Why 'Amused to Death' isn't the masterpiece Roger says it is

All discussion related specifically to Roger Waters.
ZiggyZipgun
Hammer
Hammer
Posts: 1171
Joined: Mon May 05, 2008 3:04 pm

Re: Why 'Amused to Death' isn't the masterpiece Roger says it is

Post by ZiggyZipgun »

Yucateco wrote: Thu Apr 15, 2021 7:47 am FF was only released in 2002, so way too late to promote the 1999/2000 leg of the tour. It was sold during the 2002 leg though, funny enough alongside with the 2000 ITF live album.
Flickering Flame was released in 2002, but only in the countries he was playing in 2002, and really only available at those shows, and some stores after the tour concluded. It wasn't released outside of Europe and Australia until 2011. Is There Anybody Out There? was supposed to be out by November 1999, in time for the 30th anniversary of the album and of course, Christmas, so there was already promotion for that going on when I saw him that August. He made damn sure In the Flesh was out in time for the following Christmas, which is an impressive turnaround time - less than five months!
battra
Blade
Blade
Posts: 150
Joined: Mon Oct 26, 2020 2:13 pm

Re: Why 'Amused to Death' isn't the masterpiece Roger says it is

Post by battra »

ZiggyZipgun wrote: Thu Apr 15, 2021 12:26 am
battra wrote: Wed Apr 14, 2021 11:39 pm I'm not sure if you meant yes or no in that word salad from Roger that for some reason you decided answered a question about what you thought.
If by "most people" you mean Andrew Lloyd Webber or Cirque du Soleil, then that may be true. But within Pink Floyd, it had been unanimous that they shouldn't tour without having new material to promote. Until the '90s, tours really only existed to promote the records; tickets were cheap, and everyone made their money from the record sales. Touring with old material and playing the hits was called "selling out" - this was one of Roger's biggest complaints about the latter-day Floyd. David knew this and has never toured without having a new album ready. Album sales became less and less profitable, and ticket prices have continued to climb ever since. Roger's solo album sales were never really profitable, and neither were his tours - until 1999, when he figured the dust had settled, no one would remember all of that crazy shit he had said, and he could hit the road again just in time for Is There Anybody Out There? to hit the shelves. Even then, the record company insisted on having a new album to sell at the shows, hence the crappy Flickering Flame CD.
Umm...

Dude, take the L and move on.

Here's a question you just can't seem to answer: You don't consider a tour to be a product a musician is selling?

It's a yes or no question.

Insecure folks like you really make the internet a damned bore.

I didn't read your 200 word diatribe.

Because it's a yes or no question.
ZiggyZipgun
Hammer
Hammer
Posts: 1171
Joined: Mon May 05, 2008 3:04 pm

Re: Why 'Amused to Death' isn't the masterpiece Roger says it is

Post by ZiggyZipgun »

battra wrote: Fri Apr 16, 2021 12:35 am Here's a question you just can't seem to answer: You don't consider a tour to be a product a musician is selling?

It's a yes or no question.
Me? No.

Pink Floyd? No.

David Gilmour? No.

Roger Waters, 1967-1998? No.

Their various record companies? No.


This was all very clearly explained in my 200-word diatribe.
User avatar
theaussiefloydian
Hammer
Hammer
Posts: 509
Joined: Mon Apr 17, 2017 6:57 pm
Gender: Male

Re: Why 'Amused to Death' isn't the masterpiece Roger says it is

Post by theaussiefloydian »

battra wrote: Fri Apr 16, 2021 12:35 am Dude, take the L and move on.
This has nothing to do with anything else, but it's nice to see other younger people on this forum. Nobody over 30 would say "take the L" :lol:

And I think whether a tour is a product to be sold depends on whether you think music is a product. I know I consider it an art form before I consider it a product, so I will see live shows and tours much the same way. But if you see one as a product I feel it's natural to see the other as a product as well.
battra
Blade
Blade
Posts: 150
Joined: Mon Oct 26, 2020 2:13 pm

Re: Why 'Amused to Death' isn't the masterpiece Roger says it is

Post by battra »

ZiggyZipgun wrote: Fri Apr 16, 2021 12:54 am
battra wrote: Fri Apr 16, 2021 12:35 am Here's a question you just can't seem to answer: You don't consider a tour to be a product a musician is selling?

It's a yes or no question.
Me? No.

Pink Floyd? No.

David Gilmour? No.

Roger Waters, 1967-1998? No.

Their various record companies? No.


This was all very clearly explained in my 200-word diatribe.
There you go.

You answered the question.

But, I'd consider a show to be a product, but that's just me.
battra
Blade
Blade
Posts: 150
Joined: Mon Oct 26, 2020 2:13 pm

Re: Why 'Amused to Death' isn't the masterpiece Roger says it is

Post by battra »

theaussiefloydian wrote: Fri Apr 16, 2021 1:53 am
battra wrote: Fri Apr 16, 2021 12:35 am Dude, take the L and move on.
This has nothing to do with anything else, but it's nice to see other younger people on this forum. Nobody over 30 would say "take the L" :lol:

And I think whether a tour is a product to be sold depends on whether you think music is a product. I know I consider it an art form before I consider it a product, so I will see live shows and tours much the same way. But if you see one as a product I feel it's natural to see the other as a product as well.
Allow me to blow ya mind!

I'm 45.

Of course a show is a product. He's trying to get you to buy somethin'.
User avatar
DarkSideFreak
Knife
Knife
Posts: 273
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2015 4:22 pm
Gender: Male

Re: Why 'Amused to Death' isn't the masterpiece Roger says it is

Post by DarkSideFreak »

battra wrote: Wed Apr 14, 2021 10:35 pm
ZiggyZipgun wrote: Tue Apr 13, 2021 2:59 am


Sorry - that first quote was from 1999. I think it was even printed in the In the Flesh tour program.
Oh.

