| Author |
 Topic Search  Topic Options
|
Conor Fynes 
Prog Reviewer
Joined: February 11 2009
Location: Vancouver, CA
Status: Offline
Points: 3196
|
 Posted: October 09 2010 at 15:48 |
|
Rush for sure... beatles have never released anything that really stuck with me.
|
 |
Catcher10
Forum Senior Member
VIP Member
Joined: December 23 2009
Location: Emerald City
Status: Offline
Points: 17847
|
Posted: October 09 2010 at 16:56 |
The Beatles fame is that they are the most popular band in the world. I have never been able to get into their pop music for any reason.
I still have no idea why they broke up, seems lame to me that they left all those fans wanting more but snubbed their noses up at the very fans that put them on such a high pedestal and made them so much money.
I prefer Rush for many reasons...but one of the main ones is they have never forgotten their fan base. The Beatles were together for what 10yrs.......Rush pretty close to 40 yrs.
That speaks volumes.
Geddy Lee, Alex Lifeson and Neil Peart
|
|
|
|
sojourn
Forum Newbie
Joined: October 10 2010
Location: Australia
Status: Offline
Points: 12
|
Posted: October 10 2010 at 03:30 |
|
whoever made this poll is rediculous. How the f**k do you compare these two bands?
|
|
Gandalfino
Forum Senior Member
Joined: March 07 2010
Status: Offline
Points: 315
|
Posted: October 10 2010 at 04:22 |
 sojourn wrote:
whoever made this poll is rediculous. How the f**k do you compare these two bands? |
So, it´s not the weirdest poll. There is another one comparing Pink Floyd and Mozart! 
I´m seriously thinking about poll King Crimson vs. Johnny Cash. 
|
|
uduwudu
Forum Senior Member
Joined: July 17 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 2601
|
Posted: October 10 2010 at 04:44 |
|
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!
|
|
rogerthat
Prog Reviewer
Joined: September 03 2006
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 9869
|
Posted: October 10 2010 at 05:04 |
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  but we'll leave that aside for the moment. 
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. 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.
|
|
Chris S
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: June 09 2004
Location: Front Range
Status: Offline
Points: 7028
|
Posted: October 10 2010 at 05:05 |
a bit like comparing bananas with toothpaste 
|
|
<font color=Brown>Music - The Sound Librarian
...As I venture through the slipstream, between the viaducts in your dreams...[/COLOR]
|
|
Bonnek
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: September 01 2009
Location: Belgium
Status: Offline
Points: 4515
|
Posted: October 10 2010 at 05:18 |
Conor Fynes wrote:
Rush for sure... beatles have never released anything that really stuck with me. |
This!
|
|
uduwudu
Forum Senior Member
Joined: July 17 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 2601
|
Posted: October 10 2010 at 06:07 |
rogerthat wrote:
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 but we'll leave that aside for the moment.
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. 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...)
|
|
rogerthat
Prog Reviewer
Joined: September 03 2006
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 9869
|
Posted: October 10 2010 at 06:23 |
uduwudu wrote:
But reasoning... The Beatles made very good pop records, little kiddies, teenyboppers, grandfolks loved the Mop Tops, very undemanding. |
It is most surprising to hear songs like Day in the life, Within you without you, Tomorrow never knows described condescendingly as stuff for little kiddies and teenyboppers. As I alluded to above, you are able to digest sugar and cheese when delivered in a hard rock package but dismiss beautifully crafted songs when they are merely 'melodic' and 'mellow'. If Entre Nous is tender, what does that make Because, tender, emotional and unforgettable in ways Rush have never managed to be (because they are too rooted in hard rock to venture out of it, which is, unfortunately , necessary to execute softer music and more complicated emotions better)? Rush have never come within miles of approaching the Beatles's mastery of arrangements, the vast melodic territory explored by them, many many other things that I don't really see fit to go into. Compared to Beatles, they have a defined style and have largely not ventured too far beyond it. In many ways, they are not unlike Maiden or Motorhead in metal, but being a prog rock band, they tend to explore more than those bands. In short, it is easy not to like a particular Beatles album so much because they tried many things while upon once liking a Rush album, it is easy to like much of the rest of their discography because they have the same essential appeal. I fail to see, though, how that establishes Rush to be better than Beatles.
