Rogers Sued The Band

Well, Roger just wanted them to serve him and leave him all the credits. That's the problem.

Roger thought he was right at the time (probably still does...), he didn't realize what a pain in the ass people like him are.

I have a classmate like that, we were all working together, chipping in ideas for a short film, but then he suddenly came up with the main concept for it, and he took over. I fought him at first -we argued all the time-, but then he kicked me out of the project! He didn't let me do anything with it. And if I wanted to be on the credits, he said either do what he wanted, or leave.

I know it's a bit off-topic, and I'm not taking anybody's side, but I just wanted to talk about both sides of a story

Actually, I don't think it was entirely the credit issue (though that was definitely involved), but rather that he thought the four of them were no longer on the same track and for the band to continue on without him was equal to false advertising.

Roger did have a point at the time, because AMLOR, as all hardcore fans are aware, is barely a Pink Floyd album. Roger's main argument was that Dave was using the name for purely his own career. Also, as Roger has pointed out in several interviews, Dave was casting about for help at the time trying to get other musicians to suggest a conept for the new album. So, in that respect, the name was being unfairly used.

However, having said that, I don't believe this justified near enough evidence for the name to be put to rest. There have been many bands before that have eventually manifested into a one-man-band with a brand label, it's just sometimes what happens when individual members take control. Dire Straits last two albums may as well have been credited to Mark Knopfler alone. Later on, thankfully, Rick and Nick did find their place in the band again on TDB. I truly beleive Roger was a fool to do what he did, and an even bigger fool to continually slag off AMLOR and TDB in interviews. Sometimes I wonder weather his suing of the band was simply a build up of bitterness over the fact that they were continuing without him, rather than an honest belief that they didn't have the rights to use the name.

1) *concept* dude, thats how its spelt
2) I personally dont think he had the rights to sue them, HOWEVER, I also don't think they should have used the name Pink Floyd. Pink Floyd was an amazing band, back when Waters was in it, but I hate all their new stuff. Alot of the newer albums success can obviously put into the faith the fans had that the albums would be like old Floyd. Even if they had been called Pink Floyd II it would be better, because it would show it was different then the original Floyd, which it is. Thats just my 2 cents, Canadian money, so that like what, 1000 of a pound?

well around the time roger left, he had been 95% of Pink Floyd. (The Wall, Final Cut.....) and was going to start a new project (Hitchhiking).

So looking at it that way only, I would think Roger should have the name, but of course you have the stuff before The Wall done where David contributed much as well as Nick and Richard.

Seeing it as only the Dark Side of the Moon kind of period, plus adding on that Roger left the band, not David and the others, It wouldn't seem unfair that the remaining members of Pink Floyd have the name.

It looks to me like he lost because of number 2, with the idea that this band wasn't just him and he left.

I don't like that David and his side got the name, seeing that Pink Floyd was Roger and David, really. They were the main voices and writers of the words/music. Dividing them doesn't give you Pink Floyd. It gives you Roger or David.

David was obviously in for the money, as well as Roger. If David loved making the music and focusing on the music as much as he said, he would care less if he was called Big Pile of Bullshit, The Band. They both wanted to capitalize on the popularity of the old name to sell their new music that they knew would sound different.

Nick Mason did sit at the drum kit for Set the Controls for the heart of the sun on the "In The Flesh" gig at Wembley Arena.

Um, it is sad to say that they will never tour together again.

As for Roger writing most of the lyrics. How could you expect Rick Wright to write anything when Roger IS writing most of the lyrics? No wonder Rick hit the Cocaine and became a recluse in Greece.

WhiteHouse

floyd just became really personal to roger, and he didn't think their could floyd without him

It seems to me that in Roger's somewhat megalomaniacial mind (at the time at least), he was Pink Floyd,he was responsible for all their successful output, he was the one behind the concepts, he saw where he wanted the Pink Floyd brand to be going. I actually think that he may have got a bit pissed off by, as he saw it, the apathy of his bandmates on this last matter. Chances were, they were probably sick of playing shit music and singing about teenager bollocks by this point and were starting to give less of a **** about Pink Floyd or Roger as a whole, but I reckon that Roger wouldn't have viewed it in this fashion, having such total conviction and self belief in his every bass run or shatty Fletcher lyric.

Sure Roger wrote all of the lyrics, or most of them and he can take credit for that, but i see it that he can also take the credit for not allowing the others to write stuff, like i never heard about Roger asking anyone else for their input, so maybe he had just come up with that, he would completely control the band, and when he got tired of it he would quit and sue them cause he could. why did he quit anyways? was he just bored of it or did some huge thing happen?

I'm glad Roger wrote most of the lyrics. Listening to any post Waters Floyd, Gilmour, is a terrible lyracist compared to Waters. They aren't even in the same class. Floyd has changed from what it was, into IMO 2nd rate standard rock, the magic isn't there anymore for me.

That's true but, when Barret left, PF weren't (one of) the best rock band ever...

I can understand Rogers point of veiw he thought the band was dead