Quote:
Originally Posted by Taxman
Blah, I think them as a art rock. Barret-era was psychedelic rock but then I'd rather follow George Starostin's footsteps and call them art rock, but does it really matter?
And yeah, I will revisit Animals, since in this case I would like to wrong- I mean, if everyone else find them great, I would also like to learn to find what makes them great, so I'm gonna try again.
The Wall, though, would be a classic if it were not a double album. It includes too many fillers and bores for me.
|
Now there are parts in this I can agree with. And I am glad to hear you will revisit it. Perhaps look at the influence behind the album and then listen? I usually do that if I can't exactly follow the lyrics.
I agree with you on The Wall as well. I don't find it as terrible as a lot of people say it is, in fact, I find it rather enjoyable, however I do think it is far too big of an album, but then again, it's a concept album, so it's focusing more on telling a story than anything. The filler is understandable, but I think they could have easily brought it down to a single album if they wanted to.