Roger Waters says he has re-recorded 'The Dark Side of the Moon'

[Mr. Holland]

https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/music/news/roger-waters-pink-floyd-dark-side-moon-b2278777.html

“I wrote The Dark Side of the Moon. Let’s get rid of all this ‘we’ crap. Of course we were a band – there were four of us, we all contributed – but it’s my project and I wrote it, so, blah.” “Well, Nick never pretended. But Gilmour and Rick? They can’t write songs, they’ve nothing to say. They are not artists. They have no ideas – not a single one between them. They never have had, and that drives them crazy.”

What the actual fuck (excuse my French)?!

[Frumious B]

Instead of The Wizard Of Oz this new recording reportedly syncs with Clueless.

[downbyariver]

Is he going to call this Dark Side of the Moon: Return Trip?

I'm not a big Pink Floyd fan in general, but I always thought David Gilmour had the better singing voice, and obviously is an expert guitar player. Rover Waters had something interesting going on vocally, but it's one of those voices with character that one likes because it isn't a cookie cutter technically proficient voice.

This whole thing sounds like lead singer derangement syndrome- where the best known singer in a band suddenly decides he is the band or was the band, when the band in question clearly depended on the contributions of others.

Even setting aside the issue of how his backing band for the rerecording is going to compare to his Pink Floyd bandmates in their primes, one thing that really jumps out to me about this is that Roger Waters singing at 79 trying to one up Roger Waters singing the same thing when he was 30(ish). Either that second comparison is going to go really badly for present-day him, or he's going to have used auto-tune and a lot of modern production techniques to hit higher notes and smooth out issues, which could effect the "character" he is known for vocally and leave him sounding like everyone else.

Were I more into Floyd, what I would be saying is the right path would be to create new album of original solo material or restart some version of Pink Floyd with a new album of original material. That way he could make something in the vein of the album he's instead chosen to re-record, but in such a way as that it would be the best version of itself and fans will be happy to have it rather than whatever this bizarre remake is going to be to people.

Will this new version line up with The Whiz instead of The Wizard of Oz?

Also, Gilmour has a writing credit of some sort in every single song on A Momentary Lapse of Reason , many of them solo credits. That's my favorite Pink Floyd album, not because there's no Roger Waters on it, but apparently I don't miss him on it enough not to like it better than the others I have or have heard.

I wonder if the Waters thing is an attempt to get a mostly sound alike version of Dark Side that he can license out for commericals, movies, and television shows.

[Frumious B]

From what I have read Waters new version has no guitar solos and he does spoken word poetry over the instrumentals. So it’s not a soundalike version, but it sounds like a terrible, horrible, no good, rotten idea.

[Ceasar’s Palace]

I think that Roger Waters considers the lyrics as the definitive part of any song or album. And when it comes to the words, then there is little doubt that these come almost exclusively from him.
But there is no general rule on the importance of lyrics and music relative to each other! Many people consider them equal, and I personally rate music far above words.
I’d like Waters to inform me what exactly his contribution was to Great Gig In The Sky…
Oh, and he’s free to re-record any PF album, even Momentary Laps Of Reason if he wants to. I’m not interested.
In fact, I’ve never thought of any of his solo work as anything other than weak PF rehashes.

[alex peters]

RW comments are so so bad and unnecessary. He is just a cranky old man. I think Nick Mason's past few comments hit the nail on the head with regards to the feud. It looks like this may be 1 of the reasons Mrs. G. went off at after midnight

[downbyariver]

From what I have read Waters new version has no guitar solos and he does spoken word poetry over the instrumentals.

Ah, the William Shatner method.

I actually don't consider Shatner's musical career quite as much of a joke as some do, though I only have the first album and then the album he made many decades later with Billy Sherwood.

Shatner's explanation of why he was doing what he was doing and what he was intending to do makes sense to me in kind of a strange way. He essentially said that he always wanted to be a singer and a musician, but couldn't carry a tune to save his life no matter how hard he tried. However, he was a trained Shakespearean actor (Remember, his first album came out before Star Trek) and was good at reciting lines the way one might recite poetry or act in a play.

