The Beatles or pink Floyd

Both are timeless classics with dedicated fans, so...
there-be-a-shit-storm-a-brewin.jpg
 
beatles. but seriously just by the tiniest fraction, because i had to choose. Ive just been listening to them since i was little. sentimental probably. But right now ive been listening to way more pink floyd.

pink floyd or led zepplin?
 
my first impulse is pink floyd, i have listened to so much pink floyd i think the music has become a part of my own body, and not only are they the big 70's-80's rockband that most people know them as, but they started out as an amazing psych rock group, and syd barrett has always been one of my favorite musicians. And the beatles were way more pop, a lot of their stuff sounds the same, but then i thought of magical mystery tour, which was mind blowing, amazing music. so pretty much pink floyd, but the beatles have their place too.
 
Idk I was just thinking about it, I'm pretty much on the beetles they were playing in a magical time in history and were really popin back then, I also think though pink Floyd was good just because my parents use to listen to them and I knew alot of songs but ill have to go with the beetles just because I had to do alot more research and listening on my own.
 
floyd because nearly all their stuff is good, while beatles only had a handful of good albums from their later days, sgt pepper and revolver are the only two i can really listen to. yet everything from piper at the gates of dawn to animals are some of the best albums in rock history imo. not a big fan of the wall and everything without roger waters after that doe but the previous 12 years make up for it
 
Beatles hands down.

Most Floyd songs are 6 minutes plus and boring as hell. Floyd are the old version of Radiohead.

I'm all about the 3 minute pop action. Who can't name 10 Beatles songs?
 
Why don't you compare The Mars Volta to Sigur Rós while you're at it? I am so sick of this apples-to-oranges comparison.
 
Umm no they weren't. This is one of the dumbest things I have ever heard.

Just because they were popular doesn't mean they weren't releasing the most ground breaking music of their time.

Listen to in order: Rubber Soul, Revolver, Sgt. Pepper, Magical Mystery Tour (maybe Yellow Submarine) and then Abbey Road and tell me that wasn't the most progressive 5 years in the history of music, especially compared to what was going on at the time.

To even compare them to Bieber shows you have no idea what you are talking about.
 
Idk I feel like it's not apples to oranges, I feel as if you have more of a connection towards one more weather it be growing up and having someone listen to a lot of beetles or knowing someone who likes Floyd
 
^ Forgot White Album after Magical Mystery Tour

^^ Furthermore, they stopped touring in 65/66 so they could focus exclusively on their studio albums. As the music became much more complex and impossible to recreate in concert, they began to work even harder in studio. The band members were over the whole "boy band" aspect of screaming teenage girls - they were all about the music (and the drugs).
 
I'm leaning towards the Beatles, mainly because I don't listen to too much Pink Floyd. I'll have to get some of there albums for a long car ride some time.
 
this.

The Beatles played pop music. and popular music is the music that is popular at the time. Just like how beiber will probably be talked about untill we die, not because his music was good, because he was popular. floyd on the other hand is pure sexy magik
 
Apples and oranges aren't that different really. I mean they're both fruit. Their weight is extremely similar. They both contain acidic elements. They're both roughly spherical. They serve the same social purpose. With the possible exception of a tangerine I can't think of anything more similar to an orange than an apple. If I was having lunch with a man who was eating an apple and-while I was looking away-he replaced that apple with an orange I doubt I'd even notice. So how is this a metaphor for difference? I could understand if you said 'That's like comparing apples and uranium ' or 'That's like comparing apples with baby wolverines ' or 'That's like comparing apples with the early work of Raymond Carver ' or 'That's like comparing apples with hermaphroditic ground sloths.' Those would all be valid examples of profound disparity
 
Defiantly different types of music... but from a quality perspective I'm gonna have to go with Floyd. I mean the Beatles are great and all, but truly, deep, deep, down, they are a big pile of hippie garbage
 
haha you're right. i had read that passage in a book and decided to copy and paste it because it was somewhat relevant
 
I am very biased when it comes to this, because I can't stand the Beatles and couldn't name more than two songs. So I'm going to go with Pink Floyd. imo, there's nothing like it.
 
grew up listening to both, different styles for sure but id have to say i prefer floyd.. but i love the beetles as well
 
All you Floyd heads are heeled out you want to be a tru wook pop some Molly, get lost on the ride of the yellow submarine
 
Floyd. Never been a beetles fan. I appreciate what they did for music and the eras they made music through but I just never really dug them that much
 
uhhh

When Dark Side of the Moon was released it topped the Billboard 200 at #1 and stayed on the album chart in the U.S. for a grand total of 741 consecutive weeks. That is fourteen years, the longest time on the charts of any album in history.

Dark side of the moon -50 million copies sold

"The White Album" -30 million sold

You're wrong. This is a fact.
 
No I value concise pieces over recorded jam sessions with extended bits of boring guitar noodling.

Floyd is boring as hell and I'm sticking with that.

And IDK what your definition of "shitty music" is but I listen to bands like Arcade Fire, Arkells, Generationals, Starfucker, Japandroids, Zeus, Hollerado, New Pornographers etc. Bands that don't need to rely on 5 minutes ambient guitar noodling to make a song.
 
I'll have to go with Beatles probably because I have always listened to them. I love Pink Floyd, but I feel that there isn't a Beatles song that I don't like. Except for Harrisons whole indian shit. I love Beatles later stuff too, but I feel that so much of the Beatles music is different that I can listen to a whole bunch of their shit for so long.
 
fair enough. I wasn't arguing anything else.

Blows my mind that the album stayed on the charts for 14 years though, and then reappeared on the charts in the top 100 multiple times.
 
Experimental/progressive music tends to make people that don't actually listen to the music uncomfortable. Its ok, keep listening to what the voice on the radio tells you to, there are millions of people just like you.
 
So if you listen to Experimental/progressive there aren't a million people just like you?

Actually if you bought Dark Side of the Moon there are another 50 million people just like you.

stop bashing on people for their opinions about music, it just makes you look like a fool.
 
I will bet 1000000000000000 dollars that Floyd has had more radio/tv/youtube time than all the bands I listed COMBINED.

I listen to music constantly, and not from the radio. Every city in the world has a classic rock station that plays Floyd/Beatles/ZZ Top/Led/etc all day. So maybe you should stop listening to old man rock from the radio and start searching the internet for the next Floyd.

Actually I lied. I listen to CBC Radio 3 and KEXP. Stations that play independent song writers and bands that do and will produce music that builds off Floyd's influence and condenses it into great records and music.

And to the guy that's against Arcade Fire, go listen to Funeral front to back. It's the best album from the 2000s
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top