The pros and cons of Roger Waters

[NewEarthMud]

Ah yes, I stand corrected.

[glasgowmark]

Sorry, but i can't agree there. Waters solo material is by far better than anything floyd have done since his departure. KAOS wasn't that great, but it reminds me of AMLOR and the DIVISION BELL in that it was a straight album of pop orientated songs. TPACOHH and AMUSED TO DEATH were brilliant albums, and definitely follow on from the Wall & the Final Cut- arguably Floyd's best two albums.
Gilmour's solo albums haven't had much to shout about- they're good but not that good. At least Waters puts more effort into his solo work. I've seen both the Floyd & Waters live and i know who i would go and see again...RW!

[David Smith]

Ok, when ever anyone critises anything it's always because it has to be compared to something else. Gon on, think of a crap film, and the reason it's crap is because another film in it's genre is much better (or it's just a really, really bad film) and so that film is a let down.

Roger does prog rock music and pink floyd were giants in the field, he also used to be in them so he has to be compared. The thing is you can't just say a bands really good because unless you're willing to compare them to another great band then that means they really aren't very good. So if you're unwilling to compare floyd and waters that's just saying waters isn't that great on his own.

I don't feel Waters music has progressed that much. Sorry, but PACOHH does sound a bit like Pink Floyd. I can't put my finger on why.

Amused To Death in places does sound similar. The best song on it was ATD which sounds like Pink Floyd. if you replace the female voices with Dave's i feel most of the album could be Pink Floyd. And lets be honest, WGW and PS couldn't have been Floyd songs, but they shouldn't even be songs anyway. Awful. The best songs sound like Pink Floyd.

And by the way, when i said he relies on other musicians to much, i meant because the title promises us Roger Waters, and a number of songs are instrumentals or have other singers. perhaps if it was released under the name of Roger waters and the bleeding hearts band then it would be a different story

[Keith Jordan]

Yeah, i like your point david. Things are rubbish only because they are compared to other things. If Pink Floyd post Waters was looked at in isolation, they it may actually look good!! If Waters work was looked at in isolation, then musically. it would be great.

Anybody who has any doubt as to what made Pink Floyd great you just have to look at the output from Floyd and solo performers. Waters solo career is not very interesting at all in my opinion in terms of music. Well, except from the song sheep from Rogers 2002 tour.

I prefer the music the Gilmour led Floyd are doing to be honest but looking at it in isolation! The heyday of floyd has gone and the tired dinasaur has created new life in solo careers and a new machine called Pink Floyd V3.0.

[David Smith]

Hmm, great sarcassim Keith. i wasn't meaning that it has to be done, but come on, those people who claim "Roger did great solo work" then if it was good why's it unfair to compare it to another good band?

The film Mallrats always has to be compared to Clerks because it's by the same director. Now you could claim Mallrats is a good film, but it's not. The fact that people say "you shouldn't compare the two, they're both good films" implies that they don't like Mallrats either and that they just don't want to compare it to Clerks because they know which is better. Same with Roger and Pink Floyd. if his career was really anything above average then why would it be unfair to compare it to Pink Floyd?

[Tommy]

Ok, when ever anyone critises anything it's always because it has to be compared to something else. Gon on, think of a crap film, and the reason it's crap is because another film in it's genre is much better (or it's just a really, really bad film) and so that film is a let down.

i know! its like when people go to see Jurassic Park 3 and expect American Beauty

[David Smith]

Well more jurassic park 3 and jurassic park 1.

Actually i thought the 3rd was ok, it was the dodgy second one that i didn't like atall. I think though the reason you couldn't logically call Jurassic Park 3 a good film though is because flat out it would be unfair to compare it to a good film, in other words admitting it's bad.

Come on, why's in unfair to compare roger and floyd, especially when they're in the same genre. if he does good solo music then why can't it be compared to good band music? Is it because it's not good?

[RegV8]

Those thing "that song doesn't sounded like PF" is a great crap.

Pigs On The Wing doesn't sound like See Emily Play
In The Flesh doesn't sound like Atom Heart Mother
Money doesn't sound like Remember A Day

And the list goes on...

Is accetable criticizing an album or a track for being bad musically or lyrically, but for not being part of the Pink Floyd Opus, it's bulls*it.

So, why Roger or any of the other in their solo carrears have the obligation to "sound like PF"? They can expand their musical horizons, and what's the problem with that? Music is not static, it's mutant, dinamic. So, don't expect hear Dark Side on Radio Kaos. The quality of the album (awful, IMO) is part of other debate.

[David Smith]

Ok, i never actually said that, i said his musics bad when compared to some good bands like pink floyd. Everyone else said it's unfair to compare the two, but come on, it's not unfair. By saying it's unfair that's the same as saying that Roger's just nothing like as good not making him a great arist.

Why's it unfair to compare Jurassic Park to The Godfather? Because when you do you see that Jurassic Park really isn't a classic movie atall.

[Stiggs]

I think TPACOHH is a damn good album. It has a lot of strong points in my opinion. Out of his albums I find this the best. The first half of the cd I think is the better half, but it's still a really good album. I love Clapton's work on 4:41 AM (Sexual Revolution), and I think Roger does some of his best singing work here on this album, the best best example is 4:33 AM (Running Shoes).
Radio Kaos is something different. It has an 80s sound to it, but IMO I think that was intentional. The album I feel is a take on music on the radio, I think the 80s sound is used in a satirical sense. Roger's giving his take on the music of the day, how to make it, life as a rock star, etc., so it has an 80s sound to it. If you pay attention to the lyrics, you'd understand what I'm saying.
Amused To Death is a really good album musically, however it really didn't strike me that much lyrically. It's kind of hard to find the theme of the songs, or an album as a whole I feel. There are a number of good songs on there. What God Wants 1-3 are interesting to listen to.
In The Flesh (DVD I own) I like a lot. It's interesting to hear just Roger doing his own thing on the songs without David. Granted, it's not quite the same without Dave's classic voice, but as a whole I like In The Flesh a lot.

So in summary, Roger's solo career I like. It's no Pink Floyd, but let's face it. All he really needs is Dave to sound like Pink Floyd. There are many good/great/awesome keyboardists and drummers out there (my favorites are the guys from Phish, whom I feel can outperform Rick and Nick anyday), so it wouldn't be too hard to recreate a Pink Floyd sound without them anyways, but that's just the opposite of what Roger wants to do, anyways.

[David Smith]

Hey stiggs, howcome this is like the first time you've posted here in like 5 months? Your presence was greatly missed by all.

Now you mentioned the themes of amused to death, whihc i gather is something to do with television, but what exactly is it? Can someone on the forum please do a short analysis of it song by song? If you can then cheers, i just don't see how songs like Three Wishes can get on an album about television, or perfect sense. And further yet, what is the concept?

Cheers to anyone who puts one up.

[Real Pink in the Inside]

As Vernon Fitch nicely put it one sentence, ATD "explores the human condition relative to the evolution of the mass media."

I don't have the time to do a song-by-song analysis.

I recommend going to Google.com and searching for:

"Amused To Death" + "Roger Waters" + "Analysis"

[David Smith]

Yeah fair enough, it' just people don't really deabte subjects or anything on a single internet page.

Although i do have a question. This Q sound thing it uses? I heard it gives special messages and effects or something. Has anyone here done it yet? And if so what did you hear?

[Real Pink in the Inside]

Although i do have a question. This Q sound thing it uses? I heard it gives special messages and effects or something. Has anyone here done it yet? And if so what did you hear?

From the ATD booklet:

"This recording was mixed in QSound, a new audio technology producing a wider, more natural sound field.

To hear the QSound effect you must be positioned centrally between the two speakers. If the dog barking at the beginning of the record doesn't sound like he's in the yard next door then your speakers are out of phase.

QSound Tech: Buzz Burrowes

Thanks to Danny Lowe, Brian Cowieson, and all at QSound for their technical innovation and support."

From the Pink Floyd Encyclopedia:

"QSound - Three dimensional sound technique that introduces minute delays at different frequency levels into the left and right channels to make your brain think that the sound is coming from a number of other positions around you."

[Stiggs]

Wow thanks Dave, I didn't know I was missed. I'm flattered. I dunno, I guess I stopped posting for a while cuz I really didn't have much to say. But there was a period for about 2 weeks (I was in Florida) with no posts from Stiggs. I came back and now you're the moderator?!?!?!?!?!?! LoL.

Anyways...yeah I would appreciate an analysis of Amused To Death. Roger's concepts were almost always clear...I'm not exactly sure why I couldn't figure out this one.