Further, whether kiddies or teenyboppers can listen to a Beatles album is not relevant in judging the quality of the music. It cannot be anybody's case that demanding music is by default great, nor that music that is undemanding on the surface lacks songwriting genius. On the contrary, some of the greatest songwriting geniuses have been able to forge their identity within a style that finds a large audience, much to the chagrin of the Rush-es of the world. Where Beatles left, Stevie Wonder continued in the 70s, leaving a trail of compositional brilliance while Rush were stuck on being heavy, limiting their own considerable songwriting talents to relatively narrower horizons.
Yes, I readily grant that Rush are more virtuosic musicians than Beatles (though still find the tentative defense of fanboy rave of Lee's keyboard 'virtuosity' rather amusing), that is about the only respect in which they score over them. Oh, that and they have also been together much longer. So? Are Pink Floyd inferior to AC DC only by virtue of not carrying on and on and on and...
Edited by rogerthat - October 10 2010 at 06:30
|
|
rogerthat
Prog Reviewer
Joined: September 03 2006
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 9869
|
Posted: October 10 2010 at 06:38 |
uduwudu wrote:
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.
|
Intellectual in what way? Worshipping Ayn Rand head over heels? Then Beatles are intellectual enough for me. As for the music, Rush is just more technical than Beatles and technical =/= intellectual, else Rising Force must be more intellectual than Spectral Mornings.  They wrote longer songs but that again is not necessarily an indicator of intellectualism or progginess. Who are proggier as between Gentle Giant and Led Zeppelin? And by the way, not every band embraced AOR in the wake of Dark Side, so Rush had the choice not to go that way. They either saw its potential to help them reach a bigger audience or really liked AOR.
|
|
rogerthat
Prog Reviewer
Joined: September 03 2006
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 9869
|
Posted: October 10 2010 at 06:51 |
uduwudu wrote:
Probably Rush played to their audience since the beginning. Hard rock fans got hard rock, the sci fi junkies got that as well.
|
And what is so admirable about that? Let me give you an example. Where I live, we have a pathetic 'metal' scene, with band after band crappily executing poor and indistinguishable 'extreme metal' songs. Does that stop audiences starved of a regular supply of metal gigs from coming? Not in the least. What is so adventurous about playing in a format with a readymade audience, I mean in what way is it more adventurous than recording top 10 hits? I know very well that Rush have quality so I am not trying to equate them to those local metal bands at all. I am simply trying to demonstrate that arguing for the merits or demerits of a band based on whether they are top 40 or played for their fans is a flawed approach, a more fruitful debate would be to compare the music of the bands in question, which is ultimately all that matters. Whether Beatles has many more, and far more incorrigible, fans than Rush is absolutely irrelevant because it does not take away from their quality in any way. By this token, a classical snob ignorantly dismissing King Crimson ought to pull down Mozart.
|
|
sojourn
Forum Newbie
Joined: October 10 2010
Location: Australia
Status: Offline
Points: 12
|
Posted: October 10 2010 at 06:57 |
do not do crimson vs cash, just please dont.
beatles dominate rush btw
|
|
uduwudu
Forum Senior Member
Joined: July 17 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 2601
|
Posted: October 10 2010 at 08:19 |
rogerthat wrote:
uduwudu wrote:
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.
