Roger Waters~Animals Reissue...Issue |
Post Reply | Page <1234 7> |
Author | ||||
iluvmarillion
Forum Senior Member Joined: February 09 2010 Location: Australia Status: Offline Points: 3247 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|||
The song writing credits on Dogs will always show Roger Waters AND David Gilmour. Roger Waters can moan as much as he wants but that's never going to change.
|
||||
iluvmarillion
Forum Senior Member Joined: February 09 2010 Location: Australia Status: Offline Points: 3247 |
Post Options
Thanks(3)
|
|||
Just watched a 2006 video of David Gilmour and David Bowie together. You could not find two nicer people. Gilmour doesn't involve his wife on the PF web site to piss off Roger Waters. He does it because she writes PF lyrics after Roger left the band.
|
||||
richardh
Prog Reviewer Joined: February 18 2004 Location: United Kingdom Status: Offline Points: 28737 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|||
Waters was always the writing talent while Gilmour was the great musician. Fact is without each other they are as boring as f**k lol!
|
||||
Frenetic Zetetic
Forum Senior Member Joined: December 09 2017 Location: Now Status: Offline Points: 9233 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|||
Almost all great bands have this unfortunate caveat lol. Everything sucks unless everyone is firing on full WITH each other. It's a mess otherwise, as we see here.
|
||||
"I am so prog, I listen to concept albums on shuffle." -KMac2021 |
||||
Dellinger
Forum Senior Member VIP Member Joined: June 18 2009 Location: Mexico Status: Offline Points: 12771 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|||
Waters wrote great music. So did Gilmour and Wright... and the band was at it's best when they were all writing, and it wouldn't have achieved the same greatness otherwise. Dark Side would not be nearly as great without, particularly, Wright's contributions, Wish you Were Here has lot's of writing from the whole band... or at least that is so with Shine on you Crazy Diamond (my favourite song ever). Animals has Dogs, as I understand it with the music mostly written by Gilmour, which takes nearly half the album, and is usually considered the best track on the album. There's also Echoes, which I understand was a collaboration effort, but mostly based on what Wright brought to begin with. So no, Pink Floyd was not only Waters. Yeah, Waters wrote a lot of the best music of the band, but so did the rest of the band. And yes, he wrote almost all the lyrics, and definitley the best ones. And even among the songs he wrote all by himself, I'm sure they wouldn't have come off as great if he hadn't had Wright and Gilmour to perform them and help with the arrangements. |
||||
moshkito
Forum Senior Member Joined: January 04 2007 Location: Grok City Status: Offline Points: 17839 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|||
Hi, You know what everyone says about us old folks ... we get senile and sometimes spout out the soup and everything else, not to mention drip and drop and slobber on the slightest thing possible! Ohhh, the heaven of getting old ... where is my babysitter and pacifier? To be honest, I would imagine that someone like Roger or even Dave, do not need to be writing lyrics anymore, and they should just work music to be more than a simple song and a riff and a solo, the only thing that Dave seems to be capable of doing which is also getting as boring as that insufferable something or other! All in all, I won't really criticize either of them for what they do ... I simply will not buy it, and if I need to evaluate it I can do that on the tuber, and not spend money on it. PF is long gone, and so are its members, and NM is getting too old to tour or do another album and get his motor to start (will he ever do any of that material? I doubt it!) and show us something other than just some different and timely touches on the drums!
|
||||
Music is not just for listening ... it is for LIVING ... you got to feel it to know what's it about! Not being told!
www.pedrosena.com |
||||
moshkito
Forum Senior Member Joined: January 04 2007 Location: Grok City Status: Offline Points: 17839 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|||
Hi, Kinda depends on a lot of things ... for example, according to Robin Williamson, Mike Heron came from a rock background, but what got them together was POETRY and how it could be interpreted, not the fact that one was into this and the other into something else. And their work was mostly about INTERPRETING THE WORDS, rather than write a "song" ... and this is something that is really difficult for this generation of fans, that are so stuck on the commercial side of "songs" and call everything a song, not always understanding, or finding what the real design was for the piece. Roger and Dave likely did well together at the start because Dave was the musician (read somewhere that he was one of Syd's guitar teachers!), and Roger likely was not as good a "musician" at the time, and I think that the arrangements for a lot of the early PF (Syd's stuff specially) were left to RW to develop, with input from Roger about how to color the images of the lyrics even more, which helped PF ... and mind you, this "coloring" of the lyrics, a few years later ended up in something like The Wall with a couple of other albums in between to get the ideas together. Seen from a historical perspective, I am not sure that ANIMALS is that big a deal, but as a part of the whole, it's like a chapter in a novel ... you gotta have it to help everything come alive and be understood.
