Album of the day (#1720): The Piper At The Gates Of Dawn - Music

meccalecca
Voice of Reason

Gender: Male
Location: The Land of Enchantment

I think there's a bit of misunderstanding in regards to my earlier mention of social constructs influencing taste. I don't believe that this is so much a conscious effort by the listener as much as a subconscious one. And I do believe that there are many subtle factors influencing our likes and dislikes, and maybe even priming us to react certain ways to pieces of music and art. For a less subtle factor, think about the influence of the opinions of friends and critics we admire. If a movie critic you really trust tells you they hated a movie and gives you an abundance of reasons why, your movie watching experience would potentially be vastly different than had you heard nothing about it, or only positive things. Once you're made aware of a blemish, it's nearly impossible to ignore.

Much of what we listen to carries associations because we don't live in bubbles. I have extremely positive associations in regards to Piper at the Gates, since it's one of the first albums I remember hearing, and it undoubtedly reminds me of my brother and a specific part of my childhood.

I've always been deeply interested in the way we experience things and how they can be manipulated. And this heightened when studying art and spending huge amounts of time in Museums. Most contemporary art pieces are accompanied by text that explains the art. If you don't read the text, you're likely to interpret the more abstract pieces differently than had you read the text. When you read the text first, the path of your interpretation is pretty set, and you'll likely just reinforce the points made by what you already read. This is not to say that you cannot interpret the art completely differently than the text, but the likeliness of that happening are much much weaker than if you had not been provided an interpretation.
_________________
http://jonnyleather.com

manurock

Mies wrote:

What's so wrong with the soft-rock label? Why if i call a sound soft-rock i'm "treating it badly"? Anyway we can call it 70s pop-rock, if you prefer, as i already stated.
And i think no one in this thread "treated badly" Pink Floyd of any era. I, for me, tried to build some thoughts about the mid-era sound, about how they built a recognizable sound, and where you can find that, and along what. But it seems all these thoughts have been lost. I'm sorry if you've been offended and got angry by my post, but i think you took it in a wrong way.

Also, to clarify, i LOVE Pink Floyd. They're among the bands who started to get me into rock, just like many other people. But that's really not the point of my post! I even think The Final Cut is a good work (which most people would disagree with), but i certainly don't think it gave rock something really new neither influencial.

So, back to my original point, The Piper defined an entire genre, and its big influence is clear in psych rock, expecially among the garage-psych scene (from Soft Boys to White Fence). We can't say the same about any other PF albums.
That was my original point: i'm not "treating badly" mid-era or late-era PF (which i still listen myself), neither i'm saying it has to be overlooked, or that people shouldn't like it, or that it's uncool, or anything of all that. I just built some thoughts about that well recognizable mid-era Floyd sound, which is - as i said - a sort of a double-edge sword.

There are lots of bands who have been influenced by Pink Floyd's mid sound. Tool, Porcupine Tree, Dream Theater and even Radiohead in OK Computer, for example. My comment wasn't (only) directed to you and my slight angriness wasn't (only) from your previous comment but in general. You can call Fleetwood Mac or Codlplay soft rock or pop rock, both are bands I enjoy listening to but they have nothing to do with the experimentation of Pink Floyd, which turned from Psychedelic rock to Progressive Rock. Those are the two genres I would say are the main genres of the band. Of course, you could find an exception with Wish you were here, which for me is pop rock or soft rock, but I would never call Dogs or Shine on you Crazy Diamond soft rock, even less pop rock.

Applerill
Autistic Princess <3

Gender: Female
Age: 30
Location: Chicago

meccalecca wrote:

I think there's a bit of misunderstanding in regards to my earlier mention of social constructs influencing taste. I don't believe that this is so much a conscious effort by the listener as much as a subconscious one. And I do believe that there are many subtle factors influencing our likes and dislikes, and maybe even priming us to react certain ways to pieces of music and art. For a less subtle factor, think about the influence of the opinions of friends and critics we admire. If a movie critic you really trust tells you they hated a movie and gives you an abundance of reasons why, your movie watching experience would potentially be vastly different than had you heard nothing about it, or only positive things. Once you're made aware of a blemish, it's nearly impossible to ignore.

Much of what we listen to carries associations because we don't live in bubbles. I have extremely positive associations in regards to Piper at the Gates, since it's one of the first albums I remember hearing, and it undoubtedly reminds me of my brother and a specific part of my childhood.

I've always been deeply interested in the way we experience things and how they can be manipulated. And this heightened when studying art and spending huge amounts of time in Museums. Most contemporary art pieces are accompanied by text that explains the art. If you don't read the text, you're likely to interpret the more abstract pieces differently than had you read the text. When you read the text first, the path of your interpretation is pretty set, and you'll likely just reinforce the points made by what you already read. This is not to say that you cannot interpret the art completely differently than the text, but the likeliness of that happening are much much weaker than if you had not been provided an interpretation.

Very well said, Mecca.

Anti
I Dream of Drone

Age: 28
Location: Somewhere in Ohio

Well, pops had an older remaster copy of this album stowed away in his office that I coincidentally found it today... Not my cuppa tea at all... Wish You Were Here is still my favorite Floyd! Smile

_________________
...and for dessert!

sp4cetiger

SquishypuffDave wrote:

They're not necessarily very strong emotions; it depends how much of my attention is on what I'm hearing, but I'm sure that sounds affect me emotionally even when I'm not consciously aware of them. Rain or running water is an obvious example. My mood is totally different if there are industrial noises outside vs nature sounds. Everyday noises also tend to take on a much stronger emotional quality during meditation.

