• Gilmour VS. Waters

    Every now and then, we (my band) have these little fights or arguments over who is better; Gilmour or Waters. We (well, most of us) always end up with Gilmour and judging by the way we perform the Floyd songs, we are on Gilmour’s side… If there is such a thing as taking sides in this matter. Still, very early on we decided that we were only to perform songs from the original era.. the Waters era. Why? Both the songs and live experience was better in the 70’s.

    Yesterday we got a bootleg from the Rio concert, – Waters’ opening night. I was, or we all were, excited that he had pulled out rare classics like Sheep and Fletcher’s Memorial Home (we are all huge fans of Final Cut). I don’t know what we expected, but I was (and still is) very pissed that it sounded so bad… Yes, I was pissed. Now, I know a lot of you are Waters fans. Probably as much as you like Gilmour, but get me right. I respect the man and I’m a huge fan of his work. Hey, there wouldn’t have been a Floyd without him… or a Gilmour! But, I get embarassed when I listen to his own versions of the Floyd classics. The man just can’t get it right… he never has…

    OK. Before you delete my site from your bookmarks and call me a jerk, let me explain my view. To me, Gilmour has always been the true musicican in Floyd. From the very start (almost), he took charge in shaping Waters’ ideas into listenable pieces. Together with Wright and Mason, he made them into the classics we know today. Sure, Waters was the man behind most of it, but could he play? No. Could he write down the long instrumental parts? No. It’s all Gilmour and Wright. I think what Waters’ did best was to say “I like this” and “I don’t like this”. He has always been good at hearing what he wants and telling the band how to do it, but it takes a musician to make it happen…
    This is also why I think his live shows differs so much from Gilmour’s way of doing things. Waters has been doing his own “thing” since the Pros and Cons tour in the mid 80’s and while I can understand that one gets caught up in the tacky 80’s way of doing things, I can’t understand why he doesn’t change things around now to sound as Floyd as possible. He is the one who travles around claiming to be the “Creative Genious of Pink Floyd”, but he sounds like a bad cover…

    Gilmour has put together a band consisting of some of the finest musicians the business has to offer. Not only that, but they want to make it sound authentic and good. I don’t even think Gilmour had to tell them that. They have a vibe and feeling that surpasses everything one could have hoped for from farily young musicians. Of course it helps to have names like Phil Mazanera and Richard Wright too… So what have Waters done? It’s obvious that he is comfortable with the guys from the original Bleeding Hearts Band, because he keeps bringing them in and it sounds exactly the same as in 85. Double bass drums on Shine On. Endless “Van Halen” wanking on the guitar and not a soulful moment from any of them. Not even Waters sounds like him self… I was surprised how good he sounded on Live 8. This was not the bass player I had vitnessed the last decades. This was the good ol’ Roger. It didn’t last tho…

    I know you can’t judge a band on the opening night and let alone on a bootleg, but that’s not really my point either. I was hoping Waters was so “on” the Floyd thing again (as he claims) and that he had done everything to make it sound right. Unfortunately he hasn’t… This has nothing to do with the fact that I saw Gilmour last week performing Echoes (that I am blinded). I only think that he has prooven once and for all that he has the right tools to bring on the Floyd legacy. The sad thing though (at last for me), is that I don’t think most people even care or hear the difference. They want a good show and the old classics. After all, let’s face it… Roger Waters has a bigger name than David Gilmour.

    So, if you’re still reading… This “war” that has been going on since “87” has probably done more to the fans than Floyd it self. It’s like a nation voting for two persidents or “should we have this religion or this?”. Basically it’s all just stupid and ultimately it comes down to taste… which obviously one can’t argue. It seems to be a two way thing between the fans and the band too. The more the fans and press talks about the conflict, the bigger it seems to get. It’s funny to see how the tables have turned… Now it is Gilmour who doesn’t want a band. I can’t blame him and he is fortunate enought to make his own calls. Still, it’s pretty frustrating for the fans and like Mason said , – it’s pretty British too… or childish. Why can’t they just talk to each other and deal with it? Live 8 didn’t help at all it seems… And don’t tell me that it’s just a coincidence that Gilmour has added new outdoor dates too his tour and are putting out PULSE while Roger is touring. The war is still on…

    Post Tagged with ,

230 Responsesso far.

  1. ricardo says:

    you’re probably right, but if waters couln’t write down the long instrumentals parts how did he manage to write that opera about the french revolution ?

  2. Lynde Smith says:

    I loved it totally agree. David is awesome and roger scares me haha

  3. Anthony says:

    Eh, no. Waters wrote all the lyrics and 90% of the music on dsotm, wywh and animals. I love the other guys and they contributed to the sound of Pink Floyd. But Waters is and will always be the aritect behind the band.

    • Endre says:

      Simply no. He did not write 90% of it. As Bjørn also wrote on this subject before, credits is a tricky beast. Writing and producing credits is about who earns what amount of money, in what capacity they do stuff on the album. I have read and seen as good as all there is to read/watch on documentaries and interviews from the band and producers/mixers involved with Pink Floyd. They all played, rehearsed and threw out ideas and riffs together before the Animals album. But the guy sparking the initial idea or riff that evolved into the final song usually get the main writing credit.

      Waters started to take full control in the start of the Animals album. You can clearly hear the shift in music direction, wich then continued on and manifested itself completly by the time they started on the album The Wall. And if you listen to both Final Cut and The Wall, the structure and soundscape are pretty much the same. The Wall was Waters writing 90%. Final Cut was 100% Waters.

      You can tell the differense in how the albums feel. Division bell and endless river sounds alot more like wywh and dsotm in its structure and flow. Endless river actually sounds very close to some of the long instrumental parts on shine on. It’s pretty evident who made pink floyd sound like ‘classic pink floyd’. And its even more evident when you go to their live shows. But waters was a creative force. He did contribute alot on all those albums. He was the main driving force behind the consepts and themes of the albums, he wrote alot of the music and also contributed 100% involved with all the lyrics from dsotm and onwards. So yes, waters contributed ALOT, but not 90%.

  4. Endre says:

    This debate should be really simple. If you think The Wall/Final Cut is Pink Floyds masterpieces, then clearly Waters is the ‘creative leader and boss’. If you think DSOTM and WYWH are the best, then Wright/Gilmour must be the way to go. You can hear the same musical landscape on dsotm, wywh and Division Bell, Endless River. Also in David’s recent solo work and live performances. It’s Pink Floyd through and through.

    A good idea in itself isn’t enough to create good music. Music is, after all, about music. Not words or creative ideas in itself. And thats the direction, a Waters dominant Floyd, was heading. Dark, bleak and depressive.The truth is, alot of other people in and around the band had alot more influence on these records, than Waters wants us to believe. Bob Ezrin had alot of creative input on the wall. Gilmour shaped the tunes. He added texture and extended musical pieces to make it fit together as a whole piece.

    And as Gilmour so eloquently put it “Roger never had any success with anything he had full creative control over”

  5. ojay says:

    To me Waters was the creative talent and the rest were his backing band I only have to listen to the crap Pink fraud put out after Waters left to reinforce that theory.

    I love Gilmour, Mason and Wright as musicians but creatively they bore the pants off me.
    Don’t get me started on Polly.

    I agree that I have heard Waters do some Floyd tunes at live shows and they were not as good as Floyd, with the exception of ‘The Wall tour’ which I felt that the only element missing was Gilmour’s vocals.

    I know I only speak for myself but hey that’s what makes life interesting.

    Don’t hate debate.

  6. Seth Heaster says:

    I definitely think Gilmour is better. Waters sounds really bad without the rest of the band. His name that he tours with him is just awful. I was watching a rig rundown of the guitars, and his main guitar was a Les Paul. I was just like “A Les Paul?!? As a main guitar for Floyd?!? ARE YOU KIDDING ME?!?” And it always makes me mad how either 1) the band is just a really bad cover band, 2) he purposefully messes with the the songs, or 3) he wants to get away from his Floyd background. But if he wants number 3, he’s not doing it right, as well as he always claimed/claims that he is Pink Floyd. Don’t get me wromng, I like his lyrics, but the true emotion comes from Gilmours guitars, Richard’s careful movements in the keys, and Mason’s ability to feel the song and develop a drum fill perfect for the mood.

  7. Glumonion says:

    Great Post!
    I’ve been a Pink Floyd fan since the wonderful sounds of Echo,s came willowing out of my brothers sickly sweet smoke filled room in 1972. The best albums by far are those between 1970 and 1977 (Atom heart to Animals). Personal favourites are Wish You Were Here and Meddle.
    For me there were four important components of Pink Floyd. Roger Waters provided the strength and substance.
    David Gilmour the Musicallity.
    Richard Wright provided the gorgeous texture that was uniquely Pink Floyd.
    Nick Mason was the rhythm and the catalyst that brought the whole thing together.
    Working together they were awsome, working individually they were a pale shadow of their united selves. You only had to go back to the studio part of Ummagumma to realise this.
    The trouble started when they asked ‘which one is Pink’. They should have listened to Ummagumma at that point to confirm that only together they were Pink Floyd.

  8. Fa says:

    I agree with you mostly. Fan of Pink Floyd since I’m 14. I think Waters is like the strengh of the band and Gilmour and Wright are like the harmony. Without them it wouldn’t happen. Without Water wouldn’t happen either. I was never a fan of “The Piper at the Gates of Dawn”, Gilmour wasn’t in there… so it is easy to see his legacy. Echoes is a good example of these 4 together doing a masterpiece. Sad that Waters didn’t let the band go farther or have the others participate more (Animals and The Wall could be even better). Anyways, I was to a Roger Waters concert and I enjoyed every second (I knew it would never be like Pink Floyd) but it is the closest experience I could get. I hope to see Gilmour in the future.

  9. mnanda says:

    Obviously opinions vary. Personally my favorites are the last 4 albums waters and gilmour did together – dark side, animals, wish you were here, the wall. It was dark side that rogers commented they had finally learned to use their chisels properly and this time did it right. I couldn’t agree more. Everything before that, especially the syd barret era, I could just not get into any of that stuff. Obscured by clouds was ok, the next best runner up, and Floyd in Pompeii has one very good song. But otherwise, all the early stuff is no comparison at all. It’s like they were just experimenting and doing all kinds of whacky stuff rather than making real good music, I mean come on – a song with a dog barking ?? But then suddenly with dark side they went from tinkering to lengendary song making.

    And after rogers left, their solo music was never nearly as good as Pink floyd. All the solo albums have a few hilights but simply cannot compare to the 4 best floyd albums. Would be awesome if they got back together, but i suspect even if they did (especially with wright gone) and put together another album, it just might not be quite as good as it was. The magic of pink floyd song writing is probably not only the combination of the individuals, but also the era of time, or whatever it may be, perhaps planetary influenes or something. We can see that the music of the 80’s changed from the 70’s, and by the 90’s the creative magic of soul touching songs was practically gone. The whole jaunder of classic rock pretty much ended in the 80’s when van halen changed to sammy hagar.

    It’s almost like we’re kind of stuck listening to just music from 30+ years ago. Sure there’s a few catchy tunes that come and go but all the modern music just comes and goes, nothing lengendary and long lasting like Floyd.

    But what I’d like to know mostly is how the pink floyd songs came together. Each song may vary and it would be very intersting for musicians to know how exactly each song evolved – did it start with lyrics, a chord progression, keyboards or what. I have searched on this topic and cannot find much details. There’s a few mentions only for instance Crazy Diamond gilmour mentioned that it was the 4 opening notes he stumbled up first which then inspired waters with the lyrics. And with the wall it is said that waters basically came in with the whole thing already written and when he asked the others what they had written, they had nothing prepared.

    This is what I’d really like to know – what exactly did waters already have written when he introduced the concept of the wall to the band ? Are we talking just the lyrics, are we talking lyrics and chords or what ? Waters was primarily the bass player, but you do see him on documentaries or on the live performance of ‘mother’ where he plays acoustic guitar. Did he write the songs with acoustic guitar, come up with the basic chord structure and lyrics ? O did he write the song on bass. Did he use a metronome ? How exactly did the different instruments come together, one after the other, simultaneously, track by track, or by an improvised live jam ? Some albums of various bands are first composed with all the instruments, and then lastly the vocals are written. Then sometimes it starts with vocals, etc, etc.

    We would need to know all this and know exactly who contributed what. But I don’t see anyone talking about this (unless I missed something in this very long thread). What we need is a documentary where we interview waters, gilmour and the sound engineers and walk through each song and break it down. Get each of their takes on how it came together. That would be most interesting and very educational musically for those of us who are interested in song writing.

    • Bjorn says:

      This is widely documented in different books, interviews etc. There is enough info out there to figure out who did what. Keep in mind though… Pink Floyd, like most bands back in the days, worked out their songs together. Either in the studio, during soundchecks or live shows. It was often a long process of everyone chipping in, adding ideas and their sound.

      Credits on the album cover often refer to the initial idea but Roger’s ideas were often some lyrics, bits of chords and perhaps a very rough demo of him playing acoustic. Money is a great example of how one of his very crude ideas became the song we know, after everyone added something. Not only specific pieces and ideas but playing the song together also makes you realize what’s working and what’s not, so the song also evolves naturally from just jamming and playing.

      Credits is also about politics and money. The Wall for instance, is mostly credited to Roger, but while he did have the concept and indeas for most of the songs, the versions and albums that we know, is largely a group effort with a lot of input from David, Bob Ezrin and Michael Kamen in particular.

      Same goes for a solo album. Neither Amused to Death nor On an Island, or any of the other albums, are just Roger or David. It’s a group effort between them, the producer and all the musicians playing.

      Again, we know a lot about who had the idea, who wrote the demo and lyrics and who contributed what but between all that, there is a group effort that is hard to pin down and again, that’s rarely reflected in the album’s credits.

  10. Scott says:

    So I read most of this article and I couldn’t finish it. Let me start off by saying Gilmore as much as I agree how absolutely incredible he is and I love his music. Waters was in the band from the very beginning. David was lucky to have the chance to fill in guitar for Sid’s issues. Waters was part of the writing from the beginning to help shape there psychedelic sound.

    Waters wrote most of there best albums. I have seen him the last 3 times he came to the states. If you watch the documentary’s you can see just how extremely involved Roger is with the writing. Roger is the Lennon of the group and David/ wright are the McCartney’s of the band. They all serve a important part in the band! Just remember the waterless Floyd though still great was not nearly as edgy as with Waters.

    • John says:

      Agreed. If you were lucky enough to attend a concert from Water’s 2017 “Us + Them” tour, it didn’t take long to realize who the master behind Pink Floyd was. Wow. Just wow. The medium + the message.

      • Jules says:

        I was lucky enough to see Us and Them and yes I agree mostly. Although I do think Gilmour and the rest had a lot to do with the pearly perfection of Pink Floyd. You would have noted that Roger has not changed much in the music when he plays PF today. He is sharp enough to know perfection when he hears it. .

        I can see the Lennon/ McCartney comparison loosely. Roger while strong musically can be a bit dry like Lennon and Gilmour a bit soft at times like McCartney. Together they sound perfect! Interestingly (and probably no coincidence, I think Roger may have figured this out!) Roger’s new record with the very mellow, talented, warm touch of Jonathan Wilson (looking a bit like a young Gilmour at first glance)creates a nice balance. After PF Waters has played with greatness like Jeff Beck and Clapton and while good it wasn’t up to Floyd standard. The new record to me is of PF caliber.

        Well anyhow, they are only human and you can see how Rogers talents and vision were a force of their own. How could a creative force that strong be contained!? He couldn’t. And good for the others for standing their ground. Ironically the Waters show made me appreciate Gilmour ( and of course Roger and all the band) even more. I say bless them all and they should do what makes them happy! I’m thankful for what they have done and are doing. They all seem to live up to the message in their music doing lots of charity work and promoting peace.

        The Us and Them show really was just WOW. The message, the medium , the music. Roger is a kind (listen to the lyrics on his new record! OMG!) lovely man who is undeniably genius. I think Dave is too in his own way. Sometimes its not the quantity but the quality of contributions. Ever had a soup without seasoning?! Small things can make a big difference.

  11. Larry says:

    I have been alloys fan since animals( I am 58 this year) and admired the genius behind the music. Roger is a great writer but as you said Gilmour made the magic. I know they are gonna celebrate 50 years of Floyd but I don’t see the children playing nicely and it will be a shame I won’t see them together again

  12. Endre says:

    In my mind, what far too many Floyd fans fail to realise, is that Pink Floyd was NEVER about the individual band members. Floyd was never about a “Mick Jagger or John Lennon” type of band. It was all about the music and what the music made us feel. End of story. “Fans” saying Floyd post Waters era is fake Floyd is just pure nonsense! If we wanna follow these mindsets, Floyd post Syd era, is also not the true Pink Floyd. How can people even think such crap out loud?!? Floyd was doing fine after Syd got mad. And Floyd did just fine after Waters left the band. Some like Syd`s era the most…some like the 70`s era, and some like the post Waters era the best. It`s all about taste and it is ALL Pink Floyd. Nothing of it is fake or a forgery. Personally I like the DSOTM and WYWH era the most. It has a magical feel to it, because of the perfect blend between Waters lyrics and Dave & Ricks music and melodies. But Division Bell is probably my favourite album. Throw away all knowledge of wich band member I like the most and who did what on this and that, that album is just wonderful musically. High Hopes and Marooned are probably some of Floyds best tunes.

    But this thread is about the individuals after all ;) So I`m just gonna put in my two cents on the matter. Just a couple of facts I need to adress:

    Roger Waters left Pink Floyd on his own damn free will. David, Nick or Rick didn`t have anything to do with that. Waters thought HE was Pink Floyd. Fact: He never was. He was only a part of Pink Floyd. 1/4th infact. If Roger would have stayed in the band, none of this hatred crap that followed for years would have happened. That is Warer`s fault. Period! Waters had NO rights to decide when Floyd was to be declared finnished.

    I have read a ton of interviews from almost every singel person involved with producing an album with the Floyds, and every singel one of them says exactly the same, about how Waters forcefully grabbed control of the band and making it almost impossible to contribute anything creative to the records post the Animals album.

    People calling Momentary Lapse a forgery? Divison bell is just a fake Floyd rehash of the same old Floyd formula? Well…by that mindset, then Shine on must be a fake carbon copy of Echoes? Or the song Mother, a dreadful fake formula copy of Wish You Were Here? Why isn`t anybody saying that??

    Fact is, all of the shit that happened since the band fell apart in the 70`s was Roger`s fault. None of it would have happened if he didn`t go “Stalin” on the band. Read interviews from Alan Parker and Bob Ezrin to get more insight on how that story really was.

    Fact is, Gilmour and Wright made Floyd sound like Pink Floyd. Everything Roger did alone, after the Wall sounded like a great band trying to sound like Pink Floyd. But it still feels like a cover band. I attended both Roger`s the Wall shows here in Norway, it it was spectacular! It was awesome, and it floored me! I love Roger`s work. I admire his writings, but he is not Mr.Pink Floyd by himself alone. David on the other hand, has always sounded more Floydìsh. It feels natural. It doesn`t feel forced or fake. I can not really put my finger on it, but it feels authentic.

    Imagine the Water`s Pros and Cons album under the Pink Floyd name. Think it would have had The Walls popularity and legendary status? I think not. It is a mess of an album. No real structure musically and lyrically. And I feel the same way about Amused to death. I love Roger`s lyrics on it, and I really love bits and pieces of the muical parts on it, but it drags on for too long. It`s too much about the concept and the words, Too much sound effects and background noises. It doesn`t feel as structurally impressive as The Wall. And in my mind that is what Warers lacks. He is all about the grand scheme and the big crazy ideas, and not too interested in the music and the melodies. If I wanna read poems or a great story, I buy a book. If I wanna listen to music, I sit down listening to a record. You can take away lyrics and still call it music, but you can not take away the music and still call it a song. There should always be a balance between the lyrics and the music. That is why DSOTM and WYWH are the two most iconic Floyd albums of all time. It was the perfect blend.

  13. Craig James says:

    Waters has ALWAYS been overrated …………..he hasn’t been able to put out a single – single that is listenable without Gilmour and Wright.

  14. Ray Stoll says:

    May I comment?

  15. Drone says:

    ive seen both seperately several times and i can say that both are great solo, but together they are the best band ever assembled. Its one of those yin and yang things. Maybe one day I will get to see them play a full show together. I was 6 the last time they toured and i think they owe it to their legion of younger fans to bury the hatchet and do one last tour together. Perhaps a 40th anniversary Animals tour? I think its the best album ever made.

  16. I think you make a terrific comment, BUT, your conclusory remarks are disappointing. Without Gilmour, Wright and Mason, there is NO PINK FLOYD, period. Roger cannot carry that on his shoulders no matter how great a writer he was. Without G, W &M, Waters is another Bob Dylan. I love Roger AND David and don’t really care who is the better known (Roger for touring the Wall solo for so long…). Without both of them and the other two, there is no PF.

  17. Jon Rogers says:

    Wow, long thread. in my little opinion, I have to go back to the beginning. Waters is a lyrical genius (notably inspired by Syd Barrett) Since his writing style was developed when he had to take over the job of song writer for a band that already had a style and a following that Barrett created. When his songwriting took shape he was definitely the better songwriter. His lyrics were colored with depth and emotions. He painted pictures with words. However equally notable is the dramatic change that happened as Gilmour became more of a contributor. Gilmour is the better musician. His guitar work changed the band. He took the basic elements of a song and created the brilliant landscapes for the words. And it is impossible to leave Wright or Mason out, they carried the original psychedelic theme of the band through the transition from the PF of the 60’s to what became the PF that left its mark on the world. They provided the canvas and gave the music its theme.
    I believe it is the perfect combination of personalities, talents, events and influences that created the sound. It was the frustrating battle of egos forced to work together as a band that created the atmosphere. Finally it was the collective genius of Waters ideas and lyrics with Gilmours musical talent, mixed with Barretts legacy, an ever-present influence that resulted in some of the best music ever recorded. In the end they are both great. But none of them could ever capture the magic of Pink Floyd without the other. Sadly for all of us who love their music, Pink Floyd died with Richard Wright. Although he gets less credit, he was the original member that tied all of these things together.

  18. Michael Connelly says:

    Get a grip folks!! We have had the best of both worlds for a long time.
    Roger Waters was the main lyricist and driving force of the band and Gilmour and Wright were the sound of Pink Floyd ( inc Mason )!! Let’s not forget it was Roger’s decision to leave the band publicly in 1985 and Gilmour and Mason decided to continue with the band,there is no doubt that Roger’s lyrics and driving force were pivotal to the band from Meddle to The Wall ( but the input from Gilmour, Mason and Wright were just as important, granted Wright did not contribute much on Animals or The Wall ). The combination of all 4 members WERE the sound of Pink Floyd. Sure The Final Cut was a Water’s solo album, sure A Momentary Lapse Of Reason was a Gilmour solo album, but we should be glad to have them both! These albums from another band would be hailed as a classic or very good ( but admittedly not to the highest standard of the band, but very good nonetheless). I have to say that Amused To Death is a personal favourite of mine as is On An Island, sure About Face and Radio Kaos sound dated and they are 80’s sounding albums, but tell me is that a bad thing?
    I say this to you all, be thankful of the body of work created by the band over the last 50 years ( inc The Endless River ). I am eternally greatful to Syd Barrett, Roger Waters, David Gilmour, Richard Wright & Nick Mason with providing me with the best music which has been with me through my life’s journey and all the memories of Floyd concerts and solo tours over the years, long live Pink Floyd!!!

  19. KAOS83 says:

    You have summed this up “Perfectly”!! I have been a Huge Pink Floyd Fan for over 40 years, I always liked the whole Band, but when it came down to picking a member as my favorite, it was always Syd, then Roger as my favorites. Once the Final Cut was finished, which I didn’t like instantly, but grew to like as I listened….well, other than about 3 Songs that I considered instantly “Catchy”…..even when the Fighting began, went public, I had been on Waters side so much in my young years, that I just naturally went with him……But, as I’ve aged, and have looked at things with a more Mature and Understanding Mind, I can see that Dave Gilmour really did “Shape, Put it All Together-Musically etc….even playing Roger’s Bass Lines so many times……David just was really much more the “Pink” in Pink Floyd, that I always presumed was Waters. It comes down to, I don’t care so much in the arguments, who wrote this, or that, or the most…..but rather what the Finished Product “Sounds Like”!! And David Gilmour’s Solo Works, as well as Pink Floyd without Roger, led by Dave, sounds so much More like “Pink Floyd” than anything that Roger has written in his Solo works…..and when either of them, with their respective Bands, has gone out and played the Pink Floyd Material, David Gilmour’s Work always sound Way more like Pink Floyd!! Not even close!! It’s amazing that David has had so much more to do with the Overall Sound of Pink Floyd, that goes under the Radar by casual fans…Roger knows this is True too, and that was killing his Huge Ego all these years…..But I have truly come to be honest with myself, and see for myself just how much so David Gilmour made up of Pink Floyd….Vocally…..Musically…..and Pulling it all Together for that Perfect Sound….that he and Roger wanted!! And also how much of a role Rick Wright had in the Pink Floyd sound so much Input musically also….till Roger kinda worked him out of it all…..David being so much more Humble, and Gentleman made it so much easier for the Remaining Members of the Floyd to Go at it Together, and Rightfully go on as intended as “Pink Floyd”!!! I am so Happy and Grateful that they did!!! Amazing Albums that they put out Together!! I still like Roger, but he’s not all or what I had believed he was, in my younger days……….

  20. Jorge says:

    Waw, i still can’t believe i’ve manage to read all posts. I must admit while the actual (mature) discussion of this is fun, i was getting really fed up with a lot of the childish, Roger fanboy worship like and uninformed attitude on some of the posters here, but i’ve made it thru.
    I’m not even going to get into the discussion itself as it’s been discussed to death and with a lot of great arguments.

    All i can say for my personal experience is, i first got into PF in the 80’s, my first record was the Delicate Sound of Thunder (vinyl) witch i still have and love. I’ve must have played that record hundreds of times. So for a long time that WAS the PF sound. Songs like “Learning to Fly”, “On the Turning Away”, and “Sorrow” will forever stay with me. Than came the Division Bell and Pulse, witch i also loved but feel it lacked a bit of the energy of DSOT.
    I new a bit of the story of Roger at the time, but for me back then he was just a bass player, so i didn’t understand what all the fuss was about him leaving, they still sounding amazing,
    Only years later i’ve started to listen to the earlier records and really started to understand the massive contribution Roger had given to the band, as well as David’s and Rick’s, and actually understanding what they where about.
    So i guess the period that you where first exposed to PF has a lot of influence on what period you prefer.
    I personalty love all of PF eras, SYD era, Waters era and post Waters era. As much as i love all the 70’s records i cant imagine a Floyd without some songs from AMLOR and TDB.
    And i prefer the Shine On played on the 80’s and 90’s to the versions played on the 70’s, as much of a blasphemy that may seem to some.

    All this being said for me is shocking to read some comments about Gilmour saying “all he did was make the solos, or the arrangements or whatever…”
    All he did..????? And you think that’s nothing compared to Roger part??? What is it with some people and lyrics? Yes Roger made most of the lyrics and they are great, but the biggest part of the Floyd “sound” was David and Rick.
    They have all contributed equally for what was PF, each one on what they did best, Roger with lyrics and ideas and Dave and Rick with music and arrangements, both things equally important.
    As a musician myself i will take a song with weak lyrics and great music over a song with great lyrics and poor music any time. I liked Roger’s In the flesh gigs, but i would’t take it over Pulse or DSOT by any means.
    So there you have another opinion, to prove that apart from actual facts, taste is always subjective and there are no wrights or wrongs.

  21. fred quin says:

    Pink Floyd is over and there is no more.
    All there is now, is what was.

  22. Emmett says:

    “Double bass drums on Shine On” “Since 85″
    Dude, he didn’t even play Shine On until 99, and I seem to recall his drummer, Graham Broad, as only having ONE bass drum. Nick Mason on the other hand uses two. And I’d hardly label the playing of Eric Clapton, Snowy White, Andy Fairweather-Low or Jeff Beck as “endless Van Halen wanking”.

    Also, judging his playing and version of things by the quality of a bootleg? Really? Go listen to a live Gilmour bootleg from 85 and tell me it’s any better.

    Not bashing Gilmour, but this is a bit skewed.

  23. KEITH says:

    Bjorn, who played the fretless bassline on Hey You? I assume that Roger didn’t do a lot of the bass on the albums, but that’s such a great fretless line, I wondered if it was him, David, or someone Bob Ezrin chose?

    Thanks, Keith
    PS, Bob Ezrin did such an awesome job with the guitars of Steve Hunter, and Dick Wagner on the live album, “The Alice Cooper Show”. Have you heard the album? Possibly the best sounding live album I’ve heard production wise. Also the same two guitarists on Lou Reeds Rock ‘N’ Roll Animal! Also Ezrin produced.

    [That’s Gilmour :) He played a Charvel fretless P-bass I think. – Bjorn]

  24. KEITH says:

    To clarify my point, IMO, most older fans prefer the Pink Floyd that existed from Animals, back to Arnold Layne. And my personal experience shows that after the ’77 tour, they became a completely different band. In ’77, they were exactly what I expected, and more, in ’88, I really didn’t get it, but in ’94, because the set was mostly Roger era material, the show itself was a spectacle to behold, with many musicians of great talent, and a gazzilion dollar stage show, one couldn’t help but enjoy it. However, it didn’t hold a candle to Tampa ’77, and the Animals tour. A horse of an entirely different color, with the same name. A great band? Oh yes!, Pink Floyd, by no means the Floyd I grew up with. I will say no more on the subject, but would love to hear the opinions of those lucky enough to have seen both eras.

    Peace, Love, and Pinks,( Three Different Ones!)

    [Well, one can always argue that a band was better in a certain period but this will almost always be a subjective perspective. Our experience and perception of music, and art in general, is very often tied to a specific point in our lives. Pink Floyd’s career span over 40 years and both them as a band and we, as the listener, will change over that period. I think this is important to keep in mind when music is discussed. It’s not just the case of whether or not a band changes but also if you have changed. And you certainly have. This is also why younger people will have a stronger relationship to their later catalogue then people who discovered them in the early days. – Bjorn]

  25. KEITH says:

    @Stephen, regardless of our differences off the playing field, you hit the nail squarely on the head with your post.

    Peace, and forgiveness, Keith

  26. KEITH says:

    I don’t think bad mouthing any of these talented men is of any value either. However, for us older Floyd fans, IMO the band stopped being Pink Floyd the minute Roger kicked Rick out. Everything recorded by either camp since Animals has been a mere shadow of a once great band. I get that most born after around ’79 love mlor, and db, and fc, but other than a handful of songs on all of those albums put together, there’s not much Pink Floyd about them. I saw the Animals tour in Tampa, Fla in ’77, MLOR in ’88, and DB in ’94, both at RFK, and while the DB tour was very good,( almost all old material), the ’88 show I didn’t recognize a song, and compared to Tampa, both shows didn’t come close to the magic of that! It’s like comoaring Meddle, or WYWH, to MLOR! There us no comparison!!!
    But I don’t disparage either camp, but to me, Floyd ceased to exist in a slow, steady fashion between ’77, and ’80.

    Peace all, Keith

  27. Brad Roller says:

    Why can’t people just love every single floyd version and love every single member of the band like I do? I LOVE syd barret floyd, I love everything after syd left, from saucer full to the final cut, then from momentary to division bell and I’m going to love The Endless River! I love Pink Floyd regardless of the version. Each member was brilliant in their own way, btw Rog, Gilmour is not a liar he is a straight forward person and he had every right to use the band name. If you think of Gilmour in such a way, why are you on a site dedicated to him? Sorry Bjorn I just had to put my 2 cents in. Lol You’ll never hear me bad mouth any of the members.

  28. Stephen says:

    @ Leftwhinge

    It is not a question of members changing but who has influence on the writing of the music. When David hires on other performers today they are not there to be an equal part of the decision making in the musical creation. They are paid musicians to come and fulfill the musical desires of one person David Gilmour, therefore they are merely an extension off of 1 creator. Pink Floyd had already gone through a transition when Syd left, getting David on board was an amazing stroke of luck but at that point they all were working as a team to create one sound together. Even when one took the lead as with the Wall and Final Cut there was still stylistic and creative input from the others in the band.

