with all due respect, you need to read what was written, and this is not the first time you have projected your feelings on to what I have written, and not responded to what I actually wrote. First, you do understand the term "in general" do you not. The term refers to the majority, more than 50%, and the statement stands. Few youth will put on some music and sit and listen to it, without doing something else. For most, music is an addition to an activity, listening is not THE activity.
Not to derail the topic, but there are so many things wrong with this statement. First, "in general" does not mean majority. Generality means abstracting from the specifics in order to talk about something that applies to an entire subject as a whole, or to every member of the subject. Something that's true in general is a rule that applies to everything under discussion, and cases where it's not true are exceptions to the rule, the specifics that we abstract from when talking in general. Second, even if you only meant to say that the majority of youth cannot appreciate music, the statement is problematic. What sort of data do you have to draw this conclusion? No doubt anecdotal evidence from personal experience that has shaped your stereotypical view? Do you also talk about how black people are lazy "in general" because you happen to live around unemployed black people?
To get back on topic a bit, I think Pink Floyd's decision makes sense. Some of their albums are clearly intended as a coherent work from beginning to end. That said, this thread has a distinct "get off my lawn you damn kids with your loud music" quality to it that is unsettling. I use that expression deliberately because this sort of criticism of the artform and appreciation of a different generation is nowadays the subject of mockery and satire, and yet it is surfacing here for some reason. I would have thought that in this modern age people are enlightened enough to know that there are no objective standards of art and culture and are aware of the constructed nature of their own standards and tastes. One should be able to appreciate the fact that genuine artistry and culture underlie the works that one oneself may be unable to enjoy.
[QUOTE=solarein;1588789]Not to derail the topic, but there are so many things wrong with this statement. First, "in general" does not mean majority. Generality means abstracting from the specifics in order to talk about something that applies to an entire subject as a whole, or to every member of the subject. Something that's true in general is a rule that applies to everything under discussion, and cases where it's not true are exceptions to the rule, the specifics that we abstract from when talking in general. Second, even if you only meant to say that the majority of youth cannot appreciate music, the statement is problematic. What sort of data do you have to draw this conclusion? No doubt anecdotal evidence from personal experience that has shaped your stereotypical view? Do you also talk about how black people are lazy "in general" because you happen to live around unemployed black people?
I have to ask, are you Gazoobee's relative? Your logic is flawed in at least a couple of ways. First, the process you describe is one of generalization. Second, if something applies to everything, then there are no exceptions. To the extent that there are exceptions, then the generality applies to the majority.
Like Gazoobee, you make assumptions about me, apparently based on your own preconceptions, biases, and apparently unregulated emotional reactions, as you know little or nothing about me. The data are not based on personal anecdotal experience. There are any number of articles in the popular press that have discussed the paucity of younger audiophiles (http://news.cnet.com/8301-13645_3-10212786-47.html). Go to any of the audiophile boards, and the topic is not uncommon.
I have to assume that you must have some sort of racial bias against African Americans, because I have never once brought the topic up. On the other hand, both yourself and Gazoobee seem obsessed about making racial slurs towards African Americans, and bringing race into a topic that has absolutely no racial overtones to it. Indeed, you have no what my racial background is, and yet, you apparently wish to somehow denigrate what I have said by using an all to common McCarthyist smear.
I understand that musical tastes are subjective and vary from person to person but you are completely off your rocker to dismiss Pink Floyd as a "no talent group". Let me sum up the numbers for you. Dark Side of the Moon--45 million sold with 250k sold every year on average. It stayed on the billboard 200 for more than 13 years (by far a record), is number 3 all time behind AC/DC Back in Black(#2) and Michael Jackson Thriller (#1). The Wall--30 million sold for a double album (unheard of BTW). That is 75 million sold between just two albums! Comparing them to the Beatles is pointless as the Beatles were a singles band early on (not one album in the 20+million sold bracket). I like both bands but Pink Floyd has succeeded where few bands have (outside of The Who). Their albums have sold throughout time without people trying to "cherry pick" for singles (with rare exceptions. That is the way they have always created their albums. Not as a collection of singles but as one complete work where one song melds into another song.
Quote:
Originally Posted by davesmall
Why would anyone want to purchase an entire album by a no talent group like Pink Floyd? As I recall they've had zero good songs and one passable average song (the Wall) in their entire history.
