All's fair in music and war.
Piper is my fav Floyd, but there are times where it feels a little too acidy. S.F. Sorrow doesn't suffer from that.
All's fair in music and war.
Piper is my fav Floyd, but there are times where it feels a little too acidy. S.F. Sorrow doesn't suffer from that.
My favorite bands can kick your favorite bands' asses.
The horizon is right and motionless like the EKG of a dying woman.
The Wallflowers
Bruce Springsteen
Peter Gabriel
is one side of my musical taste...
or...
Third Eye Blind
Collective Soul
U2
I cannot stand Syd Barrett Pink Floyd, but I love the Water years, and especially the Gilmour years.
I regret leaving my soul
I forgot I needed it, to feel
maybe when I die
I'll just grab it real quick
The Breeders (hence my name)
The Beatles
Weezer
(saying the Pixies is cheating)
And then the fun time Arena Rock side:
Blue Oyster Cult
Led Zeppelin
Extreme (Whee, funk metal)
Is it so hard to just list three? Seriously guys...
cody44, try Nick Cave & the Bad Seeds. It's like Wallflowers, Springsteen, and all those other bands you listed but good instead of utterly useless ephemeral tuneage.
KimDealIsHot, Mr. Bungle and/or The Flaming Lips.
Hopefully people can list ONLY THREE LIKE THE TITLE IMPLIES and not four, or six, or fake sneaky ways like grouping into arbitrary genres that serve no purpose.
My favorite bands can kick your favorite bands' asses.
The horizon is right and motionless like the EKG of a dying woman.
You have no taste in Pink Floyd. When Waters left, all that was left was shit. Syd's one album and one song on Saucerful... were brilliant. Maybe you just don't "get" it.Originally Posted by cody44
My favorite bands can kick your favorite bands' asses.
The horizon is right and motionless like the EKG of a dying woman.
(additional bolding mine)
that is all.
when roger left it ceased to be pink floyd
it became grey floyd
or the david gilmour band
but it was NOT pink floyd ever again
Amen, Jayson. You can easily argue that The Wall was the beginning of the end, a bloated concept album that showcased frustration and a lack of inspiration. And The Final Cut is basically The Pros and Cons of Hitchhiking, Vol. -1 in terms of its sound and songwriting structure used by Roger.
My favorite bands can kick your favorite bands' asses.
The horizon is right and motionless like the EKG of a dying woman.
couldn't agree more. the wall is much more the first steps at a roger solo album that happens to have dave, rick and nick as the band.
Then we have the horrors of A Momentary Lapse of Reason and The Division Bell. And the whole Publius Enigma bullshit. Goddammit, why can't bands still be good after members leave? Zappa made it work - hell, some post Gabriel Genesis wasn't too bad! But Floyd started a slow downhill path ever since Syd left.
My favorite bands can kick your favorite bands' asses.
The horizon is right and motionless like the EKG of a dying woman.
i love the turn this conversation has taken.
that is all.
i believe that album is called a monstrous lapse of roger
True true. Swiss Cheesus we've gone off topic.
My favorite bands can kick your favorite bands' asses.
The horizon is right and motionless like the EKG of a dying woman.
I'm sorry I listed more than 3 bands, I didn't think it would be to hard to just recommend two bands, but apparently I was wrong.
As for Syd, I do -get- it, and I think it is a decent album, but I couldn't disagree more. I love Pink Floyd for their progressive rock, and not their bloated psych rock. I listen to Pink Floyd for Gilmour's guitar and Waters' lyrics. On the other hand, I agree with you that S.F. Sorrow by the Pretty Things is one of the greatest albums. Maybe in the top five albums of the 60's.
Although, maybe I'll have to go back and give Piper another go through, it's been a few years since I actually sat down with it, and just played the full album, because their were very few tracks I enjoyed. Now on the other hand albums like Obscured by Clouds, Meddle, and Wish You Were Here are easy to listen to. Don't tell me I have no taste in Pink Floyd because I don't agree with you that Piper is the best and only true Floyd.
