The Old Acclaimed Music Forum
Go to the NEW FORUM
Comment
Nick
The Pink Floyd vs OutKast matchup should be interesting.
My guess is that OutKast would win if the vote were limited to AMers.
Unlike Moonbeam, I still thoroughly enjoy progressive rock. As much as I fail to enjoy acts such as Bjork, I couldn't see assigning a value of 0 to such acts. I figure that one day her music might just click for me (not likely, but possible)
On the other hand, somehow I don't see Moonbeam suddenly reversing his opinion of either Floyd or the Beatles. Perhaps there is some hope for Marley in Moonbeam's view
Aug 28th, 2010 - 2:54 AM
Henry
Nick
The Pink Floyd vs OutKast matchup should be interesting.
My guess is that OutKast would win if the vote were limited to AMers.
Unlike Moonbeam, I still thoroughly enjoy progressive rock. As much as I fail to enjoy acts such as Bjork, I couldn't see assigning a value of 0 to such acts. I figure that one day her music might just click for me (not likely, but possible)
On the other hand, somehow I don't see Moonbeam suddenly reversing his opinion of either Floyd or the Beatles. Perhaps there is some hope for Marley in Moonbeam's view
I'm pretty strong in my convictions against The Beatles and Pink Floyd.
I really despise everything I've heard by both. Bob Marley I could see myself warming to if I ever warm to reggae- and therein lies the difference- I can't stand the vocals of The Beatles or the arrogance, and I'm totally put off by Pink Floyd's drugged out haze, but my issue with Marley is tied to the genre and not to him.What can I say? I still have many shortcomings!
Moonbeam
I'm pretty strong in my convictions against The Beatles and Pink Floyd.
I really despise everything I've heard by both. Bob Marley I could see myself warming to if I ever warm to reggae- and therein lies the difference- I can't stand the vocals of The Beatles or the arrogance, and I'm totally put off by Pink Floyd's drugged out haze, but my issue with Marley is tied to the genre and not to him.What can I say? I still have many shortcomings!
Sometimes it is a lot of fun being contrarian.
Most conventional music fans would posit that the Beatles vocals are quite good.
My understanding is that Pink Floyd's music is perhaps appreciated more when the listener is under the influence. But, I'm not sure that PF's music was created under the influence to any greater extent than Dylan's or Hendrix. You may want to refer to Wikipedia for more on this at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pink_Floyd. For example, during their earliest efforts, PF was apparently not using drugs. - The often drug-addled audience was receptive to the music they played, but the band remained drug-free —"We were out of it, not on acid, but out of the loop, stuck in the dressing room at UFO.
According to Mason, the psychedelic movement had "taken place around us—not within us". Nevertheless The Pink Floyd Sound were present at the head of a wave of interest in psychedelic music, and began to attract the attention of the music industry.
No doubt Barrett was using LSD in early 1967.
But as for the other members, the record does not clearly align with the "stupor" characterization as far as I can tell, and Barrett was basically out of the group after 1968. More at http://www.pinkfloyd-co.com/band/interviews/rww/rwwdark.html
Factually, we started during the late '60s with the psychedelic music, a period that was known as experimental as far as drugs were concerned. The Pink Floyd were in the middle of that culture, so everyone naturally assumed that we were also doing drugs. But that wasn't the case. In Syd Barrett's case it was, but not in our case. I think that music was our drug. Of course, we all did drugs here and there in social events, but I've tried only once in my life, and it was marijuana, before a show. We went onstage, I think it was in Paris in '68, and I couldn't play a single note. Actually, I did manage to play one note. It's a mistake thinking that drugs supplied Pink Floyd with the inspiration. The ones who took drugs were the ones who came to see the shows.
Aug 28th, 2010 - 6:03 AM
Henry
Moonbeam
I'm pretty strong in my convictions against The Beatles and Pink Floyd.
I really despise everything I've heard by both. Bob Marley I could see myself warming to if I ever warm to reggae- and therein lies the difference- I can't stand the vocals of The Beatles or the arrogance, and I'm totally put off by Pink Floyd's drugged out haze, but my issue with Marley is tied to the genre and not to him.What can I say? I still have many shortcomings!
Sometimes it is a lot of fun being contrarian.
Most conventional music fans would posit that the Beatles vocals are quite good.
My understanding is that Pink Floyd's music is perhaps appreciated more when the listener is under the influence. But, I'm not sure that PF's music was created under the influence to any greater extent than Dylan's or Hendrix. You may want to refer to Wikipedia for more on this at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pink_Floyd. For example, during their earliest efforts, PF was apparently not using drugs. - The often drug-addled audience was receptive to the music they played, but the band remained drug-free —"We were out of it, not on acid, but out of the loop, stuck in the dressing room at UFO.
According to Mason, the psychedelic movement had "taken place around us—not within us". Nevertheless The Pink Floyd Sound were present at the head of a wave of interest in psychedelic music, and began to attract the attention of the music industry.
No doubt Barrett was using LSD in early 1967.
But as for the other members, the record does not clearly align with the "stupor" characterization as far as I can tell, and Barrett was basically out of the group after 1968. More at http://www.pinkfloyd-co.com/band/interviews/rww/rwwdark.html
Factually, we started during the late '60s with the psychedelic music, a period that was known as experimental as far as drugs were concerned. The Pink Floyd were in the middle of that culture, so everyone naturally assumed that we were also doing drugs. But that wasn't the case. In Syd Barrett's case it was, but not in our case. I think that music was our drug. Of course, we all did drugs here and there in social events, but I've tried only once in my life, and it was marijuana, before a show. We went onstage, I think it was in Paris in '68, and I couldn't play a single note. Actually, I did manage to play one note. It's a mistake thinking that drugs supplied Pink Floyd with the inspiration. The ones who took drugs were the ones who came to see the shows.
I'm not consciously trying to be a contrarian- I just don't like either Pink Floyd or The Beatles.
As for drug use, a lot of artists that I do like were undoubtedly dabbling in stuff at times as well. That said, it generally is able to transcend those influences, whereas to my ears, Pink Floyd's music does not, regardless of how coherent they were at the time.
Methinks Moonbeam gives highly rated bands he doesn't like 'Overrated penalties'.
Of course, I sometimes do that too. 
Pink Floyd/Outkast is a really interesting matchup for the AM votes, but as others have stated, Pink Floyd's probably going to dominate the non-AM votes.