Forum Home Forum Home > Other music related lounges > Proto-Prog and Prog-Related Lounge
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Rush vs The Beatles
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Topic ClosedRush vs The Beatles

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 1011121314 30>
Poll Question: Who do you prefer ?
Poll Choice Votes Poll Statistics
182 [43.65%]
235 [56.35%]
This topic is closed, no new votes accepted

Author
Message
yanch View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: January 03 2010
Location: Lowell, MA
Status: Offline
Points: 3247
Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 13 2010 at 16:40
Originally posted by Dr. Occulator Dr. Occulator wrote:

The Beatles broke more new ground than any rock band in history!

This. I've been saying the same thing for years! 
Back to Top
Floydman View Drop Down
Forum Groupie
Forum Groupie


Joined: November 24 2009
Status: Offline
Points: 67
Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 14 2010 at 21:11
Originally posted by uduwudu uduwudu wrote:

Originally posted by rogerthat rogerthat wrote:

Originally posted by uduwudu uduwudu wrote:

Rush obviously. Not a band to do Top 10 and pander to lowest common denominator requirements. Nor are they band wagon jumpers. The Beatles made good pop (and realy awful songs they made sound good by virtue of vocal ability. Lose that and what do you have? Lose vocals with Rush and you have another 40 year career going.

Comparing the two is like pop versus progressive rock.

Observations... Let's see, one good album from the Beatles (Abbey Road - they finally worked out how to record an album as opposed to songs, a different art form hence the difference between pop and prog rock) to a shed load of near-classic and several classic albums. I think even most McCartney-aholics acknowledge that the last classic from him was in 1973 and Band On The Run, excellent album too. Apparently Lennon acknowledged that Wings in 73 was what the Beatles would have been like had they gone on. I think Lennon as well made better mnaterial outside of the Beatles. I only wish Harrison had jpoined pal Clapton in Blind Faith and helped shoulder thewriting burden with Poor Winwood and lend that otherwise greta band some melodies - Harrison being the closest thing the Beatles had to a prog guy (in the band that is.) George Martin, in the studio did the rest...

The Beatles are huge among the mainstream who I doubt have even heard of Rush. A cult following of millions (which is pretty good considering most prog and metal bands might have a album buying international core audience of 50,000 to 1.4 million. Yes had 200,000 for magnification for example.

RUSH!



A typical example of fandom twisting logic conveniently to suit one's own?  If Beatles had not sought to go the other way from around Rubber Soul, where would bands like Rush be?  It is very amusing that you are casting over Beatles as a typical top 10 pop group when it was they who took those massive songwriting risks years before Rush were even formed.  By the way, Rush have had a lot of commercial success and even if not to the tune of Beatles, certainly more than handy for a prog rock band.  They have their share of fanboys too who like to believe that Geddy Lee is the best keyboardist  ever Shocked but we'll leave that aside for the moment. Wink  

I am a Rush fan and have several of their albums and yet it does not escape my attention that particularly Permanent Waves around, AOR is a big part of their sound?  If you are trying to say Beatles wrote terrible pop songs saved by vocals, I could very well argue that a song like Entre Nous is pretty much borderline AOR lent unusual warmth by the (vocal wise) much maligned Lee. Perhaps like most rock fans, distorted guitar riffs make it easier for you to digest the pop cheese but it is in no way more glorified than Beatles's own. 

As for adventurous songwriting and pandering to lowest common denominator, Beatles were more eclectic in fewer albums than Rush have managed to be over a long career spanning four decades.   Speculation as to what they would have been like in the 70s is irrelevant to the consideration of their quality and the one album they did release in the 70s - Abbey Road - was incredible anyway.  Wink Rush jumped on to the Fairlight/drum machine bandwagon in the 80s and from the 90s have been carefully pandering to the tastes of their fanbase and arguably have limited appeal outside it.  You are entitled to your opinion but it's not particularly obvious and, on the other hand, there are some obvious flaws in your reasoning.



