Why is Pink Floyd more popular and appealing than Rush?

[two fingers]

I don't know a single woman who likes either of them.

I think Floyd simply put out way more radio friendly songs. Back then, radio was king. They likely crossed over formats with plenty of their songs.

Songs like "Wish You Were Here", "Comfortably Numb", "Another Brick int the Wall", "Money", and "Learning to Fly" can break out of the "classic rock" format and even make it into the mom rock or office rock lists. I can't think of a single Rush song that crosses over like that.

 

[MidnightRunner]

Because it can be danced to. Oh, wait...

Nah, you just cannot dance to PF music.

 

[5StringBlues]

You can dance to any music. I did a tango with Peggy Rutowski to Purple Haze at a party in highschool.

Nah, you just cannot dance to PF music.

 

[DeepHz]

Acid? .... Sorry I just had a flashback

 

[DanAdams]

That's subjective as hell.

Three dumb emoticons including the huge smile and winky face already indicate that it was a joke, and "subjective as hell". Any question like this kinda demands a subjective response.
Everything is subjective. We are all subjects.
Is any response here is fact based? If so show me the rule book for musical opinions.
I'll go one further, my statement was also facetious.

 

[3bc]

Well 2 out 3 are much better singers.

The songs are better.

The lyrics are much much much better.

RUSH has better virtuosity with their musicianship but that's not enough to make up for all the other things.

And any lack of virtuosity in David Gilmour's guitar playing was more than offset by his unparalleled melodic sensibilities.

I would argue that there is virtuosity in Gilmore's playing. You could put the same guitar in Clapton's hands and tell him to play the same solos and they wouldn't sound the same (or as good IMO). More goes into virtuosity than just pure speed.

 

[58kites]

Because Pink Floyd broke new ground and created something unique.
Because Pink Floyd's guitar player has a sound like nobody else, his solos are instantly recognizable.
Because they have recorded some of the greatest rock songs ever.
Because their vocals are pretty easy to listen to.
Because their keyboard player was fantastic.
Because some of their live shows were legendary.

A lot of this could apply to Rush - arguably the first progressive metal band ever.

Rush is not metal, they were a hard rock band that aspired to be Yes. Not new ground.
Rush's guitar player does not have a sound like nobody else, his solos are not instantly recognizable (unless you own their records)
Tom Sawyer and New World Man are not two of the greatest rock songs ever.
Geddy's vocals are not easy to listen to.
Geddy is not a great keyboard player, Richard Wright was. Geddy would admit that with no reservation.
Rush did not create live shows on the scale of Pink Floyd's.

 

[3bc]

Prog rock is definitely for a particular audience. This Canadian also recognizes that Canadian bands in the USA aren't as revered as dearly as American bands in the USA.

I don't think Rush minds very much about their appeal. People "get it" or they "don't get it".
I love the blues-y guitar in Pink Floyd songs.

If you have a moment make sure you watch the Rush doc "Beyond the Lighted Stage". It made me appreciate them so much more.

I don't think where a band is from matters to Americans nearly as much as it does to Canadians or Brits or whatever. America's "biggest" rock bands are Aerosmith, eagles, Fleetwood Mac, etc are decidedly less popular in than the Beatles, stones, AC/DC, etc.

Canadians seem to have a soft spot for Rush a way that nobody else in the world do. The Brits seem to have a soft spot for stuff like Robbie Williams in a way that literally nobody else does. Americans don't especially have a soft spot even for our own most popular bands

 

[smtp4me]

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?

Blasphemy... pure blasphemy!

But seriously, I am a fan of both bands although Rush is my overall favorite rock band. I'm a life-time fanboy. I think they are less popular because their music is more complex - their typical song includes odd time signatures and a lot of musical textures, AND it's essentially hard/heavy rock on steroids. Pink Floyd is more "mainstream", IMHO.

 

[boombloom]

I simply can't get past Geddy Lee's voice. Apart from that I think of them as two very different bands and I see no reason to compare them.

 

[Raoul_Duke]

They made better music?

I'm not trying to sound like a douche, but that is my opinion and I think it is also the prevailing opinion, and that is why they are/were more popular.

 

[3bc]

I also agree that this is a silly apples to oranges comparison (and I took the bait!) And while on the subjects of apples to oranges comparisons, I'm going to borrow one from a different art form.

Comparing Rush to PF is like comparing "Moonlit Landscape over Bridge" to Starry Night. Both paintings. Both night scenes. One requires a greater degree of technical skill than the other, but hundreds of years later, mostly only people who studied art in college have any real chance of knowing what both of these paintings actually are. IMO that is Rush, forgettable technical achievement that will not survive the test of time in a meaningful way, that failed to touch a chord or touch a nerve or the emotions or imaginations of a wide audience.

 

[baileyboy]

My ex-girlfriend loved PF, one of her favorite bands.

PF has a mellow, "sit around and pass a joint vibe". Girls can even slow dance to many PF tunes. Voices are melodic, easy on-the-ears.

Rush has harsh vocals, especially some of the earlier tunes. Songs are rhythmically complex, girls can dance to a handful of songs. Rush members are not physically appealing to women For all these reasons, women fan base is slim.

I love both bands, but Rush is my favorite.

 

[MidnightRunner]

Why is Celine Dion more popular than Pink Floyd?
View attachment 4772332

Why is Britney Spears incomparably more successful than Charles Mingus?

 

[5StringBlues]

Why? Why? Why?

 

[gmarcus]

Vocals

 

[EriktheRed]

What is this "more popular and appealing" of which you speak?

 

[EriktheRed]

Well, when you're high as a kite and sitting in a bean bag chair in the 70s

Comfortably Numb….or YYZ?

As someone who was in that position in the 80s I found both would produce music that was pretty cool to listen to in that state of mind.

 

[MonetBass]

Two different bands, IMO. Pink Floyd is no more popular than Rush, depending on which phase of their careers you mean. And each band's appeal will vary from person to person. I love both bands for different reasons.

 

[basslicks]

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.

That's a pretty rigid definition of the word "musicianship". IMO there's nothing that becomes more ear fatiguing than "virtuosic" playing. It's one of those things that's kinda neat for 5 mins but then it becomes boring to me. I'm not the biggest Floyd fan, but at least for me their music can evoke emotions, whereas the only feeling I get when I hear more than 2-3 Rush songs in a row is "I kinda wanna turn this off".