I agree completely about it being "about as well-crafted as it gets". That being said, however, I just don't see how is that a significant contribution to music (as an art).

I mean, imagine reading a book on rock music history and seeing something like this:

"1966 - Bob Dylan releases Blonde on Blonde, the first double album and a milestone of folk rock genre.
1967 - The Velvet Underground arguably invent punk rock, noise rock and alternative rock.
1970 - Soft Machine release Third, an album that fuses rock with jazz in a way that Bitches Brew fuses jazz with rock.
...
1973 - Pink Floyd release The Dark Side of the Moon - a well-crafted album."

Doesn't make too much sense, does it.

Album Rating: 4.6

It doesn't make sense when you put it like that, because putting it like that is fucking stupid

Remember, we're talking about this album's contribution to music, not its quality.

Album Rating: 4.6

But the two are obviously inexorably linked, why would you even try to look at one without the other? The other three albums you listed are listed in books like that not only because they invented new genres and created new fusions but because they're fucking masterpieces. No-one would care if you went about inventing new genres every day if the work you made was critically panned by general consensus - that's just Lulu. The two concepts are essentially almost the same

Album Rating: 4.0

well this is often seen as one of the landmark albums in prog rock. also even though i don't really care for chart successes it can't be surpassed that this is like the third best-selling album of all time or something like that. it has obviously affected on a crazy amount of people

^ Lulu didn't really invent a new genre as well my friend, that's a bad example.

Listen, I don't question Dark Side's world-wide appeal. I don't even question it appearing on "best albums of all time" lists. What I question is saying it's one of the most inventive and important (for the development of rock music) albums ever. Because it's not. Listen to it if you like and like it if you like but don't tell me it's inventive, not when there are countless bands such as Red Krayola, Can, Tortoise, Public Image Ltd. that made far greater contributions to rock music but get overlooked because people trust critics too much.

Also thanks @Jacquibim, nice to see somebody on my side. :]

Album Rating: 4.6

And what I'm saying is, an album of this quality (and selling power as art points out) is inevitably going to have a major effect on the development of music whether or not it's as inventive as, say, King Crimson. Sure KC may have almost single-handedly invented prog, but Dark Side introduced it to the mainstream consciousness and essentially solidified it as one of the major genres of the 70s. It has very little to do with the style of music on the actual album and more to do with who it reaches. The same can be said for Blonde on Blonde or any other of Dylan's early stuff - they're hardly jaw-droppingly original or inventive but they're still easily amongst the most influential albums of all time because of their place in the public consciousness.



tl;dr popularity

Well firstly, it's true that Dark Side influenced many people because of it's obvious popularity, but what I'm trying to say is that a lot if it is a "fake" influence - what you credit PF with wasn't invented by PF - you just heard it there.

Secondly,
Blonde on Blonde or any other of Dylan's early stuff - they're hardly jaw-droppingly original or inventive
What??

Album Rating: 4.6

Well yeah but that's just subjective meanings for what the word important means in this context jac neither of us have a 'better' definition of what qualifies important

Album Rating: 4.6

@alter all I've credited PF with in this thread is introducing prog to the mainstream pop consciousness, which is not a fake influence at all it's very much what they did

you're right about that, although it's kinda funny given that their music barely resembles prog rock (as defined by King Crimson, Yes or Genesis)

Album Rating: 4.6

They don't have a lot in common with the original structures of prog rock agreed but genres evolve and prog rock doubly so, so it's no surprise

"genres evolve and prog rock doubly so"

I wouldn't say that.

and Dylan was definitely original c'mon Rowan.

Album Rating: 4.6

I didn't say he wasn't, but he hardly forged new genres as seems to be altertide's main qualifier for importance



this whole discussion is just subjective interpretation anyway we could go in circles for hours

I didn't say he wasn't, but he hardly forged new genres as seems to be altertide's main qualifier for importance
Lol, if you are original you're obviously important, doesn't matter if your style gets a new name or not.

this whole discussion is just subjective interpretation anyway we could go in circles for hours
Whether an album's good or not is subjective but whether it's inventive or not - come on, that's reasonably objective.

Album Rating: 5.0

as a huge Dylan lover, Rowan does have a point, many of Dylans early work especially pre Bringing it, are reworking of really early folk, or Americana tunes, the brilliance in it is not the originality but the genius reworking of something old and rewording it for a modern audience

Dylan and Floyd worked with very well established genres. But you know. Who fucking cares? They both also took those respective genres to places that were yet to be seen.

Album Rating: 5.0

my point exactly Deathschool, nobody has made a form of music that we cannot trace backward to some form or another, because musicians are not raised in a bubble, they also have influences

Dylan was original and innovative in his song writing, that much isn't debateable.

I don't think anyone here is referring to his debut or the couple of songs on his second album that were re-workings.