They're nothing like the Beatles who had nothing but good songs.
They're in the same category with other untalented groups who've maybe had one or two good songs in their entire career (eg: Steely Dan, Grateful Dead, Moody Blues, etc.) along with a ton of garbage.
I might pay 99 cents for the wall but I wouldn't pay $1.10 for their entire collected works.
It's interesting you mention Thick as a Brick, the two songs that comprise the album are "album only" on iTunes, you can only buy the whole album.
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram
I guess you've got a lot of listening to do! Here's a list of a handful to get started on (ranked from from easier to harder): Tommy (The Who), Quadraphenia (The Who), Thick as a Brick (Tull), Apostrophe (Zappa), Uncle Meat (Zappa), Apocalypse (Mahavishnu Orchestra).
There is no use arguing. The youth of today has never developed the listening skills to appreciate music, or true talent.
Music these days is not generally viewed as an art form, but simply as either background music or entertainment, hence the death of the (concept) album and the rise of the single that can be digested in roughly 2.5 minutes.
The albums created by Pink Floyd (or rather Roger Waters) were to music today as a novel is to a one-liner. Just like you can quote a paragraph from a novel because it's interesting, you can also play a single song out from Pink Floyd. But if that's how you got they're music, you were doomed never to get their music. And Roger Waters was a very deep thinker (and Gilmore a great guitarist).
But although there's a number of groups that make similar claims, but I honestly don't know of anyone else who really did that well--told a cohesive story over the course of an album. (Edit: yeah there's examples already given by others: Tommy is certainly one) No doubt there are examples. The one cited above (Meatloaf)... I don't think that's one of them, though. Metallica and AC/DC certainly aren't examples. Perhaps they put some effort into balancing portions of their album, like an abstract painter tries to have bright colors here to counterbalance the dark colors there (Rush did that, for instance, and so did ELO), but nevertheless it wasn't the same. I liked AC/DC when I was a kid, but they were one of those quintessential bands where I'd buy a whole album to get one song, and that got frustrating.
But there was still a point to album-only sales though. I'd but a whole album of Rush to get one song, and then I'd discover that I liked most every other song on that album. Yeah radio stations started the process of breaking the album and played only singles, but even really good albums, there'd only be a song or two played by the radio stations. Sometimes my favorite songs from an album were never to heard on radio.
But although there's a number of groups that make similar claims, but I honestly don't know of anyone else who really did that well--told a cohesive story over the course of an album.
How about Joe's Garage (Zappa)?
I fully and wholeheartedly agree with your and a few other's point about PF albums and why they propably chose to do this change.
I understand that musical tastes are subjective and vary from person to person but you are completely off your rocker to dismiss Pink Floyd as a "no talent group". Let me sum up the numbers for you. Dark Side of the Moon--45 million sold with 250k sold every year on average. It stayed on the billboard 200 for more than 13 years (by far a record), is number 3 all time behind AC/DC Back in Black(#2) and Michael Jackson Thriller (#1). The Wall--30 million sold for a double album (unheard of BTW). That is 75 million sold between just two albums! Comparing them to the Beatles is pointless as the Beatles were a singles band early on (not one album in the 20+million sold bracket). I like both bands but Pink Floyd has succeeded where few bands have (outside of The Who). Their albums have sold throughout time without people trying to "cherry pick" for singles (with rare exceptions. That is the way they have always created their albums. Not as a collection of singles but as one complete work where one song melds into another song.
I agree, musical tastes are highly subjective. Fragmentation of musical tastes in the market ensures that fewer bands will ever earn that kind of money. For example, not every teenager automatically gravitates to classic rock today as was the case throughout the mid-late 1960s, 1970s and 1980s.
Regarding your other statements: Be careful! Marketing has absolutely nothing to do with quality.
I understand the whole marketing/quality concept. My point was this person thought PF is "a no talent group". I'd say with so many albums continuing to sell after all these years plus being the fathers of quadrophonic sound make them just a little bit more than a "no talent group".
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bourgoises Pig
I agree, musical tastes are highly subjective. Fragmentation of musical tastes in the market ensures that fewer bands will ever earn that kind of money. For example, not every teenager automatically gravitates to classic rock today as was the case throughout the mid-late 1960s, 1970s and 1980s.
