Why is Roger so bitter towards Dave?

That's true...I just think he really believes in certain principles. Not a bad thing but it does tend to make one a bit stubborn. Anyways, like I said, life's too short and you gotta compromise sometimes.

I'd agree with that. Waters has always come across to me as a pompous ass, except for at Live 8 where I got all pink and fuzzy inside when I saw him coax Dave for a group bow. Actually, on the making of DSOTM he also seems to have mellowed a bit, but I've read interviews where he just comes across as an egotistical wanker. Waters' lyrics move me, and obviously his influence was undeinable, but when it comes down to the SOUND Gilmour stamps his authority all over it. I am sure that Dave can be as problematic as Rog when he wants to, and he's given his share of interviews where he's slagged him off too.

In the end though, as a quartet they were a force to be reckoned with and the tension etc. all got poured into the music. And that's what it's all about, surely? Nothing is ever all neat and tidy, but maybe all of that animosity etc. simply had to be there to make everything work? Music like that comes from the soul - It is the ultimate form of expression, and as such it's a hugely personal thing. It must have been hard for Roger to see the other guys all playing songs which he was emotiolly attached to and which he wrote himself.

All I know is that after seeing them at Live 8 and experiencing a flawless performance which made every single artist that had gone before (and that came after) seem like a bunch of amateurs at a school talent night (OK - Maybe I'm being a bit harsh there - The Zutons Rocked, as did 1 Giant Leap) I am selfishly praying that they at least give us the chance to see them do a final tour.

To lose something that special is a real tragedy.

Well said although I think Roger contributed a lot musically as well as lyrically.
Everyone of their masterpieces had his involvement. However, the slagging from all of them really needs to stop. It's pretty nasty and it's getting a bit tired. And I thought I was bitter.

Actually I thought that made Waters look like an even bigger pompous ass than usual! The whole gesture seemed to be saying 'hey I'm Rog Waters and I'm a forgivin kinda guy! Aint my humility and magnanimity impressive!' (no it isn't you wanker).

The thread is called Why is Roger so bitter towards Dave?, why not call it Why is Gilmour not bitter towards dickhead Roger?? The reason for the bitterness on Waters side is of course because he thinks he was Pink Floyd, and that his three band mates committed some sort of heresy by continuing without him. Gilmour has a right to equal status with Waters, the band is as much his at it is Waters. In fact I would go further and say Gilmour would have been a greater loss to Pink Floyd than Waters was.

If Waters was so great we would all be buying The Final Cut along with his solo albums, but instead we preferred to buy A Momentary Lapse of Reason and The Division Bell because musically they are more Floydian than Waters efforts.

What the Live8 thing showed was what a proverbial spare prick at the Floydian wedding Roger Waters really is. The band gained bugger all from having him there, it would have been just as good without him.

My advice to the Floyd boys is leave out Roger the Prat and stick with the excellent Guy Pratt , a far superior musician, and I bet he isn't a pompous asshole either!

P.s. I still appreciate Waters lyrics!

...yes

__________________
It's a crime that the swift should be held back by the slow, and it's criminal that nothing is going to rectify it.

...wow.

Roger would be proud of that rant.

Interesting, how 2 people can view the same bit of telly and take 2 totally opposite things away from it. If you watch, Dave appears to have little interest in doing anything at the end other than just walking off stage. Waters beckons him and sticks his arm around him. Beyond that, none of us really know why he did it. He seemed genuinely moved when he did his little speech about "being counted" and I think that whatever any of us think of him, he's a very emotional guy who wears his heart on his sleeve. You have to be that in touch with your emotions to write some of the lyrics that he did. Maybe I got caught up in the whole evening, but I thought that I'd take the positive view and give Rog the benefit of the doubt (as if my opinion mattered anyway).

Personally I think that Rog simply was happy on that one occasion to put aside whatever went on before and enjoy the experience. I mean, let's face it, anything Waters ever did on his own pales into comparison when compared to Floyd *puts flame suit on*, so playing those songs he contributed greatly to, in front of that many people for something other than money would surely have moved the guy?

But, IMHO, you're right about Roger not being necessary for the band to continue. Pink Floyd can be perfectly good without Waters (particularly since he isn't really a great bass player), but Waters would never be able to do the Floyd thing without Gilmour; He's irreplaceable in that band. Can you imagine someone else playing Gilmour's solos? It'd be laughable, no matter how good of a player they were. Roger must REALLY have the hump with that concept.

With all that said, to see them all play together for a full length show again would be something I'd love to see.

Yes these things are very subjective, I just thought the whole thing looked so contrived.

I don't doubt that it was an emotional experience for our Roger, but I still think he turned his little speech into a rather more self regarding peice of piffle than it needed to be. Being there was enough, and I really think poor Syd should have been left out of it!

The fact that Barrett was mention at all demonstrates what an inflated sense of himself Waters has. You didn't get McCartney going on about "John and George" because it was not about individual bands and their history, it was about world poverty.

Having said that I am sure many of the artisit who performed thought "ending world poverty would be great, and if it boosts my profile and record sales then its doubly great!"

I agree with you.

My feeling was that Roger was giddy with relief at having the emotional and spiritual burden of hate lifted from his shoulders, as well as a natural feeling of elation at being "back in the saddle".

