Pink Floyd vs. The Beatles, Time

In yesterdays post I alluded to how Dark Side of the Moon reminded me strongly of Abbey Road.  I must not be the only one, because the image above is all over the internet.  This leads to an interesting debate amongst music fans, mostly ardent Pink Floyd people, that claim that Pink Floyd is the spiritual successor to the Fab Four.  Some go even further claiming that Pink Floyd’s dazzling studio mastery and reflections on more mature philosophical themes elevate them as a technically greater band then the Beatles.  I’ll address the claims in reverse order.  While its true that Pink Floyd was a massive commercial success in the 70s, among the top 3 bands in the decade, they are not the Beatles of the 70s.  What Pink Floyd did was continue the Beatles psychedelic studio experimentation in the pop rock format, pushing its boundaries and increasing its sonic power.  Like the Beatles, their best songs had strong melodies, beautiful harmonies, and precise arrangements.  The difference is, Pink Floyd was a psychedelic folk band, while the Beatles were an ever expanding rock and roll outfit, encompassing a wide variety of styles and sensibilities.  At their height, Pink Floyd reached a massive arena audience and influenced youth culture strongly with their detached nihilistic messages railing against a corrupt and oppressive system.  At the Beatles height, they did all things Pink Floyd accomplished, times a factor of  100, plus creating the universe of youth culture that Pink Floyd successfully tapped into.  Tracing back to the first argument, in which people claim that Pink Floyd are spiritual successors of the Beatles, it is true, but so was practically every other band that came after the Beatles.  Pink Floyd were the best group that continued the Beatles perfect psychedelic folk experimentation heard on the White Album and copped the professionalism and thematic track linking the Beatles employed in creating Sgt. Pepper and Abbey Road.  It was just a few aspects of the Beatles that Pink Floyd carried on, not the whole bundle, but honestly, who could do everything the Beatles did?  This is no knock on Pink Floyd, merely a comment on the truly extraordinary accomplishments the Beatles achieved.  I’m sure most Pink Floyders would probably agree this because I’d be hard pressed to find a PF fan that didn’t like the Beatles.  Those that disagree are just not being fair to history and are letting their Pink Floyd love cloud their objective judgement.  Anyway, those are my opinions on the subject, and I have no problem with others thinking otherwise, its a fun debate.  I have one more song today from Dark Side of the Moon, “Time.”  “Time” is one of the best songs on the album, a sweeping collage of sound effects, guitar power, and haunting lyrics.  It’s a philosophical song about wasting ones life presented as an angry rant.  It’s almost a call to arms, and its fascinating.  Enjoy.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

No Responses to “Pink Floyd vs. The Beatles, Time”

  1. Tony says:

    Me and my mother and even my father are all huge Pink Floyd fans but we despise the beatles. The just sing the same thing and hardly ever change the chords or drums.. Don’t hate it’s just my and my parents opinion 🙂

  2. Ross says:

    The Beatles are my all time favorite band. but i enjoy listening to pink floyd more. what the beatles did was amazing and i believe that they would of done sooo much better if they continued. Could u imagine a beatles record from the 70s!?! what they did in the short time that they had was truly beautiful and astounding. Pink floyd i believe were the continuation of the beatles. the beatles would of expanded more though. my opinion. Thanks

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *