Perspectives:
Roger Waters and some of his fans - not all of them.
By Matthew
Anthony Allair
Often
there’s three sides to every story, and the truth is somewhere in the middle
It’s no
surprise in some ways, that Pink Floyd’s former bass player, singer, and
co-founder, Roger Waters put himself into hot water over insensitive comments
about Ozzy Osbourne’s passing, and his dismissal of Black Sabbath as a musical
force. Old school Floyd fans have known about his antics since the early
eighties. In the past, Roger was blessed with having segments of the public
just ignore and dismiss his colorful comments - decades ago.
(To
digress, frustratingly, I do have the Saucer
Full Of Secrets and Inside Out books, but they are in storage, and so
I had to make due at the time of this writing.)
Is There Anybody In
There?
I realize
I will do myself no favors by jumping into the fray as this debate can be
polarizing for many. All Roger had to do was make a bland public statement such
as the following:
“Ozzy
Osbourne was a colorful character in life, and Black Sabbath was an interesting
band. My sympathies go towards his family and fans at this moment.”
There - a very neutral statement – you don’t have to
profess your love for the artist or the band, just show an equal level of
respect. For myself, I never considered myself a rabid Sabbath fan, but I liked
a number of their albums, and I recognized their massive, musical importance. I
have seen for decades that Heavy Metal fans are some of the most fiercely loyal
fans out there, and it is precarious to knock the artists and bands they love.
In truth, I always leaned towards the first two Ozzy Osbourne solo albums with
Randy Rhoads, as I found them musically amazing. Ozzy’s legacy can’t be
denied.
In that
video interview, Roger looked disheveled, - and one could perceive he looked mentally ill,
there’s no proof of that though - the optics looked bad when you compared that
final farewell concert with Mr. Osbourne weeks prior to his death. Yet, as far
back as the eighties, Roger has been dismissive of other musical acts and
artists, that list is pretty far ranging.
Roger’s ongoing
feud with composer Andrew Lloyd Webber went on for years. The gist of that feud
had to do with Roger’s plagiarism accusations with Webber over his “Phantom of
the Opera” piece, and a descending and ascending riff from “Echoes” from 1971’s
Meddle album. While there’s a basis for the argument in their
similarities, as of this writing, neither Gilmour, or Mason have considered, or
agreed to legal action against Webber for copyright issues, and I find that odd
if there’s a legitimate grievance. I am not going to dispute if there are similarities between the pieces, there are.
These days, there’s a contingent of Waters fans who rabidly defend any
action he takes, some are the next generation of hipster media writers who
ignore the bands history, or a sliver are socialists who defend Roger for his
noble causes surrounding Palestinians, Gaza, the West Bank, or his screeds
against conservatives in British government and parliament.
While
there are writers who glaze over Waters work as a musician and person, not
every writer is having it. Some recognize his disconnect with his privilege, a
similar problem faced Lennon in the early seventies, and some have seen Roger’s
penchant for playing the victim. Or even questions about his anger. I suspect that Roger is a narcissist, a term often misunderstood as
Narcissism isn’t a mental illness, but a personality trait. One characteristic
of a narcissist has is an unconditional demand for loyalty, even if the
participate doesn’t often benefit from the narcissist. You can see this with
musicians who, reportedly, played with both Waters and Gilmour. There’s an
incessant need to ‘choose sides’; even when players have better experiences
with one leader over another.
As far as some
music fans are concerned, Roger has been engaged in a revision of Pink Floyd
for the last 15 years. In spite of Nick Mason’s pretty candid book about the
history of the band, or David Gilmour’s remarks to clarify matters, Roger has
been engaged in a form of gaslighting to appeal to the ignorant. I cannot
forgive Roger’s character assassinations of keyboard player, and singer Richard
Wright to justify his firing of Rick during The Wall sessions. Or his
arrogance and hubris, circa 1986, from Waters to form the opinions about the A
Momentary Lapse of Reason album with the public, and the legal fight to stop the band from
touring under the PF banner. Those legal arguments lead to Richard Wright role
in the recording sessions to be minimized, as well Richard being cropped out of
the band photo in early pressings of Lapse to protect him from Roger’s
continuing barrage of lawsuits – all of which failed I might add – and the band
continued the tour under the Floyd banner. Richard’s
picture was added in later pressings of Momentary Lapse.
