[Zodduska]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aman /img/forum/go_quote.gif Walk throughout a typical high school or college, and you will find a large number of students have never heard of Tool, let alone be able to hum one of their tunes to you. Radiohead is more likely to be known by the masses, but I still challenge you to find a large number of people who can sing any of their "classics". Pink Floyd was as synonymous of a name as The Rolling Stones or The Beatles at their height. And that's only on the level of popularity. Neither groups have done anything noteworthy in terms of innovative uses of the studio, fantastic live performances, etc. Regardless of your feelings for all of these bands, it is difficult to deny that Pink Floyd's music completely changed popular music, whereas these effects DEFINITELY haven't been felt yet from Tool or Radiohead.

I completely agree on all other points, but I was actually surprised to learn of Tool's main stream popularity myself. It's very hard to compare generally since today's mainstream music is a lot more diverse in it's genres.. but last month Chicago's biggest "alternative" station had a contest that lasted several weeks as a tribute to college basketball's March Madness, they would play blocks of songs from each artist head to head with another and then people could vote for their favorite band.. here are the results:

http://q101.com/madness/bracket.htm

interesting side note, maynard held 2 places in the final four

 

[SubseaTree]

I agree with the comments that the Floyd cannot be imitated now as they come out of a different era. When the Floyd started in mid 60's Britain there was nothing like it and then that whole 60's creativity sparked off Syd's genius which in turn shot the whole band up into interstellar overdrive.

Lots of things about Floyd stand out: the structure of the music and obvious whole group contribution esp. on the earleir albums, the melodies, the hypnotic pulse, the wierd and wonderful sounds perfected over years of experimentation, the little asides with ticking clocks and bleeting sheep to join tracks together, the rock and roll in that everso controlled english way etc etc. But for me the key quality that made the Floyd what they were was Roger Water's lyrics and the way he sung them. There's never been anyone who has that mix of litrary prowess, cutting vitriol and spitting contempt mixed in with genuine human emotion.

For me as a 16 year old teenager Animals was hugely impressive when it came out and goes a long way to explaining why I'm so cynical now. I wonder if there are other performers that have that kind of influence on teenagers now?

 

[Superpredator]

Quote:

Originally Posted by markl /img/forum/go_quote.gif Radiohead.

It's not an exact parallel, but I think this is the closest one can get. I think it has something to do with each band's ability to so accurately reflect the psychological makeup of the moments in time during which their albums were recorded/released.

I hear Orwell's 1984 in OK Computer and The Wall. I'm not sure I've heard it elsewhere.

 

[stewgriff]

Quote:

Originally Posted by SubseaTree /img/forum/go_quote.gif But for me the key quality that made the Floyd what they were was Roger Water's lyrics and the way he sung them. There's never been anyone who has that mix of litrary prowess, cutting vitriol and spitting contempt mixed in with genuine human emotion. For me as a 16 year old teenager Animals was hugely impressive when it came out and goes a long way to explaining why I'm so cynical now. I wonder if there are other performers that have that kind of influence on teenagers now?

I'd agree with the opinion that there can't really be another Pink Floyd in today's music world. It's too fragmented (indie, emo/corporate [blech], hip hop, etc.) for one group to really reach over every audience. Pink Floyd, itself, was one of several major groups competing in the 1970s, without the complete dominance of the Beatles a decade before.

On another note, Roger Waters was very emotional, but he could sometimes get a little overboard, you know? Not so much on Animals, but his anger reached unintentionally comic levels on The Wall. He also began to forget the music and pushed out Gilmour and company, who in turn pushed him out and forgot the emotion. Besides that, I think Bob Dylan and especially John Lennon could easily equal or surpass him in terms of sheer resonance and melody, if not the "special effects" that made Pink Floyd unique. Animals is still awesome, though. It definitely brings out my cynical side when I pull it out for a listen.

 

[jjhatfield]

Quote:

Originally Posted by stewgriff /img/forum/go_quote.gif I'd agree with the opinion that there can't really be another Pink Floyd in today's music world. It's too fragmented (indie, emo/corporate [blech], hip hop, etc.) for one group to really reach over every audience. Pink Floyd, itself, was one of several major groups competing in the 1970s, without the complete dominance of the Beatles a decade before.

x2. Also the 70s were still technically the "modern" age of art. Pop art had made the West a little more cynical, but you have to understand now we are in the full throes of post-modernism. I think it is harder to create something as beautiful and generation defining as a DSOTM or any given Dylan record.

Having said that I find I grow much more mature and open minded in my musical ideas as I grow older, so my opinion could change at any time. For what its worth, my friends and I used to call Radiohead the Floyd of today when we were like 17. I don't necessarily feel that way anymore.

Press me to pick a band and I'd say Opeth.

