Fair review Rollingfreak -it's certainly not everyone's cup of tea, but that can be said for all of his solo albums. And for someone like yourself whose "never fully gotten into his solo stuff" there's probably not much to enjoy here as there's nothing truly groundbreaking or that veers away from the template he created for his work outside of Pink Floyd.

For me the entire album is a masterpiece, it's like having a new friend with alot of familiar traits - deva vu in a sense. The clever way he intertwines various "echoes" from Pink Floyd's past that he helped to create only makes it a win-win situation imo - new and familiar at the same time. I've probably listened to it all now at least 20 times since getting the files a couple of weeks ago, but listening on my cd player the last couple days (in car and at home) since official release and it's almost like hearing it again for the first time as the quality is much better than listening to files on laptop. Personally I have no criticisms other than I wish it could have been longer - it's all fantastic from start to finish. Some of it's really poignant, some of it's angry, and some of it's uplifting and hopeful - needless to say all of it is thought provoking.

_____________________________________________________________
Rip this joint, gonna save your soul, round and round and round we go......



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2017-06-05 01:18 by Hairball.

Quote
Hairball
Fair review Rollingfreak -it's certainly not everyone's cup of tea, but that can be said for all of his solo albums. And for someone like yourself whose "never fully gotten into his solo stuff" there's probably not much to enjoy here as there's nothing truly groundbreaking or that veers away from the template he created for his work outside of Pink Floyd.

For me the entire album is a masterpiece, it's like having a new friend with alot of familiar traits - deva vu in a sense. The clever way he intertwines various "echoes" from Pink Floyd's past that he helped to create only makes it a win-win situation imo - new and familiar at the same time. I've probably listened to it all now at least 20 times since getting the files a couple of weeks ago, but listening on my cd player the last couple days (in car and at home) since official release and it's almost like hearing it again for the first time as the quality is much better than listening to files on laptop. Personally I have no criticisms other than I wish it could have been longer - it's all fantastic from start to finish. Some of it's really poignant, some of it's angry, and some of it's uplifting and hopeful - needless to say all of it is thought provoking.

Totally agree Hairball. My receiver in the house converts stereo into multichannel surround. It's not quite official surround sound but close enough. This album takes that treatment real well. Brilliant! Hairball, shoot me an email. Address in my profile. I got something for you.

Thanks crholmstrom - email sent!

ps - Awaiting for my vinyl copy to arrive of new release, which according to couple of nerdy audiophile friends of mine takes the quality up another notch beyond the cd!

_____________________________________________________________
Rip this joint, gonna save your soul, round and round and round we go......



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2017-06-05 04:11 by Hairball.

If there weren´t all the Floyd albums and his previous solo-albums one might think the new album is a masterpiece. BUT knowing all these albums makes me think the new album is just a carbon copy, he only varies the well-known. He uses almost each and every sound gimmick we know from previous albums, the radio-voices, the planes, the missiles, the clocks, the explosions, just everything. His lyrics deal with the same things as ever, he even uses lines or part of lines he used on other albums, his voice sounds morbid as ever, the melodies are heavily influenced by "Animals", "Wish You Were Here" and "The Final Cut", sometimes to an extend you think it´s parody. The only new thing is that this time he almost didn´t use any electric guitars - not really an improvement, imo.

This album is like an old well-known friend you haven´t seen for 25 years and to your surprise he looks just the same as the last time you saw him. Good to see him again but he hasn´t got anything new to tell you.

All that doesn´t make it a bad album, but somehow you feel it´s a bit superfluous. Waters copies himself too much, when you listen to it for the first time you even like it sounding so familiar, but listening to it for the second and third time you feel kinda bored... Anyway, it´s still better than the stuff David Gilmore has released as a solo artist and overall it´s at least better than Radio Kaos, but it hasn´t the intensity of Amused To Death and it hasn´t the great electric guitar parts of his morbid masterpiece The Pros And Cons Of Hitch-Hiking. 6/10 at best, I would say.

Quote
HMS
If there weren´t all the Floyd albums and his previous solo-albums one might think the new album is a masterpiece. BUT knowing all these albums makes me think the new album is just a carbon copy, he only varies the well-known. He uses almost each and every sound gimmick we know from previous albums, the radio-voices, the planes, the missiles, the clocks, the explosions, just everything. His lyrics deal with the same things as ever, he even uses lines or part of lines he used on other albums, his voice sounds morbid as ever, the melodies are heavily influenced by "Animals", "Wish You Were Here" and "The Final Cut", sometimes to an extend you think it´s parody. The only new thing is that this time he almost didn´t use any electric guitars - not really an improvement, imo.

