| Author |
 Topic Search  Topic Options
|
geneyesontle 
Forum Senior Member
Joined: January 14 2012
Location: Quebec
Status: Offline
Points: 1266
|
 Posted: June 15 2012 at 19:13 |
 geneyesontle wrote:
Catcher10 wrote:
geneyesontle wrote:
Hercules wrote:
Floyd.
Vastly more talented.
|
I think that the Beatles accomplished much more things than Pink Floyd did. |
Like what....do tell please.....Looking forward to your list. |
The Beatles had the top spot on Rolling Stone's 500 greatest albums of all time list with Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band Pink Floyd didn't The Beatles had hit the number one spot on the Bilboard Hot 100 20 times. Pink Floyd had hit the number one spot on the Bilboard Hot 100 only one time The Beatles had sold more than one billion albums worldwide Pink Floyd had sold 250 million albums worldwide Every song of every Beatles record is well known Pink Floyd has unknown records: More, Atom Heart Mother The Beatles had released 206 songs during their seven year carrer Pink Floyd had released 145 songs during their thirty-one year carrer And the list goes on and on... |
|
|
Poseidon wants to Acquire the Taste of the Fragile Lamb
- Derek Adrian Gabriel Anderson, singer of the band Geneyesontle
|
 |
geneyesontle
Forum Senior Member
Joined: January 14 2012
Location: Quebec
Status: Offline
Points: 1266
|
Posted: June 15 2012 at 19:11 |
Catcher10 wrote:
geneyesontle wrote:
Hercules wrote:
Floyd.
Vastly more talented.
|
I think that the Beatles accomplished much more things than Pink Floyd did. |
Like what....do tell please.....Looking forward to your list. |
The Beatles had the top spot on Rolling Stone's 500 greatest albums of all time list with Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band Pink Floyd didn't The Beatles had hit the number one spot on the Bilboard Hot 100 20 times. Pink Floyd had hit the number one spot on the Bilboard Hot 100 only one time The Beatles had sold more than one billion albums worldwide Pink Floyd had sold 200 million albums worldwide Every song of every Beatles record is well known Pink Floyd has unknown records: More, Atom Heart Mother The Beatles had released 206 songs during their seven year carrer Pink Floyd had released 145 songs during their thirty-one year carrer And the list goes on and on...
|
|
Poseidon wants to Acquire the Taste of the Fragile Lamb
- Derek Adrian Gabriel Anderson, singer of the band Geneyesontle
|
|
Catcher10
Forum Senior Member
VIP Member
Joined: December 23 2009
Location: Emerald City
Status: Offline
Points: 17845
|
Posted: June 15 2012 at 16:59 |
geneyesontle wrote:
Hercules wrote:
Floyd.
Vastly more talented.
|
I think that the Beatles accomplished much more things than Pink Floyd did. |
Like what....do tell please.....Looking forward to your list.
|
|
|
|
geneyesontle
Forum Senior Member
Joined: January 14 2012
Location: Quebec
Status: Offline
Points: 1266
|
Posted: June 15 2012 at 16:40 |
Hercules wrote:
Floyd.
Vastly more talented.
|
I think that the Beatles accomplished much more things than Pink Floyd did. The Beatles changed the history of music forever. I think without the Beatles, progressive rock wouldn't exist. And I think without the Fab Four, music would be like s**t. Floyd was also great, but nobody can reach The Beatles. These guys were not just a band, they did everything before any other band. They will never be replaced. So, my vote goes to the Fab Four.
|
|
Poseidon wants to Acquire the Taste of the Fragile Lamb
- Derek Adrian Gabriel Anderson, singer of the band Geneyesontle
|
|
giselle
Forum Senior Member
Joined: March 18 2011
Location: Hertford
Status: Offline
Points: 466
|
Posted: May 27 2012 at 08:57 |
You are Joking! 
