Zarathustra

The Genesis were, for a couple of years, the greatest progressive band around, not pop. That was a regression. The album is an offense to the memory of the good times, unfortunately gone.

That for the average is this

For the rest, after rereading the review, I confirm that it's well done, so I'll give you a more appropriate rating.

And then, to be picky, the clarifications you made in the first comment, which undoubtedly have the merit of correcting the course, are not reflected in the review, except for the Floyd, who, by the way, if they were ever Pop, certainly were not in their very early phase.

@ghemison: First of all, it was neither my intention to put on airs nor to act like an expert: even though I have an excellent knowledge of the music from those years (and of the bands you mentioned), I genuinely didn't want to come off as annoying, and I believe the deliberately exaggerated tone of my comments (like the one where I declare I'm in the grip of a panic attack) somewhat reflects that. In any case, I apologize; I visit this site to comment on albums and read reviews in absolute tranquility and I would prefer to have good "relations" with everyone, because this way serious and in-depth discussions can be initiated. Regarding the matter, I stick to my opinion: labeling the music of The Who, known for the subversive charge of their songs (think of one of their earliest and most famous singles, "My Generation"), as Pop is wrong; the same goes for The Beatles and not to mention Pink Floyd, especially the early Floyd, children of the underground. On the other hand, we need to agree on definitions: if by Pop we mean (as per the original connotation) the abbreviation for "Popular," then all music from Elvis onward is Pop, even The Velvet Underground. The discussion would then be pointless. If, however, we mean music that is disengaged, carefree, extremely catchy, and easy to listen to and understand, then I can agree with The Beatles of the EARLY PERIOD, up to "Help!," and perhaps even the very early Who, if we analyze solely the musical form disregarding the lyrics. But at this point, even The Stones would be pop, and frankly, that doesn’t convince me. Never for Pink Floyd, though, the purest symbol of the underground, at least in their most overtly psychedelic early periods. However, using the term Brit-Pop, typically used to denote the music of Oasis and Blur (and in this, I'm not afraid of being contradicted), seems to me to be somewhat ridiculous. So, summarizing, if one adapts to the prevailing trend, meaning considering the music of Oasis, Blur, and Verve as the paradigm of the genre called Brit-Pop, one cannot call the music of bands that made history and are, so to speak, its foundation by the same name. It’s a matter of terminology, in short. Anyway, no hard feelings.

Please someone reassure me, the grammar and syntax of the previous comment are unmistakable signs of the panic attack I am experiencing.

No no, I really think I understood correctly... "Brit-pop in '68 was still quite underage (like my cousin) but was already churning out ideas in droves: the Who, the Beatles, the very first Pink Floyd, etc..." leaves no room for misunderstandings... My goodness, I never thought I would read that the Floyd are Brit-Pop. Or the Who... but the terrifying thing is that "etc," meaning the list isn’t over, otherwise we’d end up including Hendrix and the Zep as well.

Oh my god, (with a lowercase letter), Beatles, Who, Pink Floyd "Brit-POP" ???? I mean like Oasis and Blur to be clear... I’m sorry, I can’t get on board with that. I hope I misunderstood. It's a shame because the review of the album is otherwise very good and the album is quite interesting.

They agree, this is the best album of the entire Floyd production: even better than The Dark Side of The Moon as it is more emotional and heartfelt, as well as less polished and calculated. Regarding the concept behind the album, assuming it is always necessary to look for a basic concept in albums, Waters declared on more than one occasion that the album was based on the general theme of absence, primarily of the band members themselves, listless and apathetic (and thankfully so...) and deeply frustrated by the mechanisms of show-business, which forced the band to churn out another album to capitalize on their golden moment in terms of creativity and fame (which meant, without mincing words, piles of money for the record companies). In this context, Welcome to the Machine and Have a Cigar should be read as two different yet equally powerful diatribes against showbiz.
In this situation, the memory of a friend emerges, crushed in the past by those same gears that were producing the same effects on the band: hence the nostalgic remembrance of Shine On and Wish, simply sublime, in terms of pathos, class, and emotion. Therefore, I don't think it's correct to speak of a concept about Barrett, even if in a sense the ghost of his memory is present in all the songs of the album.

Yes, the album is nice, but I don't share the enthusiastic tones... it becomes tiresome in the long run.