My Rant

enigma00 · Post by **enigma00** » Tue Jun 10, 2003 1:17 pm

Good example.

As I said before, there is nothing wrong with Roger playing the songs, hell, he did co-write or write them all! It's just that to me the PWPF is "more" PF just becuase its actually three of the old members, compared to just one when Roger plays the songs.

And don't forget, Roger wasn't the only one who put blood sweat and tears into PF. I'm sure they all did.

David Smith · Post by **David Smith** » Tue Jun 10, 2003 4:35 pm

Actually in answer to your question it would still be NPF, only a crap era of it with new management. The differance is Dave had input in to the running of the band while oyu and me don't Mos. It's not like we make up a quarter of this forum.

I just think if a debate can be brought up about a Rogerlless Pink Floyd playing their old songs then we should see it's just as bad for a pink floyd less Roger to play the same songs. He LEFT the band so the band can continue, wether songs he wrote lyrics for are played or not it doesn't matter, he doesn't have the Pink Floyd rights and yet plays Pink Floyd songs he didn't write the music for without even using the name Pink Floyd, which of course he can't, but he can still play songs he didn't write music for and they do songs they didn't write lyrics for, it's fine.

Post by **mosespa** » Tue Jun 10, 2003 4:59 pm

What songs did Roger not write music for?

Dig this...writing music in the legal sense simply means writing the chord progression. It has nothing to do with the individual instrumental parts.

Graham Broad certainly doesn't play Nick Mason's drum parts...he comes up with his own.

I don't think anyone would accuse Doyle Bramhall II of playing exactly what Gilmour wrote.

As for John Carin and the other keyboardist...okay...maybe they're playing what Rick plays...but John Carin has also been working side by side with Rick on two albums and tours.

Again...would you rather everything be changed so that it's not recognizable?

The songs are what they are and should be played a certain way, otherwise they're not really those songs, now are they?

I don't think Roger should tinker with the music anymore than I think Gilmour and Co should tinker with the words.

What I think the people who complain about PWPF are getting at is something that happened with Yes.

When four members of the "classic" line-up of Yes got together to record a new album and go on tour and tried to call it Yes, the bass player (what is it with bass players?) sued successfully to stop them from using the name.

They went on to call themselves Anderson, Bruford, Wakeman and Howe...and ostensibly met with as much success as they would have by calling it Yes. They still sold out all the halls they played and the album sold respectably.

Maybe PWPF should have been called Gilmour, Mason and Wright.

And don't bother trying to say that no one would have known who they were...Yes are even less recognized by name and face than Pink Floyd.

Meddler · Post by **Meddler** » Tue Jun 10, 2003 5:23 pm

They shold call themselves: Post Waters

JK...

Neil · Post by **Neil** » Wed Jun 11, 2003 5:59 am

I'm sure I read somewhere that Roger could call himself 'Roger Water's Pink Floyd' when he tours..

Can anyone confirm this ?? Or have I just imagined it - I am getting a bit senile you know

enigma00 · Post by **enigma00** » Thu Jun 12, 2003 1:06 am

Okay, mosespa, I don't want Roger to change anything. I've said before I don't have a problem with him playing the songs, I just think that the PWPF sounds more like PF, just without Rogers voice. I prefer it, thats all. Roger has every right to play the songs. Just as much as Dave/Nick/Rick do.

End of story, from my viewpoint anyway.

David Smith · Post by **David Smith** » Thu Jun 12, 2003 3:46 pm

mosespa wrote:What songs did Roger not write music for?

If you want to say the bass line is a large part of a song then fine, but i would think the bulk of the music comes from Gilmour on guitar and Wright on keyboards.

mosespa wrote:Dig this...writing music in the legal sense simply means writing the chord progression. It has nothing to do with the individual instrumental parts.

