Is Dark Side of The Moon Overrated?

Probably as overrated as Steel Mill’s Green Eyed God Album from that era was underrated!
And in case anyone is interested the album was reissued by Riseabove records in 2013 both in CD and vinyl format. Renamed Jewels of the Forest with some previously unreleased tracks on it. There is also a Steel Mill website steelmill2015.com and a more recent album called Body in the Water check it out!!

The Dark Elf wrote: No, it is not "overrated" -- I don't really see how anyone could make the claim. It is universally lauded as one of the greatest albums of all-time by critics, and evidently the general public feels the same, having kept it on the bestseller charts from 1973 to 1988, and it has returned to the charts every time it was re-released in a different format.  In addition, it is one of the few albums where lovers of disparate forms of music generally agree on its excellence. Long after "prog" had its fifteen minutes of fame in the 70s, DSotM retained its value, and the album remains in the collections of hard-rockers, metal-heads, psychedelia-lovers, punks and progolydytes. Even the album cover is iconic, perhaps the most recognizable design this side of the Rolling Stone's lips and tongue. The prism design is omnipresent throughout the world. Frenetic Zetetic wrote: The songwriting seems to be intentionally written in a diluted way. It feels incomplete, even on repeated listens. I feel like I'm dealing with the Wal Mart special of PF albums. It would seem you lack context in regards to the composition. A provisional title of the album was early on Dark Side of the Moon: A Piece for Assorted Lunatics, and each song deals with an aspect of madness, and the album itself is one of the best "concepts" ever released. The album itself is seamless, one song floating into another, and as far as you considering the songs as somehow "incomplete", as a composer and lyricist, I have no idea what you are getting at.  DSotM is complete as far as I'm concerned, and it is the reason we even still speak of Pink Floyd in such expansive terms -- their fame rests on this album, no matter if you get an erection for later albums like WYWH or Animals. The Floyd albums previous to DSotM are generally meandering and often pointless digressions into psych trippiness. Their releases up to this point are hit-and-miss for the most part. Even a genuinely good album like Meddle has obvious head-scratching filler (for every "Echoes" or "One of These Days", there is a "Seamus" or "San Tropez").  But DSotM is the most cohesive of Floyd albums, and the great Wish You Were Here (whether you like it more or not) is really a continuation of DSotM's conceptualization, seamlessness and compositional style. One does not exist without the other, both from an historical or writing/composing perspective. Frenetic Zetetic wrote: I don't care for DSoTM due to the tech advances. They are there, no denying. It's the songs themselves that don't gel with me. Recording tech is irrelevant to the the songwriting, and vice versa for me. Again, your lack of context is particularly devoid of any rational perspective. What makes an album "great" in many instances is not only the composition (which I would insist for this album is superb), but also both the aural and visual presentation. When there is a list of great rock albums, we also refer to the the album art (which I mentioned before as iconic), and "how" the album sounded. sh*tty sounding albums, poor production quality and lack of detail is often derided here on ProgArchives when reviewing albums -- because sound matters to us. I remember listening to DSotM in 1973  and was astounded at the quality of the sound from the first play. The moment you heard it, you knew it was special -- and, well...different. Perhaps listeners from a different generation with their ears attuned to digitized marginalization and noise-defeating technologies simply do not comprehend how amazing the sound was (I still recall the alarm clock going off in "Time" -- what a trip). But the sound quality and being able to hear bells, ticking, various road noises, etc. would be just a novelty and soon dismissed if it weren't for how the songs themselves mattered in that time period. The songs themselves struck a "chord" to the listeners of that era. They captured the sentiment of the time (which is relatable to the ongoing popularity of Sabbath -- people literally lived Sabbath back in the day). So, you wore out your orignal vinyl record, fried your 8-track, tried to sync it to The Wizard of Oz and failed, unraveled your cassette, sold your laser disc version at a garage sale when you got it on CD, bought a gold CD, got a remaster, and maybe even bought it SACD or MSFL vinyl. Because it sounds that good.

Edited by Frenetic Zetetic - March 18 2018 at 15:27

Maybe as an album it is, but it still makes a pretty decent stereo test disc.

Walkscore wrote: DSOTM is special because, in addition to what many others have said (re gateway, sound quality, composition), I think many of us would not be who we are but for this album. For many of us (including myself) it was the album that opened up a world of possibilities for what could be done in music, and it came with a particular kind of political sensibility that few bands other than Floyd could really communicate, at least not as emotionally.  While I agree that Close to the Edge and Selling England are on the same plane musically - i.e. equally musical - I think I still would have been the same person if one of those two albums didn't exist. But I might not have 'found music' if it weren't for DSOTM.  But of course, I am not sure if the same is true for new listeners so many years on...

...um, you mean, if it weren't for the Lamb. We all have such different answers for that, don't we?

Of course it's overrated, I mean, it's one of the most commercially successful albums after all, but it's not bad "per se".
Now, commercial success is linked to demographics. Justin Bieber or Britney Spears are for early teens, young men like something in the vein of Red Hot Chilli Peppers or Soundgarden, for instance...
I see DSOTM as a sort of Jack of all trades, and it covers all demographics. It's a pretty safe record for that reason: no excesses, songs that are not too long, not too short, a sound that is not too soft, nor too heavy. It's an all-encompassing album that's never boring, but never frenetic. Nothing about it is divisive...and that's the main issue: it lacks balls, it lacks passion, it lacks the qualities a classic should have. It was made to reach every single being in a way record companies never thought possible.
I think real masterworks are made of pure quality, belong to a genre and are divisive (Thick as a Brick, Close to the Edge). That's why, despite selling more than every other prog rock album, it's not a classic in my book: it lacks prog, it lacks rock, it lacks pop...it's stuck in the middle of everything.


