PDA

View Full Version : McCartney vs. Waters



cr8vbeats
02-04-2009, 11:42 PM
okay, both of these guys are from great reputable bands from their era, coachella booked two old school artists one year after the other. In your opinion, for those of you who have seen both, which one of these guys puts on a better show for a lasting impression????

MeowMixer
02-04-2009, 11:43 PM
Neither.

MeowMixer
02-04-2009, 11:43 PM
Genesis P. Orrige.

cr8vbeats
02-04-2009, 11:45 PM
damn!

Rockstarboy37
02-04-2009, 11:47 PM
no challenge. Waters Wins every time

NightGoat
02-04-2009, 11:53 PM
Genesis P. Orrige.

I second this

sonnyboy11
02-04-2009, 11:54 PM
Genesis P. Orrige.

No. I've seen Pyschic TV and while decent, Genesis is no Roger Waters- at least in terms of ideas and production. Johnny Rotten once said that Pink Floyd were everything that was wrong with music. But he was wrong about that. Last year's performance of DSotM and the overall spectacle were the best show I have seen.


no challenge. Waters Wins every time

Now, in spite of what I said above, can you at least please wait until you have seen Sir Paul before making that statement? I know I can.

im so indie
02-04-2009, 11:55 PM
Waters > McCartney >>>>>>>>>>> Basically everyone else on the planet

NightGoat
02-05-2009, 12:10 AM
I disagree with a lot of things Johnny Rotten says and does. I like Pink Floyd and the Beatles just fine, they're not my absolute favorite bands, but they both deserve a lot of credit. My only problem is that we, as fans of music, really need to move on. If you own a ton of Beatles and Pink Floyd records, you're probably better for it, but if I have to sit through another conversation that begins with "You know what's a great album? DSOTM" or "Have you heard this great band The Beatles?" I'm going to put my head through a wall. Both bands have been publicly praised for almost half a century. Everything that needs to be said about them has been said.

nothingisnothing
02-05-2009, 12:16 AM
Johnny Rotten isn't really a reputable source for any opinions really. I mean, the guy was in Sex Pistols. Ya dig?

But Public Image Ltd. That is some respectable shit

sonnyboy11
02-05-2009, 12:20 AM
I disagree with a lot of things Johnny Rotten says and does. I like Pink Floyd and the Beatles just fine, they're not my absolute favorite bands, but they both deserve a lot of credit. My only problem is that we, as fans of music, really need to move on. If you own a ton of Beatles and Pink Floyd records, you're probably better for it, but if I have to sit through another conversation that begins with "You know what's a great album? DSOTM" or "Have you heard this great band The Beatles?" I'm going to put my head through a wall. Both bands have been publicly praised for almost half a century. Everything that needs to be said about them has been said.

Look, I hear ya. And I know this is a 'pop' culture we live in. But on general principle I disagree with your statement. I mean, did people get sick of Mozart back in the day? Oh maybe they did "Dang, that Amadeus is some tired shit!". But guess what- they were WRONG. Turns out that great music is timeless, meaning it never actually gets old and there is never a reason to stop discussing it. Pink Floyd and, of course, the Beatles fall into that same category. There is no reason to 'move on' when it comes to some bands and their music. Although I am fine to move on from certain fads. Like the whole 80's dance thing- ugh what was I thinking??? :)

AlecEiffel
02-05-2009, 12:25 AM
Johnny Rotten isn't really a reputable source for any opinions really. I mean, the guy was in Sex Pistols. Ya dig?

But Public Image Ltd. That is some respectable shit

Yeah, because this retarded bullshit
iHKn_gk8WV8

is more respactable than this extremely awesome retarded bullshit
hjyqpxkKJCM

jamesbond007
02-05-2009, 12:39 AM
Paul.........

puts anyone to shame musically!

I'm talking talent here

waters *LOL*

Coachella Bound
02-05-2009, 12:44 AM
Waters>McCartney

any day of the week!

Im talking Pink Floyd here

.......but i will give Paul his shot to prove me wrong.

jamesbond007
02-05-2009, 12:46 AM
Paul dont need to prove a thing...
hes been there done that while
these bands were still learning
to wipe thier butts. *LOL*

Coachella Bound
02-05-2009, 12:52 AM
Paul dont need to prove a thing...
hes been there done that while
these bands were still learning
to wipe thier butts. *LOL*

*LOL* Indeed. Seems to me your a really big Beatles fan.

Xenocide
02-05-2009, 12:58 AM
two completely different kinds of acts, yet both equally epic...

let's try comparing Aphex Twin to Arcade Fire or something equally stupid.

jrechoes
02-05-2009, 01:01 AM
Waters for sure.
I wish I could of been at his coachella show last year. Never seen any Pink FLoyd live. Is there any hope that either members will do a solo tour or something?

zikade
02-05-2009, 01:09 AM
Waters for the spectacle but Paul wins if its just a guitar and a stage.

Shooters08
02-05-2009, 01:10 AM
Waters! No way Paul beats his set. They should have Paul play sunset then crush the Sahara after.

Memorial_07
02-05-2009, 07:39 AM
They're pretty even...

