Jump to content

RPG: Permanent Waves vs. Band On The Run


Entre_Perpetuo
 Share

choose one  

21 members have voted

  1. 1. album

    • Rush - Permanent Waves
    • Paul McCartney & Wings - Band On The Run
      0
  2. 2. artist

  3. 3. Underrated deep cuts

    • Rush - Entre Nous
    • Paul McCartney & Wings - Nineteen Hundred And Eighty Five


Recommended Posts

Surely even Macca pales in comparison to one of the greatest Rush albums ever made!

 

But perhaps that third question can get some votes for the world's richest rock star. I hear he really needs them! :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If it were up against ATMP by George, PW would lose.

 

Let's not act like that's a low bar for any album to pass though!

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good matchup. PeW is better than BOtR. Entre Nous is an underappreciated track on PeW. But Rush isn't better than Paul.

Rush is better than Paul. Not more iconic, not more relevant to musical history, not more groundbreaking but definitely better.

 

Paul is more likely to be heard in an elevator or department store.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rush is better than Paul. Not more iconic, not more relevant to musical history, not more groundbreaking but definitely better...

 

As inspiration to nearly all musicians that have come after, I'd argue Rush has had a greater impact on music than the Beatles/any single Beatles member due to their widespread musician worship and longevity. There's only a handful of such artists in Rock's history. Not all musicians go out of their way to learn Beatles songs, but almost all rock players learn a song or two of Rush. That's not to say there isn't anything to learn in the Beatles material, just from a technical perspective looking for a challenge and to learn some new technical skills in the craft of being a good player, Rush is going to be more rewarding to learn.

 

Rush is very close to the top (Beatles, Hendrix, Zeppelin, Presley, Chuck Berry, any others?).

 

"Better" from the prior post certainly needs to be better defined.

Edited by stoopid
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good matchup. PeW is better than BOtR. Entre Nous is an underappreciated track on PeW. But Rush isn't better than Paul.

Rush is better than Paul. Not more iconic, not more relevant to musical history, not more groundbreaking but definitely better.

 

Paul is more likely to be heard in an elevator or department store.

 

Sorry. It won't be popular here, but Rush has about 6 or 7 truly great albums, a handful of good ones, and a few too many mediocre ones (being charitable to some). Starting Paul's career in 1970 is still a blowout in his favor.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good matchup. PeW is better than BOtR. Entre Nous is an underappreciated track on PeW. But Rush isn't better than Paul.

Rush is better than Paul. Not more iconic, not more relevant to musical history, not more groundbreaking but definitely better.

 

Paul is more likely to be heard in an elevator or department store.

 

Sorry. It won't be popular here, but Rush has about 6 or 7 truly great albums, a handful of good ones, and a few too many mediocre ones (being charitable to some). Starting Paul's career in 1970 is still a blowout in his favor.

 

Pigs being able to fly is an unpopular belief, because it's false. :16ton:

Edited by stoopid
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good matchup. PeW is better than BOtR. Entre Nous is an underappreciated track on PeW. But Rush isn't better than Paul.

Rush is better than Paul. Not more iconic, not more relevant to musical history, not more groundbreaking but definitely better.

 

Paul is more likely to be heard in an elevator or department store.

 

Sorry. It won't be popular here, but Rush has about 6 or 7 truly great albums, a handful of good ones, and a few too many mediocre ones (being charitable to some). Starting Paul's career in 1970 is still a blowout in his favor.

 

Pigs being able to fly is an unpopular belief, because it's false. :16ton:

 

So is the idea that Rush has some widespread musical impact beyond Rush fans. Or that more "rock musicians," learn Rush songs than Beatles songs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good matchup. PeW is better than BOtR. Entre Nous is an underappreciated track on PeW. But Rush isn't better than Paul.

Rush is better than Paul. Not more iconic, not more relevant to musical history, not more groundbreaking but definitely better.

 

Paul is more likely to be heard in an elevator or department store.

 

Sorry. It won't be popular here, but Rush has about 6 or 7 truly great albums, a handful of good ones, and a few too many mediocre ones (being charitable to some). Starting Paul's career in 1970 is still a blowout in his favor.

 

Pigs being able to fly is an unpopular belief, because it's false. :16ton:

 

So is the idea that Rush has some widespread musical impact beyond Rush fans. Or that more "rock musicians," learn Rush songs than Beatles songs.

 

I heartily disagree that Paul as a solo artist is better than Rush (I can see an argument for The Beatles though), but I definitely think more musicians learn Beatles songs than Rush songs, especially when they first start out. They're excellent songs that are generally easy to play. Lol. Can't say the same about YYZ. I used to do an acoustic set at my university on occasion, and I definitely brought Help and In My Life (John songs but the point stands) up there a couple of times. Good songs that got a good response, plus I learned them when I was just picking up the guitar in high school and they did well there too. The only time I ever tried to play a Rush song is when I tried to play Presto, which was one of the easiest Rush numbers I could get my head around for a solo acoustic performance, and it was still way trickier than most things I'd play. Alex was into all sorts of weird chords that sound beautiful, but made my hands sore, lol. I played it once, it went alright, put it away after that.

Edited by Entre_Perpetuo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good matchup. PeW is better than BOtR. Entre Nous is an underappreciated track on PeW. But Rush isn't better than Paul.

