Why is Pink Floyd more popular and appealing than Rush?

[Geoff Wood]

Floyd music is all-round deeper musically, lyrically, and conceptually. And more pleasing to listen to.

Rush is more about expressing excess testosterone (the geeky flavour) and musical masturbation. Suits some people.

 

[Geoff Wood]

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.

'Musicianship' is a lot more than scales, speed, and key changes.

 

[5StringBlues]

Constructive, all right.

 

[Geoff Wood]

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.

... and I bet you know all the PF lyrics word-for-word. I wonder how many people remember as many Rush lyrics ?

 

[Geoff Wood]

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.

Clearly you are meeting the wrong women ;-)

 

[WG Plum]

Clearly you are meeting the wrong women ;-)

You have no idea.

 

[Geoff Wood]

You have no idea.

True. But I am so blessed to be with one who is a committed Floydienne - a condition which carries great heart and passion. As are most other women I know.
Few have even heard of Rush, which is a little disappointing ....

 

[Muaddibb]

Are you takin the mick? That's apples to oranges now innit?

 

[Gottaplaybass]

If I had to pick three favorite bands they would be Yes, Rush and Floyd. They are all three different flavors.

 

[Rnr..........4]

I find Axl Rose's vocals to be the worst. All the radio stations over play GnR too so it becomes grating.

Geddy's are just so unique. Maybe because I am a sci fi, fantasy fan I can appreciate his unique style.

 

[58kites]

The musicianship in PF can't come close to touching Rush.

By having to prove that on every song on every record, it gets repetitive and diminishes the impact.
This is the criticism that often gets directed towards Rush's music.
Their hardcore fans love the constant gymnastics, lots of people can take it or leave it.

David Gilmour is in the very top shelf of rock guitar players and he is recognized as such by his peers.
Like the other people in that category, his sound, his style and his music sets him apart from the rest of the pack.

Richard Wright occupied the same top shelf space with his work.
Right up there with Rick Wakeman, Tony Kaye, Tony Banks, Keith Emerson, Jon Lord, Jan Hammer, Patrick Moraz, Jordan Rudess.

While I agree that Neil Peart was an excellent drummer, he overplayed constantly.

IN MY OPINION.....

 

[fourstringdrums]

Drugs?

 

[MikePlaysBass]

I think you actually answered your own question. It’s popularity.
More radio hits and commercial exposure. I think it’s that simple. More people across the planet have heard Pink Floyd than have heard Rush. It’s not the number of albums or even being able to sellout a stadium. And let’s not even get in the talent versus success debate. Almost everybody knows a few Pink Floyd songs. Rush is popular and they have a lot of fans, but they just never got on most people’s radar the same way that Pink Floyd did. In a nutshell, Pink Floyd has had more commercial success. Do you know anyone who can’t name at least a few if not most of the songs off of just the Dark Side of the Moon album? I don’t. Besides Tom Sawyer, how many Rush songs could almost anyone name off the top of their head?
I know. It sucks, but that’s the music business.

 

[Wibble666]

a lot of thought goes into a floyd track (with waters of course) ...with rush the lyrics are by the drummer and i feel he is doing it because he has to rather than needs to, with waters it's all about the lyrics and the meaning. With three other strong musicians in the band floyd are solid, they came from an architectural background and it shows in how they build a masterpiece ...and that includes such principals as "less is more" and "form follows function" ....rush looked up to bands such as floyd and emulate them, floyd innovated. i write this as a fan of both bands ...waters isn't a great bass player but that was never the point with floyd ...it's about the whole rather than the parts ....with rush it's always about the parts. floyd are in a different league.

 

[P_Dubby]

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.

Man, I couldn't agree with this post more. In high school (the '70's), I was HUGE Rush Fanboy (couple of Ric's, etc.). That lasted until the mid-'80's. Then, I REALLY started listening to PF. Wow. Lyrics, vocals (Geddy has always been just a bit too shrill, IMO), and yes -- Alex is a FANTASTIC guitarist. But, the more I listen to Gilmour, the more I'm convinced he is one one the most tasteful guitarists who ever lived.

Of course, YMMV, & I'm SURE there will be some disagreement, but, it's a big world out there.

 

[Buffalo Man]

Rush was kinda creepy and nerdy for my taste. I wasn’t into that scene. I was into chilling and solving the worlds problems to the ambience of Sid Barret’s Opal. Thats the real topic here.. early PF or Post Barrett PF???

 

[58kites]

I was into chilling and solving the worlds problems to the ambience of Sid Barret’s Opal. Thats the real topic here.. early PF or Post Barrett PF???

Post

 

[Geoff Wood]

Say no more. And Guy Pratt for those who have a problem with Waters !
Maybe just not enough notes for some peoples' taste.

 

[aureliab20gt]

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?

Think So?.......Pink Floyd just send me to sleep

 

[-Asdfgh-]

Rush is a dreadful sound to a cultured ear. Abrasive in the extreme.
Floyd was a ever evolving band that became more melodic and smoother in time to the point of eliminating any abrasiveness completely from their sound.

First impressions of Rush nearly 50 years ago was laughter at the sound and smashing the LP, never to be heard again for decades until visiting the US where they were/are a local identity.

Floyd's beginning was in a time of avantgarde allowances in music where "underground" was "cool" so fit a market segment that was there, but not mainstream. It evolved in the 70's to attract larger global audiences.

Looked up a site called Best Selling Albums and according to their figures Rush sold
Canada - 28 LP's = 2,543,001
UK - 12 LP's = 840,000
US - 28 LP's =24.083.334

Floyd sold 250 million and Dark Side sold 50 Million alone.

The market apparently agrees with me.

As noted, Britney Spears has sold 100 million records in twenty years, so her selling rate makes her as good as Pink Floyd. I wouldn't use sales as a metric of quality because of this. Not that I'm saying that Spears' music (or rather the writers') is without merit, just that it's not the whole story. I've listened to some impressive stuff by tiny bands that has sold about three dozen records. A friend's unknown band was offered the chance to have one of their songs be used in advertisements by a major car manufacturer and turned it down. They might well have sold many records on the back of that, but it wouldn't have altered the quality of the song.