I don't want to watch the video of his address to the UN, but from what I've seen reported, such as being invited by Russia, and a few of the quotes I saw, I can't say the criticism coming from folks isn't warranted. It all seems very out of character for Roger, from what I've heard of his politics previously. Definitely makes me think a little less of him.
Did you read the transcript of what he said?
I think the part that stands out is this quote:
"So back to Ukraine. The invasion of Ukraine by The Russian Federation was illegal. I condemn it in the strongest possible terms. Also, The Russian invasion of Ukraine was not “unprovoked”, so I also condemn the provocateurs in the strongest possible terms. There, that’s got that out of the way. "
He's saying the invasion was illegal, but that Russia was provoked somehow. Going back to 2014 when Russia first invaded Crimea, I think the consensus from most Western countries is that there was no legitimate reason for this conflict in the first place. On the whole, his speech is what I would have expected coming from him, a mostly anti war message. But taking a "both sides are to blame" stance is where I think a lot of people would take issue. Is what he said so offensive that I can't listen to him? No, certainly not. But it is a little disappointing to hear that coming from him.
2014? My dude, I am old enough to remember the Orange Revolution ten years earlier, where Western and Central Ukraine had a clear political schism with the predominantly Russian-speaking parts in the East and South. Western nations of course chose to ignore this inconvenient split, except where exploiting it bolstered their own interests: America took an aggressive role in the subsequent Euromaidan coup in 2014, which Putin basically took as an act of war from hyperpower-backed reactionaries. The reality is more complicated, and yes, Russia's subsequent takeover of Crimea was illegal, and so is their current campaign, and I condemn every violent attack on innocent lives. But the root of the provocation Waters mentions goes back at least to the 1990s; diplomacy arguably fell apart even before Putin addressed NATO's leaders in 2007 at the Munich conference, essentially pleading with them to stop expanding their alliance towards Russian borders.
Putin repeatedly warned everyone involved how the Russian state would respond to NATO extending its reach to Ukraine. Western leaders ignored him, and here we are. The idea that the war is 'unprovoked' as Gilmour claimed when promoting that Pink Floyd single last year with Andriy Khlyvnyuk is naive, to say the least. We're all fighting a pitched battle against the global heating crisis, Neoliberal inflationary cash crunch, continued healthcare crises on multiple fronts, and now a protracted armed conflict that threatens to spill over into a global war (with multiple nuclear-armed states involved, now rushing to develop deadly hypersonic weaponry to annihilate each other more efficiently). These were all foreseeable disasters and it's hard not to see profiteering at the root of each, which is something Waters has written about for decades.
What you fail to acknowledge here is that states (such as Ukraine) are entitled to their own choices, how Putin is on a Make the UdSSR Great Again spree for years and how this escalation has never been about NATO (who didn't do anything wrong) but Ukraine being in the process of establishing a democracy next to Russia, which is a serious danger for Putin's cleptocracy.
That may well be in Putin's designs too. I had high hopes (lol) for the triumph of democracy and Zelenskyy was elected on a platform of ending the civil war that started with the coup. No dice. It is tragic.
Last edited by botley; 02-17-2023 at 04:38 PM.
You may want to be careful with that term...:
https://www.swp-berlin.org/publikati...onbas-conflictThe origins of the anti-Maidan protests in eastern Ukraine remain a matter of great controversy. Some argue that they were instigated by Moscow, and would never have occurred without Russian manipulation.34 Others attribute them to an autochthonous movement that emerged without Russian prompting, but later required Russian protection.35 Another school of thought again sees Russian interference at work but concedes limited autonomy to local actors.36 The question of the origins, motivation and objectives of the insurgency is at the same time the question of who was to blame for the war. The answer to that question determines which paths to conflict resolution are plausible. The following discussion is based on the assessment that sufficient political frustration was present in the Donbas to trigger protests against Kyiv in the heady atmosphere of spring 2014. But ethnically motivated separatism could not be identified either before or after the outbreak of fighting.37
Ample evidence exists for early intervention by Russian actors. As well as local volunteers and members of local elites,38 the armed insurgents included increasing numbers of Russian nationals and persons with long residence in Russia. Many of them had served in the Soviet and/or Russian armed forces and intelligence services, others had close ties to extreme nationalist circles in Russia. Cossack units also participated actively in the fighting.
so Rog went and turned the masterpiece album into The Final Cut (of the Moon). Bravo Roger! What the fuck for?
Maybe read the description? It's pretty clear:
I like the lockdown recordings very much (the idea initially was to record all the encore songs that didn't make it into the Us+Them film with the same band) and they don't sound anything like The Final Cut, not even "Two Suns" or "The Gunner's Dream". Roger's voice is strong and the band all sound wonderful, and presumably that gave them the confidence to tackle "Comfortably Numb" with the desolate arrangement that opens the "This Is Not a Drill" show. Sometimes a good song performed well still sounds great without a lot of studio effects and trickery.It's not a replacement for the original which, obviously, is irreplaceable. But it is a way for the seventy nine year old man to look back across the intervening fifty years into the eyes of the twenty nine year old and say, to quote a poem of mine about my Father, "We did our best, we kept his trust, our Dad would have been proud of us". And also it is a way for me to honor a recording that Nick and Rick and Dave and I have every right to be very proud of.
I'm on board with his rerecording. At least Roger is offering something new instead of remastering the same album yet again. How many times does Dark Side of the Moon need to be remastered for fuck sake?
Sounds interesting, yet completely unnecessary...
Roger's DSOTM should be worth a listen at the very least. "Brain Damage/Eclipse" has been awesome on the last 2 tours.
Any thoughts on DSOTM Live at Wembley 1974?
It was great in 2011, still great now. Far as I can tell they didn't touch it except for a light amount of EQ and a couple of edits to the instrumental sections (only on the vinyl, based on the rip that I've heard). Would still like to have an unedited complete version of the show, but the length of the songs makes that a bit awkward for vinyl...
Wembley is my preferred way to listen to the record. Side B in particular is overwhelmingly superior to the studio recording, imo.
Is the DSOTM 50th sold out forever now? I wanted to snag one, but waited. I didn't see anything that said this was a limited run.
The Atmos mix is incredible on headphones.
How A Momentary Lapse Of Reason caused all-out war for Pink Floyd
Old news, but is is a good write-up. I'd like to give AMLOR and Radio K.A.O.S a listen, side-by-side.