Talk:Roger Waters/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Orwell

I've always said Gere is his doppleganger. And about Amused to Death, he got that from Orwell

Not sure what you mean by "he got that from Orwell". Animals was inspired partly by Orwell, but both the title and at least aspects of the concept of Amused to Death are derived from a book called Amusing Ourselves to Death by Neil Postman. PurplePlatypus 04:50, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

birth date

Britannica states that he was born "Sept. 6, 1944 in Great Bookham, Surrey". However this FAQ rather convincingly supports the year given in the article. Maybe an entry for Making_fun_of_Britannica? regards, High on a tree 21:37, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Errors in the Encyclopædia Britannica that have been corrected in Wikipedia :-) IHassel 16:14, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Roger was born Sept. 6, not Sept. 9.

I cannot confirm the exact date of birth, but here is a link to article that Waters did in July of 2005 shortly after Live 8. He stated in the interview that he was 61 years old, so he was definetely born in 1943.

http://www.rollingstone.com/artists/rogerwaters/articles/story/7504168/roger_waters

Tkd73 24:47, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Other sources corroborating 1943 as the birth year:

• Everett True: Not just another brick in the wall. The Age, April 5, 2002 ("born in Cambridgeshire, September 6, 1943")
• Mike Watkinson and Pete Anderson: Crazy Diamond: Syd Barrett And The Dawn Of Pink Floyd. New revised edition, 2006, ISBN 1846097398 ("Waters was born in Great Bookham, Surrey, on September 9, 1943 (the year usually given is 1944)") (found via Google Scholar)

Regards, High on a tree 19:09, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Early Years

The following line doesn't seem to make sense, I believe it is linking to the wrong article:

"His mother, a teacher, and father were both [[communism|communists]], and active in [[Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament|CND]]."

His father died in 1944, before the Trinity test hence long before any Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament could have possibly existed. I understand from their website that the CND was founded in 1958.

Perhaps it should be linking to the Communist Party of Great Britain (CPGB). Does anyone have a definitive answer to this?

The picture youngwaters.jpg seems gone, it would be a good idea to replace it, if someone could.IHassel 16:10, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

2006 european tour

Tour dates and places as by Brain Damage:

2 June 	Rock In Rio Festival, Lisbon, Portugal	Multi-artist festival
8 June 	Wuhlheide, Berlin, Germany              OWN SHOW
12 June	Egilsholl Arena, Reykjavik, Iceland   	OWN SHOW
14 June	Norwegian Wood Festival, Oslo, Norway 	OWN SHOW
18 June	Terra Vibe Park, Athens, Greece       	OWN SHOW
2 July 	Roskilde Festival, Denmark            	Multi-artist festival

the first one I also heard on the TV news here in Portugal. Is any of this information deemable of making it to the article? —Rotring 23:10, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Apparently Mason is also playing (interesting as Wright will be touring with Gilmour during that time). InTheFlesh? 07:34, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Changed/Dead/Non Active External Links on RW

I've removed Amused To Death ( A Roger Waters fansite )as its been moved and is currently under construction.However ;ingsoc was a indeed a very resource ful and informative with authentic materials on Roger Waters-especially amused to death.I'll put its new link site here as soon as i get hear from its owner.--asydwaters 09:25, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Amused To Death :Inspiration sources.

There is no references to the book which Roger Waters has claimed to be the inspiration for the theme and the title of the album "Amused To Death";book being "Amusing Ourselves to death".A full and definitive article and essay can be reached at "REG"-Roger Waters International FanClub Magazine Site.--asydwaters 05:52, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

David Gilmour sucking Roger Water's dick recently? What the fuck is that shit?

Someone missed it, and ended up reverting to an also vandalised version (already happened to me). Removed. Thanks. Rotring 20:55, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

---

What does the title 'Amused to Death' refer to?

Television.Specifically, a book by Neil Postman, called "Amusing Ourselves to Death: Public Discourse in the Age of Show Business."

It's apparently a very well-received book, and worth reading.

Publishing information, for anyone interested:

(cloth: New York: Viking, 1985; ISBN: 0670804541) (paper: New York: Penguin, 1986; ISBN: 0140094385) --asydwaters 12:08, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

photo

I put a photo on commons, but on en: there is an other photo with the same name. How do I put the commons photo here? The photo on commons is named: Image:RogerWaters.jpg. JethroT 06:10, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

New Image

Well, I uploaded and added a new image. This is my first image upload, so sorry if I did anything wrong. I am not sure if an image should be a concert image, however, I saw Gilmours image was so I thought this might work. If this is not a clear enough image, feel free to change it bacck/do whatever you like, I won't complain. But hey, I took it under a month ago, and it's under the GNU Free Documentation License. So, I hope the image is good enough, certainly an improvment from the last one imo. Clq 16:33, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

The picture does a fine job of showing what he looks like as a person and as a showman. Good choice. VisitorTalk 05:06, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Question Re: "Towers of Faith" song.

When Flickering Flame came out I was impressed with the references to the twin towers (WTC) Oil/Religion/and politics, etc.

My best read of the liner notes is that this song was written prior to 9/11/01: So, while I'm not a big fan of bad interpretations of deep "meaning", spreading urban legends, prophecy, etc., this one did seem pretty on the point as far as the lyrics go.

I can't possibly be the only one out there who've been struck by this: I'm a big fan of Roger's, but I know there are Worshipers out there.

But first, the facts: What do we know about when the song was written and 1st recorded?

Feel free to contact me directly at glennfeit@yahoo.com.

EDIT - "Towers of Faith" was recorded in 1985 for the soundtrack to the film When the Wind Blows

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/When_the_Wind_Blows_%28Soundtrack%29

This predates the 1993 Bombing on the World Trade Center by more than 7 years, and the 2001 attack by more than 15. Will someone else please check out the lyrics to this song and lend me some objectivity to my "eery" interpretation?

The lyrics compare religious and economic/political justifications for arrogant mistreatment of others (major concerns of Waters's lyrics for decades), using the hills of Jerusalem to dramatize the former and the Twin Towers to dramatize the latter. I agree that the 9/11 relevance is eerie; but our personal opinions about eerieness aren't encyclopedic, alas. VisitorTalk 05:11, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Math Question

If Roger Waters was born in 1943, how could he have been 5 years old when his father died in 1944?--Legomancer 19:30, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Five months, not five years. --Vazor20X6 03:17, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

"Mixed reviews" for Pros & Cons...

