|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
69.108.107.135
http://www.pinkfloydz.com/darksidesandv.htm
Follow Ups:
To me - and I stress to me - the music and musicianship is average, the lyrics banal, and the recording nothing all that special. It seems to be a standard overdubbed studio recording, with some sound effects (heartbeats, clock chimes, cash registers, etc.) added. Bid deal.I recognize a few of the songs, but I never paid much attention to this music when it came out in the 70s and I'm not a Pink Floyd fan. I have only listened to the recording a couple of times after buying inot the hype surrounding the release of the SACD version. Both times I was stone cold sober. (Perhaps that's the problem?)
I am wondering how much of the appeal of this recording is simply based on nostalgia - people returning to this music and remembering an old girlfriend, good times with friends in the smoking pit, that beloved muscle car, or the senior prom. Is it possible for someone who is unfamiliar with the music to recognize it as this "masterpiece" that people who have extramusical associations with it deam it to be? Or is this just "comfort food" for 70s stoners?
.
Absolutely! I first heard it after 1/2 a bottle of John Daniels and it was a BLAST.Not for critical listening - just enjoying!
and in fact, by some, against rock in general.Average musicianship, banal lyrics. The musicianship is perfectly appropriate to the style of music. Banal lyrics? Well, perhaps compared to the Duino Elegies, but there are certainly many (or most)rock lyrics that are more banal than those here.
Banality of lyrics- I've seen clips where Steve Allen mockingly read the lyrics of rock and roll songs of the 50s to show how vapid they were. But that missed the whole point really.
There are some nice melodies here. That's what probably draws people more than anything else. I find the recording to be very clean.
Now this has been overplayed to death and I can really not listen to it anymore. But I think it's pretty good.
Stereotyping of groups of people (Us and Time)The nature of insanity and how it might tie into a phases of the moon.
Mankind’s big hurry to go nowhere. (On the Run)
And the very nature of time itself. (Time)
Every single song is great poetry in which years can be spent debating the concepts these poems bring forth.
Banal, no way!
I've always been an "Animals" fan myself!
This, and many other "classic" rock or other genre music were, if felt, hurridly mastered for the SACD format.... look at the difference in sound qualit between this and the same 30th anniversary vinyl?
That is what I don't get, and I think that is one of the main reasons that SACD has had a tough time.
Uh, are you and I listening to the same SACD? I often wonder the same thing about MB's Days Of Future Passed, based on comments I read. Maybe y'all are simply listening for/to different things than I am?I have used both of these SACDs (in two-channel mode) as a combined stereo/remastered source demo, and every time folks have come away quite impressed by the end result. In fact, after hearing this 30th anniversary SACD, I feel no need to go out and buy any other copies of DSotM.
I don't believe, from what I have read, that you can level that criticism at this SACD.
Regards,
Geoff
That's correct.Millions got this one.
New listeners today who come across this, without some of the preconceptions and historical background we had, still get it.
In the future, others will hear this album for the first time without any baggage at all, and will also get it.
Poor Pitiful You - pity pity.
...you probably would've had to have lived during those times.> > > "To me - and I stress to me - the music and musicianship is average, the lyrics banal, and the recording nothing all that special. It seems to be a standard overdubbed studio recording, with some sound effects (heartbeats, clock chimes, cash registers, etc.) added. Bid deal." < < <
Taken in the context of music produced and released in 1972-73, it's quite sophisticated, and sound-wise it was audiophile, at least for any of the college crowd fortunate enough to hear an early pressing of the LP over top-of-the-line Acoustic Research speakers.
> > > "I recognize a few of the songs, but I never paid much attention to this music when it came out in the 70s and I'm not a Pink Floyd fan. I have only listened to the recording a couple of times after buying inot the hype surrounding the release of the SACD version. Both times I was stone cold sober. (Perhaps that's the problem?)" < < <
First time I heard this I was stone cold sober as well, and it was still a trip, ...without any recreational assistance! While visiting a couple of friends in their new off campus apartment I was asked "have you heard this yet?" and my bud proceeded to crank DSoTM up over his AR3A speakers while his wife lunged for the falling dishes. My jaw hit the floor before the plates. "Wow, who the heck is that?" was all I could muster.
