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.
Joined: February 09 2010
Location: Australia
Status: Offline
Points: 3242
Posted: December 19 2017 at 22:37
Should have added that bands are more than the sum of the parts of the individual musicians. The Beatles were a much different band after Ringo Starr joined them. Starr wasn't a technical drummer like Neil Peart but the emphasis on the back beat in his drumming style made The Beatles a much better band than when Pete Best was in the band.
Joined: February 09 2010
Location: Australia
Status: Offline
Points: 3242
Posted: December 19 2017 at 22:29
M27Barney wrote:
Rush - far superior musicians - who could argue with that - I'm a better drummer than Ringo Star......
What defines a musician? You can argue that song writing ability rates higher than ability to play a musical instrument, since there aren't as many song writers of the calibre of The Beatles, as there are great guitarists, or drummers.
Joined: November 11 2016
Location: Finland
Status: Offline
Points: 5538
Posted: December 09 2017 at 05:37
I love Rush too, but Beatles is just greater. I like also beginning albums of the Beatles, but never been a big fan of after Signals Rush albums. Power Windows and Presto are ok.
Joined: June 06 2016
Location: Greece
Status: Offline
Points: 242
Posted: December 07 2017 at 03:00
febus wrote:
The weirdest poll of them all!
I hold both groups in the utmost esteem but since I have to
vote for one, Beatles get my vote: their post-1965 albums are masterpieces, some of them groundbreaking.
Joined: March 29 2014
Location: USA
Status: Offline
Points: 2163
Posted: December 04 2017 at 04:23
M27Barney wrote:
Rush - far superior musicians - who could argue with that - I'm a better drummer than Ringo Star......
There's more to music than technical proficiency. I'm as big a Rush fan as anyone but Rush can't touch the Beatles in so many ways. I love the Beatles. I love Rush but if we're comparing these two bands in totality, it has to go to the Beatles.
On the other hand, it's batsh*t crazy to even try to compare these two bands.
We all dwell in an amber subdomain, amber subdomain, amber subdomain.
Joined: September 03 2006
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 9869
Posted: November 25 2017 at 20:42
Larkstongue41 wrote:
Thatfabulousalien wrote:
Larkstongue41 wrote:
^ Technically a lot better, but compositionally... the Beatles have the edge imo.
I don't find the Beatles to be good songwriters overall
I'm far from being the biggest Beatles fan so I won't be able to make their case as well as some other folks would but although their music has become some kind of a pop rock cliché, their songwriting skills are undeniable. Sure most of their stuff is very simplistic almost childish but as Bowie said (I believe it was Bowie) they made the avant-garde accessible which is a feat that not many have been able to reproduce this well. I consider Sgt. Peppers and the White Album especially to be genuine masterpieces.
Anyways I'm not trying to negate your opinion or anything, it's just that I used to think the same way before actually listening to the Beatles' stuff and being aware of your taste for the avant-garde, I think you might realize that part of their work (tiny as it may be) is not that far away from the great RIO legends.
While their foray into avant was important given they were doing it as a wildly popular band, it's not even necessary for them to be regarded as good songwriters. Whether one thinks Burt Bacharach is too safe is entirely irrelevant, he is a good songwriter. In the same way, the band which wrote Yesterday, Something, Here Comes the Sun, Let it Be among many other songs, too many to be listed in a single post, are good songwriters (at the very least). Rush are great at putting together technical music, but not at writing songs. If Beatles is pop-rock cliche, songs like Different Strings are ten times more cliche once stripped off Rush's excellent delivery. Not directed at you by the way, just building on your arguments.
Joined: April 05 2006
Location: Vancouver, BC
Status: Offline
Points: 35750
Posted: November 25 2017 at 11:35
I voted in this poll years ago, but I don't think I commented. I far prefer the Beatles. I don't think that the Fab Four were terribly talented, but they worked with some very talented and musically knowledgeable people, including, of course, George Martin and had some interesting ideas that others helped them to develop (I like, for instance how they borrowed techniques from musique concrete composers).
The Beatles were hugely influential of course, and I hear their influence in a lot more music that I like than the influence of Rush (I'm not really much of a hard rock kind of guy).
Can't imagine a Rush parody band half as good as the Rutles either.
And one of my favourite Brit comedians, Peter Serafinowicz, has parodied plenty of Beatles stuff. Here in Canada Peter Mansbridge hasn't even done one Rush parody (he has interviewed Geddy Lee).
I don't care if this topic is apples and oranges, or was intended as a just for fun kind of poll (frankly polls are generally time-wasters), I can easily answer this by saying that I prefer the Beatles. Been years, but going to play Magical Mystery Tour right now (my fave as a child).
^ Technically a lot better, but compositionally... the Beatles have the edge imo.
I don't find the Beatles to be good songwriters overall
I'm far from being the biggest Beatles fan so I won't be able to make their case as well as some other folks would but although their music has become some kind of a pop rock cliché, their songwriting skills are undeniable. Sure most of their stuff is very simplistic almost childish but as Bowie said (I believe it was Bowie) they made the avant-garde accessible which is a feat that not many have been able to reproduce this well. I consider Sgt. Peppers and the White Album especially to be genuine masterpieces.
Anyways I'm not trying to negate your opinion or anything, it's just that I used to think the same way before actually listening to the Beatles' stuff and being aware of your taste for the avant-garde, I think you might realize that part of their work (tiny as it may be) is not that far away from the great RIO legends.
"Larks' tongues. Wrens' livers. Chaffinch brains. Jaguars' earlobes. Wolf nipple chips. Get 'em while they're hot. They're lovely. Dromedary pretzels, only half a denar."
^ I understand your point but I think this type of poll is still fun. It gets discussion going and makes you evaluate your taste which is always a quite healthy thing to do. The forum would feel dead if it wasn't for those nowadays.
"Larks' tongues. Wrens' livers. Chaffinch brains. Jaguars' earlobes. Wolf nipple chips. Get 'em while they're hot. They're lovely. Dromedary pretzels, only half a denar."
Joined: April 03 2015
Location: Darlington, UK
Status: Offline
Points: 4776
Posted: November 24 2017 at 16:50
This poll is seriously flawed - how can you compare a band that changed popular music forever, and a great rock band like Rush who I've adored for years but most people in the world would not have heard of. I play Rush much more than the Beatles, and I play both much more than Mozart and Beethoven - but to try to choose is navel gazing at its most pretentious. Sorry.....the recent Joplin v Nicks poll is the same - a 30 second discussion over a pint in a pub- but a progarchives thread?
Edited by Squonk19 - November 24 2017 at 16:51
“Living in their pools, they soon forget about the sea.”
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
This page was generated in 0.219 seconds.
Donate monthly and keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.
/PAlogo_v2.gif "Progarchives.com Homepage")
Rush vs The Beatles
Topic Options
M27Barney wrote:
