| Author |
 Topic Search  Topic Options
|
menawati 
Forum Senior Member
Joined: August 26 2012
Status: Offline
Points: 293
|
 Posted: October 07 2012 at 11:18 |
|
Pink Floyd, no contest
|
|
They flutter behind you your possible pasts,
Some bright-eyed and crazy, some frightened and lost.
|
 |
Undercover Man
Forum Senior Member
Joined: August 28 2012
Location: Norway
Status: Offline
Points: 1872
|
Posted: October 07 2012 at 11:39 |
|
I love both but i like Pink Floyd more.
|
|
claugroi
Forum Senior Member
Joined: December 04 2008
Location: Brasil
Status: Offline
Points: 288
|
Posted: October 08 2012 at 06:50 |
 wellsfargo wrote:
Zombywoof wrote:
mister nobody wrote:
Have Beatles ever composed a song as good as Shine on? Or Echoes? Or Dogs? Have they ever thought of concepts such as Dark Side? Or the Wall?My vote would go to the obvious. |
Nope. The Beatles composed trivial pop nonsense. |
|
Zombywoof wrote:
I meant thaat the music that The Beatles offer is, to my ears, simplistic pop music. Its just too polite for my tastes. Give me some Frank Zappa, King Crimon or VdGG anyday.
Honestly, The Beatles are 'anti-prog' to me. |
Perhaps that's because you're thinking of the 1957 - 1964 phase of the band. I can't see any prog connection there either, although they have always composed great songs "for my taste" since the very beginning, just like In Spite of All the Danger or Cry for a Shadow. Nonetheless, from 1965 on, they magically transformed their sound, thinking and attitude. Really, everything changed. They were one of the basis to the Psychedelic movement and, as you should know, Psychedelic movement was the basis of Prog. I personally think it would be too much to say The Beatles were a Prog band, even at the end, but they almost certainly would have been had they continued to play. Besides, they were infinitely more important to music than Pink Floyd. Floyd has never achieved (and never will) The Beatles' level of success, sales and prestige in every single corner of the world. Gilmour/Waters compositions have never been as popular as Lennon/McCartney or Harrison ones. Gilmour's black strat has never been as popular as John and George's Rickenbacker models, just as much Waters' Rickenbacker and Fender basses have never been as popular as Paul's Höfner. Floyd members haircuts have never been copied by (literally) millions of youngsters around the world. When teenagers get their first guitar, bass, drum set or whatever instrument, they don't want to play Shine On You Crazy Diamond, Echoes or Comfortably Numb, they want to play A Hard Day's Night, Ticket to Ride, Day Tripper or Help!. We even refer to the Beatles members by their first names, because we know there are only 4 guys in the world that can be called "John", "Paul", "George" and "Ringo", but very few people would recognise "David", "Roger", "Richard/Rick" and "Nicholas/Nick". John, George and Paul (I don't know about Ringo) even liked some Prog bands ! Did you know they admired The Piper at the Gates of Dawn ? Did you know Lennon was very fond of SEBTP and that made Steve Hackett very proud ? Why am I writing this ? Because this is all about influence, more than fame or money. I don't know any Prog band that doesn't cite The Beatles as one of their influences. I mean, I find it cool to compare these two bands in a poll, but Pink Floyd is only winning here because this is a Progressive Rock site, no doubt. Has Pink Floyd ever composed a song as good as Dear Prudence? Or Strawberry Fields Forever ? Or I Want You (She's So Heavy) ? Or A Day in the Life ? Have they ever thought of concepts such as Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band ? Or Magical Mystery Tour ? Or other fantastic non-conceptual albums like the White Album ? Or Abbey Road ? So, don't ever call The Beatles an "anti-prog" band if you don't know their entire career and can't analise it without bias; don't ever say they composed "trivial pop nonsense", "simplistic pop music" or "too commercial/too conventional songs" if you don't know absolutely all of their songs, like beatlemaniacs as me do.
