What's your 'Sgt. Pepper's'?

[e_wind]

cant say i didn't expect this.... 

[e_wind]

according to Rolling stones, these are the top 10 albums and also ones mentioned on here thus far.

1. Sgt. Peppers
2. Pet Sounds
3. Revolver
4. Highway 61
5. Rubber Soul
6. Whats Going On
7. Exile On Main Street
8. London Calling
9. Blonde on Blonde
10. The Beatles
...
28. Who's Next
42. The Doors
43. The Dark Side of the Moon
87. The Wall
121. Paranoid


Not listed: Led Zep 4, Kill Em All, Jimmy Buffet, Hemispheres.

really surprised that LEd Zep 4 didn't cut it. Originally, I thought their list was pretty good. I think they did a good job considering how hard it would be to even choose the best 15 of all time. But from this perspective, the order of shit is kinda whack.

[EverythingChanges]

according to Rolling stones, these are the top 10 albums and also ones mentioned on here thus far.

1. Sgt. Peppers
2. Pet Sounds
3. Revolver
4. Highway 61
5. Rubber Soul
6. Whats Going On
7. Exile On Main Street
8. London Calling
9. Blonde on Blonde
10. The Beatles
...
28. Who's Next
42. The Doors
43. The Dark Side of the Moon
87. The Wall
121. Paranoid


Not listed: Led Zep 4, Kill Em All, Jimmy Buffet, Hemispheres.

really surprised that LEd Zep 4 didn't cut it. Originally, I thought their list was pretty good. I think they did a good job considering how hard it would be to even choose the best 15 of all time. But from this perspective, the order of shit is kinda whack.

DSotM not being in the top 5 already makes this list terrible.  Rolling Stones top lists usually suck.

[Tracy 2112]

I always feel self conscience when I don't wear a belt...maybe I shouldn't!

Is it just me, or does Jimmy Buffet have a huge left hand?

[exist10z]

I have hesitated to even jump into this discussion, as it's obviously so subjective.  Also, it's impossible to judge exactly what we are talking about and assure that everyone is using the same criteria.  I understand the original question specified somewhat, saying 'not necessarily your favorite', but even if you could somehow exclude/be impartial about 'your favorite', what criteria is anyone/everyone using?  Rolling Stone, NME, critic's lists, our own choices, what is the basis?  Is it creativity?  As measured by what?  Influence?  Influence certainly could be a marker of creativity, but not necessarily, plenty of music has been 'creative' and so far out that it wasn't copied or imitated.  Hence lack of influence.  Is it popularity?  We all know and presumably agree, popularity doesn't equal quality (we are Jacket fans after all).  Is it some combination?  Who knows...

I will say this though, I continue to be disturbed (humorously) by the dismissal of The Beatles by some of the younger members of this board.  I have already had this discussion in another thread though, so I guess it's pointless to rehash it now, but I will simply say, that it's easier to be infatuated with a band (Pink Floyd, Pearl Jam) when you've only been listening to music for 15 years.  Not at all taking anything away from these bands, they may actually be the best, have made the best albums, whatever, but when you have a limited amount of time, things can hold your interest.  I love Floyd, but I listened through their entire catalogue 30 years ago, it's not that I don't think their great, they are, but once you are forced (by the repetition of time) to move onto other music, you might find something you think is even better - like The Beatles.  Maybe.  Maybe not.  I know the Floyd lovers here have listened to The Beatles, probably a lot, but my point is that since you love Floyd so much and haven't yet gotten your fill, there has been no need to move onto really digging into maybe The Beatles, or The Stones, or Dylan.  Those guys all did psychedelics too ya know.

But I could be wrong.  And as far as what you think the greatest album is right now (again, by whatever standards we are using), I am obviously wrong, as many of you have made your opinions clear.  I would just say, that it's fine to dismiss Rolling Stone, or NME, or other critics, and it's certainly OK to dismiss me, but when most of those line up with an opinion that's different than yours, maybe there's a reason.  Maybe it's your perspective/appreciation that needs expansion. Maybe.  Or maybe not.

