[Marzie]

Quote:

Originally Posted by mojorisin676 /img/forum/go_quote.gif 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.

I agree: Based on a statistic I made up for the purpose of this post 60% of the Pink Floyd songs that they play come from requests. This means that many people out there still like to hear those tunes that they have heard hundreds of times before. I know I don't always go into reverie when I hear a Floyd tune for the umpteenth time, but when I can spare a moment, I sit back and let the music take me on another journey all over again.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mojorisin676 /img/forum/go_quote.gif 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.

This is one of my favorite "features" of this (or any) album. When I am busy, sometimes I get back to the second or third track of these types of albums before I notice I'm on my second go 'round.

Concept albums are great, when done well. IMO, this is the case with DSOTM, Thirteenth Step by A Perfect Circle, I haven't heard all of Bowie's Ziggy Stardust, but I'm sure there are those who would agree with me. IMO this isn't the case with Machina/The Machines of God by Smashing Pumpkins, Chris Gaines (I had to throw that in there, Family Guy reminded me of it.) There was a time I would have said I could consider Marilyn Manson album such as Antichrist superstar or Mechanical Animals good concept albums. I think that, while the themes and concepts of those albums are very well orchestrated, the music itself isn't as good to me today as it once was. To me, this is not the case with DSOTM.

 

[roadtonowhere08]

DSOTM is, to me, an absolute classic. Even though there are parts that sound a tiny bit dated, every time I listen to it, I feel like I am listening to a new album. The topics in songs like Time, Money, and Us and Them are relevant now and for the foreseeable future. I don't know what it is about this album. Mark my words, this album will be popular until the end of humanity.

 

[rincewind]

It's all about what it was in the day, not as much what it is today. Today, there is a lot more varied and strange music. But back then it was a pretty original sound and "a trip". It's like how I was watching a video of the Hindenburg burning last night, and thought "meh, just a blimp going up in smoke...", BUT back then, it was a massive feat of engineering and what happened was catastrophic and appauling. It's all time and place and relativity

 

[Crazy88]

I can see how people love this album, but I am myself sick of it. Heard it many times growing up, and now I'm just overexposed to it. Especially how many stoners/potheads love the album.

Essentially, the album is overrated, but it's hard for it not to be w/ it's hype. It's kindof a compliment. Same with the Beatles, overrated but they can't help it. Not to say I hate the stuff, I love the Beatles and completely respect DSOTM, but they are overrated.

 

[jesselussier]

Quote:

Originally Posted by VicAjax /img/forum/go_quote.gif 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).

I noticed you didn't respectfully disagree with the rest of my post, lol.

Good point though, what I should have said was "some people argue that it was a turning point in electronic music and some music critics use Dark Side of the Moon as a reference point in the transition from blues rock to electronic music."

 

[VicAjax]

Quote:

Originally Posted by jesselussier /img/forum/go_quote.gif I noticed you didn't respectfully disagree with the rest of my post, lol.

no, i respectfully agree with the last line of your post.

Quote:

Good point though, what I should have said was "some people argue that it was a turning point in electronic music and some music critics use Dark Side of the Moon as a reference point in the transition from blues rock to electronic music."

the mainstream success of DSOTM is pretty much the essence of its impact. it was the first prog-rock album to break through commercially, so it deserves at least some of its notoriety.

in this, it can be compared to Nirvana's Nevermind. Nirvana was by no means a pioneering band. they were simply the first indy rock/post punk/grunge act to break through and garner massive, mainstream commercial appeal.

 

[Aman]

Quote:

Originally Posted by immtbiker /img/forum/go_quote.gif I would say that top 40 would be the albums and music that people would use to stretch their popularity and likability and perhaps, legitimacy. DSOTM is the antithesis of that. I would really be interested in hearing the qualities of a person, that you would consider musically-dumb. Would you say a person who grew up in another part of the world that was never exposed to complicated rock or jazz tunes, "Musically-dumb"? If we were brought into their cultures and isolated with their culture's music, would we be "musically dumb"? Another harsh comment from the highly intellectual (self proclaimed) member that seems like it can be insulting to most people here. But that's OK. Everyone is allowed to express themselves as long as they don't slander others. Wait a minute... isn't calling someone musically dumb, borderline slanderous? Hmmm!

It seems like you're much more interested in debating semantics than responding to what I actually said. Is somebody offended by my opinion and desperately trying to rebut it by questioning my terminology?

Try replacing "musically-dumb" with "inexperienced", "ignorant", or anything else. It's all the same. The point I made was that Dark Side of the Moon often serves as an object of false legitimacy - that if somebody owns/knows this album, then they must really really know what they're talking about. It's a pretty good album with a decent amount of musical talent in it, and happened to stay on the top-selling charts for more than a decade. This is the perfect candidate for somebody trying to "impress" someone else with their musical knowledge.

How is Dark Side of the Moon the antithesis of the top 40 charts? It roamed this chart for over a decade! It's one of the most-sold albums of all time. I'm not entirely sure how to respond to this. Pink Floyd is in generally an overrated band. Their engineers did a great deal of work for them in the field they're most recognized for - studio production technology. As musicians, Gilmore and Waters both did some interesting stuff with extended technique, Syd Barrett much more so. Waters is perhaps one of the most undeserving, pretentious musicians alive, however - anybody who calls his lyrical work fascinating needs to read a good book. His "themes" and "stories" resemble one-dimensional crappy poems that teenagers write to expel the moronic "dreads" of high school life. The later Pink Floyd albums are the musical equivalent to "Waking Life" (not DSotM).

 

[Agent Kang]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aman /img/forum/go_quote.gif Pink Floyd is in generally an overrated band

Pink Floyd is an ok band. Decent music, catchy tunes every now and then. Nothing special in my books.

 

[subharmonic]

It's a classic - end of. One of those albums everyone should have, just from an educational perspective.

 

[Febs]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aman /img/forum/go_quote.gif As musicians, Gilmore and Waters both did some interesting stuff with extended technique, Syd Barrett much more so.

If by Roger Waters' "extended technique," you mean "having David Gilmour play his parts for him," I suppose I would agree with you. While you can debate the merits of his music and lyrics, there is nothing pioneering about Roger Waters' bass playing.

As for the DSOTM album, it's one of my favorites.