I regret leaving my soul
I forgot I needed it, to feel
maybe when I die
I'll just grab it real quick
I think that one, you fundamentally misunderstood the intention of the topic. If you read my first post, it clearly lays out the rules for this. It's actually very difficult to analyze each band as a whole, then take them into consideration together when you don't know the person (Sarajean, Jayson, Jean, and I all have a very good friendship, so we can usually tell if one of us is going to like something). Also, Pink Floyd were never really "proggressive," unless you use the generic "long songs with many parts" definition of prog. They never really used outre time signatures or many prog ideals - King Crimson are prog. Rush are prog. Genesis (in their earlier days) are prog. Gentle Giant are prog. Pink Floyd are not prog. Frank Zappa is not prog (he's his own goddamn genre). Pink Floyd was and remained for a while, a psychedelic and experimental rock band with heavy blues leanings. It's hard to believe you when you say that Piper is "bloated psych rock," then you praise S.F. Sorrow as one of the greatest albums. S.F. Sorrow is far more bloated because it's a huge concept album with paragraphs of text in the gatefold. And it certainly was more psych than later Floyd - the Floyd you love so much. I'm not saying that Piper is the best and only true Floyd. I'm saying it's their best, because it was all downhill thereafter. Meddle is a good album, More has some great tunes, Ummagumma is a very good experiment in individualism that was prophetic. And Wish You Were Here ranks as one of their best post-Syd albums (sorry DSOTM, you get no love from me). I just think you have a severely undeveloped palate for music. It could be your age (although I was already heavily into 20th century classical, minimalism, prog, psych, undergroup rap & hip-hop, and heavy doses of FZ and Mr. Van Vliet by the time I was 16), or it could be your upbringing. Maybe you really just aren't as rabid an omnivore as I'm used to with music folken. Maybe I'm being too much of a dick. Or maybe, just maybe, you really don't understand music in terms of categorization, theory, and appreciation. Anything is possible, sirrah. Anything is possible.
Now I have to go listen to unreleased Suicide songs while reading the complete Lanny Budd series - the Santa Cruz library is fucking sick.
My favorite bands can kick your favorite bands' asses.
The horizon is right and motionless like the EKG of a dying woman.
I'm sorry, buy Pink Floyd is very much Progressive Rock & Space Rock (They began with Psych). My taste in music is very broad, just because I listed those bands, does not mean they are my favorite. I listen to a vast variety of music. Just because S.F. Sorrow has a lot to say, doesn't make it bloated. Bloated is very much a term relative to the person using it. My taste in music is obviously quite different than yours. Just because I'm 17, doesn't mean I must listen to the radio and eat up the shit that plays on it. I do enjoy a wide variety of music. I just recently took a class on Musical History, and I wrote my final on Pink Floyd.
I think maybe we have got off on the wrong foot, It seems to me that I have to defend myself from your point of view. I don't think my musical palate is weak in any respect, and I hope we can get along. It's obvious that you have a vast knowledge of music, and I always enjoy a debating.
It seems we agree to disagree on Floyd, whats our next debate on? m
I regret leaving my soul
I forgot I needed it, to feel
maybe when I die
I'll just grab it real quick
i don't get why you chose them, then, if they're not your favourite "can't live withouts."
Well, actually they aren't. If you listed bands that you just like, then you again failed at the basis of this thread. Your definition of "bloated" is obviously very misinformed - it's not a relative term like "good" or "favorite." It generally has one definition in relation to music, music criticism, and the like. I think your taste in music is very narrow minded and obstinate in relation to criticism and that you are a very defensive person. Musical history - so you learned that all those supposed great composers wrote music for the king, that blues got stolen for rock, and that anything from the '70s usually falls into the prog or psych classification. Dude, argue all you want with me, but you simply aren't going to win. Not only do I have a one up on you in terms of years, but also in terms of the breadth of knowledge about music from all genres and bands from the modern pop to the olden obscure - I also have a one up since I'm an audio engineer. All I do is find out about music so I can translate every idea thrown at me. I now want to see what Jayson thinks about this whole kerfuffle. Until then, download some Nick Cave and bugger off until you listen to three of his discs at the very least.
My favorite bands can kick your favorite bands' asses.