Heh, never said my reasoning was much good. I do understand the influence the Beatles had in pop and on rock. But due to their limited abilities (albeit surprsingly perceptive drumming from Mr Starkey at times.)

Probably Rush played to their audience since the beginning. Hard rock fans got hard rock, the sci fi junkies got  that as well. Entre Nous is quite the smooth but tender song - does it (or did it ever get) airplay? I only listen to my local classical station so I have no idea.

I don't know about Geddy being the greatest rock keyboardist... (I wouldn't have thought so, but okay...) Emerson, Lord, Wakeman... that's more their territory. He's a unique keyboardist, apparently playing some parts using his hindquarters, which does take a certain talent. I do rate him as a bassist and a distinctive singer. Lifeson as a great guitarist and Peart as a unique lyricist and virtuoso drummer (what a combination...). I once read here on PA that Lee's vocals are endearingly weak. I thought that was quite accurate since he no longer screams (sort of gone from one extreme to another.) Rush are not really lowest common denominator in intent. Unless that was the idea behind the vocal style change. Not to mentioon the intrusion, er, inclusion of synths above, ... along... with guitar.... Good that they get a huge audience though.

The Beatles could sing. That was their gold standard that and writing good songs and disguising the dreck as seemingly good songs. Though I'm just about slicing my wrists getting through Rubber Soul even I have to admit that they could sing their way more than okay. Still they had some music as well. Daytripper is a great riff. Day In The Life is a great track (though I prefer Jeff Beck's verison, I still like the Beatles' original.

I suppose the reasoning is that The Beatles were once a rock and roll band, played good pop, moved with the summer of love times and finally learned the art of recording an album. I prefer the Kinks's Ray Davies as as an archetyple English songwriter, though they are not much better than the Beatles as a band; quite good but take away the bits people hear most and no one would want to know. Pete Townshend's album writing abilities (and sometimes exquisite song melodies) not to mention the Who's sheer musical firepower (they had intricate albums and performed live, why not contemporaries  the Quarrymen?)

Rush are an albums band with little or no emphasis on a pop tune, their's is very intellectual rock. The AOR is a consequence of the acceptance of some prog as mainstream since Dark Side broke that ground.

But reasoning... The Beatles made very good pop records, little kiddies, teenyboppers, grandfolks loved the Mop Tops, very undemanding.

I'm trying to be as objective as I can ' cause I really don't like more than a tune or two from any one album (five (!) from the White album, which has material on it that no new band would be allowed to release (bunglaow Bill, Rocky Raccoon) - too much sugar in the coffee for me. I recently nearly got all the way through Help. But Rush have only one really awful novelty song (I Think I'm Going Bald) whereas the Beatles have too many.

Rush write and record albums. And perform the material. The Beatles did not do that; I think they probably could have but chose not to. Rush fans and fanboys appreciate everything, but I've heard even Beatles fans moan about Ringo's oft maligned drumming. I've suggested they listen to Bill Bruford if they want to hear virtuoso drumming, but alas the damage has been done and exposure to the Beatles and nothing further has atrophied audio adventure.

Oh btw, the Beatles were often cited as being the first to put strings on a tune. Eleanor Rigby in 65. Good song IMHO too...

I think if we look at a rather overlooked (eh??) band the Rolling Stones we find strings on As Tears Go By in 1964, not to mention harpishord. Brian Jones being their prog guy. But Jagger and Co had no use for prog stylings in the end. Ironically the Beatles did have. But they needed some chops and help from their friends like Clapton (and vice versa, Harrisons' tunes would have helped Clapton as it did with Cream.) The exchange of ideas would have given us more music (at least one more Blind Faith album) had the whole pop biz not been so concerned with bands breaking up and worlds coming to an end. Never bothered anyone in jazz when someone went their own way...)

