pink floyd and rolling stones - Progressive Rock Music Forum

Author

Message

Topic Search

Topic Options

Snow Dog

Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: March 23 2005
Location: Caerdydd
Status: Offline
Points: 32995

Posted: June 24 2013 at 05:27

^Pink F;oyd are mainstream too.

ArturdeLara View Drop Down

Forum Senior Member

Joined: April 06 2012
Location: Faro, Portugal
Status: Offline
Points: 124

Posted: June 24 2013 at 06:17

Snow Dog wrote:

^Pink F;oyd are mainstream too.

I said mainstream garbage Wink

(some of their earlier stuff is alright though). Anyway, Floyd and Stones are both mainstream, but for very different reasons...

"Those who are not shocked when they first come across Prog theory cannot possibly have understood it." - Niels Bohr

"If you think you understand Prog, you don't understand Prog." - Richard Feynman

Snow Dog

Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: March 23 2005
Location: Caerdydd
Status: Offline
Points: 32995

Posted: June 24 2013 at 06:23

ArturdeLara wrote:

Snow Dog wrote:

^Pink F;oyd are mainstream too.

I said mainstream garbage Wink

(some of their earlier stuff is alright though). Anyway, Floyd and Stones are both mainstream, but for very different reasons...

A bit unfair to call the Stones garbage.

ArturdeLara View Drop Down

Forum Senior Member

Joined: April 06 2012
Location: Faro, Portugal
Status: Offline
Points: 124

Posted: June 24 2013 at 06:33

Snow Dog wrote:

ArturdeLara wrote:

Snow Dog wrote:

^Pink F;oyd are mainstream too.

I said mainstream garbage Wink

(some of their earlier stuff is alright though). Anyway, Floyd and Stones are both mainstream, but for very different reasons...

A bit unfair to call the Stones garbage.

Well, it depends on your musical taste. I personally can't stand most of the songs i know from them. I know they had an earlier psychedelic/baroque phase and I've listened to Their Satanic Majesties Request which is a nice and quite underrated album. I've also listened to some really good songs from Between the Buttons. But after that earlier phase, they just became uninteresting and shallow IMO. The use of the word "garbage" was obviously an exaggeration though Smile

"Those who are not shocked when they first come across Prog theory cannot possibly have understood it." - Niels Bohr

"If you think you understand Prog, you don't understand Prog." - Richard Feynman

chopper

Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: July 13 2005
Location: Essex, UK
Status: Offline
Points: 20030

Posted: June 24 2013 at 06:54

richardh wrote:

Jagger/ Richards wrote The First Cut Is The Deepest

No they didn't, it was Cat Stevens.

dr wu23

Forum Senior Member

Joined: August 22 2010
Location: Indiana
Status: Offline
Points: 20624

Posted: June 24 2013 at 14:57

ArturdeLara wrote:

Snow Dog wrote:

^Pink F;oyd are mainstream too.

I said mainstream garbage Wink

(some of their earlier stuff is alright though). Anyway, Floyd and Stones are both mainstream, but for very different reasons...

No.....they are 'mainstream' for the same reason; they were both embraced by the public at at large, radio, etc., which made their music 'mainstream'.

The fact that you like Floyd better is a personal choice, nothing more.

The original poster said 'rock band' in his first post btw and while they both fall under that broad category they are like apples and oranges as far as the styles involved. To dismiss the Stones as 'mainstream garbage' shows a lack of understanding about the whole music scene , it's origins, and it's various paths.

One does nothing yet nothing is left undone.
Haquin

progbethyname View Drop Down

Forum Senior Member

Joined: July 30 2012
Location: HiFi Headmania
Status: Offline
Points: 7849

Posted: June 24 2013 at 16:33

dr wu23 wrote:

ArturdeLara wrote:

Snow Dog wrote:

^Pink F;oyd are mainstream too.

