Dark Side of the Moon had major filler. Let's point out the beginning of Time and that twiddly instrumental track that has that same rythm throughout, etc.
Only if you consider anything outside of "verse chorus verse chorus bridge chorus" to be filler. By filler I'm talking about entire songs which are obviously poorly written and the musicians don't care because they were just trying to fill up an album.
As for Saturnine....
On no album will you find that the musicians put equal effort into every song. There will be some songs they put noticeably less effort into and others they put noticeably more effort into. There are songs where they obviously cared a lot about it and really polished it. There are others that they clearly didn't. This doesn't mean they don't like the songs. It means they did not place the same level of dedication into some of their songs that they put into others. If the level of effort put into a song is exceedingly minimal compared to others, it is probably filler. Doesn't mean it can't have emotional significance, but it's still below par comppared to the rest of a band's output.
50% of the music out there is probably filler. Including indie music. Perhaps even especially indie music.
As for there being new things....sorry, but there really isn't. So yeah, let's say I start writing punk with the lead guitarist playing an electric ukelele instead of a guitar. Yeah, that must be new, right? No, not really. Jazz, that was new. The chords and chord progressions Beethoven used, that was new. Tchaikovsky's cannonfire in the 1812 overture, that was new. Guitar distortion as sound in the Velvet Underground, that was new. Punk, that was new. Beat poetry, that was new. But accordion metal? No, that's cynical recombination of existing musical themes to create the impression of appearing new.
/postmodernist
I never said influence was a part of being a good album. I said influence was a part of being a CLASSIC album. You are wrong to equate the two. The Downward Spiral, by NIN, is pretty much commercialized shit. Yes, it is, get over it. Doesn't mean it's not a classic album. Is Korn's Issues a good album? No, not really. Is it classic? Yes. Is Trail of Dead's Source Tags and Codes a good album? Hell fucking yeah. Is it classic? No. Did Madonna put out any classic albums? Yes, but that doesn't mean she doesn't suck Satan's pecker.
Or maybe I should spell it out more clearly. U2 sucks. Joshua Tree is a classic album. The Pixies, although I enjoy them immensely, are subpar musicians (ohshit heresy flame flame flame), but Doolittle and Surfer Rosa are classic albums. The Beach Boys suck, but their stuff is classic.
Quality does not equate to classic. Classic does not mean quality. Period.
I am claiming that the Mars Volta are highly influential because that's the way it is. Modest Mouse is influential within the portion of the indie community which is too pretentious to like mainstream but not pretentious enough to realize they ARE mainstream. Outside the indie community, the only Modest Mouse anyone's ever heard is "Float On" which was a subpar single at best.As for the Mars Volta, every drummer I know has an opinion on them. Many musicians I know from various schools of music, from straight jazz to indie to punk to metal to prog to alt rock to hip-hop all have an opinion on them. I know many bands from MANY genres which consider them an influence. Everyone has an opinion on their live show (either they love it or hate it, but they have an opinion).
Do I like Mars Volta better than Modest Mouse? Yes. For sure. But there are plenty of bands I like a lot less that I'd still consider more influential (Weezer, for example....god, I hate that band) and who've put out more classic albums than Deloused. But in twenty years, people will still be dropping acid and listening to Deloused and people will remember Modest Mouse as a one-hit wonder.
