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.
/PAlogo_v2.gif "Progarchives.com Homepage") |
|
Post Reply 
|
Page <1 910111213 30> |
| Author | |||
Lark the Starless 
Forum Senior Member 
Joined: October 15 2009 Location: Los Angeles, CA Status: Offline Points: 1902 |
 Posted: October 11 2010 at 21:33 |
||
|
Rush
|
|||
|
|||
 |
|||
|
Chela
Forum Senior Member
Joined: July 27 2010 Location: California Status: Offline Points: 165 |
Posted: October 12 2010 at 15:49 |
||
|
Boy, you people are overthinking it.
The poll simply asks "Who do you prefer?"
 I used to be a bigger Beatles fan than I am now. I don't deny that they are important to music, but at the moment, I would give the vote to Rush
 |
|||
|
|||
|
Catcher10
Forum Senior Member
VIP Member Joined: December 23 2009 Location: Emerald City Status: Offline Points: 17847 |
Posted: October 12 2010 at 16:51 |
||
|
Not too shabby to be just 30 votes down against all this Beatlemania fanboyism.....  |
|||
  
|
|||
|
|||
|
Matthew T
Prog Reviewer 
Joined: February 01 2007 Location: Australia Status: Offline Points: 5291 |
Posted: October 12 2010 at 17:12 |
||
|
Just another Beatles vote ...............very predictable from me.. |
|||
|
Matt
|
|||
|
|||
|
Catcher10
Forum Senior Member
VIP Member Joined: December 23 2009 Location: Emerald City Status: Offline Points: 17847 |
Posted: October 12 2010 at 17:18 |
||
Maybe so but you are my jazz hero......
  |
|||
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
WalterDigsTunes
Forum Senior Member
Joined: September 11 2007 Location: SanDiegoTijuana Status: Offline Points: 4373 |
Posted: October 12 2010 at 17:28 |
||
|
I don't typically care for the Beatles and their childish melodies, but I find them far less irritating than the shrill nonsense that comes out of Geddy Lee's mouth.
|
|||
|
|||
|
Matthew T
Prog Reviewer
Joined: February 01 2007 Location: Australia Status: Offline Points: 5291 |
Posted: October 12 2010 at 17:35 |
||
 thanks
|
|||
|
Matt
|
|||
|
|||
|
Garion81
Special Collaborator 
Honorary Collaborator Joined: May 22 2004 Location: So Cal, USA Status: Offline Points: 4338 |
Posted: October 12 2010 at 17:53 |
||
|
[/QUOTE] So, The Beatles are popular because the girls would melt upoon sight, sound and smell. [/QUOTE] I have known several Rush fan boys to do the same.  All I can say is the Beatles moved popular music (which everything was called back then) in a whole different direction. While Rush has had some influence in Rock I cannot even think these are two bands mentioned in the same sentence. Now what you prefer is something far more simply addressed.
