So, what does The Final Cut give us as a Pink Floyd album? Not much in my opinion. The input of Gilmour and Mason was minimal to say the least, and Richard Wright had left the group because he couldn`t stand to be in the same country as Waters, let alone the same band. It` s basically a Roger Waters solo effort, culled from rejected offcuts from The Wall sessions. Gilmour`s argument at the time was if they weren`t considered good enough then, why are they good enough now? It still holds true if we`re talking about this being a Floyd album. It`s very rough round the edges and is full of Waters trademark angst about life without a father, the war, politics and modern life, etc, etc,. By this stage, it shows that the band had disintegrated as a musical unit, because what small bits and pieces Gilmour and Mason had to record, were done seperately to avoid contact with Waters. The album suffers from being over blessed with words and devoid of any recognisable tunes; a fault of Waters which Gilmour had always done his best to address in the past by attempting to hang the tracks on a firm and accessible musical frame. Without Gilmour`s input, The Final Cut can be hard going if you`re looking for any archetypal Floyd musical flourishes..... they just ain`t there. However, this album has it`s advocates, despite it`s grim pretentions; but given it`s history, can The Final Cut really be described as a Pink Floyd album? You can just as easily argue that it`s a Roger Waters solo album, which has amongst it`s session musicians, a couple of Floyd members tinkering about here and there. David Gilmour has expressed his dislike of the album, and at the time, couldn`t see any justification for it`s release. Who is right, Gilmour or Waters? In the end you pays your money. Just don`t feel too disappointed if you bought this record expecting a Pink Floyd classic, only to find out that you had bought into Roger Waters psychiatric therapy sessions instead.