| Author |
 Topic Search  Topic Options
|
Peter 
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: January 31 2004
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 9669
|
 Posted: November 19 2008 at 22:28 |
 Sunny In Jeddah wrote:
Rush got my vote, proud Canadians. Also I think the Pink Floyd may just be a tad overrated. |
 Sigh -- there's that word again.
Would you please explain just what you mean by "overrated?" 
Are you implying that all the Pink Floyd fans are "wrong," while you are "right?"
That they are being less than genuine or sincere when they express a liking for the band?
That they don't really know what they like? That they don't like Floyd as much as they think they do, or perhaps that they should like them less?
Please explain what you mean by "overrated," or else why not refer to something you are in a position to judge: YOUR taste in music -- not the tastes of millions of individual Floyd fans whom you've never even met.
*****************************************************************************************************************
For the record, once again, I like BOTH of these fine bands, and I find these types of "X vs Y" polls to be silly. They are threads posted by people who have little or nothing to say, and who can't be bothered to make the effort to say anything of real depth, substance or interest anyway. They reduce art to the mere level of sport, or a juvenile, shallow popularity contest.
Much as with friends and food, it's actually okay to like different bands and types of music, to roughly the same degree, for different reasons and different moods. That's called being a MUSIC fan, and being grown up. Variety is good! 
Wh ich do you like best, flowers or birds? Water or air? Your arm or your leg? 
|
|
"And, has thou slain the Jabberwock?
Come to my arms, my beamish boy!
O frabjous day! Callooh! Callay!'
He chortled in his joy.
|
 |
horsewithteeth11
Prog Reviewer
Joined: January 09 2008
Location: Kentucky
Status: Offline
Points: 24598
|
Posted: November 20 2008 at 00:59 |
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! 
|
|
|
|
Peter
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: January 31 2004
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 9669
|
Posted: November 20 2008 at 01:40 |
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.
I for one have NEVER held Floyd up to be the "best" technicians or musicians, and I'm not aware of others doing that here, either. I do not "rate" them that way. I like the songs they write. To put it very simply, I greatly enjoy the sound Floyd's music makes. Ditto Rush -- both bands give me considerable, real, un-feigned, intelligent, thinking-adult-style pleasure.
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!
Who is "right?" I propose that we BOTH are -- you hear music your way, I hear it mine. But when you say "overrated," you judge MY taste and experiences of music, and not your own.
That's just arrogant.
|
|
"And, has thou slain the Jabberwock?
Come to my arms, my beamish boy!
O frabjous day! Callooh! Callay!'
He chortled in his joy.
|
|
Blacksword
Prog Reviewer
Joined: June 22 2004
Location: England
Status: Offline
Points: 16130
|
Posted: November 20 2008 at 02:36 |
|
^^^ Agree with every word, Peter.
|
|
Roj
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: July 02 2008
Location: Manchester, UK
Status: Offline
Points: 3126
|
Posted: November 20 2008 at 03:03 |
There's been some real nonsense spouted above. Pink Floyd overrated, what a load of old tosh. They are one of the most important prog bands of all, and one of my very favourites.
Much as I like Rush, my vote is for Floyd, easily.
|
|
Hawkwise
Forum Senior Member
Joined: May 31 2008
Location: Ontairo
Status: Offline
Points: 4119
|
Posted: November 20 2008 at 07:31 |
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!
|
" virtuoso guitarist,
his solos tend to be fairly simple" Dude Gilmour Playing is all about the Tone Man , there is no one better and some times Less is More . so What do you consider Virtuoso to be ? all fast playing with no emotion with No Feel ? there just isn't anyone else out there who Plays with Gilmour Feel and Tone that Makes him Pretty special also you have to visit albums such as Ummagumma,and Meddle his playing those albums and Pretty damn different and special , also he Damn fine Steele and Slide Player to. "more talented with their instruments." Again what does that really Mean or come down to?, some the best and Talented players can make some god awful Music , as Musician myself i have been around some amazing players who made the most Snooze boring Music with no Originality whats so ever, so Dude i think you really are talking out your backside, but hey that's cool opinion's vary be a boring place this if we all agreed eh ? i Just think your way of here and WRONG .
|
|
|
|
Urs Blank
Forum Senior Member
Joined: September 17 2007
Location: France
Status: Offline
Points: 214
|
Posted: November 20 2008 at 07:38 |
|
OK then I guess I love "overrated" music!
|
|
Have no fear of perfection - you'll never reach it.
