I mean they were massive. Still are. Still selling boatloads. Nobody who was anything like them were anywhere near as popular. Was it that nobody else was anything like them? They were arty, spacey, even abstract. They were stoney and trippy. Was that it? The perfect music for the altered state?
No. It is as simple as being lightning in a bottle. It was, ostensibly, four musicians who were able to spark off each others creativity to create something that was/is very very special. From Gilmour's tone and soloing, to Waters drive and desire to tell a story, they created music that deserves to live for the ages on its own merit. They were also around at just the right time and moment. You have to be in the right place at the right time, otherwise context can be lost. It's that magic of creation just when the world is ready to hear it. Much of their music still resonates today. That's why they're so - relatively - popular. Dark Side of the Moon is part of the fabric of our culture at this point, like the sinking of the Titanic or the painting of the Mona Lisa. It's a milestone on mans journey to oblivion.
Utter mastery of dynamics is one thing. A natural mastery of atmosphere creation. Pastoral and deeply English. These are some of the things I like anyway.
At their peak they made monolithic, beautiful but musically undemanding records that spoke to the "quiet desperation" of the middle class share of the British post-war settlement. Domestic comfort, clean air, better food, better health care, foreign travel, lots of consumer toys and greater social mobility but combined with a yawning spiritual void and the low level hum of impending nuclear annihilation. Floyd (and specifically Roger Waters) provided the soundtrack to a neurosis that was never properly addressed and was only supressed with even more toys and, more recently, the allure of earning rentier incomes from an overheated housing market. Steven Wilson (and to a lesser extent Steve Hogarth) have picked up that particular baton with ever greater success. They speak to the exact same issues.
There’s just something about Dark Side of the moon. It’s one of those rare albums that’s easy to get into, anyone can understand it but it’s not a pop record. Most albums that hook you in quickly like that you get sick of just as fast. They pretty much have the ultimate gateway album coupled with enough albums that go deeper and keep you coming back for more.
basically the expression of three damaged people: Syd Barrett disintegrated quickly (schizophrenia) Rick Wright disintegrated slowly (depression) Roger Waters survived to his inner turmoil and turned it into creative force. Nick and David, nice people, boring people without nothing to say (like most of us), good musicians.
Not directed towards this thread's author, but I hate it when people insist that PF demands you to be "altered" in order to get the most out of their music. I left all of that nonsense behind me long ago, and its no more difficult to get into listening to Echoes (or whatever) than it was when I was 16 years old. If anything that junk was a hindrance. But getting back to the subject at hand, its not as though Pink Floyd were an overnight success, they really didn't become massive until their eighth album in '73. But they were unique and not easily placed within particular genres. They could be spacey, trippy, melancholy, funky, and every album was a departure from what had come before. Even so, its not as though they were The Beatles of the 70s, they played the long game and much of their success was an accumulation of many years of work. They were experimental enough that they were able to find some things that worked well. They had a very successful run of 4 albums (in particular) that solidified their place in the annals of rock history. After that, they sort of coasted. But people continue to discover that uniquely crafted work which was decades in the making. It endures.
I think that Pink Floyd was one of the few bands that recorded so many great albums. I am of the opinion that only the Who and obviously the Beatles have recorded so many important albums!
