Richard Wright - Fired During Recording The Wall Album

Discuss all things Richard Wright from his epic keyboarding to the wonderful songs he created for the band!
User avatar
mosespa
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 11443
Joined: Thu Sep 12, 2002 5:54 pm
Location: In the editing bay...working on the final cut...

Re: Richard Wright - Fired During Recording The Wall Album

Post by mosespa »

Peter Harold wrote:1. There is this story of Mr Wright urge to still have production credits. For I while Mr Waters agreed, but on Mr Ezrins admission Mr Wright was sent out of teh studio.

2. The recording of "Wt Dream"-album took place before the recording of "The Wall". It is possible that Mr Waters was writing it during the same time. So I don't think Mr waters got anything to reject as Mr Wright already was done and his canon was left empty.
1. Yeah, I've seen the story about Wright just sitting in the control room doing nothing...and when Ezrin asked Waters what it was about, Waters told him "he thinks he's producing. Ask him."

2. But Wright also didn't have anything on Animals either, according to both Wright and Waters. "Wet Dream" could be made up of stuff he had which didn't make it to Animals...or maybe even WYWH.

Welcome to the forum, by the way. :)
User avatar
Peter Harold
Blade
Blade
Posts: 123
Joined: Thu Jun 17, 2004 3:55 pm
Location: Stockholm, Sweden

Re: Richard Wright - Fired During Recording The Wall Album

Post by Peter Harold »

mosespa wrote:
2. But Wright also didn't have anything on Animals either, according to both Wright and Waters. "Wet Dream" could be made up of stuff he had which didn't make it to Animals...or maybe even WYWH.

Welcome to the forum, by the way. :)
You mean "Welcome back to the forum"...? :-) I have been resident here for some years, but not so active. I am member of the Swedish Pink Floyd forum "Flying Pig", and that's the reason why my English isn't proper. Well, not becuse the membership... becuase I'm from Sweden! ;-)

Most of the "Animals"-album origns from 1974, and I can't say why Mr. Wright didn't have made any contribution on the two songs. Maybe he did, but never got credit for it.

1974 saw the light of "Shine on you crazy diamond" on which Mr Wright was composer. In the perspective of how Mr Wright both appear on that song, and how it is described that he took part of Mr Waters' idea for the theme of alienation and absence (for the album), I am pretty sure Mr Wright was very important in the process of creating the WYWH-album. That process lead to two left-overs; "Raving and drooling" and "You got to be crazy".

These left-overs was "recyled" and put together with a third song by Mr Waters (when the concept was made into Orwellian theme). As we know, composing wasn't a creative process anymore. On Mr Waters demand, "Animals" included his accoustic intro and outro (giving him a little bit more money too). My theory was that everyone in the band was thinking of the "Animals"-album as the last Pink Floyd record ever.

So I guess a very relaxed (my guess) Mr Wright put his interest in his own song-writing which lead him to his "Wet Dream"-album. The same must be said for Mr Gilmour. I don't know how much writing they use to do before any recording, but I am not sure if anything on "Wet Dream" or "David Gilmour" was intended for "Animals". That is anyway a question I had loved Mr Wright to answer. I wish I could get in touch with his ex-wife as she perhaps have a memory of how that album was created. Over the last years, I have been thinking of writing a biography about Mr Wright. I think he is very underrated, and comparing to the business he was in to, I find him being very human (for bad or worse).

Best regards,
Peter
User avatar
mosespa
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 11443
Joined: Thu Sep 12, 2002 5:54 pm
Location: In the editing bay...working on the final cut...

Re: Richard Wright - Fired During Recording The Wall Album

Post by mosespa »

My bad, Peter. :lol:

Welcome back, then. I am mildly ashamed that I didn't notice your profile mentions how long you've been here. #-o

Yes, I'm quite familiar with the fact that Animals was constructed of a couple of songs left over from WYWH once Roger had the idea to turn WYWH into another concept album and started writing other songs.

