Why is Pink Floyd more popular and appealing than Rush?

[Neil Folkard]

Worldwide, comparing to Pink Floyd, they are a small band. Bands as big as Pink Floyd, are The Beatles, Elvis, Queen, Rolling Stones, and maybe one or two more. Not Rush.

Of course. The Foo Fighters are small compared to the Beatles...so what? That doesn't make them a small band. Rush have sold millions of albums and played concerts to over 60,000 people. Moving on.

 

[J_Bass]

And I acknowledged that PF is bigger, so I'm still missing the point, lol. Moving on.

I was responding at the question on the OP.

I quoted your post as a reference, but I was answering to the general question. I wasn't trying to directly contradict you. Sorry if that was the impression I gave.

 

[MYLOWFREQ]

Vocals.

 

[sleddogn]

dang, some get so mad when everyone else doesn't agree. These types of threads are just "mad" bait..there is no right answer if there was, then why the hell are we here?

 

[BadSanta1281]

People get pretty worked up when you don't like what they like.

 

[bikeplate]

Not more popular or appraling as far as I'm concerned

 

[Hot Rats]

What is a good way to measure popularity? Album sales I guess. What drives album sales? Who the hell knows.

 

[58kites]

First, let's start what they have in common:
1) They both evolved, soundwise, throughout their careers.
2) They both followed their own arrows in terms of what they wanted to sound like.
3) They both had "greatest of all time" musicians, but not for the same reasons.
4) They both used any technology that made sense to make the music they wanted to make.
5) They both made some concept albums.
6) They had profound interconnection/interplay between musicians in the band. (Gilmour/Wright, Alex/Geddy/Neil)
7) You could probably but some labels on their genres that overlapped.
8) They both had multiple Magnum Opus albums.

What they had that was different:
1) The scope of the visual, technological, and aesthetic of Floyd's performance far surpassed Rush's.
2) Floyd was, in general, more serious, and more storytelling-through-music oriented in a way that was less intense.
3) Floyd's sound is likeable across genres to a broader variety of people.
4) Rush was a considerably more hard touring band, reaching more people live.
5) Floyd had a GOAT level guitarist in Gilmour. People across genres aspire to sound and play like him. People who love Rush love Alex, but he isn't a Rushmore guitarist.
6) David Gilmour has a vocalist sound that is not polarizing in any way. He may have one of the most soothing, palatable lead singing voices in rock history.
7) The members of Floyd were different enough to play each other's foils, musically, character-wise, and on stage. This is part of the reason they had so much drama.
8) Rush was considerably more technically oriented. There was probably no musician in Floyd that had the virtuosity of Peart or Lee.
9) Rush were sillier. This is a difference, not a pro or con.
10) Rush was, on average, considerably more energetic in their sound and delivery.
11) Floyd's Magnum Opus albums were bigger in scale.

So, those are the differences in my mind. Most great guitarists, even ones consider icons, wouldn't be considered as universally great as Geddy Lee... except, well, guys like David Gilmour. And for Gilmour it was never about technicality, it was about style.
Floyd's albums just penetrate the soul in a different way.
I love Rush though.

Not a chance.
Walk into any Macys, JCPenny, TJMaxx, PacSun, Hot Topic, Spencers, FYE, etc. and you will find tons of Pink Floyd gear compared to Rush.
Did Rush tour harder? Yes. But Floyd has been relevant through the entirety of their existence. Imagine a single member of Rush with a bunch of studio musicians selling out 20,000-30,000 seats supporting a solo album and playing a few Rush songs? It wouldn't happen. It happened for Gilmour and Waters.
I think Geddy inspired more bassists than Roger/Guy, and I think Peart inspired more drummers than Nick Mason.
I think David Gilmour inspired an exponentially larger number of guitarists than Alex Lifeson, so many that it is likely greater than those Geddy and Peart inspired combined.

Well said and well said.

 

[MidnightRunner]

Pink Floyd is a global phenomenon. Everybody knows them, world wide. Almost everybody can name a couple of their tunes. Who doesn't know Wish You Were Here, or Another Brick in the Wall?


Rush is a regional band. A band whose following is probably almost all in North America. Maybe they have some recognition in anglo-saxonic countries.

In Europe, as I can see, Rush are almost insignificant. Pink Floyd are considered one of the greatest bands the world ever saw.



There really is no discussion about this. Not a rational one, at least.

Is a song "Tom Sawyer" famous in Portugal?

 

[Dincrest]

Women don't like it when guys rush.

As for Floyd, he's confident enough to wear pink, rocks the hell out of that color, and women like confident guys.

"Pink" Floyd wins.

This is a troll response.

 

[sleddogn]

at least us rush fans aren't having to answer which one is pink? just saw water's on national news show, whoa

 

[J_Bass]

Is a song "Tom Sawyer" famous in Portugal?

Not at all.

This is what you get when you search "Tom Sawyer song" in Portuguese:

 

[MidnightRunner]

Not at all.

This is what you get when you search "Tom Sawyer song" in Portuguese:
View attachment 4773884

But "Wish You Were Here" is a famous tune there?

 

[J_Bass]

Yeah, everybody knows Pink Floyd.

I grew up listening to them, my father has a couple of albums from them.

PINK FLOYD LEAD TOP OF THE MOST SELLING RECORDS IN PORTUGAL 19 October 2021, 12:07 The accounts of the Portuguese Phonographic Association for the last week have already been released. The British Pink Floyd lead the top of the best-selling albums in Portugal with the mythical "The Dark Side of the Moon", a colossal work they released in 1973 and which includes themes such as 'Money', 'Time', 'The Great Gig in the Sky', 'Us and Them', among others.

 

[5StringBlues]

This has been constructive. But I can only give it two floating dogheads.

 

[basseux]

Bands like Rush or Yes are totally unknown in Europe.

In fact I can't really see what is comparable between Pink Floyd and Rush in terms of music.

 

[basseux]

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.

Composition of Pink Floyd are so great they don't even need top musicianship, that is, if you don't consider composition as musicianship.
It's like a band like Nirvana, and I think they were way better musicians than Nirvana of course, so you get a great overall level.

I think Pink Floyd could have stopped after the first album The Piper Of At the gate of The Dawn and it already would be one of the all time best band.
And they kind of did that, because it's not really the same band after Sid Barret left.

 

[MidnightRunner]

Composition of Pink Floyd are so great they don't even need top musicianship, that is, if you don't consider composition as musicianship.
It's like a band like Nirvana, and I think they were way better musicians than Nirvana of course, so you get a great overall level.

I think Pink Floyd could have stopped after the first album The Piper Of At the gate of The Dawn and it already would be one of the all time best band.
And they kind of did that, because it's not really the same band after Sid Barret left.

The Piper at the Gates of Dawn is far from a mass appeal album.

 

[MidnightRunner]

Bands like Rush or Yes are totally unknown in Europe.

I don't think it's true.

 

[Stevorebob]

"Music is the space between the notes." — Debussy