|
|
Junges
Forum Senior Member
Joined: February 19 2006
Location: Brazil
Status: Offline
Points: 644
|
Posted: May 27 2012 at 08:27 |
|
PF. Beatles is the most overrated band ever.
|
|
|
|
NYSPORTSFAN
Forum Groupie
Joined: January 07 2012
Status: Offline
Points: 64
|
Posted: May 27 2012 at 07:17 |
resurrection wrote:
For a poll like this on this site, The Beatles are perhaps way too mainstream popular. Like it or lump it, ANY band is nowhere near The Beatle's fame and influence - there wouldn't even be such a thing as a rock band but for The Beatles. Of course, that doesn't mean we HAVE to like them, just acknowledge who they are. |
Both different bands but what the Beatles have over in Pink Floyd by a wide margin IMO. The Beatles combined form and content in articulate, imaginative, immediate pieces that made them an influence on just about everybody in rock/pop music and even extending to other genres. They pulled off "I Am The Walrus", "Revolution", and "Martha My Dear" in one year. Syd Barrett was listenting really studying to Revolver the loops, altered vocals, reversed tapes, proto sampling elements, drones, cut up lyrics for one on "Tomorrow Never Knows" was basically the complete kit for what Pink Floyd would use for their sound.
|
|
resurrection
Forum Senior Member
Joined: August 08 2010
Location: London
Status: Offline
Points: 254
|
Posted: May 27 2012 at 01:03 |
|
For a poll like this on this site, The Beatles are perhaps way too mainstream popular. Like it or lump it, ANY band is nowhere near The Beatle's fame and influence - there wouldn't even be such a thing as a rock band but for The Beatles. Of course, that doesn't mean we HAVE to like them, just acknowledge who they are.
|
|
MrMagoo99581
Forum Newbie
Joined: May 08 2012
Location: New Jersey
Status: Offline
Points: 2
|
Posted: May 09 2012 at 05:27 |
Dayvenkirq wrote:
^ Pushed boundaries? Liverpool used French chanson in their music, mixed sitar with R&B with experimentalism ... they practically invented pop-prog, pulled off backwards guitar, developed a technique of changing timbre by changing speed on tape (although that was G. Martin's fault), ... lots of technical and songwriting stuff. What did Cambridge do? They kind of continued that vein.
|
Well I see your point, but to my ears at least, the Beatles "experimental period" was mostly just poppy songs dressed up with weird sound-effects and non-rock instruments, many times courtesy of their producer. They never went as far as something like Ummagumma or the Atom Heart Mother suite. I still love the Beatles though.
Edited by MrMagoo99581 - May 09 2012 at 10:23
|
|
Dayvenkirq
Forum Senior Member
Joined: May 25 2011
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Status: Offline
Points: 10970
|
Posted: May 09 2012 at 03:03 |
|
^ I don't know. It's been a long time since I've watched a soccer match, let alone one that has both teams none of which are Russian.
|
|
OT Räihälä
Forum Senior Member
Joined: August 09 2005
Location: Finland
Status: Offline
Points: 514
|
Posted: May 09 2012 at 02:52 |
Dayvenkirq wrote:
^ Pushed boundaries? Liverpool used French chanson in their music, mixed sitar with R&B with experimentalism ... they practically invented pop-prog, pulled off backwards guitar, developed a technique of changing timbre by changing speed on tape (although that was G. Martin's fault), ... lots of technical and songwriting stuff.
What did Cambridge do? They kind of continued that vein. |
So, it has thus become a game between Cambridge United and Everton? 
|
|
|
|
Pinkhead
Forum Groupie
Joined: December 12 2011
Location: Buenos Aires
Status: Offline
Points: 43
|
Posted: May 08 2012 at 22:48 |
|
|
|
Dayvenkirq
Forum Senior Member
Joined: May 25 2011
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Status: Offline
Points: 10970
|
Posted: May 08 2012 at 19:36 |
^ Pushed boundaries? Liverpool used French chanson in their music, mixed sitar with R&B with experimentalism ... they practically invented pop-prog, pulled off backwards guitar, developed a technique of changing timbre by changing speed on tape (although that was G. Martin's fault), ... lots of technical and songwriting stuff.
