tangy Posted May 16, 2015 Share Posted May 16, 2015 If there is one post of mine that fails to fit into your definition of "intelligent conversation", I would appreciate it if you point it out .. That, or where I have been a "troll" ?? I am merely participating on a discussion board ( discussion being the key word ) We weren't applying it to you. There are a couple of members giving EagleMoon flack, and in my world women should never be spoken to like that. What a load of shit. How are we to know what sex the poster is? Not into clicking on profiles myself. Secondly and more importantly why would i treat a women differently? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Segue Myles Posted May 16, 2015 Author Share Posted May 16, 2015 If there is one post of mine that fails to fit into your definition of "intelligent conversation", I would appreciate it if you point it out .. That, or where I have been a "troll" ?? I am merely participating on a discussion board ( discussion being the key word ) We weren't applying it to you. There are a couple of members giving EagleMoon flack, and in my world women should never be spoken to like that. What a load of shit. How are we to know what sex the poster is? Not into clicking on profiles myself. Secondly and more importantly why would i treat a women differently?I don't think I need to say anymore. But I hope in person you are more of a gentleman. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tangy Posted May 16, 2015 Share Posted May 16, 2015 The idea that rush was bar band quality or they were not top tier players as stated above in the 70's is laughable. I'm with you. The point being made is that 70's Rush was a "bar band" when compared with the likes of ELP, Yes, Genesis, and Kansas, but I just don't agree at all. I think they are all comparable musicians. "Hemispheres Neil" doesn't stack up against Phil Ehart? No way in hell that's true."Hemispheres Geddy" sucks when compared with Mike Rutherford? Seriously?"Hemispheres Alex" is "bar band" musician compared with Kerry Livgren? Give me a break. Perhaps Hemispheres is not as complex or symphonic as something like Brain Salad Surgery or Close to the Edge, but no way are Geddy, Alex and Neil "bar band" players, IMO. You're allowed to disagree. It's a free country. :) I'm talking about technical ability. No way were the boys in the same category with classically trained musicians. They just weren't. Seems a little snobbish and something that someone with some training would say. According to that logic. if I have training then I'm a snob, if I don't have training then I just don't know what I'm talking about. It's just possible that I do know what I'm talking about and your defensiveness is just keeping you from seeing what I'm saying. People hate to have their preconceptions challenged and I think that's what's going on here. Lets try a new angle. my opinion versus yours. That really means very litle. I think the general public do think/perceive rush as top tier in the form of the numerous awards from magazines like modern drummer etc etc.The accolades started in 1980 and grow every year. Not proof positive but far more credible than an opinion.. How do you explain that? Still waiting...... I didn't see this post before now. I was talking about 70's Rush, not 80's and beyond or did you miss MY first comment? I did as i posted a single post. Pretty sure you replied to me? Whatever. So they became top tier in the 80's? Seems unlikely to me but i am done splitting hairs over the definition of top tier. To be fair, you had no reason to split hairs in the first place. Dude.... give it a break. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lucas Posted May 16, 2015 Share Posted May 16, 2015 The internet can be a wonderful and useful way of discussing and chatting - but unfortunately, the tone and sentiment behind some of the opinions can be easily, and understandably, misinterpreted .. Things can be taken too personally, as it is very easy to miss the tone of a comment .. I will say that it is great to discuss things here, agree or disagree - and in this case, I hope that we can agree to disagree 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnRogers Posted May 17, 2015 Share Posted May 17, 2015 Moth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Segue Myles Posted May 17, 2015 Author Share Posted May 17, 2015 Moth. Who? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EagleMoon Posted May 17, 2015 Share Posted May 17, 2015 If there is one post of mine that fails to fit into your definition of "intelligent conversation", I would appreciate it if you point it out .. That, or where I have been a "troll" ?? I am merely participating on a discussion board ( discussion being the key word ) We weren't applying it to you. There are a couple of members giving EagleMoon flack, and in my world women should never be spoken to like that. What a load of shit. How are we to know what sex the poster is? Not into clicking on profiles myself. Secondly and more importantly why would i treat a women differently? Wow. It says on the left under my name that I am female, not that it matters. From this post, it sounds like you're just into being rude regardless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EagleMoon Posted May 17, 2015 Share Posted May 17, 2015 The idea that rush was bar band quality or they were not top tier players as stated above