Why is Pink Floyd more popular and appealing than Rush?

[Averagebear6]

Better songs, less gymnastics.

And the Pink won't crash your high.

Both bands are amazing when you are sober.

 

[Fender_Bender]

Lee's voice is like fingernails on a chalkboard for me. And there's way too many *** lyrics in there for years at a time that don't draw me in. I like Floyd much better but am far from their biggest fan. They're more accessible to the average person.

 

[Averagebear6]

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.

I remember people being Floyd fanatics, which always annoyed me. Same with the Beatles, Zeppelin. I avoided bands that I felt people over-hyped. But, eventually I sought them out and The Wall changed my world. I bought Moving Pictures as a young teen. Then in my band, my drummer was a Peart/Rush fanatic (what a shocker), so I gradually delved in and out some point they just became amazing on the level of Floyd, Zeppelin, Van Halen, Beatles... and King's X!

That said, these bands are incredibly different, amazing, and cannot compare with each other and there is no "better.'

 

[Xhaxo]

I grew up with Pink Floyd, from the Syd Barret days to Dark Side of the Moon, so they got under my skin in my formative years, and I lived in Cambridge for some time, where they came from. Played lots of their songs in my early bands. I didn't care much for the preachier stuff after DSotM
Never heard any Rush, so I can't compare them.

 

[Averagebear6]

But...you'd be wrong.

Not really right or wrong. Both incredible bands, but as different as Steak and Lobster.

 

[Averagebear6]

I grew up with Pink Floyd, from the Syd Barret days to Dark Side of the Moon, so they got under my skin in my formative years, and I lived in Cambridge for some time, where they came from. Played lots of their songs in my early bands. I didn't care much for the preachier stuff after DSotM
Never heard any Rush, so I can't compare them.

As a Bass Player, Rush has amazing music to offer. you! Listen to Tom Sawyer by Rush for a start.

 

[Averagebear6]

Because Rush suck, outside of a few decent songs. And their odious politics and obnoxious personalities only make it easier to hate them. And their simpering fanboys are the icing on the cake.

The guys in Rush are among the most humble in the world. Geddy Lee when someone asked about being a rock star/great musician, "Look, we're musicians, it's really not that noble of a pursuit." Incredibly refreshing not to have the arrogance and playing rock star like so many other bands.

 

[Stevorebob]

Both bands are amazing when you are sober.

Said no one ever.

 

[Averagebear6]

First of all, I'm not the original poster here. @MidnightRunner is, I hope I've understood their original question correctly, and I'm glad to see they didn't just set this off and vanish. Subsequent comments from @MidnightRunner suggest to me that they like Rush better than Pink Floyd, and if I have that right, it makes sense to wonder why the better band (in their view) isn't as popular; even though I don't think Rush is better (or worse for that matter, in my purely subjective opinion), I still wonder what makes one measurably more popular than the other, and wish we could explore that question instead just shouting about who we think is better.

I haven't seen any serious arguments here or anywhere else that Rush is (globally) more popular than Pink Floyd. If you or anyone else here thinks Rush has a measurable edge in global popularity can produce some objective support for that argument, I would love to see it (really!). If sales of merchandise, concert tickets, and recorded music aren't the best available measures of popularity (which does not equal quality, as I've taken great care to say), what would you suggest in their place?

I'm working from the first definition of popular here, which is measurable:

View attachment 4772770

The other definitions don't seem like what @MidnightRunner was asking, and I think Pink Floyd and Rush would be the only ones who could answer if we went with any other definition. What definition do you suggest we consider here, if not the first one?

