|
Album Rating: 4.5 | Sound Off
[quote=vicy]I would like to see if anyone would be able to come to a LOGICAL conclusion as to why the music is good because it is creative, rather than because it was a popular purchase.[/quote]
I enjoy listening to DSOTM for a lot of reasons. First off I really enjoy the whole atmosphere of the album. Some tracks have a psychadelic, trippy feel (Breathe, Any Colour you Like) while others have some nice soloing (Money, Time.)
I think the album is creative because it has so much range. 'The Great Gig in the Sky' is the soul influenced piano driven track with some superb women vocals. The track following that is a jazzy guitar driven song. I just love how much range this album has and that's why I always come back to it.
That's my two cents, for what it's worth.
| | |
vicy_77 I really take to offense that you assume that everyone was stoned at the time. You didn't live in that era so you wouldn't know, no matter what you think. This is my uncle's favorite band of all time and my uncle absolutely loves this album but never took an illegal substance in his life. He is a physics teacher at a university and he is no hippie what so ever. I LOVE psychedellia in general but i have never taken any drug myself. I prefer the pre-Gilmour material over the latter stuff though i will not argue that this is not good. It is really good in fact. i just prefer the early stuff. Oh and the guitars are clean for almost the whole album, exept for the solos, there is just alot of abient sounds added, mostly from the keyboards that might miss lead you.
| | | Album Rating: 3.5
Hey, I know not everyone was high, but I can bet you that 90% or more of the people who first bought the record listened to it high more than 3 times.
Bullshit. The album was in the charts for 14 years, 1 in 4 UK households has the album. This isn't, and wasn't, just a thing among stoners, it was a universal thing. Sure it's stereotyped as a stoner album, so what? The Beatles actually were doing tons of psychedelic drugs for some time, but everyone in the family still loved them.
| | | Album Rating: 4.5
[QUOTE=vicy_77] Hippie culture did not die easily. Obviously it was still around, as it is today. What you are thinking of is a rise of a new culture, but you forget that it did not kill hippie culture, but overshadowed it. [/QUOTE]
Of course, but what was regarded as "hippie culture" died hard by 1969. The 1970s in the US was generally regarded as a decaded in which there was a massive conservative backlash in society in reaction to hippie culture.
In any case "hippie culture", or counterculture as its called, is a dominant form of culture and that generally conflicts with the defininition of what avant-garde is.
Avant-garde implies that it is supposed to have some meaning behind it. So they used regular items of everyday life that no o.e really gives thought to. It was very Avant-garde, especially for that time.
Everything has some meaning behind it, not just Avant-garde. Like I said, Avant-garde also implies that its a form of art that is appreciated by only a small margin of society. This album was listened to by LOTS of people. That is not avant-garde. This was not Avant-garde for its time at all. Avant-garde music of this time was stuff like Sun Ra, Gentle Giant, Brian Eno. Pink Floyd in contrast is pop/arena rock.
| | | Album Rating: 4.5
As for the album being hippie like, just because it doesnt mention greed in society or other regular ideas that come from these "environmentalists," doesn't mean it was not made for that audience. The way the music is composed is the most obvious indication. I am at a loss for words on how to describe the specific sound, but hopefully you know what I mean.
You still didn't specifically explain why its "hippie like". Thus, I can only make the judgement that your basing this album on a rash generalization of what "hippies" are and what they represent. Pink Floyd was nowhere near this.
The audience was obviously high, regarding the question about this. I am pretty sure that weed and acid and other substances took a step out of poeple's lives. That is very very obvious.
Yes, that's probably very accurate, but the drug connection can be said for just about ALL music. Even country. And even then, what's your point?
On a new note, before you go attacking an opinion, I would recommend being a bit more open. If you take a step back and see where I am coming from, you might agree.
I see where you're coming form. But I think that the basis on which you argue it is flawed.
For the record I like this album because I simply think it has good songs. The production is excellent. The vocals are very fitting for the album's mood and is very expressive. The musicianship (especially the guitar solos) are very refined and at the same time not over-indulgent. The songs are arranged in a very poignant manner and flow into each other very well. I'm not a fan of concept-albums at all but I find exception to this one, as the songs by themselves stand their ground. I also find it to be very indictive of its era, so there's kind of a sociological reason for it as well.
| | |
Just a little extra info, this album STILL sells 30,000 copies a week. That means 27,000 new stoners are created every week.Oh and Galapagos, nice point about the Beatles, you dont hear people say anything about Sgt. Pepper even though The Beatles admit that they used massive amounts of drugs, in the words of John Lennon "I must have done a thousand trips!"This Message Edited On 03.28.06
| | |
Sucks for you vicy_77, getting chewed on by everyone. I praise you for deffending yourself. And I understand why you you feel skeptical. Its the internet, it's hard to trust what people say.This Message Edited On 03.28.06
| | | Album Rating: 4.5
Ok, your history about avant-garde is mostly accurate and I agree except for this part:
It is not appreciated by a small margin of people, but rather vast groups of people
No, avant-garde is meant to be appreciated by a minority. It is generally classified as "high culture" and high culture, like it or not, is a minority group. If avant-garde becomes appreciated by a vast groups of people, it entails that:
A) it is co-opting itself to the mainstream
B) Simultaneously, it is no longer avant-garde, but pop.
