- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Winter Olympics
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: On this day, 50 years ago
Posted on 2/8/23 at 1:30 pm to Big Scrub TX
Posted on 2/8/23 at 1:30 pm to Big Scrub TX
It's pretty well known that Waters is, but I never heard that about Gilmore.
You have to remember, McCartney was also known to be a real tool back then.
You have to remember, McCartney was also known to be a real tool back then.
This post was edited on 2/8/23 at 1:35 pm
1
Posted on 2/8/23 at 1:47 pm to hogcard1964
And it's Gilmour. 
Posted on 2/8/23 at 1:57 pm to Cdawg
quote:
Maybe if you're a middle class white boy into music. I can guarantee you that if you cast a larger demographic net in that age group, there would more no's than you think.
I was a middle class white boy, so I guess you're right in that I was a bit hyperbolic. Many minorities probably did not get exposed to PF the way others would. I'll restate then, "it'd be nearly impossible for a white male in their 20s to say they'd never heard this album"
quote:
Thriller
Not even remotely close. Strictly as far as singles/songs go, sure I'll grant you that. Billie Jean, Thriller, etc. are known by all audiences far and wide. But we (or I, anyway) were talking about albums. I've literally never once in my life heard anyone say "hey man throw On Thriller! [the album, not the song]"
quote:
50 years from now the youth will still be seeking out this album.
Nope. They rarely do it now unless they are seeking the rock genre. 30 and under really don't listen to rock. They may only recognize it from Urban Outfitter's clothes. It's sad but in my interactions with that group, this is what I've experienced.
this is jsut a ridiculously bad take. I was in college 15 years ago which was 35 yeras after the album's release. At that point everyone I knew from my HS that wasa smoker was familirr with teh album, and in college you could barely walk into a dorm room or underclassman living space without seeing the poster. It was a staple in CD players and the Ga Theatre would even regularly host Dark Side of the Rainbow viewings. DSOTM is more than a 45 minute music session it is so above and beyond that.
Timeless music is just that, it's timeless. What makes it timeless? A good sound that's pleasing to the ear, a good experience for all age groups (ie it's not only geared towards decrepit old people or teeny boppers), classic instruments (ie not synth sound boards that will sound dated in 10 years), lyrics that resonate among generations, etc. DSOTM has all of that. 35 years from now I highly doubt the GenZers of today are going to be seeking out old copies of harry styles or the jonas brothers. They will still listedn to Dark Side though.
Posted on 2/8/23 at 2:05 pm to Big Scrub TX
quote:
I've actually never listened to the stuff from the 60s. Is it like a completely different deal?
lanier already hit on it but Syd era is essentially an entirely separate entity. And although I am seemingly in the minority, IMO it borderlin sucks compared to waht they'd do in 68 and onward. That's not Syd or Floyd's fault, it was just a product of their youth and the time period.
The only full alsbum Syd did with them was their debut Piper in 67. As mentioned, they were very young and it was their first album playing together and figuring out their sound (note Gilmour wasn't involved at the time). It was also friggin 1967, so the whole "freak out scene" was enormous at the time. Many many musical acts at the time would often eschew actually good sounding music in favor of trippy psychadelia that would be pleasing while tripping absolute sack on lsd. There's some decent stuff on Piper but a lot of it is just kind of rambling meandering nonsense.
Their second album in 68 had a small bit of Syd influence but he was mostly gone already and Gilmour had entered. you can tell immediately that musically they tightended up a great deal from just the year prior. It still has very much a "late 60s" vibe but there's a bit less "freakout" and a bit more decnet music.
The next 2 albums were a movie soundtrack (some great blues tunes on here) and a double album (live and studio) that was pretty...up dn down. The live part goes back to the winding psychadelic type roots while the studio version was each musiciain basically geting to do anything they wanted. It was kinda crappy IMO.
Anywayas that takes us out of the 60s and into their heydey. AHM in 70 they really got better musically again, and each subsequent album after that they simply continued to progress and really find their sound. And from there it was off to the races for the next decaede.
Posted on 2/8/23 at 2:38 pm to WG_Dawg
quote:I think you have a little bit of parochial myopia on this one overall.
