Led Zeppelin or Pink Floyd?

definitely Pink Floyd, much better singer(s), much better albums

Zep was one of my fav bands when I was younger (as was Floyd), but as I got older I got less into Zeppelin.  They are still amazing tho

Well, Pink Floyd is my favourite band ever. Ever.

For me, it is no contest as Floyd wins by a mile.  I am surprised that many others felt the same way.  Zeppelin still gets the lions share of radio play on the classic rock radio stations by me.

The one that doesn't put me to sleep.

Getting bored with Stairway is hardly the fault of the recording or Led Zeppelin. Song Remains the same as ever... Comparing Floyd with Zeppelin is a bit odd really. Zeppelin were a blues, acoustic, heavy rock band that culminated Page's vision with their fourth album. As for progressive just imagine ANY band putting out albums as disparate as Out Door and Presence. One is all electric guitar based but varied styles the other is more symphonic and keybpoard based with again varied styles.
Floyd developed in a more linear fashion, more evidently intellectual (so were Zeppelin but one does have to think here - not easy for classic rock addicts numbed by readio repetition that does no one any good.)
Floyd and Zeppelin did have album stages, Floyd had their debut (1), SFoS to Meddle (2) DSOTM to the FC (3) and Daves Floyd the fourth.

Zeppelin hasd two stage. The first 4, the second 4 and there it seemed to end unless one views the mambers later efforts as their version(s) of Led Zeppelin. Of course one could do the same with PF solo efforts, all aprt of the fun and interest. After all I rate On An Island and his first solo as wonderful as the best from both bands.

Good to see they prevailed above trends (except for 1985) when the 3 ex Zeppelins put out their worst efforts (good live but Scream was patchy - with those awful big fake snare sounds, the Firm's rather  uninspired debut, and Plant's made a prog album in pop clothes.

To Guitar Gods 2009 - Sabbath are a fantastic progressive band. Can't quite imagine them doing Carouselambra or anything that is not a little defined by their requirement to ensure a metal basis for their recordings. But their jazz, choral, and avant garde late 70s efforts work well with under the radar type efforts like The Thrill Of It All.

The variety that Zeppelin sought ensured they could do virtually anything and they tried and succeeded to most extents. I think the lightest PF got might have been San Tropez (Zeppelin had D'yer Mak'er, although Seamus is probably their most waste of space. Good outtake but not for an album that had Echoes on it.

Zeppelin had a wonderful variey in hard rock; not a lot like Celebration Day or Song Remains the Same. They did not bother (much) with choruses either which gives their material considerable depth, authenticity and credibility (IMHO of course).

Can't say one way or another and I have all the Sabbath, Zeppelin and PF albums and most solo related and shed loads of ROIOs.

Why do You allways want me to chose between Water & Food. ?

Led Zeppelin. Tull and Floyd may have created more masterpiece albums but not all their albums are masterpieces. Still gotta have the lot!

Floyd without a doubt...

Probably the two most important bands in rock history.