Why is Pink Floyd more popular and appealing than Rush?

[dirtychinchilla]

In the UK at least, Pink Floyd is very much part of the cultural tapestry. OK, not everyone knows or listens to Pink Floyd, but I bet most people know about the pig and Battersea Power Station. They're up there with Queen and The Beatles. Rush have no cultural presence for us as far as I'm aware.

 

[glocke1]

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.

First post nails it. I do love RUSH....but Geddys vocals grow tiring for me after awhile and I just have to step away from them for a few months

 

[Ekulati]

I really have no opinion on the two since I'm not a fan of either but I'm kind of curious, why is all of these threads always comparing Rush? Am I to expect Rush vs The Dubliners next week or something? I'm just having a craic, don't take me seriously

Why yes, of course! Because Rush is the officially annointed pinnacle of music here on TB against which all others are measured. Random barrages of notes which present a new chord, many of which are synthetic,* every beat and a half, combined with "let's show how clever we are by throwing in weird, difficult meters every other bar" is the standard, the bar all music must aspire to. Then there's that guy's voice. Sounds kind of operatic, therefore it must be good.

It's all just off the charts nerdness. Where the "music/math" commonality jumps the shark. In my opinion only.

 

[5StringBlues]

GA DING GA DING GA DING GA DING!

 

[denton57]

Didn't read the whole thread, but the best part of Rush is Alex Lifeson. Best part of Floyd is Gilmour. I'll take Gilmour and that Echoes to Dogs era personally.

I've tried to like Rush. If they were an instrumental band, I'd be onboard. It's the vocals, sorry. Floyd is mixed on vocals as well for me, usually Waters is too much.

 

[zubrycky]

When I was a lad, I enjoyed them both equally, for different reasons. I learned a lot of their stuff on guitar from records in the teenage years. To this day, I count Gilmour as a tremendous early influence. I even use his solos in my jazz analysis class at the U to show that he outlines changes in the same way that great jazz musicians do. Fantastic melodic player.

David Gilmour's guitar solos are an integral part of the songs. They're iconic. If you change them the song will sound wrong. This hability is quite rare among guitarists and it's not an easy thing to do.

 

[5StringBlues]

Can we wrap this up? I really should get some sleep.

 

[Stranger Danger]

Comparison is the thief of joy

In my world it's Phish vs Widespread Panic.

 

[MidnightRunner]

Maybe it's because Pink Floyd sounds good and Rush sounds bad.

That's subjective as hell.

 

[zubrycky]

The answer is simple. Pink Floyd's grass is greener.

 

[marchone]

Simply put, Pink Floyd is more melodic.

 

[Dabndug]

In the UK at least, Pink Floyd is very much part of the cultural tapestry. OK, not everyone knows or listens to Pink Floyd, but I bet most people know about the pig and Battersea Power Station. They're up there with Queen and The Beatles. Rush have no cultural presence for us as far as I'm aware.

This is true of Australia too. Almost no recognition or impact in a broad cultural sense.

 

[80jazz]

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.

 

[E2942]

Why do people who live in Texas or Southern California eat at Taco Bell?

 

[kodiakblair]

What do you think, why?

I've no idea , loathe both of them equally

 

[DwaynieAD]

Cuz pink Floyd is 70s pop music for stoners and rush isn't pop music. Not that hard

 

[StereoPlayer]

 

[3bc]

As someone who loves Pink Floyd and hates rush I feel qualified to answer! (For once)

Pink Floyd write songs that have deep and relatable themes. Sonically they explored much prettier and more interesting places than rush. Their lyrics were sophisticated in telling their stories. The musicianship is also excellent without trying to sound like they are trying to show off. Even the guitar solos, are deeply melodic and hummable and memorable and serve the son musically, not just present an opportunity to try to show off. The vocals don't make me want to immediately turn their music off. They have two albums that are widely considered to be among the greatest of all time, and they also happen to sound like some of the greatest recordings technically that pushed boundaries technically and sonically.

My personal opinion is that every individual member of rush has mega talent, but that the music is very meh. But even Peart's mega talent is less than, say Dave Weckl's mega talent. And if I'm going to listen to music that only kind of scratches an itch in terms appreciating musicianship, I'm going to listen to those all time greats like Weckl and Pattituci playing together who are both much greater talents than Rush.

What I would argue is not really just a matter of opinion, is that PF is just a better band. They have a level of success, both commercially and critically, that is several orders of magnitude greater than rush has achieved.

 

[pglaser01]

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

Comfortably Numb….or YYZ?

 

[3bc]

Great music is about more than great musicianship.

100%. Rush plays a lot more notes and not a single one makes me feel anything at all.