This album is like an old well-known friend you haven´t seen for 25 years and to your surprise he looks just the same as the last time you saw him. Good to see him again but he hasn´t got anything new to tell you.

All that doesn´t make it a bad album, but somehow you feel it´s a bit superfluous. Waters copies himself too much, when you listen to it for the first time you even like it sounding so familiar, but listening to it for the second and third time you feel kinda bored... Anyway, it´s still better than the stuff David Gilmore has released as a solo artist and overall it´s at least better than Radio Kaos, but it hasn´t the intensity of Amused To Death and it hasn´t the great electric guitar parts of his morbid masterpiece The Pros And Cons Of Hitch-Hiking. 6/10 at best, I would say.

I bought Pros and Cons when it was first released and kind of liked it at the time (still have the vinyl). Clapton's guitar playing was good, but it felt out of place and he didn't really fit the vibe - ultimately he was unnecessary. I rarely listen to it anymore.

Radio KAOS is flat out bad, and could never relate to any of it. I listened a few times when it was released hoping for it to grow on me, but it never did. Might have heard it once or twice since then, but try not to.

Amused to Death took some time to grow on me, and I almost had to force myself in to liking it - it was a bit esoteric (as were the previous two). While it's better than those previous two, it hasn't aged well due to the dated production. And while Jeff Beck is my favorite guitar player after Hendrix, he didn't add much and was ultimately unnecessary (like Clapton on Pros and Cons). I listen to a few of those tunes now and then, but not the album in it's entirety - again it just hasn't stood the test of time.

The new one on the other hand takes all of the fine ingredients from his past work, and conjures up something new and captivating. When you say "Waters copies himself too much" it doesn't make much sense - he's not trying to reinvent the wheel nor is he trying to be the next pop star, he's being himself. While there's no blazing solos ala Clapton or Beck (which is a positive imo), there's plenty of guitars throughout, both acoustic and electric. Like all of his work be it with Pink Floyd or solo - this is a moody piece of work that maybe not all can relate to, but that's what art is all about. One man's junk is another mans treasure, and for me this is the goldmine that exceeds all of his past solo work - possibly even equaling some of his classic work with Pink Floyd.

With all that said, I can understand where you are coming from regarding "nothing new", but obviously don't agree. I felt the same way when I listened to the Stones ABB or Dirty Work - totally unimaginative and almost a parody of themselves. No amount of time since those albums have been released has changed anything - they're for the most part superfluous and unmemorable. Slightly better than an Mick solo albums, but nowhere near as good as any Keith solo albums. In the case of the new Roger Waters album though, it's all sincere and a natural progression from everything he has recorded in the past with something new to say. Relevant to the times we live in, and not just rehashing the past. Some will like it, others won't, and there will be those stuck in the middle or indifferent to it. But if all of the published positive and rave reviews are anything to go by, it's a major success through and through.

By the way HMS, not sure where you live, but will you be attending any shows on the new tour? By all accounts, it's a great show, and if you're in Europe the tour will makes it way there after the US dates are completed.

_____________________________________________________________
Rip this joint, gonna save your soul, round and round and round we go......



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2017-06-06 03:47 by Hairball.

The Radio KAOS tour was awesome though. I saw it in a small arena & then the Momentary Lapse tour a week later in a giant stadium. KAOS was infinitely better show. As luck would have it, I met Roger after this show. He was nice to me but a jerk DJ asked him "any chance of getting back together with the band?". He shut down right away as this was in the middle of the law suits. Same DJ interviewed Lou Reed once & Lou clearly wanted to kill him. Haha. This guy was infamous. I met the rest of the Floyd at the show the next week. Was more of a social party setting. Jethro Tull were in town & backstage. Lots of drinking going on. Nick Mason was very cool.

Quote
HMS
If there weren´t all the Floyd albums and his previous solo-albums one might think the new album is a masterpiece. BUT knowing all these albums makes me think the new album is just a carbon copy, he only varies the well-known. He uses almost each and every sound gimmick we know from previous albums, the radio-voices, the planes, the missiles, the clocks, the explosions, just everything. His lyrics deal with the same things as ever, he even uses lines or part of lines he used on other albums, his voice sounds morbid as ever, the melodies are heavily influenced by "Animals", "Wish You Were Here" and "The Final Cut", sometimes to an extend you think it´s parody. The only new thing is that this time he almost didn´t use any electric guitars - not really an improvement, imo.

