It's better than dark side of the moon

>it's better than dark side of the moon
>pink floyd became shit when syd left
>syd is bae!
>it's literally just novelty 2 minute pop songs

Sup Forums usually does this. when a band is too popular, people pretend they aren't good anymore and only their first album was good. more examples are U2, metallica, and coldplay off the top of my head

Contrarians like to think a druggie's nonsensical nursery rhymes make for good music.

pretty accurate assessment

>novelty 2 minute pop songs
>ignoring the incredible chromatic compositions
>preferring Roger Waters reciting high school opinion pieces over a shitty spare accompaniment
You plebs are who ruin Sup Forums

...

Or maybe it's because people have different opinions, almost like if musical taste was subjective!

Or maybe because AD and IO are some of the best songs from 1967, which is something that can't be said about their 70s counterpart.

This and Animals are Pink Floyd's only good 2 albums

metallica's first album is their best though (not to say the others aren't good, there was just a quality decline with each subsequent release). PF produced several great albums, the best of which were WITHOUT syd

Go away you fucking pedophile

AD and IO are indeed great songs, but to think the rest of the album comes close to stuff like Echoes, The entirety of DSotM (considered one of the best albums of the 70s wether you think so or not), or Shine On You Crazy Diamond is sheer contrarianism.

>2 minute novelty pop songs

Must not have heard Interstellar Overdrive

>Echoes
One track.
> The entirety of DSotM
Literally THE MOST overrated album of all time.
>Shine On You Crazy Diamond

What's your problem? You seem to really like their songs with "epic" orchestration but completely fall flat in the compositions. DSOTM and WYWH are full of songs with too much space, too little going on. The music's mediocre at best and the lyrics are incredibly pretentious (as in, a high schooler could have written them).

>cover make it look like ricks shoulder is his ass

>Contrarianism is anyone who disagrees with me
No
None of the albums you mentioned are as good as Piper when you compare them to their contemporaries. Piper was innovative, their 70s albums not so much.
Dark Side is a good album, sure, but it's not one of the best, whether you or me like it or not.

>piper was innovative
No.

Name an album before Piper that sounded like it.

that's not what innovative means

AD and IO

See

it's like you haven't heard third stone from the sun somehow

Well saying "AD and IO" isn't what innovative means either.

AD and IO were innovative

...you have to explain how.

Your arguing with someone who thinks shit like TMR and Sing to God is the pinnacle of music, your not gonna get anywhere with an avant-spork-teen like him.

Well I think Piper is innovative in sound but that's what I said I just find it hilarious that AMG said I wasn't specific enough, and yet can't explain it themselves.

neptune titan stars can frighten OOOOOO OOOOOO OOOOO OOOO OOOO OOOOOO OOOOO OOOOO

they were miles ahead of their contemporaries and pretty much anyone with an informed opinion about music knows this

But user, faux-blues and over the top rock is the best kind of music!

No, I don't think that.

Just saying that it's more innovative than 70s Pink Floyd, because arguing about innovation on an absolute scale is very arbitrary.
Why? Because those two songs have far less things in common with everything that preceded it than anything they did during the 70s.

Lucifer Sam

More innovative /= better, Meddle and Dark Side incorporated the earlier psych influences and refined them to be even better

Dark Side is nowhere near as psychedelic as anything on Piper, and Meddle only has Echoes.

>Innovative over its predecessors
Ill just go listen to Are You Experienced? if I want harder Psych, which was releaseed months earlier.

Nice ad populum and ad verecundiam

I do think more original (innovative) is better.
Plus, you argument for those being better despite being less innovative is that they refined themselves to be even better. Circular logic, anyone?

I know that people use the buzzgenres "progressive rock" and "art rock" to describe Pink Floyd, but even though they could fit into those categories, they were not remotely like anything around at the time.

Pink Floyd, love them or hate them, have always been pretty unique.

>it's better than dark side of the moon
True.

>pink floyd became shit when syd left
Nah, it became shit when Roger Waters took over.

The only song on there of worth is Interstellar Overdrive, and arguably Astronomy Domine, both of where were expanded and improved live. The rest of the album is grating as fuck and absolutely obnoxious - yes, even Pow R. Toc H. While obviously music is subjective, I'm convinced that the amount of praise this gets is largely due to the fact that Syd Barrett went crazy and has to be seen as a saint. Also, I've said this before, but when you pan out, the connective between Pink Floyd and Syd Barrett makes no fucking sense. The first album they put out entirely without Syd came out in mid 1969, a time around which a lot of prog rock bands were putting out their debut. Their connection with Syd Barrett is actually really absurd, considering that they're such completely different artists, like if Tiny Tim happened to front Swans on their first album and then Swans carried this Tiny Tim connection to their graves.

do you sit all day with a "know your logical fallacy" tab open on your computer

Yes, 70s Pink Floyd was pretty unique, but was less unique than 60s Pink Floyd (inb4, there aren't different shades of unicity, I know, you know the idea), and even more importantly, 70s Pink Floyd was less original than other 70s bands when compared to 60s Pink Floyd and other 60s bands.

