David Gilmour vs. Roger Waters
Printed From: Progarchives.com
Category: Progressive Music Lounges
Forum Name: Prog Bands, Artists and Genres Appreciation
Forum Description: Discuss specific prog bands and their members or a specific sub-genre
URL: http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=62714
Printed Date: April 18 2025 at 20:13
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 11.01 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: David Gilmour vs. Roger Waters
Posted By: LOUDTRAX
Subject: David Gilmour vs. Roger Waters
Date Posted: November 09 2009 at 13:35
|
Just to set the record straight before we even start, I am fully aware that Pink Floyd would not be Pink Floyd without both David Gilmour and Roger Waters. I think everyone can agree to that. However, who do you like more? My vote is very clear, David Gilmour. Let's compare their recent activity. David Gilmour releases a great album "On an Island", then goes on tour supporting that album. I saw him in Toronto's Massey Hall which was an intimate 1500 capacity theater. His first set was the entire new album. His second set, consisted of Pink Floyd songs...rare Floyd songs. He played Echoes....all 24 minutes of it! Fat Old Sun, Wots...uh the deal, etc... Now, let's look at Rogers Waters. On his last tour, he played the entire DSOTM album, in arenas. David, plays small intimate venues, playing new material, and rare Floyd - great for the fans, and not so much for his pocket. See the difference? As for the past, well then we have a more heated debate, but ultimately, I believe the relationship and chemistry of these 2 guys in the same studio along with Richard and Nick created the magic. David does not need Roger to create great music, but a new album would have been just something out of this world. Too bad this will never happened (we miss Richard). David wins this one for me.
------------- www.Loudtrax.com |
Replies:
Posted By: O666
Date Posted: November 09 2009 at 13:43
| Dont forget ABOUT FACE!!!!!!! |
Posted By: LOUDTRAX
Date Posted: November 09 2009 at 14:27
|
About Face is really good as well. Also, the Gilmour DVD "David Gilmour in Concert..." where he plays the Bizet piece, great band and the back vocals section on that show were just amazing. Has anyone heard the Rogers Waters opera? ------------- www.Loudtrax.com |
Posted By: snobb
Date Posted: November 09 2009 at 14:30
| Waters. Gilmor is not bad guitar-guy, but Waters is author of Pink Floydian dark lyrics and atmosphere. Pink Floyd without Waters is in fact David Gilmour band = average rock band, never more |
Posted By: WalterDigsTunes
Date Posted: November 09 2009 at 14:35
|
SNORE vs. SNORE I guess Gilmour doesn't whine as much, though it'd be nice if he played more than one guitar note every 24 seconds. |
Posted By: J-Man
Date Posted: November 09 2009 at 14:39
|
David Gilmour no contest.
------------- 
Check out my YouTube channel! http://www.youtube.com/user/demiseoftime" rel="nofollow - http://www.youtube.com/user/demiseoftime |
Posted By: snobb
Date Posted: November 09 2009 at 14:41
| Let take last Gilmour album - nice mainstream/pop-rock, in a manner of Jack Bruce |
Posted By: snobb
Date Posted: November 09 2009 at 14:42
| I just agree, that Waters (solo) isn't as good as with band (PF). But at least from his solo works you can feel, where from Pink Floyd got it's atmosphere. |
Posted By: akamaisondufromage
Date Posted: November 09 2009 at 14:45
|
There's only one way to sort this one out! ........................................
..............................FIGHT!  ------------- Help me I'm falling! |
Posted By: Evan
Date Posted: November 09 2009 at 15:10
|
I prefer Gilmour's musicianship and character, but theres no question Waters is the better songwriter, especially during his tenure with Floyd.
|
Posted By: CPicard
Date Posted: November 09 2009 at 15:49
|
Roger Waters, of course. |
Posted By: jagp20
Date Posted: November 09 2009 at 15:50
|
Both ------------- Love music |
Posted By: Hercules
Date Posted: November 09 2009 at 17:39
|
Gilmour, easily. Great guitar player (he has a tone and style which is only matched by a few, Andy Latimer for one) wrote many of Floyd's best songs and is a much better singer than Waters. Waters was a great songwriter but an average bass player and his voice has gone. ------------- A TVR is not a car. It's a way of life. |
Posted By: A Person
Date Posted: November 09 2009 at 17:44
| As good a guitarist Gilmour is, I pick Waters, no contest. |
Posted By: Alberto Muñoz
Date Posted: November 09 2009 at 17:59
|
Both are good in tis own way.
no vote -------------  |
Posted By: ghost_of_morphy
Date Posted: November 09 2009 at 18:27
|
Gilmour is clearly more talented. Waters is clearly more creative.