P.S.: I love Pink Floyd, but The Beatles are, for sure, my favourite band on this planet.
|
|
Symphonic Prog Master
|
|
Dayvenkirq
Forum Senior Member
Joined: May 25 2011
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Status: Offline
Points: 10970
|
Posted: October 08 2012 at 10:19 |
|
^ It's too bad Zomby jumped ship, though.
|
|
giselle
Forum Senior Member
Joined: March 18 2011
Location: Hertford
Status: Offline
Points: 466
|
Posted: October 08 2012 at 18:02 |
Some of these comments are rabid. A comparison can't really be drawn on sensible lines because without the Beatles there would be no such thing as Pink Floyd or any other band. It's not just about what place bands arrived at (such as Pink Floyd) it's about how they got there in the first place, and anyone who doesn't understand that piece of history either arrived recently on earth in a time capsule or is truly bonkers.
|
|
Dayvenkirq
Forum Senior Member
Joined: May 25 2011
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Status: Offline
Points: 10970
|
Posted: October 08 2012 at 19:59 |
|
^ I think that a lot of people chose not to take that (the impact, the historical influence) into account and rather vote for their choices based on the merits of talent and the power of the music.
|
|
Alitare
Forum Senior Member
Joined: March 08 2008
Location: New York
Status: Offline
Points: 3595
|
Posted: October 08 2012 at 20:07 |
|
Anybody who thinks 'Revolution', 'Helter Skelter', or 'I am the Walrus' are too polite simply...doesn't have a similar taste in music to me at all.
|
|
claugroi
Forum Senior Member
Joined: December 04 2008
Location: Brasil
Status: Offline
Points: 288
|
Posted: October 09 2012 at 08:24 |
Dayvenkirq wrote:
^ I think that a lot of people chose not to take that (the impact, the historical influence) into account and rather vote for their choices based on the merits of talent and the power of the music. |
Yes, indeed. Besides, I've seen many people who actually like both bands saying "I really like The Beatles, but I'm going to vote for Floyd" or "The Beatles are simply fantastic, but I'm going with Floyd on this one". I mean... where's sense in all that ?? Hahaha...
|
|
Symphonic Prog Master
|
|
Alitare
Forum Senior Member
Joined: March 08 2008
Location: New York
Status: Offline
Points: 3595
|
Posted: October 09 2012 at 08:36 |
Who do I prefer from an emotional perspective? Pink Floyd. Who do I think was the more creative force? The Beatles. I guess that, at the end of the day, I'd vote Pink Floyd, but if you forced me to include all solo/post-group projects from either side of the fence, it wouldn't be fair at all.
So, with solo/post materials = Beatles Without solo/post materials = Pink Floyd
|
|
Dayvenkirq
Forum Senior Member
Joined: May 25 2011
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Status: Offline
Points: 10970
|
Posted: October 09 2012 at 15:01 |
claugroi wrote:
Yes, indeed. Besides, I've seen many people who actually like both bands saying "I really like The Beatles, but I'm going to vote for Floyd" or "The Beatles are simply fantastic, but I'm going with Floyd on this one". I mean... where's sense in all that ?? Hahaha...
|
There still may be some sense. Some people just choose not to explain why Floyd, but that's fine with me.
|
|
claugroi
Forum Senior Member
Joined: December 04 2008
Location: Brasil
Status: Offline
Points: 288
|
Posted: October 09 2012 at 20:53 |
Dayvenkirq wrote:
claugroi wrote:
Yes, indeed. Besides, I've seen many people who actually like both bands saying "I really like The Beatles, but I'm going to vote for Floyd" or "The Beatles are simply fantastic, but I'm going with Floyd on this one". I mean... where's sense in all that ?? Hahaha...
|
There still may be some sense. Some people just choose not to explain why Floyd, but that's fine with me. |
Well, not to me... I think everything has a reason, even if we don't know it. So, to me, if somebody votes for a band, there's got to be an explanation for that. Even being the most fanatic beatlemaniac I've known in my entire life, I have arguments to support my option, it's not simply pre-conceived bias... but I do know some people just don't want or feel the need to explain.
