Jump to content

Is RUSH better than the Beatles


losingit2k
 Share

  

108 members have voted

  1. 1. Is RUSH Better than The Beatles

    • Yes
      63
    • No
      39
    • The Same
      6


Recommended Posts

I've met music fans who have dogged Led Zeppelin.

I've met music fans who have dogged Pink Floyd.

I've met music fans who have dogged The Who.

 

But anyone who dogs The Beatles gets burned at the stake.

 

That's the issue I have..not everything they wrote was genius..

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've met music fans who have dogged Led Zeppelin.

I've met music fans who have dogged Pink Floyd.

I've met music fans who have dogged The Who.

 

But anyone who dogs The Beatles gets burned at the stake.

 

That's the issue I have..not everything they wrote was genius..

 

No, not everything. I'm not a huge fan of pre-Rubber Soul Beatles, although they did have some great songs early on too.

 

The main thrust of the thread, however, is are Rush better than The Beatles, and for that I have to give a huge and resounding NO. And Rush is my favorite band, but on so many levels The Beatles are just the better band. It's really not even a comparison. The members of Rush would be the first to agree with me, not like that matters if you really think Rush is better, but it's not like I'm making some outrageous statement by saying they're better. I mean, look at the poll results - on a fanatical Rush board 40% of everyone thinks The Beatles are as good or better. That's really saying something.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've met music fans who have dogged Led Zeppelin.

I've met music fans who have dogged Pink Floyd.

I've met music fans who have dogged The Who.

 

But anyone who dogs The Beatles gets burned at the stake.

 

That's the issue I have..not everything they wrote was genius..

 

No, not everything. I'm not a huge fan of pre-Rubber Soul Beatles, although they did have some great songs early on too.

 

The main thrust of the thread, however, is are Rush better than The Beatles, and for that I have to give a huge and resounding NO. And Rush is my favorite band, but on so many levels The Beatles are just the better band. It's really not even a comparison. The members of Rush would be the first to agree with me, not like that matters if you really think Rush is better, but it's not like I'm making some outrageous statement by saying they're better. I mean, look at the poll results - on a fanatical Rush board 40% of everyone thinks The Beatles are as good or better. That's really saying something.

 

Here's another angle..

 

1976.. The Beatles and Rush LIVE...

 

Leaving the show, who would have blown you away more?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've met music fans who have dogged Led Zeppelin.

I've met music fans who have dogged Pink Floyd.

I've met music fans who have dogged The Who.

 

But anyone who dogs The Beatles gets burned at the stake.

 

That's the issue I have..not everything they wrote was genius..

 

No, not everything. I'm not a huge fan of pre-Rubber Soul Beatles, although they did have some great songs early on too.

 

The main thrust of the thread, however, is are Rush better than The Beatles, and for that I have to give a huge and resounding NO. And Rush is my favorite band, but on so many levels The Beatles are just the better band. It's really not even a comparison. The members of Rush would be the first to agree with me, not like that matters if you really think Rush is better, but it's not like I'm making some outrageous statement by saying they're better. I mean, look at the poll results - on a fanatical Rush board 40% of everyone thinks The Beatles are as good or better. That's really saying something.

 

Here's another angle..

 

1976.. The Beatles and Rush LIVE...

 

Leaving the show, who would have blown you away more?

 

Um, the Beatles didn't exist in 1976. Do you mean what if?

 

Other than that live music to me isn't very relevant in terms of determining great bands, except for some rare exceptions like the Grateful Dead who excelled live and played not only a different set list every night, but different versions of their songs every time. Sure, I'm sure Rush was the more exciting live band, but to me a band's lasting legacy 99% of the time is their studio albums.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've met music fans who have dogged Led Zeppelin.

I've met music fans who have dogged Pink Floyd.

I've met music fans who have dogged The Who.

 

But anyone who dogs The Beatles gets burned at the stake.

 

That's the issue I have..not everything they wrote was genius..

 

No, not everything. I'm not a huge fan of pre-Rubber Soul Beatles, although they did have some great songs early on too.

 

The main thrust of the thread, however, is are Rush better than The Beatles, and for that I have to give a huge and resounding NO. And Rush is my favorite band, but on so many levels The Beatles are just the better band. It's really not even a comparison. The members of Rush would be the first to agree with me, not like that matters if you really think Rush is better, but it's not like I'm making some outrageous statement by saying they're better. I mean, look at the poll results - on a fanatical Rush board 40% of everyone thinks The Beatles are as good or better. That's really saying something.

 

Here's another angle..

 

1976.. The Beatles and Rush LIVE...

 

Leaving the show, who would have blown you away more?

 

Um, the Beatles didn't exist in 1976. Do you mean what if?

 

Other than that live music to me isn't very relevant in terms of determining great bands, except for some rare exceptions like the Grateful Dead who excelled live and played not only a different set list every night, but different versions of their songs every time. Sure, I'm sure Rush was the more exciting live band, but to me a band's lasting legacy 99% of the time is their studio albums.

 

Yes, in aware the Beatles weren't around in 76. I was just playing silly message board games

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've met music fans who have dogged Led Zeppelin.

I've met music fans who have dogged Pink Floyd.

I've met music fans who have dogged The Who.

 

But anyone who dogs The Beatles gets burned at the stake.

 

That's the issue I have..not everything they wrote was genius..

 

No, not everything. I'm not a huge fan of pre-Rubber Soul Beatles, although they did have some great songs early on too.

 

The main thrust of the thread, however, is are Rush better than The Beatles, and for that I have to give a huge and resounding NO. And Rush is my favorite band, but on so many levels The Beatles are just the better band. It's really not even a comparison. The members of Rush would be the first to agree with me, not like that matters if you really think Rush is better, but it's not like I'm making some outrageous statement by saying they're better. I mean, look at the poll results - on a fanatical Rush board 40% of everyone thinks The Beatles are as good or better. That's really saying something.

 

Here's another angle..

 

1976.. The Beatles and Rush LIVE...

 

Leaving the show, who would have blown you away more?

 

Um, the Beatles didn't exist in 1976. Do you mean what if?

 

Other than that live music to me isn't very relevant in terms of determining great bands, except for some rare exceptions like the Grateful Dead who excelled live and played not only a different set list every night, but different versions of their songs every time. Sure, I'm sure Rush was the more exciting live band, but to me a band's lasting legacy 99% of the time is their studio albums.

 

Oh they existed, Just not together!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Who the hell are the people that say they're not better?! The Beatles are nothing but a folksy piece of crap band that kind of sounded like rock, and therefore were called the innovators of rock. If you think highly of the Beatles, go back to your cave. NO ONE BEATS RUSH.

They were a creation of the times just like Elvis who barely wrote any of his own songs and like Elvis, have now become the media's go to bunch concerning the innovators of early rock music. Which should have been accredited more to Chuck Berry and then Hendrix. What's next? I guess Eminem will be given the honor of waving the flag for rap music!

 

Actually, Eminem is credited with advancing rap far more than you may think.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Who the hell are the people that say they're not better?! The Beatles are nothing but a folksy piece of crap band that kind of sounded like rock, and therefore were called the innovators of rock. If you think highly of the Beatles, go back to your cave. NO ONE BEATS RUSH.

They were a creation of the times just like Elvis who barely wrote any of his own songs and like Elvis, have now become the media's go to bunch concerning the innovators of early rock music. Which should have been accredited more to Chuck Berry and then Hendrix. What's next? I guess Eminem will be given the honor of waving the flag for rap music!

 

Actually, Eminem is credited with advancing rap far more than you may think.

Not at all surprised! Not at all!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Who the hell are the people that say they're not better?! The Beatles are nothing but a folksy piece of crap band that kind of sounded like rock, and therefore were called the innovators of rock. If you think highly of the Beatles, go back to your cave. NO ONE BEATS RUSH.

They were a creation of the times just like Elvis who barely wrote any of his own songs and like Elvis, have now become the media's go to bunch concerning the innovators of early rock music. Which should have been accredited more to Chuck Berry and then Hendrix. What's next? I guess Eminem will be given the honor of waving the flag for rap music!

 

Actually, Eminem is credited with advancing rap far more than you may think.

 

Thrilling. :sarcastic:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've met music fans who have dogged Led Zeppelin.

I've met music fans who have dogged Pink Floyd.

I've met music fans who have dogged The Who.

 

But anyone who dogs The Beatles gets burned at the stake.

 

That's the issue I have..not everything they wrote was genius..

