Roger Waters is still a bitter man

[Orbert]

Even Roger was stunned by people asking him if he was on The Endless river and had to remind them he left the band decades ago. I don't know what's changed.

I thought The Endless River was something of a Frankenstein of older bits that Rick Wright had recorded over the years, and Gilmour played with them and added enough to make them into actual listenable tracks.  At least that's what it sounds like to me.  But if it's repurposed older stuff, then it's not impossible that some of it had Waters on it, unless it was literally just Wright's stuff lifted from tapes and Gilmour built everything else around it.

[Stadler]

What did Roger do back in the day, that upset DG and NM so much that they are still holding a grudge after all these years?

The two big ones were firing Rick Wright, then hiring him as a session musician on "The Final Cut", then after leaving, suing the band for the name and rights to the "intellectual property" (the iconography, mostly).   Even Roger has said in hindsight that suing them was a mistake.   

[Mladen]

I also feel Roger is the one holding the grudge and not David and Nick. David is probably just tired and doesn't want anything to do with Roger. But Nick and Roger are actually cool. Roger appeared on Nick's tour last year, and they even did that Q&A for the movie The Wall several years ago.

[El Barto]

What did Roger do back in the day, that upset DG and NM so much that they are still holding a grudge after all these years?

The two big ones were firing Rick Wright, then hiring him as a session musician on "The Final Cut", then after leaving, suing the band for the name and rights to the "intellectual property" (the iconography, mostly).   Even Roger has said in hindsight that suing them was a mistake.

Rick Wright was a hired gun on the Wall, too, I believe. I know he was for the tour because he's the only one that made any money off of it. Also, I don't think Roger was suing for the name and the rights. I think he was suing to prevent the other three from continuing on under the PF moniker. Roger's take at the time was that PF was no more. I also believe this was a landmark decision that sets the precedent for bands like Quiet Riot continuing on with only one original member. Kind of ironic that Dave has all but abandoned PF now, but is still holding a grudge about being told to do so 30 years ago.

[El Barto]

I also feel Roger is the one holding the grudge and not David and Nick. David is probably just tired and doesn't want anything to do with Roger. But Nick and Roger are actually cool. Roger appeared on Nick's tour last year, and they even did that Q&A for the movie The Wall several years ago.

When I saw Roger on the DSotM tour in Hollywood around 06 he brought Nick out to play the roto-tom intro to Time. I was quite happy to see it. They've been cool with each other for a while.

The video Chris posted of Outside the Wall was pretty awkward, I thought. Roger looked ecstatic for the 3 of them to be on stage, and Dave looked really uncomfortable. He was only there to hold up his end of a bargain, and really didn't look like he wanted to be. Obviously it meant more for Roger than the other two.

[Cool Chris]

I thought Rick was a member of the band while recording the The Wall, but not an active member on the tour, hence he got paid as a player, and didn't lose any as a member.

I really do not know if David is holding a grudge, I can't get in to his head. But even if he is, why should it matter what happened 30 years ago? He felt he, along with Nick and eventually Rick, to whatever degree, had more to say musically, and a desire to perform together as Pink Floyd. An interesting argument from a legal standpoint though.... why would 1/4 of an entity get to dictate if it can continue or not? Was is reasonable? It if was 1/2? 3/4?

The video Chris posted of Outside the Wall was pretty awkward, I thought. Roger looked ecstatic for the 3 of them to be on stage, and Dave looked really uncomfortable. He was only there to hold up his end of a bargain, and really didn't look like he wanted to be. Obviously it meant more for Roger than the other two.

Possibly, but it was also Roger big (and best?) tour, it would naturally mean more to him. And David tends to not be as outwardly expressive. Roger did something for David (can't recall what it was), David did something for Roger. A half-business, half-casual friend deal, nothing more (for David, anyway).

[Stadler]

What did Roger do back in the day, that upset DG and NM so much that they are still holding a grudge after all these years?

The two big ones were firing Rick Wright, then hiring him as a session musician on "The Final Cut", then after leaving, suing the band for the name and rights to the "intellectual property" (the iconography, mostly).   Even Roger has said in hindsight that suing them was a mistake.