So in that sense you could say Waters wrote all of Money? I think it's ridiculous to credit nobody else for that song, especially seeing as Dave's part is by far the most complex part of the song, to do a song with a 3 minute riff and only credit the bass player strikes me as a bit ridiculous.

mosespa wrote:Graham Broad certainly doesn't play Nick Mason's drum parts...he comes up with his own.

I don't think anyone would accuse Doyle Bramhall II of playing exactly what Gilmour wrote.

I'm sure that Pratt guy doesn't play exactly as Waters either.

mosespa wrote:As for John Carin and the other keyboardist...okay...maybe they're playing what Rick plays...but John Carin has also been working side by side with Rick on two albums and tours.

So? They're doinf it exactly as he does. If you want to excuse that then you can also excuse that Gilmour. Wright and Mason had played with Roger on a vast amount of studio albums.

mosespa wrote:Again...would you rather everything be changed so that it's not recognizable?

Of course not, i just think there's a hypocrasy in one party blaming another for doing songs they're not soley responsible for.

mosespa wrote:Maybe PWPF should have been called Gilmour, Mason and Wright.

And don't bother trying to say that no one would have known who they were...Yes are even less recognized by name and face than Pink Floyd.

I would think that would be bad seeing as they made up 3 of the main line up. If you want to say this then surely it could be said that Pink Floyd should have changed their name to Waters, Wright, Gilmour and Mason after Syd left, he was after all just as important for early Floyd as Waters was for his Floyd.

Pugs on the Wing · Post by **Pugs on the Wing** » Thu Jun 12, 2003 3:47 pm

Meddler wrote:They shold call themselves: Post Waters

JK...

Well, I've heard of Dehydrated Floyd...I always thought that was hilarious.

Don't know why, but I'm thinking about food products when they change the ingredients:

Pink Floyd Lite
Diet Pink
Floyd Free
Pink Lo-Cal

All less filling!

MoreOrLess · Post by **MoreOrLess** » Thu Jun 12, 2003 3:59 pm

Personally I think the new PF sound more like the classic floyd than Roger does just because the most important element to the floyd sound was always daves guitar playing, well on the classic rock period floyd tracks they both play anyway. Both of them have the right to play any floyd tracks they want though as far as i'm concerned, I mean did the band stop playing all of syd'd tracks the moment he was given the boot? no of course not.

If you want to get into pretty name calling you could just as easily say, why doesnt Roger tour as "the artist formerly known as listenable".

SomeGhostsStepOut · Post by **SomeGhostsStepOut** » Thu Jun 12, 2003 4:24 pm

I would think that would be bad seeing as they made up 3 of the main line up. If you want to say this then surely it could be said that Pink Floyd should have changed their name to Waters, Wright, Gilmour and Mason after Syd left, he was after all just as important for early Floyd as Waters was for his Floyd.

Very good point David.

Post by **mosespa** » Thu Jun 12, 2003 5:25 pm

David Smith wrote: If you want to say the bass line is a large part of a song then fine, but i would think the bulk of the music comes from Gilmour on guitar and Wright on keyboards.

It's more than just the bass line. Waters also wrote the CHORD PROGRESSIONS for the songs that he has sole credit on. By the LEGAL definition of "SONGWRITING," Waters wrote THE SONG.

The TRACK, well now...that's a totally different thing governed by different laws...but it doesn't change who gets credit for having written the song.

David Smith wrote:So in that sense you could say Waters wrote all of Money? I think it's ridiculous to credit nobody else for that song, especially seeing as Dave's part is by far the most complex part of the song, to do a song with a 3 minute riff and only credit the bass player strikes me as a bit ridiculous.

Yes...Waters wrote ALL of the song "Money." Now...the parts of the track...that's a different thing. Each member of the band came up with their own part...but that doesn't mean they WROTE THE SONG...just their part of the track.

Do you see the difference yet?

David Smith wrote:So? They're doinf it exactly as he does. If you want to excuse that then you can also excuse that Gilmour. Wright and Mason had played with Roger on a vast amount of studio albums.