 

This is true, but it happens largely because the Beatles are a sacred cow in ways those other groups never have been. The universal acclaim and respect that the Beatles have been given both during their career and after it annoys people who don't care for them, so they go out of their way to dog the Beatles, often in unfair or unnecessarily derogatory ways. This creates the backlash predictable when a sacred cow is attacked, so the response to such dogging is also often unfair or unnecessarily derogatory, even when the initial comment is fairly innocuous. I once heard about a study in which they measured how hard a person poked another person after they had been poked, and it turned out that a retaliatory poke had approximately 45% more force behind it than a provoking poke. This was the case even if the person who received the provoking poke passed the poke on to someone else rather than retaliating against the person who had poked them. I think the same principle is at work here. Basically, any time you dog the Beatles, you're getting the backlash for a larger history of Beatle-dogging, not just for your own little "Woof!".

 

Compared to the Beatles, Led Zeppelin, Pink Floyd and The Who are not overwhelming social phenomena symbolic of an era even outside the music community the way the Beatles are. Compared to the Beatles as a social phenomenon, Led Zeppelin, Pink Floyd and The Who are merely popular rock groups. That's why they are perceived as fair game for dogging in a way that the Beatles are not. Regardless of whether the Beatles's music was better or not as good as the music of these and other bands, they had a magnitude of social impact that no other rock'n'roll bands matched then or since. While it doesn't speak one way or the other to the quality of the music, that in itself is a form of greatness.

 

The Beatles have never been one of my favourite groups, but I respect them for their achievements, enjoy many of their songs, and recognise why they hold the position they do in the minds of so many. I can't remember the last time I had a compelling desire to listen to the Beatles as anything other than a group I enjoy when they come on the radio, but I have to laugh at the ignorance or perhaps willful blindness of people who say "Oh, the Beatles weren't really that good or that influential and they don't deserve the respect they get," because people who say that are looking at the question with a very narrow view and are ignoring the big picture.

Edited by GeddysMullet
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've met music fans who have dogged Led Zeppelin.

I've met music fans who have dogged Pink Floyd.

I've met music fans who have dogged The Who.

 

But anyone who dogs The Beatles gets burned at the stake.

 

That's the issue I have..not everything they wrote was genius..

 

No, not everything. I'm not a huge fan of pre-Rubber Soul Beatles, although they did have some great songs early on too.

 

The main thrust of the thread, however, is are Rush better than The Beatles, and for that I have to give a huge and resounding NO. And Rush is my favorite band, but on so many levels The Beatles are just the better band. It's really not even a comparison. The members of Rush would be the first to agree with me, not like that matters if you really think Rush is better, but it's not like I'm making some outrageous statement by saying they're better. I mean, look at the poll results - on a fanatical Rush board 40% of everyone thinks The Beatles are as good or better. That's really saying something.

 

Here's another angle..

 

1976.. The Beatles and Rush LIVE...

 

Leaving the show, who would have blown you away more?

 

McCartney's Rock Show was filmed during his 1976 tour. It's pretty amazing actually.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've met music fans who have dogged Led Zeppelin.

I've met music fans who have dogged Pink Floyd.

I've met music fans who have dogged The Who.

 

But anyone who dogs The Beatles gets burned at the stake.

 

That's the issue I have..not everything they wrote was genius..

 

No, not everything. I'm not a huge fan of pre-Rubber Soul Beatles, although they did have some great songs early on too.

 

The main thrust of the thread, however, is are Rush better than The Beatles, and for that I have to give a huge and resounding NO. And Rush is my favorite band, but on so many levels The Beatles are just the better band. It's really not even a comparison. The members of Rush would be the first to agree with me, not like that matters if you really think Rush is better, but it's not like I'm making some outrageous statement by saying they're better. I mean, look at the poll results - on a fanatical Rush board 40% of everyone thinks The Beatles are as good or better. That's really saying something.

 

Here's another angle..

 

1976.. The Beatles and Rush LIVE...

 

Leaving the show, who would have blown you away more?

 

McCartney's Rock Show was filmed during his 1976 tour. It's pretty amazing actually.

 

I'm sure it is, but as a live unit, dare I say! , Rush and , let's say, The Who were a more powerhouse unit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've met music fans who have dogged Led Zeppelin.

