|
|
Post by kmc on Mar 12, 2007 12:15:26 GMT -5
I would not disagree that an appreciation for what came before is paramount to fully understand any kind of art. That said, I continue to find fault with the implied assertion that the only people worthy of truly judging Pink Floyd or Zeppelin were people who were of a certain age or mindset when that music first broke out. I am not going to go so far as to say that it is all purely subjective, because I don't believe art appreciation is truly as subjective as some claim, but to narrow down the list of plausible critics of any art form to a certain group of a certain age is ridiculous.
I guess we can go on a limb and say that Floyd was good, but not timeless?
|
|
|
|
Post by Galactus on Mar 12, 2007 12:16:11 GMT -5
Well, I never claimed to be sophisticated and it's just in contrast to all the "first time I heard such and such I was floored" stories. Not to say they aren't true but the opposite is true is well. The first time I heard Money I was amazed at how cool the cash register stuff sounded but got bored shortly after that...but I'd listen to the beginning over and over, same with Time (which I always thought was better song but I still almost never listen to whole thing). I don't question Pink Floyd's place in history, they're there whether I like it or not. Music is both personal and universal and can and should be viewed from both ends whenever possible if you are interested in these pseudo-academic deconstructions.
|
|
|
|
Post by Galactus on Mar 12, 2007 12:26:34 GMT -5
I think context is important. To try and view where it came from and why it was received the way it was but if you weren't there you can only understand it so much and therefore it has to be judged on different terms. You can tell me all day how much of an impact Sgt. Pepper had when it came out, I can read about endless and hundreds can list it as a the greatest album ever and none of that will ever change that it has aged far less gracefully then any other Beatles album. The production and psychedelic references date it just as much as an 80's synth snare. What I'm saying is there's a lot of different angles and usually no single "correct" answer.
Except the Puppets is that best Metallica album, it's the only correct answer.
|
|
|
|
Post by kmc on Mar 12, 2007 12:33:01 GMT -5
Also, Melon is right. The population of this board overhypes the Clash WAY too much.
|
|
|
|
Post by Galactus on Mar 12, 2007 12:43:04 GMT -5
...and The Velvet Underground...
|
|
|
|
Post by Thorngrub on Mar 12, 2007 12:59:52 GMT -5
I guess we can go on a limb and say that Floyd was good, but not timeless? NO! Floyd is good, but more importantly PINK FLOYD IS TIMELESS! |
|
|
|
Post by rockysigman on Mar 12, 2007 13:03:47 GMT -5
Also, Melon is right. The population of this board overhypes the Clash WAY too much. Also, Broken Social Scene.` |
|
|
|
Post by Galactus on Mar 12, 2007 13:06:12 GMT -5
You know what Pink Floyd is not? They are not prog-rock.
|
|
|
|
Post by Thorngrub on Mar 12, 2007 13:11:47 GMT -5
Thank god for that. But they certainly influenced every prog rock band that ever existed.
|
|
|
|
Post by Galactus on Mar 12, 2007 13:12:32 GMT -5
Thank god for that. But they certainly influenced every prog rock band that ever existed. No, they didn't. |
|
|
|
Post by Galactus on Mar 12, 2007 13:15:44 GMT -5
Genisis, Yes, King Crimson, Gentle Giant and several other actual prog rock rock bands were all active while PF was still Syd Barret's backing band.
|
|
|
|
Post by kmc on Mar 12, 2007 13:18:35 GMT -5
Also, Melon is right. The population of this board overhypes the Clash WAY too much. Also, Broken Social Scene.` Oh, I think BSS is more overhyped at Sedaka than they are over here. |
|
|
|
Post by rockysigman on Mar 12, 2007 13:19:55 GMT -5
same thing
|
|
|
|
Post by kmc on Mar 12, 2007 13:20:22 GMT -5
...and The Velvet Underground... Oh yeah. I think the truth is, we all overhype some thing or another. But the board wide jerk off over The Clash is a bit too much... |
|
|
|
Post by Thorngrub on Mar 12, 2007 13:22:07 GMT -5
Genisis, Yes, King Crimson, Gentle Giant and several other actual prog rock rock bands were all active while PF was still Syd Barret's backing band. Yes, indeed; and while PF was still Syd Barrett's backing band, that very band, having gone by the names "The Megadeaths" as well as "The Screaming Abdabs" before they ever got around to being called "The Pink Floyd", just so happened to be a key influence for bands like King Crimson, Genesis, Yes, and Gentle Giant. The only difference is that the members of those "prog" bands were highly skilled at their respective instruments, and had a more "classically" trained idea of what direction to take their music in. Namely, pushing the envelope of classical themes and guitar fingerwork into the beyond. Whereas none of the guys in Floyd (w/the exception of Gilmour) were particularly "gifted" at their own chosen instrument. It's been my contention for a couple years now that Pink Floyd are singlehandedly more responsible for the advent of post-rock than any other band in rock history. In that respect - if you were wont to agree w/me on that -- one can see how PF has ended up to be even more influential than all of those prog rock bands combined. All you have to do is look around you at the current music scene: post-rock is the most significant development, some might say most relevant, in rock music. I sure would. (Say its the most relevant, that is) |
|
