Progarchives.com has always (since 2002) relied on banners ads to cover web hosting fees and all. Please consider supporting us by giving monthly PayPal donations and help keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.
Joined: March 08 2008
Location: New York
Status: Offline
Points: 3595
Posted: May 02 2011 at 09:59
Catcher10 wrote:
giselle wrote:
Catcher10 wrote:
giselle wrote:
But any cursory glance at history should tell you why Rush are totally insignificant in comparison.
Oh please enlighten all of us that know nothing about music .......please give me this musical history glance!
I'll be waiting.
Thanks
If you need me to tell you, you're already beyond hope. Your only salvation is to visit a library. But I doubt that you will.
Excuse me but you brought up the historical reference comment........so based on your reply I will chalk up your original comment to just uneducated forum bantering. Which in general does not work on this site, you should go post those comments on a Beatles pop site where possibly your unsubstantiated comment will get you many clappy emoticons.
Have a great day!
Do you really think that I Think I'm Going Bald is any deeper than While My Guitar Gently Weeps?
I'm surprised to see that the Beatles have more votes here, considering the fact that none of their albums appear in the Top 100 listings, yet four of Rush's best albums do.
Beatles are in Proto-Prog, Proto Prog and Prog Related artists are not counted in the calculations of the Top 100.
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout
Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
Posted: May 02 2011 at 13:56
Barking Weasel wrote:
Dean wrote:
Barking Weasel wrote:
I'm surprised to see that the Beatles have more votes here, considering the fact that none of their albums appear in the Top 100 listings, yet four of Rush's best albums do.
Beatles are in Proto-Prog, Proto Prog and Prog Related artists are not counted in the calculations of the Top 100.
D'oh
Yeah, that's a bit of a bugger that.
Perphaps I can allay your fears and tell you that probably only three Beatles albums would appear in the Top 100 if we did count them.
I'm surprised to see that the Beatles have more votes here, considering the fact that none of their albums appear in the Top 100 listings, yet four of Rush's best albums do.
Beatles are in Proto-Prog, Proto Prog and Prog Related artists are not counted in the calculations of the Top 100.
D'oh
Yeah, that's a bit of a bugger that.
Perphaps I can allay your fears and tell you that probably only three Beatles albums would appear in the Top 100 if we did count them.
That's three too many, but I suppose I should be grateful nonetheless
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout
Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
Posted: May 02 2011 at 14:33
Barking Weasel wrote:
Dean wrote:
Barking Weasel wrote:
Dean wrote:
Barking Weasel wrote:
I'm surprised to see that the Beatles have more votes here, considering the fact that none of their albums appear in the Top 100 listings, yet four of Rush's best albums do.
Beatles are in Proto-Prog, Proto Prog and Prog Related artists are not counted in the calculations of the Top 100.
D'oh
Yeah, that's a bit of a bugger that.
Perphaps I can allay your fears and tell you that probably only three Beatles albums would appear in the Top 100 if we did count them.
That's three too many, but I suppose I should be grateful nonetheless
I still don't "get" why Moving Pics is even in the Top-100, let alone being the highest placed Rush album. But hey-ho - it matters none.
Joined: March 23 2005
Location: Caerdydd
Status: Offline
Points: 32995
Posted: May 02 2011 at 14:48
Dean wrote:
Barking Weasel wrote:
Dean wrote:
Barking Weasel wrote:
Dean wrote:
Barking Weasel wrote:
I'm surprised to see that the Beatles have more votes here, considering the fact that none of their albums appear in the Top 100 listings, yet four of Rush's best albums do.
Beatles are in Proto-Prog, Proto Prog and Prog Related artists are not counted in the calculations of the Top 100.
D'oh
Yeah, that's a bit of a bugger that.
Perphaps I can allay your fears and tell you that probably only three Beatles albums would appear in the Top 100 if we did count them.
That's three too many, but I suppose I should be grateful nonetheless
I still don't "get" why Moving Pics is even in the Top-100, let alone being the highest placed Rush album. But hey-ho - it matters none.
I never understood the love for Moving Pics either.
Joined: October 16 2006
Location: FL, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 17493
Posted: May 02 2011 at 14:51
Snow Dog wrote:
Dean wrote:
Barking Weasel wrote:
Dean wrote:
Barking Weasel wrote:
Dean wrote:
Barking Weasel wrote:
I'm surprised to see that the Beatles have more votes here, considering the fact that none of their albums appear in the Top 100 listings, yet four of Rush's best albums do.
Beatles are in Proto-Prog, Proto Prog and Prog Related artists are not counted in the calculations of the Top 100.
D'oh
Yeah, that's a bit of a bugger that.
Perphaps I can allay your fears and tell you that probably only three Beatles albums would appear in the Top 100 if we did count them.
That's three too many, but I suppose I should be grateful nonetheless
I still don't "get" why Moving Pics is even in the Top-100, let alone being the highest placed Rush album. But hey-ho - it matters none.
I never understood the love for Moving Pics either.