So, instead of trying to sing in the traditional fashion, he basically tried to recite poetry over some background music. That was something he felt he could do well. One can see it in the first album where every song is essentially part of an old play or poem followed by the lyrics to a more modern (cover) song read as though it were part of a play or poetry, sometimes with a similar theme. There's that implicit idea that music is our modern equivalent of old poems and plays, though of course there are actually new poems and plays out there (and films and television shows), so I suppose one could view songs as divergent cousins with a common ancestor, but with modern music obviously having roots in older music as well.

Shatner's album with Sherwood is basically him reciting his original poetry over slightly lyrically simpler than normal Sherwood songs, because Sherwood seems to intend his singing to enhance the Shatner poetry rather than just doing songs and it being incidental that Shatner sometimes talks over them.

A lot of folks seem to assume that Shatner was trying to sing this whole time ime and it just came out as if he were reading the lyrics because that's what him trying to sing sounds like, though. No, he's specifically trying *not* to inflict his (in his opinion bad) singing on us. He figures his genre stretching motifs are things he can actually do well (by the standards of the "new" genre), even if the sort of people who'd like them are a small niche, and he's the only one doing them. And he gets to live a little bit of his dream of doing the closest thing he can do to being a professional musician, allowing him to hold small pseduo-rock concerts and record albums in a studio- both just on rare occasions.

Bill also has a good sense of humor about the whole thing, doing Priceline commericals making fun of his music, and an album with, I think it was Ben Folds that was in part self-deprecating comedy (I don't have that one, it's just what I think I read).

I am not sure why you would resort to that if you're Roger Waters, though, and actually *can* sing. I mean, I realize sometimes spoken lyrics are used by classic rock bands and artists- Moody Blues, Chicago, and Deep Purple, among others, all had a least one song that included some of that. However, it would just be a brief thing when those bands did it. It sounds like Waters is going more all out, and in a remake of a beloved album that people really like the way it is (I personally don't really like the oriignal PF lbum, but I'm in the minority, and I do see why it is considered to have artistic merit and how some people could enjoy it.).

I don't know, maybe at 79 years old Waters is struggling with his singing voice and has to try new types of stuff to keep being able to express himself creatively. I just think an all new album or even a book of poetry might have been better than revisiting something that people love and turning it into what he's turning it into. If you do it with previously unheard material, you can mention that it's an experiment and that you were trying something new (or mention it as being the best he can do at his age if that's the case) and maybe persuade people give it a chance on that basis.

Trying to sell to sell a remake of Dark Side of the Moon with spoken word lyrics and without guitar solos sounds like a recipe to just get virtually tarred and feathered because of how liked the original rock and roll version with his old bandmates was.

I guess we'll see what happens, though. I'll be interested in reading some of the professional reviews, which are probably going to be brutal.

[Soundwaveseeker]

Is he going to call this Dark Side of the Moon: Return Trip?

I'm not a big Pink Floyd fan in general, but I always thought David Gilmour had the better singing voice, and obviously is an expert guitar player. Rover Waters had something interesting going on vocally, but it's one of those voices with character that one likes because it isn't a cookie cutter technically proficient voice.

This whole thing sounds like lead singer derangement syndrome- where the best known singer in a band suddenly decides he is the band or was the band, when the band in question clearly depended on the contributions of others.

Even setting aside the issue of how his backing band for the rerecording is going to compare to his Pink Floyd bandmates in their primes, one thing that really jumps out to me about this is that Roger Waters singing at 79 trying to one up Roger Waters singing the same thing when he was 30(ish). Either that second comparison is going to go really badly for present-day him, or he's going to have used auto-tune and a lot of modern production techniques to hit higher notes and smooth out issues, which could effect the "character" he is known for vocally and leave him sounding like everyone else.

Were I more into Floyd, what I would be saying is the right path would be to create new album of original solo material or restart some version of Pink Floyd with a new album of original material. That way he could make something in the vein of the album he's instead chosen to re-record, but in such a way as that it would be the best version of itself and fans will be happy to have it rather than whatever this bizarre remake is going to be to people.

Will this new version line up with The Whiz instead of The Wizard of Oz?

