Music Banter

Go Back   Music Banter > The Music Forums > Rock & Metal > Prog & Psychedelic Rock
Register Blogging Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
Welcome to Music Banter Forum! Make sure to register - it's free and very quick! You have to register before you can post and participate in our discussions with over 70,000 other registered members. After you create your free account, you will be able to customize many options, you will have the full access to over 1,100,000 posts.

View Poll Results: KC or PF
King Crimson 3 30.00%
Pink Floyd 4 40.00%
Both 2 20.00%
Neither 1 10.00%
Voters: 10. You may not vote on this poll

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 05-15-2008, 11:35 PM   #1 (permalink)
Reformed Jackass
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 3,961
Default 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?
ProggyMan is offline  
Old 05-16-2008, 12:10 AM   #2 (permalink)
Music Addict
 
Demonoid's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 734
Default

*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!
Demonoid is offline  
Old 05-16-2008, 12:12 AM   #3 (permalink)
Reformed Jackass
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 3,961
Default

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.
ProggyMan is offline  
Old 05-16-2008, 01:03 AM   #4 (permalink)
Account Disabled
 
boo boo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Where the buffalo roam.
Posts: 12,129
Default

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.

Last edited by boo boo; 05-16-2008 at 01:28 AM.
boo boo is offline  
Old 05-16-2008, 01:42 AM   #5 (permalink)
Account Disabled
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Methville
Posts: 2,116
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by boo boo View Post
King Crimson with only one consistant member

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.
The Unfan is offline  
Old 05-16-2008, 02:16 AM   #6 (permalink)
Account Disabled
 
boo boo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Where the buffalo roam.
Posts: 12,129
Default



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.

Last edited by boo boo; 05-16-2008 at 02:27 AM.
boo boo is offline  
Old 05-16-2008, 04:56 AM   #7 (permalink)
I'm sorry, is this Can?
 
Comus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 1,902
Default

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.
__________________
last.fm
Quote:
Originally Posted by sleepy jack
Quote:
Originally Posted by antonio
classical music isn't exactly religious, you know?
um
Comus is offline  
Old 05-16-2008, 05:22 AM   #8 (permalink)
Music Addict
 
SubPop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 121
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by boo boo View Post
Pink Floyd on the other hand had a few uneven or average albums and two that were just bad (Ummagumma and The Final Cut).

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
SubPop is offline  
Old 05-16-2008, 05:24 AM   #9 (permalink)
Account Disabled
 
boo boo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Where the buffalo roam.
Posts: 12,129
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Comus View Post
King Crimson has the overall best album with Lizard
Great album, but ITCOTCK, Red, Discipline and Thrak are all better IMO.

Quote:
But also one of the worse with ItWoP.
Are you kidding me? Whats wrong with that album? I thinks it really damn good. Its pretty much ITCOTCK part 2.

Quote:
Pink Floyd are more accessible, but none of their albums reach the heights of Lizard or some of the other 70's krim albums.
Thats one hell of a stretch. I certainly don't agree with that.
boo boo is offline  
Old 05-16-2008, 05:42 AM   #10 (permalink)
Account Disabled
 
boo boo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Where the buffalo roam.
Posts: 12,129
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SubPop View Post
ummmm no sorry those albums are great. The first Ummagumma album is an amazing live album
The live disc is great, studio material not so much.

Quote:
And the final cut is a masterpiece.
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.

Last edited by boo boo; 05-16-2008 at 05:51 AM.
boo boo is offline  
Closed Thread

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Similar Threads



© 2003-2020 Advameg, Inc.