The horizon is right and motionless like the EKG of a dying woman.
fruno asked me to weigh in and weigh in i shall as i cannot refuse fruno a request.
i'll stick to the pink floyd end of the discussion as it's a subject that i feel i can speak fairly well to. i suppose there are times when being the old guy comes in handy.
regarding the "prog rock" label, i think that while it often gets applied retroactively to floyd, it's not particularly accurate and has more to do with their general influence on bands that came in their wake than anything in their music itself. with floyd, it's vital to define which floyd we are talking about in any given conversation because the three periods are so radically different, and as fruno previously brought up, there are really four periods if you take the wall/final cut waters period in its true light as the beginning of waters post-floyd period. so let's define our terms. i tend to refer to the barrett era as "the floyd," the waters era as "pink floyd" and the gilmour era as "grey floyd" (or more snarkily as "the pink floyd cover band featuring members of pink floyd"). there is no real genre label to accurately pin on the barrett era. "psychedelic" is a term devoid of meaning when you consider the expanse of music that has been tagged with this label. look at the music itself. are "astronomy domine" and "bike" and "lucifer sam" all the same genre of music? hardly. it's testimony to the genius of barrett that he had so many sides to his writing.
when syd broke down and roger was thrust into the primary writing role, it took awhile for him to find his own voice and comfort zone. things were certainly "experimental" but given the time period, that's true of a hell of a lot of bands so it's another term that i find overused, but ultimately devoid of meaning. with the appearance in their sets of songs like "embryo" and "echoes" roger's vision began to take shape. looking at those songs in particular as the template for what came after, i agree wholeheartedly with what fruno said earlier... they are longer songs with many sections, but the thing to consider is that they are still ultimately based in simplicity. to me, that is the key to pink floyd, simplicity. one of the common elements of many of the progressive rock bands is a near classical level of virtuosity from the players. yes, elp, genesis, king crimson, et al, these are guys that could outplay anyone any time backwards and forwards in any and every time signature known to man. this is not the case with pink floyd. this is not to suggest in any way that they were not "good" musicians because they knew what they were doing and played to their strengths but in point of fact, roger was never more than "competent" as a bass player. rick wright had an amazing sense of phrasing, but his playing was anything but complex. nick mason was all about the timing and the restraint and knowing exactly what to play when. and then we get to mr gilmour. i will be honest. i am a guitar player and i love much of gilmour's work. the guy has fantastic tone control and his phrasing is beyond influential. that said, he is no virtuoso with the instrument and the unabashed hero worship he receives usually serves to piss me off. as much as he has gotten great results, he does it through simplicity. his stuff is not always easy to play just like he plays it because so much of that is the feel he brings to it. but, from a purely technical point of view, the more i try to learn, the less complicated it seems and often i'm pleasantly surprised at how easy it can be. but that's floyd in a nutshell. not something i've experienced trying to learn steve howe or robert fripp riffs, that's for sure.
now that i've rambled on long enough to listen to even the longest versions of "echoes" (which, btw, has always been my fav floyd song) i will bring it to a close. i suppose it all really is illustrative of why i despise genre labels at all for music. if you look at my ipod you will see that there is exactly one genre on there, "music." when you listen to the amount of john zorn and tom waits and frank zappa and radiohead that i do, it often varies so much not only from song to song, but between several genres within single songs that putting labels on them is an exercise in ridiculousness.
@ sarajean Because I don't have a favorite band or musician. It is always changing with my mood. The point of this thread is to help people find new musicians to enjoy, just because I didn't post my favorites, doesn't mean you can't at least turn me on to new music that fits in that style.
@ Fruno As for you Fruno. I'm not trying to, "argue" with you. Even if you don't like it, Pink Floyd gets the Prog rock label. It's not that I believe they should be prog, but it's the label they get stuck into. I'm sorry that you think my musical taste is narrow minded, and their is nothing I can do to help sway your opinion. I recognize that Piper is a well loved album, and many people list it as their favorite. As much as your judging me based on one album, it just isn't for me. I don't like Syd Barrett's style, and I hope you can at least respect me for that. It doesn't mean much to me what you think of my musical taste, because you enjoy different music than me, and it doesn't really make my music any lesser. Your music has just impacted you in a different way than it has me.
@ R_of_G I agree with you that music doesn't easily fit into the labels that they get stuck into. I am also a guitarist, and I find that Gilmour has a style that has worked wonders for him. He is not a pioneer to music, but his style suits him and Floyd quite well. I am also quit fond of "Echoes" and all of Meddle, it is a very engrossing album. Just out of curiosity, how do you rank the Radiohead albums. I really enjoy the depth of their albums, and a lot of people really love them. (Rolling Stone comes to mind.)