I said mainstream garbage Wink

(some of their earlier stuff is alright though). Anyway, Floyd and Stones are both mainstream, but for very different reasons...

No.....they are 'mainstream' for the same reason; they were both embraced by the public at at large, radio, etc., which made their music 'mainstream'.

The fact that you like Floyd better is a personal choice, nothing more.

How could I ever disagree with this statement. Well done. Your answer is what I shall adopt in regards To this thread. :)
Apples and oranges. I could never compare the 2, but I can say which I do prefer sound wise difinitively. ;)

Gimmie my headphones now!!! 🎧🤣

The.Crimson.King View Drop Down

Forum Senior Member

Joined: March 29 2013
Location: WA
Status: Offline
Points: 4596

Posted: June 29 2013 at 00:31

ESHWOR KC wrote:

which one is the greatest rock band ever? has pink floyd achieved more than the rolling stones. Which is the greatest please comment.

Music fans love them both for different reasons...both have had massive global success and influnced thousands of musicians...both have entertained millions of concert goers...I have to give my vote for the Stones though for the fact of the sheer weight of their musical history...many people have never heard "Comfortably Numb" but everyone has heard "Satisfaction"...60's drug busts...Sympathy for the Devil...Altamont...Mick and Keith...dozens of albums...Pink Floyd are huge but they can't compete with the Stones 50+ year legacy.

Mutiny in Jonestown : Progressive Rock Since 1987

DamoXt7942 View Drop Down

Special Collaborator

Joined: October 15 2008
Location: Okayama, Japan
Status: Offline
Points: 17493

Posted: June 29 2013 at 01:15

Anyway where has OPer gone? Tongue

richardh

Prog Reviewer

Joined: February 18 2004
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Points: 28085

Posted: July 01 2013 at 12:19

chopper wrote:

richardh wrote:

Jagger/ Richards wrote The First Cut Is The Deepest

No they didn't, it was Cat Stevens.

thanks

me confused! and the source of my confusion (as taken from Wikipedia)

After several years touring the United States with the Revue, she came to England in 1966 when the Revue toured there in support of The Rolling Stones. Impressed by her powerful and soulful voice, Mick Jagger convinced Stones manager Andrew Loog Oldham to sign Arnold to a recording contract with his newly founded Immediate Records record label. Arnold quit the Turner band to remain in London and establish a solo career.

ProgPassion View Drop Down

Forum Newbie

Joined: June 07 2014
Location: London
Status: Offline
Points: 35

Posted: July 25 2014 at 15:48

ArturdeLara wrote:

Pink Floyd. No need to discuss that Stern Smile

Stones = mainstream rock garbage

Floyd = beautiful, authentic, innovative, mind-blowing MUSIC

'mainstream rock garbage'

That is the most hilarious thing I've seen all day.

Svetonio

Forum Senior Member

Joined: September 20 2010
Location: Serbia
Status: Offline
Points: 10213

Posted: July 27 2014 at 08:15

The Stones are much greater band than Pink Floyd imo.

Slartibartfast View Drop Down

Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator / In Memoriam

Joined: April 29 2006
Location: Atlantais
Status: Offline
Points: 29630

Posted: July 27 2014 at 09:43

The Stones have achieved greater commercial success, that doesn't mean they made better music it only means they were better at making money...

Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened...

Svetonio

Forum Senior Member

Joined: September 20 2010
Location: Serbia
Status: Offline
Points: 10213

Posted: July 27 2014 at 09:49

Slartibartfast wrote:

The Stones have achieved greater commercial success, that doesn't mean they made better music it only means they were better at making money...

The Stones' catalogue is way better than PF musicaly too imo.

Argonaught View Drop Down

Forum Senior Member

Joined: June 04 2012
Location: Virginia
Status: Offline
Points: 1413

Posted: July 27 2014 at 11:02

My personal opinion only:

The Stones came up with a few interesting songs way back in the 60s, but afterwards they quickly evolved into a commercial rock group, distinguished by their rudimentary (even by the rock standards) musicianship and remarkable audacity to recycle the same trite melody lines from one platinum album to another.

