Pink Floyd

favourite Pink Floyd album is

  • Piper at the Gates of Dawn

  • Saucerful of Secrets

  • More

  • Ummagumma

  • Atom Heart Mother

  • Meddle

  • Obscured by Clouds

  • Dark Side of the Moon

  • Wish you were here

  • Animals

  • The Wall

  • The Final Cut

  • A Momentary lapse of Reason

  • The Division Bell

  • Endless River

  • Alan Parker's The Wall film

  • Relics

  • Works

  • Zabriskie Point soundtrack

  • impossible to choose...on toast

Results are only viewable after voting.
Status
Not open for further replies.
dholliday said:
I guess it depends where you get your figures from. Let's just call all of them sales behemoths.

But when you say Floyd haven't sold much since The Wall, you don't mean time-wise...their albums sales are constantly high. I guess you mean the albums post-Wall haven't sold much, and arguably The Wall was the last Pink Floyd album proper.





I granted Bowie in my earlier post, he even did a Drum-n-Bass album...but Radiohead? Don't make us laugh. I really like them, they're maybe in my top 10 favourite musicians, I could easily name 20 songs as favourites...but in comparison to Floyd they're about as ambitious as Status Quo:

- no songs longer than 6 minutes and no genuinely-proggy structures, with one famous exception: Paranoid Android.
- very little avant-garde experimentation when compared with the Floyd discography.
- very few instrumentals.
- only one main singer, who after a while does sound a bit samey, as good as he obviously is.
- some albums sound alike to each other, they have had the same sound since In Rainbows: that over-reverberated sheen. It's very lush, but not ambitious. Jonny Greenwood alone is more ambitious than his band.
Click to expand...

Definitely - The Final cut was 90% a Waters solo album - Momentary lapse, Division Bell and Endless River are a totally different entity - Similar to post Fish Marillion same name - almost same line up - very different music
 
roydo said:
What? You said they are the greatest rock band ever. They are not. They are not even a rock band.
Click to expand...

they were rockier than the Beatles and they're called a rock band. Pink Floyd has a lead-guitarist, a bass-guitarist, a keyboarder (normal back then for rock bands) and a drummer. That's very much a rock band.

The Nile Song, One of these Days, Lucifer Sam, Money, On The Run, Not Now John and tons more...all very rock.
 
dholliday said:
they were rockier than the Beatles and they're called a rock band. Pink Floyd has a lead-guitarist, a bass-guitarist, a keyboarder (normal back then for rock bands) and a drummer. That's very much a rock band.

The Nile Song, One of these Days, Lucifer Sam, Money, On The Run, Not Now John and tons more...all very rock.
Click to expand...

You appear to have a banker’s appreciation of history
 
dholliday said:
tell me more about these digital-prog instrumental albums from Radiohead
Click to expand...

It would be easier to start from the beginning--the beginning of modern rock music--which are the Beatles. Once you understand this you will begin to understand other aspects of the history of modern music.

Judging by the standards you set before, they meet all of your preferences except maybe one: songs longer than 6 minutes. That, of course, is a classic/prog rock obsession that few others (except fans of classical music) share.

As to avant-garde experimentation, the Beatles blazed the trail for this in rock music.

As to instrumentals, this is a herring, not belonging to mainstream rock, but they did dabble in this.

The Beatles, of course, were famous for two singers, but had more than these.

And the progression of their albums is quite remarkable. Even those that "sound the same" have quite a bit between them.

Now, the Beatles aren't "rocky" enough for you, although you live in a different era and have a different preference in music. There's nothing particularly wrong with prog-rock, but I would argue that punk is more mainstream and accessible than prog, and more of a direct descendent among the rock sub-genres. And I'm no huge fan of the sort of "stadium rock" that Oasis produce, but they're a cleaner and more direct representation of "pop" rock than any prog bands.

So while Floyd was remarkable, they're much more narrow in their ambition because and so the appeal of their music is much less broad. They're very much like radiohead in this regard--very experimental, a blending or merging of styles, but not "mainstream" rock in any sense.

And nobody is interested in long, meandering instrumentals since 1988 or so. Even Metallica cut their hair short (and also their songs) when they realized that prog/metal had passed them by been passed by. There were still curators of the art, people like Tool, but its appeal had become even more narrow than ever.

But if you want modern experimentation, narrative within music, the sort of stuff that you're ascribing to Floyd, you will look to radiohead as their heir--not in sound but in essence. And radiohead wasn't digital, of course, not like Kraftwerk, but they produced digital sounding analog music, a merging of the two sounds fitting for its time.

But Floyd are the best "rock" band ever? Please stop. Leave those kids alone.
 
Last edited:
SerenityNigh said:
It would be easier to start from the beginning--the beginning of modern rock music--which are the Beatles. Once you understand this you will begin to understand other aspects of the history of modern music.

Judging by the standards you set before, they meet all of your preferences except maybe one: songs longer than 6 minutes. That, of course, is a classic/prog rock obsession that few others (except fans of classical music) share.

As to avant-garde experimentation, the Beatles blazed the trail for this in rock music.

As to instrumentals, this is a herring, not belonging to mainstream rock, but they did dabble in this.

The Beatles, of course, were famous for two singers, but had more than these.

And the progression of their albums is quite remarkable. Even those that "sound the same" have quite a bit between them.

