Gilmour and PinkFloyd.co.uk

[dgsyd1]

"Perhaps it's time to treat each member equally and stop making excuses for this whoring of the name"?

Coming from someone who is using the board to perform regular character assasinations on David Gilmour, don't you think that remark is just a touch hypocritical? I'm all for treating each member of the band equally, I just wish some of the other people on the board would do the same.

[Real Pink in the Inside]

I'm sorry you think I perform "regular character assassinations on David Gilmour." I don't. I'm not going to spurt forth some of the hogwash you'll find on some websites about how he's "the jolly one," and how "he re-vitalized Pink Floyd," and other nonsense you'll find on a number of PF boards/sites. That's for sure. However, I'm not out lying about things in an attempt to "put down" David Gilmour, and make him "look" horrible. The same can't be said for some folks who have and continue to put down Roger Waters. Even Gilmour himself has said nonsense such as "nobody else has called himself Pink Floyd before" (Or something along those lines) in alluding to Roger Waters. You show me an instance in which Roger Waters ever said he was Pink Floyd. Even in interviews in 1983 he was praising Gilmour and his contributions to Pink Floyd. In 1986 Roger said he felt Pink Floyd was creatively spent. TFC makes that point VERY clear, I think. They were no longer a band by that point. The marriage was over. TFC was the divorce papers. If Roger felt he was Pink Floyd, that would mean he was saying he WAS creatively spent, which was obviously not the case. It's not very deep to comprehend, you know?

What I post is nothing compared to the rubbish you'll see on some sites. Some people even lie and state they know Gilmour personally when they don't in order to state they have insider-information that backs up their claims that Roger Waters is an ego-maniac, credit-hogger, and so forth, and how they know what really happened behind the scenes in 1985-86. Pure gobbledygook.

Some people moaned and groaned when some promoters used the line "The Creative Genius Behind Pink Floyd" to promote Roger's shows, yet when Gilmour's shows were promoted on PinkFloyd.com, they never said a thing. And you are practically blasting me for what I have said in here? Come on, man...

David Gilmour is my favorite guitarist in the world. I love most of the stuff he did for "Pink Floyd" prior to 1986. He was integral to Pink Floyd. He was a huge part of the band we all know and love. He helped create that magical legacy. All of that is what I feel, but just because I feel all that doesn't mean I'm not going to criticize him from time to time. I don't like what he did to "Pink Floyd" after TFC, to be quite forthright. I feel he ruined Pink Floyd's legacy, and that upsets me.

I'm not going to refrain from posting my thoughts, which are NEVER harmful. I don't see what's wrong with my posts in this thread. I don't think they are in anyway a "character assassination" of David Gilmour.

[Guest]

You show me an instance in which Roger Waters ever said he was Pink Floyd. Even in interviews in 1983 he was praising Gilmour and his contributions to Pink Floyd. In 1986 Roger said he felt Pink Floyd was creatively spent. TFC makes that point VERY clear, I think.

Re: Waters saying he is Pink Floyd:

Rolling Stone, November 1987

"I would be terribly happy for you to like what I'm doing and to like what he's doing," Waters said sharply the next day, referring to Gilmour, "if it wasn't for the fact that he was calling himself Pink Floyd. He isn't. If one of us was going to be called Pink Floyd, it's me." - Roger Waters


Re: the ridiculous claim that Dave "ruined" Pink Floyd:

Roger QUIT the band and then made rashly bad business moves to drive wedges between himself and other people, not just his bandmates, during this 'separation' phase. Roger in essence told the band that HE wanted full control, of everything, all of the lyrics, all of the music..which would have left the others in the position of guest musicians technically. When Roger said that is what he wanted or he would leave, the band said goodbye and good luck to good ol` Rog.

The "formal" Waters/Floyd split was triggered by the escalating quarrel between Waters and Steve O`Rourke over, among other things, contract commitments for future PF products. June of '85 Waters turned his affairs over to Peter Rudge, and had terminated his personal mgt deal with O`Rourke, which in O`Rourke's view was done illegally, even though O`Rourke continued on as mgr for the rest of the band. For Waters to get rid of O`Rourke totally he needed the o.k. from David and Nick, and Waters OFFERED them, in exchange, the rights to the Pink Floyd name.
Dave and Nick refused to ratify O`Rourke's dismissal.

Even so, nothing was ever formally in writing about a partnership...BUT (now pay attention!) there WAS a record contract that specifically said if one of them left the band, the deal was still with Pink Floyd. It's called the leaving member clause, if one leaves the band it gives him a solo record contract, leaving the other two free to carry on with the Pink Floyd name.