|
|
Symphonic Prog Master
|
|
NYSPORTSFAN
Forum Groupie
Joined: January 07 2012
Status: Offline
Points: 64
|
Posted: October 10 2012 at 08:01 |
The Beatles had great melodies but I always liked how they added the unusual recording techniques, unusual instrumentation for rock music, unusual time signatures, unusual chords for rock and other songwriting aspects that you find in many of their songs. I will always felt that the childlike psychedelia of "Yellow Submarine", "She Said She Said" and "Strawberry Fields Forever" were a key influence on early Pink Floyd as Syd listened to those records intensely. While 'Lucy In the Sky With Diamonds" was recorded at the same time as Pink Floyd were recording their first album they ended up name checking the song on "Let There Be More Light". Was "Corporal Klegg" an answer to 'Sgt. Pepper or the Beatles "Taxman" guitar riff? If you listen to "Strawberry Fields Forever" and "I Am the Walrus" all those samples and random voices are later found on many Pink Floyd songs. Listen to the transition between "You Never Give Me Your Money/ Sun King" again with all those looped sound effects are all over the place on Dark Side of the Moon.
Edited by NYSPORTSFAN - October 10 2012 at 08:08
|
|
rogerthat
Prog Reviewer
Joined: September 03 2006
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 9869
|
Posted: October 10 2012 at 11:33 |
claugroi wrote:
Dayvenkirq wrote:
claugroi wrote:
Yes, indeed. Besides, I've seen many people who actually like both bands saying "I really like The Beatles, but I'm going to vote for Floyd" or "The Beatles are simply fantastic, but I'm going with Floyd on this one". I mean... where's sense in all that ?? Hahaha...
|
There still may be some sense. Some people just choose not to explain why Floyd, but that's fine with me. |
Well, not to me... I think everything has a reason, even if we don't know it. So, to me, if somebody votes for a band, there's got to be an explanation for that. Even being the most fanatic beatlemaniac I've known in my entire life, I have arguments to support my option, it's not simply pre-conceived bias... but I do know some people just don't want or feel the need to explain. |
It is not so difficult to state why one likes a particular band but harder to state why one likes a band more than another. Doesn't help that one risks offending fanboys in trying to articulate an opinion elaborately.
|
|
Josef_K
Forum Senior Member
Joined: August 15 2011
Location: Stockholm
Status: Offline
Points: 147
|
Posted: October 15 2012 at 15:50 |
Never found The Beatles that interesting. Sure they began challenging and developing music on all sorts of levels after a few albums but the actual result was never that impressing imo. I would like to say that they were simply not good enough musicians, and most of all nowhere near the songwriting capability of many other artists, Pink Floyd among these.
Floyd on the other hand had great songwriters in their own right all over the place. One randomly chosen Syd Barrett song is more interesting to me than the whole Beatles discography. David Gilmour and Rick Wright wrote some great stuff as well (Narrow Way, Fat Old Sun, Paintbox, Remember a Day mostly) but were at their best when helping the master composer Roger Waters imo. Now, these guys were all obviously influenced by The Beatles, that is something to take into consideration of course. However, I've never been a fan of arguing that music should be seen as better just because it was influential.
Again, I can respect The Beatles for being innovative in developing music, but I cannot find much interest in their actual music. Pink Floyd also developed music in many ways, but their actual music is also in itself simply masterpiece after masterpiece.
Edited by Josef_K - October 15 2012 at 15:51
|
|
Leave the past to burn,
At least that's been his own
- Peter Hammill
|
|
earlyprog
Collaborator
Neo / PSIKE / Heavy Teams
Joined: March 05 2006
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 2086
|
Posted: October 15 2012 at 17:22 |
What! The Beatles loosing a poll on PA?!
Noone below noone above The Beatles! C'mon! seriously?!
|
|
claugroi
Forum Senior Member
Joined: December 04 2008
Location: Brasil
Status: Offline
Points: 288
|
Posted: October 15 2012 at 21:01 |
Josef_K wrote:
Never found The Beatles that interesting. Sure they began challenging and developing music on all sorts of levels after a few albums but the actual result was never that impressing imo. I would like to say that they were simply not good enough musicians, and most of all nowhere near the songwriting capability of many other artists, Pink Floyd among these.