 

Where do people get these misinformed opinions? The Beatles were one of the most progressive bands ever IMO. They weren’t progressive in the sense of King Crimson but I do find it ironic that they basically formed after hearing “A Day in the Life” and basically paid homage to “Tomorrow Never Knows” in one of latter albums. I think most of the early proggers were influenced by the Beatles by the way.

 

There is something to be said in much of the Beatles music there is such a classical sense of arrangement and their harmonies—what the Beatles did vocally is amazing. The Beatles realized they could do more in the studio, they didn’t compromise the quality of the music that was being written, but they went into the songs and created them inside themselves: double- tracking, multitracking, playing things backward, using orchestras in ways they’d never been used before.

 

 Wait a minute its matter of opinion if you think Rubber Soul has two good songs. I think you need to know Brian Wilson and many others thought otherwise. The Beatles not an albums band? I mean the Beatles were a huge influence in making the album an art form in rock music.

 

Whether the Beatles were better than the Kinks or Rush is a matter of opinion. I highly doubt both of those groups recorded albums like Rubber Soul or Sgt Pepper that influenced as many musicians as the Beatles.

 

Get back to me when you can find evidence of the Kinks or the Yardbirds, but, perhaps even more notably, using multitrack recording to produce something like "Tomorrow Never Knows" and then using their platform as the Most Popular Band in the world to expose millions of listeners to those new sounds. Songs like “A Day in the Life” or “Happiness Is A Warm Gun” is as progressive as anything the Kinks did.

Also calling George Harrison use of classical Indian as dabbling is pretty dismissive and also false. Nothing against Coltrane but it's not the same thing especially in the classical sense maybe read this book it explains it well. Lavezzoli, Peter (2010). The Dawn Of Indian Music In The West

 

The Beatles didn’t conform to the rules of playing R&B and Rock and Roll. You know the Rolling Stones “As Tears Go By” well Stones version was based on the Beatles “Yesterday” with its lone acoustic guitar and strings is a cop of the Beatles song.

 

The Beatles could have gone psychedelic as early as "Ticket To Ride”. Not so much the riff, but the prominent 'lop-sided' drums and the unusually (in 1965) long bars of droning really do sound like an anemic cousin of Tomorrow Never Knows in retrospect.

 

The songs are beautifully crafted and complex. There’s a lot of nuance there. Paul [McCartney] was one of the greatest bass players of all time. He would put the bass on after everything else was finished, and it shows. The bass lines are so melodic, and they bounce off the other stuff. 

 

 

 

Back to Top
Floydman View Drop Down
Forum Groupie
Forum Groupie


Joined: November 24 2009
Status: Offline
Points: 67
Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 14 2010 at 21:25
Originally posted by Catcher10 Catcher10 wrote:

These polls take on a life of their own........its cool and good! I could be wrong but I don't think Rush mention The Beatles very much as an influence....Mainly groups like Zeppelin, The Who, Yardbirds...hard guitar driven bands.
I think trying to pick out musical comparisons between the two is well....you can't do it. Like everyone says its British tea and Molson beer.......which do you prefer?
As far as fanboy-girl ism......The Beatles win the title hands down......I mean really all girls had to see was a picture of the FabFour and they would melt.......I think half the people that went to their concerts probably didn't hear a word of singing because people would not stop screaming.
 
I remember my wife took my daughter to see the Spice Girls in 2000 I think.....she did not hear much due to all the kids just screaming their heads off.
Probably the same with the Jonas Bros......
 
I say bring on the KC vs Cash poll!!
LOL
 
Geddy Lee does list Paul McCartney as an influence on his bass playing. I have heard it in interviews that he was influenced by Paul melodic style.


