Pink Floyd v.s Metallica

Magrus · Post by **Magrus** » Fri Apr 29, 2005 4:31 pm

[QUOTE=jopperm2]Hehe.. I know what you're talkig about, I'm just giving you a hard time.

Yeah, it seems the ladies all have lives.

[/QUOTE]

My lady friends are either sick, or helping younger friends get ready for their prom's. I hate prom's. I should sabotage them and take my friends back.

jopperm2 · Post by **jopperm2** » Fri Apr 29, 2005 4:34 pm

Good plan. Sneak a bunch of beer and liquor in and they'll have to shut down.

Magrus · Post by **Magrus** » Fri Apr 29, 2005 4:37 pm

Well...if I'm sneaking liqour into the prom, I'm spending good money. I'm getting wasted and bringing someone home with me in that case.

jopperm2 · Post by **jopperm2** » Fri Apr 29, 2005 4:41 pm

So you'll fit right in! Just remember to check IDs of those girls.

Magrus · Post by **Magrus** » Fri Apr 29, 2005 4:54 pm

Thats a good call...you can't tell nowadays unless you have two cops, a judge and, a high priced lawyer whether or not your girl is legal.

Yshania · Post by **Yshania** » Fri Apr 29, 2005 6:27 pm

[QUOTE=Darth Zenemij]I recently have had a debate with a few of my friends and we were thinking on who is better, Pink Floyd or Metallica? I know that this has already gone across the u.s but I also want some other anwsers with this question also. I personally like Pink Floyd, I don't like Metallica beacuse it is way overrated and in my oppion is a no good band. I have listened to many of their songs and I haven't found one that I have liked. Maybe I am listening to the wrong albums? But Pink floyd actually has a better sound[/QUOTE]

You have just asked me to decide between two of my favourite bands; No can do. Each has a place for me, dependant on mood. I own every PF album - until they sold out to pop mediocrity (in my personal opinion) after Roger Waters left, I even own some solo Syd Barratt efforts (Barrett, The Madcap Laughs, and Opel), and a couple of the Roger Waters' (Pros and Cons being the only worthwhile effort) I also own every Metallica up until a couple of years ago...I think I am missing St Anger. I remember Metallica wearing Motorhead, Red Hot Chili Peppers, and Faith No More Tshirts, before they themselves evolved from cult status.

[QUOTE=Darth Zenemij]nick mason, roger waters, david giloure (sp?) and syd barret know what they are doing. And metallica doesn't realy imho. Any comments[/QUOTE]

Actually, Syd Barret only recorded two albums with Pink Floyd (Piper At The Gates Of Dawn (1967) and A Saucerful Of Secrets (1968)) So, though he was influential in their spaced out hippy beginnings, he soon left to persue Effervescing Elephants. BTW, you forgot to mention Rick Wright, a founder member with Roger Waters and Nick Mason, who did hang around a little longer

Dave Gilmour replaced Syd Barrett in 1968.

[QUOTE=dragon wench]Pink Floyd, hands down!

They will be like the Beatles or the Stones.. still remembered when Metallica is but a mote in a dust storm[/QUOTE]

LOL! I guess this may be true to the casual listeners, though in Metallica's defence, they have been around actively since 1982 - 23 years. Bar the casual players, they lost their original singer/guitarist (Dave Mustaine) to alcohol and ego trips (he went on to form the speed metal band, Megadeth) and their original bass player (Cliff Burton) tragically to a coach crash. Cliff was replaced by Jason Newstead (originally of Flotsam and Jetsam) on the Justice tour, though he had to endure a cold welcome by the fans of Cliff Burton. Roger Waters left Pink Floyd in the mid 80s (please note, I am not checking exact dates) but, to me, this was when PF became no more.

In short, Pink Floyd were around (as the real PF IMO) for less than 20 years, though their legacy lives on. Metallica have already outlived the 20 years, and who can tell how long their influence will continue yet?

[QUOTE=C Elegans]I don't like any of them, but regardless of my personal taste in music, I do think Pink Floyd was more musically creative and more novel in their style. Whereas Metallica were typical of their genre, I don't think they added much to it, but I do think Pink Floyd contributed more to music in the sense that they were part of a movement that added new elements.[/QUOTE]

Fair comment, though I do believe that most bands that followed Metallica were typical of the style, whereas Metallica - IMO - were instrumental in the direction of the genre.

[QUOTE=CM]errr....didn't they define their genre?[/QUOTE]

Quoting Motorhead as an influence, and sporting shirts by Faith No More and The Red Hot Chili Peppers. These bands influenced their early stuff, but not how the band grew. The latter two were hardly heard of outside of San Fransisco (I saw FNM live a couple of times in the early 90s in small London clubs) The Chilis only became popular in the UK a couple of years ago! (following a less stoned and more structured, change of direction)

[QUOTE=Darth Zenemij]Pink Floyd sure as heck did!!! Metallica is just not all to great as pink floyd, I don't think anything is.[/QUOTE]

As big a PF fan that I am, I still accept that the "greatest" is a matter of taste.

[QUOTE=Bloodstalker]As far as Pink Floyd VS Metallica, IMO they're so far apart on the music scale it's pointless to wonder who's better. I love them both, but the styles are so different it's too hard to compare the two.

As far as Metallica goes, they may not have originated the sound, but they were instrumental in progressing it from simple thrash at full speed to a place where it was ok to incorporate melodic touches and slower tempos. Songs like Fade to Black and Sanitarium were a part of that, and a lot of people were nervous when Metallica decided to put Fade to Black out for fear they'd be seen as selling out.That said, I much prefer pre Load Metallica to anything beyond that CD.[/QUOTE]

Hear Hear!!

I recall Metallica swearing they would never make a video, lol! They thought it a pop sell out, until One...

[QUOTE=Magrus]Your right about Floyd and Metallica being so far different to be compared easily.
Metallica was a band that was crucial to making metal mainstream around when I was born. That's a simple fact. However, if they hadn't been around, someone else would have stepped in easily and done the same thing. I'm not so sure about Floyd they. They blazed a path in my opinion for music. Metallica just set up signs saying "here's a new path, try it out", they didn't invent really, or do anything new, just made what was new popular. Floyd has a certain unique flare to it don't you think?[/QUOTE]

When you were born??

Oh my! *ahem* I bought the back catalogue with both bands - honest!!

then I formed an opinion...

But you're right, someone else could have done it...but why didn't they? What gave Metallica the dynamic they have? Albeit to a "cult" following, but what contributed to their longevity? I think it is the ability to move forward, something that Pink Floyd sadly lost momentum doing...

I think the sad fact is that we like to categorize music, PF lost itself to mainstream pop, Metallica potentially to mainstream rock...but one of these continues to try to appeal to new audiences by forging on. That said, I don't have Metallica's latest album lol! So I could be wrong...

[QUOTE=Cuchulain82]...but asking the question today- after that whole Napster thing, I kind of lost respect for Metallica. They started out as the quintessential underground band, but complaining about intellectual property rights made them seem greedy, old, and out of touch with their fans. It was kind of sad actually- these hardcore icons looked like whiny sellouts

[/QUOTE]

To quote them...Sad But True...

[QUOTE=jopperm2]I didn't vote for either because I like both bands equally and they are quite different. I think Floyd is more creative, but I actually think Metallica was more important to thier genre. Floyd doesn't really fit a genre, they're progressive rock which is like saying sort of rock, sort of something else. Metallica is the quintessential metal and I suspect that those that said they were too genre specific or unimportant to their genres weren't listening to them when the first few albums came out. They are the genre, the genre took it's cues from them and ran with it.

But, they are too far apart to tell who is better. It's like asking Mozart or Copland(Mozart btw, but it's only a style thing there, copland is great too)[/QUOTE]

I could have just quoted this post and agreed entirely - it would have save me a couple of hours!!

[QUOTE=Darth Zenemij]Yeah but Pink floyd kept it going for a longer time for metallica, by that I mean pink floyd has been kept their creativeness for a longer time.[/QUOTE]

Not in my opinion, as I said earlier PF did not make 20 years with the original creative influences. Just my opinion, though. I am feeling more and more inclined to defend Metallica, because of the discussion here lol! even though I was a PF fan years before a Metallica fan.

[QUOTE=Darth Zenemij]Well you have to remember that their original lead singer, I can't remember his name fight now, but he was a big drug attic (sp?) and they kicked him out of the band beacuse of that he would show up for practice half dressed or something and he wouldn't be able to sing or even play, so there for they kicked him out. AND they said that he could only write the songs and he couldn't show up to any of the gigs.[/QUOTE]

Dave Mustaine (went on to form speed metal band, Megadeth) Incidentally, I don't like Megadeth, and never have.

[QUOTE=jopperm2]Hehe.. Sure, keep talkin. Where's Ysh? I'm tellin! [/QUOTE]

Now he is showing his colours, isn't he? I better watch that Magrus *hmph!*

In closing, I have seen Metallica five times, but sadly I have never seen Pink Floyd (as they were). I DID go to the Brandenberg Gate and see Roger Waters (plus guests) perform The Wall in 1990, though - one amazing experience - never to be matched!!! He was once interviewed, following the PF split, and asked would he ever perform The Wall again, and his response was only if the Berlin Wall came down. Well it did, and he was soon held to his promise, raising thousands of pounds for the Leonard Cheshire retirement homes. What an experience!

<edit> I could not vote. Sorry!

Magrus · Post by **Magrus** » Fri Apr 29, 2005 7:01 pm

[QUOTE=Yshania]When you were born??

Oh my! *ahem* I bought the back catalogue with both bands - honest!!

then I formed an opinion...

But you're right, someone else could have done it...but why didn't they? What gave Metallica the dynamic they have? Albeit to a "cult" following, but what contributed to their longevity? I think it is the ability to move forward, something that Pink Floyd sadly lost momentum doing...

I think the sad fact is that we like to categorize music, PF lost itself to mainstream pop, Metallica potentially to mainstream rock...but one of these continues to try to appeal to new audiences by forging on. That said, I don't have Metallica's latest album lol! So I could be wrong...

Now he is showing his colours, isn't he? I better watch that Magrus *hmph!*

[/QUOTE]

I was born in 83.

Yes, Dave Mustaine got booted early. I also like the fact they turned down the founder of Primus as their replacement for Cliff too. Said he was way too good to play with them.

As for the video comment...exactly. They were all into the hardcore, "do it for the fans, do it for the music" attitude in the beginning. Now, it's "do it so the fans buy our stuff" attitude. They DID swear off making video's. They were all for people bootlegging their live shows in clubs and spreading them around to promote them, not sell them. Then they realized what MTV could do for their ratings and album sales, back when MTV actually played music.

It's dissapointing.

I've got no problem with you! I've simply only met 1 truly, genuinely nice person from England here in this area of out all of the others I've met. The rest were arrogant. I've no clue why, but sadly, that's been my experience. If I came across as generalizing, I apologize, I thought I made that clear in the "most of those I've met here" above.

We even had foreign exchange students come to our school too. Even the kids were bad! I didn't get it. The people from the other countries had wonderful attitudes, aside from one or two people from the whole group.

Yshania · Post by **Yshania** » Fri Apr 29, 2005 7:16 pm

[QUOTE=Magrus]I was born in 83.

Yes, Dave Mustaine got booted early. I also like the fact they turned down the founder of Primus as their replacement for Cliff too. Said he was way too good to play with them.

As for the video comment...exactly. They were all into the hardcore, "do it for the fans, do it for the music" attitude in the beginning. Now, it's "do it so the fans buy our stuff" attitude. They DID swear off making video's. They were all for people bootlegging their live shows in clubs and spreading them around to promote them, not sell them. Then they realized what MTV could do for their ratings and album sales, back when MTV actually played music.

It's dissapointing.

I've got no problem with you! I've simply only met 1 truly, genuinely nice person from England here in this area of out all of the others I've met. The rest were arrogant. I've no clue why, but sadly, that's been my experience. If I came across as generalizing, I apologize, I thought I made that clear in the "most of those I've met here" above.

We even had foreign exchange students come to our school too. Even the kids were bad! I didn't get it. The people from the other countries had wonderful attitudes, aside from one or two people from the whole group.

[/QUOTE]

Sorry, I wasn't asking when you were born, only feeling my age when you mentioned that Metallica started out when you were born!

I agree with regards to the change in attitude towards marketing their releases. Similar to PF not releasing singles - only albums - until they released The Wall Pt 2 in 1979. That said, there was a reason, I think, behind both. For Metallica, I think they egotistically grew into the status their fans and contemporaries afforded them...and for Pink Floyd, well it is pretty difficult to release a single from a concept album that can not only make sense as a stand alone issue, but also appeal to the popular record buyers.

LMAO!

I am thicker skinned than that!

I was only teasing. So in the words of Monty Python - go away before I taunt you a second time!

<edit> didn't realise the time!

I best get some shuteye. See you all!

Magrus · Post by **Magrus** » Fri Apr 29, 2005 7:20 pm

Well, if it makes you feel any better, I definately feel like I'm older than I really am by at least 10 years.

I fit in better with my fathers friends when I was 12 than I did my own.

And that's good, I don't get along too well with thin-skinned people...my comments tend to make them want to grab torches and pitchforks and chase me around.

jopperm2 · Post by **jopperm2** » Sat Apr 30, 2005 8:06 am

I'm glad I have some support in here!

I'm just not into worshipping classic rock as superior to modern rock. I love classic rock, but I don't think things have gotten any worse only different. Nickelback and Disturbed are todays Boston and Chicago. They're cheesey, poppy, and shallow.

It doesn't mean I won't listen.

Cuchulain82 · Post by **Cuchulain82** » Mon May 02, 2005 8:19 am

[QUOTE=Yshania]You have just asked me to decide <snip> What an experience!

[/QUOTE]
I agree with everything that you said Ysh. I think it is also worth mentioning that both bands were plagued by excessive amounts of egoism- Roger Waters sued the former members for using the name, Jason Newsted finally giving up, and all of Lar's antics are just 3 examples.

I don't care who you are- if you put in a copy of Kill em All you will hear some of the loudest, fastest music ever put down- it is better than any of the hardcore/metal bands today. Likewise, put in Animals and listen to it and you will be stunned- it is an opus more than an album.

IMO, there are two things that link Metallica and Pink Floyd:

(1) How good both band were
(2) How far they've both fallen

It's sad, but both bands spectres of their former selves, both on the downsides of their careers. I hate it, but it seems like both bands lack the ability to innovate.

Yshania · Post by **Yshania** » Mon May 02, 2005 1:54 pm

[QUOTE=Cuchulain82]I agree with everything that you said Ysh. I think it is also worth mentioning that both bands were plagued by excessive amounts of egoism- Roger Waters sued the former members for using the name, Jason Newsted finally giving up, and all of Lar's antics are just 3 examples.

I don't care who you are- if you put in a copy of Kill em All you will hear some of the loudest, fastest music ever put down- it is better than any of the hardcore/metal bands today. Likewise, put in Animals and listen to it and you will be stunned- it is an opus more than an album.

IMO, there are two things that link Metallica and Pink Floyd:

(1) How good both band were
(2) How far they've both fallen

It's sad, but both bands spectres of their former selves, both on the downsides of their careers. I hate it, but it seems like both bands lack the ability to innovate.[/QUOTE]

Agreed. I think what is important here, moreso than any change in direction that these bands each took in order to reach new audiences, whilst maintaining their appeal with their existing following, is the actual dynamic of the band. This energy, and synergy, is the basic fabric of the outfit and once it starts to fray, then it is dulled and weakened.

Roger Waters does have a fantastic ego, yet once removed from the Pink Floyd outfit, neither the band or the individual could continue the creative momentum that was Pink Floyd. This is my opinion, anyway. Mediocre at best.

With regards to Lars Ulrich, he is the ego behind Metallic, but (to me) not the sound of Metallica. He is one amazing drummer, but Hetfield and Hammett are the sound. Take Lars out of Metallica, he might form another great band with a great drummer, but he won't replicate Metallica IMO.

Magrus · Post by **Magrus** » Mon May 02, 2005 1:58 pm

I'd have to say Lars is the brain behind the band. I just can't see the others in the band with the intelligence to keep everything together this long without him honestly. I think they all have their fair share of ego.

Yshania · Post by **Yshania** » Mon May 02, 2005 1:59 pm

[QUOTE=jopperm2]I'm glad I have some support in here!

I'm just not into worshipping classic rock as superior to modern rock. I love classic rock, but I don't think things have gotten any worse only different. Nickelback and Disturbed are todays Boston and Chicago. They're cheesey, poppy, and shallow.

It doesn't mean I won't listen.

[/QUOTE]

Aw!

LOL! I love the comparisons, and agree. They are the kind of bands you find yourselves somewhat relieved to hear on popular radio, since it is better than rap or Kylie, but that's it!

Do you listen to any Nightwish? They are my faves at the moment.

Luis Antonio · Post by **Luis Antonio** » Mon May 02, 2005 2:01 pm

Nightwish is cool... I've been hearing it since I've been presented to it, six months ago... Too bad I dont really like PF to give an opinion.

jopperm2 · Post by **jopperm2** » Mon May 02, 2005 2:02 pm

Hmm Nightwish.. Haven't heard of them. I don't listen to much music right now aside from my daughter's kids stuff.

Are they British?

You're right about Hammet and Hetfield. I thik Hetfield has the voice of satan and I love it.

Darth Zenemij · Post by **Darth Zenemij** » Mon May 02, 2005 2:04 pm

I'll try to get some songs attached to this post.
Edit-It didn't work.

Darth Zenemij · Post by **Darth Zenemij** » Mon May 02, 2005 2:08 pm

And here is another great question, Do you think that pink floyd would have sounded better with the banjo and Tenor? I don't really.

Yshania · Post by **Yshania** » Mon May 02, 2005 2:11 pm

[QUOTE=Magrus]I'd have to say Lars is the brain behind the band. I just can't see the others in the band with the intelligence to keep everything together this long without him honestly. I think they all have their fair share of ego.

[/QUOTE]

I dunno. You might be right. It takes an ego, some leadership skills, inter-personnel energy and a modest following, to make things work. There needs to be a balance of all these skills, though, and the vision needs to be shared.

*Tries to picture Lars going solo - sees session musician*

Magrus · Post by **Magrus** » Mon May 02, 2005 2:14 pm

That's very very true. I've dealt with a few bands just starting out locally. If the chemistry and talent isn't there with the band, you go nowhere. Not unless your cute and record labels want to make you their...nm. Not going there today.