That said, since I bothered to get into this discussion at all, and having outlined the general futility of even defining this exercise (and without labeling anything 'my Sgt. Peppers'), here's a list of albums that were important to me, or I think were influential, or I think simply contain the best music - and would be in the running:

The Beatles - Abbey Road, The White Album
Pink Floyd - DSoTM
Bob Dylan - Blonde on Blonde
The Rolling Stones - Exile on Main Street, Let It Bleed
The Clash - London Calling
The Smiths - The Queen Is Dead
Jay Z - The Blueprint, The Black Album
Pavement - Slanted & Enchanted
Led Zeppelin - IV, Physical Graffiti
The Beach Boys - Pet Sounds
Radiohead - OK Computer
Wilco - Yankee Hotel Foxtrot
Allman Brothers Band - At Fillmore East
The Who - Who's Next
Beastie Boys - Paul's Boutique
Outkast - Stankonia

Ok, so I didn't follow the rules exactly, but the answer to the original question is probably in that list, depending on the interpretation of the original question.  That's pretty close to what my all time top 20 would be, off the top of my head and excluding jazz (Kind of Blue, Soultrain, etc.), and I am sure I would pull some out put others in, again depending on criteria.  How you're choosing is as important (and determines) what you choose...

[e_wind]

I will say this though, I continue to be disturbed (humorously) by the dismissal of The Beatles by some of the younger members of this board.  I have already had this discussion in another thread though, so I guess it's pointless to rehash it now, but I will simply say, that it's easier to be infatuated with a band (Pink Floyd, Pearl Jam) when you've only been listening to music for 15 years.  Not at all taking anything away from these bands, they may actually be the best, have made the best albums, whatever, but when you have a limited amount of time, things can hold your interest.  I love Floyd, but I listened through their entire catalogue 30 years ago, it's not that I don't think their great, they are, but once you are forced (by the repetition of time) to move onto other music, you might find something you think is even better - like The Beatles.  Maybe.  Maybe not.  I know the Floyd lovers here have listened to The Beatles, probably a lot, but my point is that since you love Floyd so much and haven't yet gotten your fill, there has been no need to move onto really digging into maybe The Beatles, or The Stones, or Dylan.  Those guys all did psychedelics too ya know.

But I could be wrong.  And as far as what you think the greatest album is right now (again, by whatever standards we are using), I am obviously wrong, as many of you have made your opinions clear.  I would just say, that it's fine to dismiss Rolling Stone, or NME, or other critics, and it's certainly OK to dismiss me, but when most of those line up with an opinion that's different than yours, maybe there's a reason.  Maybe it's your perspective/appreciation that needs expansion. Maybe.  Or maybe not.

1. Psychedelics have nothing to do with it. I doubt if I'll ever trip again.
2. I know the Beatles did drugs, and I'll be the first to say I could give a shit less about their career pre-drugs. Seriously.
3. I have never and probably will never say that Pink Floyd is my favorite band ever. There are loads out there that touch me personally on a deeper level.

You are right, to a degree, about my Beatles listening history. It's only 2 or so years deep. (Sorry I don't have the "experience" you deem neccesary for one to possess to say the Beatles are the greatest band of all time.) You're wrong though, to think that I'm dismissing the Beatles in any way shape or form. I absolutely love Abbey Road and The White Album and Revolver. Sgt. Peppers is great, too. (It's odd that you stated your opinions with some sort of assumption about what bands that I've given a listen to.)  I also love the Stones. Dylan is kind of hit or miss for me. You obviously know that I love Pearl Jam, but I would never, ever say that they have surpassed the superiority of the Beatles (or Floyd) in any way. But you know what, I strongly believe that the Beatles are were they are in the history of rock and roll because they broke so many boundaries, not because they produced the most quality work of all time. I think its a "first, not best" situation. I wouldn't even say they're overrated, I just think perhaps some other bands (Floyd, Stones, Zep) are underrated, when comparing.

I'm actually continually disturbed by the worlds eagerness to say  that the Beatles are the greatest band of all time, with no comparison, and if anyone possibly disagrees they're a  fucking idiot.

Also, complain about subjectivism, and then make a completely subjective argument.

[LeanneP]

I think its a "first, not best" situation. I wouldn't even say they're overrated, I just think perhaps some other bands (Floyd, Stones, Zep) are underrated, when comparing.

I'm actually continually disturbed by the worlds eagerness to say  that the Beatles are the greatest band of all time, with no comparison, and if anyone possibly disagrees they're a  fucking idiot.

I don't think you are an idiot, but I think perhaps a tiny bit myopic. And I know that is going to come off sounding shitty, and I apologise.

You mention the latter albums, but don't go dismissing the early work. It may sound frivolous and simple on the surface, but the songwriting is deceptively complex. These guys were geniuses at what they did and the work sounds as fresh today as it did 45 years ago.

They pretty much single-handedly created modern pop music. They synthesized a number of genres to create what we understand as the sound of youth. And they did it well. The music is effervescent - there is a kind of undeniable joy in Beatles songs. The band is equally comfortable writing silly songs, tender songs, love songs, rockers, etc. They were the original band that inspired a thousand bands.

[exist10z]

I will say this though, I continue to be disturbed (humorously) by the dismissal of The Beatles by some of the younger members of this board.  I have already had this discussion in another thread though, so I guess it's pointless to rehash it now, but I will simply say, that it's easier to be infatuated with a band (Pink Floyd, Pearl Jam) when you've only been listening to music for 15 years.  Not at all taking anything away from these bands, they may actually be the best, have made the best albums, whatever, but when you have a limited amount of time, things can hold your interest.  I love Floyd, but I listened through their entire catalogue 30 years ago, it's not that I don't think their great, they are, but once you are forced (by the repetition of time) to move onto other music, you might find something you think is even better - like The Beatles.  Maybe.  Maybe not.  I know the Floyd lovers here have listened to The Beatles, probably a lot, but my point is that since you love Floyd so much and haven't yet gotten your fill, there has been no need to move onto really digging into maybe The Beatles, or The Stones, or Dylan.  Those guys all did psychedelics too ya know.

But I could be wrong.  And as far as what you think the greatest album is right now (again, by whatever standards we are using), I am obviously wrong, as many of you have made your opinions clear.  I would just say, that it's fine to dismiss Rolling Stone, or NME, or other critics, and it's certainly OK to dismiss me, but when most of those line up with an opinion that's different than yours, maybe there's a reason.  Maybe it's your perspective/appreciation that needs expansion. Maybe.  Or maybe not.

1. Psychedelics have nothing to do with it. I doubt if I'll ever trip again.
2. I know the Beatles did drugs, and I'll be the first to say I could give a shit less about their career pre-drugs. Seriously.
3. I have never and probably will never say that Pink Floyd is my favorite band ever. There are loads out there that touch me personally on a deeper level.

You are right, to a degree, about my Beatles listening history. It's only 2 or so years deep. (Sorry I don't have the "experience" you deem neccesary for one to possess to say the Beatles are the greatest band of all time.) You're wrong though, to think that I'm dismissing the Beatles in any way shape or form. I absolutely love Abbey Road and The White Album and Revolver. Sgt. Peppers is great, too. (It's odd that you stated your opinions with some sort of assumption about what bands that I've given a listen to.)  I also love the Stones. Dylan is kind of hit or miss for me. You obviously know that I love Pearl Jam, but I would never, ever say that they have surpassed the superiority of the Beatles (or Floyd) in any way. But you know what, I strongly believe that the Beatles are were they are in the history of rock and roll because they broke so many boundaries, not because they produced the most quality work of all time. I think its a "first, not best" situation. I wouldn't even say they're overrated, I just think perhaps some other bands (Floyd, Stones, Zep) are underrated, when comparing.

I'm actually continually disturbed by the worlds eagerness to say  that the Beatles are the greatest band of all time, with no comparison, and if anyone possibly disagrees they're a  fucking idiot.

Also, complain about subjectivism, and then make a completely subjective argument.

Seriously buddy, I wasn't just talking about you, and I wasn't questioning your knowledge of music, and I am honestly bummed you took it as personally as it appears.  If anything, I was trying to understand, and work it out through what I wrote, re: simply time as a function of ability to take in music.  For instance, when I was 22 for instance, I likely would have said the Doors, CSN&Y, Greatful Dead, or maybe Zeppelin (and still might in Zeppelins case) made one of the best albums ever,because  that was what I was into, hence had the time to really explore and listen to.  I wouldn't have mentioned The Beatles or Stones or Dylan, mostly just because I had plenty to listen to at that point.  I had the entire back catalogues of these bands, and Floyd and Cream, not to mention Bad Company and Deep Purple (for fuck sake), so I didn't need the Beatles, Stones or Dylan, I had all the music I needed.  But over time, I needed more, and devoted more time to other music.

Look, I acknowledged that your opinions were just as valid as mine, that you may well have heard all you need to of the other bands, and frankly you have now made an even better case for your reasoning.  Awesome.  I wasn't attacking your musical knowledge or taste the first time.  We don't even disagree.  Like I said, I am bummed that you even took it that way.  I was just speculating on the reason and possible causes of the differences (with conventional wisom, which I generally abhor) in opinion.  Whatever.

And for the record, my 'argument' wasn't subjective, it was speculative.

[Tracy 2112]

I will say this though, I continue to be disturbed (humorously) by the dismissal of The Beatles by some of the younger members of this board.  I have already had this discussion in another thread though, so I guess it's pointless to rehash it now, but I will simply say, that it's easier to be infatuated with a band (Pink Floyd, Pearl Jam) when you've only been listening to music for 15 years.  Not at all taking anything away from these bands, they may actually be the best, have made the best albums, whatever, but when you have a limited amount of time, things can hold your interest.  I love Floyd, but I listened through their entire catalogue 30 years ago, it's not that I don't think their great, they are, but once you are forced (by the repetition of time) to move onto other music, you might find something you think is even better - like The Beatles.  Maybe.  Maybe not.  I know the Floyd lovers here have listened to The Beatles, probably a lot, but my point is that since you love Floyd so much and haven't yet gotten your fill, there has been no need to move onto really digging into maybe The Beatles, or The Stones, or Dylan.  Those guys all did psychedelics too ya know.

But I could be wrong.  And as far as what you think the greatest album is right now (again, by whatever standards we are using), I am obviously wrong, as many of you have made your opinions clear.  I would just say, that it's fine to dismiss Rolling Stone, or NME, or other critics, and it's certainly OK to dismiss me, but when most of those line up with an opinion that's different than yours, maybe there's a reason.  Maybe it's your perspective/appreciation that needs expansion. Maybe.  Or maybe not.

1. Psychedelics have nothing to do with it. I doubt if I'll ever trip again.
2. I know the Beatles did drugs, and I'll be the first to say I could give a shit less about their career pre-drugs. Seriously.
3. I have never and probably will never say that Pink Floyd is my favorite band ever. There are loads out there that touch me personally on a deeper level.

You are right, to a degree, about my Beatles listening history. It's only 2 or so years deep. (Sorry I don't have the "experience" you deem neccesary for one to possess to say the Beatles are the greatest band of all time.) You're wrong though, to think that I'm dismissing the Beatles in any way shape or form. I absolutely love Abbey Road and The White Album and Revolver. Sgt. Peppers is great, too. (It's odd that you stated your opinions with some sort of assumption about what bands that I've given a listen to.)  I also love the Stones. Dylan is kind of hit or miss for me. You obviously know that I love Pearl Jam, but I would never, ever say that they have surpassed the superiority of the Beatles (or Floyd) in any way. But you know what, I strongly believe that the Beatles are were they are in the history of rock and roll because they broke so many boundaries, not because they produced the most quality work of all time. I think its a "first, not best" situation. I wouldn't even say they're overrated, I just think perhaps some other bands (Floyd, Stones, Zep) are underrated, when comparing.

I'm actually continually disturbed by the worlds eagerness to say  that the Beatles are the greatest band of all time, with no comparison, and if anyone possibly disagrees they're a  fucking idiot.

Also, complain about subjectivism, and then make a completely subjective argument.

Seriously buddy, I wasn't just talking about you, and I wasn't questioning your knowledge of music, and I am honestly bummed you took it as personally as it appears.  If anything, I was trying to understand, and work it out through what I wrote, re: simply time as a function of ability to take in music.  For instance, when I was 22 for instance, I likely would have said the Doors, CSN&Y, Greatful Dead, or maybe Zeppelin (and still might in Zeppelins case) made one of the best albums ever,because  that was what I was into, hence had the time to really explore and listen to.  I wouldn't have mentioned The Beatles or Stones or Dylan, mostly just because I had plenty to listen to at that point.  I had the entire back catalogues of these bands, and Floyd and Cream, not to mention Bad Company and Deep Purple (for fuck sake), so I didn't need the Beatles, Stones or Dylan, I had all the music I needed.  But over time, I needed more, and devoted more time to other music.