What did Cambridge do? They kind of continued that vein.
Edited by Dayvenkirq - May 08 2012 at 19:37
|
|
MrMagoo99581
Forum Newbie
Joined: May 08 2012
Location: New Jersey
Status: Offline
Points: 2
|
Posted: May 08 2012 at 19:09 |
|
I love the Beatles and all, but IMO Floyd was THE archetypical English psychedelic band. I think that the Beatles were more gifted songwriters, but Floyd pushed the boundaries of rock much further. So I'll say Floyd.
|
|
OT Räihälä
Forum Senior Member
Joined: August 09 2005
Location: Finland
Status: Offline
Points: 514
|
Posted: May 08 2012 at 14:05 |
overmatik wrote:
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.
|
(Firstly, this is of course a matter of opinion, like everything on any internet forum...)
Up to (and including) DSOTM, Pink Floyd were a great, progressive band. Especially their efforts with art music was interesting. For whatever reason they gave up this, and after they finally had their big break they just became dull. I admit there are some musical ideas on their later albums, but they are too few and far between. In a way they gave up the progression in music. I can't think of other famous prog-related rock band whose music I find equally dull.
The Beatles had more interesting harmonies, more interesting melodies, more edge (both musically and lyrically), more interesting orchestration etc. In fact the only thing where Floyd can match them is the sheer beauty of sound. That's not enough for me, hence my opinion.
|
|
|
|
Dayvenkirq
Forum Senior Member
Joined: May 25 2011
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Status: Offline
Points: 10970
|
Posted: May 08 2012 at 13:48 |
[scratching my head] This is gonna be fun. The Beatles revolutionized pop-rock, but the Floyd significantly extended the meaning of prog-rock, focusing on mood, songwriting, texture, and melody more than anything else. PF kind of bridged that gap between prog and pop, ... but so did The Beatles. The Beatles were my first love, but PF took over with ambient, psych, and prog. But then PF took heavily from The Beatles. On the other hand, they heavily focused on mood and tone ... . PF are my current favorite, but The Fab Four were historically more significant. ... . [sigh]. Screw it. Both are great, both are significant.
Wait, what was the question? Who is your current favorite or who is historically more significant?
Edited by Dayvenkirq - May 08 2012 at 13:51
|
|
Zombywoof
Forum Senior Member
Joined: November 26 2009
Status: Offline
Points: 1217
|
Posted: May 08 2012 at 13:34 |
|
Pink Floyd, beyond a shadow of a doubt for me.
|
|
Continue the prog discussion here: http://zombyprog.proboards.com/index.cgi ...
|
|
jampa17
Prog Reviewer
Joined: July 04 2009
Location: Guatemala
Status: Offline
Points: 6802
|
Posted: May 08 2012 at 12:53 |
The Beatles.
Floyd is good, but I still found several of their albums a bit boring.
So, the Fav Four...
|
|
Change the program inside... Stay in silence is a crime.
|
|
RoyFairbank
Forum Senior Member
Joined: January 07 2008
Location: Somewhere
Status: Offline
Points: 1072
|
Posted: May 08 2012 at 09:02 |
|
Pink Floyd, but I had to think about it.
Beatles are very important, but Floyd realizes their trend-setting better than they ever did.
|
|
ten years after
Forum Senior Member
Joined: September 07 2007
Location: Australia
Status: Offline
Points: 1008
|
Posted: May 04 2012 at 02:35 |
Slaughternalia wrote:
The Beatles, perhaps my favourite band of all time |
You obviously have controversial opinions. 
|
|
Donate monthly and keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.
/PAlogo_v2.gif "Progarchives.com Homepage")
The Beatles vs. Pink Floyd