Rush is better than Paul. Not more iconic, not more relevant to musical history, not more groundbreaking but definitely better.

 

Paul is more likely to be heard in an elevator or department store.

 

Sorry. It won't be popular here, but Rush has about 6 or 7 truly great albums, a handful of good ones, and a few too many mediocre ones (being charitable to some). Starting Paul's career in 1970 is still a blowout in his favor.

 

Pigs being able to fly is an unpopular belief, because it's false. :16ton:

 

So is the idea that Rush has some widespread musical impact beyond Rush fans. Or that more "rock musicians," learn Rush songs than Beatles songs.

 

I heartily disagree that Paul as a solo artist is better than Rush (I can see an argument for The Beatles though), but I definitely think more musicians learn Beatles songs than Rush songs, especially when they first start out. They're excellent songs that are generally easy to play. Lol. Can't say the same about YYZ. I used to do an acoustic set at my university on occasion, and I definitely brought Help and In My Life (John songs but the point stands) up there a couple of times. Good songs that got a good response, plus I learned them when I was just picking up the guitar in high school and they did well there too. The only time I ever tried to play a Rush song is when I tried to play Presto, which was one of the easiest Rush numbers I could get my head around for a solo acoustic performance, and it was still way trickier than most things I'd play. Alex was into all sorts of weird chords that sound beautiful, but made my hands sore, lol. I played it once, it went alright, put it away after that.

 

Entre, you are one of my favorite posters here.

 

Now, with that stipulation, you're doing a couple of things that are common here. The first is conflating virtuosity with quality. Yngwie Malmsteen is a virtuoso. But compare his version of Dream On with Joe Perry's. Malmsteen's has more notes and is probably more "challenging" to play. But it stinks. I could play YYZ and La Villa on the bass when I was a teenager (I haven't played regularly in ages). They're great songs that are extremely complicated. But they can be learned. I've said this before. Go into Guitar Center and you'll find a number of teenagers who can play Eruption. None of them could create it though. That's a significant difference.

 

The second is believing that because so many people around you loves Rush, everyone must to some degree. But I'd be willing to bet a lot of money that if you polled people who make their living playing rock music, whether as part of a band or as a session player, an exponentially greater number of them can play several Beatles tunes than could even name a single Rush song.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good matchup. PeW is better than BOtR. Entre Nous is an underappreciated track on PeW. But Rush isn't better than Paul.

Rush is better than Paul. Not more iconic, not more relevant to musical history, not more groundbreaking but definitely better.

 

Paul is more likely to be heard in an elevator or department store.

 

Sorry. It won't be popular here, but Rush has about 6 or 7 truly great albums, a handful of good ones, and a few too many mediocre ones (being charitable to some). Starting Paul's career in 1970 is still a blowout in his favor.

 

Pigs being able to fly is an unpopular belief, because it's false. :16ton:

 

So is the idea that Rush has some widespread musical impact beyond Rush fans. Or that more "rock musicians," learn Rush songs than Beatles songs.

 

I heartily disagree that Paul as a solo artist is better than Rush (I can see an argument for The Beatles though), but I definitely think more musicians learn Beatles songs than Rush songs, especially when they first start out. They're excellent songs that are generally easy to play. Lol. Can't say the same about YYZ. I used to do an acoustic set at my university on occasion, and I definitely brought Help and In My Life (John songs but the point stands) up there a couple of times. Good songs that got a good response, plus I learned them when I was just picking up the guitar in high school and they did well there too. The only time I ever tried to play a Rush song is when I tried to play Presto, which was one of the easiest Rush numbers I could get my head around for a solo acoustic performance, and it was still way trickier than most things I'd play. Alex was into all sorts of weird chords that sound beautiful, but made my hands sore, lol. I played it once, it went alright, put it away after that.

 

Entre, you are one of my favorite posters here.

 

Now, with that stipulation, you're doing a couple of things that are common here. The first is conflating virtuosity with quality. Yngwie Malmsteen is a virtuoso. But compare his version of Dream On with Joe Perry's. Malmsteen's has more notes and is probably more "challenging" to play. But it stinks. I could play YYZ and La Villa on the bass when I was a teenager (I haven't played regularly in ages). They're great songs that are extremely complicated. But they can be learned. I've said this before. Go into Guitar Center and you'll find a number of teenagers who can play Eruption. None of them could create it though. That's a significant difference.

 

The second is believing that because so many people around you loves Rush, everyone must to some degree. But I'd be willing to bet a lot of money that if you polled people who make their living playing rock music, whether as part of a band or as a session player, an exponentially greater number of them can play several Beatles tunes than could even name a single Rush song.

 

Oh I think you misunderstood my point! Hopefully I can still be one of your favorite posters after I clarify. I meant that The Beatles have a strong case to be better than any other band, Rush no doubt included, because of how influential and easy to learn their songs are. Rush's much higher technical abilities are actually a mark against them here, because it makes it much more difficult for aspiring musicians to cover their songs. Totally agreed that Dream On and Eruption are best left to Aerosmith and Van Halen respectively. Now personally, I think Rush are the better band, but I don't dispute that The Beatles have a stronger case. I just prefer what Rush do and that makes them better to me.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...