Is Rush the most talented band?

[staunchally]

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.

So faster is better?

 

When discussing talent, it ought to be considered, as well as complexity in general.

Saying "Feeling only matters, technique doesn't mean anything to me" is irrelevant to the discussion and only reveals a personal bias.

I voted "No" for the above reasons, even though I personally enjoy Rush more than RTF, KC etc.

[staunchally]

Depends what you mean by "talent"

 

For example who is more talented?

 

Bob Dylan or the session guitarist who can shred any style he hires for live performances?

 

I think the answer is obvious myself.....

 

The session guitarist. :P

[Texas King]

 

as performers their unmatched live reputation precedes them for good reason

 

Are you sure that Rush are unmatched as a live act by any other band?

[Texas King]

A big old yes from me. World's best drummer and best bassist complimented by the world's most underrated guitarist, not to mention as a songwriting team they can best just about anyone who wasn't a Beatle. I'm sorry DT, KC, RTF.... close but no cigar.

 

Who is RTF? I suppose KC is King Crimson?

 

I have to disagree with your statement that Peart is the best drummer ever because they are/were a few jazz guys who could easily beat him anytime, Buddy Rich being the most notable of them. Also it's debatable whether Geddy is the best bassist, because The Ox (and Victor Wooten, Jaco Pastorius, Les Claypool, Chris Squire) exists.

And how can you be sure Rush are superior/more talented musicians than e.g. Yes (such a strong quartet Howe + Wakeman + Bruford + Squire)?

 

I didn't read the entire thread but RTF is probably Return to Forever who were a jazz fusion band from the 70's. They reappeared in the 2000's which is when I saw them live. Great band. Yeah, KC is probably King Crimson and were also great musicians. To this list I would add Mahavishnu Orchestra. I don't think there has ever been any better musicians than them(like RTF also jazz fusion)but that's just my opinion. I'm a huge Yes fan and for a long time they were my favorite band. Comparing them to Rush isn't really fair but if I had to choose I think at their peak Yes were slightly better musicians. When Bill Bruford left they became slightly less good because Alan White wasn't as good as Bill Bruford but they still made some great music. Gentle Giant were another band who had top notch musicians but I doubt many people on this page reading this have any idea who they were. They were another underrated prog rock band from the seventies. After King crimson they are the most well known(or one of them at least)of the lesser knowns.

 

Gentle Giant are well known to my ears! :)

 

Well, a lot of prog rock fans are Rush fans but not all Rush fans are big prog fans. ;)

 

That's true.

It's interesting there is a big overlap between Rush and Van Halen fans. That's really surprising to me, because Rush and VH are vastly different styles of rock music.

both have great musicianship

 

Only from the guitar aspect Van Halen's musicianship is exceptional. Bass and drums in Van Halen music are not exceptional as it's the case with Rush.

Edited August 14, 2021 by Texas King

[Texas King]

http://www.thetoptens.com/most-talented-bands/

[lifeson90]

Depends what meant by talent, right now i'm listening to the Peppers' By The Way album and nothing more creative than that, so far as technical proficiency goes a few bands like Yes probably unsurpassable there but if you take a combo of both qualities then yeah, i'd say Rush top of tree

[Entre_Perpetuo]

as performers their unmatched live reputation precedes them for good reason

 

Are you sure that Rush are unmatched as a live act by any other band?

 

I had to go back to my original post to nab the context you took out. Pretty sure I was just looking for a useful adjective to describe how great they were live. Unmatched reputation? Eh, probably not totally unmatched. In terms of volume ZZ Top is usually considered a bit louder, and in terms of intensity and complexity KC tend to be big favorites.

 

But Rush's live reputation is stellar. Even in an era of prog rock virtuosos they were on the top level. Case in point: Rush built their now massive fanbase as much through relentless touring in the 70s and 80s as they did through the release of seminal albums, and for a long time in the 70s the live shows definitely seemed more popular than the records. With a lot of bands it's the other way around.

[Rush Cocky]

Yes. Individually they are excellent, but together they far exceed the sum of their parts.

 

It's magical really.

[Weatherman]

Live, I'd say that The Allman Brothers were equal to Rush, though obviously played in a different genre (Southern rock with tinges of jazz) and were improvisers in a way that Rush never could be.

But if you narrow the field to non-improvising rock bands + or - 15 years, their only competition would be U2. That's mostly because Bono can really, really sing his ass off when he wants to, even today at age 60. But Rush wins because they were always musically more impressive than the Irish boys (love them though I do).

And don't mention the Stones. They can't even begin to compete.

Sometimes I wonder what would've happened to Zeppelin if Bonzo had lived, if they'd gotten off the junk and the sauce, if Jimmy Page disciplined his fingers live, if they'd tightened their live shows. Imagine them as older men -- all four -- simmering together as a real unit with another decade or two. IMO that's the only band that could've hypothetically ripped Rush apart on stage. But that never happened.

[Fridge]

Live, I'd say that The Allman Brothers were equal to Rush, though obviously played in a different genre (Southern rock with tinges of jazz) and were improvisers in a way that Rush never could be.

 

But they have far too much facial hair......

[treeduck]

Live, I'd say that The Allman Brothers were equal to Rush, though obviously played in a different genre (Southern rock with tinges of jazz) and were improvisers in a way that Rush never could be.

 

But they have far too much facial hair......

The Monkees didn't have any facial hair...

[Fridge]

Live, I'd say that The Allman Brothers were equal to Rush, though obviously played in a different genre (Southern rock with tinges of jazz) and were improvisers in a way that Rush never could be.

 

But they have far too much facial hair......

The Monkees didn't have any facial hair...

 

So by default I like them more than the Allman Brothers.

