Print Page | Close Window

Roger Waters~Animals Reissue...Issue

Printed From: Progarchives.com
Category: Progressive Music Lounges
Forum Name: Prog News, Press Releases
Forum Description: Submit press releases, news , new releases, prog music news and other interesting things happening in the world of progressive music (featured in home and artist page)
URL: http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=126566
Printed Date: June 16 2024 at 22:56
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 11.01 - http://www.webwizforums.com


Topic: Roger Waters~Animals Reissue...Issue
Posted By: Catcher10
Subject: Roger Waters~Animals Reissue...Issue
Date Posted: June 01 2021 at 10:47
Mr Waters still pissed that he is not a part of the Pink Floyd website, ok get over it dude! But is now pissed that Gilmour is not allowing what I understand are to be new liner notes for the upcoming release of the 2018 remix of Animals. It seems the liner notes may explain further who did what on the album, but those notes were not in the original album release. 
Normally when a band does a reissue they try and stay true to the original packaging, pictures, labels and such. I suspect these new notes were putting Waters on a pedestal......If Roger Waters wants to blow his own horn I say go for it and finish up his memoirs and release the book! I am sure that will only start Pink Floyd WWII


https://ultimateclassicrock.com/roger-waters-animals-liner-notes/" rel="nofollow - https://ultimateclassicrock.com/roger-waters-animals-liner-notes/



-------------



Replies:
Posted By: Catcher10
Date Posted: June 01 2021 at 10:49
Ohh snap.......maybe move this to Prog News, Press Releases

-------------


Posted By: Intruder
Date Posted: June 01 2021 at 11:30
Floyd Wars:  The Next Generation - original liner notes to album reissues shouldn't be messed with; however, addendums and info to broaden the experience are always welcome. 

-------------
I like to feel the suspense when you're certain you know I am there.....


Posted By: SteveG
Date Posted: June 01 2021 at 11:39
Maybe he should title his book "Waters vs. Gilmour.".

-------------
This message was brought to you by a proud supporter of the Deep State.


Posted By: Manuel
Date Posted: June 01 2021 at 15:55
I hope they realize all this nonsense is only hurting themselves. In any case, I want to see what the package brings, to decide if I’ll buy it or not.


Posted By: MrMan2000
Date Posted: June 01 2021 at 16:40
Did I miss something? I thought on the video RW said he authorized the release without the new liner notes? 


Posted By: Catcher10
Date Posted: June 01 2021 at 16:49
Originally posted by Manuel Manuel wrote:

I hope they realize all this nonsense is only hurting themselves. In any case, I want to see what the package brings, to decide if I’ll buy it or not.

I agree. They could be a massive touring band of the past say 20yrs, they would sell out everywhere! Even now with Richard gone, they could still be a huge band....but those two!!

I looked further into this reissue and it is being called a 2018 Remix done by James Guthrie, who has done all the 2016 remasters including Animals all from original master tapes. So I can only assume this "2018" version is using the same 2016 version the James already did....What you get is some additional stuff like a Bluray 5.1 mix, DVD and CD as well an LP.

This is starting to look like a cash grab. I suspect this box set will run $75-$100, and the 2016 LP version still goes for about $30....so hmmmm Shocked.


-------------


Posted By: Catcher10
Date Posted: June 01 2021 at 16:51
Originally posted by MrMan2000 MrMan2000 wrote:

Did I miss something? I thought on the video RW said he authorized the release without the new liner notes? 

He did....but he is still needed to make a post and video about it. On his website he printed what those liner notes were to include. Basically it reads like the history of the album how it came about, and of course it's all about RW and he mentions his normal political additions BS/krapp ...LOL


-------------


Posted By: The Dark Elf
Date Posted: June 01 2021 at 17:46
F*ck Roger Waters. Insufferable pr*ck. What will he name his memoir, "If You Meddle With The Ego, You Can't Have Any Pudding"? 

-------------
...a vigorous circular motion hitherto unknown to the people of this area, but destined
to take the place of the mud shark in your mythology...


Posted By: tigerfeet
Date Posted: June 01 2021 at 19:24
Originally posted by The Dark Elf The Dark Elf wrote:

F*ck Roger Waters. Insufferable pr*ck. What will he name his memoir, "If You Meddle With The Ego, You Can't Have Any Pudding"? 

LOL

AKA - "Wot's...Uh the Deal"


-------------
I'm sorry, if you were right, I'd agree with you. Robin Williams.


Posted By: Sacro_Porgo
Date Posted: June 01 2021 at 19:36
Waters is a genius, gotta admit, but he seems unable to practice what he preaches.

-------------
Porg for short. My love of music doesn't end with prog! Feel free to discuss all sorts of music with me. Odds are I'll give it a chance if I haven't already! :)


Posted By: judahbenkenobi
Date Posted: June 01 2021 at 20:00
Originally posted by Manuel Manuel wrote:

I hope they realize all this nonsense is only hurting themselves. In any case, I want to see what the package brings, to decide if I’ll buy it or not.

I really don't think this feud is really hurting them, at least financially. Every time one of those dudes makes a negative comment about the other, sales seem to boost (although I have no statistical proof of that). Sometimes I think they keep all that mess going on so that the subliminal publicity behind it all will move people to go see BOTH David Gilmour and Roger Waters concerts, and to make them buy more Gilmour, Waters, and Floyd reissues.Wacko


Posted By: Frenetic Zetetic
Date Posted: June 01 2021 at 23:59
You see this behavior we're witnessing?

This is precisely the type of bullsh*t that makes me lose massive amounts of respect for people that have had the privilege of making a living making sounds in front of crowds.

Waters is actually made words printed on paper aren't what he wants. If I ever get to this level of complaining I'll know I've made it I guess LOL.

What a shame.


-------------

"I am so prog, I listen to concept albums on shuffle." -KMac2021


Posted By: Guldbamsen
Date Posted: June 02 2021 at 02:16
We all protect the ego. Waters just doesn’t have the opportunity of doing it on the sly like most other folks...and effectively ends up looking slightly like a megalomaniac.
Nil novo sub sole

-------------
“The Guide says there is an art to flying or rather a knack. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss.”

- Douglas Adams


Posted By: Frenetic Zetetic
Date Posted: June 02 2021 at 03:48
Correct. It's magnified when you're a celebrity, no doubt there. It makes you look neurotic AF at this level though.

-------------

"I am so prog, I listen to concept albums on shuffle." -KMac2021


Posted By: MortSahlFan
Date Posted: June 02 2021 at 07:22
I find it odd that the PINK FLOYD site shows Polly Samson's sh*t, but not Roger Waters, the man who wrote almost everything. How were those albums after Roger left? sh*t.


-------------
https://www.youtube.com/c/LoyalOpposition

https://www.scribd.com/document/382737647/MortSahlFan-Song-List


Posted By: Catcher10
Date Posted: June 02 2021 at 08:58
Originally posted by MortSahlFan MortSahlFan wrote:

I find it odd that the PINK FLOYD site shows Polly Samson's sh*t, but not Roger Waters, the man who wrote almost everything. How were those albums after Roger left? sh*t.
Part of it is because Roger Waters is no longer "Pink Floyd", they made that split years ago. Gilmour, IIRC, remains the sole owner of Pink Floyd.
What I don't get is that RW continues to harp on the fact that he wrote the material.....no duh dude, in the liner notes for most of the albums he is credited where it is due, from a legal copyright perspective, RW is the writer.
But he pushes that over and over like we the fans don't know how to read liner notes and credits.

I mean back in the day for example if he is going to claim he wrote all of Echoes, then why are they all included in the credits? He brought up Money and the cash register sound saying that Gilmour was nowhere to be found when that sound click was created...ok great, Waters is already credited for writing Money, so what is his beef?? The only one that can talk about how Money was created is Waters Confused

Roger Waters is wasting his time bitchin and moanin about the PF website and how he is banned from it. I'm not a part of Pink Floyd and I am sure I would be banned from it too LOL.

I'm not saying Gilmour and others have no part in this, but man RW needs to get laid or something......what a waste of talent.


-------------


Posted By: judahbenkenobi
Date Posted: June 02 2021 at 09:42
Originally posted by Catcher10 Catcher10 wrote:

Originally posted by MortSahlFan MortSahlFan wrote:

I find it odd that the PINK FLOYD site shows Polly Samson's sh*t, but not Roger Waters, the man who wrote almost everything. How were those albums after Roger left? sh*t.

Part of it is because Roger Waters is no longer "Pink Floyd", they made that split years ago. Gilmour, IIRC, remains the sole owner of Pink Floyd.
What I don't get is that RW continues to harp on the fact that he wrote the material.....no duh dude, in the liner notes for most of the albums he is credited where it is due, from a legal copyright perspective, RW is the writer.
But he pushes that over and over like we the fans don't know how to read liner notes and credits.

I mean back in the day for example if he is going to claim he wrote all of Echoes, then why are they all included in the credits? He brought up Money and the cash register sound saying that Gilmour was nowhere to be found when that sound click was created...ok great, Waters is already credited for writing Money, so what is his beef?? The only one that can talk about how Money was created is Waters Confused

Roger Waters is wasting his time bitchin and moanin about the PF website and how he is banned from it. I'm not a part of Pink Floyd and I am sure I would be banned from it too LOL.

I'm not saying Gilmour and others have no part in this, but man RW needs to get laid or something......what a waste of talent.


   


Posted By: Sean Trane
Date Posted: June 02 2021 at 12:05
Originally posted by Catcher10 Catcher10 wrote:

https://ultimateclassicrock.com/roger-waters-animals-liner-notes/" rel="nofollow - https://ultimateclassicrock.com/roger-waters-animals-liner-notes/


Really wish Waters would stop with this kind of petty/stupisd stuff. He's making an arse of himself

Originally posted by Catcher10 Catcher10 wrote:

Originally posted by MortSahlFan MortSahlFan wrote:

I find it odd that the PINK FLOYD site shows Polly Samson's sh*t, but not Roger Waters, the man who wrote almost everything. How were those albums after Roger left? sh*t.

Roger Waters is wasting his time bitchin and moanin about the PF website and how he is banned from it. I'm not a part of Pink Floyd and I am sure I would be banned from it too LOL.

I'm not saying Gilmour and others have no part in this, but man RW needs to get laid or something......what a waste of talent.


then again, Gilmour is just as much of an arse, bringing in his wife in the fold is idiotic and designed to irrate Ol'Rog.

This said, I understand that Floyd also belongs to Mason.




-------------
let's just stay above the moral melee
prefer the sink to the gutter
keep our sand-castle virtues
content to be a doer
as well as a thinker,
prefer lifting our pen
rather than un-sheath our sword


Posted By: SteveG
Date Posted: June 02 2021 at 12:14
And also the estate of one Richard Wright.

-------------
This message was brought to you by a proud supporter of the Deep State.


Posted By: iluvmarillion
Date Posted: June 03 2021 at 22:49
The song writing credits on Dogs will always show Roger Waters AND David Gilmour. Roger Waters can moan as much as he wants but that's never going to change.


Posted By: iluvmarillion
Date Posted: June 03 2021 at 22:56
Originally posted by Sean Trane Sean Trane wrote:

Originally posted by Catcher10 Catcher10 wrote:

https://ultimateclassicrock.com/roger-waters-animals-liner-notes/" rel="nofollow - https://ultimateclassicrock.com/roger-waters-animals-liner-notes/


Really wish Waters would stop with this kind of petty/stupisd stuff. He's making an arse of himself

Originally posted by Catcher10 Catcher10 wrote:

Originally posted by MortSahlFan MortSahlFan wrote:

I find it odd that the PINK FLOYD site shows Polly Samson's sh*t, but not Roger Waters, the man who wrote almost everything. How were those albums after Roger left? sh*t.

Roger Waters is wasting his time bitchin and moanin about the PF website and how he is banned from it. I'm not a part of Pink Floyd and I am sure I would be banned from it too LOL.

I'm not saying Gilmour and others have no part in this, but man RW needs to get laid or something......what a waste of talent.


then again, Gilmour is just as much of an arse, bringing in his wife in the fold is idiotic and designed to irrate Ol'Rog.

This said, I understand that Floyd also belongs to Mason.


Just watched a 2006 video of David Gilmour and David Bowie together. You could not find two nicer people. Gilmour doesn't involve his wife on the PF web site to piss off Roger Waters. He does it because she writes PF lyrics after Roger left the band.


Posted By: richardh
Date Posted: June 04 2021 at 01:03
Waters was always the writing talent while Gilmour was the great musician. Fact is without each other they are as boring as f**k lol!


