quite similar to pink floyd music

[flashback]

Grobschnitt's Solar MusicII on Solar Music Live reminds the hell out of PF to me,sounds like something Dave would do as well as Rick

[Olli]

I'm surprised when fans of PF write things like, "Radiohead sucks," and "Yorke has a whiny voice," etc. ....

I didn't quote the entire thing but well said Jude the Obscure.
I was a bit flabbergasted at people here criticising Radiohead and also with the person who went too far the other way but I couldn't put it into words as well as you have.

[my breakfast.]

REM's The Sidewinder Sleeps Tonight is a total Pink Floyd ripoff.

Is that a joke?

It was a joke, highlighting the inept nature of this thread.

[Eclipse]

about Radiohead, there's a couple of songs that really remind me of P.F.:

-Exit Music, which reminds me of the Celestial Voices section;
-Lucky, i don't know why, but it is so Floydian. =P
-Sail to the Moon

I don't see any Floyd in albums like PH, the Bends, Amnesiac, Kid A, HTTT (except STTM), though.

If there's a band with some good Floyd accents is Porcupine Tree, i liked them sometime ago but never listened to them again. Now they got more into the side of metal, so not so floydian. Still a very good band though !

[PublicImage]

-Exit Music, which reminds me of the Celestial Voices section

Except it's better!

[danielcaux]

The one thing in Radiohead that really reminds me a lot of Floyd is their treatment of "non musical noises" (SFX) as an integral part of the actual music, specially on the 'Airbag' EP and 'Ok Computer' and 'Kid A' albums. The style and the structure of the songs is not really floydian except perhaps for 'No Surprises' that has a very similar vibe to early Floyd's "Crying Song", I guess is the sound of the xilophone.

[Eclipse]

-Exit Music, which reminds me of the Celestial Voices section

Except it's better!

nah

[jude_the_obscure]

In the last week or so, I've been listening to Tangerine Dream's "Zeit." This early, pre-"Phaedra" album doesn't usually get alot of press these days, but it's the most 'Floydian' thing I've heard by TG yet. It *is* Floyd, minus drums and guitar, but with that same great hypnotic quality the early Floyd had. I've heard Floyd comparisons to TG's next album, "Atem," but I haven't picked that one up yet.

Regarding others' comments that PF had a sound utterly unique to their own: I'm of mixed and conflicting views about this. On the one hand, PF didn't exist in a historical vacuum, they were a part of a larger culture. If one listens closely, one can hear similarities across a pretty wide specturm - from late Beatles records (produced in the same Abbey Road studio as PF), to jazz fusion (Miles Davis's "In a Silent Way" & "Bitches Brew," Weather Report's first two albums, and other bands that I mentioned in my previous post).

But on the other hand, it seems to me that PF's music at its best accesses emotions and states of being that *are* more unique - profound alienation, vaque and undefined terror, and, well, mental illness. (I think this is where similarities to Brian Eno's work, and certain so-called "Krautrock" bands set in.) It might be tempting to give all the credit to lyricist Waters for this, except that I think the musical landscapes harmozied beautifully with the lyrics, as well as, perhaps ironically, providing a certain dissonance that heightens the tension and alienation/disconnect. Maybe I'm off my rocker; maybe it has more to do with my discovering the band at a crucial age in my early teens. But, despite my love for all kinds of music and musical genres, no other band has ever "spoken" to me at such a personal level...

[jude_the_obscure]

2 things:

First, when I wrote about music that reminds me of PF, I forgot to mention Steve Hillage's "Green," from 1978. This was produced by PF's Nick Mason, and will remind many of PF during this same period (WYWH up to Animals).

Second: I wanted to add a bit regarding the comparisons between PF and American bands such as REM, NIN and Smashing Pumpkins: Personally, I don't hear it. For me, PF is a very English and European band, and American bands are, for the most part, well, so *American*.

Has anyone read Nick Mason's biography, "Inside Out"? One detail that impressed me was when Mason recounts the excitement of PF bandmembers and their friends in reading press accounts about the "psychedelic" movement going on in California. Someone ordered a bunch of imports from America, and they waited eagerly for their arrival. The names, like "Big Brother and the Holding Company" and "Canned Heat," sounded new, exciting, and promising. When the albums finally arrived, they all had a profound sense of disapointment in listening to them; it all basically sounded like recycled R&B and boogie music. There was nothing "psychelic" or innovative about these bands, or their ilk (the Doors, Jefferson Airplane, etc.). If I remember correctly, the only American band from this era that is mentioned in Mason's book as exciting the band was the "Velvet Underground and Nico" album (which, perhaps owing to the presence of Brit John Cale, has a decidedly Continental feel). There also seems to be the suggestion in the Mason book that the British "psychedelic" underground was more influenced by building upon their imagination and what they *thought* was going on in California and what "psychedelic" means, than what was actually taking place in the US.

