# Pink Floyd - Dark Side of the Moon



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Such a beloved album, but if I'm being honest, I find it to be lacking in something I can't exactly articulate. I'm not against simplicity, but, there aren't a lot of interesting layers in the songs, and they are rather one dimensional.

I suppose music like Bach has made me want to hear more elaborate arrangements with several melodies interacting simultaneously in a glorious complex composition.

I suppose because of the aforementioned reasons, I find this album rather dull and boring. I used to praise it because I thought I was supposed to, but this is how I really feel about it.

As a pianist myself, and to note that I'm not really a doors fan, but Ray Manzerek is much more interesting than Richard Wright as well, although Wright has some nice touches, they lack a certain amount of intricacy. Great gig in the sky could have been something much better, it starts off with a nice riff imo.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

Was never a fan of Dark side of the moon. "Time" and "Money" was ok to me. Liked Piper at the Gates of Dawn better.


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese (Jan 8, 2013)

I love Dark Side- it was the Album of the 1970's, were as as time has gone on Pipers has gained increasing status which would not have occurred if it had not been for the success of album like dark side........


----------



## laurie (Jan 12, 2017)

What is the point in coming to this forum & starting a "Pink Floyd is dull & boring, especially as compared to Bach" thread


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Phil loves classical said:


> Was never a fan of Dark side of the moon. "Time" and "Money" was ok to me. Liked Piper at the Gates of Dawn better.


Is that when they were doing what I call "a bunch of nonsensical intersecting sounds?" (not trying to be offensive, that's just how I classify it in my head).


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

laurie said:


> What is the point in coming to this forum & starting a "Pink Floyd is dull & boring, especially as compared to Bach" thread


This is the non-classical portion of this forum where people are sure to show much love and appreciation for this album. I am putting forth a very controversial assertion out for discussion.

As evidenced by the the first two comments, there is a place for this discussion on this forum.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

EddieRUKiddingVarese said:


> I love Dark Side- it was the Album of the 1970's, were as as time has gone on Pipers has gained increasing status which would not have occurred if it had not been for the success of album like dark side........


 Very true, but I find Pink Floyd rather forgettable on the whole anyways. It's emotive at times, with some really dull arrangements. That being said, Shine on You Crazy Diamonds is one of my favorite rock and roll songs ever penned!


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

laurie said:


> What is the point in coming to this forum & starting a "Pink Floyd is dull & boring, especially as compared to Bach" thread


I think the Capt'n is still going through a stage of purging, and coming clean with his dark past. One thing Capt'n, is you'll never like popular music if you at it through pre-20th century aesthetics. If you like modern classical, then it isn't as hard to relate to popular music, as the philosophy is more similar. i noticed a lot of modern classical fans are also popular music fans here.


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet (Aug 31, 2011)

Pink Floyd is one of my favorite bands and I like the Dark Side but of course they don't compare to Bach or great classical music in general in terms of musical thought, craftsmanship and architecture. None do, really, that I've heard.. They are good in small dozes, I find. Best for listening in the car, where I don't have the luxury of being able to focus on the music.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

TwoFlutesOneTrumpet said:


> Pink Floyd is one of my favorite bands and I like the Dark Side but of course they don't compare to Bach or great classical music in general in terms of musical thought, craftsmanship and architecture. None do, really, that I've heard.. They are good in small dozes, I find. Best for listening in the car, where I don't have the luxury of being able to focus on the music.


I like the idea of putting everything I love on the same level of excellence. I may love two different things for completely different reasons, but they are on the same level in my head.


----------



## Daniel Atkinson (Dec 31, 2016)

In my old irrelevant opinion, I think all the albums (minus Obscured by clouds) BEFORE Dark side are their best albums. Animals is there best and most sophisticated later album, IMO 


Daniel


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

tttttttttttttttttttt


----------



## Daniel Atkinson (Dec 31, 2016)

Dark side of the moon doesn't do anything for me, but it obviously does for the public as they've brought more copies than Mozart


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

For some reason I find there's a wall between me and the dark side of the moon.


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese (Jan 8, 2013)

Strange Magic said:


> For some reason I find there's a wall between me and the dark side of the moon.


For me the Wall is just a Momentary Lapse of Reason


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

wow, in two posts, you guys summed up everything I said in a poetic manner that can be left up to interpretation. Bravo!


----------



## Belowpar (Jan 14, 2015)

DSOTM was a huge seller. For many stereo and HiFi were still newish and it was a VERY polished sound. It also plods along with very little change of pace or dynamics. It sold intialy because Pink Floyd were considered edgy and underground, but then everyman bought it because it was actually rather safe. 

