The Afterword

Musings on the byways of popular culture

Menu

Navigation

You are here: Home / Nights In / Roger Waters – The Dark Side of the Moon Redux

Roger Waters – The Dark Side of the Moon Redux

by 50 Comments

What does it sound like?:

Roger Waters is certainly no stranger to controversy these days, and no doubt this reimagining of the Pink Floyd classic from 1973, one of the most iconic rock albums of all time, will further fuel the fires. Of course, Waters faithfully recreated the album in a live setting in his world tour in the mid 2000’s, but this new recording is radically different while at the same time managing to remain faithful to the overarching ethos of the original. It would, after all, be futile and pointless to simply have produced a facsimile of the source album, so Waters has gone back to the very basics of those songs, which in the main were written by him, and used them as building blocks to create something unique. Gone are the virtuoso Gilmour guitar parts, Dick Parry’s wonderful sax and Clare Torry’s extemporising. Instead, the emphasis is placed very firmly on the importance of the words in these timeless songs dealing with the pressures of everyday life, with greed, insanity, mortality, and ultimately with the redemptive power of love and hope. Indeed, the theme of mortality is one that pervades the whole record as Waters, now an octogenarian himself, huskily growls his way through the piece like an Old Testament prophet, the voice of an old man looking back to his prime with the benefit of hindsight and experience. As you’d expect, the sound quality itself is state of the art, with not even the smallest sonic detail overlooked, and consequently every note and nuance is heard with crystal clarity. It’s perfectly valid of course for a composer to reinterpret his work in a different way as he sees fit, treating the songs as living breathing things that evolve and change as the years and decades pass rather than as museum pieces frozen in time forevermore. Even if these new versions lack the familiarity of the original recordings, they do still stand up in their own right, with the ever-advancing years failing to diminish Waters’ powers, and of course the source material remains there for those who wish to hear it. This certainly isn’t intended to supersede or replace the original in any way, instead it’s almost an adjunct to it – some will enjoy it, many others won’t get it at all, but this is a very fine album and in what, at the grand old age of eighty, may be his parting shot Waters has succeeded in exactly what he set out to achieve, to reinforce the messages of humanity contained in the original piece that are still as valid and crucial today as they were fifty years ago. Mission accomplished!

What does it all *mean*?

He’s only gone and done it.

Goes well with…

Growing old gracefully, reflecting on the past.

Release Date:

6 October

Might suit people who like…

New light through old windows.

11

Comments

  1. A very, very good review Bargey.

    Now do I buy this or not? Why the reticence, well it’s Rog putting his gob into gear without looking where he’s going that’s why.

    But then it’s the same old question that’s been asked a million times around here, do we put the artist before the art. What if Hitler had been a great composer despite being an evil bastard, would we shun his music. Maybe for a few decades after WW2 but I bet the music would be played today.

    There’s been many more artists who have said/done things that make us shudder but I bet every one of us has enjoyed their art at one time or another.

    Why am I rambling on about this? Well it’s obvious isn’t it?

    • I agree with Baron, a very good balanced review.
      Will I buy it? Probably not. But not because of his gob and the controversy that follows him but because I already have way too much new stuff that I haven’t had chance to properly listen to yet. Have to draw the line somewhere but would like to hear it just once.

      • I will buy it – I like what I’ve heard so far and it’s sufficiently different from the original to treat it as a companion piece or even a separate project. His utterences are ridiculous, I agree, but I think they come from a delusion that his words could have any influence in the UN or on political life in general – not from any desire to see wrongdoing rewarded. Perhaps some naivety and hubris there as well.

  3. I guess he wrote (most of?) the lyrics, but wasn’t it a group effort in composition? Gilmour has credits on 4 songs, Wright the same and Mason on 3.

    Might be interesting to hear Gilmour’s take on it, if it is printable.

  5. I’ve only heard a few of the new versions, so I may be missing some real gems, but they’ve left me quite cold. I like the idea, and I really rate Rog’s solo work, but I always thought he was better in the Floyd. He needed Dave’s guitar and Rick’s keys, and both of their vocals, to really give his tunes that extra warmth. And, sadly, time may have got the best of his voice.

    These new versions, although interesting, sound a little like listening to an audiobook with music in the background. I think I’ll stick with the various versions of DSOTM I already have.

  6. This made me wonder, is there any old artist who has been praised for re recording their old work? Or someone else you would like to see do this?

    I remember Mike Oldfield re recorded Tubular Bells in 2003 (specifically to ‘fix’ all the mistakes) and it was… Ugh. Lifeless and horribly clean.

    I didn’t think much of Cat Stevens re recording some of his old albums a few years ago.

    Solo McCartney version of Sgt Pepper, anyone? (Actually that might be quite good!)

  7. A very interesting review as always, thanks Bargepole. I like what I’ve heard so far. Another review I read on internet pretty much concurred with you, summing up:

    Overall, Dark Side of the Moon Redux works really well as a curiosity. If you know Pink Floyd, it’s an interesting companion piece to the original. It doesn’t stand on its own and Roger Waters surely doesn’t create any definitive versions. But it’s hard to deny that Waters still created something interesting.