This album is like an old well-known friend you haven´t seen for 25 years and to your surprise he looks just the same as the last time you saw him. Good to see him again but he hasn´t got anything new to tell you.

All that doesn´t make it a bad album, but somehow you feel it´s a bit superfluous. Waters copies himself too much, when you listen to it for the first time you even like it sounding so familiar, but listening to it for the second and third time you feel kinda bored... Anyway, it´s still better than the stuff David Gilmore has released as a solo artist and overall it´s at least better than Radio Kaos, but it hasn´t the intensity of Amused To Death and it hasn´t the great electric guitar parts of his morbid masterpiece The Pros And Cons Of Hitch-Hiking. 6/10 at best, I would say.

Pretty much what I thought HMS. My overriding impression is that Waters has become a musical Flying Dutchman - forever bound to repeat himself. In hindsight his preoccupations have always been war, madness, alienation and more recently political incompetence and he treads that ground in ever-decreasing circles just as he relies on the Floyd's epic theatrical works to sell his shows. I'll still go and see him when he visits London but it's a case of seen and heard it all before.

Pink Floyd’s Roger Waters on course for first chart-topping solo album

NUMBER ONE

"Roger Waters could be claiming his first Number 1 solo record this week as his new album, Is This The Life We Really Want?, leads the way on the Official Albums Chart Update.
The singer, songwriter and Pink Floyd co-founder is currently on course to claim his first chart-topper as a solo artist on Friday's Official Chart (June 9).

Amazing really if he makes it to number one, who would have thought a 73 year old rock legend would even have a chance?





*Oh yeah, didn't the Stones get to number one recently with Blue and Lonesome?

_____________________________________________________________
Rip this joint, gonna save your soul, round and round and round we go......

That's because the only people even buying records anymore at this point are those aging fans of 73-year-old rock legends.

The younger generations don't even buy music anymore, they stream it -- and they don't care about albums.

Quote
stonehearted
That's because the only people even buying records anymore at this point are those aging fans of 73-year-old rock legends.

The younger generations don't even buy music anymore, they stream it -- and they don't care about albums.

Could be, but the article goes on to say:

"Just behind Roger are All Time Low; the US pop-rock band's seventh album Last Young Renegade enters at 2,
trailing Roger by 2,000 equivalent album sales. Meanwhile, Alt-J's third album Relaxer is new at Number 4".

Who the heck is All Time Low..never heard of them...7 albums? Must be a thing with the teeny boppers?
And Alt-J...again never heard of, but also sounds like something the young whippersnappers are in to?


EDIT: A look at this weeks top 100 UK albums with the Beatles at #1.

Top 30

In the top 10 is Ed Sheeran, Harry Styles, Drake, and Little Mix (?) among others.
If I'm not mistaken, these are artists/bands that cater to the younger crowds.
The rest of the top 100 is filled with similar stuff for the most part, along with several "classic" oldies.
Evidently the younger generation are indeed buying albums/cd's...or maybe it's their parents buying it for them?

_____________________________________________________________
Rip this joint, gonna save your soul, round and round and round we go......



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2017-06-06 20:11 by Hairball.

Yeah, same here. The only 2017 release I've bought is the deluxe reissue of Sgt. Pepper.

There's a qualifying term in that article you quote -- "equivalent album sales". I wonder what that means -- perhaps related to streaming?

Maybe check the stats on Spotify -- I'd wager in that kingdom that Waters' new album isn't even a blip on their radar.

Quote
stonehearted
That's because the only people even buying records anymore at this point are those aging fans of 73-year-old rock legends.

The younger generations don't even buy music anymore, they stream it -- and they don't care about albums.

I respectfully disagree. Some younger people stream music and buy it on vinyl later. Some people (me included, although I don't belong to the younger generation, lol) stream music as a way to discover something they haven't heard before.

From what I've been reading, the younger generation still want to have the physical thing. Of course there's people who buy new vinyl only to have it and doesn't even play them (a "hipster thing", they say), but overall everytime I go to a record shop (be the ones dealing with new or second hand vinyl) there's always some teenagers buying it and collecting it.

Quote
Cristiano Radtke

Quote
stonehearted
That's because the only people even buying records anymore at this point are those aging fans of 73-year-old rock legends.

The younger generations don't even buy music anymore, they stream it -- and they don't care about albums.

I respectfully disagree. Some younger people stream music and buy it on vinyl later. Some people (me included, although I don't belong to the younger generation, lol) stream music as a way to discover something they haven't heard before.

