Led Zeppelin Or Pink Floyd

I absolutely love both of these bands, in fact, they are in my top 5 with the doors, hendrix, and the who.

For me, there is simply nothing quite like Pink Floyd. The mixture of sounds that they have produced is amazing, and will NEVER be duplicated. They blazed their own path and went in directions no one else even knew existed.

Zeppelin is amazing in their own right, and I hold them in the highest regard, but their music simply does not have the power to move me like Floyd.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nochowderforyou

I prefer Led Zep. over Floyd. Floyd is sleepy time music for me. It's just so dreamy and lazy. Led.Zep. rocks the blues and good rock n roll. Something you can really get into. Floyd doesn't progress I find. They just stay at the same beat, tempo, and nothing builds up. You wait for the rockin part...but the rockin part never comes.

---

Chow, you are soooo right --on with that shit!!!!

There's nothing interesting about Floyd's chord-progressions and nothing challenging in their songs. It's only their decision on the placement of the notes, nothing innovative. I just felt like saying this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by heatherhatesyou

these bands always get compared to each other and i think its completely ridiculous. they may have both been associated with the psychadelic scene but they were two COMPLETELY DIFFERENT bands. incomperable, in other words.

but to answer your question, everyone who said pink floyd was better is musically retarded. pink floyd is a lame novelty band that goth kids swear are cool because they saw their oh-so-trippy dark side t-shirt at their local hot topic. their music is like a lukewarm bath...boring, tepid and stale. how many of you guys have seen pink floyd live? if you did in the 70s, you might have noticed that they BARELY EVEN PLAYED THEIR INSTRUMENTS. most of the time they just got fucked up and mock-played to a backing track. that's fucking britney spears bullshit. just because some bald guy likes to whine about how we "dont need no education" and add some ambient keyboard noises doesnt make the song revolutionary or even vaguely talented. sorry.


and if you want to argue about it, just remember this: you're wrong.

---

Wow, how can one person be SO ignorant?

For all the people who say Zeppelin are better, I really doubt you've listened to every album I listed earlier. There's so much more to Floyd then Darkside :/
You people owe it to yourselves to listen to every floyd album. Floyd have produced better albums then Zeppelin and that's just the way it is :D

Shine on > Stairway

Both are Great bands,however I have to go with Floyd. Also--If you get a chance go see David Gilmour live if you can. I saw him at Massey Hall in Toronto 4/9-EXCELLENT SHOW..anybody see him this tour? First half he played songs from his new album. Second half Pink Floyd, which included...Echoes, Wot's...Uh the deal and encored with Comfortably Numb. They were recording the show in 5.1 surround-expect a future DVD.
4/17 Oakland, CA
4/19 Hollywood
4/20 Universal City, CA
Then across the pond:
5/26 Manchester
5/27 Glasgow
5/29,30,31 London
Pay the scalper, worth it!!!

floyd man
no doubt
listenin to the great gig in the sky right now

hmmm i think you guys who are saying PINK FLOYD need to start thinking about how Talented Jimmy Page actually is and start thinking about how amazing deep Zeppelins Lyrics where!

Not to mention im pretty sure stairway to heaven has been rated the greatest rock song ever made!

:)

Peace

floyd. i love david gilmours voice and guitar work. roger waters writes great lyrics. and syd barrett(when he was in it) had amazing songs. I like psychedelic music anyway, so it fits. I feel like I get more high. For parties though, I throw on zeppelin, with floyd at parties it seems everyone gets mellow and sleepy haha. plus i have all the floyd albums(a few vinyl!) and only like 4 zeppelin ones.

and to ^ stairway to heaven is awesome, but frankly im tired of it.

Both Pink Floyd and Zepplin are among my favorites. Comparing the two is like comparing apples to oranges though. They're just so different. Both put out some absolutely incredible music. Just the fact that we're discussing bands that started 40 or so years ago is proof of that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by heatherhatesyou

these bands always get compared to each other and i think its completely ridiculous. they may have both been associated with the psychadelic scene but they were two COMPLETELY DIFFERENT bands. incomperable, in other words.

but to answer your question, everyone who said pink floyd was better is musically retarded. pink floyd is a lame novelty band that goth kids swear are cool because they saw their oh-so-trippy dark side t-shirt at their local hot topic. their music is like a lukewarm bath...boring, tepid and stale. how many of you guys have seen pink floyd live? if you did in the 70s, you might have noticed that they BARELY EVEN PLAYED THEIR INSTRUMENTS. most of the time they just got fucked up and mock-played to a backing track. that's fucking britney spears bullshit. just because some bald guy likes to whine about how we "dont need no education" and add some ambient keyboard noises doesnt make the song revolutionary or even vaguely talented. sorry.


and if you want to argue about it, just remember this: you're wrong.

---

A novelty band? Most "novelty bands" that I know of are forgotten 5-10 years after their "hit" songs come out. Dark Side is still considered one of the greatest albums ever and it was realeased 33 years ago! I actually have seen Pink Floyd live (have you?) and can tell you that they don't just get "fucked up and mock-played to a backing track" . Granted, they do do a lot with pre-recorded tracks but that's only because there's only so much that 4 guys can do when playing live. Just because they're music is a bit slower than Zep doesn't mean theyre not as talented, just different. Saying they're not "even vaguely talented" is like saying that Beethoven was shit and couldn't do anything with an orchestra to back him up.

Pink Floyd does not sing "Tangerine". They can't play music like it. I doubt they can even cover it correctly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fengzi

Granted, they do do a lot with pre-recorded tracks but that's only because there's only so much that 4 guys can do when playing live.

---

You have to see Rush in concert.

They do it all, in concert.

(Except, something like the female backing vocal in the bridge of the song "Time Stand Still".)

SABBATH BLOODY SABBATH!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by beachguy in thongs

You have to see Rush in concert.

They do it all, in concert.

(Except, something like the female backing vocal in the bridge of the song "Time Stand Still".)

---

I have :p

Actually this is a good comparison, what Geddy is doing with the synth isn't that much different from what Richard Wright was doing. Especially when you consider the differnec in the technology. It's not exactly like Floyd would just throw on a tape then wander out onto stage and pretend to play. Waters would play the bass lines, Gilmour would play the guitar, Mason would play the drums, and Wright would play the keyboards in addition to queing up the various pre-recorded effects.

Well, while he's playing the synthesizer, he's also triggering effects with his feet. Plus, he's got his bass in hand that he runs off and plays.

edit: I saw a bootleg of a Phish concert, in Glens Falls, NY, and they weren't playing their instruments. It may have been a "Phish" joke, but it was very obvious.