|
||||
Music is not just for listening ... it is for LIVING ... you got to feel it to know what's it about! Not being told!
www.pedrosena.com |
||||
jlneudorf
Forum Newbie Joined: October 15 2020 Location: Saskatoon, SK, Status: Offline Points: 20 |
Post Options
Thanks(1)
|
|||
This is a tough thread to read. Waters has a right to be pissed off over the website issue. But hey, that's just my opinion.
Some of the comments have been pretty harsh. So be it. Both musicians have alot to offer. I thought Waters last album is an absolute gem. Again, only my opinion. I just hope we get one or two more solo albums from them before they call it quits. |
||||
nick_h_nz
Collaborator Prog Metal / Heavy Prog Team Joined: March 01 2013 Location: Suffolk, UK Status: Offline Points: 6737 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|||
I’ve found it very tough to read as well. I don’t actually see the problem with what Waters has done here. Everyone has known there was an Animals reissue waiting to come out. No one knew what the delay was. If Waters wanted to be the 💩head you all make him out to be, he could have said all this one or two years ago. That he has waited until the issue has been resolved, and the reissue is going ahead, is surprisingly diplomatic for him. So long as what he says is true (and if it were not, I don’t think he would come out and say it, because there would be obvious repercussions), what was holding up the release of the reissue was some liner notes. Now if Waters came out with this information, and didn’t supply the liner notes, it would have been even more controversial. I’m no great fan of Gilmour or Waters, and in much of the Pink Floyd wars, I tend towards Gilmour’s side - but in this instance, Waters really doesn’t seem to me have done anything wrong. And for the life of me, I can’t work out why Gilmour objected to the liner notes (which say nothing inflammatory or particularly unknown). I’d love to know what his objections were. I don’t think Waters should have any access to the Pink Floyd website, as he left the band - and the lawsuits and settlements established that he left the band, and that the band continued without him. It would be unusual for an ex-member to have access to the website of a band they have left. So I think claiming he is “banned” from posting there is rather silly. But for the most part, I don’t really see the problem here. I don’t think I own any reissue such as this release that doesn’t have extensive liner notes explaining this history and circumstances of an album - so the argument that these should have had no place in the reissue hold no water for me. For those who haven’t read it, here is what was posted on FB:
|
||||
Guldbamsen
Special Collaborator Retired Admin Joined: January 22 2009 Location: Magic Theatre Status: Offline Points: 23104 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|||
This is still so incredibly petty and uninteresting it literally baffles the brain.
I love the Floyd...but I really don’t care about this. Waters and Gilmour eh? More like an old married couple fighting over the tables Listen to the music, remember it and cherish it... leave this inane battle of the egos to elderly superstars with scores to settle and way too much time on their hands. |
||||
“The Guide says there is an art to flying or rather a knack. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss.”
- Douglas Adams |
||||
iluvmarillion
Forum Senior Member Joined: February 09 2010 Location: Australia Status: Offline Points: 3247 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|||
Well OK, after reading the Mark Blake liner notes I can't see what Dave Gilmour is objecting to. Mystifying to me.
|
||||
rogerthat
Prog Reviewer Joined: September 03 2006 Location: . Status: Offline Points: 9869 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|||
Well, it might be because Gilmour has an ego too even if it's not nearly as big as Waters'. He does not want the plain truth that Animals was largely a Waters project to be advertised in the sleeve notes of a re-issue of the album.
