Was it really necessary to remake The Dark Side Of The Moon? 

This was better than the Money redux. That felt like he put the song in a dishwasher and added a heaping bowl of pseudo-intellectual drivel. When he took it out of the dishwasher, he dressed it up with fuzzy socks and a propeller beanie.

It's not really a remake.

Sure, context matters. I think that this album, since it is a "redux" version of another, doesn't make much sense on its own. Having listened to DSOTM countless times for decades, I can't possibly imagine how the redux version sounds to someone who has never listened to DSOTM. I guess I would rate it one star lower, shrugging it off as an average singer-songwriter experiment. But the point is that it isn't. Because the monumental original album exists.

Hi,

There is only one thing that bothers me, with some of these comments ... I can't believe how we WORSHIP the GODS of antiquity, specially when it comes to the arts. None of you have (more than likely) heard 5 different versions of the 5th, and how they differ from Stokowski to Karajan to Bernstein ... and yet we sit here and contemplate how much we can lash and hit on RW because he wanted to redo a few old songs ... so what?

The interpretation is actually very nice, and stands up well, although the last part kinda falls off the surface of the song, and I think that is where (in the album) things were "adjusted" to make a transition ... which caused some of the lyrical, or musical events to have a smaller life than it originally had.

This sacred purity of the originals is really sad for me ... it says we don't appreciate music in its various forms ... we have to suck up to the GODS of the hit, instead!

Please stand up for PROGRESSIVE music ... and different interpretations, often have a new tone and idea about it all ... heck, where is the rap version of MONEY? 

Hi,

I wonder if we say that because we have heard the "original" so many times. No one answered the question how would you feel if it had never been done and this was a new song ... and maybe the issue here is that we're not capable of looking at it as a new song ... we have to "compare it" ... and as such, there are a lot of differences, but those don't necessarily make it worse, unless you have Tiny Tim doing the vocals for you ... or Pee Wee Herman!

If I listen to it as something new, my review is already listed above ... the last part is showing how the album was "transitioned" to make room for the next piece and "keep it" within a "concept" atmosphere, which the next song, for me, in that case, would not fit! But like another song later, maybe if it was sung by Roy Harper, we might enjoy and appreciate the thing better! I'm not a fan of that song, btw, but the visuals were far out in the show.

Gilmour's Best Solo (In My Opinion) was sorely missed. 

I enjoy spoken word in songs, but I am not a fan of his 'Poetry'

I liked it, 3/5, better than money lol (although I didn't find it bad either)

I don't think I'll be able to listen to 40 minutes of that though if all songs of the album have similar mod.

Right but I'd like the redux to make it 'better' or at least 'different but of similar quality'. Not suck.

I don't remember what his aim was in revisiting the DSoTM album, but for the moment, after Money and Time, it is clear to me that he demonstrates that Wright's, Mason's and Gilmour's contributions were... erm... instrumental. I doubt that this was his original intention.

If this was issued in 1973, then Pink Floyd would not have been part of the Big Six nowadays.

At the end of the day, though, the instrumental parts, the mix and most of all the vocals are so much worse than the original, that there's 0 reasons to listen to this. People will listen to this out of morbid curiosity, and that's it.

Also, sometimes less is more. DSOTM got its messages across nicely. Adding more lyrics to it is just a bad move, period. At least he didn't go as overboard with it as on Money. I don't need to hear an 80-year old's ramblings on his world view or politics, and I certainly don't need to hear it in DSOTM.

moshkito wrote: Hi, I wonder if we say that because we have heard the "original" so many times.

Hard pass.

Pink Floyd completist are buying the album but I doubt it's because they like it really, really well.... 

I have zero interest in what he does.

You got all that from fuzzy socks and propeller beanies? I'm impressed.

I don't want to hear it. Nowadays Roger is better as politician than as artist.

Let me put it this way: With his touring and political activism he is much more relevant than David Gilmour, even if you don’t agree with any of his activities. 

