ITF DVD

[Real Pink in the Inside]

No bashing RPITI but i think you didn't got my point. There are other "forces" beside the members of PF that made DSOTM famous, and thus made PF famous. Even on Meddle Roger's contribution was great, why didn't it become a big-seller ? I'm not minimalising Roger's work, nor uplifting Gilmour or the others. Even the Floyd admit they can't explain the succes of DSOTM.

I think that its universal lyrics and timeless music are essentially why the album sold so well and continues to sell well today.

[Real Pink in the Inside]

I just wanted to show that numbers of soldcopies don't prove anything

And that's why you said "Wow, How many copies did TFC sell ??? I'll check this up tomorrow," right?

[mosespa]

The evidence of my own senses? I have seen three abandoned copies of TDB...I have NEVER seen an abandoned Meddle, DSOTM, WYWH, Animals, The Wall or even TFC.

The evidence of sales? TDB hasn't sold as many copies as The Wall or DSOTM, so it must not be as good.

Wow, How many copies did TFC sell ??? I'll check this up tomorrow. Well i have seen abandoned copies of DSOTM. I even know people ( young people), totally ignorant of PF, that liked TDB. If you would give them WYWH in the first place, i think it wouldn't light their fire for PF, because it is from 1975. It sounds not that recent, and you know: 3it's all in your head".

Or what about the fact that TDB's theme of "interrupted communication" is just a variation on The Wall's theme of "communication not being made," thus seeming to prove Gilmour and Co. incapable of original thought.

Any of this what you say couldn't be done?

Original toughts: i can give you some others: 1999: In The Flesh-tour ; Pink Floyd Best Of: "Echoes".

BTW Mosespa, you should know that the communication-theme of the Wall is much deeper ad different from that of TDB.

1999 In The Flesh Tour included "Each Small Candle," a BRAND NEW SONG AT THE TIME UNAVAILABLE ON ANY ALBUM.

Echoes includes a version of When The Tigers Broke Free which is NOT the version released on several radio promo CD's, nor is it the version released on vinyl back in 1982.

In fact, the version of WTTBF on Echoes has never been available anywhere except on the movie...and even then, it was seperated into two parts.

Checkmate.

[Ailbhe]

I wonder........I really really wonder why every topic on this board has to disintegrate into a Roger vs Dave thingy.

[mosespa]

There are many different reasons...but among them is the notion that "There are people who think Roger Waters was so great, but The Final Cut (the end result of his attempts to control the band) was one of the poorest selling albums since DSOTM. Now, if Roger was so great, why did HIS masterpiece not sell so good. On the other hand, DSOTM sold and sold and sold and that was a great egalitarian project...EVERYONE was involved equally."

Which is, of course, a fallacy.

The "Roger VS Dave" thing is a variation on the "Collective VS Individual" debate which has been raging for centuries. The funny thing is that both Roger and Dave represent some sort of socialist thinking.

However, in the argument, Roger represents the individual while Dave represents the collective.

The notion is that Roger wanted to BECOME Pink Floyd...to the detriment of the music, while Dave wanted to keep it a collective process...even though he agreed to get rid of Rick and reportedly wanted to get rid of Nick, also...then he reformed the "band" with a bunch of session musicians, let Nick and Rick play on a couple of songs and called it Pink Floyd.

It ultimately comes down to the question "Who was the REAL control freak?" Roger only wanted Rick to pull his own weight...Roger called Gilmour on the fact that (at the time of The Final Cut) Dave hadn't written anything in over five years, what made him think he was going to start?

Dave and the guys were completely happy to let Waters do the majority of the work until he started doing it without being asked.

The thing is, everyone has their favorite side of this fight...but no one seems to recognize that each side is as equally at fault as the other side.

Except me, of course

[quicksilver]

The thing is, everyone has their favorite side of this fight...but no one seems to recognize that each side is as equally at fault as the other side.

Except me, of course [/quote]

And me............well said.

They are both at fault even though I'll admit that I probably favor Dave a bit mailnly because I believe he did no wrong in continuing as Pink Floyd. Roger is the one who left the band thus leaving Pink Floyd for the taking. Dave took it and ran with it and I think it took a lot of balls to carry on.

NOW, whether or not one likes what he's done since then is a matter of opinion and a different argument.

[mosespa]

And me............well said.

Thanks

They are both at fault even though I'll admit that I probably favor Dave a bit mailnly because I believe he did no wrong in continuing as Pink Floyd. Roger is the one who left the band thus leaving Pink Floyd for the taking. Dave took it and ran with it and I think it took a lot of balls to carry on.

NOW, whether or not one likes what he's done since then is a matter of opinion and a different argument.

Okay...It's like this.

Roger left the band...the fact that he expected the band to give up because he left shows that even Roger Waters is capable of serious errors in judgement. It almost seems naive, in a way.

That Gilmour picked up the ball and ran with it is something that I don't have a problem with. At first, I was just happy to see the name going on in the hopes that AMLOR would lead a new generation of kids to check out the previous albums, as The Wall did for me.

