Alright Look, I'm sure the vast Majority of us here are Pink Floyd fans. So I'm curios, thoughts on this?

What he and the others created is timeless and now he says its not what he wanted.....the guy needs more medicine and a life. It's sad that he will be remembered for being a twit these past several years.

So he has Tom Waits singing for him now ??

A hard pass on this one thanks.

I kind of liked it

edefakiel wrote: As bad and pointless as this is. Nothing Waters will ever do will be as bad and pointless as A Permanent Lapse of Reason or The Endless River or Metallic Spheres for that matter.  Yes, not even Ça Ira is as unnecessary as those albums.

There is a good point to this.

But this whole project rubs me completely the wrong way. First of all, people enjoy DSOTM not just because of the "message", but because of the music, and part of that is what other musicians (incl. Clare Torry) brought to the table. This redux album is supposed to have more spoken words and more downbeat instrumentation, but knowing Roger's track record since The Wall, that's a recipe for disaster. Roger seems to think the message is all that matters.

Second, what's the point in adding lyrics to a song whose message was already as clear as day? Roger claims that the message/point of DSOTM hasn't stuck around or needs a refresher, but what does adding a bunch of cartoonish poetry to one of the most obvious songs of all time, message-wise, do? Why drive home the point of the song by making it musically even more obvious?

Lastly, from a pure aural perspective, not taking into account the reasons why this exists in the first place, this is just not that good. Why even bother redoing an album that sounded as good as DSOTM did back in 1973? You're just setting yourself up for failure, and the mix and vocals here just sound bad. We have a frame of reference, we know how satisfying the return to the vocals sounds in the original because of the great instrumental part. Here, you recognize the skeleton of that arrangement underneath all the growling, but it doesn't work like this because the solos aren't there.

Ultimately, Roger pretends he's remaking it because "not enough people recognised what it's about, what it was I was saying then", but he's really just lying to himself. He's remaking it because he's a sour little b*****d who's changed a lot since 1973. The people well understand the point of DSOTM, and what makes it great. At the end of the day, he's just yet another aging rocker who doesn't realize he should've called it quits decades ago.

As bad and pointless as this is. Nothing Waters will ever do will be as bad and pointless as A Momentary Lapse of Reason or The Endless River or Metallic Spheres for that matter. 

Yes, not even Ça Ira is as unnecessary as those albums. 

It seems you are one of those who have totally misunderstood what Waters said about the Ukrainian war. Try listening directly to his words from youtube instead of the right-wing propaganda.

But I don't think I'll buy the album anyway.

I find it humorous when I read fans saying sh*t like, "Can't Roger write a song without politics?" and forgetting he's done it since the 60s. Or "David isn't political" and not realizing DAVID invited Roger to the Palestinian Benefit/Charity, but David can't hold similar views because his son-in-law is Ukrainian.

Exactly my thoughts. During the 70s you would buy your vinyl record, which would get forn out and you were forced yo buy a new one. Now, to make up for those lost sells, they just keep releasing new expanded, re-mastered, reissued versions of the same old stull, to keep you buying the same music.

But all that aside, I heard the new Money interpretation and found it both interesting and a little boring. What really WOWed me in a big way were his re-recordings of classic songs during the pandemic, like this one. It's like a thousand times more impressive than the original:

Have not heard it yet, but I have a couple thoughts on it.

Some of that material that he redid, is really good, and Mike EnRegalia posted one example and there are a couple of others. It is a bit more "updated" so it isn't so "dated", although I doubt many of us will sit and listen to Ronald Reagan and take it seriously enough. The actor was not known to be ... anything ... but an actor.

The scary thing is so many of us playing the "purist" and thinking that the original can not be improved, and we have seen many versions of Beatles tunes that were just as "good" if not better than the original, at least, they did not sound so out of time and place. 

This is the scariest part of "progressive music" and our thoughts about it ... so when someone takes a different step to show something, we think that person is out of it, or this or that. The fact that some of these are being "redone" (or were) is nice, and takes them out of a specific time and place and gives us a different look at the piece of music. 