I've met music fans who have dogged Pink Floyd.

I've met music fans who have dogged The Who.

 

But anyone who dogs The Beatles gets burned at the stake.

 

That's the issue I have..not everything they wrote was genius..

 

No, not everything. I'm not a huge fan of pre-Rubber Soul Beatles, although they did have some great songs early on too.

 

The main thrust of the thread, however, is are Rush better than The Beatles, and for that I have to give a huge and resounding NO. And Rush is my favorite band, but on so many levels The Beatles are just the better band. It's really not even a comparison. The members of Rush would be the first to agree with me, not like that matters if you really think Rush is better, but it's not like I'm making some outrageous statement by saying they're better. I mean, look at the poll results - on a fanatical Rush board 40% of everyone thinks The Beatles are as good or better. That's really saying something.

 

Here's another angle..

 

1976.. The Beatles and Rush LIVE...

 

Leaving the show, who would have blown you away more?

 

McCartney's Rock Show was filmed during his 1976 tour. It's pretty amazing actually.

 

I'm sure it is, but as a live unit, dare I say! , Rush and , let's say, The Who were a more powerhouse unit.

 

Interestingly enough, this is somewhat similar to a debate I've had for almost 30 years now ( :codger: :scared: ) with a college buddy of mine. He maintains that Aerosmith is better than the Beatles because, for example, Back in the Saddle is a better "drinking" song than Magical Mystery Tour. Rush and The Who (I've seen both) are louder than McCartney live (but Live and Let Die is pretty loud live, particularly when the pyro goes off) but McCartney is actually a pretty energetic performer, even now.

 

I've seen Rush on the MP, Signals, GUP and Time Machine tours. I've enjoyed every show a lot, but I wouldn't call any of those shows my "favorite." I saw McCartney in 2008 or so at Fenway. That show is in the conversation for the best live show I've ever seen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've met music fans who have dogged Led Zeppelin.

I've met music fans who have dogged Pink Floyd.

I've met music fans who have dogged The Who.

 

But anyone who dogs The Beatles gets burned at the stake.

 

That's the issue I have..not everything they wrote was genius..

 

No, not everything. I'm not a huge fan of pre-Rubber Soul Beatles, although they did have some great songs early on too.

 

The main thrust of the thread, however, is are Rush better than The Beatles, and for that I have to give a huge and resounding NO. And Rush is my favorite band, but on so many levels The Beatles are just the better band. It's really not even a comparison. The members of Rush would be the first to agree with me, not like that matters if you really think Rush is better, but it's not like I'm making some outrageous statement by saying they're better. I mean, look at the poll results - on a fanatical Rush board 40% of everyone thinks The Beatles are as good or better. That's really saying something.

 

Here's another angle..

 

1976.. The Beatles and Rush LIVE...

 

Leaving the show, who would have blown you away more?

 

McCartney's Rock Show was filmed during his 1976 tour. It's pretty amazing actually.

 

I'm sure it is, but as a live unit, dare I say! , Rush and , let's say, The Who were a more powerhouse unit.

 

Interestingly enough, this is somewhat similar to a debate I've had for almost 30 years now ( :codger: :scared: ) with a college buddy of mine. He maintains that Aerosmith is better than the Beatles because, for example, Back in the Saddle is a better "drinking" song than Magical Mystery Tour. Rush and The Who (I've seen both) are louder than McCartney live (but Live and Let Die is pretty loud live, particularly when the pyro goes off) but McCartney is actually a pretty energetic performer, even now.

 

I've seen Rush on the MP, Signals, GUP and Time Machine tours. I've enjoyed every show a lot, but I wouldn't call any of those shows my "favorite." I saw McCartney in 2008 or so at Fenway. That show is in the conversation for the best live show I've ever seen.

 

Fair enough. But I would say the reason you might think that about Mcartney at Fenway as being in your best show ever conversation is because it was at FENWAY PARK!! The atmosphere I'm sure had something to do with it.. A show at a place as sacred as Fenway, and especially if you're a big Sox fan, naturally would be magical.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ask Lemmy what he thought when he saw the Beatles at the Cavern Club.

 

Absolutely . I saw the Lemmy doc. And he cites Chuck Berry as the shit as well... It's what he grew up on .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've met music fans who have dogged Led Zeppelin.

