Head-Fi.org › Forums › Misc.-Category Forums › Music › Why does everyone like Dark Side of the Moon so much?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Why does everyone like Dark Side of the Moon so much? - Page 7

post #91 of 115
10/22/07 at 10:06am
That's really funny because the e-mail that I got, said it was R. Kelly's house in Miami and it didn't look like Miami to me (but what do I know about the private islands surrounding Miami and Miami beach).
Like the tiny grains of sand in an hourglass...these are the days of our lives.
Reply
post #92 of 115
10/22/07 at 11:35am
Quote:
Originally Posted by immtbiker View Post
DSOTM is a creation provided to us by artists that had unconventional visions and will always be a masterful piece of work, whether someone likes it or not.
just addressing this line (and not getting sucked into the other debate about calling people names)...

i'd like to think i could insert any one of the titles of at least 90% of the albums i still listen to into this sentence, and it would be accurate. let's take the album i'm listening to at this moment, for instance:

Quote:
Orphans: Brawlers, Bawlers and Bastards is a creation provided to us by an artist that had unconventional visions and will always be a masterful piece of work, whether someone likes it or not.
Reply
post #93 of 115
10/22/07 at 12:27pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by VicAjax View Post
just addressing this line (and not getting sucked into the other debate about calling people names)...

i'd like to think i could insert any one of the titles of at least 90% of the albums i still listen to into this sentence, and it would be accurate. let's take the album i'm listening to at this moment, for instance:

That's an interesting take, but how about taking that a step further.

Quote:
Ashlee Simpson's "I Am Me" is a creation provided to us by artists that had unconventional visions and will always be a masterful piece of work, whether someone likes it or not.
Does it still work? Not at all IMO. Why? Because I highly doubt that in 25 years anyone will be seriously debating this albums merits. I certainly don't see this album as breaking any new ground (on the contrary I find it stomping all over well used ground), and it certainly hasn't enjoyed the same critical acclaim.

I think the real question here is does an artist or group that helped pioneer a new direction lose merit simply because of the passage of time? IMO no. The fact that the album may seem more mainstream today, and less groundbreaking simply means that that new direction had so much appeal that is has become more familiar.
Reply
post #94 of 115
10/22/07 at 1:13pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by swt61 View Post
Does it still work? Not at all IMO. Why? Because I highly doubt that in 25 years anyone will be seriously debating this albums merits. I certainly don't see this album as breaking any new ground (on the contrary I find it stomping all over well used ground), and it certainly hasn't enjoyed the same critical acclaim.
it doesn't work because it's an absurd comparison. it's like pitting John Coltrane against Kenny G. the only thing Pink Floyd and Ashlee Simpson have in common is that they both need oxygen to not die.

Quote:
I think the real question here is does an artist or group that helped pioneer a new direction lose merit simply because of the passage of time? IMO no. The fact that the album may seem more mainstream today, and less groundbreaking simply means that that new direction had so much appeal that is has become more familiar.
you're making the assumption that it's universally agreed that Pink Floyd pioneered a new direction. granted, they did a lot of interesting things... much of which were simultaneously being explored by other groups.

plenty of other prog-rock concept albums had already populated store shelves. in fact, by 1973 CAN had already made three albums that pushed the compositional boundaries of rock. Jethro Tull had made Aqualung and Thick as a Brick, Yes had Fragile and Close to the Edge, and Genesis had Selling England by the Pound.

and then there was Zappa... who was churning out genre-defying, compositionally groundbreaking music on an annual basis.

DSOTM just happens to be the album that hit number one on the Billboard charts... so in fact, it was mainstream from the get go, and less groundbreaking than may appear on the surface.

i'm not saying it's a bad album, i'm just suggesting that perhaps the descriptor of "overrated" could have some basis in truth, depending on one's perspective... such as my own.
Reply
post #95 of 115
10/22/07 at 1:58pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by VicAjax View Post
it doesn't work because it's an absurd comparison. it's like pitting John Coltrane against Kenny G. the only thing Pink Floyd and Ashlee Simpson have in common is that they both need oxygen to not die.



you're making the assumption that it's universally agreed that Pink Floyd pioneered a new direction. granted, they did a lot of interesting things... much of which were simultaneously being explored by other groups.

plenty of other prog-rock concept albums had already populated store shelves. in fact, by 1973 CAN had already made three albums that pushed the compositional boundaries of rock. Jethro Tull had made Aqualung and Thick as a Brick, Yes had Fragile and Close to the Edge, and Genesis had Selling England by the Pound.

and then there was Zappa... who was churning out genre-defying, compositionally groundbreaking music on an annual basis.

DSOTM just happens to be the album that hit number one on the Billboard charts... so in fact, it was mainstream from the get go, and less groundbreaking than may appear on the surface.

i'm not saying it's a bad album, i'm just suggesting that perhaps the descriptor of "overrated" could have some basis in truth, depending on one's perspective... such as my own.
While I still believe DSOTM to be a groundbreaking album, you have added some intelligent arguments to this discussion, and I take note of the other artists you've mentioned and partially agree with you, as I also own and love all the albums you mention.

And of coarse my Ashlee Simpson/Pink Floyd comparison was absurd. That was what I intended, and that comparison was aimed more at the younger generation of Head-Fiers that have trouble relating to music previous to their generation. What I meant to impress in them is that some of the albums of their generation will be looked at by them as Mileposts in 25 years, and some will be utterly forgettable.

Great post BTW!
Reply
post #96 of 115
10/22/07 at 2:13pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by swt61 View Post
While I still believe DSOTM to be a groundbreaking album, you have added some intelligent arguments to this discussion, and I take note of the other artists you've mentioned and partially agree with you, as I also own and love all the albums you mention.
yeah, it was a great era for stoner music!

