| Author |
 Topic Search  Topic Options
|
Follix 
Forum Senior Member
Joined: June 02 2010
Status: Offline
Points: 130
|
 Posted: February 19 2011 at 01:44 |
|
Beatles were songwritting genius (Lennon probably the best ever) but in musical skills they were all lacking except Paul.
While Floyd were less good at songwritting but better musician overall, I find its the most balanced band that ever existed between songwritting (Waters) and talent (Gilmour/Wright) so I choose them.
At the other side of the spectrum you got band like Rush with medium songwritting but extremely skilled musicians.
|
 |
boo boo
Forum Senior Member
Joined: June 28 2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 905
|
Posted: February 19 2011 at 02:28 |
I dunno about Floyd being better musicians. Ringo is a better drummer than Nick, Paul is definitely a better bassist than Roger. Between George and David it's close, both were about as equally skilled as guitarists, neither were virtuosos but they're two of the most tasteful players of all time.
I'd probably give the edge to The Beatles actually.
|
|
Follix
Forum Senior Member
Joined: June 02 2010
Status: Offline
Points: 130
|
Posted: February 19 2011 at 17:13 |
 boo boo wrote:
I dunno about Floyd being better musicians. Ringo is a better drummer than Nick, Paul is definitely a better bassist than Roger. Between George and David it's close, both were about as equally skilled as guitarists, neither were virtuosos but they're two of the most tasteful players of all time.
I'd probably give the edge to The Beatles actually. |
Ringo better than Nick, its a joke? Paul a better bassist than Roger, yes No contest for me between George and David as a guitar player tho, David win easy not as a songwriter but as a muscian, hell yes. 90% of George solo are only slide with some notes while Gilmour can do bends that no one on Earth can do. Even Syd was a better guitarist than George imo.
|
|
Equality 7-2521
Forum Senior Member
Joined: August 11 2005
Location: Philly
Status: Offline
Points: 15784
|
Posted: February 19 2011 at 17:15 |
I'll agree that Ringo is superior to Nick.
In any case though The Beatles are much better.
|
|
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "
|
|
Alberto Muñoz
Forum Senior Member
Joined: July 26 2006
Location: Mexico
Status: Offline
Points: 3577
|
Posted: February 20 2011 at 22:08 |
|
equally
|
|
|
|
JakeMM626
Forum Senior Member
Joined: May 06 2010
Location: Worcester, MA
Status: Offline
Points: 117
|
Posted: February 20 2011 at 22:22 |
|
I'm just not gonna read this thread, because I know that both sides will be defending their opinion to the death.
|
|
|
|
Guests
Forum Guest Group
|
Posted: February 21 2011 at 00:24 |
|
Floyd every day of the week. I hate the Beatles.
|
|
overmatik
Forum Groupie
Joined: July 15 2009
Location: Australia
Status: Offline
Points: 96
|
Posted: March 02 2011 at 09:34 |
Wow, that one made my day. Comparing George Harrison to Dave Gilmour...  Next time people will be comparing Paul McCartney to God Lee.
|
|
"Wear the grudge like a crown of negativity. Calculate what we will or will not tolerate. Desperate to control all and everything. Unable to forgive your scarlet letterman."
|
|
OT Räihälä
Forum Senior Member
Joined: August 09 2005
Location: Finland
Status: Offline
Points: 514
|
Posted: March 07 2011 at 11:01 |
|
I can't believe this poll, someone must have spammed the voting heavily. How can you even compare the two? The Beatles are so much above Floyd that it's like putting a heavy-weighter in the same ring with a flyweighter.
|
|
|
|
overmatik
Forum Groupie
Joined: July 15 2009
Location: Australia
Status: Offline
Points: 96
|
Posted: March 14 2011 at 15:03 |
OT Räihälä wrote:
I can't believe this poll, someone must have spammed the voting heavily. How can you even compare the two? The Beatles are so much above Floyd that it's like putting a heavy-weighter in the same ring with a flyweighter. |
Well, tell us why you think that. But please, refer to Beatles' music, and don't come with the whole influential thing. The Beatles are the most influential rock band ever, this is common sense. We are talking about music here.