I never understood the fascination with Sgt Pepper and the White album. Rubber Soul, Revolver and Abbey Road are the good ones.
Joined: March 23 2005
Location: Caerdydd
Status: Offline
Points: 32995
Posted: May 02 2011 at 14:56
The T wrote:
Snow Dog wrote:
Dean wrote:
Barking Weasel wrote:
Dean wrote:
Barking Weasel wrote:
Dean wrote:
Barking Weasel wrote:
I'm surprised to see that the Beatles have more votes here, considering the fact that none of their albums appear in the Top 100 listings, yet four of Rush's best albums do.
Beatles are in Proto-Prog, Proto Prog and Prog Related artists are not counted in the calculations of the Top 100.
D'oh
Yeah, that's a bit of a bugger that.
Perphaps I can allay your fears and tell you that probably only three Beatles albums would appear in the Top 100 if we did count them.
That's three too many, but I suppose I should be grateful nonetheless
I still don't "get" why Moving Pics is even in the Top-100, let alone being the highest placed Rush album. But hey-ho - it matters none.
I never understood the love for Moving Pics either.
I never understood the fascination with Sgt Pepper and the White album. Rubber Soul, Revolver and Abbey Road are the good ones.
Yes but I am a Rush fan. It sounds like you don't like the Beatles.
Joined: October 16 2006
Location: FL, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 17493
Posted: May 02 2011 at 14:59
Snow Dog wrote:
The T wrote:
Snow Dog wrote:
Dean wrote:
Barking Weasel wrote:
Dean wrote:
Barking Weasel wrote:
Dean wrote:
Barking Weasel wrote:
I'm surprised to see that the Beatles have more votes here, considering the fact that none of their albums appear in the Top 100 listings, yet four of Rush's best albums do.
Beatles are in Proto-Prog, Proto Prog and Prog Related artists are not counted in the calculations of the Top 100.
D'oh
Yeah, that's a bit of a bugger that.
Perphaps I can allay your fears and tell you that probably only three Beatles albums would appear in the Top 100 if we did count them.
That's three too many, but I suppose I should be grateful nonetheless
I still don't "get" why Moving Pics is even in the Top-100, let alone being the highest placed Rush album. But hey-ho - it matters none.
I never understood the love for Moving Pics either.
I never understood the fascination with Sgt Pepper and the White album. Rubber Soul, Revolver and Abbey Road are the good ones.
Yes but I am a Rush fan. It sounds like you don't like the Beatles.
I like those three albums and random songs from the rest... I like Rush much more really...
Joined: March 23 2005
Location: Caerdydd
Status: Offline
Points: 32995
Posted: May 02 2011 at 15:01
The T wrote:
Snow Dog wrote:
The T wrote:
Snow Dog wrote:
Dean wrote:
Barking Weasel wrote:
Dean wrote:
Barking Weasel wrote:
Dean wrote:
Barking Weasel wrote:
I'm surprised to see that the Beatles have more votes here, considering the fact that none of their albums appear in the Top 100 listings, yet four of Rush's best albums do.
Beatles are in Proto-Prog, Proto Prog and Prog Related artists are not counted in the calculations of the Top 100.
D'oh
Yeah, that's a bit of a bugger that.
Perphaps I can allay your fears and tell you that probably only three Beatles albums would appear in the Top 100 if we did count them.
That's three too many, but I suppose I should be grateful nonetheless
I still don't "get" why Moving Pics is even in the Top-100, let alone being the highest placed Rush album. But hey-ho - it matters none.
I never understood the love for Moving Pics either.
I never understood the fascination with Sgt Pepper and the White album. Rubber Soul, Revolver and Abbey Road are the good ones.
Yes but I am a Rush fan. It sounds like you don't like the Beatles.
I like those three albums and random songs from the rest... I like Rush much more really...
Joined: December 23 2009
Location: Emerald City
Status: Offline
Points: 17845
Posted: May 02 2011 at 15:03
It would not bother me if Moving Pictures dropped a few levels.....but its the ratings, people like that album and its easy on the ears.
And I too am a gargantuan Rush fan.
I still don't "get" why Moving Pics is even in the Top-100, let alone being the highest placed Rush album. But hey-ho - it matters none.
I think that there are a fair number of casual Rush fans who like that album the best, but don't see themselves delving further into the Rush catalog. MP is the most popular Rush album in terms of record sales, and is arguably their most fully-realized from a production standpoint. Also, they just re-released it again in 5.1 format without giving the same treatment to other early Rush albums. I think MP is great, but I like "Permanent Waves" slightly more. The album that I have some doubts about the placement of in the Top-100 is VDGG's "Godbluff."
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout
Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
Posted: May 02 2011 at 15:32
The T wrote:
Snow Dog wrote:
Dean wrote:
Barking Weasel wrote:
Dean wrote:
Barking Weasel wrote:
Dean wrote:
Barking Weasel wrote:
I'm surprised to see that the Beatles have more votes here, considering the fact that none of their albums appear in the Top 100 listings, yet four of Rush's best albums do.
