FountainOfSyrinx Posted April 24, 2012 Share Posted April 24, 2012 Disregard personal interests on how the music SOUNDS. I'm talking about pure talent. Does the Holy Triumvirate reign? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EmotionDetector Posted April 24, 2012 Share Posted April 24, 2012 Yep...for me. Sure, it sounds biased. But no other band could put out 156 songs (so far), and have me legitimately like them all. We all know how amazing they each are on their individual instruments, but collectively as a unit, they have unmatched chemistry IMO. Also, to be playing the way they are at almost 60 now is incredible. I mean, really. Most of the bands left from their era don't have people caring about new material. There are people who could care less about what they can play in 2012...they simply want to hear the same shit from 25 years ago. People still care what Rush has to say in 2012...and there is good reason for it. Now, just weeks before their 19th album is released, I still find myself completely blown away by everything that they are still able to do. Caravan, BU2B, Headlong Flight...these guys are still reaching for the stars, and still trying to prove themselves, even when they really don't have to. Truly unmatched IMO. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snaked Posted April 24, 2012 Share Posted April 24, 2012 Thats not really a balanced question IMO. As a 3 piece unit they are probably the most balanced and adept at what they do but individually there are more "talented" on each instrument. The problem comes in that those with more "talent" are most likely influenced in some way by the members of RUSH. While Neil is my FAVORITE drummer he is by no means the most talented anymore.. however it's easy to argue he is the most influential drummer in rock history. Look at any of the top drummers out there, a vast majority of them will cite Neil as being a (or THE) reason they picked up the sticks. Same goes for Geddy and Alex. Both favorites of mine in their respective roles but there are more technically talented musicians out there. But again, many of those "talented" musicians will likely cite Geddy or Alex as an influence, at least to some degree. (and even if they dont cite Geddy or Alex they will cite people like John Myung, John Petrucci etc who were very largely influenced by RUSH). I think RUSH are a rare breed of masters of their craft within the music industry. Both in writing and performing. However, I dont think individually any of them would get nearly the notoriety they do as a unit. Are they my favorite? Yup. And at the end of the day thats all that matters, eh? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Good,bad,andrush Posted April 24, 2012 Share Posted April 24, 2012 By far, the answer is a definite no. What they do is insane, but in terms of raw talent, as in playing very difficult things, hell no. However, try and find that much talent in one band, that's a problem, and with only three guys. Thing is though, so many jazz-fusion, math rock, prog bands, and tech/extreme metal have musicians that are simply better. They play faster, more complex, etc. it's the truth. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chicken hawk Posted April 24, 2012 Share Posted April 24, 2012 Im the 2nd YEP........ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hatchetaxe&saw Posted April 24, 2012 Share Posted April 24, 2012 God no. I love them dearly, but no. Impossible to disregard personal interests. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J2112YYZ Posted April 24, 2012 Share Posted April 24, 2012 They wouldn't be my favorite band ever if I didn't think that. What they do musically with just three members should not be possible. But they make it work wonderfully because they are the most talented band ever Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Checkster2112 Posted April 24, 2012 Share Posted April 24, 2012 In all of music?! No sir. Awesome, but go listen to some real jazz. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snaked Posted April 24, 2012 Share Posted April 24, 2012 QUOTE (Checkster2112 @ Apr 24 2012, 12:51 PM) In all of music?! No sir. Awesome, but go listen to some real jazz. I've seen Return to Forever a couple times in the past few years and WOW. Now THERE is some undisputed talent! Only bummer was last year when Al DiMeola wasnt with them.. but it was still a killer concert. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xanadoood Posted April 24, 2012 Share Posted April 24, 2012 QUOTE (Snaked @ Apr 24 2012, 11:56 AM) QUOTE (Checkster2112 @ Apr 24 2012, 12:51 PM) In all of music?! No sir. Awesome, but go listen to some real jazz. I've seen Return to Forever a couple times in the past few years and WOW. Now THERE is some undisputed talent! Only bummer was last year when Al DiMeola wasnt with them.. but it was still a killer concert. I saw Return to Forever last year. Amazing players, but honestly , i couldn't remember one song they played..they were basically trading solos all night. I think Rush is the best, in the rock genre, at combining chops with good songwriting...a lot of jazz/ jazz fusion wears on me after a while. They call it musicians music for a reason. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