It's just scary that we do not accept when the music is actually being more progressive, for its new/different interpretation, which I tend to think is a bit on the weird side of our ideas. We may not agree with the this or that, or RW's political views, but we ignore that those views helped put together DSOTM, Animals. WYWH and TW. 

It's like we, as "progressive" are into an IMAGE of something that is not there ... a graven image of some sort ... and the way everyone is reacting to it all, is scary and strange for me. Why can't the artist, redo his own piece differently and us taking our ideas off the pier into the raging ocean?

Hi,

Again, that's strange ... they own the dang thing and can do with it as they please. RW has every right to redo it any way he sees fit. We, however, do not have to buy it, and certainly don't need to be making comments that disregard the ownership of the music altogether.

Heck if Ian wants to redo some of his early stuff, why can't he? He owns it!

It just shows the wide gulf by people that really don't seem to understand, or appreciate what an artist and his work is all about. Let me tell you it's not about the so many senseless comments here ... you're not the artist or the owner of the music! Case closed. You simply don't have to buy it, and end the story!

Nonsense. It's simply a hubristic ego trip for a pompous 80 year-old who lost his singing voice years ago. There's is nothing "progressive" about it. What, did Roger get tired of cashing in on his never ending The Wall tours he's been on for a couple decades, and needs a new more reliable funding source?  Oh, and none of the Beatles wasted time on re-doing Sgt. Peppers or Abbey Road in their entirety. They moved on. 

People doing covers of The Beatles honors the band, they are not meant to eradicate the past, as Waters has with songs like "Have a Cigar" which Roy Harper sang so brilliantly. Roger never forgave Roy for being able to sing the song better than he could. 

No we haven't.

I'm curious to hear an adaptation of this classic that we all know... and I can't wait.

He composed it with the others, it's his right.

After 50 years, I find it interesting to hear a reinterpretation by one of the members of the band at the time.

EXACTLY 

I have no problems with Money's rework, however I hope he doesn't do the same for the rest of the album the same way (same sonics)

On some launching video, there is a bit of Breathe, and it doesn't sound all that different of the new version Money. 

In that case (the whole album being that way), I'm out. 

Classical music, for many years, was almost enjoyed depending on the conductor since many of them had different points of interpretation that made the music seem different. I never thought that it sounded "wrong" or "bad", just slightly different. 

Seeing the same piece, in rock music, done differently, is no big deal and I find it rather weird, maybe naive, that we take such a hard core thought about it ... you could even mention the Stokowski conducting, who was known to setup the orchestra differently simply to get the better effect he wanted on the recording ... again, it doesn't change the music, but it gives it a slightly different interpretation.

It's just bizarre, some of the folks here taking a "purist" point of view, knowing that in a few years they will be all dead, as we also will, and someone else will play it and it won't be the same thing ... it's different people in a different time!

Please let it go ... if you don't care for it, it's OK to say it, but don't trash some of the things that will be remembered for a very long time, because they were special ... and deserve the attention they are getting with updates and all that. Music, is not about you "like it" ... and Mozart and Beethoven and Beatles are still around even if you don't like it, and the versions and different recordings all have a lot of moments to offer, that might make us feel different about the piece of music ... THAT'S OK ... music does that and has done that for many years ... don't take that away from it, please.

One thing is for sure: we all know Waters is right about his recent DSOTM claim about the concept of it.

Can't see Gilmour and Wright (let alone Mason) write lyrics of that value.

Gilmour's silence on this issue is quite revealing.

But on his website he talks about "...also to re-address the political and emotional message of the whole album.."

Maybe just me but I've never viewed the original with a political message. Roger is so infatuated with politics he may be trying to alter the meaning of the album today?? 

Hi,

He did that re-addressing with The Wall ... in the tour here he had a sort of war memorial for VietNam ... the original The Wall was about WW2. The "updating was fine, although for me the story changed and all of a sudden the story of Pink was no longer important, and I felt that his taking on the War Memorial for the VietNam fallen folks was blowing bubbles some, and it felt kinda fake, certainly not in the sense that it lacked meaning, but I thought the context was kinda shaken up a bit.