I vote for creativity. Viva Waters! ------------- 
|
Posted By: The Truth
Date Posted: November 09 2009 at 20:09
|
They are nothing without each other. Amused to Death was good but with a little Gilmour input it'd be great ------------- http://blindpoetrecords.bandcamp.com/" rel="nofollow">  
|
Posted By: Ivan_Melgar_M
Date Posted: November 09 2009 at 20:23
|
Hard to say, both are living icons. Iván ------------- 
|
Posted By: JROCHA
Date Posted: November 09 2009 at 20:25
| What Ghost of Morphy said above |
Posted By: terryl
Date Posted: November 09 2009 at 21:22
|
Waters, for the brilliance in his songwriting. tough choice. Gilmour's great at his axe ONLY (bad writing), and Waters at his songwriting ONLY (bad playing). but anyway, im for Waters here ------------- And who are we to justify the right in all we do Until we seek, until we find Ammonia Avenue http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DrmJ39j58W0 |
Posted By: Dellinger
Date Posted: November 09 2009 at 22:28
| If I have to choose, I prefer Gilmour, though they were at their best when they worked togeter (and with Wright too). |
Posted By: cjgone
Date Posted: November 09 2009 at 23:25
|
DSOTM and WYWH were their best, Gilmour.- ------------- Technical death metal <3. |
Posted By: progkidjoel
Date Posted: November 09 2009 at 23:34
|
Waters - A fantastic bassist and a great writer, whereas Glimour is a standard vocalist and a sickeningly overrated guitarist. ------------- 
|
Posted By: The Sleepwalker
Date Posted: November 10 2009 at 03:16
| Roger is nothing more than a decent bass player, while Gilmour is capable of playing the bass much better than him and also is probably my favorite guitar player ever. it's very close, but my vote does go to Roger though. His songwriting is brilliant, where Gilmour's songwriting doesn't really do much to me. Though Roger isn't a technical vocalist at all, I do enjoy his voice incredibly. Definitely the whispering and shouting on The Final Cut is brilliant. |
Posted By: DocJ
Date Posted: November 10 2009 at 06:46
|
Roger Waters for his creativity.
|
Posted By: lazland
Date Posted: November 10 2009 at 13:56
|
I love both, but Floyd without Waters simply wasn't the same. MLOR was a distinctly average album, whilst Division Bell was simply dreadful. I quite enjoyed the last Gilmour effort, but it is hardly an all time classic. In contrast, Waters is responsible for the bulk of the lyrics and atmosphere that made Floyd great, and Amused to Death will, I feel, be regarded in many years to come as an incredible piece of music that was sickeningly underrated in its day. It is a work of genius, end of. I love both of them, and Gilmour's contribution to Floyd at their peak cannot be understated, but it is Waters for me every time. ------------- Enhance your life. Get down to www.lazland.org Now also broadcasting on www.progzilla.com Every Saturday, 4.00 p.m. UK time! |
Posted By: Dellinger
Date Posted: November 10 2009 at 21:15
| Whenever Gilmour adds a guitar solo to a song, it is really uplifted and shines. Perhaps the grandiosity of their working together is that what Waters does with his lirics, Gilmour does with the guitar, so, once again, they were at their best when they worked together. I just wonder what would have become of Amused to Death if Gilmour had played (and allowed some input) there, as well as what would have become of The Division Bell if Waters had provided the concept and the lirics to those songs (this is an album that I personally love). And, not to forget Wright, what would have been of Broken China if Gilmour had played there (I guess the concept was too personal for Wright to have been allowed to have had it changed by Waters). In the end, what would we have heard if this three records had been made by the old Classic Pink Floyd Line-up. Doubtlessly they would have been undeniable classics as DSotM, WYWH, and Animals. |
Posted By: Dellinger
Date Posted: November 10 2009 at 21:17
| And as far as singing goes, they are also at their best when they sing together. I guess Gilmour is the better singer, but Waters has such a unique mellancholic voice that Pink Floyd just wasn't the same without his voice. |
Posted By: SaltyJon
Date Posted: November 11 2009 at 01:24
Syd Barrett.  As far as the actual options, though, I'm not sure...probably Roger.
