For any Pink Floyd fans

Persuade me that Pink Floyd is better than King Crimson and whyJFYI, I think both bands are faultless except for Seamus and the instrumental part of Moonchild..

I could hardly persuade you that Pink Floyd is better than King Crimson, because I myself wouldn't be sure if I could say that. But I can certainly say that my favourite band of all is Pink Floyd. For me, no other band has a discography I can enjoy so completley, though indeed with Pink Floyd the first albums may have been a little bit more hit or miss, soon they got to the point in which I could enjoy almost every song from their albums (I guess from Atom Heart Mother and onwards)... of course, I do have my favourite songs, and my favourite albums. Besides, my two very favourite albums of all are from Pink Floyd too: Wish You Were Here and Animals. Pink Floyd can write beautiful music, with great atmosphere, emotional melodies, thoughtful lyrics and concepts, and their albums are great as whole pieces of music... often being the whole better than the separate tracks. I guess Pink Floyd is one of those bands in which "The Whole is greater than the Sum of the Parts works" rings so very true. None of the members could achieve by themselves the same level as the whole band... and even the band when it lost Waters lost an important part of it's whole. King Crimson doesn't really achieve such a level of enjoyment from their whole discography. They have few albums in which I do enjoy every song (mostly the debut... despite Moonchild, and perhaps Red would come close, but I don't like Providence either). And they do have some albums in which I actually only enjoy a few songs in them.

condor wrote: Persuade me that Pink Floyd is better than King Crimson and why   JFYI, I think both bands are faultless except for Seamus and the instrumental part of Moonchild..

I am a fan of BOTH. Music (and other arts) have 2 faces Objective and Subjective  (in GENERAL category). In the most optimistic case , we can persuade you in Objective case BUT No one can Persuade you in Subjective case. I wish you understand me with this so bad English!!!

condor wrote: Persuade me that Pink Floyd is better than King Crimson and why.

By "why" do you mean "why we should convince you that one premier prog band is better than another prog band"? I don't think this question can be answered generally.

Edited by Dayvenkirq - October 10 2015 at 15:06

condor wrote: Persuade me that Pink Floyd is better than King Crimson and why   JFYI, I think both bands are faultless except for Seamus and the instrumental part of Moonchild..

Those two bands can not be compared at all, as they are of two different genres; while King Crimson is progressive rock, Pink Floyd is progressive psychedelia.

Edited by Svetonio - October 10 2015 at 20:30

RockHound wrote: Will somebody please persuade me that chocolate is better than bacon?

Dean wrote: RockHound wrote: Will somebody please persuade me that chocolate is better than bacon? Chemical compounds in chocolate trigger the release of serotonin and dopamine in the brain but unfortunately you cannot eat enough chocolate to get high, however, when bacon is cooked, nitrites react with amino acids and turn into nitrosamines, a known carcinogen and fortunately you cannot eat enough bacon for it to cause cancer.  .

Excellent post. I gotta get more into chemistry.

^ I totally forgot about the lyrics. Got so wrapped up in musical thoughts. I guess the Floyd has the edge.

Edited by Dayvenkirq - October 10 2015 at 21:02

Svetonio wrote: condor wrote: Persuade me that Pink Floyd is better than King Crimson and why   JFYI, I think both bands are faultless except for Seamus and the instrumental part of Moonchild.. Those two bands can not be compared at all, as they are of two different genres; while King Crimson is progressive rock, Pink Floyd is progressive psychedelia.

Actually, I sort of feel that early Pink Floyd (Pre-Dark Side, I guess) had a few similarities in their live aproach to King Crimson, with their added long instrumental passages and so. I understand there was a lot of improvisation in those early Pink Floyd concerts. Plus, they were really very experimental, just as King Crimson. Perhaps Floyd's musicians didn't have the same level of technical skill, but they did have ideas and put effort in what they were doing, and I wouldn't say even in those early stages they were inferior to Crimson, just used a different set of skills.