Ruminations on Fandom and Fame (excerpt)

This is a "reprint" of one of my essays from my site. I got to thinking about this after reading some recent posts, so I thought I'd share it here, if anyone was interested.
---------------------------------------------------------------------

Ruminations on Fandom and Fame, Part Two
by GilmourWhore #1



"You Know I'm Right"

Years ago I read an essay in Rolling Stone magazine about Beatle fans (and rock fans in general) titled "The Violent Gods". The writer spoke of meeting a cabbie in New York City who was upset regarding the (then) recent death of John Lennon. He quoted the cabbie as saying words to the effect of "Why couldn't he have killed Ringo instead?" (It's been a long time since I read the article, but that sentiment remains in my memory to this day.) Never mind the fact that Ringo Starr was a Beatle, too. Never mind that Ringo is human, has a family, has friends, and from most accounts is a rather nice fellow. In this man's mind, it would have been better for Mark David Chapman to assassinate Ringo, instead, if it meant that John Lennon would have lived; simply because he liked John more.


Fans make these judgments all the time, often without thinking. Fans of Pink Floyd have their own battles on an ongoing basis, regarding whether the band should have continued after Roger Waters' departure. Some felt in 1968 that the band should cease to exist after Syd Barrett's departure. Some feel that David Gilmour is well within his rights to continue without Waters. And to say the least, Pink Floyd/Roger Waters/David Gilmour fans are VERY passionate about their stances in these debates.
I for one do not understand why. Why fight with someone else - in person or on the 'net - over the politics of the band? If you don't like Pink Floyd without Roger Waters, don't listen to post-Final Cut recordings. Why do fans feel compelled to fight these battles on behalf of their heroes?


I have advised the fans who come to this site - in particular the ones who wish to become "GilmourWhores" in an official capacity - to refrain from these fights. They accomplish nothing and just create "bad blood" among the factions. I have often stated my opinion on the situation, and I will here, as well.


For the record: I believe that David Gilmour has every right to continue on with the Pink Floyd name, without Roger Waters' participation in the band. David had given nearly twenty-six years of his life to the band, by the time that Waters felt it was time to stop; I feel that it was (and is) an invalidation of his work to expect them to disband and go their separate ways because Waters said to.


Don't get me wrong, I do see Waters' side in this, too. It has to be hard to see something you have devoted so much of your time and energy to, change and become something other than what you wanted. It has to be hard to see that part of your life grow and live apart from you.


But that is the point: Pink Floyd has lived and grown without him, in large part due to "brand recognition". But, believe it or not, there are fans out there that came into the fold via A Momentary Lapse of Reason and The Division Bell. The Pink Floyd shows on the two most recent tours still sold out arenas (which Waters surely hated), and made massive profits all the same.


The argument may then be made that all success isn't monetary. What about the cost to the band on an Artistic level? Has the integrity of the lyrics or the music been compromised by the loss of the man who could justifiably be considered the lyrical "Voice" of the band? Again, this is a purely subjective matter, and what follows is my opinion on the matter - so your feelings may differ.


For the record: I believe that, without a doubt, Waters was the superior lyricist. Now, if the GilmourWhores will pick themselves up off the floor and stop muttering about sacrilege, I'll explain. Gilmour himself has made no secret of the fact that he often struggles with the writing of lyrics. (And the wheels of the spin factory are whirring as I think about this, of course.) He has often brought in additional lyricists to assist him, whether in his solo efforts, or the last two Pink Floyd albums. Some of his best songs feature lyrics written with or by other artists. This is not to say that Gilmour hasn't written some fine pieces, but he admits that he tends to stumble about with words. If one puts Gilmour's lyrics up against Waters', in my humble, humble opinion, Waters' words will win most every time. And the reason is simple: Passion.


Waters is far more passionate about the things that upset and anger him than Gilmour is. He has proven himself more eloquent at expressing his rage at injustice, or his perceptions of injustice, than Gilmour has. With Waters, it seems that his entire life's work (starting from a young age) has been to express his displeasure with the world at large. He is fortunate in that his ability to do so is acceptable and identifiable for most of the general public. Waters is most successful when he tackles themes of a universal nature, such as alienation, loneliness, frustration, and yes, even hope. His words tend to be to be very personal, and quite often, are written in first person.


Gilmour, however, seems for the most part content to pour his soul out through the musical side of his compositions. His lyrics, while certainly not terrible, are not as profound as the music they accompany. Gilmour seems to rely much more on rhyming and second and third person narratives in his songs, than does Waters. He is also more likely to fall into clichés in his writing of lyrics. From what the fans are able to perceive, by and large, Gilmour's personality would indicate that he prefers to hang back, avoid trouble, and just get things moving along. This is hardly the stuff of a lyricist who wishes to proclaim his thoughts and feelings to the world. His lack of confidence in his lyrics shows from time to time, and is most evident (again, in my humble opinion) on The Division Bell, where he took the assistance of numerous co-lyricists.


It is my belief that Pink Floyd's "Artistic Zenith" was during the years from Meddle onward through The Final Cut. With Gilmour contributing so much toward the musical side of things and Waters mastering the lyrical content and underlying themes, the band reached their apex and has yet to match, meet or supersede that period.


Frankly, I feel that Pink Floyd without Roger Waters is lacking in something. I think the acerbic tone that once dominated the band's works has been lost without Waters, and that is a pity. However, I also feel that Waters' solo work since 1984 has been lacking in the melodic beauty that Gilmour contributed to Waters' works when they were performed by Pink Floyd. With his exquisite handling of Waters' musical concepts, Gilmour made Waters' bitter pills easier to swallow. The major contribution Gilmour made (and still makes) to Pink Floyd is the transcendence he achieves through the "ribbon and wires" provided to him. Waters has recruited the finest guitarists in the world to work with him on his solo projects, Eric Clapton and Jeff Beck among them, and yet Gilmour's talents are still sorely missed. The balance of the two strong musical minds has been upset and lost, and each teeters dangerously toward their respective strengths, which, when left unchecked, have to some degree become liabilities.

__________________
"Roger lost his father in the war, I lost mine in Greenwich Village..." David Gilmour
--------------------------------------
It's easy when you stop pretending that you just got lost on the way
------------------------------------------
When did you first realize/It's time you took an older lover, baby?