Salvador Dali.
|
|
Statutory-Mike
Forum Senior Member
Joined: February 15 2008
Location: Long Island
Status: Offline
Points: 3737
|
Posted: November 20 2008 at 07:53 |
|
uhhhhhh Rush
|
|
|
|
Epignosis
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: December 30 2007
Location: Raeford, NC
Status: Offline
Points: 32524
|
Posted: November 20 2008 at 08:46 |
|
Oooo...controversy. I never thought I get any of that.
|
|
|
|
Roj
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: July 02 2008
Location: Manchester, UK
Status: Offline
Points: 3126
|
Posted: November 20 2008 at 10:16 |
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.
|
|
horsewithteeth11
Prog Reviewer
Joined: January 09 2008
Location: Kentucky
Status: Offline
Points: 24598
|
Posted: November 20 2008 at 10:38 |
Hawkwise wrote:
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!
|
" virtuoso guitarist,
his solos tend to be fairly simple"
Dude Gilmour Playing is all about the Tone Man , there is no one better and some times Less is More .
so What do you consider Virtuoso to be ? all fast playing with no emotion with No Feel ?
This is where I think 'virtuoso' gets taken out
of context. It has nothing to do with how fast your play your
instrument. And if you really are playing it fast with no emotion or
feel, I don't really consider that to be 'virtuoso' playing. A great
example of this is Steve Vai, who easily is nowhere near the fastest guitarist, in fact a good deal of his songs are slower songs, and even some of his solos are rather slow, but he utilizes such techniques as sweep-picking or finger-tapping even on some slower sections of his songs. So in essence, one can say that Vai was a better guitarist simply because he was well-schooled in music theory. I know that Gilmour is a blues-based guitarist and that's where he gets his origins from, but as far as I know he isn't well-grounded in music theory.
there just isn't anyone else out there who Plays with Gilmour Feel and Tone that Makes him Pretty special
also you have to visit albums such as Ummagumma,and Meddle his playing those albums and Pretty damn different and special , also he Damn fine Steele and Slide Player to.
While I do agree with you to an extent, and in my rambling I meant to say that Gilmour was good at what he does but isn't the best guitarist ever, so sorry if that confused you. However, you're pretty much stating an opinion here except for the part about his playing on Ummagumma and Meddle.
"more talented with their instruments."
Again what does that really Mean or come down to?, some the best and Talented players can make some god awful Music , as Musician myself i have been around some amazing players who made the most Snooze boring Music with no Originality whats so ever,
so Dude i think you really are talking out your backside, but hey that's cool opinion's vary be a boring place this if we all agreed eh ? i Just think your way of here and WRONG .
Being someone who plays an instrument myself, I tend to look at the technique that is displayed in the musicians' instruments. If you listen for emotion, that's perfectly fine. Pink Floyd is excellent in that respect and completely reolutionized the way atmospheric music is played. However, to me, atmospheric music only gets you so far, and at times I wonder if Pink Floyd deliberately tried to flirt with the "mainstream" scene at the time with certain releases (although that's another issue in itself). And once again, you're ending with an opinion. If you want to think I'm wrong, that's fine, but again that's simply your opinion.
@Peter - I'm not so nerdy with music that I count the number of beats in every measure when I listen to a band. And ultimately, you've hit the nail on the head: you listen to the music because you get enjoyment out of it. That's what music is all about anyway. Although I think you revealed why so many people hate the use of the word 'overrated' on this site: because they feel it's a direct insult to themselves if it's a band they like. That's not what I mean by overrated at all to be honest. However, I'll probably try thinking of a different word to use from now on that doesn't upset people or make them feel personally insulted.
