I read in...some kind of an interview or something that good ole Rog wanted Dark Side to be really dry, whereas Dave wanted it swampy. Dave got his wish, and Roger didn't get to make a "dry-art" album until Animals. Wish was cold, to be sure, but I think that Animals is how Roger wanted Dark Side.

 

NOW, what if he'd gotten said wish (not Wish). What if Dark Side was dry, like Animals, the next album was dry, all throughout the seventies? I actually sort of prefer the drier albums by Pink Floyd, so I think it would have been good.

 

Unless, of course, he'd gone off the deep end and made the Final Cut, killing the band, noise, etc. I haven't really heard the album, but I have heard of it (both from others and sound clips), so I'll play that it's not fantastic. But was that the natural direction, or the curse of 80's prog?

 

Would Roger taking dictatorial control have been better for the band's output? Or would it have killed it sooner? Would Wish even have been created? Should this be a poll? Who's better, Pink Floyd or the Moody Blues? I'm listening...

No. Roger Waters, Rick Wright, Nick Mason and David Gilmour / Syd Barrett were Pink Floyd.

 

If "Roger Waters was Pink Floyd", why is his solo work less interesting than his work with Pink Floyd?

 

To get back to the point, if DSOTM were a "drier" album, it would probably not have been the springboard to worldwide fame it turned out to be. A lot of its original popularity was because of its multi-layered nature, coinciding with the rise in popularity of hi-fi systems. I'd probably enjoy a "drier" DSOTM more if the yodelling and caterwauling were removed.

You don´t like the self-indulgency of Roger Waters?

I do.

We may or may not like Roger Waters persona, but that has nothing to do with the fact he is Pink Floyd.

 

There is no debate, as we just have to look at the writings credits throughout their carreers to see who is the main composer and spirit..

 

There is no match as i see the Moody Blues as a pop/ singles band with a mellotron. I like them, good songs, some very dull ones as well, nice arrangements but nothing revolutionary  ( no SAUCERFUL, AHM, MEDDLE ,DSOTM or the WALL)

 

But i think the MOODIES were in a way groundbreaking with their first album ''DAYS OF FUTURE PASSED'' coming out in 1967 and is considered by many the first ''prog'' album released. And how cannot we like ''nights in white satin''

 

But i'll take AHM on my island desert  

 

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

 

 

''AMUSED TO DEATH'' holds its own against everything else PF has released

 

I agree ''Radio Kaos'' is a mixed bag!

 

If Roger had taken over complete control earlier then the band would have imploded a lot sooner and we would have got more of the unsatisfying Pros & Cons and Radio Kaos stuff.

 

Similarly the post Roger PF has no where near the depth of full band. It's the chemistry and conflict that makes it work so well.

 

Personally my favorites are Animal, WYWH, DSOTM & Ummagumma (Live) in that order.

 

So I'm a lot happier that they didn't get 'drier' sooner.

 

I can't listen to the Final Cut but parts of the Wall an stellar, Comfortably Numb, Hey You, Run Like Hell

 

Couldn't have said it better myself

 

For me, Animals is one of the worst Floyd albums, lacking coherent melodies and concentrating on some very vitriolic, bile filled lyrics.

Dark Side is fine as it is, and I am glad Roger didn't get his way then.

 

 

i agree, but.........
There is a big difference between Gilmour And Paul MacCartney.The beatle was as much as responsible than Lennon as for the writing and direction of the music; it was 50/50.

Roger Waters always has the upper hand for the credits and music changes and took control of the band.

 

Basically any of the great bands worked because of the combination of great personalities. Look at Zeppelin after Bonham died. I understand the importance of RW to the Floyd sound but he would not have succeeded without the brilliance genius of Rick Wright ( sadly underrated), the sophistication and sound of Gilmour, vocally and guitar wise, and the housekeeper and pacifier ( not to mention a unique drummer), Nick Mason.

 

Whilst the post Waters Floyd albums are differnt they are still frigging excellent and Waters has achieved one truly great masterpiece with ATD. I even love his other solos. Have you heard Broken China by Rick Wright? Perhaps along with ATD the two near perfect solo ' floyd' albums.

 

peace

 

You know what I hate about that song? Inside the opera, it's a great lil' plot advancer (even if I prefer both the other parts). But OUTSIDE the opera, it's just a "school-sucks" song. It looses all it's weight!

 

And, uh, one I. Anderson. I believe.

 

Come on brother/sister you are smoking something...........own up??? I can't believe you actually think you are making sense?

 

Well said

 

The following applies directly to this discussion:

 

 

Despite both triumphs and wounds, the band's members couldn't escape a certain bond -- not just a hatred for one another, but also a realization that without the community they once had, their music could never have mattered.

 

 

There is more in the Magazine itself... The online exerpt ends about halfway through the article.  I read the entire article this morning and my impressions were that, as Waters took over the band, the musicality of the band suffered as Waters stripped the sound as much as possible, likewise Gilmour fought to keep the band musically interesting.  So the comparisons to Lennon and McCartney are very apt.  Gilmour is recognized as a great guitarist, musically sound and strong in arranging.  Waters writing voice carried the messages and his visual acuity strengthened  the band's live performances.  Without each other, they could not come close to the greatness they achieved as a "true group/partnership."  However, one can make a very strong argument that the Gilmour-led Floyd far out shone the Waters solo efforts.

 

Absolutely agree with this statement!

 

"However, one can make a very strong argument that the Gilmour-led Floyd far out shone the Waters solo efforts."

 

I don't think so, IMO Amused... as well as Broken China were far better than Division and Momentary.

 

Regarding the possibility of a drier Dark Side, I think it actually was better Waters couldn't do it his way, because now as a result we have 4 different masterpieces in a row instead of 4 Animals albums (although Animals is my all time favourite album).

 

toolis wrote: this is where we disagree... it was Roger's vision and only his... concepts such as Animals and The Wall were 99% his.. i'll admit though that PF's sound wouldn't be the same if it hadn't been the rest musicians, they wouldn't have sounded the same but i don't think it would have made that much of a difference...