Pink Floyd: Dark Side of Moon - Is it as good as they say?

EvaUnit02 · Post by **EvaUnit02** » 22 Oct 2006, 17:05

And yes, the two particular examples that you used of Limp Bizkit and Jay-Z are indeed pop music. Both artists are heavily commercial and tailored their sound to sell to angsty 13 year old boys. Why the hell would Jay-Z do a duets album with Linkin Park otherwise? They sell their shit to the same audience.

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 22 Oct 2006, 18:44

You do realise there is more than one genre of music, right? Classical is popular you're not telling me that's pop too?

EvaUnit02 · Post by **EvaUnit02** » 23 Oct 2006, 00:09

bradavon wrote:Classical is popular you're not telling me that's pop too?

Not the music itself, but the artists that play it can be. Eg Nigel Kennedy and Vanessa Mae.

Kurgan · Post by **Kurgan** » 23 Oct 2006, 00:40

bradavon wrote:Agreed, it's a great love song. Nothing wrong with love songs or is it not cool or manly to admit such a thing? Bollocks to that.

It's not about machismo or anything. I just didn't like the wailing song. It's got the same mental range as Lady In Red.

Limp Bizkit are popular does it make them Pop music? Jay-Z is popular is he Pop music? Both of which have been in the Top 40, the Top 40 covers a huge genre of music not all of it Pop, although agreed a big raft of it is.

Yup, they're pop alright.
As I said, there's nothing wrong with pop. Any big artist has achieved a level of pop. They'll have their style which, if it's distinctive enough, becomes pop.
You typed the magic word in there: genre. Pop is not a genre. Hip-hop is a genre. Classical is a genre. Rock is a genre.
There's a distinction, and it's one I've always maintained. All the music I have is, to a greater or lesser degree, pop. I'm not a music kid; I don't go to gigs where unsigned bands play and shit like that. I just have music that I listen to on the radio and whatnot and take it from there.

The rest maybe but Melua and Blunt aren't pop it's as simple as that. Listen to Melua and you will see it's definitely Jazz. As I presume you're basing your opinion on her more catchy stuff then you aren't really qualified to comment (more than saying you dislike her ). Yes agreed her commercial stuff is more poppy if you put me in a corner but most of her album stuff is very much jazz.

I've never really heard Katie Melua's music, as I alluded to in the previous post, and so the 'qualified to comment' part is null and void as I've never ventured an opinion on her (aside from that she looks rather cute) However, as I know of her, and she is pretty well known artist generally, I'd say she's pop.
You seem to be ducking the label of 'pop' with her and with Blunt, as you see it as bad thing; as though the word itself is mark of being inferior. That's being elitist. At the risk of repeating myself, these artists may have a particular style, but they're still pop. You say she's jazz. She may well be; never listened to her music, but she's popular jazz.

I don't think she's either but credit where credits due she writes her own material and flatly refuses to sing "so called" live from a recording.

Fair enough.

Personally I just think some just dislike his unusual male voice, it's not your normal gruff tone.

Nope, nothing to do with his voice per se. Muse's frontman Matt Bellamy, for instance, can sing really high notes (that I'd have no chance of matching in a karaoke contest) and I think as a band, they're great.
And they're pop, too

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 23 Oct 2006, 19:37

Kurgan wrote:Pop is not a genre.

I beg to differ. If it's not a genre what genre would you say Britney Spears sings? The pop genre. Pop is as much a genre as Jazz, Blues and Rock.

That said most R&B is really the black man's pop. You never hear white people saying they sing R&B, it sounds the same.

Kurgan wrote:You seem to be ducking the label of 'pop' with her and with Blunt, as you see it as bad thing; as though the word itself is mark of being inferior. That's being elitist.

Not at all I simply disagree either are pop. I like pop music (such as Kylie Minogue) it doesn't make Melua or Blunt pop.

Kurgan wrote:but she's popular jazz.

Of course pop is technically short for popular but that's not how by most people it's thought of. Pop and popular in this context have a very different meaning, ergo pop doesn't actually mean popular at all. Pop means well Pop.

EvaUnit02 wrote:Not the music itself, but the artists that play it can be. Eg Nigel Kennedy and Vanessa Mae.

Well Vanessa May mixes around with Classical music so clearly not what I meant at all. I can't talk for Nigel Kennedy as I don't know his stuff.

Funny though that Mozart is very popular yet isn't pop by your own admission, how can that be? Or is it just because he's dead and the music is well old it can't be Pop? If so are you saying to be Popular it has to have an age?

Thousands of all over the world love Mozart but I bet 99% of them would disagree it's Pop. It's not snobbery just a IMO a misunderstanding of the difference between Pop and Popular.

Kurgan and Eva so you're both saying Classical as you both say Pop MUST mean Popular is also Pop music.

By definition any musical genre with a following is popular so therefore Jazz, Rock & Blues are also Pop. Oh wait everything actually comes from Pop and we suddenly only have one genre.

Pop like Rock, like Hip-hop is a particular sound.

Bollocks I'm right and you're wrong

. We'll agree to disagree.

EvaUnit02 · Post by **EvaUnit02** » 23 Oct 2006, 19:53

You've missed what I've been saying entirely. Pop is anything that has manufactured or moulded by a record company specifically to make money and nothing else by appealing to an audience. Your artists that you claim aren't pop wouldn't be signed to a record label if some geezer(s) in (a) suit(s) didn't believe that they could be marketed to a specific audience.

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 23 Oct 2006, 20:27

EvaUnit02 wrote:Your artists that you claim aren't pop wouldn't be signed to a record label if some geezer(s) in (a) suit(s) didn't believe that they could be marketed to a specific audience.