metaldad Posted April 24, 2012 Share Posted April 24, 2012 I Love them and they are one of my fav bands but No, they are not Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
New World Kid Posted April 24, 2012 Share Posted April 24, 2012 Talent to me just means raw playing ability. In that case no, not even close. Even out of their era, they weren't technically the best. If you want technical talent, go play some King Crimson, Mars Volta or Dream Theater. But Rush I think is the best at fitting creative ideas into a listenable format. I think Rush wants less to do with "showing off" and more to do with "reaching audiences," which I immensely respect. And Neil could potentially be the best lyricist in rock. But in raw terms of talent and skill, no, they're not even close. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lost In Xanadu Posted April 24, 2012 Share Posted April 24, 2012 QUOTE (New World Kid @ Apr 24 2012, 12:24 PM) Talent to me just means raw playing ability. In that case no, not even close. Even out of their era, they weren't technically the best. If you want technical talent, go play some King Crimson, Mars Volta or Dream Theater. But Rush I think is the best at fitting creative ideas into a listenable format. I think Rush wants less to do with "showing off" and more to do with "reaching audiences," which I immensely respect. And Neil could potentially be the best lyricist in rock. But in raw terms of talent and skill, no, they're not even close. What they lack in raw talent, they make up for it in terms of Chemistry.... which makes them that more enjoyable for me - especially live. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EmotionDetector Posted April 24, 2012 Share Posted April 24, 2012 QUOTE (Lost In Xanadu @ Apr 24 2012, 01:27 PM) QUOTE (New World Kid @ Apr 24 2012, 12:24 PM) Talent to me just means raw playing ability. In that case no, not even close. Even out of their era, they weren't technically the best. If you want technical talent, go play some King Crimson, Mars Volta or Dream Theater. But Rush I think is the best at fitting creative ideas into a listenable format. I think Rush wants less to do with "showing off" and more to do with "reaching audiences," which I immensely respect. And Neil could potentially be the best lyricist in rock. But in raw terms of talent and skill, no, they're not even close. What they lack in raw talent, they make up for it in terms of Chemistry.... which makes them that more enjoyable for me - especially live. Exactly...to me, their chemistry is unmatched. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brizzy Posted April 24, 2012 Share Posted April 24, 2012 maybe not my number 1 favorite band (they go back and forth), but definitely the most talented group ive listened to Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Powderfinger Posted April 24, 2012 Share Posted April 24, 2012 This depends on how you qualify "better" and "best." For me, best/most talented doesn't necessarily equate with who can play the fastest fills in the most difficult time signatures, or who is the fastest sweep picker on the planet. "Best" has to include soul. To echo Keith Richards, I like a little "roll" with my "rock." Rush are perhaps the best when it comes to progressive rock played by a trio. Even just looking at rock trios in a general sense I'd easily take Rush over Cream or the Jimi Hendrix Experience, to use two examples. But I'd have to admit that Hendrix demonstrates more soul than Rush. Alas! These discussions are impossible. But "most talented" can mean so many different things. For example, I wouldn't want to weigh in on whether or not Neil Peart is a better drummer than, say... Elvin Jones, for example. I like them equally. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CruisingInPrimetime Posted April 24, 2012 Share Posted April 24, 2012 This complements my poll of "Is Rush your favorite band?" quite well. In that poll I voted yes, but in this poll I'm going to have to vote no. There are more technically skilled musicians out there. There are musicians with more soul. Rush are the coolest band. They have mean, mean stride. They are untouchable. But they aren't the most talented or "most" anything. Besides most badass, which is objective and not disputed...ever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
