Roger's Time

[rontoon]

Like I said, I honestly can't figure out why some people don't like it.

While I respect your opinion of the music, if you can't at least see the obvious other side of the coin here then perhaps you're being a bit obstinate?

[MrFender]

How about we look at it this way -

Sweet Dreams (Are Made of This) by the Eurythmics vs the cover by Marilyn Manson. Two very different versions but both were big hits for each. Fans of one are probably not fans of the other (in most cases). Same thing here. Most people are not really going to care which one you like, to each his own.

[DeepCreatures]

Great point, but some of us are indeed fans of both versions in this example!

[keleven]

I like both versions too. But Marilyn Manson covering a Eurythmics song isn't exactly the same thing as Roger Waters redoing a Roger Waters song.

[rontoon]

How about we look at it this way -

Sweet Dreams (Are Made of This) by the Eurythmics vs the cover by Marilyn Manson. Two very different versions but both were big hits for each.

You're assuming that this redux is going to be a "big hit." Not likely.

[MrFender]

You're assuming that this redux is going to be a "big hit." Not likely.

Ok, Imagine by John Lennon vs Yoko's 1997 remake. Her's is a spoken word version as well.

[keleven]

While I respect your opinion of the music, if you can't at least see the obvious other side of the coin here then perhaps you're being a bit obstinate?

Obstinate? How so? I'm not trying to persuade anybody to like something they don't. I'm just saying I don't understand it (much less find it "obvious"), and am happy to have it explained.
If it were just about the spoken word bits, I'd get it. But I don't get the impression the critics are fine with this production with the sole exception of the spoken word bits.

[Alan]

For me, it's the spoken words and the lack of guitar solos. The rest is ok, I think -- haven't really considered it much due to the aforementioned "problems" (in my opinion).

[Elisto54]

Obstinate? How so? I'm not trying to persuade anybody to like something they don't. I'm just saying I don't understand it (much less find it "obvious"), and am happy to have it explained.
If it were just about the spoken word bits, I'd get it. But I don't get the impression the critics are fine with this production with the sole exception of the spoken word bits.

Different tastes don't have to be understood, they just have to be accepted. We can criticize the object but not someone's taste for the object. That's all the difference. Emphasizing non-understanding is a criticism of the person's taste, a form of moral pressure that leads to confrontation.

[Skinny12]

I can second everything you say here!

[YASHA]

Different tastes don't have to be understood, they just have to be accepted. We can criticize the object but not someone's taste for the object. That's all the difference. Emphasizing non-understanding is a criticism of the person's taste, a form of moral pressure that leads to confrontation.

2+2=4, all values are constant.

[Son of Nothing]

Obstinate? How so? I'm not trying to persuade anybody to like something they don't. I'm just saying I don't understand it (much less find it "obvious"), and am happy to have it explained.
If it were just about the spoken word bits, I'd get it. But I don't get the impression the critics are fine with this production with the sole exception of the spoken word bits.

Maybe it's down to the ambiguity of language and difficulty to infer intent from just the written word. Some may interpret a statement of "I don't understand how people don't like this" actually as attempting to persuade people the like something. It does imply that you think it's so good you can't imagine how someone can't like it. OK, you've clarified your intent somewhat now, but it wasn't clear from your original question, in my opinion.

Anyway, I thought I had explained why I'm indifferent to it. I don't hate it, but won't be seeking it out. But plenty of posters actually have explained: as you note, there's the contentious addition words at the beginning. A lot of people have posted not liking the drum sound. So that's two reasons already. I personally don't mind the drum sound because I listen to a lot of electronic music, so synthetic sounds and programming are just fine in my book. But my personal, subjective reason that I'm not enthralled by it is a non-answer: I just find it a bit boring. I'm not fascinated by everything Roger does, so to my taste this is musically a bit bland really. Now I'm not one that dances, so the fact it's slow and not danceable isn't necessarily a problem. But it doesn't excite me. So I'm tempted to turn your question around: I don't understand why some people love this. What makes it stand out? What's exciting about it? (I'm not really seriously demanding an answer to that. You've already explained how at least it isn't another note for note rehash of the original, and I'd agree with you there. But I'm just happy to accept that tastes vary and it's really really hard to explain personal tastes and reactions in words.)

Edit: sorry, I've just re-read Elisto54's reply just above. That makes the "understanding taste" point far better and more succinctly that I did.

[Jerry Horne]

This is just terrible. There is nothing left in Rogers voice. Call it a day.

[keleven]

So I'm tempted to turn your question around: I don't understand why some people love this. What makes it stand out? What's exciting about it? (I'm not really seriously demanding an answer to that.