Yes, Dave seemed very reserved, but, that's the way he is. I'm sure he has nightmares about being back together with Roger. He does not want to get into that war of egos again for anything, as he proved by $hitcanning all offers for a reunion tour.

__________________
Taking away from you for the greater good. (The Audacity of Socialism).

"The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of the blessings.
The inherent blessing of socialism is the equal sharing of misery." -Winston Churchill

"Islam isn't in America to be equal to any other faith, but to become dominant" - Omar Ahmad (founder, C.A.I.R.)

maybe is jealousy, after he left, a momentary lapse of reason sold MiLliONs!!!

__________________
zig-zag-ing my way through the boredom and pain...

Roger has stated, again and again, that record sales are not a matter of personal interest to him. Then again, none of us KNOW these people and our arguments are all based on speculation. I have read countless interviews with the concerned parties from before, during and after the split and they don't point to one definitive answer. These are complicated people. It's not a matter of black and white, us versus them. There are combined interests on both sides of the divide and Live 8 should show that more clearly than ever.

To classify Roger (a man who almost none of us have ever met) as "a pompous asshole; an egotistical wanker; a selfish prick; a flaming prima donna; a bitter, sad, very angry and possibly lonely man; a dickhead who lost his mind", or whatever, is a childish and pointless exercise. No one can claim to have all their facts straight, not even the people directly involved.

For example, Bob Ezrin was NOT on friendly terms with Roger when he decided to work with Dave. I'm pretty sure Rog was still hurting from Bob's (accidental) press leak of the Wall show's ending before it was officially revealed. Dave was exhibiting dysfunctional attitudes as well. No one party is at fault for the breakup, and now that a reunion has taken place we can close this chapter as a protracted and embarrassing episode of the past.

I think it was essential that he let everyone know exactly what he thought of the event, and what his motivations were for taking part in it. He did so in a concise yet heartfelt few moments, referencing fourty years of band history as well as hundreds of years of British history ("standing to be counted" should ring a very deep and resonant chord). Dave hardly said a word.

You would prefer that he be swept under the rug, despite the attention he was receiving from the media and fans? People KNOW why John and George weren't at Live 8 and few people cared that Ringo wasn't there. Syd's story is still grounded in rumour and speculation for the most part and I think everyone deserved to know that the whole band (check out Rick's nod of agreement) had him in their thoughts.

Speak for yourself.

I suggest you watch Roger's DVD "In the Flesh," it is an interesting and actually quite entertaining exploration of this very concept.

__________________
what do you teach your children about me?
what do you teach your little children about me?
pimp, thug, bling drug lord of the undergrounded kings
how can you be so sure i won't call down the rain?
what do you teach your little children about me?
you point your gun, wait, hide and run. i see it plain

Yeah well when your personal fortune is counted in tens of millions you can afford to be that flippant.

Besides, Waters during the Floydian civil wars always painted himself as the principled artist, and Gilmour/Mason/Wright has fraudsters cashing in on his band and his works. It wouldn't - from a propaganda point of view - pay to be too interested in record sales.

However it is perfectly fair to point out that Waters did - after Wish You Were Here - move the band away from its money minting sound, and away from what the Pink Floyd audience wanted to hear, in order to pursue his own creative goals. Indeed he lost a small fortune during the tour of The Wall. I can and do respect that.




Why? He was there, wasn't that enough? Did he really need to state his reasons so publicly? Does Waters not realise that the majority of the Great British public don't really give a rats arse about his motivation? As I said earlier I don't think the performance would have been worse without Waters, it might have been better, and people would have enjoyed seeing Pink Floyd , not Roger Waters. I think our man Waters still thinks he is Pink Floyd and that the nation ought to be grateful that he graced them with his presence on that day.


Sensible Dave! Although the words "shut up Roger you twat!" might have been appropriate.


Yes I would, the Live8 thing was about ending world poverty, it was not about Pink Floyd (whom most viewers probably had little interest in) who were one of many bands appearing that day. Rogers musings could have waited to another time. Problem was that the stage was such a big one, and so many people were watching, and so old Rog just couldn't restrain his ego for a whole twenty minutes.


Records sales (and concert sales) tell you all you need to know on that score.

Of course, because it's all about numbers in the end, and when someone appears to have stuck to their own principles for the past thirty years it's obviously just propagandic posturing to move those numbers. I find it unbelievable that this "shut up and play" mentality should find co-habitation in such a fundamentally political context.

__________________
what do you teach your children about me?
what do you teach your little children about me?
pimp, thug, bling drug lord of the undergrounded kings
how can you be so sure i won't call down the rain?
what do you teach your little children about me?
you point your gun, wait, hide and run. i see it plain

Here is a little peice of logic: People buy Pink Floyd records because they are good to listen to. People leave Roger Waters records on the shop shelf because they judge them to be boring and pretenious crap. This is reflected in record sales, so yes numbers do come into it as people vote with their disposable income. Sticking by you principles is all very admirable, but a shite record remains a shite record regardless of the creators principles. And when you are as rich as Rog Waters you can make as many shite records as you like and the Pink Floyd royalties will still pay the bills.