Quote:
Originally Posted by mr dave
i posted in pairs for a reason. compared to the attention the Beatles get for their influence on music from the 60s and 70s i think PF is quite underrated.
|
I probably like both around the same, but The Beatles are undeniably more significant.
Floyd have 9 above average albums, more if you include live albums and compiliations. But The Beatles have like... 12 great studio albums, which is nearly their entire discography, they really did have the most consistant run of albums of any band ever.
That being said I understand where you're coming from. I get pretty pissed when critics like Starostin knock down Floyd by comparing them to the Beatles and just downplaying all their acievements because they weren't The Beatles. "Waters is no John Lennon", oh stfu already. Pink Floyd didn't try to be The Beatles. And I do hate that critics have to compare every goddamn band to The Beatles.
Starostin is especially annoying with his Beatles/Stones/Who/Dylan fetish, he pretty much thinks they're the only truly great artists and just can't resist comparing every other band to those 4 and bitch about how inferior they are. F*cking Russians.