|
|
"Wear the grudge like a crown of negativity. Calculate what we will or will not tolerate. Desperate to control all and everything. Unable to forgive your scarlet letterman."
|
|
Luna
Forum Senior Member
Joined: July 28 2010
Location: Funky Town
Status: Offline
Points: 12794
|
Posted: March 14 2011 at 16:37 |
|
I voted for the 3rd option, because of Abbey Road.
|
|
|
|
Phideaux
Forum Senior Member
Joined: August 27 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 378
|
Posted: March 14 2011 at 18:14 |
|
I can think of very little Beatles that is unnecessary. For me, each song is an evolution which results in Abbey Road, the ultimate and perfect album. The concise, psychedelia, the beautiful vocals, the experimentation with styles.
Sure, they played it mostly safe. Yes, they had Paul pushing vaudeville moments and despite the excellent drugs, they never exploded music on its side. But, they made more daring moves within those little 4 minute extravaganzas than most of their peers.
Floyd? They are great experimenters. Syd was ace at writing some ear catching and crazy songs (but when added up all his songs, it was a small percentage IMO). The instrumentalists are good in both bands and this is not a contest of players, but of ideas and catalogue.
Aside from the latter day hit albums of Floyd (Moon, Wish, Animals, Wall) I struggle to find other perfect albums along the way. The soundtracks are ditties and have some good stuff and a lot of filler. The experimental album would have been better condensed into a track the length of Revolution #9. The bombastic albums about breakfast and with dogs vocoding had some stand out bits, but were not fully packed. It's not really until Moon that we get an album as consistently good as Piper.
For me, the Floyd ultimately became very conservative in their output and point of view. The Beatles were a wider screen, I believe and they said so much more than the rants of Mr. Waters ultimately did.
But, of course, that's my opinion, not objective fact...
|
|
sallan75
Forum Newbie
Joined: March 18 2011
Location: Melbourne
Status: Offline
Points: 2
|
Posted: March 18 2011 at 11:44 |
maani wrote:
Actually, you have it exactly backward. It is almost a certainty that 100 years from now, 200 years from now, 300 years from now, The Beatles' music will still be played - like Bach, Beethoven, Mozart - while Pink Floyd (as amazing as they are) will be a distant memory (like....Frescobaldi...LOL)
Peace. |
Umm yeah, when I was growing up in the 80's and 90's the teens loved Floyd and they still love them today. Ask some teen guy who doesn't look like a teeny bopper or hipster doofus and he will probably say metal and floyd. Beatles is old people music and it sounds old. I can listen to Meddle and it sounds like it was recorded two weeks ago, Beatles sound like old man music. Dethklok would say it was recorded using grandpa guitars. Anyone who thinks the Beatles are better obviously likes pop and for the retards saying Harrison is better than Gilmour, come on, that is one battle how blind you are The Beatles couldn't win.
|
|
sallan75
Forum Newbie
Joined: March 18 2011
Location: Melbourne
Status: Offline
Points: 2
|
Posted: March 18 2011 at 12:06 |
|
The other thing is the Beatles albums come on, 70% are forgettable. They were a single releasing pop band. I am listening to the White album now and have skipped 2/3 of it. Up to Waters departure Floyd albums stood tall, all song as important as the last. More people I know now love the Floyd, as I said Beatles sound old, haven't stood the test of time and some of their songs sound childish. As to whether Pink Floyd would exist without the Beatles, how do you know they wouldn't?