On "BOFR" update.

The video of "Bravery Out of Range" is another story, in my book. "Amused to Death" was a magnificent album, which even included Jeff Beck beautifully done, and while I enjoyed it quite a bit, I did feel that some of the lyrics were topical and trying to show that he was "relevant" when it came to opinions, and of course, he got panned left and right for opening his mouth ... just shut up and play rock music! Which RW refuses to do, right?

The new version is actually nicer than the original, although I think he's in a time warp, and his using of Ronald Reagan in the video show how out of time he is, even though the music in it itself and the arrangement stands out really nice. The presentation itself, is a bit weird for me ... the 2 cute little girls doing the background vocals, are a distraction for what would be a serious song, so there is a sort of dichotomy here that seems more related to rock music and its presentation (sexy first!), than it does to the value of the wording and total meaning ... so it's sexy to be brave and out of range?

I don't think that RW realizes that the Internet has made things very confusing and that no one knows what is right or wrong, and neither does Roger for that matter, and that we're all caught in this media driven confusion, to the point that "lyrics" are junk, and meaningless. No one is even discussing the latest Ian's lyrics! The "words" have lost their touch! I think RW thought the song deserved a bit more attention than before, but using Reagan, he only dates himself, and shows that he is stuck in a time warp. No one remembers Reagan, or gives a damn! And all of a sudden his song becomes quite ... empty. I don't think he realizes that, obviously, or he would have done something else.

Either way we look at it, it's a sad shape of affairs. None of us listens, and on top of it I don't think many of us give a damn, other than posting a comment that is not anywhere near that idea, or the concept of what the song is about.

Here's an idea, speak for yourself and don't include your delusional impressions on what other people might think. State an opinion (briefly, please -- and in concise English, if at all possible) and leave out the gibbering nonsense regarding other posters.

TBH, I've always thought of DSOTM as a "political" album, given the amount of critics on our western society contained in the lyrics (Time, Money, U&T and Brain Damage).

It may not be a Communist Manifesto, but it certainly yells at "evil capitalism" in a few places .

Just like Animals & The Wall and TFC are "political albums" as well.

.

Looks and sounds  like I will pass on this

Bloody hell! "Us and Them" is an even worse botch job than "Money." It's damn embarrassing. This is the point where it's evident that Waters' ego overran any common sense, and he's tumbling arse over teat down a hill in a desparate attempt to pretend Gilmour and Wright never existed. 

The original DSOTM (in my own opinion) was about the trials of life, death and mental illness. The only nods to politics being their cynical paean to consumerism, i.e. 'Money', and musings on the futility of conflict, i.e. 'Us and Them'.

[I could write a PhD thesis on the concepts and meaning of DSOTM, but haven't got the time just now!]

I think it was a really good idea not to insert current politicians in what is and should remain a timeless song about corrupt leaders. If you think that Roger is unaware of the current political landscape, you haven't been paying attention. As for Lucius - sure, insult the "little girls". Way to go, old man.

It's amazing how many "best solos" Gilmour has up his sleeve ;-) 

profanation

I see your point  , but I'm afraid if to listen some times to this "new" work, it might be difficult to listen to the original in the same undisturbed way like before.

Hi,

Sadly, I'm not sure this makes much sense to my mind ... it's like saying that Beethoven's 5th sounds better than the eventual copies hundreds of years later ... I really think we are not being true to the changes in time and how much things change in between. 

I don't think RW's recent redo is anything, but a new interpretation of an old story, or movie ... heck, we go for Hollywood redo's all the time ... why not rock music?

I imagine that the "music timeline" is kind of forgotten and looked at as some sort of a sacred cow, and in the end, it's just another song ... and a new interpretation is fine ... why should it sound the same? I sincerely doubt that the Stravinsky originals were as good as the ones done in the 60's by Bernstein and many others ... I really find some of the comments here weird, and in many ways, it's like we do not accept the fact that time has moved on many years ... and things are not the same anymore ... but many listeners here want the "same" again ... that is soooooooo pop music oriented in my book and a lot less to be mandated as "progressive music".

