Rush vs The Beatles

Conor Fynes wrote:    The world of music would be a different place without the Beatles, but the same can be said for Rush as well...

Drew, the OP never laid those ground rules, as far as I am aware. Seems to me, the voters can take whatever factor they wish into consideration. 

Edited by JLocke - October 18 2010 at 21:09

JLocke wrote: Drew, the OP never laid those ground rules, as far as I am aware. Seems to me, the voters can take whatever factor they wish into consideration.

You're right- I just never understood that factor of a decision.

Drew wrote: JLocke wrote: Drew, the OP never laid those ground rules, as far as I am aware. Seems to me, the voters can take whatever factor they wish into consideration.  You're right- I just never understood that factor of a decision.

The Beatles made their appearance with little or no high expectations of pop/ rock music. They made very appealing tunes with quality sounding records and were successful. It was here that EMI felt they could afford to let them live... oops, I mean record - in Abbey Road $tudio$. Had they been less successful they might have had to record as and when like many others.

Rush had the weight of expectations (lots of heavy and prog rock acts  - you know, the usual suspects...) and they were hardly a chart oriented band. Well, not a singles chart oriented band anyway.

One change (progression?)  for which I am thankful is this industry tactic of issuing US oriented vs UK oriented albums. I mean, did it really make a difference whether a fan in Denver Co heard a sequence of songs that a fan in Manchester, Lancs might not? So annoying of record companies to do that. Pity the poor collectors!

Mention has been made of the stereo masters of The Beatles, I just wonder why they were not remixed as well. Or is that interfering with history no matter how much one might prefer another history.

Heh, for rock fans rebelling against society ()we don't half come across as reactionary conservative.

uduwudu wrote: Heh, for rock fans rebelling against society ()we don't half come across as reactionary conservative.

JLocke wrote: Catcher10 wrote: JLocke wrote: Catcher10 wrote: ^ I personally believe the Fab Four would have not done much better than what they had already done.....Music was already changing by the time they quit. I do agree that their sound would have been very much like Wings.....which was a good soft rock band, but nothing more. The Beatles had way too much personal issues to make any kind of go at it for another 4-5 yrs. I kinda think the reverse in that had they stuck it out and not quit their relevance might have been damaged and they would not be on such a high pedestal today. But this is all a guessing game right now......what we do know is the complete body of Yes, PF and Genesis. Yes and Genesis completed their career circle I think....and it is a wonderful circle.   Rush is not done. John thought a lot of Paul's earlier output after he left the Beatles was ''rubbish''. I doubt very seriously that The Beatles would have sounded anything like Wings had they kept on. John's raw, defiant, occasionally avant-garde approach to songwriting would have seeped into the music, as would have George Harrison's Indian vibe. Of course music was changing by the time they ended it, but you imply that music was somehow moving on without them. I disagree. Abby Road was lauded at the time for being revolutionary and fresh just like all the other Beatles works of that era (except for maybe Let It Be, for obvious reasons). That was the last album they ever worked on completely as a band, and it was brilliant.  You're underestimating the abilities of those men, I do believe.  And by the way, this isn't in any way a slight to Rush. I love Rush. I just think The Beatles were more important to the evolution of music in the long run. Which is why I picked them.    So did John think Paul's work was "rubbish"?? Not sure I get the first sentence. I think the Beatles were turning into individualists before they quit.......As you state John was more "raw" and more avant-garde......George may have moved to India, SE Asia......Ringo probably would have joined or created another band and put out some decent stuff as Paul had done or maybe Paul and Ringo would have created a new band. I don't underestimate their capabilities at all, and I was not implying that music was/were leaving them behind. I actually think they would have left the pop music scene on their own and been that more avant-garde group you mention. Legions of fans would have kept their bills paid but I think eventually fans would have been swayed to the hard rock/metal scene of the late 70's into 80's. And I still think by then they would have hung it up way before then.   I only know about the Beatles what I have read (I was born in '64...never got into them at all), and what I gather is that music just was not that important to them....as say The Rolling Stones, I think music was all they wanted to do and do as best they could. I don't know if I blame it on fame/fortune.........I personally blame it on their individual sense of music and person, I agree with you, they were different in their music thinking...but ultimately that to me pulled them apart. As I said before, I don't even know why they quit.....   In no way do I compare Rush and The Beatles, but we will disagree in who has more influence from a progressive rock music perspective on todays artists. Rush will NEVER be mentioned as the greatest band or influence on rock or pop music like the Beatles are.....I think the body of work for both speak for themselves.   I will always prefer Rush over the Beatles.......I think even if I had got into the Beatles that would still be the case......the core of my music soul is hard driving rock music...its why I love The Who from that era and not The Beatles. Well, I agree with you that the band would have eventually ended regardless, but my projection of their potential future was all hypothetical. I'm speaking in terms of how far their influences reach.  I'm much younger than you, but I seem to know more about this band simply because their music has been in my life ever since I can remember. And I've read the books, bought the behind-the-scenes videos and records, watched interviews, etc. and I can tell you that music meant the world to them. What else to do you think mattered to them more? Money? Big houses? You're talking about them as if they had the mentality of a modern pop singer. That simply isn't how it was back then. Do you know why the Mono releases of Beatles albums were so highly desired prior to their release on CD? Because the mono editions were when the band members themselves would be in the studio, during the mixing stage, giving notes, doing additional overdubs, etc. They cared a great deal about their music, and the artistic integrity of the final product. They were making statements that were important, and they wanted to make sure their listeners heard them. Comparing the botched stereo mixes next to the mono, it's very easy to tell which versions had the artist's hands involved.  Of course, what I'm saying about The Beatles you could easily say about Rush, because you're the more well-informed person in that respect. But please don't assume that The Beatles were just some talented guys who lost their way with fame and fortune. That just wasn't how it happened. Near the end, egos got in the way, that is true. But even when they made their last recording, Abbey Road, the magic was very present in the music. If music wasn't the most important thing to them, they wouldn't have been able to set aside their petty differences and focus their efforts in that way.  I think The Beatles are more influential simply because they came before Rush, and comparatively-speaking, The Beatles had a greater musical evolution over their career. Many prog bands we both likely enjoy would not be who they are today had it not been for The Beatles. We're talking tons of classic prog acts that predate Rush's inception. I just don't see how you can honestly say that Rush is responsible for more prog music than The Beatles. Modern prog music, no question. Heavy prog music even more specifically, but The Beatles came onto the scene at a time when very few similar acts were around, and none were as well-known. That's a starting point, as far as I'm concerned. Returning to the source is all I'm doing, here. There wouldn't be a Dream Theater without Rush, but their wouldn't be a Rush OR Dream Theater without Beatles. And that's all I'll say.  I realize we are simply holding two differing opinions, here.

Rush

I've been both a Beatles fan and a Rush fan for all of my listening life, i.e. since the mid 70s. While the importance of the Beatles is unquestionable and unassailable, this string is aimed at preference. Over the last couple of years, I've listened to Rush probably 10 times as often as I've listened to The Beatles, and moreover, I enjoy music from all stages of their development, while I really only find The Beatles interesting from Rubber Soul onward. Finally, as a Toronto boy, though no longer living in the city, I continue to think of Rush as my hometown band.

So Rush it is.

The Rutles! Great band. Used to drink an awful lot of tea. Highly addictive/ intoxicating or something. It was quitye an influence on Rutles recordings. Mick (Jagger - that is) didn't want that lot to get back together.