Roger Waters Time Redux

I give it four stars - excellent. Much better than the Money redux.

MikeEnRegalia wrote: I give it four stars - excellent. Much better than the Money redux.

If you never heard the song before, or of Roger Waters, would you still rate it four stars?

I don't really have any issues with the more mellow approach he is taking, and maybe not even the singing style so much. The addition of strings is interesting but could have been so much more than just flourishes between the lines of the verses. I wanted more of that deep cello sound. I don't like the drums in the mix, particularly the sounds of the snare and tom-toms. I'm not actually that bothered by the instrumental break. It actually fits this style. Having said all that, it pales in comparison to the original. It's missing that raw energy that complemented the lyrics. I'd give it a 5/10. Nice for a long elevator ride.

Grumpyprogfan wrote: MikeEnRegalia wrote: I give it four stars - excellent. Much better than the Money redux. If you never heard the song before, or of Roger Waters, would you still rate it four stars?

Sorry its dreadful, the whole clock, drum, instrumental intro in the first two minutes has been replaced with dreary poetry, the soaring guitar section in the middle has gone, drums are much more in front but and much slower and more boring.

Nogbad_The_Bad wrote: Sorry its dreadful, the whole clock, drum, instrumental intro in the first two minutes has been replaced with dreary poetry, the soaring guitar section in the middle has gone, drums are much more in front but and much slower and more boring.

moshkito wrote: Nogbad_The_Bad wrote: Sorry its dreadful, the whole clock, drum, instrumental intro in the first two minutes has been replaced with dreary poetry, the soaring guitar section in the middle has gone, drums are much more in front but and much slower and more boring. Hi, I wonder if we say that because we have heard the "original" so many times. No one answered the question how would you feel if it had never been done and this was a new song ... and maybe the issue here is that we're not capable of looking at it as a new song ... we have to "compare it" ... and as such, there are a lot of differences, but those don't necessarily make it worse, unless you have Tiny Tim doing the vocals for you ... or Pee Wee Herman! If I listen to it as something new, my review is already listed above ... the last part is showing how the album was "transitioned" to make room for the next piece and "keep it" within a "concept" atmosphere, which the next song, for me, in that case, would not fit! But like another song later, maybe if it was sung by Roy Harper, we might enjoy and appreciate the thing better! I'm not a fan of that song, btw, but the visuals were far out in the show.

Oh I agree, but we do have the original and it wonderful. One thing this has done is make me go back to the original which I haven't listened to in ages due to overplay. It's still wonderful.

Nogbad_The_Bad wrote: Sorry its dreadful, the whole clock, drum, instrumental intro in the first two minutes has been replaced with dreary poetry, the soaring guitar section in the middle has gone, drums are much more in front but and much slower and more boring.

You’re describing the essence of “redux”.

Octopus II wrote: Not sure what to make of it really. Was it really necessary to remake The Dark Side Of The Moon?

Maybe Roger needs the money. He should write a song about that. Oh, wait...