Rick Wright was a hired gun on the Wall, too, I believe. I know he was for the tour because he's the only one that made any money off of it.

Haha, I debated going back and adding "during The Wall sessions" and figured no one would pick up on that.     You are right, no pun intended.  Waters instigated it, regardless, becuase he was irked that Wright (and to a lesser degree Gilmour) were contribuing less.  I don't think Wright had a writing credit since WYWH. 

[El Barto]

I thought Rick was a member of the band while recording the The Wall, but not an active member on the tour, hence he got paid as a player, and didn't lose any as a member.

I really do not know if David is holding a grudge, I can't get in to his head. But even if he is, why should it matter what happened 30 years ago? He felt he, along with Nick and eventually Rick, to whatever degree, had more to say musically, and a desire to perform together as Pink Floyd. An interesting argument from a legal standpoint though.... why would 1/4 of an entity get to dictate if it can continue or not? Was is reasonable? It if was 1/2? 3/4?

The video Chris posted of Outside the Wall was pretty awkward, I thought. Roger looked ecstatic for the 3 of them to be on stage, and Dave looked really uncomfortable. He was only there to hold up his end of a bargain, and really didn't look like he wanted to be. Obviously it meant more for Roger than the other two.

Possibly, but it was also Roger big (and best?) tour, it would naturally mean more to him. And David tends to not be as outwardly expressive. Roger did something for David (can't recall what it was), David did something for Roger. A half-business, half-casual friend deal, nothing more (for David, anyway).

You might be right about the Wall album vs tour. I think it might have been his lack of contribution to the Wall that led to his sacking.

It was an interesting legal question, which is why it's a landmark case. The upshot is that three of them were allowed to keep the name.

And you kind of hit on my point. For David it was an obligation. For Roger it was something that made him quite happy. And I think the quid pro quo was that Roger sang something for a charity event that was important for Dave. In exchange Dave promised to play the Comfortably Numb solo at one of Roger's Wall gigs.

[Stadler]

I thought Rick was a member of the band while recording the The Wall, but not an active member on the tour, hence he got paid as a player, and didn't lose any as a member.

I really do not know if David is holding a grudge, I can't get in to his head. But even if he is, why should it matter what happened 30 years ago? He felt he, along with Nick and eventually Rick, to whatever degree, had more to say musically, and a desire to perform together as Pink Floyd. An interesting argument from a legal standpoint though.... why would 1/4 of an entity get to dictate if it can continue or not? Was is reasonable? It if was 1/2? 3/4?

The video Chris posted of Outside the Wall was pretty awkward, I thought. Roger looked ecstatic for the 3 of them to be on stage, and Dave looked really uncomfortable. He was only there to hold up his end of a bargain, and really didn't look like he wanted to be. Obviously it meant more for Roger than the other two.

Possibly, but it was also Roger big (and best?) tour, it would naturally mean more to him. And David tends to not be as outwardly expressive. Roger did something for David (can't recall what it was), David did something for Roger. A half-business, half-casual friend deal, nothing more (for David, anyway).

You might be right about the Wall album vs tour. I think it might have been his lack of contribution to the Wall that led to his sacking.

It was an interesting legal question, which is why it's a landmark case. The upshot is that three of them were allowed to keep the name.

And you kind of hit on my point. For David it was an obligation. For Roger it was something that made him quite happy. And I think the quid pro quo was that Roger sang something for a charity event that was important for Dave. In exchange Dave promised to play the Comfortably Numb solo at one of Roger's Wall gigs.

Waters actually wanted to sue Wright to recover some of the royalties he (Waters) felt Wright was not earning.   Wright actually agreed, in principle, since he was going through some personal things (divorce, substances, depression) and essentially took the "buy out".  Hired gun for the tour and done after that.

[Orbert]

That always seemed hypocritical to me.  Roger came to the band with this grand concept and bunch of it already written (in his head anyway, but some also literally written out), pretty much calls all the shots during the rehearsals and recording sessions, then complains that the others aren't contributing as much as he is.

