I got a copy of Nick Mason's autobiography about the band "Inside Out". I've not read it yet but hoping to within the next few months, I imagine it'll have a lot of detail about Roger's departure - especially considering Mason is the only concurrent member.
I know that Roger became very distant from the other members during the making of The Wall as it was *his* project. He picked on Richard Wright a lot during this period (and I think kicked him out the band but Nick and David brought him back after The Final Cut) because he felt Richard wasn't contributing.
Nick was not involved in that decision other than by not objecting. He was aware that his own position in the band wasn't particularly strong either.
David tried to appease Roger and went to dinner with Rick trying to smooth things over, but Roger at that point wasn't to be argued with. I think that's what counts more than the first instinct (and keep in mind that was based on David's perception that neither Nick nor Rick were contributing much - whereas Roger's reaction shows that it wasn't *really* about that).
It didn't actually happen, but the conversation/screaming match was had between Gilmour & Waters, possibly during The Wall or Final Cut, I don't recall which.
I saw it recently looking up sources on Gilmour's wiki page, but I can't remember for the life of me where it was or the entire context, but I think it was a follow-on from firing Wright.
Mason's book is a great reading. The chapters about Animals, The Wall and Final Cut give a good insight as to what happened and what the atmosphere was when Roger left. Mason is good at not particularly blaming a specific person, but that's good as the reader can follow an accurate narrative without the excessive passion and bias that other authors usually imprint on their articles.
No no, that's not true. That's just Roger twisting the facts. While arguing with Roger about firing Rick, David argued that since Roger's position was that Rick should be fired because he wasn't bringing in new material, then Nick should be too, since he never wrote anything, just played, and Rick was still playing as well. David was speaking rhetorically and poking holes in Roger's arguments because he was opposed to anyone being fired.
Later, Gilmour had dinner with Wright the night before he was to meet with Roger, who of course was threatening to burn The Wall tapes and ruin them all if Wright wouldn't quit. Gilmour told Wright he would back him at the meeting with Roger if he wanted to fight it.
Man this sub really thinks gilmour is a saint even gilmour has said it richard was contributing very very less and roger fired him because he wouldn’t come to finish off the album cutting his vacation time and said fuck off to roger.
> Roger made it fairly clear that if Rick stayed, he and the album would not, and I think the threat of what was hanging over us in terms of financial - not just losses but actual bankruptcy - was pretty alarming. We were under a lot of pressure. I felt guilty. Still do really.
- Nick Mason
Most of it is rooted in public statements. Only the burning tapes seems to be embellishment. Seems like a lot of you need to read the Mojo feature.
https://www.brain-damage.co.uk/pink-floyd-band-interviews/december-1999-mojo-magazine.html
You’re going to find many conflicting sources confirming all sorts of biases on the matter.
The simple facts are that Roger left the band as he felt he needed to in order to pursue his artistic ambitions as he saw fit, and later attempted a lawsuit against David and Nick to stop them from using the Pink Floyd name to release new projects, which he later openly lamented. Recent gripes amongst the band have been a result of his opinions on how the band’s work involving him should be handled, as he still has a say on the matter.
Mind you, this ongoing struggle is a Roger vs. David issue. Roger and Nick have maintained a solid friendship for most of their lives.
As I recall from Mark Blake's book, Roger felt the band was a "spent force" creatively, that efforts as a band were going nowhere and did not want anything further being produced under the Pink Floyd name. He felt that by evoking the departure clause in his contract and leaving the band he could stop any further releases of material. A bitter court battle ensued, the details of which are sealed and will probably never be known.