I've also long joked that Wright seems to be getting a songwriting credit for merely sustaining a Gminor chord on an organ and then soloing over it. :lol:

So...knowing that Dogs and Sheep were those WYWH leftovers; and also knowing that in the WYWH songbook from 1975, Roger discusses a song he's written called "Flight From Fantasy" (or "Flight To Fantasy," depending upon whom you talk to, I suppose...I've seen it each way,) which could have ended up becoming "Pigs (3 Different Ones,)" it seems like there may have simply been no place for anything Wright may have written.

Wright himself also said that Animals was the first album that he didn't have anything on. I suspect that by "anything," he also means that he might have suggested a couple of chord changes for solo sections in the other songs...but Roger vetoed them.

I mean...the fact remains that Roger claims that Gilmour and Wright weren't writing anything by the time of The Wall...and yet, both of them released solo albums just before The Wall.

It seems to me that the real issue may have been that Waters wanted to change the "Pink Floyd sound" and go in a different direction whilst Gilmour and Wright seemed happy to remain with it where it was at.

Unfortunately, Wright died without ever really going into much detail of what really happened...so, we may never know. *shrug*
User avatar
cwta eugene
Hammer
Hammer
Posts: 1009
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2004 4:57 pm

Re: Richard Wright - Fired During Recording The Wall Album

Post by cwta eugene »

So Sean-you got the Comfortably Numb? book on the making of "The Wall". Does it mention anything specific about Wright's contributions to the album? I know he sings on at least one song because MOJO magazine had an ultimate Floyd quiz once and one of the questions was "On what song off of The Wall does Rick sing with Roger?" I think the answers were to be published in the next issue and I never purchased it. My bet would be "The Show Must Go On, but I don't know.
User avatar
mosespa
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 11443
Joined: Thu Sep 12, 2002 5:54 pm
Location: In the editing bay...working on the final cut...

Re: Richard Wright - Fired During Recording The Wall Album

Post by mosespa »

Yeah, I got the book...I've even read it, lol.

But I also put it back into the shipping box that it came in and haven't opened it again since.

The book mentions that Wright did more than people think he did, but I don't remember if it got specific or not.
User avatar
Peter Harold
Blade
Blade
Posts: 123
Joined: Thu Jun 17, 2004 3:55 pm
Location: Stockholm, Sweden

Re: Richard Wright - Fired During Recording The Wall Album

Post by Peter Harold »

mosespa wrote:My bad, Peter. :lol:

Welcome back, /.../

I mean...the fact remains that Roger claims that Gilmour and Wright weren't writing anything by the time of The Wall...and yet, both of them released solo albums just before The Wall.

It seems to me that the real issue may have been that Waters wanted to change the "Pink Floyd sound" and go in a different direction whilst Gilmour and Wright seemed happy to remain with it where it was at.
Thank you, mosepa! :-)

Mr. Gilmour had his "Hello big Bum" or what it was called from the recordings of "David Gilmour"; the song that turned out to be "Comfortably Numb". And then he also had the "Young Lust" and "Run Like Hell", but these two must be dated after the "DG"-album, I think?

I am not sure if Mr Waters was alone in the urge of moving the sound. Songs like "Careful With That Axe, Eugene" and "Interstellar Overdrive" was something they laughed about in the band in 1979. They left the free style that allowed the band to perform with improvisation technique (as in example of the two mentioned songs). With "The Wall", they now had a time schedule to keep (during the concert).

Except for the more rigid construction of the music/performance, we also have to consider that the style of Mr Masons playing was under some kind of restyling. The drums on "ABitW, pt2" is something we never heard before from that band. And there was no saxophone on the record. And to be a double album, we have to notice that there was only one proper keyboard solo ("Run Like Hell"). So with this in our mind, there was no much space left for Mr Wright anyway; although I could think myself that Mr Wright could have composed some time-fillers that should have sound more interesting.