As for writing credits, I've seen many quotes from many artists saying that you just can't believe them.  They're political, financial, economical, whatever you want to call it, but never an accurate reflection of who "wrote" the song.  Because everyone has different ideas about what the means exactly.  When I listen to Animals, my favorite Pink Floyd album, I hear Rick Wright's keyboards and think they're brilliant, and I love the way he does things which are exactly perfect for the song, no more and no less.  He came up with those parts.  Maybe Roger or David or whoever "wrote" the song gave him some guidance as to what they had in mind there, but Rick played them, and in that sense "wrote" those parts.  So if anyone's arguments against Rick's contributions to Pink Floyd are based on the writing credits, yet they claim to have actually listened to the albums, then I can't take them seriously.

[El Barto]

That always seemed hypocritical to me.  Roger came to the band with this grand concept and bunch of it already written (in his head anyway, but some also literally written out), pretty much calls all the shots during the rehearsals and recording sessions, then complains that the others aren't contributing as much as he is.

As for writing credits, I've seen many quotes from many artists saying that you just can't believe them.  They're political, financial, economical, whatever you want to call it, but never an accurate reflection of who "wrote" the song.  Because everyone has different ideas about what the means exactly.  When I listen to Animals, my favorite Pink Floyd album, I hear Rick Wright's keyboards and think they're brilliant, and I love the way he does things which are exactly perfect for the song, no more and no less.  He came up with those parts.  Maybe Roger or David or whoever "wrote" the song gave him some guidance as to what they had in mind there, but Rick played them, and in that sense "wrote" those parts.  So if anyone's arguments against Rick's contributions to Pink Floyd are based on the writing credits, yet they claim to have actually listened to the albums, then I can't take them seriously.

I've long maintained that Wright was not only the most talented one in the band, but one of the great keyboard players in rock. Unlike others who are great at one sound or another, Wright sounded great on anything he played, be it a Hammond, a Rhodes, the famous Farfisa organ, or a Steinway.

And I agree about Roger being a control freak yet demanding more contributions from others. Not a very good stance.

[King Postwhore]

Chris is dead on with Wright about The Wall. 

On A Momentary Lapse of Reason, Wright couldn't be listed as a member of the band.  It was written into the settlement by Waters.

[KevShmev]

Rick Wright was a hired gun on the Wall, too, I believe. I know he was for the tour because he's the only one that made any money off of it. Also, I don't think Roger was suing for the name and the rights. I think he was suing to prevent the other three from continuing on under the PF moniker. Roger's take at the time was that PF was no more. I also believe this was a landmark decision that sets the precedent for bands like Quiet Riot continuing on with only one original member. Kind of ironic that Dave has all but abandoned PF now, but is still holding a grudge about being told to do so 30 years ago.

I am asking this in the least combative way possible, but what proof is there that David Gilmour is still holding a grudge?

[Stadler]

That always seemed hypocritical to me.  Roger came to the band with this grand concept and bunch of it already written (in his head anyway, but some also literally written out), pretty much calls all the shots during the rehearsals and recording sessions, then complains that the others aren't contributing as much as he is.

As for writing credits, I've seen many quotes from many artists saying that you just can't believe them.  They're political, financial, economical, whatever you want to call it, but never an accurate reflection of who "wrote" the song.  Because everyone has different ideas about what the means exactly.  When I listen to Animals, my favorite Pink Floyd album, I hear Rick Wright's keyboards and think they're brilliant, and I love the way he does things which are exactly perfect for the song, no more and no less.  He came up with those parts.  Maybe Roger or David or whoever "wrote" the song gave him some guidance as to what they had in mind there, but Rick played them, and in that sense "wrote" those parts.  So if anyone's arguments against Rick's contributions to Pink Floyd are based on the writing credits, yet they claim to have actually listened to the albums, then I can't take them seriously.