in the 70's is laughable. I'm with you. The point being made is that 70's Rush was a "bar band" when compared with the likes of ELP, Yes, Genesis, and Kansas, but I just don't agree at all. I think they are all comparable musicians. "Hemispheres Neil" doesn't stack up against Phil Ehart? No way in hell that's true."Hemispheres Geddy" sucks when compared with Mike Rutherford? Seriously?"Hemispheres Alex" is "bar band" musician compared with Kerry Livgren? Give me a break. Perhaps Hemispheres is not as complex or symphonic as something like Brain Salad Surgery or Close to the Edge, but no way are Geddy, Alex and Neil "bar band" players, IMO. You're allowed to disagree. It's a free country. :) I'm talking about technical ability. No way were the boys in the same category with classically trained musicians. They just weren't. Seems a little snobbish and something that someone with some training would say. According to that logic. if I have training then I'm a snob, if I don't have training then I just don't know what I'm talking about. It's just possible that I do know what I'm talking about and your defensiveness is just keeping you from seeing what I'm saying. People hate to have their preconceptions challenged and I think that's what's going on here. Lets try a new angle. my opinion versus yours. That really means very litle. I think the general public do think/perceive rush as top tier in the form of the numerous awards from magazines like modern drummer etc etc.The accolades started in 1980 and grow every year. Not proof positive but far more credible than an opinion.. How do you explain that? Still waiting...... I didn't see this post before now. I was talking about 70's Rush, not 80's and beyond or did you miss MY first comment? I did as i posted a single post. Pretty sure you replied to me? Whatever. So they became top tier in the 80's? Seems unlikely to me but i am done splitting hairs over the definition of top tier. You're the one that mentioned top-tier. It wasn't me. All I said was that back in the 70s they were still learning their craft and growing as musicians whereas there were musicians at the time, especially ones that we now know as progressive rock musicians, that were more accomplished. Whether they were classically trained or not. It's not really the issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HemiBeers Posted May 17, 2015 Share Posted May 17, 2015 another f'd up thread with people arguing why or why they don't like asparagus. :eyeroll: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Narps Posted May 17, 2015 Share Posted May 17, 2015 The idea that rush was bar band quality or they were not top tier players as stated above in the 70's is laughable. I'm with you. The point being made is that 70's Rush was a "bar band" when compared with the likes of ELP, Yes, Genesis, and Kansas, but I just don't agree at all. I think they are all comparable musicians. "Hemispheres Neil" doesn't stack up against Phil Ehart? No way in hell that's true."Hemispheres Geddy" sucks when compared with Mike Rutherford? Seriously?"Hemispheres Alex" is "bar band" musician compared with Kerry Livgren? Give me a break. Perhaps Hemispheres is not as complex or symphonic as something like Brain Salad Surgery or Close to the Edge, but no way are Geddy, Alex and Neil "bar band" players, IMO. You're allowed to disagree. It's a free country. :) I'm talking about technical ability. No way were the boys in the same category with classically trained musicians. They just weren't. Seems a little snobbish and something that someone with some training would say. According to that logic. if I have training then I'm a snob, if I don't have training then I just don't know what I'm talking about. It's just possible that I do know what I'm talking about and your defensiveness is just keeping you from seeing what I'm saying. People hate to have their preconceptions challenged and I think that's what's going on here. Lets try a new angle. my opinion versus yours. That really means very litle. I think the general public do think/perceive rush as top tier in the form of the numerous awards from magazines like modern drummer etc etc.The accolades started in 1980 and grow every year. Not proof positive but far more credible than an opinion.. How do you explain that? Still waiting...... I didn't see this post before now. I was talking about 70's Rush, not 80's and beyond or did you miss MY first comment? I did as i posted a single post. Pretty sure you replied to me? Whatever. So they became top tier in the 80's? Seems unlikely to me but i am done splitting hairs over the definition of top tier. You're the one that mentioned top-tier. It wasn't me. All I said was that back in the 70s they were still learning their craft and growing as musicians whereas there were musicians at the time, especially ones that we now know as progressive rock musicians, that were more accomplished. Whether they were classically trained or not. It's not really the issue.These guys for example?.... :)http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/93/Yes_concert.jpg/1024px-Yes_concert.jpg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EagleMoon Posted May 17, 2015 Share Posted May 17, 2015 The idea that rush was bar band quality or they were not top tier players as stated above in the 70's is laughable. I'm with you. The point being made is that 70's Rush was a "bar band" when