Got a sparknotes version of what Gilmour does that's similar to great jazz players? Sounds like a really interesting analysis
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
Got a sparknotes version of what Gilmour does that's similar to great jazz players? Sounds like a really interesting analysis
Ric5
Inactive
- Jan 29, 2008
- 29,772
- 30,452
- Disclosures
- I like 5, 8, 10, and 12 string basses
Pink Floyd is more mainstream as illustrated by this track
(6326) Several Species Of Small Furry Animals Gathered Together In A Cave And Grooving With A Pict... - YouTube
Last edited:
Got a sparknotes version of what Gilmour does that's similar to great jazz players? Sounds like a really interesting analysis
In a nutshell, he outlines the chord changes by landing on a chord tone on the downbeat of the chord changing. Nothing has changed since Bach in that regard!
I don't think there's ever been a more interesting musical journey than these five albums played back to back:
Meddle
The Dark Side of the Moon
Wish You Were Here
Animals
The Wall
There aren't a lot of singles really - each one is meant to be listened to in its entirety. And frankly if one starts with Meddle, little inklings and foreshadowing is evident of what would eventually become DSotM - especially the song Echoes. And then from DSotM, the band begins to mature right before one's eyes (ears). The writing gets more sophisticated, the themes more cohesive, and the musicianship and even production gets better. By the time Wish You Were Here comes along, the band starts to expand into new sonic territory primarily in the form of Richard Wright's synths. Animals give the first hints of a dark underbelly to what would eventually become The Wall. On Animals, Roger Waters sings in earnest for the first time and all the while his song writing skills improve. Then there is the magnum opus that is The Wall - a triumph of analog music production. The layers of sounds - the guitar tones, the bass tones, the samples of sound effects - all working to paint a portrait of a descent into insanity.
I typically listen to these albums in order a few times a year while commuting to and from work. It takes a week or so to get through them. I don't ever really listen to one off songs or have them shuffled in a spotify playlist. I go from One of These Days on Meddle to Outside the Wall on The Wall. And by the end I am completely in another world. Honestly there's just nothing else like it to me. These albums are so good to me that I don't really listen to a lot of PF otherwise because I'm so drained by the end of it.
To me PF is one of those bands that has lots of fans who think that no one can ever understand the band as well as they do. It's like Waters was writing these songs ABOUT ME and TO ME. It's such a personal thing. Roger Waters' writing and Gilmour's singing and playing are just such an incredible combination. It's a shame they couldn't get along with each other, but in a way, it's probably just the way things were inevitably going to be.
I dig Rush a ton. I probably listen to Rush more often than PF. But it's usually a song here and and a song there. I am constantly blown away by their musicianship and they embody perfectly everything that makes Prog rock great. But to me, there is a reason that PF has sold more than 250 million albums and Rush has sold 40 million. ymmv.
These are just my .02 about something very personal to me. I know there are plenty of arguments against my POV and that's cool.
Meddle
The Dark Side of the Moon
Wish You Were Here
Animals
The Wall
There aren't a lot of singles really - each one is meant to be listened to in its entirety. And frankly if one starts with Meddle, little inklings and foreshadowing is evident of what would eventually become DSotM - especially the song Echoes. And then from DSotM, the band begins to mature right before one's eyes (ears). The writing gets more sophisticated, the themes more cohesive, and the musicianship and even production gets better. By the time Wish You Were Here comes along, the band starts to expand into new sonic territory primarily in the form of Richard Wright's synths. Animals give the first hints of a dark underbelly to what would eventually become The Wall. On Animals, Roger Waters sings in earnest for the first time and all the while his song writing skills improve. Then there is the magnum opus that is The Wall - a triumph of analog music production. The layers of sounds - the guitar tones, the bass tones, the samples of sound effects - all working to paint a portrait of a descent into insanity.
I typically listen to these albums in order a few times a year while commuting to and from work. It takes a week or so to get through them. I don't ever really listen to one off songs or have them shuffled in a spotify playlist. I go from One of These Days on Meddle to Outside the Wall on The Wall. And by the end I am completely in another world. Honestly there's just nothing else like it to me. These albums are so good to me that I don't really listen to a lot of PF otherwise because I'm so drained by the end of it.
