Quote:
Originally Posted by Trollheart
Sorry, maybe it's that English is not your first language, but a comment like the bolded one can only be seen as arrogant.
Why would you characterise their behaviour thus? What basis is there to accuse them of such things? Two of the three remaining members were founders, so why should they not have carried on? It was that comment that sparked my response; I don't get why you think that. These men certainly had their money made, but musicians don't just play for money alone. They had spent decades building up the Pink Floyd name and sound, and creating a fanbase. Why should they have jacked it all in just because they could no longer work with Roger Waters?
I accept that you, and most people, hate The Division Bell and A Momentary Lapse of Reason, but I don't, and you can see there were some very good ideas on both albums. It's not like they continued on just to spite Waters. Also, I'm not a Waters-hater, in case you think that: I possess and enjoyed most of his solo output, and see no reason why you have to be in one camp or the other.
I do agree though that The Endless River was nothing more than a shoddy, shameful money-making scam (see my extensive review of same in my journal) and a terrible kick in the teeth to the loyal fans.
|
OK, first of all I think there's no need to call me an arrogant to discuss this.
Maybe I've not explained very well the bolded sentence.
They were all behaving like selfish 3 year old kids. Not because one of them wanted to leave and the other founding members wanted to continue. Did you know that they got in a huge fight because of a freakin' flying pig? Waters demanded Pink Floyd for using the flying pig in their concerts, as it had been his idea. They could've very well given up, they could still perform well without a pig. But instead they chose to add...certain masculine organs to the pig, so Waters couldn't win the trial. They started insulting each other on TV after that. Isn't that behaving like a selfish 3 year old? Or what about when Waters payed an artist to paint Gilmour's face on his toilet paper? Or Gilmour calling Waters a poor imbecile in the middle of an interview? Look, I love of all them, because, believe it or not, I love Pink Floyd really much, and I'm not on Gilmour's or Waters' side. What I'm saying is that after Waters left, all four of them were just focused on harming each other (specially Gilmour and Waters). And as a Pink Floyd fan, I felt ashamed when I read about two of my favourite musicians getting into childish fights, so I would've prefered they had just got separated when Waters left, and then maybe the 4 of them could have joined and done something more interesting than a 24 minute reunion full of tension between them. Waters needed Pink Floyd as much as Pink Floyd needed him...Same thing can be said about Gilmour.
You say that musicians don't just play for money alone, it's true. Gilmour continued because he hated to be under the shadow of Waters (don't know if you say it like that in English). And he saw an opportunity in Roger's departure to use Pink Floyd's name and have a succesful career without depending on Waters. High Hopes is a good song and Learning To Fly could've perfectly fit into a movie soundtrack...But do you think he's going to be remembered because of these songs, or his Comfortably Numb solo?
Anyway, no one's trying to be arrogant here, I know that you don't agree with me, the same way I don't agree with you, but it's OK, no one's trying to be superior than the other one.
Let me know if my English was good enough to make this text understandable.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ribbons
Nice to have you here!  |
Thanks!