[The_X]

Actually, this topic reminded me of how much I used to love PF back in high school, when I used to smoke a lot of weed. DSOTM is still an amazing album, but I think I have to agree with goldenratiophi that Wish You Were Here is even better. DSOTM absolutely blew me away when I first heard it, but WYWH continues to get better with each listen.

 

[Hermitt]

you have to watch the interviews with Roger and the rest of the band that are on the DVD, 'The Making Of' for the why Money was included. The album is very political and every piece on it was there for a statement. It was a very bold album for the way that the state of the nations were at that time in history.

 

[Seidhepriest]

Here's another "why" - it's the most widely available and known 96/24 reference album

 

[Seidhepriest]

Quote:

Originally Posted by hciman77 /img/forum/go_quote.gif Call me skeptical but I didnt think that there was any recording anywhere with a 144db range?, with ambient noise apart from some really loud rock concerts I would have though it unlikely that any musical performance would have an actual range of more than 96db? The original 1970s tapes could only have had a dynamic range of 70 - 80 db at best? Playing back a SACD with 144db range is sure to annoy all your neighbours - with the normal ambient noise being 15 - 25db the peaks are going to be at ~ 160db, ear bleeding on headphones and wall shaking on speakers

It's a matter of resolution. 24-bit sounds livelier than 16-bit, closer to reality. 16-bit tends to introduce errors of all kind (16-bit transforms muddy up, "blur" sounding - just compare Foobar2000 stock MP3 decoder in 32-bit mode to Winamp stock 16-bit MPEG decoder), there's not much space for the sample coordinate grid with 16-bit values.

Here's a simple introduction to dithering and 16-bit/24-bit.

 

[VicAjax]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zarathustra19 /img/forum/go_quote.gif As someone earlier said, its generational. There are several key albums released in the 70's which attained an almost religious status with those around when they were released. We can see it happening now with some prog groups. If you go request recommendations for Progressive metal in this forum, you'll no doubt be recommended something by Opeth, because they are one of the best prog metal bands around right now, in twenty or thirty years, people will be asking why so many people love Opeth, and it will be considered overrated by those who weren't around when music hadn't felt the influence of it yet. Same with Pink Floyd, they were new and exciting.

i don't necessarily agree that it's generational. i came of age in the 80s, yet i still listen to a lot of music from the 70s, and DSOTM just doesn't do a thing for me. there's plenty of 70s music that were -- or should have been -- considered as "new" and "exciting" as Pink Floyd: Zappa, CAN, Big Star, Funkadelic, Sparks, The Clash, MC5, Beefheart... the list goes on and on.

sure there's plenty for DSOTM fans to crow about, as there is much innovation and experimentation...

but when you come down to it, the secret of DSOTM's legendary status comes down to the fact that it's innovative while still being accessible to mainstream listeners.

Quote:

Originally Posted by uraflit /img/forum/go_quote.gif question is: who were the 80s, 90s, and present groups with similar status?

status? status is a bit overrated, dontcha think? pop music of the later decades became much more fractured and subcategorized, so it's impossible to name a band with the mostly irrelevant honor of "status."

but there are many, many bands that have been as creatively fruitful.

 

[Superpredator]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pibborando /img/forum/go_quote.gif I personally think Money is way out of place on DSotM. All the tracks have such ambiance and flow together and feel like a cohesive whole EXCEPT Money. It comes out of nowhere and feels too "songy" for a concept album like DSotM. It's a fine Pink Floyd song on its own, but I think it interrupts an otherwise flawless journey. The theme and lyrics are also somewhat more cliche than what I expect from Pink Floyd.

Money works well for the munchkin scene.

 

[zumaro]

Quote:

Originally Posted by VicAjax /img/forum/go_quote.gif i don't necessarily agree that it's generational. i came of age in the 80s, yet i still listen to a lot of music from the 70s, and DSOTM just doesn't do a thing for me. there's plenty of 70s music that were -- or should have been -- considered as "new" and "exciting" as Pink Floyd: Zappa, CAN, Big Star, Funkadelic, Sparks, The Clash, MC5, Beefheart... the list goes on and on.

x2 for me - I was a teenager when DSOTM came out and it didn't do anything for me then, and time doesn't make it sound any less dull, pretentious and mainstream to these ears. Compared to Funkadelic/Parliament who I loved, let alone Can who could wipe the floor with Pink Floyd conceptually and instrumentally, I remain a total non-believer. I too ask "Why does everyone like Dark Side of the Moon" so much, or for that matter anything else by them?

There are many many artists in the 80s, 90s and present who are both creatively much more fruitful and of similar status. To name but one mainstream mega-success, I would rather have one Prince single like Kiss, than the whole Pink Floyd oeuvre.

