Is RUSH better than the Beatles

[HalfwayToGone]

Reading the rationales on here, it's clear that a lot of Rush fans are just not interested in anything else. Rush is better because Neil went to Berklee? Gimme a break. Rush is underrated? Sorry, but Neil (as much as I love him and credit him for inspiring me to play) is overrated as a drummer. He's a great player, and a great soloist, but there are so many drummers that utterly destroy him in almost every way, I won't even start trying to list them here. I can play a lot of Neil's parts beat for beat, but there are drummers out there that are so far over my head that I wouldn't even try to do what they do without a professional instructor to work with me for about 10 more years or so.

 

Lets compare a little. Rush—three guys, one singer, a few sparse hits over more than 30 years, singer's voice has been endlessly made fun of, great players, Geddy can do a lot at once, Neil has a gigantic drum kit with all sorts of electronic embellishment now, lyrics are sometimes great and often a bit overly intellectual. They inspired a lot of musicians, but it's tough to say they influenced "music" in any major way. Maybe you can hear a bit off RUSH in other bands' songs or styles, but they didn't really change the face of music appreciably.

 

Beatles—four guys, all of whom sang on at least one hit, beautiful vocal harmonies and voices, three had solo hits after the band split up, numerous hits in a relatively short career, Paul plays every instrument, Ringo inspired at least as many drummers to play as Neil, and had a dinky little four or five piece kit, and a huge sound with none of the technology except maybe a mic, they completely changed the way music was produced, and thought of and had a major influence on the public that way went beyond the music (peace and love!), they were every bit as experimental as Rush in the studio and every bit as exciting as a live act (listen to the crowd on Live At The Hollywood Bowl—no Rush audience ever screamed like that. Ever.), there's a reason the Beatles were so much more massively popular and embraced by people (and more hated by parents), and during a time when the music business was much more willing to be risky, and allow musicians to focus on creating something new and different.

 

So they have some things in common, and while it's sweet that Rush fans are so loyal and full of praise for their heroes, it's also a bit naive and egocentric to think they are in any way better or more important than the Beatles. Next thing you know, someone will post a thread saying Alex is a better guitarist than Jimi Hendrix. We get it. Rush forum members love Rush. Lets not get delusional about it.

[JohnnyBlaze]

I'm not surprised by the poll results, especially on a Rush board, but I am disappointed. Rush are my favorite band, and even STILL I don't think they're better than The Beatles. There's personal bias and subjective opinion, and then there's the obvious truth.

There is no obvious truth when it comes to this kind of topic. But I see your point

[Anguyen92]

Ok, I think I'm going to make this a bit clearer why I said yes.

 

I enjoy Rush more than the Beatles. To me, when I say I enjoy something over something else, that's how I deemed it better to my personal enjoyment.

 

It's doesn't matter to me that the Beatles had sold a billion albums, wrote numerous hits, and transcended the world. Other than Let It Be, there's not really a song that connects well with me though I do love Helter Skelter.

 

With Rush, even though, I've only following this band for 10 months or so, it's becoming one of those bands where any situation I've been in my personal life, there's going to be a song that relates well to the situation (especially the last three full songs (I'm not counting BU2B2) of Clockwork Angels) plus they create more hard rocking songs that's just plain enjoyable to listen to.

 

I, honestly in my power, can't say that the Beatles do that on the same level as Rush.

 

For all intents and purposes, I'm not bashing the Beatles. I love Paul McCartney as well.

 

All I'm saying to those that said no and question why people say yes, they should slightly back off, a bit, and understand why these people says yes.

 

After all, this is all in good fun and it's not like this thread is called "Is Rush more popular than the Beatles." Although, I'm sure in a few hours the way this forum is going is going to lead to that.

Edited September 7, 2013 by Anguyen92

[losingit2k]

Reading the rationales on here, it's clear that a lot of Rush fans are just not interested in anything else. Rush is better because Neil went to Berklee? Gimme a break. Rush is underrated? Sorry, but Neil (as much as I love him and credit him for inspiring me to play) is overrated as a drummer. He's a great player, and a great soloist, but there are so many drummers that utterly destroy him in almost every way, I won't even start trying to list them here. I can play a lot of Neil's parts beat for beat, but there are drummers out there that are so far over my head that I wouldn't even try to do what they do without a professional instructor to work with me for about 10 more years or so.

 

Lets compare a little. Rush—three guys, one singer, a few sparse hits over more than 30 years, singer's voice has been endlessly made fun of, great players, Geddy can do a lot at once, Neil has a gigantic drum kit with all sorts of electronic embellishment now, lyrics are sometimes great and often a bit overly intellectual. They inspired a lot of musicians, but it's tough to say they influenced "music" in any major way. Maybe you can hear a bit off RUSH in other bands' songs or styles, but they didn't really change the face of music appreciably.

 

Beatles—four guys, all of whom sang on at least one hit, beautiful vocal harmonies and voices, three had solo hits after the band split up, numerous hits in a relatively short career, Paul plays every instrument, Ringo inspired at least as many drummers to play as Neil, and had a dinky little four or five piece kit, and a huge sound with none of the technology except maybe a mic, they completely changed the way music was produced, and thought of and had a major influence on the public that way went beyond the music (peace and love!), they were every bit as experimental as Rush in the studio and every bit as exciting as a live act (listen to the crowd on Live At The Hollywood Bowl—no Rush audience ever screamed like that. Ever.), there's a reason the Beatles were so much more massively popular and embraced by people (and more hated by parents), and during a time when the music business was much more willing to be risky, and allow musicians to focus on creating something new and different.

 

So they have some things in common, and while it's sweet that Rush fans are so loyal and full of praise for their heroes, it's also a bit naive and egocentric to think they are in any way better or more important than the Beatles. Next thing you know, someone will post a thread saying Alex is a better guitarist than Jimi Hendrix. We get it. Rush forum members love Rush. Lets not get delusional about it.

 

I agree with most of what you've said except the part of the Screaming at the Hollywood Bowl. Those were all basically teenage girls yelling there. And yes all three crowds in Brazil yelled that loud for RUSH and they weren't mostly girtls. Look, the Beatles was one if not the most influencial rock band in history. That's not in dispute here. What is in dispute is were they a better band. Lets face it they barely even got along as a band. Their last endeavours were recorded seperately ( Each of the members coming in and recording their part on their own.) Thats not a band. That's studio musician playing their part. Very well I might add but still disjointed in their cohesion. In their inception, they didn't barely wrote their own songs. Their numerous amount of hits were a sign of the times. Brought on more by the silly haircuts than their music. They Even knew that. Now in time, they made the best decision of their lives and changed their style which actually gave us great albums like " Revolver, Sargent Peppers, The Magical Mystery Tour, The White Album and Abbey Road. (Notice I didn't mention Let it be.) and lets face it that was more Sir George Henry Martin's influence than anything as evident in the latter part of Yellow Submerine. So Please lets compare what we actually can compare and not the hype. The truth is I'd compare any of the top 10 RUSH albums to the The Top 10 Beatles album any day. (If you could come up with 10). :o

[LedRush]

Reading the rationales on here, it's clear that a lot of Rush fans are just not interested in anything else. Rush is better because Neil went to Berklee? Gimme a break. Rush is underrated? Sorry, but Neil (as much as I love him and credit him for inspiring me to play) is overrated as a drummer. He's a great player, and a great soloist, but there are so many drummers that utterly destroy him in almost every way, I won't even start trying to list them here. I can play a lot of Neil's parts beat for beat, but there are drummers out there that are so far over my head that I wouldn't even try to do what they do without a professional instructor to work with me for about 10 more years or so.

 

Lets compare a little. Rush—three guys, one singer, a few sparse hits over more than 30 years, singer's voice has been endlessly made fun of, great players, Geddy can do a lot at once, Neil has a gigantic drum kit with all sorts of electronic embellishment now, lyrics are sometimes great and often a bit overly intellectual. They inspired a lot of musicians, but it's tough to say they influenced "music" in any major way. Maybe you can hear a bit off RUSH in other bands' songs or styles, but they didn't really change the face of music appreciably.

