Pink Floyd = Overrated ?

[U2Man]

BOTTOM LINE: PINK FLOYD ARE THE ONLY BAND THAT MATTERS.

quit the drugs, get back to life, son.

 

[indra]

take ed out of radiohead, and all you have left is radioha.

I kinda like that name.

 

[xaviMF22]

quit the drugs, get back to life, son.

my reality > your reality

 

[KhanadaRhodes]

come on, you have a boring mind.

aaaaaand i'll say it again. don't tell people they have a boring mind. name calling isn't tolerated.

 

[AtomicBono]

come on, you have a boring mind.

yeah you're right

That's the word most often used to describe me, "boring"

when asked why, people always respond, "she doesn't like pink floyd. you can't be cool and interesting if you don't like the floyd, man!"

 

[U2Man]

aaaaaand i'll say it again. don't tell people they have a boring mind. name calling isn't tolerated.

it was sarcasm. atomicbono has anything but a boring mind.

 

[xaviMF22]

nobody understand U2man because most the time he doesn't make sense

 

[U2Man]

now, THAT'S offensive.

 

[xaviMF22]

now, THAT'S offensive.

but I appreciate you



anyway Pink Floyd rule and certainly aren't overrated

 

[AtomicBono]

it was sarcasm. atomicbono has anything but a boring mind.

such a sweet little puppy

 

[cdisantis83]

There is so much to respond to here that I am not even sure where to start.
To begin, the idea that Floyd is purely a "stoner" band is a hyper-inflated stereotype, largely owing to the short-lived Barrett era. Beginning with Meddle, the thematics of their albums dealt with very real and serious subject matter, and both of the predominant song-writers were never frequent drug users.
Secondly, it must be admitted that early Floyd albums contained some ridiculous mis-steps, yet, once they hit their stride, they were consistently evocative, cerebral, and musically innovative. The period from 1971-1983 is simply the most brilliant era that any band has ever produced.
Third, it is slightly perplexing to see someone who apotheosizes the Arcade Fire suggest that Floyd is overrated; without Floyd there would be no Arcade Fire, nor would there be a Radiohead, nor possibly even a U2. These bands have all followed Floyd's lead in exploring the tensions and pressures of the world with musical and lyrical statments that are at once introspective and resonating.
It is fine to dislike 20+ minute epics, or to believe that Waters was an egomaniac (which he was), but to deny Floyd's ingenuity and musical prowess borders on the non-sensical.

 

[xaviMF22]

There is so much to respond to here that I am not even sure where to start.
To begin, the idea that Floyd is purely a "stoner" band is a hyper-inflated stereotype, largely owing to the short-lived Barrett era. Beginning with Meddle, the thematics of their albums dealt with very real and serious subject matter, and both of the predominant song-writers were never frequent drug users.
Secondly, it must be admitted that early Floyd albums contained some ridiculous mis-steps, yet, once they hit their stride, they were consistently evocative, cerebral, and musically innovative. The period from 1971-1983 is simply the most brilliant era that any band has ever produced.
Third, it is slightly perplexing to see someone who apotheosizes the Arcade Fire suggest that Floyd is overrated; without Floyd there would be no Arcade Fire, nor would there be a Radiohead, nor possibly even a U2. These bands have all followed Floyd's lead in exploring the tensions and pressures of the world with musical and lyrical statments that are at once introspective and resonating.
It is fine to dislike 20+ minute epics, or to believe that Waters was an egomaniac (which he was), but to deny Floyd's ingenuity and musical prowess borders on the non-sensical.

this post FTW

Pink Floyd >the world

 

[vaz02]

Pink floyd have parties in my mind.

 

[AtomicBono]

it is slightly perplexing to see someone who apotheosizes the Arcade Fire suggest that Floyd is overrated

"overrated" does not equal "sucks"

I like Nirvana, hell I love some of their stuff, and they certainly impacted a whole generation of music... but I still think they're overrated.