Rock had matured, become predictable and boring.


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese (Jan 8, 2013)

Belowpar said:


> DSOTM was a huge seller. For many stereo and HiFi were still newish and it was a VERY polished sound. It also plods along with very little change of pace or dynamics. It sold intialy because Pink Floyd were considered edgy and underground, but then everyman bought it because it was actually rather safe.
> 
> Rock had matured, become predictable and boring.


I blame Richard Branson and the other money makers behind the rock industry - which it had become by then. They had all learn from the Beatles/ Stones and other sixties money making machines


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

Belowpar said:


> Rock had matured, become predictable and boring.


Then came Punk.


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese (Jan 8, 2013)

Strange Magic said:


> Then came Punk.


You Mean Malcolm McLaren


----------



## cwarchc (Apr 28, 2012)

I haven't Time for this








Much prefer Wish you were here and The Wall


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet (Aug 31, 2011)

Hey you. It would be so nice If I'm a King Bee In the flesh. I'm Learning to fly and have High hopes but One slip One of these Days and I'll be On thin ice. Hey, I just saw Several species of small furry animals gathered together in a cave and grooving with a pict.


----------



## jegreenwood (Dec 25, 2015)

Although I was in college when DSOTM was released I didn't listen to it (or any Pink Floyd) all that much. I didn't own any of their albums until I picked up a two CD compilation sometime around 2000. I finally bought the SACD of DSOTM not all that long ago. I think I was inspired by Tom Stoppard's radio drama derived from it.

Consequently, perhaps, I never OD'd on Pink Floyd's music and continue to enjoy it. I don't see any point, though, in comparing it with Bach. I doubt Roger Waters or David Gilmour would. Syd Barrett perhaps . . .


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

jegreenwood said:


> Although I was in college when DSOTM was released I didn't listen to it (or any Pink Floyd) all that much. I didn't own any of their albums until I picked up a two CD compilation sometime around 2000. I finally bought the SACD of DSOTM not all that long ago. I think I was inspired by Tom Stoppard's radio drama derived from it.
> 
> Consequently, perhaps, I never OD'd on Pink Floyd's music and continue to enjoy it. I don't see any point, though, in comparing it with Bach. I doubt Roger Waters or David Gilmour would. Syd Barrett perhaps . . .


I compared it to music I find more enjoyable.


----------



## AfterHours (Mar 27, 2017)

DSOTM is a well-crafted album, but yes, I agree with the OP that it is quite overrated. They reached their peak with Piper at the Gates of Dawn and A Saucerful of Secrets, which are quite a bit more experimental, otherworldly and startling than their later work. Wish You Were Here is the best of their more polished, less experimental 70s work.


----------



## SONNET CLV (May 31, 2014)

Phil loves classical said:


> I think the Capt'n is still going through a stage of purging, and coming clean with his dark past. One thing Capt'n, is you'll never like popular music if you at it through pre-20th century aesthetics. If you like modern classical, then it isn't as hard to relate to popular music, as the philosophy is more similar.* i noticed a lot of modern classical fans are also popular music fans here*.


Talkin' about me again?
Sure, I appreciate the aesthetic of modern/contemporary/avant-garde art, not only in music but in other genres as well: painting, literature, theatre. When I say "I appreciate the aesthetic" I am not saying I like everything. In fact, there is much more that doesn't really appeal to me than there is that grabs hold tight and strikes my fancy with a vengeance. Even so, I believe the modern day artist must ply his/her/their trade, giving us the bad and worthless along with the good and valuable. Art has always been so. Time will sort out the great. For the mean time, while we are in a particular era, we have to take on everything as it comes at us and do our best to assess from this perspective.

Interestingly enough, our assessment is generally based upon the past -- the great works (or art aesthetic) of the past. We tend to judge the new by rules that describe what is the best of the old. The old, after all, has already been sorted out by time. There were lots of composers in J.S. Bach's day. We have a handful left by which to judge, but that handful is the best of the lot, with Bach on top of the heap. Much of what we know about music, and what music should be (and is), derives from our appreciation of Bach.

Contemporary popular music is rather hard to assess accurately for ultimate quality and lastingness simply because it is too close to us. Actually, what we judge of it to be "good" or "the best" is often done so by using the measures of the past. Years from now it will be easier to see what is going on and we may have different standards by which to judge, standards we can't quite fully grasp now. Remember old Bach? He wasn't really so special in his own day. It took some time to reset the mold. So it will with today's music, whether it be "serious" (or "classical") music, jazz or pop or rock.