 

Beatles—four guys, all of whom sang on at least one hit, beautiful vocal harmonies and voices, three had solo hits after the band split up, numerous hits in a relatively short career, Paul plays every instrument, Ringo inspired at least as many drummers to play as Neil, and had a dinky little four or five piece kit, and a huge sound with none of the technology except maybe a mic, they completely changed the way music was produced, and thought of and had a major influence on the public that way went beyond the music (peace and love!), they were every bit as experimental as Rush in the studio and every bit as exciting as a live act (listen to the crowd on Live At The Hollywood Bowl—no Rush audience ever screamed like that. Ever.), there's a reason the Beatles were so much more massively popular and embraced by people (and more hated by parents), and during a time when the music business was much more willing to be risky, and allow musicians to focus on creating something new and different.

 

So they have some things in common, and while it's sweet that Rush fans are so loyal and full of praise for their heroes, it's also a bit naive and egocentric to think they are in any way better or more important than the Beatles. Next thing you know, someone will post a thread saying Alex is a better guitarist than Jimi Hendrix. We get it. Rush forum members love Rush. Lets not get delusional about it.

 

I agree with most of what you've said except the part of the Screaming at the Hollywood Bowl. Those were all basically teenage girls yelling there. And yes all three crowds in Brazil yelled that loud for RUSH and they weren't mostly girtls. Look, the Beatles was one if not the most influencial rock band in history. That's not in dispute here. What is in dispute is were they a better band. Lets face it they barely even got along as a band. Their last endeavours were recorded seperately ( Each of the members coming in and recording their part on their own.) Thats not a band. That's studio musician playing their part. Very well I might add but still disjointed in their cohesion. In their inception, they didn't barely wrote their own songs. Their numerous amount of hits were a sign of the times. Brought on more by the silly haircuts than their music. They Even knew that. Now in time, they made the best decision of their lives and changed their style which actually gave us great albums like " Revolver, Sargent Peppers, The Magical Mystery Tour, The White Album and Abbey Road. (Notice I didn't mention Let it be.) and lets face it that was more Sir George Henry Martin's influence than anything as evident in the latter part of Yellow Submerine. So Please lets compare what we actually can compare and not the hype. The truth is I'd compare any of the top 10 RUSH albums to the The Top 10 Beatles album any day. (If you could come up with 10). :o

 

The Beatles don't have a top 10 album list. They have a top 8 and some cover albums with some extra crap thrown on them. I love the Beatles, but the dick sucking going on here is borderline absurd.

[rushgoober]

Sorry, but Neil (as much as I love him and credit him for inspiring me to play) is overrated as a drummer. He's a great player, and a great soloist, but there are so many drummers that utterly destroy him in almost every way, I won't even start trying to list them here. I can play a lot of Neil's parts beat for beat, but there are drummers out there that are so far over my head that I wouldn't even try to do what they do without a professional instructor to work with me for about 10 more years or so.

 

:eyeroll:

 

srsly dude? :sarcastic:

 

 

who was the guy on TRF who always talked about he had a better bass tone than geddy? can't remember his name for some reason...

[JohnnyBlaze]

Sorry, but Neil (as much as I love him and credit him for inspiring me to play) is overrated as a drummer. He's a great player, and a great soloist, but there are so many drummers that utterly destroy him in almost every way, I won't even start trying to list them here. I can play a lot of Neil's parts beat for beat, but there are drummers out there that are so far over my head that I wouldn't even try to do what they do without a professional instructor to work with me for about 10 more years or so.

 

:eyeroll:

 

srsly dude? :sarcastic:

 

 

who was the guy on TRF who always talked about he had a better bass tone than geddy? can't remember his name for some reason...

goobs, that'd be Melodick777...though I tend to add the "k" every time.

