bogusman

I’m one of those who have never been able to understand this album. I should specify that from the early Cure on a desert island, I would only bring Three Imaginary Boys and Pornography, because 17 Seconds makes me feel a bit meh (idiosyncrasies) and Faith has never convinced me. But every time I start listening to The Top, I feel the urge to pop in The Head On The Door, now that’s an album of exquisite pop, of which this album seems to be the somewhat confusing notebook.

Interesting. You’re basing your argument on the very assumption I contest: that Gilmour's trademark sound is the quintessence of the sound of the TRUE PF. And certainly, it has been, but of those somewhat bloated Pink Floyd that I (and others) are no longer really interested in. However, I don’t understand how you can say that The Piper is the work of a bunch of hippies who wouldn’t have gone far, considering this is one of the albums that best captures the spirit of the times that enveloped London in 1966-67... Even if just for its historical significance.

No, primiballi. I’m not saying that Piper is better than Darkside just because “the unknown is cooler,” but because I think there’s a creativity and a willingness to turn things upside down in it that the group lost early on. Let’s be clear, it’s not that I hate DSOTM, it’s just that its crowd-pleasing aspect annoys me, the taste for somewhat easy effects... Regarding your “accusations” of niche criticism, I’m sorry, but there are many bestsellers (Sgt. Pepper, Reggatta De Blanc, Heroes, etc.) that I consider masterpieces, certainly for the intrinsic quality of the music, and not for their universality... Rather, it seems that you view a work as a masterpiece only based on unanimous consensus (public + critics + musicians + historical significance). And what about personal taste? And critical thinking?

the idiot, low, heroes are three chapters in different forms that are extremely important in the electronic "refoundation" carried out by Bowie and company in the second half of the 70s. However, I take this opportunity to reiterate the depth of LODGER, an album too unjustly overlooked, but in my opinion a worthy successor of the ideas born in the previous albums and equally influential on certain mutations of rock in the early 80s (and also the subject of a review of mine...).

excellent review for one of the absolutely essential albums to understand much of the European music of the following five years... another small note; in this album, Brian Eno plays and co-writes some tracks with Bowie, but he is not the producer! The producer is Tony Visconti, who is also responsible, I believe, for the typical sound of the hyper-saturated drums that characterizes many pieces.

Hmm, let's see... I don’t understand how a record can't be "criticized" (I mean how critical thinking can't be applied to it) even if it is considered a supposed legend of rock. Perhaps it’s because for me, Pink Floyd were an enormous band only for a couple of albums and a handful of singles. Maybe for me, the ABSOLUTELY untouchable and legendary albums are different from those mentioned by Primiballi. The albums you refer to belong to very different phases of their respective bands; apart from Beggar's Banquet, which can be seen as a "reinvention" of blues, and the first Doors album, a striking debut, Abbey Road is quite a controversial album. On Dark Side, both the public and critics have always been divided (within themselves), and Wish is considered by many to be a younger sibling of Dark Side. They don't seem to me to be albums on the same level of untouchability, so to speak... Then I don’t understand how the fact that Barrett’s solo albums are not, according to some, excellent, can retroactively reflect on the stature of The Piper... A masterpiece can also be an anomalous and isolated chapter within a discography, right?

Yes, listen to it. And maybe also taste the early singles from 1966, (before The Piper) authentic gems of proto-psychadelic writing, light years away from the classic PF. In my opinion, in the early PF period, one can find a synthesis and a terseness (soon alas lost) that should delight even eardrums a bit tired of the typical factory-mark sound of the PF from '71 onwards...

Try, dear Mike, to listen, if you haven't already, to "the piper at the gates of dawn"; that's a completely different band from the one that plays in live at pompeii or ummagumma. I don’t know the definition you give to “grinta e furia iconoclasta,” and what you mean by “canto anni 60,” but I assure you that in the first album the edges are absolutely alive and sharp, and you won't find even a shadow of softness or peaceful atmospheres...

Ah! Indeed, I had missed antonino91's comment on the electronic drums in For Your Pleasure... it's pretty much like saying that Pink Floyd played rhythm & blues. Less nonsense, please...

ah, by the way Outside, in terms of "density", I place it on the same level as the Berlin trilogy...