To me PF is one of those bands that has lots of fans who think that no one can ever understand the band as well as they do. It's like Waters was writing these songs ABOUT ME and TO ME. It's such a personal thing. Roger Waters' writing and Gilmour's singing and playing are just such an incredible combination. It's a shame they couldn't get along with each other, but in a way, it's probably just the way things were inevitably going to be.
I dig Rush a ton. I probably listen to Rush more often than PF. But it's usually a song here and and a song there. I am constantly blown away by their musicianship and they embody perfectly everything that makes Prog rock great. But to me, there is a reason that PF has sold more than 250 million albums and Rush has sold 40 million. ymmv.
These are just my .02 about something very personal to me. I know there are plenty of arguments against my POV and that's cool.
Floyd has a considerable headstart in pop culture (first monster hit album was 1973, and that was their SEVENTH ALBUM ( first was 1967!). Rushe's debut album didn't come out til 1974, and basically went nowhere in the charts at the time. Rushe's first RIAA platinum or gold certification didn't happen until 1981, with their double-live album "All the World's A Stage" (which was their fourth LP release!) . They did make 'GOLD' record sales for their first three records eventually (in 1976) but "GOLD" certification in Canada is only 40,000 units (not a "million-seller" by any means...)
In Canada, to date 25 of their records have made "GOLD", 18 have gone "PLATINUM" (80,000 units sold), and only One has gone Quad-Platinum (240,000 units). They have sold a tonne of DVDs, though (at least in Canada!) see Gold/Platinum - Music Canada
In Canada, to date 25 of their records have made "GOLD", 18 have gone "PLATINUM" (80,000 units sold), and only One has gone Quad-Platinum (240,000 units). They have sold a tonne of DVDs, though (at least in Canada!) see Gold/Platinum - Music Canada
Pink Floyd has better writing, performing, variety of timbres, deep focus on using state of the art equipment and techniques... Rush is boring by comparison even if you could argue the bass and drums are more technical.
This question always comes up in some form:
Why not Rush instead of ______________________ ?
The musician side of me admires the living hell out of their work. In many ways, Neil's Olympian drumming, Geddy's textbook for Prog rock bass playing, and Alex playing perfect guitar on top of those two is without peer, from a skills standpoint. On the other hand, Geddy's voice, while suited to what they do, is just grating, especially singing Neil's often obtuse lyrics. For all of the mountains of amazing music they made, it's hard for me to pick out a great lyric or melody I'd sing in the shower. I hate to say that in a way, but it's just the way it is. They are genuinely good men who went to great pains to do great shows for their thousands of fans, probably one of the most fan-friendly bands I can think of.
For me, a parallel that went the other way is Steely Dan. Again, even though it was often hired, world-class session players on their best work, and on top of Donald's deep jazz influences, the leavening that Walter applied, that slight blues taste and the crazy chords they could come up with still wound up being melodies (though CERTAINLY lyrics just as obtuse at times!) and lyrics that just sat well with most people. Fan friendly, well, maybe for Eskimos or Lapp landers, more than a little icy a lot of times.
I'd never question Rush as tremendous musicians or good men, but for a lot of people, like really good Scotch, they can be an acquired taste, tremendous for those with a taste for it, needlessly nerdy for other people.
Why not Rush instead of ______________________ ?
The musician side of me admires the living hell out of their work. In many ways, Neil's Olympian drumming, Geddy's textbook for Prog rock bass playing, and Alex playing perfect guitar on top of those two is without peer, from a skills standpoint. On the other hand, Geddy's voice, while suited to what they do, is just grating, especially singing Neil's often obtuse lyrics. For all of the mountains of amazing music they made, it's hard for me to pick out a great lyric or melody I'd sing in the shower. I hate to say that in a way, but it's just the way it is. They are genuinely good men who went to great pains to do great shows for their thousands of fans, probably one of the most fan-friendly bands I can think of.
For me, a parallel that went the other way is Steely Dan. Again, even though it was often hired, world-class session players on their best work, and on top of Donald's deep jazz influences, the leavening that Walter applied, that slight blues taste and the crazy chords they could come up with still wound up being melodies (though CERTAINLY lyrics just as obtuse at times!) and lyrics that just sat well with most people. Fan friendly, well, maybe for Eskimos or Lapp landers, more than a little icy a lot of times.
I'd never question Rush as tremendous musicians or good men, but for a lot of people, like really good Scotch, they can be an acquired taste, tremendous for those with a taste for it, needlessly nerdy for other people.
'I'm going to take a stab hear a suggest that Geddy's singing being an acquired taste might be an issue for some.
No one likes to hear their favorite artists insulted, so I understand tempers flaring at those who couldn't keep their criticisms civil; but I think the ire aimed at the very question is entirely unwarranted. By objective measures quoted below by those who thankfully saved me the work of finding them, Rush and Pink Floyd both enjoy enduring global popularity, but Pink Floyd clearly has consistently outsold and outdrawn Rush. Pink Floyd is more popular than Rush; it's reasonable to wonder why. The measurable difference in popularity does not make Pink Floyd better than Rush; a thread suggesting that would be truly pointless, but that's not the question being considered in the original post.
Please see below.
While this is hard to quantify, I suspect you're right, particularly considering the defensiveness of some Rush fans in the thread (which again is understandable given the comments that simply bash Rush).
The premise is sound, at least globally; please see below.
By the reasonable objective measure used here, Pink Floyd is six times more popular than Rush (globally). The "why" isn't something we will ever really be able to pin down, but it's fair to speculate. This also shows how to speculate about it without being a jerk.
Actual data! Informed, civil speculation! Thank you.
Not really; please see above. (Also, I dig your band. Please play in Bigfoot Country sometime.)
And I like Rush just fine.
Please see below.
While this is hard to quantify, I suspect you're right, particularly considering the defensiveness of some Rush fans in the thread (which again is understandable given the comments that simply bash Rush).
The premise is sound, at least globally; please see below.
By the reasonable objective measure used here, Pink Floyd is six times more popular than Rush (globally). The "why" isn't something we will ever really be able to pin down, but it's fair to speculate. This also shows how to speculate about it without being a jerk.
Actual data! Informed, civil speculation! Thank you.
Not really; please see above. (Also, I dig your band. Please play in Bigfoot Country sometime.)
And I like Rush just fine.
Last edited:
The fandom is hard to quantify. But I would say there are a lot more pop-culture references these days to people being hardcore Rush fans, particularly in movies. Quantifying the listeners are pretty easy. Example, Pink Floyd has around 15m monthly listeners on Spotify whereas Rush has around 4m.
It's easier to play stoner air guitar to Gilmour.
I love both but I prefer Floyd.
It took me a long time to appreciate RUSH so maybe it's cultivated taste?
I love both but I prefer Floyd.
It took me a long time to appreciate RUSH so maybe it's cultivated taste?
I was pretty deep into Pink Floyd about 10-15 years ago. Bought all the CDs (even the elusive aforementioned Ummagumma album - Careful with that axe, Eugene is awesome). Over the past couple of years, I've pretty much done the same thing with Rush (this time in digital). For me, I can't really evaluate a comparison between the two because they were doing two very different things. I think you can enjoy the experience of both Pink Floyd and Rush, and highlight or appreciate the things they do, without having to compare really.
As a bass player (and a baseball fan), I'd much rather hang out with Geddy Lee than Roger Waters
As a bass player (and a baseball fan), I'd much rather hang out with Geddy Lee than Roger Waters
Catchy hooks. Smooth, pop sensibility. Agreeable vocals. Guitarist and bassist playing the same song. Sex appeal back in the day.
I like Rush and Floyd and I've seen both many times. But I'll play Shine On… all day long. I'll even go back in time and play Piper. Their songs are arranged better and simply easier to listen to.
And before you say it, I don't want to listen critically. I listen to Rush because the musicianship is stellar. Floyd is more enjoyable to listen to.
I like Rush and Floyd and I've seen both many times. But I'll play Shine On… all day long. I'll even go back in time and play Piper. Their songs are arranged better and simply easier to listen to.
And before you say it, I don't want to listen critically. I listen to Rush because the musicianship is stellar. Floyd is more enjoyable to listen to.
