Debut Albums

FloydWright wrote: I don't know many of these, but I think Piper is way overrated.

I don't know why, but I hate the term "overrated" - it seems so meaningless - especially when applied to such a fantastic album...

Certif1ed wrote: FloydWright wrote: I don't know many of these, but I think Piper is way overrated. I don't know why, but I hate the term "overrated" - it seems so meaningless - especially when applied to such a fantastic album...

No - I hate the term when applied to anything that is popular for very good reasons.

So you don't like it then?

And seriously, the album really is not what it's cracked up to be by so many.

You may be right - it's actually a lot better than many people think.

 It's treated like a masterpiece by so many when in fact it's just 60s Britpop in most places.

*sigh* No - it isn't 60s Britpop in any place.

And it IS a masterpiece in many ways.

I mean, sorry, but drugs do not a genius make.

I'm not sure what you mean by that, but a large number of artistic people have found that drugs assist in the creative process, including Beethoven. Who WAS a genius.

I like the production...

The experimentation sometimes goes to where it's incoherent (the drugs, likely),

There's a naive sort of cohesiveness that I really like - obviously Syd's enthusiasm for (particularly) LSD has a large part to play...

and the other songs are just so syrupy-poppy that it's riduculous, and really distasteful.

That's your opinion - I don't hear anything syrupy or poppy - it all sounds very experimental and exciting, but presenting itself as a form of psychedelic rock/pop music - which is down to the intelligent and sensitive production.

Because of all of this, it really isn't a masterpiece.

In your opinion.

Plus, if you brush up on your Pink Floyd history, that band was trying to get radio success. They were definitely trying to be poppy.

Like most bands don't want their music to be popular - God forbid anyone should actually like it.

Don't confuse the term Pop music with Popular. If you brush up on your Floyd history you'll find out that Floyd were much more into the live thing and creating something special in the live environment. The entire band was focussed on creating, experimenting and pushing possibilities - especially Syd.

As for the issue with drugs, they will only hinder what abilities a person has.

That is not necessarily true - if I have a cup of coffee (caffiene), it won't hinder my abilities. Likewise, if I smoke a spliff during a jam session, it won't necessarily hinder my abilities - in fact, like so many other musicians, I have found that it can enhance the creative process. Many other musicians have taken drugs (excuse me for stating the obvious), and produced fantastic music.

While there may be more spontaneous expression at times, that is nothing compared to what is planned and thought out by a lucid mind.

The best way to produce music is a combination of both, in my experience, and few people take drugs 24/7.

And where did you get your information about Beethoven and drugs?

He drank alcohol, although not as much as his father. It's in any decent biography. Tchaikovsky suffered more from the demon drink, and Berlioz liked opium... the list goes on.

 If he really did, then it becomes even more of a wonder that he composed what he did, because undoubtedly his work would've been even more impressive without it.

I doubt it very much. You're saying that Hendrix or Miles Davis would also have produced better music without drugs? That's patently not true - although Hendrix would have produced MORE great music, of course. The music of Hawkwind is psychedelic enough to get stoned from just by listening to it - and I doubt they'd have written better music without the drugs.

One should not require some kind of chemical crutch in order to think and create; something is really wrong with that kind of logic.

True - but that's a different discussion entirely to the discussion whether or not drugs can enhance or detract from the creative experience - I believe (from experience) that both are true.

The point is not to use drugs as a crutch, but as an optional tool. They're not a requirement - but if you find that they are helpful to the creative process and find new ideas and inspiration through their use, then where's the problem?

It's careless, habitual, recreational abuse that's bad, not mindful, constructive use. The human body is one big chemical reaction, balancing many different chemicals right around the clock. Even simple things like eating can affect the whole balance - and who wants a carefully moderated balanced life anyway? You only get the one, and it's too short