New Digital Man Posted April 24, 2012 Share Posted April 24, 2012 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bastille Dave Posted April 24, 2012 Share Posted April 24, 2012 I'm not a talent expert so I don't think I am qualified to make that call, so I voted "No" just because I know that their are some dorky prog bands and jazz bands out there with incredible musicians. As for mainstream(-ish) rock bands, I'd probably vote "Yes". Rush's talent still blows me away after decades of being a huge fan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheAccountant Posted April 24, 2012 Share Posted April 24, 2012 Tough question. A lot of the posts here rightly discuses their talent at playing their instruments, both individuals and collectively (the chemistry that some have mentioned) and appear to make a determination based on that. One element of "talent" that is being overlooked (IMO) is the talent of songwriting, both the music and, perhaps more importantly, the lyrics to their songs. It is that element of "talent" that is sooo critical to the discussion. Try reading Neil's lyrics. They really can sound like poetry. They really can make you think. Yes, others can do that. But can they play as well as Rush can? Or put another way, for those who can play as well as Rush, can they write songs that are as thoughtful as Rush's can be? Factor that part of "talent" into the equation, which I believe you must, and my vote is a definite yes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HowItIs Posted April 25, 2012 Share Posted April 25, 2012 Yes. Only because the only other band that could compare, IMO, is no longer a going concern. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Principled Man Posted April 25, 2012 Share Posted April 25, 2012 No, they're not, and they don't need to be.... All that matters is that they are masters at their respective musical instruments. Masters, virtuosos, whatever descriptor you care to use....they are that. What makes them great is their work as a band. They could be the 3 greatest musicians in the History of Mankind, but if they don't work together or compliment each other, then their music will be crap.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tommy Sawyer Posted April 25, 2012 Share Posted April 25, 2012 Anyone who votes yes deserves automatic fanboi status. Rush isn't even the best in Rock... King Crimson, Yes, VdGG, other top notch prog acts, and countless Jazz fusion groups > Rush in terms of sheer musicianship But does that really affect my opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Good,bad,andrush Posted April 25, 2012 Share Posted April 25, 2012 QUOTE (Tommy Sawyer @ Apr 24 2012, 10:33 PM) Anyone who votes yes deserves automatic fanboi status. Rush isn't even the best in Rock... King Crimson, Yes, VdGG, other top notch prog acts, and countless Jazz fusion groups > Rush in terms of sheer musicianship But does that really affect my opinion. Yeah, the question is about raw talent, if you vote yes you are a fanboy, and I admit to being one but I still didn't vote yes, that's just silly Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rushgoober Posted April 25, 2012 Share Posted April 25, 2012 QUOTE (Snaked @ Apr 24 2012, 06:44 AM) Thats not really a balanced question IMO. As a 3 piece unit they are probably the most balanced and adept at what they do but individually there are more "talented" on each instrument. The problem comes in that those with more "talent" are most likely influenced in some way by the members of RUSH. While Neil is my FAVORITE drummer he is by no means the most talented anymore.. however it's easy to argue he is the most influential drummer in rock history. Look at any of the top drummers out there, a vast majority of them will cite Neil as being a (or THE) reason they picked up the sticks. Same goes for Geddy and Alex. Both favorites of mine in their respective roles but there are more technically talented musicians out there. But again, many of those "talented" musicians will likely cite Geddy or Alex as an influence, at least to some degree. (and even if they dont cite Geddy or Alex they will cite people like John Myung, John Petrucci etc who were very largely influenced by RUSH). I think RUSH are a rare breed of masters of their craft within the music industry. Both in writing and performing. However, I dont think individually any of them would get nearly the notoriety they do as a unit. Are they my favorite? Yup. And at the end of the day thats all that matters, eh? The Beatles had something magical with the four of them, something that was impossible for them to capture as solo artists, even though they did occasionally scale those same heights, but for the most part it was that unique combination of musicians that allowed them to be as brilliant as they were. And the members of The Beatles were nowhere near as talented as the members of Rush, at least in terms of the playing of the individual instruments they play. In terms of being masters of songwriting and melody, that's a different matter. So are they each the most talented at their given instruments? Perhaps not, but each are masters at them. In the end, it's the magical combination of what the three of them do as a unit that makes them among the most talented. 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