 

[hciman77]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Seidhepriest /img/forum/go_quote.gif It's a matter of resolution. 24-bit sounds livelier than 16-bit, closer to reality. 16-bit tends to introduce errors of all kind (16-bit transforms muddy up, "blur" sounding - just compare Foobar2000 stock MP3 decoder in 32-bit mode to Winamp stock 16-bit MPEG decoder), there's not much space for the sample coordinate grid with 16-bit values. Here's a simple introduction to dithering and 16-bit/24-bit.

but, as has been discussed elsewhere, there is evidence to suggest that a DVD-A or SACD to 16/44.1 downsample i.e AD/DA degrading stage produces no readily audible difference under normal circumstaces with even critical listeners. 16M levels is great and probably better for recording and mixing but at the point of delivery it may be superfluous. The AES back in the 1980s even demonstrated that the presence of brickwall filters at 18K and 16K was next to impossible to detect even when playing material with 20K+ components. Ivor Tiefenbrun couldnt detect a SONY PCM-F1 inserted into the analog stage from a turntable. Dont get me wrong, big numbers are great but sometimes they are just numbers...

 

[Relayer71]

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

Because it is well written, produced, performed. Why else?

They're not one of my favorite bands nor is DSOTM my favorite album but I will say it is one of the most perfect albums ever made - it just flows so well from beginning to end.

None of the songs sound like afterthoughts or throwaways.

The music is interesting and "progressive" but still grounded heavily in pop/blues making it very accessible and musically "digestible".

Even the cover artwork is perfect.

 

[tru blu]

Quote:

Originally Posted by zumaro /img/forum/go_quote.gif Compared to Funkadelic/Parliament who I loved, let alone Can who could wipe the floor with Pink Floyd conceptually and instrumentally, I remain a total non-believer.

I've already said my piece about Dark Side (nay), but boy, is it great to hear folks stick up for George Clinton. I saw Parliament at that time (first concert ever; I was 12), and I can't think of another band of the period with such conceptual reach, i.e., the ability to put big ideas out there with humor and such far-reaching music (please, nobody say Zappa). Somebody else rightfully mentioned Prince as an example of an important artist of the '80s and beyond…now just think…would there be a Prince without George? It's undoubtedly a matter of personal taste, but I can't think of a latter-day band I wanna hear that's influenced by Floyd. (Do I have to say that the Easy Dub All-Stars or whatever-they're-called don't count?)

 

[VicAjax]

Quote:

Originally Posted by tru blu /img/forum/go_quote.gif I've already said my piece about Dark Side (nay), but boy, is it great to hear folks stick up for George Clinton. I saw Parliament at that time (first concert ever; I was 12), and I can't think of another band of the period with such conceptual reach, i.e., the ability to put big ideas out there with humor and such far-reaching music (please, nobody say Zappa). Somebody else rightfully mentioned Prince as an example of an important artist of the '80s and beyond…now just think…would there be a Prince without George? It's undoubtedly a matter of personal taste, but I can't think of a latter-day band I wanna hear that's influenced by Floyd. (Do I have to say that the Easy Dub All-Stars or whatever-they're-called don't count?)

i'm right with you on the Parlifunkadelicament thing (Zappa

)...

but as much as i'm not a PF fan, i can think of a latter-day band that i like to hear that's influenced by Floyd: The Flaming Lips.

 

[gnychis]

i absolutely love dark side of the moon... its riveting to me in so many ways. It musically flows from start to finish, and the songs have so much energy in them that is hard to find in music today. Listening to songs like "The Great Gig in the Sky" and "Eclipse" give me the chills. The flow of the last 3 tracks is just amazing. It just builds up and up, then Eclipse slaps you in the face and its over.

It's very hard to explain what I find in the album, but i feel its a musical and lyrical masterpiece. And I'm not saying that because I'm a classical rock freak, or a Pink Floyd freak... In fact I love electronic music, and this is probably the only classical rock album that I like. The Wall had its songs, but it had no where near the connection Dark Side did.

 

[tru blu]

Quote:

Originally Posted by VicAjax /img/forum/go_quote.gif But as much as i'm not a PF fan, i can think of a latter-day band that i like to hear that's influenced by Floyd: The Flaming Lips.

Gold star! Love Wayne Coyne, though Floyd isn't the band that comes to mind when I think of the Lips—probably because I've been listening to them since they had more in common with the Butthole Surfers. I stand corrected. Floyd is most definitely part of their current mix. Now there's a neat trick: Prog-gy punks.

 

[VicAjax]

Quote:

Originally Posted by tru blu /img/forum/go_quote.gif Gold star! Love Wayne Coyne, though Floyd isn't the band that comes to mind when I think of the Lips—probably because I've been listening to them since they had more in common with the Butthole Surfers. I stand corrected. Floyd is most definitely part of their current mix. Now there's a neat trick: Prog-gy punks.

me too... my little rock band in high school used to do a cover of "Everything's Exploding"... and the soundtrack to my first acid trip was Hear It Is.

but even back then, they talked about how Floyd was a big influence.

edit: i think the Meat Puppets and Ween were Floydies, as well.

 

[tygger]

I always thought DSOTM is a bit overestimated.
Maybe because the first Pink Floyd album I heard was Animals. I remember listening to the Dogs on a reel2reel back in 1981 following the lyrics from a handwritten copy. An Orwellian masterpiece in quite an Orwellian context. The feeling of frustration and pointlessness of any move against a dull gray wall of the State. It may seem naive but I seriosly think this music has given me something really important and that something is still inside me.
And I don't mind giving DSOTM a listen now and again. The 5.1 SACD version reminded me how we dreamt of Quadro sound systems back in school...