[thesellout]

id pay good money to see Gilmour do DArk side, not Waters. I rock, end of discussion

[cochise]

id pay good money to see Gilmour do DArk side, not Waters. I rock, end of discussion

I never nag on someone, well I try not to, but.................ARE YOU INSANE??

I have to say I totally disagree. Roger Waters, is Pink Floyd...............Floyd does not exist without him. Wish You were Here and DSOTM were the brain child of Waters. The Wall and The Final Cut were basically 99.9% Waters..........in fact, The Final Cut was originally to be a Roger Waters solo album and labelled "featuring Pink Floyd" (hey, I didn't say he didn't have a huge ego..........LOL......hence the demise of the group after this album). Bottom line, he was the driving force and genius behind the music.

Nothing against David Gilmour, he is an incredible guitarist and has a fantastic voice. I own, and love all "Pink Floyd" albums that have come out since Waters left...............but in the end, they are nothing but Davild Gilmour solo albums........fantastic stuff, but still not Pink Floyd

Sorry, I don't want to come across harsh, but a Roger Waters concert is as close as you will get to seeing Pink Floyd in concert. (barring a miracle reunion tour........which honestly I don't think is out of the question right now........keep our fingers crossed)

Thats just my humble opinion. I am sure there are a lot of fans out there who would say Pink Floyd did not exist after Syd Barret left too........

[thesellout]

naw, i understand your point. Ive just always identified Pink Floyd as David Gilmour - maybe its because he sings the majority of the songs on Dark Side, who knows? Besides, if writing "I rock, end of discussion" in my other post was a sign of arrogance, we can forgive roger.

[bruins4]

It can only be Pink Floyd with David and Roger. Syd was the man and then Roger took the reins. David has contributed a lot and if not for him the "Floyd" sound would not be...............Roger has the "vision".

Great book out - Comfortably Numb/The History of the Wall. It contains everything that went into the making of the album and concerts. For the diehard Wall fanatic.

[The Horrible Esthete]

Thanks to the wonders of technology, I've listened to the show. Now, I haven't had time to listen to the whole DSOTM performance, but that part isn't politically charged and doesn't, by its nature, leave much room for ranting. Let me summarize for you the entire content of Roger Water's stage patter during this performance:
1) on several occasions, he thanks the audience. The bastard!
2) he introduces the song "Leaving Beirut" by spending about one minute recounting a story of how, while touring Lebanon as a teenager, he was taken in by an Arab family, and now wonders what became of them. How political can you get!
3) finally, the fucker spends 2-1/2 minutes introducing his band. The bastard!

I didn't hear any political commentary from the stage, outside of the setlistAlas, you've already agreed that it's acceptable for an artist to perform politically charged songs -- and if you're going to see Waters, you more or less have to expect that.

So I guess we don't disagree.

I guess we don't disagree. From your account of the recording, it doesn't sound like he went over the top with political ramblings. Sounds about like what I'd expect from Roger.

It can only be Pink Floyd with David and Roger. Syd was the man and then Roger took the reins. David has contributed a lot and if not for him the "Floyd" sound would not be...............Roger has the "vision".

That's a fair assessment, IMO. Listening to both Roger and David speak on Floyd's genesis and development, it is very evident that Syd was a genius and musical prophet, and without him, Floyd would never have been what it was. He apparently was a key influence for both Waters & Gilmour.

Aside from that, it seems that in a musical context, Waters was the brains of Floyd, and Gilmour was the muscle. I think Waters can write circles around Gilmour, but I also think that without David's vocal and instrumental dressing, Pink Floyd would never have become anything more than some offbeat outfit that enjoyed only a fraction of the success they've reaped, as it would have struggled to gain exposure and would have appealed only to intellectuals and warped artistic tastes.

[KittieKatFish]

A friend (who also went to the concert and was equally disappointed) sent me this article form the Philly Daily News:

ROGER WATERS: THE PINKO IN FLOYD

September 21, 2006

Michael Smerconish

FOR THE second time in my life, I'm writing a column about Pink Floyd. Specifically, about the man I've always considered to be the brains of the band: Roger Waters. The first time I wrote about him was 26 years ago when I was a high school senior at Central Bucks West in Doylestown and editor of the school paper, the Chatterbux.

Back then, I was one of the lucky few to see Pink Floyd perform "The Wall," live at the Nassau County Coliseum on Long Island, N.Y. My review earned me an invitation to the principal's office. I was encouraged to write a retraction on the grounds that I'd promoted a band whose lyrics the principal associated with drug use.

It was a moment straight out of "Another Brick in the Wall, Part 2," "We don't need no education" indeed. I told the principal to pound sand. Maybe even called it a matter of "free speech."

For three decades, the Floyd has never left my playlist.

In fact, I have done what I call "the cycle" for every Floyd and Roger Waters recording, meaning I bought it in all forms in which it was released: album, 8-track, cassette and CD. I once made a London taxi driver take me to the Battersea Power Station just so I could photograph the image that appears on the cover of my favorite album, "Animals." No one was more pleased when the band reunited to headline at Live 8. And in the never-ending debate among Floyd fans on David Gilmore vs. Rogers Waters, I've always sided with Waters.

