David Gilmour vs. Roger Waters

There's a common perception that Gilmour is NICE vs Waters' NASTY. Gilmour can play, Roger can write. The other two did what they did and the result was a whole hugely, massively larger than the sum of its' parts.

Seems to me tho, that by wearing his heart so visibly on his sleeve Roger has become public property. We <i>know</i> him far better than Gilmour. But it takes two too make an argument, so we can be fairly sure that given the ferocity of the battles between the two of them that Gilmour has a stubborn, fractious streak every bit the equal of Rog's. Just look at the tenacity with which he's clung on to court cases he should by any reasonable standards have lost at the first hearing. No, the man has depths, mosty dark, and inhospitable. Wouldn't say that Roger was exactly Mr Happy tho of course.

As to musicianship, Gilmour is noticeable whereever he plays. Go check some of Sam Browns back catalogue. That single quality rates him 'up there' as a guitarist. The Waters-less Floyd, and especially the solo Dave work reminds me mostly of a 3-legged dog - it wants to be the same as the others, but it can never keep up.

On Pulse, Guy Pratt isn't a patch on even Roger on bass, he's only there as 'part of the family', more Gilmour nepotism.

Oh yeah the topic. Waters, incontravertably

Any Colour You Like wrote: 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.

Yes, Floyd was definitely a case where the whole was greater than the individual parts.

yface1 wrote: A Person wrote: yface1 wrote: 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. Hmm, why is David Gilmour inherently better than Waters? Just wondering why you picked Gilmour. 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.

I think the opposite, although Gilmour is a far better musician than Waters, but that is only my opinion.

yface1 wrote: 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.

Hmm, why is David Gilmour inherently better than Waters? Just wondering why you picked Gilmour.

^  Interesting, and I'm quite sure Gilmour wasn't heartbroken about the Final Cut rights! Luckily he kept playing Wall material.

  rules !

Dellinger wrote: Bonnek wrote: 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 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.

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.


Edited by Bonnek - December 17 2009 at 15:39

lazland wrote: Elderflower Man wrote: The Truth wrote: They are nothing without each other. Amused to Death was good but with a little Gilmour input it'd be great 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. 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.

     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.

Elderflower Man wrote: The Truth wrote: They are nothing without each other. Amused to Death was good but with a little Gilmour input it'd be great 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.

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.

ghost_of_morphy wrote: Gilmour is  clearly more talented.  Waters is clearly more creative.   I vote for creativity.  Viva Waters!

i think i'll have to agree...But i don't know, something tells me to pick 'Gilmour'

Roger Waters wins for me. Follow my logic below:

Edited by Tarquin Underspoon - November 30 2009 at 21:08