> > > "I am wondering how much of the appeal of this recording is simply based on nostalgia - people returning to this music and remembering an old girlfriend, good times with friends in the smoking pit, that beloved muscle car, or the senior prom." < < <
Maybe you're just too young, but this album is one of the top sellers of all time, and has consistently sold well throughout the 70's, 80's & 90's, so I have to assume that this album has found new audiences again and again. Heck, even a modern prog-group like Dream Theater toured DSoTM as a tribute to Pink Floyd's classic album.
> > > "Is it possible for someone who is unfamiliar with the music to recognize it as this "masterpiece" that people who have extramusical associations with it deam it to be? Or is this just "comfort food" for 70s stoners?" < < <
I guess so; after all, you apparently didn't grow up listening to it and don't recognize it as a masterpiece! BTW, there's no reason to denigrate those who revere this album by hypothesizing that they must be stoned to appreciate it.
AuPh
by "Crime of the Century". My friends would wail!!! "You csn't compare Floyd to Supertramp!!" DSOTM is great, COTC better.
.
I remember when the album first came out, it totally blew me away! And at that time, I was a musical "snob" who preferred listening to classical music. Also when I first listened to it, I was so young I haven't even tasted my first glass of wine.It was one of the few albums me and my brother totally connected on (and generally, we have completely different musical tastes).
Fond memories of bonding with your brother. All well and good. But what about the music?I'm not trying to be confrontational about it. I want to understand why many people consider this great music. Obviously, not everyone does. But enough do, and the fact that this is one of those records that still sells well decade after decade and seems to be considered among the greatest Rock albums ever released is what aroused my interest. I was very disappointed when I listened to the SACD. That is why I'm asking what - if anything - I'm missing.
Now don't get me wrong, there's a lot of music that I listen to out of nostalgia myself. And it's not a bad reason. And I realize the emotional quality of some music can't always be expressed in words - sometimes you either you "get it" or you don't. So if nostalgia is all anyone can offer as a reason for listening to DSOTM, I can accept that. But please, admit it.
So what do I mean by people offering unsatisfying nostalgic explanations?
There are many reasons why Beethoven's symphonies are considered "masterpieces". Through years of lessons in piano, cello and several music appreciation courses, I was able to gain a modicum of understanding of the sonata form, harmonic theory, symphonic instrumentation, Western classical music history, etc. that have allowed me some small appreciation of Beethoven's music. But if I didn't know anything about Beethoven's symphonies and someone told me that I should be listening to them because, well, he or she used to listen to them with a brother in their youth and had fond memories of that bonding experience, I would be completely unsatisfied with that as a reason for why the Beethoven symphonies are regarded as significant works. Every answer I get as to why DSOTM is so well-regarded seems to be predicated on this type of answer, rather than (for example) showing how the lyrics were poetic or an important reflection on the times, how the playing was unusually virtuosic, how the instrumentation or craftsmanship or structure of the music was particularly innovative, or how the album influenced other artists.
If someone could just point me to an explanation of what I should be listening for in this music (beyond, that is, the dubious claims that the album was intended as an alternate soundtrack to "The Wizard of Oz", which only reinforces my opinion that this is merely stoner music) I would very much appreciate it!
If you recall, the first thing I said was:*** I remember when the album first came out, it totally blew me away! ***
So clearly it's not nostalgia when I heard it for the very first time.
But if you don't like it, then nothing I say will change your mind. I don't think I can really adequately explain why I like it anyway, all I know is that the music touched and spoke to me when I first heard it. If it doesn't affect you, fine, move on.
How so?
I'm not sure I can really explain the reasons why the music profoundly connected to me, and they may not apply to you.I could go really intellectual and wax on about how the lyrics revolve around themes like the futility of the rat race, or the meaning of existence, aspects of which are subsequently explored on later albums but in a different context.
If you also take the snippets of conversations, it's possible to weave a whole "story" around the album (I particularly like the whispered "I never really said I was frightened of dying" right at the end of "The Great Gig in the Sky" which gives a whole new perspective on the meaning of the song).