If the album did receive a wide range of mixed reviews, which I do not dispute, then the lone example provided of one Rolling Stone review that slated the album (none of the quotes of which allow us to see why some people disliked the album, merely repeating ridiculous phrases that serve only to show just how much this particular reviewer hated it, hardly why) can hardly be considered representative of the difference in critical response to the album? If the reviews are mixed and someone wishes to quote one at such an extreme of the scale, is it not only fair to display how by contrast, others hailed it as the first display of Waters' new creative freedom allowing him to develop his own distinct edge musically to complement his conceptual explorations...? 86.135.171.89 09:30, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Alright, I added a positive review I found. Hope it balances out the section. --Vazor20X6 13:48, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Huh?

What the hell does this mean?

"Waters sounds like the kind of guy who'd bring Hershey bars and nylons along on a first date."

American GI's sometimes gave these out to European women in WWII, (as they were quite scarce) in exchange for... ahem... favors. IronDuke 15:06, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

It's still an incredibly stupid statement, even if it has meaning. --63.25.106.33 (talk) 05:59, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

User ratings?

Are Rolling Stone user ratings really encyclopaedic material? Everybody gets four stars or higher, because fans can vote as much as they want. They have no veracity whatsoever, and this is the only article I've seen to include them. Too trivial for an encyclopaedia I think. Illuminatingvision 04:00, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Inthefleshlive.jpg

Image:Inthefleshlive.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 07:56, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Bass \ Guitar List

I've no opinion on the relevance of these sections although there seems to be something up with the descriptions listed;

e.g. "White with black pickguard and rosewood pickguard"

Surely, black pickguard and rosewood 'fretboard'? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.75.240.254 (talk) 14:17, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

No- "White with black pickguard and rosewood pickguard" is quite normal for a guitar description Ummagumma23 14:44 8 September 2007 (UTC).

Sorry, he's right... fretboard vs. pickguard. Schmeer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.125.65.30 (talk) 01:31, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Proposed addition to the lead

I propose adding one new sentence after the one about Live 8: "Despite the performance being well received by critics and fans, and described by the band members as a relief of personal conflict, subsequent comments by Waters and Gilmour have indicated that any further Waters participation in Floyd is very unlikely." VisitorTalk 05:17, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Mmm that sounds ok but you need more people too agree with that statement in order to add it to the introduction Ummagumma23 14:47 8 September 2007 (UTC).

Too much band history?

For a biography of one member, does the article have too much information that better belongs in a biography of the band as a whole? VisitorTalk 05:25, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Photo caption

The recent Dark Side laser is not just a "prop,", but "likely the most powerful full color lasers in the world" - continuing the Floyd tradition of state of the art innovation in technology for concert use. http://www.magic-fire.com/releases/021907.html If they could appropriately be copied her for fair use, one of the pictures of the laser in context with the stage and audience might better show the size and scope of the laser system. VisitorTalk 05:25, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Dating speculation

"...whom he is understood to have been seeing for a number of years" should be removed unless there are verifiable citations to reliable sources. VisitorTalk 05:25, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Operation Shingle and R. Waters birth question

"...(Eric Fletcher Waters) fought in World War II and died in action at Anzio in 1944 when Waters (Roger) was only 5 months old." In the personal information section it states Roger was born in Sept. '44, yet Eric Fletcher was killed in Anzio in Feb of '44. How could young Roger be 5 months old at the time of his fathers death if he wasn't "born yet"? Roger would have to have been born around Oct 1943 for these "facts" to be true. Maybe I'm missing something...VisitorTalk 02:07, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

It's simple, actually. Waters was born in September 1943, but in the early stages of his career, lied, as so many in show business do. This comes from Schaffner's A Saucerful of Secrets. --63.25.115.241 (talk) 01:01, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Marching Hammers

According to the introduction of this article, Waters came up with the "marching hammers" used in The Wall animation. However according to Gerald Scarfe in the Wall documentary shown on Channel 4 a few years back (Behind the Wall I think it's called), it was him who came up with the idea of the marching hammers. He says he came up with the idea of using a hammer as a logo for Pink's fascists after trying to think of something that could be used both creatively and destructively, and that he later had the idea of having two hammers marching together as if forming a pair of legs and he then worked this into the animation to be used on the circular screen during live performances (and later in the 'Another Brick in the Wall' video and in the Wall movie). There are crowd voices chanting "hammer" on the album before 'Waiting for the Worms' and also during that song's coda and "the hammers" are also mentioned in the lyric of 'Run Like Hell' but these may well have been later additions based on Scarfe's idea of using the hammer symbol (I don't think 'Run Like Hell' is on Waters' original demo of the album and was written later in colloboration with Gilmour). Scarfe suggests that the whole Hammer concept was entirely his idea and he dosen't mention Waters having anything to do with it. Bearing that in mind, it seems there may be a fairly serious inaccuracy in the very first section of this article. MarkB79 (talk) 20:44, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I believe you're right. Waters has also given Scarfe the complete credit for the hammers in an TV interview I've seen, but can't find now. [1] Here is one interview, but the answer isn't clear. [2]Here is an interview were Scarfe talks about the hammers. Floyd(Norway) (talk) 23:34, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Cheers for that. Those interviews do seem to confirm Scarfe's account from the documentary more or less. The only source I have is a copy of the Behind the Wall documentary on video, I haven't watched it since shortly after it was broadcast but I can well remember Scarfe's account and I can dig it out if required, I think TV programmes can be used as sources so long as you specify the source in the article. I do have many Floyd books but I haven't looked to see if there is anything about the hammers in them. It does seem the claim that Waters is responsible for the marching hammers is wildly wrong and should be removed, it's even worse given that it is in the intro of all places. If no objects I'll remove it shortly and change the intro to mention something that Waters was actually responsible for instead. MarkB79 (talk) 11:31, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Death

The article says he died December 18, 2007. Is this true or just a joke? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.240.21.188 (talk) 01:21, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

It was vandalism and has been removed. I knew it was vandalism, but I checked the London Guardian website just in case and there's no mention of Waters dying in there. This happens all the time on Wiki, people vandalise articles claiming that various famous people have died. Some people have a sick sense of humour. However I'm sure plenty of people have read this article in the last couple of hours and now wrongly believe that Waters has died. Never mind. MarkB79 (talk) 04:58, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

When the Wind Blows

Why doesn't his solo discography section mention this soundtrack? 71.194.27.178 (talk) 00:13, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Personal/Trivia section

The "Personal/Trivia" section was removed by User:Peter Fleet under the misleading description, "(adding tag for unreferenced equipement section)". He was incorrect to do so. Trivia sections should not be categorically removed. Along those lines, it is better that information be poorly-presented than not presented at all. Trivia sections (and the expansion of them) is certaintly discouraged, and I am not attempting to show otherwise. However, adding items (which may be notable in the context of the article) to a Trivia section is not forbidden, and there is no reason to summarily remove items. Least of all, editors should not summarily revert articles, which destroys any other work the trivial "offender" may have done on the article.
--63.25.230.14 (talk) 04:18, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Roger's father

There have been a few recent attempts to fix the sentence which currently reads: "Although his father Eric Fletcher Waters was a communist and pacifist, he fought in World War II and died in combat...". Before recent edits, the sentence was similar to this, except it read, "...had been a communist and an ardent pacifist" (I removed the word "ardent" but will put it back if there is a citation that Roger or anyone else used that term), so the only significant change was from "had been" to "was".

The question is whether this should be changed to read, "...Although his father, Eric Fletcher Waters, a communist, was a pacifist, ...", the reason given being, "the verb belongs here as his being a communist has no possible (negative) connection to his war service - his pacifism does". I disagree.

If we're talking about how these relate to his service, neither apparently mattered to the army; they drafted him regardless of his status as a communist or a pacifist. If his service conflicted with him personally, I'd insist on seeing some kind of autobiographical note from Mr. Waters to back this up, otherwise we're just making assumptions.

Speaking of assumptions, my main objection is that a person who is pacifist is not necessarily a person who refuses to serve in the war. Claims to the contrary would have to insist that pacifism is a "black and white" issue to everyone who holds pacifist views. In real life, it's not that simple. A pacifist is a person who believes and promotes the position that there are always options to negotiation as a means of avoiding war, i.e. that wars are never necessary. But if one's country goes to war, especially where there is a draft, most pacifists do not choose to refuse to serve (despite the popularity of draft resistance in the USA during the Viet Nam war; that was another time, another place).

On the other hand, if we're talking about what other people think of communists and pacifists, in relation to their patriotism and ability to serve in the military, there are certainly some who regard communists as "the enemy" and feel they should not be allowed access to any military secrets, which a soldier certainly would, lest they pass this information on to Russian spies. This attitude did not start with the cold war (post WW2); it has been around as long as communism itself, and reflects the general negative attitude that certain people always seem to have regarding "foreigners". It's likely that when WW2 started up, there were those who advocated arresting and locking up all communists in Britain for the duration of the war, despite the fact that Britain and Russia were allies.

In summary, it appears a suggestion is being made that the clash between communism and military service (in the UK, at that time) is a non-issue, but the clash between pacifism and military service is. Since both categories of people were inducted into the army (so for the army, both are non-issues), and both categories of people are treated with suspicion by certain patriotically minded people (so for them, both are issues), the distinction must be a POV of the editor. Therefore, the two terms should be treated equally in the sentence. I suspect this was the intention of the editor who originally inserted the sentence; otherwise he would not have mentioned communism. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 15:25, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

My point was RW's father being a pacifist conflicts with him fighting in the war as that is what pacifism rejects. His being a communist is noteworthy but has absolutely no bearence on his military service. Communists are quite capable of fighting wars and let me add: in 1944 the UK was allied to the communist Soviet Union (since 1941), hence his communism could have actually been an incentive. Of course, the main reason for serving was that he was drafted. Yes, the army did not care wether anyone was anything, they were drafted nonetheless. But still the father's pacifism seems noteworthy here. Likelihoods about what various Britons hypotheticall thought in 1939 doesn't belong here.

Finally, on a procedural note: why revert? Does anything first have to discussed in length and breadth before any change is allowed? Str1977 ^(talk) 15:49, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

His communism is irrelevant to his military service, the British Army would not have been concerned about that. As for the pacifism issue, generally pacifists refuse to fight in any war under any circumstances, it is a philosophy that rejects any form of military conflict and sometimes any form of violence. There are a small number of people who call themselves pacifists who argue that military action might actually be justified in very extreme circumstances (according to Wiki this is called pacificism rather than pacifism). However I seem to recall reading that Eric Fletcher Waters was a committed pacifist for much of the war and refused to enlist, however it was his commitment to communism which convinced him to change his mind - communists all over Europe were encouraged to join the fight against fascism. Whether E.F. Waters still considered himself a pacifist after his change of heart I'm not sure. I'll have a look in the Floyd books I have, I remember reading Waters talking about this at length somewhere. MarkB79 (talk) 16:19, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Just a slight correction: communists were encouraged to fight against the so-called fascism after 1941. They were not encouraged between 1939 and 1941 when Hitler and Stalin were on good terms. Str1977 ^(talk) 22:37, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes that's correct but some British communists did in any case fight against Nazi Germany before 1941, presumably because they were not particularly concerned as to what the British Communist Party's line on the issue was. After all, it's hard for anyone reasonably intelligent principled left-winger to take seriously a 'socialist' organisation that supports the position of a lunatic like Stalin that its fine for communists to be allied with fascists committed to the eradication of communism. Some British communists were rather more principled anti-fascists than the Stalinists running the British Communist Party and I'm sure E.F. Waters would have strongly opposed the party's position had he been a member at that time. I know a lot of British communists went to fight in the Spanish Civil War against Franco and his German Nazi allies also but I'm not sure what the party's line was on that conflict, that was probably before the Hitler-Stalin pact. MarkB79 (talk) 02:52, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, from what I've just read, it appears that E.F. Waters was not actually a communist until much later in the war and it was his conversion to communism that convinced him to change his mind about military service. Also, it dosen't appear that he was forcibly 'enlisted' (rather he chose to join the military) and I'm sure that would be correct - in the Second World War, if you were a British pacifist or conscientious objector, you did not generally have to serve in the military. From The Dark Side of the Moon: The Making of the Pink Floyd Masterpiece by John Harris: 'In the early years of World War Two, Eric Fletcher Waters' Christianity led him to conscientious objection, meaning he was exempted from active service and given a job as an ambulance driver. As the war went on however he was drawn towards left-wing politics - and, eventually, the British Communist Party. Given the avowed opposition of communists to fascism, he performed a volte-face and joined the army as an officer; in that sense, his new found political outlook cost him his life. "To have had the courage not to go - and then to change your mind and have the courage to go...is a sort of mysteriously heroic thing to have done", [Roger] Waters later reflected.' MarkB79 (talk) 16:33, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

This is the kind of elaboration I was hoping for. If Waters' communist feelings have no bearing on his joining the war, we should probably remove the word entirely. It would also be clearer if the article stated that he chose to join, rather than being enlisted (with reference, of course). Regarding the question about whether a revert should be done if someone disagrees with a change, the answer is yes. Reverted contributions are not lost, and reverts are not necessarily permenant. If a change is contested, it should be undone and followed by a discussion. Sorry, but you and I have been arguing about a similar situation on the Pink Floyd article, where you have re-instated reverted content that had already been discussed and resolved before you made your changes, and I've explained over there that this is improper. Sorry we are fighting over this, but the procedures are clear cut: where an edit is controversial, and edit summaries are not room enough to discuss it, put articles back the way they were until there is discussion and agreement. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 17:02, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Well his communism clearly did have relevance to his decision to join the forces but in exactly the opposite manner to what is currently implied in the article, he didn't join up despite his communism, he apparently abandoned pacifism (or at least moderated his stance on that issue) and joined up largely because of his conversion to communism. Either the reference to communism should be removed or the section should be re-worded to something along the lines of "Waters' father, Eric Fletcher Waters, was an officer in the British Army who died in combat during the 1944 Battle of Anzio in Italy. Waters' father had been exempted from duty as a conscientious objector during the early years of the war due to his pacifism but later moderated his stance and enlisted for service after converting to communism." If a source for all that is needed, it’s The Dark Side of the Moon: The Making of the Pink Floyd Masterpiece by John Harris, page 45. Alternatively, his communism might not need to be mentioned at all, perhaps if anything it could just be stated that his principled anti-fascist stance was the motivation for him enlisting (anti-fascism was obviously the main motivation for communists to enlist, as well as helping the Soviets). Not sure if that's too much detail. Certainly some more details about E.F. Waters' reasons for enlisting would be appropriate for his own page, which at present has the same problems, stating that Waters joining up "despite his communism and pacifism". MarkB79 (talk) 18:45, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

If this conversion is true, it should certainly be noted. This would change the whole make up of the passage as it would no longer be a pacifism vs. service issue. Then the communism cannot be simply removed. Str1977 ^(talk) 22:37, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm all for making the changes you suggested on Eric Waters' page, and I suggest removing all details about when and why he enlisted from the Roger Waters page (it's only about 5 words after all), since it's not relevant to Roger's history, and can be found by following the link. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 19:30, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Well I largely agree, it does strike me as a bit too much detail for Roger's biography although I suppose an argument could be made for its inclusion here. In any case, if nobody objects, I'll remove it later tonight and just leave the basic information that his father was killed in the war and make some changes to the Eric Fletcher Waters article. MarkB79 (talk) 19:53, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh, if there is an article on the father (which I didn't expect since he is not actually a notable guy) such details should go there. Str1977 ^(talk) 22:37, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I've removed the statements from this article and added some more material to E.F. Waters' own article to make the pacifism/communism situation more clear. I'm also surprised that he has an article on here but it's handy in so far as anyone wanting more infomation on the story of Roger's father can find it there. Obviously both his commitment to pacifism and his subsequent conversion to communism is very relevant to what happened and had a great impact on Roger, but it does seem a bit too much detail to include over here. MarkB79 (talk) 03:00, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Don't get me wrong. Regarding the creation of articles I am pretty much an inclusionist. I only thought it surprising as he was never famous except posthumously for being the father that Roger Waters mentioned that often. Str1977 ^(talk) 09:29, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Wall/Berlin, "barely covered expenses".

After the Berlin Wall came down in 1989, Waters staged The Wall Concert in Berlin on 21 July 1990 to commemorate the end of the division between East and West Germany. The concert took place on Potsdamer Platz, part of the former "no-man's land" of the Berlin Wall, and featured many guest superstars: The Band, Bryan Adams, Cyndi Lauper, Van Morrison, Sinéad O'Connor, The Scorpions, Marianne Faithfull, and Joni Mitchell. It was one of the biggest concerts ever staged with an attendance of over 300,000 and was watched live by over five million people worldwide. However, the initial funds raised from the concert barely covered expenses.

I'm not sure why that last sentence is a notable fact. I would say it's just as notable as the fact that the original Pink Floyd Wall concerts actually lost money, failing to recoup expenses -- and if I was summarizing those legendary concerts in a single paragraph, I'm not sure I'd include that fact (though the bit about Rick Wright being the only one to "profit" from those shows is always a rib-tickler.)

Anyway, the important thing is, this fact (or factoid, as I suspect it is) needs citation. The only "source" I have ever seen for this was a very contemptuous David Gilmour, circa 1992, between the releases of Amused to Death and The Division Bell, in Musician magazine -- the same interview that gave us "Roger playing a fretless bass? Please!" Would you consider Gilmour a reputable source on Roger's finances? I think it's nonsense. (And I wouldn't take Roger's word on how well About Face sold, either.)

Also, if we're going to report on this, we should also report on how well or poorly the ensuing CD, VHS, and eventual DVD sold, which I'd guess more than made up for any disappointments. If we can't get some data on that, I think reporting this little factoid about "initial funds" shows a bias.

Interestingly, after I added the "Citation Needed" tag to that sentence earlier this week, someone else came along and removed it. Now why would anyone do that, do you suppose?
--63.25.106.33 (talk) 05:55, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

The removal may have been a mistake. Your edit and another, made by another anon IP, which needed to be reverted, occurred minutes apart, and the editor who reverted may have thought they were made by the same person. That editor is a reliable contributor. If you're still concerned about it, you could ask him about it on his talk page.

As for the factoid, I think it would be reasonable that a one-off concert (with many guest celebrities) could have lost money, regardless of how many people attended. Some might wonder if it was profitable or not, so I think it's okay for it to be in the article, and I don't see it as ominous or biased. You are right that if Gilmour is the only source, it would be questionable. I support the inclusion of the tag, but remember tags aren't necessarily here to challenge the truth of a fact, but can also be a notation that such a fact should properly be documented in an encyclopedia, regardless of how likely the fact is. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 20:47, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I'm the originator of this section (my IP changes from time to time). I'm very confused. You're saying that the edit that occured five minutes after mine, by 71.220.210.28 "needed to be reverted"? I can't figure out why. I just did the side-by-side comparison of that revision and mine before it, and it seems the only difference is that the other person corrected the grammar of a sentence that did, indeed, need correcting! In fact, coincidentally enough, I just did that correction before checking out this Talk page! Am I missing something? Hmm . . . Maybe I should go ask the guy, as you suggest, as to why he did the reversion. --63.25.232.144 (talk) 12:58, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

