Ouch! Tougher than the Rush vs. LZ or the Rush vs. Magma.  I didn't participate in the Rush vs. Beatles one, because that was comparing apples and oranges. 

Not sure if I can vote on this one either.  Both are bands I've loved for years and years.  Lately I've been on a Floyd kick, but next week I might be on a Rush kick.  I must refrain.  But hopefully, unlike OP of the LZ poll, you've only allowed one vote per person. 

Rush got my vote, proud Canadians. Also I think the Pink Floyd may just be a tad overrated.

birdwithteeth11 wrote: Pink Floyd are an overrated band, there, I said it. Now before some of you go home crying to momma, let me explain. While I am starting to like the Floyd again (to an extent) after not listening to them for about 2 years, I just don't see where the talent comes from in the band members. Granted, Wright is to me the exception, and I find him one of the most fascinating and best keyboardists of all time, the rest of the band members pale in comparison to him. For example, one of the things that gets me riled up is whenever I see a list of the top 50 or top 100 guitarists in the history of rock, Gilmour always seems to make the top 5 or top 10. This blows my mind every time, and I'm guessing he gets so high on those lists simply because he's a name most people recognize. To me, he doesn't display any of the qualities of a virtuoso guitarist, his solos tend to be fairly simple, and overall he doesn't bring much to the stage. I could say many of the same things about Mason, and Waters is, well, an excellent vocalist, I'll give him that. However, I could probably play most if not all of Pink Floyd's bass lines. Now, I know most people will say, "Pink Floyd is an atmospheric band; they're not supposed to be really technical". Why? Who says that you can't have both atmosphere and technicality? I think both, in the right situations, work together very well. Well, after that rambling rant, I guess what I'm trying to say is that none of the members of Floyd save Wright are stellar, virtuoso musicians. Granted, I wouldn't call Geddy and Lifeson virtuosos (Peart I probably would), but they're technique improved over time. So overall, I'd have to vote for Rush, not because I'm a fanboy this time, but because the members are more talented with their instruments. Let the stone-throwing commence. I'm ready!

 As a non-musician (and thus, solidly in the music audience majority), I don't give a rat's ass about any of that "virtuoso" stuff. That's not how I respond to music. I connect to music mainly through my emotions, not the math or accounting (count the notes per-minute, Poindexter) side of my brain.

It bugs me when I say to a guitar player "listen to this cool solo" and he responds immediately with a dismissive, condescending "that's not hard." Did I say it was hard?  Do I even care? NO! It's cool, it speaks to me (and many others -- mission accomplished!) and though you might be able to play it, you didn't write it!

Someone with some soul did!

That's just arrogant.

Pink Floyd.  How about next poll be The Rolling Stones vs Rush?

For some reason when it came time to cast my vote in this poll, all I could think of was Dark Side of the Moon vs.Moving Pictures, and Dark Side of the Moon won. Therefore Pink Floyd won... this time. It could be different another day.

HughesJB4 wrote: 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.

I'd only mentioned Malmsteen by way of a comparison, because he was the best example of an incredibly fast wizard on the guitar.  I actually rate him very highly indeed, he is a wonderful guitarist.   I was just meaning to say that because Gilmour's style is very different, ie much slower and based on emotion and feel, doesn't mean he's mediocre as had previously been suggested.