*Both played in legendary bands
*Very old
*Expensive stage production each


Now how they differ:

Waters: Not as catchy as Paul, plays just Pink Floyd songs, has a giant inflatable pig float over the audiences

McCartney: Very catchy tunes, plays both his original material and Beatles' songs (is that good or bad), has an unreal amount of fireworks set off during his set


We'll see how this goes

Medford
02-05-2009, 01:52 PM
Both are great

**JwOx**
02-05-2009, 02:33 PM
Look, I hear ya. And I know this is a 'pop' culture we live in. But on general principle I disagree with your statement. I mean, did people get sick of Mozart back in the day? Oh maybe they did "Dang, that Amadeus is some tired shit!". But guess what- they were WRONG. Turns out that great music is timeless, meaning it never actually gets old and there is never a reason to stop discussing it. Pink Floyd and, of course, the Beatles fall into that same category. There is no reason to 'move on' when it comes to some bands and their music. Although I am fine to move on from certain fads. Like the whole 80's dance thing- ugh what was I thinking??? :)

perfectly said... good music never gets old...

as far as which as better i love pink floyd and the waters show last year was awesome... however i am also a Beatles fan and have not see Paul perform live therefore before saying waters i must give McCartney a shot

Rockstarboy37
02-05-2009, 02:36 PM
Paul dont need to prove a thing...
hes been there done that while
these bands were still learning
to wipe thier butts. *LOL*

Pink Floyd and the Beatles were around at the same time.

And I'll admit paul makes some great tunes compared to waters, but nobody puts on a show like pink floyd.

if you're going for "lasting impressions" here, waters wins.

roboticwaltz
02-05-2009, 02:37 PM
In my opinion, they're the two best bass players in the world. Not technically, but they accomplish the bass role of a band better than anyone else.

However, the live Roger Waters experience is completely mind blowing, with or without drugs (but preferably with, duh).

roboticwaltz
02-05-2009, 02:39 PM
Pink Floyd and the Beatles were around at the same time.

And I'll admit paul makes some great tunes compared to waters, but nobody puts on a show like pink floyd.

if you're going for "lasting impressions" here, waters wins.

Oh and just for the sake of being an anal douche, Pink Floyd's first album was in 1968, and they didn't hit it big in the US until Dark Side in 1973. The Beatles broke up in 1970.

It's not a big deal, I'm just mean. But totally in agreement about the live show.

heyeric
02-05-2009, 02:42 PM
I guess I'll just have to wait and see.
I'm a Floyd fan though and Paul just isn't enough for me when it comes to the Beatles...

It'll be interesting to see how he's going to try and top Waters w/ his live show though.
See you all there!

elChurro
02-05-2009, 02:43 PM
Paul > Roger

Rockstarboy37
02-05-2009, 02:45 PM
I know they weren't popular til after the beatles. All I'm saying is they weren't learning to wipe their butts at the time. haha. Maybe syd was, but the rest knew how to do that.

Trick Loves The Kids
02-05-2009, 02:46 PM
waters owns

Rockstarboy37
02-05-2009, 02:47 PM
Paul > Roger

Paul Rogers

http://manolomen.com/images/Paul%20Rogers.jpg

LooseAtTheZoo
02-05-2009, 02:48 PM
I think that Waters Floyd songs lend themselves to a more elaborate stage production, but when I saw McCartney there was just as much hubbub going on on the screens around him.

roboticwaltz
02-05-2009, 03:00 PM
Paul Rogers

http://manolomen.com/images/Paul%20Rogers.jpg

I see a Bad Company reunion for 2010...

Rockstarboy37
02-05-2009, 03:14 PM
I saw him with queen at the hollywood bowl. Great show despite the lack of Freddy

SuperStar
02-05-2009, 03:32 PM
They're pretty even...

*Both played in legendary bands
*Very old
*Expensive stage production each


Now how they differ:

Waters: Not as catchy as Paul, plays just Pink Floyd songs, has a giant inflatable pig float over the audiences

McCartney: Very catchy tunes, plays both his original material and Beatles' songs (is that good or bad), has an unreal amount of fireworks set off during his set


We'll see how this goes

Wrong: Waters played a bunch of his new original material. In fact, when I saw him at Coachella last year, I was really going for the Dark Side... but that part turned out to be semi-boring, just because I have heard that shit so damn many times already. His new material was the best part of the show(did anyone else feel this way?)! High energy, more passion, and that's when the pig flew and everything.

cr8vbeats
02-05-2009, 03:38 PM
from the amount of replies so far, its pretty much mixed and neck and neck for these artists, or i guess just personal preference. Guess I'll just have to see for myself on Friday if I should eat "fry" or not. Dark side of the moon was freakin awesome on fry, and the probability of others that were frying as well during the show on this board is likely high!!! Thanks guys

SuperStar
02-05-2009, 03:45 PM
from the amount of replies so far, its pretty much mixed and neck and neck for these artists, or i guess just personal preference. Guess I'll just have to see for myself on Friday if I should eat "fry" or not. Dark side of the moon was freakin awesome on fry, and the probability of others that were frying as well during the show on this board is likely high!!! Thanks guys

Haha... I was doing a mycology experiment. It worked. :)

I wasn't thinking McCartney would be the proper occasion for another one (Thievery would...), but after hearing that his pyrotechnics/production is as big or bigger than Waters', well.. maybe!

cr8vbeats
02-05-2009, 03:51 PM
haha, im right there with ya man

Gogolicious
02-05-2009, 04:17 PM
* who are by far the two most talented performers to ever play Coachella. Both will have the greatest abundance of "10" songs on the setlist to ever grace the grounds.

Tijuana
02-05-2009, 04:47 PM
Waters > PM. Any time. PM was part of a Pop Rock band. Waters was part of a music band. Pop rockers die with their youth. Music bands transcend. Maybe in their prime I would pick PM with the Beatles over RW with Pink Floyd. Twist and shout with a wrinkled old man is just not the same. On the other hand I did not mind watching an old man perform DSOTM last year.

