Roger Waters interview with Rolling Stone

[Trane]

+1 Exactly how I see it. He seems to be generally pleasant, but very passionate in his beliefs. Give him credit; at least he thinks on his own..

Yeah, his political gripes are not a façade, but one of the many facettes of his complex personality.

Oh c'mon, he's been making the same anti-capitalism statement for three decades now while raking it in. Has he really done anything in the last two decades to warrant such a free pass? Dude's a hypocrite.

?ot sure the man's solo career made him millions during the 80's & 90's, until he started milking the Floyd cow in the early to mid-00's under his ow,n name.
Surely oeuvres like ATD or Ca Ira are not "sell-outs"

Unlike Gilmour who's never stopped milking the same cow and usurping the Floyd name

[Scrotum Scissor]

I totally understand that Waters' sometimes extreme political stances might be a discomfort (embarrassment) to others to "reunite" forces with him.

Hugues, it's not merely - or even primarily - a question of political stance. If that was the case, then why would Gilmour maintain a close friendship with Robert Wyatt - whose radical politics are far more analytically articulate than Waters' could ever hope to be? I was a far-leftist myself until a few years ago, but even back when I cherished Waters' songwriting I thought little of his efforts in political "thinking". Simply not the man's overt forté.

As for the modest commercial performance of his 80s solo works, he didn't need for those to sell all that much. The guy had plenty of money stuffed comfortably away elsewhere.

I still remember an interview he gave to a Norwegian newspaper in the mid-90s in which he complained about the "[…] unfortunate collapse of Eastern bloc socialism, since that was the only viable alternative to the shit we're all left with now" - and the author of the article dryly commented (albeit not to the man's face, of course) how Waters' was checking the time off of his Rolex while uttering said remark. At that very moment I was actually embarrassed to call myself a fan of his.

Enough about the politics for one day from me, tho'.

[Trane]

Hugues, it's not merely - or even primarily - a question of political stance. If that was the case, then why would Gilmour maintain a close friendship with Robert Wyatt - whose radical politics are far more analytically articulate than Waters' could ever hope to be? I was a far-leftist myself until a few years ago, but even back when I cherished Waters' songwriting I thought little of his efforts in political "thinking". Simply not the man's overt forté.

As for the modest commercial performance of his 80s solo works, he didn't need for those to sell all that much. The guy had plenty of money stuffed comfortably away elsewhere.

I still remember an interview he gave to a Norwegian newspaper in the mid-90s in which he complained about the "[…] unfortunate collapse of Eastern bloc socialism, since that was the only viable alternative to the shit we're all left with now" - and the author of the article dryly commented (albeit not to the man's face, of course) how Waters' was checking the time off of his Rolex while uttering said remark. At that very moment I was actually embarrassed to call myself a fan of his.

Enough about the politics for one day from me, tho'.

Wyatt is certainly a more ective would-be communist, but he doasn't have Waters' high profile. If Wyatt was doing 10 times worse than Waters' antics, he probably wouldn't be getting noticed anywhere but on prog sites.

as fopr Rog's relatively dimb comment about the eastern block's fall, a lot of 60's & 70's communists didn't believe the reality of the Soviet propaganda was utter BS, eve,n when shown evidence once the iron curtain disappeared. A lot of european communist parties still nowadays have trouble denying Stalinism, Maoism and Leninism and other "guiding thoughts"

As for building on the 70's Floyd, remember that Floyd was still not breaking even during The Wall and subnbsenquent tours...
Sure the royalties flowed in, but the Welcommed Machine wasn't producing much other revenues before he left.

And then, for reasons no-one understood (except that 87 is the worst-ever millesime for good rock albums), their worst album AMLOR made millions without him

[Scrotum Scissor]

^ Tell me about it.

And I'm the educated historian. Which I suppose renders my former ignorance all the more of a moral fault, if not exactly an error. Man is expected to learn as he wanders, especially if the trail is paved with mistakes.

[Kcrimso]

Hugues, it's not merely - or even primarily - a question of political stance. If that was the case, then why would Gilmour maintain a close friendship with Robert Wyatt - whose radical politics are far more analytically articulate than Waters' could ever hope to be? I was a far-leftist myself until a few years ago, but even back when I cherished Waters' songwriting I thought little of his efforts in political "thinking". Simply not the man's overt forté.

As for the modest commercial performance of his 80s solo works, he didn't need for those to sell all that much. The guy had plenty of money stuffed comfortably away elsewhere.