You're right about the edit that came immediately after yours; I mis-read a "do" as an undo. As for your citation edit, the problem was likely the big multi-line comment attached to it, which belongs on the talk page, where it is now. I wouldn't bother asking the other editor about it now that over a week has passed, just change what you think needs changing at this time. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 14:30, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I am pretty sure that I remember reading that Waters covered all the expenses out of his own pocket. According to the concert's Wiki entry: "The concert was staged entirely at Waters' expense, and while he subsequently earned the money back from the sale of the CD and video releases of the album, he has donated all profits past his initial investment to World War Memorial Fund for Disaster Relief." Admittedly this isn't sourced either but Gilmour's statement makes little sense if this is accurate since all the money made from the concert was donated to the charity and none was used to cover any expenses, unless Gilmour meant that the profits from the gig would not have covered expenses had they been expected to and that the concert made a loss. Paying the celebrity guests should not have been a issue, they surely would have been performing for free, aside from receiving expenses. I do remember Gilmour describing the Berlin gig as "awful" some years later and claiming that Roger's motivation for putting on the show was to revive his own career/claim the Floyd legacy and nothing whatsoever to do with helping the charity. I didn't rate the concert either but Gilmour's comments about it have been somewhat excessively nasty, even if he perhaps has his reasons, so relying on his statements about it is probably not wise. MarkB79 (talk) 02:34, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, now that you mention it, there was an interview in which Gilmour described the concert as "awful", something like "It sounded awful". Which is pretty unfair. Nothing wrong with thinking, as I do, that Van Morrison was totally inappropriate for "Comfortably Numb", or whatever complaint you have, but the concert in general most certaintly did not sound awful. The tone of the guitars in some parts still give me chills. It didn't sound awful; just rather un-Gilmour-ish. Anyway, that would be a different interview from the Musician magazine I'm thinking of. I also seem to remember him saying something about the TV rights being sold at the last minute for "very low money", and something like "I've heard all sorts of things about people not getting paid [when they were supposed to, or as much]." It sounds like Gilmour himself didn't exactly have unimpeachable sources.

--63.25.232.144 (talk) 12:58, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

The interview I was thinking of was with a German newspaper sometime around 1995. I think the reason Gilmour said what he did is that the interviewer was exceptionally hostile and downright nasty to him throughout, praising Waters while calling Pink Floyd "your company" and accusing him of being a socialist hypocrite and of profiteering off the Floyd name. Gilmour tries to remain polite for a while until he eventually snaps and starts laying into Roger, seemingly to get at the interviewer. I don't think he would otherwise have said anything about the Berlin gig. The quote is something like “Did you hear good old Roger’s Wall show right here in Berlin? Did that sound like Pink Floyd? No, it sounded awful”. Regardless, he always seems to have had some kind of problem with the show, as if he thinks Roger was trying to claim the Floyd legacy by putting on that concert, so I'm not sure his statements about it can be considered reliable. As I say, I didn't really rate the Berlin gig (I'd agree Van Morrison isn't really suited to Comfortably Numb, which is one of the problems) but saying it was "awful" is well over the top. Whether the claims Gilmour made are accurate I have no idea but I did find this interview with Waters [3] from 1992, where he does seem to admit that at that point the Berlin show and accompanying album and video were still making a loss on his initial investment: “The memorial fund, I'm afraid was down in a number of ways, by a number of people. And the show is still in the 'red'. Polygram Records, who took the video and who released the album - and whom I thank and will thank eternally for doing that, because it was very difficult, getting the things off the ground in the first place - is still selling videos and records and I have every hope that the in the future will got to the 'black'.” He also says something about TV companies shortchanging him and causing him all sorts of financial problems so maybe there is some truth in Gilmour’s claims, even if it sounds as though most of this wasn’t Roger’s fault. MarkB79 (talk) 17:41, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Biography content

This is a bio. Isn't there any info about him as a person, his interests, where he lives, his family, wife/wives, chlidren?--200.14.108.1 (talk) 18:15, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I have moved your question to the bottom of the page, and put a heading on it. Please do this when posting on talk pages, otherwise your question is likely to be overlooked. To answer: Wikipedia pages are works in progress, and if the information you are asking about is not here, we are just waiting for someone to research him better and add it. If you can help, please do so. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 19:38, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Yep, the article is entirely missing information about his marriages. There is a brief mention of a photo of him with his first wife on the inside cover of the album Ummagumma, but that's about it. | Loadmaster (talk) 17:28, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Pink Floyd songs composed solely by Roger Waters

I recently removed the list of "Pink Floyd songs composed solely by Roger Waters " but have been reverted. The list asserts no significance of those songs over waters co-compositions with his fellow band members, many of which were more notable and achieved more airplay and chart success. Indeed, the list is just that - a list with no commentary or informative content. I suggest that the list be removed. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 23:23, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Yep. The list shows, ehm, nothing. Link to his BMI entry or what.--Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord² 23:31, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I think Andy is right. Floyd (talk) 02:15, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

It's possible that it lends support of some kind to the argument that Waters deserved ownership of the name Pink Floyd over the other band members, I suppose. | Loadmaster (talk) 20:55, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Just a shout...

Roger will play in Berlin next Monday: Brain Damage link--Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord² 14:09, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Merlin Wall

Satellite Babushka interpret.: should be records of meteors '08. Thought someone might need to know. The Craft, Artificial Intelligence: D.J. Conway, The Craft Complete: book. Signals count75.201.198.24 (talk) 17:49, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Pompeii

History Pink Floyd and record company spoof. Devoted fans? Artists are not seeing karmic return for their work because of junk on networks and media sav that is false persuasiveness concerning who people really are, such as Mecca. What the Gods Want. I am a big Waters fan, and someone said there was a rocket with a cd in it that was sent into space. Systems need formatting in communications networking. starcharms </\>75.201.253.41 (talk) 23:53, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

New Picture

I recently created a box for Waters but the picture is of terribly quality, Can someone find a new picture please?