Look, I acknowledged that your opinions were just as valid as mine, that you may well have heard all you need to of the other bands, and frankly you have now made an even better case for your reasoning.  Awesome.  I wasn't attacking your musical knowledge or taste the first time.  We don't even disagree.  Like I said, I am bummed that you even took it that way.  I was just speculating on the reason and possible causes of the differences (with conventional wisom, which I generally abhor) in opinion.  Whatever.

And for the record, my 'argument' wasn't subjective, it was speculative.

arguing about music is like dancing for architecture

[EverythingChanges]

I will say this though, I continue to be disturbed (humorously) by the dismissal of The Beatles by some of the younger members of this board.  I have already had this discussion in another thread though, so I guess it's pointless to rehash it now, but I will simply say, that it's easier to be infatuated with a band (Pink Floyd, Pearl Jam) when you've only been listening to music for 15 years.  Not at all taking anything away from these bands, they may actually be the best, have made the best albums, whatever, but when you have a limited amount of time, things can hold your interest.  I love Floyd, but I listened through their entire catalogue 30 years ago, it's not that I don't think their great, they are, but once you are forced (by the repetition of time) to move onto other music, you might find something you think is even better - like The Beatles.  Maybe.  Maybe not.  I know the Floyd lovers here have listened to The Beatles, probably a lot, but my point is that since you love Floyd so much and haven't yet gotten your fill, there has been no need to move onto really digging into maybe The Beatles, or The Stones, or Dylan.  Those guys all did psychedelics too ya know.

But I could be wrong.  And as far as what you think the greatest album is right now (again, by whatever standards we are using), I am obviously wrong, as many of you have made your opinions clear.  I would just say, that it's fine to dismiss Rolling Stone, or NME, or other critics, and it's certainly OK to dismiss me, but when most of those line up with an opinion that's different than yours, maybe there's a reason.  Maybe it's your perspective/appreciation that needs expansion. Maybe.  Or maybe not.

1. Psychedelics have nothing to do with it. I doubt if I'll ever trip again.
2. I know the Beatles did drugs, and I'll be the first to say I could give a shit less about their career pre-drugs. Seriously.
3. I have never and probably will never say that Pink Floyd is my favorite band ever. There are loads out there that touch me personally on a deeper level.

You are right, to a degree, about my Beatles listening history. It's only 2 or so years deep. (Sorry I don't have the "experience" you deem neccesary for one to possess to say the Beatles are the greatest band of all time.) You're wrong though, to think that I'm dismissing the Beatles in any way shape or form. I absolutely love Abbey Road and The White Album and Revolver. Sgt. Peppers is great, too. (It's odd that you stated your opinions with some sort of assumption about what bands that I've given a listen to.)  I also love the Stones. Dylan is kind of hit or miss for me. You obviously know that I love Pearl Jam, but I would never, ever say that they have surpassed the superiority of the Beatles (or Floyd) in any way. But you know what, I strongly believe that the Beatles are were they are in the history of rock and roll because they broke so many boundaries, not because they produced the most quality work of all time. I think its a "first, not best" situation. I wouldn't even say they're overrated, I just think perhaps some other bands (Floyd, Stones, Zep) are underrated, when comparing.

I'm actually continually disturbed by the worlds eagerness to say  that the Beatles are the greatest band of all time, with no comparison, and if anyone possibly disagrees they're a  fucking idiot.

Also, complain about subjectivism, and then make a completely subjective argument.

Great reply E-Wind, I completely agree.

I began listening to The Beatles long before I really gave Floyd a chance, which is probably the same for most people.  I am not simply dismissing The Beatles in this discussion.  They are one of the best bands of all time, but like e_wind said, being first does not make you the best.  The reason I feel like most people prefer The Beatles to Pink Floyd, Zeppelin, or even Rush is because they are accessible.  Most of their songs are simple enough to play in the background and bob your head to, whereas Floyd, Rush etc require a deeper listen.  In return, the two latter bands will produce a very thought-provoking reaction from their listeners.  I enjoy The Beatles, but their songs lack a certain deepness that other bands possess.  Sure, Sgt. Peppers and some of their other albums dabbled in psychedelia and actually contained some thought-provoking material, but for the most part I never feel like I connect with them on that level.  I think My Morning Jacket is a better band than The Beatles (go ahead and shoot me, but it is the truth).  I respect The Beatles for what they accomplished for the music industry, but at the end of the day, they are too simple for my tastes.  Besides, this whole subject is based out of opinion.  If everyone thought the same way, there would be no discussion.  I never said a bad thing about Dylan.  Dylan is the fucking boss in every sense of the word. 

