I finally listened to it for the first time Why are people so

You have to smoke some weed to understand it

Because most of us have listened to more music and realize Pink Floyd is not the cream of the cream when it comes to interesting songwriting.

>>68267866
I liked it, fellow dubs dude. I can't smoke weed because of Duterte's policy on drugs, and I respect that

/mu/ doesn't like it because normies like it too

>>68267941
I'll finish Pink Floyd first. What are some more interesting bands?

>>68267995
Acid Mothers Temple
Yo La Tengo
Rolling Stones

>>68268199
Checked

Already listened to Painful by Yo La Tengo, it ain't clicking yet

>>68267855
DSOTM was good but Piper was better

It's disliked around here because of how it's one of the best selling albums of all time. Literal plebs enjoy it so we can't associate with it.

Piper>Atom Heart Mother>Meddle>Animals>the rest

because it's lauded as their magnum opus when animals is better

>>68267855
We're divided because it's really hard not to see a good album as being shit when it has an absolutely absurd reputation among the musically ignorant.

>>68269051
This.

File: IMG_4096.jpg (50KB, 412x405px) Image search: [Google]

50KB, 412x405px

>>68267941
I just like pretty sounds and nice melodies that chill me out and Meddle does the trick desu

>>68268199
None of these have such intricate songwriting as on Darkside. Try again?

>>68269051
and moreso wish you were here surpasses both

>>68269052
If it's a good album, then the people who praise it must not be musically ignorant.

>>68268953
>It's disliked around here because of how it's one of the best selling albums of all time. Literal plebs enjoy it so we can't associate with it.
Not liking something because of it's popularity is something a literal pleb would do

>>68269051
What are you 19?

>>68269113
Darkside doesn't have intricate songwriting, try again?

>>68269305
No I mean Darkside of The Moon by Pink Floyd.

>>68269150
Does this logic really hold up to you? There's some good music that VAST VAST amounts of people enjoy, and I wouldn't say for sure that they're all well listened individuals. Not to mention that it would be silly if the criteria for being not musically ignorant was liking any good album ever: "Yeah, I just got into [insert critically acclaimed album here]! Truly among listeners, I rank among the upper echelons."
>>68269268
I don't think Anon there is Android 19...
>>68269113
try out kate bush or sufjan stevens

>>68269362
>Does this logic really hold up to you?
Of course. Why else would it be popular with music aficionados?
>"Yeah, I just got into [insert critically acclaimed album here]! Truly among listeners, I rank among the upper echelons."
Remember that audiophiles of this album have been searching for multiple masters of it for decades, which proves your observation incorrect
>try out kate bush or sufjan stevens
Nope, still not intricate enough. Try again?
>>68269362
>I don't think Anon there is Android 19...
Non sequitur

File: 4476660-no-victory-android-19-cart-d.jpg (41KB, 640x360px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 640x360px

>>68269362
forgot pic

>>68269122

and The Wall is even better than that

>>68267855
I only like it when i'm high. plus, i play this album while I watch the wizard of oz on mute. they say this album is in sync with the movie.

>>68267972
Damn man you live in the Philippines.
How's it going there?

>>68267855
Honestly one of the bigger reasons why I rank the album so highly is the memories linked to it.

It's quite possibly the perfect rock album

>It's simultaneously experimental and accessible
>It's one cohesive whole of an album, conceptual unity, lyrically and musically
>Amazing lyrics, amazing melodies, solid chord progressions
>Dynamics with really high highs, and low lows.
>large stylistic breadth with still being unified
>great vocal harmonies, guitar tones and interesting bass lines
>excellent use of space in the production, while still being layered

>>68269431
Reddit is the other way

>>68269400
>Why else would it be popular with music aficionados
non sequitur....
Its a popular record in general, and it isnt bad, so naturally it gets some love from critics. However, giving it anything higher than an 8/10 is either pandering, or not particularly tasteful, and that rating (at highest) places it firmly outside of the best of all time lists that it really shouldn't be on.

>Remember that audiophiles of this album have been searching for multiple masters of it for decades, which proves your observation incorrect
1. Audiophiles search for better versions of every record ever, that's what makes them audiophiles.
2. Audiophiles do not necessarily have great taste, they just often do due to a tendency to pay further attention to the music along with the expected attention to production.
3. This is an actual non sequitur because my point was that when your logic is expanded it implies that anyone that likes a good record is not musically ignorant, and I attempted to illustrate this.

>Nope, still not intricate enough. Try again?
you haven't listened to either of those artists

>non sequitur
I was making fun of your grammar, dingus
>what are you 19?