Summer of '86 and Waters was dealing with a lawsuit from O`Rourke, suing Waters for 25,000 pounds in back commissions. In October '86 Waters initiated proceedings to dissolve the group partnership and terminate it once and for all. But when Waters` lawyers discovered that the partnership's existence had never actually been confirmed in writing, which meant that the dissolution could have little impact on Dave and Company's plans, they went back to the High Court seeking a clarification to establish that Pink Floyd Music must "act in accordance with the unanimous wishes of the group".

With these actions, Waters had made a 180 degree turn from his earlier offer to let Dave and Nick keep the name.

In an '88 interview David said: "Well, he's entered two cases against us in the English court of law, which will not come to court for an awfully long time. One of them, I think, has evaporated anyway, and the other one is pretty flimsy."

While cases were entered into the court, NEITHER case went to court.

Waters conceded "that the only case that the law is interested in me bringing is one saying 'Well, if you go on calling yourself Pink Floyd I demand that you pay me twenty or twenty-five percent of the cake'. I'm not interested in the cake. So I don't think there's very much that I can do."

Dave and Nick did agree to let Waters have sole jurisdiction over everything relating to the Wall show. Waters has sole rights to the Wall movie and he of course earns royalties for work he's credited for on Pink Floyd products.


Re: the fallacy that Waters did it all, and his bandmates offered nothing:

David Gilmour: Roger wanted to do all the writing, he *wanted* to take over the whole thing. He would engineer moments to try and insure that no one else got any writing. Certainly on The Final Cut, he engineered a situation where no one else could do any writing.

Nick Mason: That's absolutely true, but this album (Momentary Lapse) is, to some extent, a vindication that the writing was not historically all Roger. The Final Cut was virtually all Roger, but even that was not *all* Roger. But The Wall and the stuff before that, you can hear how much of Dave there is. I'd have to say, no, Roger didn't do all the writing.

Yes, he wrote all the lyrics, but he didn't do all the music writing by any manner or means. That's one of the things that's been infuriating....Roger attempting to take credit for everything. Fine if he wants to take credit for a lot of it, but he's trying to say he did everything, and that's not how it worked.

That's not how life is and not how a band runs and it's certainly not how a band does good work. A band does good work because there is input from everyone. It may be that one person never does anything except say 'I like that', but that still can be important in terms of making things better.
---
This 'which one's Pink battleground mindset' is ridiculous. The only thing that really amounts to anything are facts. The problem seems to arise when some people try to bully other fans with their version of the facts as they WISH them to be. There is plenty of documented facts out there in the public domain for anyone to read and draw their own conclusions, and those conclusions are not always what *some* fans want to acknowledge, simply because it is not what they want to hear. There's no excuse for anyone not being aware of these facts, and because of these facts there is no good excuse for people being hostile and violent simply because the facts are not to their liking. Personal emotion never changes facts, and neither does constant whining and bullying either...I've never seen either one change anyone's mind.

Now...if you, or anyone else does not want to accept what I, or any other fan has to say about the other side of this crusade of yours...fine...but I must warn you that trying to introduce a red herring, or exaggerating what was said in order to divert attention from what IS the real issue, never succeeds. Statements designed to belittle or cast aspersions on the writer and detract the reader from what the real issues are is nothing but pure misrepresentation calculated to cause damage, and in fact sometimes causes the reverse to happen...to the attacker.
It's my personal opinion that many radical pro-Waters fans are bitterly disapointed in their idol for rashly acting upon his meglomania and not behaving as smartly as he should have when he decided to quit the band. Just as Roger discovered to his bitter dismay that the band could indeed go on without him, so too must his most devoted 'fans' learn to their dismay that Pink Floyd was and is, more than one person, and that they have proven to be as successful without Waters as they were with him.

Sandy

[Real Pink in the Inside]

"If one of us was going to be called Pink Floyd, it's me."

- Roger Waters

He is not stating he is/was "Pink Floyd," but merely saying if anyone is going to be called Pink Floyd, it's him, not Gilmour. Due to the fact Roger Waters sang the majority of songs, and wrote the majority of lyrics and music during his tenure with the band, it only makes sense that if anyone is going to be called "Pink Floyd," it's him, not Gilmour. That is not saying he is/was "Pink Floyd."

Is that the best line you got that supposedly proves Roger Waters ever said he is "Pink Floyd"?

----------

"Yes, he wrote all the lyrics, but he didn't do all the music writing by any manner or means. That's one of the things that's been infuriating...Roger attempting to take credit for everything. Fine if he wants to take credit for a lot of it, but he's trying to say he did everything, and that's not how it worked.