Posted By: Frenetic Zetetic
Date Posted: June 04 2021 at 02:29
Originally posted by richardh richardh wrote:

Waters was always the writing talent while Gilmour was the great musician. Fact is without each other they are as boring as f**k lol!

Almost all great bands have this unfortunate caveat lol. Everything sucks unless everyone is firing on full WITH each other. It's a mess otherwise, as we see here.


-------------

"I am so prog, I listen to concept albums on shuffle." -KMac2021


Posted By: Dellinger
Date Posted: June 04 2021 at 21:24
Originally posted by Frenetic Zetetic Frenetic Zetetic wrote:

Originally posted by richardh richardh wrote:

Waters was always the writing talent while Gilmour was the great musician. Fact is without each other they are as boring as f**k lol!


Almost all great bands have this unfortunate caveat lol. Everything sucks unless everyone is firing on full WITH each other. It's a mess otherwise, as we see here.


Waters wrote great music. So did Gilmour and Wright... and the band was at it's best when they were all writing, and it wouldn't have achieved the same greatness otherwise. Dark Side would not be nearly as great without, particularly, Wright's contributions, Wish you Were Here has lot's of writing from the whole band... or at least that is so with Shine on you Crazy Diamond (my favourite song ever). Animals has Dogs, as I understand it with the music mostly written by Gilmour, which takes nearly half the album, and is usually considered the best track on the album. There's also Echoes, which I understand was a collaboration effort, but mostly based on what Wright brought to begin with. So no, Pink Floyd was not only Waters. Yeah, Waters wrote a lot of the best music of the band, but so did the rest of the band. And yes, he wrote almost all the lyrics, and definitley the best ones. And even among the songs he wrote all by himself, I'm sure they wouldn't have come off as great if he hadn't had Wright and Gilmour to perform them and help with the arrangements.


Posted By: moshkito
Date Posted: June 05 2021 at 09:21
Originally posted by Sacro_Porgo Sacro_Porgo wrote:

Waters is a genius, gotta admit, but he seems unable to practice what he preaches.

Hi,

You know what everyone says about us old folks ... we get senile and sometimes spout out the soup and everything else, not to mention drip and drop and slobber on the slightest thing possible! Ohhh, the heaven of getting old ... where is my babysitter and pacifier?

To be honest, I would imagine that someone like Roger or even Dave, do not need to be writing lyrics anymore, and they should just work music to be more than a simple song and a riff and a solo, the only thing that Dave seems to be capable of doing which is also getting as boring as that insufferable something or other!

All in all, I won't really criticize either of them for what they do ... I simply will not buy it, and if I need to evaluate it I can do that on the tuber, and not spend money on it. PF is long gone, and so are its members, and NM is getting too old to tour or do another album and get his motor to start (will he ever do any of that material? I doubt it!) and show us something other than just some different and timely touches on the drums!


-------------
Music is not just for listening ... it is for LIVING ... you got to feel it to know what's it about! Not being told!
www.pedrosena.com


Posted By: moshkito
Date Posted: June 05 2021 at 09:29
Originally posted by Frenetic Zetetic Frenetic Zetetic wrote:

Originally posted by richardh richardh wrote:

Waters was always the writing talent while Gilmour was the great musician. Fact is without each other they are as boring as f**k lol!

Almost all great bands have this unfortunate caveat lol. Everything sucks unless everyone is firing on full WITH each other. It's a mess otherwise, as we see here.

Hi,

Kinda depends on a lot of things ... for example, according to Robin Williamson, Mike Heron came from a rock background, but what got them together was POETRY and how it could be interpreted, not the fact that one was into this and the other into something else. And their work was mostly about  INTERPRETING THE WORDS, rather than write a "song" ... and this is something that is really difficult for this generation of fans, that are so stuck on the commercial side of "songs" and call everything a song, not always understanding, or finding what the real design was for the piece.

Roger and Dave likely did well together at the start because Dave was the musician (read somewhere that he was one of Syd's guitar teachers!), and Roger likely was not as good a "musician" at the time, and I think that the arrangements for a lot of the early PF (Syd's stuff specially) were left to RW to develop, with input from Roger about how to color the images of the lyrics even more, which helped PF ... and mind you, this "coloring" of the lyrics, a few years later ended up in something like The Wall with a couple of other albums in between to get the ideas together.

Seen from a historical perspective, I am not sure that ANIMALS is that big a deal, but as a part of the whole, it's like a chapter in a novel ... you gotta have it to help everything come alive and be understood.


-------------
Music is not just for listening ... it is for LIVING ... you got to feel it to know what's it about! Not being told!
www.pedrosena.com


Posted By: jlneudorf
Date Posted: June 05 2021 at 22:30
This is a tough thread to read. Waters has a right to be pissed off over the website issue. But hey, that's just my opinion.
Some of the comments have been pretty harsh. So be it. Both musicians have alot to offer. I thought Waters last album is an absolute gem. Again, only my opinion. I just hope we get one or two more solo albums from them before they call it quits.


Posted By: nick_h_nz
Date Posted: June 06 2021 at 00:59
Originally posted by jlneudorf jlneudorf wrote:

This is a tough thread to read. Waters has a right to be pissed off over the website issue. But hey, that's just my opinion.
Some of the comments have been pretty harsh. So be it. Both musicians have alot to offer. I thought Waters last album is an absolute gem. Again, only my opinion. I just hope we get one or two more solo albums from them before they call it quits.

I’ve found it very tough to read as well. I don’t actually see the problem with what Waters has done here. Everyone has known there was an Animals reissue waiting to come out. No one knew what the delay was. If Waters wanted to be the 💩head you all make him out to be, he could have said all this one or two years ago. That he has waited until the issue has been resolved, and the reissue is going ahead, is surprisingly diplomatic for him.

So long as what he says is true (and if it were not, I don’t think he would come out and say it, because there would be obvious repercussions), what was holding up the release of the reissue was some liner notes. Now if Waters came out with this information, and didn’t supply the liner notes, it would have been even more controversial. I’m no great fan of Gilmour or Waters, and in much of the Pink Floyd wars, I tend towards Gilmour’s side - but in this instance, Waters really doesn’t seem to me have done anything wrong. And for the life of me, I can’t work out why Gilmour objected to the liner notes (which say nothing inflammatory or particularly unknown). I’d love to know what his objections were.

I don’t think Waters should have any access to the Pink Floyd website, as he left the band - and the lawsuits and settlements established that he left the band, and that the band continued without him. It would be unusual for an ex-member to have access to the website of a band they have left. So I think claiming he is “banned” from posting there is rather silly. But for the most part, I don’t really see the problem here. I don’t think I own any reissue such as this release that doesn’t have extensive liner notes explaining this history and circumstances of an album - so the argument that these should have had no place in the reissue hold no water for me.

For those who haven’t read it, here is what was posted on FB:

Originally posted by Roger Waters FB page Roger Waters FB page wrote:

A note from Roger Waters to Pink Floyd fans:

As I am banned by Dave Gilmour from posting on Pink Floyd's Facebook page with its 30,000,000 subscribers, I am posting this announcement here today and in full on rogerwaters.com.
First, a warm welcome back to our little band of brothers and sisters who have always kept an open mind, let’s hope some of the fans whose access to my words is suppressed by Gilmour find their way here and discover some truth.

What precipitated this note is that there are new James Guthrie Stereo and 5.1 mixes of the Pink Floyd album Animals, 1977. These mixes have languished unreleased because of a dispute over some sleeve notes that Mark Blake has written for this new release. Gilmour has vetoed the release of the album unless these liner notes are removed. He does not dispute the veracity of the history described in Mark’s notes, but he wants that history to remain secret. This is a small part of an ongoing campaign by the Gilmour/Samson camp to claim more credit for Dave on the work he did in Pink Floyd, 1967-1985, than is his due. Yes he was, and is, a jolly good guitarist and singer. But, he has for the last 35 years told a lot of whopping porky pies about who did what in Pink Floyd when I was still in charge. There’s a lot of "we did this" and "we did that," and "I did this" and "I did that." So, two things: 

(1). I am agreeing to the release of the new Animals remix, with the sleeve notes removed. Good work James Guthrie by the way, and sorry Mark Blake. The final draft of the liner notes was fact checked and agreed as factually correct by me, Nick and Gilmour. Here they are, enjoy, there’s nothing controversial, just a few simple facts.

Mark Blake: Liner Notes
Pink Floyd: Animals
Despite being recorded in London during the long, summer heatwave of 1976, Pink Floyd’s Animals remains a dark album. Its critique of capitalism and greed caught the prevailing mood in Britain: a time of industrial strife, economic turmoil, The Troubles in Northern Ireland, and the race riots of Notting Hill. The album was released on January 23rd 1977, but the roots of Pink Floyd’s tenth studio album go back earlier in the decade. Following the success of 1973’s The Dark Side Of The Moon, Pink Floyd pondered their next move. During a two-to-three week jam session in early 1974, the band worked on ideas for three new compositions. From these sessions the band developed Shine On You Crazy Diamond, (A passionate tribute to Syd Barrett, words by Roger Waters. Added by me, sorry couldn’t help it.) which became the centrepiece of Floyd’s next album, Wish You Were Here, and Raving And Drooling (composed by Roger Waters) and You Gotta Be Crazy written by Waters and David Gilmour.

Raving And Drooling was a tale of violent social disorder, while You Gotta Be Crazy told the story of a soulless businessman clawing and cheating his way to the top. Both were performed live for the first time on the Floyd’s winter tour of 1974. They were both considered for the Wish You Were Here album, but Roger insisted that neither song was relevant to the overall idea, that “Wish You Were Here” was essentially about absence, and as neither song fitted his conception of the record’s overall theme, neither song should be included. The band eventually concurred. Scroll forward two years, and Roger had an idea for the next Pink Floyd album. He borrowed from George Orwell’s allegorical story, Animal Farm, in which pigs and other farmyard animals were reimagined anthropomorphically. Waters portrays the human race as three sub-species trapped in a violent, vicious cycle, with sheep serving despotic pigs and authoritarian dogs. You Gotta be Crazy and Raving And Drooling perfectly fitted his new concept. In the meantime, a year earlier, the group had bought a set of disused church buildings in Britannia Row, Islington, which they’d converted into a studio and storage facility. Prior to this every Pink Floyd studio release had been partly or wholly recorded at Abbey Road studios. Pink Floyd had also found a new recording engineer. Brian Humphries, an engineer from Pye studios, who they had met while recording the sound track for “More”, a movie directed by Barbet Schroeder. Brian had gone on to engineer Wish You Were Here at Abbey Road, and also helped them out on the road, so they had got to know him very well. Using their own studio marked a significant change in their working methods. There were setbacks and teething problems, but also a great sense of freedom. 

Following Roger’s instincts about the new songs paid off, the songs had an aggressive edge far removed from the luxuriant soundscapes on Wish You Were Here. It was a timely change of direction. At Britannia Row, he renamed Raving And Drooling, Sheep and Gotta Be Crazy became Dogs. The narrative was completed by the addition of two new Waters songs: Pigs (Three Different Ones) and Pigs On The Wing.

