Van der Graaf Generator vs Pink Floyd

VdGG, primarily because I've listened to both bands completely.

Floyd was awesome in the beginning, but I feel Pink Floyd becomes rather standardized after Meddle, and it began to sound all the same to me. I didn't see any innovation from them after Meddle until A Momentary Lapse of Reason. The vocoders get annoying after a while.

VdGG has some variety, and I find their music sometimes more enjoyable to listen to than Pink Floyd.

In my honest opinion, I believe Hammill to be a better singer than Waters. To me, Waters seems to be almost all the same after some albums. Gilmour as well.

1. Pink Floyd are much more famous (actually, along with Genesis, the most famous prog band).
2. Their music is generally more palatable.
3. They have more real "masterpieces". Van der Graaf Generator have only one in fact - Pawn Hearts.
4. But VDGG are leading over Pink Floyd at the moment. What paradoxes!

(I voted for Floyds, of course.)

bucka001 wrote: Gandalff wrote: Pink Floyd are much more famous (actually, along with Genesis, the most famous prog band). Their music is generally more palatable. They have more real "masterpieces". Van der Graaf Generator have only one in fact - Pawn Hearts. But VDGG are leading over Pink Floyd at the moment. What paradoxes! (I voted for Floyds, of course.)   Point by Point:   1. Famous doesn't mean better. And before prog forums started up, no one I knew ever considered Floyd prog (it's more like blues rock dressed up with weird sound effects and stereophonic hijinks; a lot of burnouts in high school and yoga teachers thought it was heavy stuff). Genesis became really famous during the Phil Collins 'greatest hits' era. Then you had millions working their way back through the catalog and discovering the prog stuff. So they owe their mega-fame to 'Invisible Touch,' 'We Can't Dance,' etc rather than 'Supper's Ready.'   2. A matter of taste, but fair enough.   3. A matter of taste; yours is misguided and wrong in my eyes, but mine would be in yours. Just opinions, eh? You should hear Godbluff & Still Life, though. Many consider them masterpieces as well (although you won't read about it in Rolling Stone or Spin)   4. Maybe the reason that VdGG is doing well is that Pink Floyd (after their brilliant first few albums, i.e. Piper, Saucerful, etc) became really boring. Johnny Rotten called them 'music for sheep', and I'm inclined to agree. Not to piss anyone off, it's just my opinion. And I totally get and respect how people can hate VdGG and Hammill. That's the thing, though. I can see where people would find VdGG like nails on a chalkboard and truly hate them [which, paradoxically, is a 'positive' in my eyes]; I cannot see where PF would inspire that reaction because they're worse than hate-inspiring -- they're just bland / boring. One poster described them as 'chill' and I can see where that's coming from. VdGG was never 'chill.' They were more like the dark side of prog, hair-tearing, psychotic panic. Soundtracks for nightmares. You either loved it or hated it. Pink Floyd was more successful, but it's similiar to how Spielberg will always be more "successful" than Fellini. It's easier to digest for the masses, but it doesn't mean it's a greater artistic success. John Anthony, by the way, is the legendary British producer who has amongst his credits Genesis, Queen, Roxy Music, Al Stewart, The Tubes, Ace (he did their mega-single 'How Long'), and of course Van der Graaf.

• Pink Floyd always had a genuine guitar and bass.
• They had three quite acceptable singers, VdGG has only one, although excellent, but, frankly, somewhat polarizing singer (as someone said above, after all).
• Pink Floyd had much memorable melodies, how many VdGG's ones anyone can able to sing?
• Pink Floyd had truly better and more colorful wizard behind the keyboard.

To be fair, the drummer from Van der Graaf Generator is obviously better.