 

HalfwayToGone, it must be awesome being as awesome as you are every awesome day that the awesome sun's rays hit your awesome self. :sarcastic:

[lifeson90]

Anyway, shouldnt it be 'Are' Rush better than the Beatles?

[Tony R]

Anyway, shouldnt it be 'Are' Rush better than the Beatles?

 

No.

[rushgoober]

Anyway, shouldnt it be 'Are' Rush better than the Beatles?

 

Rush and The Beatles have multiple members, yes, but in this instance they're each being referred to as a single entity, a band. It's like saying Is Geddy better than Paul? You wouldn't say ARE Geddy better than Paul. If you said Is Geddy, Alex & Neil better than Paul, George, John & Ringo - then it would be grammatically incorrect.

Edited September 8, 2013 by rushgoober

[goose]

I'm not surprised by the poll results, especially on a Rush board, but I am disappointed. Rush are my favorite band, and even STILL I don't think they're better than The Beatles. There's personal bias and subjective opinion, and then there's the obvious truth.

There is no obvious truth when it comes to this kind of topic.

I think there is. In terms of influence and song-writing alone the Beatles are so far beyond RUSH it's kind of a silly discussion. "Yesterday" alone has more than 2,200 cover versions. Goobs is right, for once. ;)

[HalfwayToGone]

Guys, let's get real here. I never claimed to be the best drummer or even a great drummer, and I certainly never said I was better than Neil. What I said, is there are plenty of drummers out there who are. They might not be as famous, but anyone who thinks that Neil is the be-all and end- all of drumming has simply not listened to enough drummers. And, yes there are plenty of drummers who can do a good Neil imitation, but not nearly as many who can approach what someone like Han Bennink can do on a cardboard pizza box, let alone a drum set. And he's only one guy who Neil simply can't touch. I'm sure he sought out Freddie Gruber and whoever he studies with now, because he knows those people know more than he does, otherwise he'd have been teaching them instead. So lets not delude ourselves, or get sidetracked with sarcastic "I missed the entire point of that post" comments focused on me. And try not to be so offended by the possibility that your favorite is merely your favorite, and not necessarily the best on the planet.

 

Finally, don't forget that for a long time Neil was my favorite too, and I spent many years trying to play just like him, and learn every beat of as many Rush songs as possible. I have been playing for over 30 years now, so I'm not just talking out of my ass here, or trying to pass myself off as some genius of drums—I know very well that I am only a decent rock drummer at best, and a total hack when it comes to serious jazz.

[New Digital Man]

Reading the rationales on here, it's clear that a lot of Rush fans are just not interested in anything else. Rush is better because Neil went to Berklee? Gimme a break. Rush is underrated? Sorry, but Neil (as much as I love him and credit him for inspiring me to play) is overrated as a drummer. He's a great player, and a great soloist, but there are so many drummers that utterly destroy him in almost every way, I won't even start trying to list them here. I can play a lot of Neil's parts beat for beat, but there are drummers out there that are so far over my head that I wouldn't even try to do what they do without a professional instructor to work with me for about 10 more years or so. Next thing you know, someone will post a thread saying Alex is a better guitarist than Jimi Hendrix. We get it. Rush forum members love Rush. Lets not get delusional about it.

 

This is true like it or not and the same can be said of Geddy and Alex, they are great musicians and none of them can be replaced in the formula of Rush but there are certainly more gifted musicians out there if we're talking about technique and chops! Pete Erskine gave Neil some lessons a while back and Geddy has often spoken about having some tuition at Jeff Berlins music school!

[goose]

Anyway, shouldnt it be 'Are' Rush better than the Beatles?

 

Rush and The Beatles have multiple members, yes, but in this instance they're each being referred to as a single entity, a band. It's like saying Is Geddy better than Paul? You wouldn't say ARE Geddy better than Paul. If you said Is Geddy, Alex & Neil better than Paul, George, John & Ringo - then it would be grammatically incorrect.

