A What If Pink Floyd Question...

Rick Wright didn't quit. He was fired. By... well... you guessed: Roger Water.

As much as I worship Waters work in Floyd and think that he was THE man and that Floyd should have call it a quite wehn he left... I prefer Dark side and WYWH to Animals and the Wall, so... I guess it turned out for the best. Let Gilmour win some battles, ultimatly you won the war Roger... man, I am cheesy!

Edited by el böthy - March 29 2007 at 14:23

XTChuck wrote: A B Negative wrote:     If "Roger Waters was Pink Floyd", why is his solo work less interesting than his work with Pink Floyd?       Good question. I don't enjoy any of the "Radio KAOS" or "The Pros and Cons..." material nearly as well.  Actually, I can't handle "The Final Cut" either but, for all intents and purposes, that was a Roger Waters solo record also.  I think he got too power hungry toward the end of his Pink Floyd days and the band's music suffered.  Why do you think Rick Wright quit?

Rick Wright didn't quit. He was kicked out, as explained in Nick Mason's book.

I see Waters and Gilmour as similar to Lennon and McCartney. Each is less without the other; Gilmour and McCartney are too sugary, and Lennon and Waters are too salty. They needed each other to balance the group. Their best work was done when one kept the other in check.

I don't think there's much doubt that Waters/ Lennon were the 'geniuses' who took their respective groups to superstardom. However, I have no doubt at all that they would not have got there without their balancing partners.

I like Roger.  WYWH and Animals are my two favorite Floyd albums (along with Piper... and AHM).  Dark Side to me is uninteresting.  Alan Parsons has a big enough ego to not mention a word on what he did in the engineering process.  Everything after Money just doesn't do it for me.  Animals has everything.  Great intro, great solo (Dogs), Great lyrics, great production.  Its fantastic.  .

febus wrote: [QUOTE=russellk]I see Waters and Gilmour as similar to Lennon and McCartney. Each is less without the other; Gilmour and McCartney are too sugary, and Lennon and Waters are too salty. They needed each other to balance the group. Their best work was done when one kept the other in check.   i agree, but......... There is a big difference between Gilmour And Paul MacCartney.The beatle was as much as responsible than Lennon as for the writing and direction of the music; it was 50/50. Roger Waters always has the upper hand for the credits and music changes and took control of the band.

I don't know about that 50/50 bizz.  If you look at the White Album that has way more Paul than John.  It screams of Paul.  The band was falling apart.  Paul was being an ass, so he took charge of a lot of things and there's the White Album for you. 

      ^









Edited by Atavachron - March 30 2007 at 01:02

Atavachron wrote:    ^ Though that may be largely true, it's the same as saying John Lennon was the Beatles or Pete Townsend was the Who; though debatably accurate it ignores others' contributions that made the music distincly what it was.. and that's what a great band really is, that rare coming together of people who share a musical vision and are able to add to that vision in a way irreplacable by another.

the point is that each member benefitted and was enhanced by every other member. With the loss of one piece of a magical combination, the whole is diminished.. not bad, just not as good, not the same. If you want to know what Pink Floyd may have been like without Gilmore, Wright and Mason just listen to RW solo.. good music, just not Pink Floyd. Same with the Beatles, Zep, and many other acts that broke apart.. and I admire Plant, Townsend, Daltry, George Harrison, everyone who went it alone after such a once-in-a-lifetime group experience.

Chris Stacey wrote: toolis wrote: A B Negative wrote: If "Roger Waters was Pink Floyd", why is his solo work less interesting than his work with Pink Floyd? so were the works of the rest of PF.. this could also mean that the rest couldn't make a difference whether they were in PF or solo, so that indicates that Roger could be capable for being totally responsible for their masterpieces... another indication why your argument doesn't stand is that mostly every 70's prog monster either went pop or released much more inferior works, whether they still were together or went solo, in the 80's... so his less -for you anyway- good solo works can't tell us anything...   Come on brother/sister you are smoking something...........own up??? I can't believe you actually think you are making sense?

why not?

Atavachron wrote:    ^ Though that may be largely true, it's the same as saying John Lennon was the Beatles or Pete Townsend was the Who; though debatably accurate it ignores others' contributions that made the music distincly what it was.. and that's what a great band really is, that rare coming together of people who share a musical vision and are able to add to that vision in a way irreplacable by another.