I wasn't aware being a tw*t somehow translates to "political activism". David Gilmour? He is evidently far more comfortable being himself and aging gracefully -- he obviously has nothing to prove to anyone or himself. 

As for his activism, Gilmour auctioned off his entire guitar collection and donated the proceeds to charity ($21.5 million) just a few years ago, and in 2022 he reformed Pink Floyd to release "Hey Hey Rise Up' For support of the Ukraine. The single raised more than $600,000 for humanitarian aid. 

He's also not trying to rewrite Echoes or Wish You Were Here as death marches. He seems very happy being with family. You know, being a loving human, not a miserable old git. Here's a link to his charities...

https://www.davidgilmour.com/charity.htm

Good, that's all you need to know. And we can consider this inane discussion concluded about the desperate talk/singing/mumbling of an irrelevant 80 year-old dotard. 

Greatness is subjective. Greatness is also subject to time. Athletes, and most musicians, are only truly "great" for a specified time - an era. Roger Waters blew his wad on The Wall, and has never even remotely reached that height since. Objectively, any sort of "greatness" predates The Wall, back to truly splendid and important albums like Dark Side of the Moon and Wish You Were Here, but for all intents and purposes The Wall was the last album of note Roger Waters ever did. 

The vast group of listeners who bought and still buy Pink Floyd albums really couldn't care less about Waters' solo career. People still buy Pink Floyd t-shirts and paraphernalia, some of whom (like my daughter) have only a passing knowledge of Floyd's catalog, but they have t-shirts. No one buys Roger Waters for Roger Waters' solo output. And that obviously eats at him.

And so, almost tragically, Waters repeats The Wall tours over and over for decades, which is indicative of an aging man trying to repeat past glory. This sad Dark Side of the Moon remake is just another take of a disgruntled old man reliving the time when he was captain of the high school football team. When he was important. Perhaps even when he was considered "great".

But I really like The Wall, and I resonate with the message. He's not touring The Wall, even though it is a cornerstone of his shows he adds PF songs and favorites from his solo albums. This mix is quite good and the message is really relevant today. And many agree with me :-) 

I will say that "The Final Cut" as an album title is perhaps the most appropriate name for a recording ever released. And thanks, we want no more of that. I would think the consensus consider The Wall as the last real Pink Floyd album including Roger Waters and Richard Wright. The Final Cut is a Roger Waters solo album made only bearable by David Gilmour's occasional appearances on selected songs. 

The Final Cut is a polarizing album. If you like Roger Waters, you'll tend to like the album. If you hate him, you won't - obviously. If you take a look at TFC and Momentary Lapse of Reason, which is the first album without RW and really dominated by Gilmour, you'll see that on many platforms (I checked PA, RYM and my own website of course, AwesomeProg) The Final Cut wins. On my website it wins more clearly, since I am not computing average ratings from all the individual ratings anymore, but the typical rating based on medians.

TLDR: A Momentary Lapse of Reason is a good, but not great album - most of its ratings are in that range. The Final Cut on the other hand is rated highly by many, but very low by others. You either think it's awesome, or it sucks. The resulting average is similar to AMLOR, but if you go with what MOST raters think, TFC beats AMLOR hands down.

Mason played a bit in TFC, but he was more interested in racing his ancestor cars. TFC is definitely more of a Floyd album than AMLOR will ever be, since it was originally Gilmour third studio album that was redirected in emergency into a Floyd album in order to claim the name. Mason hardly played anything (not really capable of drumming at that point) and Wright just put in a few notes in order to make it "legitimate", but didn't even appear on the picture. TDB has more credibilty, but if you take the instrumental Shine On You ripoff Clster One and the High Hopes, it's a weak album as well. Let's not even talk of solo Gilmour albums.

Indeed, TFC is the last credible Floyd, album as the Gilmour Floyd became almost a tribute band to itself releasing two full albums (their weakest ones) in 39 years. Amused to Death and Is This The Life are good albums with great lyrics (something Gilmour or Wright could never do)

Truly, Waters needed the other three as much as the other three needed him.