There was just a magic when these guys got together, and it connected with people. I enjoy the guys solo releases, but essentially they are one of the good examples of the sum being greater than the parts. Also, it can't but underestimated how good the lyrics are. The observational nature of the lyrics is quite stunning..... Take the song Time for example. There are very few people who have been around any length of time, that couldn't totally connect with the lyrics in that song. Also, as much as folks like to say that Floyd's music was simple, it was incredibly well constructed, and recorded. As much as these days it is easy to get sounds from a bank of synths and samples and such, these guys worked hard in the studio to create sounds .... the sounds they had in their heads. they constructed their later albums (roughly Meddle onwards)in such a way as to make them quite different.... almost like they were putting together a movie or a novel... and the albums just knit together into these perfect little stories. There was also something about Floyd that had a mellowing effect. Even when they were rocking out, they had the ability to be soothing ... they were for me anyway. Always one of my favourite bands
You got a point here that's crucial for my interest in Pop/Rock. Floyd came from the underground, where a lot of creativity stirs. But quite often these creativity had to stay were it is, it's to idiosyncratic or whatever, no fodder for the mainstream. But with records like Wish You and Dark Side, they created an interface between the mainstream and the underground and herewith a new common intersection. They lost some hardcore fans and could not win the, say, Herb Albert fraction of the mainstream of course, but other than that, everybody else got at least interested. If they could have kept that equilibrium. Thing is, the mainstream part always wins over in the end. Edit: Not always: Talk Talk!!
I think most importantly, they were good. At times, exceptionally good. However, I believe their continued success owes a lot to the fact that they seem to epitomise the period or scene to which they belonged. Ask any younger music listener to name a prog artist and they're bound to pick Pink Floyd. I think in many respects Pink Floyd are the zeitgeist for experimental psychedelic music, much in the same way that Bob Marley is for reggae music. How many younger kids have branched out beyond 'The Dark Side Of The Moon' or 'The Wall'? - I'd guess probably not that many (?). Despite my view above, I also believe that Pink Floyd stood out from their contemporaries because they understood the importance of melody over long drawn out experimentalism - and many people would accept that they probably found a nice balance between the two. Honestly, I love Pink Floyd but even I have a hard time understanding why albums such as 'The Division Bell' (or any of their later albums for that matter) sell in the quantities that they do - I mean, to me they sound very sub-standard indeed. I think once a band reaches a certain level of success they can almost release anything and it'll sell (Neil Young, The Rolling Stones, The Beatles etc etc...).
No.....there's absolutely more to it than that. The Division Bell showcases two musicians (Gilmour and Wright) with incredible tonal sense at the height of their game. And really, that's the same thing that made Pink Floyd so special in the first place. To dismiss PF and Waters' later-day material is to miss the point entirely as to what made Floyd so great.
To me it was (when I discovered them around when I was 12-13) that is was a sonic world that you just could get lost into. I have never done drugs, but while I can understand the concept of sinking into these sonic landscapes in an altered state, I have never viewed them as a "druggy band" anyway. I suspect that this is a US thing: Because their music was so different it got this image that it surely had to be something to get high to. In my mind they were four british musicians focused on creating great music and succeeding.
I listened to their stuff when I was younger - but now find it far too to depressing to even try listening to.
I'm amnong the legion of fans that discovered them late on in the mid 80's. Their music stayed relevant outside the context in which it was made. Intelligent lyrics, well constructed long pieces of music and enough creative spark to stop them stagnating over a long series of albums. I know that teenagers are still discovering them and loving their music. The 70's was a golden age for bands who wanted to be really creative in the studio - look at Bowie and the explosion of prog bands. The really creative ones have stood the rest of time.
And yet they have also managed to speak to other audiences around the world -- even in non- English speaking countries. I would say their mastery of atmosphere and dynamics played a big role in their worldwide success -- like other member suggested above.
For a long time I found that line (in "Time") about "quiet desperation" profoundly moving, and it was something of a disappointment to learn many years later that it's a phrase from Thoreau. That said, I think your post (the full post, not just the part I quoted) rather eloquently captured a good part of the band's essence (or at least the essence of their peak period.).
I can only really talk about what I know first hand but suspect that quiet desperation was a bit of a first world phenomenon in the 70s 6m holocaust victims + Hiroshima + 12m civilian Russian dead was a big spiritual load for everyone that wasn't going to be assuaged by consumer durables and selective amnesia.
Quiet desperation is still a great phrase despite Roger nicking it from Thoreau. I am sure old Henry David heard it from someone or read it somewhere himself. Roger uses it again in Southampton Dock.
