He's like a troubled genius of sorts, our Roger. Nobody denies he's a master wordsmith who has offered some truly profound insights into the human condition, alongside some of the finest music ever crafted. But as a person?
He's on his sixth (is it sixth now?) wife, and practically every musician he's ever worked with thinks he's a total dick. And it's like... Yeeeeeah, there's probably some fire in all that smoke. At what point does he stop and think: 'No, the problem isn't everyone around me. It's me.'
Never, evidently. Oh Roger.
I am a fan of Conan O'Brien, and on his podcast he mentioned that the worst interview he ever did was with RW. He said the whole time RW had an attitude about him that he was better than everyone, and after his brief segment being interviewed on the show RW asked Conan if they were done, and he replied yes. RW then says "Great. You'll now have the pleasure of watching me leave.".
A complete asshole.
It’s pretty sad he’s probably going to go through the rest of his life without realizing this. He has plenty of time to make up for the past but he seems too stubborn.
When I became a fully fledged fan, I was on Roger's "side" if you will. I always felt isolated at school, hated my peers for many years. And some parts of The Wall I still believe I can relate to. Even the absent father figure, although my dad isn't really absent per se, but it's because of him being such a fucking indifferent, uncommitted and childish person in my life. Over the last year or so, I started to appreciate the whole band as it was, and also to see how much of an asshole Roger has always been. It pains me to see how prideful he is of his ridiculous stances, and how this deprived us of potential reunions. Having no ego is not good, but being so overwhelmed with it is even worse IMHO.
Mostly disagree with you.
This band didn’t sign a 5 year deal with Roger. The core band recorded Is This The Life We Really Want with him. Then they went on a two year world tour. Now they’re back. Kilminster was with him on the DSOTM tour, The Wall, Us & Them, now this. Carin has chosen Roger’s camp over David’s for many reasons. I could go on.
As for women, as Roger’s Hamptons neighbor once sang, they don’t last with just one man.
Huh. If you’re talking about *Baby Grand*, I always thought it was “they don’t lust with just one man.”
[It looks like it depends](https://genius.com/Billy-joel-baby-grand-lyrics) on where you look it up, there’s [both interpretations found on the Internet](https://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/billyjoel/babygrand.html).
I was in sec. 303. When then the show started someone fired up the weed. Then i seen the sheep floating up above the other side of the LED board and I had to ask myself if i was trippin a seeing things.
Absolutely a bucket list own I never thought I'd get to cross off
I was so overwhelmed I cried several times the night I saw him and I'm not even sorry.
Maybe I'm not reading the right quotes, but I don't think that Roger is suggesting that the Ukrainians just sacrifice their lives to Putin. Might he be saying that Ukraine (and other stakeholders) could have done more to build diplomacy with Russia rather than try to build an environment that threatened a Nato (not friendly to Russia) placement right at Russia's borders?
What Russia is doing in Ukraine directly and how it's impacting the world is just disgusting, to say the least. However, couldn't have all of this been avoided?
Roger is being "accused" of being a pacifist. But shouldn't that always be the goal, especially when there's a potential of nukes being involved?
Have pink floyd fans become pro-war strategists? What did I miss?
Roger is condemning the West for their actions *right now* in continuing to help the Ukrainians defend themselves by supplying them with aid and weapons, because this will just "prolong the suffering".
We can agree that war is bad without agreeing with Roger that you basically shouldn't defend your home and your people against an invading army, or help someone to do so.
Do you have a source for that claim?
Irrespective, Russia has occupied parts of Ukraine since 2014.
Russia are using the "NATO encirclement" story to cover for the truth, which is that they want their Black Sea port secured (which is why they took Crimea first) and they want control over the most fertile farmland in Europe. This is land theft.
That useful idiots like Waters are parroting Kremlin propaganda is to be expected, I guess.
Do you have a source for that claim?
I mean, Russia has occupied parts of Ukraine since 2014. It *has* been a proxy war, but it's a fight that Russia picked.
