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.

Neither of which the quality compares to there bigger albums. (or the ones listed by Boo Boo earlier)

That's exactly what's wrong with it, if I want to listen to In the Court, I'll put on in the Court. It's watered down and stale, Krim have progressed with each album with the sole exception of In the Wake.

Doesn't the idea of being able to vote for both kind of defeat the object of having a VS thread?

So just because its in the same style its a bad album?

What a bunch of bull****. I'm sorry.

Red kinda sounds like Starless and Bible Black, I guess that makes it a bad album too eh? And of course it means its not progressive. Oh wait a minute, Fragile kinda sounds like The Yes Album, nope not progressive, Selling England by the Pound sounds like Foxtrot, not progressive, Gentle Giants first 5 albums don't sound that different, so not progressive.

And Zeppelin II sounds like Zeppelin I, ah yes bad album. Amnesiac sounds like Kid A, no originality at all, bad album. Magical Mystery Tour sounds like Sgt. Peppers, what a piece of crap.

You know, while we're at it since consistancy is such a bad thing lets just say that if any band has 2 songs that are of a similar style, that strips them of any artistic credibility. Oh oh, King Crimson sucks. Every band sucks.

...

ITWOP is an excellent companion piece to ITCOTCK. I fail to see how any album with tracks like Pictures of a City and Cadence and Cascade could be bad. Overall its a pretty damn strong album. Just because its in the same style as ITCOTCK dosen't take away from the quality of its content. Nor does it mean its not progressive. Have you ever heard of the term if its not broken don't fix it?

Amnesiac doesn't even sound like Kid A though. Red sounds really, really different than Starless imo. Anyway, yah, an album doesn't have to progress from the bands last one to be good.

No.

Well the production on Red is better than Starless, its a bit more polished, and Starless had more jams and Red is more composition based. And Violinist David Cross's presence on Starless set it apart as well.

Come to think of it you're right, maybe not the best example I could have made.

Also Starless is less rocking, it's much softer seems like. Red sounds like a real Rock album at times.

What happened to no Vs. Threads?

Or neither.

Good job elaborating...It really does defeat the purpose of it though I'm interested to how you see think it doesn't and its kind of sad you have to be asked to explain instead of just doing it when questioned.

This post represents an interesting crux. Bands are always told to try new things and evolve lest the fans get bored, yet stray too far from an established formula and it will almost definitely fail miserably.

Problem being fans dont know which they want and will hate on bands that do either too much.

I'd say you can only take each band on it's own merits. For me it depends on if the band is experimental by it's nature or not.
I mean take a band like Can. At the beginning of their career they were basically writing your typical drum/bass/guitar/keyboards riff orientated rock music with touches of experimentation.By the end of their career they were writing funk tunes using African rhythms with whole loads of other stuff thrown it. You listen to their first and last albums back to back it almost sounds like a totally different band. And yet because it's their nature to change things so much I can accept that.

But on the other hand if a band like Oasis or AC/DC suddenly started writing Jazz fusion I would probably avoid it like the plague , mostly because in the past their music has never shown any sign of change or experimentation.

I HATE VS threads! This is the third one in as many days. does no-one read the sticky's?

I have no problem with Floyd changing it up. Meddle and The Wall don't sound alike at all, and I love both of those albums. Pink Floyd were certainly experimental, accessible but experimental. My problem is not with change but rather the end result. I just don't like The Final Cut. Plain as day.

Anyone who knows my taste knows that I dont hate it when people break away from a certain formula.

King Crimson are one band that never really had a formula, they have done stuff that ranges from symphonic rock to free jazz to math rock to new wave to metal, which wouldn't be that impressive if they didn't do it all very well, which they do.

Closing. Sorry peeps.