Perhaps there was no much G minor enough on "The Wall" for Mr Wrights share of credits?!! *laugh*

Best regards,
Peter
User avatar
danielcaux
Supreme Judge!
Supreme Judge!
Posts: 2546
Joined: Thu Apr 19, 2007 1:25 am
Location: Abya Yala

Re: Richard Wright - Fired During Recording The Wall Album

Post by danielcaux »

Peter Harold wrote: I think it was true Mr Wright was into cocaine, and Mr Gilmour also refers himself recently to having a "cocaine life-style" during the AMLOR-tour. I think both of them used this drug on relaxing purpouses. Judging the nasal voice of Mr Waters, I do think use of cocaine was common in the band.
Mr. Waters does indeed have nasal vocals ..but what about Mr. Brown, Mr. White, Mr. Pink and Mr. Orange? I think all of them are pretty much criminals too. Man, all this talking of riffs between Mr. and Mrs. Pink Floyd members makes me feel a little stressed, think I'm going to snort some lines of cocaine so I can relax a bit and get some sleep.
User avatar
WhammyBar
Axe
Axe
Posts: 28
Joined: Mon Jan 09, 2006 8:35 pm
Location: Kent, UK

Re: Richard Wright - Fired During Recording The Wall Album

Post by WhammyBar »

mosespa wrote:The only disagreements over music that I know of are Wright claiming that Roger wouldn't allow any of Wright's contributions to be used. Waters, however, maintains that he'd have happily used anything Wright brought in...if only he'd have brought it in.
OK, I suppose I have to stop lurking and post something... :?

It's never easy working on other people's music, especially if they have fixed ideas. When a band goes into the studio and one of them brings a new song to the session, things can develop in many ways. One way is to let every musician contribute to that song by letting them choose which instrument/sound they will use, whether to solo on it, even how to harmonise the tune, and to revel in their contributions because they think of things the writer hadn't imagined - and those things take it to unexpected levels. I believe this is what happened with early Floyd, in fact since many of the songs were jammed, it is definitely the way it worked for much of the early repertoire.

Another way to write in the studio is that the writer of the song lays down the law about its structure (i.e. verse/shorus order, solos, length), its arrangement (i.e. which instruments/sounds to use and when) and even what notes to play. I believe this is what might have happened with The Wall. Waters may have had very fixed ideas, knowing what he wanted and insisted on that, thus minimising the contributions the others could make. This is what is meant by "not able to make a contribution", it isn't about supplying songs, its about being permitted to choose how and when to play their own instrument on a new track, what sound to make, and so on.

Personally, I've experienced both. I find the latter style of writing to be so irritating that I've given up trying to contribute on those occasions.Either I'm the musician, and I get to interpret the music, or the writer might as well play it himself... and if he can't do so, get a session player to do it and call it a solo work, not the work of the band. As a member of the writing band, I expect my special knowledge of my own instrument(s) to be valued enough to permit me to choose how they might best be used in a new composition. Writing in the studio is a democratic process, arriving at a compromise that is unique because it combines the styles of every member of the band.

One step further - Rick Wright's contribution is FAR bigger than anyone seems to realise. Just take the keyboards away from 99% of Floyd tracks and there's no unique atmosphere, no unique sound, and nothing to hang the Guitar solos on. It isn't all about solos, it isn't about how many chords there are (and there's a lot more than G minor in Shine On), it's about the genius of finding exactly the right combination of keyboard sounds and effects to create the "pad" for the vocals and guitar to write on. Witha very limited palette (Hammond, ARP Solina, Moog, Wurlitzer Piano) Rick Wright created some stunning and unique arrangments for DSOTM, WYWH, and Animals.

I encourage everyone to listen to these albums and IGNORE the Guitar, just listen to what the keys are doing. Having played both parts, I have a perspective on how they are woven together, and I appreciate just how crucial Rick Wright's contribution was. There is also a TON of keyboard work on The Wall, much of it in Wright's obvious Hammond and/or Piano style.

I might not post often, but I post long... :roll:

Whammy
User avatar
mosespa
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 11443
Joined: Thu Sep 12, 2002 5:54 pm
Location: In the editing bay...working on the final cut...

Re: Richard Wright - Fired During Recording The Wall Album

Post by mosespa »

WhammyBar wrote:1. This is what is meant by "not able to make a contribution", it isn't about supplying songs, its about being permitted to choose how and when to play their own instrument on a new track, what sound to make, and so on.
I disagree, because Wright has been quoted as saying that Animals was the first album that he didn't "have anything on."