Theodor Adorno, a leading expert of modernism and an avant-garde composer himself back in the day, would declare Pink Floyd a worthless pop band. From his standpoint (and the rest of the Frankfurt school of thought) they would recognize Pink Floyd's simple arrangements, heavy blues and jazz influences, and easily identifiable melodies as indictive of pop music, not avant-garde. Also...
The thing about avant-garde and meaning is that everything intentionally symbolizes. Rather than it being unintentional and people give it a meaning after, avant-garde would have a purpose to each detail.
Once again, I don't see how this definition doesn't apply to pop music, as it easily can. Pop artists use symbols, metaphors, figurative language, etc. all the time to intentionally symbolize ideas, concepts, and events.
When the war rolled around, people took Avant-garde and made it into anti-war/industrial propaganda.
But avant-garde was just as much as a tool for people who sought to uphold the status-quo.
| | | Album Rating: 4.5
As for "hippie ideology", the scene itself died hard in 1969, especially after the Altamount.
The activists didn't fade away at all, they shut up for a while and avoided certain complications. Needless to say, activism against the war significantly decreased. But the numbers were still there. It only went underground.
Activism never went underground and opposition to the war never decreased. In fact, it went more mainstream and co-opted as an acceptable mode of thinking. During this period, society became more disaffected and jaded to Vietnam. Disaffection is generally not seen as a characteristic of the average Hippy, who generally preaches about peace, love, etc.
If anything, Pink Floyd's dystopian view on politics emphasizes the backlash against these idealistic notions that were prevalent in the 1960s.
Furthermore, it is a representation of Avant-garde music. We don't call it avant-garde, but rock music. It is very difficult to make the distinction when it was so long ago, since we think about avant-garde in a more modern way.
No, this is NOT avant-garde music. It is pop. This album is one of the biggest-selling, longest-charting albums in history. Avant-garde avoids this at all costs. If this album is indeed avant-garde then it is a pure anamoly. Why aren't their other major-selling avant-garde albums?
And like I said, it comparison to actual avant-garde music of this period, Pink Floyd have very little in common with such artists.
| | | Album Rating: 4.5 | Sound Off
[quote=Zesty]No, this is NOT avant-garde music. It is pop. This album is one of the biggest-selling, longest-charting albums in history. Avant-garde avoids this at all costs. If this album is indeed avant-garde then it is a pure anamoly. Why aren't their other major-selling avant-garde albums?[/quote]
I second that this is no wear near avant-garde music, but I wouldn't call this a pop album. Songs like Us and Them, Breathe, Time, and Eclipse aren't exactly what I would call pop. Oh well, it's not that big of a deal.
| | | Album Rating: 4.5
"Pink Floyd (formed in 1965 in Cambridge, England) are an English progressive rock band, noted for their avant-garde compositions, thoughtful lyrics, sonic experimentation, cover art and elaborate live shows."
http://www.last.fm/music/Pink+Floyd
That's not really an academic source. Also, what exactly are Pink Floyd's avant-garde compositions?
Avant-garde does not have to fall under specifics, necessarily. That would defeat it's purpose. It translates to "ahead of the people" so it could range in various ways.
True, but specifics are what gives identity to objects, so it is still nonethesless important. In the context of DSOTM, Pink Floyd were no longer "ahead of the people" as the massive record sales, concerts, merchandise, films, etc would suggest.
Also "Being ahead of the people" =/= "avant-garde", which brings me to my next point.
Allow an example of something avant-garde that became very well documented: Death of a Salesman. When this play was first performed, people were in shock because they never experienced anything like this. But now it is a classic tragic story. F. S. Fitzgerald was also ahead of his time. His novels did not even sell or recieve good reviews when they were writen. Yet, years after his death, his writing was said to be of great brilliance and The Great Gatsby is one of the most popular novels in American literature.
None of those are considered "avant-garde" by any standards, now or then.
| | | Album Rating: 4.5
What I am trying to say is that Avant-garde does not mean it applies to small groups.
Yes it does. That's the whole point behind Avant-garde; to be separate from the passive majority.
Pardise Now was a revolutionary performance for the French in the 60s (if I am correct on the decade). It is one of many well known (and appreciated) avant-garde pieces. Julian Beck and Judith Malina (the creators of that and several other avant-garde influences) travelled across the world with their art between the 60s and 70s. They were activist hippies. I forget the name of the video, but in a short interview with them, they tell us that they had most support around '75. They were hippie leaders, to some extent. So it becomes apparent that hippie culture surely did not die in '69. However, it did change slightly. In this video, the hippie prtestors become more violent and preach about fairness and anti-violence (which is contradictory and is a reason why I dislike hippies) rather than peace and love. The two views are very much the same, but switched from positive to the negative.
1) Yes Melina and Beck may be avant-garde, but barely anyone knows who they are. This is what makes them avant-garde.