[Mr Freeze]

Some really off the wall claims /comparisons here but what else would one expect on a fan forum.Rush definitely fall under "The whole is greater than the part" but then again a lot of the groups mentioned here fall under that.

 

The query put forth .."is so and so the most talented band?"..these type of questions are just headlines,that eventually end up into heated debates,no real consensus.

 

Looking at them Individually... that's where "most talented" comes into better focus

[goose]

The most talented? Of course not.

[goose]

http://www.thetopten...talented-bands/

Iron Maiden and Deep Purple in the top ten "most talented"? :lol:

[JohnRogers]

Disregard personal interests on how the music SOUNDS. I'm talking about pure talent. Does the Holy Triumvirate reign?

Yes and yes.

[Rush Didact]

No. And I'm sure they would be the first ones to agree with me.

 

They're talented. Exceptionally talented. They worked very hard to excel at their craft, all three of them. Aside from some early-career experiments that didn't quite hit the mark, virtually everything they released on record is competent and professional, and a lot of it is excellent.

 

But there are far, far better musicians out there; I could name dozens for each instrument who could play circles around them. There are musicians out there doing things that make Ged, Al and Neil look like they're standing still.

 

Here's the thing, though: those musicians aren't as well-known and loved as Rush because they haven't been able to put that talent to use in service of something people want to listen to. Rush is what it is because the three men who comprise it aren't just great players, they're superlative composers and arrangers as well. You can't separate the individual elements from the whole. As soon as you do, it all falls apart.

 

Something alchemical happened when those guys got together in a studio, and it can't be reduced to technique or speed. Rush made excellent music, excellently performed. That's a hard combination to achieve.

[Timbale]

No. And I'm sure they would be the first ones to agree with me.

 

They're talented. Exceptionally talented. They worked very hard to excel at their craft, all three of them. Aside from some early-career experiments that didn't quite hit the mark, virtually everything they released on record is competent and professional, and a lot of it is excellent.

 

But there are far, far better musicians out there; I could name dozens for each instrument who could play circles around them. There are musicians out there doing things that make Ged, Al and Neil look like they're standing still.

 

Here's the thing, though: those musicians aren't as well-known and loved as Rush because they haven't been able to put that talent to use in service of something people want to listen to. Rush is what it is because the three men who comprise it aren't just great players, they're superlative composers and arrangers as well. You can't separate the individual elements from the whole. As soon as you do, it all falls apart.

 

Something alchemical happened when those guys got together in a studio, and it can't be reduced to technique or speed. Rush made excellent music, excellently performed. That's a hard combination to achieve.

 

Nailed it.

[Mosher]

Are they the most talented band comprised of a drummer, guitarist, and bass player- then very possibly.

 

The vague term talent doesn't evoke that for me.

 

What about musicians who are not only capable but adept at multiple instruments. Several bands have these, Rush does not.

Geddy isn't close to an elite singer.

 

So is talent defined as "band who plays music I like the best?"

 

For me, they are the best trio that focuses on those three instruments. And that's with the important point that their writing resonates with me as well. And how you put the music together is talent, but it's also subjective as hell.

 

Include any other band type and Rush either loses easily or at least faces tough competition.

Edited September 4, 2021 by Mosher

[Texas King]

http://www.thetopten...talented-bands/

Iron Maiden and Deep Purple in the top ten "most talented"? :lol:

 

Why not Deep Purple? They were such a strong group of musicians.

They had a super proficient guitarist (Blackmore), very proficient drummer (who never received the proper recognition), super proficient keyboardist (the best in rock along with Emerson and Wakeman) and they had two great vocalists (Gillan and Coverdale). I know the bassists weren't top-tier players, but Glover was better than average for sure. Deep Purple's musicianship was really extraordinary.

And they had a reputation of outstanding live act in the 70's, they were easily superior than Led Zeppelin in that regard.

 

And although Iron Maiden are not Rush-level talented, they are very talented nonetheless. And a great live band even today, when they're the dudes in their 60s.

[Texas King]

Are they the most talented band comprised of a drummer, guitarist, and bass player- then very possibly.

 

The vague term talent doesn't evoke that for me.

 

What about musicians who are not only capable but adept at multiple instruments. Several bands have these, Rush does not.

Geddy isn't close to an elite singer.

 

So is talent defined as "band who plays music I like the best?"

 

For me, they are the best trio that focuses on those three instruments. And that's with the important point that their writing resonates with me as well. And how you put the music together is talent, but it's also subjective as hell.

 

Include any other band type and Rush either loses easily or at least faces tough competition.

 

I think the musicianship is mostly objective (and Rush have an extraordinary musicianship), but the quality of songwriting is mostly subjective. People who are Rush fans will say that Rush's songwriting is extraordinary and people who are not Rush fans will deny that, but no one can deny their musicianship.

[Weakly Criminal]

You know this discussion reminds me of the argument about athletes and which ones are elite talents and which ones bring a lunch pail and outwork others.

 

The simple fact of the matter is that you don't get to the highest level in any discipline without both. Peart by his own admission had to work his ass off to just get acceptable much less to be the very best. I've known guys that just picked things up like it was nothing, but didn't do anything with their ability. I've also known guys who wanted it very badly and worked very hard but just didn't have it.

 

To me elite ability always consists of both and it's without exception.

 

So how do you determine talent level when hard work has so much to do with it? To me it's not in the playing alone. It's not in how many 16th notes you can fit in a measure or how many time changes or chord combinations you can come up with. To me it's in how you craft the song and present it to the listener. If you can do a good job at that and impress with your instrumental prowess then you're on to something.

 

Rush does this as well as anyone, and better than most.

Edited October 8, 2021 by Weakly Criminal