Also, Gilmour has a writing credit of some sort in every single song on A Momentary Lapse of Reason , many of them solo credits. That's my favorite Pink Floyd album, not because there's no Roger Waters on it, but apparently I don't miss him on it enough not to like it better than the others I have or have heard.

I wonder if the Waters thing is an attempt to get a mostly sound alike version of Dark Side that he can license out for commericals, movies, and television shows.

I don't see the point in re-doing a new version of an iconic album for the sole purpose of spiting his former bandmates and co-creators and trying to convince fans with this "See! See! It was all me!". The album stands on its own, regardless of who had most the ideas or if he hovered over them with a whip. A lot of fans don't care about that drama, they just dig the music. Not sure if I see the point of adding this to my collection or the point of him even wasting studio time to record this.

On the other hand, a lot of artists 're-imagine' their popular material by rerecording it with new tech, doing acoustic or orchestral/chamber versions of it, new arrangements, with varying results. Most of the time they do this in a live setting, playing a classic album in its entirety - either note for note (like Yes tries to) or taking a few liberties (like Steve Hackett). This new Look-At-Me-I-Was-Always-Pink version will never replace the original or even sway people into one of those divisive Gilmour vs Waters fan battles again, because warring opponents need allies and backers. A lot won't care and I predict the album will gain a little attention but then sink without a trace, with most people going back to their copies of the originals. The new self-worship DSOTM will become another back catalogue solo album.

Then again, I haven't heard it yet and don't know what it will sound like or what direction it will take, so I really shouldn't speak out of ignorance. I guess we'll see.
I agree that his time probably would be better spent on creating new music or form a spinoff band called Pink Floyd Featuring Roger Waters. Well, I suppose he can't use that name, but 'Roger Water's Floyd' would be kinda legal. Or do new music in a similar style called 'Return To The Dark Side Of The Moon' and have it sync up to Return To Oz. At least it will be new stuff with new songs, new rants, new lyrics, etc. To try to go up against your past is a losing pursuit. Better off doing something new. His solo material has been sort of hit or miss, I agree. Amused To Death was decent and his last one from 2017 got some time on my player when it was new but hasn't really knocked my socks of last couple times I played it. My favorite solo album from his is the one nobody else likes including Waters himself, which is Radio Kaos. It has some cool tunes and doesn't wear out its welcome and I thought the story was ok. It even has what you don't usually get in a Waters album - a sense of hope and a happy-ish ending with The Tide Is Turning. I suspect a lot of fans dislike this one mostly due to 80's-phobic sentiment.

New DSOTM? Probably a big 'nah'...

[Davy]

To Frum's point about protecting vs. hurting the legacy of the music, I heard two Pink Floyd songs on the long drive home last night and immediately switched the stations - did not feel like listening to them. Obviously this latest incident is still fresh in everyone's mind!

[pjt]

This is not the first sign he went barking mad.

[Davy]

I think that Roger Waters considers the lyrics as the definitive part of any song or album. And when it comes to the words, then there is little doubt that these come almost exclusively from him.
But there is no general rule on the importance of lyrics and music relative to each other! Many people consider them equal, and I personally rate music far above words.
I’d like Waters to inform me what exactly his contribution was to Great Gig In The Sky…
Oh, and he’s free to re-record any PF album, even Momentary Laps Of Reason if he wants to. I’m not interested.
In fact, I’ve never thought of any of his solo work as anything other than weak PF rehashes.

All of this.

[Ash Armstrong]

To be honest, I think Roger Waters should do the reboot of Fawlty Towers, and Cleese can have a go at Dark Side of the Moon.

[Mr. Holland]

To be honest, I think Roger Waters should do the reboot of Fawlty Towers, and Cleese can have a go at Dark Side of the Moon.

Well, Waters has become sort of a Basil Fawlty and Cleese these days does most things for the 'Money', so you could be on to something 😉

[alex peters]

To be honest, I think Roger Waters should do the reboot of Fawlty Towers, and Cleese can have a go at Dark Side of the Moon.

Yes even though you have me blocked I think you are spot on. A pint together is in store. I cannot wait

[Grey Wolf]

To be honest, I think Roger Waters should do the reboot of Fawlty Towers, and Cleese can have a go at Dark Side of the Moon.

You beat me to it! 😎