I've met music fans who have dogged Pink Floyd.

I've met music fans who have dogged The Who.

 

But anyone who dogs The Beatles gets burned at the stake.

 

That's the issue I have..not everything they wrote was genius..

 

No, not everything. I'm not a huge fan of pre-Rubber Soul Beatles, although they did have some great songs early on too.

 

The main thrust of the thread, however, is are Rush better than The Beatles, and for that I have to give a huge and resounding NO. And Rush is my favorite band, but on so many levels The Beatles are just the better band. It's really not even a comparison. The members of Rush would be the first to agree with me, not like that matters if you really think Rush is better, but it's not like I'm making some outrageous statement by saying they're better. I mean, look at the poll results - on a fanatical Rush board 40% of everyone thinks The Beatles are as good or better. That's really saying something.

 

Here's another angle..

 

1976.. The Beatles and Rush LIVE...

 

Leaving the show, who would have blown you away more?

 

McCartney's Rock Show was filmed during his 1976 tour. It's pretty amazing actually.

 

I'm sure it is, but as a live unit, dare I say! , Rush and , let's say, The Who were a more powerhouse unit.

 

Interestingly enough, this is somewhat similar to a debate I've had for almost 30 years now ( :codger: :scared: ) with a college buddy of mine. He maintains that Aerosmith is better than the Beatles because, for example, Back in the Saddle is a better "drinking" song than Magical Mystery Tour. Rush and The Who (I've seen both) are louder than McCartney live (but Live and Let Die is pretty loud live, particularly when the pyro goes off) but McCartney is actually a pretty energetic performer, even now.

 

I've seen Rush on the MP, Signals, GUP and Time Machine tours. I've enjoyed every show a lot, but I wouldn't call any of those shows my "favorite." I saw McCartney in 2008 or so at Fenway. That show is in the conversation for the best live show I've ever seen.

 

Fair enough. But I would say the reason you might think that about Mcartney at Fenway as being in your best show ever conversation is because it was at FENWAY PARK!! The atmosphere I'm sure had something to do with it.. A show at a place as sacred as Fenway, and especially if you're a big Sox fan, naturally would be magical.

 

Waters playing the wall at Yankees Stadium was definitely among one of my best concert experiences. I don't know if it was the venue, but the venue helped. Audio, visual, musicianship were all great, too. But nothing matches the RUSH live experience for me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I we

I've met music fans who have dogged Led Zeppelin.

I've met music fans who have dogged Pink Floyd.

I've met music fans who have dogged The Who.

 

But anyone who dogs The Beatles gets burned at the stake.

 

That's the issue I have..not everything they wrote was genius..

 

No, not everything. I'm not a huge fan of pre-Rubber Soul Beatles, although they did have some great songs early on too.

 

The main thrust of the thread, however, is are Rush better than The Beatles, and for that I have to give a huge and resounding NO. And Rush is my favorite band, but on so many levels The Beatles are just the better band. It's really not even a comparison. The members of Rush would be the first to agree with me, not like that matters if you really think Rush is better, but it's not like I'm making some outrageous statement by saying they're better. I mean, look at the poll results - on a fanatical Rush board 40% of everyone thinks The Beatles are as good or better. That's really saying something.

 

Here's another angle..

 

1976.. The Beatles and Rush LIVE...

 

Leaving the show, who would have blown you away more?

 

McCartney's Rock Show was filmed during his 1976 tour. It's pretty amazing actually.

 

I'm sure it is, but as a live unit, dare I say! , Rush and , let's say, The Who were a more powerhouse unit.

 

Interestingly enough, this is somewhat similar to a debate I've had for almost 30 years now ( :codger: :scared: ) with a college buddy of mine. He maintains that Aerosmith is better than the Beatles because, for example, Back in the Saddle is a better "drinking" song than Magical Mystery Tour. Rush and The Who (I've seen both) are louder than McCartney live (but Live and Let Die is pretty loud live, particularly when the pyro goes off) but McCartney is actually a pretty energetic performer, even now.

 

I've seen Rush on the MP, Signals, GUP and Time Machine tours. I've enjoyed every show a lot, but I wouldn't call any of those shows my "favorite." I saw McCartney in 2008 or so at Fenway. That show is in the conversation for the best live show I've ever seen.