I respect both sides. I see where Roger's comment that Floyd was a "spent creative force" had merit. Roger was doing all the writing. Dave hadn't written anything since Animals, Rick wasn't doing anything and neither was Nick. It's not too hard to see where Roger would feel like it was becoming his solo act.

As far as Dave's side goes, I agree with him that just because one person leaves doesn't mean everyone else has to, also. I must even give props to Gilmour for being savvy enough to realize that the ensuing media blitz surrounding the Floyd Feuds would push his name into the spotlight and that that might even enable him to be able to put a solo career together at a later date.

Both sides have merit. No one is right and no one is wrong, really. It all depends upon one's own view.

In the end, no amount of complaining is going to undo AMLOR and TDB...no amount of complaining is going to wind back the clock and make Roger change his mind or make Dave decide not to resurrect Floyd.

What's happened has happened, no matter what your view of it, it still remains.

I think we should all just deal with it and move on.

As it is, many of the people who are complaining about what Dave has done are also worrying over whether or not there will be another Floyd album.

[Real Pink in the Inside]

Roger left the band...the fact that he expected the band to give up because he left shows that even Roger Waters is capable of serious errors in judgement. It almost seems naive, in a way.

Naive? I dont think so. I think the Pink Floyd break-up rather closely mirrors what The Beatles went through when they broke up, with Roger being essentially Paul McCartney in this case, so to speak.

John, George, and Ringo argued with Paul over who should be their manager. Paul wanted to hire the Eastmans while the other three wanted Allen Klein. This is all very similar to how Roger wanted to cut his ties with Steve O'Rourke. Paul announced his departure from the group in 1970, and then sued the other three to dissolve the group partnership, similar to what Roger did with Pink Floyd in 1985.

I think Roger was not really being naive because he saw that The Beatles crumbled without Paul. John Lennon, Paul McCartney and George Harrison all contributed significantly to Abbey Road, The Beatles' final album. Roger Waters was the only Pink Floyd member who contributed very significantly to The Final Cut. In addition, Roger Waters played a more vital role with Pink Floyd than the role Paul played with The Beatles since Paul and John were practically equals in The Beatles until the very end, with George writing quite a bit of stuff their final years.

What we don't know is what really happened behind the scenes. Perhaps Steve O'Rourke, Bob Ezrin, and David Gilmour, along with some other cohorts, did some dealings behind closed doors that enabled things to pan out as they did (i.e., enabled Pink Fraud to BE).

Here are some excerpts from an interview with John Lennon and Yoko Ono (September 5th, 1971). I think this interview gives us a bit of an insight into how the Floyd break-up may have been (Too bad Roger nor David has given an interview quite like this):

Int.: So the dream is over, the Beatles have split up and you're now a separate entity from Paul McCartney. How does it feel?

John: Well, it's not over yet. With the court case, it could go on for years. And I guess every time I put a record out they'll compare it to Paul's.

Int.: You've been especially vocal lately about the way the Beatles' business was run in the past.

John: Well, look what happened. With Northern Songs, we ended up selling half our copyrights forever. We lost 'em all and Lew Grade's got 'em. It was bad management. We have no company. That's where Brian Epstein fucked up. Who got the beneift? Not us. I mean, since you ask, in retrospect he made mistakes. But to us he was the expert. I mean, originally he had a shop. Anybody who's got a shop must be all right.

Int.: People say it was Epstein who kept you together as the Beatles. What was the mood like among you all after the Beatles stopped touring and before Brian died?

John: Well, after we stopped touring, it always seemed embarrassing. Should we have dinner together? It always got so formal that none of us wanted to go through with it anymore.

Int.: How come it got so formal?

John: Because when you don't see someone for a few months, you feel stilted and you have to start again.

Int.: So things were breaking down before you met Yoko, and before Paul met Linda?

John: It had broken down before that. There was a Liverpool clique thing, and everybody who worked for us was from Liverpool. But that togetherness had gone a long time before Yoko. We were really all on our own, just living in separate vacuums.

Int.: So let's talk about the Beatles' breakup, and the falling out between you and Paul. A lot of people think it had to do with the women in your lives. Is that why the Beatles split up?

John: Not really. The split was over who would manage us, Allen Klein or the Eastmans, and nothing else really, although the split had been coming from Pepper onwards.

Int.: Why, specifically?

John: Well, Paul was always upset about the White Album. He never liked it because on that one I did my music, he did his, and George did his. And first, he didn't like George having so many tracks, and second, he wanted it to be more a group thing, which really means more Paul. So he never liked that album, and I always preferred it to all the other albums, including Pepper, because I thought the music was better. The Pepper myth is bigger, but the music on the White Album is far superior, I think.

Int.: That's your favorite, of all the Beatle albums?

John: Yeah, because I wrote a lot of good shit on that. I like all the stuff I did on that, and the other stuff as well. I like the whole album. I haven't heard it in a long time, but I know there's a lot of good songs on it. But if you're talking about the split, the split was over Allen and Eastman.

Int.: Let's talk a bit about Paul's aversion to Klein. From what we've read it seemed as if this wasn't there in the beginning, even though Paul wanted the Eastmans to run things. But it came on later as things progressed. And yet despite this, we gather that Klein was still hoping that Paul would return to the group.