On Pigs (Three Different Ones), the lyrics namechecked Mary Whitehouse, the head of the National Viewers And Listeners Association. Whitehouse was an outspoken critic of sex and violence on British television and a topical target for Roger’s ire. The subject matter was bleak, but Nick Mason recalled lighter moments over dubbing songs with special effects and barnyard noises. While Sheep also made room for Roger’s blackly comic variation on Psalm 23: “He maketh me to hang on hooks in high places/ He converteth me to lamb cutlets…” The music and the performance mirrored the intensity of the lyrics. Keyboard player Richard Wright’s eerie-sounding synths and Hammond organ cranked up the unease. While David Gilmour’s shared lead vocal on Dogs and his guitar playing throughout Animals offered a striking counterpoint to Roger’s brutal lyrics. In contrast, Animals began and ended on an optimistic note. The verses of Pigs on The Wing were split in two and bookended the album. Roger’s lyrics and vocal performance of acoustic intro and outro (“You know that I care what happens to you/ And I know that you care for me too…”) suggested hope for humanity. The idea for Pink Floyd’s flying pig was also Roger’s. He had already commissioned its building as a stage device for the next tour. Storm Thorgerson and Aubrey Powell of the design company Hipgnosis, had produced a number of design ideas for an Animals sleeve and presented them to the band but none of the band, liked them, and when Roger added his disapproval someone said, ”Well why don’t you come up with something better then?” So he did, on the drive from his house in South London to Britannia Row, he regularly passed Battersea Power Station. He was drawn to the imposing brick building, and by the number four. Four in the band, four phallic chimneys, and if the power station were turned upside down then it resembled a table with four legs. He pursued his idea and had a maquette made, a small scale model of the eventual full scale inflatable pig. He then took photographs of Battersea Power station and created a photographic mock up of an album sleeve. The rest of the band loved it. Storm and Po, who had designed all of the previous Pink Floyd album covers, graciously offered to source photographers for the photo shoot, and did. On the first day of the photo shoot, the pig failed to inflate. On the second day, it broke free of its moorings and disappeared into a beautiful brooding sky, prompting a frantic call to the police and a halt to all flights in and out of Heathrow. The pig eventually crash-landed in a farmer’s field in Kent. The following day, the shoot went ahead without a hitch, great shots of pig in situ but no brooding sky. So Storm and Po stripped Day three Pig into Day two sky, bingo! History. Animals was a hit, reaching Number 2 in the UK and Number 3 in the US. Pink Floyd’s pig, Algie, made its live debut on their subsequent “In The Flesh” tour in 1977. At stadium shows in America, it was joined by another Water’s idea, an inflatable nuclear family comprising a mother, father and 2.5 children, surrounded by the spoils of a consumerist lifestyle: an inflatable Cadillac, oversized TV and refrigerator. Roger called it Electric Theatre. Both the album and the tour signposted the way to Pink Floyd’s next release, The Wall, and to Roger’s ever more ambitious ideas, both in terms of his music, narratives, politics and stage shows. But his themes and ideas explored on Animals have endured. More than 40 years on the album has been remixed in stereo and 5.1. In troubled times and an uncertain world, Animals is as timely and relevant now as it ever was.
Mark Blake

Thanks Mark, sorry you were redacted.

(2). I am in the middle of writing my Memoirs and inevitably some of it contains references to some of the content above. For anyone with a faint heart, I suggest you sit down, but anyone who likes a good laugh, sit back and f**king howl! 😂 🤣 ✊🏼 I’m going to sit back and howl along with you.

At the beginning of this post on the subject of porky pies, I say, “There’s an awful lot of "we did this" and "we did that," and "I did this" and "I did that." Right? So here’s a short extract from my memoir: 

“As chance would have it I was doing a bit of delving in a book of press clippings and came across an interview David Fricke of Rolling Stone Magazine did with DG in a hotel room in NY in 1982, DG’s talking about the Cash register tape for the defining 7/8 rhythm on Money. The interview was published in Musician Magazine, so even back then DG was sowing the seeds of the false narrative. I quote this bit of the article verbatim:

David Fricke: “You recorded the sounds for ‘Money’ on a loop of tape.” Gilmour explains: ”You’re trying to get the impact from the cash register, ‘the snap, crack, crsssh,” You’d mark that one and then measure how long you wanted that beat to go, and that’s the piece you’d use. And you’d chop it together. It was trial and error. You just chop the tapes together, and if it sounds good, you use it. If it doesn’t, you take one section out and put a different one in. Sometimes we’d put one in and it’d be backwards, because the diagonal cut on the tape, if you turn it around is exactly the same. We’d stick that in and instead it would go ‘chung, dum, whoosh.’ And sound great so we’d use that.”

Well! The reason everything DG is saying here to David Fricke sounds like gobbledygook is because it is f**king gobbledygook. He has no f**king idea what he’s talking about. Why?  Because unless he was hiding under the f**king chair, DG wasn’t there when I made that SFX tape loop for Money in the studio I shared with my wife Judy at the bottom of our garden at 187, New North Road, Islington, next door to the North Pole Pub where I used to play darts!

THE FULL STORY OF WHAT REALLY HAPPENED IS IN MY MEMOIRS!
So, I hope that whets your, and David and Polly's appetites 😂
Love
R.



-------------
https://tinyurl.com/nickhnz-tpa" rel="nofollow - Reviewer for The Progressive Aspect


Posted By: Guldbamsen
Date Posted: June 06 2021 at 01:13
This is still so incredibly petty and uninteresting it literally baffles the brain.
I love the Floyd...but I really don’t care about this. Waters and Gilmour eh? More like an old married couple fighting over the tables
Listen to the music, remember it and cherish it... leave this inane battle of the egos to elderly superstars with scores to settle and way too much time on their hands.

-------------
“The Guide says there is an art to flying or rather a knack. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss.”

- Douglas Adams


Posted By: iluvmarillion
Date Posted: June 06 2021 at 01:15
Well OK, after reading the Mark Blake liner notes I can't see what Dave Gilmour is objecting to. Mystifying to me.


Posted By: rogerthat
Date Posted: June 06 2021 at 02:03
Originally posted by iluvmarillion iluvmarillion wrote:

Well OK, after reading the Mark Blake liner notes I can't see what Dave Gilmour is objecting to. Mystifying to me.

Well, it might be because Gilmour has an ego too even if it's not nearly as big as Waters'.  He does not want the plain truth that Animals was largely a Waters project to be advertised in the sleeve notes of a re-issue of the album. 


Posted By: Dellinger
Date Posted: June 06 2021 at 20:06
Originally posted by rogerthat rogerthat wrote:

Originally posted by iluvmarillion iluvmarillion wrote:

Well OK, after reading the Mark Blake liner notes I can't see what Dave Gilmour is objecting to. Mystifying to me.


Well, it might be because Gilmour has an ego too even if it's not nearly as big as Waters'.  He does not want the plain truth that Animals was largely a Waters project to be advertised in the sleeve notes of a re-issue of the album. 


As far as the concept is concerned, indeed, it's all Waters, and that's what the liner notes are focusing a lot about. Yet, it fails to dig a bit deeper into the writing of the music... and as I understand it, Dogs was mostly written by Gilmour... and given the length of that song, and how it is usually the fan favourite of the album, he might, in a way, be right to have an issue given the way those liner notes focus almost exclusivley on Waters.


Posted By: iluvmarillion
Date Posted: June 06 2021 at 21:31
Originally posted by Dellinger Dellinger wrote:

Originally posted by rogerthat rogerthat wrote:

Originally posted by iluvmarillion iluvmarillion wrote:

Well OK, after reading the Mark Blake liner notes I can't see what Dave Gilmour is objecting to. Mystifying to me.


Well, it might be because Gilmour has an ego too even if it's not nearly as big as Waters'.  He does not want the plain truth that Animals was largely a Waters project to be advertised in the sleeve notes of a re-issue of the album. 


As far as the concept is concerned, indeed, it's all Waters, and that's what the liner notes are focusing a lot about. Yet, it fails to dig a bit deeper into the writing of the music... and as I understand it, Dogs was mostly written by Gilmour... and given the length of that song, and how it is usually the fan favourite of the album, he might, in a way, be right to have an issue given the way those liner notes focus almost exclusivley on Waters.
As I said I find it mystifying Gilmour would object to the Mark Blake liner notes. However reading Roger Water's comments again from his Facebook page he refers to Gilmour as a jolly good guitarist and singer. If I was Gilmour I'd personally find those comments pretty patronizing. It's like Gilmour referring to Waters as a jolly good lyricist. I think they're engaging in a personal feud that goes back a long time. Someone else referred to Water's treatment of Rick Wright post The Wall. It could even go back to the early days surrounding the departure of Syd Barrett from the band. Who knows? The older you get you tend to lose your creativity so then you get more protective about the proprietary of your original song writing contributions. You can't really blame either artist for that. What everybody agrees with here is why do they have to battle it out so publicly? 


Posted By: rogerthat
Date Posted: June 06 2021 at 22:15
Originally posted by Dellinger Dellinger wrote:

Originally posted by rogerthat rogerthat wrote:

Originally posted by iluvmarillion iluvmarillion wrote:

Well OK, after reading the Mark Blake liner notes I can't see what Dave Gilmour is objecting to. Mystifying to me.


Well, it might be because Gilmour has an ego too even if it's not nearly as big as Waters'.  He does not want the plain truth that Animals was largely a Waters project to be advertised in the sleeve notes of a re-issue of the album. 


As far as the concept is concerned, indeed, it's all Waters, and that's what the liner notes are focusing a lot about. Yet, it fails to dig a bit deeper into the writing of the music... and as I understand it, Dogs was mostly written by Gilmour... and given the length of that song, and how it is usually the fan favourite of the album, he might, in a way, be right to have an issue given the way those liner notes focus almost exclusivley on Waters.

No, then you have not really read the liner notes carefully.  Waters does mention You've Got to Be Crazy was co-written by him and Gilmour.  And that is the fact. What other role did the others have anyway in the album?  Like I said, if they hate so much to acknowledge his role in this album and The Wall, they don't have to play it, they don't have to reissue the albums.  Ah, but how can that be, these albums are full of fan favourites.  

Nobody is denying that Waters is a gigantic prick.  I am just saying Gilmour isn't exactly St Gilmour either and doesn't come out looking good from this episode.


Posted By: nick_h_nz
Date Posted: June 07 2021 at 00:27
Originally posted by iluvmarillion iluvmarillion wrote:

As I said I find it mystifying Gilmour would object to the Mark Blake liner notes. However reading Roger Water's comments again from his Facebook page he refers to Gilmour as a jolly good guitarist and singer. If I was Gilmour I'd personally find those comments pretty patronizing. It's like Gilmour referring to Waters as a jolly good lyricist. I think they're engaging in a personal feud that goes back a long time. Someone else referred to Water's treatment of Rick Wright post The Wall. It could even go back to the early days surrounding the departure of Syd Barrett from the band. Who knows? The older you get you tend to lose your creativity so then you get more protective about the proprietary of your original song writing contributions. You can't really blame either artist for that. What everybody agrees with here is why do they have to battle it out so publicly? 

It may be a cultural thing. I doubt Waters meant “jolly good” to be patronising, and I doubt Gilmour took it that way. The English are masters of the understatement. One of the highest compliments you can give to something you really like is to say it’s “not bad”. Calling something jolly good is a real acknowledgment from Waters. He can be a bit of an arse, but here I think he is being genuinely gracious. I mean, it’s a bit of a classic 💩 sandwich, as he surrounds his compliment with less positive comments - but I think Gilmour will not have taken the actual compliment as being patronising.

As for the battle not being public. In general, yes. Specifically, here, I don’t think it’s (all) part of the battle. Like others, I’ve known about the reissue of Animals for a couple of years, and known it has been subject to unexplained delays. I think Waters has done the right thing here, because he has explained the delay. Not only that, he has provided the liner notes that caused the delay, so that anyone who wants to read why Gilmour refused to have the album released with them can try and understand why he had such an issue with them.

I think Waters would have been better off simply saying something along the lines of “I know you’ve all been wondering why the Animals reissue has been so long in coming. It was all down to these liner notes. Gilmour refused to allow the album to be released with these notes. Here they are. Make of it what you will”, but of course he’s not that sort of chap. But take away his snarky comments, and advertisements for his memoirs, and there’s not really anything wrong with providing the notes that caused the delay. I, for one, am glad he did.

Waters doesn’t come off great here, because he can’t really help himself from trying to prove that he was the essence of Pink Floyd, and that the band ceased to be after he left - carrying on in name only, as a shadow of its former self. But I think Gilmour comes off worse here. Because if these liner notes really were the cause of the delay (and one has to assume that is the case, as Waters has claimed, or there would by now have been some form of rebuttal or repercussion), then Gilmour comes off as rather petty.



-------------
https://tinyurl.com/nickhnz-tpa" rel="nofollow - Reviewer for The Progressive Aspect


Posted By: suitkees
Date Posted: June 07 2021 at 02:03
Well, reading Mark Blake's liner notes I definitely get the impression he is RW's spokesperson. It is not really balanced regarding the creative contributions of all the band members. Apart from the original idea of two songs after the DSotM sessions, where Gilmour is mentioned as a creative contributor, in the rest of the text the other musicians are merely depicted as players and all the creativity originates from RW. A selection:

- ...but Roger insisted that neither song was relevant to the overall idea...
- Scroll forward two years, and Roger had an idea for the next Pink Floyd album...
- Following Roger’s instincts about the new songs
- The narrative was completed by the addition of two new Waters songs...
- The idea for Pink Floyd’s flying pig was also Roger’s.
- ...it was joined by another Water’s idea
- Both the album and the tour signposted the way to Pink Floyd’s next release, The Wall, and to Roger’s ever more ambitious ideas...

This might all be true, but why then remain silent about the creative input of the other band members? It suffices to listen to Animals to understand they all had a creative input (contrary to The Final Cut, e.g.), but from these liner notes one can conclude that RW is the sole genius of the band and the others are merely musicians (players). To me there is clearly lacking a balance, so I can fully understand why DG did not accept these liner notes.