Well, you could argue that "RUSH are..." is grammatically correct, depending on how you use it. If you are asking about their talent as musicians, "Are RUSH better...?" is correct. If your question is about each band's collective output, "Is RUSH better...?" would be correct. "Queen ("it") is a great band because Queen ("they") are such accomplished musicians." :)

[goose]

Sorry, but Neil (as much as I love him and credit him for inspiring me to play) is overrated as a drummer. He's a great player, and a great soloist, but there are so many drummers that utterly destroy him in almost every way, I won't even start trying to list them here. I can play a lot of Neil's parts beat for beat, but there are drummers out there that are so far over my head that I wouldn't even try to do what they do without a professional instructor to work with me for about 10 more years or so.

 

:eyeroll:

 

srsly dude? :sarcastic:

 

 

who was the guy on TRF who always talked about he had a better bass tone than geddy? can't remember his name for some reason...

goobs, that'd be Melodick777...though I tend to add the "k" every time.

 

HalfwayToGone, it must be awesome being as awesome as you are every awesome day that the awesome sun's rays hit your awesome self. :sarcastic:

Melodic777!!! :dweez:

[Ancient Ways]

Guys, let's get real here. I never claimed to be the best drummer or even a great drummer, and I certainly never said I was better than Neil. What I said, is there are plenty of drummers out there who are. They might not be as famous, but anyone who thinks that Neil is the be-all and end- all of drumming has simply not listened to enough drummers. And, yes there are plenty of drummers who can do a good Neil imitation, but not nearly as many who can approach what someone like Han Bennink can do on a cardboard pizza box, let alone a drum set. And he's only one guy who Neil simply can't touch. I'm sure he sought out Freddie Gruber and whoever he studies with now, because he knows those people know more than he does, otherwise he'd have been teaching them instead. So lets not delude ourselves, or get sidetracked with sarcastic "I missed the entire point of that post" comments focused on me. And try not to be so offended by the possibility that your favorite is merely your favorite, and not necessarily the best on the planet.

 

Finally, don't forget that for a long time Neil was my favorite too, and I spent many years trying to play just like him, and learn every beat of as many Rush songs as possible. I have been playing for over 30 years now, so I'm not just talking out of my ass here, or trying to pass myself off as some genius of drums—I know very well that I am only a decent rock drummer at best, and a total hack when it comes to serious jazz.

 

I think we can say Neil is one of our favorites without saying no one has better chops or is better at specific drum abilities than him. Maybe we just like his style. I like his musicality, his fills, and how is is never satisfied. He writes lyrics and novels. As much as he gets criticized, he actually shares more info about himself than most musicians out there in his writing. I don't think he's the best on the planet but I think he's the best rock drummer/lyricist/author on the planet.

[HalfwayToGone]

I agree with most of what you've said except the part of the Screaming at the Hollywood Bowl. Those were all basically teenage girls yelling there. And yes all three crowds in Brazil yelled that loud for RUSH and they weren't mostly girtls. Look, the Beatles was one if not the most influencial rock band in history. That's not in dispute here. What is in dispute is were they a better band. Lets face it they barely even got along as a band. Their last endeavours were recorded seperately ( Each of the members coming in and recording their part on their own.) Thats not a band. That's studio musician playing their part. Very well I might add but still disjointed in their cohesion. In their inception, they didn't barely wrote their own songs. Their numerous amount of hits were a sign of the times. Brought on more by the silly haircuts than their music. They Even knew that. Now in time, they made the best decision of their lives and changed their style which actually gave us great albums like " Revolver, Sargent Peppers, The Magical Mystery Tour, The White Album and Abbey Road. (Notice I didn't mention Let it be.) and lets face it that was more Sir George Henry Martin's influence than anything as evident in the latter part of Yellow Submerine. So Please lets compare what we actually can compare and not the hype. The truth is I'd compare any of the top 10 RUSH albums to the The Top 10 Beatles album any day. (If you could come up with 10). :o