I'm American, but spent the past two years working in France. After travelling Europe and spending a short time in England, one thing that has more and more become clear is the profound difference between American popular music and British (and European) music. Americans have barely heard of Franz Ferdinand; other than "Creep," I can't remember ever hearing RH on the radio in the US. The Smiths? What for England is the most important band since the Beatles, the band remains nearly unknown in the US, or else is considered a very minor 80s curio. (Likewise, in France, Serge Gainsbourg, virtually unheard of in the US, is a giant, on par with what Dylan is in the US; Telephone, a punk band unheard of in the US, is considered as important and groundbreaking as the Ramones and Sex Pistols; and Noir Desir, unknown in the US, is considered a post-punk band every bit the equal of Nirvana.) Bowie didn't become a household name in the US till he went disco and was clearly in decline; and Americans still haven't heard of T.Rex (except "Bang a Gong," a staple on "classic rock" stations).

I guess an element of my attraction to PF's music is that they *are* non-American, although this wasn't as clear to me until seeing England and realizing how unlike the US it is; and how different their musical traditions really are. (For example, while Americans spent decades listening to rap, this never caught on in England; the music of the 80s and 90s in England were totally ignored in the US mainstream, and only Oasis kind of put England back on musical map in the US. (Meanwhile, Blur, every bit as well known in the UK, was virtually ignored in the US.) All of this is to say that hardly any American music at all even comes to close, IMO, to sounding like PF...

[ESLAFTK2112]

2 things:

First, when I wrote about music that reminds me of PF, I forgot to mention Steve Hillage's "Green," from 1978. This was produced by PF's Nick Mason, and will remind many of PF during this same period (WYWH up to Animals).

Second: I wanted to add a bit regarding the comparisons between PF and American bands such as REM, NIN and Smashing Pumpkins: Personally, I don't hear it. For me, PF is a very English and European band, and American bands are, for the most part, well, so *American*.

Has anyone read Nick Mason's biography, "Inside Out"? One detail that impressed me was when Mason recounts the excitement of PF bandmembers and their friends in reading press accounts about the "psychedelic" movement going on in California. Someone ordered a bunch of imports from America, and they waited eagerly for their arrival. The names, like "Big Brother and the Holding Company" and "Canned Heat," sounded new, exciting, and promising. When the albums finally arrived, they all had a profound sense of disapointment in listening to them; it all basically sounded like recycled R&B and boogie music. There was nothing "psychelic" or innovative about these bands, or their ilk (the Doors, Jefferson Airplane, etc.). If I remember correctly, the only American band from this era that is mentioned in Mason's book as exciting the band was the "Velvet Underground and Nico" album (which, perhaps owing to the presence of Brit John Cale, has a decidedly Continental feel). There also seems to be the suggestion in the Mason book that the British "psychedelic" underground was more influenced by building upon their imagination and what they *thought* was going on in California and what "psychedelic" means, than what was actually taking place in the US.

I'm American, but spent the past two years working in France. After travelling Europe and spending a short time in England, one thing that has more and more become clear is the profound difference between American popular music and British (and European) music. Americans have barely heard of Franz Ferdinand; other than "Creep," I can't remember ever hearing RH on the radio in the US. The Smiths? What for England is the most important band since the Beatles, the band remains nearly unknown in the US, or else is considered a very minor 80s curio. (Likewise, in France, Serge Gainsbourg, virtually unheard of in the US, is a giant, on par with what Dylan is in the US; Telephone, a punk band unheard of in the US, is considered as important and groundbreaking as the Ramones and Sex Pistols; and Noir Desir, unknown in the US, is considered a post-punk band every bit the equal of Nirvana.) Bowie didn't become a household name in the US till he went disco and was clearly in decline; and Americans still haven't heard of T.Rex (except "Bang a Gong," a staple on "classic rock" stations).

I guess an element of my attraction to PF's music is that they *are* non-American, although this wasn't as clear to me until seeing England and realizing how unlike the US it is; and how different their musical traditions really are. (For example, while Americans spent decades listening to rap, this never caught on in England; the music of the 80s and 90s in England were totally ignored in the US mainstream, and only Oasis kind of put England back on musical map in the US. (Meanwhile, Blur, every bit as well known in the UK, was virtually ignored in the US.) All of this is to say that hardly any American music at all even comes to close, IMO, to sounding like PF...