 

[SubseaTree]

One thing that Roger Waters seemed to have been very keen on is listening thru headphones, I'm sure in one of his interviews he mentioned something about listening to Floyd music thru cans. And I think its true that when you listen to Floyd thru cans its a totally different experience with all the small details and effects swirlling around yer head. Would their music have been so well crafted and intense had they used studio monitor speakers only? Whatever, it certainly is supreme headphone rock and there you can draw a comparison with Radiohead.

 

[SubseaTree]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Superpredator /img/forum/go_quote.gif I think it has something to do with each band's ability to so accurately reflect the psychological makeup of the moments in time during which their albums were recorded/released.

... oddly enough I was in my shed late last night, varnishing some shelves and listening to BBC RAdio 2. On it they had Noddy Holder (ex-Slade and maybe not exactly in the same class at skoool as Mr Waters and the rest of the Floyd) but he made a pertinent comment about the records of Little Richard ... he said they were recorded quickly and represented an instant in time. And the conclusion on the show was that all great recordings are great because they are of their time. You just gotta agree.

 

[Coltrane]

Absolutely, and I think that is why we will never see another Pink Floyd. It is a function of our time today just as much as it is PF's brilliance. By all accounts the late 60s and early 70s was a special time in music and in rebellion. People were trying for more back then. Now that we have seen the corporate overthrow of everything holy, and as we have seen a monumental explosion in competition for entertainment dollars, everything has been diffused and is MUCH more fractured.

There is no reason for bands to go through MTV or the radio, or to get involved with disgusting organizations like the RIAA. Staying away from that means control and freedom, as well as much less success. A trade off the Mr. Waters certainly would have gone for back then.

People have now retreated to their respective corners and widespread popularity is now unlikely for quality groups, and mainstream breakthrough is even more difficult.

Also, we can't forget the roles of itunes and the role of singles in the de-evolution of music. In 1973, if you liked the song Money you heard on the radio, you might buy the album, get out your turntable, set it up and listen to the whole record. And quite a few people saw their lives change because of it. Now? Most buy the one song, and treat it like it is every bit as disposable as Gwen Stefani.

I don't want it to seem like I'm railing against some bygone era of my youth, i was born in 1981. But I am saying that times have change, for the mainstream at least. There have been overwhelming positives to these changes as well, and I PREFER todays situation when it comes to variety, quality, and access to music. But there has no doubt that all soul and goodness has been sucked from mainstream reality. Such is what happens when businessmen are put in charge of an artform.

 

[SickMouthy]

That people are still having this discussion, and sincerely, in 2007 is absolutely heartbreaking.

 

[Coltrane]

How so?

 

[SickMouthy]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Coltrane /img/forum/go_quote.gif Also, we can't forget the roles of itunes and the role of singles in the de-evolution of music. In 1973, if you liked the song Money you heard on the radio, you might buy the album, get out your turntable, set it up and listen to the whole record. And quite a few people saw their lives change because of it. Now? Most buy the one song, and treat it like it is every bit as disposable as Gwen Stefani.

How do you know this? You don't know this. I'm two years older than you and don't know this. 7inch single sales in the 60s and 70s were massive because people liked throwaway individual pop songs then too.

It's like the Arctic Monkeys having 18 songs in the top 200 due to downloading this week - in January 1983 The Jam had seventeen singles in the top 75 based on actual bona fide physical black-wax-disc sales to people who went so shops. The charts have always been ridiculous.

 

[Packgrog]

Quote:

Originally Posted by SickMouthy /img/forum/go_quote.gif That people are still having this discussion, and sincerely, in 2007 is absolutely heartbreaking.

Why is it heartbreaking? Floyd was just THAT GOOD.

I'd say as far as popularity and potential timelessness, you might go with Tool and Radiohead (the later of which I haven't heard, but which everyone raves about).

As far as bands that have a sound similar to Floyd, I'd again go with Riverside, later Anathema, and Porcupine Tree.

I'm not sure if there ever will be another band with as much of a wide-ranging effect on the music industry in general as some of the true classics, like Floyd, Zeppelin, Yes, The Beatles, or (*gag*) The Stones. The industry is so diverse now, that it's just not as easy to shake everything up. I love bands that try to do so, though.

-Packgrog

 

[SickMouthy]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Coltrane /img/forum/go_quote.gif How so?

1; Because Pink Floyd are terribly terribly boring and over-rated. 2; because their key records were well over 30 years ago. Live in the now, man! And also 3; because no one is ever the new anyone, and such conversations are totally unhelpful and reductive!

 

[Coltrane]

Well, it sure is helpful to know I can now discount your opinions.

1. Obviously most on this board disagree.

2. Um, the point of this thread is discuss bands of today that are similar.

3. Responses like yours are totally unhelpful. Im sure many others have learned of bands from this thread, as well as learned some about music culture.

 

[SickMouthy]

Cheers then!