chris wrote:i didn't think either roger's or dave's solo albums sold particularly well. and neither gets, or has ever gotten, any real radio airplay. even back in the day. and as far as the floyd's album sales are concerned (post roger?) i think the legend of the band sold albums instead of the music. i'm not sure i can name even one floyd song, sans roger, that i even like.
Dave's "On An Island" was a #6 album (#1 UK). "David Gilmour" hit #29 and "About Face" hit #31. His recent "Live in Gdansk" album hit #26. I didn't expect this one to even chart, but it did. Roger's only successful albums were "The Pros and Cons of Hitchhiking" #31 and 'Amused to Death" #21. "Radio KAOS" and "The Wall Live in Berlin" didn't chart above #50, "In the Flesh: Live" barely charted at all (#136).
Dave took Floyd in another direction after Waters. I personally think he didn't want to sound too much like the old pre-Wall Floyd. To my ears... there is much more Floyd in the "David Gilmour" and "About Face" albums than there are in the later Floyd albums.
Roger's absence is obvious to me in the later albums... and I hear in them a lot of the same things that bug me about Paul's albums (mediocre lyrics, no real musical direction or focus, a feeling of everything just being nebulous), but that doesn't mean there is nothing to like about them. There's some good music on them. Just don't expect Roger.
chris wrote:but you are right, roger's albums have a...theme. a recurring dramatic musical presence that holds the album together. much like the wall. and it is wordy, (the wall, that is) isn't it? but the older i get, it seems to be the one floyd album i go to for repeated listens more often than the others. it seemed that roger made albums whereas david made songs.
Spot on. Roger made albums, and his
songsare both musically and lyrically strong, complete thoughts. Dave lacks that focus. He's immensely talented, but can't write lyrics and can be musically nebulous.
chris wrote:and while i admire both of them (roger and dave) i tend to look back and say roger was the more important. what i base that on i'm not exactly sure. must be based on what they did within the context of the band. not solo. because i really only enjoy one waters solo album (pros and cons) while i tolerate the others. and gilmore...really has one solo highlight: there's no way out of here. not even an album but a song. the best i can say about david gilmore's songwriting is...i love his guitar playing.
Well... "chemistry" is an odd thing. "Waters + Gilmour" is many times better than either of them apart, even if the song is "all Roger". I agree that Roger was "more important"... but in reality it doesn't matter 'cause apart, something ain't right... It just ain't the same.