Why did Roger Waters never get beyond The Wall?

Sean Trane wrote: SteveG wrote: Everyone , I'm sure, is aware of the break of Roger Waters with Pink Floyd after the album The Final Cut. He was still the same songwriter, but his following solo albums suffered in sales and, generally, were not well received by Floyd fans. Why? And as for the albums produced by Pink Floyd after Water's departure, they were no longer biting concept pieces with brilliant lyrics. Why were they still so popular and sold in the millions? my first guess is that Waters is not really as rich as the rest of Floyd, because Floyd was rather broke by the time of the early 80's (when he was ejected by some rather scandalous court decision) ... I mean, he spent years saving the Floyd ship  all alone (Mason was racng his cars, Wright having a nervous breakdown) and Gilmour almost doing diddley/squat), and when he wanted to close the ship, it was still afloat, but not doing great. However despite two very weak albums (the atrocious AMLOR and the slightly better TDB >> with High Hopes to save it), money started rolling in like mad  (mega-tours sponsored by multi-nationa firms)... And Waters didn't get hus fair share, despite doing all the groundwork in the bad years. Soooooooo, it's only natural that he scurries and exploits The Wall as much as he can.... But saying he never got beyond the wall is a big travesty of the truth.... but the public won't have much to do with his solo stuff (Amused to Death is brilliant) BTW: Roger said recently that he's halfway done with his next solo album, foreseen for release  in roughly 18 months.

Waters never got beyond the Wall in sales or fan recognition, Sean, so the title question of my post is just hyperbole.

Dellinger wrote: Sean Trane wrote: SteveG wrote: Everyone , I'm sure, is aware of the break of Roger Waters with Pink Floyd after the album The Final Cut. He was still the same songwriter, but his following solo albums suffered in sales and, generally, were not well received by Floyd fans. Why?   And as for the albums produced by Pink Floyd after Water's departure, they were no longer biting concept pieces with brilliant lyrics. Why were they still so popular and sold in the millions? my first guess is that Waters is not really as rich as the rest of Floyd, because Floyd was rather broke by the time of the early 80's (when he was ejected by some rather scandalous court decision) ... I mean, he spent years saving the Floyd ship  all alone (Mason was racng his cars, Wright having a nervous breakdown) and Gilmour almost doing diddley/squat), and when he wanted to close the ship, it was still afloat, but not doing great. However despite two very weak albums (the atrocious AMLOR and the slightly better TDB >> with High Hopes to save it), money started rolling in like mad  (mega-tours sponsored by multi-nationa firms)... And Waters didn't get hus fair share, despite doing all the groundwork in the bad years. Soooooooo, it's only natural that he scurries and exploits The Wall as much as he can.... But saying he never got beyond the wall is a big travesty of the truth.... but the public won't have much to do with his solo stuff (Amused to Death is brilliant) BTW: Roger said recently that he's halfway done with his next solo album, foreseen for release  in roughly 18 months. In which way would you say Waters was saving the Pink Floyd Flagship for so long. The band became huge with Dark Side and Wish you were Here, which were perfectly collaborative efforts. Even Animals still isn't so Roger driven (given that Dogs was mostly a Gilmour song, and that one is almost half the album... and mostly the best loved song on it. And then there's The Wall, which indeed was mainly a Roger thing and didn't have the same involvement from the band (still, from listening to the demos, I belive that if Gilmour hadn't been there to give his opinions and views, the album would have been notoriously weaker), and it was indeed a very succesful album. However, I understand the reason Pink Floyd was broke by the time Roger was out of the band, is because of the tour of The Wall, which was too big and expensive and was presented to few times to recover the money invested... so in the end, it would be Roger's fault, mainly, that the band was broke (and Rick came out of it without problems because he was already out of the band, so perhaps Roger did him a favor by firing him... at least financially).

Sean Trane wrote: SteveG wrote: Everyone , I'm sure, is aware of the break of Roger Waters with Pink Floyd after the album The Final Cut. He was still the same songwriter, but his following solo albums suffered in sales and, generally, were not well received by Floyd fans. Why? And as for the albums produced by Pink Floyd after Water's departure, they were no longer biting concept pieces with brilliant lyrics. Why were they still so popular and sold in the millions? my first guess is that Waters is not really as rich as the rest of Floyd, because Floyd was rather broke by the time of the early 80's (when he was ejected by some rather scandalous court decision) ... I mean, he spent years saving the Floyd ship  all alone (Mason was racng his cars, Wright having a nervous breakdown) and Gilmour almost doing diddley/squat), and when he wanted to close the ship, it was still afloat, but not doing great. However despite two very weak albums (the atrocious AMLOR and the slightly better TDB >> with High Hopes to save it), money started rolling in like mad  (mega-tours sponsored by multi-nationa firms)... And Waters didn't get hus fair share, despite doing all the groundwork in the bad years. Soooooooo, it's only natural that he scurries and exploits The Wall as much as he can.... But saying he never got beyond the wall is a big travesty of the truth.... but the public won't have much to do with his solo stuff (Amused to Death is brilliant) BTW: Roger said recently that he's halfway done with his next solo album, foreseen for release  in roughly 18 months.

In which way would you say Waters was saving the Pink Floyd Flagship for so long. The band became huge with Dark Side and Wish you were Here, which were perfectly collaborative efforts. Even Animals still isn't so Roger driven (given that Dogs was mostly a Gilmour song, and that one is almost half the album... and mostly the best loved song on it. And then there's The Wall, which indeed was mainly a Roger thing and didn't have the same involvement from the band (still, from listening to the demos, I belive that if Gilmour hadn't been there to give his opinions and views, the album would have been notoriously weaker), and it was indeed a very succesful album. However, I understand the reason Pink Floyd was broke by the time Roger was out of the band, is because of the tour of The Wall, which was too big and expensive and was presented to few times to recover the money invested... so in the end, it would be Roger's fault, mainly, that the band was broke (and Rick came out of it without problems because he was already out of the band, so perhaps Roger did him a favor by firing him... at least financially).

Kati wrote: aglasshouse wrote: Maybe because Waters thought that his fellow bandmates were lesser than him? The Final Cut was basically just a solo album. Final cut was brilliant and fact is after Waters left, their last two albums were not nearly as good.

Edited by aglasshouse - July 05 2015 at 16:28

Which one's do you have? With the exception of Syd's stuff, I'm not too familiar with Floyd's solo work, but I have been thinking of picking up Gilmour's self titled debut and Water's Amused To Death.  

Kati wrote: aglasshouse wrote: Maybe because Waters thought that his fellow bandmates were lesser than him? The Final Cut was basically just a solo album. Final cut was brilliant and fact is after Waters left, their last two albums were not nearly as good.

TFC is not quite as good as anything that came before it (it's an album where organ & piano dominates, as opposed to the synths of Animals & The Wall), but indeed, the atrocious AMLOR is totally unworthy of Floyd and TDB is only saved by Gilmour's one valid track for Floyd and his solo career, since Numb (the intros of AMLOP and TDB are OK, but rip-offs of/from Shine On You CD)

When I read the "the big bad Roger" part, for some reason, I couldn't help but picture Waters cloning himself with various facets of his personality during the sessions then, once he was done with them, putting them in that giant meat grinder from The Wall movie.

Kati wrote: The Dark Elf wrote: Catcher10 wrote: With Pink Floyd you still have Gilmour's brilliant guitar work.   Beyond Gilmour's guitar (this being a big reason I preferred Gilmour post-Wall over Waters), I think it was also that David balanced Roger's eccentricities. Waters was the more manic and shrieking voice, whereas Gilmour has the more calm, mellifluous vocals -- this no better displayed than in the dual vocals of "Comfortably Numb" and "Dogs".   Gilmour once referred to himself as "a fatalist, but a happy fatalist", and I think this comes across in Floyd post-Waters. There is hope and at least a search for happiness, whereas Waters remains forever cynical, forever negative: no balance. Cooee! Roger Waters albums Amused to death had Jeff Beck and Pros and cons of hitchhiking had Eric Clapton!   The Dark Elf  help please     oh wait! No balance you said? To the naughty corner for you!

Well, I do agree that Gilmour helped balance the albums from just Roger Waters. And indeed Jeff Beck and Eric Clapton may have worked on Waters albums, but they were in only as session musicians. I wish they had contributed something at least on arrangements. And even so, Gilmour is still my favourite guitar player of the three (even if the other two may be viewed with more awe outside of the prog world). And I read just a little while ago how Waters liked being a solo artist because there was no one to second guess him or tell him to do things otherwise... all session musicians would have to do just as he told them... however, in the end, he did need someone second guessing him and helping him make the music even better.

Kati wrote: Kati wrote: Waters went beyond the wall into the final cut (last Waters Floyd Album) and here is an example: Pink Floyd Final Cut (6) - The Gunner's Dream https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lIJN6WWf3Rg&list=PLMyHPEAFkfwPrHo40qr1-pvZEZcejDeOw&index=82x listen to the most perfect crescendo at 2.11 vocals added and continued by the saxophone xxxx

I do like The Final Cut (I mean, I do like just about every Pink Floyd album), but The Gunners Dream was never a favourite of mine on that album. I have read about the efect of the vocals continued by the sax, but I never thought it sounded so great... perhaps because it's very easy to distinguish when the sax starts and when the vocals end. When I've read this argument, I always think about the song Sheep, in which something very similar happens with the vocals and the synth... but in this case I do have a very hard time to distinguish the moment in which the vocals end, and they do seem to morph into the synths, and in this case I do love the effect.

A quick reminder just in case anyone thinks Clapton is too fluffy, here is Roger Waters with a track from Pros and Cons of Hitchhiking, Clapton starts and sensitively kills it from 1.25 min here on this track awww... : Roger Waters - 5.06 (Every Stranger´s Eyes) (Official Video with lyrics) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RgymnUs-OsU&list=PLMyHPEAFkfwPrHo40qr1-pvZEZcejDeOw&index=6