[elrod-tom]

Quote:

Originally Posted by EyeAmEye Of the two, Pink Floyd by a landslide. The Beatles claim to fame was being the first out of the gate.

That's a VERY significant claim to fame IMHO!!

 

[Asterix]

Quote:

Originally Posted by elrod-tom That's a VERY significant claim to fame IMHO!!

I voted for the Beatles. The Beatles were way more revolutionary for the time while Pink Floyd was just a really great psychedelic band.

 

[Jahn]

Quote:

Originally Posted by elrod-tom That's a VERY significant claim to fame IMHO!!

I agree. We could still be listening to some form of Barbershop quartet without the Beatles. (Not that such a thing would be TOO bad, look at the Beach Boys) Who knows if ANYONE would have busted through that gate (or even have known it was there) without the Beatles? Listen to their early stuff - even THEY didn't know there was a "gate" there at the beginning, they just sounded like every other skiffle band at the time!

After the Beatles, rock went insane. There was alot of derivative crap, but also alot of meaningful original stuff that would never have seen the light of day without the Beatles opening that gate. Kudos to the Beatles!

 

[Nak Man]

It's the Beatles of course ... but why are there so many PF votes ?

Heck if PF can make it to the short list I'd like to see Yes up there !!! Svperstar, another poll please ? =)

 

[The Actual]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Svperstar Personally I can't get into The Beatles

Me neither.

I feel that I appreciate what they have done, but know that I really like Pink Floyd's music. Does that mean they are the greater band? Probably not.

 

[greenhorn]

Quote:

Originally Posted by greenhorn I don't think PF would have been the same if the Beatles wouldn't have existed before them. I am sure that elrod-tom is correct, many great post-Beatles bands were proud to say they were much influenced by the Beatles... which remain the best

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhythmdevils dont get me wrong here, i LOVE pink floyd. but there wouldnt have been a pink floyd if there wasnt a beatle. if this question was presented to pink floyd, even they would go with the beatles. to me, this cant be a question of which turned out better in the end, because its almost like father and son. the beatles cut the road into the mountainside and made it level, while floyd paved it

Sorry, I don't get it... why should I get you wrong, since you seem to fully agree with what I said?

 

[EyeAmEye]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jahn I agree. We could still be listening to some form of Barbershop quartet without the Beatles. (Not that such a thing would be TOO bad, look at the Beach Boys) Who knows if ANYONE would have busted through that gate (or even have known it was there) without the Beatles? Listen to their early stuff - even THEY didn't know there was a "gate" there at the beginning, they just sounded like every other skiffle band at the time! After the Beatles, rock went insane. There was alot of derivative crap, but also alot of meaningful original stuff that would never have seen the light of day without the Beatles opening that gate. Kudos to the Beatles!

You really don't believe that, do you? If it wasn't the Beatles, it would have been someone else, and eventually, nearly the same progression would have taken place. Do you think the Beatles were the only band in the world playing that genre of music? Besides, first never implies best, just first. It's a great accomplishment, but doesn't necessarily make them the best.

 

[Jahn]

Quote:

Originally Posted by EyeAmEye You really don't believe that, do you? If it wasn't the Beatles, it would have been someone else, and eventually, nearly the same progression would have taken place. Do you think the Beatles were the only band in the world playing that genre of music? Besides, first never implies best, just first. It's a great accomplishment, but doesn't necessarily make them the best.

Actually I do believe that. Just like I believe that without Little Richard, would Rock and Roll have ever gotten big with the white folks through Jerry Lee Lewis and Elvis? Yes Little Richard was first, and without him, "The Day the Music Died" wouldn't have even been born imho. And we'd be rocking out to Lawrence Welk. Even The Beatles needed Chuck Berry!

 

[Bob Abouey]

I'm trying to find the words to accurately capture the level to which I feel Pink Floyd are over rated, both musically and as "pioneers".

The Beatles would be a tough choice to argue. Few bands have impacted and changed the musical landscape to the degree they have.

-Bababooey

 

[PinkFloyd]

Quote:

Originally Posted by elrod-tom I suspect that if you sat down with David Gilmour or Roger Waters and asked them about the Beatles, they'd probably tell you that they had a significant impact on their music.

I kind of disagree there Elrod, The Pink Floyd were essentially an underground band in the 60's and as far removed from The Beatles main stream pop as you could get....

Floyd were influenced by the likes of Pink Anderson and Floyd Council (Their name is a combo of the two) I honestly can't see how they were influenced by the Beatles in any way shape or form, if they were it certainly doesn't reflect in their music. The Beatles were a pop band, Floyd are far from what I'd class as a "pop" band and I'm almost certain that Waters and Gilmour would not tell you that the Beatles had a significant impact on their music... more the other way round, the Beatles picked up on the hardcore underground sound that was taking London by storm in 1967 (Pink Floyd amongst others) and tried to incorporate this new experimental stuff into Sgt. Peppers.... it worked for the mainstream "pop" listener but to the hardcore pschychedelic clubbers Sgt. Peppers must have sounded really tame and poppy in comparison to the underground sound The Pink Floyd were experimenting with.

The Beatles had a good run from 63 - 66 as a pop group with a fanbase of screaming teenagers and good luck to them... they certainly aren't in the same league as Floyd IMO and to compare the two is like comparing chalk and cheese.

"she loves you yeh yeh yeh"

"And then one day you'll find ten years have got behind you, no-one told you when to run you missed the starting gun" <solo!>

Says it all.

 

[Asterix]

Quote:

Originally Posted by PinkFloyd I kind of disagree there Elrod, The Pink Floyd were essentially an underground band in the 60's and as far removed from The Beatles main stream pop as you could get.... Floyd were influenced by the likes of Pink Anderson and Floyd Council (Their name is a combo of the two) I honestly can't see how they were influenced by the Beatles in any way shape or form, if they were it certainly doesn't reflect in their music. The Beatles were a pop band, Floyd are far from what I'd class as a "pop" band and I'm almost certain that Waters and Gilmour would not tell you that the Beatles had a significant impact on their music... more the other way round, the Beatles picked up on the hardcore underground sound that was taking London by storm in 1967 (Pink Floyd amongst others) and tried to incorporate this new experimental stuff into Sgt. Peppers.... it worked for the mainstream "pop" listener but to the hardcore pschychedelic clubbers Sgt. Peppers must have sounded really tame and poppy in comparison to the underground sound The Pink Floyd were experimenting with. The Beatles had a good run from 63 - 66 as a pop group with a fanbase of screaming teenagers and good luck to them... they certainly aren't in the same league as Floyd IMO and to compare the two is like comparing chalk and cheese. "she loves you yeh yeh yeh" "And then one day you'll find ten years have got behind you, no-one told you when to run you missed the starting gun" <solo!> Says it all.

I agree that they are hard to compare. Why do we need to try and compare Pink Floyd and the Beatles? These are two of the great pioneers in rock music, they each did they own thing. I just bought Meddle on cd today and I haven't heard it in many years, but I clearly remember how amazing it is. It's a lot more underground, a lot more instrumentally oriented, than the Beatles ever tried to be with their simple pop tunes and mainstream approach. Listen to albums like Umma Gumma that Pink Floyd put out and you will realize that Floyd had the balls to do a lot of stuff the Beatles were afraid to come near. I say we leave this thread alone and enjoy the Beatles AND Pink Floyd.

 

[grawk]

That's like saying:

Which is the best beer in the world, miller lite or bud light?

Obviously, neither, they're both among the most popular, but way overrated.

 

[PinkFloyd]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Asterix I agree that they are hard to compare. Why do we need to try and compare Pink Floyd and the Beatles? These are two of the great pioneers in rock music, they each did they own thing. I just bought Meddle on cd today and I haven't heard it in many years, but I clearly remember how amazing it is. It's a lot more underground, a lot more instrumentally oriented, than the Beatles ever tried to be with their simple pop tunes and mainstream approach. Listen to albums like Umma Gumma that Pink Floyd put out and you will realize that Floyd had the balls to do a lot of stuff the Beatles were afraid to come near. I say we leave this thread alone and enjoy the Beatles AND Pink Floyd.

Try listening to Piper at the gates of Dawn which was released on August 5th, 1967 and also listen to Sgt. Peppers which was released around the same time ........ who's the real deal? You can tell from track one who the real innovators are......


A Nick Mason Quote: "Quotes

Nick Mason: "We were given Norman Smith by EMI, no arguments. So Joe
Boyd, our original producer, got written out of the thing. Norman was
more interested in making us sound like a classical rock band. It was a
bit like the George Martin thing, a useful influence to have. But I
think Joe would have given Syd his head, let him run in a freer way. We
spent three months recording it, which was quite a long time in
those days. Bands used to have to finish albums in a week, with session
players brought in to play the difficult bits. But because The
Beatles were taking their time recording Sgt Pepper in the studio next
door, EMI thought this was the way people now made records. We were
taken in to meet them once, while they were recording Lovely Rita. It
was a bit like meeting the Royal family."

Jesus I didn't realise Floyd were in the house recording alongside the Beatles....... now it makes sense where the "fab 4" got hold of their ideas for Sgt. Peppers from..... the studio next door.... The "underground" Floyd band... easy pickings.......

http://www.pinkfloydonline.com/discography/tpatgod.html

 

[immtbiker]

I can see comparing PF to ELP, or Yes, but not to the Beatles.

George Martin, took a talented group of writers and innovators, and turned them into a sensation.

BTW-Can you imagine what Pete Best's life must have been like? Waking up everyday, saying "I coulda been a contenda!"

 

[PinkFloyd]

Quote:

Originally Posted by immtbiker George Martin, took a talented group of writers and innovators, and turned them into a sensation. (

Correct (IMO) But can I amend what you said to:

Brian Epstein and George Martin, took a talentless group of wasters and arrogant sods, and turned them into a sensation, their faces fitted the requirements to become popular at the time.