Embryo
Most bands
are the sum of their parts, Syd Barrett started the band with Roger, Richard
was a key contributor to the bands early years, both as a lead and background
singer, Nick was a solid drummer, and once David Gilmour was broken in, his
guitar work became vital and he developed a signature sound through the years,
even if Roger isn’t always willing to admit it, David was invaluable to Pink
Floyd. Unfortunately, Roger didn’t see much value with Rich and Nick. Even recently, there was an article about Barrett letters put up for auction and in them, Syd acknowledged in jest and love that Roger could be difficult, it's always been an issue,
The early
years, post Syd were difficult, their early American tours in the late 60s were
a disaster, there were reports of going broke mid tour, or having to rent out
musical gear in American due to transportation issues. Plus, during their
experimental album phases from 68-72, the soft sales must have affected the magnitude
of venue appearances, and I could see how these struggles could weigh on
Roger’s desire to see the band survive. I could see how that might explain his
relentless drive.
Back onto
the issue: Jack Osbourne’s counter argument about Roger was completely
justified, Ozzy’s passing is still very recent, and it just smacks of being tackey and
snobbish for Roger to comment in this way, - and so soon. What would be fair
game would have been for Roger to wait until next year before he made critical
comments about Mr. Osbourne. Ozzy was a very flawed person and the general rule
with rock musicians who use alcohol or drugs, they are going to do stupid things,
and Ozzy did a lot of stupid things under the influence. Considering that
members of Pink Floyd have their own past addiction issues, it did seem
sanctimonious and hypocritical for Roger to be so dismissive. In the early
years between 1968 to 1972, Roger was said to have smoked Hash, and it made
him, some say, a more manageable personality before he went sober.
One Of The Few
As much as
I hate to diminish the role of Roger’s contributions, while he is indeed a
great lyricist and idea man. His bass work is uneven. It’s been pretty well
known that Gilmour did some of the bass work on The Wall sessions, and
Roger is simply not a great singer in comparison to Gilmour and Wright who were.
Roger didn’t sing the majority of the songs in Pink Floyd. If you do an actual breakdown,
David sang lead on 61 tracks to Roger’s 55 tracks, and Richard sang lead on 15
tracks.
Let’s look
at Roger’s dismissiveness towards Richard in the late 70s, it’s true that
Richard was having problems prior to The Wall sessions, a divorce and
drug issues – but then again many of them were not innocent as far as drug use
at the end of that decade. Roger claimed that Richard was coming up with no
musical ideas, but Richard Wrigth’s 1978 solo album Wet Dream does
demonstrate that Richard had a wealth of music ideas to offer. Also David
Gilmour’s solo album from that year wasn’t too shabby. At least two Gilmour
songs from his album, ‘There’s No Way Out Of Here’, and ‘I Can’t Breathe
Anymore’ could be relationship songs, or slight digs at Roger, things weren’t
well with the band at that time. Richard’s work on Wet Dream is often
poignant.
Here's a
brief sampling from David Gilmour and Wet Dream and for you to
decide for yourself.
All video music samples are in compliance with "Fair Use" and are for educational reference.
Roger
simply didn’t seem to like Richard’s keyboard style at that point by 1978 and
seemed to think his approach didn’t match what he envisioned for The Wall.
Regarding the claim that Richard ‘played almost nothing on the album’, of the
26 tracks, Richard played on 20. It is almost true that Bob Ezrin played piano
on the number of the more notable tracks, the Piano on ‘Nobody Home’ was Ezrin
- as it’s a very different style from Richard - Bob had played on Kiss’s Beth’
and had played keyboards on various Alice Cooper records, so he was an adept
Piano player – just different.
Let’s
address that claim that A Momentary Lapse of Reason was just populated
by ‘session players’. You are aware that The Wall was populated by some
session players as well? Aside from Bob Ezrin and Michael Kaman, other session
players included Fred Mandel, Jeff Porcaro, Lee Ritenour, Joe di Blassi, Joe
Porcaro, Bobbye Hall, and Travor Veitch. Never mind the session players that
populate The Final Cut sessions from 1983. Roger’s arguments seem
disingenuous.
Now,
there’s no argument that The Dark Side of the Moon, Wish You Were Here,
Animals and The Wall are brilliant albums. But of the four, Animals
is the most blunt lyrically, challenging and for some, less accessible, yet
there are Water’s fans who find that bluntness appealing, to each their own. I
find the albums between 1968-1972 fascinating for a number of reasons, A
Saucerful of Secrets, More, Ummagumma, Atom Heart Mother, Meddle, and Obscured
By Clouds may be wildly uneven, but they also felt democratic as a band
unit.
The ugly
truth is that Roger destroyed the democracy of the band after 1975 to further
his personal vision. He started to see his band mates as mere ‘session players’.
What may have appeared to be an aberration with the Animals album in
1977, started to turn into a pattern of Roger being the dominant, tyrannical
leader and writer – he just arrogantly presumed he should be the primary song
writer – and of course when you take into account publishing royalties, it’s
quite a clever racket and gaslight to steer in that direction. Roger’s
projected wealth is at around 310 Million and higher than the others – he knew
what he was doing. I can’t say he’s a victim by any means.