Or I could go on about how innovative the music is - the album was one of the first to use synthesizers both for ambience and as a lead, and the use of Major 7th chords in "The Great Gig In The Sky" is one of the earliest examples of the use of dissonant harmonies in a "slow" piece (and was extensively copied in songs as diverse as "Love Story" and "Nadia's Theme").
But all of these are justifications after the event: I remember the feeling I had when I first listened to it was "Wow!" - I couldn't get enough of it and used to play it again and again (I think my parents and possibly our neighbours got really sick of it). Songs like "Us And Them" and "The Great Gig in the Sky" used to make me cry (and still make my eyes moist).
If you listen to DSOTM, WYWH, The Wall and The Final Cut they kind of form a loose story "arc". DSOTM is about the "father", WYWH is about the "brother" who died (in reality Syd Barrett), and The Wall is about the son (the main "voice" or point of view in all these albums), and the Final Cut completes the circle because it is about the son's memories of the father.
Those comments are more along the line of what I was looking for. Maybe I still won't "get it", but since the album is so highly regarded, I want to give it another chance. Who knows? If it works, someday I might even revisit "Tubular Bells" or watch "The Fifth Element" again. (Or maybe not.)Aside from the songs connecting aurally, I hadn't considered the possibility of an overarching narrative, nor had I considered the background conversation anything more than sound effects. So I hadn't listened to the entire recording in one sitting. I might give the album a third try when I have some time to listen to it straight through.
It's mind blowing enough for me as it is - I don't need any extra assistance!Also, it helps if you have a vivid imagination (I do - I'm like that mathematician in "A Beautiful Mind" - I'm always searching for hidden meaning even when none probably exists!)
As an example in terms of hidden meaning, consider "The Great Gig In The Sky" (you can tell this is my favourite track).
In the context of the "story" embedded in the album, there's no question that this track is about death, and quite possibly about a woman close to the man (the "protagonist" of the story) dying, possibly his wife? (and the mother of "Pink" in "The Wall").
The opening conversation snippet features a man denying that he is frightened of death, so this could be interpreted as the man trying to control his fear and grief over his wife's death. And the rest of the song mainly features a woman singing without lyrics. She sounds pained, perhaps her singing can be interpreted as a woman screaming through pain (cancer?).
And yet the melody is curiously soothing. The whispered words at the end: "I never said I was frightened of dying" gives us the clue - the woman at the ends accepts her impending death, and is actually trying to console and sooth her grieving husband. However, it comes across more like a scream to us, because what we are hearing is inside the man's mind - her last words have been distorted into a wordless scream which has elements of a soothing melody playing over and over again in his mind.
The song ends with an organ drone, suggestive of a church (perhaps the memorial service?). In his mind he hopes she has gone to "The Great Gig in the Sky" (ie. "heaven") but I get the sense he doesn't really believe it.
Anyway, if you listen to the album carefully, you can build up a story. It's a pretty depressing and sad story, actually, which is why it tends to make me cry.
I can tell you that . . . um . . . "enhancements" did not change my perception of this one.Now, Santana's "Abraxas" . . . well, that is a truly kinesthetic experience, man, especially on electrostatic 'phones!
Probably is comfort food for 70s stoners. On the other hand to paraphrase Andy Singer, expensive audiophile systems are substitutes for recreational drugs as well.
The Mobile Fidelity Vinyl is far superior. Its not even close to the SACD. I have both
There's no hum (despite Teresa's post below) and ... everyone remember all that angst about the "Crest cracks" around the center hole? They're still there, and it still doesn't seem to matter :-)
"Music is love"
Teresa
.
"Music is love"
Teresa
This is entirely system-dependent. I have both MFSL & SACD versions and have gone back and forth with my preferences through various upgrades to source components. In the end I think the SACD wins in terms of grip, slam, bass extension, and scale, and equals the vinyl in other respects. It's surprising how well this album was mastered in comparison to others around 1970 done through early transistor consoles of the day.