------------- http://www.last.fm/user/Salty_Jon" rel="nofollow"> 
|
Posted By: RoyFairbank
Date Posted: November 11 2009 at 08:19
|
Roger Waters is Pink Floyd, at least after 1970. David Gilmour is a very, very good guitarist. Pros and Cons and Amused to Death are better and more Floydish albums than Momentary Lapse and Division Bell, though perhaps less replay friendly. Look at David Gilmour's solo albums and the all the many co-writers he needs.... |
Posted By: The Sleepwalker
Date Posted: November 11 2009 at 08:52
I don't agree with that at all. I'm going to compare two albums: The Final Cut by Roger Waters, but performed by Pink Floyd and The Pros And Cons Of Hitchiking, by Roger. The first is one of my favorite albums ever, the second is only decent IMO. A very important reason for this is the presence of David Gilmour's unique style of guitar playing on The Final Cut, whereas Eric Clapton's on the Pros and Cons doesn't do much to me. I think these statements of Roger is Pink Floyd and David is Pink Floyd all are terrible. ALL band members (except Syd IMO) are so essential to the sound of the band, and none can be missed (which is why after Roger left the band went very downhill). Even a drummer like Nick Mason, who is often said to be just an avarage drummer, is so important to the sound of Pink Floyd. Can you imagine "Time" with a shredding solo in the middle of it? "Shine On" with super technical drum fills? "Welcome To The Machine" without the industrial synth sounds? Roger isn't PF, nor is David, Richard or Nick... but when together they are Pink Floyd though.
|
RoyFairbank wrote:Posted By: emdiar
Date Posted: November 11 2009 at 10:18
|
As a musician (bassist), Waters is very ordinary indeed. His bass parts (which I assume he writes himself) never dare to stray far from the "root note-octave-root note-octave" crotchets he learned to play in the 60s. Has he never heard of thirds and fifths? As a session musician he would have starved to death, so luckily for him, he got a permanent gig. Or maybe there lurks a secret Pastorius somewhere inside, who once heard that less is more and took it a little too literally? In interviews he comes over as a bitter man, but what has he really got to be bitter about? His failed career? Obviously not. He is one of the most successful song writers of all time. Lack of recognition as a genius? Well, he had the nerve to describe himself as "The genius behind Pink Floyd's music" on posters and ads for his last tour, without shame or irony, so I guess he believes it to be an irrefutable fact. Personally, I think the sound texture of PF is more important than the structure or subject matter of the songs, and this can be chiefly attributed to the rest of the band, but especially Gilmore.
Gilmore for me. As a musician, one of the true greats. Vocally far superior to Waters, who stubbornly strains to reach notes that will never be available to him.
("There is no f**king Pink Floyd! I am Pink Floyd"- Roger Waters.) ------------- Perception is truth, ergo opinion is fact. |
Posted By: DocJ
Date Posted: November 11 2009 at 14:00
A simplistic suggestion of only two albums proves nothing.
Hitchiking?
 What is that? |
Posted By: The Sleepwalker
Date Posted: November 11 2009 at 14:04
Hitch hiking, excuse me.  A simplistic suggestion of only two albums proves nothing indeed, that's why there was some more text in my post.
|
Posted By: Silverbeard McStarr
Date Posted: November 11 2009 at 15:47
| I'm sure it's been said before, but I really prefer the band without a frontman. Doing long songs with jams and experimentation in them with all of the band doing whatever they do best. Wish You Were Here, the best Floyd album clearly did not have any frontman, and anything from the Roger Waters era is way overrated (though good), and from Dave Gilmour era is just good. |
Posted By: SgtPepper67
Date Posted: November 11 2009 at 18:29
|
Both, I can't really choose. There's no doubt their contribution to Pink Floyd's music was equally essential in my opinion. None of them really had an outsanding solo career, but they both released one great album: Amused to death and On an Island. The rest of their albums are good but no that especial, at least for Pink Floyd standards. ------------- 
In the end the love you take is equal to the love you made... |
Posted By: tdfloyd
Date Posted: November 11 2009 at 22:03
Gilmour played most of Floyd's bass.
|
Posted By: tdfloyd
Date Posted: November 11 2009 at 22:06
DSOTM and WYWH were their best, Wright!
|
Posted By: Dellinger
Date Posted: November 11 2009 at 22:16
I think that saying Gilmour played most of Floyd's bass is a bit of an exageretion, but he did play bass on some tracks. The ones I know of are the beginning of One of This Days, and the bass solo on Hey You. And this must be some of the most interesting bass parts on Floyd discography. |
Posted By: Pekka
Date Posted: November 12 2009 at 00:01
|
Waters' ego as a bassist is respectfully small for someone who's sold a zillion records featuring his bass work. I think that on Amused to Death he plays bass on only one song, and just parts of it. Amused to Death beats most of everything Floyd ever did, but if we consider the albums PF made under either Roger's or David's dictatorship, I generally prefer the Gilmour ones. Lapse > Cut, Bell > Wall. ------------- http://www.progarchives.com/album.asp?id=42652" rel="nofollow - It's on PA! 
|
Posted By: M27Barney
Date Posted: November 12 2009 at 04:17
|
I am currently reading a Floyd Biography "Pigs might Fly", I am no Floyd fan and think they are possibly one of the most overrated bands of all time (in prog terms but not POP!) (along with the Beatles and the Smiths). Gilmour's stand out work is the start of SOYCD (the Floyds' only work along with Echoes that gets anywhere near the prog standards I expect but still outdone by Camel/Yes/Genesis/ELP/IQ/DT/TFKs) is very good but his guitar work is pedestrian compared with Howe/Hackett/Stolte/Petrucci/Holmes/Latimer.
