Roger Waters was a founding member of Pink Floyd and played a huge role in making the band what it became—especially from the early ’70s through The Wall and The Final Cut. But after he left in 1985, the band continued (without him), which ended up causing serious tensions and legal battles. Over the years, Waters has said a lot about those conflicts, sometimes regret, sometimes criticism. Let’s explore how things unfolded.
The Breakup and What Came After
Waters officially left Pink Floyd in 1985, feeling that he needed to express ideas freely without being held back.
Almost immediately after Waters’s departure, David Gilmour and Nick Mason (and later surviving members) continued to perform and record under the name Pink Floyd. Waters objected to this, believing that without him, the band had lost its essential conceptual identity.
The Lawsuit Over the Name
In 1986, Waters sued Gilmour and Mason to try to stop them from using the name Pink Floyd. His argument was that without him, the band should not continue under that name, that it was creatively “spent.”
The case went on for two years and ended with a settlement (out of court) on Christmas Eve, on Gilmour’s houseboat. The outcome was that Gilmour and Mason could continue using the name Pink Floyd.
Waters’s Regret
Years after the lawsuit, Roger Waters has expressed regret about it. He’s said that suing his old bandmates was wrong, especially after recognizing that “Pink Floyd” had commercial value independent of who was in the band.
Here are some exact things he said:
“I did, I did think that was wrong, and I was wrong!” because it was a commercial decision.
He said one of the few things he learned from legal work was that a band’s name is a label with commercial value, and you can’t simply say it’s over.
The Internal Atmosphere: Toxicity and Criticism
Waters has also spoken openly about what life inside Pink Floyd was like before and during the split. Some key points:
He describes the working environment as “toxic” at times—feeling dragged down by others.
He claims that some bandmates (notably David Gilmour and Richard Wright) told him he was “tone-deaf” or didn’t understand music.
Waters says that after leaving, he realised more about his own musical abilities—that he had a sophisticated musical sense, even if during his time in PF he felt “insignificant and somewhat inept.”
Louder
But even while criticising the social and personal sides of his relationships with the others, Waters admits there was good work done together. He recognises that the albums they made had important contributions by all.
Why the Band Continued Without Him
Several reasons:
Commercial Value of the Name: Even Waters acknowledged later that the name “Pink Floyd” itself had value that could persist, even without all original members.
Artistic Contribution Beyond Waters: While Waters wrote a lot of the conceptual framework and many lyrics, the band had multiple members who contributed musically (David Gilmour on guitar and vocals, Rick Wright with keyboards, etc.). The value of contribution beyond just lyrics or concept was important.
Desire from Gilmour and Mason: They seemed interested in continuing the band and had ideas for new material and tours, even after Waters was gone.
The Present View: More Kindness (Sometimes) and More Distance
As time has gone on, the tensions didn’t fully heal, but there has been some softening:
Waters has publicly said sorry for the lawsuit and acknowledged he made mistakes.
He also admits that leaving when he did was important—not just for him, but so that his own voice could grow without constant conflict.
Still, there are ongoing disagreements. For example, Waters has expressed frustration about being excluded from “official” Pink Floyd communications (website, social media) and how his solo work is treated relative to the band’s legacy.
Also, critics (including people close to Pink Floyd) have at times accused Waters of being overly political, controversial, or even harsh in his comments about the band. Others defend him as someone who always spoke what he believed to be the truth.
Lessons from the Waters / Pink Floyd Story
What can we take away, beyond the salty band interviews and lawsuits? Here are some general points:
Shared creative work often carries shared conflict. Bands with strong personalities and creative leaders are prone to disagreements over vision, contribution, leadership.
The importance of legacy vs. ownership. Waters thought the band’s identity was inseparable from himself. But legal and commercial realities show that band names, brand value, and fan expectations can continue even if some founding members are gone.
Regret doesn’t erase harm, but it can acknowledge it. Waters’ later statements show that people can reflect, recognize mistakes, change perspectives—even if old wounds remain.
The power of collaboration. Many of Pink Floyd’s best albums are considered great because more than one person added something meaningful. Even when Waters had big ideas, turning them into music leaned heavily on others.