From what I've been reading, the younger generation still want to have the physical thing. Of course there's people who buy new vinyl only to have it and doesn't even play them (a "hipster thing", they say), but overall everytime I go to a record shop (be the ones dealing with new or second hand vinyl) there's always some teenagers buying it and collecting it.

I edited my above post to include this weeks top 100 - the younger generation are indeed buying albums and cd's!

_____________________________________________________________
Rip this joint, gonna save your soul, round and round and round we go......

Quote
stonehearted
Yeah, same here. The only 2017 release I've bought is the deluxe reissue of Sgt. Pepper.

There's a qualifying term in that article you quote -- "equivalent album sales". I wonder what that means -- perhaps related to streaming?

Maybe check the stats on Spotify -- I'd wager in that kingdom that Waters' new album isn't even a blip on their radar.

Well you can nitpick and downplay it if you want, but a fact is a fact - Roger Waters will possibly have a number one album!

But since you brought it up, was Blue and Lonesome a blip on the spotify radar?
I don't stream or download, or any of that "newfangled" stuff, so wouldn't know where to check.

_____________________________________________________________
Rip this joint, gonna save your soul, round and round and round we go......

Quote
Hairball
was Blue and Lonesome a blip on the spotify radar?
I don't stream or download, or any of that "newfangled" stuff, so wouldn't know where to check.

Not much of one.

The only way I even know about what is big -- or not -- on Spotify is from the recent thread by LongBeachArena72: [iorr.org]

Tracks from Blue and Lonesome got only 1 to 5% of the streams as compared to the top five artists on Spotify.

My point about Roger Waters is that a #1 album doesn't really mean what it used to, because only us older fans are even buying albums at this point. It goes to #1 because everybody who wants a copy buys it at the same time, that is, the first week, and then the album drops out of the top ten like a lead weight, never to be heard of again.

If everyone still bought albums the way they used to and the top downloading/streaming artists were included, then the sales numbers of a new Roger Waters album wouldn't even get anywhere near the top ten.

The gist of what I'm getting at is not to nitpick, but to just point out that a #1 album doesn't mean what it used to. It doesn't mean that Roger Waters is suddenly a huge sensation and all the kiddies are going to be wearing Wall T-shirts.

It simply means that us old folks are still buying albums, because that's what we've been doing all along.

Quote
stonehearted

Quote
Hairball
was Blue and Lonesome a blip on the spotify radar?
I don't stream or download, or any of that "newfangled" stuff, so wouldn't know where to check.

Not much of one.

The only way I even know about what is big -- or not -- on Spotify is from the recent thread by LongBeachArena72: [iorr.org]

Tracks from Blue and Lonesome got only 1 to 5% of the streams as compared to the top five artists on Spotify.

My point about Roger Waters is that a #1 album doesn't really mean what it used to, because only us older fans are even buying albums at this point. It goes to #1 because everybody who wants a copy buys it at the same time, that is, the first week, and then the album drops out of the top ten like a lead weight, never to be heard of again.

If everyone still bought albums the way they used to and the top downloading/streaming artists were included, then the sales numbers of a new Roger Waters album wouldn't even get anywhere near the top ten.

The gist of what I'm getting at is not to nitpick, but to just point out that a #1 album doesn't mean what it used to. It doesn't mean that Roger Waters is suddenly a huge sensation and all the kiddies are going to be wearing Wall T-shirts.

It simply means that us old folks are still buying albums, because that's what we've been doing all along.

Exactly right. Roger Waters' new record—like everything released by "classic rockers"—is DOA on Spotify. Not a single track yet over a million streams. I'm not sure where it will end up, relative to Blue & Lonesome (those tracks have between 2M and 5M streams currently, which in Spotify terms is essentially nothing); Waters may do a bit worse or a bit better than that.

At the risk of engaging in a bit of hyperbole: having a #1 record in the age of streaming is a bit like winning a spelling bee contest in a one-room schoolhouse. It's a nice thing, and your mom and dad will be proud, but that's about it.

Quote
LongBeachArena72

Quote
stonehearted

Quote
Hairball
was Blue and Lonesome a blip on the spotify radar?
I don't stream or download, or any of that "newfangled" stuff, so wouldn't know where to check.

Not much of one.

The only way I even know about what is big -- or not -- on Spotify is from the recent thread by LongBeachArena72: [iorr.org]

Tracks from Blue and Lonesome got only 1 to 5% of the streams as compared to the top five artists on Spotify.

My point about Roger Waters is that a #1 album doesn't really mean what it used to, because only us older fans are even buying albums at this point. It goes to #1 because everybody who wants a copy buys it at the same time, that is, the first week, and then the album drops out of the top ten like a lead weight, never to be heard of again.