DSOTM is so OVERRATED I had to give it one star (it may be worth 1.5 for Any Colour....).
As for Waters ??? Floyd's music - mostly slow, Squire could probably play the bass licks with his knob....
Songwriter?? - No Waters has an EGO that is a billion times bigger than his talent.
rant over..... ------------- Play me my song.....Here it comes again....... |
Posted By: O666
Date Posted: November 12 2009 at 10:12
|
Posted By: O666
Date Posted: November 12 2009 at 10:14
 |
Posted By: Trianium
Date Posted: November 12 2009 at 13:07
|
Waters: Great songwriter (probably one of the best in history). Mediocre bassist. Weird voice. Gilmour: Great guitarrist, great voice. Capable bassist. Mediocre songwriter. What about Wright? He was a good singer and composer. Mason: Underrated drummer. Barrett: Great songwriter...BETTER than Waters...more innovative than Waters. 'The Piper at the Gates of Dawn', 'Live at Pompeii','Meddle', 'Dark Side of the Moon', 'Wish you Were Here', 'Animals' ,'The Wall', 'Pulse'...ttheir influence in music is as Huge as the band is and people think they're overrated...  About the question: i think Waters without Gilmour...and of course, Gilmour without Waters is nothing. |
Posted By: Dellinger
Date Posted: November 12 2009 at 21:41
| Waters doesn't consider himself a bassist, he considers himself a songwriter who happened to end up playing bass on his band. |
Posted By: muerte inoxia
Date Posted: November 12 2009 at 23:25
| David Gilmour |
Posted By: mohaveman
Date Posted: November 16 2009 at 16:12
| Comparing solo work, I vote for Waters |
Posted By: harmonium.ro
Date Posted: November 16 2009 at 16:39
This poll would have been a lot more interesting provided that the OP question was "Who would win in a fight between D.G. and R.W.?" 
|
Posted By: A Person
Date Posted: November 16 2009 at 16:40
| I think I'd put my money on Waters. |
Posted By: ten years after
Date Posted: November 17 2009 at 03:27
|
I would vote Waters if I had to vote. Floyd's genius owes more to Waters than it does to Gilmour. The worst bits are also down to Waters but they don't matter.
Personality wise Waters got really unpleasant from 1976 to the mid 90s . His treatment of Wright was unforgivable. Nowadays Waters seems the nicer of the two though. Gilmour's got a bit grumpy.
|
Posted By: Anthony
Date Posted: November 20 2009 at 17:12
|
Waters can't sing, can't play an instrument, all he ever did was writing lyrics, and recycling music (Compare "Time" to "Have a cigar" to "Pigs", compare "Comfortably numb" to "The Final Cut", or "Pigs on the wing" to "Mother" etc. etc.) Then we have David Gilmour who admits that writing lyrics is his weakest point, but man, can he play guitar and write amazing music! Who cares about lyrics? Once you've heard Waters' misantropy, you've heard all his post Dark Side-stuff. And the story of "Radio KAOS" is totally moronic! GILMOUR RULES!!! ------------- Future prosperity lies in the way you heal the world with love (Introitus - The hand that feeds you) |
Posted By: A Person
Date Posted: November 20 2009 at 17:22
Waters my not have been a musician, but he was good at composing and story telling. PF probably wouldn't have had nearly as good songs without his contribution. As far as solo albums, Amused to Death is my favorite out of all PF members. |
Posted By: Anthony
Date Posted: November 20 2009 at 17:27
|
Storytelling? What storytelling? It's mostly "boo hoo hoo, the world is bad and my daddy is dead, so I hate the world and anyone who f*cks me up in whatever way" ------------- Future prosperity lies in the way you heal the world with love (Introitus - The hand that feeds you) |
Posted By: A Person
Date Posted: November 20 2009 at 17:29
| The concept of Animals for one. |
Posted By: Anthony
Date Posted: November 20 2009 at 17:37
|
There isn't any! It's recycling two older songs rejected for "Wish you were here", adding a reworking of "Have a cigar" and bookending it with two versions of a song only lasting for 85 seconds.