You're right about the audiences. There were a lot of young screechy girls on that Beatles album, and yes the Beatles were cute with long hair for the times, and had a good marketing team. As far as getting along or not, that is by far more the rule of bands than the exception. Most bands break up or tragedy strikes before they are together long enough to self-destruct. I would give you that Rush have certainly been one of the longest-surviving line-ups in rock, and they have amazing chops as players, but great music is more than just who can twiddle their fingers the fastest and most precisely, and stay together the longest. It's also more than just who is most popular—plenty of crappy music sells well to a gigantic market of people who are not serious devotees of music, and just want something catchy that they can dance to. But the truly best out there can be amazing musicians and songwriters who connect with enormous numbers of people. It's tough to break down, because the total experience of music for the listener is more than just the sum of its parts. Rush have written some songs that have stood the test of time, but the Beatles produced an enormously rich catalog of music from old school rock n roll to psychedelic to ballads to heavy rock to pop. If anything, I'd say Rush has modeled aspects of heir approach directly on what the Beatles did before Rush was a band—re-inventing themselves repeatedly, searching for other/different music to inspire them (Neil's travels to China and Africa and learning their local rhythms, doesn't sound much different than the Beatles delving into yoga, Ravi Shankar, etc. in their search for musical and personal enlightenment). As far as George Martin's input goes, yes he was responsible for a lot of wizardry in the studio and also using orchestral parts, but I'd be shocked if the band had no ability to veto his ideas if they hated them. I'm sure Terry Brown was very important in helping to create the identifiable "Rush sound" through Signals.

[rushgoober]

I agree with most of what you've said except the part of the Screaming at the Hollywood Bowl. Those were all basically teenage girls yelling there. And yes all three crowds in Brazil yelled that loud for RUSH and they weren't mostly girtls. Look, the Beatles was one if not the most influencial rock band in history. That's not in dispute here. What is in dispute is were they a better band. Lets face it they barely even got along as a band. Their last endeavours were recorded seperately ( Each of the members coming in and recording their part on their own.) Thats not a band. That's studio musician playing their part. Very well I might add but still disjointed in their cohesion. In their inception, they didn't barely wrote their own songs. Their numerous amount of hits were a sign of the times. Brought on more by the silly haircuts than their music. They Even knew that. Now in time, they made the best decision of their lives and changed their style which actually gave us great albums like " Revolver, Sargent Peppers, The Magical Mystery Tour, The White Album and Abbey Road. (Notice I didn't mention Let it be.) and lets face it that was more Sir George Henry Martin's influence than anything as evident in the latter part of Yellow Submerine. So Please lets compare what we actually can compare and not the hype. The truth is I'd compare any of the top 10 RUSH albums to the The Top 10 Beatles album any day. (If you could come up with 10). :o

You're right about the audiences. There were a lot of young screechy girls on that Beatles album, and yes the Beatles were cute with long hair for the times, and had a good marketing team. As far as getting along or not, that is by far more the rule of bands than the exception. Most bands break up or tragedy strikes before they are together long enough to self-destruct. I would give you that Rush have certainly been one of the longest-surviving line-ups in rock, and they have amazing chops as players, but great music is more than just who can twiddle their fingers the fastest and most precisely, and stay together the longest. It's also more than just who is most popular—plenty of crappy music sells well to a gigantic market of people who are not serious devotees of music, and just want something catchy that they can dance to. But the truly best out there can be amazing musicians and songwriters who connect with enormous numbers of people. It's tough to break down, because the total experience of music for the listener is more than just the sum of its parts. Rush have written some songs that have stood the test of time, but the Beatles produced an enormously rich catalog of music from old school rock n roll to psychedelic to ballads to heavy rock to pop. If anything, I'd say Rush has modeled aspects of heir approach directly on what the Beatles did before Rush was a band—re-inventing themselves repeatedly, searching for other/different music to inspire them (Neil's travels to China and Africa and learning their local rhythms, doesn't sound much different than the Beatles delving into yoga, Ravi Shankar, etc. in their search for musical and personal enlightenment). As far as George Martin's input goes, yes he was responsible for a lot of wizardry in the studio and also using orchestral parts, but I'd be shocked if the band had no ability to veto his ideas if they hated them. I'm sure Terry Brown was very important in helping to create the identifiable "Rush sound" through Signals.