^ Actually, as fas as consensus, go back over the two entire threads regarding Roger Waters' newest debacle. Not only is there a consensus on these boards, you look to be the only one of maybe two posters who actually likes it. I won't count Mosh because he is incapable of actually typing a coherent statement. 

Oh, and I prefer The Division Bell to both, and it seems RYM concurs.

Yes, going by consensus we can conclude that people prefer TDB over TFC. Then again, history confirms that "consensus" is not always right. Which brings us to politics, and the true reason why many people in the West have a beef with RW, which has nothing to do with music. Regardless of where you stand on the topic (and let's not discuss details in this forum), you'd surely agree that this can skew the consensus.

I wouldn't call the Redux thing a debacle - though it was a very risky thing to touch such an iconic album, but only a true artiste would take such a risk

I do agree that Waters' many politics outcry outrages a wide western public opinion (the Ukraine part anyways - I don't his Anti-Trump antics gets him much annoyance - though his Pro-Communist makes him suspicious towards the masses), and somehow it blurrs the lines and splashes onto his music.

===============

BTW, I don't hate AMLOR as a Gilmour solo album (actually, IMHO, it would rank as his second best after the debut), despite its 80's sonic flaws (Roger did Radio KAOS with the same flaws); but it sucks as a Pink Floyd album.

Likewise, if TDB is definitely more legit (as "legal") as a Floyd album, we could view it as a Gilmour-Wright solo collab, because, outside HH, in terms of Lyrics, we are far from the Floyd 72-83 mould.

AMLOR was more like a "coup d'état" from Gimour.

MikeEnRegalia wrote: ^ I'm not sure if or how much I like it yet. And you've just moved the goal post, going from TFC to DSOTM Redux.  Yes, going by consensus we can conclude that people prefer TDB over TFC. Then again, history confirms that "consensus" is not always right. Which brings us to politics, and the true reason why many people in the West have a beef with RW, which has nothing to do with music. Regardless of where you stand on the topic (and let's not discuss details in this forum), you'd surely agree that this can skew the consensus.

I tend to agree with you that AMLOR is one of Gilmours best solo albums. second behind the debut. It certainly sits in my bottom 5. Everything post The Wall is actually in my bottom 5.

Must not post until after second cup of coffee, or after driving into work through Boston traffic. 

...word........At the end of the day, when both of these fine musicians leave this earth, I for one will miss David Gilmour the most. When you look at what both have done in the past 10-15yrs the catalog of creative music fully lies with Gilmour. What Roger has created pales in comparison and is 100% geared towards creating political divides, which has zero to do with creating music.

The question is who has glowed more in the last chapter of their life as a musician and how will they be remembered?

So sad to be Roger Waters.....and I am sure he will care soon enough.

The last 2 studio albums are very good...As well the last couple live recordings are fantastic. RW last tours are very good (production wise) although completely littered with political bantering, pretty much every song had some kind of RW message. Basically heed my messages or get the f*ck out!

Metallic Spheres with The Orb.

Wonderful. However, donating to charities is not the same as political activism. But for the record, RW supports charities as well: https://www.looktothestars.org/celebrity/roger-waters" rel="nofollow - https://www.looktothestars.org/celebrity/roger-waters

What is your favorite DG album of the past 10-15 years? I'd like to check it out.

It's simply bad music made for a bad reason.

Wow. Question to you: Is your daughter into PF because of the Gilmour solos, or because of the powerful message conveyed by tracks like Money, or albums like Animals and The Wall? Or does she prefer Ummagumma or Atom Heart Mother?

The reason Roger Waters is relying so heavily on these tracks and albums, combined with his solo releases, on his tours to this day, is precisely because that is the essence of Pink Floyd that most people remember, and it is he, not Gilmour, Mason or Wright, who have been carrying this message forward after they split. DG is pure esoteric bullcrap on his own.

That's harsh.

I enjoy Gilmour's first two albums more than Waters ever did solo. Only Amused to Death comes close (even here he's got a couple of weak songs). 

Will listen to the DG solo albums later today. You have to give everyone a fair chance ...

Is it really necessary to look for more feet for the cat than it already has? I don't think so. Waters clings to the band's glorious past and tries to reinvent it absurdly, in my opinion.

He's a vile little man, conspiracy peddler and apologist for Russia. What a miserable load of sh*t this is

The ugly truth about the war is that powerful people in the West are profiting from it. It will continue as long as they please, and since Russia is also benefiting, they see no reason to end it either. That leaves "normal" people all over the world to pay the price, with the Ukrainians at the forefront.

I'm not sure I understand your comment that..."The ugly truth about the war is that powerful people in the West are profiting from it"....Who are these powerful people?

A simple google search says the US has sent over USD75billion in aide to Ukraine, I also read the European union has provided more funds than that. Russia has spent equivalent of about USD55.4 billion on the war, I also read. Not sure what all this means but who in the west is making money off the war? 

I would have to think Russia is secretly wishing the war would end so they don't go into bankruptcy.....but then you have China, probably helping fund Russia as well providing weapons and tech for the war. China will keep Russia afloat after the war is over is my guess.

I don't know.........still don't know who in the west is making money off the war.

Catcher10 wrote: the US has sent over USD75billion in aide to Ukraine

What does that actually mean? Who paid something here, and to whom? Is this really a transfer from wealthy people in the west to poor people in the Ukraine? No, of course not. Here's what happens: The US government borrows the money ($ 75B) and sends it to the Ukrainian government. They distribute it as they see fit, meaning that most of it ends up with the oligarchs. Remember that Ukraine is still one of the most corrupt states in Europe (only topped by Moldavia). These oligarchs probably keep some of the money for themselves, some is put into humanitarian aid (to keep up appearances), but a lot of the money eventually flows back to the same investors that the US borrowed the money from in the first place.

It's a great racket - as Easy Money put it, the "general population" in every country is losing money, getting poorer, making sacrifices, while the rich and powerful are getting more rich and powerful.

I can understand the reasoning behind this, but I think China has bigger problems of their own. The biggest one is an inevitable demographic collapse from their one-child policy. Some have argued that this is already happening and the limited data coming out of China is hiding this. Inevitably this is going to lead to an economic collapse that's going to have repercussions throughout the world for countries that rely on specific resources from China. The U.S.'s move away from globalization is a move in the right direction, but it's coming too late. Further, Xi Jinping has pretty much eliminated any political competition he might have within China, has surrounded himself by "yes men," and has consolidated his power. It doesn't seem like he understands the seriousness of the situation and this is a bad time for a country to have a leader like this. 

Russia is also in the middle of a demographic crisis, though not as severe as what China is or will experience, but this war is exasperating Russia's problems. Who would have ever imagined Russia looking to North Korea for weapons?

NATO was expanded because countries in middle/eastern Europe wanted to join, and Jelzin's Russia was fine with that. I know enough people from former Warsaw Pact states to know that these were not pushed against their will into NATO by the Americans.

the "general population" in every country is losing money, getting poorer, making sacrifices, while the rich and powerful are getting more rich and powerful.

This can be said (and actually is said) about pretty much everything that happens in world politics, and we have ample proof that it can surely be achieved without this war.

Anyway, I don't agree with Waters on this one but I tend to listen to musicians as far as I enjoy the music and to not have that too tarnished by some controversial views that they hold.

How do we even know that this is the case? Through the evening news? Cannot trust them on matters of national importance. We know this is obviously true in Russia, but as history shows, it is true in the West as well. Has been in every major war that I can recall.

No, the Western model is built on expansion in terms of economic markets. It's not a stable system, since Earth is finite every now and then it runs into the problem that the markets get saturated. Large military conflicts are a convenient solution to the problem, since they destroy so much infrastructure and wealth in the general population, restoring the growth potential.

Lewian wrote: Anyway, I don't agree with Waters on this one but I tend to listen to musicians as far as I enjoy the music and to not have that too tarnished by some controversial views that they hold.

-------------
https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:

You should definitely not trust my opinion. Your assumption is wrong though - where in this thread have I indicated that I "get my opinion" from Roger Waters? You have no idea what my sources are. Here's one (of many) with a few more credentials.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qciVozNtCDM" rel="nofollow - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qciVozNtCDM

It is true though that none of us has any chance of really KNOWING what is going on in the world, it is all filtered through the sources we choose and the decisions we make on which pieces of information are trustworthy, and which are not.

Yeah, I don't trust our "own side" for theses infox (toxic info) cold-war propaganda.

First, Ukraine is not to be trusted anymore than Russia for these announcements (it's just as rotten to the core), but we cannot allow ourselves to trust any NATO reports either. 

TBH, pre-Zelenski's Ukraine is just as much to blame for this war (even if it is the victim), as it was oppressing its Russian minority ever since 2008 (after the democratically-elected pro-russian president was ousted by force). 

The UN clearly states that a non-rogue country must protect its own minorities (that includes the Chechens, Wlado) and clearly the 2014 separation is a result of these exactions against the minority.

NATO is just as toxic as the ex-USSR was (even if we're glad that NATO still exists), ever since the turn of the millennium. The worst part is that with the war it helped create (via its own expansion towards the East), NATO has now justified its own existence for the next decades to come.

. 

In particular, calling people "sheep" is overly simplistic, I have NEVER done that. It's ok in novels and records (Animal Farm, Animals), but in reality people are much more clever than they're given credit for. But at the same time, governments are also using clever ways of tricking us. Ever heard of the term "nudging"? A clever euphemism in its own right. Think of that when you next hear the phrase "Putin's war" or "Putin's Invasion". 

https://ultimateclassicrock.com/roger-waters-the-dark-side-of-the-moon-redux-album-review/" rel="nofollow - https://ultimateclassicrock.com/roger-waters-the-dark-side-of-the-moon-redux-album-review/

https://riffmagazine.com/album-reviews/roger-waters-dark-side-of-the-moon-redux/" rel="nofollow - https://riffmagazine.com/album-reviews/roger-waters-dark-side-of-the-moon-redux/

Let me rephrase that to "allegedly looking." It is curious that Sergei Shoigu went to North Korea and inspected North Korean missiles and later Kim Jong Un went to Russia and inspected bombers, hypersonic missiles, and warships. Perhaps nothing, perhaps just two leaders seeing how big their penises are. Beats me.

Not sure Putin enjoys North Korea as a partner at all, but since he's being pushed (by us westerners), he's probably feeling compelled to at least to see what his direct neighbor (couple of hundreds of kms from Vladivostok) is doing with his army.

The west pushed Russia into China's arms AFAIAC, and we (the' whole planet) will be sorry in the mid-future (the Artic route being rebuilt by China)

.

^^^

If NATO hadn't advanced its pawn in Eastern Europe against Russia for almost three decades (90's to 20's), we wouldn't be facing this situation. We have systematically refused to hear Russia's fears & insecurities for 30 years and kept onwards in our "capitalo-military march" eastbound.

Of course, Putin's aggression is unqualified and legitimates NATO's sordid & twisted expansion politics.

Indeed, this legitimately pushed Sweden & Finland into our toxic arms and arms and harm.

We've discussed this in PM before, not only about Ukraine, but also in EC's member Latvia's important Russian minorities, where 300 000 russianophones (15% of Latvia's population) are denied citizenship and therefore can't be counted along the other russianspeakers who have it (another 25% of the population)

Hey Grumpy! Your thread appears to have gone slightly off-topic through no fault of your own. Time to set the record straight..... I love Roger's redux version of Time, with only faint Echoes of the original version. One of These Days I may even go out and buy it, although they say a fool is easily parted with his Money. 

It's all black or white to you, isn't it? In reality it is Any Color You Like.

Listen to the Mearsheimer talk I linked to above, he explains quite clearly why Putin never intended to "take" the Ukraine. 

Who is putting forward that idea?