I've long maintained that Wright was not only the most talented one in the band, but one of the great keyboard players in rock. Unlike others who are great at one sound or another, Wright sounded great on anything he played, be it a Hammond, a Rhodes, the famous Farfisa organ, or a Steinway.

And I agree about Roger being a control freak yet demanding more contributions from others. Not a very good stance.

Yet another reason I want to be a fly on the wall.  He (Waters) can't be trusted in that way.  Not that he's lying per se, but that his intent may or may not at all be apparent in the delivery.

Wright did a lot with the band in terms of arranging too; Gilmour said that on one of the docs on one of the live solo sets that he put out (and on which Wright played). 

[romdrums]

What did Roger do back in the day, that upset DG and NM so much that they are still holding a grudge after all these years?

The two big ones were firing Rick Wright, then hiring him as a session musician on "The Final Cut", then after leaving, suing the band for the name and rights to the "intellectual property" (the iconography, mostly).   Even Roger has said in hindsight that suing them was a mistake.

Rick Wright was a hired gun on the Wall, too, I believe. I know he was for the tour because he's the only one that made any money off of it.

Haha, I debated going back and adding "during The Wall sessions" and figured no one would pick up on that.     You are right, no pun intended.  Waters instigated it, regardless, becuase he was irked that Wright (and to a lesser degree Gilmour) were contribuing less.  I don't think Wright had a writing credit since WYWH.

Gilmour probably deserves more credits on The Wall than what he got.  Wright, from what I've read over the years, and to a lesser degree Nick Mason, were minimally involved in The Wall sessions.  I think Jeff Porcaro may have played a fair amount of drums on the album due to the time constraints at the end of the sessions.

[El Barto]

Rick Wright was a hired gun on the Wall, too, I believe. I know he was for the tour because he's the only one that made any money off of it. Also, I don't think Roger was suing for the name and the rights. I think he was suing to prevent the other three from continuing on under the PF moniker. Roger's take at the time was that PF was no more. I also believe this was a landmark decision that sets the precedent for bands like Quiet Riot continuing on with only one original member. Kind of ironic that Dave has all but abandoned PF now, but is still holding a grudge about being told to do so 30 years ago.

I am asking this in the least combative way possible, but what proof is there that David Gilmour is still holding a grudge?

There is no proof. It's just my assessment based on what I see. Something you should certainly be able to understand after naming the thread "Rogers Waters is still a bitter man." 

[KevShmev]

I am asking this in the least combative way possible, but what proof is there that David Gilmour is still holding a grudge?

There is no proof. It's just my assessment based on what I see. Something you should certainly be able to understand after naming the thread "Rogers Waters is still a bitter man." 

Haha, touche.

Gilmour probably deserves more credits on The Wall than what he got.  Wright, from what I've read over the years, and to a lesser degree Nick Mason, were minimally involved in The Wall sessions.  I think Jeff Porcaro may have played a fair amount of drums on the album due to the time constraints at the end of the sessions.

I read a while back that Porcaro plays all of the drums on Mother because Mason had difficulty nailing the tempo they wanted.

[Cool Chris]

I knew of his talents and rep, but damn:

Porcaro is one of the most recorded session musicians, working on hundreds of albums and thousands of sessions.

AllMusic has characterized him as "arguably the most highly regarded studio drummer in rock from the mid-'70s to the early '90s", and says that "it is no exaggeration to say that the sound of mainstream pop/rock drumming in the 1980s was, to a large extent, the sound of Jeff Porcaro

[El Barto]

I knew of his talents and rep, but damn:

Porcaro is one of the most recorded session musicians, working on hundreds of albums and thousands of sessions.

AllMusic has characterized him as "arguably the most highly regarded studio drummer in rock from the mid-'70s to the early '90s", and says that "it is no exaggeration to say that the sound of mainstream pop/rock drumming in the 1980s was, to a large extent, the sound of Jeff Porcaro

I've watched some of his instructional videos and the dude's like the Einstein of drumming. I hated Toto with a passion, and it's still not my kind of music, but seeing him explain some of his drum parts is just fascinating. He find a rhythm he liked, invert it, and then stack something completely different on top of it until it just became incomprehensible. After watching him explain it, demonstrate the different layers, and then combine them, it still made no damned sense to me.