    If David were to find new members and give the new members equal say in the new direction of the music it would certainly undergo another evolution (perhaps better perhaps worse subjectively speaking). As for now I prefer to look at post Waters Pink Floyd as “David and Friends” as it is primarily Davids solo work, some of which Wright and Mason were a part of. In this way I find that Floyd has stagnated as there is no longer give and take between creative forces but just one persons vision. David is certainly one of the greats in rock history but he was made great by being part of the Floyd as well. Without the history of Syd and the writing duo of Waters and Gilmour he perhaps would never have made it to such an elevated status. It is pointless to argue since we can not know paths which were not taken but certainly Roger was a key stone in the sound of Floyd as was Gilmour, Wright and Mason.

    In short. David hiring other performers is not any where near to the same idea as Syd being replaced as Syd was replaced in a way that all musicians still held creative license in the music and by chance these 4 musicians created something far greater than any one of them could have created on their own.

    Cheers

  29. Bo says:

    Carolyn, let’s get dinner.

  30. carolyn says:

    I have a lot more respect now for Roger’s Pink Floyd imput, and Roger himself. However, from almost the very begining of Pf i fell in love with David Gilmour’s music; soulful playing, sound and voice. Also, though maybe it is irrelevent, his person. He is as fine a man as they come. Yes, i became a fan of PF, because of David or i may never have become a fan at all ??? To me, PF is David Gilmour. Never forgetting Roger, Richard, Nick or Syd. Take Care xx

  31. Rog says:

    By the way, they even put balls to the inflatable pig so that they could use it. Talking about sincere artists.

  32. Rog says:

    I think there’s no discussion that Roger was the one who wrote most of the songs. To say that he didn’t give credit to the others is ridiculous. Why should anyone give credit for a song that he wrote himself. I have seen in one of the above posts that since Roger didn t write the keyboard and the guitar parts for some songs, these should have been credited to the other members. It is clear to me that you have no idea how songwriting credits work. If the guy came up with the chords, melody and lyrics that s enough to grant him a writing credit. Gilmour apart from the few songs he co-wrote with Roger, only wrote the solos and arranged the songs so why should Waters have given him a writing credit? Songwriters needs musicians or session men to shape up their songs but it doesn t mean that they have to give them credit for the writing of the song when all they did is arranging it. I think the credits on the Pink Floyd’s albums are true. It’s Gilmour who has been going around, ever since they broke up, spreading this nonsense and contradicting many of his interviews of the late 70s and early 80s where he was saying that Roger was the one who wrote most of the songs. So in 87, he went to great lengths to discredit Roger’s massive contributions and work in the band by spreading lies when he has always admitted himself that he was never the most prolific of songwriters. Take Dark side of the Moon. He only has 3 songwriting credits. All he did was playing well and writing good solos, that’s it. The two post-waters albums have few great tunes and the majority of the songs lack substance and edge. They are really dull. Nothing happens really. The only one that stands out is High Hopes. But i am starting to understand that only people who really know about music can really see through that. It’s the same with Gilmour’s solo albums. They are overrated. Firstly, they don’t sound at all like Pink Floyd, reinforcing the fact that he wasn’t the one writing the songs in the band. On an island for instance, it’s made up for the majority of the same boring, repetitive instrumentals that go to highlight once again Gilmour’s poor attempt to try to write decent songs and the fact that he is only a great guitar player, period. He is not able to write a complete album of songs that are not instrumental. He is a great guitar player and arranger but in the songwriting department his songs are below standard. No wonder good critics have slashed A momentary Lapse and The Division Bell. Even Comfortably Numb that many people largely associate to him, wouldn’t have become the popular hit that it is today hadn’t been for Roger’s verse and last line contribution. It would have probably ended up on one Gilmour’s solo albums as an i strumental or third-rate song. Lastly, if anybody dare to compare Gilmour’s to Water’s solo albums, i cannot but develop a feeling of animosity towards them. There is no comparison to be made. Roger is on a league of its own. He has wandered and experimented with different genres spicing up his career. Radio Kaos is a great concept album regardless of what people say. Even critics are starting to appreciate it lately. On the other hand, Gilmour’s has stuck to the same monotonous, meandering and uninteresting tunes. His style has become flat. The Endless river is another example of this. Unfortunately, by using the brand name Pink Floyd in the eighties he has managed to lie and convince people that he did more than he s credited for which is bullshit. His solo albums are a reflection of that. As far as the live concerts are concerned, i can say that Gilmour’s are more precise because he has a better voice and he is a better musician but they are not better. Roger Waters In the Flesh is far more encompassing, deep and moving than Pulse. Pulse is emotionless. Plus, there are some songs like Money that are slightly different in rythm from the original. Badly played. Roger was right in an interview: as long people recognize the tunes and see a lot of lights, they are ok. The magic was missing. Why the magic was missing? because the men who wrote most of the songs wasn’t there!!!

    [Well, who’s to credit on a song is as much politics as anything else. Especially when you sell 30mill+++ albums. These are the facts: Syd wrote most of Piper, with both Roger and Rick contributing. Pink Floyd, all four members, should be credited more or less equally for the period between 1968-71. Then, in early 1972 Roger wrote Eclipse, which would later evolve into Dark Side of the Moon. From there on, up to Final Cut, he contributed with the concepts, main song structures and lyrics (with a very few exceptions). Rick and David was very much involved musically with Dark Side and WYWH, partially with Animals and very little with Wall and Aninmals. As I see it, Animals is the last true Floyd album. Wall is mostly Waters and Ezrin, while Final Cut is purely a Waters/Kamen project.
    Different bands have different ways of crediting the songs. Who writes the lyrics is often pretty obvious, while the music is in most cases a collaboration. Although one might have provided the main chords and perhaps a structure, it’s often the case of several of the band members contributing to actually arranging the song and adding their sound and playing to the final piece. When money is involved, credits are also subjected to who benefits the most. No doubt that many bands have fought over who’s gonna get credit for what. There are no clear lines or rules and it’s often hard to point out who did what. What is writing and arranging and what is just contributing with your own playing?
    In the case of Floyd, there’s no doubt that both Rick and David had an important role in shaping and arranging Roger’s ideas into what ended up on the albums. They were the soul of the band, musically, while he had the ideas and lyrics. Again, Dark Side, WYWH and Animals are as much David and Rick as they are Roger. Wall and Final Cut is something else. I think you’re wrong in comparing these albums to Floyd’s latter work and David’s solo albums. David is nor Roger. Nor is he Floyd. He’s first solo album and Island is deliberately something different because he wanted to do something different. About Face is more of a record company thing… different story. Momentary and Division Bell can’t be compared to the 70s Floyd because, yes Roger wasn’t involved, but don’t be fooled into thinking that they would have made something as brilliant as Dark Side and WYWH with him. Roger is a different person now and besides, you can hardly call Pros and Cons, Radio Kaos or any of the newer songs he’s come up with, brilliant. Pink Floyd had their heydays in the 70s. That’s gone and will never happen again. It was the joint collaboration of Roger, David, Rick and Nick and not just one person alone. – Bjorn]

  33. Bryan says:

    Wow! So many years and still taking comments. Nice one.

    Didn’t read it all but a lot of it. Amazing the reaction you can get from people. As for me, It was their solid working together that really amazed me and what I believe helped draw out their almost musical perfection. The some of the parts can never equal the sum of the whole. Honestly, I think I side just a bit towards the Roger side of the camp, but most likely because I feel he really got the screws put too him. He had a desire to work after, DSOTM, and the other lads simply didn’t. Gilmour admitting in an interview that they just “lazily gave up control.” Also, knowing that Gilmour just wanted to put the two Animals songs they had with WYWH and call it good cuts into me a bit deep. I’m glad roger stood his ground because it gave us two great albums. Animals being my favorite.

    Jason

    So right. I look at the Pompeii video as their pinnacle time. Solid teamwork. All four of them. Just doesn’t get any better than that era. Echoes Part 1 is effing rock n roll. I have blown many people away just playing that ten minutes. Always quiets the room. Somehow makes it smell funny too.

    Peace Jason, Bjork

  34. Jason says:

    Wow. I read pretty much that whole thing. Might put that on my resume/CV. Ha!

    I’m not gonna start the discussion again, but I will say that it took ALL of them together to truly be Floyd. I’ve enjoyed pretty much everything ever put out under the Pink Floyd name, but as much as I enjoy Animals and The Wall, I really agree with someone earlier (farther up I should say) who said that The Wall is WAY overplayed on the radio. I listen to it all the way through MAYBE once a year and am tired of it after that.

    For my money, when I CRAVE Floyd, it’s Pompeii through Wish You Were Here. Wish You Were Here is amazing and Dark Side will always have THAT sound, but honestly, I’ve gotten to the point in recent months where Pompeii is my go-to Floyd. It’s just got SUCH a cool sound and location (where you can just HEAR the sounds decaying into the wind instead reverbing around a studio) and they were all young and just IN it, you know? Pompeii is musical perfection as far as I’m concerned.

    Also, I had a thought… Everytime someone named David chimed in on this thread and “sided with Gilmour” on the debate, I almost wonder if it was Mr. Gilmour himself venting after 30+ years anonymously since he can’t really talk to Waters anymore. Hahaha.

    Oh, and on a side note, have you ever demoed the Wampler Velvet Fuzz? I kinda like it, but something about it sounds too “produced” (like comparing a Boss pedal to something boutique and hand-made).

    Awesome site as always Bjorn!

    [Thanks for reviving the discussion. To be honest, the Velvet Fuzz was a disappointment… to me at least. It falls a bit between a fuzz and distortion. Too dark and hard to figure out. – Bjorn]

  35. Operario says:

    @Mick G I know what you mean. But mind you, the guitar solos were NOT what made “Money” successful on the mainstream. In fact, solos hardly ever do. Well, who wrote the solo for Brick II? Still, that’s not the reason why it was such a successful song. Guitar solos are hardly enough to make a song’s popularity (Comfortably Numb and Sweet Child O’Mine notwithstading)

    Regarding the discussion, specially what Bjorn and Leftwhinge have brought up: I think in order to determine what something is and what it is not, we have to analyze what elements are involved (I think someone already mentioned this above, not sure).

    I imagine it as sort of a household: a father, a mother and two kids. If the mother dies, the family does not stop being a family. But it changes. And even if the father remarries, things won’t be the same again. It might be better, it might be worse (or rather, it might be better for some, worse for others)… the only thing one can be sure of is that it won’t be the same. One of the fundamental elements is not there anymore, it can’t possibly remain the same entity. That’s sort of what happens to bands.

    My gripe with Waters-less Floyd is how much it “feels” different. You know, all Floyd albums do sound different, but Saucerful-Animals have something about them, a certain familiar feel that neither subsequent albums have. Things changed, of course. And like the family who lost the mother, that’s not objectively better or worse, but it’s certainly different. And this is where I have to agree with Bjorn: the fact that I prefer 1969-1977 Floyd says more about me than about he band. They were better during that time – for me. Someone else might have an entirely different opinion. One of my best friends, for example, says Division Bell it his favourite album of all time(!). Of course I mock him for that and find it to be completely absurd in my mind. But perhaps I shouldn’t. After all, I don’t know which kinds of experiences he had with the Floyd and what Division bell means to him; I only know the ones I did, and what it means to me. It’s quite interesting to notice how that applies not only to music, but life in general: we despise and mock people for a number of reasons, yet they all have their own reasons for it – reasons as valid as the ones we have for mocking them. Perhaps understanding that is the real meaning of “tolerance”.

    Regarding Richard… it’s a sad thing, but I agree with Bjorn’s reply to Pete above: his lack of input was startling from Animals on, and I don’t think that’s a consequence of Roger’s takeover, quite the opposite: I think it was one of the causes of it. It seems to me Richard was the first of the four to lose interest in making music, which is a shame considering the guy’s potential. So, when I say Pink Floyd was only TRULY Floyd from Saucerful to Animals, in reality what I should be saying is that that is “My” Pink Floyd, and I’m not so fond of the “other” Floyds.

    So, what’s your Floyd?

  36. leftwhinge says:

    Yes I agree that bands evolve and that was the point I was making in response to an earlier comment. But while bands evolve, the evolution is very organic and I guess that is what some people have a problem with.

    As opposed to it sounding “less floyd”, a lot of fans at that time felt that the sound and lyrics of were manufactured to sound like the Floyd of the 70’s by an entire machinery. I think Roger himself famously called it a clever “Forgery”. But that aside, I think as band members for over a decade and a half, Gilmour and Mason had every right to decide the direction of the band.

    So far as music being a commodity is concerned, I don’t think paying for something in itself makes it a commodity. Every artistic creation, object, product or material has an intrinsic value. But the price you pay for it depends on external factors. According to me, these extraneous variables vis a vis, its intrinsic value is what makes something a commodity.

    And the point I was trying to make in this context is that as fans we stop evaluating something for its intrinsic value and are blinded by extraneous variables – namely legacy, brand, loyalty and so on.

  37. Leftwhinge says:

    As an afterthought…I think that once bands / artists or entities become massive like Pink Floyd, they take on a very corporate nature. There are a lot of people whose well being depends on the survival of the entity. And sometimes the rightful owners of entities like this are not the people who sit at the top but people who are responsible for the day to day functioning of the entity.

    In Pink Floyd’s case, it was perhaps the fans because as debatable an album as A Momentary Lapse of Reason was, it was commercially successful when compared to Radio K.A.O.S. So one can argue that although Waters thought that the band was finished, the brand still had plenty of life in it.

    At what point we stop becoming fans and become consumers of a brand is the big question.

    [Well, as long as bands aren’t making music for free, then we are consumers but I get your point. Final Cut was released with the Pink Floyd name because of financial issues. Momentary Lapse of Reason was a perhaps more of a band album but they took a huge risk and brought on a team that made the album sound less Floyd but perhaps made it more agreable with the fans and criticts. It’s also a fact that the attempt at making Gilmour into a guitar hero and star with About Face bombed so bad that neither he nor the record company dared to issue a new solo album. – Bjorn]

  38. Leftwhinge says:

    @Operario & Keith

    A lot of sense in what each of you said…Also it is heartening to note that Floyd have transcended generations and genres and all such. The younger fans have are just as much important if not more to the legacy of Floyd. And that is why it is probably necessary to not categorise Pink Floyd into Gilmour and Waters’ camps. Although, the members themselves have tried to do the same.

    But the one idea which I have trouble comprehending is who or what a band is. While there are merits in arguments about Floyd not being Floyd after Animals, a point of view which I held at one time, I am less sure now. Particularly, because Pink Floyd had their big successes after Syd left. To many Syd was Pink Floyd and there was a marked change in the band’s musical direction after his departure.

    So if Gilmour replaced Syd, why can’t an array of musicians come together as was the case when Waters left and be true to the legacy, philosophy and music of the band. I say this because despite releasing two studio albums, much of the Gilmour led floyd’s live material was made up of racks from the Waters era. And the arrangement was more or less the same although an entire entourage was involved.

    [You raise a good point here – “what is a band”. A band is obviously a given number of musicians that have formed a unity making music together. Pink Floyd is no longer a band. They were. David Gilmour and Roger Waters are both solo artists but they have a live band which helps them to realize their music. A band can also be together for other more political reasons. Pink Floyd was a band in the traditional sense during The Wall because in spite of all the turmoil, everyone was writing and arranging together and not just Roger. Pink Floyd was not a band in the traditional sense during Final Cut. It was and have always been a Roger Waters solo album but due to financial issues and a pushing record company, the album was relased with the Pink Floyd banner, with David and Nick pitching in. Pink Floyd was technically a duo during Momentary, although Rick contributed with the writing (and later became a full time member). Pink Floyd during Division Bell was a band consisting of David, Nick and Rick.

    My point is, a band won’t be the same band forever. Members will quit and new will join. Founding members might change and want to persuit other ways of writing music. We all change and although some would have wanted Pink Floyd to still be making Saucerful or Animals, it would be very limiting for an artist and certainly not an artist that evolves, learn and challenges him self. It’s natural for a band that has lasted over several years to change and fans will come and go. I think it says more about the fans than the band, when one claim that “they were better 20 years ago”. Of course they were, becuase that’s when you discovered them (or perhaps that was the first album you heard years later) and you have all sorts of memories and affections linked to that time and music. That’s what music does but the band continues to change because the members aren’t static figures in a painting or an illusion you created.

    Pink Floyd is just a name and although some of the members were in the band from the start, Pink Floyd during Division Bell is not the same band as it was during Piper… and not just because Syd wasn’t there but for the reasons mentioned above. – Bjorn]

  39. Mick G says:

    Operario – who do think wrote the soloes
    for Money, David or Roger?

  40. Pete says:

    As I have been reading the comments, I notice that many people feel that Animals was a cut off point for classic Pink Floyd.
    Many of those songs were written before WYWH and almost made it on that album. (Another classic argument between Waters and Gilmour.) It should be noted that after WYWH, that Richards
    musical input into the band dropped to nil. Not because of other members of the band, but because of documented personal problems.
    This caused a lot of problems in the band. Roger wanted to get rid of Richard before The Wall and David fought for him. He eventually lost the fight for Final Cut.
    So if those albums seem different, note that Richard was not contributing as he had in the past. Roger, being Roger, stepped in to fill the void, and just took over. That’s why those albums are so focused on his songs.
    Roger actually presented tapes to the band for a new album back in 1978, and the band voted on which one they were going to record. One of those tapes would become The Wall. The other would eventually become The Pros and Cons of Hitchhiking.
    So, to summarize, if Richard had kept his demons at bay and kept contributing, then who knows what would have been.

    [Good point Pete. Wright’s contribution has always been overlooked in my opinion. Part of the reason is politics. Dividing credits for a song and album is a tricky part because it’s often down to money and contracts. It’s also very difficult to exactly tell who did what and what it was that made a certain song special. Roger might have brought the initial demo and the lyrics. David arranged the music, sang the song and put his signature guitar on it but without Rick’s keyboards, the song would have turned out quite differently. Did he contribute in the writing? Did he arrange? Hard to tell but his playing is crucial for many of the songs he didn’t actually get credit for – whether he deserved it or not. I see Rick as the glue. Between Roger and Gilmour’s writing and blues references, Rick had a more subtle approach perhaps but with a sense of melody and texture and he brought with him his jazz influences, which is evident on Obscured, Dark Side and WYWH in particular.

    I do think Rick’s contribution on Animals is substansial but you’re right, at that point he wasn’t contributing much with the writing and although there are some very nice keyboard parts on the album it’s really not more than nice sounds. Wall and Final Cut are obviously different album because by that time, Roger had decided that he wanted to do other things that just write a new rock album. He brought on board producers and musicians that would help him take the music in a different direction and to realize his vision. While Pink Floyd was rooted in blues and jazz, guys like Bob Ezrin and Michael Kamen, who both did a huge job on those two albums, had a very different background and approach. It’s not just about Rick not being there but the intent of making somethig different. – Bjorn]

  41. John says:

    Aristotle said it best: “The whole is greater than the sum of it’s parts”. Musically, Pink Floyd was at it’s zenith between DSotM and Animals, when the band was the band. During that period, each of the band members performed astoundingly, and with a creativity that has rarely been seen, either before or since. Individually, none of the band members comprise the complete picture of what made PF great: Roger is the lyricist, and the music is not THE music without his bass lines. Gilmour is obviously the guitar, and the primary voice (although, he and Wright were both very good and sometimes hard to tell apart back in the day). Wright’s haunting keyboard work is definitely one of the cornerstones of the PF sound, and Mason’s drums are without equal during the heyday.

    I must say that I enjoy Gilmour’s later individual work more than Waters’ (including the Water-less PF work); his subjects are not so angry and political, and his guitar work was and is a great influence to me personally. If he releases a new album, I’ll buy it. If I had answered the same question 25 years ago, I think Roger’s lyrics may have resonated more with me at that point in my life–but I can’t really say I’ve bought anything since Radio KAOS. That being said, neither Waters nor Gilmour, individually, are anywhere near the artists that they were when the four of them actually collaborated on the music.

  42. Keith says:

    Being almost 52, and a lifeling Floyd fan, I was lucky enough to see them three times, Tampa Florida, 1977, with Waters, on the Animals tour, and twice without Waters at the Washington DC shows at RFK, 80 something, and ’94 I think. There is no comparison between the experience of seeing the pre, and post Waters era Floyd, and while both RFK shows were a great spectacle of sight, and sound, both of the posters above, hit the nail squarely on the head. To younger fans, you may not think this way, and I can empathize, but to most people who are older, and grew up listening to the band, it is my opinion that they ceased to be Pink Floyd somewhere during that 1977 Animals tour, and became first, the Roger Waters band, and after the final cut, the David Gilmour band. Neither of which had the flavor of Floyd as a unit of Four men working toward a common goal. That is why I never listen to anything post Animals anymore, and never really listened to any of either bands offerings after the Wall got played into pop culutre hell. Suffice it to say, Roger was the writer, Gilmour the consumate melody maker, Mason the heartbeat, and Richard Wright the SOUL of what was Pink Floyd.
    Peace, Keith

  43. Operario says:

    Just as an addendum, to me the question of “which one is Pink” has a very definitive answer: it was Richard Wright. He was the “musical genius” of the band, even outweighing Gilmour. It comes as no surprise to me that Floyd albums get progressively (hah!) less interesting the less involved Richard Wright is with the making of the music.

    I recently listened to the entire The Wall album. I love it. I think it is a great progressive rock album, although not a good “Pink Floyd” album. But while I listened to it … the mesmerizing guitar in Brick I, the painful lyrics in Mother, One of My Turns and Nobody Home, the heavy yet soulful guitar playing in Hey You and Comfortably Numb… and while I thought it was all very good, I couldn’t help but find my mind drifting away and reminiscing about the “Ascension” part of Echoes, the “Celestial Voices” section of Saucerful of Secrets, his “Turkish Delight” solos in Set the Controls for the Heart of the Sun, the beautiful and peaceful Rhodes from Mudmen, the eerie Farfisa Organ in the intro of Time, the zenith of DSoTM with his playing on Eclipse, the beautiful texture of Hammond organ in Atom Heart Mother, upon which David Gilmour gently plays a lap steel solo… these things are almost entirely absent from The Wall on (slightly returning in Division Bell… but by then it was too little, too late)

    These are the things that matter to me, and what music is: in the end, it is about how it makes you feel. And this might just be my personal opinion, but any of these momen speak more to me than any of Roger’s lyrics or Gilmour’s solos

  44. Operario says:

    @Leftwhinge

    I’m 25. My first contact with the Floyd was via my father, who was a fan in the 70s and had some of the vinyls. By the time I got interested in music (around the age of 11 or 12), he only had the Pulse album though, which I thought was great. For a long time, that was all the Pink Floyd I knew. With the internet era (especially after 2004) I got to listen to the studio albums and am, right now, in a bootleg frenzy.

    It almost pains me to say that, despite being a fan of David Gilmour’s musical contributions to the Floyd, I think Waters’ contribution was more… how can I say… “important”? It is no secret that Waters was the driving force in the band EVEN when they were actually functioning as, you know… a band. Roger wrote the overwhelming majority of the lyrics, Roger actually wrote the music to some of their most popular songs (including Money, which Mr. Gilmour himself acknowledged was what changed everything… “it was not DSoTM that changed things… it was ‘Money'”). To me it seems that out of the 4, Waters was the one who was most interested in actually making music… which seems even more evident after DSoTM…

    After DSoTM, I believe the band members started drifting apart (even musically) and were more interested in enjoying their fortune and success (can’t blame them) than in making music. And I believe without Roger’s firm grip (which eventually evolved into and iron fist that would ultimately destroy the band), Pink Floyd might have ceased to exist right after DSoTM (maybe releasing one more album, but still…). To me, Waters’ talent was his ability to give the band a focus, to set a direction that I honestly doubt either of the other members would be able to set.

    Of course, like I said earlier, Waters’ firm grip turned into a sort of “despotic rule” in the band, and he failed to realize that he did not have that much talent himself… thus the weakness of The Final Cut and his two first solo albums (Amused to Death is pretty good though).

    On a side note, I absolutely despise dehydrated (Waters-less) Floyd. I’m going to quote Waters on this, because it sums up perfectly how I feel about it:

    “I have nothing against Dave Gilmour furthering his own goals. It’s just the idea of Dave’s solo career masquerading as Pink Floyd that offends me!”
    Penthouse Magazine, September, 1988

    Boy, he couldn’t be more right. But he’s unable to see that Wall and Final Cut are also, essentially, “Waters’ solo career masquerading as Pink Floyd” Both Waters releasing said albums as Pink Floyd and Gilmour releasing MLOR and Division Bell as Pink Floyd are, to me, laughable travesties

    So yes… to me, Pink Floyd only “truly” is “Pink Floyd” when it’s an album made by the four of them, or rather “mostly” made by the four of them. So, everything from Saucerful of Secrets to Animals = Floyd; Wall and Final Cut= Waters solo albums; MLOR and Divison Bell = Gilmour solo albums. Your mileave may vary, though.

    Hope what I wrote made some sense =]

  45. Leftwhinge says:

    I would be interested in knowing the ages of most of the commentators here…I wonder if a lot of people here were first exposed to latter day Floyd i.e. A Momentary Lapse of Reason, The Division Bell and Pulse.

    The reason I point this out is that David Gilmour had the full weight of Pink Floyd the brand behind him, while Waters went out day in, day out as Roger Waters the solo artist. In fact, Waters says that people hardly knew who he was without the Pink Floyd umbrella.

    Gilmour will naturally sound more like Floyd than a Waters ensemble because he was the voice and guitar of the band. We also need to take into count that the Gilmour led Floyd was more an ensemble than a 4 piece band that Pink Floyd was. And a look at the musicians, lyricists and songwriting involved offers a major clue on who or what Pink Floyd was during that era. Still Pink Floyd though…

    I have to say that I have been following this dispute for a long time and to me there’s been a lot of propaganda from either side but. But Waters has been isolated systematically and has had to constantly remind people of what his contributions have been and most importantly has had to do it without the safety net of the brand…

    As a bottom line if you were to simply measure contributions of each Floyd member, Waters’ contribution musically, lyrically and thematically outweighs everyone else’s. However, I completely understand and acknowledge that Gilmour’s guitar hero status is pre-eminent amongst younger Pink Floyd fans. And mind you is fully deserved…

  46. Keith says:

    I wasn’t attempting to bringing theology into it Bjorn, I Iust get tired of,( insert artists name here) is God. Sorry.

    [No worries at all Keith. I agree and being an atheist I don’t think neither God nor religion needs to be a part of this site. Music, in all its forms, and the friendship we have here is enough for us to share common ground… in my opinion :) – Bjorn]

  47. Keith says:

    Gilmour is a guitarist, God is God.

    [I guess David can be a god to someone on the same level as any so-called divine force. But before we start, let the theology rest on this site guys :) Thanks! – Bjorn]

  48. Bo says:

    Gilmour is God

  49. Keith says:

    AGREED! Especially how the younger audience, and the proliferation of airplay that they enjoyed in the later period, would necessarily endear those records to that audience, and likewise, the days of the concept album had run their course. So change too was I suppose, a necessity.
    I’ve never heard a Pink Floyd song that made me change the station, and that is unique in itself.
    Peace, Love, And Gilmourish, THE POSTECUTIONER

    [Yeah, no matter how many times you’ve heard those songs you always stop and listen when they’re on the radio :) – Bjorn]

  50. Keith says:

    You are spot on, and I was speaking rhetorically, and greatly enjoyed seeing them twice after Roger left, but in all reality,neither show was close to Tampa in ’77, the one time I got to see them with Roger. And not being a fan of the post Animals material, albeit with several exceptions on the Wall, and at least one or two songs on the following discs, I always felt that they were the same Pink Floyd on everything post Pipers, through Animals, but just changed their style almost every album. The Who was very similar in that respect, and I personally feel it’s because both bands had a tendency to write albums as a composer writes a symphony, with each song being just another movement in the whole, and that continued through the Wall, but after that, at least to me, they seemed to be just going through the motions, and the feeling was somehow lost. The last few albums certainly had a few of those moments of magic, that was almost all Pink Floyd, but it was no longer every song, seamlessly tying into the next to create a socio-political commentary, or in the case of the earlier material a land of fantasy, full of color, and strange themes, and creatures. To me, it began to seem more about the money, and fulfilling contracts, than making art like Animals, Echoes, and the record setting DSOTM. As always, this is merely my opinion, based on forty years of listening to one of musics most relevant, and lasting bands, who took music to the apex of music as an artform!
    Peace, The Postecutioner

    [Well, I agree and understand your point. In terms in how they wrote music, neither Momentary nor Bell followed the classic tradition but then again, both were made in a time when radio played a bigger role and concept albums weren’t that cool. I like both albums but they’re not like the old ones. Having said that, people who discovered Floyd during the 80s and 90s see those albums in a different light and appreciate them based on memories, association etc… which is what music and art often is all about. – Bjorn]

  51. Keith says:

    How has it been proven. While some may disagree, especially younger fans who weren’t born when the split started in ’76, the fact is, the last Oink Floyd album was ANIMALS, and nothing after it is a real Pink Floyd album. Without Roger, (and I saw the band before, and after Riger left.), there was definitely something missing, his creative vision, his voice, and his unique style of bass. After Roger left, there were two bands, the Roger Waters band, and the Gilmour/ Wright band. I think the truth is, neither should have been called PF, and many would say the band’s name should have changed when it’s founder, and the true genius Syd Barrett lost it. But to say there was a band Pink Floyd in anything other than name after Animals, is purely semantics, and and isn’t based in reality. IN MY OLD ASS OPINION!!!
    THE POSTECUTIONER

    [Well, yes… Pink Floyd after Animals changed. So it did after Syd, after Atom Heart, after Dark Side, after Momentary… Regardless of who’s in the band, the band is still Pink Floyd and a band that’s been in the game for 40 years will always change. We, the fans, have an affection for a certain period, album, member or sound but the band, it’s still Pink Floyd and it’s carrying the tradition, history and present status. If you ask me, I think that anyone saying that Floyd stopped being Floyd after Syd left, are fools. Of course it changed, but then again, you’d have an obscure band that released one album and that’s that. Floyd themselves wanted to call the quits after Dark Side, but then we wouldn’t have gotten WYWH and Animals. Roger wanted to do Wall alone but he understood that Pink Floyd was more than him – at least at that point. If he’d done it alone, we’d have a very tedious double album… Then Roger quit and David, Rick and Nick carried the torch. It wasn’t the same but then again, Roger’s 80s solo albums didn’t sound anything near Animals, Wall or Final Cut either. Why? Time, place and situation… One can’t expect one band to do the same thing over and over for 40 years… not counting Stones and AC/DC… :) – Bjorn]

    • Jules says:

      You are right. The last OINK Floyd album was Animals!;-) Seriously, I like Meddle through the Wall the best. For me, the band literally lost it’s edge when Waters left. While the Wall was Waters baby, I still consider it Floyd myself. Gilmour’s contributions and the overall music was still magic. Not too much a fan of post Waters “Floyd” but there are a few good songs.. Like most of Waters post Floyd too, but not as much as Floyd….until his latest release in 2017. ITTLWRW is GOLD and delivers imho most of what I loved about Pink Floyd. No band stays in their Zenith forever. I am actually happy they put out as much as they did and hung in as long as they did. The good news is that they never sold out and never grew old and boring and Waters last album has as much wit and melody as I could want. I think Roger had more to do with what I loved about Floyd, but that in no way diminishes my appreciation for the epic singing and guitar work of David Gilmour. And Wright and Mason are awesome too. Like Led Zeppelin they were four epic talents in one band. Still sounding as good today as it ever did!

  52. Martin says:

    Hi Delsolomon,

    music journalism IS about opinions. If even just two people could experience a concert or a CD in exactly the same way, there would be no reason to ask others how they liked it and why. Music journalism is part of this conversation. Why are there so many people who don’t understand that? And by the way: Not every opinion you don’t share is based on bad research.