Trick Loves The Kids
02-05-2009, 04:51 PM
from the amount of replies so far, its pretty much mixed and neck and neck for these artists, or i guess just personal preference. Guess I'll just have to see for myself on Friday if I should eat "fry" or not. Dark side of the moon was freakin awesome on fry, and the probability of others that were frying as well during the show on this board is likely high!!! Thanks guys

DO IT

BakForMore
02-05-2009, 05:02 PM
Both equally great, need to see Paul before I make a call.

tyler0js
02-05-2009, 05:02 PM
Paul McCartney ≠ The Beatles
Rodger Waters ≠ Pink Floyd

Everyone seems to forget this....

hypervera
02-05-2009, 05:09 PM
THE BEATLES>>>>>>pink floyd
McCartney>>Waters

faxman75
02-05-2009, 05:17 PM
They're pretty even...

*Both played in legendary bands
*Very old
*Expensive stage production each


Now how they differ:

Waters: Not as catchy as Paul, plays just Pink Floyd songs, has a giant inflatable pig float over the audiences

McCartney: Very catchy tunes, plays both his original material and Beatles' songs (is that good or bad), has an unreal amount of fireworks set off during his set


We'll see how this goes

Waters plays both his original material and Floyd material. Just like McCartney. Paul's has more solo material but even last year Roger Waters performed solo tunes. Perfect Sense being the standout Waters solo tune and of course Leaving Beirut.

faxman75
02-05-2009, 05:18 PM
Paul McCartney ≠ The Beatles
Rodger Waters ≠ Pink Floyd

Everyone seems to forget this....

Maybe but mostly folks who like the Beatles songs better will like Paul better, those who like Floyd better are gonna like Waters better.

nothingisnothing
02-05-2009, 06:42 PM
Yeah, because this retarded bullshit
iHKn_gk8WV8

is more respactable than this extremely awesome retarded bullshit
hjyqpxkKJCM

Sex Pistols were a shitty punk band, I love punk music, but Sex Pistols is just plain vomit worthy. The fact that they even reunited is just contradictory to everything they stood for

djandrews25
02-05-2009, 06:44 PM
Paul dont need to prove a thing...
hes been there done that while
these bands were still learning
to wipe thier butts. *LOL*

You moron, pink floyd recorded their first album in the same studio at the same time beatles were recording sgt peppers.

lsd_reflux
02-05-2009, 06:50 PM
The production frenzy during Water's set last year is going to be hard to top! But, I'm sure we'll see some tricks & special guests with Paul as well.

Rockstarboy37
02-05-2009, 07:10 PM
Paul McCartney < Muddy Waters

GaragePoet
02-05-2009, 07:16 PM
Waters > PM. Any time. PM was part of a Pop Rock band. Waters was part of a music band. Pop rockers die with their youth. Music bands transcend. Maybe in their prime I would pick PM with the Beatles over RW with Pink Floyd. Twist and shout with a wrinkled old man is just not the same. On the other hand I did not mind watching an old man perform DSOTM last year.

dude, it's hard to make the argument reducing the Beatles as simply a "pop rock" band... as opposed to a "music band"?! that just sounds retarded. form an educated opinion & try again.

p.s. "Twist and Shout" was Lennon, not Paul...

edit: i forgot about the "pop rockers" who die w/ their youth... i'm pretty sure if you asked anyone on the street that Beatles fans would outnumber Floyd fans 10:1

bluemamba
02-05-2009, 07:40 PM
Waters >>>>>>>>>>> McCartney any day.

in song writing, singing, and bass playing too.

sonnyboy11
02-05-2009, 08:05 PM
Waters >>>>>>>>>>> McCartney any day.

in song writing, singing, and bass playing too.


No. Now this I cannot let go. Their styles are different and both are pioneers in the field of bass playing songwriters. But Waters does not have McCartney's sense of melody. Nor does he have a bass line like Rain, or Lucy In the Sky with Diamonds. Now, I can easily reverse that and say that McCartney does not have a line as haunting as the fretless solo in Hey You, or the eerie, ominous pounding of the bass in One Of These Days. But saying Roger is >>>>>>> over Paul in these areas is incorrect. Also, Paul has the better voice. Period.

CitizenJ
02-05-2009, 09:23 PM
Beatles > Pink Floyd
Paul McCartney > Waters

Goes without any real question. if you are looking at which sounds you like, to each thier own. but to who innovated the most, made the most music, made the most hits, and has had a bigger influence of music as we know it (the good stuff on both acounts, i know someone will be like "wtf omg paul mccartney inflnces the Killers! eww! Waters = Animal Collective FTW!!!" but its wrong. McCartney is a legend. Waters was just in a really good band.

sonnyboy11
02-05-2009, 09:30 PM
Beatles > Pink Floyd
Paul McCartney > Waters

Goes without any real question. if you are looking at which sounds you like, to each thier own. but to who innovated the most, made the most music, made the most hits, and has had a bigger influence of music as we know it (the good stuff on both acounts, i know someone will be like "wtf omg paul mccartney inflnces the Killers! eww! Waters = Animal Collective FTW!!!" but its wrong. McCartney is a legend. Waters was just in a really good band.

Ok, no no no. Fark I am feeling bi-polar here! Waters was the main songwriter for Pink Floyd and sang many of the tunes as well, along with being an outstanding rock bass player. But more importantly, Pink Floyd was his VISION. As much as I love Gilmour, all of the crazy concepts and the direction that Pink Floyd had over the years were the result of Roger Water's creative genious. We take it for granted but bands like Pink Floyd are unique and, put simply, Pink Floyd would never have existed or evolved the way it did without Waters- he is Pink Floyd!

I know music is mostly a subjective thing when it comes to likes and dislikes, but taken as a whole, I simply do not see how you can say Waters was merely 'just in a good band'.

CitizenJ
02-05-2009, 09:44 PM
Ok, no no no. Fark I am feeling bi-polar here! Waters was the main songwriter for Pink Floyd and sang many of the tunes as well, along with being an outstanding rock bass player. But more importantly, Pink Floyd was his VISION. As much as I love Gilmour, all of the crazy concepts and the direction that Pink Floyd had over the years were the result of Roger Water's creative genious. We take it for granted but bands like Pink Floyd are unique and, put simply, Pink Floyd would never have existed or evolved the way it did without Waters- he is Pink Floyd!