If everyone still bought albums the way they used to and the top downloading/streaming artists were included, then the sales numbers of a new Roger Waters album wouldn't even get anywhere near the top ten.

The gist of what I'm getting at is not to nitpick, but to just point out that a #1 album doesn't mean what it used to. It doesn't mean that Roger Waters is suddenly a huge sensation and all the kiddies are going to be wearing Wall T-shirts.

It simply means that us old folks are still buying albums, because that's what we've been doing all along.

Exactly right. Roger Waters' new record—like everything released by "classic rockers"—is DOA on Spotify. Not a single track yet over a million streams. I'm not sure where it will end up, relative to Blue & Lonesome (those tracks have between 2M and 5M streams currently, which in Spotify terms is essentially nothing); Waters may do a bit worse or a bit better than that.

At the risk of engaging in a bit of hyperbole: having a #1 record in the age of streaming is a bit like winning a spelling bee contest in a one-room schoolhouse. It's a nice thing, and your mom and dad will be proud, but that's about it.

Understood more clearly now thanks to both of you, but hey...a #1 is like feather in his hat, and he can at least rub it in David Gilmour's face!
And in the Stones case, all I remember reading is shocked and surprised congatulatory celebrations from fans - wish you two would have chimed in there to bring it down to reality, but maybe you did and I missed it.

_____________________________________________________________
Rip this joint, gonna save your soul, round and round and round we go......



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2017-06-07 00:32 by Hairball.

Quote
Hairball
[And in the Stones case, all I remember reading is shocked and surprised congatulatory celebrations from fans - wish you two would have chimed in there to bring it down to reality, but maybe you did and I missed it.

Sometimes reality sucks and it's better to celebrate!

Also, I tried to steer clear of discussions of Blue & Lonesome on fan sites since I thought it was dreadful. Life's too short to fight battles like that; I'd already been down a similar road hereabouts with the equally dreadful Crosseyed Heart.

Quote
LongBeachArena72

Quote
Hairball
[And in the Stones case, all I remember reading is shocked and surprised congatulatory celebrations from fans - wish you two would have chimed in there to bring it down to reality, but maybe you did and I missed it.

Sometimes reality sucks and it's better to celebrate!

Also, I tried to steer clear of discussions of Blue & Lonesome on fan sites since I thought it was dreadful. Life's too short to fight battles like that; I'd already been down a similar road hereabouts with the equally dreadful Crosseyed Heart.

Agreed that Blue and Lonesome was a bit underwhelming, and after a few listens the first few days, it's been gathering dust on a shelf. I gave it a generous 2 out of 5, and was nearly crucified in the main thread.
Crosseyed Heart is a great album, and it was a great thread...depending on one's outlook I suppose, which to be fair could also be said for the Blue and Lonesome album (and thread).

It's only rock and roll, and life goes on....

_____________________________________________________________
Rip this joint, gonna save your soul, round and round and round we go......

Quote
Hairball
And in the Stones case, all I remember reading is shocked and surprised congatulatory celebrations from fans - wish you two would have chimed in there to bring it down to reality, but maybe you did and I missed it.

I may actually have posted something to that effect in the Stones at Number 1 thread or in the Stones New Album thread, but I can't remember. Any sense of contrarian logic just gets ignored in the dozens of pages of self-celebratory fandom cyber-high-fives -- but it's only Rolling Stones and they like it, so why not?

I played Blue and Lonesome twice. After a while I couldn't recall a single song title, guitar lick, or even melody.

I played Crosseyed Heart once, and then misplaced it. I have hundreds of CDs piled in dozens of stacks of varying height, in no particular order. It's bound to turn up someday, maybe. Will I listen to it again? I'm not sure. I recall liking the one ballad he did with Nora Jones, the cover, whatever the title was, thought it should have been the single, and could have been a hit in some niche market, possible even on the country charts.

The trouble with Roger Waters for me, besides his almost complete lack of musicality, is his politics. His tour is coming to my town in September, and I was tempted for a moment, then I read that he does this big political routine where he projects images of politicians. Whether I agree or disagree with the message, let's just hear Dark Side of the Moon. If I want to be reminded of current events, I'll click on MSN or whatever "news" portal I find.

That was my criticism when on their recent tours The Who would show a time-spanning news loop on video during the instrumental The Rock. It took away from the enjoyment of the music, which has absolutely zero to do with the video message they were broadcasting. I don't go to a music concert to watch the news.