You don't consider a tour to be a product a musician is selling?

I'm sorry, but most people would consider it that.
Has Roger ever revoked his statements about Amused to Death? I think it's still the album he's most proud of. It's the only one that got the special reissue + 5.1 treatment.
battra
Blade
Blade
Posts: 150
Joined: Mon Oct 26, 2020 2:13 pm

Re: Why 'Amused to Death' isn't the masterpiece Roger says it is

Post by battra »

DarkSideFreak wrote: Sun May 09, 2021 9:31 pm Has Roger ever revoked his statements about Amused to Death? I think it's still the album he's most proud of. It's the only one that got the special reissue + 5.1 treatment.
No idea.

Amused is still my personal favorite, though not his best per se.

As for a musicians comments about anything...meh... their opinions won't color mine either good or bad. I let some guys cloud my mind in the past.

At any given time, they're selling you something, and coming from someone in his 15th year of being In Sales, never listen to a salesman. ;)
Eclipse
Lord!!
Lord!!
Posts: 3594
Joined: Sun Jun 01, 2003 4:30 pm
Location: your closet, listening to Genesis.

Re: Why 'Amused to Death' isn't the masterpiece Roger says it is

Post by Eclipse »

this is my favorite Roger solo album, but the last one is amazing too.
User avatar
theaussiefloydian
Hammer
Hammer
Posts: 509
Joined: Mon Apr 17, 2017 6:57 pm
Gender: Male

Re: Why 'Amused to Death' isn't the masterpiece Roger says it is

Post by theaussiefloydian »

Eclipse wrote: Sun Sep 12, 2021 9:48 pm this is my favorite Roger solo album, but the last one is amazing too.
I'll always take Is This the Life We Really Want? personally. Brevity is key for me in consuming Waters' solo work.
User avatar
mosespa
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 11440
Joined: Thu Sep 12, 2002 5:54 pm
Location: In the editing bay...working on the final cut...

Re: Why 'Amused to Death' isn't the masterpiece Roger says it is

Post by mosespa »

battra wrote: Sat Apr 17, 2021 11:03 pmOf course a show is a product. He's trying to get you to buy somethin'.
A live show is a commercial for either an album (if they have a new one to release) or a performers back-catalogue (if they have no new album released.)

I realized long ago that a single/music video is a commercial for an album.

An album and live performances are commercials for the performer.
User avatar
Annoying Twit
Hammer
Hammer
Posts: 1321
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2008 1:26 pm

Re: Why 'Amused to Death' isn't the masterpiece Roger says it is

Post by Annoying Twit »

mosespa wrote: Tue Sep 14, 2021 8:23 pm
battra wrote: Sat Apr 17, 2021 11:03 pmOf course a show is a product. He's trying to get you to buy somethin'.
A live show is a commercial for either an album (if they have a new one to release) or a performers back-catalogue (if they have no new album released.)

I realized long ago that a single/music video is a commercial for an album.

An album and live performances are commercials for the performer.
I think that things have changed, and nowadays an album is an advertisement for a tour/live concert. The latter is where money is made.
Eclipse
Lord!!
Lord!!
Posts: 3594
Joined: Sun Jun 01, 2003 4:30 pm
Location: your closet, listening to Genesis.

Re: Why 'Amused to Death' isn't the masterpiece Roger says it is

Post by Eclipse »

Annoying Twit wrote: Wed Sep 15, 2021 8:53 am
mosespa wrote: Tue Sep 14, 2021 8:23 pm

A live show is a commercial for either an album (if they have a new one to release) or a performers back-catalogue (if they have no new album released.)

I realized long ago that a single/music video is a commercial for an album.

An album and live performances are commercials for the performer.
I think that things have changed, and nowadays an album is an advertisement for a tour/live concert. The latter is where money is made.

indeed, AT, very intelligent point! That's what is the true logical goal - the tour sales. And this will get intense again once the festivals return to normal.
The other way around, tour to support album sales, makes not so much sense, since at least the internet days - with downloads and stuff, artists mainly profit from shows/tour, and not so much with CD/LP sales anymore (plus we have spotify nowadays).
User avatar
mosespa
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 11440
Joined: Thu Sep 12, 2002 5:54 pm
Location: In the editing bay...working on the final cut...

Re: Why 'Amused to Death' isn't the masterpiece Roger says it is

Post by mosespa »

Sorry, guys; I wasn't aware that we were talking about which made the most money for the artists; I was under the impression that we were talking about the functions of things. (After all, bands have ALWAYS made more money off of shows than off of album sales; this isn't anything new that the internet invented. Sorry to break it to you.)

So...bands who tour with no new album to promote aren't just selling out and ripping off fans by not having anything new to PROMOTE?

They just aren't spending money on ad revenue? Is that what we're saying, here?
ZiggyZipgun
Hammer
Hammer
Posts: 1171
Joined: Mon May 05, 2008 3:04 pm

Re: Why 'Amused to Death' isn't the masterpiece Roger says it is

Post by ZiggyZipgun »

mosespa wrote: Wed Sep 15, 2021 6:59 pm (After all, bands have ALWAYS made more money off of shows than off of album sales; this isn't anything new that the internet invented. Sorry to break it to you.)
This was almost never true of Pink Floyd when Roger was involved; he said multiple times that they didn't mind that their tours lost money because they'd always make it up in album sales. He said the same thing about Pros and Cons and turned out to be very wrong. Tickets were ridiculously cheap back then; albums weren't. The mid '80s probably marked the shift for everyone, but the late '90s were when album sales revenue dried up. Plural decades ago.