No, what makes no sense is you referring to Beethoven's 5th completely out of context. Beethoven, even as crotchety as he was in old age, didn't rewrite the 5th into a slow, depressingly bleating Death March because he felt unloved, irrelevant, and he was not getting enough admiration for his former composition.

That is a dead-on comparison, Chachi.

moshkito wrote: I don't think RW's recent redo is anything, but a new interpretation of an old story, or movie ... heck, we go for Hollywood redo's all the time ... why not rock music?

Generally speaking, remakes are trash. Have been for decades in Hollywood. They are cash grabs because producers have run out of ideas. Like Waters, in this case.

moshkito wrote: I imagine that the "music timeline" is kind of forgotten and looked at as some sort of a sacred cow, and in the end, it's just another song ... and a new interpretation is fine ... why should it sound the same? I sincerely doubt that the Stravinsky originals were as good as the ones done in the 60's by Bernstein and many others ... I really find some of the comments here weird, and in many ways, it's like we do not accept the fact that time has moved on many years ... and things are not the same anymore ... but many listeners here want the "same" again ... that is soooooooo pop music oriented in my book and a lot less to be mandated as "progressive music".

-------------
...a vigorous circular motion hitherto unknown to the people of this area, but destined
to take the place of the mud shark in your mythology...

I'll listen to the full Redux album when it comes out. I don't expect to give it a high rating based on what I've heard, but I would never get angry at RW for having recorded it. Why should I even consider telling RW to "move on" ... in what direction? Only he can decide, and if he wants to revisit DSOTM, I say let him.

Ah, all this bickering has me Amused to Death 

   

What's the deal, Roger? 

Is it really a pachyderm though?

TRUE

I agree.

'The Wall', flawed as it is, remains my favorite Floyd album. Even so, as I mentioned, it is flawed so it'd be very interesting to hear Gilmour's version. (Hopefully some Instrumentals0

I am surprised he is even doing this in the first place after his controversies in 2022. What lousey man

This is such a weird set of conversations and discussions.

There are many versions of this and that in classical music and for many years, it was the Conductor's take on the music that made it special for many of us ... and no one went out and thought that one conductor was better than the other or their version of this or that was better or worse. Comparing Karajan to Bernstein is ridiculous, and you won't exactly know how to detail the differences in the music that make them special. (Hint!!! Neither will I!). But it will sound great anyway.

Here we are, almost 50 years later, and we're stuck on something that was done then, and no one can redo it differently ... well, I like that guy from Tool's (gosh ... not even sure now!) versions of the PF material ... that was really cool and enjoyable ... but to say that RW's versions of this or that are not right, is wrong. 

It's a new day, and time, and a different take that might give the piece of music some different emphasis ... but the sad side of it? We've already condemned everything to death and threw stones ... like we weren't sinners ourselves.

It's sad, because if you were an artist, you might want to do something different 50 years later ... heck, Bob Dylan does it, so why not Roger Waters?

It just shows how we have become completely disrespectful of artists, not that it did not happen in their time, but for something that has lasted at least that long and is still being appreciated, I think we should cut the artist some slack! Not the vitriol that is visible here. It's like folks are comparing apples to oranges ... !!!

https://thequietus.com/articles/33475-roger-waters-dark-side-of-the-moon-redux-review" rel="nofollow - https://thequietus.com/articles/33475-roger-waters-dark-side-of-the-moon-redux-review

Dellinger wrote: OK, I just heard it in Spotify. It's not so terrible, but I don't expect I'll listen to it again, let alone buy it. I see absolutley no reason to listen to this new one instead of the original (or the live at Wembley, or even the PULSE version).

I've not heard the whole thing yet - and certainly not in one shot (don't intend to either).

All I've heard are the bits published over the last three months (I guess that now amounts to 2/3 of the album) and will try to listen to the rest at least once, but I doubt I'll be listening a second time to anything or parts and even less buy it.

Waters had balls to do what he did , but ultimately, it's a failure.