That's not how life is and not how a band runs and it's certainly not how a band does good work. A band does good work because there is input from everyone. It may be that one person never does anything except say 'I like that', but that still can be important in terms of making things better."

- Nick Mason

From a 1983 Sounds (UK) magazine interview with Roger Waters:

As far as Pink Floyd guitarist David Gilmour is concerned, Waters added, "If you look at the work we've done together, a lot of it's very good. 'The Wall' is very good. It's a very, very good record. I think Dave's contribution is very important. Not just his guitar playing, but a couple of really good tunes that he wrote for 'The Wall.' I'm not belittling his guitar playing. His guitar playing is fantastic. He's a very underrated guitar player, in my opinion. It's a very strange thing. People in bands always have differences and things often go in cycles. You have productive periods when you work well together, and periods when you don't work well together. It would be ludicrous to expect, in a career spanning fifteen or sixteen years, that you always agreed about everything that happened, and that it was an expression of some kind of gestalt feeling. It's never like that. No band is like that."

- See Pg. 301 of Pink Floyd: The Press Reports by Vernon Fitch.

----------

Re: Re: The ridiculous claim that Dave "ruined" Pink Floyd:

In 1985, I BELIEVE that Steve O'Rourke, David Gilmour and Nick Mason staged the greatest coup d'etat in the history of rock and roll. I believe that they tricked Roger Waters, a man who was integral to the history of our beloved Pink Floyd, into doing everything he did in 1985. Let me explain...

As most of you already know, in 1985, Steve O'Rourke, the manager of "Pink Floyd," gave Roger some flak over some contractual obligations for a future Pink Floyd product. In June of 1985, Roger supposedly terminated his personal management deal with O'Rourke. O'Rourke, of course, stated the whole thing was totally illegal in order to paint Roger as "the bad guy," I would say, something the trio did incredibly well around this time (You'll see what I mean later). Supposedly in order for Waters to get rid of O'Rourke for good, Waters needed the assent of Gilmour and Mason, the other two official members of "the band" at the time (What band!?!? Am I the only one who saw Pink Floyd was no more by the time TFC rolled out?). Gilmour and Mason, of course, refused to endorse O'Rourke's dismissal. Let me ask you a simple question...Why do you suppose Steve O'Rourke was not giving Gilmour and Mason some flak over some contractual obligations for a future Pink Floyd product at the same time he was giving Roger some flak? Because they wanted to make another Pink Floyd product perhaps? Waters saw "the band" as being dead. So what are they going to do about Mr. Waters, who is stopping them from making another Pink Floyd album and tour which will, in their eyes, give them the oportunity to gain back the fame and fortune they were clearly craving at the time? What they did, I believe, is what had to be done by making Waters do exactly what they wanted and NEEDED him to do.

After June of 1985, Waters simply did the EXACT thing that I believe Gilmour, Mason and O'Rourke wanted him to do; that is, he asked EMI and CBS to release him from his contractual obligations as a member of "the group" (WHAT GROUP?!??!). This gave Gilmour and Co. what they wanted; it gave them the right to "re-vitalize" "Pink Floyd" without Roger Waters. The coup was in motion.

After Roger's "departure," Gilmour and Co. went to work on a MLOR, an album which includes songs that were all created by either Gilmour himself or himself and others. As Nick Griffiths once put it so eloquently, "...He's (Gilmour) a benevolent dictator who pays his money and gets what he wants. The Floyd worked because there was some semblance of democracy."

Oh, but what about The Final Cut album, you say? Oh, yes, Roger was quite the dictator during the production of that album, right? Yeah, right. Gilmour's desire to have "Pink Floyd" all to himself, without Waters, was even present during the making of TFC. As most of you know, Gilmour DID in fact co-produce the album (Go listen to a couple of the sweet guitar solos on the record if you refuse to believe me), but he--Gilmour himself, not Waters--took away his production credit for the album at the last moment, in order, in my eyes, to shoot Waters' name into the production spotlight (After all, the album was intentionally made to alienate all except the most dedicated of listeners). I speculate that Waters, in retaliation, gave a producer credit to James Guthrie.

Anyway, on Halloween of 1986, Roger began court proceedings to terminate group partnership irreversibly. Roger tried to speak the truth (Is the truth better left unsaid? Never) to the fans of Pink Floyd, stating in one interview that "Pink Floyd" had "become a spent force creatively, and this should be recognized in order to maintain the integrity and reputation of the group name...It is only realistic and honest to admit that the group has in practical terms disbanded and should be allowed to retire gracefully from the music scene." When Roger finally got into court, his lawyers discovered the tangled web that Gilmour and Co. had strung for him. The whole entire thing was set up perfectly. Gilmour and Co. had Waters up against the wall.

Now I admit I do not know entirely what happened behind the scenes in court, but I do know what happened after it, and that was a surrogate "Pink Floyd" album and tour. I also ask you to keep in mind that Roger had dealt with a lawsuit involving O'Rourke prior to Halloween of 1986, and he had just come off a very unsuccessful first solo tour less than two years prior to "the departure."

Anyway, according to what I have read in SOS (A relatively biased Pink Floyd biography, in my opinion), David once told A Sunday Times reporter that "Roger is a dog in the manger and I'm going to fight him...No one else has claimed Pink Floyd was entirely them. Anybody who does is extremely arrogant." Shall we examine these comments?

These are the facts:

A) In 1986, Waters once said that Pink Floyd had "become a spent force creatively, and this should be recognized in order to maintain the integrity and reputation of the group name...It is only realistic and honest to admit that the group has in practical terms disbanded and should be allowed to retire gracefully from the music scene."

B) In 1983, just prior to the release of TFC, Roger Waters stated in a Sounds interview, "If you look at the work we've done together, a lot of it's very good. 'The Wall' is very good. It's a very, very good record. I think Dave's contribution is very important. Not just his guitar playing, but also a couple of really good tunes that he wrote for 'The Wall.' I'm not belittling his guitar playing. His guitar playing is fantastic. He's a very underrated guitar player, in my opinion. It's a very strange thing. People in bands always have differences and things often go in cycles. You have productive periods when you work well together, and periods when you don't work well together. It would be ludicrous to expect, in a career spanning fifteen or sixteen years, that you always agreed about everything that happened, and that it was an expression of some kind of gestalt feeling. It's never like that. No band is like that. If you want to know whose feelings they are, you look at the songs; you look and see who's written the songs. Because that's what it's about." (See Pg. 301 of Pink Floyd: The Press Reports by Vernon Fitch)

The above are quotes from 1986 and 1983 respectively. Now does it sound to you like Roger Waters considered himself to be Pink Floyd in those years, and prior to them? Gilmour would have everyone believe that Roger did, for his OWN personal interest. Gilmour and Co. played the media game brilliantly from 1986-onward. Prior to that, Pink Floyd's members were quite the mysterious bunch, but that all changed when Gilmour decided to create the surrogate band.

One last thing concerning Gilmour's comments of "Anybody who does (claims to be Pink Floyd) is extremely arrogant." A Momentary Lapse of Reason, supposedly Pink Floyd's "comeback" album, is an album that was created ONLY by David Gilmour and a number of non-Floyd members. In fact, there is nothing from Richard Wright on the album. Nothing he contributed made it on the album. Not a note or a whistle. No performances. NONE. Have you seen the CD sleeve to the newest issue of MLOR? You have to love that picture of David Gilmour, Nick Mason and Richard Wright, side-by-side, huh? They superimposed Wright next to Mason. Take a look at Nick's left leg, and Rick's right leg. A fake picture...Only fitting for a fake "Pink Floyd" album, I guess. In addition, according to the official credits, Nick Mason only played something on half of the songs on the album. The Final Cut at least had Mason, Gilmour and Waters all performing on the majority of the songs. If you want to see the stats on the credits of TFC in contrast to MLOR, just say so, and I'll gladly provide them (See the thread "Is TFC Really a RW Solo Album? Is MLOR Really a DG Solo Album?").

As for the whole Roger getting sole jurisdiction over everything relating to The Wall show, Roger was given such because Gilmour and Mason agreed to give him those rights, for whatever reason(s). Roger didn't have a case when he went to court in 1986 (The courts naturally, in our free-thinking society, were only interested in the economical-side of everything, after all), and I speculate that Mason and Gilmour probably gave him The Wall rights in hopes he would just shut up.

As I have already stated, during the production of MLOR and after it, David, Nick and Rick played the media game as well as Tiger Woods plays golf. David once even said "the first day when the three of us got back together...it was like putting on a comfortable old pair of shoes." It's enough to make you sick, huh? But what's done is done. David and Co. ruined the legacy of Pink Floyd for their own personal interests...Sadly, there is no other way of putting it except that they WHORED the name Pink Floyd. It's a real shame.

----------

"…his most devoted 'fans' learn to their dismay that Pink Floyd was and is, more than one person."

