this post was submitted on 26 Sep 2025
71 points (98.6% liked)
Progressive Politics
3320 readers
449 users here now
Welcome to Progressive Politics! A place for news updates and political discussion from a left perspective. Conservatives and centrists are welcome just try and keep it civil :)
(Sidebar still a work in progress post recommendations if you have them such as reading lists)
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Eh, there are two sides to every story. I can't blame him for not wanting Gilmour to be able to tour and release albums using the name of the band that he co-founded (Gilmour wasn't there in the beginning btw).
true to a degree. nick mason wanted to keep going too - and he was a founding member as well. richard wright came back too after hiatus :/ seemed roger just thought the music was his to control or something.
my bad to detract from the point of this post ><
Haha true, this isn't a PF thread, it's much more serious.
I guess I'm just not sure it's really relevant to me what Waters' reasoning was, just that he should have had the power to dissolve the band given how prominent he was in the songwriting process since the beginning. It would be like, if John Lennon quit The Beatles, but they replaced him and then continued releasing albums with that name... I kind of think Lennon should be able to put the kibosh on that.
I mean you're 3/4 of the fucking Beatles, people are going to listen to you regardless.
well said ^^