i hate listening to this album, yet i cherish it for the trippy cover
surely it wasn't because of syd barret it sounded so terrible
2006-08-24 04:08:32 · 9 answers · asked by Anonymous in Entertainment & Music ➔ Music
It's a matter of opinion, of course, but I don't think it is awful at all. The songs were written in the late 60s in England for all night parties that would be called "Raves" if they were held today. When I listen to the album, I picture a bunch of dancing tripping hippies and it fits in so well in that context.
It probably sounds awful because most of the songs are in minor keys and have simplistic chord progressions.
2006-08-24 04:24:53 · answer #1 · answered by Dawgface420 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
That was just a different sound. Syd was way more psychadelic sounding and was not that good of a vocalist. Roger Waters voice is smooth and doesn't sound like he needs meds.
2006-08-24 04:11:36 · answer #2 · answered by Good Gushy 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
They were still experimenting at the time. Not the worst album I have ever heard.
2006-08-24 04:21:21 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
So are most of them from that time. Umma Gumma wasn't that great as far as playability. It's called art.
2006-08-24 04:15:16 · answer #4 · answered by madbaldscotsman 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
because syd barret is terrible
2006-08-24 04:11:41 · answer #5 · answered by Chris G 1 · 0⤊ 1⤋
because nothing sounds good once you've heard Dark Side of the Moon. not even the frickin beatles.
2006-08-24 04:11:24 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
if you hate listening to the album, then dont listen to it. its that simple.
2006-08-24 04:10:27 · answer #7 · answered by dirty n 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Well the name "Pink Floyd" for one thing.
2006-08-24 04:12:26 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 3⤋
because so is the band.
2006-08-24 04:13:49 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 3⤋