Has The Beatles ever made a song as epic and powerful as Echoes, Dogs, or Shine On?
Has The Beatles ever allowed you to free up your mind to just think profoundly? (I've never once touched a cigarette, let alone drugs)
Has The Beatles ever created a guitar solo that was as powerful as Comfortably Numb's second solo?
Has The Beatles ever written lyrics that were as mature and thought-provoking as Floyds?

[Penny Lane]

They pretty much single-handedly created modern pop music. They synthesized a number of genres to create what we understand as the sound of youth. And they did it well. The music is effervescent - there is a kind of undeniable joy in Beatles songs. The band is equally comfortable writing silly songs, tender songs, love songs, rockers, etc. They were the original band that inspired a thousand bands.

Bingo. Around for only a handful of albums and years, they completely made genius look easy. Would I rather hear Sticky Fingers or Exile rather than Abbey Road? Probably, but I guess it's a different argument as to who's best, who's better, more influential, etc. Without Elvis, no Beatles, without Sam Phillips wanting white people to like black music, no Elvis and so on/so forth. You also can't compare the Stones, Floyd with a band that was only around a few years.


and as far as thought provoking lyrics---i'd compare a lot of Lennon's writing to Roger Waters...especially his post-Beatles stuff. Paul is a pop guy--apples and oranges. The White Album--a mish mesh of pain---is anything but 'simple'...when George got confident enough to write--well that was anything but simple...i'm  not that into elaborate guitar solos, though, but eric did alright on Gently Weeps? (one of the greatest guitar solos of all time)

i just don't see a point in comparing...if you're going to compare genres at that time..maybe the kinks....but not the stones. since they were originally blues based...and early floyd has some pretty poppy stoner syd barrett lyrics. had the beatles stayed together and evolved, you'd definitely have something like the Wall...are we going to compare lyrics from saucerful of secrets to the white album? i need drugs to love early floyd...

love the thread. keep going

[woodnymph]

Has The Beatles ever made a song as epic and powerful as Echoes, Dogs, or Shine On?
Has The Beatles ever allowed you to free up your mind to just think profoundly? (I've never once touched a cigarette, let alone drugs)
Has The Beatles ever created a guitar solo that was as powerful as Comfortably Numb's second solo?
Has The Beatles ever written lyrics that were as mature and thought-provoking as Floyds?

And as I'm reading, I'm like, "Yes! Yes! Why yes!!" ("Turn off your mind, relax, and float downstream!" if that doesn't answer question #2, I'm not sure what does!) ..........But then it occurred to me.... I guess a lot of it is mainly credited to Sir George..... though John went mighty deep, thought-provoking-wise.

[woodnymph]

Ah shitballs, just saw you replied too, Penny! Looks like you've summed up a lot of what I was sayin' too, though I haven't finished reading your reply... ah! I didn't mean to repeat, sry!

Yep, just read what ya put. Good stuff, right onnn 

[e_wind]

Has The Beatles ever made a song as epic and powerful as Echoes, Dogs, or Shine On?
Has The Beatles ever allowed you to free up your mind to just think profoundly? (I've never once touched a cigarette, let alone drugs)
Has The Beatles ever created a guitar solo that was as powerful as Comfortably Numb's second solo?
Has The Beatles ever written lyrics that were as mature and thought-provoking as Floyds?

And as I'm reading, I'm like, "Yes! Yes! Why yes!!" ("Turn off your mind, relax, and float downstream!" if that doesn't answer question #2, I'm not sure what does!) ..........But then it occurred to me.... I guess a lot of it is mainly credited to Sir George..... though John went mighty deep, thought-provoking-wise.

I agree with all this. I can't go as far as  Everything Changes did, cause I don't hate the Beatles AT ALL. White Album is one of my favorite records.

