Could Pink Floyd have done a great job with "Pros and Cons of Hitchhiking "

Ouch.

People paying that much money to see dude mime.

 

Blimey - while you and are see the merits of Pros and Cons rather differently, we are so totally in lock-step regarding the post-Waters releases it's uncanny

Pink Floyd - The Later Years (Official!)

 

Well, he doesn't play bass OR sing?

It's not a "bashfest" if it's the truth...

 

Hehe that is uncanny.

To be honest, if I was Gilmour I am not sure if I would be more embarrassed that Carin had to write a come back hit for me or just pleased that I could always state the he wrote that turd.....

 

Damn.

That's damning.

 

It would be most embarrassing if Gilmour had to lip sync it live and charge people $300 a ticket to do it...

 

It's very strange as he is more than capable - yet the two hits 'One Slip' and 'Learning to Fly' sound nothing remotely like Pink Floyd, due to the music being written by Phil Manzanera and Jon Carin respectively.

David's 'About Face' had some decent stuff - 'Murder' is a superb track, and I think that was 90% David apart from a couple of Pete Townshend co-writes, so he's clearly very capable.

I'm not sure how it went so wrong on 'A Momentary Lapse of Reason'?

 

im shocked.

 

It's obvious you have some kind of anti Roger Water axe to grind.
But I think you're embarrassing yourself on this forum with these inaccurate statements you keep making and the little cheap shots you keep throwing in.

 

No, I still maintain LTF is more embarrassing. And if it isn't, the Dogs of War certainly is.

I think Dave's material often lives and dies based on who he is co-writing with. Roger Waters - good. Rick Wright - good. Jon Carin and Antony Moore. Not so good. But I do agree, Murder is a great solo Dave track.

 

I've thought about starting a thread discussing A Momentary Lapse of Reason as a David Gilmour solo album, since that's what it started out as, and more or less what it ended up as anyway - he only called it Pink Floyd to spite Roger. He did write half of it himself, and played all over it. If he had released it under his own name, I think "Learning to Fly" would still have been a hit. Does it sound like Pink Floyd? No, but it fit 1987 perfectly, and was a hell of a lot better than a lot of other big singles that year. Not to mention Radio KAOS (but I will anyway): "Between Ian Ritchie and myself, we really ****ed that record up." - R. Waters

 

It's not 'Anti-Waters' on my end, it's just that, on a purely musical level, I'm more 'pro-Gilmour', if that makes sense?

I LOVE 'Learning to Fly' and 'On the Turning Away.'

It was fresh, new, exciting when those songs hit AOR in the late 80s. I was TIRED of Winwood and the "Higher Love", Danny Kootch-type sound on the radio.

So I associate those songs with my childhood, I was like in 2nd grade. Memories.

 

Do it.

 

What this guy said:

I still love Roger Waters, and agree with many of his views, but I take issue with anyone claiming that his solo catalog constitutes any part of his legacy. Even if he'd successfully prevented anyone from using the Pink Floyd name ever again, Roger's career would still be lagging behind Gilmour's because he has a history of making poor business and creative decisions. For all of his love of Bob Dylan and Neil Young, he doesn't realize that he himself could release an album of just him singing and playing an acoustic guitar, craggy voice an all, and it would probably be an instant classic. Instead he's still straining himself to prove that he was that band that he quit thirty-some years ago.

 

Oh, and...Dave and Rick wrote a Grammy-winning song.

 

This is such an incredibly astute observation, and one I had never considered...

 

Truth.

 

I don't think the band would have survived the effort (to be honest, they didn't really survive The Wall, did they?). The project would have likely been left incomplete and shelved, or "completed" by Waters at a later date.

 

Again, incredibly subjective. I feel that Amused to Death is the best thing to come out of the Floyd camp since the 70s and many people agree. And Is This the Life is a largely acoustic album, deviod of any guitar solos whatsoever and many people love that album as well. Remember, he is not the one that carried on clinging to the Pink Floyd brand in eighties. He voluntarily walked away from it in the full knowledge that a solo career would be a hard slog. You could call it a poor business decision - I would call it quitting for artistic reasons as opposed to staying put for financial ones.

 

Which kind of decision was it to play his greatest hits in stadiums after vowing never to play in stadiums?

Why doesn't he play those songs live?

 

I totally disagree with the take on Momentary. First of all the vast majority of Floyd fans know that album and recognize it as Floyd.

Not sure why Waters fans feel a need to diss the Floyd work that they did without Roger. But I understand that they do that.

 

So, why does David Gilmour play a lot of his post-1983 output live...but Roger mainly sticks to repackaging his greatest 70s successes for his live palette?

And further, why does Roger not allow any artistic interpretations, and Gilmour does allow his band to reinterpret the older stuff?

Honest questions.

 

Absolutely. They've done 3 albums as 'Pink Floyd' in the past 35 years, and yet people act like Gilmour and Co. have been plundering and pillaging the PF legacy.

 

Whats damning about it?
He has a backing track with the whispered vocal track doubling him to recreate how the song was originally recorded.