Rush vs The Beatles

Kati wrote: In reference to populatity and girls liking bands, in the prog scene Rush are one of the most popular bands, also I have found that it's also one of the top all time favorite bands for the female prog listeners. I have met a few, (very little, I must add) men who are not particularly into Rush however to date I have not met any single female prog listeners that does not like Rush.

Ah, never let facts get in the way of opinions, you know.

rogerthat wrote: HarbouringTheSoul wrote: Catcher10 wrote: You will never find 1000's of teenage girls screaming and pulling their hair out to Rush's Working Man or Limelight. Neither will you find 1000's of teenage girls screaming and pulling their hair out to most of the stuff the Beatles did after '65. The Beatles are a pop band for sure, but they're the number one argument in favor of pop as a legitimate art form. Rush, on the other hand, are the number one argument in favor of keeping science fiction and Greek mythology away from drummers with a vivid imagination. (Just kidding, I like Rush.) Plus, it's not true that pop artists always win the polls. If you made a poll with Rush against, say, the Hollies, I'm sure Rush would win, and not just on PA. And if the Rolling Stone had a poll with Rush against Lady Gaga, I'm sure Rush would win. It goes like this.... Rush are ultra progressive when pitted with say Beatles and accessible, unpretentious and non elitist when pitted with say Magma. Heads I win, tails you lose. Love the familiar and convenient implication, by the way, that if thousands of teenage girls like something, it's got to be bad. By the way, I can hardly think of any Rush composition as progressive as Day in a life (or Rolling Stones' 2000 light years from Home for that matte). Ambition, in terms of writing sprawling epics, technicality and progressiveness are all entirely different things and existence of one quality doesn't imply the others.

In reference to populatity and girls liking bands, in the prog scene Rush are one of the most popular bands, also I have found that it's also one of the top all time favorite bands for the female prog listeners. I have met a few, (very little, I must add) men who are not particularly into Rush however to date I have not met any single female prog listeners that does not like Rush.

Argonaught wrote: Gee, re-visited this thread, and what do my eyes see: The dead horse of Beatles vs. Rush is still being flogged, and "Kati"'s hugs are still being transmitted to the masses. There is a certain sense of permanence to this picture, wouldn't you say?

Snow Dog wrote: ^Yeah...I thought my hug was special. Apparently she is spreading it around.

infocat wrote: Is Kati a hug-slut? Just kidding around, Kati!

hahaha!!! Argonauth, hugs should be spread and shared, everyone needs a hug. I like hugs and we need more of those.

Hehehehe Awww Snowdog your hug is most special.

Hahahahahaha!! Infocat you cheeky one lolol this is a personal addiction and I refuse to go to rehab.

Ehn, I've seen worse. I can understand someone choosing Guns N' Roses over the Beatles and the Stones.

What I can't, however, understand is why VH1 chose "Hey Joe" over "Voodoo Child (Slight Return)" when including Jimi Hendrix in their "Top 100 Hard Rock Songs".

rogerthat wrote: Catcher10 wrote: On a recent Ultimate Classic Rock poll, Beatles lost to Guns n Roses who also beat out The Stones and Led Zeppelin ...go figure. So to see on Ultimate Classic Rock, these pillars of classic rock fall to GnR was pretty shocking, IMO. Its a poll and it does not mean a whole lot...but its people voting. <div id="_dyhb23rg4374"><div id="_dyhb23rg4374"> I don't really get what is so shocking about that.  Maybe they were GNR fans or maybe they didn't like Beatles or LZ.  A man may be allowed his personal taste in music, I guess?  I don't see why it is that because Beatles are supposedly so successful in wooing teenage girls, they ought to win every poll because a poll only reflects - hopefully - the tastes of the sample that voted and there are no 'shoulds' about the 'winner' or 'loser' of such polls.

I sympathize with Mr. Catcher10 here. Maybe it's not about the merit of the music from the rock legends, as it is something that no poll should be done on. Catcher's expectations may have been founded on merit where as the poll results were founded on taste.

Catcher10 wrote: On a recent Ultimate Classic Rock poll, Beatles lost to Guns n Roses who also beat out The Stones and Led Zeppelin ...go figure. So to see on Ultimate Classic Rock, these pillars of classic rock fall to GnR was pretty shocking, IMO. Its a poll and it does not mean a whole lot...but its people voting.

rogerthat wrote: HarbouringTheSoul wrote: Catcher10 wrote: You will never find 1000's of teenage girls screaming and pulling their hair out to Rush's Working Man or Limelight. Neither will you find 1000's of teenage girls screaming and pulling their hair out to most of the stuff the Beatles did after '65. The Beatles are a pop band for sure, but they're the number one argument in favor of pop as a legitimate art form. Rush, on the other hand, are the number one argument in favor of keeping science fiction and Greek mythology away from drummers with a vivid imagination. (Just kidding, I like Rush.) Plus, it's not true that pop artists always win the polls. If you made a poll with Rush against, say, the Hollies, I'm sure Rush would win, and not just on PA. And if the Rolling Stone had a poll with Rush against Lady Gaga, I'm sure Rush would win. It goes like this....  Rush are ultra progressive when pitted with say Beatles and accessible, unpretentious and non elitist when pitted with say Magma.  Heads I win, tails you lose.      Love the familiar and convenient implication, by the way, that if thousands of teenage girls like something, it's got to be bad.  By the way, I can hardly think of any Rush composition as progressive as Day in a life (or Rolling Stones' 2000 light years from Home for that matte).   Ambition, in terms of writing sprawling epics, technicality and progressiveness are all entirely different things and existence of one quality doesn't imply the others.

Is Kati a hug-slut?

Just kidding around, Kati!

Gee, re-visited this thread, and what do my eyes see: The dead horse of Beatles vs. Rush is still being flogged, and "Kati"'s hugs are still being transmitted to the masses. There is a certain sense of permanence to this picture, wouldn't you say?

Edited by Argonaught - February 17 2013 at 06:22

Catcher10 wrote: You will never find 1000's of teenage girls screaming and pulling their hair out to Rush's Working Man or Limelight.

Neither will you find 1000's of teenage girls screaming and pulling their hair out to most of the stuff the Beatles did after '65. The Beatles are a pop band for sure, but they're the number one argument in favor of pop as a legitimate art form. Rush, on the other hand, are the number one argument in favor of keeping science fiction and Greek mythology away from drummers with a vivid imagination. (Just kidding, I like Rush.)

Plus, it's not true that pop artists always win the polls. If you made a poll with Rush against, say, the Hollies, I'm sure Rush would win, and not just on PA. And if the Rolling Stone had a poll with Rush against Lady Gaga, I'm sure Rush would win.