Well of course it's all about money to them but it doesn't remotely mean they're all either: "manufactured" or "moulded".

EvaUnit02 · Post by **EvaUnit02** » 23 Oct 2006, 21:08

bradavon wrote:Well of course it's all about money to them but it doesn't remotely mean they're all either: "manufactured" or "moulded".

James Blunt and Katie Melua definitely are. Singer-songwriters are hot shit these days and Black music sells far far better if it's performed by White people (as Eminem has proven).

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 23 Oct 2006, 22:50

It's shit hot

As for Melua and Blunt being manufactured you clearly don't have a clue what you're talking about. Both were singers way before they had record contracts.

EvaUnit02 wrote:Black music sells far far better if it's performed by White people (as Eminem has proven).

Very true. White people prefer listening to white people sing. Well most do even if it's subconscious.

thelostdragon · Post by **thelostdragon** » 23 Oct 2006, 23:22

EvaUnit02 wrote:Black music sells far far better if it's performed by White people (as Eminem has proven).

A wise man once said, "You'll know that there is something wrong in this world when the best golfer is black and the best rapper is white."

EvaUnit02 · Post by **EvaUnit02** » 23 Oct 2006, 23:37

bradavon wrote:It's shit hot

Makes no difference, it works either way around.

As for Melua and Blunt being manufactured you clearly don't have a clue what you're talking about. Both were singers way before they had record contracts.

They were moulded not manufactured, fool. They were signed in order exploit the current trend in the market, singer-songwriter pap.

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 23 Oct 2006, 23:41

thelostdragon wrote:A wise man once said, "You'll know that there is something wrong in this world when the best golfer is black and the best rapper is white."

EvaUnit02 wrote:Makes no difference, it works either way around.

Therefore like Hell Yes and Hell No

grim_tales · Post by **grim_tales** » 24 Oct 2006, 17:10

brooce-leroy wrote:I think You're Beautiful is a beautiful ballad. One of the best in 10 years.

Beautiful song and one I identify with

I've only heard Shakira's pop records but they are good

Katie (Melua) is so pretty IMO

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 24 Oct 2006, 18:57

You think you're beautiful? How vain

grim_tales · Post by **grim_tales** » 24 Oct 2006, 19:06

I mean I identify with the angsty nature of the song

Killer Meteor · Post by **Killer Meteor** » 05 Dec 2006, 16:39

Back on topic, I like Dark Side Of The Moon but I consider it vastly inferior to Wish You Were Here and the truly aweinspiring Meddle - Echoes is a pure masterpiece and One Of These Days really gets me motivated.

grim_tales · Post by **grim_tales** » 30 May 2007, 16:07

EvaUnit02 wrote:Blunt has an awful voice, it sounds like cats being wrung out mixed with a pubescent boy's voice cracking and "You're Beautiful" is manipulative tripe. "Three Wisemen" other hand is just complete bollocks with totally nonsensical lyrics that wouldn't feel out of place on a fucking Mars Volta album.

This version of "You're Beautiful" is the only one with any genuine artistic merit.

That's actually quite good, is it Wierd Al? He's a funny parodist

EvaUnit02 · Post by **EvaUnit02** » 30 May 2007, 22:57

Yes it is Weird Al. Its a B-side off of Straight Outta Lynwood.

gojensen · Post by **gojensen** » 31 May 2007, 06:53

EvaUnit02 wrote:You've missed what I've been saying entirely. Pop is anything that has manufactured or moulded by a record company specifically to make money and nothing else by appealing to an audience. Your artists that you claim aren't pop wouldn't be signed to a record label if some geezer(s) in (a) suit(s) didn't believe that they could be marketed to a specific audience.

This is what I call commercial music. Which means I can still have a genre called pop (like Britney) and then either classify it as commercial (like Britney) or "real" (which sadly is going to be left empty at this point in our illustrious musical age...)

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 03 Oct 2007, 18:31

I've been re-listening to this lately and it's growing on me. I liked it the first time I heard it (on SACD 5.1) but did find it the most unusual music I've ever heard (I'd still give it that accolade).

Listening to it again I am enjoying it more but boy it's strange. There isn't even "that" much singing, it's all about the placement of music and eerie audio effects. Eerie is a good word to sum up the album actually. It's not an album I'd want to listen to very often but every now again for sure.

I find most music doesn't lend itself to Surround Sound at all and sounds far superior in Stereo but Dark Side of the Moon really lends itself well to the Surround experience.

As to the SACD the 5.1 Surround mix is one of the best I've ever heard. The start of Time is incredible, each speaker is used one after the other.

Thanks to a AV Forums member I am also lucky to own the completely unofficial bootleg DVD-Audio (on a standard DVD-5 blank no less) which contains the infamous Parsons Quadraphonic 4.0 mix (with an LFE channel added). This is more gutsy and aggressive than the SACD mix. Even so both the SACD and DVD-Audio are very full bodied.

Overall I prefer the subtlety of the SACD mix and having the extra centre channel does help to bring out the music (it's more used for ambience than vocals). The SACD mix is also the Surround mix endorsed by the band, they're not fans of the Parsons Quadraphonic mix (even if many fans are).

* You can read a review of the SACD here: http://www.highfidelityreview.com/revie ... r=19939611
* And a very good comparison review of the SACD vs. Bootleg DVD-Audio here: http://www.highfidelityreview.com/revie ... r=12583627

p.s - The DVD-Audio also has the usual DTS or DD5.1 mixes for those who cannot play DVD-Audio (housed on the DVD-Video section). I've not sampled them but I'm sure they'll suck big time in comparison, they usually do.