On Monday, July 18, 2022 at 9:20:51 PM UTC-4, RichA wrote:
> The members of ____ were always arrogant, they had a right to be.

....cut...

If that band member actually said what the article claims, then the band is now permanently gone from my "playlist" of music.

There are plenty of much newer and better bands and music out there, in my opinion.

On Tuesday, July 19, 2022 at 7:12:45 AM UTC-6, W wrote:

> If that band member actually said what the article claims, then the band is now permanently gone from my "playlist" of music.
>
> There are plenty of much newer and better bands and music out there, in my opinion.

That may be.

However, my list of musical acts "better" than Pink Floyd would
probably not include Drake or the Weeknd. Instead, there is
Diana Krall, for example.

Since Pink Floyd was _very_ successful in its day, Roger Waters wasn't
being egotistical in claiming that his group was more significant in the
history of music than these modern ones. However, a tour by a currently
popular group _is_ of more interest than a retrospective comeback tour
of a group that was popular ages ago, so while I can understand his
annoyance at not getting a review, yes, he was not being entirely
objective and realistic.

John Savard

On Tuesday, July 19, 2022 at 11:22:44 AM UTC-7, Quadibloc wrote:
> On Tuesday, July 19, 2022 at 7:12:45 AM UTC-6, W wrote:
>
> > If that band member actually said what the article claims, then the band is now permanently gone from my "playlist" of music.
> >
> > There are plenty of much newer and better bands and music out there, in my opinion.
> That may be.
>
> However, my list of musical acts "better" than Pink Floyd would
> probably not include Drake or the Weeknd. Instead, there is
> Diana Krall, for example.
>
> Since Pink Floyd was _very_ successful in its day, Roger Waters wasn't
> being egotistical in claiming that his group was more significant in the
> history of music than these modern ones. However, a tour by a currently
> popular group _is_ of more interest than a retrospective comeback tour
> of a group that was popular ages ago, so while I can understand his
> annoyance at not getting a review, yes, he was not being entirely
> objective and realistic.
>
> John Savard

Success is also measured in MONEY!
Roger Water's net worth is $300 million!
👍

On Tuesday, July 19, 2022 at 2:22:44 PM UTC-4, Quadibloc wrote:
> On Tuesday, July 19, 2022 at 7:12:45 AM UTC-6, W wrote:
>
> > If that band member actually said what the article claims, then the band is now permanently gone from my "playlist" of music.
> >
> > There are plenty of much newer and better bands and music out there, in my opinion.
> That may be.

No, not "may be," there ARE much better bands and music, in my opinion.

If a musician starts getting arrogant, I can easily choose other music that I like better than whatever it is that he is selling.

On Tuesday, July 19, 2022 at 2:22:44 PM UTC-4, Quadibloc wrote:

> However, my list of musical acts "better" than Pink Floyd would
> probably not include Drake or the Weeknd. Instead, there is
> Diana Krall, for example.
>

You do know that there are many other bands and songwriters than just the ones that have been mentioned?

On Tuesday, July 19, 2022 at 2:22:44 PM UTC-4, Quadibloc wrote:

> Since Pink Floyd was _very_ successful in its day, Roger Waters wasn't
> being egotistical in claiming that his group was more significant in the
> history of music than these modern ones. However, a tour by a currently
> popular group _is_ of more interest than a retrospective comeback tour
> of a group that was popular ages ago, so while I can understand his
> annoyance at not getting a review, yes, he was not being entirely
> objective and realistic.

So every time that a reviewer talks about a band other than Pink Floyd, he also needs to mention Pink Floyd?

Maybe every media outlet should have a designated Pink Floyd commentator on call to give praise to PF whenever another band dares to exist, just to keep things balanced.

On Wednesday, July 20, 2022 at 4:07:41 AM UTC-6, W wrote:

> You do know that there are many other bands and songwriters
> than just the ones that have been mentioned?

Oh, yes. But not necessarily from any personal acquaintance
with their music. Given that Pink Floyd is an example of the kind
of music that I _don't_ listen to (and Drake and the Weeknd are
both even more so) as illustrated by my choice of Diana Krall
as an example of a contemporary artist...

even though I might occasionally stray as far as Led Zeppelin
(Stairway to Heaven) or The Eagles (Hotel California), my musical
tastes for the most part are firmly rooted in the distant past.

Percy Faith. Bert Kaempfert. Perry Como. Jo Stafford. Need I
go on?

Recent stuff? ABBA. Richard Clayderman. *That's* what I can
think of off the top of my head.

Of course, there's also *both* of those guys named John Williams...

John Savard

On Wednesday, July 20, 2022 at 4:14:42 AM UTC-6, W wrote:

> So every time that a reviewer talks about a band other
> than Pink Floyd, he also needs to mention Pink Floyd?

The complaint was that Pink Floyd was in town, but because
it was a one-night stand, and apparently the newspaper only
had one reviewer, the reviewer didn't think to attend the Pink
Floyd concert when he had a chance, and leave Drake and/or
the Weeknd, who would be playing for two or more days, until
the next day.

The statement that Pink Floyd was more important in its
day than Drake and the Weeknd are now isn't arrogance, it's
a fact. A bit of arrogance comes in, though... because Roger
Waters forgot what "in its day" meant - and that acts currently
popular with today's teenagers might sell more newspapers
than acts of interest to... adults, many of whom now have
other interests than the music they passionately listened to
when they were young.

Based on what I've read - and I admit I haven't followed the
story closely - while I would criticize him for a lack of perspective,
this isn't arrogance on the scale of the Beatle's "We're more
popular than Jesus Christ"; it's not something that would
severely diminish my opinion of him as a human being, if I
knew him well enough to have one.

John Savard

On Wednesday, July 20, 2022 at 11:00:32 AM UTC-4, Quadibloc wrote:
> On Wednesday, July 20, 2022 at 4:14:42 AM UTC-6, W wrote:
>
> > So every time that a reviewer talks about a band other
> > than Pink Floyd, he also needs to mention Pink Floyd?
> The complaint was that Pink Floyd was in town, but because
> it was a one-night stand, and apparently the newspaper only
> had one reviewer, the reviewer didn't think to attend the Pink
> Floyd concert when he had a chance, and leave Drake and/or
> the Weeknd, who would be playing for two or more days, until
> the next day.
>
> The statement that Pink Floyd was more important in its
> day than Drake and the Weeknd are now isn't arrogance, it's
> a fact. A bit of arrogance comes in, though... because Roger
> Waters forgot what "in its day" meant - and that acts currently
> popular with today's teenagers might sell more newspapers
> than acts of interest to... adults, many of whom now have
> other interests than the music they passionately listened to
> when they were young.
>
> Based on what I've read - and I admit I haven't followed the
> story closely - while I would criticize him for a lack of perspective,
> this isn't arrogance on the scale of the Beatle's "We're more
> popular than Jesus Christ"; it's not something that would
> severely diminish my opinion of him as a human being, if I
> knew him well enough to have one.

I can think of dozens of bands that should be reviewed instead of PF, if there were to be a conflict on a particular night.

PF is a known quantity, while some newer or lesser-known bands might interest people who are on the lookout for new sounds and new music.

It amounts to "journalistic malpractice" to cater to PF while ignoring something new.

New. That's why the publication is called a NEWspaper.