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 12:28 AM.
|