Sure, but it was still the same year.
Also, Pink Floyd more than being about hard psych is about being spacey psych. Both are around the same spot though.

No, but yours was too obvious to not call it out.

is that trip a pedo?

do you not?

Yea, jacks it to underage girls and presumably boys too considering his history of gender problems

Then why did you give piper a 6?

More original doesn't necessarily equate to compositionally superior. It's not circular to suggest they played around with elements they'd already used in the process of creating something better or else every band's first offering would always be best

Honestly, the Piper At the Gates of Dawn is the only Pink Floyd album that I feel really driven to turn off while listening to it. While the later Water led albums are winy as fuck, and the Gilmour led albums sound so artificial and safe, at least they don't sound offensively bad.

But DSOTM, WYWH and Animals are all great albums.

They are, when Roger Waters took over I was talking about The Wall and Final Cut.

Okay, have fun with your Monkees-esque bubblegum pop album that sounds like a parody on 1967 sung by the teetubbies that you have to act like you think is innovative.

>not liking the final cut

but the monkees were actually really fucking good unlike the pop songs from early PF

>sounds like a parody on 1967 sung by the teetubbies
kek

Because my enjoyment doesn't determine the artistic quality of a recording.

I only said circular because you said they were better for doing X better. Yeah, sure, it can be argued it's not really circular, it's fine.
Now, "compoaitinally" superior is just one of many things to be considered, and I consider the innovative aspects of Piper surpass all the "compositional" superiority of their 70s albums.
And yeah, like the guy before said, 70s Floyd isn't very Psychedelic to make such a claim.

I'm only speaking for AD and IO here
I do like some of the other songs, but those aren't the reason I consider it a better album.

>Now, "compoaitinally" superior is just one of many things to be considered
True, but personally I care a great deal about compoaitinal superiority.

Is Scaruffi right? Is Barrett really a misunderstood genius?

Wow what kind of pretentious fuck do you have to be to give yourself a trip name like that on an anonymous board?

no

Then check out London 1966/1967. As someone who doesn't care for Piper, I think that EP actually is pretty phenomenal, and shows the best of what Barrett led Floyd were capable of.

I can respect that innovation carries more weight than composition for you when assessing music, that's why it's subjective :) I happen to feel otherwise. I do think you have to go on an album-by-album basis, as AHM and Meddle are 70s and I'd consider both to have many psychedelic elements

Since he's quite popular and possibly the most revered person in PF that seems hard to make a case for. Solo Barrett is based tho.

some other guy gave it to him

Sure, that's fine, but I'm trying to determine what is better and not what I like the most with this discussion.

See Bit why was it good? Was it innovative at least?

Not subjective, but arbitrary. See it as the best music being the most original, not just for originality's sake, but for any other sake's sake.
Yeah, true Meddle and AHM are more psych, but those were not the albums the guy I replied to mentioned.

His solo stuff is better than anything post-Pipers Pink Floyd.

>compoaitinal
what does this word mean? :I) :l)

>TMR isn't the pinnacle of all music

>Since he's quite popular and possibly the most revered person in PF
that's very debatable. I don't know how you can come to that conclusion.

Ummagumma is better than Piper

>Bit why was it good? Was it innovative at least?
Nigga you're not impressing anyone, just listen to the EP.

a fleshlight found in a dumpster is better than your mother

Naw, his solo stuff is garbage. It sounds like hipster renditions of Down By the Bay without being saved by the talents of the rest of Pink Floyd. It's pathetic how people strain so hard to act like Syd Barrett was good.

...

>"compoaitinally" superior
what did he mean by this?

give me some examples of non-pretentious lyrics that a high schooler couldn't have written

not him but interested in your distinction

You just prefer psychedelia to prog. No big deal. Still, though, there's far better psychedelia out there than Syd Barrett.

I GOT A BIKE XD, LET'S GOT MEET KNURBLE KNARBLE THE GNOME

tame impala, too

No. I prefer prog to psych.
This isn't about preferences anyways, but about quality. And sure, there is far more psych than syd, but the tracks I mentioned before are some of the bests from the genre, even if I might like them or not.