I still remember an interview he gave to a Norwegian newspaper in the mid-90s in which he complained about the "[…] unfortunate collapse of Eastern bloc socialism, since that was the only viable alternative to the shit we're all left with now" - and the author of the article dryly commented (albeit not to the man's face, of course) how Waters' was checking the time off of his Rolex while uttering said remark. At that very moment I was actually embarrassed to call myself a fan of his.

Enough about the politics for one day from me, tho'.

I think Waters' heart is in the right (left?) place and he does lots of good by spreading the message in his concerts to large audiences even if his message is not as sophisticated as Wyatt's.

[Scrotum Scissor]

^ Yeah, but you know - my heart was always in the right place as well, yet I've been equally known to be quite the asshole.

The apparent logic being that most (not all) folks I knew on the radical left during my years there were "good people" with the "gentlest of intent" - but when it came to rational equations on the wrongdoings of ideological affiliations, they would wear their blindfolds almost proudly. The past is for dreamers, the present for thinkers and the future for fighters - but they're all for believers.

And the world is difficult. There's no point in pretending it isn't.

[Interstellar]

One of my favorite Waters moments happened around the time of Live 8. He said that he had been preaching about brotherhood, love, tearing down walls, etc and felt it was a bit hypocritical of him not to be on speaking terms with Gilmour.

I'm sure he has some other bits of self-contradiction left in him, like all of us, and he seems to wear some of his blindfolds rather proudly too. I sometimes wish he'd examine them more carefully but hey, that's not my business.

[ronmac]

Oh c'mon, he's been making the same anti-capitalism statement for three decades now while raking it in. Has he really done anything in the last two decades to warrant such a free pass? Dude's a hypocrite.

Like I stated, there's anti-capitalism and their pro-regulated capitalism. The problem right now is unfettered greed fueled by unregulated capitalism.

BTW, this is not a political point; it's a moral one. Just like guns, it's those who choose to divide us who frame it as being political. Don't fall for it.

[3LockBox]

Like I stated, there's anti-capitalism and their pro-regulated capitalism. The problem right now is unfettered greed fueled by unregulated capitalism.

BTW, this is not a political point; it's a moral one. Just like guns, it's those who choose to divide us who frame it as being political. Don't fall for it.

I don't disagree with your opinion - just don't be surprised that the same people who are telling us that the world's going to hell in a handbasket are also the ones making handbaskets.

Anyhoo, it's at the very least ironic that Waters has done very well in his um, capitalist venture. It's enough to make me take his message with a grain of salt.

[infandous]

I don't disagree with your opinion - just don't be surprised that the same people who are telling us that the world's going to hell in a handbasket are also the ones making handbaskets.

Anyhoo, it's at the very least ironic that Waters has done very well in his um, capitalist venture. It's enough to make me take his message with a grain of salt.

I totally understand this view of Waters. I just think he wants to use his influence and his public visibility to put his message and views out there where millions of people can see it and absorb it and talk about it (like we are doing). If he were to give all his money to charity and live a humble existence on a meager income, he would never be able to do that, because we live in a totally profit driven (at the cost of literally everything else) world. I would bet that he's aware of the perceived hypocrisy of his spectacles he puts on and his obviously very healthy bank accounts. His views have obviously developed over time, and I think it's safe to say that in his younger years he was totally on board with the rest of Pink Floyd's desire to make it big (as just about any young band from any era dreams and hopes to do).

People have mentioned Robert Wyatt. Even though I own a few records he's performed on, I can't say I've ever been aware of his political and social views, and I'm a prog fan that actually knows who he is, unlike most of the world. He obviously doesn't have a venue to make his views known like Waters does, because he's not rich and famous.

So it's kind of a paradox that, in order to make an impact, you have to have a ton of money and name recognition. So if you are anti-capitalist in our society, you are not going to get heard at all if you try to live your anti-capitalist views 100%. So in that regard, I don't really consider him a hypocrite because it's the only way he's ever going to make an impression with this political and social views.

I would also agree that he's not obviously completely anti-capitalist, but anti wealth inequality. He may be wealthy, but I would bet his fortune is a small fraction of what the Bill Gates, Jeff Bezos, Kotch brothers, etc. of the world fortunes are worth.

[ronmac]

I look at it this way. Anyone who uses their visibility, fame and influence to try to make the world a better place is alright with me in that regard. Whether they practice what they preach also matters.

