Prior to a Lapse of Reason

[Stixxss]

Hey,
I remember reading somewhere that Pink Floyd recorded a album which was turned down by the execs for not sounding Floyish. Has any of these tracks ever been leaked?

[FloydNZ]

I think that you will probably find that it was most or at least some of the songs that ended up on AMLOR......just with more work done on them

[drafsack]

From what I can gather from press reports AMLOR was going to be a DG solo album but he decided to make it a PF album for commercial reasons i.e. most of the floyd solo albums have died on their ass. Hence Nick was drafted in as a band member and Rick was drafted in as a session musician and paid a flat rate. Rick did not take up band member status until The Devision Bell era.

[David Smith]

What the hell? So lets get this straught, Dave was going to release a solo album, but instead he took Roger to court and fought for the Pink Floyd name just so he would make more money. Selfish git.

[Benedictusdespinoza]

Actually, it was Roger who in an infantile manner, went to court. See, if you LEAVE a group, you can't want the other members of the group doing the same and desolve the group.
And about that making more money ( a point Roger is always referring to about Gilmour ) i think we can easyly assume that in fact Roger is the richest man of the "group". But what does he do with the money?? Have you ever read somewhere that Roger gives to Charity- project ??? I think he uses the money to 1. Be rich and stay it 2. his expensive solo-recordings and tours, must be financed in someway, no ???? Why should only Gilmour be greedy ?? O i understand, there are a lot of Roger-adorers around here.

[quicksilver]

Actually, it was Roger who in an infantile manner, went to court. See, if you LEAVE a group, you can't want the other members of the group doing the same and desolve the group.
And about that making more money ( a point Roger is always referring to about Gilmour ) i think we can easyly assume that in fact Roger is the richest man of the "group". But what does he do with the money?? Have you ever read somewhere that Roger gives to Charity- project ??? I think he uses the money to 1. Be rich and stay it 2. his expensive solo-recordings and tours, must be financed in someway, no ???? Why should only Gilmour be greedy ?? O i understand, there are a lot of Roger-adorers around here.

Both Dave and Roger are Rich and deserve to be. I would agree that Roger would be wealthier based on his song credits but who really knows and who cares. Dave donates large amounts of money to charity which I applaud and it's well publicized. But to say that Roger doesn't is not a fair statement. He very well may donate even larger sums but doesn't need or want the credit for it.

REMEMBER "True charity warms the heart of the giver"

[Real Pink in the Inside]

Roger was infantile in that instance? For trying to protect the band's legacy? For trying to stop Gilmour from whorring the name "Pink Floyd" for his own personal interests?

If you want infantile behavior, look no further than David in this interview (Rock Compact Disc magazine, Issue 3, September 1992):

CD: The potency of your creative relationship would lead an outsider to think that maybe his not wanting you to continue Pink Floyd was simply because he didn't want to see it exist without the Roger Waters/David Gilmour collaboration - not just because he thought it shouldn't go on without him.

DG: He didn't want it to continue with the Roger Waters/David Gilmour collaboration; he wanted it to continue with the Roger Waters -only- writing force. He didn't want me to be part of it, which is why it got so difficult in the end. And the reason he didn't want us to carry on was because he wanted to go out as "Roger Waters of Pink Floyd" in rather large letters and purloin the name for himself.

CD: Yet looking at his solo records, he doesn't seem egomaniacal. He doesn't proselytize, he doesn't have any photos of himself on the sleeve.

DG: Hmm. He is an egomaniac, whatever particular way it wants to manifest itself.

CD: But he eventually relented and let you be.

DG: I think his lawyers advised him that he wasn't going to have any prayer of winning, and in the end we paid him off anyway. It was not a court case he had any chance of winning whatsoever. I mean, on what basis could someone leave something that had been successfully operating for a large number of years and then say the other people in it couldn't carry on?

CD: Some would say the band's magic existed in the interplay, and that without Roger's input it'll be weaker.

DG: Whether it's as good or to as many people's taste is besides the point. If they don't like it as much, they don't have to buy it. But no-one can tell me to stop doing it. I do my very, very best to make it as well as I can, to make the records and put on a show.

I still fail to see why morally I should be persuaded to give up something I've given most of my adult life to, just 'cause one guy doesn't feel like doing it any more.

