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.