But, once again, the argument is not against capitalism, a system in which RW participates openly and fairly earning his wealth. The problem is a "Wild West" of capitalism that some seem to want. Markets need to be fairly regulated. You cannot be against things like airline safety and food inspections. Taxation needs to be fair and market consolidation needs to be better managed. Capitalism grows better and stronger when it's reasonably regulated and enables more to participate in it. Right now, the only ones who can participate are the ones who can buy their way into it.

I think people of all political stripes can agree with this general concept. It is apolitical.

[yamishogun]

Markets need to be fairly regulated. You cannot be against things like airline safety and food inspections. ....
I think people of all political stripes can agree with this general concept. It is apolitical.

But this is a straw man. The point is how much regulation for air safety, etc. Nuclear power is a good example where there is over-regulation to the point that new power plants aren't being built. Of course, some cases are easy like requiring an armed guard to walk children to school because their 100% safety is crucial.

[ronmac]

But this is a straw man. The point is how much regulation for air safety, etc. Nuclear power is a good example where there is over-regulation to the point that new power plants aren't being built. Of course, some cases are easy like requiring an armed guard to walk children to school because their 100% safety is crucial.

It's not a straw man. There are black-and-white absolutists who feel there should be ZERO regulation, which is nuts. That includes elected officials. I made it clear I was referring to them with "The problem is a 'Wild West' of capitalism that some seem to want."

I Also didn't suggest there was no such thing as over-regulation. I live in Pennsylvania. I'm well aware of over-regulation. (And, I'm not looking to debate nuclear power, either.)

[yamishogun]

It's not a straw man. There are black-and-white absolutists who feel there should be ZERO regulation, which is nuts. That includes elected officials. I made it clear I was referring to them with "The problem is a 'Wild West' of capitalism that some seem to want."

I've never heard of anyone who wants zero regulation but plenty on my side of the political spectrum who can't imagine some things can be over regulated.

[ronmac]

I've never heard of anyone who wants zero regulation ...

I absolutely have seen prominent politicians making such statements. They preach the myth that markets will regulate themselves.

[GuitarGeek]

As for building on the 70's Floyd, remember that Floyd was still not breaking even during The Wall and subnbsenquent tours...
Sure the royalties flowed in, but the Welcommed Machine wasn't producing much other revenues before he left.

What other "revenues" should they have been getting besides royalties? They were certainly making money during the Dark Side Of The Moon/Wish You Were Here/Animals era, enough so that David Gilmour was able to build a rather impressive guitar collection. You may have heard about him selling some of those guitars at auction just a few months ago. And I seem to recall the other band members were able to also indulge various other expensive hobbies.

What happened was that a lot of their money had been invested, to keep it out of the hands of Inland Revenue (the British version of the IRS, and incidentally, John Entwistle's one time place of employment). And when the investment firm went belly up, so did all the band's money. This is detailed in one of the Pink Floyd books I have, I think it's the Nicholas Schaefner one, and also mentioned in The Visual Documentary.

And then their royalties during The Wall got tied up in paying for the album, concerts, and film. That's why Rick Wright was the only band member see any money from The Wall in it's immediate aftermath: because he had been kicked out of the band, and was "just" a salaried musician. Upshot: he got paid while Gilmour, Mason and Waters' royalties were tied up paying off the advances they took out to make The Wall happen the way it did.

[yamishogun]

I absolutely have seen prominent politicians making such statements. They preach the myth that markets will regulate themselves.

O.K. but can you name one that we would know?

[ronmac]

O.K. but can you name one that we would know?

Yes, I can, but I am trying to not take your bait and get into specific and create a political shit-storm. You'll just have t take my word for it.

Let me put it this way, there are absolutist Libertarians who will state that, based on their principles, there should, theoretically, be no regulation whatsoever.

For the sake of keeping this thread alive, that's as far as I'll go.

[moecurlythanu]

Ronmac is correct. Laissez-Faire Capitalism is a real thing.

[yamishogun]

Ronmac is correct. Laissez-Faire Capitalism is a real thing.

Not even in Hong Kong, the closest to that. The U.S. is far from Laissez-Faire, and I've never heard anyone advocate for that. Admittedly, Grover Norquist comes the closest.

[moecurlythanu]

Not even in Hong Kong, the closest to that. The U.S. is far from Laissez-Faire, and I've never heard anyone advocate for that. Admittedly, Grover Norquist comes the closest.

I meant it is real as an economic concept. Do some Googling, you'll find advocates. Or turn on Fox News or CNBC. They may not call it that explicitly, but it's easy enough to deduce from their arguments and advocacy, that that's what they're about.

[BravadoNJ]

...hoping that if a certain person gets re-elected next year, Roger will be so pissed that he will do another album!