I've talked about it in previous threads before and I don't want to start some pointless argument again because people think I'm attacking a 'sacred cow' (I said in the beginning that I actually enjoy listening to the Floyd anyway). Hopefully I cleared up some of the confusion as to what I had rambled about. I'm simply talking about the musicians themselves, NOT the (rather enjoyable) music.
|
|
|
|
|
horsewithteeth11
Prog Reviewer
Joined: January 09 2008
Location: Kentucky
Status: Offline
Points: 24598
|
Posted: November 20 2008 at 10:42 |
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.
|
|
|
|
horsewithteeth11
Prog Reviewer
Joined: January 09 2008
Location: Kentucky
Status: Offline
Points: 24598
|
Posted: November 20 2008 at 10:43 |
|
|
|
|
|
ModernRocker79
Forum Groupie
Joined: November 02 2008
Status: Offline
Points: 62
|
Posted: November 20 2008 at 10:43 |
Pink Floyd. How about next poll be The Rolling Stones vs Rush? 
|
|
jimidom
Forum Senior Member
Joined: August 02 2007
Location: Houston, TX USA
Status: Offline
Points: 570
|
Posted: November 20 2008 at 10:47 |
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.
|
|
"The music business is a cruel and shallow money trench, a long plastic hallway where thieves and pimps run free, and good men die like dogs. There's also a negative side." - HST
|
|
trackstoni
Forum Senior Member
Joined: February 23 2008
Location: Lebanon
Status: Offline
Points: 934
|
Posted: November 20 2008 at 10:54 |
|
Some people are trying to use Rush in many Polls // against the Floyds , Zeppelins , even the Beatles , not to carry on to the end of List . All members of PA , and all good Progerrs knows who they are , Rush is one of our Favourites bands since the 70 's , but do not put them in a critical position against all odds .
Even if i like Rush more than the Beatles , or more than Led Zeppelin & Pink Floyd , but something inside my brain & heart tells me to give my votes in a critical situations to the right bands . Rush are Giants by all means , but cannot be listed against the Pioneers of classic Rock , or Progressive blues Rock , or crossover Progressive . Things are really obvious in this regard , these Polls aren't productive IMHO ,
so leave the Beautiful things as they are , and don't try digging in the past in a wrong Way . Cause no one was influenced by Rush , as far as my knowledge , but hundreds of artists & bands around the world was influenced by the Beatles , the Floyds , and Led Zeppelin ////////////////////////// TracksToni
|
|
Tracking Tracks of Rock
|
|
Alberto Muņoz
Forum Senior Member
Joined: July 26 2006
Location: Mexico
Status: Offline
Points: 3577
|
Posted: November 20 2008 at 13:07 |
Epignosis wrote:
Okay, I've seen "Rush vs. The Beatles," "Rush vs. "Led Zeppelin," and "King Crimson vs. Pink Floyd."
Very well. Let's try this on for size.
|
|
|
|
|
Epignosis
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: December 30 2007
Location: Raeford, NC
Status: Offline
Points: 32524
|
Posted: November 20 2008 at 13:10 |
|
Or Rush vs. Rush. Blow everybody's minds.
|
|
|
|
Alberto Muņoz
Forum Senior Member
Joined: July 26 2006
Location: Mexico
Status: Offline
Points: 3577
|
Posted: November 20 2008 at 13:16 |
Epignosis wrote:
Or Rush vs. Rush. Blow everybody's minds. |
|
|
|
|
rushfan4
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: May 22 2007
Location: Michigan, U.S.
Status: Online
Points: 66269
|
Posted: November 20 2008 at 13:22 |
|
|
|
|
|
/PAlogo_v2.gif "Progarchives.com Homepage")
Pink Floyd vs. Rush
