Led Zeppelin. Their 6 first albums are all absofuckinglutely amazing. Pink Floyd is great, but I can’t listen to them for that long. I could listen to Zeppelin from the moment I got up to the moment I went to sleep and not be bored ever.
Floyd. I’m not a huge rock aficionado anyway, but I got way into Floyd in the 80s. Hey, I even liked Gilmour’s Floyd. A Momentary Lapse of Reason was a fantastic album, and I went to their Delicate Sound of Thunder tour when it came to Toronto because of it. I guess Zep just strikes me as a kind of meh 60s/70s rock band, albeit one of the better ones, but Floyd seemed smoother and more creative and really appealed to me.
Which reminds me. I need to put Animals (possibly my other favourite album) and Dark Side of the Moon on my iPod.
Zep.
I enjoy both bands. Gilmore is one of my favorite guitar players and I like the offbeat writing style and the willing to test the borders. But Zep was much more rock and roll, IMO. They had one of the greatest drummers and one of the greatest guitarists in history. Floyd could make you go ‘Wow’, but Zep could blow your doors off.
When I say Floyd, I’m talking post-Syd Barret Floyd. Didn’t like the Barret period of the band at all.
Both are great and will be hard rock classics for ages.
But when it comes down to it, the only time I reach for my radio dial and crank up the sound full blast, no matter what my mood, is when I hear those first few notes of Whole Lotta Love…you simply have to listen to that song with the sound up full blast!
(Funny, but when I was a youngin’ and listening to new Led Zeppelin songs I used to think, “I bet I don’t like them as much when I am older.” How wrong I was…I still shake my head as if I still had shoulder length hair and play my air guitar along with them.)
I agree with just about the entirety of PlasticClouds characterization of Pink Floyd, except that he’s described exactly what I like about them. Yes, it’s slow and ponderous and pretentious and takes forever to build up steam, but when it does, it’s incredible.
Led Zepplin is a band I’m gaining a new appreciation for. I wasn’t a huge fan as a teen (I had LZ IV, since I think it was mandatory at the time), but now that I’m in my 30’s I listen to them a lot more. So in my case, Pink wins, but Zep is right behind.
Zep definitely has the advantage when it comes to other people playing their music. I’ve heard lots of good renditions of Zep tunes played by amateurs and house bands, but I’ve yet to hear anyone except Floyd perform Floyd that was worth listening to.
That’s fuckin’ hilarious. And sometimes true. I’d take Pink Floyd over Led Zep in a heartbeat. While I’ll agree that a road trip is mighty tough on a steady diet of Pink Floyd, I personally tire of Led Zep a whole lot faster.
Both groups had a very particular voice and skill set. Technically I always thought the arguments were a waste- why argue who was a better guitarist when both had spectacular chops? Or whose vocals were finer? Please.
Pink Floyd speaks to more of what interests me when I want to hear lyrics with creativity and depth. I’m a patient soul. I’m willing to wait for those chord changes. 
Cartooniverse
Led Zeppelin. I hate prog rock.
I have been a fan of both bands since their first releases but Led Zeppelin at the Sydney Showground 27th February 1972 shits all over Pink Floyd at Randwick Racecourse 15th August 1971.
Floyd.
I saw a piece on some music channel yesterday. Heart covers of Led Zep. It was really, really good.
This would be traitorous to say in front of Zep Fans, but I kept thinking “Heart does Led Zeppelin better than Led Zeppelin does”.
Also, STP covered Zeps Dancing Days. They change the whole pace of the song and IMHO It’s much, much better. Love it.
Pink Floyd for me. Though I am also a Zep fan.
Floyds cool but I have to vote for Zeppelin. They just rock harder.
Word. I saw both bands and Pink Floyd runs away with the contest. Which is to say no contest at all.
Assuming you mean any incarnation with Rodger Waters I’m green with envy. My parents just didn’t take me to many shows when I was nine. (Although I did get to see Pete Seeger with Arlo Guthrie at Navy Peir.)
It’s only pretentious when you aren’t able to make good on what you present yourself as being. Pink Floyd wasn’t pretending much.
There was a recent thread on best rock albums of all time. Certainly Led Zep IV and Physical Graffiti belong on the list; some would add Led Zep II. To be sure, LV IV was only truly excellent on Side One. Back in the vinyl album days, no one wore out the side that had “When the Levee Breaks” and “Going to California” and etc. on it. As for LZ II, it has 3 memorable tracks (“Whole Lotta Love” with immediate segue into “What Is and Evermore Should Be”; plus “Living Loving Maid”), the rest is fairly skipoverworthy. PG holds up well throughout; there are some individual tracks I don’t care for as much, but it’s a truly great album and I do like to listen to it from start to finish.
By comparison, though, with Pink Floyd it’s easier to list the albums to not add to the best albums of all time list.
Truly Excellent Top Tier Gotta-have-'em Albums, with nearly every track a memorable classic:
Piper at the Gates of Dawn
A Saucerful of Secrets
Atom Heart Mother *
Dark Side of the Moon
Wish You Were Here
Animals
The Wall
- Some would demote this one to the next list. Depends on whether you like the AHM suite itself and “Alan’s Psychedelic Breakfast”.
Damn Good Tier II Albums with multiple spectaculary good tracks, even if uneven quality on the remainders:
*Meddle
More
Obscured by Clouds
Ummagumma **
- Some would upgrade this one to the top list. Depends on your reaction to the Vizier’s Party and Sisyphus sections, I think.
Merely mediocre albums no better than, say, Houses of the Holy, Led Zep I, Led Zep III, or In Thru the Out Door:
ummm… Relics?
Ummm, led Zep 1 and 3 are NOT bad albums by any means…
I suppose it all boils down to what type of mood your in and if your patient enough to listen to pink floyd, or if you have the feel for Zep’s groove.
Perhaps intellectuals like PF a bit more because they"understad the depth behind there music".
On the other hand, those who just like listening to the songs, without having to think much prefer Zep’s music and awsome riffs.
I like em’ both, but I give a VERY slight edge to Zeppelin, simply because I like maybe 3 or 4 more songs in total than PF.
Oh, I agree with that. Even “mediocre” is a bad descriptor. “Merely ‘pretty darn good’”, perhaps?
I am a fan, so I’d say freakin’ awsome.
But that’s just me…
I have a hard time with this comparison. Floyd and Zep are two different things entirely, for me. The question makes little sense, as if you were asking “Which is the tastier fruit: rocks or the color orange?” 
Gotta go with Floyd, though.
I can agree with this. I’ve never been a fan of blues rock, unless its heavy metal and even that doesn’t stay so pentatonic. I understand that people like Led Zepplin and it does not reflect poorly on their character, but I just can’t get into Led Zepplin. I blame a freind that tried to force them on me. Nevertheless, if I want to rock, I’ll break out the Scorpions or Ratt. I actually haven’t felt the need to listen to Pink Floyd in a long time.
I just listened a little while ago to Pink’s ‘Dark Side’ and it really is a bit of a joke. A lady wailing throughout it like she can’t get off the toilet, and then there’s all that mumbling going on.
Led Zep has some great songs, at least a few.
There’s no accounting for taste.