|
|
Keki
Forum Newbie
Joined: March 18 2011
Location: Argentina
Status: Offline
Points: 3
|
Posted: March 18 2011 at 13:52 |
|
Despite The Beatles being fundamental to the development of Rock Music, I'll say Pink Floyd. Their albums are much more complex and meaningful than The Beatles' albums
|
|
kevin4peace
Forum Groupie
Joined: January 01 2011
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 98
|
Posted: August 05 2011 at 02:01 |
|
The Beatles, but only because they are the best band of all time. The Floyders aren't too far behind.
|
|
Nothing to say here. Nothing at all. Nothing is easy.
|
|
rogerthat
Prog Reviewer
Joined: September 03 2006
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 9869
|
Posted: August 05 2011 at 02:09 |
Phideaux wrote:
I can think of very little Beatles that is unnecessary. For me, each song is an evolution which results in Abbey Road, the ultimate and perfect album. The concise, psychedelia, the beautiful vocals, the experimentation with styles.
Sure, they played it mostly safe. Yes, they had Paul pushing vaudeville moments and despite the excellent drugs, they never exploded music on its side. But, they made more daring moves within those little 4 minute extravaganzas than most of their peers.
Floyd? They are great experimenters. Syd was ace at writing some ear catching and crazy songs (but when added up all his songs, it was a small percentage IMO). The instrumentalists are good in both bands and this is not a contest of players, but of ideas and catalogue.
Aside from the latter day hit albums of Floyd (Moon, Wish, Animals, Wall) I struggle to find other perfect albums along the way. The soundtracks are ditties and have some good stuff and a lot of filler. The experimental album would have been better condensed into a track the length of Revolution #9. The bombastic albums about breakfast and with dogs vocoding had some stand out bits, but were not fully packed. It's not really until Moon that we get an album as consistently good as Piper.
For me, the Floyd ultimately became very conservative in their output and point of view. The Beatles were a wider screen, I believe and they said so much more than the rants of Mr. Waters ultimately did.
But, of course, that's my opinion, not objective fact...
|
Wow, missed this. Well said, sir! Beatles may not have appeared sonically daring most times but as composers, they were miles ahead of Floyd. I would only like to add here that George's solo on Something beats every single Gilmour solo. Not because it is so well played but because it is so well written. Unlike so many other rock groups, Beatles' work emphasizes again and again that it's all about how well you write the music, not just how well you play it.
|
|
EchidnasArf
Forum Senior Member
Joined: July 04 2011
Location: Austin, TX
Status: Offline
Points: 376
|
Posted: August 05 2011 at 16:51 |
|
I love both for completely different reasons. But just for fun...
Vocals: Lennon>McCartney>Waters>Harrison>Barrett>Gilmour>Starr
Guitar: Gilmour>Harrison>McCartney>Lennon>Barrett
Bass: McCartney>Waters
Keyboards/Piano: Wright>McCartney>Lennon
Drums: Mason>Starr
Studio productions: flat out tie. We're talking two bands with arguably the best produced studio albums ever! Pink Floyd's Gilmour era gave us albums with extreme depth, clarity, and separation. The Beatles' studio work was extremely innovative, imaginative, and influential on the likes of.... everybody.
|
|
|
|
Alitare
Forum Senior Member
Joined: March 08 2008
Location: New York
Status: Offline
Points: 3595
|
Posted: August 05 2011 at 18:38 |
|
Jeepers Kreepers! Used to hate the Beatles. Then for a while I just 'liked' them. Now they're one of my all-time favorite bands. Still, Pink Floyd took me many places. When ya git raht down to it - I love both, but to me, Dark Side of the Moon and Wish You Were Here seemed like much more 'completely together' albums than either Abbey Road or White Album.
|
|
jav1919
Forum Senior Member
Joined: July 30 2011
Location: Costa Rica
Status: Offline
Points: 101
|
Posted: August 05 2011 at 19:25 |
|
The Beatles are great, but I like Pink Floyd the best.
|
|
Donate monthly and keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.
/PAlogo_v2.gif "Progarchives.com Homepage")
The Beatles vs. Pink Floyd