Pink Floyd is often held up as one of the greatest bands ever. Lancemc is simply saying that while Pink Floyd are very good, they are perhaps not quite up there with, say, The Beatles, or that Dark Side of the Moon doesn't need to top every best album list.

it's not something that's fundamentally true or false, it's opinion

 

[1stepcloser]

The period from 1971-1983 is simply the most brilliant era that any band has ever produced.

The Beatles 1965-1969?

 

[U2Man]

The Beatles 1965-1969?

the beatles are shitty little ants compared to the mighty pink floyd.

 

[xaviMF22]

Wish you were here

how can anyone not like this song??

 

[1stepcloser]

the beatles are shitty little ants compared to the mighty pink floyd.

The Beatles are significantly more influential than Floyd

 

[AtomicBono]

Wish you were here

how can anyone not like this song??

I do like that song, actually

see? I can appreciate too

 

[xaviMF22]

I do like that song, actually

see? I can appreciate too

see bitches. don't hate appreciate

 

[U2Man]

apprecihate.

 

[xaviMF22]

Shine on you crazy diamond... all parts

 

[mobvok]

Does Pink Floyd have as many quality hits to be ranked with major bands like The Beatles, The Who, Springsteen, etc.?

That's a fair question. To answer it you have to start looking at Floyd's more esoteric, prog rock stuff. I think PF doesn't make it to the next level because of their inconsistent output-I find too often that, while many Floyd songs have memorable riffs, sections, etc. in them, they could use a strong edit. I think that's why some of the shorter songs like Time, Money, Wish You Were Here, etc. are classics- Floyd had to restrict themselves and edit the songs to the best bits, and couldn't noodle around for 20 minutes calling it art.

Secondly, it must be admitted that early Floyd albums contained some ridiculous mis-steps, yet, once they hit their stride, they were consistently evocative, cerebral, and musically innovative. The period from 1971-1983 is simply the most brilliant era that any band has ever produced.

No. What now? If I don't admit that 71-83 is the most brilliant era from any band, ever, do I get disqualified from talking about Floyd?

 

[xaviMF22]

Does Pink Floyd have as many quality hits to be ranked with major bands like The Beatles, The Who, Springsteen, etc.?

"hits" as in radio hits?

 

[mobvok]

"hits" as in radio hits?

No. More like hidden gems, or to borrow an iTunes music store term, "deep cuts". If you like the most popular songs, are there lesser-known songs that reward obsessive album purchases? In the case of something like The Beatles *IMO*, yes, there are. Pink Floyd? Some of the time.

 

[U2Man]

you cannot dance to pink floyd's music.

 

[susanp6]

Wish You Were Here

 

[GibsonGirl]

Sorry Lance, but I'm going to have to imagine that this thread doesn't exist.

 

[xaviMF22]

No. More like hidden gems, or to borrow an iTunes music store term, "deep cuts". If you like the most popular songs, are there lesser-known songs that reward obsessive album purchases? In the case of something like The Beatles *IMO*, yes, there are. Pink Floyd? Some of the time.

sorry but I disagree

there is something very rewarding when you listen to lots of pink floyd albums..their albums go far beyond their most well known tracks

Dark side of the moon goes beyond "Time" and "Money"
songs like Us and them, The great gig in the sky, and Brain Damage, Any colour you like.... are truly what make DSoTM a great record

especially "the wall "and you discover that this album goes beyond songs like Another Brick in the wall or Comfortably Numb....

Pink Floyd 4LIFE

 

[cdisantis83]

Originally posted by mobvok
No. What now? If I don't admit that 71-83 is the most brilliant era from any band, ever, do I get disqualified from talking about Floyd? [/B]

No, the aforementioned is simply my opinion, but over a span of seven albums I cannot easily think of a comparable period. Even the Beatles never put together this many brilliant albums in a row, or, in my mind, were as consistently innovative as Floyd. Then again, I have never been one to subscribe to the Rolling Stone propensity and venerate everything that The Beatles ever did. Floyd is simply not overrated; they are praised for their brilliant work, and, unlike The Beatles, they are justifiably criticized for their sub-par work.