Piper At The Gates Of Dawn (moved from Yakety Yak)

Backslapping time. Well done us. We are fantastic.

Now really....

Singularly amazing, untouchable, etc.
43
68%
Irredeemable dogshit
1
2%
Neither of the above - it's ok if you like that sort of thing
19
30%
 
Total votes: 63

User avatar
John Mc
Posts: 14493
Joined: 22 Oct 2003, 17:25
Location: Wilde animal

Postby John Mc » 24 Sep 2004, 15:31

One wonders why acid didn't enable the likes of Eric Burdon, Eric Clapton, or Graham Nash to create their own Piper.


Had Eric been an instrumentalist as well as a vocalist, I reckon he could have produced a classic psych album with the New Animals. As it is, 'The Twain Shall Meet' and 'Everyone of us' are pretty outstanding in their way, and you could compile a killer single LP from the best of the New Animals' four albums.

Also, the rest of the band were probably as scrambled as he was; not something you could say of the Floyd!
quix wrote:If you want to really live then you have to open yourself up to love... some you'll win, some you'll lose... but what is the point if being human if you don't dare?

User avatar
John Mc
Posts: 14493
Joined: 22 Oct 2003, 17:25
Location: Wilde animal

Postby John Mc » 24 Sep 2004, 15:35

Love Vigilante wrote:
the loveless wrote:To wit, "Astronomy Domine" is an incredibly singular piece of music. A chorus which consists of an 8 step chromatic descent (from the 4 to the 7) with a falsetto vocal hook trailing the changes in 5ths? What the fuck?

That's what I thought as well when I was reading that sentence!


You'd enjoy Wilfred Mellor's 'Twilight of the gods', then. :lol:

It's a musicologist's analysis (published 1973) of (mainly) mid-60s Beatles music and lyrics, with lengthy sections on the Who, Hendrix and Pink Floyd tracks of the period. And it is indeed written in such 'non-musician friendly' language...

Actually, it's not a bad read, but I have no idea if it's in print nowadays.
Last edited by John Mc on 24 Sep 2004, 15:59, edited 1 time in total.
quix wrote:If you want to really live then you have to open yourself up to love... some you'll win, some you'll lose... but what is the point if being human if you don't dare?

User avatar
Still Baron
Diamond Geezer
Posts: 42078
Joined: 18 Jul 2003, 05:38
Location: Impregnable Citadel of Technicality

Postby Still Baron » 24 Sep 2004, 15:42

the loveless wrote:
Charlie O. wrote:
Maximum Baron wrote:I prefer the mono versions of both! Sgt. Pepper rocks, you know. To that end, the mono helps while never decreasing whatever psychedelic value the record has. The same largely holds true for Piper.


We'll just have to agree to disagree, then. I do feel that way about most mono/stereo issues of that era (well, '67 is where it started to turn around), but for those two albums? - stereo, daddyo.


Like Baron, I enjoy listening to the mono versions of this album and Pepper. In fact, I prefer them - BUT, as a "student" of these records, there is great value in hearing these unusual sounds and combinations with stereo separation. In stereo, either record sounds a bit more (to my ears) precious, delicate, whimsical, and ornate. In mono, they sound HEAVIER. I need both.

Yes, I'm exactly the type of consumer that wishes to have both options. When any great record is concerned, I would prefer to make up my own mind about mono vs. stereo. I am always disappointed when reissues/remasters appear (the Stones and Dylan catalogues would be a prime example) without offering both options. I mean....COME ON!

Of course my ultimate reissue dream is a multi layered program with a) all available mixes, and b) a "copy" of the multitrack master which allows one to mix the album to taste.

A pipe dream.


I concur fully with this and loveless's more recent post. Well done on both counts. I think loveless goes a long way towards establishing that "Piper" is an apparently sui generis event and, combined with the single, there's not much from 67 that can touch it. Not to harp on the mono thing or to inflate anyone's expectations, but the mono mix makes it a bit more, um, singular. If that makes any sense.
take5_d_shorterer wrote:If John Bonham simply didn't listen to enough Tommy Johnson or Blind Willie Mctell, that's his doing.

User avatar
king feeb
He's the consultant of swing
Posts: 26243
Joined: 19 Jul 2003, 00:42
Location: Soon Over Babaluma
Contact:

Postby king feeb » 24 Sep 2004, 16:33

Chris Moise wrote:10/20/67 - In the Beechwoods - for those who haven't heard the lo-fi recording of this track in circulation it is the backing track to a Syd original. This track is really a lost classic. Catchy has hell with a great hook in the chorus. If forced to comapre it to something I would say it like the middle section of See Emily. This would of been a better follow up to Emily than Apples and Oranges. Pity they didn't get around to recording the vocals.


This is a stunning track (unfortunately never completed). The only versions I have are very lo-fi and muffled, and also have Nick Mason talking over them (the source of the track was an interview with Mason). At the risk of turning this thread into a "trading post", if anyone has a better quality version of this, PM me and we'll work out some trade of some sort.

Or should we just go to Nick Mason's house and see if he'll give us a better copy? :P
You'd pay big bucks to know what you really think.

User avatar
German Dave
Utter Cad
Posts: 50136
Joined: 16 Jul 2003, 21:22
Location: 16 Beasley Street

Postby German Dave » 24 Sep 2004, 16:50

The Smamfy wrote:ah, it's no Meddle.


so, it might be quite good then?
kewl klive wrote:A deluxe Sandinista! was pulled when only one outtake could be found.


User avatar
Matt Wilson
Psychedelic Cowpunk
Posts: 28393
Joined: 16 Jul 2003, 20:18
Location: Edge of a continent

Postby Matt Wilson » 24 Sep 2004, 16:52

The Smamfy wrote:
TheBoyGiraffe wrote:
The Smamfy wrote:ah, it's no Meddle.


so, it might be quite good then?


Meddle is a thing of beauty.


Agreed.

User avatar
German Dave
Utter Cad
Posts: 50136
Joined: 16 Jul 2003, 21:22
Location: 16 Beasley Street

Postby German Dave » 24 Sep 2004, 16:54

Matt Wilson wrote:
The Smamfy wrote:
TheBoyGiraffe wrote:
The Smamfy wrote:ah, it's no Meddle.


so, it might be quite good then?


Meddle is a thing of beauty.


Agreed.


it is very dull.

especially 'echoes'.

i play 'one of these days' occasionally but that's about it. can't be doing with shite like 'st tropez' at all.
kewl klive wrote:A deluxe Sandinista! was pulled when only one outtake could be found.


User avatar
Matt Wilson
Psychedelic Cowpunk
Posts: 28393
Joined: 16 Jul 2003, 20:18
Location: Edge of a continent

Postby Matt Wilson » 24 Sep 2004, 16:56

TheBoyGiraffe wrote:
Matt Wilson wrote:
The Smamfy wrote:
TheBoyGiraffe wrote:
The Smamfy wrote:ah, it's no Meddle.


so, it might be quite good then?


Meddle is a thing of beauty.


Agreed.


it is very dull.

especially 'echoes'.

i play 'one of these days' occasionally but that's about it. can't be doing with shite like 'st tropez' at all.


It's all so well-recorded though.

Even if you don't enjoy the songs I just love the sound of Floyd's '70s records.

User avatar
Snarfyguy
Dominated by the Obscure
Posts: 52128
Joined: 21 Jul 2003, 19:04
Location: New York

Postby Snarfyguy » 24 Sep 2004, 17:02

the loveless wrote:Of course my ultimate reissue dream is a multi layered program with a) all available mixes, and b) a "copy" of the multitrack master which allows one to mix the album to taste.

A pipe dream.


My fantasy as well!

Tremdous post, that last epic one, Loveless. It's the first one on the thread that really made me annoyed that I'm not listening to the album.
Jimbo wrote:Look, all I know is pretty much what I get from Robert Parry over at Consortium News.

User avatar
Still Baron
Diamond Geezer
Posts: 42078
Joined: 18 Jul 2003, 05:38
Location: Impregnable Citadel of Technicality

Postby Still Baron » 24 Sep 2004, 17:09

TheBoyGiraffe wrote:
Matt Wilson wrote:
The Smamfy wrote:
TheBoyGiraffe wrote:
The Smamfy wrote:ah, it's no Meddle.


so, it might be quite good then?


Meddle is a thing of beauty.


Agreed.


it is very dull.

especially 'echoes'.

i play 'one of these days' occasionally but that's about it. can't be doing with shite like 'st tropez' at all.