WG_Dawg
quote:In my mind, The Wall fits this description more.
impossible for a white male in their 20s to say they'd never heard this album"
quote:Again, parochial experience. I don't think it has the same heft it once did.
this is jsut a ridiculously bad take. I was in college 15 years ago which was 35 yeras after the album's release. At that point everyone I knew from my HS that wasa smoker was familirr with teh album, and in college you could barely walk into a dorm room or underclassman living space without seeing the poster. It was a staple in CD players and the Ga Theatre would even regularly host Dark Side of the Rainbow viewings. DSOTM is more than a 45 minute music session it is so above and beyond that.
quote:Eh. I think your mega-fan status has blinded you some. I listened to the whole DOSTM twice since this thread started...I'm still mostly at "meh". I think it sounds VERY early/mid 70s - and what I mean by that, is it's almost as if Pink FLoyd's sound isn't coming off as all that unique to me anymore. It just sounds kind of "then".
Timeless music is just that, it's timeless. What makes it timeless? A good sound that's pleasing to the ear, a good experience for all age groups (ie it's not only geared towards decrepit old people or teeny boppers), classic instruments (ie not synth sound boards that will sound dated in 10 years), lyrics that resonate among generations, etc. DSOTM has all of that. 35 years from now I highly doubt the GenZers of today are going to be seeking out old copies of harry styles or the jonas brothers. They will still listedn to Dark Side though.
And I think any huge acts of any era will be sought out by future listeners.
Posted on 2/8/23 at 2:59 pm to Big Scrub TX
Well recorded album.
Does it hold up?
That's kind of subjective.
Does it hold up?
That's kind of subjective.
Posted on 2/8/23 at 3:18 pm to hogcard1964
quote:
I do know Paul hung with Gilmore quite a bit during the mid 70s through "Give My Regards to Broad Street", but also later had a falling out prompting Gilmore to publicly state that he wouldn't work with him again.
Pretty sure they just released something together. Roger Waters is re-recording Dark Side. That should ruffle any feathers:
Posted on 2/8/23 at 3:24 pm to rebelrouser
Who's playing guitar for him?
Posted on 2/8/23 at 3:40 pm to hogcard1964
quote:
I do know Paul hung with Gilmore quite a bit during the mid 70s through
Posted on 2/8/23 at 3:44 pm to WG_Dawg
At a Stones concert.
Posted on 2/8/23 at 10:40 pm to Big Scrub TX
quote:
I'm interested in Syd Barrett's demise and I understand that's somehow integrated in there as well?
I think Wish You Were Here was the LP that was a requiem for Syd Barrett. I watched a documentary about Pink Floyd a while back, and Waters said a lot of that album was influenced by what had happened to Syd, and the visits to the studio he had made after leaving the band where it was obvious he was completely out of touch with reality.
Hence the title of the album.
If you are interested in watching it, I will try to dig up the title for you.
Even if you aren't a Floyd fan, it is an interesting look into the history of an iconic band.
Posted on 2/9/23 at 12:02 am to tiggerfan02 2021
quote:Cool, thanks.
If you are interested in watching it, I will try to dig up the title for you.
Even if you aren't a Floyd fan, it is an interesting look into the history of an iconic band.
In listening to Dark Side today, one frustrating thing for me is how they seem to manage to meander, even on the catchy songs. Like, Brain Damage is awesome...for the 1st half.
I ended up listening to the entire The Wall. I think it's much better.
Posted on 2/9/23 at 6:59 am to Big Scrub TX
The Wall doesn't hold up. It sounds like their target audience at that time was high school boys.
DSOTM is still fairly enjoyable.
DSOTM is still fairly enjoyable.
Posted on 2/9/23 at 7:25 am to hogcard1964
quote:
Waters later said he only met Lennon once and they were "snotty" to one another.
The most unsurprising thing I’ve read all year.
Posted on 2/9/23 at 4:07 pm to tigermeat
Speaking of Waters I saw this on another forum. If true what an abomination and what a surpreme a-hole.
quote:
read last night that waters has completely re-recorded dark side of the moon. changed up the arrangements and put spoken word bullshite over all the instrumental parts.
Posted on 2/17/23 at 8:52 pm to Big Scrub TX
This thread prompted me to dive deeper into some albums I never really gave much time - like Animals. I have to say, Animals blows Dark Side out of the water, IMO!
Page 2 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News