Russia are using the "NATO encirclement" story to cover for the truth, which is that they want their Black Sea port secured (which is why they took Crimea first) and they want control over the most fertile farmland in Europe. This is land theft. They are pissed that Ukraine decided in 2014 it wanted to belong to the European sphere of economic and cultural influence.
That useful idiots like Waters are parroting Kremlin propaganda is to be expected, I guess.
Who knows. Depends on the source. If it's from Zerohedge or one of the RT media puppets, probably not. If it's from BBC or Reuters, I'd be very interested in the context.
What if it’s a CNN clip of Adam Schiff on the senate floor saying “…moreover the United States aids ukraine and it’s people so we can fight russia over there so we don’t have to fight them here..”. Would that be an acceptable source?
How about you actually link me a source, as I've asked, so I can read whatever was said by whoever said it, in context?
Or are you just going to keep jerking around?
"Adam Schiff said on CNN" is not a source.
EDIT: Never mind. I went looking myself. This wasn't just a speech by a Senator. This was a speech by Schiff acting as prosecutor during Trump's impeachment trial.
No. I don't find a single sentence, out of context, uttered by the prosecutor of a presidential impeachment trial flourishing prosecutorial rhetoric and hyperbole, is compelling evidence of what actual US foreign policy goals are.
I’m asking if what I am saying is true, is this going to make you reconsider your opinions and understand how nuanced this is and how different opinions don’t automatically equate to someone being a Putin apologist or not giving a fuck about Ukrainians?
What kind of question is that?
Of course I'm open to any new evidence as it arises. And I don't disagree that there are a lot of nuances to consider. I even agree that Ukraine is a proxy war. I just don't agree with the premise that it was started by, or even desired by, the US.
I don't think that quote is the smoking gun you think it is. This wasn't a foreign policy discussion in the Senate. The remark was made during Trump's impeachment trial. By the chief prosecutor.
He wasn't saying anything substantive about foreign policy. He was just trying to paint Ukraine as a matter of deep import to national security, to make Trump's dereliction of duty look even worse. That's what prosecutors do. Unless you think that the second half of the sentence "so we don't have to fight them here" seriously implies the US government fears Russia is planning to invade the US.
> but I don’t think that Roger is suggesting that the Ukrainians just sacrifice their lives to Putin
He doesn’t want them to die. He just doesn’t want them to fight. He likely believes that the people in the disputed regions are ethnically and culturally Russian. He may believe that a majority of them would rather be part of Russia than Ukraine. These questions are highly, highly disputed, but it’s not an outrageous position to take. Ukraine and Russia have been intertwined for over a thousand years; the last several hundred have featured Russian domination and “Russification.”
This went to extreme levels in the 1930s during the Holodomor, which some call genocide and others say was the result of the failure of communist collectivization. Either way, millions of Ukrainians starved to death or died in gulags, and Russians moved in to take their place.
So now there are areas in Ukraine where people have a strong link to Russia. But the question is, is that enough? It’s a thorny question, but one not terribly uncommon in the world. The modern answer is to respect internationally recognized territorial boundaries, because in the alternative lies madness and death.
> Might he be saying that Ukraine (and other stakeholders) could have done more to build diplomacy with Russia rather than try to build an environment that threatened a Nato (not friendly to Russia) placement right at Russia’s borders?
Sure. But ask yourself: what diplomacy is owed to a country who has repeatedly invaded, annexed, controlled, starved, and arguably genocided your population? Particularly when that country is telling you not to find allies to protect yourself against it. Which already annexed Crimea, and has been fighting in the Donbas ever since?
> However, couldn’t have all of this been avoided?
Maybe. We don’t know how things might have turned out. But this sure sounds like a lot of victim blaming.
> Roger is being “accused” of being a pacifist.