    I’m not yet sure about “doesn’t stand on its own”. Having only heard a few tracks, I do know I would really like it (a lot!) had the original never existed and this been a completely new album from the 80-year-old Waters. I would indeed consider it very much “a late masterpiece”. And, as a fan, that already makes it better than most new albums I hear.

    As a companion album, I’m not sure how much I’ll listen to it (also cos of my crap hearing) but I like that it exists. I’m strangely reminded of the hoo-hah surrounding the cover of Bowie’s album The Next Day. Similar-ish cries of “he can’t do that! Sacrilege! Pathetic rehashing past glory rather than creating something new!”. Whereas I like the idea that an artist in old age fucks around with his iconic work, from the very different perspective of old age, knowingly provoking the fans’ outrage and not caring (or enjoying it!). Especially when done not just in an easy-to-get-away with live concert context, but as a permanent statement. And most especially if the result is good. When I look at my iTunes library (all the cover art present and correct, natch) I’m often reminded how the cover of The Next Day still now stands out both for its originality and for the boldness of its “fuck the inevitable avalanche of negative reaction” approach. For me, that was an interesting and successful artistic choice. Redux gives me similar thoughts.

  10. Having listened to it all, properly, with headphones, I found it very hit and miss. Some tracks (Breathe, Money, Us & Them, Any Colour You Like, Brain Damage. Eclipse) are very nice. Nicely soporific. Of course they’re not better than the originals (in fact, I prefer Easy Stars All Stars reggae version of Us & Them to this one), but they are interesting. Other tracks (On The Run, Great Gig In The Sky) are really horrible. Waters talking and talking and talking – sounds more like an audiobook set to music.
    I like that it begins with the lyrics of Free Four and I like the new words for Any Colour You Like (very Ted Hughesian, I thought).

    • Looking at reviews online I’m surprised to see there are a few very positive ones.

      The Telegraph:
      This is an album that underlines the greatness of Dark Side, rather than challenges it. I was sceptical at first, but Waters’s thoughtful and loving remake has turned out to be a powerful and moving way for an older artist to engage with their youthful self. It is almost surprising that more veteran artists haven’t done the same. Over to you, Macca.

      The Times:
      The big surprise is how moving this is.

      Financial Times:
      It’s a worthwhile satellite work to the majesty of what he did 50 years ago.

  11. In the interests of balance I listened to it last night. The backing music is well done but Roger droning on is irritating and he can’t carry a tune in a bucket. Ultimately it’s a completely pointless exercise and I’m mystified as to why he thought it was a good idea. Didn’t anyone tell him?

    I listened to the original in the car last night to clear my head of Rog’s Folly and once again was blown away by how brilliant it is.

    • From what I’ve read, people were angry he spent most of the first half just monologuing. But now online (well, Reddit) I see lots of people saying that’s how it was advertised and no -one should have expected a full-on Waters concert. I can’t remember the advertising for this, but wasn’t it just for a playthrough of the album? I don’t think it was ever touted as a full concert was it?

      On another note: For some reason I thought this was going to be shown in cinemas as one of those live streams. Did that happen and I missed it? I would have quite liked that.

      On another nother note: When I saw him last year (full concert) there WAS quite a lot of monologuing, particularly in the second half of the show. In fact, too much, I would say. So I kind of understand why the audience this time was annoyed. I remember when he was introducing Two Suns in the Sunset he went on for about ten minutes about the meaning of the song and how he had come up with it. I definitely had the impression he was becoming more like one of those old guys who ramble on too much without a sense of awareness.

      • The Prague show a few months back was shown in cinemas so maybe you’re thinking of that? Don’t think this show was ever offered like that – in fact they went to great lengths to prevent filming or recording with all phones, cameras and even smart watches having to be locked in pouches for the duration. I thought it was advertised as just a performance of the new album so in a way the first half was something of a bonus even if it wasn’t well received.

        • I get the impression Rog surrounds himself with people who agree with his every opinion and laugh at his every joke (which I suspect might be a fairly common trait among rock stars). Small wonder he thinks he can entertain an audience with his patter. I’ve read him describe himself as funny. I’ve read some of his attempts at humour and found them completely unfunny at best.
          (Mind you, a couple of lines in Pros and Cons are genuinely funny.)

          • Yeah, he’s definitely no raconteur, is he? The more I hear from him the more I realise he desperately wants to be (or maybe thinks he is) a Tom Waits type. I remember Tom’s mid-noughties tour and when he released the live album there was a bonus disc of him just chatting and telling stories – and it was brilliant!

            I think Leonard Cohen is similar as well?

            Roger, I love you but that’s just not you.

  16. Listened to this in the car the other day.
    My take is that it sounds like a sixth form/university project that has taken DSOTM as its starting point and has added “interesting” poetry and monologues.
    It wasn’t as awful as I thought it was going to be and some of the music is not bad at all.
    Buy it though? Nah

Leave a Reply