The Beatles vs. Pink Floyd

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'll agree that Ringo is superior to Nick.

I'm just not gonna read this thread, because I know that both sides will be defending their opinion to the death.

Wow, that one made my day. Comparing George Harrison to Dave Gilmour... Next time people will be comparing Paul McCartney to God Lee.

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.

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...

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? 

The Beatles, but only because they are the best band of all time. The Floyders aren't too far behind.

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.

The Beatles are great, but I like Pink Floyd the best.