Quote:
Originally Posted by rubecube
Well, even as a huge Zeppelin fan, I think most of their lyrics were utter gibberish and they (mostly Paige) were renowned for ripping off other artists and "borrowing" a lot of material from African-American blues musicians. The Beatles may have changed pop music but I wouldn't call anything pre-Sgt. Pepper's to be pushing the boundaries. The only band on your list really on par with Floyd as far as innovation and originality goes is Queen.
Really, though, the biggest reason Floyd deserve to be up there is because nobody was doing what they did when they did it. Everything they did was pretty well technically flawless while managing not to be completely sterile like some of the good technical players that came after them (i.e. Satriani). Gilmour might be one of the most gifted guitar players ever and the songwriting was top notch in the post-Barrett years.
|
I'll give Floyd their due, were progressive at the time with noise rock and precursors of prog and anthemic stuff. But, I think that that contribution is very overstated. I would say they weren't the innovators many say they are. They didn't come up with the concept album, the Beatles did. They didn't come up with the big tours, Rolling Stones did. Their branch of spinoff music just pales compared to Led Zepplin. And they just weren't even close to Bowie on innovation, reinvention and boundaries.
I think many people try to deny the fact that Floyd at its height was just another glorified pop band. They weren't technically amazing as musicians. And in the end they were not very humble and it hurt the prodct. I know this is heresy to fans but the Wall is probably the most egotistical album I've ever heard and for all the wrong reasons. Operatic rock wasn't new when it was made and it's a gratuitous waste. Wall should be one cd.
Now that I type this I would say that Animals probably belongs in the top 10 British albums but I don't see the reverie for the band that many do.
They just didn't have the impact of the other megagroups in my opinion. Beatles are obvious. Stones invented the concert tour. And the Stones' best albums are probably better than Floyd's. Stick Fingers anyone? Again Bowie was the consummate innovator with albums that are considerably better than Floyd, in Low and Ziggy. Clash have one of the best albums of all time in London Calling both musically and artistically. Led Zepplin just has the overwhelming amount of singles and complete albums compared to Floyd.
If you look at it, Floyd has Dark Side, Animals, The Wall, and Obscured. Three or four albums that are of merit but even then they don't really stand next to the big albums of the aforementioned groups. This is all in my opinion at least.