John: Oh, he'd love it if Paul would come back. I think he was hoping he would for years and years. He thought that if he did something, to show Paul that he could do it, Paul would come around. But no chance. I mean, I want him to come out of it, too, you know. He will one day. I give him five years, I've said that. In five years he'll wake up.:

Int.: ...Paul did pretty well from a number of deals Klein negotiated before Paul filed suit to dissolve the group partnership. And not the least of these was the renewed recording contract with EMI, which gave you all much higher royalties. What else was Klein doing to try and lure Paul back?

John: [laughs] One of his reasons for trying to get Paul back was that Paul would have forfeited his right to split by joining us again. We tried to con him into recording with us too. Allen came up with this plan. He said, "Just ring Paul and say, 'We're recording next Friday, are you coming?' " So it nearly happened. It got around that the Beatles were getting together again, because EMI heard that the Beatles had booked recording time again. But Paul would never, never do it, for anything, and now I would never do it. I'm not going to go on a concert tour with Paul, George, and Ringo, because I'm not going to resurrect that

Int.: What was it like for you when the court case was on, with all the publicity?

John: ...I came home and we were having meetings all the time with these counsels, every other day, and it went on for weeks and weeks. George and Ringo were getting restless and didn't want to do it anymore. And then George would say, "I've had enough. I don't want to do it. Fuck it all. I don't care if I'm poor." George goes through that every now and then. "I'll give it all away." Will he fuck? He's got it all charted up, like monopolo money.

[mosespa]

Good point.

The "split" proper was over management issues.

But before those issues came to light, as I understand it, Roger and Dave released their solo albums and it seems that Roger was just sitting back, waiting for the group to die, as it were.

I can imagine Roger and Dave having a couple of awkward phone conversations (although they probably didn't,) in which Dave asks if Roger has anything for the band to work on and Roger just kind of blowing Dave off...no, no, not really; got a couple of things that are still in a kind of embryonic stage right now, but nothing for the group to work with yet...and then going into his studio to further develop a K.A.O.S. track.

I think (notice that I said I THINK,) that Roger thought that by not participating or putting anything Floydian into motion that the rest of the guys would just drift off and get on with other things.

Think about it...Roger countered Dave's proposal to write something for TFC with the remark, "You haven't written anything in five years, what makes you think you're going to write something now?" So, in Roger's mind, Dave wasn't writing, Rick was gone, Nick doesn't write...only Roger writes.

If Roger doesn't write for Pink Floyd, there is no Pink Floyd product.

He obviously didn't expect anyone else to do anything with it. This is borne out by his offer of the name to Nick and Dave in return for their vote to dismiss O'Rourke.

They didn't take him up on it...from Roger's view it must have looked as if Pink Floyd were finished.

No wonder he was so ticked when they finally decided to do something with it.

We'll never know exactly what happened, but the way I see it, Roger tried to kill the group (or let it die) figuring that since he might as well be doing solo albums anyway, it was time to get on with it in reality...Dave figured that if Roger wanted to quit, that was fine, but he didn't want to quit. After all, they didn't quit when Syd left...what was the difference? In both cases, the prime mover left the band and it carried on.

If there had been the internet back in the Nineteen-Sixties, there would certainly be an argument similar to this one on a web board...the only difference is we'd be talking about Syd and Roger rather than Roger and Dave.

I think there's something to be said for the fact that Roger would be in both arguments...

[bong]

Well, I still think the In The Flesh DVD sucked.

[mosespa]

Well...you're certainly entitled to your opinion...but you're wrong:P



You may not have liked it, but it did not suck.

[flashback]

I have to say that in his opinion it sucked and for him he's right even though you may not agree and your opinion is right for you.Everybody has the right to their own and the right to express it as long as you don't insult people.Like the old saying( I have my right to be right and you have your right to be wrong) haha,but really in a lot of this stuff thier is no right or wrong just personal views.I like to think that even though I may not agree with your opinion I will defend your right to say it, thats the idea behind free speach.

[mosespa]

I have to say that in his opinion it sucked and for him he's right even though you may not agree and your opinion is right for you.Everybody has the right to their own and the right to express it as long as you don't insult people.Like the old saying( I have my right to be right and you have your right to be wrong) haha,but really in a lot of this stuff thier is no right or wrong just personal views.I like to think that even though I may not agree with your opinion I will defend your right to say it, thats the idea behind free speach.

I appreciate that, flashback...and I will stand behind your right to use poor grammer and spelling



By the way...I apologize if that came out insensitive. It just occurred to me that english may not be your first language and that you may not be used to communicating in it...if this is the case, I sincerely apologize.

If, however, english IS your first language...fet the yuck over it

[bong]

Well...you're certainly entitled to your opinion...but you're wrong:P



You may not have liked it, but it did not suck.

Well, MY ONION is that it S*U*C*K*E*D.

[flashback]

Mosespa,it doesn't what language I speak or spell the point still sticks,but it doesn't bother me. I have got tough skin. Uckfay ouyay bub.