... in comparing the SACD, MoFi CD and my recent acquisition of a 1983 Harvest Black Label Japanese import CD, I must say that at times I prefer the Harvest flat transfer over my system. I don't have the MoFi LP, but based upon my impressions of the Harvest CD when compared to the MoFi CD, it's hard to beat Alan Parson's original mix for depth, mood and clarity without clipping. The SACD, which is a different animal altogether, is more dynamic with lots of detail and extension, but doesn't recreate the mood or front to back dimensional depth of the original recording; it sounds a bit ...ummm, 'sterile' to me.The MoFi CD has deeper bass than the Harvest Black Label or the SACD (on the MoFi CD you can actually hear extension below 20hz, including a distinct oscillation in the very low bass region for nearly a minute during Money), but it sounds unbalanced, perhaps even boosted.
Some of the things that Doug Sax attempted in the stereo remaster seems to bring some instrumentals 'up' in the SACD mix while others almost disappear into the background. This mastering is excellent in it's own rite, but in my estimation it isn't the same as the "breath of life" transfer of the original.
This may seem like sacrilege to some folks, and I do like the SACD, but when I want to relax and hear the album as I remember it, the Harvest Black Label comes closest to the 1973 Harvest vinyl without acquiring an original pressing of the LP. Note: I've been into the digital formats for a very long time and haven't ventured back to LPs because quite frankly, as the skittish patient told his doctor, "I hate needles!" :o)
And what TT and SACD player do you have? A fair comparison? Just curious! Thanks!
VPI Hw19 Jr with Rega RB300 and Benz Micro cartridge. SACD is the Sony 999es
.
present in the 180-Gram LP version or MFSL's High Fidelity Cassette version. I have not heard the multi-channel program so I don't know if the hum is there as well?I highly recommend MFSL High Fidelity Cassettes if you run across it, the new 180-Gram is a good runner up. But if you listen in 2 channel forget the SACD because of that hum and only fair sonics. The MFSL cassette sounds fantastic, both the music and sound effects!
"Music is love"
Teresa
Because it doesn't.......
you will hear the hum loud and clear on the DSD 2-channel program. It must not hum in Multi-channel? I don't do multi-channel so I do not know, but it hums loud and clear on the 2 channel stereo DSD program. The Mo-Fi LP, Cassette and the new 180 Gram LP DO NOT hum?
"Music is love"
Teresa
.
So it must be the Japanese pressing. Mine is the Crest version, cracks and all. No hum.
I hear no low-level hum whatsoever on the SACD 2CH program unless it's happening below 18hz, the limit of my sub.
I've listened to it on multichannel and 2 channel many times, with a subwoofer, and no hum whatsoever.
which I bought new when it came out in, IIRC, 1973.I never, ever liked it; and so I never played it much. I grant you that it's well-recorded; but it's still "audiophile rock" to me.
Just like JATP is "audiophile jazz."
Then there's "Roxy Music" which I would call "extreme audiophile rock." Foolishly, I bought the SACD because everybody raved about it. I had never heard it before, and I've only heard it once since then. That was enough.
I should give it away to somebody who has "Tubular Bells" in 3 different recorded media.
Fri, May. 18th,
2007 TBD Roger Waters Sound Advice Amphitheatre
West Palm Beach, FL
Seen him i9n September and the show is phenonemal. Best concert in a long time. He will do all the Pink Floyd stuff from all the albums and the band is super.
and, to put you in your place, I liked it even less than you did!
...another mans treasure. While I already ahve all three of these SACD's (and Tubular Bell 2003 on DVD-A and the original on vinyl), feel free to send them to me. One can never have enough classic music. If I can't use it, I'm sure I can find them a good home with someone who does appreciate them.I love all three albums, and have since they were first released. (And just in case you were wondering - no, I wasn't an audiophile when they initially came out. I just liked the music - like millions of other people - most of whom were also nono-audiophiles.)
John Crossett____________________________
It sounds like English, but I can't understand a word you're saying.
i especially like track 3 ...........LOL
I have both the original pressing and the HDCD remastered versions, and both of them only contain one track.I have, however, created my own "Amarok" CD-R, split into 42 tracks (!) based on information on the Internet (so I can jump directly into a particular segment into the piece, like, for example, "Maggie Thatcher"'s heavy footed "dance").
And it is the part in the Exorcist.
Scary Music is a total joy from beginning to end! Almost as good is "Chiller" which I have on a Telarc 24k Gold CD.
/
yep, I never liked those records either.
one of the best of all time, if not THE.
Writing is great, playing is very good, except for the bass.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: