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

Waters vs Gilmour? The very bad in this sentence is "vs".

Gilmour in charecter and musician ship Roger seems a bit too smug kinda like yeah I'm roger waters I can f**king punch the pope and no one will do anything hahhaha

To those who say Waters: can you imagine Jeff Beck playing in PF instead of Gilmour?

Nick Mason - because he is the one creative enough to come up with the idea of eating pie without the crust. 

I agree with moshkito about Rick Wright.  His beautiful, haunting serenity and stillness lent that cosmic dimension to Floyd's music which I cherish most among their many facets.  Without that, they would be a great band with great concepts (Waters) and great guitar playing (Gilmour) but not Pink Floyd.  There have been rock keyboardists who could have chopped Wright in two for,er, chops but none who used it more beautifully than he, imo.  Instead of duelling with the guitarists or trying to evoke a pseudo-classical atmosphere, he used the keyboard as a tender, delicate counter to the distortion and edge of electric guitar and thereby took rock to a different level.

As for the question at hand, I can barely listen to Waters solo but can tolerate the last two Floyd albums and even like On An Island, so Gilmour. He was the better musician (and also the better singer).  

Latimer and gilmour are probably the two most boring guitarist I can think of and say that I've listened a lot to..

just to clarify - I'm not talking about their personalities (don't assume you are either). But I'm pretty sure that I find their guitar playing pretty boring.

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.