Another notable thing is the mentioning of the names: RW's name is the most mentioned (by far), only at the first occurrence by his first name and last name. Then it is "Roger" or "Waters" everywhere. The other band members are only mentioned (once or twice) by first and last name together...
Edit: I counted it for you to make it even more clear - name occurrences:
- Roger Waters (or Roger or Waters) : 17
- David Guilmour: 2
- Nick Mason: 1
- Rick Wright: 1


-------------

The razamataz is a pain in the bum


Posted By: nick_h_nz
Date Posted: June 07 2021 at 02:34
Originally posted by suitkees suitkees wrote:

Another notable thing is the mentioning of the names: RW's name is the most mentioned (by far), only at the first occurrence by his first name and last name. Then it is "Roger" or "Waters" everywhere. The other band members are only mentioned (once or twice) by first and last name together...

Im not sure that is notable, as that is a fairly standard way of naming people. Both names are used the first time, and then only one (first or last) from then on. The exception here is David Gilmour who is mentioned twice by both names, but to be honest, I would have done the same, as the second mention is so long after the first. The way the names are given is pretty much exactly as I would write them if I were writing a review.

Gilmour and Wright are both given credit where it is due, but Animals is a Waters-led album, so it’s hardly surprising that his name is mentioned more. Wish You Were Here is realistically the last album by Pink Floyd as a band, and the cracks were already showing. Everything after is very much Waters. Animals, The Wall and The Final Cut all have contributions from the other members, but are undeniably vehicles for Waters. I would never go as far as some do, and claim any are effectively Waters solo albums in all but name, but for me Animals is no more or less a Waters solo album than The Final Cut, so make of that what you will.

I don’t see the problem with acknowledging how much of Animals came from Waters. I don’t say that as a fan of Waters, because I’m really not. I don’t mind any of the albums made by Floyd members outside the band (or those of the post-Waters Floyd), but none are as good as when Gilmour and Waters were both in the band. Gilmour is a jolly good guitarist, and that is noted in the comments on Dogs. But ultimately, Animals largely came from Waters, and as impressive as their contributions are to the album, it’s hard to think of what more could have been said about the other Floyd members.



-------------
https://tinyurl.com/nickhnz-tpa" rel="nofollow - Reviewer for The Progressive Aspect


Posted By: suitkees
Date Posted: June 07 2021 at 02:58
^ Personally, I think there is much more that can be said about the creative contributions from the other band members (but I only have my ears that say that to me...), but I agree completely with the rest of your last paragraph (but, thus, disagree completely with the last line of the preceding paragraph).

The problem is probably that the creative processes in (rock) bands are much a result of some kind of synergy where the creativity of one is triggered/augmented by the creativity of others. I do believe that Waters was the driving force behind Animals, but I'm convinced that the creative input of the others were more important than what he wants to make believe in these liner notes.

Other than that, I don't care at all about their bickering, but I do think, and continue to think, that these liner notes are not balanced.


-------------

The razamataz is a pain in the bum


Posted By: jude111
Date Posted: June 07 2021 at 07:34
Originally posted by Manuel Manuel wrote:

I hope they realize all this nonsense is only hurting themselves. In any case, I want to see what the package brings, to decide if I’ll buy it or not.

As a kid in the late 70s discovering Pink Floyd's 70s albums, I loved the fact that there were no photos of the band on the albums. It was a mystery who they were and what they looked like. I loved that, it was very refreshing. But my interest in them began to seriously wane in the 80s when the Waters v Gilmour feud erupted in the open. Gilmour's always managed to project an image of a decent bloke who tries to stay above the mudfights Waters initiates. (I love Waters, his last album was brilliant, my politics aligns with his, so this gives me no pleasure to say.)

Waters' reignition of this feud is just beyond the pale. The only thing I care about an Animals release is the bonus material anyway - live stuff, studio outtakes (like early versions of Animals material). I totally get why Gilmour keeps Waters off the PF webpage. Waters simply can't be trusted, he's unstable and creates toxic environments and airs his grievances in public. Too bad that's still the case; before now, I thought he had mellowed.

(On the other hand, I really hope he releases a new album, hopefully with Nigel Godrich again.)


Posted By: Catcher10
Date Posted: June 07 2021 at 10:19
Originally posted by suitkees suitkees wrote:

Well, reading Mark Blake's liner notes I definitely get the impression he is RW's spokesperson. 

For me that is the big issue. As I mentioned before the Waters' proposed liner notes are too Waterscentric. Roger wrote them as to blow his own horn, plus he is trying to make it look like Mark Blake wrote them...hogwash!
The notes don't mean anything other than to start another war....The original album credits show Waters as writing all the songs and sharing credit with Gilmour only on Dogs, so again what is Roger's point?? 

IF...the others had as much input on the other songs as Waters did the notes really should be coming from Gilmour and Nick Mason, clarifying that fact, that in 1977 Waters refused to include them in the credits. But to my knowledge that has never been the case, so again I ask why does Roger even need to clarify anything??

It's a round about way for him to bitch and moan about not having access to the PF website and to tell the world that he created, designed, wrote the songs for PF. Like he was doing the others a favor by allowing them some song writing credits here and there....

Clearly the one who continues to pound the sand is Roger Waters. Again, Roger is amiss if he thinks the hard core PF fans do not realize and know that he was the creative force behind Pink Floyd, especially the concepts, the history shows this and its in the albums. What is his major malfunction!!!??? Confused

His demeaner I bet you is a major reason why a PF reunion at this point will never happen, and probably a main reason why Gilmour stated earlier this year that https://ultimateclassicrock.com/david-gilmour-pink-floyd-reunion/#:~:text=David%20Gilmour%20said%20there%20will,to%20do%20and%20enjoying%20himself.%20" rel="nofollow - Pink Floyd was done .


-------------


Posted By: Dellinger
Date Posted: June 07 2021 at 21:58
Originally posted by rogerthat rogerthat wrote:

Originally posted by Dellinger Dellinger wrote:

Originally posted by rogerthat rogerthat wrote:

Originally posted by iluvmarillion iluvmarillion wrote:

Well OK, after reading the Mark Blake liner notes I can't see what Dave Gilmour is objecting to. Mystifying to me.


Well, it might be because Gilmour has an ego too even if it's not nearly as big as Waters'.  He does not want the plain truth that Animals was largely a Waters project to be advertised in the sleeve notes of a re-issue of the album. 


As far as the concept is concerned, indeed, it's all Waters, and that's what the liner notes are focusing a lot about. Yet, it fails to dig a bit deeper into the writing of the music... and as I understand it, Dogs was mostly written by Gilmour... and given the length of that song, and how it is usually the fan favourite of the album, he might, in a way, be right to have an issue given the way those liner notes focus almost exclusivley on Waters.


No, then you have not really read the liner notes carefully.  Waters does mention You've Got to Be Crazy was co-written by him and Gilmour.  And that is the fact. What other role did the others have anyway in the album?  Like I said, if they hate so much to acknowledge his role in this album and The Wall, they don't have to play it, they don't have to reissue the albums.  Ah, but how can that be, these albums are full of fan favourites.  

Nobody is denying that Waters is a gigantic prick.  I am just saying Gilmour isn't exactly St Gilmour either and doesn't come out looking good from this episode.


I did read the liner notes... well, carefully enough at least. But I did say that those liner notes focus almost exclusively in Waters, not totally. And yeah, he did mention Dogs was co-written with Gilmour, but that's just about it, and then it goes on about Waters and Waters and Waters again, as if writing the music for the longest and arguably most beloved song on the album was a minor thing.


Posted By: Dellinger
Date Posted: June 07 2021 at 22:06
Originally posted by nick_h_nz nick_h_nz wrote:

Originally posted by suitkees suitkees wrote:

Another notable thing is the mentioning of the names: RW's name is the most mentioned (by far), only at the first occurrence by his first name and last name. Then it is "Roger" or "Waters" everywhere. The other band members are only mentioned (once or twice) by first and last name together...



Im not sure that is notable, as that is a fairly standard way of naming people. Both names are used the first time, and then only one (first or last) from then on. The exception here is David Gilmour who is mentioned twice by both names, but to be honest, I would have done the same, as the second mention is so long after the first. The way the names are given is pretty much exactly as I would write them if I were writing a review.

Gilmour and Wright are both given credit where it is due, but Animals is a Waters-led album, so it’s hardly surprising that his name is mentioned more. Wish You Were Here is realistically the last album by Pink Floyd as a band, and the cracks were already showing. Everything after is very much Waters. Animals, The Wall and The Final Cut all have contributions from the other members, but are undeniably vehicles for Waters. I would never go as far as some do, and claim any are effectively Waters solo albums in all but name, but for me Animals is no more or less a Waters solo album than The Final Cut, so make of that what you will.

I don’t see the problem with acknowledging how much of Animals came from Waters. I don’t say that as a fan of Waters, because I’m really not. I don’t mind any of the albums made by Floyd members outside the band (or those of the post-Waters Floyd), but none are as good as when Gilmour and Waters were both in the band. Gilmour is a jolly good guitarist, and that is noted in the comments on Dogs. But ultimately, Animals largely came from Waters, and as impressive as their contributions are to the album, it’s hard to think of what more could have been said about the other Floyd members.



I just said this a few posts ago, but once again, I don't agree when people make Animals to be already such a Waters dominated album. I mean, it's got only 3 songs that matter, and one of them, Dogs, was written with Gilmour... as I understand it, Gilmour wrote the music (for me, in the end, the most important aspect to the enjoyment of a song), and Waters, as usual, the lyrics (which is the reason he almost always gets a writing credit in the songs), and then Dogs takes almost half of the album and is usually considered the favourite song on the album... so, how is it more Waters dominated than the previous ones? Yeah, he's the one that came up with the concept and all, as usual, but the music writing is still fairly divided as in the previous albums.


Posted By: rogerthat
Date Posted: June 07 2021 at 22:27
Originally posted by Dellinger Dellinger wrote:

Originally posted by rogerthat rogerthat wrote:

Originally posted by Dellinger Dellinger wrote:

Originally posted by rogerthat rogerthat wrote:

Originally posted by iluvmarillion iluvmarillion wrote:

Well OK, after reading the Mark Blake liner notes I can't see what Dave Gilmour is objecting to. Mystifying to me.


Well, it might be because Gilmour has an ego too even if it's not nearly as big as Waters'.  He does not want the plain truth that Animals was largely a Waters project to be advertised in the sleeve notes of a re-issue of the album. 


As far as the concept is concerned, indeed, it's all Waters, and that's what the liner notes are focusing a lot about. Yet, it fails to dig a bit deeper into the writing of the music... and as I understand it, Dogs was mostly written by Gilmour... and given the length of that song, and how it is usually the fan favourite of the album, he might, in a way, be right to have an issue given the way those liner notes focus almost exclusivley on Waters.


No, then you have not really read the liner notes carefully.  Waters does mention You've Got to Be Crazy was co-written by him and Gilmour.  And that is the fact. What other role did the others have anyway in the album?  Like I said, if they hate so much to acknowledge his role in this album and The Wall, they don't have to play it, they don't have to reissue the albums.  Ah, but how can that be, these albums are full of fan favourites.  

Nobody is denying that Waters is a gigantic prick.  I am just saying Gilmour isn't exactly St Gilmour either and doesn't come out looking good from this episode.


I did read the liner notes... well, carefully enough at least. But I did say that those liner notes focus almost exclusively in Waters, not totally. And yeah, he did mention Dogs was co-written with Gilmour, but that's just about it, and then it goes on about Waters and Waters and Waters again, as if writing the music for the longest and arguably most beloved song on the album was a minor thing.

But what is Waters to do if the idea for the cover art did come from him?  I would also point out that you are trying to overweight Gilmour's role by dismissing the other two tracks.  Essentially, two thirds of the album was written solely by Waters and Dogs was a co-write.  So it is almost exclusively a Waters project.  WYWH was the last all-hands-on-deck effort.  One can blame Waters himself for the fact that the albums after WYWH were Waters-dominated.  I would, for one.  I think what simply happened is he had his own album-length concepts that he essentially wanted to record with the help of Floyd (and it was less to do with a sudden dearth of creativity from the rest).  

But be that as it may, Animals-Wall-TFC are very largely Waters-driven projects.  Again, if it bothers Gilmour so much, he doesn't have to play anything from Animals or Wall.  But he can't re-invent reality so that it placates his ego. This episode comes across a bit like, "OK, since Waters wants to be the egoistic prick that he is, I will show him my ego too".  