And yet, there's that synth solo in "Dogs," that organ beginning of "Pigs (3DO)" and the synth note blending with Water's vocal on "Sheep."

I don't think all of those were Roger's ideas.

A songwriting credit doesn't happen unless someone contributes to the writing of the song.

Much of what you describe as "contributions" do not count as songwriting. Gilmour doesn't get a songwriting credit for his solos, choosing which guitar to play or which pedals to use.

He gets a songwriting credit for saying "I think there should be a section with a D to A to C to G chord progression...we can do it just before the chorus."

THAT'S songwriting...not saying "well, I'll play a solo in the ionian minor scale utilizing a distorted french horn patch on my synth."

As I've said before (and I'll undoubtedly say again,) Clare Torry does NOT deserve a songwriting credit for GGITS because the melodic/harmonic/enharmonic structure of the piece was already firmly in place before she even got a phone call.

All she did was play a solo...just like Eddie Van Halen with "Lost Boys Calling." Should Roger Waters give Mr. Van Halen songwriting credit and royalties for answering a session call?

I don't think so.

Similarly, Wright obviously didn't do anything to warrant a songwriting credit on Animals or The Wall...or he'd have gotten a credit.
User avatar
WhammyBar
Axe
Axe
Posts: 28
Joined: Mon Jan 09, 2006 8:35 pm
Location: Kent, UK

Re: Richard Wright - Fired During Recording The Wall Album

Post by WhammyBar »

mosespa wrote: Wright obviously didn't do anything to warrant a songwriting credit on Animals or The Wall...or he'd have gotten a credit.
This is the problem with forum posts, and why I don't often do it. You have the wrong end of the stick, sir. I was answering the original question, and not talking about "songwriting credits". I don't believe the term appears in my post! You've given me an excuse to talk more though, to reclaim my point! Hurrah!

If we must discuss songwriting credits, let me say I don't expect songwriting credits for the work I do on keyboards in someone else's new song. However, if I'm a member of the band and thus on an equal footing at least, I certainly DO expect that I will be allowed to contribute by writing my own part (in the true musical sense of the term "part") for the song, and not have it written and arranged for me by someone else who doesn't play my instrument. If you re-read my post, you'll see that this is what I'm suggesting might have caused upset during recording of "The Wall". I think a lot of musicians would take umbrage at the idea that because they don't have a songwriting credit their contribution must be negligible.

There is a world of difference between band members (a) completing a song together, and (b) claiming joint credit for writing it. The process of completion involves writing parts for the song. By definition, that is songwriting. The songwriting credit (for royalty purposes) however is always limited quite fairly to the person(s) who wrote the TUNE and/or LYRIC (otherwise royalty percentages would be impossible to work out!). There's a lot more to songs than just those elements (tune, lyric) though, and someone has to write the other elements... the Piano part, the Guitar solos, the Drum fills and back-beat, the intro, the finish, the backing vocals, all these require WRITING but don't get or deserve songwriting credit. Why? Because the song could be arranged differently, with different parts for all those instruments and with different "corners". The point is, would it be as successful?

Taking those points: Claire Torry wrote (through improvisation, as many singers do) the TUNE for Great Gig in the Sky. Wright had only a chord sequence and structure. There are no lyrics. The song would be nothing without the tune, and Wright did NOT compose that part. You couldn't re-write the vocal part and call it a re-arrangement - that would be perverse. You could arrange the piano part for orchestra and have the vocal sung over it. It wouldn't be as good but it would still be the same song. That is precisely why Claire Torry gets a songwriting credit. End of story. Her notes DEFINE the piece. Wright gets a credit for writing it because if he hadn't defined the structure and chords, there would have been nothing to improvise to. It's an unusual case which is why it needed legal clarification. It was patently unfair to demean Torry's contribution by not acknowledging that the tune is rather important to the success of the song. Had she just sung notes that were written out, that would be different. Had she been sampled and then the notes cut and pasted into order by the band, again that would be different. But it's HER notes, in the order SHE selected. That makes it HER tune... and that makes it HER song.