|
Intellectual in what way? Worshipping Ayn Rand head over heels? Then Beatles are intellectual enough for me. As for the music, Rush is just more technical than Beatles and technical =/= intellectual, else Rising Force must be more intellectual than Spectral Mornings. They wrote longer songs but that again is not necessarily an indicator of intellectualism or progginess. Who are proggier as between Gentle Giant and Led Zeppelin? And by the way, not every band embraced AOR in the wake of Dark Side, so Rush had the choice not to go that way. They either saw its potential to help them reach a bigger audience or really liked AOR. |
' The Dark Side AOR thing... I just meant that since (and it took a while even then) that the sonic, engineering approach enabled that scene to be developed. I once thought John Weathers would make a good drummer for led Zeppelin. he has / had a very powerful approach. As for comparing intellectulaism, the lyrics of Natural Science, Freewill, Distant Early Warning have quite considerable intelltectual appeal. It's probably not fair to compare those with the superb lyrical depth of Can't Buy me Love et al etc and so forth. But the more demanding lyrics require more from the listener. And this is never the approach by radio who go for the more crassly superficial (and endless boy girl type tunes) fitted the bill. Yes the Beatles tried and succeeded at developing a more deeper style. On songs, not albums. But the disguise was there. Perhaps Lennon's appreciation/ infatuation with Bob (Dylan) helped. Anyway Dylan is one of the all time great lyricists and poets. Next stop Neil Peart (as lyricist... never heard him sing.) Yes, The Beatles have a few tunes that have that proto prog thing that's been identified as a developing characteristic in prog rocks. But The Kinks (writing) and the Who (performances and writing) often get overlooked. Not to mention Jeff's yardbirds developing that Eastern promise intheir recordings. Sadly badly organised back catlogue keeps that obscure. Rising Force may be more intellectual than Spectral Mornings, I don't know. Now we are comparing instrumental guitar music. Hackett has a huge variety of virtuosity (except vox but let's not worry about that.) Y.Malmsteen shredded scales. Unfortunately (IMHO) a lot of 80s axe meisters would have done better with melody, less sale bin direction, more audience. Now at this point comes in the Beatles, This is their strong point. I suppose in order to get the link between the Beatles' proto prog and Rush with their hard rock - symphonic prog to synth prog etc there needs to be a band that is more instrumentally stronger. Who, Cream etc. Probably Jeff Beck is the best example of (despite the mess of Superstition) his work covering S Wonder and Beatles among many pieces just goes to show how tunes can shine. But people like words to dance to... Rush have some decent tunes but not overly sugary songs. More protein, less carbs.
|
|
Johnnytuba
Forum Senior Member
Joined: January 02 2009
Location: New York
Status: Offline
Points: 377
|
Posted: October 10 2010 at 08:29 |
|
Rush by leaps and bounds
|
|
"The things that we're concealing, will never let us grow.
Time will do its healing, you've got to let it go.
|
|
rogerthat
Prog Reviewer
Joined: September 03 2006
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 9869
|
Posted: October 10 2010 at 08:30 |
uduwudu wrote:
As for comparing intellectulaism, the lyrics of Natural Science, Freewill, Distant Early Warning have quite considerable intelltectual appeal. It's probably not fair to compare those with the superb lyrical depth of Can't Buy me Love et al etc and so forth. But the more demanding lyrics require more from the listener. |
Yeah, right, Freewill is so lyrically deep, I mean like "If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice" is the next deepest and demanding thing in philosophy since Gautama Buddha. I would readily take the lyrics of In My Life over it. The fact that you want to use an example like Can't Buy Me Love to stereotype the entire body of Beatles's work shows that you are biased about this and not really in a position to judge Beatles well. Further, you are so hung up in an anti-love song attitude (very common in rock circles) that you would rather take simplistic attempts at philosophy over it. What is so not intellectual about writing songs that express emotions like love or heartbreak? They are emotions that people go through, just because they are used widely in pop doesn't mean any and every song about it is lacking intellectually, nor does anything to do with sci fi automatically become intellectual.
uduwudu wrote:
Rising Force may be more intellectual than Spectral Mornings, I don't know. Now we are comparing instrumental guitar music. Hackett has a huge variety of virtuosity (except vox but let's not worry about that.) Y.Malmsteen shredded scales. |
That is the whole point, Hackett uses form well and explores guitar in different contexts, musical and emotional. Which is fundamentally what the Beatles do, while Rush try to write technical music without going off into show offy instrumental sections unlike some bands that have since found their formula handy. There's nothing very intellectual about technicality, that is what I am trying to say.
Rush have some decent tunes but not overly sugary songs. More protein, less carbs.
|
I differ, it is just the hard rock riffs that impacts your perception so much. Otherwise, it would be very evident which of Because and Entre Nouse is the sugary, cheesy tune.
|
|
Johnnytuba
Forum Senior Member
Joined: January 02 2009
Location: New York
Status: Offline
Points: 377
|
Posted: October 10 2010 at 08:31 |
Catcher10 wrote:
The Beatles fame is that they are the most popular band in the world. I have never been able to get into their pop music for any reason.
I still have no idea why they broke up, seems lame to me that they left all those fans wanting more but snubbed their noses up at the very fans that put them on such a high pedestal and made them so much money.