I have a great collection of Bach (a couple of the "complete music" boxes) and a great collection of contemporary/avant-garde classical music, as well as a great collection of contemporary-experimental-avant jazz. Unfortunately, the "pop" or "rock" world hasn't quite kept up. Though there are bits and pieces of experimental pop and rock here and there (industrial, noise music type of stuff), it remains more a fringe element, even more fringe for fans of pop/rock than the somewhat larger fringe audience for contemporary jazz and classical. Face it, pop/rock is rather "old fashioned". It isn't incorrect to judge a pop/rock song by the same standards Schubert used to craft his songs, and Schubert died in 1828. The harmonies are rather classically simplistic, the forms are rather limited, the instrumentation is rather standard ... and pop/rock has yet to give us a vocalist the likes of Jan DeGaetani or Joan LaBarbara.

When I listen to Schoenberg's early song cycle _Pierrot Lunaire_, Op.21 (dating to 1912), I remain amazed by what is going on in terms of musical sound. Is there anything in pop/rock even since 2000 that can compare with that?

But "classical" song has gone into realms of exploration that proves nothing less than astounding. Listen to Pierre Boulez's_ Le marteau sans maître_ (1955 - the times of early Elvis and Chuck Berry), George Crumb's _Ancient Voices of Children _(1970) (when the Beatles, Stones, and Pink Floyd were either at their heights, coming close to it, or starting on greatness), or John Cage's vocal/dance music from the late 1970s and 1980s (during the glory days of Disco). You can only be amazed by what happens to "song" in the hands of truly advanced musical thinkers.

And I'm not even going to go into what I've heard come out of the Donaueschingen Festival this past decade. Contemporary solo song, small ensemble, and grand chorus music is exploding in all sound directions. Pop/rock is way behind the times.

But I do appreciate pop/rock, to a degree. I count all of the commercially released Pink Floyd albums in my collection. I also have full sets (multiples, in fact: the monos, the stereos, the originals, the remastered) of folks like the Beatles and the Stones, Led Zep ... and even Queen! I admit to not having much disco, rap, or 80s-90s pop ... though I do keep examples handy, usually the most highly regarded, critically acclaimed stuff: Grammy award winners, albums on top lists such as _Rolling Stone Magazine's _Top 100. And I have more than a nominal amount of "noise" pop/rock by experimental bands, some well known (DNA, Einstürzende Neubauten, Lydia Lunch, Merzbow) and others quite obscure. As one interested in _music_ I crave new "organized sounds and silences" as much as I enjoy exploring familiar old territories.

There is so much out there to appreciate, one does him/herself a disservice by ignorning the new or the old in favor of only one flavor to maybe two or three. I prefer having access to a full palate, just as I appreciate seeing the world in many colors rather than just monochromatically. Sure, I can appreciate black-and-white aesthetically, and there is some greatness there, too; but there is also greatness in full color (as well as a lot of non-greatness). I just like to be able to access it all, to look around, to explore, to ponder, to appreciate ... and on occasion to be "wow-ed" and startled and humbled.

Though the jury of time is still out on the ultimate place of Floyd's _Dark Side of the Moon_, thus far it has been critically acclaimed, it has pleased many, it has sold well, it has been played copiously ... and I think it's one of the stronger albums to come out of pop/rock in the past 70 years. I have several copies in my collection, on both LP and CD, including originals and remastered copies ... and even an a cappella sung version, a jazz version, a Flaming Lips tribute version, and a couple of other tribute versions in various guises. I'm betting this is one of those music discs that will last, to lay witness to a specific type of music from a specific era in time. And it seems others (those off-shoot albums producers) agree.

But I'll still listen to obscure noise rock, too. And I have no plans to discard my old classical, new classical, or jazz along the way either. Or the Beatles and the Stones.


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese (Jan 8, 2013)

SONNET CLV said:


> Talkin' about me again?
> Sure, I appreciate the aesthetic of modern/contemporary/avant-garde art, not only in music but in other genres as well: painting, literature, theatre. When I say "I appreciate the aesthetic" I am not saying I like everything. In fact, there is much more that doesn't really appeal to me than there is that grabs hold tight and strikes my fancy with a vengeance. Even so, I believe the modern day artist must ply his/her/their trade, giving us the bad and worthless along with the good and valuable. Art has always been so. Time will sort out the great. For the mean time, while we are in a particular era, we have to take on everything as it comes at us and do our best to assess from this perspective.
> 
> Interestingly enough, our assessment is generally based upon the past -- the great works (or art aesthetic) of the past. We tend to judge the new by rules that describe what is the best of the old. The old, after all, has already been sorted out by time. There were lots of composers in J.S. Bach's day. We have a handful left by which to judge, but that handful is the best of the lot, with Bach on top of the heap. Much of what we know about music, and what music should be (and is), derives from our appreciation of Bach.
> ...


