Rush vs The Beatles

this poll just shows how ridiculous Rush fans are

uduwudu wrote: Well, it's us just being civilised Lozlan. Agreeability is  possible when egos are not involved and I doubt that's the problem.

Still, it is rather shocking.  I have a slightly overdeveloped confrontation mechanism, conditioned by many, many years spent fending off the trolls at the gates.  But PA seems to actually be inhabited by reasonable, intelligent people. 

uduwudu wrote: I did not say women were shallow listeners; though I can understand from the above how this might be inferred. After all the equal inference that male listeners using the appeal of The Beatles is just as equally less than integrity oriented. I suppose that's a kind of equality. This was just an example, of appeal and level of reaction. I find women to enjoy (intellectual popular) music that might be e.g Richard Thompson or others who are more in depth song oriented. What's 17/6 time? 17/8 is hard enough. Didn't refer to 2112. That's a fictional narrative. Possibly nmore akin to Star Wars than anything. But yes, Rogerthat i ahve listened to these albums. Some great ideas happening on Revolver, have to disagree about Rubber Soul though. And yes, I know Fripp likes the Beatles. Good for him. That's what they are there for, to be enjoyed. But to avoid rancour I would agree to terminate discussion; it has been enjoyable though having a spot of discordancy in the otherwise agreeable utopia that is PA. Cheers!

People are awfully agreeable around here.  ::Is suspicious::

uduwudu wrote: So, The Beatles are popular because the girls would melt upoon sight, sound and smell. Omigod. Very progressive rock. I sometimes think this is why guys like the Beatles. Put on one of their albums, chicks light up and half or more of the guy's work is done for them, light the touch paper etc...  Therefore it follows the Beatles area really good band. Rush are more intellectual and as I have found many many times this is not a style or approach that appeals to the majority of women. C'est la vie. Unless the logical extension of Beatles progression are the Backside Boys, Boyzone, Bay City Rollers etc. I thought that might have been Supertramp and ELO (as ogical extensions of the Beatles influence) but maybe not. I do think the Beatles are better than that but they had gone from being good tunesmiths to writing an album and then quit. The pressure of all that fame and fortune was just too much. Alas.

This is, very probably, one the single most problematic, idiotic posts I have ever seen on the internets.  Where the ruddy heck to start?

Your dismissal of women as shallow listeners who can't appreciate decent music is just sexist blather, so I won't waste many words on it.  Not entirely certain how this rather odd but fairly straightforward poll led to such a blatant display of moronic male privilege, but whatever.  It doesn't need much of an excuse to rear its head.

Are you seriously positing Rush as intellectuals?  Have you listened to 2112 recently?  An incredibly shabby, under-written, out-of-the-can dystopia.  Rush's lyrics have always been a sore spot (although some might disagree with me): even the legions of Neil Peart admirers must needs admit that his lyrics are occasionally...shall I say overwrought?  They're largely composed of pseudo-intellectualism and sci-fi pablum.  Which doesn't mean I don't like Rush; I actually enjoy them quite a bit.  But describing their music as more intellectually motivated than The Beatles?  Please, please.  Pass me a sample of thy smokeage. 

I understand that The Beatles don't play in 17/6 time.  I understand that Ringo was one of the most plodding drummers to ever grace a hit rock recording.  But their harmonizing, their songwriting, their utter insistence on pushing the format of the album to heretofore unexplored boundaries...have you ever listened to Tomorrow Never Knows?  It's from 1966, and it's light-years ahead of anything that was going on at the time.  Really, Rubber Soul can't be undervalued either.  Absolutely seminal step in the development of progressive music. 

rogerthat wrote: uduwudu wrote:  But Rush coming with A Farewell To Kings, the Cygnus suite and making dazzling music, particularly when the climate was against 'em (punk thing.) The end of Cygnus part 1 is not exactly obvious, 2 chords but not too easy to figure. Just an example. Farewell of the Kings was 1977, go and compare it to Wind and Wuthering. Or, why not continue with Steely Dan?  Josie, right on the opening bars has a surprise. Steely Dan are full of these surprises, even Peg, the much maligned 'pop' song , is not straightforward.  You are just enamoured of long formats.  There is nothing particularly more compositionally sophisticated about Rush epics than Sabbath or Zep's long songs, they are just more technical, which is not the same thing. uduwudu wrote: Rush are more intellectual and as I have found many many times this is not a style or approach that appeals to the majority of women. That is not so hard to figure out, unless the women in question are sci fi junkies themselves, they wouldn't find many of Rush's themes very appealing. Again, that by itself is not very intellectual at all. Are  you trying to pretend essentially that Michael Crichton is a better writer than Thomas Hardy just because the latter wrote 'love stories' like Tess of the D'Ubervilles?

Is Peg much maligned? I thought it was rather good. Still, maligned it is. Ah well. (I like Steely Dan as well...)

I am not ptretending anything at all. Merely that the demands Rush make on an audience is greater than the let me help you like us approach of the Beatles. But that's progression for you. Especially in a reactionary and limited form of music like popular music where change is not required - the last thing many progressive fans do want is progression at times.  (Thinking of Yes fans here...)

But the comparison is between the compostional capabilities of Rush and The Beatles.

But no. it's not length of composition. Some people  find Day In The Life a long composition. And are stunned at the length of Hey Jude. Not used to it, coming from mere 2 minute pop tunes... But then we would be ignoring Bob Dylan who managed some pretty hefty tunes - my ideal is Hurricane for music and lyrical narrative. He even managed to write albums.