And what happened in the process?  He, that is, Gilmour, held up the re-release and denied it to fans all because of his squabble with Waters over liner notes.  I get it loud and clear that you are firmly in the Gilmour camp but you can't argue your way out of the reality that in this instance, Gilmour prioritized his ego tussle with Waters over the fans and that is not a good look. If he didn't like the liner notes, he need not have approved the draft.  He could have simply rejected it and gone ahead or gone to the public and told them Waters stubbornly insists on his own self-glorifying liner notes.  He has not done either.  He has a big part of the blame in this whole episode. 


Posted By: suitkees
Date Posted: June 08 2021 at 04:09
It is probably not so much a matter of what is true or not but more of how to represent things. I don't think anything said in the liner notes is false, but I don't think either that it is a fair representation of how things came to be.

What are the official writing credits about? For the lyrics it is rather easy, but for the music...? Is it about who writes the main melody and/or the main themes? But what about the creative input of others: one invents a guitar lick here, another a drum riff there and a third wonderful synth patterns... I think that there are many bands in which writing credits are shared once a musician has a clear contribution in the creative process, be it only through the jam sessions or the recording sessions.

It is interesting, in this context, to read Mark Blake's book on Pink Floyd (in which the chapter regarding the Animals period is much more balanced than the liner notes presented here - were they edited by Waters?), and Nick Mason's biography (Inside Out). It is clear that from Animals on, Waters more and more considered PF as the vehicle for his music which created more and more tensions between the band members (and eventually Wright's departure).

Going back to Animals and these liner notes: I don't think that Waters wrote all the sheet music for the guitar, synth and drum parts of the songs he is credited for (like a composer who writes for an orchestra). He probably wrote the major melodies and themes, but for me it is clear that he doesn't want to acknowledge the creative input of his fellow band members during the whole recording process. Formally, it might not be about "writing credits" but humanly it is about giving credit where credit is due. And he doesn't want to give that.




-------------

The razamataz is a pain in the bum


Posted By: rogerthat
Date Posted: June 08 2021 at 04:30
Originally posted by suitkees suitkees wrote:

It is probably not so much a matter of what is true or not but more of how to represent things. I don't think anything said in the liner notes is false, but I don't think either that it is a fair representation of how things came to be.


Then Gilmour could simply say that and put an end to the debate.  He has not said a word yet about Waters' post.  And he can't pretend to be 'above it all' here because Waters has categorically said that the release was delayed because of Gilmour sitting on it.  By remaining silent, Gilmour only appears to affirm whatever Waters has said and if that is the case, then it's not fair to delay the release because you don't like how Waters has presented the picture in the liner notes.  I mean just sort it out one way or the other but sitting on it for two years is ridiculous.


Posted By: suitkees
Date Posted: June 08 2021 at 04:36
^ Well, I didn't take part in their exchange, so from where I am I cannot see who's to blame for the delay of the release, and I don't take Water's word for it. When you have read the books I mentioned above, you will understand that "sorting out things together" is not their strong-point...


-------------

The razamataz is a pain in the bum


Posted By: nick_h_nz
Date Posted: June 08 2021 at 04:38
Originally posted by rogerthat rogerthat wrote:

Originally posted by suitkees suitkees wrote:

It is probably not so much a matter of what is true or not but more of how to represent things. I don't think anything said in the liner notes is false, but I don't think either that it is a fair representation of how things came to be.


Then Gilmour could simply say that and put an end to the debate.  He has not said a word yet about Waters' post.  And he can't pretend to be 'above it all' here because Waters has categorically said that the release was delayed because of Gilmour sitting on it.  By remaining silent, Gilmour only appears to affirm whatever Waters has said and if that is the case, then it's not fair to delay the release because you don't like how Waters has presented the picture in the liner notes.  I mean just sort it out one way or the other but sitting on it for two years is ridiculous.

That’s exactly how I look at it. It’s kind of irrelevant what any of us think, in regard to whether or not it is a fair representation. It’s on Gilmour’s head, and his silence pretty much affirms what Waters has said.

Generally speaking, when it comes to matters of Pink Floyd, I tend to side with Gilmour rather than Waters. Much of Waters arguments stem from the idea that the group should have ended when he left, and that’s not one I agree with. He left the band, and just because he thought doing so meant the end of the band, does not make it so. Hence the lawsuits and eventual settlement.

But in this instance, I tend to side with Waters, as (regardless of whether or not I think this is is a fair representation), to find out after all this time that the reason for the delay of the reissue was down to Gilmour not liking these liner notes? As per the above - ridiculous….



-------------
https://tinyurl.com/nickhnz-tpa" rel="nofollow - Reviewer for The Progressive Aspect


Posted By: suitkees
Date Posted: June 08 2021 at 04:54
Sorry, but Waters said Gilmour vetoed it, so he wasn't silent.


-------------

The razamataz is a pain in the bum


Posted By: progaardvark
Date Posted: June 08 2021 at 05:03
Originally posted by suitkees suitkees wrote:

Sorry, but Waters said Gilmour vetoed it, so he wasn't silent.

And sometimes silence speaks volumes. 


-------------
----------
i'm shopping for a new oil-cured sinus bag
that's a happy bag of lettuce
this car smells like cartilage
nothing beats a good video about fractions


Posted By: SteveG
Date Posted: June 08 2021 at 05:12
If Waters put as much effort into being musically creative as he does into trying to preserve his place in history, we could have had 10 more decent solo albums from him.

-------------
This message was brought to you by a proud supporter of the Deep State.


Posted By: nick_h_nz
Date Posted: June 08 2021 at 05:18
Originally posted by suitkees suitkees wrote:

Sorry, but Waters said Gilmour vetoed it, so he wasn't silent.

You have misread what has been said. I was responding to Gilmour’s silence since Waters posting, as per a previous comment. Gilmour has been silent.

And, yes, silence speaks volumes…..
(And in this instance, not in Gilmour’s favour.)



-------------
https://tinyurl.com/nickhnz-tpa" rel="nofollow - Reviewer for The Progressive Aspect


Posted By: nick_h_nz
Date Posted: June 08 2021 at 05:22
Originally posted by SteveG SteveG wrote:

If Waters put as much effort into being musically creative as he does into trying to preserve his place in history, we could have had 10 more decent solo albums from him.

Hmmm….not sure on that. We may have made more albums, but quantity does not mean quality. I wouldn’t consider everything he has released decent, although I do like Amused to Death and Is This The Life We Really Want. But I think I’m happier with less Waters, than more….. 🤪

Neither Waters, nor Gilmour greatly float my boat, outside the music of Pink Floyd.



-------------
https://tinyurl.com/nickhnz-tpa" rel="nofollow - Reviewer for The Progressive Aspect


Posted By: SteveG
Date Posted: June 08 2021 at 05:30
Originally posted by nick_h_nz nick_h_nz wrote:


Neither Waters, nor Gilmour greatly float my boat, outside the music of Pink Floyd.

And that explains your negative answer.

-------------
This message was brought to you by a proud supporter of the Deep State.


Posted By: nick_h_nz
Date Posted: June 08 2021 at 05:39
Originally posted by SteveG SteveG wrote:

Originally posted by nick_h_nz nick_h_nz wrote:


Neither Waters, nor Gilmour greatly float my boat, outside the music of Pink Floyd.

And that explains your negative answer.

I’m not sure my answer was negative. 🤔
It wasn’t intended to be, anyway. There’s nothing I dislike from either, and some things I like rather a lot.



-------------
https://tinyurl.com/nickhnz-tpa" rel="nofollow - Reviewer for The Progressive Aspect


Posted By: jude111
Date Posted: June 08 2021 at 06:42
Originally posted by rogerthat rogerthat wrote:

Originally posted by suitkees suitkees wrote:

It is probably not so much a matter of what is true or not but more of how to represent things. I don't think anything said in the liner notes is false, but I don't think either that it is a fair representation of how things came to be.


Then Gilmour could simply say that and put an end to the debate.  He has not said a word yet about Waters' post.  And he can't pretend to be 'above it all' here because Waters has categorically said that the release was delayed because of Gilmour sitting on it.  By remaining silent, Gilmour only appears to affirm whatever Waters has said and if that is the case, then it's not fair to delay the release because you don't like how Waters has presented the picture in the liner notes.  I mean just sort it out one way or the other but sitting on it for two years is ridiculous.

I hope Gilmour remains silent and above it all. The album's getting a release, so there's no need to react to Waters' craven need for a fight. I love that Gilmour's not publicly re-hashing things that took place 50 years ago. According to his Instagram, he's well and content with his large family, which seems to eat up Waters with bitterness. That's really sad.

The simple fact of the matter is, Gilmour *should* have an equal say in the liner notes. If he doesn't like it, they shouldn't be there. All the band members should have an equal say, and all should come to an agreement. That it's taken years for an Animals Deluxe release is Waters' fault, pure and simple.

We *know* Waters is a control freak and a micro-manager. It's absurd that he held up the release for years because he wanted those partisan, one-sided pro-Waters liner notes. Who does that? Seriously, there's something wrong with the guy LOL It's not that hard to have liner notes that celebrates Animals and Pink Floyd, one that all the member can agree on. FFS. No one even cares about liner notes; they're read once, if at all, and quickly forgotten about. They're superfluous fluff.


Posted By: suitkees
Date Posted: June 08 2021 at 07:35
Originally posted by nick_h_nz nick_h_nz wrote:

Originally posted by suitkees suitkees wrote:

Sorry, but Waters said Gilmour vetoed it, so he wasn't silent.

You have misread what has been said. I was responding to Gilmour’s silence since Waters posting, as per a previous comment. Gilmour has been silent.

No, I did not misread, I just don't understand why Gilmour would have to react to a post on the Internet that is not addressed to him.

-------------

The razamataz is a pain in the bum


Posted By: suitkees
Date Posted: June 08 2021 at 07:42
Originally posted by SteveG SteveG wrote:

If Waters put as much effort into being musically creative as he does into trying to preserve his place in history, we could have had 10 more decent solo albums from him.

Well, he could indeed use this energy for more useful things, but I don't think his creativity is suffering from it and I hope he will come out with something new and of his own again. His last album was OK - personally I think it sounded a bit too similar to what he has done before, but it is still a good album. He has already his place in history, with PF and as a solo artist. But I agree that we could do without this bickering with former band mates...


-------------

The razamataz is a pain in the bum


Posted By: dr wu23
Date Posted: June 08 2021 at 07:48
Originally posted by SteveG SteveG wrote:

If Waters put as much effort into being musically creative as he does into trying to preserve his place in history, we could have had 10 more decent solo albums from him.

How about just one decent album..?
Wink


-------------
One does nothing yet nothing is left undone.
Haquin


Posted By: SteveG
Date Posted: June 08 2021 at 07:57
Oh, a wise guy huh? Yuk yuk yuk.

-------------
This message was brought to you by a proud supporter of the Deep State.


Posted By: Catcher10
Date Posted: June 08 2021 at 10:14
This re-issue of Animals has not been something the music world or PF fans have been waiting for, at least not to my knowledge. Here on PA, again not to my knowledge, there has been no postings or questions about when the new re-issue is coming out, and why it has been delayed for 2 years. 

I have seen some posts on another music forum and it has just been a question but nothing more intense than that. Again, I don't think people have been holding their breath waiting for this one, as I said in my first post a 2016 version remastered by Bernie Grundman from original master tapes has been in print for almost 5 years. 
I don't think the music world has been screaming for a new re-issue, and 2 yrs to release something is probably within reason especially if it is a box/deluxe edition set with 5.1/BR/DVD/CD/LP and different artwork than the original.
My guess will be that Gilmour is the voice of PF, and its possible that neither he or Mason approved of the new liner notes, so its possible that Waters lost the vote he was asking for 2-1......I'm sure Waters still feels that is not fair, if that happened. LOL

There are many things both Waters and Gilmour do that I don't agree with, but what trumps all of what Gilmour/PF might do is Waters political bullkrapp rantings, go tell that krapp to someone who cares.

It would not surprise me if having those liner notes in the new reissue would mean Roger Waters gets a larger cut of the sales, since he "contributed" more to that album release.

Poor Roger Waters....


-------------


Posted By: nick_h_nz
Date Posted: June 08 2021 at 10:38
Interesting, as I like Waters for his political rantings more than for his music. 🤔



-------------
https://tinyurl.com/nickhnz-tpa" rel="nofollow - Reviewer for The Progressive Aspect


Posted By: rogerthat
Date Posted: June 09 2021 at 01:11
Originally posted by nick_h_nz nick_h_nz wrote:


Neither Waters, nor Gilmour greatly float my boat, outside the music of Pink Floyd.