Rick Wright + Nick Mason + David Gilmour =/ (Does Not Equal) Pink Floyd

Nor does Roger Waters equal Pink Floyd.

Your generalization does not apply to me.

"…And that they have proven to be as successful without Waters as they were with him."

MLOR and TDB do not compare at all to the sales numbers for DSOTM and The Wall, for example. Even WYWH out-sold those two albums. I think your above comment is erroneous.

[Guest]

I'm sorry you think I perform "regular character assassinations on David Gilmour." I don't.

You're so full of it.

[Real Pink in the Inside]

You're so full of it.

Thanks for the compliment, Anon

[Real Pink in the Inside]

Roger in essence told the band that HE wanted full control, of everything, all of the lyrics, all of the music..which would have left the others in the position of guest musicians technically.

David Gilmour: Roger wanted to do all the writing, he *wanted* to take over the whole thing.

If Roger's plan was to have "Pink Floyd" all to himself, why did he destroy his personal management deal with Steve O'Rourke in 1985? If Roger's plan was to have "Pink Floyd" all to himself, why did he ask EMI and CBS to release him from his contractual obligations as a member of "the group" "Pink Floyd" in 1985? If Roger's plan was to have "Pink Floyd" all to himself, why did Roger choose not to go back into the studio and try to create a "Pink Floyd" product in order to satisfy his contractual obligations instead of doing what he did? These are questions the folks who support the theory mentioned have to consider. Ultimately when one does consider the three key questions I have asked, they see that the aforementioned theory is clearly a pile of bull. However, some of them will still reply something along the lines of "Roger did not have Nick on the last song on TFC!" So what? Nick performed more on TFC than he did on MLOR. Did those folks ever consider that fact? Maybe Nick missed the recording session for "Two Suns in the Sunset"? Maybe Nick just could not play the song the way Roger wanted it to be played? If that was the case, so what?

I don't buy the crap that Roger Waters wanted to own Pink Floyd all to himself. When one considers the facts seriously, it doesn't add up.

[mostHigh]

Gilmour is such a money hungry idiot. What has he ever created in post Waters floyd that is even remotely good?

He is a great singer and great guitar player who now is just good at both of those things....he's a lame song writer and he'll never be half the genius Roger is. He'll never even come close to Roger



and some sites act like he's a God when he is simply a money snatching, greedy, power hungry dictator

[Keith Jordan]

David Gilmour is a great musician and a good songwriter when it comes to rhythm, melody and harmonics. He is not the greatest lyricist the world has ever seen and nor is Roger Waters for that matter.

I relate more to Roger's lyrics but I think David's new song Smile is heartfelt and rather beautiful. It is just a matter of personal preference.

We are going to stop the nasty posts now I think about Gilmour. I will just start deleting them. This is especially true for you MostHigh/RPITI.

[Real Pink in the Inside]

We are going to stop the nasty posts now I think about Gilmour. I will just start deleting them. This is especially true for you MostHigh/RPITI.

Could you give me an example of a post by ME, so I know what you mean, in general?

I don't really see anything nasty I've said about Gilmour. I've seen people call Roger Waters an ego-maniac, a credit-hogger, every name in the book. But I haven't said too much about Gilmour. I've said I think he whorred the name Pink Floyd, but that's pretty much it. I certainly haven't called him fat, like some. So on and on...

[Real Pink in the Inside]

Is that the best line you got that supposedly proves Roger Waters ever said he is "Pink Floyd"?

I'm still waiting...

I anxiously await the next attempt at proving Roger Waters ever said he was Pink Floyd. Do you know why? Because he never did. To say he ever did is hogwash.

[Keith Jordan]

RPTI, I just wish you would stop bashing Gilmour and say something nice about him for a change. he was an integral part of the Floyd when they were Pink Floyd and not the 3/4 of Floyd they are now.

[Real Pink in the Inside]

Posted: Mon Oct 28, 2002 1:18 am:

David Gilmour is my favorite guitarist in the world. I love most of the stuff he did for "Pink Floyd" prior to 1986. He was integral to Pink Floyd. He was a huge part of the band we all know and love. He helped create that magical legacy. All of that is what I feel, but just because I feel all that doesn't mean I'm not going to criticize him from time to time. I don't like what he did to "Pink Floyd" after TFC, to be quite forthright. I feel he ruined Pink Floyd's legacy, and that upsets me.

[Keith Jordan]

I stand corrected.

[Guitarplayer]

I stand corrected.

just found this place and from what i've read theres more bashing coming from this guy than anything else.