I know music is mostly a subjective thing when it comes to likes and dislikes, but taken as a whole, I simply do not see how you can say Waters was merely 'just in a good band'.

I didn't intend for it to sound like I'm writing off Waters like he was just backing other people up. I fully understand who Waters is, and his work in Floyd, respect, and consider myself a fan. But I'm saying, Waters non-Floyd stuff??? eh. I mean look how much material the Beatles put out, then wings, then McCartney's solo stuff. the guy just keeps going and a lot of it is good. That is what I'm saying here. I'm not really trying to put anyone down, i'm just saying, to compare what the two have done and who has done more and had more of an influence, reach, acceptance, and what seems to be widespread praise, its McCartney. and in terms of the sound, I vote for McCartney as well. Its not like once he left the Beatles and John and George were gone he dried up.

sonnyboy11
02-05-2009, 10:04 PM
I didn't intend for it to sound like I'm writing off Waters like he was just backing other people up. I fully understand who Waters is, and his work in Floyd, respect, and consider myself a fan. But I'm saying, Waters non-Floyd stuff??? eh. I mean look how much material the Beatles put out, then wings, then McCartney's solo stuff. the guy just keeps going and a lot of it is good. That is what I'm saying here. I'm not really trying to put anyone down, i'm just saying, to compare what the two have done and who has done more and had more of an influence, reach, acceptance, and what seems to be widespread praise, its McCartney. and in terms of the sound, I vote for McCartney as well. Its not like once he left the Beatles and John and George were gone he dried up.

I think that Water's solo stuff is mostly just overlooked, in particular Radio KAOS. And as noted earlier in this thread, It All Makes Perfect Sense was a standout last year at his Coachella performance. Roger's solo stuff is very good and in some cases great- I recommend anyone reading this to give it a chance. And it is certainly better than crap like the Division Bell.

OTOH, McCartney has been far more prolific in releasing records when compared to Waters. The results of his efforts post-Beatles have been spotty at best in most cases. Band On the Run and Ram are undeniable classics. But Red Rose Speedway and McCartney II? Yuck! He only gets a pass on Tug Of War because he called in the brilliant Stevie Wonder to help out (still, pretty awful overall).

I think the Beatles will always have the edge most other bands because of the fact that they changed an entire culture with their music. But Waters makes a strong case for influencing most of the music we hear today, at least as much as the Beatles are influencing it.

Pura Vida
02-05-2009, 10:31 PM
They're pretty even...

*Both played in legendary bands
*Very old
*Expensive stage production each


Now how they differ:

Waters: Not as catchy as Paul, plays just Pink Floyd songs, has a giant inflatable pig float over the audiences

McCartney: Very catchy tunes, plays both his original material and Beatles' songs (is that good or bad), has an unreal amount of fireworks set off during his set


We'll see how this goes

This is the only comment that really makes much sense to me. I can't believe that there is much more to talk about.

Coachella Bound
02-05-2009, 10:36 PM
I think that Water's solo stuff is mostly just overlooked, in particular Radio KAOS.

haha i just had this entire cd explained to me in detail from begining to end.......

proyectil
02-05-2009, 11:54 PM
I've been to both their shows... and they have been the greatest shows I've been to....

ELPOLLOLOCO
02-06-2009, 12:39 AM
For Coachella, its no question that Waters takes the cake...

Gogolicious
02-06-2009, 08:21 AM
dude, it's hard to make the argument reducing the Beatles as simply a "pop rock" band... as opposed to a "music band"?! that just sounds retarded. form an educated opinion & try again.

p.s. "Twist and Shout" was Lennon, not Paul...

edit: i forgot about the "pop rockers" who die w/ their youth... i'm pretty sure if you asked anyone on the street that Beatles fans would outnumber Floyd fans 10:1


No rock band has sold more records than the Beatles. Coming up a distant second is Pink Floyd and Led Zeppelin.

That said, the work Pink Floyd did allowed them to age like old psychedelic bluesmen. See Live 8 where Floyd wiped McCarney off the stage( and actually PF was going to close the show and McCartney complained).

And for those not in the know, Syd Barrett was a big influence on the Beatles, releasing songs like "See Emily Play", Interstellar Overdrive" and "Arnold Layne" well before Sgt. Peppers was ever released.

Gogolicious
02-06-2009, 08:24 AM
Beatles > Pink Floyd
Paul McCartney > Waters

Goes without any real question. if you are looking at which sounds you like, to each thier own. but to who innovated the most,

This is a live show, and Pink Floyd was by far the bigger live innovator(probably in rock history, other than the Dead and the Who). In fact, McCartney uses the evolved surround system that was pioneered by Pink Floyd in the 60's.

It's very possible McCartney will match Waters, but not in the same way. Waters just has a darker, more maniacal psychedelic tone and can manipulate tension like a puppeteer (Pink Floyd's live genius at work), whereas McCartney is more straight up pop. MCartney can hit you with bombast and joy (Hey Jude sing alongs, the phenomenal Beatles catalogue, etc).

That said, Pink Floyd has been praised effusely for 40 years as being the greatest live act in the history of rock. The Beatles and their solo efforts have not.

xxorcoxx
02-06-2009, 08:27 AM
Are we talking light sabers, bare knuckle boxing, greco-roman wrestling?

Alchemy
02-06-2009, 08:38 AM
The Beatles and Pink Floyd are equally powerful. The Beatles may be a little more legendary because they set the bar, and their influence on other bands (probably on Pink Floyd, as well) is so widespread. Pink Floyd, on the other hand, made some of the most amazing albums in the world.

