http://www.ameinfo.com/110982.html
Here you can find to listen and even download Part 1 of a very interesting Roger Waters recent radio interview. He talks about wishing He & Pink Floyd to do a FEW GIGS here and there ... if only David would want it.
ENJOY !
Roger recent interesting Radio Interview
-
- Axe
- Posts: 64
- Joined: Fri Feb 16, 2007 5:43 am
- Location: Italy
-
- Hammer
- Posts: 625
- Joined: Mon Oct 16, 2006 1:45 am
- Location: Lying On An Eiderdown
-
- Supreme Judge!
- Posts: 3153
- Joined: Sun Aug 10, 2003 11:23 am
- Gender: Male
- Location: Munich, Germany
-
- Axe
- Posts: 51
- Joined: Sun Oct 15, 2006 12:31 am
- Location: Behind The Wall
-
- Knife
- Posts: 380
- Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2005 7:38 am
- Location: Wellington, New Zealand
-
- Lord!!
- Posts: 3906
- Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2005 12:58 am
- Gender: Male
-
- Blade
- Posts: 168
- Joined: Fri Jun 17, 2005 2:10 pm
- Location: Devon, England
-
- Knife
- Posts: 438
- Joined: Sat Sep 23, 2006 9:47 pm
- Location: My House
i don't see anything wrong with thatYucateco wrote:hehe Waters is really becoming addicted to playing live
I really do hope they re-form...I just wonder if Dave would let Roger in, now that he has that whole control of Pink Floyd thing going on...letting Rog back in would mean they share the power once again...he might not want that...
-
- Moderator
- Posts: 11561
- Joined: Thu Sep 12, 2002 5:54 pm
- Location: In the editing bay...working on the final cut...
Gilmour has spent the last twenty years in control of the name Pink Floyd. At the start, he was putting a great deal of time, effort and money into getting Pink Floyd to where it could stand without Roger Waters.
AMLOR proved that it could happen without Roger. The Division Bell proved that it could happen without Roger more than once...that it could continue without Roger.
Roger spent those early years trying to destroy Pink Floyd.
Why SHOULD Gilmour allow Roger back into the fold now that he's the one who decides?
Especially since they've proven that they don't need him.
(DISCLAIMER: I think Roger Waters is one of the greatest lyricists of the twentieth century and that Pink Floyd has suffered for him not being there...I'm just trying to see it objectively in the above post.)
AMLOR proved that it could happen without Roger. The Division Bell proved that it could happen without Roger more than once...that it could continue without Roger.
Roger spent those early years trying to destroy Pink Floyd.
Why SHOULD Gilmour allow Roger back into the fold now that he's the one who decides?
Especially since they've proven that they don't need him.
(DISCLAIMER: I think Roger Waters is one of the greatest lyricists of the twentieth century and that Pink Floyd has suffered for him not being there...I'm just trying to see it objectively in the above post.)
-
- Knife
- Posts: 438
- Joined: Sat Sep 23, 2006 9:47 pm
- Location: My House
Because you can't have the true Pink Floyd sound without him...I mean I like the two post-Roger albums, but with Roger they have made all-time classic albums...mosespa wrote:Gilmour has spent the last twenty years in control of the name Pink Floyd. At the start, he was putting a great deal of time, effort and money into getting Pink Floyd to where it could stand without Roger Waters.
AMLOR proved that it could happen without Roger. The Division Bell proved that it could happen without Roger more than once...that it could continue without Roger.
Roger spent those early years trying to destroy Pink Floyd.
Why SHOULD Gilmour allow Roger back into the fold now that he's the one who decides?
Especially since they've proven that they don't need him.
(DISCLAIMER: I think Roger Waters is one of the greatest lyricists of the twentieth century and that Pink Floyd has suffered for him not being there...I'm just trying to see it objectively in the above post.)
Even Dave has to admit that his lyrics fail in comparison to Roger's.
Note: I am a huge fan of both Roger and David...I'm just stating my personal opinion.
-
- Hammer
- Posts: 625
- Joined: Mon Oct 16, 2006 1:45 am
- Location: Lying On An Eiderdown
-
- Knife
- Posts: 438
- Joined: Sat Sep 23, 2006 9:47 pm
- Location: My House
but if there's a non-Dave Floyd, then its sorta just as bad as a non-Roger Floyd...still missing one person, you know?mhspiper wrote:Even if Dave won't come along, the other three could grab another guitarist (preferably Snowy White) and tour under a different name. The Who toured as TED (Townshend, Entwistle, Daltrey) at one point, so members of the Floyd could do it too!
eh...maybe that would be the best we can get...we just have to wait and see
-
- Blade
- Posts: 168
- Joined: Fri Jun 17, 2005 2:10 pm
- Location: Devon, England
-
- Lord!!
- Posts: 3563
- Joined: Fri Feb 13, 2004 6:31 am
- Location: The Red Planet
Yeah, I agree. Unless all four of them get together on the same stage, or better yet in the same studio, it would not be a satisfying experience. I don't think post-Syd Floyd without Dave would be any better than Floyd without Roger (ie maybe pretty good at times, but not classic Floyd).DBlaze wrote:but if there's a non-Dave Floyd, then its sorta just as bad as a non-Roger Floyd...still missing one person, you know?mhspiper wrote:Even if Dave won't come along, the other three could grab another guitarist (preferably Snowy White) and tour under a different name. The Who toured as TED (Townshend, Entwistle, Daltrey) at one point, so members of the Floyd could do it too!
eh...maybe that would be the best we can get...we just have to wait and see
The trouble is, Dave is the music machine, but he doesn't seem to like the political lyrics that Roger would bring, so they would seem to be completely incompatible as far as doing anything new is concerned.
-
- Supreme Lord!
- Posts: 5133
- Joined: Tue May 11, 2004 2:36 am
- Location: in a midwestern-type autoplant town, waiting for the autopocalypse to come