~P. Jennings Wii do that;sign that GNU for me.--asydwaters 06:58, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I got a few good images of him at his recent concert in Stavanger. Ill try getting one uploaded. Clq 14:02, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, can someone get a better pic from his fansite www.roger-waters.org? GabeMc (talk) 22:57, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

"Main Songwriter"

I re-worded the words "their main songwriter" to "a primary songwriter." As Pink Floydites know, the majority of the music (actual instrumentation) was conceived by the band collaboratively on Meddle, Dark Side and Wish You Were Here. David Gilmour especially contributed a lot in the way of actual songwriting/music, whereas Roger did most (eventually all) of the lyrics. It wasn't until Animals that Roger really became the "main" songwriter, eventually beginning to dominate the musical process as well as the lyrical and conceptual. Most sources (besides Waters himself) corroborate these facts. CinnamonCinder 23:54, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Usual anti-Waters POV. Waters composed most of music in ASOS, MORE, AHM, even the spacey moods and atmospheres, and had a primary role in DSOTM music. Gilmour had nothing to do with experimentalism before joining the Floyd, he was just a rocker. Waters, and not Barrett, was the main experimental actor in the band. Do what the hell you want. when I'll be back to UK, and I 'll have all the books at my desk, I'll make pieces of you all. MbuahaHaha. ^_^ . Doktor Who 00:25, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the Doktor, especially re Gilmore but the hugely successful PF wasnt a Barrett creatrion at all and didnt really happen till 73 and DSOTM anyway. That, WYWH and The wall is what made them so commercially successful, SqueakBox 00:36, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

In my view Waters was the lyricist, Gimour the composer. He is the bands main songwriter, although i would say that from 68-70 the band were fairly democratic and credit was distributed evenly (well except for the More soundtrack). Arguably most bands would have credited Gilmour in 'Money' because he makes a great contribution to that song. Always remember that Roger got greedy concerning the distribution of credits from Animals (1977)onwards, and the song 'Sheep' should really be credited to Waters/Gilmour. In fact Waters was always greedy regarding credits. So i would suggest that the number of Waters credits may be misleading when deciding who is the primary songwriter in the band. I also think that Roger and Syd were both equally experimental in their musical approaches - Ummagumma23 08:46 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Along those days, in 1970s rock acts, it happened that anyone playing a "guitar solo" was not credited as a songwriter regardless the hugeness of his contribution in a given song. Arguably, the main structure of guitar solos in Money, Have a Cigar, Another Brick part 2, was written by Waters. Guitarists are usually regarded as "gods" and as the main contributor in the music, but this is due to a "clichè", a bad fashion. Waters gave away his credits for sure in some cases, for example somewhere it is quoted that he actually wrote and recorded "speak to me", but that he eventually gave the credit to Mason as a courtesy. Sheep is Waters', stop with your lies!!!! Along the days of their most collaborative works, Waters wrote 50 % of music, Gilmour 25 %, Wright 20 %, and Mason 5 %. The time has proven that Waters is still a great and prolific composer, but likely most of fan base regard Gilmour's works as "more enjoyable and beautyful".Doktor Who 09:22, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I would argue that as a guitarist, Gilmour would construct the guitar solos because he had knowledge regarding that kind of thing. Musically i would argue that Waters was almost ignorant, and that conceptually and lyrically he is brilliant but musically he is somewhat lacking occasionally (The Final Cut a case in point). I would say that Gilmour always needed Waters more than Waters needed him (A Momentary Lapse of Reason a case in point). I may have given the impression that Gilmour is the greater of the two, but that is in fact untrue, and Waters consequent solo material has, in my opnion, been better than Gilmours. My overriding opinion is that credits for songs are normally distrubuted fairly evenly by rock acts unlike Pink FLoyd who abnormally, seem to crave their own individual credits. Just as an aside i think you are rather generous giving Nick Mason 5% song writing credits! Ummagumma23 14:43 16 August 2007 (UTC)

There is no doubt Roger Waters was the main songwriter after Barrett left the band untill the split up in the mid 80's. We have to look at the credits and to the reliable sources, we can't begin to argue about what we feel that Gilmour achieved as a guitar player or whatever else we think. Floyd(Norway) 15:40, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

From Saucerful through Wish You Were Here (not counting minor soundtracks and single tracks), Roger is credited for composing approximately 40% of the songs - music AND lyrics. He was the main songwriter even before Animals. BotleySmith 01:15, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

We have to be wary of the actual credits, for one. All three of the other band members verify that Waters often pushed the others out at credit time--notice, Money has a saxophone solo in it by Dick Parry, and the entire 4/4 section was Gilmour's composition AND idea. I think "A primary songwriter" is FAR less POV but also still gives Roger the proper credit for being the band's lyricist and conceptual leader. Woohoo5241 07:57, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I would argue that Parry's and Gilmour's words are NOT third party reliable sources. Alan Parsons could be regarded as such a third party....-Doktor Who 10:20, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

i agree with WooHoo5241, you do have to be wary of credits, in most bands credits are given out more fairly than in Pink Floyd and i think that Money is an example of a song which prehaps deserved a Gilmour credit. I would also argue that until Animals Waters was not the Main songwriter or indeed the primary songwriter. The Wall should have credited more people than just Waters, take Another Brick part two, it should have been credited to Bob Ezrin because its was he who came up with the school choir. I will say it again, the album credits are not an accurate reflection on the contributions made by other members of PF. I support a decision to change Primary songwriter to primary lyricist and conceptual designer - Ummagumma23 14:06 18 August 2007 (UTC).

The sax solo and 4/4 section in "Money" (as well as the choir and solo on "Another Brick") are ARRANGEMENTS of compositions, not compositional elements themselves. In assigning songwriting credits, one has to look only at who wrote the chord progression/melody and lyrics. To call Roger "a" primary songwriter de-emphasizes the extent to which he originated the ideas that the rest of the band helped develop. BotleySmith 05:18, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you BotleySmith for explaining this matter with the most appropriate words for a music subject. ^_^ . Both in jazz, blues and rock, instruments' solos are not credited to the player of that instrument. Doktor Who 10:43, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

How is The choir in Another brick Part2 not a compositional element? Its part of the songs composition and indeed its intergral to the character of the song. Just because its not a chord pattern doesnt mean that its not important to the composition of the song. To me its clear that Waters wasnt always responsible for the chord progressions. Lets be honest about the strength of Waters as a composer. How can you say that anyone other than Gilmour came up with the guitar solos? Of cause its Gilmour who constructs the guitar solos in Pink Floyd not Waters, because its a well known fact that Waters is no virtuso on either the guitar or even for that matter the Bass. David Gilmour and Rick Wright should take so much more of the credit for songs in that respect. I try not to favour Waters over any other members of the band, and there is some obvious Waters bias in this debate i think, which is utterly wrong for a democratic encyclopedic article. Ummagumma23 16:46 21 August 2007 (UTC).

The years have proven that Waters is able to write a whole opera, Wright and Gilmoour needed other ppl support in order to complete their Pink Floyd's records. If I am allowed to make a personal note, I can ensure you that Im not biasing Waters, Im neutral on this matter, my favourite PF solo works are Wright's and Gilmour's ones dated 1978.Doktor Who 20:03, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Again, we can't use arguments about how good we think Waters is as a bass player and how good we think Gilmour's lyrics are. I agree with BotleySmith and Doktor Who's reply to BotleySmith's last entry). Their arguments are NPOV and has nothing to do with Waters bias. The credits states that Roger Waters was the main songwriter after Barrett left, and I can't see any reason the article shouldn't tell so. Floyd(Norway) 21:36, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok well i still think that the whole project is biased towards Waters but...I guess thats the end of the discussion for me anyway as i am outnumbered obviously. Ummagumma23 08:54 22 August 2007 (UTC).

An encyclopedia based on reliable sources is biased in favour of persons with reliable credentials? Get outta town!! ;) BotleySmith 07:38, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Well this article only has 16 references, i wouldnt say that was very sufficient for an article Ummagumma23 16:03 25 August 2007 (UTC).

"The whole point about my leaving the band in the first place, was because Roger (Waters) was assuming control. He had written the whole of The Wall. It was his piece and he had the right to withdraw it and that was what he was threatening to do unless I left the band." - Richard Wright 1996 interview at http://www.pinkfloyd-co.com/band/interviews/rww/rww_frame.html. VisitorTalk 05:59, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

He was their primary song writer from Dark side of the moon on, however that doesn't mean Gilmour didn't write his guitar solos, I'm pretty sure he did. Like on Money...it was Gilmour's idea to do the 4/4 time part which is so key to the song.--67.11.33.166 (talk) 12:12, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay, so Roger did write that many percent of Pink Floyd's music. You can always go on basing "the main songwriter thing" on that condition. But I think it is crucial to consider who wrote what songs. The wall is almost entirely credited to Waters, and many out there claim that The Wall brought Pink Floyd out to the public. The average music listener may associate "Another brick in the wall II" and "Comfortably Numb" with that album the most. Who wrote the latter? it was mainly Gilmour, whereas Waters wrote the verses and the lyrics of course. I think most people will agree that Gilmour's input on Comfortably Numb is undoubtedly the best. Even though Gilmour is not credited on another brick in the wall II, his gituar solo really is a significant ingredient to this song. Not sure if the song would have been such a great hit single if it wasn't for Gilmour. And as a final note, when deciding who was the main songwriter, shouldn't that reflect the musical part of it all and not the lyrical? When it comes down to that, I personally would say that Waters should be labeled the "lead songwriter" ALONG with David Gilmour. Bjurbeck (talk) 19:57, 25 March 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bjurbeck (talk • contribs) 18:12, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

To the originator of this section -- you said:

As Pink Floydites know, the majority of the music (actual instrumentation) was conceived by the band collaboratively on Meddle, Dark Side and Wish You Were Here. David Gilmour especially contributed a lot in the way of actual songwriting/music, whereas Roger did most (eventually all) of the lyrics. It wasn't until Animals that Roger really became the "main" songwriter, eventually beginning to dominate the musical process as well as the lyrical and conceptual.

This reads like half-assed POV, because you don't come right out and say, " . . . and we ALL KNOW that Meddle, Dark Side, and WYWH are the real Pink Floyd, that's what PF is supposed to sound like, and mean ol' Roger Waters just FORCED a whole new style on them when he wrote Animals, The Wall, and The Final Cut."

I would like to assume good faith, but in terms of strict, encyclopaedic reality, Animals isn't any less of a "Pink Floyd" album than DSOTM . . . Meddle isn't any more "genuinely" Floydian than The Wall. A Pink Floyd album is any album the members of the band are willing to put their name on. Gilmour and Mason were happy to put the Pink Floyd name on Roger's work, including The Final Cut (because "songs don't grow on trees"), and now their fans have to live with it.

--63.25.14.189 (talk) 05:45, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

As per,

"As Pink Floydites know, the majority of the music (actual instrumentation) was conceived by the band collaboratively on Meddle, Dark Side and Wish You Were Here. It wasn't until Animals that Roger really became the "main" songwriter"

You should actually look through the Floyd writing credits instead of asuming who wrote what based on how it sounds to you. There are several albums before Animals where Waters wrote nearly every song, or at least gets the writers credit on them. For example, you mention "Meddle through WYWH, omitting 'Obcsured" as a period when Waters did not write most of the Pink Floyd material.

Starting with WYWH Waters gets a writing credit on every track except the title one, 4 of 5, and he wrote all the lyrics to that album. On DSOTM, Waters has a writing credit on 7 of the 10 tracks, he wrote every lyric. Waters has a writers credit on 8 of 10 tracks on 'Obscured', 6 of 6 tracks on Meddle. So during that period (Meddle through WYWH) Floyd released 31 tracks, Waters has a writing credit on 25 of them. Granted, many of these credits are shared, but if you count from Meddle through WYWH, Waters has 7 solo writing credits, Gilmour has 2, Mason and Wright each have 1. So there you have it, from Meddle through WYWH, Waters has writing credit on 25 of 31 tracks, including 7 solo writing credits, which is more than all the other Floyd's combined. Animals through The Final Cut is all Waters, with writing credit on all 44 tracks, sharing credit on only 5 tracks. GabeMc (talk) 23:34, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Through The Final Cut, Gilmour had 5 total tracks with a solo writing credit, counting the song Wish You Were Here, with lyrics by Waters, a 1:05 second instrumental, So Gilmour wrote a total of 3 songs by himself before Waters left Floyd, the last being 1972s "Childhood's End" GabeMc (talk) 01:00, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Of the 120 Pink Floyd album tracks released during Waters tenure with the band, 59 are credited SOLELY to him. GabeMc (talk) 01:26, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