My affinity for Waters has always been in spite of his politics. Chalk that up to spending too much time studying song lyrics back in the day when they printed such things. I thought rock stars had all the answers.

Fast-forward 25 years.

Last Wednesday, I sat in the front row for a Roger Waters performance at Madison Square Garden. (The same show came to the Tweeter Center in Camden Saturday night.) The crowd was diverse, but mostly like me: white middle-aged guys with receding hair and expanding waists.

It should have been a night to have a few beers and enjoy the soundtrack of my life. Instead, I sat there in my expensive seat, and heckled the guy whose music I know by heart.

Waters' politics are no longer just liberal, they're over the top.

I was expecting the line about "incurable tyrants and kings" when he sang "Fletcher Memorial Home," and I knew there'd be references to Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan.

What I wasn't prepared for was a photo montage featuring Osama, Saddam and George W. Bush. Especially not two days removed from the anniversary of Sept. 11 in the city where the most death and destruction occurred.

I'm sick and tired of entertainment types arguing a moral equivalency between our president and the Butcher of Baghdad and the architect of 9/11.

It's not that I object to the criticism of the president or his policy. But Waters and others lose all credibility when they treat Bush and bin Laden the same way. And that was before Waters announced he was beginning the "controversial" part of the show.

I held my breath as he introduced "Leaving Beirut" with a long-winded story about his teens. Then came:

Are these the people we should bomb

Are we so sure they mean us harm

Is this our pleasure, punishment or crime

Is this a mountain that we really want to climb

The road is hard, hard and long

Put down that two by four

This man would never turn you from his door

Oh, George! Oh, George!

That Texas education must have f------ you up when you were very small.

This is Waters' ridiculous ode to some guy who gave him a lift and a meal when he was hitching in Beirut at 17. According to the logic of his lyrics, because he received this courtesy, we're supposed to overlook the murder of innocents at the hands of radical Islam, including the close to 3,000 who died almost five years to the day, and just blocks from where I was hearing him sing.

I couldn't take it any more. "Go visit Ground Zero!" I shouted from the front row. He heard me, and proceeded to avoid our corner of the stage except to oblige a hottie who wanted to take his picture with her cell phone.

Then the pig came out.

I refer to a giant inflatable pig, a hallmark of many Floyd shows, and the symbol of my aforementioned favorite album. Only this time, the pig was a billboard for Waters' twisted priorities. "Habeas Corpus Matters," it said, among other things. How appalling. I wondered how many in the New York audience had lost relatives or friends in the 9/11 attack and now were witness to his call for more rights for the murderers?

"Go visit Ground Zero," I yelled again.

Roger Waters still has free-speech rights. Bald, bespectacled and willing to shell out for a front-row seat, so do I.

[skippy the wonder dog]

So this dipshit was surprised when he suddenly found that he understood Waters' politics?

Really, this was a surprise to you?

[The Horrible Esthete]

Though you must admit Waters' political criticisms of the past were not focused on the same issues as they obviously are today.

Those lyrics to "Leaving Beirut" are flat-out stupid. Yikes.

[skippy the wonder dog]

Though you must admit Waters' political criticisms of the past were not focused on the same issues as they obviously are today.

They were focused on precisely the same issues, Esthete. What has changed is not the issue, but the events.

Otherwise, you're arguing that a love song can only apply to the specific person the songwriter had in mind. But a love song is a love song, not a girl-who-sat-two-desks-over-in-algebra-class song.

Waters is a pacifist. Current events change, but the politics of his songs remain the same. Seriously, the guy who wrote that article can't have been paying attention. Either that, or he's a fool -- which based on his article, seems probable.

[The Horrible Esthete]

They were focused on precisely the same issues, Esthete. What has changed is not the issue, but the events.

.

Agreed. I actually meant to say "events", but I made a terrible error in word choice by using "issue", which of course, completely changes the meaning.

Which is exactly why your statements would seem to condemn Waters for being a hypocrite:

Otherwise, you're arguing that a love song can only apply to the specific person the songwriter had in mind. But a love song is a love song, not a girl-who-sat-two-desks-over-in-algebra-class song.....Waters is a pacifist. Current events change, but the politics of his songs remain the same.

Waters rips Bush for harming innocent civilians who aren't specifically our "enemies" as he wages war on terror (misguided as it may be), yet he ignores the fact that Bin Laden was the catalyst, using violent aggression against innocent US civillians? Is Waters a "selective" pacifist?

I don't get it.

I guess it's not as sexy to condemn the violence of the terrorists as it is to bash a leader who retaliates with an unpopular war.

[skippy the wonder dog]

Waters rips Bush for harming innocent civilians who aren't specifically our "enemies" as he wages war on terror (misguided as it may be), yet he ignores the fact that Bin Laden was the catalyst, using violent aggression against innocent US civillians? Is Waters a "selective" pacifist?

Well, we could say that Waters is picking on the President because the guy with all the power is the obvious target.

Alternatively, we could say he's picking on what his audience can change, i.e. their own leaders and policies, rather than what they can't, i.e. a fanatic holed up someplace in Pakistan, or Afghanistan, or wherever he may be. I don't think he expects his audience to vote out bin Laden.