I take the opposite view, if a record is so successful/revered, indeed if anything is so successful/revered, it almost has to be NOT worth checking out. Exception which proves the rule.....The Beatles.
I don't understand your thinking here, but its already been touched upon by Mr.M.
'Thriller' sold truckloads and, because they were releasing 45s off that for years, I KNOW that it's garbage.
I heard the thing by default!
Hmm. I'm not a fan of Michael Jackson or Pop music, but even I can see the brilliance in this album. The production and song structures are pretty amazing and it pains me to say that. I couldn't call this album garbage if I wanted to, because its just not true. If you don't like it, fine, but there's a reason why this record reached the heights that it did.
In the case of 'Dark Side of the Moon' I just presume it is going to be rather dull and no explanation of it has ever piqued my interest. I prefer having an intimate knowledge of the stuff people ignore or don't know.....the 45s, 'A Saucerful of Secrets', 'More'.
So you pride yourself in the obscure. That's fine, because I do it myself to some extent, but its also good to know the mainstream too. Its cool to dazzle folks with your knowledge of albums and bands they have never heard of, but whats the point if they can just as easily bring up something like 'Dark Side Of The Moon' and you have no idea as to what they are talking about, which in most cases, is common knowledge?
That's too heavy. I guess I'm just still baffled that you sometimes refuse to discover things based on the praise they receive. Strange to me.