King Crimson Vs. Pink Floyd
 

This is the Rock fan's favorite Prog band versus the Prog fan's favorite Prog band. Seems like PF is constantly put on a pedestal with the Grateful Dead/Dylan/The Bealtes etc by Classic Rock fans, while they're sometimes scorned by the bigger Prog fans (They didn't make it to the semis on the best band poll on PA), and King Crimson seems to be everybody's favorite. Which one do you prefer?

*Yawn*
Really boring thread.
As a prog. head myself, i prefer both!
Just bcuz King crimson had lesser appeal and PF had more mainstream appeal, isn't going to change my mind to KC.
Both are good.
End of discussion!

I prefer King Crimson, because Pink Floyd's last innovation was made 35 years ago. KC is still evolving as a band, and they're likely to change styles again on their next album.

Even though I bring up King Crimson a lot more often, mainly because I feel they're not being discussed enough. I still think Pink Floyd are better.

These 2 bands don't sound alike and dont have a lot in common.

Both bands were insanely creative and innovative, though they did it in very different ways. Both bands evolved and had a lot of diversity in their music.

Pink Floyd are more accessible, King Crimson are more talented musicians. Pink Floyd have better albums, but also worse albums. King Crimson were more consistant in terms of quality, most of their albums are great, with only two that I would call average. Pink Floyd on the other hand had a few uneven or average albums and two that were just bad (Ummagumma and The Final Cut). But then again, King Crimson don't have a run of albums as good and consistant as Meddle, Obscured by Clouds, DSOTM, WYWH, Animals and The Wall.

Pink Floyd were more of a band, King Crimson with only one consistant member throughout its history, is more like an outfit than a band. Kinda like Parliament and Funkadelic in that sense.

And of course the most significant difference is that King Crimson are still together and making music.

Yeah, it'd be tragic if he fell apart.

:laughing:

What I mean is, Robert Fripp is what defines King Crimson, without him it ceases to be King Crimson, thats certainly not discrediting any of the fantastic musicians who have played in King Crimson then and now.

King Crimson has the overall best album with Lizard, but also one of the worse with ItWoP. Pink Floyd are more accessible, but none of their albums reach the heights of Lizard or some of the other 70's krim albums. I listen to more Pink Floyd though, when all's said and done.

However King Crimson are the better band.

ummmm no sorry those albums are great. The first Ummagumma album is an amazing live album and the final cut is a masterpiece.

I like both but Pink Floyd are in a different league to KC

Great album, but ITCOTCK, Red, Discipline and Thrak are all better IMO.

Are you kidding me? Whats wrong with that album? I thinks it really damn good. Its pretty much ITCOTCK part 2.

Thats one hell of a stretch. I certainly don't agree with that.

The live disc is great, studio material not so much.

o_O

A masterpiece? Really?

Maybe saying its bad is pushing it, but I think its below average. Its pretty much a Roger Waters solo album. Theres some good stuff on it, but I just have a personal problem with Waters hijacking the band the way he did, he may have already done it with The Wall, but it was still a great album, because it still sounded like Pink Floyd and it still sounded like a band effort, and Waters at least let Gilmour sing on more than one damn song. This album consists mostly of Waters moping about his dead father and Margaret Thatcher with bloated orchestrial backing (who needs the band?) and just the occassional Gilmour solo to remind people that he's still in the damn band. The best songs on this album are the more rockin ones, and they just sound like outtakes from The Wall.

On its own its not that bad, but by Pink Floyd standards it is IMO.