What Do You Want From Me?
While you
could argue that Momentary Lapse acts as a Gilmour solo record, by the
time of the Division Bell album, the band were truly a democratic band
again. Richard had co-writing credit on four songs, and sings lead on ‘Wearing
The Inside Out’. By extension, the mostly instrumental follow up and posthumous
The Endless River. Richard is credited with co-writing 11 tracks. David
also liked Richard enough and regarded him highly to have Richard appear on two
songs from his On An Island solo release from 2006 and had him tour with
him for the album prior to his passing. Yes, I am aware that you could argue
that Endless River are just leftovers from the Division Bell
album, in the same way you would argue that The Final Cut are just
leftovers from The Wall sessions. But the intents were different, by
1983 Roger assumed the band was over, whereas by 2013, Endless River was
released to wrap up unfinished business and honor Richard.
Many of
the above points are simply empirical fact.
To go further, let’s
look at the album chart success of the various Waters vs. Pink Floyd album. Starting
in 1984, Roger’s The Pros and Cons of Hitchhiking reached the Billboard
100 at number 31 after its initial release in April 1984. That album did chart
higher in the UK at 13. David Gilmour’s About Face was released in
March, 1984 and charted in the US at 32. Both were about pretty even as far as
sales. In the middle of the squabbles of their respective albums in 1987, Roger’s
Radio K.A.O.S. charted in the UK at 25 and the US Billboard 100 at 50, when
released in June 1987. The charts for Pink Floyd’s A Momentary Lapse Of
Reason, released September 1987, hit number 3 in the UK, and number 3 in
the Billboard 100. A significantly larger success. This will be important in a
moment. When
Roger’s Amused To Death was released in September of 1992. It did
significantly better than its prior releases. Charting at number 8 in the UK
and at 21 in the US Billboard 100. When Pink Floyd’s The Division Bell
was released in March, 1994, It peaked at number one in the UK and US album
charts – and it is the most democratic sounding album in a long time. To be
fair, if people don’t like the Gilmour era albums, that’s perfectly fine. But
if you simply look at the gamble Roger took leaving Pink Floyd by 1984 – with
him assuming it was a ‘spent force’ – he misread the room.
Eclipse
In
contrast in 1975 when Peter Gabriel left Genesis, that gamble paid off and
Peter had a more viable solo career, while Genesis continued on to their own
fortunes as band, everyone benefited. There’s
the adage, “Pride goeth before the fall,” from Proverbs 16:18, and Roger’s
hubris got in the way with reality. Part of me can’t blame him. The 1973
success of Dark Side of The Moon must have been a major adjustment for
all concerned in the band, and people react differently to sudden changes in
fortune. Once the follow up, Wish You Were Here in 1975 was an equal
success, it had to have affected Roger’s confidence and he misread the room. Some
of my points are verified by the above article.
I wish
more people would view Pink Floyd and Genesis in a similar light. The guys in
Genesis have stated that they view the band as a ‘writers workshop’ to explore
various ideas and types of music. In spite of Floyd’s really reputation as
‘space rock’ jam band, Floyd really evolved with an emphasis on song craft even
before the mid-seventies. While both bands are very different, they ended up
arriving at similar results by the mid eighties, for good or ill.
We haven’t
even discussed Nick Mason’s thoughts on much of this post 2005. Nick has
remained social friends with both David and Roger, and he had some thoughts
about the tensions as sited from this article:
“It’s
a really odd thing in my opinion. But I think the problem is that Roger doesn’t
really respect David. He feels that writing is everything and that guitar
playing and the signing are something that, I won’t say anyone can do, but that
everything should be judged on the writing rather than the playing…I think it
rankles with Roger that he made a sort of error in a way that he left the band
assuming without him it would fold. It’s a constant irritation really, that
he’s still going back to it. I’m hesitant to get too stuck into this one, just
because it’s between the two of them rather than me. I actually get along with
the both of them, and I think it’s really disappointing that these rather
elderly gentlemen are still at loggerheads.”
Some of
his points make sense, David may have always been seen as the new kid in the
band, even by the end of the seventies, so David’s control of the band in later
years was a real test. Part of the issue is the differing perspectives between
the basic writing of a piece and that arrangements. The core view is that the
basic chords, lyrics and lead melody is the writing, but the process is
complicated and the ideas of the players can shape the arrangement, David’s
view seems to be that Roger is too dogmatic on the finer points.
Early
songs such as “If..” from Atom Heart Mother show there’s a real humanity
in there with Roger – and self-awareness, but he seems so doused in this public
façade of scorn, you can’t tell, half the time, who the real person is there. Perhaps
the ego, hubris or narcissism has won out, and that’s a real shame if true. I can’t
speak for that as I don’t know what’s in his heart or head. Only he could
answer that.