And I don't consider "Big man, pig man, haha charade you are" as great lyric writing. ------------- Future prosperity lies in the way you heal the world with love (Introitus - The hand that feeds you) |
Posted By: A Person
Date Posted: November 20 2009 at 17:38
| I see no similarities myself. What is the same, besides they use a guitar in both? |
Posted By: Anthony
Date Posted: November 20 2009 at 17:39
|
Similar chord sequence, only in a different key.
Try singing the lyrics of "Have a cigar" over "Pigs" and you'll find the similarity. ------------- Future prosperity lies in the way you heal the world with love (Introitus - The hand that feeds you) |
Posted By: A Person
Date Posted: November 20 2009 at 17:41
| The song structure is different, and the main point I was making was the concept of the album; Waters reducing and categorizing humanity into animals. |
Posted By: Anthony
Date Posted: November 20 2009 at 17:43
|
Ever heard of the book "Animal Farm"? So that idea wasn't very original ------------- Future prosperity lies in the way you heal the world with love (Introitus - The hand that feeds you) |
Posted By: A Person
Date Posted: November 20 2009 at 17:46
| I know about Animal Farm, but I don't think it is the same. Animal Farm is a political allegory, but it didn't go as far as Animals. |
Posted By: Anthony
Date Posted: November 20 2009 at 17:58
|
In what way? Everyone knows that "Animal Farm" is about the USSR, but what the heck about "Animals"? And really, I would almost wish for Waters to get cancer himself, so he'd know what he had written in "Dogs". SHAME ON YOU, RW! ------------- Future prosperity lies in the way you heal the world with love (Introitus - The hand that feeds you) |
Posted By: A Person
Date Posted: November 20 2009 at 18:00
| You don't think Rick Wright dying of cancer is close enough? |
Posted By: Anthony
Date Posted: November 20 2009 at 18:05
|
Did Roger Waters feel Rick's pain? No, he didn't. Instead he caused Rick much pain, and as a result Rick had to visit a psychiatrist for years. Again: SHAME ON YOU, RW! ------------- Future prosperity lies in the way you heal the world with love (Introitus - The hand that feeds you) |
Posted By: Dellinger
Date Posted: November 20 2009 at 22:57
| Still, the best of Pink Floyd was Waters and Gilmour working together. And let's not forget Wright, and Nick Mason too. |
Posted By: darksideof
Date Posted: November 21 2009 at 01:39
|
I CAN'T ARGUE ABOUT ANYTHING I LOVE BOTH MEN DEARLY ROGER FOR THE WALL AND ROGER FOR THE DARK. PERIOD....... JEEEEEEEEE . ------------- http://darksideofcollages.blogspot.com/ http://www.metalmusicarchives.com/ https://www.facebook.com/pages/Darksideof-Collages/ |
Posted By: Atavachron
Date Posted: November 21 2009 at 01:44
|
I think I once saw Roger Waters vs. Godzilla in a dark theater in 1976
|
Posted By: The Sleepwalker
Date Posted: November 21 2009 at 01:55
That's one very nasty comment. The line from Dogs "All alone, dying of cancer" isn't specificly about cancer, it just is a disease that causes many people to die and therefore can be used as a reference to death. The line tells that the businessmen dies without any family or friends, cancer is one of the ways. Also animals is NOT inspired by Animal Farm, though the band knows there are some similarities.
|
Posted By: Courtesy Flush
Date Posted: November 21 2009 at 05:12
|
Guitar/Musicianship: Gilmour (by far) Vocals: Gilmour Lyrics: Waters Concepts: Waters Atmosphere: Both I would go with Gilmour though just because I love his guitar style and vocals that much. |
Posted By: Chris S
Date Posted: November 21 2009 at 06:54
|
Both are sublime contributors of Pink Floyd. Saw recently an interview with RW wishing things had gone differently without his own personal angst. Let's just say together all 4 of them were geniuses. Gilmour has managed to keep the Floyd trade mark going: Gdansk was very moving with Rick Wright. But if anyone has seen Water's live in recent years will agree he is so still PF it is scary. Great performer and perfectionist as usual. Love em both!!!! ------------- ...As I venture through the slipstream, between the viaducts in your dreams...[/COLOR] |
Posted By: Green Shield Stamp
Date Posted: November 21 2009 at 07:09
|
Roger Waters ------------- Haiku Writing a poem With seventeen syllables Is very diffic.... |
Posted By: Anthony
Date Posted: November 21 2009 at 08:37
Then he still could have written 'dying of loneliness" or something like that. ------------- Future prosperity lies in the way you heal the world with love (Introitus - The hand that feeds you) |
Posted By: The Sleepwalker
Date Posted: November 21 2009 at 11:56
Loneliness doesn't derictly cause the person to die (indirectly it can, of course) while cancer does. The businessman dies because of a disease, that doesn't have to be offending. The line could also have been something like "dying of brain damage", "dying of aids" or "dying of pestilence", but it wouldn't be any better or worse. By telling the businessman dies from a disease it's made clear that he suffers while having absolutely nobody to support him.
|
Posted By: Any Colour You Like
Date Posted: November 21 2009 at 15:45
Thread should have ended here. |
Posted By: A Person
Date Posted: November 21 2009 at 16:53
The reason why cancer makes sense is because it is a disease where your body atrophies, it could represent the businessman. Slowly eating away at his own life, only to realize too late. |
Posted By: The Sleepwalker
Date Posted: November 22 2009 at 04:21
Didn't realize that one yet, but it does indeed make a lot of sense.
|
Posted By: KingCrimson250
Date Posted: November 22 2009 at 13:00
|
I saw a seminar given by Bob Ezrin the other day, and believe it or not someone asked him this question. He said both, but really all four. And whoever said that Have a Cigar and Pigs are the same is pretty far off. Have a Cigar's verse is five bars of Em, one bar of C, one bar of D, then four of Em, whereas Pigs is one bar of Em, one of C, one of G, then two of Em. Sure there's some similarities, but if a i-VI makes two things sound identical then you can basically take all of music and label it as one song. That being said, Pink Floyd was definitely overfond of the key of Em, I'll give you that. (Actually, even just going through Animals, Pigs is completely in Em, Sheep is predominantly in Em, and Dogs is in Dm but it's played as Em tuned down a whole step so from a playing point of view is Em...) |
Posted By: Hanke666
Date Posted: November 22 2009 at 17:51
Roger! I'd give a detailed motivation, but I really have to go to bed 
------------- 
|
Posted By: moshkito
Date Posted: November 25 2009 at 13:14
|
Hi,
I'm going out on the limb and say that this is too simplistic a thought and is not even close as to the unity and work that "was" known as "Pink Floyd" ... and to be honest with you, I still think that the person who really "made" this band was Richard Wright ... not the guitar licks for rock'n'roll lovers or the lyrics for wannabeantisocialcommentaryrevolutionaries ... in his own quiet way, he added a feel and inner quietness and often "space" to the music that would otherwise make it sound just like every other radio song out there that many here love to talk about.
The cover of "Meddle" really says it all ... when you folded it out ... you have to listen ... unffortunately, the two things that everyone is listening to happen to be the lead guitar and the lyrics as the "most visible" ... but they are NOT the totality or the beauty of it all.
In general, Roger might be the one I have the greatest beef about ... because he has turned cynical and malkicious ... and I find it strange that he sits around now and says that "Atom Heart Mother" is garbage, and we can hear him doing songs with Ron Geesin with farts and poops on it! ... how soon he forgets what it was about the time ... that helped him learn how to use notes and staffs to interpret his feelings which are now so hard inbedded into his ideas and thoughts ... and his "experiments" no longer exist ... or if they do he won't share them with us. It's sort of like he has become a professor and now can not talk to you anymore ... because he is above us all ... and I really think that he has let his fame get to him and that far too many people have kissed his heiny ... that doesn't mean I don't love his music and work ... I love Amused to Death and Radio Kaos ... but sadly, Ca Ira is bloated with ideas ... and what he failed to see is that what it was missing was Bob Ezrin and a guitar! ... and it would have been far more interesting and probably sold more instead of making him look like an idiot since no classical music lover will ever get it or hear it, and folks in this board ... I'm not sure that anyone here has even given it a full listen ... it's not "prog" ...
David, in my book, is not as good a player as he thinks ... given the right setting and backing he can do some nice things with a guitar ... but I'm starting to thiink that he needs to get away from it all and find out what his instrument is all about again ... I really think that he has lost that spirit that you can see in "Live in Pompeii" that made him who he is ... the spirit that could invent sounds in the guitar and then learn to expand them ... and take us away with him. His latest album is sad, and disappointing ... it has completely stopped his "learning" ... and "experimenting" ... and I really think that he needs to dump all the musicians around him, and go grab one from Africa, one from Russia, one from Antarctica, one from Argentina ... and one from the Moon ... and then play with them ... and I guarantee you that he will have something great with it ... I kinda think that he needs to get out of that "rock'n'roll" fad thing ... which his music is "NOT" ... there was a lot more depth inside than the simple "jingles" and variations upon a scale that are used in pop hits ...
In my book, it's time for these two to take a break ... and either find out what is inside ... or please ... do yourselves a favor David and Roger ... retire ... enjoy the rest of your life ... that is not to say that you can not put together any more music ... but if all you can do is rehash what you did before, you will become nothing but a sad image of what you once were ... a really sad image ... ohh h ... is that Roger's new album's subject?
|
Posted By: Trianium
Date Posted: November 25 2009 at 13:53
| Amen. Richard Wright is the most underrated of the Pink Floyd members and one of the most underrated musicians ever. |
Posted By: moshkito
Date Posted: November 25 2009 at 13:59
I think Roger would win that battle .. .Toho doesn't support those films much anymore!
|
Posted By: Proggy Pogo
Date Posted: November 26 2009 at 13:19
|
Well, overall I would say I prefer David Gilmour as I like the soothing, mellow sound of his solo stuff, whereas Roger Waters' solo stuff is just a bit strange to me, and often too political. I would agree, of course, that the combined talents of both of them made the Floyd magic. But let's not forget the valuable contributions of Richard Wright, Nick Mason and of course SYD, without whom there'd be no Floyd.  ------------- 
|
Posted By: harmonium.ro
Date Posted: November 26 2009 at 13:32
While I agree that I wasn't impressed either by "On An Island", I must add that it does sound fantastic while live. Check "Live In Gdansk"  |
Posted By: villastrangiato
Date Posted: November 30 2009 at 20:57
| Waters was essentially a one trick pony with arguably limited talent as a performer/musician. Gilmour on the other hand possessed the creativity, imagination, chops, and yes - the humility to build upon a successful career. He forged a distinctive sound from his Fender Strat that is instantly recognizable with a soaring, almost lyrical presentation earning him the title - "king of sustain". Gilmour was never considered a very flashy or gifted player in an Al Di Meola or Steve Howe kind of way. Despite this, his unquestioned ability to paint vivid soundscapes and make his instrument "sing" has consistently placed him on the short list of favorites for many prog rock fans over the years - no small feat. Gilmour's apparent "humility" or ability to successfully collaborate with other world class artists like Tony Levin has resulted in critically acclaimed recordings like those on Momentary Lapse of Reason. Water's efforts since Pink Floyd have paled by comparison. You just don't see Roger Waters showing up on favorite lists of fans like Chris Squire, Geddy Lee, Jaco, or Levin. He simply doesn't belong in that kind of company. David Gilmour, however, clearly does. |
Posted By: Tarquin Underspoon
Date Posted: November 30 2009 at 21:07
|
Roger Waters wins for me. Follow my logic below:
They were great together. Their chemistry and individual contributions made Pink Floyd great.
Gilmour is an excellent guitarist, and in my opinion, little more. His solo material is spotty at best, and the highlights of it are not too high.
Waters is not an excellent musician by any means, but his music is more emotional, creative, ambitious, and yet somehow simpler. Pretentious? Maybe. But that's what prog is.
I'll give the following albums to Gilmour: Momentary Lapse of Reason, Division Bell, solo debut, About Face
I'll give the following albums to Waters: THE WALL, The Final Cut, and the oft-overlooked Amused to
Hm....a tough question indeed. But in the end, I have to go with the music that I simply enjoy more, and that belongs to Roger Waters.