David Gilmour, on the other hand, always liked him solo far more than Roger Waters. With Gilmour it's great music, no politics or news events intruding, just the marvelous runs of soaring guitar and melodic voice. I bought his recent solo album, Rattle That Lock. I liked it and I still so. I have a London audience bootleg CD from last year where he incorporates Purple Rain intro the end solo of Comfortably Numb as a Prince tribute, as he had recently passed.

But alas, Gilmour came nowhere near Boston on his tour. In the U.S. his solo album was #5, then dropped out of sight. In the UK it went gold, but only sold 100,000 copies. It was #1 or top 10 in over two dozen countries -- but gold in only four and platinum in only one: [en.wikipedia.org]

I wonder how many streams it got on Spotify?

I totally agree on most of what you say, although I have to be fair, I find David pretty boring on his own. Its totally the Lennon/McCartney thing. We've discussed it here before. David brings the musicality Roger is almost impossibly lacking, and Roger brings the drive. Pink Floyd was NEVER just about the stage show and visuals, but it did enhance that music. Roger, even without the political stuff, makes the music come to life sort of. And I'm not pro-Waters, I just think thats the truth. David, I love him dearly, but stands there and plays guitar and without ANY visual it does get pretty boring. They both lack what the other has, and its pretty clear what certain people prefer. You are definitely a Gilmour fan, and I think there's no convincing those fans of Roger (and vice versa). The same way I'm obviously more Waters cause he just gives you a more "Pink Floyd" nostalgia show. I could do without the politics, but its fun when he shits on the politicians and thats never bothered me with any band, whether I agree or not. Its fun to cheer in a crowd.

Quote
stonehearted

Quote
Hairball
And in the Stones case, all I remember reading is shocked and surprised congatulatory celebrations from fans - wish you two would have chimed in there to bring it down to reality, but maybe you did and I missed it.

I may actually have posted something to that effect in the Stones at Number 1 thread or in the Stones New Album thread, but I can't remember. Any sense of contrarian logic just gets ignored in the dozens of pages of self-celebratory fandom cyber-high-fives -- but it's only Rolling Stones and they like it, so why not?

I played Blue and Lonesome twice. After a while I couldn't recall a single song title, guitar lick, or even melody.

I played Crosseyed Heart once, and then misplaced it. I have hundreds of CDs piled in dozens of stacks of varying height, in no particular order. It's bound to turn up someday, maybe. Will I listen to it again? I'm not sure. I recall liking the one ballad he did with Nora Jones, the cover, whatever the title was, thought it should have been the single, and could have been a hit in some niche market, possible even on the country charts.

The trouble with Roger Waters for me, besides his almost complete lack of musicality, is his politics. His tour is coming to my town in September, and I was tempted for a moment, then I read that he does this big political routine where he projects images of politicians. Whether I agree or disagree with the message, let's just hear Dark Side of the Moon. If I want to be reminded of current events, I'll click on MSN or whatever "news" portal I find.

That was my criticism when on their recent tours The Who would show a time-spanning news loop on video during the instrumental The Rock. It took away from the enjoyment of the music, which has absolutely zero to do with the video message they were broadcasting. I don't go to a music concert to watch the news.

David Gilmour, on the other hand, always liked him solo far more than Roger Waters. With Gilmour it's great music, no politics or news events intruding, just the marvelous runs of soaring guitar and melodic voice. I bought his recent solo album, Rattle That Lock. I liked it and I still so. I have a London audience bootleg CD from last year where he incorporates Purple Rain intro the end solo of Comfortably Numb as a Prince tribute, as he had recently passed.

But alas, Gilmour came nowhere near Boston on his tour. In the U.S. his solo album was #5, then dropped out of sight. In the UK it went gold, but only sold 100,000 copies. It was #1 or top 10 in over two dozen countries -- but gold in only four and platinum in only one: [en.wikipedia.org]

I wonder how many streams it got on Spotify?

I saw Gilmour three times last year (Hollywood Bowl twice and the L.A. Forum), and while he is one of my favorite guitar players, the shows were identical and became kind of monotonous. I saw him twice during the On an Island tour about 10 years ago where he played the entire new album, along with some great Pink Floyd material. Those shows were far superior imo, in part due to him playing Echoes with the late Rick Wright on keyboards, and in part a much more interesting setlist over all. By the way, his show in Pompeii was documented and will be shown in theaters everywhere in September- maybe even a theater near you? David Gilmour - Pompeii

