Dsotm latest!

M

merlin

Joined
Jun 23, 2003
Messages
3,262
Reaction score
0
Just spent the evening listening to a selection of DSOTM discs.

Starting with the original CD release, then onto the SACD, then the live recording on Pulse. Finally auditioned the latest version, just landed today.

The newest release really does seem to make the music come alive to me, it hasn't sounded so fresh and original since I heard Pink Floyd's opus as a kid at school.

The smile is back on my face;) Only on import at the moment but, if you can find it anywhere, it may well liven up your day too:D
 
Which?

Hi Merlin

I assume you mean the 30th anniversary version? I have it on LP and it's quite stunning.

Jay
 
The 30th anniversery version IS the SACD/cd hybrid version. Yet another one? Surely not!
 
space cadet, thank god I'm not alone in my loathing of DSOTM.

Anyone who wants to hear some excellent late 60s prog-ishness should get the newly reissued Soft Machine "Live at the Paradiso" album, it makes Floyd sound very ponderous and self-regarding.

[Ducks]

-- Ian
 
hi Dom

They changed a lot over the years, both personnel and musical style, and ended up as a jazz-rock band. The first incarnations (my favourite) are contemporaneous with early Floyd (they played a lot together). They sound a bit like Barrett-era Floyd but with way better playing (Robert Wyatt is a genius drummer), intelligence, playfulness, and wit. Check out their first two albums (called, oddly enough, 1 and 2). Fan-bloody-tastic.

Trivia note: I have a nice documentary video about Wyatt made a couple of years ago. In it, Floyd's Nick Mason freely admits that, as far as he's concerned, Soft Machine were a far better band than Floyd were. I point this out purely for sh*t-stirring purposes, of course... :JPS:
 
what's this in my cheek... ok i'll bite...
ian,
of course you don't like floyd and here's why...
1) they are well recorded. no dodgy live miking, scratchy old 78 transfers or eccentric production values.
2) they are popular, not obscure intellectually elitest nobodies.
3) they subscribe to western musical structure. not some outer mongolian yak hearding scale specific to the ping yang province.
4) they are easy to listen to. they don't require a phd in quantam maths to grasp the fundamentals of their musical message.

5 listening to them isn;t like being the blue one...
:SWMBO:
but then you enjoy that sort of thing i guess.

:p

was that flamey enough?
cheers


julian


p.s. ian if you're offended by any of the above then tough sh.. err let me know and i;ll moderate myself.
 
Julian old chap, not offended in the slightest. However, your points 1-5 are true of Soft Machine as well (since I used them as an example, might as well stick with them), even the one about being popular, which they were, at the time.

But in addition, there's a point 6: Soft Machine music is good music. Can't say the same of Floyd. Self-obsessed middle class whining, appallingly indulgent and in need of some humour and editing. Utter tosh, no redeeming features at all.

There, that should bring some flames on. :D

-- Ian
 
ian,
i'm at a disadvantage as i've never heard of soft machine but i shall press my opinionated position...
i'd debate you on point 2. i've never heard of soft machine, at first i thought it was that thing with bowie in it but that was tin machine wasn;t it? as i've never heard of soft machine, and as king of my own little world i'll therefore build my castle on this sandy base and extrapolate that you're tlking balls about points 1,3,4&5 too :p

cheers


julian
 
Ah Julian, but you're a young whippersnapper. If you were part of the scene in 1968 you would have heard of them.

At Hendrix's request, they played on Hendrix's European tour. They played at all the early "experiences" that the Floyd played at. They pre-dated Floyd, and for a while they were a bigger name than Floyd.

Obviously, Floyd went on to become the moan-rock behemoths of the 70s and Soft Machine didn't (the original lineup split and the later Soft Machine is a very different beast) but that's as much historical accident as anything.

-- Ian
 
ah but ian, now you're backing up my argument for me... they lost their ideals and are no no more whilst floyd paraglided on the winds of change and turned into the rock gods of teenage angst, letting unhappy teenagers know that they are not alone in their misery and that even crusty old farts can make a buck off of it... hey now i'm backing up your argument that's not right....

errr... ummmm... well nick mason owns lots of great cars so pink floyd must be good ... bugger.

in all seriousness though the mere fact that pf are so poular in so many countries and are still selling out huge venues today must indicate that they are doing something right.

cheers

julian
 
in all seriousness though the mere fact that pf are so poular in so many countries and are still selling out huge venues today must indicate that they are doing something right.
Click to expand...

They still blow chunks, and I'm prepared to arm wrestle anybody who disagrees.

:p

-- Ian
 
Originally posted by sideshowbob
Self-obsessed middle class whining, appallingly indulgent and in need of some humour and editing. Utter tosh,
-- Ian
Click to expand...

Spooky:D Even with the reference to Tosh;)

The DSOTM I am referring to is the new Dub Side Of The Moon, by the world famous Easy Star All-Stars:D

Yep, the whole PF Opus, done Dub stylee, comfortably achieving the required editing and injection of humour;)

I particularly like the opening of Money, constructed using a Zippo, a chesty cough, and a water pipe;)

Class, and far more refreshing than some 30 year old rehash:D
 
OK Merlin, you avoid my arm-wrestling challenge. For now. :D

Hippy has a nice bluegrass album of Floyd tunes that he played at Bottleneck's. I'm all in favour of a bit of, ahem, deconstruction.

-- Ian
 

Latest posts

Back
Top