It's very different to 'The Wall', very different indeed. The only connection is that both bands were pop-to-rock bands of the same era but it stops there. - loveagoodstory
Yes and no. You're right in that Pink Floyd is classed as progressive rock while the Who is straightforward rock, but although each band's sounds are different from each other, there are actually a number of parallels here.
First, both bands are roughly of the same age and era--they are war babies (World War Two) and came of age in the 1960s. This is significant because both Floyd's
The Wall and the Who's
Tommy have the catalyst of young boys whose fathers were killed during the war. (In the original libretto for
Tommy, this is the First World War, but it's changed to WWII for the film version.) That missing father has an ensuing impact on the protagonist.
Next, both
The Wall and
Tommy became entities that took on lives of their own. Both were made into films and have developed lives in other media. And both have become emblematic of their respective bands, sometimes to the exasperation of each band.
Finally, I say this as a Pink Floyd fan and an absolute Who fanatic, both stories are ultimately pompous and overblown and are two good reasons why punk rock had to happen. Does that mean that never upgraded my well-worn LP copies of each? Of course not.
Your comment about both being "pop-to-rock bands" is an intriguing one. When both bands began in the mid-1960s, British bands were expected to have hit singles, at which the Who was more successful, but with both bands it wasn't as if either made a dramatic departure from fluff to tough. And Floyd's early singles ("Arnold Layne," "See Emily Play") were off-kilter to begin with; then there's the band's singular debut album
The Piper at the Gates of Dawn, Syd Barrett's crowning moment in Floyd.
------------------
"Man becomes the food of the divinity he worships." - Chris Stevens
reply
share
loveagoodstory
11 years ago
Thanks for your thought-through comments. I honestly wouldn't dwell too much on my 'pop-to-rock' note, it was just a broad brushstroke about the evolution of the bands. I'm glad you get a lot out of them.
Most of my point was that I detest (rare for me but true) people being snobbish about music, films and all sorts, really. I say that music *is* freedom and anyone can enjoy what they will. A feeling of superiority just by being older is an equal crime in my eyes. Closed-mindedness seems to come long before wisdom from the worst of these self-appointed 'older and wiser' morons. I've been doing this 'thinking' thing a long time, young and old, and found them morons views to be rubbish then and now.
Anyway, that's what I was objecting to: the "you're *only* 15" crew. Glad that dross is beneath you, good luck to you and revel in the sounds of two truly great bands.
---------------------------------------------------------
Free your mind and the rest will follow
reply
share
darryl-tahirali
11 years ago
Thanks for your thought-through comments. I honestly wouldn't dwell too much on my 'pop-to-rock' note, it was just a broad brushstroke about the evolution of the bands. I'm glad you get a lot out of them. - loveagoodstory
Thanks, although I added the "pop-to-rock" comment as an afterthought as my focus was on pointing out the parallels between
Tommy and
The Wall, and between the Who and Pink Floyd.
Most of my point was that I detest (rare for me but true) people being snobbish about music, films and all sorts, really. I say that music *is* freedom and anyone can enjoy what they will.
Actually, I'm pretty snobbish about all of those because my conceit is that of a critic and historian. However, I agree that there is a huge difference between arguing why one is "better" than the other and judging someone for his or her preferences.
Music especially is an overwhelmingly emotional experience, which means that by definition any "logical" argument about why one is "better" than the other can only explain part of the appeal (or lack thereof), and which means that people tend to take criticism of their choices very personally. You can't quantify taste as an objective measurement (which is the more neutral expression of the phrase "there's no accounting for taste," which tends to be used disparagingly), and while we tend to think that our taste is superior to someone else's, it is a mark of maturity (I hope) to acknowledge that someone eles's taste may not be the same as yours, but that doesn't mean that it's worse (or even better) than yours.
Anyway, that's what I was objecting to: the "you're *only* 15" crew. Glad that dross is beneath you, good luck to you and revel in the sounds of two truly great bands.
I saw that poster's comment and thought about responding to it. It's a sneering, condescending comment to make.
------------------
"Man becomes the food of the divinity he worships." - Chris Stevens
reply
share
loveagoodstory
10 years ago
Actually, I'm pretty snobbish about all of those because my conceit is that of a critic and historian.
I'm sure that interest in history will have given you the realisation that there's no single best or worst. I know that God tried to test that belief in the peoples of the earth when he sent us Five Star* but that was a lapse even He looks back on with a groan. Be free, brother (or sister), and let them all be free with it.
A pleasure posting with you, friend :-)
(* and Apache Indian doing the Boomshakalak)
---------------------------------------------------------
Free your mind and the rest will follow
reply
share