Roger Waters put on a great show, but I don't think Paul McCartney will have as big a production. I mean, Waters had surround sound, an airplane, the flying pig, pyrotechnics, and that crazy thing with the guy smoking a cigarette and listening to the radio... All that stuff was intense. I'm positive that McCartney will be great also, even if he doesn't have as much stuff as Waters, because he has great music to play.

shabana
02-06-2009, 09:29 AM
Waters

AlecEiffel
02-06-2009, 09:35 AM
And for those not in the know, Syd Barrett was a big influence on the Beatles, releasing songs like "See Emily Play", Interstellar Overdrive" and "Arnold Layne" well before Sgt. Peppers was ever released.

But this isn't Pink Floyd overall vs the Beatles overall. I think Syd Barrett has very little to do with this argument, Pink Floyd with and without Barrett are two completely different beasts.

Rockstarboy37
02-06-2009, 10:44 AM
Pink Floyd was doing a lot of the stuff that throbbing gristle was doing before they were even a band. Just throwing that out there.


But you can't deny revolution 9 is one hell of a modern art masterpiece

now I'm just diverting this conversation in a whole new direction

Paul McCartney vs. Roger Waters continue...

Malachi the Toad
02-06-2009, 11:05 AM
I would sacrifice them both if we could get Harrison and Barrett back in the deal.

summerkid
02-06-2009, 11:15 AM
correct answer: Paul. Waters puts on a show a light show spectacle the problem is that Dsotm is an album dominated by Gilmour's voice and Gilmour's guitar and really shouldn't have been performed without him. Water's voice is terrible and he can't hit the notes that Gilmour can. Paul will stick to his songs that's why I'm choosing him. Plus his solo stuff (fireman and some wings songs) are better than Water's solo stuff.

summerkid
02-06-2009, 11:17 AM
I would sacrifice them both if we could get Harrison and Barrett back in the deal.

When I told my dad that McCartney was headlining he said something like i guess he's going to do beatles songs for the kids?...too bad Harrison wasn't still alive he probably would have been a better fit.

NightGoat
02-06-2009, 12:47 PM
Pink Floyd was doing a lot of the stuff that throbbing gristle was doing before they were even a band. Just throwing that out there.

I guess there's some similarities with what TG and PF were doing, particularly with effects and samples and whatnot, but tons of bands were experimenting with technology during the 1960s and 70s. I'd say that TG had more to do with what Neu!, Can, Kraftwerk, Velvet Underground, and Sex Pistols were doing at the time than they do with Pink Floyd.

elChurro
02-06-2009, 02:58 PM
waters is nothing without the rest of the band while mccartney can stand on his own either way.

CitizenJ
02-06-2009, 03:31 PM
That said, Pink Floyd has been praised effusely for 40 years as being the greatest live act in the history of rock.

I always thought that "The Who" landed the title of greatest live act in the history of rock. I have never seen either one live, but have seen video of both live, and can say that the Who seem to live up to that claim. I have heard the Stones get that title as well, but no band gets it as much as The Who.

CitizenJ
02-06-2009, 03:36 PM
The Beatles and Pink Floyd are equally powerful. The Beatles may be a little more legendary because they set the bar, and their influence on other bands (probably on Pink Floyd, as well) is so widespread. Pink Floyd, on the other hand, made some of the most amazing albums in the world.


huh??? yea, the Beatles didn't make many great albums. Abbey Road, Sgt. Peppers, The White Album, Revolver, Help!, Rubber Soul. But, ON THE OTHER HAND, Pink Floyd made great albums.

AlecEiffel
02-06-2009, 03:39 PM
Spectacle alone doesn't make a band "the greatest live act in the history of rock". I'd sacrifice all the lazers and inflatable pigs in the world for great songs, charisma and a strong stage presence.

Monklish
02-06-2009, 04:04 PM
You're all dum dums.

Gogolicious
02-06-2009, 04:46 PM
I guess there's some similarities with what TG and PF were doing, particularly with effects and samples and whatnot, but tons of bands were experimenting with technology during the 1960s and 70s. I'd say that TG had more to do with what Neu!, Can, Kraftwerk, Velvet Underground, and Sex Pistols were doing at the time than they do with Pink Floyd.

Eh Floyd was before all those bands except for VU, and Barrett + VU kicked off art rock to begin with, which inspired kraut rock a few years later (kraut rock didn't really develop properly until the 70's, while VU and PF were doing it in 66'). The song "Interstelllar Overdrive" which Barrett wrote in 1966 is the sonic template for that avant garde rock.

Gogolicious
02-06-2009, 04:46 PM
I always thought that "The Who" landed the title of greatest live act in the history of rock. I have never seen either one live, but have seen video of both live, and can say that the Who seem to live up to that claim. I have heard the Stones get that title as well, but no band gets it as much as The Who.

Watch Live 8. The Who, PF and McCartney all performed. Of course, this was far removed from their prime years, but it gives a fairly decent indication. Floyd had one day of rehearsel and hadn't played in 25 years ......

CitizenJ
02-06-2009, 04:49 PM
Watch Live 8. The Who, PF and McCartney all performed. Of course, this was far removed from their prime years, but it gives a fairly decent indication. Floyd had one day of rehearsel and hadn't played in 25 years ......

Well, I think that may be a good way to look at them right now, but when i say greatest live band of all time, I'm looking at all of them in their prime. you know, when everyone in the band was still alive.

Monklish
02-06-2009, 04:50 PM
This is a fucking stupid argument. Stop being so fucking stupid and just shut up.

