Pink Floyd vs. Rush

My right ear.  I think that I hear better out of my left one.

TGM: Orb wrote: Floyd was an easy choice. Lyrically a lot stronger, more consistently challenging and interesting, and more memorable. IMO, of course.

birdwithteeth11 wrote: Roj M30 wrote: Epignosis wrote: Oooo...controversy.  I never thought I get any of that.   Oh yes!  Now you do mate .  You have really stirred up a hornet's nest here!  It's all good entertainment.   Incidentally, I agree fully with Hawkwise re: Gilmour.  I think he's a great guitarist, technique and feel.  Just coz he's not Yngwie Malmsteen with 14,000,000 notes a second, doesn't mean he's mediocre.     Malmsteen was talented, but he peaked early in his career and became stale fairly quickly. He got to a point where he stopped progressing. Like I said previously, I think many people on here think of 'virtuoso' as simply cranking out as many notes as you can as fast as you can. It has nothing to do with that at all. And also like I said, Gilmour is good at what he does, but if I want to hear some top-notch, virtuoso guitar playing, I'm not going to listen to Pink Floyd.

@Roj: Do you know what I find most impressive about Malmsteen's playing?
No his speed, not his ability to play "14,000,000 notes a second", but his vibrato.
His vibrato is what has made the difference between his guitar solos being unlistenable to being extremely emotive and passionate.

And I agree with Birdwithteeth, I feel Malmsteen peaked perhaps, only 3 years into his career, before his song writing got old.

And for everyone in general: people are aware, that Malmsteen's albums consist of lots of riffs, actually has a vocalist, a song structure and less than perhaps 15 per cent of the songs he has written are actually instrumental.
He isn't an idiot....... he doesn't solo for 5 minutes non stop over a song with vocals.
The guy is the only guitarist in the band Rising Force........someone's gotta play the rhythm guitar, and he does that, and a damn fine job of it too.

And yes, If I'm in the mood for some more firey guitar playing, I don't turn to PF.

^Yes, but Malmsteen's playing is also based on emotion and feel too.
How fast you play has nothing to do with the emotional results, period.

To me, the most important elements of a good lead guitarist, are phrasing, vibrato, bending, general good intonation, and the ability to apply subtle nuances to playing... I rate these far above speed.

There are many "Shred" guys that have nothing but speed, and I tire of it in about 2 seconds.

Malmsteen has phrasing, he has vibrato which is arguably among the best ever and many guitarists base their vibrato off his (far more controlled than Gilmour's vibrato, and more emotional IMO too), his bends are never out of tune....... it just so happens he can play fast too.
The man can also make his individual phrases and notes stand out too.... the nuances.

He regularly improvises........do you think he has time to apply musical mathematics in the heat of a live show?

No one does, and he can't either.
He's playing it from gut instinct.

The guy has learnt his arpeggios, scales inside out, to the point where it's just second nature and he doesn't need to intellectualize things.

Every good guitarist needs to get to this level.

Before I've ever had my own performances, I would learn the scale in whatever key signature I have to use, inside out backwards.........because I don't have time to learn the scale on stage, I don't have time to think of what the notes are, I have to know what it 'sounds and feels' like before I hit the stage.
And because of this, I've had people come up to me and tell me they could literally feel as if my playing was speaking to them, no matter how many shred licks I insert into a song..... and at most, I might only use a few shred licks here and there to add intensity, not because it's the be end all of the solo.
When I'm improvising, I'll be completely honest.... I have no idea how many notes per second I'm playing, I don't even consciously know what notes I'm playing.....all I know is what key signature I'm playing in and the tempo really, because that was pre-determined before I started playing.
I just 'feel' my around the fretboard, in essence, because there is no other option.


Edited by HughesJB4 - November 21 2008 at 03:43

^Ah, well, we're all good then

Wait, wasn't it someone else that said his playing was slow and boring anyway? I don't think that's the case, although I do admit I find some other guitarists more exciting.

And YES, Satriani!
I've seen the man live, got most of his CDs, and learnt a lot about playing guitar from watching his DVDs and listening to his CDs. A truly talented man.

HughesJB4 wrote: ^Ah, well, we're all good then Wait, wasn't it someone else that said his playing was slow and boring anyway? I don't think that's the case, although I do admit I find some other guitarists more exciting. And YES, Satriani! I've seen the man live, got most of his CDs, and learnt a lot about playing guitar from watching his DVDs and listening to his CDs. A truly talented man.

Epignosis wrote: Uh, excuse me, fellas, but you're ONLY allowed to discuss Rush and Pink Floyd. Those are two of only ten bands approved for discussion on this website, as far as I can tell.

Good to see common sense prevailing in this poll 

Rush by 1.61 kilometers.

Floyd for me,though i'm quite supprised how well rush or doing which is good to see.