2) I would hardly call them Hippies. They were around since the 1950s, making them more akin to the beat movement, which is quite different from Hippies. Hippies is generally the popularization of the beat movement.
3)Hippies=/=Avant-garde. Actually, its often been the opposite.
| | | Album Rating: 4.5
I would also like to add that in the last site, it says they were avant-garde, and worked from there which eventually led up to DSOM. Don't you think if they were avant-garde at one point, that the style possibly remained in them untill their very last song created? Some things just don't leave so easily, even if it fades away, there are always traces.
Yes, and this is where I'm getting at. OK, they were arguably avant-garde originally, with heavy pop influences. However, this was a result of Syd Barrett. Once Barrett left the group and was replaced by Gilmour, the band began a steady move away from the avant-garde movement and into more commercial territory. And this is why I'm baffled by you saying the DSOTM is avant-garde because the reason why the album was so successful was because it specifically marked a HUGE shift away from that kind of music and into Arena rock that would guarantee radioplay, and thus, $.
Of course, some of their original sound will remain, but DSOTM is overwhelmingly a rock record. There is of course extensive imagery, cryptic lyrics, and odd soundscapes, but the meanings behind them are somewhat obvious to the average music listener (avant-garde would not try to do this).
And like I said, most of the people that listened to this album were not hippies but the average 1970s teenager (and if we're going to make generalizations): shaggy hair (but kempt), stylish clothes, fast car, shag carpet etc. Ever seen Dazed and Confused? Those guys. Generally the opposite of hippies.This Message Edited On 03.30.06
| | | Album Rating: 5.0
Pink Floyd were never Avant Garde. Stuff like Frank Zappa, Captain Beefheart, and Sleepytime Gorilla Museum is Avant Garde (along with most of the Cantebury movement). Pink Floyd doens't fall into that category by a very long way, but they did do some quite experimental stuff (with Atom Heart Mother, mostly). But it still wasn't Avant Garde, by any standards.
| | |
I absolutely love this album. Probably my favorite Floyd album, up there with The Wall. "Time" and "Us and Them" are great songs.
| | | Album Rating: 4.5
vicy_77, there may be a perfectly good explanation for this album's success. Maybe it's actually good. Granted, "hippies" and "stoners" (of which we all know a few, surely) seem to have a less complex love for it (that is that it enhances their chosen recreational activities), but that doesn't sell an arse-load of records alone.
I know it's kinda crazy to consider, but maybe the reason everyone seems to have an orgasm at even the mention of this record, is because musically, conceptually and now historically, it's the effing shiznit.
Hmmm....
| | |
^ i agree :D
Flyod have a sound that is accessible to an incredibly vast audience.
| | | Album Rating: 5.0 | Sound Off
If I could pick one and only one album to describe life on earth it would be Dark side of the moon. This album handles issues that so called political bands of this time(U2) wouldn't touch.
One thing about this review and many other rock reviews, is that bands like Pink Floyd (that is bands that do it their own way and at their own pace, never comforming to any fad) only get good reviews from mainstream connoiseurs when the critics can listen to it once and say "this album is good". I believe that the most fulfilling music to listen to is the kind of music that you have to listen to 5-6-10 times to get what the artist is really trying to say. I think this album is one of those albums. In fact not just one of those albums bot thee album.
This album is one of a select few albums that will stand the test of time. It saddens me to think that their will be no more Dark side of the Moon's out there in the future. I will end this comment with a plea, please if you think you have possible found another darkside of the moon caliber album please notify me immediately. You may contact me at pumppumpwee@yahoo.com. I the mean time I will keep my ear to the ground waiting for the next herd of buffalo.
| | |
Ahh this is one of those albums that when recorded not only captured sound but atmosphere.
| | | Album Rating: 4.5
It's been well over a year since I heard this album last. What sticks out most is the use of the clocks. Avant-garde has various definitions and styles. All of which could be found at allmusic.com in many essays. I grant that they do not fall under avant-garde at all, I thought I made that clear. However, they do have avant-garde aspects within their music. The clocks were a major avant-garde give-away.
Firstly, I wouldn't use allmusic.com as a legit source for debating music as they tend to use broad and vague generalizations of styles and bands. As for the clocks, I wouldn't consider it an avant-garde element at all, mainly for the reason that the clocks are used in a song called "time" and they act as a literal and thinly-veiled reference to time. Avant-garde tends not to make figurative language or symbols so blatant. As well, sound effects in music generally does not mean avant-garde, pop music had done this long before Pink Floyd came around.
They experimented with many things that became revolutionary in music, but we don't place it in avant-garde, we call it something else. If you played this album in the 1600s, they would say "wtf is this?" and to them it would be avant-garde (even though the term did not exist till 1930, but im giving an example). Yet after time passed, and we come to this day, it would be classical.
Experimentation does not neccessarily mean avant-garde. Also, it wouldn't be avant-garde in the 1600s because the concept itself wasn't recognized as of yet. People in the 1600s would also never have seen cars and telephones. Does that mean that cars are avant-garde means of transportation and phones are avant-garde in term of talking?
| | | |
|
|