A good example of comparing long extant compositions with material that elaborates the harmonies (This is something I was thinking about recently - an example is Fates Warning's last album X - shorter pieces but with a lot going on as opposed to some of the longer pieces such as The Ivory Gate of Dreams which has lots of sections (the usual and most obvious criteria for identifying a prog piece. Like side 2 of Abbey Road...) The work just happens in a vertical direction on X as opposed to a linear one on No Exit. or closer to how the Beatles approached there more thought out pieces, from top down rather than bolting on more bits. Sometimes this works sometimes not.

Sabbath explored some pretty hefty arrangements - the coda to Symptom of the Universe is loaded with different guitar harmonies. Much of their work was a lot of stacked harmonies aka orchestrations. Brian May and Page explored this as well.

And no, I did not put forward my idea that women finding Rush unappealing as an intellectual one, merely an obvious one mentioned in response to the "girls melt" when the Fabs play. Logic does not come into it. I recall one chick being amazed I was "still" listening to Physical Graffiti and offered up Abbey Road as alternative listening.

The essential appeal of the Beatles was how it made people react at their time of existence. It's nice friendly stuff. It was easily sold.

The Beatles did not have much competition in those days and went down very easily. Post WW2 austerity in the UK and elsewhere needed a distraction. So the lovable Mops and a huge hype. Top 20 singles and collections every 3-4 months in case people lost interest. Imagine that...

After all if I am to make a contemporary comparison between a Rush classic and a Genesis classic (merely becuase of year of release) this would threfore be consistent. Perhaps comparing Stones v. Beatles would be more appropriate on that basis - e.g. which is worse Satanic Majesties or Sgt Pepper ? Beggars Banquet or the White Album? But it's Rush v. Beatles. Intellectual prog metal v. Pop/ proto prog. The Beatles built on 50s rock and roll and soul numbers, graviated to other forms and eventually made a good album (1969 being roughly the time the idea of an album composition really took off e.g. ITCOTCK.)

Rush built on Zeppelin in the earliest days, and had extensive and intensive lyrical matter. I suppose as times changed they changed with them (80s) much as the beatles also did so and began their progression from top 10 to something that is now identified as proto-prog.

The good thing about Rush is an absence makes people  (fanboys / girls? and others e.g. me) watch and wait. The top 20 acts get replaced by formula. No, there is nothing less than evident about that, I know. The Beatles appeal is on personality - all over the TV, radio, magazines. Rush had to rely on mere music. 

rogerthat wrote: uduwudu wrote:   Tommy versus The White Album. My god but The Who have a masterpiece.. Underture alone... This is irrelevant, because the comparison is with Rush. uduwudu wrote:   Yes, I've seen books that go into some detail about the chord substitutions and inversions on Beatles songs. How novel. The Great American Songbook has as much if not more sophistication. This is the real roots of the Beatles, hence the songs being good but due to demands of industry they let slip a whole lotta dreck. By this logic, even Rush is not far out at all, their chord progressions are predictable, VERY.  Following your own line of argument, compare 2112 to Royal Scam, oh, Steely Dan are running rings around Rush with unusual chord choices.  uduwudu wrote: Music. trying to play, oh, Daytripper is one thing. The bass line to the Trees is totally another. How difficult it is to play means nothing when evaluating their compositional skill. Rush are by no means the most technically advanced rock outfit either, so by this logic, there must be tons of technical metal bands 'better' than Rush.

Steely Dan may very well be with chord voicings. And there may very well be technically better bands than Rush. It is always possible.

However Rikki Don't Lose That Number still opens witha root fifth thing so maybe Steely Dan are aware of the most simple but effective ways. But Rush coming with A Farewell To Kings, the Cygnus suite and making dazzling music, particularly when the climate was against 'em (punk thing.) The end of Cygnus part 1 is not exactly obvious, 2 chords but not too easy to figure. Just an example.

So, The Beatles are popular because the girls would melt upoon sight, sound and smell. Omigod. Very progressive rock. I sometimes think this is why guys like the Beatles. Put on one of their albums, chicks light up and half or more of the guy's work is done for them, light the touch paper etc...  Therefore it follows the Beatles area really good band.

Rush are more intellectual and as I have found many many times this is not a style or approach that appeals to the majority of women. C'est la vie. Unless the logical extension of Beatles progression are the Backside Boys, Boyzone, Bay City Rollers etc. I thought that might have been Supertramp and ELO (as ogical extensions of the Beatles influence) but maybe not.

I do think the Beatles are better than that but they had gone from being good tunesmiths to writing an album and then quit. The pressure of all that fame and fortune was just too much. Alas.

uduwudu wrote:   Tommy versus The White Album. My god but The Who have a masterpiece.. Underture alone...

Of course everyone is entitled to their opinion. But I find this idea hard to relate to; it's difficult to respond without seeming to be insulting to Rush and their fans, it's not the quality of Rush that comes into it. It's just incredulous to think of any comparison between the most influential and crucial band in history and an act that's successful in a particular genre. I'm not even a Beatle's fan - atic, but history is history.

uduwudu wrote: Doing boy girl pop is hardly original. This sort of thing has been played out long before gthe Beatles began their hype.

uduwudu wrote:   The Beatles have good tunes  but it was the ages they took to make a decent album the excellent Abbey Road. They could have continued now they had got to where they should have been long before that. Probably hindered by the industry more than anything. Then they quit.  Now I've heard Let It be... Naked it's hard to decide which is worse, the one drenched in thePhil Spector production, or the one that is evidently uninspired. Don't Get me Down and Get Back are always terrific but The Long and Whining Road... God for an avalanche...

Edited by rogerthat - October 10 2010 at 08:53