It's a fair question. I'm happy to answer it. My first reaction is that "exciting" isn't the standard of evaluation I'd apply. Music that is deliberately slow-tempo and sedate isn't meant to conjure up excitement, it's meant to conjure other moods and emotions. It's a style I like very much. (Compare the early/studio version of the Dead's Friend of the Devil with the slow version that became the live staple; or the Cowboy Junkies' covers of songs like Crossroads and I'm So Lonesome I Could Cry; or Peter Gabriel's covers and self-covers on Scratch My Back and New Blood.) And it's something Pink Floyd has excelled at since the early days and lends itself very well to Floyd songs. (I quite like the Sparklehorse cover of Wish You Were Here too.) The point isn't to be exciting. The point is to be chill, trippy, to let it wrap around you and get lost in the atmosphere.

My first reaction to hearing the Redux tracks was that it sounds like Roger is channeling late Leonard Cohen. And I love Leonard Cohen. Beginning sometime around The Future, Cohen realized he could turn his aging voice from a liability into an asset. Use that gravelly timbre to wring every bit of emotion out of the song. That will beat a pitch-perfect performance by an American Idol choir-kid 100 times out of 100. (And this is not exactly new ground - Roger has been laying down vocal tracks that would probably make a vocal coach cringe for several decades now - we are listening to him for the emotional resonance, not for technical perfection. So when people complain that his range sucks or something, I'm thinking, ok, sure, you're just noticing this now?) Dylan did the same thing when his voice started getting creaky. Instead of trying to mimic his old vocals (or lip-sync them) he rearranged his songs so they sound exactly like the kind of songs where a smoky, creaky vocal from an old bluesman is the only type of vocal that would sound right there. In Roger's case, his voice always had that throaty quality that comes off something like a whisper and now he's all in on it.

The vocals reduce Roger's voice to its core essence and the backing arrangements do the same thing to the music. All the frills are stripped away. It is like being let inside these songs and experiencing them from the inside out, like seeing how they were constructed from the foundation upwards, or like listening to your own heartbeat and breathing underwater. I find it hauntingly beautiful.

Different tastes don't have to be understood, they just have to be accepted. We can criticize the object but not someone's taste for the object. That's all the difference. Emphasizing non-understanding is a criticism of the person's taste, a form of moral pressure that leads to confrontation.

That's just silly. I said absolutely nothing that could fairly be construed as less than "accepting" of anybody's tastes. And my entire point was that we are in a community that's already united by common tastes. Anybody here who doesn't like Dark Side of the Moon is on the wrong forum. So we are talking about a different take on songs everybody already likes in the first place. It's not a situation like I'm trying to understand why Beyonce fans don't like this music. I know why Beyonce fans don't like this music. I don't get why Roger Waters fans don't like it.

[rontoon]

I don't get why Roger Waters fans don't like it.

Why you still dont get it when many of us took the time to explain our opinions to you means that you simply don't respect the opinions of others.

[gotta_be_crazy]

For much I respect Roger, I'm not into a reinterpretation of any kind. I suppose he did this because of all the feud within the band, just a way to show who is boss. So you don't publish my things on our official channels? Then I'll show you who was the 'genius'. Just grown old people having a childish argument about who has the best toy or who's daddy has the best car. They are forgetting the music and they're entering into a narrow time to their legacy.

[keleven]

Why you still dont get it when many of us took the time to explain our opinions to you means that you simply don't respect the opinions of others.

I've respected your contributions to this community and Floyd trading circles for decades. But you are way, way off base here. I heard a piece of music that strikes me as the sort of thing people here would love. Then I see a bunch of really negative reactions to it. Those reactions surprised me - I don't get where they're coming from. And you, apparently, can't get where I'm coming from. But you've insulted me several times now while I haven't said anything disrespectful of the opinions of others whatsoever.

[goldenband]

Anybody here who doesn't like Dark Side of the Moon is on the wrong forum.

I strongly disagree. Anyone here who doesn't like Pink Floyd is probably on the wrong forum, but plenty of people love the band through Meddle or OBC and don't like DSOTM. In fact many of the people who saw them in the early days have specifically said they bailed out when DSOTM came out.

(And there are the people who only like Piper and Syd, the people who only like DSOTM through the Wall, and even the odd ducks who prefer AMLOR and TDB to everything else!)

There's no benefit in hierarchizing, gatekeeping, or differentiating between "true fans" and everyone else. All who enjoy the band are welcome; all belong.

[keleven]

plenty of people love the band through Meddle or OBC and don't like DSOTM. In fact many of the people who saw them in the early days have specifically said they bailed out when DSOTM came out.

Sure, fair enough, I've met some of those people. If they don't like the new Dark Side because they didn't like the old Dark Side either, there is nothing surprising about that. But for present purposes I'm talking about people who do like the album.