CD: Except simply the fact that you could have both gone on to solo careers and left Pink Floyd, the creative dynamic between you, as a very pleasing piece of history.

DG: Yeah, yeah, that's quite true; one could have done that. But why? Why would I want to do that? It's very, very hard work to struggle a solo career up to the level that Pink Floyd stands at. '

CD: But even so, wasn't the effort in putting on the last tour - traveling, fighting Roger's injunctions, worrying about re- acceptance - as draining as pushing on alone?

DG: I didn't want to! I like the Pink Floyd very much. I don't want to get over-defensive about what I felt like doing, but it is what I do and I feel I should carry on doing it. And bring back into it the people who were pushed out. It would take a book to tell you what went on within our band, and Roger's later megalomaniac years, and precisely what psychologically he was attempting to do to all of us. Because he is a megalomaniac. He really is. His thirst for power is more important than anything else - more important than honesty, that's for certain.

CD: But he donated a lot of money to charity. And one symptom of megalomania is all-possessing greed.

DG: Well, yeah. What money did he donate to charity?

CD: The Berlin Wall proceeds.

DG: You think that donated a lot of money to charity?

CD: Certainly the TV rights, and the record sales, which were respectable, brought it in. It was a mammoth thing.

DG: It was a mammoth thing from what I understand. And from what I understand, the costs of putting it on were absolutely enormous, and the receipts in were nothing like enormous, and the record didn't sell terribly well. TV rights were sold at the very last minute for very low money, because TV rights are not very easy to sell, I can tell you (chuckles). There's lots of stories about people not having been paid. Sorry, I don't want to get too heavily into that, but I suspect that the motivation for putting the Wall show on in Berlin was not charitable. I don't think that was Roger's motivation at all.

-----------

Talk about disgusting behavior. He showed a bit of his true self in that interview.

[dgsyd1]

Roger made some pretty unpleasant comments about the others in some of his interviews too. What's your point?

[Real Pink in the Inside]

That was an interview in 1992. I don't think you'll find any Roger Waters interviews with "some pretty unpleasant comments about the others" from that time or after.

In addition, it doesn't get more infantile than those last comments by David on the Berlin concert. That's just totally uncalled for.

[dgsyd1]

Haven't got the issue at hand, but in one of his interviews Roger said "they just don't get it, but then again they never did". Something I have to say is a pretty arrogant thing to say about his former band-mates.
Both David and Roger have gone on record as being less than complimetary about the other, and regardless of whose side you're on (and why do Pink Floyd fans have to be either David, Roger or Syd fans?) can we at be thankful for the great music they gave us, both as bandmates and in the 20 years since they recorded together.

[David Smith]

Bloody hell, we must have the same argument going under like 5 different boards. Can we not just leave one forum open to debates over who is pink floyd and just use the rest for what the board should be about. Keith, i say you delete all these little freads that mean the same thing and just open a new one entitled Gilmour versus Waters or something so we don't end up reading the same argument over and over again. This began as info on an album that was begining to get made, nothing to do with Waters, and look at it now.

[Keith Jordan]

I would rather each topic stayed on topic and didn't deviate too much but I believe that there are a comfortable amount of posts each day to comprehend arguments across different topics. Would be nice if we didn't meander though.

[David Smith]

But at the moment about 5 topics in total are all having the same argument, the only active topics that don't are the dsotm topic and the general discussion ones. Ok, so the Rick and Nick ones to, but nobody ever posts for them anyway.

[mosespa]

But at the moment about 5 topics in total are all having the same argument, the only active topics that don't are the dsotm topic and the general discussion ones. Ok, so the Rick and Nick ones to, but nobody ever posts for them anyway.

What does this have to do with the original topic?

I think what the first post refers to is the comment that a record executive made to Gilmour about the AMLOR tracks not sounding "a fucking thing like Pink Floyd."

Which again is all down to whether or not Gilmour "forged" the PF sound in order to sell records.

Let's face facts, folks. You make records because you want people to hear your music. In order for this to happen, you must sell these records. If you want to sell a large number of records, you sometimes do things that seem questionable.

Gilmour admits that he used the Floyd name because it was an easier path than building a solo career. Yeah, he's lazy...at least he admits it. Give the guy some credit for that.

