1

currently at work I've got into a debate with someone who isn't very well versed in the nuances of music, they detest Pink Floyd and argue with me that they can't be classified as eclectic due to them being popular. Whereas, I, someone who is extremely eclectic in all walks of life, strongly disagree with their stance on the basis that they were the originators of psychedelic rock.

Please can we all put a stop to this charlatan and agree that Pink Floyd are both incredibly excellent and exceedingly eclectic?

  • 1
    the problem here is a matter of definition, which you both will need to agree on and frankly, neither of you appear to be using a standard definition of eclectic. Eclectic is the derivation of style or manner by incorporating different styles. Neither popularity nor originality really enter into it. – Yorik Dec 11 '19 at 18:31
  • You’ve got the band wrong as well, it was Tubeway Army who did ‘Are Friends Eclectic’. Agree with @Yorik that eclectic doesn’t mean whatever it is you think it means – Steve Mansfield Dec 13 '19 at 7:03
1

Do a trade. You listen to a track that they really like in return for them listening to a PF track that you really like.

FWIW, I think pigeonholing or assigning lazy stereotypes to music or people or anything really is unhelpful. Whatever I listen to I stop myself describing it as simply good or bad, because who am I to say? Instead say "I like it" or "I don't like it" and I say why.

| improve this answer | |
1

Depends on how you judge things.

Pink Floyd started out as psychedelic trend setters and then became more accessible.

If eclectic means mixing of diverse styles, then trend setting isn't necessarily eclectic.

By comparison I think Bill Laswell or John Zorn are more eclectic.

| improve this answer | |

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.