.....sorry Mr. Gilmour
 [EDIT]: In retrospect, I realize that "logic" had nothing to do with it ------------- "WAAAAAAOOOOOUGH! WAAAAAAAUUUUGGHHHH!! WAAAAAOOOO!!!" -The Great Gig in the Sky |
Posted By: pfptmvandkc
Date Posted: December 01 2009 at 21:08
|
Roger. The music of Floyd definitely goes to David and Rick, but Roger wrote all the hits like "Money" and "Have A Cigar". And my favorite thing about Pink Floyd is the lyrics. The depths of Roger's soul are revealed in those lyrics (and they changed my life) and the music accentuates that. Although I do like "The Division Bell" a good bit. But yeah, Roger gets my vote mainly for lyrics. And I like his bass style. Have you ever listened to "Shine On You Crazy Diamond Parts I-V"? ------------- "There is no dark side of the moon.. It's all dark really" |
Posted By: Black Dahlia
Date Posted: December 12 2009 at 15:28
i think i'll have to agree...But i don't know, something tells me to pick 'Gilmour'  |
Posted By: Elderflower Man
Date Posted: December 12 2009 at 17:25
Funnily enough, you speak the truth. I'm listening to the album now, and it's good, but it lacks the punch that Gilmour could've provided, were he there. |
Posted By: lazland
Date Posted: December 13 2009 at 12:45
Sorry, but I have to disagree. I had it on last night, and Gilmour, IMHO, would not have added anything at all. The power of that album lies within the narrative and the power & feeling behind it. Add to that the exceptional guitar work by Snowy White & Andy Fairweather-Low, and it's hard for these ears to see how it could be any better. ------------- Enhance your life. Get down to www.lazland.org Now also broadcasting on www.progzilla.com Every Saturday, 4.00 p.m. UK time! |
Posted By: Bonnek
Date Posted: December 13 2009 at 14:18
|
Hard to say, when it comes to solo albums, Gilmour has at least one album I can listen to. Waters none, too self-indulgent and pointless. On the other hand, when it comes to PF I'd certainly pick DSOTM + Animals(Waters) above Wish You Were Here (Gilmour) But then Meddle is my favorite and that's a Gilmour one. This is too hard, I wish I hadn't even started to try answering this  |
Posted By: Dellinger
Date Posted: December 13 2009 at 22:18
As a matter of fact, the guitar player on this album is Jeff Beck. And even though on some songs the guitar really sounds cool, there are other in which I think Gilmour could have taken to another level. For me, What God Wants part 3 could have used some more Gilmour-ish guitars. It's a miracle, on the other hand, sounds really cool and I don't think Gilmour could have done much better (I guess it just wouldn't have worked as well with hem). Other songs I don't really bother to remember also might have been much more interesting had the rest of Pink Floyd helped. |
Posted By: Dellinger
Date Posted: December 13 2009 at 22:49
I don't think you could say this albums were Waters or Gilmour's, they were in all the meaning Pink Floyd's, with input from all members... well, not Animals, there Waters certainly took a more dominant role than before, but even on this album, Dogs is co-written with Gilmour, and as far as I understan, Dogs is mainly Gilmour's baby, and that song is certainly a very important part of the album. As far as DSotM is concerned, I guess that's one of the most collaborative albums. Time, Great Gig, Us and Them, and Any color you like all have about nothing to do with Waters (except the lyrics, ofcourse), and that alone makes about half of the album. |
Posted By: Bonnek
Date Posted: December 17 2009 at 15:38
Yes you are wright about DSOTM. But Animals definitely feels more waters to me as he sings more there, besides Gilmour never played any Animals stuff live since the split. But then again I love that album most of all for its guitars. Ehm... Am I still making sense?  Let me try once more. When it comes to Floyd I like them both equally, when it comes to solo work I'd pick Gilmour. |
Posted By: The Sleepwalker
Date Posted: December 17 2009 at 16:53
That's because Roger got the rights to play Animals, The Wall and The Final Cut live, while the band got the rights to play all the other music live. Dogs really features some of Gilmour's finest moments though, the guitar solos all are hauntingly good. ------------- 
|
Posted By: Bonnek
Date Posted: December 17 2009 at 17:44
^ Interesting, and I'm quite sure Gilmour wasn't heartbroken about the Final Cut rights! Luckily he kept playing Wall material. rules !
|
Posted By: yface1
Date Posted: December 17 2009 at 21:57
|
Is this even a serious poll? David Gilmour is without doubt the clear choice here. No offence to Mr Waters but.... its like trying to convince matthew mcconaughey that he's a bad actor. I'm sorry, I went off topic....... David Gilmour. ------------- My entertainment dollar is burning in my pocket! |
Posted By: A Person
Date Posted: December 17 2009 at 22:01
Hmm, why is David Gilmour inherently better than Waters? Just wondering why you picked Gilmour. |
Posted By: yface1
Date Posted: December 17 2009 at 22:12
Wonder no more... I chose David Gilmour for no other reason than this; If you exclude both artists work in Pink Floyd (Cause lets be honest here, they each had a hand in the masterpieces that are The Wall, Animals etc...) then you can really look at their work as individuals. It is here that they really got to display their true colors and I am of the opinion that David Gilmour's work as a solo-ist clearly identifies him as the undeniable obvious choice for this poll. ------------- My entertainment dollar is burning in my pocket! |
Posted By: A Person
Date Posted: December 17 2009 at 22:15
I think the opposite, although Gilmour is a far better musician than Waters, but that is only my opinion. |
Posted By: Any Colour You Like
Date Posted: December 17 2009 at 22:22
|
It is no revelation that Gilmour could play, and Waters could not compared. They both admitted that, but it is also clear that Waters was the more ambitious, lyrically creative and driven. Thus, they were as good as each other in Floyd, for without either, Floyd proper did not, and would not exist. |
Posted By: A Person
Date Posted: December 17 2009 at 22:23
Yes, Floyd was definitely a case where the whole was greater than the individual parts. |