Wouldn't be without any of it!
take5_d_shorterer wrote:If John Bonham simply didn't listen to enough Tommy Johnson or Blind Willie Mctell, that's his doing.

User avatar
Snarfyguy
Dominated by the Obscure
Posts: 52128
Joined: 21 Jul 2003, 19:04
Location: New York

Postby Snarfyguy » 24 Sep 2004, 17:16

Maximum Baron wrote:Wouldn't be without any of it!


I like it very much, but 'Seamus' really is a bit of a clunker.
Jimbo wrote:Look, all I know is pretty much what I get from Robert Parry over at Consortium News.

User avatar
king feeb
He's the consultant of swing
Posts: 26243
Joined: 19 Jul 2003, 00:42
Location: Soon Over Babaluma
Contact:

Postby king feeb » 24 Sep 2004, 17:24

snarfyguy wrote:
Maximum Baron wrote:Wouldn't be without any of it!


I like it very much, but 'Seamus' really is a bit of a clunker.


It was just an excuse to funnel some royalty money to Steve Marriott's dog.
You'd pay big bucks to know what you really think.

User avatar
Livet
'progressively malty'
Posts: 3164
Joined: 16 Jul 2003, 20:19
Location: The Glen

Postby Livet » 24 Sep 2004, 17:30

king feeb wrote:
snarfyguy wrote:
Maximum Baron wrote:Wouldn't be without any of it!


I like it very much, but 'Seamus' really is a bit of a clunker.


It was just an excuse to funnel some royalty money to Steve Marriott's dog.


And he deserved every penny.
The crazy music drives you insane

User avatar
king feeb
He's the consultant of swing
Posts: 26243
Joined: 19 Jul 2003, 00:42
Location: Soon Over Babaluma
Contact:

Postby king feeb » 24 Sep 2004, 17:56

Livet wrote:
king feeb wrote:
snarfyguy wrote:
Maximum Baron wrote:Wouldn't be without any of it!


I like it very much, but 'Seamus' really is a bit of a clunker.


It was just an excuse to funnel some royalty money to Steve Marriott's dog.


And he deserved every penny.


Agreed. I would have bought more albums by Steve Marriott's dog, but I think they're only available as imports... :wink:
You'd pay big bucks to know what you really think.

User avatar
whodathunkit
Posts: 12173
Joined: 20 Aug 2004, 23:45
Location: Down in the boondocks

Postby whodathunkit » 24 Sep 2004, 18:16

The thing for me about the Floyd is that every album was just not quite as good as the one before. Thats okay when you start with an album as wonderful as Pipers but its been a bloody long way down. Its a question that always interests me - "When did you give up on Pink Floyd?" For me it was the second side of Meddle - "Echoes" was the point they gave up trying.
Image

User avatar
Quaco
F R double E
Posts: 45873
Joined: 16 Jul 2003, 19:41

Postby Quaco » 24 Sep 2004, 18:24

You make a good point. And yet, Animals is a vicious return to form.

To answer your question, I never listen to Dark Side of the Moon or anything after that, unless it's those little bits in the Pompeii movie or a very rare occasion. Since Obscured by Clouds came after Meddle, I guess I think of "Absolutely Curtains" as being their last moment of true wonderfulness. It's also a particular favorite of mine.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Bungo the Mungo

Postby Bungo the Mungo » 24 Sep 2004, 20:29

great post, loveless. probably the best i've read on here.

User avatar
Quaco
F R double E
Posts: 45873
Joined: 16 Jul 2003, 19:41

Postby Quaco » 24 Sep 2004, 20:52

solarskope wrote:great post, loveless. probably the best i've read on here.

Certainly one of the longest.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Piggly Wiggly

Postby Piggly Wiggly » 24 Sep 2004, 20:53

Mr. Jim wrote:
solarskope wrote:great post, loveless. probably the best i've read on here.

Certainly one of the longest.


That's a bit rich, Jim.

User avatar
Quaco
F R double E
Posts: 45873
Joined: 16 Jul 2003, 19:41

Postby Quaco » 24 Sep 2004, 21:01

the loveless wrote:
Mr. Jim wrote:
solarskope wrote:great post, loveless. probably the best i've read on here.

Certainly one of the longest.


That's a bit rich, Jim.

Your "Echoes" positively dwarfs my paltry "Quicksilver"s and "Fearless"s.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -