What Roger Waters thinks about Phil Collins

Well Phil wrote a hell of a lot of good songs for someone who was pretending. And contributed to countless Genesis tracks.

But there we have it folks, Phil was pretending all along. In real life he actually mends radiators and listens to nothing but James Last.

I don't think Phil will loose any sleep over it

Roger Waters places a lot of value in his own lyrical depth and on that level, there is a vast difference between what he and Phil Collins have to offer. So, it’s hardly surprising that he is so disparaging.

What Waters overestimates is the value fans place on words over sounds when it comes to music.

That was never more obvious than with Pink Floyd where, with the exception of perhaps The Wall, it was primarily the instrumental passages and the combined sounds of David Gilmour’s guitar and Richard Wright’s keyboards that appealed most to fans.

I actually don't understand what he means by "it's an act" in that context. Somebody who writes songs is de facto a songwriter, lyrical content aside.

Regarding the "rock'n'roller" I don't think he ever even wanted to be one or pretended to be one.

If he means that somehow his persona was fabricated and his songs concocted to be appealing, well, that's not for him (or anybody else for that matter) to judge and it's overall quite a shallow and superficial thing to say considering his overall career.

As a fan, I have always found his solo career to just have happened at the right time for it to be incredibly successful.

But maybe I misunderstood his words.

If I recall, Phil Collins himself has said that he felt like he was acting a part when singing for Genesis. So there may be something in what Waters says, although the fact that Phil felt uncomfortable playing the part of the lead singer of Genesis suggests that his solo work at least was entirely genuine and heartfelt. Whatever you might think about it.

Quote from panopticom

I actually don't understand what he means by "it's an act" in that context. Somebody who writes songs is de facto a songwriter, lyrical content aside.

Regarding the "rock'n'roller" I don't think he ever even wanted to be one or pretended to be one.

If he means that somehow his persona was fabricated and his songs concocted to be appealing, well, that's not for him (or anybody else for that matter) to judge and it's overall quite a shallow and superficial thing to say considering his overall career.

As a fan, I have always found his solo career to just have happened at the right time for it to be incredibly successful.

But maybe I misunderstood his words.

Well, I think he's making a judgment of artistic merit there, and anyone can (and should) make such a judgment. Pop and rock musicians do often make facile and concocted music, some more so than others. And sometimes they make great music. This is one of the ways that we judge whether we like a song or not. Does it sound real? Does it sound heartfelt? Agree with him or not, Waters is simply saying that to him Collins writes on a low artistic level. I don't entirely agree that Collins isn't genuine but I do feel that he isn't / wasn't artistically capable of anything truly revealing and interesting. He got close a few times (e.g. Take me Home). There's other mainstream pop/rock stars of the 80s I'd put quite high above him artistically (e.g. Peter Gabriel)

Quote from raelway siding

Well, I think he's making a judgment of artistic merit there, and anyone can (and should) make such a judgment. Pop and rock musicians do often make facile and concocted music, some more so than others. And sometimes they make great music. This is one of the ways that we judge whether we like a song or not. Does it sound real? Does it sound heartfelt? Agree with him or not, Waters is simply saying that to him Collins writes on a low artistic level. I don't entirely agree that Collins isn't genuine but I do feel that he isn't / wasn't artistically capable of anything truly revealing and interesting. He got close a few times (e.g. Take me Home). There's other mainstream pop/rock stars of the 80s I'd put quite high above him artistically (e.g. Peter Gabriel)

In my opinion not being able to write anything revealing (and what we perceive as interesting) does not interfere with personal artistic value. Or better: not everything that is uninteresting or not revealing is of low artistic level. Somebody might judge artistic value as musicianship, production, musical capacity, arrangement. Somebody else will use other parameters, and that's perfectly fine.

E.g.: Against All Odds is nothing revealing or "artsy" but it contains a great chord progression, some harmonic surprises, a great build-up, and it's well produced. I like it because of those reasons. Somebody else might not like it because to them it might feel derivative or for them it lacks of creativity or it feels unimaginative. And that is fine, it just really depends on one own history with music listening. And therefore; since it's purely subjective at the end of the day, I just feel our views on the artistry of a songwriter or a musician are personal.

I'm kind of realizing we are probably saying the same things but from two different angles.

I think for RW, a songwriter must write against the System.

PC never wrote songs like Money or Welcome To The Machine.

I think RW's ideal is like John Lennon.

Quote from rkive

I think for RW, a songwriter must write against the System.

PC never wrote songs like Money or Welcome To The Machine.

I think RW's ideal is like John Lennon.

No. He didn't have to. He wrote In The Air Tonight. I won't list the others (although admittedly they are mainly from the first three solo albums). As for Waters being 'against the System' he's done alright out of it. I will leave it there, or I could write an essay on their respective merits, or Waters' contempt for his ex bandmates, or... it isn't worth it.

As for John Lennon, quite honestly what solo work he was able to produce does not compare with his Beatles output in any way, in my opinion.

Quote from rkive

I think RW's ideal is like John Lennon.

???

I think Roger Waters's ideal is, er, Roger Waters.

Let's face it, anti-system or not he's turned out his share of crappy songs with hackneyed lyrics. He also once said in an interview "We were just 4 blokes who wanted to make money and get laid." Absolutely nothing wrong with that, and he's done some good stuff, but neither is it artistic high-ground.

Waters is as two dimensional as they come. He has a shtick, two of his three band mates were brilliant musicians and Syd was a singular madman poet that lent the weight of myth to the band from the start. If the rabid old fuck hadn't had had the fortune to have these associations he'd have retired fifteen years ago from a career as a moany car salesman, having tortured hundreds of poor souls trying to buy a mid-range Mazda with rambling stories of how he could have been famous if his art weren't so radical, probably with a framed, faded photocopy of a poster from the one time a local club gave him a support slot on his desk.

Phil's worst b-side has more artistic merit than Waters' crowning solo glory, whatever that may by (It's a Miracle? Pros and Cons?). I like Pink Floyd btw.