Dark Side of the Moon, First Impressions

Swinton:

I think you have to consider the different "styles" of progressive rock before you try to "compare" DSOTM to Yes, Genesis, ELP, etc.

Despite the use of keyboards (and even the occasional orchestra), I would not classify PF as "symphonic progressive rock."  Yeah, there's a "symphonic" element.  But their approach is as different from that of keyboard-heavy and "orchestration"-heavy bands like Yes and Genesis as Supertramp is from Gentle Giant.

In my opinion, Floyd stands apart from almost every other "progressive rock" group due to their unique approach, execution and conceptualization.  Many bands have been influenced by them to various degrees (from Marillion and The Church to Spock's Beard and Dream Theater), but the only groups that influenced PF (initially) were The Beatles and The Moody Blues.  Yet what they produced was not derivative, but wholly original, even innovative.  Even later on they all but "refused" to be influenced by what was going on waround them (at least until Waters left), preferring to "do it their way" - their very unique way.

Thus, I believe PF must be taken on its own terms, and not "thrown into a pot" with all the other seminal prog groups.  As the cliche goes, it is like comparing apples and oranges.

Peace.

As Maani says, the album has to be taken in context. It's too easy to say now that it sounds pop and radio friendly. The fact is that at the time it was as groundbreaking and original as the other albums Swinton mentions. The fact that it now sounds so familiar is because it spawned a whole generation of followers who took what PF had invented, and developed it.

At the time of it's release, anyone suggesting it was unamibitious pop would have been considered as mad as the lunatics on the grass. The album sold in vast quantities in spite of the fact that there were no singles taken from it (in the UK at least), and the band members were pretty much unknowns to the vast majority who bought it. How likely is that for a pop album?

It's a bit like saying "Rock around the clock" is nothing more than a simple rock'n'roll song.

I reckon Pink Floyd made several better albums but DSOTM was their most accessable.Money still got played to death even though it wasn't released as a single.The other tracks were easy to programme for Radio as well.I don't think Floyd realised they were creating a commercial monster BUT they did.Thankfully they didn't repeat this exercise and much to their credit came out with some of the best prog rock of the late seventies on Animals and The Wall.DSOTM has achieved 'mythical' status because of its massive sales.That is a fact.Whether it's really that great is purely a matter of opinion.

Money WAS released as a single - that was how Pink Floyd broke the American market, and a large part of why so many copies sold.

It was a deep irony (not least to Roger W) that a song about Money should be the song that made Floyd so much money - and put them in the dilemma that here they were in the position that every rock band wants to be in; ie "making it" on the strength of their own music and suddenly rolling in cash - which all went against their socialist ethics of becoming "breadheads".

You are right when you surmise that PF did not set out to create a monster - they simply created music in their own style (with a little help from their friends!); indeed, DSOTM is full of PF's hallmark experimentation - but most of it is SUBTLE, which is WASTED on idiots who think that only technical virtuosity is any good. The technical virtuosity here is in the songwriting, arranging and production - something most "technical" musicians have a huge amount of trouble with and are generally useless at.

The inifinite nuances, lights, shades, attention to detail and musical perfection of DSOTM are in a creative league which is easily comparable to if not better than the output of most bands - which is another reason DSOTM remains one of the best-selling albums of all time. On the surface you hear a simple album - because it's accessible. This is just part of the Floyd's technical skill; to make something as mind-blowingly progressive as DSOTM sound good to technocrats and Joe public alike. And it IS mind-blowingly progressive - but you need to listen to hear that, not just be in the same room as it is playing. To hear this album as simple is to hear the surface, and be fooled.

One could, of course take the more cynical view that because it sells, people act like sheep and buy it because it's popular or to make their musical tastes appear more eclectic to their peer groups - but I think most people buy it simply because they've heard it and like it.

And why not?

Blacksword wrote: I have always liked DSOTM, but it's not Floyd at their best IMO, its Floyd at their most accessable. It's a good album, but I think people get carried away when they praise it as some kind of masterwork. I think Floyd made a shrewd business decision when they released 'Money' as a single in the US. It was bound to sell with that infectous bass line, and the sound of cash registers ringing. Its become a capitalist anthem. DSOTM would not have sold as many copies if 'Money' hadn't been such a great advert for it. A good album, but I cant help feeling its a bit overated..

I totally agree... WYWH and Animals are far better if you're looking for Floyd at its prog peak. Then there is of course The Wall, the BEST ALUM EVER , but it's art-rock!

Yeah, I'd consider my prog knowledge sufficient to ascertain the parameters of prog and I'm far more eclectic in my prog taste than you! Mrs ELP/FLOYD and nowt else !

I don't mind being lectured to by someone who listens to it all, but If you listen to ELP everyday then you'll never realise that Spartacus by Triumvirat is as good as anything ELP did - and there's non so blind as them that won't see......