NightGoat
02-06-2009, 05:00 PM
This is true. Still, I'd say that linking Pink Floyd and Throbbing Gristle is a bit of a stretch. TG has more in common with the musique concrete that began in the late 40s and Revolution 9 by the Beatles than they do with Floyd. I guess the Piper at the Gates of Dawn album couldve been a TG influence, but they were talking more about Hendrix and VU than Floyd. Besides, TG were doing things with their instruments that were way more out there than what Pink Floyd was doing.

sonnyboy11
02-06-2009, 05:31 PM
You're all dum dums.

Why you! /shakes fist








.... probably true

biffbangpow
02-06-2009, 07:28 PM
It comes down to Pink Floyd vs The Beatles, and the difference is DRUGS!

jazzz
02-06-2009, 07:31 PM
Johnny Rotten isn't really a reputable source for any opinions really. I mean, the guy was in Sex Pistols. Ya dig?

But Public Image Ltd. That is some respectable shit

Thanks to JAH WOBBLE

rkawar
02-06-2009, 07:55 PM
paul wins this. Mostly because its a lot harder to see a former Beatle then it is to see Roger Waters. Roger Waters tours all the time playing one album or another.

plus Beatles > Pink Floyd.

Memorial_07
02-06-2009, 07:56 PM
You have a point. But I'd probably prefer to see Waters over Paul because of his amazing show and I like Waters' solo stuff more and I enjoy Pink Floyd more than the Beatles but when I see McCartney it's for legendary purposes and hopefully his set is a bunch of Beatles songs

Gogolicious
02-06-2009, 10:22 PM
This is true. Still, I'd say that linking Pink Floyd and Throbbing Gristle is a bit of a stretch. TG has more in common with the musique concrete that began in the late 40s and Revolution 9 by the Beatles than they do with Floyd.


"Revolution 9" by the Beatles was well after "Interstellar Overdrive" by Pink Floyd.




I guess the Piper at the Gates of Dawn album couldve been a TG influence, but they were talking more about Hendrix and VU than Floyd. Besides, TG were doing things with their instruments that were way more out there than what Pink Floyd was doing.

Eh..no. :) Sorry to burst your bubble, but Barrett was the template ;)

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/5nowQ23owOo&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/5nowQ23owOo&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>


Throbbing Gristle:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fe4luvg1Ltg


Hendrix, VU and early Floyd are the primary kraut rock influence.

And much of what TG did wasn't all that different from the freakout section of "One of These Days. The difference is, PF was ablt to make a complete, memorable song out of it rather than a noodle session:

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/0aunoKAz6Mc&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/0aunoKAz6Mc&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

We are talking rock Gods here man. Such an innovative song, but they had other things to do rather than repeat the same idea over the next several albums and get stuck in a niche ;)

D.M.B.4Coachella
02-06-2009, 11:15 PM
i wonder if any of you fuckers have seen BOTH artists live? I doubt it.

Pura Vida
02-06-2009, 11:29 PM
correct answer: Paul. Waters puts on a show a light show spectacle the problem is that Dsotm is an album dominated by Gilmour's voice and Gilmour's guitar and really shouldn't have been performed without him. Water's voice is terrible and he can't hit the notes that Gilmour can. Paul will stick to his songs that's why I'm choosing him. Plus his solo stuff (fireman and some wings songs) are better than Water's solo stuff.

This is exactly correct. Roger's guitarist was good, in fact he was very good. However, it saddened me to hear DSotM without Gilmour's vocals and guitar solos --- nearly to the point that it over-shadowed the amazing visual presentation.

agentapplejuice
02-06-2009, 11:31 PM
waters, hands down.

Pura Vida
02-06-2009, 11:38 PM
I always thought that "The Who" landed the title of greatest live act in the history of rock. I have never seen either one live, but have seen video of both live, and can say that the Who seem to live up to that claim. I have heard the Stones get that title as well, but no band gets it as much as The Who.

Without any doubt, The Who is the greatest live band. Entwhistle is arguably a better bass player than either Roger or Paul, and Pete is an underrated guitarist. Their only blemish would be their 1989 comeback, which they jokingly referred to as "The Who: On Ice."

Pink Floyd is known for being solid performers, but their legacy is in their stage shows. Also, having such an elaborate production limits your ability to improvise on stage, giving the nod to bands like The Who and The Rolling Stones.

Fatpolish
02-07-2009, 01:19 AM
Rolling Stones??? MEH... I have seen them twice... they were good, don't get me wrong... But I have seen better. And better i mean from Roger Waters, and U2, Pearl Jam, Tom Petty. i don't know, Maybe it's because of my age... I just think Roger will win hands down between him and The Cure. Second... U2...

<begin flaming>

NightGoat
02-07-2009, 01:32 AM
"Revolution 9" by the Beatles was well after "Interstellar Overdrive" by Pink Floyd.

Let me begin by first telling you that you are right about Pink Floyd's influence on Throbbing Gristle, and you're totally correct about the chronology of everything we've talked about. If I wore a hat I'd tip it to you.

Although it's not an influence TG talk about often, the influence is there, though I wouldn't say it's necessarily a greater or smaller influence on their music than Hendrix, VU, or jazz was. Also, we'd have to take into account the punk music that was influencing them as well. I think to pinpoint PF as their big influence would be looking over all the other music they cite as influences.

Also, the Beatles were experimenting with tape,samples and effects before they did Revolution 9. A full year before PF released Piper and 9 years before Throbbing Gristle released 2nd Annual Report Beatles released Revolver. If you listen to the last track, Tomorrow Never Knows, you can hear a liberal use of tape manipulation, Thus playing back into my original point, which was Revolution 9 and Throbbing Gristle both rely on heavy usage of samples and tape experimentation.

Now, whether Pink Floyd made more memorable songs than TG is simply a matter of opinion. I hold deep admiration and love for the music of both bands but I wouldn't call one band's music more memorable than the other. I remember a ton of amazing songs from both bands. Still, I'd say that the things Throbbing Gristle did with their instruments was way more wild than what Pink Floyd did.