 

Fair enough. But I would say the reason you might think that about Mcartney at Fenway as being in your best show ever conversation is because it was at FENWAY PARK!! The atmosphere I'm sure had something to do with it.. A show at a place as sacred as Fenway, and especially if you're a big Sox fan, naturally would be magical.

 

Waters playing the wall at Yankees Stadium was definitely among one of my best concert experiences. I don't know if it was the venue, but the venue helped. Audio, visual, musicianship were all great, too. But nothing matches the RUSH live experience for me.

I went to a brothel and had an amazing time but it really had nothing to do with the venue. Edited by snowdogged
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Who the hell are the people that say they're not better?! The Beatles are nothing but a folksy piece of crap band that kind of sounded like rock, and therefore were called the innovators of rock. If you think highly of the Beatles, go back to your cave. NO ONE BEATS RUSH.

They were a creation of the times just like Elvis who barely wrote any of his own songs and like Elvis, have now become the media's go to bunch concerning the innovators of early rock music. Which should have been accredited more to Chuck Berry and then Hendrix. What's next? I guess Eminem will be given the honor of waving the flag for rap music!

 

Actually, Eminem is credited with advancing rap far more than you may think.

Not at all surprised! Not at all!

Who the hell are the people that say they're not better?! The Beatles are nothing but a folksy piece of crap band that kind of sounded like rock, and therefore were called the innovators of rock. If you think highly of the Beatles, go back to your cave. NO ONE BEATS RUSH.

They were a creation of the times just like Elvis who barely wrote any of his own songs and like Elvis, have now become the media's go to bunch concerning the innovators of early rock music. Which should have been accredited more to Chuck Berry and then Hendrix. What's next? I guess Eminem will be given the honor of waving the flag for rap music!

 

Actually, Eminem is credited with advancing rap far more than you may think.

 

Thrilling. :sarcastic:

 

Condescension aside, just be careful when casually making conclusions about genres - like rap - that aren't normally in the specturm of most Rush fans' musical expertise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Who the hell are the people that say they're not better?! The Beatles are nothing but a folksy piece of crap band that kind of sounded like rock, and therefore were called the innovators of rock. If you think highly of the Beatles, go back to your cave. NO ONE BEATS RUSH.

They were a creation of the times just like Elvis who barely wrote any of his own songs and like Elvis, have now become the media's go to bunch concerning the innovators of early rock music. Which should have been accredited more to Chuck Berry and then Hendrix. What's next? I guess Eminem will be given the honor of waving the flag for rap music!

 

Actually, Eminem is credited with advancing rap far more than you may think.

Not at all surprised! Not at all!

Who the hell are the people that say they're not better?! The Beatles are nothing but a folksy piece of crap band that kind of sounded like rock, and therefore were called the innovators of rock. If you think highly of the Beatles, go back to your cave. NO ONE BEATS RUSH.

They were a creation of the times just like Elvis who barely wrote any of his own songs and like Elvis, have now become the media's go to bunch concerning the innovators of early rock music. Which should have been accredited more to Chuck Berry and then Hendrix. What's next? I guess Eminem will be given the honor of waving the flag for rap music!

 

Actually, Eminem is credited with advancing rap far more than you may think.

 

Thrilling. :sarcastic:

 

Condescension aside, just be careful when casually making conclusions about genres - like rap - that aren't normally in the specturm of most Rush fans' musical expertise.

Nor mine! :codger:
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I we

I've met music fans who have dogged Led Zeppelin.

I've met music fans who have dogged Pink Floyd.

I've met music fans who have dogged The Who.

 

But anyone who dogs The Beatles gets burned at the stake.

 

That's the issue I have..not everything they wrote was genius..

 

No, not everything. I'm not a huge fan of pre-Rubber Soul Beatles, although they did have some great songs early on too.

 

The main thrust of the thread, however, is are Rush better than The Beatles, and for that I have to give a huge and resounding NO. And Rush is my favorite band, but on so many levels The Beatles are just the better band. It's really not even a comparison. The members of Rush would be the first to agree with me, not like that matters if you really think Rush is better, but it's not like I'm making some outrageous statement by saying they're better. I mean, look at the poll results - on a fanatical Rush board 40% of everyone thinks The Beatles are as good or better. That's really saying something.

