Shine

Jim, I think you always want to land on your feet. I talked about the importance of vocal interpretation, arrangements, and the fact that a lot of work from the other three Floyds has gone unrecognized. Amid all your irony, it seems to me that you're saying Waters did it all, and I don't share that view. I might be wrong, but you only talk about tastes. Have a good evening.

In fact, to immediately find out who wrote A Saucefull of Secrets and to know who sang on the individual songs, see FLOYD CHANNEL - The Italian Pink Floyd Fans Club I look forward to hearing from you.

No secrets. Read: "Pink Floyd: A Secret Life" by Nicholas Schaffner; "Pink Floyd, A Dream in Technicolor" by Glenn Povey and Ian Russell. These texts are easily found everywhere. As for A Saucerful of Secrets, open the booklet and check the song credits. After reading these texts, will you at least have the intellectual honesty to say that I made nothing up? At this point, I'm starting to doubt it... By the way, I’m sorry, because on many occasions you’ve been very nice.

For Saputello and Jim. What are the wrong arguments? You’re very vague. I’m just saying that there’s a difference between knowing the credits of the songs and understanding the dynamics of a band. Do you know that from '69 to '73 Gilmour was almost always the lead vocalist of the group? That he played many bass parts in the studio (see "Hey You" and "Pigs (three different ones)")? That the arrangements are largely the work of Gilmour and Wright (at least until '75)? That the creative contributions of the other members were sometimes not acknowledged by Waters and therefore not included in the credits (see Sheep)? At the beginning of their career, there’s a lot of Waters and crumbs from the others? This doesn’t hold even when just reading the song credits. Is Saucerful of Secrets solely the work of Waters? At least read the credits. Everyone has their own tastes and may not like certain albums, but some information for judging with a bit more clarity is either known or unknown. You’re the ones who talked about "blinders" and us saying nonsense. That seems like a terrible way to argue. I said "talk with knowledge" in the sense of knowing facts that actually happened and are documented; I never spoke about tastes which are subjective (in fact, I didn’t comment on your preference, which I do not share, for The Final Cut over Wish You Were Here). Moreover, I appreciated your way of joking about Gilmour, but when you argued seriously, you climbed all over the mirrors.

Evasive today, huh? Anyway, if you didn't want to have the discussion, you could have chosen not to start it. I assure you that I listen to a lot of music and that I can criticize Pink Floyd quite harshly as well. Take a look at my reviews and then tell me if I'm just a simple flatterer. Also, could you let me know where I can find insights on your thoughts on the subject? Anyway, have a good evening :)

I'm sorry Jim, but your latest post doesn't address the discussion at all; it's just evasive. You're talking about blinders to someone like Tom who has thoroughly explained his point of view. Hypothetically, does listening to "Pink Floyd and ten other bands" mean you have blinders on? But then, what do you know about what Tom listens to? Are you a clairvoyant? My position is identical to Tom's: does that mean I have blinders too? It seems a bit arrogant to me. Strange, because usually, you're quite likable.

Finally, someone who speaks with understanding. Even though Jim and Saputello are very nice (the things you say apply to many legendary figures!).

I love Pink Floyd, but I remind everyone that Waters used playback during this year's tour, on some dates, in: "The Gunners Dream" (later excluded from the setlist), "Have a Cigar," "The Fletcher Memorial Home," and "Sheep." Furthermore, regarding "The Great Gig in the Sky," I say that anyone who understands a little about singing can tell you who has the better voice of the two. Also, when it comes to the fantastic "Shine On You Crazy Diamond" in musical terms (not lyrics), who do you think it owes more to? And shall we talk about "Radio Kaos"? What I’m saying is that Roger is a giant, but the others also have great merits that are often UNRECOGNIZED.

No nonsense. I love the music of Waters just as much as that of Gilmour and Wright (for different sensations and reasons). What I'm saying is that while everyone knows and judges Gilmour’s Pink Floyd, very few are familiar with Waters' solo career, which, apart from Amused to Death, is not very exciting. Waters is great, but the mythologization comes from the fact that people, not knowing him as a solo artist, continue to see him as inspired as when he was with the Floyd. Moreover, and without fear of contradiction, based on all the books I've read about the dynamics of the band, I can assert that the weight of the other Floyd members, especially Gilmour, is much greater than the songwriting credits we can read today. I’m particularly referring to the lack of compositional acknowledgments for Gilmour by Waters (see Sheep), Gilmour's vocal interpretations, and the band's fundamental arrangements. Anyway, if you want to know my point of view on them, see Wet Dream - Richard Wright - Recensione di Shine

In my opinion, Waters live is significantly inferior to Gilmour. All the songs originally sung by Gilmour and reinterpreted by Waters lose a lot. Moreover, the arrangements of the songs in Waters' tours also seem inferior to me. If we're talking about commerciality, then go listen to Waters' Radio Kaos. Waters has become a myth, and there is a lack of intellectual honesty to acknowledge the merits of Gilmour and Wright.