I prefer Rush for many reasons...but one of the main ones is they have never forgotten their fan base. The Beatles were together for what 10yrs.......Rush pretty close to 40 yrs.
That speaks volumes.
Geddy Lee, Alex Lifeson and Neil Peart |
Exactly this....all hail the mighty Canadian trio
|
|
"The things that we're concealing, will never let us grow.
Time will do its healing, you've got to let it go.
|
|
uduwudu
Forum Senior Member
Joined: July 17 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 2601
|
Posted: October 10 2010 at 08:46 |
rogerthat wrote:
uduwudu wrote:
But reasoning... The Beatles made very good pop records, little kiddies, teenyboppers, grandfolks loved the Mop Tops, very undemanding. |
It is most surprising to hear songs like Day in the life, Within you without you, Tomorrow never knows described condescendingly as stuff for little kiddies and teenyboppers. As I alluded to above, you are able to digest sugar and cheese when delivered in a hard rock package but dismiss beautifully crafted songs when they are merely 'melodic' and 'mellow'. If Entre Nous is tender, what does that make Because, tender, emotional and unforgettable in ways Rush have never managed to be (because they are too rooted in hard rock to venture out of it, which is, unfortunately , necessary to execute softer music and more complicated emotions better)? Rush have never come within miles of approaching the Beatles's mastery of arrangements, the vast melodic territory explored by them, many many other things that I don't really see fit to go into. Compared to Beatles, they have a defined style and have largely not ventured too far beyond it. In many ways, they are not unlike Maiden or Motorhead in metal, but being a prog rock band, they tend to explore more than those bands. In short, it is easy not to like a particular Beatles album so much because they tried many things while upon once liking a Rush album, it is easy to like much of the rest of their discography because they have the same essential appeal. I fail to see, though, how that establishes Rush to be better than Beatles.
Further, whether kiddies or teenyboppers can listen to a Beatles album is not relevant in judging the quality of the music. It cannot be anybody's case that demanding music is by default great, nor that music that is undemanding on the surface lacks songwriting genius. On the contrary, some of the greatest songwriting geniuses have been able to forge their identity within a style that finds a large audience, much to the chagrin of the Rush-es of the world. Where Beatles left, Stevie Wonder continued in the 70s, leaving a trail of compositional brilliance while Rush were stuck on being heavy, limiting their own considerable songwriting talents to relatively narrower horizons.
Yes, I readily grant that Rush are more virtuosic musicians than Beatles (though still find the tentative defense of fanboy rave of Lee's keyboard 'virtuosity' rather amusing), that is about the only respect in which they score over them. Oh, that and they have also been together much longer. So? Are Pink Floyd inferior to AC DC only by virtue of not carrying on and on and on and...
|
I didn't condescend Day In The Life. Day In The Life is a great number, I may have mentioned that.
(Actually it's Sgt Pepper which is a somewhat flawed album, yet called
the greatest of all time. Good song band with alot of publicity and hype at a time and place that needed cheering up. 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... Not sure the social observations of Subdivisions, the sci fi fantasy of Cygnus, the poitical caution of Freewill, the literary metaphors of Xanadu or The Trees are "limited." I wish plenty of others could be as limited as this.  But they don't have pop appeal. Shame isn't it? Why aren't these hugely popular? We're supposed to value culture. But we get pounded with some awful chart oriented stuff. Wonder why... Stevie Wonder did some great recordings. Rush are still doing great records. However I must say that they have finally settled on a style and they are a tad more predictable than before. So far.  No way would I think of PF as inferior to ACDC. Oh dear God no. PF I mst say would have done better with less arguing and filling in the latter half of their career doing what they do best. Recording and performing. ACDC make a good if inferior hard rock Beatles, find a formula and grind everyone into the dust with it. In a way I suppose Kiss a more a hard rock Beatles. A few decent songs but not much in the way for album writing... They do have some sort of reject prog-type album with The Elder but ... never mind that...
|
|
rogerthat
Prog Reviewer
Joined: September 03 2006
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 9869
|
Posted: October 10 2010 at 08:53 |
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... |
Are Revolver, Rubber Soul, White album, Magical Mystery Tour, aforementioned Sgt Peppers not 'decent albums'? By those exalted standards, barely 3-4 Rush albums could be called decent.
uduwudu wrote:
Not sure the social observations of Subdivisions, the sci fi fantasy of Cygnus, the poitical caution of Freewill, the literary metaphors of Xanadu or The Trees are "limited." |
I was clearly talking about the music and not their lyrics. They can explore as many lyrical themes as they like, it's all passed through the technical hard rock prism. With some changes over the years, they have generally not tried to play any other style. Beatles are incomparably more eclectic, I don't even see fit to address your suggestion of AC DC being a hard rock version of Beatles, this makes it obvious you haven't heard Beatles properly at all.