Regarding your other statements: Be careful! Marketing has absolutely nothing to do with quality.
Think before you type. Pink Floyd stands to LOSE money by not selling singles. How is this about "greed"? It's about greed for EMI and record tycoons.
Think before you type --this is the best adage for internet usage.
My interpretation is that PF may have assumed that those who would otherwise have just cherry picked tracks will be forced to purchase entire albums in order to get the tracks they want.
That's their business. They are the kind of group where I've heard everything they did, as it is mostly at least 30 years old. Very doubtful I would buy the albums, but I might buy a song if the mood hit me.
Comments
with all due respect, you need to read what was written, and this is not the first time you have projected your feelings on to what I have written, and not responded to what I actually wrote. First, you do understand the term "in general" do you not. The term refers to the majority, more than 50%, and the statement stands. Few youth will put on some music and sit and listen to it, without doing something else. For most, music is an addition to an activity, listening is not THE activity.
Not to derail the topic, but there are so many things wrong with this statement. First, "in general" does not mean majority. Generality means abstracting from the specifics in order to talk about something that applies to an entire subject as a whole, or to every member of the subject. Something that's true in general is a rule that applies to everything under discussion, and cases where it's not true are exceptions to the rule, the specifics that we abstract from when talking in general. Second, even if you only meant to say that the majority of youth cannot appreciate music, the statement is problematic. What sort of data do you have to draw this conclusion? No doubt anecdotal evidence from personal experience that has shaped your stereotypical view? Do you also talk about how black people are lazy "in general" because you happen to live around unemployed black people?
To get back on topic a bit, I think Pink Floyd's decision makes sense. Some of their albums are clearly intended as a coherent work from beginning to end. That said, this thread has a distinct "get off my lawn you damn kids with your loud music" quality to it that is unsettling. I use that expression deliberately because this sort of criticism of the artform and appreciation of a different generation is nowadays the subject of mockery and satire, and yet it is surfacing here for some reason. I would have thought that in this modern age people are enlightened enough to know that there are no objective standards of art and culture and are aware of the constructed nature of their own standards and tastes. One should be able to appreciate the fact that genuine artistry and culture underlie the works that one oneself may be unable to enjoy.
I have to ask, are you Gazoobee's relative? Your logic is flawed in at least a couple of ways. First, the process you describe is one of generalization. Second, if something applies to everything, then there are no exceptions. To the extent that there are exceptions, then the generality applies to the majority.
Like Gazoobee, you make assumptions about me, apparently based on your own preconceptions, biases, and apparently unregulated emotional reactions, as you know little or nothing about me. The data are not based on personal anecdotal experience. There are any number of articles in the popular press that have discussed the paucity of younger audiophiles (http://news.cnet.com/8301-13645_3-10212786-47.html). Go to any of the audiophile boards, and the topic is not uncommon.
I have to assume that you must have some sort of racial bias against African Americans, because I have never once brought the topic up. On the other hand, both yourself and Gazoobee seem obsessed about making racial slurs towards African Americans, and bringing race into a topic that has absolutely no racial overtones to it. Indeed, you have no what my racial background is, and yet, you apparently wish to somehow denigrate what I have said by using an all to common McCarthyist smear.
Why would anyone want to purchase an entire album by a no talent group like Pink Floyd? As I recall they've had zero good songs and one passable average song (the Wall) in their entire history.
They're nothing like the Beatles who had nothing but good songs.
They're in the same category with other untalented groups who've maybe had one or two good songs in their entire career (eg: Steely Dan, Grateful Dead, Moody Blues, etc.) along with a ton of garbage.
I might pay 99 cents for the wall but I wouldn't pay $1.10 for their entire collected works.
Hey don't let you Meatloaf !
Yeah. Pink Floyd is just flying off the store shelves. You need to over 60
to know who the even are. errr I'm over 60.
Just get it for free on Limewire. I am sure that will make them a lot more money.
Pink Floyd my ass!!!!
Limewire? Did I just wake up in 2001?
I guess you've got a lot of listening to do! Here's a list of a handful to get started on (ranked from from easier to harder): Tommy (The Who), Quadraphenia (The Who), Thick as a Brick (Tull), Apostrophe (Zappa), Uncle Meat (Zappa), Apocalypse (Mahavishnu Orchestra).