Beatles are in Proto-Prog, Proto Prog and Prog Related artists are not counted in the calculations of the Top 100.
D'oh
Yeah, that's a bit of a bugger that.
Perphaps I can allay your fears and tell you that probably only three Beatles albums would appear in the Top 100 if we did count them.
That's three too many, but I suppose I should be grateful nonetheless
I still don't "get" why Moving Pics is even in the Top-100, let alone being the highest placed Rush album. But hey-ho - it matters none.
I never understood the love for Moving Pics either.
I never understood the fascination with Sgt Pepper and the White album. Rubber Soul, Revolver and Abbey Road are the good ones.
Two of those three would be in the Top 100 - but Sgt pepper will replace Rubber Soul.
Joined: March 18 2011
Location: Hertford
Status: Offline
Points: 466
Posted: May 02 2011 at 17:38
Catcher10 wrote:
giselle wrote:
Catcher10 wrote:
giselle wrote:
But any cursory glance at history should tell you why Rush are totally insignificant in comparison.
Oh please enlighten all of us that know nothing about music .......please give me this musical history glance!
I'll be waiting.
Thanks
If you need me to tell you, you're already beyond hope. Your only salvation is to visit a library. But I doubt that you will.
Excuse me but you brought up the historical reference comment........so based on your reply I will chalk up your original comment to just uneducated forum bantering. Which in general does not work on this site, you should go post those comments on a Beatles pop site where possibly your unsubstantiated comment will get you many clappy emoticons.
Have a great day!
I wasn't making a point against you personally, and I'm not particularly a Beatles fan, but the 'historical reference' should be obvious; I'm not against Rush or a particular more modern band either, it's just that such bands could not exist without the prior existence of the Beatles; chalk up my reply to what you like if it conforms to your own version of the universe....,
Joined: April 05 2008
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 1243
Posted: May 02 2011 at 22:57
Vs. ?
Now seriously: I voted for Rush's timeless music: I am not a big fan of most of The Beatles' output (I do like some of it), they were innovative and ahead of their time in the 60s but now it just sounds dated (with few exceptions) + Rush are more accomplished musicians.
Its true, without the Beatles Rush wouldn't be the Rush we now know... but I am sure it would've been something great nonetheless...
This is musically-wise, influence-wise probably the Beatles....
Michael's Sonic Kaleidoscope Mondays 5:00pm EST(re-runs Thursdays 3:00pm) @ Delicious Agony Progressive Rock Radio(http://www.deliciousagony.com)
Joined: April 13 2010
Location: Dorset, England
Status: Offline
Points: 1433
Posted: May 03 2011 at 10:16
I'm not shocked by the result because of where we are........ but anywhere else in the world the fab four would win by a much bigger margin.
For me, the significant chain of musicians who helped music develop in the 20th century goes something like this: Debussy, Stravinsky, Gershwin, Cage, Ligetti, Glass, Riley, Davis, Brubeck, Lennon, McCartney, Fripp.... and so far nobody else (maybe the people that invented Rock and Roll and Blues, but I'm not hot on their names!)
Joined: March 08 2008
Location: New York
Status: Offline
Points: 3595
Posted: May 03 2011 at 10:26
ProgressiveAttic wrote:
Vs. ?
Now seriously: I voted for Rush's timeless music: I am not a big fan of most of The Beatles' output (I do like some of it), they were innovative and ahead of their time in the 60s but now it just sounds dated (with few exceptions) + Rush are more accomplished musicians.
Its true, without the Beatles Rush wouldn't be the Rush we now know... but I am sure it would've been something great nonetheless...
This is musically-wise, influence-wise probably the Beatles....
My question is...why does Rush being a more technically proficient band make 'Twilight Zone' magically prettier than 'Here Comes the Sun'? Since when did playing ability and writing ability become 100% correlated?
It's not just this poll, either. Since when would playing ability and complexity make Dream Theater's 'Panic Attack' more intimately touching and heat-breaking than Cat Stevens' 'Father and Son'? I'm not being rhetorical, either. I'm looking for an honest, sensible answer. Does that mean that you could write better songs than Rush just by taking a Rush song and changing it to be even more complex? Does that mean any 4/4 song in existence is worse than any 5/4 song...or 6/4 or what have you? Does that mean all musicians are worthless unless they write and play music solely devoted to impressing teenagers and having as many rampant time changes as possible, disregarding the notes which are being played? I'm trying hard not to sound like a raging assface, but understand I have a terribly abrasive personality.
I understand each other person has a different personality. I understand that 'everyone has an opinion'. I understand that it's based on what you enjoy. I'm only asking for an explanation of the logic involved.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
This page was generated in 0.234 seconds.
Donate monthly and keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.
/PAlogo_v2.gif "Progarchives.com Homepage")
Rush vs The Beatles
Topic Options
Catcher10 wrote:
.......please give me this musical history glance!