When Pink Floyd played music, you could still tell what instruments they were playing. TG, however, completely re-imagined what instruments could sound like. Just about every sound was shaped into something completely unheard of. but it's kind of a useless comparison because, generally speaking, they're very different bands. The video example you used to show a relationship between Throbbing Gristle's music and Pink Floyd's is only one example. If you were to dig through their discographies you'd find endless amounts of differences between the two. Anyway, I'm done ranting.

Peace

Gogolicious
02-07-2009, 12:52 PM
Pink Floyd is known for being solid performers, but their legacy is in their stage shows. Also, having such an elaborate production limits your ability to improvise on stage, giving the nod to bands like The Who and The Rolling Stones.

Pink Floyd was an improvisational live band up until to The Wall (most of their career). They were one of the first bands to do free form live rock experiments live (See London Underground).

Watch Live 8 and see Floyd blow the Who out of the water. There's a reason Pink Floyd can fill 80,000 seat venues every night and the Who are playing theaters. now, that's not saying that The Who are bad. They are awesome and one of the top five greatest live acts ever. But their live show was largely dependent on their youthful energy, which is now gone. Waters realized this and designed the live experience to be about surround sound, sound quality, tension, theatrics and improvisation.

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/tMpGdG27K9o&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/tMpGdG27K9o&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

Gogolicious
02-07-2009, 01:03 PM
Although it's not an influence TG talk about often, the influence is there, though I wouldn't say it's necessarily a greater or smaller influence on their music than Hendrix, VU, or jazz was. Also, we'd have to take into account the punk music that was influencing them as well. I think to pinpoint PF as their big influence would be looking over all the other music they cite as influences.

Of course., and I'm not saying that is their main infuence. What I am saying is that is that VU, Hendrix and Floyd are the template for that edgy, experimental art rock.



Also, the Beatles were experimenting with tape,samples and effects before they did Revolution 9. A full year before PF released Piper and 9 years before Throbbing Gristle released 2nd Annual Report Beatles released Revolver. If you listen to the last track, Tomorrow Never Knows, you can hear a liberal use of tape manipulation, Thus playing back into my original point, which was Revolution 9 and Throbbing Gristle both rely on heavy usage of samples and tape experimentation.


Yes, agreed.




Now, whether Pink Floyd made more memorable songs than TG is simply a matter of opinion. I hold deep admiration and love for the music of both bands but I wouldn't call one band's music more memorable than the other. I remember a ton of amazing songs from both bands. Still, I'd say that the things Throbbing Gristle did with their instruments was way more wild than what Pink Floyd did.


This I would disagree with, especially if you've ever taken anything and listened to the music at the same time. Floyd did a lot of crazy shit (used a dog for an instrument, pioneered the useage of different types of effects that are used today, created a "household objects" album in the arly 70's that was never released, etc.)



The video example you used to show a relationship between Throbbing Gristle's music and Pink Floyd's is only one example. If you were to dig through their discographies you'd find endless amounts of differences between the two. Anyway, I'm done ranting.

True.

NightGoat
02-07-2009, 01:56 PM
Wait, what song did they use a dog as an instrument, and how did they go about doing this? I want to hear that.

If you're into strange techniques such as playing dogs, then you should check out a group called Matmos. They incorporate samples that they actually go out and record themselves into a kind of an experimental techno sound. Check out their album A Chance To Cut is a Chance To Cure. The album prominently features samples the duo recorded in various hospitals and surgery rooms. Somehow they were able to fit the sounds of facial reconstruction and liposuction into a song and still make it catchy.

Anyway, thanks for actually discussing music with me, not arguing and being a dick about it.

Monklish
02-07-2009, 02:06 PM
_OXfAPPckQU

DuctTapedGerbil
02-08-2009, 06:00 PM
Neither would have any draw if Comic-Con was the same weekend.

They do bring a lot of old guys who are generally benign and spend a lot of money on crappy T-shirts and hot dogs. Goldenvoice has the right idea- cash cows.

GaragePoet
02-08-2009, 09:32 PM
Also, the Beatles were experimenting with tape,samples and effects before they did Revolution 9. A full year before PF released Piper and 9 years before Throbbing Gristle released 2nd Annual Report Beatles released Revolver. If you listen to the last track, Tomorrow Never Knows, you can hear a liberal use of tape manipulation, Thus playing back into my original point, which was Revolution 9 and Throbbing Gristle both rely on heavy usage of samples and tape experimentation.

OK, let me start by saying that I'm not ripping on your argument at all, but this conversation has strayed way too far from the "McCartney vs. Waters" comparison, and I've already read far too many arguments citing "Revolution 9," and now to mention "Tomorrow Never Knows" .... both those tracks were thanks to John Lennon. they were not Paul's, so they have no relevance to this argument, even when comparing the Beatles to Pink Floyd because this is supposed to be about Waters & McCartney... that is all.

sonnyboy11
02-08-2009, 09:35 PM
Neither would have any draw if Comic-Con was the same weekend.

They do bring a lot of old guys who are generally benign and spend a lot of money on crappy T-shirts and hot dogs. Goldenvoice has the right idea- cash cows.

So sorry that I have a lot more money than you do. I feel downright awful about that.

Pura Vida
02-09-2009, 05:42 PM
There's a reason Pink Floyd can fill 80,000 seat venues every night and the Who are playing theaters.

Not for the last 15 years. I am a fan of both, but your statement doesn't make any sense to me.

BaronBedros
02-09-2009, 05:46 PM
Not for the last 15 years. I am a fan of both, but your statement doesn't make any sense to me.

If Pink Floyd got back together (impossible now that Wright is dead) they would sell out every venue on the planet. People would swim to Madagascar if it meant catching a Floyd show.

familyguy420
02-09-2009, 05:52 PM
fuck ya they would

guest-1185
02-09-2009, 06:51 PM
McCartney, personal preference.