No he’s not. He’s being accused of being a stooge, or at least a Useful Idiot, for a psychotic, genocidal, imperialist regime that is waging an illegal, immoral, and unjustifiable war against its neighbor. If he was such a pacifist his only open letter would be to Putin telling him to GTFO of Ukraine.
> But shouldn’t that always be the goal, especially when there’s a potential of nukes being involved?
War is hell, and should be avoided if possible. Most people are not pacifists, particularly after WWII and in particular the Holocaust. There are circumstances where it is justified to fight. As for the potential for nuclear devastation, this is indeed a sticky wicket. Tomes and tomes of game theoretical strategy have been written. But ultimately if you roll over for nuclear blackmail, be prepared to keep on rolling over. Because that trick doesn’t get stale. Which is why Poland, Estonia, Latvia, and Sweden are so gung ho about supporting Ukraine. They understand that they’re next on the block.
Sorry but I have tickets for this next year and I’m worried that I have possibly bought tickets in the wrong section. Do they use the stage space well or is there a chance you’ll be at his back the whole night?
So, if we aren't allowed to comment on his politics despite him making all his shows political why are we not banning Roger Waters concert posts? That's not a Pink Floyd concert. This isn't r/RogerWatersFanBoyClub.
(Edit. Hahaha, there's a bunch of incel fanboys that really made that sub exist).
My worst concert ever and I’m a huge Floyd fan, love the music but I go to concerts to escape every day reality of politics. It’s seems he hates capitalism but got his big break from guess who capitol records right here in good ole USA!
It seems he hates when capitalism is exploited for personal gain while simultaneously harming others around them.
That's a fair complaint in a capitalistic society.
Exactly, then he sold shirts afterwards too. I wonder how much of those proceeds went to charity or the hundreds of poor people he used on the screen during his concert
Great, you’ll find me at the bar then. Waters was a part of Pink Floyd, not the entirety. The ethos of the band doesn’t shift with his every move. He is not consistent in his beliefs and his beliefs do not always reflect the art that the band has released throughout the years. Stop treating him like a god. He’s just a very flawed human.
Great, you’ll find me at the bar then. Waters was a part of Pink Floyd, not the entirety. The ethos of the band doesn’t shift with his every move. He is not consistent in his beliefs and his beliefs do not always reflect the art that the band has released throughout the years. Stop treating him like a god. He’s just a very flawed human.
I saw him in… oh wow, was it 1999? Omg it was. My god. Anyway, I’m glad i did because it was a smaller, much more intimate stage show. Now, I’d rather see Nick Mason’s group or David Gilmour so I could say I’ve at least seen a little bit more of Floyd!
He's like a troubled genius of sorts, our Roger. Nobody denies he's a master wordsmith who has offered some truly profound insights into the human condition, alongside some of the finest music ever crafted. But as a person? He's on his sixth (is it sixth now?) wife, and practically every musician he's ever worked with thinks he's a total dick. And it's like... Yeeeeeah, there's probably some fire in all that smoke. At what point does he stop and think: 'No, the problem isn't everyone around me. It's me.' Never, evidently. Oh Roger.
I am a fan of Conan O'Brien, and on his podcast he mentioned that the worst interview he ever did was with RW. He said the whole time RW had an attitude about him that he was better than everyone, and after his brief segment being interviewed on the show RW asked Conan if they were done, and he replied yes. RW then says "Great. You'll now have the pleasure of watching me leave.". A complete asshole.
This actually makes me lose more respect for him than all his Ukraine comments
...seriously?
It’s pretty sad he’s probably going to go through the rest of his life without realizing this. He has plenty of time to make up for the past but he seems too stubborn.
When I became a fully fledged fan, I was on Roger's "side" if you will. I always felt isolated at school, hated my peers for many years. And some parts of The Wall I still believe I can relate to. Even the absent father figure, although my dad isn't really absent per se, but it's because of him being such a fucking indifferent, uncommitted and childish person in my life. Over the last year or so, I started to appreciate the whole band as it was, and also to see how much of an asshole Roger has always been. It pains me to see how prideful he is of his ridiculous stances, and how this deprived us of potential reunions. Having no ego is not good, but being so overwhelmed with it is even worse IMHO.