[ronmac]

[Trane]

I don't disagree with your opinion - just don't be surprised that the same people who are telling us that the world's going to hell in a handbasket are also the ones making handbaskets.

Anyhoo, it's at the very least ironic that Waters has done very well in his um, capitalist venture. It's enough to make me take his message with a grain of salt.

Absolutely, while he should be taken seriously about how he feels, there is the mandatory (sic) grain of salt.

Not sure one can call artist living of their creft a "capitalist venture", though

Capitalism is about getting your money making more money

What other "revenues" should they have been getting besides royalties? They were certainly making money during the Dark Side Of The Moon/Wish You Were Here/Animals era, enough so that David Gilmour was able to build a rather impressive guitar collection. You may have heard about him selling some of those guitars at auction just a few months ago. And I seem to recall the other band members were able to also indulge various other expensive hobbies.

What happened was that a lot of their money had been invested, to keep it out of the hands of Inland Revenue (the British version of the IRS, and incidentally, John Entwistle's one time place of employment). And when the investment firm went belly up, so did all the band's money. This is detailed in one of the Pink Floyd books I have, I think it's the Nicholas Schaefner one, and also mentioned in The Visual Documentary.

And then their royalties during The Wall got tied up in paying for the album, concerts, and film. That's why Rick Wright was the only band member see any money from The Wall in it's immediate aftermath: because he had been kicked out of the band, and was "just" a salaried musician. Upshot: he got paid while Gilmour, Mason and Waters' royalties were tied up paying off the advances they took out to make The Wall happen the way it did.

Yes, Floyd was a major money machine from DSOTM until Animals, but through unwise lack of surveillance of their managers and the unhappy construction of that studio, the band was broke by 77. And if it wasn't for Waters & Rourke's (I believe it was him) heavy works Floyd might not have existed.
Mentionning Dave's guitar collection (without even mentionning Mason's vintage race car collection) gets you to wonder what the other two did with their own private money. Wright's Wet Dreams solo album (and its "yacht rock artwork") hints that he was "getting lazy" and enjoying the sweet life (I'm not saying it was the case, maybe Aymeric knows more about this), instead of participating songwriting-wise to Animals and The Wall. Maybe he was a bit too much financially statiated. Again, this is pure speculation on my part.
All this while in the late 70's Waters was working his butt off keeping the Floyd boat afloat and pulling almost singlehandedly and artistically the band (even if 60% of Animals was already +/- written at WYWH time). While Gilmour did participate songs and Nick made himself useful with his tapes & electronics, Richard was busy scheduling holidays outside the other three's common vacation windows during The Wall's construction, thus costing the band money since studios were reserved (and paid for).

A musician's revenue comes partly of his royalties (for "songwriters" in the band, anyways), but the band's finances is also very important, like paying the roadies, for ex, but also providing income for the non-songwriters in the band (wonder how Hamilton, Kramer - and to a lesser extent Withford - live next to A'smith's Toxic Twins boulimia), though I'm really not an expert about a band's income repartitions in-between the musicians, let alone how they're just mere executant roles submitted to the whims of the dominating members. Maybe A'smith feels like a (semi-golden) jail for Kramer & Hamilton (Whitford does write the odd track).

The fact that Wright was paid almost as an extra made that he was the only that made money in that Wall extravaganza (ironically - and irritatingly for Roger - enough), the other three lost money, (Mason probably more that Rog & Dave, because he had no royalties to speak of). I don't think TFC and Rog's 80's solo album pulled in the dough (his musical moods were maybe too dark for a cheery 80's decade to do that) the way the crummy AMLOR pulled in the millions. Hence I can't imagine Roger being "financially safe"- at least as safe as Gilmour is - until fairly recently, but my guess is that he's still behind him in terms of personal fortune.

[Kcrimso]

The fact that Wright was paid almost as an extra made that he was the only that made money in that Wall extravaganza (ironically - and irritatingly for Roger - enough), the other three lost money, (Mason probably more that Rog & Dave, because he had no royalties to speak of). I don't think TFC and Rog's 80's solo album pulled in the dough (his musical moods were maybe too dark for a cheery 80's decade to do that) the way the crummy AMLOR pulled in the millions. Hence I can't imagine Roger being "financially safe"- at least as safe as Gilmour is - until fairly recently, but my guess is that he's still behind him in terms of personal fortune.

According the Business Insider Roger Waters is worth of £175 million and Gilmour £115 million.

https://www.businessinsider.com/rich...18-5?r=US&IR=T