Band: Best Album - Worst Album

^I think the contrast between the two discs, the unpredictability, and the sprawling, "searching for something" vibe are what make Ummagumma fascinating.  More consistent composition would follow but Umma charms with its own personality faults.  Often times listening to musicians "explore" can be brutal but in some cases, like the Floyd, it can be wonderful.  I think that's why their legend endures.  For me anyway.  Had they only made the "big" albums after 1972, I'd be way less interested in them.  It is their early, youthful, by chance wonderful period that keeps my interest all these years later.  Youthful charm and inspiration.  The combination of the great albums and the experimental albums make Floyd so rewarding. 

How's that saying go?  All who wander are not lost......that's Ummagumma (and much of their early work).  Whichever style of Floyd you like better, you could say that one is foreplay for the other

Nogbad_The_Bad wrote: See I see Animals as the last great Floyd album where Gilmour & Wright's musical influence was fully present before the band disappeared under Water's bile. But opinions vary ;) Ummagumma disk 1 is one of my all-time favorites, pity about the second disk which has patches of brilliance amongst the rest of the stuff but it doesn't detract from the first disk. Wish it had been a double live album.

Well I know this has been probably said, but I'm gonna say it anyway. Lol

Metallica

Best---Master Of Puppets.        Worst---St. Anger

I consider St. Anger to be by far and away the worst album in my entire cd library.
It's really that bad to me. Lol

iluvmarillion wrote: Fredobobrick wrote: Nogbad_The_Bad wrote: See I see Animals as the last great Floyd album where Gilmour & Wright's musical influence was fully present before the band disappeared under Water's bile. But opinions vary ;) Ummagumma disk 1 is one of my all-time favorites, pity about the second disk which has patches of brilliance amongst the rest of the stuff but it doesn't detract from the first disk. Wish it had been a double live album. The live disc of Ummagumma is among my favorites, but the studio version is divided and a bit random for my tastes (like 'Several Species Of Small Furry Animals Gathered Together In A Cave And Grooving With A Pict', which is not only frightening but completely unnecessary). It isn't that this is a BAD album - it might not even be their worst in my mind - but it IS the least essential. Keep in mind that this is coming from a newbie. Most Floyd albums had to grow on me anyways, so this might as well. I just don't see it happening. Ummagumma is an interesting album and that includes CD1 and CD2 but that doesn't translate into being Floyd's best album. That honour resides with DSOTM or WYWH although PATGOD is pretty damn good. So many people here love Animals too but I'm not one of them (just personal opinion when it comes down to it).

FunkyHomoSapien wrote: yes; fragile , tales from topographic oceans

I never understood the negative stigma around Tales. It's my favorite Yes album, as I've stated, but even before I started liking it, there were certainly worse Yes releases to lampoon.


Edited by Polymorphia - August 27 2013 at 13:38

Polymorphia wrote: FunkyHomoSapien wrote: yes; fragile , tales from topographic oceans I never understood the negative stigma around Tales. It's my favorite Yes album, as I've stated, but even before I started liking it, there were certainly worse Yes releases to lampoon.

Rush - Signals/Test for Echo (its not bad, I just don't like it as much as the others).

Genesis - Nursery Cryme/Anything after Genesis (1983).

Yes - Going For The One/Anything after 90125.

Pink Floyd - Animals/Piper at The Gates of Dawn

Focus:
Best: Hamburger Concerto / Moving Waves (it's a tie, can't choose).
Worst: Focus con Proby.

Horslips

Finnforest wrote: ^I think the contrast between the two discs, the unpredictability, and the sprawling, "searching for something" vibe are what make Ummagumma fascinating.  More consistent composition would follow but Umma charms with its own personality faults.  Often times listening to musicians "explore" can be brutal but in some cases, like the Floyd, it can be wonderful.  I think that's why their legend endures.  For me anyway.  Had they only made the "big" albums after 1972, I'd be way less interested in them.  It is their early, youthful, by chance wonderful period that keeps my interest all these years later.  Youthful charm and inspiration.  The combination of the great albums and the experimental albums make Floyd so rewarding.  How's that saying go?  All who wander are not lost......that's Ummagumma (and much of their early work).  Whichever style of Floyd you like better, you could say that one is foreplay for the other