Pink Floyd vs. Rush

TGM: Orb wrote: Floyd was an easy choice. Lyrically a lot stronger, more consistently challenging and interesting, and more memorable. IMO, of course.

My right ear.  I think that I hear better out of my left one.

Alberto Muñoz wrote: 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. Next poll would be Everybody Vs. Rush.

Or Rush vs. Rush.  Blow everybody's minds.

   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

Pink Floyd.  How about next poll be The Rolling Stones vs Rush?

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.

Epignosis wrote: Oooo...controversy.  I never thought I get any of that.

uhhhhhh Rush

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 .