Roger Waters - Dark Side of the Moon Redux 2023 - Progressive Rock Music Forum

^ The Pros and Cons of Roger Waters Clown

^ Isn't it his choice to make? Artists should be free to decide what to create, and listeners are free to decide what they want to listen to and whether they like it. Things go bad when listeners try to dictate what artists do, or when artists start to expect their fans to like what they do simply because they are who they are.

I'll listen to the full Redux album when it comes out. I don't expect to give it a high rating based on what I've heard, but I would never get angry at RW for having recorded it. Why should I even consider telling RW to "move on" ... in what direction? Only he can decide, and if he wants to revisit DSOTM, I say let him.

Recently listened to:

^ wow, do you have a bone to pick with RW. Maybe you should find a way to move on.

Recently listened to:

suitkees wrote:

^ The original work is not destroyed, so it is not a profanation. I would say on the contrary: the original work only gets better with this new horrible interpretation of it...

Hi,

Sadly, I'm not sure this makes much sense to my mind ... it's like saying that Beethoven's 5th sounds better than the eventual copies hundreds of years later ... I really think we are not being true to the changes in time and how much things change in between.

I don't think RW's recent redo is anything, but a new interpretation of an old story, or movie ... heck, we go for Hollywood redo's all the time ... why not rock music?

I imagine that the "music timeline" is kind of forgotten and looked at as some sort of a sacred cow, and in the end, it's just another song ... and a new interpretation is fine ... why should it sound the same? I sincerely doubt that the Stravinsky originals were as good as the ones done in the 60's by Bernstein and many others ... I really find some of the comments here weird, and in many ways, it's like we do not accept the fact that time has moved on many years ... and things are not the same anymore ... but many listeners here want the "same" again ... that is soooooooo pop music oriented in my book and a lot less to be mandated as "progressive music".

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

suitkees wrote:

^ The original work is not destroyed, so it is not a profanation. I would say on the contrary: the original work only gets better with this new horrible interpretation of it...

I see your point Big smile

, but I'm afraid if to listen some times to this "new" work, it might be difficult to listen to the original in the same undisturbed way like before.

Edited by David_D - August 26 2023 at 05:35

quality over quantity, and all kind of PopcoRn almost beyond

profanation

quality over quantity, and all kind of PopcoRn almost beyond

moshkito wrote:

Catcher10 wrote:

I've read arguments in other places that this version is the "older" Roger Waters version of DSOTM, paying tribute to his younger days when the album was created.

But on his website he talks about "...also to re-address the political and emotional message of the whole album.."

...

Hi,

He did that re-addressing with The Wall ... in the tour here he had a sort of war memorial for VietNam ... the original The Wall was about WW2. The "updating was fine, although for me the story changed and all of a sudden the story of Pink was no longer important, and I felt that his taking on the War Memorial for the VietNam fallen folks was blowing bubbles some, and it felt kinda fake, certainly not in the sense that it lacked meaning, but I thought the context was kinda shaken up a bit.

On "BOFR" update.

The video of "Bravery Out of Range" is another story, in my book. "Amused to Death" was a magnificent album, which even included Jeff Beck beautifully done, and while I enjoyed it quite a bit, I did feel that some of the lyrics were topical and trying to show that he was "relevant" when it came to opinions, and of course, he got panned left and right for opening his mouth ... just shut up and play rock music! Which RW refuses to do, right?

The new version is actually nicer than the original, although I think he's in a time warp, and his using of Ronald Reagan in the video show how out of time he is, even though the music in it itself and the arrangement stands out really nice. The presentation itself, is a bit weird for me ... the 2 cute little girls doing the background vocals, are a distraction for what would be a serious song, so there is a sort of dichotomy here that seems more related to rock music and its presentation (sexy first!), than it does to the value of the wording and total meaning ... so it's sexy to be brave and out of range?

I don't think that RW realizes that the Internet has made things very confusing and that no one knows what is right or wrong, and neither does Roger for that matter, and that we're all caught in this media driven confusion, to the point that "lyrics" are junk, and meaningless. No one is even discussing the latest Ian's lyrics! The "words" have lost their touch! I think RW thought the song deserved a bit more attention than before, but using Reagan, he only dates himself, and shows that he is stuck in a time warp. No one remembers Reagan, or gives a damn! And all of a sudden his song becomes quite ... empty. I don't think he realizes that, obviously, or he would have done something else.

Either way we look at it, it's a sad shape of affairs. None of us listens, and on top of it I don't think many of us give a damn, other than posting a comment that is not anywhere near that idea, or the concept of what the song is about.

I think it was a really good idea not to insert current politicians in what is and should remain a timeless song about corrupt leaders. If you think that Roger is unaware of the current political landscape, you haven't been paying attention. As for Lucius - sure, insult the "little girls". Way to go, old man.

Recently listened to:

I'm all good with The Wall and Animals having a lot of political meanings and nods, but I've always taken DarkSide to be much more about mental illness and life in general. The song Money is heavily about greed and how money can make us greedy and only want material things, I don't consider that a political thing, anybody can be greedy.

Catcher10 wrote:

I've read arguments in other places that this version is the "older" Roger Waters version of DSOTM, paying tribute to his younger days when the album was created.

But on his website he talks about "...also to re-address the political and emotional message of the whole album.."

Maybe just me but I've never viewed the original with a political message. Roger is so infatuated with politics he may be trying to alter the meaning of the album today??

The original DSOTM (in my own opinion) was about the trials of life, death and mental illness. The only nods to politics being their cynical paean to consumerism, i.e. 'Money', and musings on the futility of conflict, i.e. 'Us and Them'.

[I could write a PhD thesis on the concepts and meaning of DSOTM, but haven't got the time just now!]

Edited by Progishness - July 31 2023 at 09:49

"We're going to need a bigger swear jar."

Chloë Grace Moretz as Mindy McCready aka 'Hit Girl' in Kick-Ass 2

Sean Trane wrote:

Looks and sounds like I will pass on this

Bloody hell! "Us and Them" is an even worse botch job than "Money." It's damn embarrassing. This is the point where it's evident that Waters' ego overran any common sense, and he's tumbling arse over teat down a hill in a desparate attempt to pretend Gilmour and Wright never existed.

...a vigorous circular motion hitherto unknown to the people of this area, but destined
to take the place of the mud shark in your mythology...

Post Reply	Page <1 3 456 7 8 >