    Martin

  53. Delsolomon says:

    This article was mostly opinion. You say there counldn’t have been a Pink Floyd without Waters or Gilmour but that is untrue and it has been proven. Pink Floyd started without Gilmour and finished without Waters. I’m not going express my opinion on who’s better, but it would do all of us justice if you did some research before you post like this again.

    [Of course it’s my opinion! Why else should I be writing this? Besides, I can write what I want. Please read the article again. – Bjorn]

  54. Matteo says:

    gh gh gh I’d like to know your thoughts about this video :DD

  55. Spaceman Spiff says:

    I have been, and always will be, more of a David fan than a Roger fan. (Even though my favorite album is Animals) I do love the lyrics that Roger has written, to include his solo works; however, I really try not to get too deep into the meaning of what someone is trying to say. I find lyrics to be propaganda that musicians are trying to sell their ideologies to the sheep. Words bind a song in a unique way by giving it purpose through tone, feeling, and meaning. It has always bothered me that most of the writing credits go to the people in the band that write them. To me, Floyd’s strongest song(s) are the ones that do not necessarily rely on words alone, but are made better with or without them. (Great gig, One of These Days, Echoes, Shine On, Any Colour You Like,……) Even though some of the songs that I have just mentioned have lyrics to them, I strongly feel that they could stand alone without them. I would also have to fully agree with Costello’s comment about Rick Wright and his influence on Floyd. Nick is the only member that I think could have been replaceable. (Not trying to offend anyone, simply an opinion) I think that Nick’s greatest input to the band is what you are not seeing on the records. He always seemed to be the arbitrator between the two head ego’s. Anyway, thank you for putting up a wonder site like this. Much appreciated and cheers!!!!

    • Ted Oliver says:

      I’m a newbie to the site, and I particularly enjoyed your comments very much, especially those about the politics of writing credits (especially in Pink Floyd’s case) and your short-list of your favourite Floyd tunes–I agree, Floyd is a SOUND (regardless of lyrical quality) that has rarely been equaled–and the nice sentiments about Rick’s irreplaceable talent and contributions to the band’s body of work.

      Anyway, having listened to “Wish You Were Here” and “Animals” a lot recently, I have a few questions about a few songs. For instance, although Waters put his name solely beside “Sheep”, both predecessor “Raving and Drooling” and the eventual “Sheep” track featured on the album, the song comes across as one of those songs were all three (Gilmour-Wright-Waters) contributed to the musical composition. Does anyone feel that Gilmour (or even Wright–I love his intro to the song) deserve a writing credit for this one? And, how about “Pigs”–from the middle section wherein Gilmour talks through the guitar down to the excellent climatic solo–just doesn’t seem like something Waters would have composed himself. I always feel the longer the Floyd tracks go length-wise, the more Gilmour and Wright are behind it. Any thoughts?

      As for “Wish You Were Here”, what I’m really curious about is “Welcome to the Machine” in terms of writing credits. Before the 1987-90 Lapse tours, I watched an interview with Gilmour in which he talked about the songs from the past chosen for the set-list. I’m sure he said something along the lines of choosing the songs very carefully, and was wondering if it was a veiled reference to his lack of proper credits for songs credited solely to Waters. “Money” was played, but we all know this one should read Gilmour-Waters-Wright-Mason-Parry, and we know Gilmour should have had credit for “ABITW part 2″ (but wasn’t) and it was played, too. “Sheep” was considered, but I believe he felt his vocals weren’t up to task for that tune. That leaves “Welcome to the Machine” as the only track performed live for which Waters was given sole credit. It seems that the effort was made to showcase the songs that Gilmour and Wright had major contributions toward. The WYWH documentaries don’t really shed too much liight on the song’s evolution. There are hints of the guitar parts in track 2 on “The Endless River”, and it made me think–after a listen on the headphones it would appear that this was another case of Gilmour and Wright’s musical magic coming to fore again (but not in the credit dept). Does anyone have any info on the development of this song? It’s one of my favourites, and it would be really strange that a Waters-only credited song would have been featured all through the first post-Waters tours. Should it read Waters-Gilmour-Wright????

      Sorry for the long-winded post, but given the wealth of knowledge, opinions, and genuine love for the best band of them all evident on this site, I’m hoping some fans out there can shed some new light on my questions.

      Cheers, and shine on everybody!

      Ted from Ottawa

  56. Costello says:

    When you speak about who was the better artist, you’re never going to get a clear answer from everybody. Whether the better artist was RW, DG, or SB is not a solvable question. It just depends on what style you prefer. HOWEVER, you can argue which artist was the most innovative and influential. The most innovative and influential artist in Pink Floyd is Syd Barrett. The RW directed Floyd and the DG Floyd are simply the respective interpretation of a sound and mood created by Syd Barrett. In fact, if you want to argue who was responsible for the Pink Floyd sound, Richard Wright deserves even more credit than RW or DG. No instrument in the Floyd gave the lyrics and baseline that trademark “spookiness” more than Richard Wright’s keyboard. Syds unique word painting and squeaking guitar inspired Wright’s mood establishing space cadet keyboard. Mason’s hypnotic drum beats coupled with Waters’ well placed melancholic base lines followed rounded out the original Floyd sound. Waters became a great lyricist because he at least began by imitating Syd’s style. Gilmour’s began by imitating Syd’s guitar parts and evolved a “sensitivity with balls” sound of his own. But it’s all derivative of Barrett and even Wright, developed by Waters and Gilmour.

  57. Overhead the Albatross says:

    Forgive me for failing to resist the urge to add my opinion to this old argument.

    The standard premise is that RW was the leader whose ideas pulled everything together, while DG has some soulful guitar phrases that were better recognized because of their tying-down to the concept.

    Be that as it may, we must remember that RW was a mediocre lyricist at first (evidence: ‘More Light’, ‘Thy Stethoscope’, ‘If’ arguably), while DG was finding his sound having been imitating the likes of Hendrix and Clapton.

    RW’s songs are often a bit folk-ish, but lyric-wise simple yet somewhat intellectual; intellectual pop if you will. Direct and never too abstract (even on WYWH, he borrowed Syd’s imagery). But it must be pointed out that it is the music created when RW does not over-dictate that stands out. In fact, I daresay if TFC was made in 1975, before RW dictated everything, it would have been a classic in a way different from it is now.
    For example, Bricks II was apparently similar to Bricks I before DG’s solo, the disco-ish drumbeats and the children choir. If RW had been the way he was in TFC, Bricks II would have indeed been just another track (or even filler) in The Wall. Pretty sure if TFC-era Waters had worked on Bricks II, we would have a gloomy funereal track with some sound effects.
    Another example is Money, where DG does the solo and sings RW’s lyrics in his bluesy style that propelled the band to stardom. If we had RW from the 80s working with PF instead, he probably would have limited DG’s input and maybe even try to sing the lead.

    Back to the post-Piper years. Both RW and DG seemed to be very uninspired. And both manifested their trademarks at the same time (everyone would say at Echoes). Everything from thereon is just creative synergy between them.

    When RW became too involved in everything, the music just didn’t sound that good. Ample evidence can be heard in TFC, which was by and large RW’s heartfelt but painful vocals coupled with Michael Kamen’s piano/orchestral input and the rare DG guitar solos. RW did have PF’s Midas Touch, but when he grabs hold of everything, as he did in TFC, it just became a miserable listen (TFC has its merits, but Wright’s absence and DG’s lack of input is glaring).

    As for DG becoming too involved in everything, there is even more evidence in ‘Lapse’ and ‘Bell’. The spacey sounds were distinct, but hollow and uninspired.

    So as to the question, Team DG or Team RW, I think the answer is anything but clear. Both of them peaked at the same time, so we can’t say for sure if it were RW or DG who lifted PF out of the post-Syd slump. A gun to my head though, I must side with DG, since it is his musical synergy with Wright that made me fall in love with the band’s music in the first place. Ultimately, the most special of all was Syd of course, whose lyrics lifted/inspired from random books and artsy guitaring had separated PF from all the other bands of the time, founding both DG and RW’s long careers.

    [Thanks for your comment! – Bjorn]

  58. Jeffnichos says:

    I wonder if you could poll all who have contributed to this debate over the years, whether through this post or elsewhere, if you’d find that to a large extent, the majority of Gilmour supporters are musicians while those in the Waters camp are not. Might explain the basis of preference toward musicality vs. meaning. For the record, count me on Gilmour’s side.

    [I’m sure there are lots of polls out there on this very subject. My intention, when I posted this years ago, was to stir up a fun discussion. I’ll leave it with that :) – Bjorn]

  59. A Pseudonym says:

    I have been listening to all the Floyd stuff; from bootlegs to solo material. And I must say, I agree. Obviously, nearly all the PF material contains guitar, so Gilmour would naturally be the better one to replicate the live stuff, having already won the guitar war. Waters has in the past employed some gifted guitarists (including Snowy White) and they all sound incredible, while Jon Carin plays for both Gilmour or Waters. I think it’s a no contest. Gilmour will always sound truer to the original having performed (and/or written) the music. Having said that, Waters has employed the best of the best, and in his recent (2010s) Wall tour, the performance has been quite accurate. But on the other material where Gilmour and Wright did contribute substantially (WYWH, TDSOM etc), Gilmour will always have the upper hand.

    Basically, without Waters, Gilmour and Wright and Mason would be just another band; The Division Bell is, IMHO, very impressive sonically and perhaps musically, but is severely lacking in conceptual development (it’s not simply a Concept album just because the theme is ‘communication’, and you have songs such as ‘Poles Apart’ and ‘Keep Talking’). But Waters can’t cover much ground by relying on session musicians as well who are arguably not familiar with him (his solo work has too little music for a lot of words, although Jeff Beck on Amused to Death was brilliant as ever). Gilmour did not choose the ‘guitar virtuoso’ path, and therefore needs someone who can provide the ‘pop’ to make his unique guitar sound stand out. Waters has a lot of ideas, but would not have made it big if he had either employed session musicians or had different bandmates. In short, neither Gilmour nor Waters would be anywhere without each other, and so comparing the two would be pointless.

  60. memento says:

    I’ve started to really listen to Pink Floyd recently, and I also have watched a few documentaries about the band.
    As others have previously mentioned, Roger Waters is the one with ideas and rest of the band “make them happen”. He’s the visionary and brains behind Pink Floyd’s most successful and creative work.

    I think Roger Waters to Pink Floyd is what Steve Jobs was to Apple – the way they managed others, they futuristic ideas and the fact that they needed other incredibly talented peoples help to form their ideas into actual body of work makes their similarities uncanny.

  61. Matt says:

    Wow… a 7 year old thread still going strong.

    I’ve always been in the Waters camp. Couldn’t really help it. The Wall was my gateway drug to Floyd when I was a lad and watching a VHS of the film in the late 80’s. From there, actually got into Waters solo work first with KAOS (still think Four Minutes is one of his best works) and Amused to Death when it dropped (always in a neck and neck race with WYWH as my number 1 album).

    It wasn’t until 1994 when I finally gave Dark Side and Wish You Were Here a real listen and that was because I saw it live at 14 years old. I still regard PULSE as having the definitive live renditions of certain songs (Time, Wish You Were Here, Shine On). Since ’94, been immersed in full Floyd, from Piper on.

    Now, here is where I will start to diverge from many posters on here. I saw Floyd in ’94, and then I saw In the Flesh in ’99 and ’00. Where as I prefer three or four songs from PULSE, I prefer ITF as a tour overall but that is because I don’t consider either to be Pink Floyd. The ticket said “Pink Floyd” in 1994, but that, to me, is the same as a Waters ticket saying “Creative Genius Of”. They are both using a famed musical history to sell a product/experience… but none are the genuine article.

    No show post 1981 (Live 8 being the obvious exception) has been PINK FLOYD. Nor was it PINK FLOYD in ’11 when Waters, Mason and Gilmour were on stage in London. If somebody claimed “that was the last Pink Floyd show”, fans would be up in arms due to the lack of Rick Wright… yet many of those same people have no qualms saying that ’94 was the year of the last Pink Floyd tour. Nonsense.

    Without Waters, Gilmour, Mason or Wright, there is no Pink Floyd… just varying formats of its’ members playing with other musicians.

    Much has been put into the strengths and weaknesses of the “big two”. I think I am in the Waters camp as I tend to be more cerebral. I respond to the lyrics and concepts more so than the music exclusively. The best era of Floyd was when they had the “mixture” right. Parts of Meddle, Dark Side, WYWH, parts of Animals and parts of the Wall were prime examples of that mix. Waters was the brain, Gilmour was the heart.

    For many of those who complain that Waters’ backing band sounds like a glorified cover band, I wonder how bad you would have flayed the singer/guitar player in London on May 12th 2011 if you didn’t KNOW it was Gilmour. Flubbed lyrics, sloppy playing of a man who maybe practiced the day of the show but not before… I think they would have been crucified and rightfully so. But, it wasn’t some unnamed nobody up there, it was DAVID GILMOUR! It wasn’t atrocious, it was the BEST! He didn’t fuck up, he was awesome! Once again, nonsense.

    I have long believed that Waters could have Gilmour playing and singing every night in an Abe Lincoln mask behind stage and if nobody was told or knew, many fans would STILL claim it “doesn’t sound as good as Gilmour”. There is, I think, an “on/off” switch in fans heads. If they don’t see Gilmour, it’s automatically not as good. I never looked at it that way. I go off of what I see and hear and FEEL. Waters shows have moved me, Pink Floyd ’05 moved me, Floyd ’94 didn’t.

    Sorry for the length.

    [Thanks for commenting! Good points! – Bjorn]

  62. Rafael Sena says:

    I agree with you Bjorn. Rogers’s performances were never very good in my opinion. But… I saw him in São Paulo (Brazil) last year performig “The Wall” and it was amazing. A great band and an excellent performance! I heard that he used some voice overdubs (Young lust was a little too accurate if you know what I mean). It was the best show of my life.

    ps – I ain’t never seen Gilmour live (lol)

    [Agree. The The Wall show was amazing! – Bjorn]

  63. Amy says:

    Agreed with Dan ^

  64. Dan Richter says:

    I find it alot like peanut butter cups. I like peanut butter(Waters), I like chocolate(Gilmour), but they are the best when together. I am more on Gilmour side of things when it comes to the guitar and polished music, but the song writer/idea side of me really likes Waters vision.
    I find David’s music more soulful and transcendent on a grandeous scale, while Roger’s pulls at my heart strings and explores the depths of my psyche. They are both great in different ways and I appreciate them in different ways. For me Gilmour will always edge out Waters, but that is only personal preference. That is the truley great thing about music/art, it can touch us all in different yet personally relevant ways.

    I’ll see you all on the dark side of the moon.
    Peace
    Dan

  65. Keith Clarke says:

    I said I was done, but have to add that like an atom, if you lose or gain an electron, you have a different element, so I was saying just that, when Rick was given the boot, different band, different feel. When Roger took total control, and then left, that was not Pink Floyd, but elements of the band remained. I will say that I saw them before the breakup, and after, and that even without Roger, they still sounded like Pink Floyd, on the older material, but at least in my mind, The Wall was a definite turning point, that signaled the end of the band I knew as Pink Floyd. I don’t think everything they did in the post Animals period was bad, or a sell out, just a different band. As for King Crimson, it never was “a band”, merely a varying group of musicians that changed every album, and more of a Fripp solo project that changed with each album, so yes, they are a definite contrast to Floyd’s attempt to continue on even though they weren’t actually Pink Floyd anymore. I’m quite sure that there are those who would disagree with the 3 opinions expressed here, and think that Pink Floyd ceased to exist when Syd lost it, and left the band. Lastly, I was merely stating a long held opinion, and do not expect everyone to agree. It was just a thought after hearing perhaps the song I find so not PF, “Learning to Fly”. Now, I’m done! LOL! I am not an expert, nor do I intend to insult ANYONES taste, just an observation.
    Peace be with you, and all you love, Keith :)

  66. Vadim says:

    Very correct generalization, Bjorn!
    I allow myself to come up with a different position.
    When considering the almost fifty-year history of Pink Floyd, I find that even with a certain period, the essence of Floyd was unchanged. Unlike other well-known groups. I fundamentally do not single out the best periods. The unique history of Pin Floyd is that certain periods firmly united into one, as the atoms in the molecules: each atom is unique and makes certain properties in a stable molecule. Contrasts the history of King Crimson, which is devoid of such integrity, it is an unstable molecule in time. So fragmentation stories Pink Floyd is just the best way of seeing this cultural heritage. Man for a better perception of reality tend to make a formal simplification, to divide the whole into parts, etc. That’s the way the brain and the human psyche.

    Yours faithfully
    Vadim.

    [Well put :) – Bjorn]

  67. Keith Clarke says:

    Wow Bjorn, you understood exactly what I was trying to say, but stated it much more eloquently than I ever could. In 1979, at 17 I wrung my hands constantly waiting for the follow up to Animals, and as I’ve mentioned before, my friend worked for CBS, so I was able to get the album, and all of the promotional materials several weeks before even the radio stations. I immediately fell in love with The Wall, but at 17, I was less interested in the lyrical content, and was unaware of the inner turmoil within the band, and all I cared about at that young age was how kick ass Run Like Hell, and Dirty Woman were. Admittedly, it wasn’t until I was a year or two older, and had been bombarded non-stop with ABITW, and Comfortably Numb on my local rock station, and had started college where I started to think more about lyrical content, and started to examine the socio-political side of things that I became disenchanted with the obvious fact that the album was NOT a Pink Floyd album. Animals was almost as much a Waters album, but the others still had enough input to, at least in my mind, make it a great Pink Floyd record, one that to this day I feel was one of their greatest. But as you correctly said, the demons that take over when you become a sell out every show, big time radio star, and yet find yourself still economically in the shitter, almost always kill the band. Interesting that you put the Beatles in there, because they were likely the most popular, and powerful band that has ever existed, and they went through the gamut of crisis’ including financial woes, interruptions by girlfriends, and wives, and not least of all that thing that likens being in a band to marriage, feelings of hurt, jealousy, and abandonment. Yet, somehow, they were the exception to the rule as far as their music went during the end days of the band. Everyone knows that the last couple of albums were a collection of solo material of each member, but never did they not sound like the Beatles, while they definitely morphed from the old Jerry and the pace makers, British version of American blues and soul, almost cover band, into a more adult band both lyrically, and musically, being innovative in everything they did, I would say that Abbey Road, The Beatles, (the White album), and Let it Be, are as good as anything they ever recorded, in some ways better, and even though they were a lot like the Pink Floyd of The Wall/Final Cut, they still sounded like The Beatles. I digress. You stated my point as well as could be stated, and yet it still saddens me that at the height of their abilities, and the technical innovations that became available in the ’80s, that they just imploded into a charicature of the Pink Floyd I loved so very much, and my personal feelings are that they should have quit after Animals, and embarked on solo carreers, instead of attempting to be something that they could never be as anything less than a democratic unit. That’s all I will say about this ever again, and will end with they should have listened to their own line from DSOTM, ” No one told you when to run, you missed the starting, (in this case the ending!) Gun……. Young men and women, Listen to some nice old Floyd every chance you get.
    Peace, Love, and Gilmourish, Keith

  68. Stephen Ford says:

    Cheers to that!

  69. admin says:

    In response to Keith’s latests posts…

    First of all, happy 51st birthday, Keith! Hope you had a nice celebration!

    This whole thread, as so many has pointed out, is pretty pointless. Perhaps I shouldn’t have started it in the first place but then again, why not. There’s no right or wrong simply because it’s all subjective point of views. It is not possible to discuss this matter without being coloured by one’s own taste, opinion, experience etc… as with most things in life.

    The Floyd history is covered in detail, so that’s really no fun to discuss. It’s widely known who did what… even if both David and Roger claims otherwise.

    Personally I agree with you. I think Pink Floyd sounded best between 1968-1977 with a peak around 1971-77. I don’t agree that everything after Animals is a sell out. It’s just another era of the band.

    Above all, I think you have to take in consideration the state of the band. Up until Dark Side, all they wanted was to sell albums and reach as many people as possible with their music. Once they broke through in the States in 1973, they had reached all their goals. They got rich and everything got bigger. No matter how much you want this, it does something with your head and this had a strong effect on the band, their relationship and their creativity. As it did with Beatles, Zeppelin and pretty much everyone else.

    Looking back, Roger has said that the band should have quit after Dark Side. But they didn’t. They wrote WYWH, which was an incredibly introspective album dealing with what they felt at the time. By Animals, they were so big and the rollercoaster was hard to stop. They toured the world and it had a devastating effect on ROger, Rick and the relationship within the band. Again, they should have quit. Not because they couldn’t write more meaningful music but because they were exhaused and this had an effect on their creativity and judgement.

    The Wall is perhaps a hard album to grasp for some but I don’t think Roger wrote it to please anyone. He wrote it because he had to deal with his demons. David didn’t get this and saw the whole thing as a failure. I think The Wall has some weak moments but in whole, it’s a master piece. I rank it way down on the Floyd scale but I’m awe over what Roger achieved. Not least after having seen his latest shows, which, for me, put the whole album and it’s story in perspective.

    But The Wall isn’t Pink Floyd. It’s a Roger Waters solo album with the rest of the guys contributing. It does not have the same group effort as the previous albums.

    Final Cut was intended to be a collection of unused songs from the Wall. Then it ended up as a Roger Waters solo album. It was never intended to be a new Floyd album but due to their catastrophic financial situation at the time, the record company and Roger, didn’t dare to release it without the Floyd logo. Rick was already out of the picture and Nick and David was brought in to do their parts. I love the album but it’s not Pink Floyd.

    So, my point is, you can’t just talk about one album, without seeing the whole picture. Why is Sgt Pepper different from Rubber Soul? The Beatles had stopped touring, they were more experienced, they had explored other artistic forms, some of them were more politically active etc… There’s always a reason and some like the old band bettr than the new… or vice versa. It doesn’t make the other better or worse.

    It’s interesting that music is always considered more commercial and up for debate than most other art forms. Poetry or painting are considered to be a more serious art form but for me, music has a much bigger meaning and impact on me as a human. Pink Floyd’s music is a great example of how you can paint music. They wrote as a painter would layer his textures and colours. Echoes is one piece consisting of several individual parts. just like the images of the Sistine Chappel. So is The Wall. It’s not one song but a collection of individual pieces that makes up one big image. Music isn’t written out of the blue. It is a result of how the author and performer felt at that particular time. That’s the beauty of music.

    Bjorn

  70. Keith says:

    I just remembered what got me thinking about this. I heard learning to fly on the radio a couple of days ago. Listen to that song, and then just about any pre The Wall song, and the difference should make my point quite well.
    Regardless, David Gilmour is the most soulful, innovative rock guitarist ever, and I don’t think anyone will ever change my thinking in that belief! Peace, Love, and Gilmourish…Everything he’s ever done! Keith

  71. Keith says:

    Bjorn, do you at some level see my point? Like I said, I’m in no way trying to pee on anyone’s parade, I’ve just never really seem to enjoy any band as much once they get that taste of mass airplay, and feel that the music suffers when they start writing for their radio audience instead of for their own artistic satisfaction. I feel the same about the Who, post Who are You, Zeppelin’s In through the Out Door, etc. I fully believe bands should evolve, but some get a taste of a few FM hits, and Devolve. I don’t know what got me thinking about this, and really don’t mean to minimalize anyone’s feelings about the post Animals stuff, I guess I see so many posts about songs, and albums I’ve only had a cursory relationship with, that it makes me wonder why there’s not more talk of the earlier Gilmour stuff, other than Echoes, or a few songs from DSOTM, AND WYWH. I love Not now John, I find Sorrow interesting, I’m actually pretty crazy about Ms. Fletchers, but find that
    the vast majority of the post Waters Floyd to consist mainly of the same heavily processed drums, rhythmic echo produced guitar line ala Another Brick, and less than emotional talking through the lyrics in a monotone fashion, instead of the wonderfully beautiful harmonies Gilmour, and Wright were so capable of. I cannot help to feel as though I’m listening to two entirely different bands. I’m just going on, but I just hope someone understands what I’m saying, abd that no one takes it wrong

  72. Keith says:

    An addendum ! I am sorry for all the typos, these little phone’s keys are difficult to hit right every time, but I assure you I have no idea how ” one of the finest recordings”, ended up, one of the Conestoga? Auto spell is a bitch! The rest, I think you can decipher.
    Peace y’all, KC

  73. Keith says:

    I’m not about to start this controversy all over again, but thought this was the best place for my thoughts. Maybe it’s got something to do with age, as I turned 51 yesterday, and that being said, I have been a huge Floyd fan since before many of you were born, but I just can’t seem to get impressed by anything called Pink Floyd after, or perhaps during Animals. I must admit that Animals, while it is the album where Roger, and oerhaps Davids egos began the unstoppable spiral tgat killed Floyd, it is still perhaps my favorite Pink Floyd album, although Neddle, and WYWH, are very dear to my soul, and of course DSOTM is without a doubt one of the Conestoga recordings ever made on the earth. Perhaps because I got so sick off hearing one song after another from Roger’s mental masterbation, known as The Wall receive constant airplay that was never afforded the band at the apex of their creativity that put a bad taste in my mouth, and made me think they just sold out. To some degree, I do feel that the post Animals remaining two albums, The Wall, and The Final cut are pretty much Roger waters/ Michael Kamen/ Bob Ezrin albums, thus more targeted to a radio audience, I also have never been able to wrap my love of the band around much of the post Waters material, which again sounds more nainstream pop, and while the lyrical content is definitely not the stuff of average pop, the songs just seem to bleed one into the other, to a point at which to me there is little more than the lyrics to distinguish one song from the next. There are exceptions, and admittedly, th
    e Wall may have discouraged me from listening to their post Animals material with the vigor I previously awaited the earlier releases. I say thus, knowing that many here care more for the Division Bell, than Atom Heart, or UmmaGumma, but once again, this may be an age thing. Take for example, Comfortably Numb,the greatest solo ever. I find that statement to be so far from what I think of as Davids best work, that it makes me cringe to think so many are enamored by the relative soullessness of that solo compared to say the Dogs solo before the vocal,” And when you lose control”. The tone may be something
    great, and of course tone is a big reason why we’re all here, but while the technique that solo was recorded with, does have a beautiful tone, I don’t see how it can come close to the soul filled solos on DSOTM, WYWH, and not least Animals, where you can hear him pouring the emotions he’s feeling onto the tape! I will never criticize anyone for their tastes, but I think some of you need to go back to the beginning, and listen to the earliest of the Gilmour era a bit closer, and follow through the Wall, and see if you can grasp my opinion, even if you don’t end up agreeing with it. Anyway, not trying to start a controversy, just stating a very strongly held opinion.

    Peace, Love, and Gilmourish, Keith Clarke

  74. Chinni says:

    Agreed Bjorn,

    SYD – The Meaning of Floyd
    ROGER – The Voice of Floyd
    DAVE – The Sound of Floyd

    Despite a Hard-core WATER’s fan I can say just one thing.
    ROGER-DAVE combo, the best ever.

    WATER’s himself wrote in “HEY YOU”

    TOGETHER WE STAND.. DIVIDED WE FALL..

    All we can do is to listen and praise the work they did together..

    [Indeed! – Bjorn]

  75. Chinni says:

    Well then you say Cherish ‘GILMOURISH’..
    I respect the man who started the The Tea Set, the man who led Pink Floyd for nearly 2 decades, the man whose writings were DIVINE, whose thoughts were extreme, the man who had loyal respect towards his true leader SYD, the man who always initiate raw singles, which inturn shared by the band to furnish it into a masterpiece..
    He wrote
    TIME – Every man has a day to die, so live your life.
    MONEY – Its a gas, so dont give it a shit.
    SHINE ON – SYD we love you.
    THE FINAL CUT – He missed his Father.
    ABITW 1 – Memento to his father.
    ABITW 2 – Fuck studies, teachers leave the kids alone.
    ABITW 3 – Leave drugs.
    Animals – People all arounds, three different kinds.
    And tons and tons of masterpieces..
    All respect to the Maestro “ROGER WATERS”..
    Master, you are UNIQUE..

    [He is unique all right… So is and was the rest of the guys. Wonder how these songs would have sounded without Floyd. – Bjorn]

  76. Glenn says:

    Any such debate is pointless. Who contributed more to the Zepplin sound? Page? Bonham? Would the Beatles have been better if they substituted Chet Atkins for George? Garfunkle with Tom Jones? Ridiculous. We have the music we all love because of the random events that brought them together. Unless you prefer muzak, (which, bless you, is ok if it really moves you), you have to realize that the classic bands all had key contributors. In different ways, different extents, and at different times. It’s the MAGIC people! Random, magical, collaborative beauty. That’s what makes the music we love. Debate less…listen, and enjoy more.

    [Well, I think we all can agree to that. Hell, WYWH, Animals and Wall wouldn’t have been written if it wasn’t for the huge success of Dark Side driving Floyd into the endless strains of touring. There are so much more to music and the writing that just the person writing it. Still though, a debate is always fun :) There are worse things you can do. – Bjorn]

  77. Mike says:

    I’m looking forward to see what Roger comes up with in his new album http://www.ultimate-guitar.com/news/upcoming_releases/roger_waters_writing_new_concept_album.html

    Hopefully it will be better than his other solo work because he’s a very creative writer and has potential into making something really stand out on his own. Also I can’t wait for the new Wall Concerts DVD to come out, hopefully it’ll on blu-ray too.

    Bjorn, have you been to the Roger Waters – The Wall concert yet? I just saw they announced a second leg of the European tour in which two dates includes Norway. It’s really fantastic, I’ve been to the first concert in Toronto where he started and the last concert in Quebec of the second leg tour in North America. He improved many things in the second leg of the tour, including sound – which is top priority.

    [Looking forward to hear some new material although I think it will be hard to beat Amused to Death. I did get to see all of the shows in London’s O2 arena in May last year, including David’s performance. I was really blown away by the show and I think Roger’s done an amazing job keeping the concept and music fresh and new. – Bjorn]

  78. Keith says:

    Well, I’ve hinted at, but never said it straight up befire. To me, the last, and perhaps one of the finest Pink Floyd albums was Animals. The Wall impressed me when it was released, but the commercialization, and constant airplay made me sick of the LP very quickly. I mentioned in an earlier post that my best friend worked for CBS, distributing advance mayerial to radio stations, and record outlets. At the tine, I was in one of my Floyd periods, and greatly anticipated the release because of my fascination with Animals. About a month before it’s release, I got a bunch of promotional Gerald Scarffe stand ups, with widows in the wall that opened to reveal the various characters, several Theatre sized posters, and the promotional stamped copy of th LP a month before the radio stations. I couldn’t wait for the tour, and got 2 tickets to one of the only 2 east coast dates at Nassau Colosseum in NY, only to miss the show! Now, getting back to the subject, I really don’t think of much of anything after Animals as being a real Pink Floyd effort, and with few exceptions don’t find anything after Animals that doesn’t sound very commercial. Like Stephen, I too think that the Syd era produced some of their finest work, and set the stage for the direction the band took ince David’s prowess on guitar added it’s uniqueness. But I am absolutely fanatical about everything from the point David joined the band, up to Animals, and think the troubles that started with Animals basically ended Pink Floyd as far as albums go. Hiwever, live, David, Rick, and Nick did the bands music justice on tour as Pink Floyd, as did David, and Rick. I don’t see Roger as having dne that, and lastly, the bad investments you spoke of Bjorn, seem mainly to have been a result once again of Roger’s “Vision”, and the crazy amounts of money they lost on The Wall, one time I’m sure Rick was glad to be getting a paycheck, as he was the only member or non member that is, to make a dime on the fiasco of a tour. So it basically doesn’t really matter. They WERE a great band, who made some great albums, and as with most great bands, their heads got too big, and they exploded, the onlu difference is my opinion that Animals was the kast real Pink Floyd album made for the music, not the money!
    Peace, Love, and Gilmourish FOREVER! KC

  79. Chinni says:

    “Perhaps this should be a solo record. I’ll pay you guys the money we’ve spent, and I’ll make this a solo album.’ No, they didn’t want that, because they know songs don’t grow on trees. They wanted it to be a Floyd record.”

    This is what WATERS said about Final Cut in 1987.
    He was a maestro. Just like that.

    [In 1987 Waters had just lost the legal battle with Floyd and he was pissed. Really pissed. He said a lot of things out of spite. The truth about Final Cut was that Roger wanted it to be a solo album and he wrote and recorded it as a solo album. Rick was out and David and Nick was treated as hired musicians. They came into the studio, recorded their parts and left the album to Roger and in large part, Michael Kamen (ALL of the orchestra arrangements are Kamen). The reason they decided on making it a Floyd album was the fact that they didn’t dare to do it any other way. Well, Roger and the record company didn’t dare. Pink Floyd had lost most of their money after Wall due to some bad investments and they were more or less bankrupt. Nobody knew who the individual members were so it would have been a huge risk and required a massive promo campaign to release the album under Roger’s name. It is also fair to speculate that everyone was aware that the band was over but none didn’t quite dare to take the step. Nick was lazy. David was keen on playing but didn’t have the guts to start his solo career (he was “forced” later on due to financial problems and by the record company) and Roger was perhaps well aware that the album wouldn’t have done shit without the Floyd logo. Personally I think Final Cut is some of Roger’s finest work and it’s one of my favourite Floyd albums. – Bjorn]

  80. Chinni says:

    @ Keith

    I may not be open minded. I just want to ask, why Momentary Lapse of Reason failed to Impress?? And fact that The Final Cut struck massively, Floyd fans enjoyed it. I’m sure that Division Bell was one of the best, but most of the lyrics written by Anthony Moore and Bob Ezrin..

    Momentary Lapse of Reason suffered the loss of WATERS, apart Learning to Fly, no other number had good lyrics.

    I said Angus Young because, he composed, played ecstatically, wrote lyrics.
    I said Mark Knopfler because, hez the only brick in that wall so called Dire Straits.
    And Jimmy Page, we need to accept he can be called The Greatest.

    Gilmour’s great piece of composition was his contribution in Shine On, WYWH, Comfortably Numb, Dogs, Echoes, and most of Meddle.
    But of the Most, Waters wrote Shine On, WYWH, Echoes and Meddle.
    Contributed in Dogs (Gilmour’s “You ‘ve got to be Crazy” song) and Comfortably Numb.

    Since 20 years, I ‘ve been listening to Floyd, just Floyd.
    Tried to shift to Led Zeppelin, Doors or some other stuff, but I am completely addicted to Floyd.

    Trust me, My day starts with Shine On, ends with Wearing the inside out. Just Floyd.

    I enjoyed waters kind of music, It was very psychic, different, especially his voice, ofcourse now its not good, but when he sang, Brain Damage, Shine On all those stuff, he had a Psychic voice.

    @ Stephen Ford

    I do respect Syd, no offence. He was the best.
    It was a big blow, his departure.
    But Dave for sure is the right replacement.

    But Waters led the band from 1968-83.
    That was a massive blow, their very next album’s failure.
    Dave replaced him as Band’s leader.
    The question is “Did the band get the same response from the crowd??”

    Their soul was gone when SYD left. But for sure, Dave refreshed music like a perfume.
    Their heart was gone when ROGER left.

    That’s why people call 1985, The Fall of Floyd..

    [I don’t think you can call Momentary a failure. It was a massive hit and the tour was the biggest they ever did. Apart from the die hard fans, most of the crowd didn’t even notice that Roger had left because Floyd were anonymous figures. True, Momentary was a huge step in another direction but so was the music scene all together. Prog rock was considered dead and the massive concept albums had lost the audience’s interest due to the focus on singles and MTV. Momentary was kind of “saved” by Learning to Fly but it wouldn’t have sounding like Dark Side or Wall with Waters on board anyway. It was a new era. Likewise, I have a hard time believing that Floyd would have survived with Syd… I think you also have to consider the massive pressure Floyd and David had in making the album. They had a lot to live up to and they put all their savings up for the album and tour to be a success. I’m sure this affected their ability to write true Floyd music, something which is clear on Division Bell, which is much more true to the spirit of the band. – Bjorn]

  81. Keith says:

    Oh, I almost forgot, you said Gilmour was a show off. Of all the guitarists you named, Gilmour is the least “Showy” of them all. Most of the time, DG stands in one place, the only show being the soulful concentration on his face. Page, jumped all over the place in skintight sequined bell bottoms, Blackmore walked to center stage to get the main spots on him during solos,Knopfler slightly more movement aronud the stage, Clapton pretty much the same as Gilmour,Santana, and his exaggerated “rat like” facial expressions, and lastly, come on, ANGUS YOUNG? How much more of a poser can one be? If not for his stage antics, he’d be playing Blues Rock bars in the outback! Your Graduate school hasn’t taught you to be open-minded, that much is obvious. And oh yeah, I have a degree in MUSIC!

  82. Keith says:

    Hello Bjorn! I laud your inclusion of the comments made by Chinni because it proves that you are fair, and will post even comments that many find totally out of line for a site devoted to the Gilmourish communities love of the guitarists work. Now, I would like to personally address his comments, and while this is MY opinion, I believe I will echo the sentiments of many in the Gilmourish community, Chinni, While I must admit that Mr. Waters is indeed a very talented writer, your use of statistical analysis based on liner notes, and information gleaned from internet sites in no way tells the Pink Floyd story, or who deserves the most credit for their artistic vision, or their success. First, While Waters is a great writer, that is pretty much his major contribution to the band. If not for Syd Barrett, I do not believe there would have been a Pink Floyd,(Especially since it was Barrett who coined the bands name on the spot, when the name they were using, “The Tea Set” was being used bu another band on the bill of an early show. Barrett at the time was the main influence both lyrically, and musically, but because of his mental issues, his tenure was short. Enter Gilmour. When David joined the band, it was Wrights keyboard genius that gave The Pink Floyd their unique sound, but as they moved away from the influence of Syd, Gilmour’s soulful solos, and innovative techniques using the latest availible effects, that took center stage along with Wright, to give Pink Floyd it’s signature sound. Yes, Roger wrote a great deal of the lyrics, and sang many of the songs, but where does his musicianship ever shine anywhere close to the levels of the other band members? I will bet my life that had Roger not had Syd, and then David, he would never have been a rock star, possibly a writer, poet, or artist , but I can find nothing in his playing, or singing that would have made him a star. He was not considered the driving force in the band until perhaps Animals, when his ego took over the band so much that he fired Rick Wright, only to have to hire him for the tour, because Wright could never be replaced, Roger was replaced! In your post you mentioned several guitarists who you put above Gilmour, and with the exception of Mark Knopfler, (Really just another Chet Atkins knock off.), I see no one on that list who comes close to the talent, nor personal style of DG. While they are all fine Guitarists, they are all pentatonic blues scale players, as is Gilmour, but with a twist. Gilmour took the blues riff into unchartyed territory, the minor scale, and that is what sets hiim apart from all the guitarists you mentioned. You know the old addage about opinions, and what they are like, and that everyone has one, and they all stink, so instead of coming to a site that is about someone you obviously have a problem with, I’m sure there is a site possibly called, “Watered Down”, “The man who destroyed the band”, “It’s my band, and I’ll run it my way”, or maybe just “ROGER IS GOD!”. Yes Chinni, Waters wrote a vast amount of the lyrics, and got a great deal of credit for his musical input, but as far as the music goes, it was a group effort, with Wright, and Gilmour wirting the vast majority of the post Syd melodies. I may even step on some peoples feet by saying that as a band, Pink Floyds best work ended with Animals, the point where Roger really took over. While the Music is wonderfully arranged, and recorded, I find the Wall to be Rogers self indulgent ego at it’s apex, and find little in their later catalog that interests me. and lastly, as far as Rogers vocals go, (and I’ve done this.), I can put a clothespin on my nose, and nail his nasal, rather off key, yet unique vocals. Both DG, and RW have wonderful voices, and would have been well known musicians with, or without Roger, but I don’t think Roger would have made it without them. Please at least try to be positive if you are going to be part of the community. Like mom said, “If you don’t have something nice to say, SHUT UP!”
    Peace, Love, and all members of PINK FLOYD made them the band they were, not any one! KC

    [Thanks for your comment, Keith. Please see my reply below. – Bjorn]

  83. Stephen Ford says:

    @Chinni,

    Nicely done, I really enjoyed having it all broken down!

    BUT
    I would debate the premise of this discussion at its core as much as I enjoy reading and considering all of the reasonings.

    In my opinion (and many would agree) the greatest music Pink Floyd composed was birthed through the collaboration of great musical minds and to give any one person the credit for their part alone misses the subtly of how musicians feed off of one another. I give Syd much more than 8% based on the amazing path that his imagination took them on, one that lasted far beyond his span with The Floyd. Honestly I still find the best of Floyd to come during Syd’s years and shortly after his leaving and then slowly sinking downward towards The Final Cut. David still makes amazing music, and is and will always be a great inspiration to me but his later work is a lot less original than it once was…perhaps more accessible but much more commercial.

    In my opinion Roger and David needed each other to be the best they both could be, and to separate the two is pointless.

    When musicians loose site of how the others around them contribute to their own greatness you get exactly what happened to Pink Floyd. Roger Waters became lost in his all mighty Tower, Wright’s role was down played to the point of non existence in Rogers eyes and the band lost out as a whole.

    How Waters could ever have gotten to the point of loosing sight of the magic that came from the union of his friends still amazes me. Wright to me is such a great part of what I love about Pink Floyd.

    So Roger vs Gilmour??? Whats the point?? Wish they could see that they were better together as I think they all did their best work together… few would argue that DSOTM was anything less that an amazing creation, or argue that Wish You Where Here doesn’t get deeper into the soul than Floyd after they split. Hell I still love Pipers At The Gates Of Dawn as one of my favorite LPs.

    It is all great to pick apart but its important not to loose site of the Whole. Pink Floyd was a gift given to the world and to its members by the unity of one special moment in time when as luck would have it all the pieces of a grand puzzle came together.

    Thanks!

    Cheers

    [To Keith, Chinni and Stephen. Fun to see that there’s still some life in this old post! To answer Stephen first – Roger VS David… what’s the point? Well, my initial point when I posted a few years ago was to have a post for people to have a healthy discussion. It’s always fun to read people’s enthusiastic ravings about a topic that so clearly is without any substance at all :) I think I’ve share my view in about every reply but I can make a new shot…

    There is absolutely no point in discussing which is better – Floyd with or without Roger. It’s all a subjective opinion. I prefer Floyd between 68-83 but that’s not because of Roger but because of their collective creativity. Floyd wouldn’t have sounded like they did without David, Roger, Rick, Nick or Syd… or Kamen, Ezrin, Harper, Torry, Parry, Pratt, Parsons and all the others that contributed on their albums. It simply would have sounded different without all these and it would have sounded like a different band without the members. Floyd ceased to exist after Syd left, after Roger left and after Division Bell. I don’t think you even can compare Dark Side with Division Bell. It’s two different bands and eras.

    The arguments and lists that Chinni shared are fine but they’re wrong. It’s OK to discuss taste and preference but not facts. If you think Roger wrote everything just because it says so on the album cover, then you got the facts wrong. Sure, he wrote most of the lyrics and had most of the creative ideas but the band wrote the music and crafted out the ideas. Roger was a genius at writing lyrics and knowing how to dramatically arrange the music. However, he was not able as a musician to write all the chords, instrumental bits and the orchestral arrangements. A very large part of Floyd’s music should be credited David, Rick, Ezrin and Kamen. Not Roger. Even the majority of Wall wasn’t just a Roger piece.

    So what’s the point? Well, Floyd without the combination of Roger’s ideas and lyrics and David and Rick’s musicality wouldn’t have given us Dark Side, WYWH, Animals and Wall. Simple as that. Roger nor David could have achieved anything near that alone.

    – Bjorn]

  84. Chinni says:

    I spent nearly eight hours yesterday on the web and calculated.
    Of the fourteen studio albums by Pink Floyd:

    contribution in music composition:

    syd- 13
    waters- 89
    gilmour- 53
    wright- 34
    mason- 21

    contribution as a lyricist:

    syd- 13
    waters- 74
    gilmour- 32
    wright- 10
    mason- 2

    contribution as a vocalist

    syd- 11
    waters- 55
    gilmour- 56
    wright- 15
    mason- 1

    Bob Klose, the unofficial member of the band, too performed along side the band for many years.

    ron geesin, Alan Stiles, John Alldis Choir, roy Harper, bob ezrin, anthony moore and many others contibuted a little.

    I’m a Graduate in Computer Science, I calculated on some statistical basis.
    My results say:
    Syd’s contribution to the band was : 8%
    Roger’s contribution to the band was : 47%
    Gilmour’s contribution to the band was: 30%

    So that says, The Mighty WATERS contributed more for the band, and so hailed as the “Band’s Rightful Leader”

    [He he, well OK… If that makes you sleep better at night. Perhaps you should read up on the Floyd history and not just base your research on the politics stated in the album covers. – Bjorn]

  85. Chinni says:

    Talking only about music and performance,
    Mark Knopfler, Jimmy Page, Angus Young, Eric Clapton, Santana, Richie Blackmore..
    Dave Gilmour may come after them.

    But Waters was, is and will be unique.

  86. Chinni says:

    Floyd’s best number ever Shine on.. was written as sung by Waters himself..
    Brain Damage, Pigs, Sheep, ABINTW parts 1 and 3, and lots of best numbers were written, composed and sung by him..
    1968-85, what did Dave do, just sing what waters write and compose, most of them…
    The division bell might have won a prize, but the fans loved DSOTM, Animals and Final Cut the most, In fact waters was a far better leader than Syd..
    Gilmour was always a show off..
    Hail Waters, he taught what was music..

    [Well, you’re right about one thing – Roger wrote the lyrics for all of those songs. However, he did not write the music alone. In fact, apart from maybe Brain Damage, all of the other songs are a result of David and Rick, in particular, working out Roger’s crude ideas into the versions we know. Most of Wall is as much a Bob Ezrin and Michael Kamen album as it is Roger. He did not arrange half of those songs… sorry, but you’re wrong. But hey, it doesn’t matter. Roger and David were both genius in their own way. – Bjorn]

  87. arshad says:

    well, its simple enough……roger is all about lyrics and great ideas which revolutionized the “Rock ” plus concert…and gilmour is the man behind music … PF will not be PF with any of them missing…. soo cheers…and “shine on”

  88. Niethcort says:

    It sucks to see how people think of music as something that accompanies lyrics, music has to stand on it’s own or I would be reading a poem instead of listening to it.

  89. Nathan says:

    I’ll be the first to say that I’m team Gilmour. Nothing in the world makes my ears tingle like the sound of his guitar (except maybe the sound of his voice). The lyricist vs. musician paradigm is pretty clear, but after the split (and on Final Cut), I don’t even think Waters’ lyrics are very good. In the old days, his lyrics were poetic and inspired, after the Wall, it all just sounds like angry political ranting, absolutely no subtlety. Say what you will about Momentary Lapse of Reason, it might not hold it’s own as an album like the old Floyd, but musically it has some spectacular moments. Sorrow is among the most spectacular guitar pieces ever played, and nothing cools me down on a hot day like Terminal Frost. And PULSE is pure magic. I will admit though, I’m not very crazy about it’s performance of Dark Side. Time just isn’t raw enough, and Guy Pratt makes the bass on Money way too busy. And Us and Them always disappoints me simply for the fact that on Delicate Sound of Thunder, the first measure is just guitar and keyboards with no bass and drums, and it’s the most beautiful 30 seconds of music I’ve ever heard, and for some reason, they decided not to do it on PULSE. Live, Waters bands don’t hold a candle to David’s. Snowy is a decent No. 2 to David, but as a lead guitarist, his sound has no soul. I think your analogy of them being a cover band featuring Roger Waters is very accurate. The one time his live show was really great was on The Wall in Berlin, but it is forever tarnished by the atrocities that were Joni Mitchell on Goodbye Blue Sky and Van Morrison on Comfortably Numb. There is one way though that Waters could produce a show that could compete with David – bring Adrian Belew (of King Crimson, Talking Heads, David Bowie and Frank Zappa to name a few) as his guitarist and lead vocalist. One of the most amazing and underrated musicians of all time.

  90. Tony says:

    Yeah it’s great music…lyrically though.. erm no.

  91. David says:

    I don’t think either of them were as instrumental as they like to think of themselves as being. Both have colossal egos, both consider themselves to be something more than Pink Floyd. In fact, they were simply cogs of the giant Floydian machine, mutually interdependent on each other as well as on Wright and (to a lesser extent) Mason. I love The Final Cut, and I can’t stand A Momentary Lapse of Reason, but that doesn’t necessarily mean that I prefer Waters to Gilmour. In contrast, I find Waters’ solo albums (without exception) dreadful, but enjoy immensely Gilmour’s On An Island.

  92. Antony says:

    Musician vs Composer
    Instrument vs Maestro
    ….

    It’s All Pink Floyd Guys!!!!!!

  93. Tony says:

    Direct Quote from Roger..re dark side of the moon.

    When in 2003 he was asked if his input on the album was “organising [the] ideas and frameworks” and David Gilmour’s was “the music”, Waters replied:

    That’s crap. There’s no question that Dave needs a vehicle to bring out the best of his guitar playing. And he is a great guitar player. But the idea which he’s tried to propagate over the years that he’s somehow more musical than I am is absolute f*****g nonsense. It’s an absurd notion but people seem quite happy to believe it.

    Your answers are great by the way really eloquently put. Incorrect but eloquently put.

    [Ha ha! Yeah well, I guess we can agree to disagree :) I think one can’t take neither Roger or David’s words as facts. They both have huge egos and 30 years of bickering obscures the hard facts. I wasn’t in the studio when Dark Side was recorded but I’ve heard most of Roger’s initial demos, over 30 live recordings from the 1972 Eclipse tour and most of the demos from the recording sessiosn (which BTW will be featured on the new remaster). This for me is the evidence that Dark Side was a group effort. Roger had the lyrics but they all came up with the concept. Even Roger admits to that. Roger has some very basic ideas for melodies etc but it was largely David and Rick that brought structure and developed the songs. It’s also easier to understand if you know something about how they write music. I’m not sure how experienced you are but I hear Roger on Breathe, Money, Brain Damage and Eclipse. That’s his signature way of writing. I hear David and Rick on parts of Breathe and most of Time. That’s they’re signature way of writing chords and arranging the music. Rick did most of Great Gig and Us and Them. Partly because these were his old compositions but also because it’s a well documented fact that he worked out the progressions during the 1972 tour and the 1972-73 recording sessions. Shine On was largely a Waters blues song and David and Rick created the dynamics and long instrumental parts. Cigar and WYWH is largely Waters I believe. Sheep and Dogs are very much group efforts although 90% of the music on Dogs is all David. That’s a well documented fact. Pigs is largely Waters. That’s his signature. Roger can say what he wants. If you get him on a bad day he’ll say that he wrote 90% of Floyd’s material. If you catch him on a good day he’ll probably say that David had some impact. David however will say that Roger was too lost in his traumatized childhood and forgot about the music. Neither is right. Roger can’t possibly mean that Floyd would have sounded like they did without David and Rick and he knows that but he also has personal issues with being fired from the band that he though the “owned”. That does something to your ego. David on the other hand needs to steer the ship and at least pretend to be the captain. It’s all politics between two stiff upper lip british gents swinging their swords. It really doesn’t matter. I think both Roger and David are genius. Final Cut and Amused to Death are some of my fav albums of all time. Much better than all of David’s solo albums I must admit. BUT I strongly disagree that Roger would have managed to write Dark Side,WYW, Animals and Wall alone. But again, lets agree to disagree :) – Bjorn]

  94. Tony says:

    It has everything to do with it when you are talking about “Musical Ability”.
    No i dont think you have to write an Opera..But when you look at the Influence and Contributions each band member provided to the “Pink Floyd” the percentages are greatly in Rogers favor. Most of the time the other band members were going through divorces or other personal issues and simply could not be bothered to provide material for the group and the projects they were working on at that particular time). I think Roger would have gone on to do it alone too..The albums he knocked out after leaving the floyd prove this amused to death for example. I mean Roger wrote the lyrics and music for DSOTM so saying he wouldn’t have done it alone is nonsense it was in him before he met the other members. I think the band are great and gilmour too. I understand what each member brought to the work they did together but cannot get away with all the Dave Gimour fanboy’s getting their digs into Roger. Just remeber that next time your playing one of his songs on your guitars!
    Not you personally Bjorn just the fanboys…

    Great website by the way!!

    [First of all Tony, the reason I started this thread some years ago was to stir up an idiotic debate… who’s the better. I think we all can agree that Floyd wouldn’t have sounded like Floyd without all four members. They all put their mark on the songs one way or the other. For me, one of the things that makes the hole feeling of Dark Side so special is Nick’s superb drumming. It’s not over the top or too fancy but just what the songs needed. Anyway, I’m always been into guitar playing and I like David’s style so naturally I favour him more than Roger. That doesn’t mean that I don’t value Roger’s work or genius. Of course not but I strongly believe that Floyd history has proven that he couldn’t have done it him self. First of all, he developed the ideas over time through the suite Man and the Journey in 1969, then several lyrics on Obscured and then Dark Side, WYWH, Animals, Wall and Final Cut. AND if you listen to the demo recordings of Dark Side and Wall especially you clearly hear that although Roger has the ideas and the concepts he’s not capable of writing music that we describe as the Floyd sound. That was David and Rick and Ezrin and Kamen had a huge impact on Wall. That can’t be debated. It’s history and even Roger more or less admits that he needed the input to turn his ideas into music. Dark Side, WYWH and Animals are group efforts. Roger wrote the lyrics and had some very vague ideas about the musical approach but the music is largely written by David and Rick. Just listen to the demo tapes and early live versions. That’s not Roger’s signature. Wall and Final Cut is largely Waters, Ezrin and Kamen. David and Rick had very little input. BUT all this doesn’t really describe who’s the better musician. What is a good musician and what makes a great band? Zeppelin would never have worked with just Plant or Page. Beatles would never have worked with just Lennon or McCartney. Floyd worked because Roger managed to write about universal topics in a way that few have done… perhaps only Dylan. He also contributed musically by always basing his ideas in blues traditions. David and Rick didn’t understand much of Roger’s lyrics and political point of view but knew how to turn his ideas and feelings into music that fit the concepts like a glove. Roger’s lyrics would never have had the impact without David’s soulful guitars and Rick’s celestial keyboards. That was the magical combination. Take one out of the equation and it’s not classic Floyd. Division Bell and Amused to Death is not WYWH or Wall. – Bjorn]

  95. Tony says:

    Roger , Over and Out! I’m sorry but anyone that thinks Roger Waters is a lesser musician than David Gilmour needs to read up a bit and get their facts straight. Pink Floyd before the Final Cut (the las studio album they worked on together..sort of) Was all about Roger. He Wrote most or nigh on all of the lyrics and music that we mainly remember the floyd for. DSOTM , WYWH, Animals, The Wall, I’m sorry i’m not too keen on the 60’s stuff. They only really started knocking out decent music around obscured by clouds. I can’t get away with all this Syd nonsense. They were better off without him to be honest. And after Roger left yes Pink Floyd played great concerts playing his music and singing his songs but the quality of their studio albums went down in my opinion also. Few decent songs on Momentary and Division Bell…A really poor solo album from Gilmour…I mean the lyrics were just terrible David. Yes he’s a great guitarist and easily my fav but it’s like….well the world is full of great guitarists and piano players etc..But only every decade or so do we get the Waters / Mozarts and Shakspears etc…The people who actually do the graft and write the material for others to perform. When’s your opera due out Dave. ?

    [Who’s to judge what music and art really is? Do you have to write The Wall and an opera to be called a musician? I don’t think so. David and Roger are two completely different individuals – both as people and as musicians. Roger had the ability to come up with ideas and topics that were universal for all people. From The Man and the Journey, to Dark Side, WYWH, Animals, Wall and Final Cut he managed to write something that touched a lot of people. The reason is that the topics were about everyday life, the horrors of war, religion etc. Stuff we all can relate to. He also had the ability to develop a thread or concept and write melodies that would make it all in into music. This can be related to how the great composers wrote music, like Mozart, Beethoven etc. They all had a theme. However, I strongly believe that Roger didn’t have the ability to make music that would do justice to his lyrics and concepts. Final Cut, Pros and Cons, Radio Kaos and Amused to Death are all proof of that. Sure, Roger Waters alone isn’t as big as Floyd, but the songs aren’t much better than David’s poor lyrics. The combination of Roger’s lyrics and concepts together with David’s and Ricks musical abilities is what made Floyd what they were. Roger didn’t do it alone and in my opinion never could have done it alone. For me, David will always be the one with the best musical abilities and Roger the one with the ideas and concepts and the ability to point out what was needed for a song to work. I really don’t care who wrote an opera. What’s that got to do with anything? – Bjorn]

  96. Ysolde says:

    Guys…. seriously. Let boys be boys.

    They always have been (especially rock musicians). The great thing about the whole concept of bandhood is that all members contribute in different ways to create something larger than the sum of the parts. As aptly adressed in the initial posting above, wherein the author wonders why Roger played so much better with the band.
    Certainly, Roger is probably more the lyricist, Gilmour has the musicality down pat, but the key thing was always the exact context that was Pink Floyd. Not only of RW and DG – let’s not forget Wright and his amazing synth landscapes and artistical input, hugely overlooked as they are, and Mason’s intriguing soundsamples (Case in point the whole first track of of Dark Side).

    Artistic partnership, from what I perceive, is in many ways as challenging as marriage. Add to the complexity there being several individuals involved in stead of two. On top of this, the experience of plunging from comparatively unforced creative expression before fame and breakthrough, into the sudden demanding world of having to produce art and perform with these people every effing day because it’s suddenly your work and you signed a contract with some people and everyone’s eyes is at your little artistic partnership of four people. Oh yeah, and one of your common mates going bonkers from it all, disappearing out of the game alltogether.
    The music and lyrics of Pink Floyd alluded to their struggle with all these things from the get-go, as well as expressed their difficulty in accepting the nastier aspects of the music industry. Not strange that a collapse took place in the end – what’s admirable, I find, is that they managed to keep it going as long as they did, and turn all of the above into some of the most brilliant musical art ever along the way.
    Me, I’ll keep my fingers crossed that Gilmour will play together with Waters on that performance of The Wall which I bought tickets for, because some things are bigger than the sum of their parts, and it makes no sense to account for individual contribution outside of the context.

  97. Fletcie says:

    Ok, this is a 5 year old topic. Just my 50 cents . Could the argument David VS Roger take place before 1985? I don’t think so. Million and million of people watched Gilmour’s Floyd perform since 1987. In the people’s hearts it was still Floyd. . Gilmour led version of Floyd had great sound and David performed all vocal duties magnificent. The man that wrote most of these songs though wasn’t there.

    The Pink Floyd live shows without David are the main reason most people today prefer him over Roger. Its not just the people that went to the shows. Word spread out. Even in live 8 Roger bass lines were great, his singing was…crap. (although he’s better now in the wall live).

    I watched “Floyd” in 1989, the pigs with testicles were flying, the lyrics were great. I wonder how great Wish you were here would be if it had the name “i sail in my boat” or “i want to buy an island”.

    I love Roger’s guitar so much…(not only his solos) they define P.F sound.

    But.. there’s a big difference in who is a great instumental player and who is great musician. Gilmour is a great musician.
    Roger is better even if he really is an average bass or guitar player.

    Gilmour is better live though, i admit that. But he’s not Pink.

  98. Finn says:

    Roger Waters is clearly the more talented of the two. David Gilmour is a great guitarist but a pretty average songwriter (hence his dull solo albums and ‘A Momentary Lapse of Reason’.) Roger Waters may not be as good a musician but he writes much better songs – ‘Amused to Death’, his third solo album, is my favourite album of all time, even ahead of Pink Floyd’s best work. Anyone who claims that Waters’ solo work is ‘unlistenable’ or not as good musically as Gilmour’s stuff is an idiot. It’s ten times better musically and there is no comparison as far as music goes.

    [I must say I disagree. Keep in mind that what makes Amused what it is is not Rogers ability to write music but lyrics. Amused is like any other Floyd album, written by Roger and arranged by other musicians than him self. I love Amused but musically it doesn’t even come close to Dark Side, WYWH, Animals and Wall. No way. Lyrically… perhaps. – Bjorn]

  99. Chris says:

    Russ said (Ya I know he said this over a year ago)
    Quote – “The Pros of David Gilmour:
    1. Beautiful voice that creates a distinct sound. The vocals on Comfortably Numb, Us and Them, Learning To Fly, Echoes, Time, Sheep, etc are absolutely amazing. The man has the most amazing voice we may ever see. It creates a completely soft and perfect space sound that makes the world feel complete. ” – End of Quote

    Was Sheep a typo? That would be Roger Waters you hear singing in Sheep. (and didn’t roadies, or was it Mason that read the Psalm part?) I definitely agree with the rest. Especially Wright and Gilmour singing together.
    I overall would give Gilmour the musical edge. (You know I kinda feel like a Gilmour fan-boy and cringe saying that because when they were at their best, IMO, is when they all contributed to the music.) I seem to remember Gilmour saying that he had done quite a bit of the bass parts on the studio albums because he could play them quicker than Roger. I give plenty of credit to Gilmour, Wright Mason, and yes Waters for the great concepts, lyrics and lets not forget some of the music we hear is Roger on the bass and acoustic guitar, also didn’t Waters do some of the synth stuff in On the run?
    Actually it’s interesting to find out who contributed what on their albums. Most people I know assume Waters is all bass parts, Wright all keys and synths, Gilmour all guitar work, Mason all percussion.
    I’m a big Waters fan, but only a knob would believe he wrote note for note “Pigs,” but I don’t hear Waters running around saying that he wrote it note for note either. (only dopey uniformed fan-boys make those type of claims) When did Waters say “that was a wonderful solo I wrote for Dogs,” and that explosive finale solo in Pigs, I did a really good job writing that,” No! Pffft!
    To me there is nothing wrong with Water’s acoustic guitar in that album.
    I heard Gilmore rather liked that album, his talk box stuff on Pigs, to me anyways, was very expressive work by him. That is one song that Water’s voice alone suited quite well.
    The song Dogs, Gilmour and Water’s voice worked. Enough of me blabbing. (I guess some may have figured out that I kinda liked the like Animals album)
    When someone tells me Roger Waters was the genius in Floyd, I don’t argue, the same for Gilmour, Wright or Mason, I don’t argue with it. I enjoy all the members stuff and try not to “crank too much” when I don’t hear the Big Floyd sound when the other members are missing.

    I’m not excluding Syd… It is interesting to me, that a lot of the Punk rock community, that I was around at least, really loved Syd’s solo stuff). Anyways, Syd you have places in many fellow musicians hearts.

  100. Michael says:

    I have to agree that Roger was definantly the man behind the ideas and not much the music. It really reflects in his live shows as well. Still, haveing said that, I`m still stoked to see him perform the Wall live in October, should be a good one.

  101. Marc says:

    I haven’t read through all of the 100+ responses, but I’ll respond by saying that it’s a ridiculous argument because ultimately, the band was not the creation of Waters or Gilmour in the first place. Anyone with an appreciation of history knows that Syd Barrett was the musical genious that formed the band (gave it its name) and put Pink Floyd on the map. Although I am a huge Pink Floyd fan and think that Waters is a fantastic lyricist (although most of his ideas were inspired in some way shape or form by Barrett, i.e. the theme of “Dark Side of the Moon”, “Wish you were Here”, “The Wall”, etc), he simply does not have the creativity of the late Syd Barrett. If Syd had not met his untimely and tragic fate, the band would more than likely have evolved into the most successful band of all time! Furthermore, there’s no doubt that the band would have been more prolific and given the world more than a handful of albums to enjoy. MP

  102. a. lloyd says:

    I dont think Gilmour gets enough credit for the success of albums like Animals and The Wall.

    For example, most of the classic songs on The Wall are songs co-written by Gilmour.

    Apparently, there are a lot of commenters who know nothing about music commenting on songwriting.

    Yes, on Animals, Waters did write four of five songs on his own but there were produced by the whole band. Meaning the songs structure changed from Waters original ideas. Wright, Gilmour and Mason had a lot of input as they were the producers of those songs. And anybody with knowledge of producing knows what power that is.

    I am willing to assume that Gilmour created many of the guitar parts on Animals but wasn’t given co-writer credits by Roger Waters.

    [Credits are always the tricky part for a band and not least for Floyd who had a main writer who hated to share credits. There’s always a fine line between who’s contributing and who’s not. What is a contribution anyway? Do you get credits for changing a word in the lyrics? For slightly altering the melody as a vocalist? Who exactly wrote that chorus or bridge? At least on Animals, Roger came up with the basic ideas for all of the songs. Pigs on the Wing are his 100% while Dogs is perhaps more David and Rick than anybody else because they put their signature stamp on it in terms of melodies, solos, sounds etc. Songs like Sheep and Pigs are perhaps more group efforts like most of the WYWH album. As you point out one has to know how a writing process works. Cheers! – Bjorn]

  103. sale pesic says:

    Well, the only thing that I can be sure of is that Dave and Roger were TOGETHER in the band. None of them alone created anything even close to PF perfection. There is no sense in trying to judge them or take sides.

  104. mike says:

    Waters is, was and, without Pink Floyd, would be one of the greatest songwriters ever, without him Pink Floyd would’n be such a supergroup. Gilmour is, was and would be a great musician but, additionally, he has lucky to meet someone like … Waters. It makes no sense to dispute who is better musician. There’s a lot of better musicians than Lennon, McCartney or Waters (specially in technical sense) but is it the matter? Their songs might be arranged by someone else, might sound differend, maybe better, but without them there wasn’t these compositions.

    [Floyd wouldn’t have been without Waters and Gilmour figuring out the path after Syd’s departure. To say that either of them could have done it without the other is plain wrong. – Bjorn]

  105. tommie k says:

    I beleive, both waters,a nd gilmour,a re truly gifted arstist, that being said… gilmour is the guitar hero, extrordinaire, his solos are mind boggling, , I cant imagine a floyd without his guitar virtuoso, now waers on th e other hand , the lyrical mastermind, who created so many works of art, neither is better , they compliment each other, its all subjective anyways to each there own I like both but together,,, please reunite soon…

  106. Tom B says:

    One interesting thing I’ve noticed is that plenty of people aren’t big fans of The Final Cut and A Momentary Lapse of Reason, as they don’t sound like ‘true’ Pink Floyd albums. The connection between these two records?- no Richard Wright (though I know he was on the AMLOR tour and played a tiny bit on the record). It’s hard to discuss which is best out of Gilmour and Waters without taking into acount the influence Richard Wright had on the music they wrote- without him and the keyboards and harmony he brought there would have been less to make Pink Floyd stand out from other contemporaries like The Who.

    [Very good point! – Bjorn]

  107. Joe says:

    probably right about that i was just being very theoretical with that one
    i dont see division bell as a guilmour album to the extent that momentary lapse was; rick seemed to be all over it

    [Agree. Momentary is more so but I think Bell is a lot closer to Island and not just in terms of the sound but the songs are much more David, rather than him trying to make a Floyd album. – Bjorn]

  108. Joe says:

    I always find this debate rather cringeworthy but it seems its usually the waters fans who get shirty about things. I’m very much in the middle; my 2 favorite albums are The Division Bell and Amused to Death; with the wall up high as well. I could point out weaknesses in both Gulmour’s and Waters’ solo work as well as strengths. Rick is also constantly being underestimated in the context of this argument; he is the one who lays the foundations for both guilmour and waters to do their things.
    We do seem to idolise musicians a lot because they are so influencial; thats the reason why such a childish fallout has caused so many floyd fans to take sides.
    It’s also a bit of a union thing going; as you are a guitarist first and foremost (and a bloody good one) thats why you are more supporting of guilmour in the guitarist’s union. I think maybe its true that the people who consider theselves to be songwriters/poets/artists/innovators etc might tend to side with waters more because its probably more about the intense emotional feel than the polished output. That is just a vague assumption though I would consider myself more in the latter categoy but in both to an extent which is perhaps why i dont really take sides.
    In conclusion, if the band wasnt so dysfunctional they wouldve made the unanimously greatest ever floyd album in the early/mid 90s; when you consider how their their creativities all seemed to mature with the evidence of Division Bell, Amused to Death and even Broken China (which has some brilliant atmosphere that only rick can create but on the whole only really works on one level).

    [Or would they? I think what made Floyd so unique was the different talents, the tension and the ego. Up until Dark Side they worked as a band. After that it was pretty much built on four individuals trying to get as much of their own input on the albums as possible… Waters winning most of the time since he came up with the ideas. WYWH and Animals are both to some extent the result of a overworked live band worn out and struggling with forces within and with the music industry. Wall and not least Final Cut wouldn’t have happened or sounded like they do without the tension within the band. At this point Roger felt that the rest of the band didn’t contribute at least not to his standards and David wanted to take Floyd in a whole different direction. Last, Division Bell is a Gilmour solo album with Rick and Nick putting their sound on it. In my opinion, the dysfunctional band made the magic. – Bjorn]

  109. Russ says:

    This is a very interesting debate and one that I have been questioning lately. I first became a Pink Floyd fan when I was 15 (I’m 18 now), and my view of pink floyd changes everyday as I listen to new albums. The question of who is better constantly runs through my mind!

    The Pros of David Gilmour:
    1. Beautiful voice that creates a distinct sound. The vocals on Comfortably Numb, Us and Them, Learning To Fly, Echoes, Time, Sheep, etc are absolutely amazing. The man has the most amazing voice we may ever see. It creates a completely soft and perfect space sound that makes the world feel complete.

    2. Guitar solos…the solos in songs like Money, Time, and Comfortably Numb are amazingly trippy and take you to the moon and back when you listen to them. I think that Gilmour is unique in his ability to capture an audience with pure sound quality. His playing is beautiful and I have never heard one Pink Floyd fan speak negatively about his tones. You also cannot forget how talented Gilmour is at slide guitar.

    3. Sound mixing/producing: If you watch the VH1 documentary about the creation of Dark Side, you see that Alan Parsons and David Gilmour both had a huge role in mixing and creating the unique sounds of dark side. Without Gilmours expansive knowledge of sound equipment, Dark Side would not exist.

    4. Solo Albums: I am a huge fan of both David Gilmour and On An Island. I listen to these albums and they are absolutely fantastic and you can hear the wonderful guitar.

    The Cons of David Gilmour:

    1. The Solo Albums: I know I listed these as a positive, but you listen to Gilmours solo albums, and they are not Pink Floyd! They do not sound remotely like Floyd. You still have the beautiful voice and the distinct guitar, but you lose the deep bass and drums that you can only attribute to Roger Waters and Nick Mason.

    The Pros of Roger Waters:

    1. Bass!!! When people tell me Roger Waters is not a musician, I immediately say, “Go Listen to The Happiest Days of Our Lives!”
    If you listen to that song and don’t appreciate Roger’s bass licks, you need to pick up a bass guitar and try to play them. I can assure you his bass guitar is amazing.

    2. Lyrics/Concepts/Ideas: Roger is a genius, and I don’t think anybody can deny that. To write albums that are not only a financial success but an artistic success because of the concepts is amazing. Yes the music was great, but listen to Gilmours solo albums. They do not have concepts and do not sound good.

    3. Songwriting: Once again for everyone that says Roger Waters is not musical, please listen to Money, Eclipse, and Brain Damage. These three amazing songs from Floyd’s Dark Side were all written exclusively by Waters (except solos).

    The Cons of Roger Waters:

    1. Vocals: I cannot express in words how terrible some of Rogers vocals are. Some of the songs on the Wall, Such as Vera, have such a beautiful melody and then Roger comes in and ruins it with his whiny, annoying screams that really honestly sound like nails running down a chalkboard. He also ruins in the Flesh with his vocals…it sounds like he has rope tied around his testicles when he sings. And the worst part of all of this is that on the Dark Side of the Moon his vocals were so sick!!!! Why couldn’t he use the same vocals he did on Dark Side!!!

    2. Solo Albums: Okay, so Roger Waters solo albums are not all bad. The Pros and Cons of Hitchiking is actually a really interesting album, and some of it sounds good too! Eric Clapton plays all the guitar on this album, and you can see that even a guitar legend like Eric Clapton cannot save Roger the way that David Gilmour did. I honestly like The Pros and Cons of Hitchiking, but Radio Kaos is pure dog shit.

    Overall, I think that Pink Floyd is only good when Roger Waters and David Gilmour are together and are helped by Rick Wright and Nick Mason. When you listen to Rogers solo work and Davids solo work, you immediately see that they feed off of each other and that no solo work they do will ever sound as good as the Floyd. I wish that those old bastards would have swallowed their pride so that I could see them live, I am only 18 so I never got the chance to see them live together, except for the television coverage of Live 8, but come on. Now that Rick Wright has been eaten by the worms, persay, it will never be possible to see the real floyd. It bums me out!

    My dream Floyd is Roger Waters not being arrogant, playing the bass like he did on the wall, not singing out horrible vocals that hurt my ears, and creative and provocative song writing that makes you think about your entire life. David Gilmour playing his beautiful melodic guitar riffs and belting out the most beautiful vocals on this planet, all while he mixes all the ideas roger gets into a presentable idea, and slide guitar that makes you tear at the eyes. Rick Wright playing keyboards and singing choruses with Gilmour, such as Echoes and Us and Them. And Nick Mason rocking the shit out of his drum kit while all this trippy shit is happening! Floyd is the shit either way.

    If you think Gilmour is better you are right, and if you think Waters is better you are right. But what you need to realize is they are only best when they are with each other.

    [Thanks for your post! I agree that Floyd was best when Roger was in the band. I’m not convinced that it’s because he had all the ideas as some will claim, but as you say, David and Roger created magic when they were together and I also want to add Wright. In short, David and Wright provided the music while Roger provided the ideas and lyrics.

    I don’t agree that Dark Side wouldn’t have happened without David’s equipment knowledge. It’s the work of Chris Thomas and Alan Parsons. No doubt. Floyd probably had a lot of know how about how to produce an album at the time but if you know Parsons work, it’s all him. I also think that Roger had a lot more to say than David, who was more interested in the music. His producing skills came much later.

    When judging David’s solo album I think you need to consider how they were made and when. None of them were meant to sound like Floyd. It was (and still is) a huge disappointment to many fans but nevertheless a misconseption. His first solo album was a hasty project between Animals and Wall. David was very eager to make a new Floyd album and enjoyed the Animals tour immensly while Roger hated it and put everything to a hault and wrote as some sort of a therapy. David’s album is very much a group effort between him and his band mates from Bullitt, the band he were in prior to joining Floyd. I love the album and although it could have sounded a lot different if he’d approached it differently I think it’s a great homage to David’s influences.
    When About Face was released, Floyd was over… at least so they thought. Both David and the record company wanted to launch a new carriere and portray David as a solo artist… a guitar legend. The album is as far away from Floyd as you can get but that’s the purpose.. disappointing or not. Compared to his first solo album and On an Island, I personally think About Face is crap but there are some great songs on it.
    On an Island is a different album all together. I don’t think there’s more Floyd in it than the previous two but it’s much more David and a thought through project. I think with On an Island David finally got to make the album he always wanted. It would have sounded differently 10-20-30 years ago but the process was just how he wanted it. To me, On an Island is what Division Bell would have sounded if it had David Gilmour labelled on the cover and not Pink Floyd.
    I think David’s solo albums stands out better than Roger’s because David manages to write good music that lasts, while Roger’s ideas fall through without the proper arrangements and melodies… except for Amused to Death, which is a master peice in any way.

    I agree that Roger’s voice is horrible at times but would Floyd have sounded the same without it? I think many of the songs are what they are jsut because of his voice. It underlines the song and lyrics in many ways and it’s a powerful contrast to David’s voice.

    I also agree that Roger is a great bassist. Again it comes down to the fact that Floyd is stronger than the four and without Rogers style, Floyd sounds a lot different… hence Delicate Sound of Thunder and PUSLE. But you must also keep in mind that David did a lot of the bass stuff on the albums. Most of the Wall is David.
    – Bjorn]

  110. Dan Hetfield says:

    man, you are totally right.

    david gilmour was the musical talent in pink floyd, period.

    waters was creative indeed, but david made it all come true [along with richard wright, of course (RIP)].

    as a musician, i really, reaally love and respect gilmour.

    without david, waters’ nowadays performances, concerts, sound just…empty…plain…with feeling or passion. right, he uses like 3 guitar players to try and fill up david’s parts but…it’s just not right, it’s not accurate and it’s definetively not what one would expect.

    on the other hand, analyze david’s live performaces…they’re just flawless; tka for example the “live at gdansk dvd and cd”…it’s just beautiful, flawless, and he definetively does not need waters as much as waters needs him.

    david gilmour rules.

  111. alex says:

    hello

    i am still going for gilmour, he is the best 1000000 times better than that madman waters. does he have the charisma of gilmour, can he present any concert like Gilmour hats off gilmour gilmour the best is gilmour

    take a look at momentary lapse of reason and division bell greatest albums with nerve cooling music does that waters ever have such music

    just answer to this

    • Ken says:

      There are three Pink Floyd albums that lack that all-important “band interplay” that is so crucial to Pink Floyd music: “The Wall”, “The Final Cut” and “Momentary Lapse of Reason”. “The Wall” succeeds anyway simply because the material is so undeniably good. “The Final Cut” is, for me, is simply a Waters solo record. “Momentary Lapse of Reason” is the worst album in the Floyd catalogue. It is a cynical attempt to sound like classic Floyd with none of the edge, atmosphere, lyrics or band interplay found on actual Floyd records. I love Dave, and just dropped a ton of cash to see him in NY next year, but MLOR is an embarrassment to any ardent listener of Pink Floyd, I admit that “Division Bell” was a vast improvement.

  112. Auslander says:

    In my view, the Floyd’s best music occured during the period when they appeared to be the most collaborative: Meddle, Dark Side of the Moon, Wish You Were Here, Animals, and mayte even The Wall. Just as Momentary Lapse and Division Bell are virtually Gilmour solo albums, The Final Cut is even moreso a Waters solo album. At least, in Momentary Lapse and Division Bell, Gilmour allowed (indeed, appeared to encourage) input from the other members. The Final Cut is Waters, through-and-through. I like Waters’ solo albums (probably better than Gilmour’s overall) but none of the solo albums (even the best ones like Final Cut and Amused to Death) can compare to any of the Floyd albums.

  113. Steve says:

    WOW!
    I was just discussing this topic with a friend not realizing that it was such a popular topic! I googled it and got this site. I brought up the point (to my friend – who is a Syd devotee) that I had just recently watched both ‘The Pulse’ (’95) dvd and Gilmour solo from Royal Festival Hall/London (’01) as well as Waters’ ‘In the Flesh’ (’00). I was amazed that Waters did not sing a lot of the lyrics on ‘Flesh’. Was he afraid? Gilmour handled ALL of the lyrics on both Pulse and RFH with ease.
    I’ve always been of the opinion that rock bands are ‘guitar driven’ (see VH, AC/DC, Zep, SRV, any Clapton project, Hendrix, etc.) and have always been a big fan of Gilmour. Floyd wouldn’t have excelled like they did without David . . . they would have been left with ‘See Emily Play’ as their legacy.
    Love the site – sorry it took so long to find it – thank the gods for google!

    [Thanks Steve! Glad you found your way through the jungle :) As you can see, the topic is very much alive and well and it seems to stir up some hard felt feelings from the fans. It’s not an important topic at all and one bound to be a bit partial given that this is a Gilmour site but it’s always fun with a healthy discussion don’t you think? Cheers! – Bjorn]

  114. Liam says:

    I think It’s increadibly mindless stupidity to argue or even write off Waters position in Pink Floyd they were a unit and a tight one I would not write any of them off because I think a true Pink Floyd fan will like all the bands members and does not have the arrogance to put them in contest its just outragious. I when to see Waters when he plaecy Dark Side of the Moon at liverpool and I think his performance was absolutly brilliant he really did bring out the best performance I ve ever seen Im still waiting to see Gilmour live but my views are still the same there equals in my opinion even though my favourite member of the band is Gilmour I would never even think Pink Floyd would have made it off the ground without Roger and he is an inspiration to me so please bear in mind the audiance your making this blog for because I dont approve of it.

    [Fair enough but the reason I wrote this post was to stir up a healthy discussion. After all this is a David Gilmour site… not Pink Floyd. – Bjorn]

  115. Auke van den Berg says:

    What I miss in all these comments is the fact that in the ‘golden’ era of Pink Floyd (the 1970s) you never wondered who was ‘best’. Pink Floyd was a band, a group, you hardly knew who its members were, nor did you need to know (they made it a habit not to have photos of themselves on their album sleeves, a good thing because it tells you: it’s about the music, not about us). Things went downhill as soon as egos became important (admittedly, especially Roger’s), though I still like Animals, The Wall and The Final Cut. I do not consider the Roger-less PF albums real PF albums, they’re a bit like later Rolling Stones albums: still trying to sound like Pink Floyd but the magic is gone. I think they should have stuck to the non-ego principle and quit by the late 1970s. I’m not really interested in the Waters-Gilmour controversy. It’s like Lennon and McCartney: they brought out the best in each other, but it could only work for so long.

  116. jabspike says:

    Yes sir waters could play (the bass) and this is a question you did not ask can david nick or wright writ lyrics and the answer is no!!!! THAT is what made the pink floyd good rogers lyrics and davids music

  117. DGRocks says:

    Just a little perspective here. In 1986, Roger Waters claimed that “Pink Floyd touring without me would be like the Beatles without Lennon and McCartney”.

    Pink Floyd came to the Capitol Center in DC and sold out 4 consecutive nights (I went to two of those shows and they blew me away!). Reviews were off the charts, excellent shows.

    Waters played his Radio Kaos tour in the same arena a few months later and sold less than 50% of the tickets for one night. Reviews were horrible.

    Waters has always thought more of his importance than there actually is. While I am certainly glad he was around, it is obvious that the guitar and keys are what makes the Pink Floyd what it is. He had good concepts, writing and ideas (except for the Final Cut) and the rest of the band made it happen.

    DG > RW any day of the week, and real Floyd fans know that.

  118. TUS says:

    Hi Bjorn, I agree with the live sound and don’t think i would go to see Waters live as it just doesn’t match his quest for perfection in the studio and your backing a loser without Gilmour playing Gilmour.
    However, i believe that just like the live shows, Waters would have had most of the control with regards to when and what was played and the overall sound in the studio from 72/83. Waters would have given Gilmour plenty of room to express himself with the solos and guitar tones etc but i think that as creator of most, it was his direction to the other members that glued their best albums together giving their unique sound. His awareness of song structure, texture and atmosphere is in my opinion stronger than the other members.

    For me, The Pro’s and Con’s in many ways sounds more like Floyd than Floyd. It has all the same studio hallmarks that define their 72/83 period. eg songs all cleverly linked with sound effects with purpose and it’s as atmospheric as any other Floyd album. The other Waters albums have been crafted in the same way so they remind me more of Floyd in their earlier period.

    I remember when MLOR was first released i thought it was kinda Floydish but all the uniqueness of the earlier albums was missing. It was just songs on a album like everyone else with effects here and there to try to create atmosphere but without any real reason other than well thats what Floyd do so lets put something here. (Hope DG doesn’t read this!) Nowdays Floyd sound like Floyd because thats the way they have sounded for the past twenty odd years. It is a great sound but as the structures changed they seem more like Gilmour albums rather than Floyd albums.

    Again all in all its a tough call but i think Waters just shades it. If they were a painter, Waters eyes seen the vision and soaked in the atmosphere and Gilmour’s hands crafted the masterpiece. It takes both to create great art!

  119. TUS says:

    Hi Bjorn, best site on the net, afterall who needs tits n ass when you have so many Gilmour facts to fumble with!

    Anyway, Gilmour vs Waters. To be fair, it should be Gilmour, Wright and Mason vs Waters in a post Floyd context. In a live performance the original musicians are always going to have the uperhand, particularly if you have in my opinion the best sounding guitarists that us mere mortals have ever heard. Lets face it, Gilmour could solo over postman pat with a black and white cat strapped to his face and would still sound heavenly!

    So in my opinion it’s unfair to judge solely or primarily on the live performances as any gig with Gilmour will surpass all others. Moreover, Waters vocal style is unsuited to the live situation, as it’s all about whispers to a scream, phrase and word emphasis and a general vocal which is as articulate as Gilmour’s playing.

    Floyd Years; For me it’s a bit like the Lennon and McCartney. They done all their best work when they where together and i think it would be hard to argue otherwise with Floyd. I believe Waters was the driving force and the creator of all their best work, with Gilmour adding the touch of musical penance, especially in the sublime solo’s that have inspired all on this site to play. Without each other there would never have been any of the classic albums, so in that respect, it think it doesn’t matter either way.

    Post Floyd; I love all the Waters material, as it is typical Waters AKA Floyd (The Wall, Final Cut) etc. Dark, deep and unique. However, although i get the impression ( and it pains me to say this) that Gilmour’s Floyd have tried to remain true to the original Floyd sound effects, voices and oddity’s if you like! They seem to sometimes be put together for the sake of it rather that Waters keen perception as to when and where you should add obscurities for effect.

    However, it is a joy to continue to hear gilmour’s solo’s since the break-up, with marooned being a song to die for. (don’t do it, life is good!) I also like many of the songs from both parties since the split.

    They won’t get together again as Waters would have to take control in order to make another classic Floyd album. That’s the way it was and that’s the way it would have to be, so it ain’t gonae happen.

    All in all, dusk to dusk, dawn to dawn, for million’s of year’s man just lived like the animals, then something happened, they heard PINK FLOYD!

    [Well, I think we agree and as you point out, just like with Lennon/McCartney, Pink Floyd (all four members) are greater than the individual member’s solo career. Waters had most of the ideas and between 1972-83 he was the main creative force in the band. However, and what’s really my point with this post, is that although Waters had the ideas for Dark Side, WYWH, Animals and Wall, they wouldn’t have sounded anything near what they do if it hadn’t been for the three other members and especially Gilmour/Wright (Wright wasn’t too much involved in Wall though). Roger has the unique ability to hatch ideas and point out what he likes and how he wants it but Gilmour and Wright was always the ones to realize these ideas and create the atmosphere and unique sound of Pink Floyd. I think that’s what makes Roger’s and David’s recent tours so different too. Yes, it’s an advantage to have Wright on keyboards and vocals but I doubt Roger’s tour would have sounded much different with Wright instead of Carin. Roger tells his musicians what to do and they do it down to the last detail. Gilmour never tells his musicians what to do but he makes sure that they’re handpicked according to the sound he wants. Personally I think that’s a better way to make the old Floyd tunes more authentic. Roger’s band are trying too hard and one has to keep in mind that Floyd were never great musicians but they had a unique sense of creating textures and a certain feeling.
    I think Pink Floyd without Roger is as much or less Floyd as they were with Syd. To some, Piper is the only true Floyd album but their most selling albums are from the “Roger era”. Personally I prefer Division Bell over Piper but I admit that it’s not really a Floyd record compared to Meddle or Animals. – Bjorn]

  120. Hi there Expert, what made you want to write on Gilmour VS. Waters? I was wondering, because I have been thinking about this since last Wednesday.

    [Basically because I wanted to stir up some feelings and a debate among you people. I love them both… Gilmour and Waters. Cheers! – Bjorn]

  121. Vincent Hanna says:

    Roger Waters is the British equivalent to Bob Dylan: He should be locked in a closet to write his poems and never let out. He can slip his lyrics under the door for others to perform. The guy is a complete embarrassment when he performs. I couldn’t bring myself to see him on tour in 2006 when he performed DSOTM. I listened to a boot of a show later and I am glad I skipped it. Terrible! Live 8 showed that. When he burst in on vocals for WYWH, it sounded like someone’s dead aunt took the mic.

    And if he’s such a great musician, why does he tour with another bass player? I mean who does tour with multiple bassists?

    Someone earlier mentioned Water was the chief singer, and that’s not true. Gilmour sings all of DSOTM except when Waters takes Brain Damage/Eclipse. Waters may have sung most of the pieces on the Wall, but we all know his control freak history on that record. If Gilmour, Wright, and Mason had not kept Waters in check over the years, much of the PF records – including DSOTM may have sounded far too self-indulgent. The Wall has too many moments of too much Roger. It is too bad Waters was such a control freak and/or the others sat back and did nothing. I think it might have been a far better record – more to the standard of DSOTM and WYWH. As for the Final Cut, rubbish. Unlistenable.

    And for all of Waters’ anti-war speeches, I happen to believe he’s a war monger. After all, if there were no wars, he’d have nothing to write about.

    PF sans Waters may not be lyrically up to everyone’s standards (though I still like MLOR and Div Bell very much), musically those three of light years ahead of ol’ Roger Dodger. The music is mature, sophisticated, and complex. Waters still writes about Margret Thatcher with the same light and easy melodies rehashed from over the years.

    Of all the members of PF, tho, Syd was the real writer, leaps and bounds over Waters, and Waters knows it and was always jealous of him. Had Syd not suffered from mental illness, I put his work over Lennon/McCartney – just an opinion.

    [Wow! Even I don’t dare to be this outspoken :) I must say tho, that Final Cut has some great Gilmour moments. The solos are not groundbreaking but the tone is awesome. – Bjorn]

  122. Ricky Gofourth says:

    Roger Waters is a great musician is his own right, but……. Not only is he tone def, but he’s mediocer at everything he does. Also, tends to stick to one subject when writing his music. David Gilmour is adverse, much better musician, and signer than Roger. The only thing I give Roger is his placement of lyrics, set aside from the repeditiveness within them.

  123. Lucas Ferrari says:

    Well… What I think is… P. Floyd is not P. Floyd without Roger, as it is not P. Floyd without David. Same thing to Rick and Nick.

    The band is only decreasing since the little fights and discussions have gain an bigger dimension…

  124. Chris says:

    I’m on Gilmours side. I saw Pink Floyd twice in 1994, and no other concert since has even come close to matching it (except Aussie Floyd, but that’s a different story) . The music, sound, the light show, it was just and awesome experience. Anyway, about 7 or 8 years ago Roger Waters came to town. I figured this concert woud satisfy my Floyd fix . . . . WRONG! Maybe I went in with my expectations to high, but the concert really was horrible. They sounded like a cover band butchering the songs. I started getting anoyed during Shine On, and by the time they had finished Money, I had enough. I actually walked out half way through the concert. I’ve been to alot of concerts, and that was the first time I have ever walked out in disgust. Roger Waters actually pissed me off enough to leave.

  125. Thomas says:

    There’s hardly anything left to be said on this topic, but why not lumber you all with another opinion!

    It seems general concensus that both Waters and Gilmour had huge imput into Pink Floyd, and with the two of them still going strong in their own seperate ways, the fans of both have a lot to be thankful for.

    Personally, I don’t have a bad word to say about either of them, I recently bought David’s new DVD (it was as close as I could get living in Australia), and went to see Roger earlier in the year, and I certainly wasn’t disapponted in either.

    I have to say, when people talk about the P.F. sound, very little (if any) of it comes from Waters. David and Richard have developed their own very unique style, and personally that is what I want to get out of the music. With no-one writing new tunes specifically for the Floyd (though David, Polly and the guys are doing brilliantly under David’s own name), it comes down to hearing either the authentic sound from David and Richard, or what is essentially cover music by Roger and his band.

    In short, now that the definitive articles exist on record, it is a matter of the feeling of performance, and personally, I think there is more emotion in the voices and playing of David and Richard than there is with Rogers band, simply because no-one grasps the material like it’s originators.

    I have to say in Roger’s favour that while lyrics don’t usually mean much to me, he always manages to be poignant and eloquent, but the Floyd were a musical vessel for his lyrics which is unequalled so far. Polly’s lyrics are always meaningful and stirring, but personally are easier for me to relate to because in my experience they tend to deal with less traumatic subject matter (Try listening to The Final Cut and On an Island back to back). Personally, the increasingly mellow music coming from David and Richard seems to suit it’s current place alongside Polly’s writing perfectly, and likewise with Rogers slightly more aggressive delivery and his current touring band.

    It’s all a matter of preference, but ultimately, if you listen to their seperate work, (and I was surprised how much of the Floyd sound exists in Richards ‘Broken China’ album), the P.F. sound does not come from Roger. I have to say with the utmost respect for Roger and his work, if you are listening to him over David, it’s not the Pink Floyd sound you’re interested in, it’s Roger’s Pink Floyd ‘message’.

  126. Jim says:

    Waters had the ideas, Gilmour and Wright had the ability to take them, and tweak them out musically. Listen to Waters’ demos of Darkside found on ClASSIC ALBUMS. And in (what I think is right) an issue of Guitar World in 2005, Gilmour talks about his writing partnership with Waters in regards to Darkside. “Roger was keen on keeping the album very dry, and acoustic. I wanted it wet, and swampy with tons of reverb”. Waters’ demos were very basic, but because of Gilmour, Wright, and Mason’s playing styles, they turned it into what it is. You can argue blah blah about Gilmour vs Waters, who’s better who’s worse…at the end of the day, I’d rather see Gilmour, just because I know that live, he sounds a hell of a lot more like Floyd, which is what everyone loves. Waters, yeah, he sounds different live, tries to sing the songs that he didn’t sing on the record (Time, Us and Them), and for that fact, makes it sound different. NOt bad, just different. I saw him in 2006, a great concert no doubt, but different in some songs. And of course the people who TRULY know music and appreciate the unbelievable musicianship that the Floyd have given us, know that if you took Floyd as a quartet, and took one of those men out, you would not have a Floyd. Period. In terms of Waters’ not “getting it right”, I’d agree with Bjorn. Flat out, Comfortably Numb does not call for a dueling guitar solo…

  127. Doug says:

    Those two are like the yin and the yang. I’ve seen both live and they have different but equal styles. I saw Gilmour’s Pink Floyd three times and used to think Gimour was better. I just saw Waters in May. Waters makes it sound like the album, which is very cool Vera Lynn through Comfortably Numb sounded just like the Wall album. Gilmour seems more loose, and soothing.

    [Not to be cruel but part of the reason why it sounds like the album when Waters is playing is because it is the album you’re hearing. He’s using backtracks/playback for most of the Wall songs (orchestra etc) and he is miming his own pre-recorded voice on stuff like Vera, Have a Cigar, Fletcher Memorial etc. – Bjorn]

  128. Matt says:

    Cshaw,

    Okay, I will give you the point for calling “Dogs of War” a bad 80’s-style song, and it was, but I like it :D

    Bjorn,

    Haha, wasn’t my intention to exclude our favourite keyboardist from the credit he deserves, because Wright and Gilmour together are responsible for all the musical “geniousry” that Pink Floyd offered.

  129. Cshaw says:

    Just as a quick reply, of course this is all just opinion. I would liken this whole argument to the never ending “Who was the best Beatle?” debate. There are no definite awnsers. You could probably also try to convince me that George was the best Beatle because he was the great musician of the group.

    To Matt:
    Saying that Glimour isn’t as self indulgent as Waters is true but one has to look at Gilmours attempts at being a great song writer while falling flat on his face. Dogs of War? It was a bad 80’s song and that says a lot concidering all the bad songs of that era. Let’s not even try to put most of Momentary Lapse of Reason in context with Pink Floyd material because it is so lackluster. All of Gimours works without Waters sound very dated in my mind. Radio KAOS sounds very dated in Waters solo career but it stands alone in that respect in my mind.

    I really think Waters would be concidered a much more influencial artist if he were a more likeable person. Gilmour is impossible to hate while Waters is very difficult to like. Waters has a terrible persona and I think that dampens his “legacy”.

    Again, I love Gilmour, I love Wright, HELL I LOVE NICK MASON, but in my opinion Gilmour can not be a front man or an ideas man or a song writer. Let him tinker with melodies and effects to other peoples work and he is one of the most talented guitarist in rocks history.

    Waters has had many talented guitarists play on his solo albums and none of them ever have the oppurtunity to really be great because Waters is so demanding and such a control freak. His songs are still more interesting and constructed much better. I will agree that all of his solo works are hard to listen to as a whole but many of the individual songs have their own unique merits.

    To Bjorn: I agree Waters is a prick but it doesn’t effect my opinion of what he has done as an artist.

    [Not at all… I deeply respect Waters for what he has created but as you point out, he’s difficult to like as a person and the way he behaves at times and what he says about the Floyd legacy really pisses me off. In my mind he is wasting his talent. I mean, Bob Dylan is known to be a pain but he is respected much due to his ability to work with other artists. Waters manages to ruin most relationships because he just have to have it his way. Eric Clapton quit in the middle of the 84 tour because Waters didn’t want the greatest blues guitarist in the world to improvise… But as I said, – he is one of the few great songwriters of our time. – Bjorn]

  130. Matt says:

    Cshaw, I seriously respect your opinions, but I see it as only that. This whole debate is purely subjective, so no one is actually wrong.

    Gilmour and Waters working together is purely epic. This is due to the same reasons you said – Gilmour is the musician’s musician, while Water’s is the ideas man.

    So it’s obvious why both sound unlike themselves while being without each other, expecially on solo albums, because Gilmour doesn’t have the heavy social commentary from Waters, and Waters doesn’t have the brilliant ability to bring it all together in an epic musical shell like Gilmour could.

    As for 1994’s “Division Bell” tour, you should’ve expected “Division Bell” songs to be on the setlist. You don’t tour an album while playing only a couple of songs off of it.

    It’s easy to understand why there were “Momentary Lapse” songs on the setlist; songs like “Learning to Fly”, “Sorrow” and “Dogs of War” were actually good.

    No matter how you slice it; Gilmour is a great musician. Waters is a good ideas man. Do either of them make a great leader? No. Waters is like you said Cshaw; a perfectionist. Not only is he a perfectionist, he’s an un-comprimising type of perfectionist. We can see that with the results of half of “The Wall”, which could have been much better than it already was (it was an amazing album) if only he had lightened up.

    “The Final Cut” was total rubbish. And when you look at it, it was in near every respect a Waters solo album. Looking at Water’s other solo albums, you just don’t have the level of listenability because Waters is so worried about being considered a profound lyricist by his peers rather than making a good album.

    And that is where Gilmour is different. Gilmour is as self-indulgent as Waters, so he would rather do what he loves – play the guitar – instead of trying to write deep and profound lyrics. Making an overall good album, with quite flowing lyrics and great flowing music is far better than making purposefully over-the-top lyrics in an attempt to be profound and garbage-quality music to go with it.

    And that’s where it stands. This is all my subjective opinion, but we can all agree that Gilmour was the musical genious behind Pink Floyd, and Waters was the lyrical genious behind Pink Floyd. But IMHO, Gilmour solo is far more listenable than Waters solo.

    Cheers,

    – Matt

    [Great comment Matt! I totally agree. This is a Gilmour vs Waters post but let’s not forget the tremendous input from Richard Wright over the years. It was really both Wright and Gilmour that made Waters’ ideas come a live musically and there’s no doubt that David appreciate that fact as he brought him on for the latest tour to be able to re-create the magic they had. That’s one of the things that really pisses me of when it comes to Waters… that he gives Wright no credit what so ever. – Bjorn]

  131. Annika says:

    “(Side note: Although the album is over 25 years old, comparing the songs written by Waters on “Ummagumma” with the songs written by Gilmour there is absolutly no comparisson. Gilmour had 1 great song on it while all of Waters’ songs were quite unique in that time period)”

    Small Furry Animals… is certainly unique, but is it any good?? Nope, it´s unlistenable.
    Grantchester Meadows is a nice little ditty, but is it unique? Nope.
    The Narrow Way on the other hand is very interesting. It holds the embryo of the sound and song structure that starts with Meddle. Their first really good album IMO.

  132. Cshaw says:

    I’ll keep it short. Roger Waters solo career was a crapshoot, nothing Pink Floyd did without him is worth listening too. See the difference?

    I like a few reviewers saying how Waters solo albums weren’t great musically. Becks performances on “Amused to Death” are outstanding as are Claptons on “The Pros and Cons of Hitchiking”. Sure, “Radio KAOS” is a very dated sound but so are all of Gilmours solo albums.

    Gilmour has a great sound and plays as passionatly as any guitarist in the modern/classic rock era, but the songs are so boring and dull that they are very difficult to listen to.

    I saw PF on the Division Bell tour and was quite impressed with the visual aspects of the show while totally disapointed in the set lists and most of the older songs. More than half of the set list included “Momentary Lapse of Reason” songs and “Division Bell” songs which were just as boring live as they were on the album.

    Seeing Waters on his ’99 tour (99 or 00) I was impressed with the setlist. Only a song or two from RK and the rest from his better solo albums. It seemed even he realized how dated and boring RK was and left it in the 80’s where it belonged.

    There is no match for the early days of Gilmour in Pink Floyd, from Ummagumma on both Gilmour and Waters matured from album to album. This maturity in some ways hindered the band into believe songs like “Welcome to Machine” and “Have a Cigar” were creative and unique. Like all bands and artists Pink Floyd had a few stinkers and a few really fantastic works. It’s just how it goes.

    In the end Gilmour is a shell of what he was with Waters because he is now the “creative mind” behind Pink Floyd and his own solo works, something that he really shouldn’t be doing. Gilmour was fantastic at getting tones to match voices, effects and Rick Wrights keyboarding, his ear for good sounding and good fitting guitars is second to none. His song writing and composission are terrible.

    Waters was able to create several good albums after Pink Floyd because he is a perfectionist, a solid lyric writer, a fantastic song composer and he has a lot of unique ideas for meshing non musical components into music. His solo albums since the Pink Floyd break up have had a lot of powerful messages. Sure, these solo albums seems to be missing that wonderful Gilmour tone and unrepeatable synergy that Richard Wright and Gilmour were able to create, but they don’t lack heart and passion, something every Pink Floyd album without Waters and every Gilmour solo album has been missing.

    I respect both for their contributions to music and my life, but the reality is Gilmour isn’t and shouldn’t be a leader. Waters has been and always will be a born leader with little true musical talent when it comes to playing instruments.

    (Side note: Although the album is over 25 years old, comparing the songs written by Waters on “Ummagumma” with the songs written by Gilmour there is absolutly no comparisson. Gilmour had 1 great song on it while all of Waters’ songs were quite unique in that time period)

    [You got balls writing this on a David Gilmour site… I’ll give you that. – Bjorn]

  133. Matt says:

    Greetings!

    In the “war” between Gilmour and Waters, I’ve always been waving the Gilmour flag, but I by no means think that Waters isn’t due his rightful credit for the IDEAS behind Floyd.

    Though, as it seems, people’s greatest memory of the Floyd is the ‘golden years’, ie 1969-1979. But the 1981-1994 Pink Floyd created some of the greatest songs of those eras. Mind you I think “Momentary Lapse” was certainly one of Pink Floyd’s least popular albums, but it was certainly a good album, just it was created by Gilmour with Waters’ style of leading the group, and we have seen the result.

    1994’s “Division Bell” seals it for me proving that a Waters-less Pink Floyd was just as good as the old times, minus the high level of lyricism that Waters generated, the sort of lyricism that put Waters and Gilmour into their famous argument about the role of music and lyrics in a song, Gilmour arguing that music shouldn’t be a vehicle for the lyrics, but that they should work together to create a melodic artwork.

    Either way, I respect both, though I feel that Waters has recieved too much credit for Pink Floyd, or at least, David hasn’t recieved enough.

  134. strat player 21 says:

    i hate waters, he sucks, he can’t even perform the 70’s period songs, (Shine on, DSOTM, Animals, wish you,) Gilmour with post water floyd does them better. Without the rest of floyd, waters is nothing. IF u see Roger perform in concert again Bjorn, do me a favor and flip him off, thanx.

    peace

    [Steady old boy… – Bjorn]

  135. Brendan says:

    Bjorn,
    Did you watch the Live Earth concert, I just did, and I saw Waters perform, wow all I can say is he just doesn’t have it anymore. His bass playing was off and so was his singing, plus he had backing bassists. He played Another Brick In the Wall. The lead guitarist really did a good job of capturing Gilmour in my opinion, however the other guitarist was not very good at all, his playing and tone were off, I’m sorry but I don’t think the Gilmour tone comes from les pauls into voxes.

    [Yeah I saw it… What can I say… – Bjorn]

  136. Ryan says:

    When I’m pissed at the world I listen to Roger and when I need a boost of inspiration and motivation I listen to David…Roger seems to have this “evil” way of doing things which in some way is cool and Dave’s sound is the “light”(not to sound like star wars or anything) so I guess its all about mood…although I prefer Dave I always recommend a Waters album first to all my friends….you cant have one without the other I guess…and that’s the way it is:)

    PS thanks for the shirt and amp tips Bjorn!

    [Yeah, I agree… Waters has that evil side and Wall and Amused to Death is doing the job when you want to feel sorry for your self. I think David’s first album from ’78 is my ultimate feel good album… The songs just makes you sit back and drift away. – Bjorn]

  137. Jason says:

    I am a younger Pink Floyd fan in that I really only got into their music about 3 years ago. I have read quite a bit on this forum about the difference between the live shows put on by David Gilmour and Roger Waters, so I decided to find out for myself. I bought the Pulse and In the Flesh DVDs to get an idea of what you guys are talking about. Hands down, Pulse is much better, in my opinion. For the most part, Pulse sounds like Pink Floyd. Granted, it helps that Pulse has 3 original members, but everything about the show was better…..the lights, the sound….When I watched In the Flesh, I felt like I was watching some locals covering Pink Floyd songs….yes, they are obviously better than cover bands, but the sound was so different. That left handed guitarist was interesting to watch….the first thing I noticed was the backwards strings he uses. That was weird to see and watch. He was very good, but his actions/movements were so distracting that it was hard to enjoy his playing….I thought he was having seizures half the time. And then there was that old guy who got his 30 seconds of fame with a little piece of the Money solo…but I was waiting for him to start smashing his guitar on the stage. Just too much overreaction in my opinion. As for the sound, I was trying to decide if I was listening to Pink Floyd, or Eddie Van Halen doing Pink Floyd his way. The guitarists were very good, but they were too good in terms of how they played their guitars….Pink Floyd is not a fast guitar solo band, and most of the solos were played very fast. I have nothing against fast solos…..my favorite guitarist is Kirk Hammett from Metallica…but not in a Pink Floyd song…..it was just too much and it completely took away from the emotion of the music. Now I will probably get flamed by RW purists, but thats ok, and I am sure someone will say that I need to see it live to understand the emotions of it, but in all fairness, I have not see either band live……I am only comparing what I saw on DVD. anyways….I enjoy the site.

    [Hi Jason! Well, this is more or less how I see it too… I know that Waters fans hate me when I say this but you are correct, – it sounds like a cover band with extremely professional musicians and Waters as a special guest. There’s no Floyd wibe and I didn’t sense that when I saw them last year either. That being said, I enjoy Doyle’s guitar playing and tone, although he is a bit flashy. I also think that Dogs on the DVD is brilliant. Last year they played Sheep too and I was very impressed. But when they do Shine On with distortion and Les Pauls and duels on Comfortably Numb I just loose interest… Sorry, but Waters has a way of destroying his own songs… – Bjorn]

  138. Laurent says:

    Of course Roger Waters is a great songwriter. But Pink Floyd calssics are made of lyrics AND music.
    Post Syd’s Pink Floyd music is an addition of talents: Waters + Gilmour + Wright + Mason. How would sound a song like Wish you were here without David Gimour? Like a Leonard Cohen Song? He is also a great songwriter… ;)

    Laurent

  139. Annika says:

    It´s also interesting to note the credit order on The Wall album sleeve.
    It says Produced by David Gilmour, Bob Ezrin, Roger Waters. There´s no way Waters would have allowed that order if the input of Gilmour and Ezrin hadn´t been overwhelming.

    I agree with Bjorn, if it hadn´t been for the first two, it would have sounded like The Pros and Cons.

    BTW sales figures are based on the amount of disks not albums.

    [I think that Ezrin’s contributions on the Wall is often overlooked. He (and Michael Kamen) wrote most of the orchestra arrangements and The Trail is all his… Waters had the idea and chord progression. If you listen to the original demos with only the band (“Under Construction” bootleg) the songs are very basic and some are even quite different than what ended up on the album. I think Waters had very strict ideas on how he wanted the album, the story line etc and then Ezrin came in, wrote the scores and used a lot of time re-arranging the story line and the songs. Obviously the band changed alot during the recordings and worked out some great ideas but I think Ezrin was the man that came in and sort of did the producer’s job seeing everything from a different angle and gave the project a push in the right direction.
    You’re right about the sales figures… The Wall has sold about 12mill copies but since it’s a double album it counts as two. It’s rather strange as it doesn’t reflect the retail price with discounts etc but that’s how it works. In essence Wall has sold about a 1/3 of Dark Side. – Bjorn]

  140. David#2 says:

    Hey bjorn waters wrote 99% of the wall. It should actually be called”roger waters the wall because it is a historical fact that the wall is when waters had his strongest grip and it just so happens that its there biggest selling album with 23 million sold and also 23million making it tied for the third biggest selling album of all time. ROGER WATERS DID EVERYTHING FOR THE WALL KNOW YOUR HISTORY ITS A RECORDED FACT

    ROGER WATERS FOREVER.

    [Well, it would be interesting to hear how Wall would have sounded without Gilmour, Bob Ezring and Michael Kamen… What if Gilmour hadn’t written Comfortably Numb and Run Like Hell, which both were intended for his first solo album but Waters thought tehy were too good too waste on a non-Floyd album. In fact it was Bob Ezrin who suggested that Another Brick in the Wall (part 2), Pink Floyd’s arguably biggest hit, should be made into a disco song. Waters’ version was a slow song similar to Another Brick 1… You would have ended up with nothing more than Pros and Cons of Hitchiking and I doubt anyone would call that album genious. Waters wrote the lyrics, most of the initial musical ideas and had the whole concept, but come on… you can’t possibly say that Wall would have sold 23mill copies if he had done it as a solo album? Sorry mate… – Bjorn]

  141. David. says:

    Im goingto be a little harsh so get ready. Anyone who thinks gilmour is better then waters is a complete wannabe. Lets look at the facts. Roger waters wrote basically ALL of there great albums. He wrote dsotm, the wall, atom heart mother, anmals, saucerfull of secrets plus many more. Do any of you people know what this means??????? it means that lines like” little by little the night turns around-” no when told you when to run you missed the starting gun”_”so ya thought cha might like to go to the show all these great lyrics were written by ROGER WATERS, not your wannabe gilmour. So what if he great at playing guitar the words are what made floyd what there are today. A guitar can be copied lyrics can’t Do i think gilmour is a great guitar player?? ABSOLUTLY do i think he was a huge force in pink floyd ABSOLUTLY but nowhere near the amount that roger waters was. I’ve seen waters 3 times live 99,06,07 just 2 days ago at the philla show-WOW WHAT MAGICAL SHOWS-SOLD OUT AND AWASOME. I’ve also seen floyd without waters, WATERS WAS BETTER PERIOD. Let me end this writting by saying that ive spoken to about 3 dozen old heads about this topic at the 3 shows ive been to(guys between the ages of 50 to 60+ guys who used to drop acid and see pink floyd back in there glory days and id say 95% off them agreed WATERS WAS PINK FLOYD. Anyone who thinks im wrong just remember 3 things. 1. your not a true floyd fan your a wannabee 2. the majority off fans agree waters was floyd and most importantly HE WROTE EVERYTHING THEY ARE HIS SONGS AND NOTHING YOU SAY CAN EVER CHANGE THAT.

    WE LOVE YA ROGER KEEP IT GOING FOR THE REAL FLOYD FANS.

    [Well, I’m glad that you had a great time seeing Waters live at judging by your comment here it seems that you’ve haven’t completely landed mentally after the show. Please be careful judging people who disagree with you… Everyone is entiteled to their own oppinion and you can’t really argue with taste… just share views. Anyone who says that either Waters or Gilmour IS Pink Floyd is wrong. Pink Floyd consisted of four members and of course Syd was a leading force in the first couple of years.
    You seem to know much about the Pink Floyd history, but let me ask you this… Have you even listened to the albums? Before you can claim to know who did what you need to know your history. Everything from A Saucerful of Secrets to Obscured by Clouds was created by the whole band. Everyone wrote an equal amount of songs, even Wright… Mason has never been a huge contributer to the songs, apart from his drumming style. Atom Heart Mother was written based on a chord sequence Gilmour had been fooling around with. Echoes was a piece they all wrote individual sequences to and pasted everything together. More and Obscured by Clouds are two soundstracks the band wrote together in a week or so. As you should know, both of these as well as Atom Heart and Meddle has great contributions from both Gilmour and Wright.
    You’re right about Waters having the big ideas for Dark Side, WYWH, Animals and Wall. He wrote the lyrics and most of the songs. However, you are blinded by what you hear on the albums and it seems that you have no idea what any of the other guys have contributed. Do you think Waters just penned everything rigt out of the blue? Do you think he wrote all the music, all the chord sequences and had ideas for the arrangements? NO! That was mainly something Gilmour and Wright handeled. Their signatures is all over the place and you should recognize that before you judge. There wouldn’t be an Us & Them or Great Gig without Wright’s pieces from the late 60’s. There would have been no Shine On without both Gilmour and Wright’s riffs and chord sequences. There wouldn’t have been a Dogs without Dave’s chords. And there would have been no Comfortably Numb and Run Like Hell without Dave’s inital demos for his solo album. There wouldn’t even be a The Wall without Bob Ezrin, who actually wrote huge parts of the album but only got a few minor creds. These are the songs that the fans remember…. sadly, Waters has taken credit for them all. Creds for a song is politics… nothing more. It is something fought over and written down in tons of binding agreements. Do you think Lennon/MacCartney actually wrote all those songs together… Nope. After 1965, the whole thing became a brand.

    So, please know your history. I totally respect your views and couldn’t agree more that Waters is a genious but I also think that he acts like a foolish spolied brat when he, 60 years old, still can’t cred the other members for contributing. Waters wasn’t Pink Floyd. They all were. Why do you think their performance on Live 8 sounded so good? – Bjorn]

  142. Adi Corrales says:

    Well… I think this post will never die as people as me can find it jejeje….

    Many things had been said about who is better musician… but can you set the comparation parameters? How can we compare Gilmour to Waters or Waters to Gilmour? Is there a list of musical questions that we could make, that give us some COMMUN points, and set a qualification? I think there is not….

    Is not fair to ask: “Who write the best lyrics ever?” or “who writes the best all times solo?” we should find commun aspects and compare that points.

    Now, we can’t find that points in the Floyd Era, because they both have a role in the band and they (for good or not) follow that roles (’till The Wall at least). But now, they have thesame roles in their own bands. Now we can compare, for example “Who is most creative in the visual aspects of the show?” “Who is most interested on create new and better sounds?” “who is most interested in said something that can change the world?” and so… this will not give us an answer, but we are going to find comparations points. As Tim Renwick saids in his interview (not exactly) “Waters like exactly the same every nigth and is much more fun to work with Gilmour…” What is better? it only depends on what do YOU like.

    Anyway, I have the chance to see Roger last march in Mexico. The show were amazing, the visuals aspects were great and the vibe of the people do the magic, but, beeing realistic, the show was not a surprise. The same songs of all the tour, in the same order and so…
    I don’t have the oportunity to see Pink floyd when they came with the Pulse tour, and Gilmour seems no to like to much latinoamerica, but then, it cames the question… Talking about music… What’s better to you? the good old know and no changes DSOTM with Roger Or an amazing and fresh SOYCD in the David Gilmour’s dvd?(can’t remember where it was..). I really prefer a Roger taking care (or seems to, at least) of what is happenning in our north border (with the USA), but, sincerly, I stay with Gilmour as a musician, because he can write only love songs as good (or as bad, if you like) as many people in the world (of course, not me) but they all sounds fresh and diferents… Roger writes great, no doubt, and altough he had a lot to said, a lot of his songs SOUNDS the same to me…and what is music all about?

    So, Who is better? It deppends of the “Battlefield” and “Weapons”…

    Bjorn: Great site. There is no doubt that if there is a page named “Waterish” This page will be the best! ;)

    [As long as there are two parts in one case, there will always be people who debate who’s better…. Lennon or McCartney, Star Wars or Star Trek, Apple or Windows…. People like to share their oppinions and I guess some even wants to show that they know more about one side than the oponent. Still, as you say, it will never be more than a personal oppinion. Music and all other art is very personal and you can’t say that something is bad… You can say that you don’t like it but you have to respect the ones that do. Thanks for your comment! – Bjorn]

  143. Laurent says:

    This debate seems to be endless… In my opinion, every band member’s contribution have been important to elaborate the Floyd’s sound (I mean Barett, Gilmour, Mason, Waters and Wright).

    Even if you reduce it to Gilmour and Waters (in the post-Syd’s era), their importance is 50/50. Pink Floyd without David Gilmour would be like the Rolling Stones without Keith Richards… Because like David Gilmour in Pink Floyd, Keith Richards alone IS a very large part of his band sound.

    Of course,during the 80’s and the 90’s, the ‘Waterless’ Pink Floyd have missed inspiration and creativity. But on his side, Waters did not seem to have so much inspiration at this time: The Final Cut is definitively not the best Floyd’s album, and his work after that is not so amazing. Ok, Amused to Death is the exception, but what else? Only one good album in a 25 years period, it’s quite disappointing!

    About the texts, everybody, including David Gilmour – and me – agrees to say that Roger Waters is definitively a great songwriter, far better than Gimour…
    But I have to say something important: here in France (yes I’m another Froggy), and in many countries I visited, most fans only speak -and understand- a very basic English… When they do have English notions! So many persons all over the world who like so much Floyd’s classics DON’T UNDERSTAND A WORD in these so beautiful and well written Waters’ songs! It’s sad to say but that is the truth and you have to keep it in mind. For all these persons, Pink Floyd is a sound before anything else. And what characterizes this Floyd’s sound better than Gilmour and Wright playing together?

    Laurent

    PS – I would like to thank Bjorn for all his work on this fabulous site. It is a real goldmine, not only for Gilmour or Pink Floyd fans, but for all guitar lovers.

    [Good points! … and thanks a lot for your compliments! – Bjorn]

  144. Kristopher Junner says:

    I agree with everything Bjorn has said.

    As gilmour became less involved the quality of musically decreased, compare ‘The wall’ and ‘The final cut’ to the likes of ‘Meddle’ ‘Dark side’, ‘Wish you were here’ and even ‘The division bell’. Animals is the exception, although gilmour is only involved musically in ‘Dogs’ the others are also great.

    The waters dominated albums definately miss gilmours music though, even on the wall, t he best song is comfy numb, where the music was written by gilmour. I love the final cut, waters singing is very emotional and he is very passionate, but my favourite moment on the album is still gilmours solo during ‘the final cut’.

    Waters is a fantastic song writer no question, in fact, apart from Bob Dylan I cant think of a better one. He is clearly a very clever man and he knows what he wants and what he likes, but his ego is definately a negative side of him, i read that ‘uncut’ interview he did and its sickening how much credit he takes for the best Floyd work. He even said that when the audience saw him at live 8 he thought they would be thinking “ahh so thats the guy who actually wrote the stuff”. WRONG! he wrote the lyrics, the actual music was composed by all band members (unless we’re talking about the final cut and most of the ‘the wall’ where the quality in music, although still good, is inferior), with major major contributions from Gilmour and Wright.

    Its a shame because ive read interviews with Gilmour that have disappointed me too. He doesnt try and take anything away from the rest of the band but Gilmour makes it pretty clear that he isnt willing to forget his bust up with Waters.

    I was supposed to see Waters in manchester on 07/05/2007 but i missed it because i needed an emergency operation in hospital. I have no doubts it would have been an entertaining show, but i really dont like his arrangement of some of the songs, and his guitarists just dont do it for me. Snowy White is great, but his style is so different from Dave’s and that other guy is flat out sh*t, sorry guys, but i had to say it. They raped comfy numb with that guitar duet.

    Waters is a genius, Gilmour is also a Genius, together with wright and mason (2 more genius’s) they made Pink Floyd, the greatest band of all time. They all needed to be contributing to make works of art like ‘echoes’ that is clear. But as far as solo work goes, i definately think Dave had the better live band. I just wish Waters to drop the ego and acknowledge the massive contributions the others made, especially Dark Side.

    On another note, the site looks great Bjorn, the best Gilmour site on the net along with his own, keep up the great work!

    [Thanks a lot for the compliments and I do agree with your comment. I think Roger still has some huge demons inside and he seems to have some pretty severe problems with his self-confidence. I can understand that he feared that no-one remembered him but first of all, he chose the anonymous lifestyle in the 70’s and second, he left Pink Floyd. Still, after touring for nearly 8 years, selling out every single show, he must by now know that the fans love him and know exactly what he did in Pink Floyd. He acts like a spoiled little brat… “mine! mine! mine!”. Is he that insecure? I loose some respect every time I read interviews like that. Sorry… – Bjorn]

  145. T.J. Sapp says:

    OK. There are a lot of Roger Waters fans, and I’ve already posted my allegience to Gilmour and no arguement here has changed that. But, the thing I don’t understand is all you people who are saying things like “forget Pink Floyd as a whole and forget Gilmour and listen to Doyle Bramhall Jr. (who in my opinion isnt really that great of a guitarist since he doesn’t have any actual emotion he’s just trying to impress people) or listen to Water’s solo albums or all this shit about just ditching Gilmour for Waters…. WHY THE HELL ARE YOU POSTING IT ON A DAVID GILMOUR SITE!!!!!!!! quit whining about how you dislike the bias here and how you are offended that Bjorn would ever say something remotely insulting to your lyric/songwriting god and how crappy of a guitarist you think Gilmour is and start your own sites as a tribute to Roger Water’s lyric writing. Now I’m not directing this to the Roger Water’s fans who obviously have respect for David Gilmour, I’m writing it to the Roger Waters fans who don’t even like the guitar god himself, and some of you people don’t even like Pink Floyd you just want to start some heat about how great Doyle, kilminister and snowy white are, if you don’t like David Gilmour as much as Roger Waters then more power to ya’, just don’t tell everyone on a tribute site to David Gilmour ’cause we are die hard fans of Gilmour and we get pissy when you start that kind of stuff.
    ~T.J.~
    p.s. – sorry to all the Gilmour fans who have to scroll over these harsh words, and thank you again Bjorn for the amazing site, Gilmour truly is a guitar god

  146. Annika says:

    It was a truely happy coincidence that those two (Gilmour and Waters) found each other and were able to create the PF-sound, together with Rick Wright and Nick Mason.
    It´s sad that the Waters fanatics aren´t able to see the the teamwork behind this great band.
    They are great musicians and innovative forces both of them, but Gilmour has the upper hand when it comes to melodies and harmony.
    Waters just lack the ability to come up with good tunes. A talent I think Gilmour has plenty of.
    Compare A Momentary Lapse of Reason to Pros and Cons and The Division Bell to Radio Kaos and there you have it.
    Not even Clapton or Beck (Amused…) were able to turn Waters ideas into something enjoyable.
    I think that says a lot about Gilmour´s input.
    Still, I fell Gilmour needs the input of Waters aggressive personality to be the icing on the cake.

    [Good points, although I have to disagree with you regarding Amused to Death… it’s one of my all time favouites. Anyway, to me, Waters has always been the lyricist and Gilmour the musician. Together they’re dynamite, but I absolutely think that David has managed better on his own than Waters. – Bjorn]

  147. koush says:

    just like you say it takes a musician to put roger’s ideas into instrumental pieces… it also takes a musician and a true amazing lyricist to put rogers ideas into words..

  148. koush says:

    no way man… the lyrics that rogers writes are every bit as good and important and ejoyable (if not better) than the intrumental pieces gilmour does.

    look at amused to death.. its too good to describe. thats an example of rogers working alone and still pulling off an amazing job.

    look at the albums after the split.. not nearly as good with the exception of a few songs in my opinion (like high hopes.. wearing the inside out)

    gilmour has said in his interviews that to this date he still struggles with writing lyrics (which is pretty clear to me even if he didnt say it)..

    bottom line, both are amazing.. i cant say which one i like better.. and i dont agree with ppl who say one is better than the other.. each of them was amazing at a different thing and together that made a great combination of what is called floyd.

  149. junaid says:

    awesome website. i’ll try to keep it general and try not to get repetitive (although the whole spectrum of opinions have more-or-less been covered). We agree that PF is greater than either RW or DG ever have been or will be as solo artists. I also agree that RW is a lyrical genius and DG is an amazing guitarist. As far as my experience is concerned, the first thing that gets my attention of any band or song is the music, more so than the lyrics. And for that, I have to give DG full credit into making me a PF fan. Of course, once I started paying attention, the lyrics sunk deep. Now the albums done together could not have been done without either artist, but frankly, no matter how good of a lyricist RW is, without the music, he does not shine above many poets, playwrights and philosophers of the post-modern era. If he did, we would be reading RW in various forms of literature instead of just listening to him through music. The reason we ever heard him is because of the musical vehicle. And for me, that would not have happened without DG. simple.

    On the same note, I should say that it’s subjective what one considers the “best” guitarist. i think under many criteria DG would not be exceptional at all. but it’s his interpretation of music through the guitar, his psychedic sentimentalism that outshines almost any other guitarist.

    And last, while I consider Syd to be a genius in his own right, the evolution of music within the band since he “left” has been quite remarkable. So much so that I believe PF would not be the same band with the same music had he been around. And while i am a die-hard fan of the band during Syd’s time, there is no saying how much recognition PF would have received over time. Especially because i find Syd’s tastes to be the least mainstream of the 3 (forgive me for leaving out the other band members, trying to keep this short). Therefore i truly feel that when people refer to the essence of PF – *largely* defined by the ’65-’85 era (or many prefer to define it as the Dark Side of the Moon and The Wall era) of Waters and Gilmour – then they should realize that while Syd was responsible for beginning the evolution of the PF sound, he really was much less central to their sound in that time. For instance, I can’t see myself giving Syd any significant credit for DSOTM and The Wall, two of my fav PF albums. I just wanted to put that into perspective (esp for me since i am a big Syd fan).

    Coming back to the present, I think currently both RW and DG in their solo albums have diverged enough that they can’t even be compared. And in this regard, personal bias (as seen on this board) often only reflects personal preference of current musical and lyrical styles that shouldn’t overshadow the genius of PF as a result of the combinatorial duo. (Gosh, i hope i made sense…).

    Lastly, despite who might sound better and who embodies more of the “PF sound” now, there really isn’t any solace to the disintegration of the band as our generation has seen. :(

    [Great post! I totally agree. I basically wrote this article (it’s almost a year now) to start a debate… it’s always great to hear other people’s oppinion and this topic sure stir up some deep feelings for the most of us. It’s really not important at all, – who is better, Gilmour or Waters. It’s like arguing why someone prefers apples over oranges. Music, or art, is a very personal thing. Nevertheless, one can always have a nice debate why one prefer one over the other.

    One fascinating side of this topic is how much Syd Barrett has to do with Pink Floyd after he left. He was a founding member and the creative force in the first period, but when he left (or was told to leave), Pink Floyd miraculusly managed to create their own sound and carried on without much sign of a deep loss. One can argue if this is true or not, but the fact is that the whole Barrett legend thing didn’t start until years after he had left. In 1968-69 most of the fans didn’t even know that Gilmour was the new guy or if there had even been a Syd Barrett. This was mostly due to the fact that Floyd did a massive promo tour with Saucerful in spring ’68 and Gilmour was a part of it all.
    Anyway, it would be interesting to hear how Pink Floyd would have sounded if they had formed the band without Syd, starting with Saucerful. Would Wish You Were Here and the Wall have sounded the same? We’ll never know and Pink Floyd would probably never have excisted. But I do think that Syd’s memory has haunted Pink Floyd ever since he quit. His talent was a huge inspiration, but I also think that especially Waters felt guilty and sorry for how things turned out, which his lyrics often reflect. I also think that Pink Floyd them selves got caught in the whole Syd legend thing, and perhaps unconciously it affected their music. – Bjorn]

  150. tobias says:

    you’re totally right!