I, for one, think that The Division Bell was a step in the right direction for getting the Floyd back on track MUSICALLY. Granted, lyrically something is always going to be lacking without Roger, but Roger left.

HE'S GONE!!! ADJUST AND MOVE ON...HE AIN'T COMING BACK.

And no amount of complaining is going to change that.

People bitch about Gilmour continuing in the name of Floyd...I wonder how much these same people will bitch when it's been 15 years since TDB and no new Floyd album is forthcoming?

[Just Another Guest]

Roger was infantile in that instance? For trying to protect the band's legacy? For trying to stop Gilmour from whorring the name "Pink Floyd" for his own personal interests?

If you want infantile behavior, look no further than David in this interview (Rock Compact Disc magazine, Issue 3, September 1992):

CD: The potency of your creative relationship would lead an outsider to think that maybe his not wanting you to continue Pink Floyd was simply because he didn't want to see it exist without the Roger Waters/David Gilmour collaboration - not just because he thought it shouldn't go on without him.

DG: He didn't want it to continue with the Roger Waters/David Gilmour collaboration; he wanted it to continue with the Roger Waters -only- writing force. He didn't want me to be part of it, which is why it got so difficult in the end. And the reason he didn't want us to carry on was because he wanted to go out as "Roger Waters of Pink Floyd" in rather large letters and purloin the name for himself.

CD: Yet looking at his solo records, he doesn't seem egomaniacal. He doesn't proselytize, he doesn't have any photos of himself on the sleeve.

DG: Hmm. He is an egomaniac, whatever particular way it wants to manifest itself.

CD: But he eventually relented and let you be.

DG: I think his lawyers advised him that he wasn't going to have any prayer of winning, and in the end we paid him off anyway. It was not a court case he had any chance of winning whatsoever. I mean, on what basis could someone leave something that had been successfully operating for a large number of years and then say the other people in it couldn't carry on?

CD: Some would say the band's magic existed in the interplay, and that without Roger's input it'll be weaker.

DG: Whether it's as good or to as many people's taste is besides the point. If they don't like it as much, they don't have to buy it. But no-one can tell me to stop doing it. I do my very, very best to make it as well as I can, to make the records and put on a show.

I still fail to see why morally I should be persuaded to give up something I've given most of my adult life to, just 'cause one guy doesn't feel like doing it any more.

CD: Except simply the fact that you could have both gone on to solo careers and left Pink Floyd, the creative dynamic between you, as a very pleasing piece of history.

DG: Yeah, yeah, that's quite true; one could have done that. But why? Why would I want to do that? It's very, very hard work to struggle a solo career up to the level that Pink Floyd stands at. '

CD: But even so, wasn't the effort in putting on the last tour - traveling, fighting Roger's injunctions, worrying about re- acceptance - as draining as pushing on alone?

DG: I didn't want to! I like the Pink Floyd very much. I don't want to get over-defensive about what I felt like doing, but it is what I do and I feel I should carry on doing it. And bring back into it the people who were pushed out. It would take a book to tell you what went on within our band, and Roger's later megalomaniac years, and precisely what psychologically he was attempting to do to all of us. Because he is a megalomaniac. He really is. His thirst for power is more important than anything else - more important than honesty, that's for certain.

CD: But he donated a lot of money to charity. And one symptom of megalomania is all-possessing greed.

DG: Well, yeah. What money did he donate to charity?

CD: The Berlin Wall proceeds.

DG: You think that donated a lot of money to charity?

CD: Certainly the TV rights, and the record sales, which were respectable, brought it in. It was a mammoth thing.

DG: It was a mammoth thing from what I understand. And from what I understand, the costs of putting it on were absolutely enormous, and the receipts in were nothing like enormous, and the record didn't sell terribly well. TV rights were sold at the very last minute for very low money, because TV rights are not very easy to sell, I can tell you (chuckles). There's lots of stories about people not having been paid. Sorry, I don't want to get too heavily into that, but I suspect that the motivation for putting the Wall show on in Berlin was not charitable. I don't think that was Roger's motivation at all.

-----------

Talk about disgusting behavior. He showed a bit of his true self in that interview.

Another Gilmour hater heard from.