Roger waters

[Wooderson]

The other aspect here is that due to the scale of the show and -dare I say it- sneakily brilliant skill Roger has shown in hiding this miming, he has largely gotten away with it.

But I'm a different calibre of punter folks. I went along sober and unfamiliar with vast swathes of the show. I was too close to be distracted. And I clocked it immediately.

Others are having to reassess and are struggling with initial expectations and evaluations.

As Mardy says - fascinating stuff.

[russycarps]

Hmmm.. Are you saying cover versions are inherently inferior? Another debatable point there, Russy.

[Ed209]

yep, cover versions are just a bit of fun arent they? Can never take them seriously.

I also think the whole pink floyd pulse thing was inferior due to the fact that roger waters wrote the songs, and so I dont see how the rest of the band could have as much as on emotional attachment to the songs.

Thats why I'd rather see roger waters performing the wall (ignoring the miming for one minute...) than dave gilmour doing dark side.

Of course, them both doing them together is the ideal scenario...but if I had to pick one, it'd be that

[CaledonianGonzo]

yep, cover versions are just a bit of fun arent they? Can never take them seriously.

[Mardy]

'kin hell

[LondonTom]

Fascinating stuff this. Really interesting. People defending lip syncing when they wouldn't accept it from somebody they consider lightweight, pop or whatever. I'm looking forward to when the line-up is announced and the annual 'they don't even play their own instruments' comments about some bookings. I think this thread will come into it's own then. Genuinely revealing stuff coming out of this.

[gibbin82]

As said the debate is not about whether there is any lip syncing, as there obviously is some, but it is really about how much of it there is and why. My take on it is there is a minimum of lip syncing during the show and the only time it is used is when it would be impossible to reproduce the original sound without it, due to RW no longer being able to reach the parts he used to. Yes I have also read about it on the Internet and although I fully accept some of the claims a lot of what has been said is to me a bit OTT especially when you read such claims such as 'Hey You'was mimed, as how the hell can anyone see Rogers lips with a great big 35 foot high wall between him and them? And also some of the YouTube clips are a bit unconvincing when you can hear Roger Waters croaky voice coming out over the backing tracks, if he is going to mime why bother having his mike switched on, seems much more probable that he is attempting a live double tracking vocal over a pre-recorded version.

[gibbin82]

Wooderson if you want to download this and listen back to it to see if it sounds like a pre recorded vocal you might reconsider the amount of lip syncing used, personally I think quite a lot of Roger Waters vocals on this recording are not good enough to be used for lip syncing.

File size warning- this is an almost 600mb Flac recording of the whole show

http://www.filefactory.com/file/4lxxx9rok589/n/Roger_Waters_The_Wall_-_Phones_4U_Arena_Manchester_UK_2013-09-16.zip

Not sure if I am allowed to post links here but if I am not Mods please delete and I appolagies

[russycarps]

You going to take that one, CG? Only I'm a bit busy today, haven't got the time to spare

[frostypaw]

If only Brian Wilson had the sense to realise he couldn't do the live singing and had some pre prepared vocals....

[Ed209]

Wooderson if you want to download this and listen back to it to see if it sounds like a pre recorded vocal you might reconsider the amount of lip syncing used, personally I think quite a lot of Roger Waters vocals on this recording are not good enough to be used for lip syncing.

File size warning- this is an almost 600mb Flac recording of the whole show

http://www.filefactory.com/file/4lxxx9rok589/n/Roger_Waters_The_Wall_-_Phones_4U_Arena_Manchester_UK_2013-09-16.zip

Not sure if I am allowed to post links here but if I am not Mods please delete and I appolagies

[alframsey]

Now giving it a bit more research I will accept there was probably a 'fair bit' of lip syncing, somewhat disappointing if I am honest. I've never given any other artist the time of day that lip syncs but for some reason I find myself making excuses for Roger. I did bloody enjoy that show though , it was easily the best live experience of my life so far and I can't imagine anything else coming close. It was just pure bliss for the time I was there and for that it was worth every single penny I spent, every hour I had to spend in the god awful city of London (even when I missed my coach and had to hang around for over 10 hours for the next train). I'd do it all again and more just to see that show!

[Ed209]

IJust watching some of the quality cam that someones put up of one of his 2010 shows. In the Flesh Part II and Run Like Hell specifically

about 1hr:25

Gibbin, Its no point trying to argue he's not miming. Its fairly clear that he's miming for most/all of those two songs, and I haven't really watched most of it. Its disappointing for sure, but I still stick with alframsey (even if does say nasty things about my home city), it was one of the greatest things I've ever seen - the production and onslaught on the senses was mind-blowing. It was extraordinary. People can try to knock the show all they want, but the feeling I had that night and the memory I take from it is not diminished at all. At the end of the day, that's all that matters.

Edited September 25, 2013 by Ed209

[Guest]

I'm lovin' the defence of him miming... "yes, but he's got talent, not like Britney Spears"...

You enjoyed the shows, that really is all that matters. If it's only good because it's better than Ms. Spears, well... really?

from the videos, I think I'd prefer a Britney concert

and cover versions are just a bit of fun...? ..'kin 'ell indeed

[russycarps]

Yeah, think Russy lost his mind a little bit there. Although I do agree that a one off cover version can be a bit of fun, but sometimes they can improve a song.