Me neither.  Without the rest of Floyd, Waters' ability to write melody really suffers (was already evident in parts of Wall and definitely on TFC). And without Waters, Gilmour (with or without Floyd) is just an atmospheric mush sloggy sandwich.  Except for those who somehow seem to think of him as one of the all time greatest blues guitarists (not me, count me out).  I can only take so much of the 'Gilmour lick' before I fall asleep.  


Posted By: Catcher10
Date Posted: June 09 2021 at 09:13
In the world of rock guitarists, David Gilmour is one of the most highly regarded musicians, that is undeniable. Possibly in the world of music reviewers (prog) he does not rate that high, which is pretty cra-cra. 

I suspect if Prog Magazine did a poll (I am sure they have), he would rate pretty high as one of the most respected, gifted guitarists of the past 50yrs.


-------------


Posted By: SteveG
Date Posted: June 09 2021 at 09:23
f**k. I wish I could play guitar like Gilmour.

-------------
This message was brought to you by a proud supporter of the Deep State.


Posted By: The Dark Elf
Date Posted: June 09 2021 at 09:44
Originally posted by Catcher10 Catcher10 wrote:

In the world of rock guitarists, David Gilmour is one of the most highly regarded musicians, that is undeniable. Possibly in the world of music reviewers (prog) he does not rate that high, which is pretty cra-cra. 

I suspect if Prog Magazine did a poll (I am sure they have), he would rate pretty high as one of the most respected, gifted guitarists of the past 50yrs.

Agreed. Great guitarist with an instantly recognizable style that is often copied but rarely duplicated. It's quite amusing that Waters is still whining about his legacy. Perhaps because it's Gilmour's guitar and voice that is most remembered and revered. 

The Wall? Most folks ignore Water's tedious courtroom antics at the end of the album and focus on Gilmour's solo on "Comfortably Numb". Animals? It's all about "Dogs" or the wicked guitar work on "Pigs" and "Sheep" (throw in Richard Wright's keyboards). WYWH? Again, it's Gilmour on "Shine on You Crazy Diamond" or the heartbreakingly beautiful "Wish You Were Here". Meddle? It's the interplay between Gilmour and Wright on "Echoes", not Water's dull "St. Tropez" (that I skip when listening). The Final Cut was the end for a large majority of Floyd fans because of the annoying talk-singing banter of Waters throughout what is basically a solo album reliving the whole "My Daddy's Dead" schtick that was played out already on The Wall (in fact, a few songs are from The Wall sessions). 


-------------
...a vigorous circular motion hitherto unknown to the people of this area, but destined
to take the place of the mud shark in your mythology...


Posted By: SteveG
Date Posted: June 09 2021 at 09:54
As far as the reissue topic, Floyd are going gaga on reissues. Most fans have heard boots of the bonus materials already. I'm not interested in another copy of Animals.

-------------
This message was brought to you by a proud supporter of the Deep State.


Posted By: Progishness
Date Posted: June 09 2021 at 10:05
Originally posted by SteveG SteveG wrote:

As far as the reissue topic, Floyd are going gaga on reissues. Most fans have heard boots of the bonus materials already. I'm not interested in another copy of Animals.


It's just another exercise in squeezing yet more money out of their core fans.  I may be a die hard Floydian, but i don't see the value in buying all these re-issue box sets when (over the past 50 years or so) I have already bought their entire catalogue 3 or 4 times over (Vinyl, Cassette, CD etc).


-------------
"We're going to need a bigger swear jar."

Chloë Grace Moretz as Mindy McCready aka 'Hit Girl' in Kick-Ass 2


Posted By: SteveG
Date Posted: June 09 2021 at 10:18
Wow. 3 or 4 times over? They should send you the new edition as a gift.

-------------
This message was brought to you by a proud supporter of the Deep State.


Posted By: Progishness
Date Posted: June 09 2021 at 10:22
^I like this idea! I'll suggest that to Nick Mason - I have his Twitter account.


-------------
"We're going to need a bigger swear jar."

Chloë Grace Moretz as Mindy McCready aka 'Hit Girl' in Kick-Ass 2


Posted By: SteveG
Date Posted: June 09 2021 at 10:27
Well, it never hurts to try.

-------------
This message was brought to you by a proud supporter of the Deep State.


Posted By: Progishness
Date Posted: June 09 2021 at 10:30
Well if you don't ask...


-------------
"We're going to need a bigger swear jar."

Chloë Grace Moretz as Mindy McCready aka 'Hit Girl' in Kick-Ass 2


Posted By: The Dark Elf
Date Posted: June 09 2021 at 10:31
Originally posted by SteveG SteveG wrote:

Wow. 3 or 4 times over? They should send you the new edition as a gift.

Well, think about it. I've bought Floyd albums in the original vinyl, 8-track (in 2 cases), cassette, CD and remasters. I'm done now, thanks.


-------------
...a vigorous circular motion hitherto unknown to the people of this area, but destined
to take the place of the mud shark in your mythology...


Posted By: SteveG
Date Posted: June 09 2021 at 11:31
Originally posted by The Dark Elf The Dark Elf wrote:

Originally posted by SteveG SteveG wrote:

Wow. 3 or 4 times over? They should send you the new edition as a gift.

Well, think about it. I've bought Floyd albums in the original vinyl, 8-track (in 2 cases), cassette, CD and remasters. I'm done now, thanks.
Yes, but that's because you're old. Wink

-------------
This message was brought to you by a proud supporter of the Deep State.


Posted By: The Dark Elf
Date Posted: June 09 2021 at 11:58
Originally posted by SteveG SteveG wrote:

Originally posted by The Dark Elf The Dark Elf wrote:

Originally posted by SteveG SteveG wrote:

Wow. 3 or 4 times over? They should send you the new edition as a gift.

Well, think about it. I've bought Floyd albums in the original vinyl, 8-track (in 2 cases), cassette, CD and remasters. I'm done now, thanks.
Yes, but that's because you're old. Wink

Well...yeah...that goes without saying.


-------------
...a vigorous circular motion hitherto unknown to the people of this area, but destined
to take the place of the mud shark in your mythology...


Posted By: Catcher10
Date Posted: June 09 2021 at 15:10
Originally posted by The Dark Elf The Dark Elf wrote:

Originally posted by Catcher10 Catcher10 wrote:

In the world of rock guitarists, David Gilmour is one of the most highly regarded musicians, that is undeniable. Possibly in the world of music reviewers (prog) he does not rate that high, which is pretty cra-cra. 

I suspect if Prog Magazine did a poll (I am sure they have), he would rate pretty high as one of the most respected, gifted guitarists of the past 50yrs.

Agreed. Great guitarist with an instantly recognizable style that is often copied but rarely duplicated. It's quite amusing that Waters is still whining about his legacy. Perhaps because it's Gilmour's guitar and voice that is most remembered and revered. 

The Wall? Most folks ignore Water's tedious courtroom antics at the end of the album and focus on Gilmour's solo on "Comfortably Numb". Animals? It's all about "Dogs" or the wicked guitar work on "Pigs" and "Sheep" (throw in Richard Wright's keyboards). WYWH? Again, it's Gilmour on "Shine on You Crazy Diamond" or the heartbreakingly beautiful "Wish You Were Here". Meddle? It's the interplay between Gilmour and Wright on "Echoes", not Water's dull "St. Tropez" (that I skip when listening). The Final Cut was the end for a large majority of Floyd fans because of the annoying talk-singing banter of Waters throughout what is basically a solo album reliving the whole "My Daddy's Dead" schtick that was played out already on The Wall (in fact, a few songs are from The Wall sessions). 

Agreed x 2...I really like Waters' bass playing in many albums of The Floyd. His presence is well heard and is authoritative. Creative chap for sure but man the past 30yrs for him has been a bitch!! LOL

The other thing that is undeniable is who is the "sound of Pink Floyd...", it ain't Waters. This hype sticker is from his Live At Pompeii box set..pretty much says it all.


I too have bought part of the PF catalog a few times in CD, LP, Cassette......



-------------


Posted By: Catcher10
Date Posted: June 09 2021 at 15:25
Originally posted by SteveG SteveG wrote:

As far as the reissue topic, Floyd are going gaga on reissues. Most fans have heard boots of the bonus materials already. I'm not interested in another copy of Animals.

I hear ya, but not really......The last reissue batch was that 2016 run remastered by the Bern LOL from original master tapes, those are official releases by Pink Floyd Records. There are a slew of CD reissues from every country and planet in the solar system, many on strange labels. Just go to Discogs and you'll see many say "unofficial"......Anybody can make a krappy CD, that's the problem.

And yea the big issue is most of us have heard all the bonus material already. I'm not interested in it either, but I'll buy it for a sweet deal.


-------------


Posted By: Catcher10
Date Posted: June 09 2021 at 17:20
Released Monday....... https://ultimateclassicrock.com/david-gilmour-roger-waters-pink-floyd-animals-liner-notes/" rel="nofollow - Gilmour says its Waters fault ......LOL

-------------


Posted By: Dellinger
Date Posted: June 09 2021 at 20:28
Originally posted by rogerthat rogerthat wrote:

Originally posted by Dellinger Dellinger wrote:

Originally posted by rogerthat rogerthat wrote:

Originally posted by Dellinger Dellinger wrote:

Originally posted by rogerthat rogerthat wrote:

Originally posted by iluvmarillion iluvmarillion wrote:

Well OK, after reading the Mark Blake liner notes I can't see what Dave Gilmour is objecting to. Mystifying to me.


Well, it might be because Gilmour has an ego too even if it's not nearly as big as Waters'.  He does not want the plain truth that Animals was largely a Waters project to be advertised in the sleeve notes of a re-issue of the album. 


As far as the concept is concerned, indeed, it's all Waters, and that's what the liner notes are focusing a lot about. Yet, it fails to dig a bit deeper into the writing of the music... and as I understand it, Dogs was mostly written by Gilmour... and given the length of that song, and how it is usually the fan favourite of the album, he might, in a way, be right to have an issue given the way those liner notes focus almost exclusivley on Waters.


No, then you have not really read the liner notes carefully.  Waters does mention You've Got to Be Crazy was co-written by him and Gilmour.  And that is the fact. What other role did the others have anyway in the album?  Like I said, if they hate so much to acknowledge his role in this album and The Wall, they don't have to play it, they don't have to reissue the albums.  Ah, but how can that be, these albums are full of fan favourites.  

Nobody is denying that Waters is a gigantic prick.  I am just saying Gilmour isn't exactly St Gilmour either and doesn't come out looking good from this episode.


I did read the liner notes... well, carefully enough at least. But I did say that those liner notes focus almost exclusively in Waters, not totally. And yeah, he did mention Dogs was co-written with Gilmour, but that's just about it, and then it goes on about Waters and Waters and Waters again, as if writing the music for the longest and arguably most beloved song on the album was a minor thing.


But what is Waters to do if the idea for the cover art did come from him?  I would also point out that you are trying to overweight Gilmour's role by dismissing the other two tracks.  Essentially, two thirds of the album was written solely by Waters and Dogs was a co-write.  So it is almost exclusively a Waters project.  WYWH was the last all-hands-on-deck effort.  One can blame Waters himself for the fact that the albums after WYWH were Waters-dominated.  I would, for one.  I think what simply happened is he had his own album-length concepts that he essentially wanted to record with the help of Floyd (and it was less to do with a sudden dearth of creativity from the rest).  

But be that as it may, Animals-Wall-TFC are very largely Waters-driven projects.  Again, if it bothers Gilmour so much, he doesn't have to play anything from Animals or Wall.  But he can't re-invent reality so that it placates his ego. This episode comes across a bit like, "OK, since Waters wants to be the egoistic prick that he is, I will show him my ego too".  

And what happened in the process?  He, that is, Gilmour, held up the re-release and denied it to fans all because of his squabble with Waters over liner notes.  I get it loud and clear that you are firmly in the Gilmour camp but you can't argue your way out of the reality that in this instance, Gilmour prioritized his ego tussle with Waters over the fans and that is not a good look. If he didn't like the liner notes, he need not have approved the draft.  He could have simply rejected it and gone ahead or gone to the public and told them Waters stubbornly insists on his own self-glorifying liner notes.  He has not done either.  He has a big part of the blame in this whole episode. 


Well, yeah, the cover is cool, and it's good it's mentioned, yet, I care more for the music. And I'm not trying to dismiss the other two tracks, I love them (just as I love Welcome to the Machine, Brain Damage / Eclipse, Set the controls for the Heart of the Sun - specially live - and many other Waters songs), and not in vain Animals is among my favourite albums ever, but then, my favourite on this one is still Dogs, and for polls I have seen about the album before (one of them recently, if I remember well), the clear favourite of fans is Dogs (just as the clear favourite of fans on The Wall is Comfortabley Numb), and then you might got for number of songs, and yes, it's one out of three, but if we consider the length of it, it's the longest one by far. And I'm not trying to take away from Waters, it is obvious he was the driving force, and the one pushing the concept (just as he had done at least since Dark Side), but it's more that I don't agree when Gilmour's contributions are dismissed from that album... and even if he doesn't have writing credits, we shouldn't forget Wright's contributions either.
     On the other hand, I don't think Waters is much to blame about the other's decrease on contributions for album... as I understand it, it's the other way around, and he rather complained that they were not contributing much, and rather went on to release solo albums instead of using their ideas for the band. And about Gilmour not having to play anything from those 3 albums, he actually doesn't, except for his own songs from The Wall (or Another Brick on Pink Floyd shows).
     About Gilmour's fault at the re-issue not being released... well, to begin with, I didn't even know it was to be done so, nor do I think I care much, since I already have it and don't plan on buying it again, unless it had some unreleased material... best if it were live tracks from the tour for the album... and then I would much rather have a live album, or even better, video from that tour (I don't hold my breath, though). And there's a lot of blame going to Gilmour for the reissue taking so long to be released, but then, if Waters had only agreed to leave those liner notes out from the beginning, it would be out already.
     And about me being on the Gilmour camp... yeah, it might be so, I do tend to side with Gilmour on the debates... but I'm more of the idea that the very best was done when they were all working together, and it is obvious the music wouldn't have come out nearly as great without Waters (though the same is true if Waters had been by himself). And I do love what Waters has done, both within the band and solo.


Posted By: Dellinger
Date Posted: June 09 2021 at 20:36
Originally posted by Catcher10 Catcher10 wrote:

In the world of rock guitarists, David Gilmour is one of the most highly regarded musicians, that is undeniable. Possibly in the world of music reviewers (prog) he does not rate that high, which is pretty cra-cra. 

I suspect if Prog Magazine did a poll (I am sure they have), he would rate pretty high as one of the most respected, gifted guitarists of the past 50yrs.


Actually, what I have seen is the contrary. In rock discussions / lists he doesn't appear so high, or if it's just discussion he might be totally forgotten. On prog lists or discussions, he is very well beloved. He will almost always be over Jimmy Page, or Clapton, or even Jimi Hendrix (the undoubted god on classic rock lists), and he will even go very even, against the top prog guitarists like Fripp, Howe, or Hackett. Of course, it will always depend on the passing of time, I have seen how this tendencies happen to shift over time in PA.


Posted By: Dellinger
Date Posted: June 09 2021 at 20:38
Originally posted by The Dark Elf The Dark Elf wrote:

Originally posted by Catcher10 Catcher10 wrote:

In the world of rock guitarists, David Gilmour is one of the most highly regarded musicians, that is undeniable. Possibly in the world of music reviewers (prog) he does not rate that high, which is pretty cra-cra. 

I suspect if Prog Magazine did a poll (I am sure they have), he would rate pretty high as one of the most respected, gifted guitarists of the past 50yrs.


Agreed. Great guitarist with an instantly recognizable style that is often copied but rarely duplicated. It's quite amusing that Waters is still whining about his legacy. Perhaps because it's Gilmour's guitar and voice that is most remembered and revered. 

The Wall? Most folks ignore Water's tedious courtroom antics at the end of the album and focus on Gilmour's solo on "Comfortably Numb". Animals? It's all about "Dogs" or the wicked guitar work on "Pigs" and "Sheep" (throw in Richard Wright's keyboards). WYWH? Again, it's Gilmour on "Shine on You Crazy Diamond" or the heartbreakingly beautiful "Wish You Were Here". Meddle? It's the interplay between Gilmour and Wright on "Echoes", not Water's dull "St. Tropez" (that I skip when listening). The Final Cut was the end for a large majority of Floyd fans because of the annoying talk-singing banter of Waters throughout what is basically a solo album reliving the whole "My Daddy's Dead" schtick that was played out already on The Wall (in fact, a few songs are from The Wall sessions). 


And even with The Final Cut I have read many times how people love Gilmour's guitars on many of the songs.


Posted By: rogerthat
Date Posted: June 09 2021 at 22:48
Originally posted by Dellinger Dellinger wrote:

Originally posted by The Dark Elf The Dark Elf wrote:

Originally posted by Catcher10 Catcher10 wrote:

In the world of rock guitarists, David Gilmour is one of the most highly regarded musicians, that is undeniable. Possibly in the world of music reviewers (prog) he does not rate that high, which is pretty cra-cra. 

I suspect if Prog Magazine did a poll (I am sure they have), he would rate pretty high as one of the most respected, gifted guitarists of the past 50yrs.


Agreed. Great guitarist with an instantly recognizable style that is often copied but rarely duplicated. It's quite amusing that Waters is still whining about his legacy. Perhaps because it's Gilmour's guitar and voice that is most remembered and revered. 

The Wall? Most folks ignore Water's tedious courtroom antics at the end of the album and focus on Gilmour's solo on "Comfortably Numb". Animals? It's all about "Dogs" or the wicked guitar work on "Pigs" and "Sheep" (throw in Richard Wright's keyboards). WYWH? Again, it's Gilmour on "Shine on You Crazy Diamond" or the heartbreakingly beautiful "Wish You Were Here". Meddle? It's the interplay between Gilmour and Wright on "Echoes", not Water's dull "St. Tropez" (that I skip when listening). The Final Cut was the end for a large majority of Floyd fans because of the annoying talk-singing banter of Waters throughout what is basically a solo album reliving the whole "My Daddy's Dead" schtick that was played out already on The Wall (in fact, a few songs are from The Wall sessions). 


And even with The Final Cut I have read many times how people love Gilmour's guitars on many of the songs.

All that is true but it does not make Gilmour greater than the likes of BBK, Albert King, Stevie Ray Vaughan, etc.  He stands out more because he played in a bluesy style with a lot of soul in rock at a time when fast playing was already beginning to be prioritized (eg Blackmore).  Albeit I wouldn't rank him above Blackmore for that matter, nor Roth/Schenker. He's better than Clapton, I grant. Gilmour is great at composing short, melancholic solos.  He is brilliant in that box.  But it's also not a particularly big box. Even within a prog rock context, he gets overrated a lot.  Hackett can do all that Gilmour does and much more.  Likewise Latimer. 

If the point is that Gilmour's contributions made Floyd outstanding above all, I would whole heartedly agree because musically it's the Gilmour leads that make most Floyd songs interesting (except in their experimental/psychedelic phase) and they would be fairly generic classic rock fare without him.  But I said that already - without Gilmour, Waters' unmelodic talk-ranting becomes very cringey.  Waters has a lot of vision to come up with great concepts but when it comes to the nuts and bolts of great licks, he isn't all that he thinks himself to be. 


Posted By: rogerthat
Date Posted: June 09 2021 at 23:01
Originally posted by Catcher10 Catcher10 wrote:

In the world of rock guitarists, David Gilmour is one of the most highly regarded musicians, that is undeniable. Possibly in the world of music reviewers (prog) he does not rate that high, which is pretty cra-cra. 

I suspect if Prog Magazine did a poll (I am sure they have), he would rate pretty high as one of the most respected, gifted guitarists of the past 50yrs.

Actually he only got in at no.14 in the RS 100 greatest guitarists list.  I don't have a good opinion about anything RS but I only offer this retort because you brought it up as an argument.  And the RS list was voted on by many well known guitarists, many who would be regarded as great. And him getting in at no.14 has a lot to do with him being in one of the most popular bands of all time. There's nobody in the rock world who hasn't heard of Gilmour so he will get in there somewhere.  But even so he does not beat out SRV, BBK, Blackmore just as I said in the previous post (which I had written before I read this poll).

https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-lists/100-greatest-guitarists-153675/lindsey-buckingham-39147/




Posted By: Catcher10
Date Posted: June 10 2021 at 10:34
Originally posted by rogerthat rogerthat wrote:

Originally posted by Catcher10 Catcher10 wrote:

In the world of rock guitarists, David Gilmour is one of the most highly regarded musicians, that is undeniable. Possibly in the world of music reviewers (prog) he does not rate that high, which is pretty cra-cra. 

I suspect if Prog Magazine did a poll (I am sure they have), he would rate pretty high as one of the most respected, gifted guitarists of the past 50yrs.

Actually he only got in at no.14 in the RS 100 greatest guitarists list.  I don't have a good opinion about anything RS but I only offer this retort because you brought it up as an argument.  And the RS list was voted on by many well known guitarists, many who would be regarded as great. And him getting in at no.14 has a lot to do with him being in one of the most popular bands of all time. There's nobody in the rock world who hasn't heard of Gilmour so he will get in there somewhere.  But even so he does not beat out SRV, BBK, Blackmore just as I said in the previous post (which I had written before I read this poll).

https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-lists/100-greatest-guitarists-153675/lindsey-buckingham-39147/

Never said he was the one of the top guitarists from a poll perspective, because I know where those polls end up. You could be ranked #100 and still be highly regarded. 
I remember that RS poll and it's not the top say 20 but the bottom 50 that is a huge mess, I remember mentioning how on earth could Kurt Cobain even be listed???Confused All you can say is he played the guitar, but to be a top 100....nahh! 


-------------


Posted By: Progishness
Date Posted: June 10 2021 at 10:46
Originally posted by Catcher10 Catcher10 wrote:

All you can say is he played the guitar


I think that is a matter of opinion!


-------------
"We're going to need a bigger swear jar."

Chloë Grace Moretz as Mindy McCready aka 'Hit Girl' in Kick-Ass 2


Posted By: rogerthat
Date Posted: June 10 2021 at 21:47
Originally posted by Catcher10 Catcher10 wrote:

Never said he was the one of the top guitarists from a poll perspective, because I know where those polls end up. You could be ranked #100 and still be highly regarded. 
I remember that RS poll and it's not the top say 20 but the bottom 50 that is a huge mess, I remember mentioning how on earth could Kurt Cobain even be listed???Confused All you can say is he played the guitar, but to be a top 100....nahh! 

In that case, it becomes about perspective.  My point is there are clearly contemporaries or players who rose to prominence a decade before or after Gilmour who would rank above him.  Yeah, he is great, undoubtedly, but IMO he is also not so great that I can listen to an album full of sleepy ballads.  He needed Waters to add gravitas to the songs just as Waters needed him to make his grand concepts sound, well, musical. 


Posted By: Catcher10
Date Posted: June 11 2021 at 08:58
Originally posted by rogerthat rogerthat wrote:

Originally posted by Catcher10 Catcher10 wrote:

Never said he was the one of the top guitarists from a poll perspective, because I know where those polls end up. You could be ranked #100 and still be highly regarded. 
I remember that RS poll and it's not the top say 20 but the bottom 50 that is a huge mess, I remember mentioning how on earth could Kurt Cobain even be listed???Confused All you can say is he played the guitar, but to be a top 100....nahh! 

In that case, it becomes about perspective.  My point is there are clearly contemporaries or players who rose to prominence a decade before or after Gilmour who would rank above him.  Yeah, he is great, undoubtedly, but IMO he is also not so great that I can listen to an album full of sleepy ballads.  He needed Waters to add gravitas to the songs just as Waters needed him to make his grand concepts sound, well, musical. 
I'm good with that since it is your opinion of his playing. But you have to remember that these older rock guitarist influence is not really from the rock/hard rock establishment. It comes from the blues and/or soul and R&B genres, especially those from UK. They wanted to be the next Buddy Guy, BB King, Muddy Waters, Robert Johnson or Albert King. 
This is why most of them picked up the guitar in the first place, so that "sleepy" playing is the blues influence, which turned into rock guitar playing for them, but still the American blues is what is in their bones from hearing it as kids.
Jimmy Page would not be who he is without the blues....


-------------


Posted By: rogerthat
Date Posted: June 11 2021 at 09:09
Originally posted by Catcher10 Catcher10 wrote:

I'm good with that since it is your opinion of his playing. But you have to remember that these older rock guitarist influence is not really from the rock/hard rock establishment. It comes from the blues and/or soul and R&B genres, especially those from UK. They wanted to be the next Buddy Guy, BB King, Muddy Waters, Robert Johnson or Albert King. 
This is why most of them picked up the guitar in the first place, so that "sleepy" playing is the blues influence, which turned into rock guitar playing for them, but still the American blues is what is in their bones from hearing it as kids.
Jimmy Page would not be who he is without the blues....