EDIT and tl;dr: I consider being commercially successful to be something REALLY GOOD. But it's impossible to make a classic that way, because in order to reach the most people you need to make compromises and be tame. What you guys call "sell out".



Edited by Upbeat Tango Monday - March 18 2018 at 17:37

A classic album - not overrated at all. I overplayed it when I was younger and it tends to be a long time now between plays compared to other classic albums. However, when I do, I realise how good it is. It was the entry point for many people into prog rock and deserves respect enough for that alone.

Overrated. What's it mean anyway? "I don't like the thing that most people do!" I think it's pointless to say something is "overrated" because it all boils down to opinions. If you disagree with the fact that something gets a lot of praise, you say "oh, it's overrated".

Every album made is a product of its times. Every one, even the ones people think are ground-breaking right now. A classic is one that delves into the depths of human experience present not only in its own time but for other times as well. DSotM plumbs those depths in a way few albums have, whether they are more technically proficient, or fit better into a particular demographic or genre. Many of the better qualities of the album have already been mentioned - its use of technology, its vision, its flow. It is an album that has to be experienced as a whole, and not as a mere series of songs. This is a dimension missing in much of today's music. People burned out of complete albums because so many albums only had one or two good songs. This happened mainly in the 90s. Flow is an art lost to too many musicians today. And simplicity does not necessarily equal bad music. The Ode to Joy is a simple melody but look what Beethoven did with it. The songs themselves are not complex, but look at the way it all fits together. Much of it is slow and mid-tempo and that is what I think a lot of proggers dislike, but like a David Gilmour guitar solo, the album as a whole is extraordinarily well crafter. No, it is not overrated but it has become possibly too familiar. You still don't have to like it, though.

Upbeat Tango Monday wrote: Of course it's overrated, I mean, it's one of the most commercially successful albums after all, but it's not bad "per se". Now, commercial success is linked to demographics. Justin Bieber or Britney Spears are for early teens, young men like something in the vein of Red Hot Chilli Peppers or Soundgarden, for instance... I see DSOTM as a sort of Jack of all trades, and it covers all demographics. It's a pretty safe record for that reason: no excesses, songs that are not too long, not too short, a sound that is not too soft, nor too heavy. It's an all-encompassing album that's never boring, but never frenetic. Nothing about it is divisive...and that's the main issue: it lacks balls, it lacks passion, it lacks the qualities a classic should have. It was made to reach every single being in a way record companies never thought possible. I think real masterworks are made of pure quality, belong to a genre and are divisive (Thick as a Brick, Close to the Edge). That's why, despite selling more than every other prog rock album, it's not a classic in my book: it lacks prog, it lacks rock, it lacks pop...it's stuck in the middle of everything. EDIT and tl;dr: I consider being commercially successful to be something REALLY GOOD. But it's impossible to make a classic that way, because in order to reach the most people you need to make compromises and be tame. What you guys call "sell out".

I think you should read Dark Elf post, there´s great answer to you. I just say very much shorter about that, DSoTM really isn´t safe album at all, I believe many safe pop music listeners of today really scary already that great beginnning of the album, on the run with it´s experiments and lunatic laugh is just too much to them not talking very passionate and extraoridinary vocals of Clare Torry in Great Gig. And yes, theme is madness that I don´t think any safe pop album today will have. Also your critic about short songs, this album is a whole entity where are 10 parts!

The Dark Elf wrote: No, it is not "overrated" -- I don't really see how anyone could make the claim. It is universally lauded as one of the greatest albums of all-time by critics, and evidently the general public feels the same, having kept it on the bestseller charts from 1973 to 1988, and it has returned to the charts every time it was re-released in a different format.  So, you wore out your orignal vinyl record, fried your 8-track, tried to sync it to The Wizard of Oz and failed, unraveled your cassette, sold your laser disc version at a garage sale when you got it on CD, bought a gold CD, got a remaster, and maybe even bought it SACD or MSFL vinyl. Because it sounds that good.

for the whole review.

Got to add that it's my desert island disc. It's got stellar music, stellar sound and a message that runs thru the whole album. There are some that complain that the tracks are too short. I don't understand this as it flows from start to finish. Certainly as better flow than say Supper's Ready, which is a great track. Its as if some would like it better if only it was just two tracks with multiple sections in each. It could easily be listed as such. Another complaint is its boring , which IMHO is just unfathomable. The interplay between the keys and guitars on Money, is exquisite. It's played in 7/8 until you get to the blistering solo.   It has been derided as pop music. I want to know what pop station would play Great Gig in the Sky. Dark Side of the Moon, has meaning, the sound effects add depth and understanding without getting in the way. It flows but is never rushed, the music has space so you can relish everything that is going on. It may be the album that got millions into prog but it certainly is not a lower level album. It's not like saying Sally Dick and Jane books got you into reading and you built up to War and Peace. DSOTM is at the top of the pyramid.

Yup, I'm one of the guys you described. Bought the LP. Wore it out, bought another. Bought the MFSL LP and didn't play it for 2 years because I was waiting for my brother to get married and I would get my own stereo. I wanted it to be the first LP II played on it. Got the CD and got the MFSL CD. And the Experience Edition CD. It's also live on Pulse. If PF gave me an excuse (maybe extra tracks or live) I would have gotten the one with the prism in stained glass. It's a great cover. Whenever I was looking at new equipment for me or someone else, I would always bring 3 discs. DSOTM, a Barbra Streisand disc for her vocals(though I can't remember the last time I played one of her records for enjoyment), and a great sounding classical album.   Did I mention that DSOTM is my fav recording?