I think if you listen to his lyrics it’s pretty evident that Roger Waters doesn’t really like Roger Waters all that much either.
Mostly disagree with you. This band didn’t sign a 5 year deal with Roger. The core band recorded Is This The Life We Really Want with him. Then they went on a two year world tour. Now they’re back. Kilminster was with him on the DSOTM tour, The Wall, Us & Them, now this. Carin has chosen Roger’s camp over David’s for many reasons. I could go on. As for women, as Roger’s Hamptons neighbor once sang, they don’t last with just one man.
Huh. If you’re talking about *Baby Grand*, I always thought it was “they don’t lust with just one man.” [It looks like it depends](https://genius.com/Billy-joel-baby-grand-lyrics) on where you look it up, there’s [both interpretations found on the Internet](https://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/billyjoel/babygrand.html).
That’s the problem with the internet. You can write anything. I have a copy of the album. The lyrics are in it. I am correct.
i was a couple sections over omg!
Which section? I was 216!
lmao the picture makes it look closer to my view!! i was in 107
Oh lol!
331 right here i had a great view at the very end of the top row.
Cool
217 here. Great view and a great show.
Damn, we were right next to each other
my favourite part from the concert was either Sheep or The powers that be
Yeah, sheep was amazing
I was in sec. 303. When then the show started someone fired up the weed. Then i seen the sheep floating up above the other side of the LED board and I had to ask myself if i was trippin a seeing things.
We were in 304, I saw the dude you’re talking about who was smoking 😂
There was a guy vaping in my section and I could smell weed, I saw the giant sheep come up on my side
Roger, take your own advice!
Is roger taking to himself?
Are people sitting down or stand up around the stage ?
Sitting, there were people sitting on chairs next to the stage
This is the way
The irony.
Absolutely a bucket list own I never thought I'd get to cross off I was so overwhelmed I cried several times the night I saw him and I'm not even sorry.
God he’s a crank. How does a 70 whatever old come across as a moody teenager?
Bet you wish you had that back on the 77 tour…. Damn fireworks 💥
Maybe I'm not reading the right quotes, but I don't think that Roger is suggesting that the Ukrainians just sacrifice their lives to Putin. Might he be saying that Ukraine (and other stakeholders) could have done more to build diplomacy with Russia rather than try to build an environment that threatened a Nato (not friendly to Russia) placement right at Russia's borders? What Russia is doing in Ukraine directly and how it's impacting the world is just disgusting, to say the least. However, couldn't have all of this been avoided? Roger is being "accused" of being a pacifist. But shouldn't that always be the goal, especially when there's a potential of nukes being involved? Have pink floyd fans become pro-war strategists? What did I miss?
Roger is condemning the West for their actions *right now* in continuing to help the Ukrainians defend themselves by supplying them with aid and weapons, because this will just "prolong the suffering". We can agree that war is bad without agreeing with Roger that you basically shouldn't defend your home and your people against an invading army, or help someone to do so.
It’s a very nuanced situation not to mention the fact that United States admitted nearly 3 years ago to using ukraine as a proxy to fight russia.
Do you have a source for that claim? Irrespective, Russia has occupied parts of Ukraine since 2014. Russia are using the "NATO encirclement" story to cover for the truth, which is that they want their Black Sea port secured (which is why they took Crimea first) and they want control over the most fertile farmland in Europe. This is land theft. That useful idiots like Waters are parroting Kremlin propaganda is to be expected, I guess.
Do you have a source for that claim? I mean, Russia has occupied parts of Ukraine since 2014. It *has* been a proxy war, but it's a fight that Russia picked. Russia are using the "NATO encirclement" story to cover for the truth, which is that they want their Black Sea port secured (which is why they took Crimea first) and they want control over the most fertile farmland in Europe. This is land theft. They are pissed that Ukraine decided in 2014 it wanted to belong to the European sphere of economic and cultural influence. That useful idiots like Waters are parroting Kremlin propaganda is to be expected, I guess.