Sorry to pull this thread off topic, I hope people continue to post their -three- bands so that you can recommend a new artist to them.
I regret leaving my soul
I forgot I needed it, to feel
maybe when I die
I'll just grab it real quick
honestly, i try not to. i prefer to look them in historical context and as such, there's a natural progression there. pablo honey offers the most pure "songs" with few changes in style within songs, more straightforward lyrics, and a musical style centered around the three guitar sound. the bends continued this, but songs like "planet telex" show that thom and jonny were beginning to get something different in their heads about how they could sound. and then came the sea change with ok computer. it's really like nothing else. it's part miles, part mingus, part can, part ennio morricone, part pink floyd, but all radiohead. the depth of thom's writing and the evolution of what's become now his signature style of bits and phrases strung together became prominent over the more straight ahead narratives of the previous work. the music showed jonny gaining a mastery of the technology available to him and pushing things further and further from "songs" and into textures. and then came the twinners, the ones you either love or hate. i will state unequivocally, i absolutely love kid a and amnesiac. many here know that i refer to amnesiac as "kid b." those two albums offer not only some of their finest work (particularly "pyramid song" which might their single greatest recording) but really pushed the boundaries of what a band could do. people write a lot of it off as studio magic but they have either never seen rh live, or they missed the point. those albums provided them the impetus to learn to play those songs outside of a studio. they were forced to learn to use the technology available to them in a live setting. to watch jonny and ed work live is like a master class in effects. and at the root of it all, is always colin and phil, perhaps the most underrated rhythm section in all of music. to hear what phil can do night in and night out is nothing short of amazing. that guy IS a drum machine. and when they learned to play like that live, what you got as the next logical step was hail to the thief, the first full album of the new sound. once more thom made major strides in song writing and once more jonny found new and interesting ways to present these songs. guitars were prominent again, but so was the ondes martenot, and the banks of synths, and of course, the kaoss pedal (which nobody uses quite like jonny). in rainbows takes another step forward with their constantly evolving abilities to play these songs in one take and once more, thom's writing is maturing by leaps and bounds.
so while i often gravitate to certain albums when i am in certain moods, and even more often to the massive collection of live rh that i have, i cannot really rate them individually. they are all pieces of the large puzzle that is radiohead. there is no other band like them (though many have tried).
I agree with Jayson yet again. Radiohead albums are one giant stream, like how Phil Elvrum writes albums. Kid A and Amnesiac get a lot of play here, but so do all their other discs. It's just goot shid.
And Kaoss Pad = best multieffect ever.
My favorite bands can kick your favorite bands' asses.
The horizon is right and motionless like the EKG of a dying woman.
without a doubt. i want one so badly but i also don't. i know if i got one i'd ignore everything else for months, maybe years.
I can't believe I haven't taken part yet!
The Beatles
The Doors
Led Zeppelin
(old, old bear...)
Ask not what bears can do for you, but what you can do for bears. (razz)
When one is in agreement with bears one is always correct. (mae)
bears are back!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
jean, the first band that comes to mind would be the black keys.
of the three you listed, the similarities to led zeppelin are the most immediate. musically, they remind me of many of the best aspects of zeppelin and while i admit, i love robert plant, dan auerbach is a significantly more appealing singer for me. there's an authenticity to his voice which becomes more and more rare as time goes on. while they don't sound much like the doors, they are heavily rooted in electric blues and should thus appeal to someone who does like the doors. as for the beatles, the bk's don't necessarily sound like the beatles, then again, who does? however, what they do share with the beatles is an innate pop sensibility. as bluesy and heavy as their music can be, much of it i find very accessible to people who may not have thought they'd be into them.
they also happen to do a particularly ripping cover of "she said, she said" which is what first brought them to my attention several years ago in my ongoing search to hear every good beatles' cover ever.
this video itself is terrible, but the sound is fine so close your eyes and enjoy...
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EYzYO-SdGY4"]black keys - she said, she said[/ame]
and this one should illustrate what about them reminds me of zeppelin. to me, it usually brings to mind "how many more times?" from the first zeppelin album.
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v5FW8Xo8ENo"]black keys - i got mine[/ame]
Posting Permissions