As for Roger, whether I agree with everything or not (which I certainly don't), he's always been involved in politics since the beginning- see Corporal Clegg, 1968. He's always been anti-war, anti-this, anti-that, pro-this, or pro-that, so it should come as no surprise that he still preaches about issues he feels strongly about at his concerts. I admit some of it is overkill, but it's always relevant, and if you know his history and what you're paying for, then it shouldn't come as a shock. After all, his recent version of The Wall was loaded with political commentary, but that didn't stop it from earning him the record for being the highest-grossing tour for a solo musician. This new tour is actually much tamer as a whole (at least it was at Desert Trip), and while there's still plenty of thought provoking imagery and food for thought, there's just as much that's not. That said, I can understand why for some it's not something they're willing to pay for. I feel the same way about Bono and Springsteen - though admittedly I'm not a fan of either of their music so that helps the decision not to pay to see them.

Quote
RollingFreak
I totally agree on most of what you say, although I have to be fair, I find David pretty boring on his own. Its totally the Lennon/McCartney thing. We've discussed it here before. David brings the musicality Roger is almost impossibly lacking, and Roger brings the drive. Pink Floyd was NEVER just about the stage show and visuals, but it did enhance that music. Roger, even without the political stuff, makes the music come to life sort of. And I'm not pro-Waters, I just think thats the truth. David, I love him dearly, but stands there and plays guitar and without ANY visual it does get pretty boring. They both lack what the other has, and its pretty clear what certain people prefer. You are definitely a Gilmour fan, and I think there's no convincing those fans of Roger (and vice versa). The same way I'm obviously more Waters cause he just gives you a more "Pink Floyd" nostalgia show. I could do without the politics, but its fun when he shits on the politicians and thats never bothered me with any band, whether I agree or not. Its fun to cheer in a crowd.

And it should be said (again) that Roger did write a majority of all those classic Pink Floyd tunes that Gilmour plays - not just the lyrics, but the music as well.
Roger might not be the most gifted musician, but he certainly knows how to write a damn fine tune, and clearly knows how to put on an amazing live show (politics or not).

ps: to stonehearted: I also have hundreds upon hundreds of cd's, and until last year they were piled haphazardly on bookshelves without any rhyme or reason. I've since painstakingly stacked them in to general categories - classic rock, punk rock, blues, country, etc., etc., etc. I have an entirely separated area for Beatles and Stones only, and Dylan and Neil Young have their own zone. while Hendrix, Jeff Beck, and Johnny Winter are grouped together. Makes sense to me, and makes life so much easier when you want to grab something - you kind of hone in on a particular area rather than getting lost in cd land. There's 5 giant bookshelves side by side filled to the brim with stacks! The same with my vinyl collection which was a pain in the ass to properly organize - I have a shelving unit that's apprx. 12 x 12 feet high dedicated to vinyl alone, Everything is down at my studio (basically a warehouse), and has it's own section on one of the back walls, all nicely situated with my stereo system strategically placed for my listening pleasure. All that being said, I suggest you re-find Crosseyed Heart and listen again - it's much better than the blues covers that made up Blue and Lonesome imo.

_____________________________________________________________
Rip this joint, gonna save your soul, round and round and round we go......



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 2017-06-07 04:38 by Hairball.

Just got tkts, yay!

Quote
stonehearted

Quote
Hairball
And in the Stones case, all I remember reading is shocked and surprised congatulatory celebrations from fans - wish you two would have chimed in there to bring it down to reality, but maybe you did and I missed it.

I may actually have posted something to that effect in the Stones at Number 1 thread or in the Stones New Album thread, but I can't remember. Any sense of contrarian logic just gets ignored in the dozens of pages of self-celebratory fandom cyber-high-fives -- but it's only Rolling Stones and they like it, so why not?

I played Blue and Lonesome twice. After a while I couldn't recall a single song title, guitar lick, or even melody.

I played Crosseyed Heart once, and then misplaced it. I have hundreds of CDs piled in dozens of stacks of varying height, in no particular order. It's bound to turn up someday, maybe. Will I listen to it again? I'm not sure. I recall liking the one ballad he did with Nora Jones, the cover, whatever the title was, thought it should have been the single, and could have been a hit in some niche market, possible even on the country charts.

The trouble with Roger Waters for me, besides his almost complete lack of musicality, is his politics. His tour is coming to my town in September, and I was tempted for a moment, then I read that he does this big political routine where he projects images of politicians. Whether I agree or disagree with the message, let's just hear Dark Side of the Moon. If I want to be reminded of current events, I'll click on MSN or whatever "news" portal I find.

