Ok let's start voting for one of them, and please tell us your reasons.

I think everyone will be surprised that I voted for Floyd. Crimson's one of my favorite groups ever, but objectively, Floyd's output - as a whole - is superior, if only for the consistency. Crimson, it could be said, gets points for longevity, diversity of style, and sheer volume of output, but that could also be interpreted as being stretched too thin and unfocused, and realistically, I don't care for anything Crimson's put out this decade, and they haven't really been truly relevant since the '70s anyway.

I don't think it's an entirely fair comparison in general though, as they're really completely different animals ( dogs and pigs? sorry... ) Crimson is far more aggressive, energetic and unabashedly edgy, while Floyd is more cerebral, atmospheric, and ultimately accessible...although I suppose we can call both groups "Art Rock" if we must. I think the real test is that, on a direct album-to-album comparison, Floyd's output has the more consistent quality -- the only real competition Crimson brought to the table while they were both active was in 1973 w/ both Larks' Tongues in Aspic and Dark Side of the Moon seeing release, arguably the best albums from both artists.

I love both bands, and in general I prefer Crimson as a matter of personal taste (and in terms of pure musicianship, Crimson's always been technically superior), but overall, I would say Floyd was better in terms of creativity, overall quality and songcraft...after all, they had a pretty substantial head start w/ Piper At The Gates...a record that was in itself more innovative than just about anything Crimson recorded.

Pink Floyd and the Grasshoppa already more than covered the reason. As musicians however, I also agree with the Grasshoppa.

it's not that i don't like crimson but....

I think that if Roger Waters ever read this, he would get really upset, for the reason of Pink Floyd being the pigs; however I think that comment was very ingenious.

King Crimson is no question higher on my list. I also find that Crimson's later in life live stuff held the level a little bit longer.

I would have had to have them check your closet for any pods if you hadn't picked Crimson.

Yeah, there's no escaping the tattoo on my arm.

Pink Floyd. Other than the one album, never got into Crimson that much, whereas I thik almost all of Floyd's albums are great. I guess I don't have anything philosophical to add, other than there are a number of other progressive bands I would take over King Crimson.

Pink Floyd, although I am more than a little biased because Floyd is the band that got me listening to music. I'm also much more familiar with Pink Floyd's entire body of work, and I only have a handful of Crimson albums. Comparing the two bands objectively, I'd say that Crimson was more technically accomplished and perhaps more experimental. Floyd, on the other hand, had more cohesive albums that made powerful statements, and their music tends to speak more emotionally. Both of their debut albums were definitive to their respective genres, but I think Piper is slightly beats out In The Court... Still a tough call though, if Floyd had less nostalgic value for me I'm not sure who I would pick.