|
|||
"What are you going to do when that damn thing rusts?" |
|||
|
|||
|
uduwudu
Forum Senior Member
Joined: July 17 2007 Status: Offline Points: 2601 |
Posted: October 12 2010 at 18:58 |
||
So, The Beatles are popular because the girls would melt upoon sight, sound and smell. [/QUOTE] I have known several Rush fan boys to do the same. All I can say is the Beatles moved popular music (which everything was called back then) in a whole different direction. While Rush has had some influence in Rock I cannot even think these are two bands mentioned in the same sentence. Now what you prefer is something far more simply addressed. [/QUOTE]Yes, so have I. very disturbing. It's an odd playing field. In 1962 quite naturally the Beatles and the other UK pop/ rock / blues bands from Animals to Zombies could do as they will. Selling the US their own heritage (blues) was one.  Then the Beck Group, Cream, UK/US import/export Hendrix and Zeppelin did that all over again. Then The US and Canadian hard rock bands took their cues from this wave of UK imports. Rush went one better by getting a drummer who could play brilliantly and write their lyrics for them. Just as well. The Who managed to do what the Beatles did (write melodic tunes), do what Yes did (play amazingly imaginative music - the links between Lee, Entwistle and Squire's playing must be fairly evident- thendo what Zeppelin did (rock like a b*****d) and influence Rush (who covered the Seeker recently.) They had the compositions, the album development and the concert performance that left behind their 60s era pals, joined togther with 70s bands, blew most of them off stage and then sadly, lost it. Oh, if Can't Buy Me Love is held up as juvenile Beatles against 2112 being juvenile Rush it just goes to show the extent of progression / sophistication in rock. The link between the Beatles and Rush is a matter of interpreting rock's progression but perhaps the real link is the Who. Of course it was a journey and tomorrow could never know, but yesterday gives us hindsight. The relationship between the Beatles and Rush is only a few years removed but popular music splattered, er, split into all sorts of directions. Rush was merely a symptom of a music scene that showed an audience needing specific types of music. Which was fantasy, scifi hard rock based epics. Another view is that popular music changes according to the drugs in contemporary use. |
|||
|
|||
|
GY!BE
Forum Senior Member
Joined: July 27 2010 Location: Montreal Status: Offline Points: 538 |
Posted: October 12 2010 at 19:12 |
||
|
RUSH
|
|||
|
|||
|
ferush
Forum Senior Member
Joined: August 26 2006 Location: Mexico Status: Offline Points: 363 |
Posted: October 12 2010 at 19:49 |
||
|
Oh my god my two favourite bands, I love them both.
1.- The Beatles
2.- Rush
3.- Genesis
4.- Yes
5.- King Crimson
And that's it folks.
|
|||
|
|||
|
Garion81
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator Joined: May 22 2004 Location: So Cal, USA Status: Offline Points: 4338 |
Posted: October 12 2010 at 22:10 |
||
I have known several Rush fan boys to do the same. All I can say is the Beatles moved popular music (which everything was called back then) in a whole different direction. While Rush has had some influence in Rock I cannot even think these are two bands mentioned in the same sentence. Now what you prefer is something far more simply addressed. [/QUOTE]Yes, so have I. very disturbing. It's an odd playing field. In 1962 quite naturally the Beatles and the other UK pop/ rock / blues bands from Animals to Zombies could do as they will. Selling the US their own heritage (blues) was one. Then the Beck Group, Cream, UK/US import/export Hendrix and Zeppelin did that all over again. Then The US and Canadian hard rock bands took their cues from this wave of UK imports. Rush went one better by getting a drummer who could play brilliantly and write their lyrics for them. Just as well. The Who managed to do what the Beatles did (write melodic tunes), do what Yes did (play amazingly imaginative music - the links between Lee, Entwistle and Squire's playing must be fairly evident- thendo what Zeppelin did (rock like a b*****d) and influence Rush (who covered the Seeker recently.) They had the compositions, the album development and the concert performance that left behind their 60s era pals, joined togther with 70s bands, blew most of them off stage and then sadly, lost it. Oh, if Can't Buy Me Love is held up as juvenile Beatles against 2112 being juvenile Rush it just goes to show the extent of progression / sophistication in rock. The link between the Beatles and Rush is a matter of interpreting rock's progression but perhaps the real link is the Who. Of course it was a journey and tomorrow could never know, but yesterday gives us hindsight. The relationship between the Beatles and Rush is only a few years removed but popular music splattered, er, split into all sorts of directions. Rush was merely a symptom of a music scene that showed an audience needing specific types of music. Which was fantasy, scifi hard rock based epics. Another view is that popular music changes according to the drugs in contemporary use. [/QUOTE] I agree with some of this but I disagree they were a short time apart. The Beatles started in 1962 and Rush in 1974, Not that 12 years is huge but in the evolution of pop music it was at least two generation removed in that time period. How much of the British invasion came from the fact the Beatles were a huge success? Almost all of these bands and then the subsequent prog bands cite the Beatles as an influence. Rush started 5 years after the Beatles last work was released and when they stopped being biggest band in the world and 8 years after they did their last tour. How many other groups have stopped touring and still put out 4 #1 albums over the next 4 years? They also survived the AM to FM radio transition. There music was played by Jazz musicians, Country musicians,. MOR Pop musicians and other rock musicians. Even third generation bands like Spock's Beard and Transatlantic play their music. If that doesn't give you a clue of how big an influence these guys were then nothing will. Rush's first album showed their influence was Led Zeppelin who were the biggest band in the world at the time. Prog had almost run its course at that point and the only North American band playing it with a major label contract was Kansas. (Might be worth checking out Song for America which came out the same year as 2112. I think there is a tremendous difference) It took Rush almost 4 years from their first release to make any noise. . It really wasn't until the 80's that Rush made a major blast across genres and only because of MTV. Yes they have lasted a long time but really are you going to make an argument that they have made anything meaningful in 30 years? I grew up in the 60's and was a teenager and young adult in the 70's living in a pretty major location To me, while I respect Rush and their fans I really don't even see the argument.