Rockstarboy37
02-09-2009, 07:00 PM
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/wQVwW6hjLo8&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/wQVwW6hjLo8&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>


I want this dog.

Gogolicious
02-09-2009, 08:35 PM
Not for the last 15 years. I am a fan of both, but your statement doesn't make any sense to me.


Sure they would. They are the second largest selling rock band of all time behind the Beatles and widely considered the finest live rock performers to ever set up a stage.

tigermilkboy
02-09-2009, 09:54 PM
http://www.hardrockhotel.com/las-vegas/concerts/detail.cfm?id=3068

Who needs to go to coachella when the headliners are in Vegas?? LOL!!! Just posting that McCartney plays Vegas on the 19th!

Pura Vida
02-09-2009, 10:06 PM
If Pink Floyd got back together (impossible now that Wright is dead) they would sell out every venue on the planet. People would swim to Madagascar if it meant catching a Floyd show.

You're proving my point. The last post said that they are playing 80k venues, while The Who are playing theatres. My point is that PF aren't playing anywhere at the moment. For the record, I'm a huge PF fan, but their stage show has overshadowed their live abilities for 30 years.

Pura Vida
02-09-2009, 10:09 PM
Sure they would. They are the second largest selling rock band of all time behind the Beatles and widely considered the finest live rock performers to ever set up a stage.

Same thing. You're comparing a future hypothetical (that I agree with) against my comment about the last 15 years.

erikua
02-10-2009, 09:47 AM
I am not huge obsessed MUST SEE - BIG fan of Pink Floyd or The Beatles (or Roger Waters or Paul for that matter)

However, I do respect both bands and both musicians. Out of all the entertainment I have ever seen - not just music but any type of entertainment: sports, concerts, broadway, airshows, festivals - THAT Roger Waters Show last year at Coachella was the best few hours of entertainment I have ever seen live in person. I do not think anything will ever compare, not even if the Chemical Brothers close out the mainstage Saturday night (which I hope they do!)

Anywho - I'm going into Coachella this year with an open mind on paul McCartney. I'm sure I am going to enjoy the show and being it is Paul, it will be stellar.

Of course this Coachella trip is just a distraction to keep me from going crazy while I wait for Depeche Mode's NEW ALBUM to drop the following Tuesday - April 21st.... :-)

but yes even being a rabid Depeche Mode fan, I will saw DSOTM @ Coachella in 2008 beats out any of their shows I have ever seen - and that says ALOT!

See you all in 66 days or so

blackeyedsiouxsie
02-10-2009, 02:48 PM
I've seen both Pink Floyd (with David Gilmour... but its the same songs) and Paul McCartney live. I can tell you without any hesitation that its like comparing apples to oranges. Both are delicious fruit. I cannot understand the whole "its cool to think its not a big deal to see Paul McCartney" vibe that I get from these boards. Take it from me: he's VERY cool. He is so good. He is funny and engaging. He plays more Beatles songs than solo (especially for this crowd I bet). He has created so much amazing music that it makes me sick to my stomach to think that he might be greeted by yawning hipsters who can't see the forest for the trees. This man is a fucking Beatle, to see him live is basically witnessing history in the making. What more do you want? Oh yeah, a Blink 182 reunion. That would be teh cool!!11! But on a serious note, if I see a Smiths reunion in my lifetime I will die a happy woman!

AlecEiffel
02-10-2009, 02:58 PM
I've seen both Pink Floyd (with David Gilmour... but its the same songs) and Paul McCartney live. I can tell you without any hesitation that its like comparing apples to oranges. Both are delicious fruit. I cannot understand the whole "its cool to think its not a big deal to see Paul McCartney" vibe that I get from these boards. Take it from me: its VERY cool. He is so good. He is funny and engaging. He plays more Beatles songs than solo (especially for this crowd I bet). He has created so much amazing music that it makes me sick to my stomach to think that he might be greeted by yawning hipsters who can't see the forest for the trees. This man is a fucking Beatle, to see him live is basically witnessing history in the making. What more do you want? Oh yeah, a Blink 182 reunion. That would be teh cool!!11! But on a serious note, if I see a Smiths reunion in my lifetime I will die a happy woman!

I like the cut of your jib.

Monklish
02-10-2009, 02:59 PM
This is still a painfully stupid argument.

mskittiekittie
02-10-2009, 03:51 PM
i think both of them suck. If it wern't for the FABULOUS other artists coming along, nither would get my money. so Pooh Pooh on Paul and Waters!

mlant
02-10-2009, 04:23 PM
Anyone who saw Roger Waters in its entirety last year will tell you that it is highly unlikely McCartney will put on a better set.
But the question is loaded to begin with, unless Paul gets 2 sets and does Revolver from start to finish. Of course we'd have to reanimate the body of John Lennon for the Tomorrow Never Knows finale.
I, like most everyone, loves the Beatles and a chance to see their material done live by a living member is something I never thought I'd have the pleasure to see with my own eyes.
He will rule, end of story. Maybe the Sahara will still be going strong afterward like last year with Justice, finish off the night with a dance party.

erikua
02-11-2009, 09:47 AM
I doubt McCartney is going to have a flying pig. End of discussion.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/photos/uncategorized/2008/04/28/coachella_pig_.gif

cacahead01
02-15-2009, 10:32 PM
Paul dont need to prove a thing...
hes been there done that while
these bands were still learning
to wipe thier butts. *LOL*

you're fucking dumb

cacahead01
02-15-2009, 10:33 PM
i think both of them suck. If it wern't for the FABULOUS other artists coming along, nither would get my money. so Pooh Pooh on Paul and Waters!

you're fucking dumb too