  151. Winnie says:

    I have to say that your website is absolutly awsome! Also I totally agree with the Gilmour vs. Waters issue… but I think Waters had a little more say in things then “I like that”. I think David joining the Floyd was one of their best decisions, I believe David helped them get past Syd and to keep moving forward and make and new and unique sound… who knows what would have happend if he did hadnt become part of the Floyd? David’s muscian skills are AMAZING and even though it probablly wouldn’t pass as being good now days, I think his voice is also wonderful. Thanks for making such a wonderful site!

    Winnie

    (P.S.: Sorry if I spelled half the stuff I wrote wrong.)

    [Hi Winnie! Thanks for your compliments! – Bjorn]

  152. Daniel says:

    Wow… I don’t know how I managed to read every single comment, if anything just to get an idea, or confirm the idea that this senseless argument of “who is better” is so lame and absurd.
    Bjorn, people tend to miss your comments in that “National Enquire” tendency of looking for faults in others rather than concentrating in what they are good at… in Floyd, we have very distinct eras, all of them extremely good, if you dont forget the context in which they were created… for God’s sake, can you truly compare Bike with Money and Watching TV or HighHopes?… Come on… Pink Floyd was and will be way more than what any of their members could claim. It is not difficult to listen to any of the solo albums or of the band and not being able to find something that connects it all.
    I can easily listen to About Face (Let get m…), Amused to Death (Perfect Sense) or Broken China (Breakthorugh) and I can feel the connection to Wish You Were Here.
    Pink Floys is Syd Barret, Roger Waters, Rick Wright and Nick Mason… no more no less… those guys on their own are still the same, just the times changes, they can choose to evolve or not, or go back and forth if they wish… they have the talent and the experience… which is better? Who is to say?… we need to be there or at the same stage to pass a judgment, we can only have opinions, everybody is entitled to them… but, that doesn’t make it true…
    PF songs get under your skin either because of the words or the melody or the combination of both… you pick depending on the mood your are in, and that’s what’s great about it.
    That’s the mark of good artists…
    As a performing musician for the last 28 years, I can tell you that the goal of performing, recording, write songs, singing, ir to reach out (or in) and make your audience part of you or give them a piece of you.. when that happens is magic, and man theyknow how to do that… they never needed a proven formula, they never followed trends or the commercial easy way like many… and they are still there, if anything to have a bunch of people arguing about these things.
    It shows we care… it shows that we love what they do, or done.. that’s it..
    Better guitarrist? Better lyricist? Sure… and then some… look around, any of them can kick ass to 99% of the crap that’s being around since they have been around. That’s what is important.. they are not Gods, they are not perfect, they never pretend to, but they are great artist… and art is more than your set of skills or talents… is what you do with it.

    Bjorn… love the site… I guess I visit it more often that I do the Fleeting Glimpse or Brain Damage… cool stuff… I have downloaded every single file you have there.. stolen as much info as I can (including the GT-3 settings for God’s sake)
    Shit, if we never have PF again, I have seen live all versions and solo acts, except the Barret era, have every recording or books or video available and then some…but, then I can come here and dream a little bit.
    Chao
    Daniel

    [Thanks for your comment Daniel! I’m proud to know that you enjoy my site :-) I also agree with that it’s all a matter of taste. I can’t argue with someone who loves Roger more than Gilmour, but we can express our views. A group is depending on all members, no matter how big or small their contribution is… Still, it’s always fun to start a debate and let people express different oppinions. As you say, this is all because we love the band so much. – Bjorn]

  153. gabriel says:

    I think David is so f*ckin’ good…I mean, His sound is incredible,man,he is a musician just like Roger but they´re completely different. david knows how to touch our hearts with his solos.He´s amazing. You can’t say david isn´t a great songwriter. I love On an Island and and all his albums. Sorry about my english.

  154. Norman says:

    But I still like Gilmour sound and I,m still trying to figure out how he got all these beautiful and inspired guitar sounds
    Go figure this one out
    I like them both
    Lol

  155. Norman says:

    And by the way Waters should drop all these old Floyd songs from his shows and only play Pros ans Cons,Radio Wave and Amused to Death integrally That would be AMAZING
    Gilmour has nothing to say (and even him knows it)

  156. Norman says:

    There are thousands of good guitarists,keyboardist,producers,musiciens (including Gilmour)but how many good songwriters ? Waters is the quintessence of songwriting (and I won’t talk about his voice here,what a voice) I love the Pink Floyd Era and i like Gilmour sound and playing (By the way my favorites Floyd album are Animal and Final cut)But I’d rather listen to Pros and Cons,Radio Wave and Amused to death any time of the day
    Some people prefer the messenger to the message
    That’s not my case Thanks

  157. Renato says:

    Don’t forget…60% of the recorded basses in records of Floyd are great…, are those recorded ones for Gilmour :)

    [David on a question whether he or Waters played bass on Hey You – “Roger playing fretless? Are you mad??!!”. – Bjorn]

  158. efrenbaron says:

    …. I just saw Roger Waters Performing the dark side of the moon…. I must say that going to that show was like going to a tribute show… i didnt feel a thing. He doesnt have the Floyd vibe. And you wont let me lie about this… All of the songs that have become singles… who is singing????? .. the man himself. Gilmour. Personally the only album that i find a bit boring and anti-floyd (because of the song estructure and the short songs ) is the wall. And curiously the classic songs of that album are the ones that gilmour co-wrote with Waters..
    Just think about this for a second for God’s sake.
    Roger plays his bass with freacking shity wireless system and he don’t even sings money. I guess he is too old.. He is still playing dark syde of the moon as his main act. The songs he played of his solo album were the ones the people chose to go to the bathroom… Plus. He is so Rockstar and selfish.
    Gilmour . my man. He plays his spends tons of money tryng to achieve a more organic sound. He plays his guitar with a coaxial cable connected to his amp to sound better each time.. He just stays there in one spot to do his thing and to sing better than you can ever sing in your whole life. He has done almost 5 albums ( including a momentary lapse and division bell ) without roger and all of them kick ass. FINALLY. HE HAS 60 YEARS AND he sings incredible….

    Ok I know roger was a good man at the beginning and that he shared some good ideas. But as gilmour said. HE TURNED FLOYD into a vehicle for spreading his lyrics. He forgot about the concept of the band itself. When music Was way more important than lyrics. And tell me folks.. Do u listen to a floyd song and say “oh i like the way the bass sounds.. i dont think so.”

    so go a ahead “CReative Genious of Pink Floyd”…. gilmour and the guys are just laughing about you and your shity way of singing.

  159. Annika says:

    You´re probably right, it´s all on the surface. I´ve just read the interview with Roger in the Uncut magazin. He still can´t help himself but to spit on his bandmates, although he says that he regretts doing so in the past.
    Pathetic and so unnecssary from such a great talent.

    [Seems like he has some severe self-confident problems. – Bjorn]

  160. Annika says:

    Hi James, you have learnt your ” Gospel according to Roger Waters” by heart I see.
    But the fact is that Water´s solo works,especially The pros and cons and Radio KAOS are completely devoid of melody, harmony and sensuality. Amused…is better but not much. Whereas Gilmour´s soloworks lack edge and purpose but everything else that make up good music is there.

    They were a very good TEAM. Gilmour has always stressed that fact and now in his older and wiser age Waters seems to begin to acknowledge it as well. The ” Gospel” is tentatively changing it´s harsch dogma. ;=)

    [What surprises me is that Roger, who claims he has moved on and become a stronger person, still feels sorry for stuff like giving Mason the creds for Speak to Me and for not singing Have a Cigar. Instead of touring with the purpose of keeping the Floyd history alive and celebrating what one of the greatest bands of all times achieved, he does it with the intention of showing everybody that it was all his work. Waters didn’t move on… he never will. – Bjorn]

  161. James says:

    ummm, ARE YOU OUT OF YOUR MIND TO SAY THAT IT WAS ALL DAVID WHEN IT COMES TO MUSIC?!!!!!! EXCUSE ME BUT I DO BELEIVE THAT ANIMALS, THE WALL, AND DARKSIDE WERE ALL WRITTEN BY ROGER LYRICALLY, AND MUSICALLY. I ALSO DON’T THINK ROGER WOULD EVEN CONSIDER RELEASING ANOTHER ALBUM UNLESS HE LIKED EVERYTHING ABOUT. IF YOU THINK KNOW FLOYD, THEN YOU WOULD KNOW THAT ROGER TOOK COMPLETE MUSICAL CONTROL OVER EVERYTHING THAT FLOYD DID. THE ONLY THING DAVID WAS ALLOWED TO DO WAS WRITE SOLOS. ROGER MADE EVERYONE IN THE BAND DO THE MUSIC HIS WAY, OR NO WAY. ROGER MUST HAVE HAD MUSICAL TALENT TO PRODUCE THE ALBUMS EVERYBODY KNOWS TODAY. DO YOUR HOMEWORK BEFORE YOU EMBARRASS YOURSELF.

    [Well first of all, I haven’t said that Pink Floyd IS David Gilmour. He is only 1/4. That’s why Pink Floyd’s reunion at Live 8 sounded like Floyd… all fours members were up on the stage…. even a rusty Mason. Second of all, I’m entiteled to my own oppinion just as you are. You should respect that. To me, David is a far greater musician that Roger. As I’ve written in the piece and in noumerous answers, I respect Roger for what he has done…. without him we wouldn’t have had any of the Floyd albums from Saucerful to Final Cut. He had the ideas and the pen. Christ, Amused to Death is on my top 10 list! But if you accuse me of not doing my homework, regarding who did what, then you should really consider your own knowledge about Pink Floyd. Haven’t you seen the creds on each song? Haven’t you heard a single demo or bootleg from the 70’s? Everything shows that Roger had most of the ideas and lyrics, but THE BAND arranged the songs TOGETHER. Listen to how Dark Side evolved throughout 1972, a year before it got released on an album. Listen to how Shine On evolved from being a another endless 12-bar blues to a soulful duett between David’s guitar and Wright’s synths. Both Dogs and Sheep was played throughout 1974-75, two years before they got released on Animals. The songs changed dramatically. Listen to the demoes from The Wall. The songs are very crude and lack the touch of both Wright and Gilmour, and not to forget Bob Ezrin’s arrangements. Before you accuse anyone, YOU should do your homework. – Bjorn]

  162. cem says:

    When Pink Floyd was Pink Floyd, David Gilmour was my best guitarist. He created the sound and theme of all good old Pink floyd songs. I admire him and Roger as a Pink Floyd fan. But when I heard Doyle Braham II in In the Flesh concerts, I was first surprised how talented this left handed guy is and how come Roger accepted such gum-chewer in his very disciplined equippe. I realized that Doyle must be a very special guy. He is able to immitate all the sound and virtue of David, that’s alone is something, but actually he also has his own style. I listened to him in his own works and also together with Eric Clapton. He is marvelous. I think it’s time that a younger talent to replace David’s top place. We will never forget David, but Doyle rocks now…

    [Ah… riiiight. But, I’ll agree on one thing, – Doyle is a hell of a guitarplayer and technically far better than Gilmour. Doyle learned from one of the best, – Steve Ray Vaughan. He plays some really impressive stuff on the Waters DVD, BUT in my oppinion he doesn’t come close to David’s tone and feeling. – Bjorn]

  163. Hugo says:

    WOW that post of jan remind me someone..mm.. who? of course!: Roger Waters!!. Isn’t it great how one can hate in others what it is very inside of us?

    I think we have a great theme here to make a progressive rock’s song!!

    I’m not going to create a debate here. For me the true pink floyd was: Waters, Mason, Wright, Gilmour and of course Syd. I’d rather think in Pink Floyd as a team and his rupture and painfully separation as a reminder of what could happen to people if the EGO in BOTH parts of a disagreenment is incapable of settle down.

    And of course, my deep admiration for David Gilmour is not enough to make me change my mind about many of the issues in this confrontation: Roger was right in many of them, altough I can understand perfectly the course of action that Gilmour chose and I don’t blame him. He still is the best rock’s guitarist!!

    cheers

  164. Renato says:

    Also I am guitarist and fan of Pink Floyd, specifically of the Gilmour era.
    My vision of the separation is as musician.
    It tries to be part of a band (4 people) with world-wide recognition and to see that one of members in determined point wants for itself all the artistic direction. It’s simple, you will not be felt comfortable with this situation.
    I agree to Waters in Dark Side DVD when it says that “it does not have pureness in the motivation for the rock”… What I do not agree is that if you if it says part of a band always knows of its responsibility as band, or recognizes the moment to leave for an single artist and admits this necessity.

    Cheers

  165. Asperger says:

    Hello!

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aspergers_syndrome

    I got Aspergers Syndrome. You all probably heard of it…
    People with Asperger have difficulties with social behaviour (can behave egoistic and arrogant against other people) and are not so intelligent (some people with asperger need help with clothes on and such stuff, pretty like small childs). But may have a special interest that they are very good at (in my case, making music, playing the guitar and listen to Pink Floyd)

    But wait… this is supposed to be about Roger Waters vs. David Gilmour!

    OK. I like Pink Floyd mainly for their “un-normal” music and, of course, for Roger Waters/Syd Barretts lyrics and David GilmoursSyd Barretts guitar playing.

    I have always recognised some of me in both Roger Waters and Syd Barrett (most RW). I’ve read that Syd Barrett may had suffered from just Asperger Syndrome.

    If Roger Waters was more musical than David Gilmour or Syd Barrett then it would NOT sound Pink Floyd. If Richard Wright never listened to jazz-trumpeter Miles Davis “Kind of Blue” (ranked as the best jazz-album ever) it would NOT sound Pink Floyd. If Nick Mason never ever took driver license then it would NOT sound Pink Floyd :)

    If Roger Waters teacher never beat him up in school it would NOT…

    If the nazi-pilot never dropped the bomb over Anzio in 1944…
    I could go on for ever.

    Roger vs. David… they’re both great in their ways.

    !!!AND THIS IS IMPORTANT!!!

    It was Rogers idea to kick out Syd both for Syd’s good and the bands good. It was Roger who first, even if he was so unsure of himself, feeled that it was he who had to take control over the band after Syd. And thank god he did.

    He contributed with weird sounds on Interstellar Overdrive that is very musical in a way. (well Nick Rick and Syd did som great improvising on IO to but almost everyone seems to think that Roger Waters is NOT musical. He was the bass player and song writer in the best band in the world for god sake.

    The REALLY BAD THING about him (Roger…) is of course that he never (as far as I know) gives away money lake the ultra-kind David Gilmour. That he took a lot of credit for songs and that he hated Nick Mason’s drumming in the late 70’s. Nick Mason is my 3rd favourite drummer of ALL TIME! And Rick Wright is the best keyboardist I’ve ever heard with Ray Manzarek of The Doors and Jon Lord of Deep Purple as 2nd and 3rd.

    And Careful With That Axe, Eugene is the best song Roger Waters ever written. Time is the best LYRICS he ever written but CWTAE is the best SONG… it’s like INSTRUMENTAL WALL. With the scream representating… something. Well this isn’s http://www.songmeanings.net

    WOW THAT WAS SOME LONG COMMENT.

    Last words before I go to bed: Stop saying so bad things about ROGER WATERS. I know he does not look good, that he has a large nose, that he never was as good on bass as David Gilmour… he’s just a weird old man with some painful memories of the past that made him write the best lyrics ever written by man.

    There are people that is much more meaner than him. (Not me, though, he he).

    • Ben Culture says:

      In utter ignorance, Asperger said: “The REALLY BAD THING about him (Roger…) is of course that he never (as far as I know) gives away money lake the ultra-kind David Gilmour”

      If you’re at all interested in FACTS . . . Since 1975, Roger Waters has donated 25% (one fourth) of all his personal income to a charitable foundation for the poor, homeless, and malnourished. He never even sees the money (nor does the taxman); it goes straight into the foundation. (Waters does not publicize this. It was relatively unknown, until writer Dave Thompson set out to write a biography strictly about Roger Waters, not the whole band.)

      Even David Gilmour cannot say he has given away 1/4th of his money for over 30 years.

      I see a lot of ignorance on this page. People (like Asperger) just make statements that “feel” right, in their “gut”. I do not respect this way of belief — “bellyfeel”, George Orwell termed it. This is the Internet, the greatest wealth of information in all of human history. It has never been easier to educate yourself for free. This beats the Library of Alexandria. There is no excuse for making things up anymore.

      Soft-rock musician David Gilmour bores me. I prefer the sharp-edged artistry of Roger Waters. Solo. Having seen Waters 4X, I never miss Gilmour. The only significant mistake Roger Waters ever made in his solo career would be Paul Carrack. I watched as many bootlegs of The Wall Live as I could, before they were taken down, and I can say in absolute seriousness, Dave Kilminster outclassed Gilmour playing Gilmour’s own solos. Probably just because he is younger, more ambitious, and simply cared more about getting it right. How can Gilmour put sincere passion into “Comfortably Numb” every single time he plays a concert? It’s not possible. I’m a musician/songwriter/guitarist myself. I would grow bored with the same song, after 36 years, and that’s what it sounds like. I liked the Live8 performance for the way all four of them jelled.

      Gilmour’s guitar solos are not the star of Pink Floyd anymore. Roger Waters is playing “Dogs” live again, only this time with Kilminster instead of Doyle Bramhall II. And Kilminster kills it.

      I attended “Pink Floyd” concerts in 1988 & 1994. I left with a feeling of disgust and bitterness. The “camp” approach to “Run Like Hell” bothered me most — talk about a “cover band”! It sounded like “talent night” at a summer camp for at-risk children!

      I am also thoroughly bored by any version of “Comfortably Numb”, and can’t respect Gilmour until he retires it from his onstage repetoire. Imagine if Billy Joel played “Just the Way You Are” at every damn concert he ever performed, for his enitre career . . . That’s respectable? No. Do something fresh and new, Mr. Gilmour! Break out of the E and B blues scales. Try playing alone with “What God Wants Part III”, if you can handle the four key changes.

      “Shine On You Crazy Diamond” is divided into 9 parts, with different credits for each part. For example, Rick Wright wrote Part 9 alone. Waters is credited on 8 of the 9 parts — he wrote instrumentals as well as lyrics. And he ALONE is credited for part 5 — the melody/vocal section, that makes it a “song” instead of a “jam”. Roger Waters is a songwriter, not a mere lyricist. The best songwriter Pink Floyd ever had. One of the best rock songwriters alive today. (Gilmour is not even in the top 20.)

      I guess this is where Bjorn sticks in the last word? Go right ahead . . . I suppose you own the site or something, so you might as well control the dialogue. Roger’s band is superior to Gilmour’s. Now have your last word . . . .

      • Ben, Roger got stifled with age creatively and lyrically. Roger cannot write good lyrics anymore. I heard snippets of this new album and it sounds like bad Radiohead (and I can’t stand those clowns). I waited 25 years for a new album and instead I get a damn dirge, I’m skipping Roger’s tour because of his LIP SYNCHING and also finances and schedule conflicts! If he can’t sing live then (I agree with Bjorn) he should RETIRE! He lied about getting singing lessons, he records the vocals in the studio and plays over the PA while he mimes. Even Neil Peart of Rush has written better lyrics than Roger in the last 35 years. If you think “Leaving Beirut” and much of Amused to Death is gold, you are so far up Roger’s keester that you can’t spot the flaws of Roger on his own. I think songs that Neil Peart wrote the lyrics for like “Limelight” and “Superconductor” (both swipes at the illusion of the music industry and fame), “Losing It” (about one who loses their talents to age and Roger is now living the lyrics to this song “many years ago how the words would flow with passion and precision but now his mind is dark and dull by sickness and indecision” and “sadder still to watch it die than never to have known it”), “Red Sector A” (a song about the Holocaust survivors), “Afterimage”, the songs on Power Windows, “The Pass” (a song about the pains of committing suicide done to uplifting music), Counterparts and many of Rush’s albums have held up because they don’t name bomb events and can relate to anyone or anything. Listening to The Final Cut is pure 1982/83 and I only play when I’m dealing with depression despite the fact it was the first Pink Floyd album I ever owned as a 7 year old in 1983 thanks to “Your Possible Pasts” and “Not Now John” getting boatloads of airplay on US rock radio). Some songs on Amused to Death drag on and KAOS has songs I disdain and Pros and Cons was saved by Eric Clapton whom Roger could not keep a choke collar on because Eric would play different solos on a nightly basis).

        You troll David Gilmour forums you dirtball with your manlove for Roger Waters. You call David SOFT ROCK?!?! WTF?!?! Until We Sleep, Murder and All Lovers Are Deranged fall more into the hard rock category. His first album was hard rock and blues rock. On an Island was mellow yes but got me through the period where my mom passed. Rattle That Lock is my second favorite Gilmour solo album after his first.

        To me Pink Floyd was the music of David Gilmour and Rick Wright married with Roger’s lyrical concepts which was from Atom Heart to Wish You Were Here. Animals was where the band feeling was lost and I listen to live versions from 1977 more than the album.

        I may get shot for this but my Top 5 lyricists

        1) Neil Peart
        2) Pete Townshend
        3) Bob Dylan
        4) Ronnie James Dio
        5) Roger Waters

        YES, I have Dio and Peart ahead of Roger.

        I saw Pink Floyd in 1994 and still the best show I ever attended and I’ve yet to try drugs like pot and so forth. That cold May night in 1994, David Gilmour and Rick Wright and Nick Mason played superbly. What I love about David is he SINGS LIVE and plays different solos every night. If he screws up a lyric or botches a solo, IT’S ROCK AND ROLL. Seen Roger FIVE TIMES (1999, 2000, 2007, 2010 and 2012) and while the In the Flesh tours were amazing, Roger Waters is now watching a Broadway play. Doyle Brahmall was Roger’s best guitarist, he played what he wanted every show (not every solo was a carbon copy of David’s). Plus reminded me of Stevie Ray Vaughan which was also awesome! The VI part to Shine On had Jon Carin play lap steel, Doyle playing either a clean tone or his guitar through a Leslie and Snowy White playing a brilliant solo (which too differed every show).

  166. parker says:

    “Though Gilmour may be the better performer and guitarist, Roger Waters is ten times better then anyone alive at writing songs. He is hands down the greatest lyracist and song writer in the world. He’s greater then Lennon, Plant, and dylan put together.” -Floydfan1

    Hmm….greater lyricist than lennon, plant, and dylan? Thats pretty narrow minded. Many songwriters blow Roger Waters out of the water. His words fit perfectly for Gilmours style of guitar and music. Udoubtable he is legendary, but what is he with sub par musican? He is just another songwriter.
    If you’re a guitarist or a musician you appreciate Gilmour because he created a whole new style or progressive rock blues. Today he is just another songwriter, but he has always been. But he always has the catchy blues psychdelic feel. It just seems Waters and Gilmour were dependent on each other for the musical abilities to really shine.
    Bob Dylan on the other hand? He wasn’t depending on anyone else to help him do anything. That is why i say there is no contest. His music was his no one elses.

    [And Dylan is still capable of renewing himself… as he has done many times. His latest albums are considered as some of his best. Water’s latest random compositions (downloads and filmscores) are not even a bleak reminder of how great he once was. Also, don’t forget that Gilmour has managed to take the music press by storm with his 2001/2002 shows… hailed as a new genre in rock. – Bjorn]

  167. serge says:

    you say that rogers band sounds like a cover band.
    do you have ears?

    [Yes I have ears and my personal oppinion, after seeing Waters live 2 times, is that the band sounds like an uninspired Floyd cover…. on some songs. Roger should have toured with Amused to Death and played a couple of Floyd tunes as encores… Apart from him (of course) and Jon Carin, the rest of the band has no Floyd feeling what so ever. That’s my oppinion. That being said, I think Waters’ recent versions of Dogs and Sheep are awesome and he did a decent job with Dark Side when I saw him last year. – Bjorn]

  168. Hugo says:

    I just arrived from the concert of Roger Waters.. no words.. no words.. amazing… truly..truly amazing…I’m with Waters in this issue… at least until Gilmour decides to come to LatinAmerica and I can compare both on stage.. but man, what I just saw, is the best concert I’ve ever seen.. and I’ve been in a lot of concerts..

    cheers

    [Glad you had a good time! – Bjorn]

  169. Brendan says:

    Bjorn,

    Just noticed this entry and have to say I also tend to lean towards the Gilmour side of things than the Waters side of things. I mean all you people out there reading this, don’t think that we all hate Roger or something, I just tend to like Gilmour. As some people have observed, alot of Roger’s basslines and whatnot were written by Gilmour. However I do feel that they should be put together, they balance eachother out, and make great music. I also believe that Roger’s band sounding like a “cover band” (which they really are) and David’s not sounding like a cover band comes from the way Roger and David handle the shows and the way they do things. Tim Renwick, who has toured with both men, has said before that Roger is very controlling, trying to have complete control over everything, whereas David seems to just let the members do “their own thing” which results in a more natural feel. Anyway if any of you can understand what I just typed, I prefer David, but they both made eachother who they are.

    I have to find another way to get bootlegs I can’t find any.

    Have a good day,
    Brendan

  170. serge says:

    dude,

    have you ever seen roger in the flesh?
    not all the songs but all the pink floyd songs are great.
    i’f seen the dvd of 2000.
    and not only the music but the whole performance in great.
    i think if anyone could bring the sound of pink back it’s roger with the other band members of roger in the flesh.
    and doyl bramhall 2 is also on of the best guitarist of the world.
    i admire that you admire pink floyd so much.
    were on the same line theire, but roger gets my vote

    [I’ve seen the DVD and I’ve seen Roger live in 2002 and last year. The show was OK and it was great fun to hear Dogs and Sheep performed live. Doyle is a very good guitarist… but Gilmour gets my vote. Cheers! – Bjorn]

  171. T.J. Sapp says:

    I guess I’m a bit late in the running here. But something caught my eye that I thought was rather interesting, when Floydfan1 said; “so I guess if you like Gilmour, then you listen to the musical aspect of the songs”. Isn’t the point of listening to music to listen to the musical aspects of the songs, I mean sure Waters writes some great lyrics and the credits say that he writes some great music, but he could just as easily write some poetry and seem like a bit less of a pompous jerk than he does when he takes almost all credit of all Pink Floyd’s music away from the rest of the band who are the ones that deserve it. If you look at the credit for Comfortably Numb you see that it says that the music was written by both Waters and Gilmour even though we all know that it was written more than a year before “The Wall” came out. Now if you look at a song like Pigs, or Another Brick in the Wall, or Money, or any song that there is a guitar part on that Waters didn’t play himself. Can you say that Waters wrote every single guitar part and every keyboard part and every drum part that has ever graced a Pink Floyd song. Cause I find that incredibly difficult to believe and if Roger Waters can get a credit for something as simple as deciding how the opening of Comfortably numb should be then the rest of Floyd should get a credit for every contribution they have ever made to the bands music. And the fact that he takes credit for being Pink Floyd’s creative genius should be a crime. Every member of the band was a creative genius and you don’t see any member but Waters taking credit for it. David Gilmour takes credit only for being the Voice and Guitar of Floyd. And we all know that he was soooo much more than that. He was the soul, the dream inspiring melodicism, possibly the greatest guitarist that has ever graced this planet, and he was the lead singer. Sure you could say that without Roger Waters, David Gilmour wouldn’t have gotten anywhere, but it goes the other way too and without syd (rip) none of them would have gotten anywhere. And albums like Dark Side of the Moon and Wish You Were here, didn’t sell because of the lyrics, 90% of people that listen to music don’t give a crap about lyrics, Dark Side of the Moon and Wish You Were Here and every pink floyd song thats ever existed sold (or didnt sell) because of the music, and you notice that the lowest selling Pink Floyd album since Meddle was the one that Waters had the MOST control over because the music was nothing more than a way for the lyrics to get to people and they werent focused on. The worst songs that pink floyd did were the ones that Waters felt should just be used as lyrical conveyors such as the trial. And just because roger waters could write a lyric doesnt mean that he was a musician and anyone who listens to pink floyd knows that he was not a musician. The musicians were Gilmour, Wright, Barret, and Mason, Roger Waters just pissed them off, wrote words for them, and then at the end he took all the credit. (yeah I guess i have a bit of a Gilmour slanted bias..
    ~T.J.~

    [I couldn’t agree more… Of course Roger had the big conceptual ideas behind Dark Side, WYWH, Animals and Wall. He also wrote most of the initial musical ideas on those albums. BUT it was mainly David and Rick who turned the crude ideas into the gems we know today. I think Roger had a very “me me me” way of crediting songs when the truth is (maybe apart from the majoryty of Wall) that the songs should be credited Lyrics, -Waters and Music, -Pink Floyd…. Not even Great Gig should be only credited Rick, as the piece didn’t sound anything like the final piece when he wrote it. Who gets the creds is all very political and due to who gets the most money according to a contract. It’s like Lennon/McCartney… it became a trademark, not an actual cred. They wrote very few songs together. Anyway, it really pisses me off me Roger goes around promoting himself as the “creative genious”. If he really is that, he shouldn’t need to shout it out. It’s just childish… like a little 5 year old who desperately need the cred from his parents. Rogers is no doubt a creative genious, but he acts like a fool without dignity. After Amused to Death he should have quit making music and begun writing poetry instead. – Bjorn]

  172. Peter Kline says:

    I read your opening essay and basically agree with your views.

    However I saw Roger Waters last night in Hong Kong and it was a stunning show – and I saw Pink Floyd many times in the old days. Of course I would have loved to have seen Gilmour up there too – but there was no way you could call the show inferior. Dark Side Of The Moon is a modern master piece and in 100 years people will be up there playing the Gimour guitar peices and singing the Waters lyrics in just the same way orchestras today play Mozart. And, as a matter of fact there is no dark side of the…..

    [All in all, I think Roger did a faithful version of Dark Side. The effects and feeling was definitely there and I must say, Great Gig was perhaps the best since Claire sang on the album! But somehow, the band sounds like a cover band with Roger as speacial guest. The musicians seem to have no idea how the album really sounded like (apart from Jon Carin) and I do feel that Gilmour has managed to put together a better sounding band that is more capable of recreating the essence of Floyd. – Bjorn]

  173. David says:

    I agree that it’s rather silly to compare them. It’s about music, and not a competition about who is the best writer or musician. It’s all about what you like or not, and that’s a matter of taste.

    As good as the classic (70s) material was, I think Roger had completely lost it with Final Cut, and I find most of his solo work even worse than that album, even if I can appreciate the occasional stuff. So the question is did Waters stop being a genius…or was it a case of Gilmour not getting enough credits for the classic material?….

    Gilmour’s Floyd in the 80s and 90s might be tame in comparison with the classic era but it’s still better than Roger solo IMO.

    I also think we should put things in perspective a bit…has ANY other band who made classic albums in the 70s kept up with their old standards and continued to make classics throughout the 80s and 90s?
    I can’t think of any. the 80s was a very different era in music, and things never became the same again…

    [I agree… It’s a matter of taste. That’s basically why I wrote the post. – Bjorn]

  174. coco says:

    doyle bramhall II is just a chewing gum chewer that is nowhere near as talented as gilmour in any way and comparing them is insulting, it’s like comparing picasso with a copyist…
    Now another comment: i don’t see why you only play the waters era pink Floyd, since you seem to prefer Gilmour, i think that songs like learning to fly, on the turning away, sorrow or the whole division bell album are worth and should be played as Pink Floyd so i find foolish not to do it. Now back to the point of the debate Gilmour vs Waters,
    I don’t even understand what you are talking about there, on what basis do you want to compare them?
    It’s foolish, it’s like comparing Gabriel to Collins, or Tony levin to roger waters or steve Howe to Gilmour.
    One thing is sure Gilmour plays a lot better (even the base guitar) than Roger Waters and sings better but gilmour can’t make some voices that roger can and that without that sound some songs are forever lost (take comfortably numb, vera lynn, fletcher memorial home, nobody home) For me the only thing that we can see is the void left by Waters in Pink Floyd, and the void in Waters sound without pink floyd and not only gilmour but wright and mason too. So i insist, it’s foolish to even try to compare them, they are both so strong music personalities but so different, i can live with their separation but it’s so sad what a waste.