>>68269796
>non sequitur....
How so? You are specifically talking about the character if it's fan base. The fact that they are music aficionados is very relevant.
>places it firmly outside of the best of all time lists that it really shouldn't be on.
Why shouldn't it?
>1. Audiophiles search for better versions of every record ever
Incorrect. There is more interest in this particular record than others (same with The beatles).
>2. Audiophiles do not necessarily have great taste
Why wouldn't they? They are experts in their field
>3. This is an actual non sequitur because my point was that when your logic is expanded it implies that anyone that likes a good record is not musically ignorant
That is exactly my point. They are liking a good record, they must see the value that you missed (because you are not musically intelligent)
>you haven't listened to either of those artists
Prove it
>I was making fun of your grammar, dingus
Not relevant.

Are you actually 19 years old? You sound like it.

>>68268992
wywh should be in there and then i agree

>>68269887
Either english isn't your first language or you are approximately 15 years old.
>Why shouldn't it?
what are you smoking dude
this makes no sense as a response to what I said
>There is more interest in this particular record than others
This is a popular record. Being a popular record means that there's more interest in it.
>They are experts in their field
Experts in their field? An audiophile is someone who pursues higher fidelity audio. It is not necessarily true that someone that fits that description would need to have any qualifier for being musically knowledgeable, besides in an audio engineering sense of being called musically knowledgeable. Audiophiles have no field because they are essentially hobbyists, and could merely be informed consumers with very limited understandings of any study of anything.
>They are liking a good record, they must see the value that you missed (because you are not musically intelligent)
Hey, fucktard. I called it a good record. Which means that I saw value in it. They saw more value, but this does not necessarily mean that seeing this value is justified. Every time someone sees more value in something than I do that does not then mean that I have to submit and admit that I just missed something, that would be absurd. Their seeing value wherein it is not justified is evidence of their ignorance, not mine, otherwise the person who found the most value in the most music would qualify as the most musically intelligent person.

Seriously what is up with your grasp of the english language and basic logic?

>>68270164
>I don't understand what that means
>so you must be on drugs
Either english isn't your first language or you are approximately 15 years old.
>This is a popular record. Being a popular record means that there's more interest in it.
Not relevant
>Experts in their field? An audiophile is someone who pursues higher fidelity audio. It is not necessarily true that someone that fits that description would need to have any qualifier for being musically knowledgeable, besides in an audio engineering sense of being called musically knowledgeable. Audiophiles have no field because they are essentially hobbyists, and could merely be informed consumers with very limited understandings of any study of anything.
[citation needed]
>Hey, fucktard. I called it a good record. Which means that I saw value in it
What value, specifically? Give me thirty examples of it's musical value.
>but this does not necessarily mean that seeing this value is justified
But yet the lack of seeing value is justified? What a hypocrite you are
Their seeing value wherein it is not justified is evidence of their ignorance
How do you know it's not justified?

>Seriously what is up with your grasp of the english language and basic logic?
Seriously what is up with your double standard?

>I am right in underrating this thing
>everyone else is wrong in overrating this thing

>>68267855
I don't care that you got dubs.
I hate the album and every Pink Floyd album that followed because the lyrics are depressing dream killers. From Speak to Me to That Great Gig in The Sky the message is you live then you die and you'll never achieve or realize your hopes and dreams. Side Two from Money to the title track the message is your life will be filled with greed political corruption strife war until you finally go insane and spend the rest of your days in an insane asylum. And don't tell me what a great song Any Colour You Like is. It's only a segue.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: Steely Dan could turn this concept of an album into a five minute song and it would actually be FUNNY! I don't need to listen to Pink Floyd to be told how much the world sucks!

>>68270234
I opted to say you were on drugs because the alternative is that you're just very stupid, and that would be insulting. Maybe you just made a mistake or misunderstand what the sentence was about?
>Not relevant
Of course it's relevant. An audiophile is a person. People have bought DSotM more than most albums. Therefore, audiophiles with have an equivalent interest. You really like to hold audiophiles up on a pedestal as superhuman listeners of some sort.
>[citation needed]
audiophile
noun au·dio·phile \ˈȯ-dē-ō-ˌfī(-ə)l\
Definition of audiophile
: a person who is enthusiastic about high-fidelity sound reproduction
Merriam-Webster dictionary
alternatively, wikipedia says the same thing
>What value, specifically? Give me thirty examples of it's musical value.
You fucking first. There isn't any way in hell I'm going to listen to DSotM again for this argument.
>But yet the lack of seeing value is justified?
The lack of seeing value needs no justification because it is a neutral standpoint which makes no assertions. You wouldn't ask me to justify not believing in god, right?
>How do you know it's not justified?
How do I know it is justified?

>I am right in underrating this thing
>everyone else is wrong in overrating this thing
W-wait. Double standard? But your claim is the opposite of this? That means my double standard is a reflection of yours, right? Are you being ironic?

File: image%3A2604.png (131KB, 737x601px) Image search: [Google]

131KB, 737x601px

>>68270466
Tough shit anon. Welcome to real life.

>>68267995
Faust - Faust