JimMorrison

Ah fuck, where do you see it? Just tell me a bit about the meticulous preparation of the pieces on the album. After adjusting the lineup, Barrett started writing serious tracks, but at the same time as lysergic as visionary, dictated by the abundant use of LSD - and you can tell. In 1966, they performed in London at the Marquee, improvising as rarely seen on stage and proving to be innovative, with a sound that was all their own. They got a contract with EMI, sent out two singles as a preview (Arnold Layne and See Emily Play - commercially viable, sure, sure, just like the tested commerciality of the Beatles!) and recorded The Piper. Now, that EMI wanted to sell was certain, but they took a risk, and you know why?: Because they didn’t have large-scale data on hand. Innovation can mean success or flop; an album that doesn’t meet the sales standards of the time is not a commercial album. Frequent time changes, lyrics that aren’t exactly understandable, psychedelic journeys. The success of the Floyd grows proportionally over time, peaking with The Dark Side and Wish, no doubt about it. Animals is a collection of old leftover material cleverly adapted to fit the concept, and you should know it, this is what it means: "to honor a contract with EMI." Why do you think in recent years the Floyd never revisited their older tracks in live shows? P.S.: I’ve written several times, I’m at work, it would annoy me to reread. I hope I’ve been clear anyway.

Well...

The Velvet Underground :D - <<<But if there's a "commercial" album by the Floyd, well, it's definitely Piper.>>> I'll keep this in mind for as long as I live, I swear, I can't say "I know the Floyd" without having a statement like that in my handbook... Aigottaabaik

<<<Piper the antithesis of commercialism? Another proof of your limited knowledge of Pink Floyd. Piper is an album of pop songs, made by a group that hardly played pop songs live. Piper is a record designed to sell, where their space for freedom was represented by a concentrated version of Interstellar Overdrive. Not "just" to sell, but undeniably that was its primary goal. They say it themselves, and everyone knows it. And this has nothing to do with the quality of the product, mind you. But if there is a "commercial" album by the Floyd, well, it is indeed Piper.>>> Can I hang it in my room?

@Shine: one thing is to produce/compose/write music solely for the purpose of selling, which normally results in easy, catchy songs, great for topping charts around the world. The fact that an album like The Piper, the antithesis of commerciality, sells is another story (and over the years, The Piper must also thank Wish for its success...). Etero? I too eccheticredevi.

You've never seen how good I look in DeShirt?

What does “lack of listens” mean now? Who talked about this? It's likely that there’s someone who has listened to more music than Odra, but it’s crap music, or someone who, with very few listens, has a good repertoire to show to the girl of the moment that he brings home. That’s not the point: you wrote reviews that would make even a Siberian pale, a couple were more decent and you got your quarter of recognition. Now: what the fuck do you want? This is the crux.

It might be more difficult, but the outcome remains the same. Accept the consequences, right?

@Odra: I was writing <<<Usually they are as long as an Odradek post>>>. I swear.

I totally agree with your comment and I’d like to add: what would be the serious reviews you’ve written that have been completely ignored? Usually, they’re as long as a post and contain little to no information, if not bordering on zero. What are you complaining about then? Come on, seriously, you’re a fake as beautiful as green milk with mint.