Pink Floyd: With Roger Waters or Without?

In light of all the which bands do you like better topics, I thought of this one. Personally, some of my favorite songs by Pink Floyd are after his leaving the band. But also some of my favorites are when he was with the band (Wish You Were Here (album), Comfortably Numb, Dark Side of the Moon, etc..). So what do you like better or perhaps you liked the band while he was there and after he left like I do.

ewww :P

I havent heard much of pink floyd. But I think the song I have heard had Roger in it, so I say better when he was with the band.

With all the way. Post-Waters Floyd never had the same touch as the other. Division Bell and Momentary Lapse were great and all but for different reasons than how everything else was. Waters lyrics are so much differently done than Gilmours...which is a huge reason why I like his stuff more.

Overall...The Wall, Animals, Meddle, DSotM, Wish You Were Here, Obscured and Piper out duel Division Bell and Momentary Lapse easily.

(Although, I quite enjoy the album PULSE and the recently released DVD of the same name :))

I have alot of old vinal with and without . I think its all good, but am taking a break from them. they play the same 3 songs by them on the radio and if i am not carefull it could wind up like 'The Fly's incident' :tongue:

I dont listen to Pink floyd.

There was quality material produced by both Waters Floyd and PINK FLOYD 1987©, but the Waters stuff definitely comes out on top.

I voted with Waters, because Dark Side of the moon is one of the best albums of all time, but I'm also a huge fan of the song High Hopes, which was on Division Bell I think which is post-Waters.

So basically Pink Floyd kick ass, but they kicked slightly more ass with Waters.

Side bar ... i heard Roger say that he felt in his bones they (Pink Floyd) would reunite ... anyone hear that ?

David can write music well, but he can't write a concept and to me The Floyd are all about expressing a concept through music. The Division Bell was a nice look back at their better years, but it tried to emulate something that was already perfect. Don't get me started on AMLoR. Another band could have gotten away making that, but since it had the Floyd name on the front, I consider it a bad album.

Classic Floyd to me is the four guys in the studio working on some of the best music in Rock, a la WYWH days. We'd all like to see new material from them, but I think the best thing they could do is maybe one last world tour together, play all the classics and call it a night. I'll be more than happy with that.

This is certainly an excellent topic for me to post in, given the fact that Pink Floyd is my favourite band. I have every album except the live ones and the Final Cut (which, IMO, can't really be called a real PF album because it sounds much more like a Waters solo album).

Anyway, after Syd Barret left the band and Gilmour replaced him, a couple of albums (More, Ummagumma) were released in which I feel that the band was in a transition phase, looking for their sound amd lacking proper leadership. In Atom Heart Mother, things changed for the better. The band's main leader had arisen: Roger Waters. David Gilmour and ocassionally Rick Wright would come to the fore in terms of songwriting, but the person who contributed most in lyrics and songwriting was Roger.

That having been said, Roger wasn't as good without the other members collaborating with him. For example, a few Waters-only songs (songs written only by him, such as "If" and "Welcome to the Machine") are quite weak, especially musically.

By 1977, when "the Wall" was first released, Waters was dominating the band so much that the sound had changed incredibly. A hint of the increasingly stubborn and domineering Waters had already shown in "Animals," in which all but one song was written by Waters only, and that last song was co-written by him. The only thing that was keeping it all together at that point was that Gilmour was still struggling to insert his influence, and this largely saved the album musically. Lyrically, of course, the album was excellent, because Waters forte is lyrics.

Rick Wright left before "the Final Cut," a sequel to "the Wall," was released (some reports say he was fired by the now egocentric and controlling Waters, who had constantly reprimanded him about his keyboard playing the past few years). Gilmour and Mason started to feel the strain... Gilmour was not allowed any room for his own songwriting anymore, and Waters sung all but one song on the newest album.

After the last three remaining members disbanded in the mid-80s, a few years later Mason, Wright and Gilmour returned again under the Pink Floyd moniker. A court battle ensued between Gilmour and Waters, who still harbored bad feelings. Waters claimed the band could not be allowed the name now that two of the band members, Barret and himself (Pink Floyd had, at one point, in 1968, 5 members: Waters, Wright, Gilmour, Mason and Barret, before he left due to heavy drug use and schizophrenia) had left the band.

But Gilmour won the rights, and Pink Floyd made two more albums together without Waters: "A Momentary Lapse of Reason" (1987) and "the Divison Bell" (1994). Though the albums were a good attempt at recreating the classic Floyd sound, they suffered from a distinct lack or Waters' voice, lyrics, songwriting skills, and bass playing. Worse, they seemed as if they all sounded identical, and were brought down by a heavy overusage of whining Gilmour guitar solos. "The Division Bell" is markedly better than "A Momentary Lapse of Reason," because the latter, on top of the other faults previously listed, had a vintage 80s sound to it *cringes* and weaker songs.

So what is my answer? I liked Floyd when Waters was with the band better, even though I enjoyed the last two albums somewhat. True, he was definetly too overpowering in "the Wall" and "the Final Cut," but from "Atom Heart Mother" to "Animals" he contributed much to the band, so much that they would never be as good after he left.

There are few people who, when asked to name their favourite Pink Floyd record, would choose one on which Waters was not involved. That's not to say that the material released after his departure was bad, but it doesn't come close to their best work. I can therefore quite easily say that I prefer Pink Floyd with Roger Waters to Pink Floyd without him.

Why is this even a question, the answer is Oh So Obvious... Rogers

They needed each other.

I go both ways. I enjoy Floyd with Waters and without. I like the Waters lead era the best so I suppose if I was to pick then I'd go for 'with Waters'. But I picked nuteral, as I like both.

I thought they were good together. I'll be going to a Roger Waters concert soon where he'll be playing "Dark side of the moon" .. I wonder what that will be like.. just him. Wish they'd sort out their differences but I don't see it happening for real.

I love "A Momentary Lapse In Reason" and "The Division Bell" very much; they're two of my favourite albums by the band. But I'm going to go with with Waters, because somehow his being there gave the music soul. I dunno. Especially lyrics-wise.

I prefer the Waters era, but like it all. It should be mentioned though that Gilmore wrote the more successful songs on DSOTM though.