Pink Floyd vs. Rush

Message Topic Search Topic Options Post Reply Create New Topic Printable Version Translate Topic

 rogerthat wrote:

Ah, the age old guitarist debate. I think both sides make mistakes each time it is carried out.  Don't kid yourself, Malmsteen would play circles over Gilmour, no doubt about it, call it what you will, emotionless shredding, technicality - which by the way is what I think of most shred-guitarists! - but he is a more capable guitarist, that's all.  It offends the ego of most Gilmour fans and they deny it with all their might everytime and try to belittle Malmsteen's abilities, which is going nowhere. In any case, we are here comparing Rush and Pink Floyd, so Malmsteen goes out of my post right here.  Now tell me, fellow Floyd fans, do you really listen to Gilmour's solos because you think he can put everybody else to shame with his solos? No, you don't, it's simply that Gilmour is a better composer than say Lifeson.   I don't play guitar, so how hard Gilmour is to play or not I can't tell but if so many guitarists think it's that easy, I take it that it is.  He can come up with a more tasteful and touching bunch of notes that you won't get tired of listening to and that's where his strength is.  It doesn't take the hardest possible notes to play to build a great song. Now...that Gilmour is indeed a master composer is up for debate - I rate Hackett above him in building up magical guitar moments - and it is perfectly understandable if you should find Lifeson's solos more soulful because what is soulful music is not set in stone. But at least now there is a valid frame of reference. If you say Pink Floyd are overrated because they 'can't play', you are missing the point.  If you say they are not the atmosphere magicians they are made out to be, you've got a point, regardless of whether I agree with you.

As for topic, Pink Floyd, as good as Rush is, this is no contest for me.

rogerthat, if your comment was aimed at me (a fellow Roger ), you'll note I wasn't comparing the respective merits of messrs Gilmour and Malmsteen.  Somebody (not Hughesy!) had posted saying that Gilmour was mediocre because he's slow and boring.  I merely had stated that just because Gilmour doesn't shred at the speed of light doesn't mean he's mediocre.

I actually really rate Malmsteen, and don't doubt he's technically better, but to slate Gilmour as mediocre is pretty senseless.

Anyway, I will leave it there fellow Roger!!

Poll Question: Pick.
Poll Choice	Votes	Poll Statistics
Pink Floyd	65	[65.66%]
Rush	34	[34.34%]
This topic is closed, no new votes accepted