 

Here's another angle..

 

1976.. The Beatles and Rush LIVE...

 

Leaving the show, who would have blown you away more?

 

McCartney's Rock Show was filmed during his 1976 tour. It's pretty amazing actually.

 

I'm sure it is, but as a live unit, dare I say! , Rush and , let's say, The Who were a more powerhouse unit.

 

Interestingly enough, this is somewhat similar to a debate I've had for almost 30 years now ( :codger: :scared: ) with a college buddy of mine. He maintains that Aerosmith is better than the Beatles because, for example, Back in the Saddle is a better "drinking" song than Magical Mystery Tour. Rush and The Who (I've seen both) are louder than McCartney live (but Live and Let Die is pretty loud live, particularly when the pyro goes off) but McCartney is actually a pretty energetic performer, even now.

 

I've seen Rush on the MP, Signals, GUP and Time Machine tours. I've enjoyed every show a lot, but I wouldn't call any of those shows my "favorite." I saw McCartney in 2008 or so at Fenway. That show is in the conversation for the best live show I've ever seen.

 

Fair enough. But I would say the reason you might think that about Mcartney at Fenway as being in your best show ever conversation is because it was at FENWAY PARK!! The atmosphere I'm sure had something to do with it.. A show at a place as sacred as Fenway, and especially if you're a big Sox fan, naturally would be magical.

 

Waters playing the wall at Yankees Stadium was definitely among one of my best concert experiences. I don't know if it was the venue, but the venue helped. Audio, visual, musicianship were all great, too. But nothing matches the RUSH live experience for me.

I went to a brothel and had an amazing time but it really had nothing to do with the venue.

Nothing says "amazing time" like contracting gonorrhea! ;)

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I we

I've met music fans who have dogged Led Zeppelin.

I've met music fans who have dogged Pink Floyd.

I've met music fans who have dogged The Who.

 

But anyone who dogs The Beatles gets burned at the stake.

 

That's the issue I have..not everything they wrote was genius..

 

No, not everything. I'm not a huge fan of pre-Rubber Soul Beatles, although they did have some great songs early on too.

 

The main thrust of the thread, however, is are Rush better than The Beatles, and for that I have to give a huge and resounding NO. And Rush is my favorite band, but on so many levels The Beatles are just the better band. It's really not even a comparison. The members of Rush would be the first to agree with me, not like that matters if you really think Rush is better, but it's not like I'm making some outrageous statement by saying they're better. I mean, look at the poll results - on a fanatical Rush board 40% of everyone thinks The Beatles are as good or better. That's really saying something.

 

Here's another angle..

 

1976.. The Beatles and Rush LIVE...

 

Leaving the show, who would have blown you away more?

 

McCartney's Rock Show was filmed during his 1976 tour. It's pretty amazing actually.

 

I'm sure it is, but as a live unit, dare I say! , Rush and , let's say, The Who were a more powerhouse unit.

 

Interestingly enough, this is somewhat similar to a debate I've had for almost 30 years now ( :codger: :scared: ) with a college buddy of mine. He maintains that Aerosmith is better than the Beatles because, for example, Back in the Saddle is a better "drinking" song than Magical Mystery Tour. Rush and The Who (I've seen both) are louder than McCartney live (but Live and Let Die is pretty loud live, particularly when the pyro goes off) but McCartney is actually a pretty energetic performer, even now.

 

I've seen Rush on the MP, Signals, GUP and Time Machine tours. I've enjoyed every show a lot, but I wouldn't call any of those shows my "favorite." I saw McCartney in 2008 or so at Fenway. That show is in the conversation for the best live show I've ever seen.

 

Fair enough. But I would say the reason you might think that about Mcartney at Fenway as being in your best show ever conversation is because it was at FENWAY PARK!! The atmosphere I'm sure had something to do with it.. A show at a place as sacred as Fenway, and especially if you're a big Sox fan, naturally would be magical.

 

Waters playing the wall at Yankees Stadium was definitely among one of my best concert experiences. I don't know if it was the venue, but the venue helped. Audio, visual, musicianship were all great, too. But nothing matches the RUSH live experience for me.

I went to a brothel and had an amazing time but it really had nothing to do with the venue.

Nothing says "amazing time" like contracting gonorrhea! ;)

You know Trixy, also?
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...