Lancemc
Blue Crack Addict
OK, for some reason, this has been bugging me lately. It seems that overall, and especially on these boards, The Floyd are often hailed as one of, if not THE greatest thing since the discovery of fire. Now don't get me wrong, I love PF, I'm a big fan. Their stuff is largely great. But I don't quite understand the infatuation. Why are the often regarded as the greatest band in the world...even ONE OF the greatest, when a large chunk of their catalog is fairly forgettable, and the real stand-outs, while technically and artistically impressive, are generally lacking in...for lack of a better word..."spirit"...or maybe "soul". Though the latter makes it sound like I'm damning the band for not being a soul band...but I think you get what I'm trying to say. And if not, please say so.
But, when I see Dark Side of the Moon on so many top 10 albums of all time lists or whatever they are, I can't help but think, "Yeah, Dark Side is a brilliantly produced album, but there is so much more rewarding music out there that also matches its quality." So, I'm not saying the band doesn't have the chops, or that they aren't a technically adept band...they're actually one of the most musically capable bands in history. I just don't think they deserve all the praise. And I'm not going to even begin to get into Waters' monster of an ego, which I feel really brought down Floyd's last two Waters-inclusive (or should I say Waters-consumed) LPs.
Looking at the catalog, the real meat of their career, the most critically acclaimed, and fan-loved section, is obviously Meddle, Dark Side, Wish you Were Here, Animals, and The Wall. Maybe even include The Final Cut, though that's just a generally weak album compared to those others listed. Personally, I'm not a big fan of The Wall. It's too pompous, lacks a respectable repertoire of solid songs, and despite a few highlights comes off over-long and dull. Like I mentioned earlier, Dark Side is an technically breathtaking album, but compare it to something like Blood on the Tracks, and it beigns to feel a little shallow and uninspiring. Same can be said for Animals, though Animals might just be their finest album, and I really don't have any qualms with it. Animals is to an extend, a wholly brilliant album. Wish You Were Here is a bit tedious, though I feel it's the most heart-felt of the "big section" of albums. And Meddle is probably the warmest album, but half of the tracks are pretty weak.
When all is said and done, I really can't blame those who peg Floyd into the "stoner band" catagory, because really, well, they are. And while their best highlights really can be spectacular, I just don't think they have the substance to be put in the same class as "bands" like The Beatles, The Who, Springsteen and the E-Street band, U2, R.E.M., Radiohead, and even solo artists like Dylan and Bowie.
But, when I see Dark Side of the Moon on so many top 10 albums of all time lists or whatever they are, I can't help but think, "Yeah, Dark Side is a brilliantly produced album, but there is so much more rewarding music out there that also matches its quality." So, I'm not saying the band doesn't have the chops, or that they aren't a technically adept band...they're actually one of the most musically capable bands in history. I just don't think they deserve all the praise. And I'm not going to even begin to get into Waters' monster of an ego, which I feel really brought down Floyd's last two Waters-inclusive (or should I say Waters-consumed) LPs.
Looking at the catalog, the real meat of their career, the most critically acclaimed, and fan-loved section, is obviously Meddle, Dark Side, Wish you Were Here, Animals, and The Wall. Maybe even include The Final Cut, though that's just a generally weak album compared to those others listed. Personally, I'm not a big fan of The Wall. It's too pompous, lacks a respectable repertoire of solid songs, and despite a few highlights comes off over-long and dull. Like I mentioned earlier, Dark Side is an technically breathtaking album, but compare it to something like Blood on the Tracks, and it beigns to feel a little shallow and uninspiring. Same can be said for Animals, though Animals might just be their finest album, and I really don't have any qualms with it. Animals is to an extend, a wholly brilliant album. Wish You Were Here is a bit tedious, though I feel it's the most heart-felt of the "big section" of albums. And Meddle is probably the warmest album, but half of the tracks are pretty weak.
When all is said and done, I really can't blame those who peg Floyd into the "stoner band" catagory, because really, well, they are. And while their best highlights really can be spectacular, I just don't think they have the substance to be put in the same class as "bands" like The Beatles, The Who, Springsteen and the E-Street band, U2, R.E.M., Radiohead, and even solo artists like Dylan and Bowie.