Edited by Floydman - October 14 2010 at 21:25
Back to Top
R-A-N-M-A View Drop Down
Forum Groupie
Forum Groupie
Avatar

Joined: July 12 2007
Location: Calgary, AB
Status: Offline
Points: 84
Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 15 2010 at 00:41
Relative originality is not a substitute for kicking ass and taking names. Rush by miles, kilometers, leagues and any other long measure of distance.
Back to Top
Gandalfino View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: March 07 2010
Status: Offline
Points: 315
Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 15 2010 at 13:38
Originally posted by Catcher10 Catcher10 wrote:

Originally posted by darksideof darksideof wrote:

I know it wouldn't be any RUSH without the Beatles but my vote goes for RUSH. They just simply kick Ass. The beatles I only listen when family are around.

I disagree with the 1st sentence..........Without Led Zeppelin there would have been no Rush. Although the last sentence is funny....
Clap
And what about the middle sentence?Wink
Back to Top
Gandalfino View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: March 07 2010
Status: Offline
Points: 315
Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 15 2010 at 13:41
Originally posted by R-A-N-M-A R-A-N-M-A wrote:

Relative originality is not a substitute for kicking ass and taking names. Rush by miles, kilometers, leagues and any other long measure of distance.
...lags behind The Beatles?
Back to Top
Sacred 22 View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: March 24 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 1509
Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 15 2010 at 13:46
This is easy. For most of you this will sound crazy, but for those who know it's simple.
Rush is the better band by miles because they wrote their own music and can actually play their intruments. The Beatles had most of their music written for them and even performed for them. The only guy in the band who could actually play his instrument properly was George Harrison. Wink
 
Back to Top
Bitterblogger View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member


Joined: November 04 2007
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 1719
Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 15 2010 at 13:53
Originally posted by Sacred 22 Sacred 22 wrote:

This is easy. For most of you this will sound crazy, but for those who know it's simple.
Rush is the better band by miles because they wrote their own music and can actually play their intruments. The Beatles had most of their music written for them and even performed for them. The only guy in the band who could actually play his instrument properly was George Harrison. Wink
 
The winking emoticon gives me the impression you're just trying to get a rise out of Beatles fans, since obviously only the deranged actually believe anything in the second paragraph.
Back to Top
EatThatPhonebook View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: September 03 2009
Location: Norwich, VT
Status: Offline
Points: 788
Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 15 2010 at 13:57
It's like comparing chocolate and cheese...
Back to Top
Lozlan View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: December 09 2009
Location: New Mexico
Status: Offline
Points: 536
Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 15 2010 at 14:02
Originally posted by EatThatPhonebook EatThatPhonebook wrote:

It's like comparing chocolate and cheese...


Mmmmm.  Cheese chocolate.
Certified Obscure Prog Fart.

The Loose Palace of Exile - My first novel, The Mask of Tamrel, now available on Amazon and Kindle
Back to Top
Catcher10 View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar
VIP Member

Joined: December 23 2009
Location: Emerald City
Status: Offline
Points: 17845
Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 15 2010 at 16:51
Originally posted by Gandalfino Gandalfino wrote:

Originally posted by Catcher10 Catcher10 wrote:

Originally posted by darksideof darksideof wrote:

I know it wouldn't be any RUSH without the Beatles but my vote goes for RUSH. They just simply kick Ass. The beatles I only listen when family are around.

I disagree with the 1st sentence..........Without Led Zeppelin there would have been no Rush. Although the last sentence is funny....
Clap
And what about the middle sentence?Wink
Well I also disagree with the middle sentence........because they kick MAJOR ASS....Clap
Back to Top
Catcher10 View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar
VIP Member

Joined: December 23 2009
Location: Emerald City
Status: Offline
Points: 17845
Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 15 2010 at 17:15
Originally posted by Floydman Floydman wrote:

Originally posted by Catcher10 Catcher10 wrote:

These polls take on a life of their own........its cool and good! I could be wrong but I don't think Rush mention The Beatles very much as an influence....Mainly groups like Zeppelin, The Who, Yardbirds...hard guitar driven bands.
I think trying to pick out musical comparisons between the two is well....you can't do it. Like everyone says its British tea and Molson beer.......which do you prefer?
As far as fanboy-girl ism......The Beatles win the title hands down......I mean really all girls had to see was a picture of the FabFour and they would melt.......I think half the people that went to their concerts probably didn't hear a word of singing because people would not stop screaming.
 