Also, he actually did die in a freak gardening accident. Infinite bonus points for dying in a fictionally legendary fashion.

[Cool Chris]

His Wiki page says he died while gardening, not due to gardening.

[Indiscipline]

I always thought the gardening accident was a merciful way to cover a blow OD

[Orbert]

[Cool Chris]

I thought of that too, though technically he wasn't gardening at the moment, he was playing with his grandkid.

According to Coppola, when he put the orange peel in his mouth to scare the kid, he really scared the kid, there was no acting involved.

[El Barto]

I always thought it was an allergic reaction to the insecticide he (Pocaro) was using. Don't really have any reason to doubt the coroner, though. Eh, bonus points rescinded. Still a great drummer, though.

[King Postwhore]

I always thought the gardening accident was a merciful way to cover a blow OD

Yeah, this.

[Orbert]

According to Coppola, when he put the orange peel in his mouth to scare the kid, he really scared the kid, there was no acting involved.

Good!  The little shit deserved it, killed the fucking Godfather.

[El Barto]

I always thought the gardening accident was a merciful way to cover a blow OD

Yeah, this.

It wasn't an OD, but it was a heart attack brought on by cocaine use. It also wasn't much of a cover.     By all accounts he did kip over while using insecticide, so that was a pretty obvious assumption to make until proven otherwise. As evidenced by the coroner making a point to disprove the idea.

[King Postwhore]

Yeah well death by blow and not the good blow that all men would die for. 

[KevShmev]

Incidentally, this little story has gotten me to listen to a lot of Pink Floyd and some of Roger's solo stuff the last few days.  Roger might be a miserable old sod, but what a songwriter.

[Cool Chris]

For as much as I love Roger's Floyd material (I know he wasn't the sole writer, just trying to make a point), I am lukewarm at best about his post-Floyd career.

[JayOctavarium]

My 2 cents on all this...

I started to watch the video when it was published... and as soon as I realized it was just him bitching about PF's social media access, I turned it off.

If the PF website / Social Media wants to promote his shit and include him, more power to them. If Gilmour doesn't want Waters' crap on the PF sites, then oh well. After all that happened, he doesn't have any right to bitch and fight. He was the one Burning Bridges. Pretty sure opened that door a while back. Asked for the slate to be wiped clean. And Waters told him to go fuck himself.

Okay enough with the PF references. You get my point

[KevShmev]

For as much as I love Roger's Floyd material (I know he wasn't the sole writer, just trying to make a point), I am lukewarm at best about his post-Floyd career.

I have no use for Hitchhiking, K.A.O.S or Is This the Life...?, but Amused to Death is a major winner. I still maintain that had that been a full-fledged Pink Floyd album, with playing and singing contributions from Gilmour and Wright, it would have been on the level of the 1973-1979 albums.  The songs and concept are both that good.  It's still a shame that Roger has all but ignored it since playing five songs from it on the In the Flesh tour in the late 90's.  Then again, I am sure he know that fans come to his shows to see Pink Floyd songs, not those from his solo albums.  And I am sure that makes him hate his fans more than he does already.

[ReaperKK]

I'm not a fan of Roger's solo works but the production on Amused is stellar.

[Architeuthis]

I saw Roger Waters at the Tacoma dome in 2017.  I was very underwhelmed, it felt more like a political rally than a concert. I could have stayed home and watched CNN if I wanted to hear a bunch of Trump bashing.
 I go to concerts to get away from that kind of stuff, and that's why David Gilmour blows Roger out of the Waters..

[KevShmev]

Some like to say, "Waters was always this political," and maybe he was, but he wasn't always so direct about it.  There was a bit more nuance to his lyrics and message many, many years ago, IMO. 

Plus, if you saw Gilmour live on his last tour, you know he was actually singing the whole, unlike Roger. (though, to be fair, David's voice might have been shot years ago had he done those screams live in Careful with That Axe, Eugene that many times back in the 70's )