Roger Waters: The Wall Concert film announced

I don't generally watch music DVDs, I prefer to listen. But if it's released on CD, I'd definitely consider buying it. I'm not too happy with the sound quality on my copy of The Wall.

Johnny-Too-Good said:

Slight amusement from me. When Roger forced the split in the early '80s he obviously thought he would easily conquer the world as the 'Great Roger Waters, formerly of Pink Floyd' with all this individual material he had. Guess what? Roger had a huge reality check. Not a lot of people were that interested in his 'individual material'. In the mid to late '80s he was playing to a few hundred while Dave's Roger-less Floyd were selling out arenas around the world. His success as a performer has come through re-visiting the very thing he broke up. For the last 20 years or so he has been milking The Wall for every penny he can squeeze out of it.

Click to expand...

Yes at least waters was experimenting and branching out. His albums may not have sold millions but he has some good music.
The only reason pink Floyd sold thousands of tickets was because David gilmour had created a walking jukebox that could play all the classic Floyd hits, give the fans an inflatable pig or two. But more importantly gilmour could market his material under the pink Floyd name and the fans did indeed flock to it like bee's to a hive. Now compare "a momentary lapse of reason's " sales with David gilmours previous solo album. You'll see how playing under floods name did a wealth of good to people buying gilmours material. I'm sure if pro's , Kaos , and amused to death had been released under the Floyd brand name they would have sold a hell of a lot more.
It still wouldn't be pink Floyd, because pink Floyd is mixture of both gilmour and waters with the other two.

I bought and listened to Amused To Death once. It was dreary! I haven't given any Waters album a try since. Give me Gilmour's dreamy soundscapes any day!

foreverblue said:

Yes at least waters was experimenting and branching out. His albums may not have sold millions but he has some good music.
The only reason pink Floyd sold thousands of tickets was because David gilmour had created a walking jukebox that could play all the classic Floyd hits, give the fans an inflatable pig or two. But more importantly gilmour could market his material under the pink Floyd name and the fans did indeed flock to it like bee's to a hive. Now compare "a momentary lapse of reason's " sales with David gilmours previous solo album. You'll see how playing under floods name did a wealth of good to people buying gilmours material. I'm sure if pro's , Kaos , and amused to death had been released under the Floyd brand name they would have sold a hell of a lot more.
It still wouldn't be pink Floyd, because pink Floyd is mixture of both gilmour and waters with the other two.

Click to expand...

I'm not so sure Roger's solo albums would have been big successes had they been released under the Pink Floyd name, The Final Cut was hardly a huge commercial success and that album was the follow up to the huge hit The Wall, although I agree that their sales would probably have been higher had their sales been associated with the name. I wonder how Pink Floyd's history would have been viewed if Roger had decided to continue to use their name for his projects?

I agree about A Momentary Lapse Of Reason, which if it had been released as a David Gilmour album (it probably should been have, Rick Wright and Nick Mason weren't exactly prominent on it) would probably have largely been forgotten now apart from the singles. The Division Bell is a different matter entirely, yes Roger Waters wasn't on it but Wright and Mason were fully involved in the project, with Rick singing lead for the first time in two decades on Wearing The Inside Out, and therefore it is clearly a Pink Floyd album to me rather than a Gilmour one.

I don't think either of them made good solo albums. I do agree with foreverblue though that at least Roger was trying for something meaningful. Dave seems to have just hit autopilot for the most part, but then again his strength is in his guitar playing and his albums do have plenty of good guitar playing.

All in all I'm sure most of us can agree, they were better together. Roger was the idea man and Dave was the musician and separating the two makes for a woefully incomplete yield. The needed the other to balance them out. Because without that check, Rog's music is all ranting, no music, and Dave's music is all noodle, no concept.

Johnny-Too-Good said:

Slight amusement from me. When Roger forced the split in the early '80s he obviously thought he would easily conquer the world as the 'Great Roger Waters, formerly of Pink Floyd' with all this individual material he had. Guess what? Roger had a huge reality check. Not a lot of people were that interested in his 'individual material'. In the mid to late '80s he was playing to a few hundred while Dave's Roger-less Floyd were selling out arenas around the world. His success as a performer has come through re-visiting the very thing he broke up. For the last 20 years or so he has been milking The Wall for every penny he can squeeze out of it.

Click to expand...

He's milking it because it's his creation. Even David Gilmore calls it "Rogers madness".

Lord Grendel said:

I agree we were all really disappointed with the original film other than the odd bit of animated sequences and the music of course it was dismal.

I will wait till it shows up somewhere for free, no need to buy this one.

Click to expand...

I thought the movie kicked ass myself. Here's a video of the show.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zNeyBYvT63M