I remember that Live
Aid performance in 2005 with the full band, as mentioned here. Roger seemed genuinely
thrilled to be there, David came across as diplomatically muted, and the sad
reality is that the damage had been done long before 1987. I don’t read it as
just a jilted ego from David – he seems to truly not like how Roger treats
others.
It is a shame
that Roger could not have been involved with The Endless River as far as
playing bass an co-writing several songs, it would have given the album a more
final definitive stamp as the album was intended as a tribute to Richard, we
will never know. I admit that a few more proper songs could have rounded out
the album.
Paranoid Eyes There’s
also the issue that David seems to treat his band mates better on his tours,
and I could argument that ‘character matters’. Roger has a reputation for
cultivating tension, he even fired his son keyboardist Harry Waters in 2016,
after he had toured with his father for 14 years. Now, it’s common for band
leaders to dismiss members at the end of tours, nothing new. But the reasonings
seemed cryptic and callous. Perhaps so Roger could prove a point about
Nepotism? I don’t know. This was first noted in the late eighties regarding
Roger’s solo tours.
I haven’t
even tackled his politics - which I am indifferent to - but some recent choices
are illustrative of his inability to read a room. Yes, Roger is a dedicated
socialist, it is what it is. Regarding the events circa 2022, when he was
fronting another revival of the Pink Floyd The Wall tour, and when
certain references of the stage show was interpreted as being Antisemitic
regarding criticism of Isreal, the second half of the narrative of the Pink
character from the album falls into delusions and hallucinations as a fascist
leader until Pink catches himself. Roger ramped up the fascist references due
to the context of what was increasingly happening at the time. As much as I
feel that the ADL and AiPAC overplays their hands in their rhetoric, I am not
certain that Roger is an actual antisemite. But due to his father’s death in
WWII, I think Roger has developed such a blind rage against any wars, he has
lost his objectivity. It’s one thing for Roger to run concert revivals of The
Wall album in 1990, when the political stakes seemed lesser. But the social
climate had changed so much by 2022, the themes of The Wall were bound
to be misinterpreted in the changing culture.
He doesn’t see that.
There’s
also his back-and-forth stance on the Ukraine war, where he seemed to pivot
against Vladmir Putin and then defend Putin. This lead to the fight between
Gilmour’s wife Holly, against Roger, and then by extension David over the
Ukraine war. Even David and Nick wrote a song in support of Ukraine, ‘Hey Hey,
Rise Up’. I suspect Roger’s blind mistrust towards the West leads him to lose
his objectivity. Again, Roger has an uncanny ability to misread situations,
even if he stands by his connections, and even if he refuses to censor himself,
- traits that many people admire and I am not saying I object to - for such an
infinitely intelligent man, he seems to stumble a lot.
Signs Of Life
In contrast, David Gilmour has been more measured, diplomatic, he seems
to be a better band leader, and one has to ask – who is the more intelligent
person? Roger keeps having to recycle his Pink Floyd past, since his solo
albums can’t sustain him as far as ticket sales. Gilmour retired the Pink Floyd
enterprise as an actual unit, and released three solo albums, On an Island,
Rattle That Lock and Luck and Strange, all three of those albums
have gone number one or top ten in the US and UK album charts. As well as tours
for each album that have done well. David has moved forward and is still
writing music that resonates today, now that point might seem incredibly unfair
to Waters fans. Again, who seems to be the more intelligent person? David has
been quoted as saying:
“I have no interest in going on a tour to make
money without making new product, new art.”
People can
dismiss chart success as having little to do with quality, and they would be
correct, but when a player such as Gilmour has shown the ability to resonate
better with an audience, then Waters thesis about having more depth may not be
as important as he likes to believe or suggest. I am not saying people should dislike Roger’s solo output, if you do,
more power to you, But I am suggesting there should a little more balance in
the public perception. I can admire Roger’s musical legacy and input, but I
can’t say I admire the man that much as I have gotten older. He just comes
across as a bitter old codger these days.
Criticizing
other successful bands and musicians is often a sign of insecurity and
weakness. What I mean is the kind of withering criticism that is designed to
degrade others, that is my problem with much of the last fifteen years with
Roger. Being able to objectively look at the pros and cons in a work is a
different matter. A lot of Roger’s razor tongue may have been entertaining in
the press in the past, but it has gotten tiring. The arguments about Water’s
‘Genius’ just don’t seem that important anymore.
Roger
seems incapable of moving on – the rest of the world have moved on.
P.S. If Roger does see this - he will probably argue it's a hit piece from a 'nobody',- it is what it is. No Roger, I am not a practicing Christian due to quoting a proverb for a point, and don't worry Roger, I don't plan to visit this issue again.