Floyd on the other hand had great songwriters in their own right all over the place. One randomly chosen Syd Barrett song is more interesting to me than the whole Beatles discography. David Gilmour and Rick Wright wrote some great stuff as well (Narrow Way, Fat Old Sun, Paintbox, Remember a Day mostly) but were at their best when helping the master composer Roger Waters imo. Now, these guys were all obviously influenced by The Beatles, that is something to take into consideration of course. However, I've never been a fan of arguing that music should be seen as better just because it was influential.
Again, I can respect The Beatles for being innovative in developing music, but I cannot find much interest in their actual music. Pink Floyd also developed music in many ways, but their actual music is also in itself simply masterpiece after masterpiece.
|
I agree with you, but the other way round. Hehe...
|
|
Symphonic Prog Master
|
|
NYSPORTSFAN
Forum Groupie
Joined: January 07 2012
Status: Offline
Points: 64
|
Posted: October 17 2012 at 08:21 |
Josef_K wrote:
Never found The Beatles that interesting. Sure they began challenging and developing music on all sorts of levels after a few albums but the actual result was never that impressing imo. I would like to say that they were simply not good enough musicians, and most of all nowhere near the songwriting capability of many other artists, Pink Floyd among these.
Floyd on the other hand had great songwriters in their own right all over the place. One randomly chosen Syd Barrett song is more interesting to me than the whole Beatles discography. David Gilmour and Rick Wright wrote some great stuff as well (Narrow Way, Fat Old Sun, Paintbox, Remember a Day mostly) but were at their best when helping the master composer Roger Waters imo. Now, these guys were all obviously influenced by The Beatles, that is something to take into consideration of course. However, I've never been a fan of arguing that music should be seen as better just because it was influential.
Again, I can respect The Beatles for being innovative in developing music, but I cannot find much interest in their actual music. Pink Floyd also developed music in many ways, but their actual music is also in itself simply masterpiece after masterpiece.
|
Interesting if you polled who was the most influential at their instrument Paul McCartney as a bassist is easily more influential than any member of Pink Floyd. Nick Mason is more of feel drummer than a technical wizard. In terms of melody, arrangements, composition and going to sonic places where no rock band has gone before the Beatles easily takes it over Pink Floyd. Most of the Beatles songs even the early ones like "I Want To Hold Your Hand" are ripe for discussing odd chord usage. .
|
|
Tom Ozric
Prog Reviewer
Joined: September 03 2005
Location: Olympus Mons
Status: Offline
Points: 15916
|
Posted: November 08 2012 at 04:41 |
|
Both are well respected and creative bands. I voted Floyd, but I would've liked to see what The Beatles could have come up with if they had composed lengthy pieces - bar Hey Jude and I Want You (She's So Heavy) ?? Magical Mystery Tour had potential......
|
|
Tom Ozric
Prog Reviewer
Joined: September 03 2005
Location: Olympus Mons
Status: Offline
Points: 15916
|
Posted: November 08 2012 at 23:34 |
NYSPORTSFAN wrote:
[QUOTE=Josef_K]
In terms of melody, arrangements, composition and going to sonic places where no rock band has gone before the Beatles easily takes it over Pink Floyd. Most of the Beatles songs even the early ones like "I Want To Hold Your Hand" are ripe for discussing odd chord usage.
. |
The Beatles have never trod the paths that Floyd trekked. Take, for instance, Set The Controls........live - I've never heard The Beatles play dark, Farfisa organ driven Middle-Eastern scales of immense profoundness as Floyd. Perhaps Floyd have taken some basic ideas from The Beatles, but John and Paul and George and Ringo never ventured into the musical depths the Floyd did. Don't take it the wrong way, as there are many Beatles tracks I love, but as a musically adventurous band, they only hit the mark occasionally.......I'm not opposing their odd chord usage as they did this aplenty......
|
|
Dayvenkirq
Forum Senior Member
Joined: May 25 2011
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Status: Offline
Points: 10970
|
Posted: November 08 2012 at 23:49 |
|
^ So, in other words, The Beatles touched base with something, opened up some gateways, where the Floyd explored the stuff in depth. That said, both are (equally) important.
Edited by Dayvenkirq - November 08 2012 at 23:50
|
|
/PAlogo_v2.gif "Progarchives.com Homepage")
The Beatles vs. Pink Floyd