Edited by rogerthat - October 10 2010 at 08:53
|
|
uduwudu
Forum Senior Member
Joined: July 17 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 2601
|
Posted: October 10 2010 at 09:08 |
rogerthat wrote:
uduwudu wrote:
As for comparing intellectulaism, the lyrics of Natural Science, Freewill, Distant Early Warning have quite considerable intelltectual appeal. It's probably not fair to compare those with the superb lyrical depth of Can't Buy me Love et al etc and so forth. But the more demanding lyrics require more from the listener. |
Yeah, right, Freewill is so lyrically deep, I mean like "If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice" is the next deepest and demanding thing in philosophy since Gautama Buddha. I would readily take the lyrics of In My Life over it. The fact that you want to use an example like Can't Buy Me Love to stereotype the entire body of Beatles's work shows that you are biased about this and not really in a position to judge Beatles well. Further, you are so hung up in an anti-love song attitude (very common in rock circles) that you would rather take simplistic attempts at philosophy over it. What is so not intellectual about writing songs that express emotions like love or heartbreak? They are emotions that people go through, just because they are used widely in pop doesn't mean any and every song about it is lacking intellectually, nor does anything to do with sci fi automatically become intellectual.
uduwudu wrote:
Rising Force may be more intellectual than Spectral Mornings, I don't know. Now we are comparing instrumental guitar music. Hackett has a huge variety of virtuosity (except vox but let's not worry about that.) Y.Malmsteen shredded scales. |
That is the whole point, Hackett uses form well and explores guitar in different contexts, musical and emotional. Which is fundamentally what the Beatles do, while Rush try to write technical music without going off into show offy instrumental sections unlike some bands that have since found their formula handy. There's nothing very intellectual about technicality, that is what I am trying to say.
Rush have some decent tunes but not overly sugary songs. More protein, less carbs.
|
I differ, it is just the hard rock riffs that impacts your perception so much. Otherwise, it would be very evident which of Because and Entre Nouse is the sugary, cheesy tune. |
Doing boy girl pop is hardly original. This sort of thing has been played out long before gthe Beatles began their hype. These things were the grist of dull tunes since comic opera. People can become convinced of anything if told enough times. That's why this sugar makes their medicine go down... BTW I would certainly rate Hackett over Malmsteen, yes his varied great abilities do allow a greater expression. Spectral Mornings is an evergreen with me. I've never bought an album merely because of technical prowess. e.g. Yes 9012Live The solos. Too out of context for me. But in context - a concert recording then fine... However there is this thing about show offy. Now it's often hard rock fans who moan about this. Putting a stunning instrumental piece together is not easy. Did you know that La Villa Strangiato was doen in one take in the studio. True, it was Take 40 or so, but still... Yet only in rock do we get these complaints about too virtuostic.. Not in jazz or classcial (any of those eras.) No problem with Beatles virtuosity. You should have seen a pal of mine's face when I had to let hjim in on the truth of the ID of the axeman who did While My Guitar Gently Weeps. Which I think is a great song, interesting chord progression and performance. But his opinion of Harrison sank. Which is a bit unfair as the full overview of Harrison's music displays far more depth than most of the pretensions of Lennon and the milky pap McCartney could put out. Ringo's friendly. Jeff Healy (RIP) did probably even more fiery version. Good writer Harrison, great song, and performance. Shame about most of the rest of the White Album. Held up as great but with a cover that says surrender. At least they tried something experimental. But Why Don't We Do It In The (Abbey?) Road (repeat) is their blues rock peak?
|
|
/PAlogo_v2.gif "Progarchives.com Homepage")
Rush vs The Beatles