Let's not be mistaken here...I have no problem with PWPF sounding like Pink Floyd. It's going to be awfully hard for Gilmour, Mason and Wright to NOT sound like Gilmour, Mason and Wright.

I have no problem with them sounding like Pink Floyd...but I think CALLING themselves Pink Floyd is a bit of a stretch. And for those who would say then they should have changed their name when Syd left, I've got news for you...THEY DID!! When Syd was with them, they were called The Pink Floyd Sound...and then The Pink Floyd. After Syd left, they were just called Pink Floyd.

Okay...maybe dropping a "The" isn't such a big deal...but in a legal sense, it can make a huge difference.

Besides...Roger Waters has had a much larger hand in shaping what Pink Floyd became than Syd Barrett could ever dream of...they only did one album with him.

They did twelve with Roger.

David Smith wrote:Of course not, i just think there's a hypocrasy in one party blaming another for doing songs they're not soley responsible for.

You know what...I agree with you. I have to...I'm in a cover band.

Just so we understand each other...the only problem I REALLY have with PWPF is that their new lyrics are comparatively mild...and written by too many other people. I have no problem with them playing the classic songs alongside the new material...but I'm also not going to stand by while people attempt to undermine the influence of the guy who WROTE those songs.

David Smith · Post by **David Smith** » Thu Jun 12, 2003 5:47 pm

Ah good, then you basically have the same problem with them as me. I'm not trying to undermime Roger, without him Pink Floyd wouldn't have released DSOTM IMO or been on of the best band ever. I just think it's ok for Dave to continue the band if he wants even if he really shouldn't bother, it's like messing with a Picasso picture.

I guess our arguements and ethics here don't matter much cause essentially it's the same thing in the end, but i just don't like the idea of not knowing when to stop, the lyrics don't bother me, they're not as good, not by a long shot, but i always place music over concept, that's why i didn't like TPACOHH as much as TFC for example even though i vastly prefer the lyrics.

MoreOrLess · Post by **MoreOrLess** » Thu Jun 12, 2003 7:49 pm

It's more than just the bass line. Waters also wrote the CHORD PROGRESSIONS for the songs that he has sole credit on. By the LEGAL definition of "SONGWRITING," Waters wrote THE SONG.

The TRACK, well now...that's a totally different thing governed by different laws...but it doesn't change who gets credit for having written the song.

That might be the legal definition but I think we all know that in floyds case the musical contributions of gilmour and wright had a massive effect on the quality of the final product. I know many bands who give songwritting credits to members who had nothing to do with the orginal idea but added to it musically E.G. led zeppelin.

Post by **mosespa** » Thu Jun 12, 2003 8:48 pm

This is true, and I don't deny that.

However, the...(was it an) argument...was about who actually WROTE the songs.

I've never denied that Gilmour was the one who took Roger's songs and made them much more listenable. But the key part of the phrase is ROGER'S SONGS.

I don't think there are very many people here who will disagree that PF were at there best when Roger was a member. This would then imply that these same people would agree that PF has been on the decline as far as quality goes since Roger left.

This would then imply that it was ROGER who brought that quality.

Since Roger left...the Pink Floyd "SOUND" is still there...but the quality of lyrics has declined...and I think it's safe to say that the quality of the musical composition declined quite a bit on AMLOR...but it's on the climb back up on DB...IMHYOO, anyway.

And climbing back up though it may be...it's STILL not as good per volume as when Roger was in the group.

Hence, I can only conclude...as I have always said...that Roger is Pink...and Gilmour, Mason and Wright are Floyd.

Makes sense to me.

Meddler · Post by **Meddler** » Thu Jun 12, 2003 8:56 pm

There is some sad movie playing in the background and when I read:

mosespa wrote:Roger is Pink...and Gilmour, Mason and Wright are Floyd.

I felt a tear built up.

I don't know why. Its just this dang movie!