I do not find BBK or Buddy Guy sleepy.  Just Gilmour in his Division Bell/On An Island mode.  BBK plays with a lot more variation than Gilmour on those albums.  OTOH a song like Comfortably Numb gives Gilmour the perfect opening to play an intense and melancholic solo.  


Posted By: Catcher10
Date Posted: June 11 2021 at 09:23
Originally posted by rogerthat rogerthat wrote:

Originally posted by Catcher10 Catcher10 wrote:

I'm good with that since it is your opinion of his playing. But you have to remember that these older rock guitarist influence is not really from the rock/hard rock establishment. It comes from the blues and/or soul and R&B genres, especially those from UK. They wanted to be the next Buddy Guy, BB King, Muddy Waters, Robert Johnson or Albert King. 
This is why most of them picked up the guitar in the first place, so that "sleepy" playing is the blues influence, which turned into rock guitar playing for them, but still the American blues is what is in their bones from hearing it as kids.
Jimmy Page would not be who he is without the blues....

I do not find BBK or Buddy Guy sleepy.  Just Gilmour in his Division Bell/On An Island mode.  BBK plays with a lot more variation than Gilmour on those albums.  OTOH a song like Comfortably Numb gives Gilmour the perfect opening to play an intense and melancholic solo.  
Neither do I.....


-------------


Posted By: Dellinger
Date Posted: June 12 2021 at 21:53
Originally posted by rogerthat rogerthat wrote:

Originally posted by Dellinger Dellinger wrote:

Originally posted by The Dark Elf The Dark Elf wrote:

Originally posted by Catcher10 Catcher10 wrote:

In the world of rock guitarists, David Gilmour is one of the most highly regarded musicians, that is undeniable. Possibly in the world of music reviewers (prog) he does not rate that high, which is pretty cra-cra. 

I suspect if Prog Magazine did a poll (I am sure they have), he would rate pretty high as one of the most respected, gifted guitarists of the past 50yrs.


Agreed. Great guitarist with an instantly recognizable style that is often copied but rarely duplicated. It's quite amusing that Waters is still whining about his legacy. Perhaps because it's Gilmour's guitar and voice that is most remembered and revered. 

The Wall? Most folks ignore Water's tedious courtroom antics at the end of the album and focus on Gilmour's solo on "Comfortably Numb". Animals? It's all about "Dogs" or the wicked guitar work on "Pigs" and "Sheep" (throw in Richard Wright's keyboards). WYWH? Again, it's Gilmour on "Shine on You Crazy Diamond" or the heartbreakingly beautiful "Wish You Were Here". Meddle? It's the interplay between Gilmour and Wright on "Echoes", not Water's dull "St. Tropez" (that I skip when listening). The Final Cut was the end for a large majority of Floyd fans because of the annoying talk-singing banter of Waters throughout what is basically a solo album reliving the whole "My Daddy's Dead" schtick that was played out already on The Wall (in fact, a few songs are from The Wall sessions). 


And even with The Final Cut I have read many times how people love Gilmour's guitars on many of the songs.


All that is true but it does not make Gilmour greater than the likes of BBK, Albert King, Stevie Ray Vaughan, etc.  He stands out more because he played in a bluesy style with a lot of soul in rock at a time when fast playing was already beginning to be prioritized (eg Blackmore).  Albeit I wouldn't rank him above Blackmore for that matter, nor Roth/Schenker. He's better than Clapton, I grant. Gilmour is great at composing short, melancholic solos.  He is brilliant in that box.  But it's also not a particularly big box. Even within a prog rock context, he gets overrated a lot.  Hackett can do all that Gilmour does and much more.  Likewise Latimer. 

If the point is that Gilmour's contributions made Floyd outstanding above all, I would whole heartedly agree because musically it's the Gilmour leads that make most Floyd songs interesting (except in their experimental/psychedelic phase) and they would be fairly generic classic rock fare without him.  But I said that already - without Gilmour, Waters' unmelodic talk-ranting becomes very cringey.  Waters has a lot of vision to come up with great concepts but when it comes to the nuts and bolts of great licks, he isn't all that he thinks himself to be. 



About Hackett being able to do everything Gilmour can do, I really really doubt it (though I do am sure that Hackett can do a lot that Gilmour can't)... before, I might have agreed with you, but not anymore, for I have just heard the new cover album Still wish you were Here, in which Hackett plays the guitars on Shine on you Crazy Diamond, and he just wasn't able to get it right (not as far as what I love about Gilmour, anyway); yeah, sure, he played all the notes all right... and perhaps with a few extra notes added, but it really sounded souless, rushed, or whatever... I really thought Hackett could have done better with Gilmour's parts (perhaps it's Latimer whom could give it a try).


Posted By: rogerthat
Date Posted: June 13 2021 at 07:05
Originally posted by Dellinger Dellinger wrote:

 

About Hackett being able to do everything Gilmour can do, I really really doubt it (though I do am sure that Hackett can do a lot that Gilmour can't)... before, I might have agreed with you, but not anymore, for I have just heard the new cover album Still wish you were Here, in which Hackett plays the guitars on Shine on you Crazy Diamond, and he just wasn't able to get it right (not as far as what I love about Gilmour, anyway); yeah, sure, he played all the notes all right... and perhaps with a few extra notes added, but it really sounded souless, rushed, or whatever... I really thought Hackett could have done better with Gilmour's parts (perhaps it's Latimer whom could give it a try).

I don't agree with your assessment that he sounds soulless.  He's playing it differently, he's changed the divisions, he's added lots of stuff that isn't even in there in the original and if you're too attached to the original, that's going to disorient you.  But it's all blues guitar so it's not supposed to sound note for note the same.  For that matter, even Mel Collins has played the solo very differently from Dick Parry but that doesn't make him an inferior saxophonist to Parry.

However, the thing is Hackett can still get there, he can play the entirety of the solo.  Can Gilmour play Dancing With The Moonlit Knight, Musical Box or Shadow of the Hierophant?  No.  Because Gilmour doesn't do tapping, he doesn't do sweep picking.   

So you don't want that argument of whether Hackett can play in Gilmour's territory because Gilmour would fare much worse vice versa.  The larger point is Hackett has done both extremely soulful and sensitive leads and also more technical work.  Gilmour doesn't have that range. To me, he is overspecialised.  And that's where he needed the fire and fury of Waters.  Without each other, they are incomplete.  And yet they squabble on.  It's a shame.


Posted By: Dellinger
Date Posted: June 14 2021 at 23:31
^ OK, perhaps I was harsh at describing it harsh, and perhaps I'll be needing to hear this new version a few more times. Bit it certainly doesn't sound as beautiful to my ears... adding lots of stuff that wasn't there originally doesn't necessarily make it better. And about Gilmour surely not being able to play many things from Hackett, I myself said so on my post you are quoting. I was mentioning this version of a Gilmour song played by Hackett not to make less of Hackett, but because you were saying how Hackett can do all that Gilmour does and more... and I'm just saying how he couldn't... in a way... sure, he can play all the notes (something Gilmour surely would have trouble, or just couldn't do, with Hackett's songs), but for me, he couldn't make it sound quiet the same, he couldn't achieve the same beauty... or not the same kind of beauty, I mean, once again, he can do so very beautiful stuff of his own. But in the end, it's not a matter of one being better than the other, it's just that they are both able to do different kind of things, and in a different way, and both can achieve beauty to thoroughly enjoy, and both might have trouble playing what the other can. Just as with Dick Parry and Mel Collins... there is also the thing about Mel Collins playing Wright's parts, which in theory I might have liked, but I have trouble finding the melodies I love so much within his playing (actually, perhaps Latimer might have been the right choice to attempt this cover, both for the guitars and for the flutes playing Wright's parts).


Posted By: rogerthat
Date Posted: June 14 2021 at 23:46
Originally posted by Dellinger Dellinger wrote:

^ OK, perhaps I was harsh at describing it harsh, and perhaps I'll be needing to hear this new version a few more times. Bit it certainly doesn't sound as beautiful to my ears... adding lots of stuff that wasn't there originally doesn't necessarily make it better. And about Gilmour surely not being able to play many things from Hackett, I myself said so on my post you are quoting. I was mentioning this version of a Gilmour song played by Hackett not to make less of Hackett, but because you were saying how Hackett can do all that Gilmour does and more... and I'm just saying how he couldn't... in a way... sure, he can play all the notes (something Gilmour surely would have trouble, or just couldn't do, with Hackett's songs), but for me, he couldn't make it sound quiet the same, he couldn't achieve the same beauty... or not the same kind of beauty, I mean, once again, he can do so very beautiful stuff of his own. But in the end, it's not a matter of one being better than the other, it's just that they are both able to do different kind of things, and in a different way, and both can achieve beauty to thoroughly enjoy, and both might have trouble playing what the other can. Just as with Dick Parry and Mel Collins... there is also the thing about Mel Collins playing Wright's parts, which in theory I might have liked, but I have trouble finding the melodies I love so much within his playing (actually, perhaps Latimer might have been the right choice to attempt this cover, both for the guitars and for the flutes playing Wright's parts).

The problem as I see it is you took my statement too literally.  Look, Steve Perry singing Dylan would not sound as good to Dylan fans because we all get attached to the sounds of the original.  Again, when I said Hackett can do everything Gilmour can do, I simply meant that he is very well able to play slow and soulful solos for ballads as well as heavier, faster material.  I don't think ANYONE can pass the requirement of a guitarist having to sound exactly like the other and it would also be completely unnecessary.  When these musicians got Hackett on board for Shine On, they wanted him to play it as a Steve Hackett solo, NOT to sound like Gilmour.  I am sure he would play it very differently if he was specifically asked to play it note for note the way Gilmour did.  He would probably also swap his Gibson for a Strat.


Posted By: SteveG
Date Posted: June 15 2021 at 05:15

Something remiss in these Gilmour topic posts is his incredible sense of melodicism. He is quite unique in this group of guitarists in that regard, imho.



-------------
This message was brought to you by a proud supporter of the Deep State.


Posted By: rogerthat
Date Posted: June 15 2021 at 05:26
Originally posted by SteveG SteveG wrote:

Something remiss in these Gilmour topic posts is his incredible sense of melodicism. He is quite unique in this group of guitarists in that regard, imho.


I don't really find him any more melodic than Hackett, Latimer or Rothery.  Maybe compared to classic/hard rock guitarists.


Posted By: SteveG
Date Posted: June 15 2021 at 05:29
Originally posted by rogerthat rogerthat wrote:

Originally posted by SteveG SteveG wrote:

Something remiss in these Gilmour topic posts is his incredible sense of melodicism. He is quite unique in this group of guitarists in that regard, imho.


I don't really find him any more melodic than Hackett, Latimer or Rothery.  Maybe compared to classic/hard rock guitarists.
I do and find that the others are pale imitations in that regard.

-------------
This message was brought to you by a proud supporter of the Deep State.


Posted By: rogerthat
Date Posted: June 15 2021 at 05:31
We'll just have to disagree on that.  I don't think anything Gilmour did with Floyd comes close to Blood On the Rooftops. I also don't think Hackett imitates Gilmour. If there's anyone he imitates, it's Fripp.


Posted By: Nogbad_The_Bad
Date Posted: June 15 2021 at 05:35
Latimer has a beautiful tone, he's the nearest comparable to Gilmour in my opinion.

-------------
Ian

Host of the Post-Avant Jazzcore Happy Hour on Progrock.com

https://podcasts.progrock.com/post-avant-jazzcore-happy-hour/


Posted By: SteveG
Date Posted: June 15 2021 at 06:11
Originally posted by rogerthat rogerthat wrote:

We'll just have to disagree on that.  I don't think anything Gilmour did with Floyd comes close to Blood On the Rooftops. I also don't think Hackett imitates Gilmour. If there's anyone he imitates, it's Fripp.
oh, I didn't mean tone and style, just being melodic. Gilmour is king.

-------------
This message was brought to you by a proud supporter of the Deep State.


Posted By: SteveG
Date Posted: June 15 2021 at 06:12
Originally posted by Nogbad_The_Bad Nogbad_The_Bad wrote:

Latimer has a beautiful tone, he's the nearest comparable to Gilmour in my opinion.
No argument here. And Rothery is brilliant in Brave songs as well. But they are not as consistent as Gilmour, imo. And he has better riffs too. Like Shine On.

-------------
This message was brought to you by a proud supporter of the Deep State.



Print Page | Close Window

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 11.01 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Copyright ©2001-2014 Web Wiz Ltd. - http://www.webwiz.co.uk