Prog Wars: Pink Floyd vs. RUSH - Page 2

Rush-2112 · #21 12-28-2012, 02:31 PM

I guess I'm in the minority. Maybe I'm misinformed as to what Prog actually means?

I stand by Floyd being Prog though

FrenchBassQC · #22 12-28-2012, 02:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tdub0199

Floyd all day everyday...

Same here...

El-Bob · #23 12-28-2012, 02:39 PM

This is the first time I've ever heard anyone try to say that Floyd is not prog... interesting. I'd vote for a tie. I like Rush's heaviness and bass work more... but I think Floyd has a lot more variety (not that Rush isn't varied, just that Pink Floyd is more so.)

onosson · #24 12-28-2012, 02:45 PM

I don't really see what these two bands have in common with each other? I prefer PF myself, but other than that I don't get the comparison.

mellowinman · #25 12-28-2012, 04:34 PM

I can't see how this is a good comparison. Pink Floyd is the more progressive of the two bands. Rush has the better musicians. Both have great songs, and not so great songs.

They are two legendary bands, and I can't imagine a world without both of them.

CARROTS.

PazzoBasso · #26 12-28-2012, 04:38 PM

Carrots are prog?

Ayce · #27 12-28-2012, 04:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PazzoBasso

Carrots are prog?

Of course!

PF predates Rush by 3 years, and IMO was more psychedelic than progressive in the early years, with contemporaries such as Deep Purple, Uriah Heep and Iron Butterfly, et al.
Rush, on the other hand, started out as a pure R&R band that mophed into Prog. after Neil came in.

However, for this poll, it's a draw.

Definitely · #28 12-28-2012, 05:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rush-2112

Oh I beg to differ. DSOTM was not prog in its heyday? C'mon eileen...

In fact, I like to think PF was the very first tried and true Prog band.

Yes came before PF, Yes is a million times more progressive than PF!

Mugre · #29 12-28-2012, 05:31 PM

30 years ago it would have been 70/30 Rush over PF. As the years have passed that has inverted. A large part of it is that I have lost all my affection for NP as a drummer. I find his parts to be stiff, over-wrought and joyless. I've always felt that way about his lyrics. The only thing that really keeps my interest with Rush anymore are AL's guitar parts. I don't dislike Rush, I'll still turn up anything off of Moving Pictures when it comes up on rock radio but at home when I reach for a C.D., it's PF much more often than Rush.

mellowinman · #30 12-28-2012, 05:45 PM

Pink Floyd played with non-traditional instruments; used non-traditional arrangements; incorporated sound effects; did concept albums...

... how can anyone, with a straight face, try to claim they were not PROGRESSIVE? The were one of the most progressive bands of all time! Sure, they did their share of straight ahead stadium rock, and started out pretty much psychedelic, but even their psychedelic music was somewhat progressive. It sure outlasted all the other psychedelic music of the time! I'm not aware of anything Rush did, musically, that Pink Floyd didn't do before them. Don't get me wrong; I LOVE Rush, but Pink Floyd had thematic albums, fifteen minute songs, and unusual time signatures before Rush had done anything beyond straight up blues/rock.

I guess since the thread is called "Prog Wars," I have to change my vote from "Carrots" to "Pink Floyd," as I just made the case that Pink Floyd was FAR more progressive than Rush. Rush had "Caress of Steel," "2112," "A Farewell to Kings," and "Hemispheres." Those were the only truly progressive albums they ever did.

Pink Floyd had "Ummagumma," "Atom Heart Mother," "Meddle," "The Dark Side of the Moon," "Wish You Were Here," and "Animals," all of which are progressive, and really, "The Wall," as mainstream as it was, should be considered progressive as well, as it certainly had a lot of progressive elements to it.

Does anybody here remember Vera Lynn?

mellowinman · #31 12-28-2012, 05:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Definitely

Yes came before PF, Yes is a million times more progressive than PF!

Yes, King Crimson and Jethro Tull are probably more progressive than Pink Floyd or Rush, but that's not what the thread is about.

And I would hardly say "a million times more progressive." I think that's silly. Yes's most progressive piece, "Close to the Edge," is quite comparable to "Echoes."

FretlessMainly · #32 12-28-2012, 05:52 PM

I have to go with Floyd as well. I've been listening to them for 40 years and started listening to Rush in '76. At the time, I liked Rush better because Geddy's playing knocked me out. But over time, Floyd's music has much more staying power to me. Sure, Rush has now done it longer, but their sound is very sterile to my ears. Floyd flows through like a brook followed by a tsunami followed by a warm sunny day. And Rush keeps plodding along mechanically without a groove to be heard. Virtuosos? Certainly.

slapnthebass · #33 12-28-2012, 05:53 PM

What the *** is Art Rock? Yet another genre title that is going way over my head.

rushmaniac15 · #34 12-28-2012, 05:55 PM

floyd didnt come out with a kick ass album in 2012

Trayster2 · #35 12-28-2012, 06:00 PM

+1 for RUSH.

FretlessMainly · #36 12-28-2012, 06:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by slapnthebass

What the *** is Art Rock?

T Rex, David Bowie in the early 70s, for starters.

Bert Slide · #37 12-28-2012, 06:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FretlessMainly

T Rex, David Bowie in the early 70s, for starters.

No. That's Glam rock. Art rock is stuff only artists and hipsters can even pretend to enjoy.

mmbongo · #38 12-28-2012, 06:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rushmaniac15

floyd didnt come out with a kick ass album in 2012

Floyd hasn't had a kick ass album since 1977.

Definitely · #39 12-28-2012, 06:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mellowinman

Yes, King Crimson and Jethro Tull are probably more progressive than Pink Floyd or Rush, but that's not what the thread is about.

And I would hardly say "a million times more progressive." I think that's silly. Yes's most progressive piece, "Close to the Edge," is quite comparable to "Echoes."

Yes' most progressive piece was not Close To The Edge by any means, Tales From Topographic Oceans' four epics outweigh Close To The Edge on an experimental level. That album is one of my winners for prog albums of all time, with Hemispheres alongside it. Nothing has touched me musically the way those two albums did, Cygnus Book II had me imagining the story as a movie every time I listened, even Circumstances still makes me picture things, not sure what it is but that album is just everything to me. TFTO is a close second, but in a Rush vs. PF thread that is why I take Rush. PF may have moody stuff, but it just doesn't hit me like Rush's mythical fantasy concepts.

notverygood · #40 12-28-2012, 07:16 PM

Pink Floyd for me. They did all the prog-type things before most bands. And unlike most other bands, they managed to make it sound musical to everyone. Most people didn't realize they were listening to a band be experimental, they just knew it was good. Rush didn't have that ability, except for Moving Pictures.