|
|||
|
"What are you going to do when that damn thing rusts?" |
|||
|
|||
|
JJLehto
Prog Reviewer
Joined: April 05 2006 Location: Tallahassee, FL Status: Offline Points: 34550 |
Posted: October 13 2010 at 00:17 |
||
|
Hmmm intriguing one, and look at those results!
I do like The Beatles but I'd give my vote to Rush, since I like them more |
|||
|
|||
|
uduwudu
Forum Senior Member
Joined: July 17 2007 Status: Offline Points: 2601 |
Posted: October 13 2010 at 03:10 |
||
Yes, so have I. very disturbing. It's an odd playing field. In 1962 quite naturally the Beatles and the other UK pop/ rock / blues bands from Animals to Zombies could do as they will. Selling the US their own heritage (blues) was one. Then the Beck Group, Cream, UK/US import/export Hendrix and Zeppelin did that all over again. Then The US and Canadian hard rock bands took their cues from this wave of UK imports. Rush went one better by getting a drummer who could play brilliantly and write their lyrics for them. Just as well. The Who managed to do what the Beatles did (write melodic tunes), do what Yes did (play amazingly imaginative music - the links between Lee, Entwistle and Squire's playing must be fairly evident- thendo what Zeppelin did (rock like a b*****d) and influence Rush (who covered the Seeker recently.) They had the compositions, the album development and the concert performance that left behind their 60s era pals, joined togther with 70s bands, blew most of them off stage and then sadly, lost it. Oh, if Can't Buy Me Love is held up as juvenile Beatles against 2112 being juvenile Rush it just goes to show the extent of progression / sophistication in rock. The link between the Beatles and Rush is a matter of interpreting rock's progression but perhaps the real link is the Who. Of course it was a journey and tomorrow could never know, but yesterday gives us hindsight. The relationship between the Beatles and Rush is only a few years removed but popular music splattered, er, split into all sorts of directions. Rush was merely a symptom of a music scene that showed an audience needing specific types of music. Which was fantasy, scifi hard rock based epics. Another view is that popular music changes according to the drugs in contemporary use. [/QUOTE] I agree with some of this but I disagree they were a short time apart. The Beatles started in 1962 and Rush in 1974, Not that 12 years is huge but in the evolution of pop music it was at least two generation removed in that time period. How much of the British invasion came from the fact the Beatles were a huge success? Almost all of these bands and then the subsequent prog bands cite the Beatles as an influence. Rush started 5 years after the Beatles last work was released and when they stopped being biggest band in the world and 8 years after they did their last tour. How many other groups have stopped touring and still put out 4 #1 albums over the next 4 years? They also survived the AM to FM radio transition. There music was played by Jazz musicians, Country musicians,. MOR Pop musicians and other rock musicians. Even third generation bands like Spock's Beard and Transatlantic play their music. If that doesn't give you a clue of how big an influence these guys were then nothing will. Rush's first album showed their influence was Led Zeppelin who were the biggest band in the world at the time. Prog had almost run its course at that point and the only North American band playing it with a major label contract was Kansas. (Might be worth checking out Song for America which came out the same year as 2112. I think there is a tremendous difference) It took Rush almost 4 years from their first release to make any noise. . It really wasn't until the 80's that Rush made a major blast across genres and only because of MTV. Yes they have lasted a long time but really are you going to make an argument that they have made anything meaningful in 30 years? I grew up in the 60's and was a teenager and young adult in the 70's living in a pretty major location To me, while I respect Rush and their fans I really don't even see the argument. [/QUOTE]Well there isn't really an argument but merely observations and ways to make the connections between these progressive rock super groups. Join the dots as it were. The dates of album releases are correct but the significance of the Beatles at least happened before Rush's first album - in other words what was released had some effect in the intervening years. 1962 - 1974 also had an impact on Rush as they had to listen to something in those years to get to their beginnings. Yes many Brit Invasion bands were famous in light of the Beatles glow. However by the time Rush arrived the novelty of pop and rock had worn off and to get attention via non pop means required some real in depth creativity and hard touring. Not having the loveable mop top image and merchandising and Rolling Stone's backing did not help Rush's cause. Excruciating band photos hardly helped. But guitar intros like A Farewell To Kings did. I think Rush got there via that '70s era guitar hero appeal. Apparently they're a drummer's band now (the Neil Peart worship.) Plenty of disparity between the two bands though. I think Hendrix and The Who might have a fair bit to do with the bits in between, and Yes as well. Oh, one thing, slightly off tangent (sic.) If someone were to play guitar in classical, metal or blues or jazz style we'd have some idea what that was. Put to play guitar in a prog rock style. Er, what's that? |
|||
|
|||
|
Garion81
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator Joined: May 22 2004 Location: So Cal, USA Status: Offline Points: 4338 |
Posted: October 13 2010 at 11:52 |
||
See how easy that was?
|
|||
|
"What are you going to do when that damn thing rusts?" |
|||
|
|||
|
Garion81
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator Joined: May 22 2004 Location: So Cal, USA Status: Offline Points: 4338 |
Posted: October 13 2010 at 11:56 |
||
|
To uduwudu:
I was merely trying to compare the two bands sphere of influence. I am not denying Rush's on rock music I am just saying the Beatles influence transcended genres and still influence songwriters even today.
|
|||
|
"What are you going to do when that damn thing rusts?" |
|||
|
|||
|
crimhead
Forum Senior Member
VIP Member Joined: October 10 2006 Location: Missouri Status: Offline Points: 19236 |
Posted: October 13 2010 at 12:58 |
||
I'd think that Led Zepp would have been up there. |
|||
|
|||
|
darksideof
Forum Senior Member
Joined: February 22 2007 Location: Newark N.J. Status: Offline Points: 2318 |
Posted: October 13 2010 at 13:25 |
||
|
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. |
|||
|
http://darksideofcollages.blogspot.com/
http://www.metalmusicarchives.com/ https://www.facebook.com/pages/Darksideof-Collages/ |
|||
|
|||
|
Catcher10
Forum Senior Member
VIP Member Joined: December 23 2009 Location: Emerald City Status: Offline Points: 17847 |
Posted: October 13 2010 at 14:19 |
||
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Dr. Occulator
Forum Senior Member
Joined: March 04 2006 Location: Canada Status: Offline Points: 628 |
Posted: October 13 2010 at 16:37 |
||
|
The Beatles broke more new ground than any rock band in history!
|
|||
|
My Doc Told Me I Have Doggie Head.
|
|||
|
|||
|
Post Reply
|
Page <1 910111213 30> |
| Forum Jump | Forum Permissions 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 |
Rush vs The Beatles
Topic Options
Matthew T wrote: