Pink Floyd vs Led Zeppelin

Which one?

  • Total voters
    249
the match-up between these two bands represents the age-old "brains vs. brawn" in the vein of "intellectual vs. sex"

pink floyd is the brains, led zep is the body
 
I voted for pink floyd maybe 3 years ago, but I've since changed my vote to zeppelin
 
i think Led Zeppelin. carries more weight in relation to nostalgia. their music has always been a little more accessible to me. my opinion could change in some sort of random rediscovering and i wouldn't mind. they're both good. that's what's really important to me.
 
Definitely Floyd however there's a super narrow margin in greatness there....
 
I have waaaaaay more great experiences listening to pink floyd. We listened to darkside tripping balls in the back of a cargo van road tripping form Coral springs FL, to Kansas city. That was one of the coolest trips I've ever had. We left at about 8 at night and got to to KC right around 7pm the next day.

So much fun.
 
I like to listen to Led but I came across this a while back and I know many artist plagiarised back in the day but it took the element of originality out of it for me with Led. So I would have to go Floyd. Both are legends for sure. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JyvLsutfI5M&feature=related http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zThdTAWQFAQ&feature=related there are more examples for the years after but these examples ruined it for me. If you are a Led Zeppelin fan like I am even despite seeing the links you are better off not even listening to them. To each his own I still like listening to Led Zeppelin just listen to them with a grain of salt ;)
 
Pink Floyd , I've never been a huge fan of Zep. Zep is my brother's fav but my entire family generally loves Pink Floyd, whereas my girlfriend's family really loves Zep. At this point, I generally hate Zeppelin.
 
bogmancometh said:
I like to listen to Led but I came across this a while back and I know many artist plagiarised back in the day but it took the element of originality out of it for me with Led. So I would have to go Floyd. Both are legends for sure. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JyvLsutfI5M&feature=related http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zThdTAWQFAQ&feature=related there are more examples for the years after but these examples ruined it for me. If you are a Led Zeppelin fan like I am even despite seeing the links you are better off not even listening to them. To each his own I still like listening to Led Zeppelin just listen to them with a grain of salt ;)
Click to expand...



I have known several people who make this argument against Led Zeppelin, and so that's probably why it has come to personally irk me so much. First of all, the songs are credited as being 'traditional', which means that their origins are so diffused that they basically belong to the air itself. Blues, jazz, rock and of course folk use 'folk' music. Folk songs are by definition a music that belongs to nobody. Actually I have a definition here from a 1980 dictionary.

folk song .n. 1. A song belonging to the folk music of a people or area.


Thats the simple fact. The better fact is that what Led Zeppelin did with these songs made them so incredibly original that they shouldn't have to credit anybody, even when they do. In that video, notice Joan Baez version of the song 'babe im gonna leave you' and then the Zeppelin version. The video cuts out right as the heavy guitar riffs begin to come in. Imagine Joan trying to mimic those on her own album. At the time music like that was unheard of, unheard, as in it had never been heard before. It's hard to imagine now, in this decade, after we have heard so many of those sounds, but at that time they simply did not exist.

To sum up my point in simple terms. Anyone saying that Led Zeppelin did not write original music is a fool. It's that simple. Or they are deaf or they have never heard of Led Zeppelin or music. I guess that is also possible. I guess.
 
Two completely different bands with alot to offer. Its the same as the asinine comparisons of people saying nirvana was better then sublime. What is it amateur hour on blue light?
 
Droppersneck said:
Two completely different bands with alot to offer. Its the same as the asinine comparisons of people saying nirvana was better then sublime. What is it amateur hour on blue light?
Click to expand...

I hate to be the lone voice here but as I said in another post, I actually think this comparison has a good amount of weight, but I guess I can say it again.

Two British monolith bands from the same era who each became the most monolithic of their genre. Both have a great deal in common and yet both represent completely different styles from an era where each was something entirely original. They both existed at the end of the 60s decade and the original psychedelic era, and they both took those roots into completely different directions. A lot can be said about the comparison and I honestly think it is a great comparison. That's about it. An actually firm rooted refute would be welcome. So, wecome, if you would. Although I don't see the point in making a post just to ridicule the thread, even if it were well informed. But hey, at least it would be more interesting than faux-positioning from shallow snobbery.


and really i'm not nearly as serious as i sound. Just throwing a haha at you while earnestly welcoming the challenge.
 
I wish this thread would die. It offends both bands legacy. Or maybe I'm trippin... :D
 
i started this one 2 years ago and finder had this to say :

Finder said:
What is the deal with these arbitrary match-ups?
Click to expand...

Finder said:
I mean, jazz vs blues makes sense, stooges vs. sex pistols, but Floyd vs Zepp just doesn't make as much sense to me I guess.
Click to expand...

Finder said:
That's just it, the other comparisons generate some discussion, otherwise it's just picking whatever one is your favorite.
Click to expand...

well turned out its the only one of those thread that survived,
seems like it did generate some discussion...

thats enough to justified this thread existence
 
batmanplaybaseball said:
I hate to be the lone voice here but as I said in another post, I actually think this comparison has a good amount of weight, but I guess I can say it again.

Two British monolith bands from the same era who each became the most monolithic of their genre. Both have a great deal in common and yet both represent completely different styles from an era where each was something entirely original. They both existed at the end of the 60s decade and the original psychedelic era, and they both took those roots into completely different directions. A lot can be said about the comparison and I honestly think it is a great comparison. That's about it. An actually firm rooted refute would be welcome. So, wecome, if you would. Although I don't see the point in making a post just to ridicule the thread, even if it were well informed. But hey, at least it would be more interesting than faux-positioning from shallow snobbery.


and really i'm not nearly as serious as i sound. Just throwing a haha at you while earnestly welcoming the challenge.
Click to expand...

Yawn, still no comparison. Two completely different sounds. Apples to oranges is still apples to oranges whether you agree with the idea or not. You say " but apples are a fruit too and they are both sweet, and by offering a opinion about them in which I do not agree makes me defensive."
 
Droppersneck said:
Yawn, still no comparison. Two completely different sounds. Apples to oranges is still apples to oranges whether you agree with the idea or not. You say " but apples are a fruit too and they are both sweet, and by offering a opinion about them in which I do not agree makes me defensive."
Click to expand...


Yeah and apples and oranges are both domesticated fruits grown on trees...However they are each primarily cultivated in different regions of the world meaning that they have initially much less in common than Pink Floyd and Led Zeppelin. Oh and I would be very surprised if they initial cultivation were to have been with the span of a couple years as was the case with Floyd and Zeppelin.

So really it's more like comparing spelt to barley...which probably would get a yawn from many people. But in that case one would wonder why they were looking up a thread about peoples opinions on spelt versus barley...
 
pink floyd all the way for me, definetly a must when stoned or high on psychedelics!
 
Both great bands but I'm gonna have to go with zeppelin. Zeppelin just has a bigger library of good songs.
 
Thats an easy one scince it has been proven that Zeppelin has stolen a bunch of their songs. Now Pink Floyd is a very artistic band, Barrett was an amazing musician and painter (nothing against the others they are very talented also). Its hard to imagine the stuff he has seen on his trips. PF can be just pure amazing when high or tripping, very peaceful music. I could probably fall asleep to The Dark Side of the Moon
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top