A final word on who was Pink Floyd's "main" songwriter; Counting the 120 album tracks from 'Piper' through The Final Cut (1967-1983), Wright has 5 tracks credited to him soley, Mason has 2, Gilmour has 5, Waters has 59 of the 120 Pink Floyd album tracks recorded during his tenure with Pink Floyd SOLEY credited to him. 01:43, 27 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by GabeMc (talk • contribs)

percentage of songs sung

"sang lead vocals on at least one half of all Pink Floyd tracks during his tenure with the band.[citation needed]" This statement is rather ludicrous and should simply be removed. I won't be the one to do it however 24.4.132.165 (talk) 09:53, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, it is checkable: Waters sang lead on 2 tracks from Piper, Barrett sang on 9, Wright sang on 2. Piper has 11 total tracks, 1 instrumental. Waters sang lead on 1 track from Saucerful, Gilmour sang lead on 2 tracks, Saucerful has 7 total tracks, 1 instrumental The Soundtrack from the Film More, which has 6 tracks with lead vocals by Gilmour. More has 13 total tracks, 7 instrumentals. Ummagumma has 4 tracks with lead vocals from Waters, 4 from Gilmour, 2 with Wright singing. Ummagumma has 9 total tracks, 4 instrumentals. Atom Heart Mother has 1 track each with lead vocals from Waters, Gilmour and Wright, 5 total tracks, 2 instrumentals. Gilmour sings lead vocals on 4 tracks on Meddle, Waters sings 1 track, Wright sings on 1. Meddle has 6 total tracks, 1 instrumental. Gilmour sings lead on 4 tracks from Obscured by Clouds, Waters sings 1, Wright sings 2. Obscured has 10 total tracks, 4 instrumentals. On DSOTM, Gilmour sang lead on 4 tracks, 2 with Wright, Waters sang lead on 2 tracks, DSOTM has 10 total tracks, 3 instrumentals. For WYWH: Gilmour sings lead vocals on 2 tracks, Waters sings lead on 2 tracks, and Roy Harper sang 1. There are 5 total tracks on WYWH. On Animals, Waters sings lead vocals on all 5 tracks, Gilmour sings lead on 1. There are 5 total tracks on Animals Glimour sings lead vocals on 8 tracks on The Wall, Waters sings lead on 23 tracks on The Wall. There are 26 total tracks on The Wall. Waters sings lead vocals on all 13 tracks on The Final cut, Glimour sings lead on 1. There are 13 total tracks on The Final Cut.

By my count there were 120 Pink Floyd tracks released during Waters' tenure with the band, 23 are instrumentals.

That means 97 of those Pink Floyd tracks contain lead vocals and Waters sang lead vocals on at least 55 of them. GabeMc (talk) 03:46, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Disputed recent addition ("main" singer and songwriter)

Just recently, an IP has been trying to push some changes into the lead that give Waters a bit too much credit in my opinion. They have been changing "one of the main songwriters and lead singers" to "the main songwriter and singer", as well as adding the following:

During the most significant Pink Floyd years, 1973-1983, during which time Floyd released their five most popular albums, The Dark Side of the Moon, Wish You Were Here, Animals, The Wall and The Final Cut, Roger become the dominant member in the band, writing every lyric and singing lead vocals on more than two thirds of all Floyd tracks during that span.

First off, there's an obvious POV problem of deciding which Pink Floyd years were "most significant", as well as the obviously false statement that The Final Cut was one of PF's five most popular albums. Secondly, it's pretty well understood that Waters was in control around the time of Animals, or perhaps The Wall. I don't see how he can be considered to be a dominant force on DSOTM or WYWH, where the composing and singing duties were much more evenly split. There are many things that make Pink Floyd's music what it is; Waters is a big part of that, but he isn't all of it. 71.126.36.175 (talk) 07:32, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

• • I agree with you. But I did a new lead which I think its give a fair credits to Waters.

During one of the significant Pink Floyd era, 1973-1979, during which time Floyd released their four most popular albums, The Dark Side of the Moon, Wish You Were Here, Animals and The Wall, Roger become the main lyrical contributor to the band and he sung lead vocals on more than two thirds of all Floyd tracks during that span. Following his split with Pink Floyd in 1985, Waters began a solo career, releasing three studio albums, one soundtrack, and staging one of the largest concerts ever, The Wall Concert in Berlin in 1990. In 2005 he released an opera, Ça Ira, and joined Pink Floyd at the Live 8 concert in London for their first public performance with Waters in 24 years.

so what do you think of the new one? 62.61.164.132 (talk) 21:28, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

(OP)The current version (which may not be your version) is better, but still has problems:

• Whoever keeps calling him "Roger", please stop. Because this is an encyclopedia, it is preferable to refer to him using his last name, not his first. Along similar lines, the band should be referred to as "Pink Floyd" and not just "Floyd" (too informal).

• "The Golden Age of Pink Floyd" has to go. It's opinion, not fact, and utterly unverifiable.

• About 20% of the lead is about The Final Cut. Most of it is trivial or non-essential information, and the parts that can be referenced would be more appropriate later in the article.

• The phrase "critically acclaimed" or some variation appears several times in the lead. This sounds like WP:PEACOCKing and should probably be avoided, especially in the lead.

There are also a few minor grammar issues, and some other small issues. I think the current phrasing "co-lead singer, principle lyricist" is accurate. It works for me, as long as no one else minds it. Some of the recent additions seem to show a pro-Waters bias in my opinion, but there have also been some changes I agree with, so let's see how it evolves. 71.162.23.69 (talk) 06:31, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

• • (one of the main songwriters in the rock band Pink Floyd) Has been add.

62.61.164.136 (talk) 18:28, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Count the 120 album tracks Pink Floyd released from 1967 through Waters departure, you will see, Waters gets SOLE CREDIT for 59 of them. GabeMc (talk) 03:50, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Reason for leaving UK

Looks like he may have either contradicted himself or indicated he was previously 'fibbing' about why he left the UK? "I come back to the UK quite often. I didn't leave as a protest against the hunting ban; I was following a child in the wake of a divorce." http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/music/features/roger-waters-french-revolution-509524.html 24.4.132.165 (talk) 10:16, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree, I think this is a good place to shorten this article, remove the whole section. GabeMc (talk) 03:45, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

One of the main songwriter

If we say say "one of the main songwriter" we should assume that there were many songwriters in the band, and that some of them were the "main" ones, and the others were less important; the band actually had 3 songwriters from 1968 onwards, so perhaps we can just write something like this: "Waters was a core songwiter for a long period in the history of the band". --Doktor Who (talk) 00:16, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Hm, I don't know. I count 4 songwriters (1 mostly a co-writer, but filling the role frequently), in a band with 4 members (after January 1968). Is this a suggestion to change "main" to "core"? I think "main" is more straightforward. You already contributed to a lengthly discussion on this further up the talk page, and I think we already addressed all concerns. Of course, fiddling with the credits, and reverting same, is a perennial exercise on Pink Floyd pages. I'd rather not make changes where there is no compelling reason to do so. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 22:13, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Prior to "A Momentary Lapse" Gilmour has 5 tracks credited soley to him, Wright has 5, Mason 2, Waters 59. GabeMc (talk) 01:05, 3 March 2010 (UTC)