Can give you many more.....
There is no use arguing. The youth of today has never developed the listening skills to appreciate music, or true talent.
Music these days is not generally viewed as an art form, but simply as either background music or entertainment, hence the death of the (concept) album and the rise of the single that can be digested in roughly 2.5 minutes.
The albums created by Pink Floyd (or rather Roger Waters) were to music today as a novel is to a one-liner. Just like you can quote a paragraph from a novel because it's interesting, you can also play a single song out from Pink Floyd. But if that's how you got they're music, you were doomed never to get their music. And Roger Waters was a very deep thinker (and Gilmore a great guitarist).
But although there's a number of groups that make similar claims, but I honestly don't know of anyone else who really did that well--told a cohesive story over the course of an album. (Edit: yeah there's examples already given by others: Tommy is certainly one) No doubt there are examples. The one cited above (Meatloaf)... I don't think that's one of them, though. Metallica and AC/DC certainly aren't examples. Perhaps they put some effort into balancing portions of their album, like an abstract painter tries to have bright colors here to counterbalance the dark colors there (Rush did that, for instance, and so did ELO), but nevertheless it wasn't the same. I liked AC/DC when I was a kid, but they were one of those quintessential bands where I'd buy a whole album to get one song, and that got frustrating.
But there was still a point to album-only sales though. I'd but a whole album of Rush to get one song, and then I'd discover that I liked most every other song on that album. Yeah radio stations started the process of breaking the album and played only singles, but even really good albums, there'd only be a song or two played by the radio stations. Sometimes my favorite songs from an album were never to heard on radio.
But although there's a number of groups that make similar claims, but I honestly don't know of anyone else who really did that well--told a cohesive story over the course of an album.
How about Joe's Garage (Zappa)?
I fully and wholeheartedly agree with your and a few other's point about PF albums and why they propably chose to do this change.
Regs, Jarkko
I understand that musical tastes are subjective and vary from person to person but you are completely off your rocker to dismiss Pink Floyd as a "no talent group". Let me sum up the numbers for you. Dark Side of the Moon--45 million sold with 250k sold every year on average. It stayed on the billboard 200 for more than 13 years (by far a record), is number 3 all time behind AC/DC Back in Black(#2) and Michael Jackson Thriller (#1). The Wall--30 million sold for a double album (unheard of BTW). That is 75 million sold between just two albums! Comparing them to the Beatles is pointless as the Beatles were a singles band early on (not one album in the 20+million sold bracket). I like both bands but Pink Floyd has succeeded where few bands have (outside of The Who). Their albums have sold throughout time without people trying to "cherry pick" for singles (with rare exceptions. That is the way they have always created their albums. Not as a collection of singles but as one complete work where one song melds into another song.
I agree, musical tastes are highly subjective. Fragmentation of musical tastes in the market ensures that fewer bands will ever earn that kind of money. For example, not every teenager automatically gravitates to classic rock today as was the case throughout the mid-late 1960s, 1970s and 1980s.
Regarding your other statements: Be careful! Marketing has absolutely nothing to do with quality.
I agree, musical tastes are highly subjective. Fragmentation of musical tastes in the market ensures that fewer bands will ever earn that kind of money. For example, not every teenager automatically gravitates to classic rock today as was the case throughout the mid-late 1960s, 1970s and 1980s.
Regarding your other statements: Be careful! Marketing has absolutely nothing to do with quality.
Think before you type. Pink Floyd stands to LOSE money by not selling singles. How is this about "greed"? It's about greed for EMI and record tycoons.
Think before you type --this is the best adage for internet usage.
My interpretation is that PF may have assumed that those who would otherwise have just cherry picked tracks will be forced to purchase entire albums in order to get the tracks they want.
Before iTunes, this is the model that prevailed.
The issue was they were not allowed to sell it as a single album length track.
No, the issue is that EMI licensed the tracks to be sold individually.
PF wants the full album to be the only option when purchasing.
A single album, length track was never an issue.
Now with the iTunes album format they probably will allow it, but previously, they asked and were denied.
Now only a full album with a half dozen individual songs will be sold. You will not be able to purchase individual songs.
I doubt very, very much it will be a single album length track.