age.

If Pink Floyd was >25% Waters up to and including Animals, but perhaps as much as >33%-50% during the Wall, then The Final Cut contained no less than >50% Waters.

But then that would mean that "The Pros and Cons of Hitchhiking" could contain at least 25% Pink Floyd...which would mean that it deserved to be called a Pink Floyd album as much as The Final Cut, or even The Wall (but less than Momentary Lapse or Division Bell, which was no less than 75% Pink Floyd- or possibly as little as 60%, if you factor in the Barrett percentage as being absent all these years).

Is it by weight or by volume?

If you act now, we'll send you 25% MORE Pink Floyd for the same LOW LOW price!!

I actually liked it for it`s phenomenal engineering as well as for guest guitarist David Gilmour. I don`t even  think it was performed live. I was in the air force when it was released and didn`t really have time for music. Can anyone out there tell me if they toured on this one or just packed it in. Ivoted Roger Waters solo album.

Lunarscape wrote: Personally I believe it to be a great album with higher musical standards than TW. Great compositions and the technical output is finer than that of TW. The Finall Cut just proves that Roger Waters is indeed Mr Pink Floyd and without him, the remains just survived on the Brand Name and would have been better off calling themselves "The David Gilmore Blues Band" or whatever.

Now, I think you are right when you say that the album had higher musical standards than The Wall...absolutely. And from a production standpoint it's doubly incredible, with the use of Holophonics. And, I know a lot of people complain about Roger Waters' voice, but I like it here. Maybe (seriously) it's the same thing that makes me like James LaBrie's voice when he gets really loud and yowly. But Waters' singing is a lot more varied and he takes more care with the quality of it than he ever does before or after this. He actually moves me with his singing on the title track. Overall, I think it's a decent album...and I say this as a Rick Wright fan. When I hear good work, I give it the credit it's due.

However, I still think it's an (almost) entirely different creature from a Pink Floyd album. The closest thing to it is Roger Waters' solo album The Pros and Cons of Hitchhiking...which unfortunately is not close to the calibre as The Final Cut, but it's very obviously the same composer and technique (which is very distinct from the full Pink Floyd sound, to my ear). It's got an entirely different sound, because of the major influence by Michael Kamen which separates it dramatically from the Floyd. The chord progressions are for the most part extremely simple; the focus is totally different from a Floyd album...it's on the lyrics rather than the music, more like Bob Dylan than a musically-oriented prog band. The only real things that suggest a relation to Pink Floyd at all are Roger Waters' voice and David Gilmour's solos. That's pretty much the only tie left to Pink Floyd, as far as I'm concerned.

Again, I don't hate this album at all...I just think of it as a very different thing from a Pink Floyd work.

Edited by FloydWright

Their isnt enough musical content on The Final Cut- a trend that kinda started with The Wall and has got progressively worse through Water's solo career.I actually agree 100% with Mr FloydWright in his post.

I also like FloydWright's idea that they evolved into a strange Bob Dylan/Prog Rock hybrid.

 

Possessed wrote: [QUOTE=Prog_head]I can remember someone saying that the Pros and cons... album was meant to be the third disc of the wall but i cannot remember the source.

 good one.

[/QUOTE

Maybe i am wrong then, but i am sure that either Waters or a member of the band has stated this. Someone must know on this site

I've got an alternative view to offer.

Many people consider The Beatles (i.e., the "White Album) to be little more than an album in which each member wrote their own individual matierial, and then "used" the other three members as sort of "studio" musicians.

Although I personally consider the Final Cut to be a Pink Floyd album, I would not disagree with those who might see it the same way some people see the White Album.  (By the way, has anyone considered that The Wall is simply the White Album with lines?...)

Peace.

It sucks. Pink Floyd should have called it a day after 'Animals'.

maani wrote: (By the way, has anyone considered that The Wall is simply the White Album with lines?...)

There's no way I'm gonna let that one get buried. Funny and true. If you wanted to get stoner-deep about it: if the pure white cover of the White Album represented the innocence of the original psychedelic experimentors, the black lines of The Wall could be seen as bars which separate the once-innocent artist- both from the public, as well as from a 'pure' state of artistic expression. This concept is right in line with Waters' expressions of alienation and the isolation that fame and fortune can bring, as well as his change in outlook from the 60s to the 70s.

But was it intended that way? Probably not...