Pink Floyd vs Beatles

By Angel • Aug 1st, 2008 • Category: POPULAR Y ORGÁNICO, Rock

Before starting to read this, take into account that “one man’s trash is another man’s treasure”. This review not only covers a specific topic, but covers the entire scheme, highlighting the imporance of what is truly relevant. This article is brief, it is difficult wanting to do all this analysis in a single article. Although I attempt to be simple, I know that this will provide much for controversy.

Within the culture of Rock & Roll, several figures have been prominent either for their contribution or their popularity. Elvis Presley is considered the king, not in vain, but because he was the first one to break with the conservative pattern by moving his legs, making crowds crazy. That is Elvis’ greatest merit. He brought change, and evolved people’s vision towards music.

There are other figures such as Robert Johnson, Hendrix, The Doors, Led Zeppelin (yes, I know there are many others); all those regarded as the classics. Over time the public and critics have put the Beatles as the greatest phenomenon in the history of R&R, something with which I do not disagree, if it is in terms of popularity. But, is that what is truly important?

Many people undervalue the music made for the market, I am one of them. The Beatles is the product of an excellent marketing where 4 guys with talent, without undervaluing the poetic genius of Lennon and McCartney, their success is due to Epstein’s managing and Martin’s production. Believe it or not, Beatles music represents the beginning of a commertial era where the objective was to sell as many records as possible and taking advantage of media (such as Ed Sullivan Show) to spread the beatlemanía.

Some interesting information is that the first Beatles’ album (Please Please me) is virtually the same as the second one. Here, what the producers did, was to draw an american version of Please Please Me, removing some songs and adding some new songs, where more than 30% of these songs were written by other authors. They didn’t do this only once. Producers were always commissioned to draw a new version addressed to the american market changing the cover and adding a different title to achieve greater sales. The Beatles, because of the quick fame they reached, became a song factory, in one year more than three albums. In ‘64 they had seven different productions. Is it or not commercial abuse, to release 7 albums in one year? Pure heart music? Both, Pink Floyd and the Beatles have within their repertoire a song refering to money. While Pink Floyd’s Money was a criticism of the system, the Beatles sang Money (That’s what I want), which title speaks for itself and whose author is neither Lennon nor McCartney.

Pink Floyd’s success is due to this majestic indescribable combination of acid rock, without losing the essence of its origin in Blues and Jazz within their songs. Psychedelia lovers find Pink Floyd’s music of not only a crazy and fun style of the 60’s but its evolution. Blues lovers are pleased with the wide range of guitars from the south, resonators, slides, Fenders with that feeling of Gilmour comparable to B.B. King. Electronic lovers feel flattered with the experimenting sounds synthesized by Wright and his extensive management of knobs as filters and potentiometers taking them out of the atmosphere. History and politics lovers, will not let me lie about the predominant and radical vision of Waters and the impact he had on the audience that lived World War II as well as the Berlin Wall. And if one speaks of concept albums, Sgt. Pepper’s will be fully overshadowed by a Dark Side or The Wall. The triviality embraced by the depth is the merit of this genius amalgams. One finds what he wants for his metaphorical harmony (not just music) with which Pink Floyd explained to their audience with this surrealist but purely rational mentality.

If you talk about popularity, Beatles may have might been superior, but if it comes to life experiences, psychological depth, traditionalism, abstract music, conceptual music, drama plays, music for films with high social content, musical evolution, historical content, entertainment, mystery, political and other… I would certinly hve to say that Pink Floyd will transcend more like a breakthrough in music. I give merti to Lennon by saying: I don’t believe in Bealtes.

Share on Facebook

Tagged as:

Angel is
Email this author | All posts by Angel

8 Responses »

  1. Por culpa de este articulo es que ahora estamos aqui en acidocnga jajajaja

    Este fue el primer articulo que lei de Angel, en aquellos lejanos tiempos dorados de lawaloca, antes de que cualquiera tuviera blog, y quede gratamente sorprendido por su contenido y su manera tan sutil pero innegable de deir “los beatles no tienen nada que hacer ante Pink Floyd”.

    Mis respetos Angel, es una maravilla rescatar este articulo de entre el limbo del internet.

  2. Hace poco comencé a escuchar a Pink Floid y como relatas destacan por su experimentación, cosa que salvo excepciones esta presente en los Beatles, enhorabuena por tu entrada. Sigue así.

  3. Por cierto, muy sutil la imagen de los Beatles leyendo el peridico y el Dark Side en el saco:

    “Why is Pink Floyd better than The Beatles”

  4. se puede ver claramente que lennon era el unico que sabia que onda

  5. Interesante la entrada, sin embrago creo que basas mucho tus argumentos en tu gusto por Pink Floyd, pienso q estamos caminando sobre el subjetivo campo de los gustos, si me preguntas a mi, creo que Dark Side Of The Moon es un disco que suena lindo y tiene por ahí un poco de creatividad, pero si me preguntas te diré que The beatles y sus discos si me hicieron delirar, sentir alegía de existir y me hicieron sonreir mucho, y pienso que estéticamente estan muy por encima que Pink Floyd. Saludos!

  6. Evidentemente esta subjetivamente escrito por mi gusto a pink floyd, pero para tratar de no caer en completa subjetividad expongo mis razones y los porques de, segun yo, su superioridad (en gustos se rompen generos). Creo yo que las numero y las aclaro puntualmente. Ya que si te gusta mas the beatles que pink floyd tambien es valido y subjetivo…

  7. Hoy conversaba con mi viejo sobre The Beatles, me decía que en esos tiempos(mi pa tiene 54) The Beatles de que se escuchaba algún rato, de ley se escuchaba. Ahí es donde apoyo lo que dices sobre el marketing del grupo. Le pregunté después si escuchó Rolling Stones, y me respondió que no. En medio de la conversación me mandé que The Beatles básicamente hablando era como Brithney(no me preocupa escribir mal este nombre) o Madonna, que a toda costa hacen bestsellers. Comerciales por excelencia. Así fueron The Beatles, todos merecen su dosis de responsabilidad de éxito, los 4, los productores, los publicistas, un éxito en varios niveles. ¿Podría decirse que The Beatles es la Coca-Cola de la música?

  8. Yo soy fan de Floyd, y supongo ke compararlos o pretender hacerlos “competir” kon los Beatles, es un insulto para ambas agrupaciones y para sus fans. Yo creo ke sin los experimentos de los Beatles dentro del pop de mediados de los 60’s, sin George Martin, Pink Floyd no hubiera tenido mucho camino por donde andar. La Psicodelia y los experimentos ácidos del Flower Power son un proceso ke elevó la profundidad del primitivo rocknroll, llevándolo a cotas impensables. Los Beatles no estaban ausentes de estos giros y le sumaban su tan particular inventiva ke los hizo gigantes. Pink Floyd fué mas allá. Traspasaron las barreras del Pop, eliminaron el tan recurrido “jingle”, canciones hechas para la radio, entraron en el sinfonismo más dramático y terminaron por redondear obras ke -junto con el “Sargento Pimienta”, “Revolver” y otro más- kedarán komo los momentos claves y escenciales de la música de estos tiempos.
    Un abrazo a todos desde Perú.

    DANIEL

Leave a Reply