Did Gilmour stop Nick's further development in Pink Floyd?

[DarkSideFreak]

OT: Wow that SHF thread escalated quick I love the forum but sometimes they really get toxic in discussions...

[azza200]

OT: Wow that SHF thread escalated quick I love the forum but sometimes they really get toxic in discussions...

which topic got out of hand?

[DarkSideFreak]

OT: Wow that SHF thread escalated quick I love the forum but sometimes they really get toxic in discussions...

which topic got out of hand?

The one about Mother.

[Ashes andDiamonds07]

You could argue Roger singing more made the bass simpler (Money excluded but what are their great bass lines since DSOTM? Dave played bass on Pigs 3 Different Ones and Sheep was a Meddle retread) which had an impact on Nick's playing?
Maybe it isn't fair to compare his drumming on the second album with the 70's work. But I'm still convinced Nick could have nailed the drumming in "Two Suns In The Sunset". No idea what that replacement decision was about.

As Roger Waters said, Nick just couldn't play that 5/4 beat at the time, and it is a very difficult beat to play. And since they had a dead-line, Roger probably thought they might as well get another drummer in for that song that could play that beat.

[Ashes andDiamonds07]

You could argue Roger singing more made the bass simpler (Money excluded but what are their great bass lines since DSOTM? Dave played bass on Pigs 3 Different Ones and Sheep was a Meddle retread) which had an impact on Nick's playing?
Maybe it isn't fair to compare his drumming on the second album with the 70's work. But I'm still convinced Nick could have nailed the drumming in "Two Suns In The Sunset". No idea what that replacement decision was about.

My guess: politics. Roger asserting dominance.

Okay, what's with blaming Rog for every single thing? Yes, he had a big ego, but I honestly think he earned it, don't you? Just as John Lennon earnt his. Roger was (and still is) a lyrical genius, and if he never asserted dominance over the band, would we have The Wall or The Final Cut? They're are two of my favourite albums of all time. I don't think your blaming Roger is justified. And it wasn't his asserting dominance; the album had a dead-line, Nick Mason couldn't play the 5/4 beat at the time, so they brought in someone who could.

[Ashes andDiamonds07]

used on the original LP.

I've always liked 'The Final Cut', since my teens. I didn't know which member did what.

You must have noticed what had happened. Waters turning his back on pink floyd. Marginalizing them as his back up band. No Gilmour vocals until the penultimate track. Sax where a Gilmour guitar solo would have been perfect. A lack of excitement in some of the production. Wright and Gilmour relied on Waters because Waters appointed himself lyricist. It's not as if Rick Wright or David Gilmour couldn't come up with a chord progression. They can play 3 or 4 chords as easily as Waters. Waters was shutting them out.

Do you mean stuff like 'The Gunners Dream'? Because the sax solo on that was beautiful, and it was the right call to do that. Would you say the sax solo on 'Us and Them' should have been replaced by a solo?
And this was a much more personal album to Roger Waters. It was a case of 'I'm making this album for my father who died in WW2. Because this is about my father, I will write these lyrics, because my father means more to me than he does to Rick or David". It says on the sleeve, 'Dedicated to Eric-Fletcher Waters'.
How dare Roger want to make a heart felt tribute to his father that died when he was one year old.
Why would he let David or Rick write a song that's meant to be dedicated to his father? And the outcome of the album was beautiful. You forget that Roger didn't have to get DG to put a solo in 'Your Possible Pasts', 'The Fletcher Memorial Home', 'The Final Cut' and 'Not Now John'. You forget that he didn't have to let DG do vocals on 'Not Now John'.

[Ashes andDiamonds07]

Gilmour needed the name Pink Floyd, because his solo career wasn't successful. And Waters felt overshadowed by everyone knowing Pink Floyd and not Roger Waters.

To be fair, the About Face tour did much better than the Pros and Cons tour. Gilmour did have to cancel two shows in Quebec due to low ticket sales, but he added a number of other dates in Florida and elsewhere on the East coast. He only played two, sometimes three Pink Floyd songs ("Run Like Hell", "Comfortably Numb", "Money"): Roger played over a dozen Pink Floyd songs, had Eric Clapton with him, and managed to lose $1.6 million dollars. Roger didn't do as poorly on the second leg of the tour - by which time Clapton and two others had quit - and it was held in much smaller venues, while Gilmour's had always been a fairly low-key show with minimal visual effects. Roger had the benefit of his album and tour announcement appearing months after Dave's, giving him more word-of-mouth advertising whether he wanted it or not. Even the album reviews were tough, but the most famous one stated that About Face "assumes new luster in comparison to this turkey."

Gilmour made it clear in interviews for his first and second solo albums that his focus was still going to be Pink Floyd, and even said that the main reason for touring was to get the experience of running the show, since they knew Roger wasn't coming back and they were just waiting for him to "f--- off into the ether." Roger always saw it as a competition, but he could barely compete with "David Gilmour" let alone "Pink Floyd", while many fans would be happy to accept it for what it was - a divorce that gets you two birthdays and two Christmases.

And yet I would rather go to the Pros And Cons tour then the About Face tour.
And yet they had to stop charging people for tickets for "The Wall-Live In Berlin" because there was so many.
And yet his more recent tour of 'The Wall' had a record breaking run of 8 sold out shows.
And yet Roger Waters' albums were all far better than Gilmour's. In my opinion, there are only two good Gilmour solo albums, 'David Gilmour' and 'Rattle That Lock'.

[Annoying Twit]

Okay, what's with blaming Rog for every single thing? Yes, he had a big ego, but I honestly think he earned it, don't you? Just as John Lennon earnt his. Roger was (and still is) a lyrical genius, and if he never asserted dominance over the band, would we have The Wall or The Final Cut? They're are two of my favourite albums of all time. I don't think your blaming Roger is justified. And it wasn't his asserting dominance; the album had a dead-line, Nick Mason couldn't play the 5/4 beat at the time, so they brought in someone who could.

I'm not blaming Roger for every little thing. But, I believe that during TFC (and starting earlier - E.g. Rick's dismissal), Roger was asserting dominance in PF. You clearly think differently, but saying '... blaming Rog for every single thing' is a straw man.

Nick could have come up with a 5/4 beat given time. It was faster to get a session player to do the part. But, I think that the decision to use a session player was not just to speed things up.

[Eclips]

Nick was pretty wild in the early studio albums, and got mellower and more restrained from DSOTM on, especially on Wish You Were Here which is my fav PF album. He still did amazing stuff, for example the Time intro.

Live, however, he was always pretty great IMO, for a band who favours songwriting over virtuosism. Pompeii and the live bootlegs from all eras reveal how great a drummer he actually is.

And I'm not comparing him to Bill Brufford, Phil Collins or others with a jazzier background. Those would never work well for a PF song, but were amazing in their bands which require some more virtuosism (mainly Yes with Bill).

The only studio album I actually miss a bit from him is Animals. I think those 3 epics, especially Sheep, deserved a punchier approach from him. Pigs (3DO) always sounded a bit "empty" for me, maybe I needed more drumming in it! However, I still love that album to death.
He still sounds rhythmically amazing on Dogs, though. But on the live shows he gets excused!