I am not a fan of any British rock since 1984 when the first Grim Reaper album came out (last flawless band from the UK IMHO). I am not a fan of the bands like either The Smiths or Spandau Ballet nor any of the British bands in the last decade. Oasis thought they were "the second coming of The Beatles" to my ears. Blur thought they were The Kinks. I didn't like Radiohead at first then I was impressed with OK Computer and Kid A but everything since has s*cked (Hail to the Thief was just as bad as Metallica's St Anger). U2 are just sleep inducing. The only American bands I have liked since 1980 were Queensryche (whom were influenced by British bands like Maiden, Queen, Floyd, Priest, Sabbath, Zeppelin among others), Soundgarden, Audioslave, Guns and Roses (before Axl went loco), Metallica, The Ramones, Slayer, Megadeth and Velvet Revolver (the remnants of GNR plus Scott Weiland). Best new band IMHO is Wolfmother who remind me if Zeppelin, Purple and Sabbath formed a supergroup.

Pink Floyd are only ONE! Radiohead can't experiment like PF. Then again, neither could Queensryche. The 1970s saw many great American bands and artists come out like Aerosmith, Boston, The Cars, The Eagles, Journey, Kansas, KISS, Ted Nugent, Styx, Van Halen, Bob Seger. Canada had Rush and Triumph start in the 1970s. Although, England had many better bands. There have also been alot of great cross-country bands. Supertramp (British/Scottish/American), Foreigner (half British/half American), AC/DC (part Australian/part Scotsmen/then two Brits), Rainbow (first were an Anglo-American band formed when Ritchie Blackmore quit Deep Purple) and Thin Lizzy (most members were Irish save Scott gorham who was a Yankee). Queen were mainly British save Freddie Mercury who was from Africa. Black Sabbath became Anglo-American once Ronnie James Dio replaced Ozzy.

[danielcaux]

So what are the essential differences between American rock and British rock, apart from the singers accents?

[garygreen]

Essential differences? One is good, the other, not so good......but I'm not telling you which is which, so there!!

[oz1701]

So what are the essential differences between American rock and British rock, apart from the singers accents?

i think that English rock has a tendency to be more intellectual and pretentious than American rock.
American rock tends to be more mainstream and more accessible to the general audience.

these are gross generalisations however. maybe the only essential difference between American and British rockers is that British rockers know how to spell correctly .

[garygreen]

So what are the essential differences between American rock and British rock, apart from the singers accents?

i think that English rock has a tendency to be more intellectual and pretentious than American rock.
American rock tends to be more mainstream and more accessible to the general audience.

these are gross generalisations however. maybe the only essential difference between American and British rockers is that British rockers know how to spell correctly .

Well, we are a nation of warlocks and witches.

[jude_the_obscure]

So what are the essential differences between American rock and British rock, apart from the singers accents?

This is a difficult, complex question to answer. I'm not sure I want to get into this discussion, I feel a headache coming on just thinking about it, haha It's particularly complicated by the cross-polination that constantly takes place (i.e., Hendrix was the only American in his band, and they made it when in London; the VU had Cale and Nico from the Continent; everyone from the Beatles to Clapton were influenced by the blues and early r&r like Chuck Berry).

American popular music seems to me to be more closely aligned with country music, bluegrass, folk and blues music.

I find that I generally prefer British music. But there are many great American bands I love: Pere Ubu, Husker Du, VU, the Pixies, Dylan, Hendrix, etc. But for me, the most vital (*and* sophisticated) American music is jazz, from bop to fusion to free jazz and everything in between.

My speciality is literature. One thing that intrigued me in taking a class on linguistics is what seems to be one of the primary laws governing language: that at the verbal level, the language spoken in former colonies (in our case, the US and Australia) tends to be more "conservative": it changes much slower (all language is fluid, not fixed; every day, new words come into being, and others are dropped), and there tends to be less pronounced differences between the dialects in colonies than the "home country." What this means in comparing England to the US is: first, American English is much closer to 17th century British English than is contemporary British English; American English has been much slower to change. Second, there is a greater linguistic difference (this is all measured, believe it or not, scientifically) between dialects in England than the US. One can travel a mile in England a encounter a profoundly different dialect; while in the US, one has to travel much greater distances to encounter new dialects - and the differences between the dialects are more miniscule than those found in England. So, there's a level of conservatism and homogeneity that exists at the linguistic level in the USA and Oz/NZ, contrasted with the country of its linguistic origin, England.

Maybe I'm being ridiculous now, but maybe American popular music might also have this same kind of conservatism and homogeneity? A provocative thesis, but maybe it can't hold up, who knows.