Rush Overvalued band

Vi0LaToR wrote: King By-Tor wrote: ^^^ What are these bands? I've seen a great scene coming out of Poland, Israel and Sweden recently with acts who don't have as big of haves as those that you mentioned, for for a modern band they're all rather excellent. Just about every band who comes on the scene these days won't have as much as a chance as those early for-runners of the rock genre mainly because a. Those you mentioned where the first and they may not be "better" anyways since that's a personal preference and many people (myself included) enjoy the modern scene from other countries more than those old "classic" bands b. Nostalgia is an overruling factor. Those bands will never have a new band rival them because they were the first and they were the "best" in many people's eyes. Not true because people are quite ignorant to new music and they always stick with their "classics" c. New bands don't have the same chances as old bands. I hate to quote the guy, but it's like Bono once said, "There will never be another U2". Band who are aimed at the general population have a short shelf life because the general populous are quick to move on to the next trend thanks to our MTV culture. Your views are completely subjective and while it's a fact that those bands sold many more records than bands these says that also applies to modern British bands who have just as much troubles as other international bands and preference is preference. Now is a much different time than the 70s, but maybe in 30 years people will be talking about how Sweden was the best prog country ever because of bands like Anekdoten, The Flower Kings, Beardfish - and many others. Thank you for the post which inspired my rant Porcupine Tree? marillion? IQ? oceansize?

4 is hardly a thousand million

Helloween may not be prog, but they're one of the best German power metal bands in existence and you really have to respect the length of their career.

But I'm done feeding you

^^^He's also clearly never listened to Rush or he would have attacked me for the name thing as well

TGM: Orb wrote:   Just trying to answer this. I agree that over-rated/under-rated is a doubly subjective value (how good you think they are/how good you think other people think they are?). Being over-valued by PA... the fact that they get bashed at the same time doesn't mean they're not being rated and praised very highly by a lot of people. More precisely... Geddy Lee won a best keyboard player poll a while back... partly because people didn't read the question, and partly, I guess, because they knew Rush and not the other bands involved. Equally, I've seen Peart getting loads more votes in Best Drummer Ever polls than people like Palmer, Hiseman, Barriemore Barlowe, Phil Collins, etc. pretty much all of whom I find more interesting. Personally, I suspect that's because they ware (were/are) a three man band and so people find it easy to remember who they are... but nevermind. Generally, I think, PA rates Rush more highly than I do. In particular, I think, Rush fans are more eager to proclaim the skills of their individual members than most fans of other bands, and I don't find the individual members that impressive. I don't think they were really on the same level as the pioneers of progressive rock were. I still like Rush in general (especially Caress Of Steel and A Farewell To Kings). I just don't like them as much as the fans do. So, subjectively, I'll call them over-rated (even on PA) in a couple of areas.

Rush is a band.  Let's just leave it at that.

NaturalScience wrote: Rush is a band.  Let's just leave it at that.

Visitor13 wrote: NaturalScience wrote: Rush is a band. I'm certain VI0laTor will find this argument unconvincing.

TGM: Orb wrote: More precisely... Geddy Lee won a best keyboard player poll a while back... partly because people didn't read the question, and partly, I guess, because they knew Rush and not the other bands involved. Equally, I've seen Peart getting loads more votes in Best Drummer Ever polls than people like Palmer, Hiseman, Barriemore Barlowe, Phil Collins, etc. pretty much all of whom I find more interesting. Personally, I suspect that's because they ware (were/are) a three man band and so people find it easy to remember who they are... but nevermind. Generally, I think, PA rates Rush more highly than I do. In particular, I think, Rush fans are more eager to proclaim the skills of their individual members than most fans of other bands, and I don't find the individual members that impressive. I don't think they were really on the same level as the pioneers of progressive rock were. I still like Rush in general (especially Caress Of Steel and A Farewell To Kings). I just don't like them as much as the fans do. So, subjectively, I'll call them over-rated (even on PA) in a couple of areas.

I too, like Rush, but they certainly aren't even in my top 30 favorite bands at this moment.
But for some reason, I can't seem to have observed this on PA all that much: "Rush fans are more eager to proclaim the skills of their individual members than most fans of other bands, and I don't find the individual members that impressive"

I think practically every really popular band on PA has had many threads/polls that show fans eager to proclaim skills of their individual members.
The amount of Steve Hackett threads, Rick Wakeman threads, Bill Bruford threads for example.

"and I don't find the individual members that impressive"

I do agree with this point, although there are certainly some fans that are humble about the band's technical skill level, while occasionally the media and some over eager fans do of course hype them to be virtuosos even if they are not.
Lifeson certainly is not a virtuoso, not by the standards of his time, nor now.
Peart, is arguably the most technically skilled member, and while perhaps a virtuoso drummer "of his time" he certainly doesn't match up to the virtuoso drummers of the mid 80s and beyond

"Palmer, Hiseman, Barriemore Barlowe, Phil Collins"
To be fair, in a list like that, Phill Collins and Peart are going to among the most known.

I am a Hiseman fan, and a fan of Colosseum II in general, but I suspect on PA there are is far less people that know who Colosseum II/Hiseman are, compared to those who know who Rush/Peart are, and so on for the less known drummers.

"I don't think they were really on the same level as the pioneers of progressive rock were"

I can agree but somehow I don't... if that makes sense
They weren't around at the late 60s/very early 70s, doing what the bands of that time were doing for prog, you'd be right to say that, but I think Rush had something... I can't describe exactly what, but perhaps it's to do with what they were doing at the time, which I find to be just as remarkable as the other bands were doing 5,10 years earlier.

Pretty much the response that I'd expect from you Rob.  Not surprisingly they are overrated from your perspective.  If the question were regarding VDGG, no doubt your and my sides of the argument would change.  That is the great thing about "Freewill" (and yes I know you hate that song); you don't have to love Rush, and I don't have to love VDGG, but as I always add, someday they might just click with me and I will become a VDGG fanboy too.

Vi0LaToR wrote: i only said that RUSH is not really a prog band because : if you compare the probably best album of the band "moving pictures" or "farewell to kings" to the probably best album of yes "close to the edge" or fragile", CTTE is so far a best album in comparison. moving pictures or farewell... arent considered a really really good prog albums for me.

TGM: Orb wrote:   I mean, I don't want everyone to immediately start declaring that Hugh Banton is the best organist ever

James already has. 

Vi0LaToR wrote: i only said that RUSH is not really a prog band because : if you compare the probably best album of the band "moving pictures" or "farewell to kings" to the probably best album of yes "close to the edge" or fragile", CTTE is so far a best album in comparison.