Quote:
And of coarse my Ashlee Simpson/Pink Floyd comparison was absurd. That was what I intended, and that comparison was aimed more at the younger generation of Head-Fiers that have trouble relating to music previous to their generation. What I meant to impress in them is that some of the albums of their generation will be looked at by them as Mileposts in 25 years, and some will be utterly forgettable.
i figured you were being silly to make a point... i just wanted to use my line about oxygen.

i really wonder if today's pop will be remembered at all in 25 years. i suspect music historians will probably only delve into hip hop and rap, simply because of its unique cultural ramifications.

Quote:
Great post BTW!
aw shucks.
Reply
post #97 of 115
10/22/07 at 2:19pm
and one more thing.

i think if DSOTM continues be a conduit to neophyte listeners to discover that great music can exist beyond the traditional three-minute hook-bridge-hook jingle, then it has done a great service to pop culture.
Reply
post #98 of 115
10/22/07 at 4:24pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by VicAjax View Post

plenty of other prog-rock concept albums had already populated store shelves. in fact, by 1973 CAN had already made three albums that pushed the compositional boundaries of rock. Jethro Tull had made Aqualung and Thick as a Brick, Yes had Fragile and Close to the Edge, and Genesis had Selling England by the Pound.

and then there was Zappa... who was churning out genre-defying, compositionally groundbreaking music on an annual basis.
I would agree with you that there were a plethora of albums and bands that were more interesting, challenging and exiting than PF in the late 60's and early 70's.

Can, Faust, Kluster and the entire kraut rock scene were putting out albums that were pushing the boundaries, in US there was a wave of new music as well The Residents, Beefheart, Zappa, The Red Krayola; Magma in France and entire RIO movement in UK were redefining rock music. Yearly PF with Syd Barrett were very adventurous, but a band like Soft Machine left them in the dust (IMHO), but by DSOTM they found a middle ground of being innovative and commercially successfully, and the rest is history.
Reply
post #99 of 115
10/22/07 at 5:24pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by swt61 View Post
Top fourty does not refer to albums. Top fourty refers to singles.
Quote:
Originally Posted by immtbiker View Post
True...but I was leaning more on the lines of urban top 40. Grammy's Top 40. 7 FM radio stations in the same city playing the same songs. Stations that play "Lite" top 40 and because it is all on tape and you can tell what time it is by when a song is playing on the radio.
Yeah I know. I was trying to be sarcastic but such things are not easily conveyed on the internet
Reply
post #100 of 115
10/22/07 at 5:58pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by goldenratiophi View Post
Yeah I know. I was trying to be sarcastic but such things are not easily conveyed on the internet
Yes but the benefits are that I can get away with wearing my plaid shirts with striped pants.
Reply
post #101 of 115
10/22/07 at 5:58pm
Dark Side of the Moon was one of the first major albums to deviate from "Blues Rock" and the traditional vocals/guitar/bass/drum line up, using all sorts of instruments and organic noises, helping usher in the era of electronic rock. I think people who heard the album when it first came out will always have a certain respect for it.

I don't think the album is a generational thing though. It has to be in the top 5 of my favorite albums of all time (I'm 26). But for the first several times I listened to it, it was definitely one of those albums that kept getting better and better, so maybe just give it a few more chances.

Then again, my friends swear the the album is a whole new experience when one is under the influence.
Reply
post #102 of 115
10/22/07 at 6:34pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by jesselussier View Post
Dark Side of the Moon was one of the first major albums to deviate from "Blues Rock" and the traditional vocals/guitar/bass/drum line up, using all sorts of instruments and organic noises, helping usher in the era of electronic rock. I think people who heard the album when it first came out will always have a certain respect for it.
i'm going to have to, once again, respectfully disagree.

i'd say DSOTM wasn't even one of the first ten major albums to deviate from the instrumentation and arrangements of blues rock. it wasn't even the first to hit Number One on the Billboard Charts (that honor would go to Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band).
Reply
post #103 of 115
10/22/07 at 9:03pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by swt61 View Post
What I meant to impress in them is that some of the albums of their generation will be looked at by them as Mileposts in 25 years, and some will be utterly forgettable.
Did any of us here think, that "Hotel, Motel, Holiday Inn, would lead to a movement that has generated billions of dollars and still be as hot as ever, 25 years later?

All Rap haters said "It won't last" and wow, was that ever wrong. It has created a direction and flow that is bigger than the Beatles and DSOTM.

Never say never. Never.
Reply
post #104 of 115
10/22/07 at 10:38pm
OMG! Rapper's Delight, I haven't thought of that song in years. Yeah who would have guessed. I'm still dumbfounded by it, but I'm an old White guy.
Reply
post #105 of 115
10/22/07 at 11:29pm
DSOTM sounds so different and etheral compared to many other artists, when I listen to it, I feel like I am listening to art and every note coming out of time is perfect. This may just be stonerdom or cliche, but there is obviously something special about the music if every classic rock station plays at least a song or two from it every day of the year. The music and its liquid smoothness that is pleasant and enjoyable coupled with the voices of David Gilmour and Roger Waters, I dont know, it is just special. Not to mention the effects and the "full circle" effect of the album returning to the original heartbeat that starts you off in the beginning. I have always loved when an artist can piece all the songs together to make some sort of message or concept, to me it shows a lot more effort, talent, and just the thrill and joy of making music that is not present in many of today's music. It is good.
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Music
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Misc.-Category Forums › Music › Why does everyone like Dark Side of the Moon so much?