Back to the subject:

I've been in a studio being told by someone who played very basic piano... "No, play that an octave higher, and don't put the extra E in the chord. Play it straight without any extra notes. Just chords on the beat." My response was "Well, if you want me to play the same as YOU would, why not play it yourself? Call me when you need me to contribute my level of skill." I'm not suggesting this as a scene played out during The Wall sessions, I'm illustrating how a musician can be upset by not being allowed to contribute their skill. It's nothing to do with expecting credit for anything, it's about there being a point to being on the project.

Maybe, if Wright was being told by Waters WHAT to play, HOW to play it, maybe even which sound to use, then he might think why should he bother to cut his holiday short to finish Waters' pet project in a hurry? Waters could instruct someone else if he didn't need Wright to CONTRIBUTE his unique style and approach. Wright's musical CONTRIBUTION to the album wouldn't exist in those circumstances. I think you'll find Nick Mason felt that way with AMLOR... he had to learn Drum parts that someone else "programmed" and he didn't like doing that... he swore never to allow it happen again. He would have played differently had he been there... and who knows, we might ALL like the album more if he had, because his input would have made different things happen...

Oh my. Another long post. Time for bed. I'm keeping musician's hours at the moment. 8)

Whammy
User avatar
mosespa
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 11443
Joined: Thu Sep 12, 2002 5:54 pm
Location: In the editing bay...working on the final cut...

Re: Richard Wright - Fired During Recording The Wall Album

Post by mosespa »

WhammyBar wrote:1. There is a world of difference between band members (a) completing a song together, and (b) claiming joint credit for writing it. The process of completion involves writing parts for the song. By definition, that is songwriting. The songwriting credit (for royalty purposes) however is always limited quite fairly to the person(s) who wrote the TUNE and/or LYRIC (otherwise royalty percentages would be impossible to work out!). There's a lot more to songs than just those elements (tune, lyric) though, and someone has to write the other elements... the Piano part, the Guitar solos, the Drum fills and back-beat, the intro, the finish, the backing vocals, all these require WRITING but don't get or deserve songwriting credit. Why? Because the song could be arranged differently, with different parts for all those instruments and with different "corners". The point is, would it be as successful?

2. Taking those points: Claire Torry wrote (through improvisation, as many singers do) the TUNE for Great Gig in the Sky. Wright had only a chord sequence and structure. There are no lyrics. The song would be nothing without the tune, and Wright did NOT compose that part. You couldn't re-write the vocal part and call it a re-arrangement - that would be perverse. You could arrange the piano part for orchestra and have the vocal sung over it. It wouldn't be as good but it would still be the same song. That is precisely why Claire Torry gets a songwriting credit. End of story. Her notes DEFINE the piece. Wright gets a credit for writing it because if he hadn't defined the structure and chords, there would have been nothing to improvise to. It's an unusual case which is why it needed legal clarification. It was patently unfair to demean Torry's contribution by not acknowledging that the tune is rather important to the success of the song. Had she just sung notes that were written out, that would be different. Had she been sampled and then the notes cut and pasted into order by the band, again that would be different. But it's HER notes, in the order SHE selected. That makes it HER tune... and that makes it HER song.

3. It's nothing to do with expecting credit for anything, it's about there being a point to being on the project.

4. Maybe, if Wright was being told by Waters WHAT to play, HOW to play it, maybe even which sound to use, then he might think why should he bother to cut his holiday short to finish Waters' pet project in a hurry?

5. Waters could instruct someone else if he didn't need Wright to CONTRIBUTE his unique style and approach. Wright's musical CONTRIBUTION to the album wouldn't exist in those circumstances. I think you'll find Nick Mason felt that way with AMLOR... he had to learn Drum parts that someone else "programmed" and he didn't like doing that... he swore never to allow it happen again. He would have played differently had he been there... and who knows, we might ALL like the album more if he had, because his input would have made different things happen...
1. Yes...what you are talking about (everything you mention in this particular point) is about arrangement and not about writing.

Even "writing" one's own part is nothing more than arranging. In order to 'write one's own part' for someone else's song, the melodic/harmonic/enharmonic composition of the song must already be decided or else the song isn't complete.

I take issue with your oversimplified definition of songwriting. It takes more than a tune and lyric to make a song.

Chords, for example, must be decided upon or else the song isn't complete. These chords determine which notes to use for the tune/harmony, etc.

2. Clare Torry wrote nothing. She sang a bunch of improvisations which were later comped together into the final track.

If she deserves a songwriting credit, so does Alan Parsons for helping decide which melodic bits to use and which ones to discard. So does Chris Thomas and anyone else who expressed an opinion (should the band have bothered to ask anyone else.)

Judging by your own criteria, at least. :)

3. Providing what the artist wants isn't a point? What you describe to me sounds more like a musician letting their ego supercede the creative vision of the person who hired them in the first place.

A musician isn't hired to re-write the song or even recalculate the melodic/harmonic/enharmonic structure of the piece. They are hired to provide a service in accordance with what is required by the song and artist.

If they can't take direction, they probably shouldn't be at that session, imo.

4. Because there was a mutually understood point to rushing the project; that point being the advance that the record company promised them for finishing by a certain deadline. Those royalties being important because the band were all but broke due to the Norton/Warburg debacle.

Wright's refusal to co-operate was going to end up costing everyone else millions of pounds and possibly their homes and everything else that they owned due to having to pay taxes they didn't have on money which had been dishonestly taken from them.

Sounds to me like Wright's ego was getting him thrown off the project and not Roger's.

Besides, I don't think Roger Waters knew enough about music theory at the time to demand anything of Wright as far as his playing.

5. According to Vernon Fitch (who is, to me, the ultimate authority on Pink Floyd,) Wright WAS at the sessions.

Can't tell it, can you? :lol:
User avatar
danielcaux
Supreme Judge!
Supreme Judge!
Posts: 2546
Joined: Thu Apr 19, 2007 1:25 am
Location: Abya Yala

Re: Richard Wright - Fired During Recording The Wall Album

Post by danielcaux »

mosespa wrote:I take issue with your oversimplified definition of songwriting. It takes more than a tune and lyric to make a song.
Yes, but it also takes more than a chord "melodic/harmonic/enharmonic" structure to make a song too.
mosespa wrote:Chords, for example, must be decided... These chords determine which notes to use for the tune/harmony, etc.
You know, I know a lot of musicians that work the other way around, first they come with a melody or "tune" and then they choose which chords are they going to use as "background". If they are in a traditional mood the chosen chords are determined by the inherent harmonic structure given by the main melody. If they are in a "experimental" mood they throw away the rules and come with disonant stuff that has nothing to do with the main melody or dramatically contrast with it.
mosespa wrote:Clare Torry wrote nothing. She sang a bunch of improvisations which were later comped together into the final track.
You could say the same about the mid section of Interstellar Overdrive, nobody wrote nothing they just improvised, but those improvisations became the main body of the piece and they give the song its identity.

That said I don't really know how much editing of the different pieces sung by Torry was done by Parsons on that song. If it was done with a sampling-like/extreme cut and paste technique then I would agree with you about her not deserving a writing credit.
WhammyBar wrote:It's nothing to do with expecting credit for anything, it's about there being a point to being on the project.
mosespa wrote:Providing what the artist wants isn't a point? What you describe to me sounds more like a musician letting their ego supercede the creative vision of the person who hired them in the first place. A musician isn't hired to re-write the song or even recalculate the melodic/harmonic/enharmonic structure of the piece. They are hired to provide a service in accordance with what is required by the song and artist.
You are totally right, providing what the artist wants is the point ..when you are a session musician , but back then Richard Wright was not a "hired musician" he was a "member of the band". Perhaps he got fed up by the inconsistency of being a member of the band and feeling treated as a hired musician by Waters. That makes sense, because then what we see? The band throws him out and after that Waters REALLY hires him as a session musician! And everything is alright now because he is being treated as what he really is at that point: a session musician with a salary.