Pink Floyd is not among my favorite bands; I do like The Dark Side, A Momentary Lapse of Reason, and one or two tracks from other albums, and that's about it. I'm not into the Syd Barrett era at all ..

.. but:

1. Roger Waters as a poet and philosopher has no peers in the pop/rock culture. It's kind of handy to have a guy like him as the band lyricist.

2. IMO, Pink Floyd were the first band to use the synthetic sound for expressing intellectually complex and esthetically advanced musical ideas. Before them, the synthetic sound had largely belonged to the category of "electronic experimentation" and was only sporadically thrown in by those bands who wanted to sound 'psychedelic" without conveying any specific message.

3. The audio-visual multidimensional experience is, again, something that Pink Floyd made into an art form in its own right.

Bottom Line: Rolling Stones should be rated in the "most prolific bands" category (but then again, the James Last Orchestra may beat them with the musical equivalent of the 2014 Cup Germany-Brazil score).

Edited by Argonaught - July 27 2014 at 11:03

dr wu23

Forum Senior Member

Joined: August 22 2010
Location: Indiana
Status: Offline
Points: 20624

Posted: July 27 2014 at 11:19

Svetonio wrote:

Slartibartfast wrote:

The Stones have achieved greater commercial success, that doesn't mean they made better music it only means they were better at making money...

The Stones' catalogue is way better than PF musicaly too imo.

The Stones do have more albums in their catalogue than Floyd and it can be argued that their best albums might outweigh Floyd's best in number but their songs and albums on an individual basis aren't better in quality per se imho.

Let It Bleed or Exiles isn't 'better' than DSOTM or WYWH...they are all excellent in their own way.

One does nothing yet nothing is left undone.
Haquin

The Dark Elf View Drop Down

Forum Senior Member

VIP Member

Joined: February 01 2011
Location: Michigan
Status: Offline
Points: 13065

Posted: July 27 2014 at 11:23

The Beatles. Next question.

...a vigorous circular motion hitherto unknown to the people of this area, but destined
to take the place of the mud shark in your mythology...

KingCrInuYasha View Drop Down

Forum Senior Member

Joined: September 26 2010
Location: USA
Status: Offline
Points: 1281

Posted: July 27 2014 at 11:36

I think it all depends on:

1. What style of music you're looking for .

2. Who you think executed their intentions better.

Honestly, a world without either would be a very boring musical world indeed. Pink Floyd helped me get into prog in the first place, while the Rolling Stones have been part of my childhood. I remember listening to AOL Radio at the time and was willing to miss the climax of Yes' "Close To The Edge" just so I could hear "2000 Man".

Also, The Rolling Stones "mainstream garbage"? Really?

He looks at this world and wants it all... so he strikes, like Thunderball!

dr wu23

Forum Senior Member

Joined: August 22 2010
Location: Indiana
Status: Offline
Points: 20624

Posted: July 27 2014 at 13:04

The Dark Elf wrote:

The Beatles. Next question.

Now there's a band that's often overrated.....but I'd still take them over The Stones and Floyd.

One does nothing yet nothing is left undone.
Haquin

progbethyname View Drop Down

Forum Senior Member

Joined: July 30 2012
Location: HiFi Headmania
Status: Offline
Points: 7849

Posted: July 30 2014 at 00:35

All a matter of opinion for which band works 'better' sonically for you, but did the Stones really produce a DSOTM?
I think not. Floyd adapted with the times and threw something completely innovative that the public just ate up.

2nd highest selling album of all time. Only that freakin' Thriller by MJ destroys that Floyd sales total.

Can't base this on everything, but when Floyd were rolling....they rolled over everyone including those damn old stones!

Edited by progbethyname - July 30 2014 at 00:36

Gimmie my headphones now!!! 🎧🤣