[EverythingChanges]

They pretty much single-handedly created modern pop music. They synthesized a number of genres to create what we understand as the sound of youth. And they did it well. The music is effervescent - there is a kind of undeniable joy in Beatles songs. The band is equally comfortable writing silly songs, tender songs, love songs, rockers, etc. They were the original band that inspired a thousand bands.

Bingo. Around for only a handful of albums and years, they completely made genius look easy. Would I rather hear Sticky Fingers or Exile rather than Abbey Road? Probably, but I guess it's a different argument as to who's best, who's better, more influential, etc. Without Elvis, no Beatles, without Sam Phillips wanting white people to like black music, no Elvis and so on/so forth. You also can't compare the Stones, Floyd with a band that was only around a few years.


and as far as thought provoking lyrics---i'd compare a lot of Lennon's writing to Roger Waters...especially his post-Beatles stuff. Paul is a pop guy--apples and oranges. The White Album--a mish mesh of pain---is anything but 'simple'...when George got confident enough to write--well that was anything but simple...i'm  not that into elaborate guitar solos, though, but eric did alright on Gently Weeps? (one of the greatest guitar solos of all time)

i just don't see a point in comparing...if you're going to compare genres at that time..maybe the kinks....but not the stones. since they were originally blues based...and early floyd has some pretty poppy stoner syd barrett lyrics. had the beatles stayed together and evolved, you'd definitely have something like the Wall...are we going to compare lyrics from saucerful of secrets to the white album? i need drugs to love early floyd...

love the thread. keep going

I would never compare the first two Floyd albums to the White album.  You are comparing a Floyd that hadn't found itself yet to a Beatles who had discovered its sound and its drive.  The White album was close to the end of The Beatles career, thus they had developed their sounds better.  Heck, I haven't discussed Syd's early work yet.  Syd was a catalyst for what Floyd became, and at a certain point, he was the band's innovator.  But it was not until he left that the band took control and discovered their sound.  It first started appearing with Atom Heart Mother and More and then came Dark Side and everything changed.  There had never been an album like it, nor has there been one since. 

The way Dark Side opens with Speak To Me and I hear the money machine, the lunatic laughing and finally the woman screaming is the best foreshadowing of an album I have ever listened to.  Within that short first minute of the album before any song truly starts, I feel like so much has already happened.  I'm excited to hear what comes next.  I hear Gilmour sing the first word of the album..."Breathe" followed by "Breathe in the air"...  The word choice for that first line of the album says so much--it speaks to me.  It tells me to relax and it tells me to prepare for whats to come.  I do as I am told and close my eyes.  What comes next is a music experience that I have never truly felt with any other album.  Each song takes me to a new chapter in this deeply thematic and conceptual story.  Time teaches me about life and death and everything in-between.  When I hear The Great Gig In The Sky, I feel horror mixed with melancholic tranquility.  I can sense the pain in the woman's voice, but it is interwoven with beauty and passion.  Money describes the evilness of greed.  When Us and Them commences, my hairs stand on end and I feel chills run down my spine.  It forces me to confront my melancholy and try to unravel it and understand it.  It teaches me that melancholy is not bad, but rather, part of life.  Brain Damage forces me into the mind of a lunatic.  I feel the lunacy of the insane man...I hear his mad cackling.  Finally comes Eclipse, the climax of this self-journey.  The lyrics are so simplistic, yet, so powerful.  To me, these lyrics sum up everything this album establishes throughout its earlier chapters, but more importantly, these lyrics sum up life.

All that you touch
All that you see
All that you taste
All you feel
All that you love
All that you hate
All you distrust
All you save
All that you give
All that you deal
All that you buy
beg, borrow or steal
All you create
All you destroy
All that you do
All that you say
All that you eat
everyone you meet
All that you slight
everyone you fight
All that is now
All that is gone
All that's to come
And everything under the sun is in tune
But the sun is eclipsed by the moon.

The music ends and all I hear is a faint heart beat.  I open my eyes and realize I have never felt this way before about music or even life. 

Pink Floyd opened my mind to music and I have never been the same since.

[EverythingChanges]

Has The Beatles ever made a song as epic and powerful as Echoes, Dogs, or Shine On?
Has The Beatles ever allowed you to free up your mind to just think profoundly? (I've never once touched a cigarette, let alone drugs)
Has The Beatles ever created a guitar solo that was as powerful as Comfortably Numb's second solo?
Has The Beatles ever written lyrics that were as mature and thought-provoking as Floyds?

And as I'm reading, I'm like, "Yes! Yes! Why yes!!" ("Turn off your mind, relax, and float downstream!" if that doesn't answer question #2, I'm not sure what does!) ..........But then it occurred to me.... I guess a lot of it is mainly credited to Sir George..... though John went mighty deep, thought-provoking-wise.

I agree with all this. I can't go as far as  Everything Changes did, cause I don't hate the Beatles AT ALL. White Album is one of my favorite records.

I don't hate The Beatles. Far from it actually.  But I truly can't answer yes to those questions.  The lyrical part is debatable.  The Beatles had thought-provoking lyrics throughout their catalogue, but I feel like Pink Floyd had it with everyone of their songs from Echoes and on.  The Beatles have too many simple silly head bobby songs for my tastes.  I like progressive and conceptual music.  I want my music to be serious and entrancing. The Beatles approached this occasionally, but it rarely lasted imo.

[exist10z]

Fine, fine, I am convinced, Pink Floyd is the greatest rock band ever and DSoTM is the greatest album ever, I just realized it in this thread.

Not really, well maybe, sort of, nah...

'So you run and you run to catch up with the sun, but it's sinking
Racing around to come up behind you again
The sun is the same in a relative way but you're older,
Shorter of breath and one day closer to death.'

Maybe my favorite lyrics of all time.  Really does completely capture the simple and harrowing essence of existence. 

[woodnymph]

Has The Beatles ever made a song as epic and powerful as Echoes, Dogs, or Shine On?
Has The Beatles ever allowed you to free up your mind to just think profoundly? (I've never once touched a cigarette, let alone drugs)
Has The Beatles ever created a guitar solo that was as powerful as Comfortably Numb's second solo?
Has The Beatles ever written lyrics that were as mature and thought-provoking as Floyds?

And as I'm reading, I'm like, "Yes! Yes! Why yes!!" ("Turn off your mind, relax, and float downstream!" if that doesn't answer question #2, I'm not sure what does!) ..........But then it occurred to me.... I guess a lot of it is mainly credited to Sir George..... though John went mighty deep, thought-provoking-wise.

I agree with all this. I can't go as far as  Everything Changes did, cause I don't hate the Beatles AT ALL. White Album is one of my favorite records.

I don't hate The Beatles. Far from it actually.  But I truly can't answer yes to those questions.  The lyrical part is debatable.  The Beatles had thought-provoking lyrics throughout their catalogue, but I feel like Pink Floyd had it with everyone of their songs from Echoes and on.  The Beatles have too many simple silly head bobby songs for my tastes.  I like progressive and conceptual music.  I want my music to be serious and entrancing. The Beatles approached this occasionally, but it rarely lasted imo.

You sound like a perfect candidate to just go check out some more George Harrison. And you'd want to dig deeper, he even still has some headbobbers. But he made an entire album dedicated to chanting Hindi prayers and blessings, and wrote many songs about death and the Spirit, in general. Of course, "deep" is going to be as relative as it comes, and you may not find these same things deep. It's hard to say. (Let's dispute it!) (only kidding) All I know is that I've been on a ride just like yours (only probably a little different/enhanced), with the Floyd, and I love them as much, for the same reasons it sounds like you do. I don't like "giving advice," but I would advise one to be easy on discounting music, especially on this board. These cats will point out all kinds of crazy good songs, etc, to a skeptical mind. The board flourishes in tiny abundant intricacies of music. I'm even trying real hard to like Rush cause of the great folks here who do, and that says something.   

[EverythingChanges]

Once again, I am not turning down the Beatles.  They are great musicians.  I am saying that I feel like Pink Floyd is the better band.  This discussion warrants--no, this discussions demands us to disagree.  There can't be more than one "Sgt. Peppers" to one individual.  I am explaining why I feel like Dark Side should hold that title.

I will happily listen to some George Harrison if anyone has any suggestions.  What I have heard from him so far I really enjoy. 

[woodnymph]

Once again, I am not turning down the Beatles.  They are great musicians.  I am saying that I feel like Pink Floyd is the better band.  This discussion warrants--no, this discussions demands us to disagree.  There can't be more than one "Sgt. Peppers" to one individual.  I am explaining why I feel like Dark Side should hold that title.

Right on