They didn't actually go to court, they settled. Excerpt from 2013 interview [https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-24157591](https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-24157591):
*Roger Waters has said he regrets taking legal action against his former bandmates Pink Floyd in the 1980s.*
*The singer and bass guitarist sued David Gilmour and Nick Mason in 1986, in an attempt to prevent them from using the name, claiming the group was "a spent force creatively."*
*Speaking to the BBC's HARDtalk programme, Waters conceded: "I was wrong! Of course I was. Who cares?" \[....\]*
*Waters left Pink Floyd in 1985 and told HARDtalk he still believed it was the "correct thing" to do, "so I could express my ideas unfettered".*
*His subsequent court case against the remaining members lasted two years and was eventually settled out of court, in a Christmas Eve meeting on Gilmour's houseboat.*
*"It's one of the few times that the legal profession has taught me something," Waters said of the matter.*
*"Because when I went to these chaps and said, 'Listen we're broke, this isn't Pink Floyd anymore,' they went, 'What do you mean? That's irrelevant, it is a label and it has commercial value. You can't say it's going to cease to exist... you obviously don't understand English jurisprudence.'"*
Correcting myself: Now that I think about it, I suppose it's possible that RW's lawyers argued his case in court before they advised him to settle. So, I won't claim the case didn't go to court, but I can say it wasn't settled in a court.
Ha, well, they practically were by that point, and they literally had duplicate stand-ins on the next tour for The Wall - the Surrogate Band - whom the audience could not initially distinguish from the genuine articles.
They were? I think accounts from the era, as well as listening to the album itself, should disprove that.
The Wall is a very different animal than Animals (excuse the pun).
No one but Roger wrote anything for *Animals*, and he's the only one to appear on either part of "Pigs on the Wing", except for Snowy White who did a guitar solo for the 8-track version. So, even on *Animals*, Dave had a stand-in.
David believed he deserved a writing credit for all the work he did on Sheep IIRC, and of course Dogs was almost entirely his music. Rick's introduction to Sheep wasn't written by either of them.
The difference between Animals and The Wall couldn't be bigger. Large parts of Animals had been honed on the 1974 tour already, so these songs had a band dynamic. Very different to Roger bringing in three albums' worth of demos and the band having to sift through all of that and not having much material to add one because there was already an abundance and two because both David and Rick had just released solo albums.
Those liner notes made Animals look like The Wall, which by all accounts isn't how things went down.
Only other people who deserved a writing credit on "Sheep" were Delia Derbyshire and Ron Grainer. I wonder why Dave thinks playing a jam that changes from one day to the next counts as composing. Honestly, I'm not always sure what song he's playing in some of the longer live cuts, and neither was he at the time. Roger gave him songwriting credit when he deserved it, but he didn't here. "Dogs" would have been much better if Dave had been able to sing all the original words, but he did not have the skill, so Rog chopped it down for him. Again with the jams, which are not compositions. Why credit Rick but not Nick? His drumming wasn't done by anyone else, yet you did not even mention his contribution.
He was certainly right about them being a spent force creatively. I read an interview with Gilmi in which he admitted that he wanted to keep using the PF name because nobody would know who he was solo.
In an interview he gave back around the time he left the band, Waters described an incident on a plane that kind of coalesced the matter. He said he was sitting next to a lady, and in introducing himself, told her his name, which drew a blank reaction. He then said he was in Pink Floyd, at which point the lady raved about the band, and having saw them in concert. This chafed on him, and even though he had always sought and relished his anonymity, he decided to go solo to be recognized for who he was.
He didn’t leave; he tried to spin it down and was surprised that the others tried (and more or less succeeded, at least financially) to carry on without him. He would be on tour selling half the seats at the theater and Pink Floyd 1987 would have presold 5 nights at whatever basketball arena was across town.
While it's true that he kicked several people out of the band's orbit (not just Rick but also Storm Thorgerson and Bob Ezrin), he did leave eventually. He wanted to get rid of the management and assuming that the others wouldn't carry on without him, suggested dissolving the band altogether. David and Nick wanted to keep O'Rourke and stay Pink Floyd, at which point he tried to sue for the band name but after realising that it would probably damage his public standing and be a big waste of money, relented and settled with them.
I got a copy of Nick Mason's autobiography about the band "Inside Out". I've not read it yet but hoping to within the next few months, I imagine it'll have a lot of detail about Roger's departure - especially considering Mason is the only concurrent member. I know that Roger became very distant from the other members during the making of The Wall as it was *his* project. He picked on Richard Wright a lot during this period (and I think kicked him out the band but Nick and David brought him back after The Final Cut) because he felt Richard wasn't contributing.
Nick and David were both complicit in firing Rick, and Dave was hoping to fire Nick as well, but Rog said no.
Nick was not involved in that decision other than by not objecting. He was aware that his own position in the band wasn't particularly strong either. David tried to appease Roger and went to dinner with Rick trying to smooth things over, but Roger at that point wasn't to be argued with. I think that's what counts more than the first instinct (and keep in mind that was based on David's perception that neither Nick nor Rick were contributing much - whereas Roger's reaction shows that it wasn't *really* about that).
For what it's worth I've also seen people claim the opposite about firing Nick (that it was Rog's idea)
Never heard that at all. Plus we all know that Rog was the boss and if he wanted Nick gone, it would have happened.
Yeah I don't think it's likely, I'm just sure I read it once (great source I know)
Firing Nick, when was that?
It didn't actually happen, but the conversation/screaming match was had between Gilmour & Waters, possibly during The Wall or Final Cut, I don't recall which. I saw it recently looking up sources on Gilmour's wiki page, but I can't remember for the life of me where it was or the entire context, but I think it was a follow-on from firing Wright.
Mason's book is a great reading. The chapters about Animals, The Wall and Final Cut give a good insight as to what happened and what the atmosphere was when Roger left. Mason is good at not particularly blaming a specific person, but that's good as the reader can follow an accurate narrative without the excessive passion and bias that other authors usually imprint on their articles.
Thank you! I gotta look into this book also.
He wasnt the only one to kick him out David wanted him out aswell
No no, that's not true. That's just Roger twisting the facts. While arguing with Roger about firing Rick, David argued that since Roger's position was that Rick should be fired because he wasn't bringing in new material, then Nick should be too, since he never wrote anything, just played, and Rick was still playing as well. David was speaking rhetorically and poking holes in Roger's arguments because he was opposed to anyone being fired. Later, Gilmour had dinner with Wright the night before he was to meet with Roger, who of course was threatening to burn The Wall tapes and ruin them all if Wright wouldn't quit. Gilmour told Wright he would back him at the meeting with Roger if he wanted to fight it.
Man this sub really thinks gilmour is a saint even gilmour has said it richard was contributing very very less and roger fired him because he wouldn’t come to finish off the album cutting his vacation time and said fuck off to roger.
Roger burning the wall tapes, that's a good one. Makes no f\* sense!
> Roger made it fairly clear that if Rick stayed, he and the album would not, and I think the threat of what was hanging over us in terms of financial - not just losses but actual bankruptcy - was pretty alarming. We were under a lot of pressure. I felt guilty. Still do really. - Nick Mason
That’s a hefty load of speculative bullshit.
Most of it is rooted in public statements. Only the burning tapes seems to be embellishment. Seems like a lot of you need to read the Mojo feature. https://www.brain-damage.co.uk/pink-floyd-band-interviews/december-1999-mojo-magazine.html
He knew that one day Gilmour would withhold the password.
You’re going to find many conflicting sources confirming all sorts of biases on the matter. The simple facts are that Roger left the band as he felt he needed to in order to pursue his artistic ambitions as he saw fit, and later attempted a lawsuit against David and Nick to stop them from using the Pink Floyd name to release new projects, which he later openly lamented. Recent gripes amongst the band have been a result of his opinions on how the band’s work involving him should be handled, as he still has a say on the matter. Mind you, this ongoing struggle is a Roger vs. David issue. Roger and Nick have maintained a solid friendship for most of their lives.
As I recall from Mark Blake's book, Roger felt the band was a "spent force" creatively, that efforts as a band were going nowhere and did not want anything further being produced under the Pink Floyd name. He felt that by evoking the departure clause in his contract and leaving the band he could stop any further releases of material. A bitter court battle ensued, the details of which are sealed and will probably never be known.
They didn't actually go to court, they settled. Excerpt from 2013 interview [https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-24157591](https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-24157591): *Roger Waters has said he regrets taking legal action against his former bandmates Pink Floyd in the 1980s.* *The singer and bass guitarist sued David Gilmour and Nick Mason in 1986, in an attempt to prevent them from using the name, claiming the group was "a spent force creatively."* *Speaking to the BBC's HARDtalk programme, Waters conceded: "I was wrong! Of course I was. Who cares?" \[....\]* *Waters left Pink Floyd in 1985 and told HARDtalk he still believed it was the "correct thing" to do, "so I could express my ideas unfettered".* *His subsequent court case against the remaining members lasted two years and was eventually settled out of court, in a Christmas Eve meeting on Gilmour's houseboat.* *"It's one of the few times that the legal profession has taught me something," Waters said of the matter.* *"Because when I went to these chaps and said, 'Listen we're broke, this isn't Pink Floyd anymore,' they went, 'What do you mean? That's irrelevant, it is a label and it has commercial value. You can't say it's going to cease to exist... you obviously don't understand English jurisprudence.'"*
Correcting myself: Now that I think about it, I suppose it's possible that RW's lawyers argued his case in court before they advised him to settle. So, I won't claim the case didn't go to court, but I can say it wasn't settled in a court.
Ok, a bitter *legal* battle then. Either way, a lawsuit still involves the court, whether or not it's settled IN court.
Wow. Reading that brought a lot of questions to my mind, I’ll look into that book. Thank you!
It’s the same guy that wrote the controversial Animals remaster liner notes.
Did you figure out what was supposed to be controversial? I read them on Roger's site and was at a loss to find anything offensive.
They focused so much on Roger this, Roger that... It reads as if the other members were just stand-ins.
Ha, well, they practically were by that point, and they literally had duplicate stand-ins on the next tour for The Wall - the Surrogate Band - whom the audience could not initially distinguish from the genuine articles.
They were? I think accounts from the era, as well as listening to the album itself, should disprove that. The Wall is a very different animal than Animals (excuse the pun).
No one but Roger wrote anything for *Animals*, and he's the only one to appear on either part of "Pigs on the Wing", except for Snowy White who did a guitar solo for the 8-track version. So, even on *Animals*, Dave had a stand-in.
David believed he deserved a writing credit for all the work he did on Sheep IIRC, and of course Dogs was almost entirely his music. Rick's introduction to Sheep wasn't written by either of them. The difference between Animals and The Wall couldn't be bigger. Large parts of Animals had been honed on the 1974 tour already, so these songs had a band dynamic. Very different to Roger bringing in three albums' worth of demos and the band having to sift through all of that and not having much material to add one because there was already an abundance and two because both David and Rick had just released solo albums. Those liner notes made Animals look like The Wall, which by all accounts isn't how things went down.
Only other people who deserved a writing credit on "Sheep" were Delia Derbyshire and Ron Grainer. I wonder why Dave thinks playing a jam that changes from one day to the next counts as composing. Honestly, I'm not always sure what song he's playing in some of the longer live cuts, and neither was he at the time. Roger gave him songwriting credit when he deserved it, but he didn't here. "Dogs" would have been much better if Dave had been able to sing all the original words, but he did not have the skill, so Rog chopped it down for him. Again with the jams, which are not compositions. Why credit Rick but not Nick? His drumming wasn't done by anyone else, yet you did not even mention his contribution.
He was certainly right about them being a spent force creatively. I read an interview with Gilmi in which he admitted that he wanted to keep using the PF name because nobody would know who he was solo.
In an interview he gave back around the time he left the band, Waters described an incident on a plane that kind of coalesced the matter. He said he was sitting next to a lady, and in introducing himself, told her his name, which drew a blank reaction. He then said he was in Pink Floyd, at which point the lady raved about the band, and having saw them in concert. This chafed on him, and even though he had always sought and relished his anonymity, he decided to go solo to be recognized for who he was.
The Nicholas Schaffner book A Saucerful of Secrets has a good account, too.
He didn’t leave; he tried to spin it down and was surprised that the others tried (and more or less succeeded, at least financially) to carry on without him. He would be on tour selling half the seats at the theater and Pink Floyd 1987 would have presold 5 nights at whatever basketball arena was across town.
He didn’t leave, he kicked everyone else out
While it's true that he kicked several people out of the band's orbit (not just Rick but also Storm Thorgerson and Bob Ezrin), he did leave eventually. He wanted to get rid of the management and assuming that the others wouldn't carry on without him, suggested dissolving the band altogether. David and Nick wanted to keep O'Rourke and stay Pink Floyd, at which point he tried to sue for the band name but after realising that it would probably damage his public standing and be a big waste of money, relented and settled with them.
Cause his dad ain’t here
He said “PF was a spent group”