Might also have something to do with my background in film sound design, where atmospheric noises are specifically tailored for different moods. In sound design, a stack of competing simultaneous noises or flat droning sounds tend to be less appealing than a few well-chosen sounds with a bit of dynamic range. If the scene requires many different sounds, they should oscillate and "take turns" as the focus of attention. I find myself often thinking in these terms in everyday settings. I have a tendency to interpret everything in life as an aesthetic experience.

Don't get me wrong, I totally understand emotional reactions to everyday noises, but for me it tends to be barely noticeable except in specific situations. If I'm lounging on the porch on a cool summer evening, the rattling of a windowpane and the bouncing of a distant basketball could be supremely soothing (and I looooove thunderstorms), but most of the time I hear everyday noises when I'm helping clean the house, hurrying to work, playing with the kids, etc., and I'm hearing many noises at the same time. In those cases, the effect is pretty minimal.

The main thing I was trying to get at in that paragraph you originally quoted was just that we're probably wired to be able to tune out the vast majority of noises. It would be hard for humans to function if we were constantly being distracted by our distaste for certain noises purely because they were dull. I think there has to be something else there for dullness to turn into distaste.

sp4cetiger

I wanted to revisit this album before commenting. These are certainly among the most interesting sounds Pink Floyd ever created and as classic rock goes, you could do a lot worse. The lyrics frequently venture into cheese territory, even feeling like a parody of '60s psychedelia at times, so I wouldn't rate this among my favorites. Still, it's tough to argue against classics like "Astronomy Dominae" and "Interstellar Overdrive".

Mies

manurock wrote:

There are lots of bands who have been influenced by Pink Floyd's mid sound. Tool, Porcupine Tree, Dream Theater and even Radiohead in OK Computer, for example.

At a generic level, yes, but none of them has been able to re-create in any way that characterized sound i was talking about (that of Echoes, Shine On You, etc. - see my original post), and that's normal to happen when a sound is very very characterized like this (which is not necessarily a bad thing).

manurock wrote:

My comment wasn't (only) directed to you and my slight angriness wasn't (only) from your previous comment but in general. You can call Fleetwood Mac or Codlplay soft rock or pop rock, both are bands I enjoy listening to but they have nothing to do with the experimentation of Pink Floyd, which turned from Psychedelic rock to Progressive Rock. Those are the two genres I would say are the main genres of the band. Of course, you could find an exception with Wish you were here, which for me is pop rock or soft rock, but I would never call Dogs or Shine on you Crazy Diamond soft rock, even less pop rock.

Dogs, and expecially Shine On You, aren't progressive, imo. They are long and mainly instrumental, but that's not enough to say they're progressive. Their date of release already show you that they couldn't be properly progressive (the classic progressive era was already at an ending point in '75). Their sound somehow reminds of some light ideas taken from progressive, but this can apply to most 70s rock and even 70s pop.
Gilmour's solos in Shine On You are mostly bluesy, rhythm is slow, regular and pretty static: nothing to do with the jazzy solos and rhythmic dynamicity of classic progressive works like SM's Third, Genesis' SEBTP or Crimson's Larks' Tongues in Aspic.
I can get that A Saucerful of Secrets can be defined as proto-prog / psych-prog, and also the Atom Heart Mother suite, and maybe also something off Ummagumma, can be defined as progressive, but there we stop in their catalog, because Echoes was already a thing "per se" and not directly taking part in progressive: it's not a coincidence that it's also the moment when that characterized sound started to develope.
If you read Nick Mason's biography, he says about Echoes that they themselves were afraid of the direction they took with that sound (already took in some parts of the AHM suite too), because that kind of building the song (slow rhythm, atmospheric keyboard, guitar solos over) was a sort of a "creative cage", from where they wanted to leave. This says Nick Mason. Well, since then, they have been able to do some variations on that sound, but that structure remained in many songs (see my original post for the titles), always alternated with other songs more hard rock or melodic.
So, mid-era Floyd are more of a thing "per se", imo, not psychedelic neither progressive (not anymore). Maybe we can just refuse to give it a label and call it "classic PF sound", which i'd be totally ok with. Wink

Mies

sp4cetiger wrote:

The lyrics frequently venture into cheese territory, even feeling like a parody of '60s psychedelia at times

This album defined 60s psychedelia, together with a few others (which i still have to explore better but i know them), and actually the lyrics fit perfectly with the purpose of early psych rock: it's LSD imagery. The fairy - childish themes can relate to Syd's life but they are also part of that purpose for sure.

sp4cetiger

Mies wrote:

This album defined 60s psychedelia, together with a few others (which i still have to explore better but i know them), and actually the lyrics fit perfectly with the purpose of early psych rock: it's LSD imagery. The fairy - childish themes can relate to Syd's life but they are also part of that purpose for sure.

Yeeeah, I have mixed feelings about LSD imagery. Sometimes it's great for breaking out of traditional rock/pop formulas and exploring musical and lyrical ideas that might not occur to someone with a more level head. Other times it invokes images of semiliterate college students sitting in their dorm rooms, grabbing at imaginary goblins and revealing the secrets of the universe to each other.

Mies

sp4cetiger wrote:

Yeeeah, I have mixed feelings about LSD imagery. Sometimes it's great for breaking out of traditional rock/pop formulas and exploring musical and lyrical ideas that might not occur to someone with a more level head. Other times it invokes images of semiliterate college students sitting in their dorm rooms, grabbing at imaginary goblins and revealing the secrets of the universe to each other.