Who is more important to the band, gilmour or waters?

It's not a rule, as such, just a general consensus view that duplicate threads
1) "muddy" up the already straightforward thread system; some think contraction/compression is needed,
2) draw attention away from earlier, more original posts and probably longer threads; often missing the effing GOLD! contained therein and
3) Paulo, The Piper, has agreed that duplicate threads are not desirable...

OK, some of us (read: me) are a little hardcore on DDTs, but stay a while and you will see...


Don't go away mad...

I'm very pro-Rog, but I'll let him say it himself:

"It would have been just as wrong if I had carried on using the name. Pink Floyd was four people and as those four people are no longer working together, in my mind that band doesn't exist any more."
--Rock Compact Disc Magazine, Issue 3, September 1992

I am pro-Rog so my vote goes for Roger

I think that Roger had to go on with the name alone, he is Pink Floyd in my opinion. Maybe not at first but he was when the band split up.

While I like both members...I'm a little biased towards Roger. If you want to get picky, I think Roger was more important to the band because he gave Floyd their depth and unique subject matter which helped set them apart from all the other 70's super bands. Gilmour was just another great guitarist of the 70's from an era when there were tons of great guitarists coming out of the woodwork (Page, Sholz, Clapton, Beck, etc.)

Pink Floyd needed both to have the massive impact it did, but Gilmour is more down to earth and ahs always strived to keep the band together even when Roger thought he was the band. Gilmour, Wright and Manson have post Waters produced two good PF albums though not up to previous Floyd they are none the less a good listen. Where as Roger has only striven to end the band and his solo PF album (TFC) is lackluster with nothing really going for it. Pink Floyd needs both but can survive without Rog so Gilmour it is.

Agreed. Anyway i voted Waters

Let's face it, whoever wins this petty poll wasn't Pink Floyd singlehandedly. Roger could not have done it without Dave, and Dave surely couldn't have done it without Roger. They all needed eachother, they needed to feed off of eachother's creative energy.

But, after listening to 'The Final Cut' a million times, I would have to lean toward Roger's side. Not that it matters.

Yeah I mean it doesn't really matter who is more important to the band. Both members are extremely talented and extremely vital to making the music. Personally, I think Roger was more important because he was more "businesslike." Just an opinion, though.

Brock

Still remains senseless.

It's Roger, isn't it.