I don't understand what you're trying to say about incivility and dissent. Dissent is dissent, whether it's civil or not. I don't see how I have confused the two terms. While I wish contributors would explain Pink Floyd's measurably greater popularity without taking an insulting tone toward Rush, I have not told anyone they can't, nor shall I. I reserve my right to express my displeasure with it. I also reserve my right to express my displeasure at what I perceive as your misrepresentation of my positions. I invite you to find one instance of me suggesting that Pink Floyd is better than Rush because they've outsold and outdrawn them, but I can save you the trouble: my preference between the two would be entirely dependent upon my mood at the time you asked. As I said upon my entry to the conversation, I'm a casual fan of both, and I will add now that I'm glad I don't have to choose.

 

[Averagebear6]

Here is wisdom right here: My preference between the two would be entirely dependent upon my mood at the time you asked

 

[BEvans383]

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.

I agree, while both are awesome in my opinion, they don't really belong in the same category. At least I would never compare them head to head.

 

[Averagebear6]

Said no one ever.

Most people eventually grow up and get sober (aside from the burnouts, no offense... but for the grace of God would have gone I) so we must respectfully disagree on that one.

 

[Malak the Mad]

Both bands are amazing when you are sober.

Said no one ever.

Sorry, but says "me" forever, digging both bands while being clean and sober all my life.
(...well, except for that one day where some strong, over-the-counter meds informed me I'd be an angry, possibly violent drunk. Learning experience, that was! )

 

[Malak the Mad]

All this subjective hate for Geddy's vocals reminds me of a singular day back in 2007. I called up a big, Philly-area rock station to ask them to play "Far Cry" from the yet-to-be released album, "Snakes and Arrows". The DJ, trying as best he could to be polite, told me, "Sorry, man, but I just can't get into Geddy Lee's vocals." Trying to return his politeness, I told him, "Don't worry about it. It's okay. RUSH isn't for everyone."

He then proceeds to make some kind of gasp, as if I'd smacked him upside the head.

I swear I didn't mean it as a slam or anything, but his reaction(s) to my request and response caused me to realize the power in that statement; "RUSH isn't for everyone". If you say it with a conciliatory tone, it reflects one's understanding of that very fact. But, if you say it with as much quiet, dignified and assured loftiness as you can summon, it's a weapon.

Later that night is when I coined the other phrase regarding my favorite band; "There is no such thing as a casual RUSH fan!"

Years later, I shared that sentiment with a client of mine who does lighting and rigging for the Prudential Center in Newark, NJ. He asked me if I was at the show, which happened to be for their R40 tour (thus, the last RUSH show I would ever see ), and I told him I was there with a friend. He then tells me how one of his black co-workers, who'd never seen such a huge crowd be so energetic, but simultaneously responsive to a band, tells him, "Y'all white people are crazy!"

My response to his story was simply, "Not 'white people', my friend...'RUSH fans'. Color's got nothin' to do with it.", which I feel lends more weight to my "casual RUSH fan" theory.

 

[ryco]

Pink Floyd is easier to listen to for most listeners.

Rush is rhythmicly tricker, more dissonent, and more frantic.
And then there is Geddy's voice.....

I like both bands.

 

[Mpcorb]

From a bass guitar perspective, Rush are infinitely more interesting, non?

 

[Stevorebob]

Most people eventually grow up and get sober (aside from the burnouts, no offense... but for the grace of God would have gone I) so we must respectfully disagree on that one.

Sorry, but says "me" forever, digging both bands while being clean and sober all my life.
(...well, except for that one day where some strong, over-the-counter meds informed me I'd be an angry, possibly violent drunk. Learning experience, that was! )

It was a joke. Like "Cool Prius, said no one ever." Oh, never mind.

 

[James Meacham]

IMHO, Rush's muscianship is phonemenal! IMHO, Alex Liefson's songwriting is extremely underrated. To my ears, Geddy Lee has one of the most annoying voices in the history of Homo sapiens. Everytime I hear it, I want to smash my radio and run away as fast as I can.

 

[Averagebear6]

It was a joke. Like "Cool Prius, said no one ever." Oh, never mind.

Right... SNL

 

[5StringBlues]

My mind is not for rent.