WhammyBar wrote:Maybe, if Wright was being told by Waters WHAT to play, HOW to play it, maybe even which sound to use, then he might think why should he bother to cut his holiday short to finish Waters' pet project in a hurry? Waters could instruct someone else if he didn't need Wright to CONTRIBUTE his unique style and approach. Wright's musical CONTRIBUTION to the album wouldn't exist in those circumstances. I think you'll find Nick Mason felt that way with AMLOR... he had to learn Drum parts that someone else "programmed" and he didn't like doing that... he swore never to allow it happen again. He would have played differently had he been there... and who knows, we might ALL like the album more if he had, because his input would have made different things happen...
That's a very interesting and insightful observation mate. A lot of truth in there. I just don't think that was the case with the riff between Wright and Waters, for me it was more a case of him being more interested in sailing and snorting cocaine with greek girls than on flying the whole mediterranean just to get into a tiny studio in France to watch horseface give orders to him. I think I would have done the same: Greek girls and cocaine FTW!
User avatar
WhammyBar
Axe
Axe
Posts: 28
Joined: Mon Jan 09, 2006 8:35 pm
Location: Kent, UK

Re: Richard Wright - Fired During Recording The Wall Album

Post by WhammyBar »

danielcaux wrote: ... it was more a case of him being more interested in sailing and snorting cocaine with greek girls than on flying the whole mediterranean just to get into a tiny studio in France to watch horseface give orders to him. I think I would have done the same: Greek girls and cocaine FTW!
:lol: Then we agree, if not on the exact thoughts in his head, at least on the principle!

Your defense of my points made me smile. I think you have understood what I'm trying to put across.

It is rather shameful in my opinion to describe writing your own part in a progressive rock tune as mere "arrangement". Mosespa, you don't seem to have a clear understanding of the difference. Arrangement is the re-orchestration of existing parts to fit a new ensemble, and an arranger should NEVER create a line that didn't exist in the original work. There has to be an original part to be arranged... and Richard Wright both wrote AND arranged his own parts, as should every performer in an original band.

You're right Mosespa - in popular music, especially when written on Guitar, a chord sequence often comes before a tune when songwriting and the whole thing is obvious and formulaic. In prog rock, though, the musicians tend to be of a higher calibre, often with a classical background, and they really compose a song. That means lyrics and a melody are written, but there are then many ways to harmonise a melody. Yes, the implied harmonic structure is obvious when you're creating melody, but when you have the rest of the band working with you on the song, sometimes they throw in a harmonic twist, re-writing the obvious into something exciting and unexpected. Musicianship means using your skill to be inventive, not just doing the obvious.

The above might be the reason why (with a horrible example) when Phil Collins did a whole album playing everything himself, recording and producing it himself as well, it was dreadfully predictable in comparison to earlier albums when he used other musicians. I don't remember the name of the album but it bored me rigid.

I've had a new song come into the studio from another band member, and we've actually put it together in several different ways, used bits of each, even changed the end of the verse so we can get into a different key for the chorus to give it and extra lift. Don't tell me that isn't "writing" when the tune has changed, the harmony has changed, the rhythm has changed, and sometimes the words have changed to scan better at the speed we finally settled on! The songwriting credit STILL goes to the guy who brought it in though, unless we wrote a whole new verse or chorus.

As for Waters not having the musical knowledge to instruct Wright, that's exactly why he'd take offence at it. There's some lovely footage of Waters telling Mason what to play on Drums at a rehearsal in the Festival Hall... "Just stick on the cymbals and sort of let it die away..." . Poor Nick just meekly does as he's told...

Lets end this one now, and see if anyone has another theory!

Time to go to work... :?
Whammy

PS - danielcaux, I've been where Richard Wright was in Greece, and I do TOTALLY understand why he'd rather stay there! Not that I was party to any of the attractions you mention him enjoying, of course (I'm far too old, married, and boringly sensible). It's just a great place to be. http://www.classicrocktours.com
User avatar
mosespa
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 11443
Joined: Thu Sep 12, 2002 5:54 pm
Location: In the editing bay...working on the final cut...

