U2Man
ONE love, blood, life
quit the drugs, get back to life, son.xaviMF22 said:BOTTOM LINE: PINK FLOYD ARE THE ONLY BAND THAT MATTERS.
quit the drugs, get back to life, son.xaviMF22 said:BOTTOM LINE: PINK FLOYD ARE THE ONLY BAND THAT MATTERS.
U2Man said:
take ed out of radiohead, and all you have left is radioha.
aaaaaand i'll say it again. don't tell people they have a boring mind. name calling isn't tolerated.U2Man said:come on, you have a boring mind.
U2Man said:come on, you have a boring mind.
KhanadaRhodes said:
aaaaaand i'll say it again. don't tell people they have a boring mind. name calling isn't tolerated.
U2Man said:now, THAT'S offensive.
U2Man said:
it was sarcasm. atomicbono has anything but a boring mind.
cdisantis83 said: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.
cdisantis83 said:it is slightly perplexing to see someone who apotheosizes the Arcade Fire suggest that Floyd is overrated
cdisantis83 said:The period from 1971-1983 is simply the most brilliant era that any band has ever produced.
1stepcloser said:
The Beatles 1965-1969?
U2Man said:
the beatles are shitty little ants compared to the mighty pink floyd.
xaviMF22 said:Wish you were here
how can anyone not like this song??
AtomicBono said:
I do like that song, actually
see? I can appreciate too
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.
mobvok said:Does Pink Floyd have as many quality hits to be ranked with major bands like The Beatles, The Who, Springsteen, etc.?
xaviMF22 said:
"hits" as in radio hits?
mobvok said:
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.
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]