Queen vs Pink Floyd

I always preferred the music and lyrics of Pink Floyd over Queen.

 

Pink Floyd is my all time favorite band. Queen is awesome, but nowhere near even close to Pink Floyd.

 

Pink Floyd.

 

Queen is awesome no doubt about it - but it's Pink Floyd all the way.

 

Love Queen but love Pink Floyd more.

 

Queen were the Beatles of the 1970's.

Pink Floyd was interesting in the Syd Barret era, however they catered too much to their audience of substance abusers from Dark Side of the Moon, onward.

 

It's a tough one for me and I can't decide. I love Pink Floyd but Queen experienced success earlier than them. Queen was definitely more commercially appealing than Pink Floyd. Freddie Mercury and Brian May are legends in their own right and no telling what would have happened had Freddie not gotten the AIDS. I think Freddie was the best frontman ever and Brian was one of the early guitarists to bring some great rock riffs to the world.

On the other hand, Roger Waters and David Gilmour are legends in their own right. And, it's hard to discount that Pink Floyd survived through to the 90s and both are still playing/touring using Pink Floyd material. "The Wall" was obviously a break-through...as well as "Dark Side of the Moon"....both huge albums with a lot of substance and success. Gilmour obviously has his own history of excellent guitar riffs and solos...and Roger could write the hell out of lyrics.

I'm going to say it's a draw...taking into account what could have been (with Queen) and what was (with Pink Floyd). Both bands had great success back in their primes. Both bands gave us heartbreak (loss of Freddie; Pink Floyd in-fighting and Roger out). Both bands could draw the crowds. Both bands sold a lot of records. Pink Floyd is one of my faves...but to be fair I am discounting my preference for music in this one and going with other factors.

 

I just don't see enough similarities in the two to really compare, I guess. On the whole, Queen was quite full of energy, while Floyd was so withdrawn.

I'm not here to argue with ya, but... how were they the Beatles of the 70's, exactly? And you think the Syd Barret era of Floyd was fine, but that they were too psychedelic AFTER Syd was gone? I can't get with that either, really.

 

How Queen compare to the Beatles:


Both had multiple songwriters and singers - reserved bassist John Deacon penned one of their biggest hits in "Another One Bites the Dust". Brian May and drummer Roger Taylor took lead vocal duties on a number of songs ("I'm in Love with My Car" and "'39"). We all know John, Paul, George and Ringo did everything.

Both had dynamic, visionary producers in the studio. The ridiculously talented George Martin and Roy Thomas Baker continually pushed their clients' talents to new levels with every album. They were always on the cutting edge of studio tech.

Neither band was afraid to experiment with new styles on every album. Queen explored heavy metal ("Stone Cold Crazy"), Operatic Rock ("Bohemian Rhapsody"), and even rap of sorts ("We Will Rock You").

Both bands were known for their trademark harmonies.



As far as Pink Floyd goes, I actually enjoyed the psychedelic guitar riffs of Barret. It was upon Gilmour's entry to the band, that they became progressively more boring, hitting rock bottom with "The Division Bell". That album is where Gilmour completed his metamorphosis into Bryan Adams.

Barret got the best deal. His mind left him before Pink Floyd's descent into Adult Contemporary hell.

 

The Smithereens.

 

You're comparing music and noise.

 

Queen was one of the best live acts of its era.

Freddie Mercury was arguably the best rock band frontman, ever.

 

Comparing these two bands, asking which you like more..

shaking my head..

That's like asking 'Which do you like more: Fish, or Bicycles?'

I could see maybe asking something like 'Queen or Genesis?', something along those lines.. In fact you could really make a case that Genesis would be like a sort of bridge between the two, since you could very well say that Genesis is closer to Queen than Pink Floyd, and at the same time say that Genesis is closer to Pink Floyd than Queen.

Anyway, they are all good, frankly it depends on my mood... Innuendo is just such a wonderful album, I don't know if people listen to it very much. You can feel the weight of inevitability hanging over Mercury's head throughout the whole thing, and the obvious acceptance and good cheer in the face of it all, it's just not the kind of thing we get very much of.

And really, Peter Gabriel was the soul of early Genesis, and since leaving them and being on his own, he has really done a lot more 'just music for musics' sake' type things. If you have not listened to the soundtrack to The Last Temptation of Christ , you should. It is amazing.

Anyway, they are all good

 

So was Led Zep. Personally, I think it's apples and oranges. They are quite different fronm each other, the main similarity being that they're both rock and roll bands who graduated (sadly, from my perspective) to "large venue bands." You know, stadiums with awful acoustics. I saw Queen at the Summit in 1977. No, not the Houston Music Hall, with about 3500 seats and terrific acoustics, where I saw Led Zeppelin on August 3rd, 1969, only to see them again just a few weeks later at the Dallas Pop Festival, technically called the Texas International Pop Festival, at the end of August, but far better than a stadium. Zep were great both times.

 

Floyd had the better music and Queen were the better performers.

 

Queen is good if you can get past the showtunes and goofy stuff, songs like "Lazing on a Sunday Afternoon" and "Good Company," the types of songs that John Lennon called "granny music." But the good stuff is good. Hot Space is a little strange.