I remember my wife took my daughter to see the Spice Girls in 2000 I think.....she did not hear much due to all the kids just screaming their heads off.
Probably the same with the Jonas Bros......
 
I say bring on the KC vs Cash poll!!
LOL
 
Geddy Lee does list Paul McCartney as an influence on his bass playing. I have heard it in interviews that he was influenced by Paul melodic style.
 
I don't think I have ever read where Geddy was influenced by Paul's playing style......So much so that the Rush release "Feedback" does not feature any Beatles songs.....Only what I have always understood to be their main influences of Cream, Clapton, The Who, Yardbirds and others including Zeppelin.
I'm sure being teenagers in the early-mid 60's they could not escape The Beatles sound on the radio and in clubs. I'll have to hunt around for this interview...I'm sure if Geddy is asked he would not deny it...As a listener I guess I just don't hear any influence of The Beatles in Rush music.
 
Like has been stated here already.....its like comparing cheese and chocolate.
Back to Top
ferush View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: August 26 2006
Location: Mexico
Status: Offline
Points: 363
Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 15 2010 at 19:10
McCartney and Entwistle are some of first who did riff their bass guitars
Back to Top
jampa17 View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: July 04 2009
Location: Guatemala
Status: Offline
Points: 6802
Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 15 2010 at 20:16
Well.. different, both good, both great, I think you can't compare different styles and different times as well. Some can say that there wouldn't be Rush (or any other single rock band in history) without the Beatles. I doubt that. But well, I consider myself voting for the band who entertain me the most when I want to listen to music, and that's Rush. The Beatles, though they were revolutionary and everything, I still think Harrison was a bad guitar player, and Lennon wasn't that good in composition. Sure they were amazing for their time, but I can assure you I would listen to Tom Swayer a billion times before I've heard my favorite song of the Beatles (which I like a lot of their pop material) that would be Revolution...
 
So, Rush...
Change the program inside... Stay in silence is a crime.
Back to Top
Floydman View Drop Down
Forum Groupie
Forum Groupie


Joined: November 24 2009
Status: Offline
Points: 67
Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 16 2010 at 16:52
Originally posted by Catcher10 Catcher10 wrote:

Originally posted by Floydman Floydman wrote:

Originally posted by Catcher10 Catcher10 wrote:

These polls take on a life of their own........its cool and good! I could be wrong but I don't think Rush mention The Beatles very much as an influence....Mainly groups like Zeppelin, The Who, Yardbirds...hard guitar driven bands.
I think trying to pick out musical comparisons between the two is well....you can't do it. Like everyone says its British tea and Molson beer.......which do you prefer?
As far as fanboy-girl ism......The Beatles win the title hands down......I mean really all girls had to see was a picture of the FabFour and they would melt.......I think half the people that went to their concerts probably didn't hear a word of singing because people would not stop screaming.
 
I remember my wife took my daughter to see the Spice Girls in 2000 I think.....she did not hear much due to all the kids just screaming their heads off.
Probably the same with the Jonas Bros......
 
I say bring on the KC vs Cash poll!!
LOL
 
Geddy Lee does list Paul McCartney as an influence on his bass playing. I have heard it in interviews that he was influenced by Paul melodic style.
 
I don't think I have ever read where Geddy was influenced by Paul's playing style......So much so that the Rush release "Feedback" does not feature any Beatles songs.....Only what I have always understood to be their main influences of Cream, Clapton, The Who, Yardbirds and others including Zeppelin.
I'm sure being teenagers in the early-mid 60's they could not escape The Beatles sound on the radio and in clubs. I'll have to hunt around for this interview...I'm sure if Geddy is asked he would not deny it...As a listener I guess I just don't hear any influence of The Beatles in Rush music.
 