Dylan himself said that Hendrix's version of Watchtower was better, and he nicked parts of that when he played it live afterwards.

Edited September 25, 2013 by russycarps

[russycarps]

Dylan does.

No. That's a massive leap from what was being said. Would you like to see Milli Vanilli on the pyramid stage?

I know this is likely to get me shot down on here, but I think Joe Cocker's version of With a little help from my friends is the best.

Yeah, I said it.

[Mardy]

Sorry Russ, didn't mean to post and run. Cover versions. A good cover version is a thing of wonder, think Glen Campbell doing 'Wichita Lineman'. Honestly, it's way better than Jimmy Webb's. An artist can re-interpret a song, bring their own experience and meaning to it. Isn't that what we all do when we listen to a song, we bring our meanings, our memories and our associations to it. That's what gives certain songs resonance with us.

As it goes I fucking detest tribute bands. Hate them hate them hate them. Because they're not doing any of that, they attempting to re-enact something note perfectly, that's the antithesis of what I'm talking about. I'd rather see the shittiest two bit shitehawks playing a godawful mess than the bastard bootleg beatles. it's grave-fucking, nothing else. I hate that even more than I hate alternative bands ironically covering pop songs. That doesn't make you fucking better, you slyly sneering c**ts, it just means you'll never write song as great as the one you're covering. Fools.

A good cover version though, man that can be a thing of beauty, revealing new depths and meanings to it. Got no problem with them, in general.

Edited September 25, 2013 by Mardy

[Guest]

I didnt say I didnt like covers, but they cant possibly have the same amount of emotional attachment as the original. Without Dylan, there would be no Hendrix version. So how can you possibly think it superior??

would you people want covers bands on the pyramid stage?

kin ell indeed...

[russycarps]

Sorry Russ, didn't mean to post and run. Cover versions. A good cover version is a thing of wonder, think Glen Campbell doing 'Wichita Lineman'. Honestly, it's way better than Jimmy Webb's. An artist can re-interpret a song, bring their own experience and meaning to it. Isn't that what we all do when we listen to a song, we bring our meanings, our memories and our associations to it. That's what gives certain songs resonance with us.

As it goes I fucking detest tribute bands. Hate them hate them hate them. Because they're not doing any of that, they attempting to re-enact something note perfectly, that's the antithesis of what I'm talking about. I'd rather see the shittiest two bit shitehawks playing a godawful mess than the bastard bootleg beatles. it's grave-fucking, nothing else. I hate that even more than I hate alternative bands ironically covering pop songs. That doesn't make you fucking better, you slyly sneering c**ts, it just means you'll never write song as great as the one you're covering. Fools.

A good cover version though, man that can be a thing of beauty, revealing new depths and meanings to it. Got no problem with them, in general.

[russycarps]

you said they were just a bit of fun, when often enough they're amazing, and sometimes the better version. I'll take Hendrix's Watchtower over Dylan's any-day.

Elvis,

Sinatra,

or Joe Cocker (in their day)

or any number of people who do fantastic versions of other peoples songs

[Ed209]

Jonny Cash's version of Hurt oozes fun

[Mardy]

I can sort of see where you're coming from, Russy. It's an angle I hadn't thought about before. I'm off to the shops to get some food, going to have a think about that. Thank you (The 'never the best' thing, not the cover and tribute band thing, you're just wrong about that)

[grumpyhack]

Cover Versions........ start the discussion, light the blue touch paper and retire to watch the explosion.

I like to be entertained and moved emotionally by live music performances.

I'm not against cover versions. If the original artist is dead, or no longer performing, we either never hear their music again or we hear 'cover versions.'

A lot of symphony orchestras and concert pianists do what could be called 'cover versions' of Beethoven originals.

We haven't got The Beatles any more. So should we be denied live performances of their work? I've seen The Bootleg Beatles a couple of times and have been thoroughly entertained.

There are some excellent covers bands out there who put on a great live show - Limehouse Lizzy, Fleetwood Bac etc.

Is that any different to a couple of original members of a band, supplemented by some new faces, doing the band's original numbers - Paul McCartney springs to mind.

A lot of The Stones early repertoire was covers of Chuck Berry and the like.

[Wooderson]

I dunno if people are really talking about the same thing here.

Russy are you on about firmly established songs, released and well known and only then covered when youre talking about "the original is best"...?

Or are you talking about the emotional and intellectual links of the performance from the original author rendering theirs superior to any other interpretation?

Cuz in some ways the former might be correct but if its the latter thats the biggest load of horseshit ive read on this forum.

David Bowie's "Wild is the Wind". Neil, lock the thread.

[russycarps]

Wild is the wind is wonderful and many more times pleasant to listen to than the original. But it isnt bowie's song is it. I think it's disrespectful to the writer to cast them to one side just because someone's improved the way the song sounds.

I guess to me lyrics>melody

that's probably what it comes down to. What is more important to you, lyrics or melody? If melody, then I can see how you can prefer covers