Here is the tournament thus far:

Finals - November 18

Results - November 26

Pink Floyd.  Revisiting some of their earlier albums makes me remember why I loved this band and genre so much in the first place.

I love your avatar... err  your comment!!!  i vote rush for this same reason...

i went with rush, purely because floyd died way too quickly. and the final cut is a little bit odd....

 

I enjoy a lot of Pink Floyd...I do....but, Pink Floyd quit, they could not get along, they could not put the differences aside, makeup and continue. Rush has never had these self-inflicted issues......their longevity and the mere fact they enjoy doing what they do album after album and tour after tour is unbelievable...it does not happen anymore.

 

Make a statement and vote for the "new" guy.........vote Rush.

 

With dedication anyone can become a monster musician, but not everyone is born with the gift of songwriting. This is exactly why PF wins by miles. 

Rush, however, is one of my all time favorites. I vote Rush.

 

Shame my two favorites in the semifinals will probably lose (Genesis already lost).

 

Oh well  

Catcher10 wrote: I enjoy a lot of Pink Floyd...I do....but, Pink Floyd quit, they could not get along, they could not put the differences aside, makeup and continue. Rush has never had these self-inflicted issues......their longevity and the mere fact they enjoy doing what they do album after album and tour after tour is unbelievable...it does not happen anymore.

Mind if I ask what does that really say about their music anyway because you brought up the same line of argument in the Beatles-Rush poll?

Catcher10 wrote: Make a statement and vote for the "new" guy.........vote Rush.

Rush are hardly new and nor is their music particularly foraying into new territories at the moment. They got trademarked as far back as the 80s.

 

On Influence, its my personal opinion about both bands...not the whole genre or time frame they may be influencing.

 

You can ask anything you like......My personal belief is a band that enjoys playing music together as one cohesive unit makes better music longterm than a band that does not and has a lot of internal issues. And for these two bands that proof is in the pudding....I am sure you get my point that longevity is one main attribute of success...for me.

I doubt any band starts out to only be mildly succesful...The Beatles, Pink Floyd or Rush....and since you brought that other poll into this, yes I do feel Rush are more succesful than The Beatles for having the stamina and focus to continue for 35 yrs.

We can only guess at what the fab4 would have done or become, but most here don't think it would have been pretty or lasted long at all.....but who knows.

 

Your last point I don't understand....you said the following above "...Floyd spread themselves across a much wider variety of music"......I think most would be fine subing in Rush for Floyd in your sentence..Pink Floyd could have been trademarked in the 70's.

 

Anyhow its all matter of opinion....music is art.

Thanks for the post!!!

 

I agree with Gilmour...he is amazing, much better than any of the Floyd musicians, he stands alone in this group.

But Lifeson does not compare to the others....Uli Jon Roth after the Scorpions got lost in transcendental, heavenly Andreas Vollenweider type stuff. Uli was just like Ritchie Blackmore, kinda got lost...but great guitarist. I love his time with Scorpions.

I assume you mean Michael Schenker and not Rudolf. Michael was born a guitarist, a master of the 6-string. Michael's time with Scorpions and UFO clearly outshines what he has done the past 10-15 yrs. I am an advid MS listener....in no way would I compare his playing to Alex's. And Alex is not a frontman like Michael or Eddie VH were..

 

But agree on Gilmour.....I especially like his solo material.

Thanks

 

 

Catcher10 wrote: My personal belief is a band that enjoys playing music together as one cohesive unit makes better music longterm than a band that does not and has a lot of internal issues. And for these two bands that proof is in the pudding....I am sure you get my point that longevity is one main attribute of success...for me.

I got that. Personally, I also draw lines between the quality of albums.  The best Rush could do, Moving Pictures, is still not a patch on Meddle for me. Now if that is NOT your opinion, I can understand that but not how a long sequence of good albums is better than a few outstanding albums because I would always go for the latter.