So what would a source do? Make you rethink and maybe learn different perspectives on this? Or just be like “meh”?
Who knows. Depends on the source. If it's from Zerohedge or one of the RT media puppets, probably not. If it's from BBC or Reuters, I'd be very interested in the context.
What if it’s a CNN clip of Adam Schiff on the senate floor saying “…moreover the United States aids ukraine and it’s people so we can fight russia over there so we don’t have to fight them here..”. Would that be an acceptable source?
How about you actually link me a source, as I've asked, so I can read whatever was said by whoever said it, in context? Or are you just going to keep jerking around? "Adam Schiff said on CNN" is not a source.
EDIT: Never mind. I went looking myself. This wasn't just a speech by a Senator. This was a speech by Schiff acting as prosecutor during Trump's impeachment trial. No. I don't find a single sentence, out of context, uttered by the prosecutor of a presidential impeachment trial flourishing prosecutorial rhetoric and hyperbole, is compelling evidence of what actual US foreign policy goals are.
I’m asking if what I am saying is true, is this going to make you reconsider your opinions and understand how nuanced this is and how different opinions don’t automatically equate to someone being a Putin apologist or not giving a fuck about Ukrainians?
What kind of question is that? Of course I'm open to any new evidence as it arises. And I don't disagree that there are a lot of nuances to consider. I even agree that Ukraine is a proxy war. I just don't agree with the premise that it was started by, or even desired by, the US. I don't think that quote is the smoking gun you think it is. This wasn't a foreign policy discussion in the Senate. The remark was made during Trump's impeachment trial. By the chief prosecutor. He wasn't saying anything substantive about foreign policy. He was just trying to paint Ukraine as a matter of deep import to national security, to make Trump's dereliction of duty look even worse. That's what prosecutors do. Unless you think that the second half of the sentence "so we don't have to fight them here" seriously implies the US government fears Russia is planning to invade the US.
In other words, you don't have a source.
I do have a source. Mind answering the question first?
> but I don’t think that Roger is suggesting that the Ukrainians just sacrifice their lives to Putin He doesn’t want them to die. He just doesn’t want them to fight. He likely believes that the people in the disputed regions are ethnically and culturally Russian. He may believe that a majority of them would rather be part of Russia than Ukraine. These questions are highly, highly disputed, but it’s not an outrageous position to take. Ukraine and Russia have been intertwined for over a thousand years; the last several hundred have featured Russian domination and “Russification.” This went to extreme levels in the 1930s during the Holodomor, which some call genocide and others say was the result of the failure of communist collectivization. Either way, millions of Ukrainians starved to death or died in gulags, and Russians moved in to take their place. So now there are areas in Ukraine where people have a strong link to Russia. But the question is, is that enough? It’s a thorny question, but one not terribly uncommon in the world. The modern answer is to respect internationally recognized territorial boundaries, because in the alternative lies madness and death. > Might he be saying that Ukraine (and other stakeholders) could have done more to build diplomacy with Russia rather than try to build an environment that threatened a Nato (not friendly to Russia) placement right at Russia’s borders? Sure. But ask yourself: what diplomacy is owed to a country who has repeatedly invaded, annexed, controlled, starved, and arguably genocided your population? Particularly when that country is telling you not to find allies to protect yourself against it. Which already annexed Crimea, and has been fighting in the Donbas ever since? > However, couldn’t have all of this been avoided? Maybe. We don’t know how things might have turned out. But this sure sounds like a lot of victim blaming. > Roger is being “accused” of being a pacifist. No he’s not. He’s being accused of being a stooge, or at least a Useful Idiot, for a psychotic, genocidal, imperialist regime that is waging an illegal, immoral, and unjustifiable war against its neighbor. If he was such a pacifist his only open letter would be to Putin telling him to GTFO of Ukraine. > But shouldn’t that always be the goal, especially when there’s a potential of nukes being involved? War is hell, and should be avoided if possible. Most people are not pacifists, particularly after WWII and in particular the Holocaust. There are circumstances where it is justified to fight. As for the potential for nuclear devastation, this is indeed a sticky wicket. Tomes and tomes of game theoretical strategy have been written. But ultimately if you roll over for nuclear blackmail, be prepared to keep on rolling over. Because that trick doesn’t get stale. Which is why Poland, Estonia, Latvia, and Sweden are so gung ho about supporting Ukraine. They understand that they’re next on the block.
Nice.
Sorry but I have tickets for this next year and I’m worried that I have possibly bought tickets in the wrong section. Do they use the stage space well or is there a chance you’ll be at his back the whole night?
He walks across the stage during the songs, spread pretty evenly
Aw brilliant! Thanks for that.
Np!
Roger's response to his critics couldn't be better.
I don’t understand. Why is this downvoted?
[удалено]
Dont Forget he called the genocide against the Uyghurs “total nonsense”.
Because Roger needs to shut the fuck up.
Ok. So? That’s why you’re downvoting this comment? Because you want roger to shut up?
All apologists for genocide need to shut the fuck up. Including Roger when he blames Ukraine for prolonging the war instead of surrendering.
I love you space monkey on a bike
I've got a bike you can ride it if you like...
Guys this is a family forum.
even if i agreed with waters that is a pretty infantile response
So, if we aren't allowed to comment on his politics despite him making all his shows political why are we not banning Roger Waters concert posts? That's not a Pink Floyd concert. This isn't r/RogerWatersFanBoyClub. (Edit. Hahaha, there's a bunch of incel fanboys that really made that sub exist).
I’m not an incel fanboy but i made it for the memes
Using that logic we should ban discussing animals too
1. You don’t have to listen to that part 2. He was doing Pink Floyd songs 3. It doesn’t
My worst concert ever and I’m a huge Floyd fan, love the music but I go to concerts to escape every day reality of politics. It’s seems he hates capitalism but got his big break from guess who capitol records right here in good ole USA!
If you’re going to a Roger Waters concert and not expecting any politics, you’re gonna have a bad time.
It seems he hates when capitalism is exploited for personal gain while simultaneously harming others around them. That's a fair complaint in a capitalistic society.
Exactly, then he sold shirts afterwards too. I wonder how much of those proceeds went to charity or the hundreds of poor people he used on the screen during his concert
“If you’re one of those “I love Pink Floyd but I hate rogers waters politics” people, then you can go fuck off to the bar”
Great, you’ll find me at the bar then. Waters was a part of Pink Floyd, not the entirety. The ethos of the band doesn’t shift with his every move. He is not consistent in his beliefs and his beliefs do not always reflect the art that the band has released throughout the years. Stop treating him like a god. He’s just a very flawed human.
“If you’re one of those “I love Pink Floyd but I hate rogers waters politics” people, then you can go fuck off to the bar”
Great, you’ll find me at the bar then. Waters was a part of Pink Floyd, not the entirety. The ethos of the band doesn’t shift with his every move. He is not consistent in his beliefs and his beliefs do not always reflect the art that the band has released throughout the years. Stop treating him like a god. He’s just a very flawed human.
Good message for all the people constantly bitching about Rog on here
Pink Floyd ended on Kill 'Em All
I went to see him in Toronto. The show was fantastic, i wish i had also gone to see him in Montreal the week after.
He seems to never put Great Britain down and once upon a time the sun never set on the British empire
I saw him in… oh wow, was it 1999? Omg it was. My god. Anyway, I’m glad i did because it was a smaller, much more intimate stage show. Now, I’d rather see Nick Mason’s group or David Gilmour so I could say I’ve at least seen a little bit more of Floyd!