File: 1437619433951.jpg (888 KB, 1024x768) Image search: [Google]

888 KB, 1024x768

pink floyd is my favorite
explaining why is tough. i like rush too.
but the feel of a floyd song hits me harder than a rush one.

but rush does heavier songs better
case and point: natural science vs nile song or ibiza bar

but pink does emotional spacey atmospheric shit better
like witch hunt vs marooned or dogs

this thread is already trash. Pink Floyd wins. Rush is a great band.

>>64712729
Lol, you compare both of their most commercially successful and in my opinion most mediocre albums. In my opinion Rush is really mediocre, they are pretty much the most accessible prog-rock band out there aside from maybe Genesis. Pink Floyd was atleast actually doing something innovative at one point; with their first three records and even Meddle and Atom Heart Mother. Rush was always just a middle of the road prog-rock band in my opinion. They never did anything to push the envelope and their music wasn't interesting enough to listen to while they just played it safe.

>>64713665
Reminder that Pink Floyd were still innovative after their experimental years. Trying to find anyone making music like they were around that time proves it to be so.

>>64713665
i would think moving pictures is rush's most commercial

>>64713665
Just because they're accessible does that make them any less talented than other progressive rock bands?

>>64714282
of course not, but it makes them less interesting

>>64713665
Meddle and Atom Heart Mother are terrible albums

>>64714504
incorrect. Atom Heart Mother is a 10/10, Pink Floyd's actual opus

>>64714504
What the heck? Atom Heart Mother (song) is a masterpiece.

>>64712729
Rush

>>64714533
Why?

>>64714553
Personal preference, i like Rush's drums and bass
I'll give to PF that they probably have been more innovative over their career overall
Both are good but overrated outside of /mu/

>>64714628
>over their career overall
also, i can't write