Now, the Beatles aren't "rocky" enough for you, although you live in a different era and have a different preference in music. There's nothing particularly wrong with prog-rock, but I would argue that punk is more mainstream and accessible than prog, and more of a direct descendent among the rock sub-genres. And I'm no huge fan of the sort of "stadium rock" that Oasis produce, but they're a cleaner and more direct representation of "pop" rock than any prog bands.

So while Floyd was remarkable, they're much more narrow in their ambition because and so the appeal of their music is much less broad. They're very much like radiohead in this regard--very experimental, a blending or merging of styles, but not "mainstream" rock in any sense.

And nobody is interested in long, meandering instrumentals since 1988 or so. Even Metallica cut their hair short (and also their songs) when they realized that prog/metal had passed them by been passed by. There were still curators of the art, people like Tool, but its appeal had become even more narrow than ever.

But if you want modern experimentation, narrative within music, the sort of stuff that you're ascribing to Floyd, you will look to radiohead as their heir--not in sound but in essence. And radiohead wasn't digital, of course, not like Kraftwerk, but they produced digital sounding analog music, a merging of the two sounds fitting for its time.

But Floyd are the best "rock" band ever? Please stop. Leave those kids alone.
Click to expand...

Did you like that Doc? I tried real hard to sound impressive.
 
SerenityNigh said:
It would be easier to start from the beginning--the beginning of modern rock music--which are the Beatles. Once you understand this you will begin to understand other aspects of the history of modern music.

Judging by the standards you set before, they meet all of your preferences except maybe one: songs longer than 6 minutes. That, of course, is a classic/prog rock obsession that few others (except fans of classical music) share.

As to avant-garde experimentation, the Beatles blazed the trail for this in rock music.

As to instrumentals, this is a herring, not belonging to mainstream rock, but they did dabble in this.

The Beatles, of course, were famous for two singers, but had more than these.

And the progression of their albums is quite remarkable. Even those that "sound the same" have quite a bit between them.

Now, the Beatles aren't "rocky" enough for you, although you live in a different era and have a different preference in music. There's nothing particularly wrong with prog-rock, but I would argue that punk is more mainstream and accessible than prog, and more of a direct descendent among the rock sub-genres. And I'm no huge fan of the sort of "stadium rock" that Oasis produce, but they're a cleaner and more direct representation of "pop" rock than any prog bands.

So while Floyd was remarkable, they're much more narrow in their ambition because the appeal of their music is much less broad. They're very much like radiohead in this regard--very experimental, a blending or merging of styles, but not "mainstream" rock in any sense.

And nobody is interested in long, meandering instrumentals since 1988 or so. Even Metallica cut their hair short (and also their songs) when they realized that prog/metal had passed them by. There were still curators of the art, people like Tool, but its appeal had become even more narrow than ever.

But if you want modern experimentation, narrative within music, the sort of stuff that you're ascribing to Floyd, you will look to radiohead as their heir--not in sound but in essence. And radiohead wasn't digital, of course, not like Kraftwerk, but they produced digital sounding analog music, a merging of the two sounds fitting for its time.

But Floyd are the best "rock" band ever? Please stop.
Click to expand...

I like long posts, even if i don't agree! always good to read someone thinking about things.

My favourite Metallica is Justice For All which is them at their most proggy & instrumental, and my favourite Floyd song is the 23-minute instrumental Atom Heart Mother. Then you've got all those 70's Krautrock bands with very long instrumentals (Cosmic Jokers etc). I guess 80% of the musik I listen to is instrumental what with electronic music, classical-minimal, jazz and whatnot. Check out one of my favourite pieces ever...it's long, meandering, but oh my so beautiful...there's no words...just masses of goosepimps




also up there, and very influential in how i think and feel about existence...also no words required:




and this killer underrated evocative loveliness:




plus i listen to a lot of this very tasty stuff when i want power, it's more metal than metal:

 
so yeah, Radiohead with their (relatively) samey songs have a long way to go until they're as musically-ambitious as some of the above.

As I said earlier, Jonny Greenwood is on the right track...he's a fan of Pärt too.
 
SerenityNigh said:
no ambition? I think they proved what they are by now, but I might be wrong







Click to expand...


i did say i was a big fan, mate...maybe you missed it x

Radiohead are brilliant, their powers have dulled lately, but Kid A, Amnesiac, Thief & In Rainbows is a hell of a run. OK Computer has lost a lot of sparkle in the wake of those 4 albums. It's even a little boring in comparison.

When we're talking ambition, it's all relative:

Oasis ambition level 2
Blur ambition level 3
Radiohead ambition level 6 (respect for the post-OK Computer direction, but they've stalled now)
Mansun ambition level 7 (concept album as debut, then very proggy lengthy songs for the 'difficult' second album which even had an opera piece with Tom Baker narrating a dark poem)

Pink Floyd ambition level 10

So when comparing Radiohead with most of their Britpop peers they're hugely more ambitious, but when comparing them even to Mansun you see where Radiohead have fallen short in ambition. Nowhere close to the Floyd.

Saying that, some Radioheads are up there with any musik ever made...sensational vibes in Like Spinning Plates, Pyramid Song, We Suck Young Blood, Weird Fishes, How To Disappear and going way back Street Spirit never loses its awesome power.
 
tenor.gif
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Welcome

Join the Everton conversation today.
Fewer ads, full access, completely free.

→ Log in 🔑 Register
🛒 Visit Shop

Support Grand Old Team by checking out our latest Everton gear!
Back
Top