Best Pink Floyd Album

[Thorngrub]

ded said:

thorny said:

He means if you pull your head out yer ass, you might hear it !

Yeah, that's probably it. If we're lucky he'll tell us how much he likes Bike.

I'VE got a bike U can ride it if you like it's got a little brass bell and lots of things to make it look good.

I'd give it to you if I could but I borrowed it ;D

[Thorngrub]

rockysigman said:

thorny said:

Yeah, I dunno about the Indy -influence thing, but it's a fact that WILCO were heavily influenced by the Floyd, whether Rocky likes it or not ;b

Not really. I mean, I know you cited them covering a song at some point, but that doesn't prove influence any more than it proves that they just like that song. If you could point out some stuff in Wilco's music that sounds like Floyd I'll give a little more credence to this but until then I think it's BS.

Fair enough.


Although to be honest - I believe musicians (such as Jeff Tweedy, to name just one example) that began their careers in the mid-90s, and who were born in the mid -60s (as Jeff & I both were), I just think its quite difficult to escape having been influenced by the Floyd, period.

Also: I don't believe that to "be influenced" by a band requires that you necessarily write material in any way shape or form like that band. I believe that simply having been exposed - and, more to the point, liking said band - is enough to justify an "influence" if it helps get you up off your ass into forming your own band.

In that respect, I virtually guarantee you that Jeff Tweedy can cite Pink Floyd as one of his influences. Perhaps not in a conscious, "trying to be like them" way, but as someone who enjoyed their music and decided they, too, could form a band, I have to say that counts for being "influential".

[RocDoc]

_{I tend to think that age is a disadvantage went it comes to reviewing artforms that came out in your lifetime. Someone who was thirteen in the heyday of Pink Floyd and a total mark for them may never, ever be able to objectively critique their albums. No more than a huge chunk of my generation will ever be able to properly rate something like Weezer's Blue Album.}

I don't think anyone who really LOVES music is ever able to fashion 'objective', a truly objective criticism of music, period.
Well, outside of perhaps being a music academic, obsessed with tones and quarter tones, or maybe reviewing stuff that's outside the genres you're most passionate about.
The best music calculates itself purely in order to GET an emotional response.
'The gut' as they say.
NO-one distances themselves enough when a piece of music jangles their nerves the right way and the Limbic System responds, with the concomitant autonomic nervous system overload makes you say 'Oh shit, that is so fucking cool' through a set of honkin' goosebumps.
Objectivity?
Flew out the MFin' winder... so forget objective criticism altogether.
If you love music.

_{It's hard to do when you were so caught up in the heat of the moment. If you can't strip a band of your personal sentimentality and collection of fond memories, you can't look at that band objectively. Not to say that there's anything wrong with feelings of nostalgia that music gives you- they're probably the best thing music has going for it. But the "you had to be there" argument is totally bogus. It should be the other way around.}

If it's music that mattered to you, you are supposed to get 'caught up in the heat of the moment', aren't you?

Tell me you don't have that happen, Luke.
See? No, you can't.

Never have I said (again, I'm addressing that post like you're talking to me personally, oops sorry) that 'you had to be there' to have a valid opinion on whatever 'Classix' you wanna discuss, BUT only to bring out that for me it was reallyreallyREALLY fucking COOL to be there.

Erm,
No-one here envies Phil for having seen the Beatles in Montreal, not even just a little?

And for real, it's going to tint my view differently AND that it is still going to have 'historical' perspective firmly intertwined because I was intensely interested in this shit and informed for my age.

The Hendrix In Sweden thing in 1967 is the best example I can cite as to my already being an avowed rock guitar fanatic, and this crazy guy comes on, during the infancy of FM radio, late at night...and like that VU story people talk about, where all those who bought the (crappy, oops!) first album went out and started bands, I talked to like-minded music fans my own age across the city who actually heard THAT same broadcast that same night and had the same 'WHA?!" reaction that I did.

~

I guess the question here that I'm putting out is:

IS there such a thing as real 'objective' criticism of something that is all ABOUT tugging at your emotional strings?

[luke]

Oh yeah, like I said in the post, getting "caught up in the heat of the moment" is the best thing about music. It's stupid to even listen if you're just gonna spout objectivity.

But it's like that with all art. It's pointless without emotion, but a big mess without objectivity.

I mean, try and apply this to literature. You need that guy there to say, "Whoa, waitaminute, I know you love this stuff, but Ernest Hemingway is better than Stephen King whether you like it or not."

[Galactus]

rocdoc said:

I guess the question here that I'm putting out is:

IS there such a thing as real 'objective' criticism of something that is all ABOUT tugging at your emotional strings?

I don't think it has to be an either/or answer. Why can't you discuss rock music and it's effects in an academic manner? Like I said the other day music is both personal and universal and can be viewed from both ends. I think it comes down to question of whether or not you want to view it objectively. True, it's never purely objective as with any art. Obviously a question of "good" vs. "bad" will always be subjective but a band's influence twenty years vs. it's influence today is relatively observable.

[kmc]

There is objective criticism of all art. This is a discussion I had with louee back in the RS boards, when she used to spout off her opinion that her arguments for the superiority of Britney Spears were as valid as anyone's arguments for the superiority of, say, The Beatles, because really, it was all subjective. That's not valid. We all know that to be invalid.

The reason that is so is because, regardless of how louee might feel about BS or I might feel about Zeppelin or thorn might feel about TOOL, there are objective criteria concerning the judgment of all art. These are, of course, man made criteria, but they are there nonetheless.

These criteria don't speak to whether or not people can enjoy anything. or whether or not something is GOOD. But they do speak to whether or not something is original, influential, timeless, or whatever you want to call it. Fact is, I've caught myself tapping my feet to Jet's "Are You Gonna Be My Girl"...but I would never, ever claim it to be anything beyond the lame rip off of "Lust For Life" which it is. This is how art is judged.

So no, I can't sit here and tell you, objectively, whether Pink Floyd is good or not. But we can discuss whether or not they are still relevant in any way, whether through their influence or whatever else you feel like discussing. Perspective, as always, is important.

[RocDoc]

Criteria. Objective criteria.
Even THOSE (or their selection) will tend toward the subjective.

Record sales/popularity we already have established is 'for shit' as criteria.

I'll posit:
Relevance = Can you (or large/significant groups of others) get OFF on something.

Even 30 years after the fact.

Even if you don't.
'Get off' on them, that is.

Fuck-all else matters when it's all said.

Even it leaves you sitting on the outside of some such 'phenomenon' scratching your head.
At that point YOU become irrelevant.

Happens to everyone at LOTS of points in their lives.
And generally you just laugh it off and say 'Those people are nuts'

[kmc]

But if that's the case, RocDoc, we can just quit having these discussions about the merits of bands altogether. And that almost defeats the purpose of being a rock and roll nerd and having a rock and roll nerd board.

[Fuzznuts]

I think you just became irrelevant, Kenny.

[Thorngrub]

I thought what RocDoc brought up was quite relevant. And I agree w/Roc, there is no real way to listen to/appreciate music objectively. UNLESS . . . one were to do so with the dry, sterile, loftier than thou academia of some soulless, withered crone, that is. Talk about taking all the JOY - the essence of wtf music is in the first place ! my my

rocdoc said:

I don't think anyone who really LOVES music is ever able to fashion 'objective', a truly objective criticism of music, period.

100% agreed

rocdoc said:

Well, outside of perhaps being a music academic, obsessed with tones and quarter tones, or maybe reviewing stuff that's outside the genres you're most passionate about.

Just like I said at the beginning of this post . . .

rocdoc said:

The best music calculates itself purely in order to GET an emotional response.
'The gut' as they say.
NO-one distances themselves enough when a piece of music jangles their nerves the right way and the Limbic System responds, with the concomitant autonomic nervous system overload makes you say 'Oh shit, that is so fucking cool' through a set of honkin' goosebumps.
Objectivity?
Flew out the MFin' winder... so forget objective criticism altogether.
If you love music.

Well said, Roc. I'd have to think that if one were to disagree w/this .. . they're just in "automatic reject RocDoc" mode. It's sad, really . . . for what you have said seems indisputable, to me.

rocdoc said:

If it's music that mattered to you, you are supposed to get 'caught up in the heat of the moment', aren't you?

Yes.

rocdoc said:

Never have I said (again, I'm addressing that post like you're talking to me personally, oops sorry) that 'you had to be there' to have a valid opinion on whatever 'Classix' you wanna discuss, BUT only to bring out that for me it was reallyreallyREALLY fucking COOL to be there.

I feel this way as well. Not that I was "there", mind you, when the REAL awesomeness was bloomin, the way Phil was when he saw the Beatles or Roc was when he heard that Hendrix broadcast. And HELL YES I envy both of you guys !
I only wish I could've seen the REAL Pink Floyd, performing THE WALL, for instance. That would've been rad. So yeah, I envy Phil for seein the Beatles, for damn sho'.

rocdoc said:

I guess the question here that I'm putting out is:

IS there such a thing as real 'objective' criticism of something that is all ABOUT tugging at your emotional strings?

The short answer: NO

(again, not unless you want to wander into conceited, stuffy, ACADEMIA lala land . . . or "rockjism", or something like that)

"What have we here, laddie? Mysterious scribblings? A secret code? No! Poems, no less! Poems, everybody! "Money get back / I'm all right, Jack / Keep your hands off my stack / New car / Caviar / Four star daydream / Think I'll buy me a football team" Absolute rubbish, laddie! Now get back to your work!"

[Kensterberg]

kmc said:

But if that's the case, RocDoc, we can just quit having these discussions about the merits of bands altogether. And that almost defeats the purpose of being a rock and roll nerd and having a rock and roll nerd board.

This could lead me to question my entire existence.

If I kill myself, it's all you guys' fault. Rock and roll isn't just music, it's a religion -- and Pink Floyd are false gods!

[kmc]

Holzman, you can't say that here! No way!

[kmc]

fuzznuts said:

I think you just became irrelevant, Kenny.

Apparently. Guess I'll go give Wowee Zowee another spin, then.

[Galactus]

I have no idea why you'd have to stop enjoying music to simply look at the big picture. I enjoy music plenty. I also love the Lemonheads, seriously they're one of my all time favorite bands. I love the music, I love singing along in the car and it reminds of good times. Still I acknowledge they are not a historically important band. How is that not objective? How is that taking the joy out of it?

[Galactus]

BTW, for me part of the joy is learning everything I can about a band and trying to put them in the context of that larger picture.