Album Rating: 5.0

Both are pretty equal to me as middle of the road Floyd. One is superior musically and one is more emotional.

Album Rating: 3.5

TFC is not that good imo, you are overrating it, but to each his own i guess.

I'm not overrating it, it's one of the most emotional albums I've ever heard and as a result I have a connection to it.

I think you're overrating The Division Bell, a lot ;)

Album Rating: 5.0

TFC is 13th on my ranking. Out of 14 albums... yeahhhhhh. Waters' horrible ego just ruins the entire thing, which isn't that spectacular to begin with.

Album Rating: 3.5

Well it's a 3.5 for me, but i still like it more than TFC, idk.

What's egotistic about The Final Cut? I'm generally curious as to how you think that albums shows Water's "horrible ego".

When writing it he was a venerable, emotional wreck and creating that album was something he had to do, there's nothing egotistic about it.

Album Rating: 5.0

It's basically a solo album. It's a major flaw for me when one member dominates an album like Waters does on TFC. It sort

of destroys the purpose of being a "band".

dont listen to megadeth then bro :D

Album Rating: 5.0

"I think TFC needs to be understood for what it was. It was never going to be as musically vibrant as Animals, or this. Yet, the passion and emotion Waters uses on that record reaches better heights than he ever did vocally and lyrically."



Yeah but the thing is, when we talk about what makes Pink Floyd special, I think Waters vocals are pretty far down on the list. In my opinion, anyway.



The sound and the entire package that was Pink Floyd before TFC was what made the band so great. You start eliminating elements, and it falls apart. Much like the band did.

Album Rating: 5.0

"What's egotistic about The Final Cut? I'm generally curious as to how you think that albums shows Water's "horrible ego".



When writing it he was a venerable, emotional wreck and creating that album was something he had to do, there's nothing egotistic about it."



Perhaps the fact he basically cut out the rest of the band to make it. And we're not talking about some mediocre supporting cast. We're talking and David Gilmour, Richard Wright and friends.

Album Rating: 5.0

I just made a ranked list that pretty much explains how I feel about every Floyd album and TFC is ranked 13th. I just don't find it a good listen.

It's basically a solo album. It's a major flaw for me when one member dominates an album like Waters does on TFC. It sort of destroys the purpose of being a "band".

Album Rating: 5.0

Safe to say Gilmour was a little jaded by the The Wall and less than motivated to work with Roger at that point, at which time yes Roger assumed total control.

Exactly. If you take into consideration the circumstances, The Wall shows Waters' ego more than The Final Cut, that's where he really took over. His ego didn't really have anything to do with how The Final Cut turned out other than the effects carried over from The Wall.

Album Rating: 5.0

I find that hard to believe.

Album Rating: 5.0

Also of note - Most of the songs were songs left over from The Wall.

How is it hard to believe? Waters had already taken over by that point and the band had lost interest, he didn't really do anything more egotistical in creating The Final Cut.

And yes I know.

Album Rating: 5.0

This explains things a bit:



"Gilmour objected to Waters' plans to include old songs on a new Pink Floyd studio album that had years before been rejected from The Wall, asking Waters "if these songs were not good enough then, why are they good enough now?". Gilmour also felt that the old and new material alike was mostly weak or uninteresting musically and that the band were losing the "balance" between the music and lyrics. In addition Gilmour also argued that Waters' lyrics had become too "specific" as opposed to his earlier, more "nebulous" lyrics that were open to multiple interpretations - he particularly objected to Waters' direct references to Thatcher and other world leaders, which he felt was an unsuitable form of lyric writing for a Pink Floyd album. Gilmour claims that Waters seemed to regard his complaints and suggestions as "interference" and, unlike in the past, he was unwilling to allow other band members to have their say."

That's not quite how I heard it (from whatever source I read/heard it from).

Still I think as much damage had been done when Waters took over to the extent that he did with The Wall. Also I fail to see how any of this has any relation to the quality of the music. I mean fair enough if you don't like The Final Cut but I don't really see "because of Water's ego" as a sensible reason as to why the music isn't very good.

Album Rating: 5.0

I'm just saying - The egoistical part is that Waters refused to listen to the concerns of his bandmates whom of which he worked with in the past to create numerous classic albums.



Had these concerns been addressed, perhaps we would have been witness to 2 or 3 more "Animals" albums, instead of The Wall hangover and then disbandment.