Talk:Roger Waters
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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.
- 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)
- Thanks. Other sources corroborating 1943 as the birth year:
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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)
[edit] External Links
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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)
[edit] "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)
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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)
[edit] "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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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).
- 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)
-
-
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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).
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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)