Re: Richard Wright - Fired During Recording The Wall Album

Post by mosespa »

Unfortunately, WhammyBar, your whole argument falls apart under the fact that Pink Floyd were not a Progressive Rock band.

*puts can opener away, laughing maniacally*
an arranger should NEVER create a line that didn't exist in the original work
Says who? Because if I understand music theory correctly, the "Ultimate Rule" is that there are no rules. I should think that that would also extend to production, arranging and all other music related fields.
There has to be an original part to be arranged
There has to be a SONG to be arranged...I'll get behind you on that.
In prog rock, though, the musicians tend to be of a higher calibre, often with a classical background, and they really compose a song.


Well...now we KNOW that you're not talking about the self-taught, technically average members of Pink Floyd. :lol:
That means lyrics and a melody are written, but there are then many ways to harmonise a melody. Yes, the implied harmonic structure is obvious when you're creating melody, but when you have the rest of the band working with you on the song, sometimes they throw in a harmonic twist, re-writing the obvious into something exciting and unexpected. Musicianship means using your skill to be inventive, not just doing the obvious.
This sounds to me like overcomplicating a song just to show off how good a musician thinks he is. It's certainly serving the musician more so than the song.

Which, I guess, is why so much Prog is rubbish, imo. *shrug*
I've had a new song come into the studio from another band member, and we've actually put it together in several different ways, used bits of each, even changed the end of the verse so we can get into a different key for the chorus to give it and extra lift. Don't tell me that isn't "writing" when the tune has changed, the harmony has changed, the rhythm has changed, and sometimes the words have changed to scan better at the speed we finally settled on! The songwriting credit STILL goes to the guy who brought it in though, unless we wrote a whole new verse or chorus.
I'd say it depends on whether you actually WROTE those differences yourself, or if you simply encouraged the original writer to explore different options on his own.

If you came up with the changes yourself, then yes; you co-wrote the song and got screwed out of the credit.

If you simply coached the original writer into these new directions, then you produced and arranged the track.

Would you like to continue insisting that I don't understand the difference between these terms simply because I don't subscribe to your own, personal definition? :D
You know, I know a lot of musicians that work the other way around, first they come with a melody or "tune" and then they choose which chords are they going to use as "background". If they are in a traditional mood the chosen chords are determined by the inherent harmonic structure given by the main melody. If they are in a "experimental" mood they throw away the rules and come with disonant stuff that has nothing to do with the main melody or dramatically contrast with it.
Sure...there's more than one way to write a song.

I'm curious, though; do these other people (since you know them) allow other people to attach their names to the songwriting credit for doing next to nothing in the creation of the song itself?
You could say the same about the mid section of Interstellar Overdrive, nobody wrote nothing they just improvised, but those improvisations became the main body of the piece and they give the song its identity.
One could also point out that Interstellar Overdrive is a song by a young band, on their first album, made before they really understood the finer points about songwriting credits.

One could also say that they credited everyone because they recorded more than one version of the song and didn't know which version they would end up using (and maybe it's really an edit of multiple versions,) so they were just covering all bases.
You are totally right, providing what the artist wants is the point ..when you are a session musician , but back then Richard Wright was not a "hired musician" he was a "member of the band". Perhaps he got fed up by the inconsistency of being a member of the band and feeling treated as a hired musician by Waters.
Then perhaps Wright should have put down the coke spoon, gotten off the boat and actually written some songs instead of waiting for Roger and Dave to write everything and give him a solo to be counted towards a songwriting credit?

Just a thought. :D
User avatar
WhammyBar
Axe
Axe
Posts: 28
Joined: Mon Jan 09, 2006 8:35 pm
Location: Kent, UK

Re: Richard Wright - Fired During Recording The Wall Album

Post by WhammyBar »

I'm not going to argue any more, because I think I'm not allowed to have a valid opinion.

Allow me to just chuck 40 years of musical training, experience, and knowledge in this very tiny bin where it will clearly fit very easily, and I'll be quiet from now on.

I just thought, maybe, I could put a point of view without it being shredded, but I was wrong.

I'll go back to lurking. It wastes less time....

Whammy