Your Prog Rock Hot Takes

'It' is the best song off of 'The Lamb Lies Down on Broadway'

suitkees wrote: Like this metal cover (or is it?) of your favourite Genesis track, Who Dunnit? (luckily for you he left the lyrics out...).

Edited by Cristi - January 26 2024 at 05:09

^ Indeed.

^ I've not listened to those releases in general, Genesis are not that interesting to me in general. Not my cup of tea.

Hot Take: I can't really enjoy any classic 70s PG Genesis because of the whiny vocal style. Later solo PG is fine. And when it comes to Genesis overall, my favorite tracks could be Land of Confusion and Jesus He Knows Me.

Zappastolethetowels wrote: ... Most Krautrock is aimless goofy noodling or just pathetic! ...

richardh wrote: ... Tarkus - Contains their most important track but falls of the end of a cliff by the end ...

Hector Enrique wrote: Pink Floyd (taking Barrett out of the equation) is the typical case where the sum of the parts is far greater than the individual. Neither Gilmour nor Waters (except for "Amused to Death" and a few individual songs) have managed to stand out especially in their solo careers. Both of them, and especially Waters, have based their careers over the last few decades on continuing to make the most of the band's legendary albums. By the way, I've been lucky enough to enjoy a few Waters concerts over the years, where he commemorated PF's music. Music I love. Waters is considered the main architect of the best of PF, and I think that's true. But on the other hand, if he hadn't had the other members of the band I'm not sure if he would have made it as a soloist... so, without taking away all the merits that he deserves, I think Waters was a fundamental part of the band, but not "the" band, as he has often believed himself to be.  At least that's what it seems to me.

I think you nailed it - like all truly great bands the classic line-up was way more than just the sum of the individual parts, until individual egos got too big that is. See also: The Beatles.

^ I pretty much agree.

Hector Enrique wrote: I agree with you regarding the relevance of Barrett. Indeed, I also think it would have been likely that if Barrett continued, Pink Floyd would have been another band of the psychedelic movement of the late 60's lost in some alphabetical description. As David Gilmour said in one of the thousands of interviews about it, words more words less: "everyone believes that Syd is a superlative genius, and the truth is that he was a directionless person who could not overcome his mental demons"

In another interview about Syd Barrett, David Gilmour said this:

“It’s sad that these people think he’s such a wonderful subject, that he’s a living legend when, in fact, there is this poor sad man who can’t deal with life or himself. He’s got uncontrollable things in him that he can’t deal with, and people think it’s a marvellous, wonderful, romantic thing."

Barrett had become so unreliable, that when Pink Floyd was on their way to a gig, Roger Waters asked if they should pick up Syd, someone said "Why Bother?"

I agree that the best thing Pink Floyd did as a band was move on from Barrett. You feel sorry for Barrett and his health issues. I, however, never subscribed to Barrett being one of Rock music's creative genius. He deserves credit for forming the band, writing some of the early Pink Floyd material and use of effects with his guitar playing. But, nothing past that suggests his music bore markings of some tortured genius. By 1972, Barrett was gone from the music industry.

I know he was inducted with Pink Floyd into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame. I'm not sure if it was done out of an act of pity or if members of the committee thought he was a musical genius and should be included with the other members of Pink Floyd. Pink Floyd became a juggernaut because of their 70s material, which Barrett had nothing to do with except for being the subject of Shine on You Crazy Diamond.