Catcher10 wrote: I doubt any band starts out to only be mildly succesful...The Beatles, Pink Floyd or Rush....and since you brought that other poll into this, yes I do feel Rush are more succesful than The Beatles for having the stamina and focus to continue for 35 yrs.

I should hope bands start out to, to put it baldly, make music.    Like Robert Fripp, for instance.  The music is what matters end of the day, not what the critics, the media, the fans think of you.

 

Catcher10 wrote: Your last point I don't understand....you said the following above "...Floyd spread themselves across a much wider variety of music"......I think most would be fine subing in Rush for Floyd in your sentence..Pink Floyd could have been trademarked in the 70's.

Then I would have to conclude they have never given much attention to Floyd beyond their 'iconic' songs. Let's take Dark Side....they go from Time through Great Gig in the Sky through Money through Us and Them etc to Eclipse.  That IS a wide variety of music, covering a wide gamut of emotions in turn.  I brought this up before in the Beatles debate too but Rush having already slotted themselves as heavy rock limit their options and are forced to lean on the side of heavy no matter what they do. Floyd never had such restrictions.  Anyway, I don't really see much similarity between Meddle and The Wall and, yes, I have heard them 'properly'.

 

He shouldn't partecipate, only arbitrate: this is a "battle" for the 2nd position.

Prog wouldn't exist without King Crimson.

 

P.S: rush??? is 2112 better than supper's ready?? no one could ever say that...

+1

fantastic documentary, I agree 

-2

Anyways, FINALLY Rush can just go away. PF!

 

Or else.

It was a tough decision actually.

Not life or death. Just tough relatively.

 

Yes, anybody can bend a string, no doubt about that. But sit down and have a good laugh while I try to match Gilmour's subtle touch and feel on for example Shine On You Crazy Diamond. I'm sure I can match the speed even with my humble skill, but there's no way I could ever make it sound heavenly. That's one stunning guitar track.

 

Different guitarists, both great on their own right. "Better" is not a word that enters this discussion if you ask me.

 

I could go into the whole "define talent" nonsense as you seem to think that the Gilmourish control of the instrument takes none of it, but I don't think I'll bother.

 

If I had to choose I'd perhaps say that I prefer the solos of Gilmour and the rhythm work of Lifeson.

 

The virtuosity/beauty argument has a new variable when you consider this.

 

thx

And yes I might be admitting defeat  ....but to me this is a big win!

 

I personally would have prefered the final to be Genesis vs __________ .

 

But King Crimson vs Pink Floyd is a decent final.

 

 

Well said

 

I too would have preferred a Genesis vs (Rush, really ) final but oh well.

 

I'll probably vote for KC in the final.

 

Gave my sympathy vote to Rush

Sure, anyone can bend a string, but LIKE Gilmour? Certainly not Lifeson, for starters. And, off topic, I don't think just about anyone can bend like this crazy dude Mitch Watkins:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fa-nKS89ATI - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fa-nKS89ATI

I am sorry but vibrato and bending are as important facets of a guitarist's skill, if not more than, speed.  After all, their identity and style derives much more from the first two than the last.  Now, if Lifeson could dazzle me with amazing chord changes like a Holdsworth or Larry Carlton, I would at least say he finds a different dimension in which to be as or more interesting than Gilmour but his playing lacks flavour and, as I said earlier, is not even as impressive as other heavy rock/metal guitar monsters from his time.  He's rhythmically more interesting than Gilmour, I certainly give that. 

Please don't underestimate the quality of rendering just because there are few or slow notes being played because anybody who claims that is easy is lying or doesn't know for real. It is perhaps more difficult for a singer than for those who play instruments to distinguish themselves with the way they render notes but there is a reason not many sound as beautiful as Latimer, for another example. It's not just a subjective, nebulous feel, he plays the notes more beautifully than many others who can perhaps manage more pyrotechnical gymnastics than him.