How do you type something so long.............................. it almost needs it own album rating


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

In response to Sonnet Clv's post (too long to requote here ), I agree with all, except i don't agree with judging the new with old rules. I liked the Beatles first for their melodies, and gave up on their later period, except for a few hooks, for a long period since I thought they were just weird or pretentious. Only after getting into modern classical music, did i find there is a similar way of appreciation for the later Beatles. Traditional aesthetics usually get in the way with appreciating 20th century aesthetics.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

Daniel Atkinson said:


> Dark side of the moon doesn't do anything for me, but it obviously does for the public as *they've brought more copies than Mozart*


I doubt it. Mozart has been selling recordings since they started making recordings. I doubt Dark Side is anywhere close to catching up.


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese (Jan 8, 2013)

EdwardBast said:


> I doubt it. Mozart has been selling recordings since they started making recordings. I doubt Dark Side is anywhere close to catching up.


As Zozart's Agent'(distant cousin one removed of Mozart), I'm glad to here this and will be seeking royalties......... then I can live like a Pink Floyd King!


----------



## SONNET CLV (May 31, 2014)

EddieRUKiddingVarese said:


> *How do you type something so long.............................. *it almost needs it own album rating


I don't. My fingers merely move over a keyboard while I'm listening to music. It's sort of like playing piano along with a recording. What comes out on the page depends upon the length of the work I was listening to. Apparently I listened to a Mahler Symphony when my fingers moved over the keyboard for that prior post. I'm listening to a Chopin Prelude as I type now. Oops. Ending ....


----------



## SONNET CLV (May 31, 2014)

Phil loves classical said:


> In response to Sonnet Clv's post (too long to requote here ), I agree with all, *except i don't agree with judging the new with old rules.* I liked the Beatles first for their melodies, and gave up on their later period, except for a few hooks, for a long period since I thought they were just weird or pretentious. Only after getting into modern classical music, did i find there is a similar way of appreciation for the later Beatles. Traditional aesthetics usually get in the way with appreciating 20th century aesthetics.


Of course, I made the following comments: "Actually, what we judge of it to be "good" or "the best" is often done so by using the measures of the past. _Years from now it will be easier to see what is going on and we may have different standards by which to judge, standards we can't quite fully grasp now_." I added the italics.

One of the things that certainly gets in the way of our appreciation of new art is exactly that we don't always know by what standards to judge it. So we rely on the old standards, and a lot of times this destroys our understanding of the music. Which is why, I suspect, many rioted at the premier of Stravinsky's _Rite of Spring_. This music was not following "the rules" as the listening audience understood them.

Of course, today we have Stravinsky's rules. And they work when applied to much modern music. But the newest, avant-garde stuff defies those rules ... and the rules or standards we've adjusted to as set by Schoenberg ... and Cage ... and Stockhausen ....

Which is what makes confronting new music so challenging. We always bring with us our preconceived understandings, but those same understandings often won't work for the visions of new geniuses. We have to give such works time to sink in, time to provide understanding to other artists who will grasp the rules and build their own new works upon them ... till such a time that quantity and familiarity provides us with an understanding we hadn't had previously.

Schoenberg's first 12-tone experiments were quite confounding. But a lot has since happened. A lot of composers have written a lot of 12-tone works, have expanded upon and modified the "rules of the row", and have produced a musical style of modernity which today's ears actually sounds rather ... old fashioned? Indeed, Schoenberg is often described with comparisons to Brahms! Which is exactly right. But who in 1910 would have made that connection?

Thanks for reading my post.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

SONNET CLV said:


> Of course, I made the following comments: "Actually, what we judge of it to be "good" or "the best" is often done so by using the measures of the past. _Years from now it will be easier to see what is going on and we may have different standards by which to judge, standards we can't quite fully grasp now_." I added the italics.
> 
> One of the things that certainly gets in the way of our appreciation of new art is exactly that we don't always know by what standards to judge it. So we rely on the old standards, and a lot of times this destroys our understanding of the music. Which is why, I suspect, many rioted at the premier of Stravinsky's _Rite of Spring_. This music was not following "the rules" as the listening audience understood them.
> 
> ...