Like has been stated here already.....its like comparing cheese and chocolate.
 
 

You don't have to sound like someone to show influence. I remember reading that Soft Machine bassist was influenced by Paul McCartney use of lead fuzz bass and they really don't sound alike at all.  

 

Well you have to remember Rush covered “Bad Boy”. They even introduced as a Beatles song even though it wasn’t an Beatles original. Yes, I have heard Getty Lee citing Paul McCartney bass style as an influence.

 

Geddy Lee: Information from Answers.com

 

Influenced By:

Robert Plant, John Paul Jones, Jack Bruce, Paul McCartney, Chris Squire, Roger Waters, Greg Lake, Noel Redding, Tim Bogert, John Entwistle

  



Edited by Floydman - October 16 2010 at 16:56
Back to Top
Catcher10 View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar
VIP Member

Joined: December 23 2009
Location: Emerald City
Status: Offline
Points: 17845
Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 16 2010 at 17:17
^ You said interviews.......not a bio internet post...although everything on the internet is true, I think I read that on the internet somewhere. Wink
I'm still looking.....
 
Back to Top
Intruder View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member


Joined: May 13 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 2165
Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 16 2010 at 18:09
Rush - second generation hybrid of Yes and Zep.....I still don't get their tremendous popularity on this site.  I mean, I dig Rush and all, but they seem to be consistently atop the PA Top 50.  During their first prime back in the early 70s, they were the pet band of those kids who wore their roach clips pinned to their jeans....Rush, Foreigner, Styx, Heart, Whitesnake, etc. 
 
Is it that by simply outlasting all those other heavies of the late 70s they've risen to the top?  Give me the Beatles any day of the week.....I save Rush for Saturday night after one too many.....and crank it up to 11.
 
 
I like to feel the suspense when you're certain you know I am there.....
Back to Top
Floydman View Drop Down
Forum Groupie
Forum Groupie


Joined: November 24 2009
Status: Offline
Points: 67
Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 16 2010 at 19:44
Originally posted by Catcher10 Catcher10 wrote:

^ You said interviews.......not a bio internet post...although everything on the internet is true, I think I read that on the internet somewhere. Wink
I'm still looking.....
 
 
I don't want to needle Rush fans and I like Rush. Oh yeah Peart and Lee were techinically better but I don't think they ever did as anything as innovative as the rhythm like you hear on "Rain". Oh speaking of Ringo and time signatures what was the time signatures on the bridge of "Here Comes the Sun" or on the whole "Happiness is a Warm Gun".  I love how Ringo is basically a human drum loop on "Tomorrow Never Knows". It doesn't hurt that the track compared to what was being recorded in 1966 must have blown people minds away. It's little things like that when people compare bands who come after the Beatles forget. People forget when these songs came out.
Back to Top
zwordser View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: October 04 2008
Location: Southwest US
Status: Offline
Points: 1383
Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 17 2010 at 11:49

Someone earlier brought up a good point (for some reason, I'm not able to directly reply to it). The question is simply “Who do you prefer?, but the way some of the discussion to this poll has proceeded, you'd think the question was either “which is the better band?” or “which is the more influential band”. For me, those are tough questions which would require a great deal more thinking about the answer (and perhaps some more research too).


As for which band I prefer to listen to, the answer is Rush.

Z
Back to Top
AtomicCrimsonRush View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: July 02 2008
Location: Australia
Status: Offline
Points: 14258
Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 17 2010 at 16:55
Its chalk and cheese
 
but if i gotta choose its
 
 
cheese
 
 
a lot tastieer
 
 
 
actually i went for RUSH
 
too familiar with Beatles and familiarity breeds contempt
 
 
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 1011121314 30>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down



This page was generated in 0.180 seconds.
Donate monthly and keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.