What if Pink Floyd had recorded Pros and Cons?

[SurrogateMember]

As most of us already know, in 1978 the band was given two concept options by Roger, one of them to become their next album, and the next to be developed later. The two options they had, one called "Bricks in the Wall" and the other "Pros and Cons of Hitch Hiking", were in rough demo form, and in the end, the band chose The Wall. However, Roger never gave up on PACOHH, eventually turning it into his first solo album in 1984.

But something that's in my mind is: what if they had chosen otherwise, and gone with Pros and Cons, as favoured by their manager? What do you think would happen then?

[SurrogateMember]

For me, there are two main options, if they had ended up doing it. The first one, if they had done it instead of The Wall, it would have ended up as a double album as well, absorbing some songs and ideas from The Wall, as well as Gilmour contributing to a great extent on it. The second, has them recording it as a follow up to The Final Cut, in 1984. That would mean the album would have stayed virtually the same, except replacing Clapton's solos with Dave's (and maybe some of the singing done by the backing vocalists too). Thoughts?

[Jimi Dean Barrett]

It's weird because there's so little written in depth about the two concept choices Roger gave the band.
There's remarks from Dave about TPACOHH only having one tune but then the same guy later said something like he didn't think it should have been a solo project but a band one!
If it was picked over The Wall then Rick Wright still would have been elbowed out.
They always called themselves a dysfunctional band and maybe they just lazily didn't tackle that problem so things and tensions got as bad as they did.
Of course there's always hindsight now. Especially as we weren't at every meeting and discussion.

[BertWW96]

...Especially as we weren't at every meeting and discussion.

I only made it to three, myself.

[Kerry King]

For me, there are two main options, if they had ended up doing it. The first one, if they had done it instead of The Wall, it would have ended up as a double album as well, absorbing some songs and ideas from The Wall, as well as Gilmour contributing to a great extent on it. The second, has them recording it as a follow up to The Final Cut, in 1984.

Pros and Cons 1979 would have been much different from Pros And Cons 1984, that's for sure. The pf spirit was crushed by 1984. No Rick Wright. No Gilmour vocals. All Waters songs. If pf did TPACOH in '84 the one good thing would have been the guitar. When Gilmour was relegated to background status on TFC all he had were his solos therefore he put everything into them and really sculptured some of his most beautiful lead work. He was still evolving and improving a lot in that era. He would have killed it on Pros and Cons. As you pointed out, in 1979 Gilmour would have had a heavy hand in the production as well as contributing music and a lot more lead vocals. He could have done great vocals on Running Shoes or Sexual Revolution. Not that Waters didn't nail those himself.

[Hadrian]

One interesting thing about The Pros and Cons of Hitch Hiking - the album is in terms of its overall concept and theme far more Pink Floyd than The Final Cut (which is pure Roger Waters). This is the only album Waters released on his own that is in this category.

Since both of these were floating around at the same time, it crossed my mind that there might have been a way forward after The Wall without breaking the band along the way. Gilmour disliked The Final Cut on a number of different fronts, but most of the criticism was about it being too personal and too daily political for a Pink Floyd album (and he was not wrong there). On the other hand, I believe that we would have been far more receptive to The Pros and Cons of Hitch Hiking if the song cycle was still on the table.

I wounder what would have happened if Gilmour suggested to Waters the following back in early 1982: why don't you do The Final Cut as a solo album (and tour it if you wish), and once all of that is done we'll do The Pros and Cons of Hitch Hiking as a Pink Floyd album and tour it as a band. If this worked well once, perhaps it could have established a pattern for later on too. After all, there was precedent for this approach already - Waters co-released Music from The Body OST album back in 1970, and Gilmour had a solo album in 1978.

[raisemyrent]

that's some good points. Gilmour has gone on record saying pros and cons was "stronger musically" than the wall, but the wall's concept was more interesting. it might have made a good floyd album, though without Wright, to me, that is impossible. I get very, very bored during most of the wall and I don't care for the final cut. in fact, I think Gilmour is in top form, but I find his soloing somewhat restrained (though a tad angry) and even formulaic at times. Not as good as his work on Animals and The Wall to me (and of course post-waters floyd albums by which he had become a guitar deity).

going back to the original question, maybe Gilmour made the right choice, because it is hard to imagine pros and cons having done better than the wall. the wall was huge. hardly anything was going to top the dark side and ti pretty much matched it, plus a legendary show, movie, etc. really doubt pros and cons would've been the same. so strictly speaking about success, they made the right call. i do liek the idea of having done it instead of TFC, or after the final cut even, but PF was dying anyway.

[Hadrian]

In one of his interviews, Waters said that he actually offered to Gilmour and Mason to release The Final Cut as a solo album, but according to Waters they refused knowing that "songs don't grow on trees" (if I remember it correctly).

If this was indeed the case, it was a mistake on Gilmour's part. After a smash hit that was The Wall, the realities of solo album sales (The Final Cut sold 3.5m copies, but I believe that it would've sold 3m less than that if it had been released as Water's solo album) and a solo tour (this would become painfully apparent to Waters in 1984-5; in this scenario the realization would've come slightly earlier) might have had a sobering effect on Waters while he was still in the band. Serving as a reality check, it might have brought Waters back to the idea of The Pros and Cons of Hitch Hiking as a Pink Floyd album, even giving Gilmour some additional space in the studio to add his magic.

[Luca]

No Rick Wright, at all.

In the first part of the 80s Michael Kamen became a mainstay for Roger Waters (when he left, or was not called back, everything went wrong, turned into...kaos ). His playing suited perfectly the new course of the band: a high-low, subtle-aggressive style. The recently (illegally?) released "The pros and cons of New York" is a good proof of the importance of Kamen, and of the fact that Wright could not stay in the band anymore.

[Hadrian]

Wright had a writing credit on Wish You Were Here in 1975, and then again only on The Division Bell in 1994. If The Pros and Cons of Hitch Hiking had been produced as a Pink Floyd album instead of The Wall, he might have played on it, but that would've been the extent of his involvement. If that album had been produced as a Pink Floyd record after The Final Cut somewhere in 1984-85, he wouldn't have been in the picture at all. Either way, essentially a Wrightless affair.

[Rooster1]

For me, there are two main options, if they had ended up doing it. The first one, if they had done it instead of The Wall, it would have ended up as a double album as well, absorbing some songs and ideas from The Wall, as well as Gilmour contributing to a great extent on it. The second, has them recording it as a follow up to The Final Cut, in 1984.

Pros and Cons 1979 would have been much different from Pros And Cons 1984, that's for sure. The pf spirit was crushed by 1984. No Rick Wright. No Gilmour vocals. All Waters songs. If pf did TPACOH in '84 the one good thing would have been the guitar. When Gilmour was relegated to background status on TFC all he had were his solos therefore he put everything into them and really sculptured some of his most beautiful lead work. He was still evolving and improving a lot in that era. He would have killed it on Pros and Cons. As you pointed out, in 1979 Gilmour would have had a heavy hand in the production as well as contributing music and a lot more lead vocals. He could have done great vocals on Running Shoes or Sexual Revolution. Not that Waters didn't nail those himself.

I think Kerry has got it just right here. Gilmour's guitar work and vocals would have complimented it perfectly. I don't mind Clapton's work (even though I'm not a fan of his playing) but Gilmour's soul would have enriched it a little further; especially with some of those vocal harmonies.