    [Fair point and I do agree that it’s foolish to compare them because they are both vital parts of the Pink Floyd sound. Still, I was trying to compare Gilmour and Waters today. I wrote the post after seeing Waters on his recent tour last summer and I was shocked to see him fooling around on the stage and even miming to his own lyrics. That’s really a huge difference to what I witnessed when seeing David in Albert Hall in May. The band was on fire and seemed to enjoy themselves together… that was not the case with Waters where he really struggled to show himself as a solo performer. I’m talking about David’s sence of putting together a band consisting of people who get his ideas, the Floyd sound and do shine on their own. Waters will always bee the genious when it comes to the great ideas, both in terms of the music and stage show, but IMO he doesn’t even come close to Gilmour when it comes to the musical aspect. Sorry… About Doyle Bramhall… IMO he is the best guitarist Roger has worked with as a solo artist. He has a great tone, plays the solos very well and has a unique style of his own, heavily influenced by his mentor Steve Ray Vaughan. Kilminister is shame… – Bjorn]

  175. Karen says:

    …..forget Gilmore

    doyle bramhall II
    Money & Comfortably Numb…
    Roger Waters Live in the Flesh DVD
    5.1 surround sound on my polk audio system…
    the best I’ve ever heard, vocals & guitar & stage presence……..
    doyle bramhall II rawks,
    snowy white rawks,
    andy fairweather low rawks-
    you could even forget Roger…….

    Karen ;o)

    [Riiiiight…? – Bjorn]

  176. kieran mullarkey says:

    If you actually read any of these comments please read this one. PLEASE. haha. Alrite, I love pink floyd and have heard all of their albums, even the ones from the Syd Barett days and the newer ones where Gilmour led the band. I have seen Roger Waters play, and annually see a famous Pink Floyd cover band called The Machine. Excuse me cause I’m a little tired but my point is that I know Pink Floyd really well. I just feel that Gilmour is and always was a better guitarist than Waters, but Waters is and always will be a better musician. Waters wrote The Wall, Animals, and The Final Cut. He did however let the band help build off of his work once it was written. He also wrote a majority of Dark Side and Wish You Were Here. You do bring up a good arguement on how David Gilmour has helped mold Roger Waters into a better musician, but there were many times when Waters lefts gaps in some of his songs intentionally for Gilmour to build off of but, Waters always laid down the foundation. I truly hope you read this post because I have an offer for you Bjorn Riis. I somehow got a hold of a copy of the rough draft version of The Wall. It is the version of The Wall which Roger Waters wrote entirely by himself which he gave to producers and the rest of Pink Floyd. This is the foundation of The Wall. Let me remind you that this is the first piece of The Wall and is entirely by Waters and no one else. This is the version before Gilmour or producers got their hands on it. I am willing to send you a copy of it to convince you of how much more superior Water’s musicianship is than Gilmours. If you hear it you might be surprised how little Gilmour, producers, or the rest of the band interferred with it.

    The origional version of comfortably numb actually has better lyrics! Waters does the guitar, bass, drums, and vocals for it. I will admit that the origional guitar solo is not as good as Gilmour’s famous one. Still the song defines the solo, the solo does not define the song. It is a piece of brilliance. Most of the songs actually go unchanged before being rerecorded for the final cut of the album. I am willing to send you a copy of this cd because I hope that it convinces you that Waters is a far more talented musician than Gilmour. Be mindful that the origional draft of the wall sounds a bit raw and harsh because Waters knew that he would have a chance to rerecord it. There clearly would be no Wall without Roger Waters. There would also be no Animals, or Final Cut without Waters. He also wrote more of Wish you were here and darkside than gilmour. Interestingly enough he spotted Gilmour’s talent when he wanted a replacement for Barrett. Enough said I hope that you respond and that this cd convinces you. If not, no offense taken, we still love Pink Floyd!

    [Hi! I agree that Waters wrote a lot of the music and that he left in space for Gilmour (and Wright) to fill. But, I must say that I don’t see Waters as a better musician than Gilmour. Quite the oposite… Waters had the ideas and new how to pitch them to the band and to an audience, but Gilmour was the musician. Gilmour often took Waters’ crude ideas and made them into the songs we now know… not always, but often. David played bass on most songs on The Wall too. I think what made them so unique, if you look beside all the disagreements, was that they made eachother shine. Waters needed David to play guitar and sing on his songs and David needed Waters to write good songs for his playing.
    Thanks for the offer, but I think I have that demo already. I’ve listened to it a lot and, at least the demo I have, is with a full band. It’s very crude and there are some stuff on it that sounds very different to the final album. As far as I know, Waters doesn’t play any guitar or drums on the demo. In fact, he has stated many times that his original demo that he showed to the band, was almost purely his voice and accoustic guitar with some soundeffects. And, Comfortably Numb was written by David for his first solo album in 78… I have the original demo. If you do have a different demo than I describe, then please send it. I’d appreciate that! – Bjorn]

  177. Eulogy says:

    Well, it’s you’re prerogative to bash Roger, but I think Roger doesn’t give rats ass what people think and that’s really all there is to it. Perhaps he’s really not a singer in a classical sense nor great bass player, but he’s really good musician, he’s got a vision. I really admire his attitude, love his nihilistic lyrics and vocals too when he’s speakin’ or screaming like ass on fire. Some of his bass lines are really clever although really elementary. David’s solo work is for the most part really kinda boring. Love his playing, tone and singing and listen to his work for old times sake, but I really think Roger has made better songs and music. On A Island is an exception, it’s really good song. Nobody really knows besides the guys themselves how did what in PF. I think the sum is greater than it’s parts.

    And I wonder to who are you referring this “van halen” wanking? CN end solos are really boring but Snowy, Andy Fairweather Low and especially DBII does a great job delicering PF music. As a main solo player DBII does things his own way and doesn’t try to copy 100% Gilmour. Sign of a great and talented musician.

    Sorry for the rant! Peace, happiness and merry Cristmass!

    [Oh… where should I start???? Seriously, I agree with you on most points and so I’ve written in the article too. I love Waters for the stuff his written, sung and played. No question. However, – I definitely think you can who did what in the studio. Both David and Rick has a very distinct way of creating music and I could put my finger of a thousand things Waters has taken credit for. He had the idea… often that was it. Still who can write good music without good ideas? As you point out, – the sum is definitely greater that it’s parts. I must admit that I strongly disagree with you on Snowy’s and Low’s way of playing the Floyd tunes. It’s not right… sorry. DBII does a pretty good job and I love his Time and Dogs solos, but the other two… I don’t wan to go there… Have a Merry Christmas! – Bjorn]

  178. Annika says:

    Interesting discussion.
    Now a little mind game: Imagine a sane Barrett, would he eventually have fallen out with Waters anyway? I think so, because Waters had huge ambitions and I don´t think Syd was that kind of person. Now imagine he got together with his teenage friend Gilmour and started a new band. Two sweet, sensual guys. And then add Rick Wright.
    A different kind of music but terriffic no dout.
    It´s never only one person that makes a band, teamwork is always the best way to create great results. David, Rick and Nick have always stated this as a fact but Roger thinks he´s the salt of the earth. Sad.
    This is what I have against him.

    [I agree. A band isn’t driven only by one person… not even Coldplay or U2. Although Roger has stated many times that he misses David’s voice and guitar, he often seem to forget that David actually wrote much of the music… not to forget that he also made some of Roger’s crude ideas into gold. It’s also sad that Roger seem to have totally forgotten Nick and Rick (although Nick has now joined him on stage, but that’s more due to the fact that they were once close friends). I have always thought that Rick is teh most underestimated of the four… eh five. It’s surpising that a man who is so devoted to world issues as Waters, seems to have a lot of demons in his own life and past. He doesn’t seem to be willing to admit that Floyd wans’t his solo project… it was a band. What would Beatles have sounded like if George and Ringo didn’t put their trademark sound on Lennon/McCartney creations? – Bjorn]

  179. george says:

    i think it takes the whole floyd to make the best stuff!
    gilmour leads and great solos.
    waters great lyrics and ideas
    wright great backing on keyboards
    mason great sound effects and drum technique

    [Couldn’t agree more! That’s why solo projects rarely work as good as the whole band. – Bjorn]

  180. Cody says:

    No harm done fellow Floydian. Cheers

  181. Michael says:

    Oh sorry Cody..I guess I should have said Floyd Material of DSOTM and WALL.. This post was about Gilmour Vs. Waters.. didn’t even think of Syd days.. nor listen to them.. sorry for my mis-guided keyboard… I thought also as you stated.. :You would know what I mean..;) :

  182. Cody says:

    I like how Michael said on Nov 7th “I’m a fan of the original Floyd” and in the same sentence, he brought in DSOTM and The Wall…What’s…uh the deal man? That’s not original Floyd. Original Floyd was over when Syd left. Not that the Floyd after was unoriginal but you know what I mean…well, I know Bjorn does…I don’t know about the rest of you…Cheers everyone.

  183. Hugo says:

    Hi Bjorn. I can see that your page is receiving much attention from latin people. I can try a translation of what Victor wrote:

    “Hi. To me it seems like Waters sounds bad and I think that he picks bad musicians with the only purpose of being noticed as a best player. Pink Floyd, since Waters’s departure changed and a lot, but remains excelent. The soul of the Rock is the guitar, Waters is quit good writting but lyrics ain’t all, so I hope Gilmour make up his mind and revive Pink Floyd”

    In my opinion: I don’t think at all that the musicians that play with Waters in IN THE FLESH DVD were bad. They are some of the best professional musicians: Andy Fairweatherlow, Doyle Braham II, I don’t recall right now the names of the drummer, 2nd guitar and the keyboard’s player but HEY VIctor: This last guy played with Gimlour since “Delicate sound of thunder”!!!! and definitevly the bass’s parts are much much better with Andy Fairweatherlow or waters than with Guy Pratt (sorry.. to me Guy Pratt’s sound in PULSE and in Delicate is too compressed too over-procesed too far away from what it should be).

    [Thanks Hugo. By all means, the musicians that Waters choose are not bad. As you say, they are some of the most talentend in the industry. But, that’s part of the problem as I see it. They’re just playing too good and it sounds sterile. Pink Floyd them selves were never top of the line musicians and I think that is what made their music so special. They had a certain feeling and a tone that Waters’ band has a hard time re-creating. Floyd did it to some degree in the 80’s and 90’s, but that was partly because they were three from the original lineup. Still, it wasn’t superb. However, I think David has done a hell of a job to recreate the 70’s sound on his latest tour and Guy Pratt has finally realised that Waters’ way of playing actually contributed a lot to the Floyd sound (which he admits now). As a sidenote, I think that Doyle Braham II is an outsanding guitarist and nailed some of the solos very well on the In the Flesh tour. – Bjorn]

  184. victor de gabriel says:

    hola a mi me parece que waters suena muy mal y que el se rodea de malos musicos para resaltar, pink floyd a partir de la salida de waters cambio y mucho pero siguio siendo exelente. EL ALMA DEL ROCK ES LA GUITARRA asi que waters es muy bueno escribiendo pero las letras no son todo espero que gilmour se decida a revivir a pink floyd .

    [Hi Victor! Could you please write in English? – Bjorn]

  185. Demetris Michaelides says:

    I respect both of them but Gilmour is the soul of Pink Floyd. He is the one who touches people’s souls with his guitar and voice. I have seen Waters in the States and he was good really good. I travelled from Cyprus to London for the live 8 concert just to see Pink Floyd for 25 minutes. Those 25 minutes are the best 25 minutes i have evered experienced. It was really great to see them together. Dave though is just amazing! David Gilmour is the best musician ever!!! Thanks!

    [I totally agree! I too got the chance to see them in London last year and it was an “out of body” experience. I still can’t believe I was there when I watch the DVD! Cheers! – Bjorn]

  186. art says:

    sir david gilmour and mr roger waters are like night and day in the recent issue of guitar legends ,david mentions he can not write lyrics like roger does or did ,how ever david wrote fantastic music, past and present ,i have attended (radio kaos tour &2002) solo perfomances of roger waters, and the pink floyd during the delicate sound of thunder tour and the 1994 tour both here the U.S.A, and the recent david gilmour concert in los angeles, california, kodak theater,this year.
    i have seen a dvd of the rio concert of roger waters and it is very sad to see roger lip sync and his voice is very bad and it came to my attention if he did not lip sync at that 2002 show , it was a great show i enjoyed quite much i my add the radio kaos tour was an experience the venue was almost empty (san diego sports arena) but he stated in later interview, that particular show was very positive ,
    i was amazing to see david(kodak theatre ) performance of the floyd songs and specially echoes, he has a great voice and play a hell of a guitar , i must say the two are great true legends roger waters was the driving force for most of the golden era of pink floyd ,david fantatisc riffs ,solos, vocals and nick and richard is what made pink floyd what it is now, with out leaving out syd barret off course , i personally like the music side of the artist i do not follow the personal issues
    everybody has problems i must say, on the present david has done better than roger musically speaking but when they got together for that live 8 show it brought the best of them for the fans after all thats what we are ………….

  187. Hugo says:

    Wow… mm Bjorn I must say that I disagree with your poin of view. I’ve just checked the PULSE dvd and compared with the In the flesh DVD of Roger Waters’s tour.

    mmm.. how to say this? mmm.. man.. the only thing better in PULSE is David Gilmour.. everything else is better in Roger Water’s show. The correct feeling and tempo of the songs, the correct figures in the bass (guy pratt just deliverately get away of Waters style of playing)..

    So, Altough David Gilmour is my guitar hero, and I agree with you in the fact that he is the musical expert behind Floyd’s music, I must say that Roger Waters is the true soul behind Pink Floyd and that shows in scene..

    [I think PULSE is great, but far from the best stuff Floyd has done. I agree with you on Pratt… funny thing is that he admits now that he played very bad (see latest Q&A on David’s site). Still, the In The Flesh DVD from Waters sounds more like a coverband with Waters on vocals. Sorry, but without Gilmour, Mason and Wright it’s not sounding like Floyd at all. At least David had Wright on the tour. – Bjorn]

  188. Tony says:

    HA i agree completly!!

  189. Michael says:

    This argument is pointless. Gilmour without Waters or Waters without Glimour is not Pink Floyd period. I am a great fan of the original Floyd DSOTM and WALL which sounds different than anything either has put out since. There was youth, want and to the most part willingness in their sound and attitude while making both.. nothing compares to them together in their early years…Listen to some live stuff from then.. Glimour’s sound has changed alot and is much more polished (I want more flanger/phaser and rakes ) now and to me has lost something although he is still amazing and in my top ten best guitar players of all time. Waters, Well he is a song writer not a player… nothing he has written grabs me like the early songs, and yes he put alot into his Bass then. I recently watched the Waters “in the Flesh” dvd and enjoyed what Bramhall and Snowy White did with gilmours Comfortably Numb parts but it was not Pink Floyd. If I had to choose one… I would leave it to Mason and Wright to pick…. but I think they already did that.. Your Pink Floyd Experience is as close as they get themselves sometimes. But together, going back to their old sound, would be unbeatable.

  190. Eric says:

    When will they realize they need each other and reunite? Gilmour is too sweet, and Waters is too sour, they need each other to balance each other out. It is so obvious to everyone, but their egos won’t allow it. It is sad.

  191. Cody says:

    Bjorn your site rocks! even if you hated Dark Side i’d still come here…hell, I visit this site more than I do David’s.

    [Thanks a lot! That’s quite a compliment! And… Dark Side is definitely one of my favourites, don’t worry, he he! – Bjorn]

  192. zBladez says:

    What I don’t quite understand is WHY it matters. They were both the creative elements and ingredients that made Pink Floyd what it was. Apart, they are just not up to their standards, but still better than most musicians. Call it symbiosis if you will.

    [Of course it doesn’t matter, but it’s fun to write something like this and hear what you people have to say. Of course I mean what I wrote, but I’m expressing my taste if you like, as we all are, and I’m extremely aware of the fact that no-one is greater than the other. Floyd wouldn’t have been much without one of them (including Rick and Nick). That’s like Beatles without one of the Fab Four. It wouldn’t have sounded the same, no matter how much one hates George, John, Paul or Ringo. – Bjorn]

  193. Cody says:

    I respect everyones ideas here on who they believe is the better musician. There are some things that Roger did that I feel are complete shit. However…there are some things that Gilmour did that I not only feel, but know, are complete shit. *Cough* About Face *Cough*. I mean…is that album a soundtrack for Police Academy or Miami Vice the tv show? It all comes down to Syd..then bam! he’s gone…now we have Roger…he did some good stuff yada yada…Then he said hell with it and took complete control of the band….and what did he leave us with? Dark Side of the Moon, Wish You Were Here, Animals, The Wall and The Final Cut. But hey…those albums must suck cause Waters is untalented right? Wrong. I’m getting off on a tangent here…I like both musicians equally. Both are equal in their own right. Gilmour as a musician and Waters as a lyricist. Ever listen to Momentary? that’s the sound of a Pink Floyd that’s lost…hell, rub that album hard enough and it’ll say “David Gilmour solo album” instead of Pink Floyd. I suppose the same is trun in the Roger sense when it comes to the Final Cut…but hell, at least that was tasteful. I’d chose that over Momentary any day…hell i’d chose Pros and Cons over Momentary any day. You will NEVER hear me knock The Division Bell though, that album is beautiful. All i’m tryin to say here is that both are equally good in their own right. Can Roger play the 2nd solo to Comfortably Numb? No. Would Gilmour have done the awesome tape loop for money? No. Even Gilmour admited on a documentary that Roger did better than him on the demo for On The Run using the VCS3. All i’m saying is…both are awesome and we, as well as the rest of the world, were truly blessed to have these two gents get together for a spell and write and play some tunes…so stop bitchin’ and start listenin…cause really…that’s all you can do. And Bjorn…still respect you man…only thing on this site I don’t respect is that link that takes me to where I can buy a Gilmour strap…I was so excited when I saw that…then I saw the price and wanted to kill myself….cheers gents.

    [Hm… I never thought that this topic would stir up so many different feelings… Still, it’s great to hear what you have to say. One thing you forgot tho… what about Radio Kaos. There are some great songs, but let’s be honest. Waters lost him self to the Miami Vice era too (and yes, About Face is awful). Hope you don’t dislike my site too much… I didn’t set the price for the Gilmour strap, ha ha! Cheers! – Bjorn]

  194. Stephen Pearson says:

    wow – fantastically said!!!

    gilmour is so the best!

  195. calum says:

    But just remember,David Gilmour wouldnt be as big as he is today without the original floyd(syd,ROGER….)
    I cant Choose between them,they both have their good and bad points.

    [You’re right about that, but as goes for Roger… He wouldn’t have been much without Syd and David. – Bjorn]

  196. Jake says:

    Roger Waters is alcohol – sloppy and overrated…
    David Gilmour is marijuana – inspiring and intergalactic!
    ’nuff said.

    [He he! Hear hear! – Bjorn]

  197. Jerri says:

    hehe I couldnt stand to read on about this war! I believe that there arent better than eachother. To me in my books, I think that Gilmours guitar sound and vocals are just as Spectacular as Waters Lyrics. either way floyd wouldnt of started with out the Mastermind of Syd Barrett. Why has he been left out of this war? Syd Barrett Started the band, and had brought so many early pink floyd classics such as “See Emily Play”, “Lucifer Sam” or “Arnold Layne”, and I Believe that Gilmour or Waters wouldnt have gotten where they are today without the Genious Syd Barrett. Gilmour, in my eyes is a fabulous musician, and Waters is a Spectacular Lyricist, But to me Syd Barrett will always be the creative mastermind of Pink Floyd. Which anyhow brings me back to my point, I think this war over who is better than who is ridiculous! For me I get the same buzz from listening to David Gilmours Amazing Guitar works, as I do for Listening to Roger’s Meaningful lyrics. They are equal in my books, and I think that “On an Island” was just as amazing as “the Pros and Cons of Hitchhiking”. I just appreciate the fact that everyone from the band [including Nick Mason and Rick Wright] were there at that time to have been able to collaborate together to make those amazing albums over the years, because they all helped contribute to them.and I wouldnt have been able to hear such classics Albums such as “UmmaGumma” or “Animals”. So for me it wouldnt have been as great without any of the band members, in my opinion…

    R.I.P. Syd (Roger) Keith Barrett:(

    [The “war” was started sometime in the mid 80’s when the media created two monsters out of Gilmour and Waters. I think even they got frustrated over the situation. Syd was never a part of this and I think that most fans see him as the unique man he was and not like a rivalist like the two other main Floyds…. because, let’s face it, – both Waters and Gilmour like to be in charge. Still I agree with you 100%… Floyd wouldn’t have been what it became, or is, without both Gilmour and Waters…. or Syd, Nick and Rick. – Bjorn]

  198. Floydfan1 says:

    Alright, Pavan, you DO want to see Waters in concert. I just saw him on the 24th, and it was AMAZING! All of the music, i mean every song, is just absolutely magnificent! I really give Dave Kilminster and Snowy White credit. They handled Gilmour’s tunes very well. (But its still not Gilmour) I say it was 80% Floyd. Each song had the lead guitar above all the other sounds, and it rocked! I mean, there was a deep bass, and a lot of sound effects, but the guitar was just awsome. If anyone says that Waters can’t jam, then they haven’t seen him in concert. And if you have, and you still say that, then your one poor soul. Who needs Gilmour when Waters is just so dang good?

    [OK… Everyone is entiteled to their own oppinion, dudes. Don’t get me started about Kilminister. – Bjorn]

  199. Pavan says:

    Yeah, actually i want to go see him at Nissan Pavlilion, but no one wants to take me. (I can’t drive due to age). I have a decent bootleg, and i will agree, i wasn’t impressed. I agree with you Bjorn on this one. Now if gilmour played here, then i would definetly go…

    Why can’t Pink Floyd just tour together. This whole Waters, Gilmour crap annoys the hell out of me…

  200. Floydfan1 says:

    Oh, and Roger for some odd reson, hasnt pu blished any books (of my knoledge) but he does write poems. I havent been able to come across any, but i do know he writes them. And along with all of that, i know he does a heck of a lot reading himself. So maybe one day he’ll publish a book. (But i wouldnt see GIlmour doing anything like that.)

    [He hasn’t published anything, but maybe when he retires from rock n roll we’ll see some poems or short stories…. I wouldn’t compare Waters and Gilmour on this matter. Waters is a poet, writer and a lyricist while Gilmour is a musician.- Bjorn]

  201. Floydfan1 says:

    Okay, okay. I admit Roger doesnt actually “sing” his songs. But he does use the voices of the three back-up vocalists in harmony with his own voice to create a unique sound. (yet another one of his talents, creating a unique sound.) Amused to death, the song, is a good example of the softly spoken lyrics with a woman’s vocals to back it up. its quit relaxing. Im not argueing this with anyone, its just moy opinion. But if yopu decide im wrong, lol, then i guess my next comment will be pretty heavy…

    [He he… write as heavy as you want, but remember that I am the moderator :-) Waters has a unique way of singing and I have always liked it when he whispers or talks the lyrics and dub that with screaming the lyrics in the background. There’s lots of it on both Final Cut and Amused to Death. But it surprised me that a man who has always been so devoted to every detail can go on tour using a backtrack for 50% of his vocals. It was sad seeing him miming to his own words this summer… I will always love his work, but I think it’s time to put the bass on the shelf. – Bjorn]

  202. mehmet says:

    this is an argument with no end in sight :))
    last comments:
    1. for great ideas, lyrics and music: listen to PF albums with RW era (excl Final Cut)
    2. for great music with not so great ideas and lyrics: listen to Gilmour and RW less PF albums
    3. for great ideas and lyrics but no music with talking and shouting singing listen to RW albums.

  203. Floydfan1 says:

    Though Gilmour may be the better performer and guitarist, Roger Waters is ten times better then anyone alive at writing songs. He is hands down the greatest lyracist and song writer in the world. He’s greater then Lennon, Plant, and dylan put together. His work is world wide, both with and without Floyd. His writing just touches the hearts of everyone who listens, and his albums are perfectly rounded, with a little bit of everything in them. Anyone who says Gilmour is better than Waters is just in a “Gilmour mood.” At times i enjoy Gilmour way better than Waters. And at other times i feel that Waters is the musical genuise in the band. (which may not be stretching the truth.) So i believe it all depends on what mood you’re in, but Waters and Gilmour are both great artists, so regardless who you like better, you still have a great taste in music…

    [I think we agree… No doubt that Water’s write better lyrics or have better ideas than Gilmour. Still, in my mind, Gilmour has a better undestanding of how to put those ideas to life. That’s what made the 70’s Floyd so special. – Bjorn/ this post has been moved from “BK Tube Driver Review”.]

  204. Floydfan1 says:

    sorry i didnt clarify this. the critic i previously wrote was directed towards the person who said “Music Waters did after PF is not listanable.” That comment upset me in a few ways. Amused to Death is genuis. no doubt about it. so I guess if you like Gilmour, then you listen to the musical aspect of the songs. More interseted about enjoying the songs and not really goping in depth with them. depending onmy mood, i guess i choose either or. but don’t just drop Waters like anold book. Give him life and let him openyour eyes to something wonderful. It truely is a real treat, and i could only hope more people could see it like some of us do…

    [I think I’m more into the music, as you point out. I appreciate good lyrics, and especially Waters’, but for some reason I have never had the urge to dig deep into the matter… Still, I wonder why Waters hasn’t published a book. He could have written wonderful poems or even interesting novels. – Bjorn]

  205. Floydfan1 says:

    WOW! Please tell me you didnt just say Amused to Death is a bad album, b/c i choose that album over Wish You Were Here any day!!!! (though the Wall is my fav, with Dark Side in a close second.) I do believe Gilmour’s music with Roger’s ideas make the Pink floyd what it is, but even without Floyd, Waters has been largely succesful with his writings. (I only wish he got together with Lennon, God Bless His Soul….) Gilmour’s solo work isnt great at all. Even the recent “On An Island” isnt very functional. It’s an album that I listen to, but put to the side when i’m done. with Amused to Death, I HAVE to listen to it again, over and over. If you’re saying that his work is disdanful and tasteless, maybe you’re just into the “music” part of the Floyd, not the deeper meaning. “The Final Cut” is a wonderful album by itself, and i do think it’s better than any Gilmour album. Period! But don’t get me wrong, I enjoy Gilmour a lot, and his floyd work is untouchable. Just tryto give Water’s a second chance. Look at the deeper meaning of his music, and then write back. I promise you’ll see a difference once time has passed and you listen to it again. (or maybe for the first time.)

    [Are you asking me? I don’t think I said that Amused was a bad album. Not at all… In fact, Amused is, and has always been, on my top 10 list. No doubt. – Bjorn]

    • thedarksideofthecat says:

      While ATD is a good album, his first album lost A LOT of money. His work with PF is legendary, but as a solo musician he isn’t that good (almost all of Water’s versions of Comfortably Numb are crap), but I love all of his lyrics, but its just as a live performer and solo artist he’s not as strong as gilmour

    • Clive Weiner says:

      dudes wake up smell the coffee, good your brain is lighting up// roger waters is not to be compared to david gilmour// gilmour maybe gets in the top 50 bands or lead guitar genius crap/// roger waters is the NUMBER ONE SOLO ARTIST OF ALL TIME// AS BANDS GO U2 IS ONE, THE ROLLING STONES 2, ROGER WATERS 3// DAVE KILMINSTER MAKES DAVID GILMOUR LOOK ordinary// doyle cranks that fender strat it must make mr gilmour realize he might have won the FIGHT vs ROGER but roger WON THE WAR// HE WROTE COMPOSED ALL LYRICS FOR DARK SIDE OF THE MOON, ADD pigs in the wings , the machine, heart of the sun, etc etc etc// roger only plays songs he wrote and composed// i was at PINK FLOYD 1994 LA, without roger the hard ROCK was missing// as for andrew loyd webber and the piano lid breaks his fucking fingers// roger changes his shows, in the flesh tour EVOLVED WITH EACH SHOW// RIFFS WOULD CHANGE, roger listens to every concert after it’s finished// to improve each and every song// andrew loyd plays exactly the same show evry night for years and years and years // roger DARK SIDE OF THE MOON LIVE with dave kilminster jon carin andy fairweather low snowy white is OUTSTANDING// DOGS WITH BADASS DOYLE IS CLASSICAL HARD ROCK MUSIC AT ITS BEST // if i dont see have a good morning good evening and goodnight\]
      // regards clive

  206. mehmet says:

    Hello everybody

    I must agree with Bjorn on this Waters vs Gilmour issue. Waters is the “ideas” man and Gilmour is the musician. Music Waters did after PF is not listanable. One thing I differ from Bjorn is I dont think Final Cut is a good record. Nowhere near PF standarts. Waters writes theatrical music. It was Gilmour putting it into this great multi-dimantional rock format that we all love and worship.

    I also find Waters a bit arrogant. Who else would rate himself among the best 5 song writers of the World? Who else would trash Andrew Loyd Webber’s music? The guy is a megaloman! I am sure he tried to belittle the rest of the PF members towards the end. And still may do. I think Gilmour and the rest have a just reason not wanting to work with him ever again.

    • Hugh Jones says:

      “Waters writes theatrical music”. That’s very interesting. Maybe that’s why he hates Andrew Lloyd Webber so much, because he sees something of himself in him ;-)

    • Clive Weiner says:

      roger maybe arrogant to you, have you watched his interview with HOWARD STERN?? DOES ROGER SOUND ARROGANT? FACT , roger is humble, pink floyd totally stabbed him in the back add EMI// roger was the only MUSICIAN NOT ALLOWED TO PLAY PINK FLOYD SONGS EXCEPT the wall// go figure 24 songs ROGER and the band played IN THE FLESH live and DARK SIDE OF THE MOON live// doyle bramhall DOGS etc and dave kilminster dark side// i was at pink floyd concert 1994, he ripped off all rogers songs knowing mr waters was banned by david gilmour from playing any of themmm// go figure each band member had one vote so they always voted 3 to 1 that roger can’t play pink floyd tunes that roger composed and wrote all the LYRICS /// roger PLAYED THE WALL LIVE in 1980// the sound all comes from roger// you tube 1980 the wall live ROGER SINGS another brick in the wall// SNOWY WHITE IS WAY BETTER ON GUITAR THAN DAVID EVEN BACK THEN.. snowy white was not even mentioned back when

  207. ammar says:

    man i am seriously pissed.what u have been saying about Waters is so untrue. i mean i like Gilmour alot and i respect him and completely admire him and he is in my opinion one of the most greatest guitarists ever but i must say that Roger is still pretty good.Hell he was the vocalist for pink floyd so that does mean something.and besides i think the final cut is one of my favourite floyd albums and i adore Roger for making that record.But you cant judje someone from a bootleg.I mean I went to see Roger at Hyde Park in London and it was amazing.I liked the whole show and thier new guitarist Dave Kilminster was also amazing i mean after seeing that show people were like “who needs Pink Floyd” when youve got Waters.So i suggest that you dont judge him without seeing his show live and then youll see why we love him.

    [Well, I’ve seen Waters twice… Maybe I didn’t make that clear enough in the article, – in 2002 and this summer and I have to admit that I’m not impressed. But that’s just my personal oppinion and I respect your’s. Hope you like my site nevertheless. – Bjorn]

    • Clive Weiner says:

      who sais david gilmour is so great??? doyle bramhall, snowy white, dave kilminster, eric dclapton, john male, trevor rabin etc etc i could name another 20 lead guitarists that make dave not the best// listen on you tube to roger, dave kilminster, snowy white, andy fairweather low, jon carin do COMFORTABLY NUMB// ROGER ALWAYS USES 2 LEAD GUITARS, the sound roger pounds out with total clarity, beethoven is impressed.. you tube roger waters comfortably numb with dave kilminster and always SNOWY WHITE, THEN WATCH “DOGS’ with badass doyle bramhall. ON LEAD GUITAR // MR GILMOUR WON THE FIGHT vs roger , roger won the WAR, listen to the music, then comment folkjs

Hey! How about a comment on this post?

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.