That was my criticism when on their recent tours The Who would show a time-spanning news loop on video during the instrumental The Rock. It took away from the enjoyment of the music, which has absolutely zero to do with the video message they were broadcasting. I don't go to a music concert to watch the news.

David Gilmour, on the other hand, always liked him solo far more than Roger Waters. With Gilmour it's great music, no politics or news events intruding, just the marvelous runs of soaring guitar and melodic voice. I bought his recent solo album, Rattle That Lock. I liked it and I still so. I have a London audience bootleg CD from last year where he incorporates Purple Rain intro the end solo of Comfortably Numb as a Prince tribute, as he had recently passed.

But alas, Gilmour came nowhere near Boston on his tour. In the U.S. his solo album was #5, then dropped out of sight. In the UK it went gold, but only sold 100,000 copies. It was #1 or top 10 in over two dozen countries -- but gold in only four and platinum in only one: [en.wikipedia.org]

I wonder how many streams it got on Spotify?

Stonehearted: If you close your eyes, the music is still the same. You either are there for the music or not...

Quote
roller99
Just got tkts, yay!

Which night roller?

_____________________________________________________________
Rip this joint, gonna save your soul, round and round and round we go......

Quote
Hairball

Quote
roller99
Just got tkts, yay!

Which night roller?

Uh,..Wed.

Quote
RollingFreak
I totally agree on most of what you say, although I have to be fair, I find David pretty boring on his own. Its totally the Lennon/McCartney thing. We've discussed it here before. David brings the musicality Roger is almost impossibly lacking, and Roger brings the drive. Pink Floyd was NEVER just about the stage show and visuals, but it did enhance that music. Roger, even without the political stuff, makes the music come to life sort of. And I'm not pro-Waters, I just think thats the truth. David, I love him dearly, but stands there and plays guitar and without ANY visual it does get pretty boring. They both lack what the other has, and its pretty clear what certain people prefer. You are definitely a Gilmour fan, and I think there's no convincing those fans of Roger (and vice versa). The same way I'm obviously more Waters cause he just gives you a more "Pink Floyd" nostalgia show. I could do without the politics, but its fun when he shits on the politicians and thats never bothered me with any band, whether I agree or not. Its fun to cheer in a crowd.

But it did seem that they had the innovative light show, right from the beginning of their career, to enhance everything, because none of them were ever dynamic stage performers in the show biz sense -- in fact, apart from the charisma of Syd Barrett, none of them were really rock stars. Do you know the story of how, in the mid-seventies at the height of their popularity, they actually filed out of a large concert with their fans? And not one concertgoer recognized alongside of them either of the very musicians they had just paid to see! That's quite amazing, really. And very telling regarding what their stage show is, and the sort of concert experience they provided.

Quote
Hairball
ps: to stonehearted: I also have hundreds upon hundreds of cd's, and until last year they were piled haphazardly on bookshelves without any rhyme or reason. I've since painstakingly stacked them in to general categories - classic rock, punk rock, blues, country, etc., etc., etc. I have an entirely separated area for Beatles and Stones only, and Dylan and Neil Young have their own zone. while Hendrix, Jeff Beck, and Johnny Winter are grouped together. Makes sense to me, and makes life so much easier when you want to grab something - you kind of hone in on a particular area rather than getting lost in cd land. There's 5 giant bookshelves side by side filled to the brim with stacks! The same with my vinyl collection which was a pain in the ass to properly organize - I have a shelving unit that's apprx. 12 x 12 feet high dedicated to vinyl alone, Everything is down at my studio (basically a warehouse), and has it's own section on one of the back walls, all nicely situated with my stereo system strategically placed for my listening pleasure. All that being said, I suggest you re-find Crosseyed Heart and listen again - it's much better than the blues covers that made up Blue and Lonesome imo.

Yes, that's my trouble -- organizing things takes up so much time. I actually do occasionally wind up taking 20 minutes trying to find something I really want to listen to, and it bothers me when I can't find it.

I hope my copy of Crosseyed Heart does turn up so I can give it another listen. I do remember it being tuneful, diverse, good riffs overall. Actually, I thought at the time that it should have been the new Stones album. But then, I thought the same thing about Talk Is Cheap at the time.

Quote
roller99

Quote
Hairball

Quote
roller99
Just got tkts, yay!

Which night roller?

Uh,..Wed.

OK gotcha - will see ya there!

_____________________________________________________________
Rip this joint, gonna save your soul, round and round and round we go......

I busted out "The Final Cut" today. I sure do like that album more now than when it first came out. Probably a better title would've been "The Final Straw" as far as Waters/Gilmour went. Brilliant songwriting though.