Why did Roger Waters never get beyond The Wall?

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

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).

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.

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

Sean Trane wrote: Kati wrote: to be honest I do not know any album David Gilmour released outside Pink Floyd never interested me to be honest. However, I do know, love and own two albums Roger Waters made after that tho' Gilmour's 77 debut has ot some very decent tracks (so did Wright's Wet Dreazms, released around that time), but it's clear that both were missing Water's i,nput than Roger missed their inputs   Floyd was like The Beatles... the sum of the individual parts amounted to much less than the quartet as a whole.    KingCrInuYasha wrote: 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.     I'd say that :   The Body (more of a Geesin album), Gilmour's s/t, Wright's Wet Dream , Waters' Amused to Death and Pros & Cons are the ones you must have in priority ... Mason's Fictitious Sport- however good it is -  is more like joint-project with many friends, but not really Floyd-related. I still haven't heard Roger's Ca Ira thing, though.   Totally forgettable are Gilmour's About Face (80's production plagued, and weak tracks) and the soporific On An Island.

Sean Trane wrote: 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).   It's not just artistically speaking (Floyd wasn't yet in an artistic danger by Animals).... Roger was also busy saving the ship in terms of management and finances... They'd been ripped off by some financial adviser, made some poor investments as well, just built an horrendously expensive studio (almost never used) and the UK tax offices was coming down like mad on their collective heads... the band's financial future was wery bleak, so with Mason & Wright busy at other things , Gilmour & Wright saving some of their better ideas for their solo albums in 77 & 78, Waters was almost alone aboard keeping the ship afloat.   as for Dogs (with Waters lyrics), remember it was a track they were already playing live in 75 and was originally thought to be on WYWH... So it's not like Gilmour actually did a whole lot in 77 for Animals either.

Well, about their financial problems, I didn't really know about bad investments and so on, I just assumed they were OK since they had such big hits with Dark Side, and at least Wish You Were Here too (I don't know how much of a hit Animals might have been at the time, but surely not as great as the other two). About Gilmour and Wright savind gheir best ideas for their solo albums, well... Wright didn't save the best, he saved all for his solo album, since he didn't contribute to The Wall (not so sure who's fault it was, if Wright's or Waters', I guess both are to blame)... and about Gilmour, well, he almost didn't contribute either, but indeed he saved the best for the album, since there is nothing on his solo debute as good as Comfortably Numb (I don't think he knew it would turn out so great after working it, though, plus Waters input - whatever big or small - surely helped make the difference... which brings us back to the point: the band was greater than the sum of the parts). And about Dogs... well, in the end it's a song on the album, plus in that case Waters didn't do so much either, for Sheep was also around at the time Dogs was originally performed... which means Waters only wrote Pigs for the album (though at least he did write something... even though it might be, in my opinion, the lesser of the 3 great songs on the album, and of course I don't forget Pigs in the Wing, but that one is just not in the same league).

Sean Trane wrote: BTW: Roger said recently that he's halfway done with his next solo album, foreseen for release in roughly 18 years.

Siloportem wrote: Sean Trane wrote: Kati wrote: to be honest I do not know any album David Gilmour released outside Pink Floyd never interested me to be honest. However, I do know, love and own two albums Roger Waters made after that tho' Gilmour's 77 debut has ot some very decent tracks (so did Wright's Wet Dreazms, released around that time), but it's clear that both were missing Water's i,nput than Roger missed their inputs   Floyd was like The Beatles... the sum of the individual parts amounted to much less than the quartet as a whole.    KingCrInuYasha wrote: 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.     I'd say that :   The Body (more of a Geesin album), Gilmour's s/t, Wright's Wet Dream , Waters' Amused to Death and Pros & Cons are the ones you must have in priority ... Mason's Fictitious Sport- however good it is -  is more like joint-project with many friends, but not really Floyd-related. I still haven't heard Roger's Ca Ira thing, though.   Totally forgettable are Gilmour's About Face (80's production plagued, and weak tracks) and the soporific On An Island.       Now I'm curious about your opinion on broken china Personally, I think it's the solo record that came closest to original Floyd. Since this is about Waters: I'm firmly in the amused to death is great camp.

Edited by Sean Trane - July 14 2015 at 02:55

^ Gilmour's next album was scheduled for end of September according to Polly Samson.

Sean Trane wrote: Barbu wrote: Sean Trane wrote: BTW: Roger said recently that he's halfway done with his next solo album, foreseen for release in roughly 18 years. Mmmhhh!!!... very recent news has it that Gilmour also plans a new album, and it might even come out before the end of the year.

Edited by Kati - July 14 2015 at 03:31