|
||||
Dellinger
Forum Senior Member VIP Member Joined: June 18 2009 Location: Mexico Status: Offline Points: 12771 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|||
As far as the concept is concerned, indeed, it's all Waters, and that's what the liner notes are focusing a lot about. Yet, it fails to dig a bit deeper into the writing of the music... and as I understand it, Dogs was mostly written by Gilmour... and given the length of that song, and how it is usually the fan favourite of the album, he might, in a way, be right to have an issue given the way those liner notes focus almost exclusivley on Waters. |
||||
iluvmarillion
Forum Senior Member Joined: February 09 2010 Location: Australia Status: Offline Points: 3247 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|||
As I said I find it mystifying Gilmour would object to the Mark Blake liner notes. However reading Roger Water's comments again from his Facebook page he refers to Gilmour as a jolly good guitarist and singer. If I was Gilmour I'd personally find those comments pretty patronizing. It's like Gilmour referring to Waters as a jolly good lyricist. I think they're engaging in a personal feud that goes back a long time. Someone else referred to Water's treatment of Rick Wright post The Wall. It could even go back to the early days surrounding the departure of Syd Barrett from the band. Who knows? The older you get you tend to lose your creativity so then you get more protective about the proprietary of your original song writing contributions. You can't really blame either artist for that. What everybody agrees with here is why do they have to battle it out so publicly?
|
||||
rogerthat
Prog Reviewer Joined: September 03 2006 Location: . Status: Offline Points: 9869 |
Post Options
Thanks(1)
|
|||
No, then you have not really read the liner notes carefully. Waters does mention You've Got to Be Crazy was co-written by him and Gilmour. And that is the fact. What other role did the others have anyway in the album? Like I said, if they hate so much to acknowledge his role in this album and The Wall, they don't have to play it, they don't have to reissue the albums. Ah, but how can that be, these albums are full of fan favourites. Nobody is denying that Waters is a gigantic prick. I am just saying Gilmour isn't exactly St Gilmour either and doesn't come out looking good from this episode.
|
||||
nick_h_nz
Collaborator Prog Metal / Heavy Prog Team Joined: March 01 2013 Location: Suffolk, UK Status: Offline Points: 6737 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|||
It may be a cultural thing. I doubt Waters meant “jolly good” to be patronising, and I doubt Gilmour took it that way. The English are masters of the understatement. One of the highest compliments you can give to something you really like is to say it’s “not bad”. Calling something jolly good is a real acknowledgment from Waters. He can be a bit of an arse, but here I think he is being genuinely gracious. I mean, it’s a bit of a classic 💩 sandwich, as he surrounds his compliment with less positive comments - but I think Gilmour will not have taken the actual compliment as being patronising. As for the battle not being public. In general, yes. Specifically, here, I don’t think it’s (all) part of the battle. Like others, I’ve known about the reissue of Animals for a couple of years, and known it has been subject to unexplained delays. I think Waters has done the right thing here, because he has explained the delay. Not only that, he has provided the liner notes that caused the delay, so that anyone who wants to read why Gilmour refused to have the album released with them can try and understand why he had such an issue with them. I think Waters would have been better off simply saying something along the lines of “I know you’ve all been wondering why the Animals reissue has been so long in coming. It was all down to these liner notes. Gilmour refused to allow the album to be released with these notes. Here they are. Make of it what you will”, but of course he’s not that sort of chap. But take away his snarky comments, and advertisements for his memoirs, and there’s not really anything wrong with providing the notes that caused the delay. I, for one, am glad he did. Waters doesn’t come off great here, because he can’t really help himself from trying to prove that he was the essence of Pink Floyd, and that the band ceased to be after he left - carrying on in name only, as a shadow of its former self. But I think Gilmour comes off worse here. Because if these liner notes really were the cause of the delay (and one has to assume that is the case, as Waters has claimed, or there would by now have been some form of rebuttal or repercussion), then Gilmour comes off as rather petty. |
||||
suitkees
Forum Senior Member Joined: July 19 2020 Location: France Status: Offline Points: 9050 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|||
Well, reading Mark Blake's liner notes I definitely get the impression he is RW's spokesperson. It is not really balanced regarding the creative contributions of all the band members. Apart from the original idea of two songs after the DSotM sessions, where Gilmour is mentioned as a creative contributor, in the rest of the text the other musicians are merely depicted as players and all the creativity originates from RW. A selection: - ...but Roger insisted that neither song was relevant to the overall idea... - Scroll forward two years, and Roger had an idea for the next Pink Floyd album... - Following Roger’s instincts about the new songs - The narrative was completed by the addition of two new Waters songs... - The idea for Pink Floyd’s flying pig was also Roger’s. - ...it was joined by another Water’s idea - Both the album and the tour signposted the way to Pink Floyd’s next release, The Wall, and to Roger’s ever more ambitious ideas... This might all be true, but why then remain silent about the creative input of the other band members? It suffices to listen to Animals to understand they all had a creative input (contrary to The Final Cut, e.g.), but from these liner notes one can conclude that RW is the sole genius of the band and the others are merely musicians (players). To me there is clearly lacking a balance, so I can fully understand why DG did not accept these liner notes. Another notable thing is the mentioning of the names: RW's name is the most mentioned (by far), only at the first occurrence by his first name and last name. Then it is "Roger" or "Waters" everywhere. The other band members are only mentioned (once or twice) by first and last name together... Edit: I counted it for you to make it even more clear - name occurrences: - Roger Waters (or Roger or Waters) : 17 - David Guilmour: 2 - Nick Mason: 1 - Rick Wright: 1
Edited by suitkees - June 07 2021 at 02:23 |
||||
The razamataz is a pain in the bum |
||||
nick_h_nz
Collaborator Prog Metal / Heavy Prog Team Joined: March 01 2013 Location: Suffolk, UK Status: Offline Points: 6737 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|||
Im not sure that is notable, as that is a fairly standard way of naming people. Both names are used the first time, and then only one (first or last) from then on. The exception here is David Gilmour who is mentioned twice by both names, but to be honest, I would have done the same, as the second mention is so long after the first. The way the names are given is pretty much exactly as I would write them if I were writing a review. Gilmour and Wright are both given credit where it is due, but Animals is a Waters-led album, so it’s hardly surprising that his name is mentioned more. Wish You Were Here is realistically the last album by Pink Floyd as a band, and the cracks were already showing. Everything after is very much Waters. Animals, The Wall and The Final Cut all have contributions from the other members, but are undeniably vehicles for Waters. I would never go as far as some do, and claim any are effectively Waters solo albums in all but name, but for me Animals is no more or less a Waters solo album than The Final Cut, so make of that what you will. I don’t see the problem with acknowledging how much of Animals came from Waters. I don’t say that as a fan of Waters, because I’m really not. I don’t mind any of the albums made by Floyd members outside the band (or those of the post-Waters Floyd), but none are as good as when Gilmour and Waters were both in the band. Gilmour is a jolly good guitarist, and that is noted in the comments on Dogs. But ultimately, Animals largely came from Waters, and as impressive as their contributions are to the album, it’s hard to think of what more could have been said about the other Floyd members. |
||||
suitkees
Forum Senior Member Joined: July 19 2020 Location: France Status: Offline Points: 9050 |
Post Options
Thanks(1)
|
|||
^ Personally, I think there is much more that can be said about the creative contributions from the other band members (but I only have my ears that say that to me...), but I agree completely with the rest of your last paragraph (but, thus, disagree completely with the last line of the preceding paragraph). The problem is probably that the creative processes in (rock) bands are much a result of some kind of synergy where the creativity of one is triggered/augmented by the creativity of others. I do believe that Waters was the driving force behind Animals, but I'm convinced that the creative input of the others were more important than what he wants to make believe in these liner notes. Other than that, I don't care at all about their bickering, but I do think, and continue to think, that these liner notes are not balanced.
|
||||
The razamataz is a pain in the bum |
||||
jude111
Forum Senior Member Joined: October 20 2009 Location: Not Here Status: Offline Points: 1754 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|||
As a kid in the late 70s discovering Pink Floyd's 70s albums, I loved the fact that there were no photos of the band on the albums. It was a mystery who they were and what they looked like. I loved that, it was very refreshing. But my interest in them began to seriously wane in the 80s when the Waters v Gilmour feud erupted in the open. Gilmour's always managed to project an image of a decent bloke who tries to stay above the mudfights Waters initiates. (I love Waters, his last album was brilliant, my politics aligns with his, so this gives me no pleasure to say.) Waters' reignition of this feud is just beyond the pale. The only thing I care about an Animals release is the bonus material anyway - live stuff, studio outtakes (like early versions of Animals material). I totally get why Gilmour keeps Waters off the PF webpage. Waters simply can't be trusted, he's unstable and creates toxic environments and airs his grievances in public. Too bad that's still the case; before now, I thought he had mellowed. (On the other hand, I really hope he releases a new album, hopefully with Nigel Godrich again.)
Edited by jude111 - June 07 2021 at 07:40 |
||||
Post Reply | Page <1234 7> |
Forum Jump | Forum Permissions You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum |