In general Pink Floyd has a much wider appeal to rock fans than Rush. It seems their music is also more appealing to women.
What do you think, why?
What do you think, why?
Enjoy the benefits of a premium membership!
Upgrade Account
-
TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
Join free Log in
Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.
Why is Pink Floyd more popular and appealing than Rush?
- Thread starter MidnightRunner
- Start date
Vocals, lyrical themes, music. Pink Floyd is just generally easier on the ears.
I love both, but I've yet to meet a woman in person who was gaga over either, tbt.
I love both, but I've yet to meet a woman in person who was gaga over either, tbt.
My initial thoughts: Pink Floyd adheres to more traditional rhythms, chord changes and rock-related passages. Also their sound is heavily orchestrated and about dynamics and textures.
Rush ventures into very atypical harmonies, lyrics and is closer to jazz flows, you really never know what to expect. Also, much more reliant on its musicians mastering rhythmic and melodic “fireworks”, they are all virtuosos
Rush ventures into very atypical harmonies, lyrics and is closer to jazz flows, you really never know what to expect. Also, much more reliant on its musicians mastering rhythmic and melodic “fireworks”, they are all virtuosos
Back in my earlier years, I really didn’t care for either of them.
Pink Floyd seemed slow and uninteresting. Rush…I hated the vocals.
I’m more tolerant these days and I prefer Rush.
Pink Floyd seemed slow and uninteresting. Rush…I hated the vocals.
I’m more tolerant these days and I prefer Rush.
Because they’re more interesting.
The later PF is much more accessible, that is easy digested and enjoyed the ears to the average person. Early PF was not that way.
I cannot listen to Rush. I cannot tolerate the timbre of Lee's vocals. Love the band instrumentally.
Better songs, less gymnastics.
And the Pink won’t crash your high.
And the Pink won’t crash your high.
Pink Floyd are like “Psst…c’mere…let me tell you a story.”
Rush are like DUUUDE! LOOK WHAT I CAN DO!”
Rush are like DUUUDE! LOOK WHAT I CAN DO!”
I don't even understand why you would make this particular one-on-one comparison. "Apples vs. oranges" doesn't even begin to capture the differences.
This exactly. I can sing along to many Pink Floyd songs, and the chord changes are typically pretty simple and melodic. Not that I don't like Rush, but I can only listen to them in small doses. I can listen to Pink Floyd all day.
The vocals. Every woman I ever asked and can include about 80% of men too.
I consider myself a casual fan of both, so no shade to either act intended here.
Geddy Lee’s singing voice is a non-starter for a lot of listeners. I like it well enough, but I get it: for me, it’s anything in the realm of Bon Scott and Brian Johnson, or the legions of lazy gutturals in otherwise good to great metal bands. The rest of the music just won’t matter if the vocals flat-out irritate the listener.
I’m also just old enough to remember when “nerd” was a serious insult, and let’s face it: Rush is music by nerds, for nerds. While all kinds of people have come to embrace nerd-dom and the term has almost entirely lost its sting, the stigma has stuck with Rush (and Yes, and ELP, and associated acts). Stoners and artists (no small part of Pink Floyd’s fan base) may not have been terribly high on the social ladder in high schools in the ‘70s and ‘80s, but nerds were always on the bottom rung.
Finally, I think Pink Floyd was viewed as artsy and serious whereas Rush was viewed as flashy and pretentious even in their respective heydays, and I don’t think much has changed there.
Geddy Lee’s singing voice is a non-starter for a lot of listeners. I like it well enough, but I get it: for me, it’s anything in the realm of Bon Scott and Brian Johnson, or the legions of lazy gutturals in otherwise good to great metal bands. The rest of the music just won’t matter if the vocals flat-out irritate the listener.
I’m also just old enough to remember when “nerd” was a serious insult, and let’s face it: Rush is music by nerds, for nerds. While all kinds of people have come to embrace nerd-dom and the term has almost entirely lost its sting, the stigma has stuck with Rush (and Yes, and ELP, and associated acts). Stoners and artists (no small part of Pink Floyd’s fan base) may not have been terribly high on the social ladder in high schools in the ‘70s and ‘80s, but nerds were always on the bottom rung.
Finally, I think Pink Floyd was viewed as artsy and serious whereas Rush was viewed as flashy and pretentious even in their respective heydays, and I don’t think much has changed there.
I realize that the comparison is somewhat in jest, but Rush just did what they wanted. They pushed themselves to make the best music that they thought they could make. It was never about showing off.
Interestingly, I think that Rush picked up a lot more female fans later in their career; probably from about Moving Pictures onwards.
I like both bands a lot, but being from Toronto, of course I have a soft spot and a connection with Rush. They were key in my early years, and spoke to the shy, nerdy guy that I was.
I am probably the outlier here, but I personally never understood the appeal of Pink Floyd at all. I don't know how much I love Geddy's voice, but the total package of Rush is so much better. The musicianship in PF can't come close to touching Rush.
Great music is about more than great musicianship.
Two different approaches to Prog Rock. Both unique in their own respective styles.
Out of all of them, I was a huge Yes fan more than Floyd and Rush combined.
Out of all of them, I was a huge Yes fan more than Floyd and Rush combined.