compared with the likes of ELP, Yes, Genesis, and Kansas, but I just don't agree at all. I think they are all comparable musicians. "Hemispheres Neil" doesn't stack up against Phil Ehart? No way in hell that's true."Hemispheres Geddy" sucks when compared with Mike Rutherford? Seriously?"Hemispheres Alex" is "bar band" musician compared with Kerry Livgren? Give me a break. Perhaps Hemispheres is not as complex or symphonic as something like Brain Salad Surgery or Close to the Edge, but no way are Geddy, Alex and Neil "bar band" players, IMO. You're allowed to disagree. It's a free country. :) I'm talking about technical ability. No way were the boys in the same category with classically trained musicians. They just weren't. Seems a little snobbish and something that someone with some training would say. According to that logic. if I have training then I'm a snob, if I don't have training then I just don't know what I'm talking about. It's just possible that I do know what I'm talking about and your defensiveness is just keeping you from seeing what I'm saying. People hate to have their preconceptions challenged and I think that's what's going on here. Lets try a new angle. my opinion versus yours. That really means very litle. I think the general public do think/perceive rush as top tier in the form of the numerous awards from magazines like modern drummer etc etc.The accolades started in 1980 and grow every year. Not proof positive but far more credible than an opinion.. How do you explain that? Still waiting...... I didn't see this post before now. I was talking about 70's Rush, not 80's and beyond or did you miss MY first comment? I did as i posted a single post. Pretty sure you replied to me? Whatever. So they became top tier in the 80's? Seems unlikely to me but i am done splitting hairs over the definition of top tier. You're the one that mentioned top-tier. It wasn't me. All I said was that back in the 70s they were still learning their craft and growing as musicians whereas there were musicians at the time, especially ones that we now know as progressive rock musicians, that were more accomplished. Whether they were classically trained or not. It's not really the issue.These guys for example?.... :)http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/93/Yes_concert.jpg/1024px-Yes_concert.jpg Sure I might put them in that category. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Segue Myles Posted May 18, 2015 Author Share Posted May 18, 2015 I love asparagus Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Segue Myles Posted May 18, 2015 Author Share Posted May 18, 2015 The idea that rush was bar band quality or they were not top tier players as stated above in the 70's is laughable. I'm with you. The point being made is that 70's Rush was a "bar band" when compared with the likes of ELP, Yes, Genesis, and Kansas, but I just don't agree at all. I think they are all comparable musicians. "Hemispheres Neil" doesn't stack up against Phil Ehart? No way in hell that's true."Hemispheres Geddy" sucks when compared with Mike Rutherford? Seriously?"Hemispheres Alex" is "bar band" musician compared with Kerry Livgren? Give me a break. Perhaps Hemispheres is not as complex or symphonic as something like Brain Salad Surgery or Close to the Edge, but no way are Geddy, Alex and Neil "bar band" players, IMO. You're allowed to disagree. It's a free country. :) I'm talking about technical ability. No way were the boys in the same category with classically trained musicians. They just weren't. Seems a little snobbish and something that someone with some training would say. According to that logic. if I have training then I'm a snob, if I don't have training then I just don't know what I'm talking about. It's just possible that I do know what I'm talking about and your defensiveness is just keeping you from seeing what I'm saying. People hate to have their preconceptions challenged and I think that's what's going on here. Lets try a new angle. my opinion versus yours. That really means very litle. I think the general public do think/perceive rush as top tier in the form of the numerous awards from magazines like modern drummer etc etc.The accolades started in 1980 and grow every year. Not proof positive but far more credible than an opinion.. How do you explain that? Still waiting...... I didn't see this post before now. I was talking about 70's Rush, not 80's and beyond or did you miss MY first comment? I did as i posted a single post. Pretty sure you replied to me? Whatever. So they became top tier in the 80's? Seems unlikely to me but i am done splitting hairs over the definition of top tier. You're the one that mentioned top-tier. It wasn't me. All I said was that back in the 70s they were still learning their craft and growing as musicians whereas there were musicians at the time, especially ones that we now know as progressive rock musicians, that were more accomplished. Whether they were classically trained or not. It's not really the issue. I don't really understand how you could have said it any better than you did, but once again you make your point clearly! Ignore it now...be the bigger person coz some people love to push buttons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EagleMoon Posted May 18, 2015 Share Posted May 18, 2015 The idea that rush was bar band quality or they were not top tier players as stated above in the 70's is laughable. I'm with you. The point being made is that 70's Rush was a "bar band" when compared with the likes of ELP, Yes, Genesis, and Kansas, but I just don't agree at all. I think they are all comparable musicians. "Hemispheres Neil" doesn't stack up against Phil Ehart? No way in hell that's true."Hemispheres Geddy" sucks when compared with Mike Rutherford? Seriously?"Hemispheres Alex" is "bar band" musician compared with Kerry Livgren? Give me a break. Perhaps Hemispheres is not as complex or symphonic as something like Brain Salad Surgery or Close to the Edge, but no way are Geddy, Alex and Neil "bar band" players, IMO. You're allowed to disagree. It's a free country. :) I'm talking about technical ability. No way were the boys in the same category with classically trained musicians. They just weren't. Seems a little snobbish and something that someone with some training would say. According to that logic. if I have training then I'm a snob, if I don't have training then I just don't know what I'm talking about. It's just possible that I do know what I'm talking about and your defensiveness is just keeping you from seeing what I'm saying. People hate to have their preconceptions challenged and I think that's what's going on here. Lets try a new angle. my opinion versus yours. That really means very litle. I think the general public do think/perceive rush as top tier in the form of the numerous awards from magazines like modern drummer etc etc.The accolades started in 1980 and grow every year. Not proof positive but far more credible than an opinion.. How do you explain that? Still waiting...... I didn't see this post before now. I was talking about 70's Rush, not 80's and beyond or did you miss MY first comment? I did as i posted a single post. Pretty sure you replied to me? Whatever. So they became top tier in the 80's? Seems unlikely to me but i am done splitting hairs over the definition of top tier. You're the one that mentioned top-tier. It wasn't me. All I said was that back in the 70s they were still learning their craft and growing as musicians whereas there were musicians at the time, especially ones that we now know as progressive rock musicians, that were more accomplished. Whether they were classically trained or not. It's not really the issue. I don't really understand how you could have said it any better than you did, but once again you make your point clearly! Ignore it now...be the bigger person coz some people love to push buttons. Yeah I guess so. :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Segue Myles Posted May 18, 2015 Author Share Posted May 18, 2015 The idea that rush was bar band quality or they were not top tier players as stated above in the 70's is laughable. I'm with you. The point being made is that 70's Rush was a "bar band" when compared with the likes of ELP, Yes, Genesis, and Kansas, but I just don't agree at all. I think they are all comparable musicians. "Hemispheres Neil" doesn't stack up against Phil Ehart? No way in hell that's true."Hemispheres Geddy" sucks when compared with Mike Rutherford? Seriously?"Hemispheres Alex" is "bar band" musician compared with Kerry Livgren? Give me a break. Perhaps Hemispheres is not as complex or symphonic as something like Brain Salad Surgery or Close to the Edge, but no way are Geddy, Alex and Neil "bar band" players, IMO. You're allowed to disagree. It's a free country. :) I'm talking about technical ability. No way were the boys in the same category with classically trained musicians. They just weren't. Seems a little snobbish and something that someone with some training would say. According to that logic. if I have training then I'm a snob, if I don't have training then I just don't know what I'm talking about. It's just possible that I do know what I'm talking about and your defensiveness is just keeping you from seeing what I'm saying. People hate to have their preconceptions challenged and I think that's what's going on here. Lets try a new angle. my opinion versus yours. That really means very litle. I think the general public do think/perceive rush as top tier in the form of the numerous awards from magazines like modern drummer etc etc.The accolades started in 1980 and grow every year. Not proof positive but far more credible than an opinion.. How do you explain that? Still waiting...... I didn't see this post before now. I was talking about 70's Rush, not 80's and beyond or did you miss MY first comment? I did as i posted a single post. Pretty sure you replied to me? Whatever. So they became top tier in the 80's? Seems unlikely to me but i am done splitting hairs over the definition of top tier. You're the one that mentioned top-tier. It wasn't me. All I said was that back in the 70s they were still learning their craft and growing as musicians whereas there were musicians at the time, especially ones that we now know as progressive rock musicians, that were more accomplished. Whether they were classically trained or not. It's not really the issue. I don't really understand how you could have said it any better than you did, but once again you make your point clearly! Ignore it now...be the bigger person coz some people love to push buttons. Yeah I guess so. :) Yay! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mother of all machines Posted May 18, 2015 Share Posted May 18, 2015 None. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now