Sorry, didn't read it carefully enough obviously.


----------



## Bettina (Sep 29, 2016)

SONNET CLV said:


> I don't. My fingers merely move over a keyboard while I'm listening to music. It's sort of like playing piano along with a recording. What comes out on the page depends upon the length of the work I was listening to. Apparently I listened to a Mahler Symphony when my fingers moved over the keyboard for that prior post. I'm listening to a Chopin Prelude as I type now. Oops. Ending ....


What would happen if you listened to 4'33"? :lol:


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese (Jan 8, 2013)

Bettina said:


> What would happen if you listened to 4'33"? :lol:


Or *As Slow As Possible - *I'd like to see that but not read it


----------



## elgar's ghost (Aug 8, 2010)

_DSotM_ was one of the first albums I bought, loved and, as a consequence, played to death. That, however, was 40 years ago. I haven't heard it in its entirety for at least 15 years and I can't say I've really missed it either. These days I actually prefer _The Wall_ because I didn't play it to death when it came out (nor since) and so it still sounds relatively fresh.


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

Even though I prefer Wish you were here, I still have a soft spot for DSOTM.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

Phil loves classical said:


> In response to Sonnet Clv's post (too long to requote here ), I agree with all, except i don't agree with judging the new with old rules...... Traditional aesthetics usually get in the way with appreciating 20th century aesthetics.


My own method is to forgo aesthetics entirely--new, old--and just listen to the music without preconceptions, expectations. Aesthetics are what I cook up later to "explain" what pleases me.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

EddieRUKiddingVarese said:


> How do you type something so long.............................. it almost needs it own album rating


The only thing I read was your pithy sentence! :lol:


----------



## ldiat (Jan 27, 2016)

who's pink floyd is she a pole dancer?


----------



## Pugg (Aug 8, 2014)

ldiat said:


> who's pink floyd is she a pole dancer?


You go up for post of the day.


----------



## Casebearer (Jan 19, 2016)

Strange Magic said:


> My own method is to forgo aesthetics entirely--new, old--and just listen to the music without preconceptions, expectations. Aesthetics are what I cook up later to "explain" what pleases me.


Like Krishnamurti did, a famous Buddist philosopher that lived in The Netherlands for many years and had his following. Life is fresh everyday. Lose all prejudgements and preconceptions. Nice if you can approach that state, although too difficult for me.


----------



## Casebearer (Jan 19, 2016)

ldiat said:


> who's pink floyd is she a pole dancer?


Not funny at all.


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese (Jan 8, 2013)

ldiat said:


> who's pink floyd is she a pole dancer?


No, that was on the Led Zep tour bus................


----------



## Casebearer (Jan 19, 2016)

Pugg said:


> You go up for post of the day.


Wrong judge in the wrong thread.


----------



## Pugg (Aug 8, 2014)

EddieRUKiddingVarese said:


> No, that was on the Led Zep tour bus................


They must have had a lot of fun then. :lol:


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese (Jan 8, 2013)

Pugg said:


> They must have had a lot of fun then. :lol:


You haven't heard the Edgewater Inn story then- which I can't repeat here but involves a Mud Shark - hence the Zappa song on the Fillmore East album


----------



## Pugg (Aug 8, 2014)

EddieRUKiddingVarese said:


> You haven't heard the Edgewater Inn story then- which I can't repeat here but involves a Mud Shark - hence the Zappa song on the Fillmore East album


I am afraid not Eddie , perhaps before my time......


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese (Jan 8, 2013)

Pugg said:


> I am afraid not Eddie , perhaps before my time......


Google will reveal all- literally........................................


----------



## Pugg (Aug 8, 2014)

EddieRUKiddingVarese said:


> Google will reveal all- literally........................................


I was suspecting: https://lmgtfy.com/


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese (Jan 8, 2013)

Pugg said:


> I was suspecting: https://lmgtfy.com/


Is that the clean version...............


----------



## ldiat (Jan 27, 2016)

YEA! POST OF THE DAY! (well i thought it was funny:lol


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese (Jan 8, 2013)

ldiat said:


> YEA! POST OF THE DAY! (well i thought it was funny:lol


Thanks, its like pick me I'm clean.............


----------



## Alydon (May 16, 2012)

I've always had a copy of DSOTM in my collection for the last 30 years and it feels liked it has always existed like baked beans or British rail strikes. For me anyway it has a special connection as it was the 1st album I fully listened to under the very heavy influence to the old alternative tobacco. Happy days.


----------