 

tl;dr

 

paragraph separation - it's all the rage with the kids these days. ;) :P

Edited September 8, 2013 by rushgoober

[rushgoober]

I'm not surprised by the poll results, especially on a Rush board, but I am disappointed. Rush are my favorite band, and even STILL I don't think they're better than The Beatles. There's personal bias and subjective opinion, and then there's the obvious truth.

There is no obvious truth when it comes to this kind of topic.

I think there is. In terms of influence and song-writing alone the Beatles are so far beyond RUSH it's kind of a silly discussion. "Yesterday" alone has more than 2,200 cover versions. Goobs is right, for once. ;)

 

I'm right all the time - I can't help it if you don't notice. :P

[HalfwayToGone]

I think we can say Neil is one of our favorites without saying no one has better chops or is better at specific drum abilities than him. Maybe we just like his style. I like his musicality, his fills, and how is is never satisfied. He writes lyrics and novels. As much as he gets criticized, he actually shares more info about himself than most musicians out there in his writing. I don't think he's the best on the planet but I think he's the best rock drummer/lyricist/author on the planet.

 

Excellent point. I still enjoy his playing, and he is still driven to learn more, which is probably why I still anticipate anything new he does, and why I also enjoy his solos so much. But until recently, he barely ever improvised anything, especially at concerts. To think that a drummer who can't or won't fly by the seat of his pants is better than drummers who do so every show, with grace, poise and style as well as unimaginable chops, doesn't make sense to me. But you could probably say he's the best rock drummer/author/motorcyclist/lyricist. I just don't assume that my favorite choice of anything makes it the best there is. There is plenty out there I haven't been exposed to yet. When I think I've heard "the best," eventually someone inevitably comes along and says, "hey, if you think that's great, you should check out this..." And I may agree it's better once I check it out.

[Ancient Ways]

I think we can say Neil is one of our favorites without saying no one has better chops or is better at specific drum abilities than him. Maybe we just like his style. I like his musicality, his fills, and how is is never satisfied. He writes lyrics and novels. As much as he gets criticized, he actually shares more info about himself than most musicians out there in his writing. I don't think he's the best on the planet but I think he's the best rock drummer/lyricist/author on the planet.

 

Excellent point. I still enjoy his playing, and he is still driven to learn more, which is probably why I still anticipate anything new he does, and why I also enjoy his solos so much. But until recently, he barely ever improvised anything, especially at concerts. To think that a drummer who can't or won't fly by the seat of his pants is better than drummers who do so every show, with grace, poise and style as well as unimaginable chops, doesn't make sense to me. But you could probably say he's the best rock drummer/author/motorcyclist/lyricist. I just don't assume that my favorite choice of anything makes it the best there is. There is plenty out there I haven't been exposed to yet. When I think I've heard "the best," eventually someone inevitably comes along and says, "hey, if you think that's great, you should check out this..." And I may agree it's better once I check it out.

 

Rush have three issues with improvisation: their light show, samples, and us. They have so much synced to light show that improv is basically impossible. They also use so many prerecorded samples that I think it would be very difficult to trigger samples at correct times if they were improvising a lot. Then there's us. I think the majority of rush fans would lose thir minds if rush didn't play their songs almost exactly like the record. For some reason we have accepted the silly changes in tsor and temples though.

[Xanadoood]

I think we can say Neil is one of our favorites without saying no one has better chops or is better at specific drum abilities than him. Maybe we just like his style. I like his musicality, his fills, and how is is never satisfied. He writes lyrics and novels. As much as he gets criticized, he actually shares more info about himself than most musicians out there in his writing. I don't think he's the best on the planet but I think he's the best rock drummer/lyricist/author on the planet.

 

Excellent point. I still enjoy his playing, and he is still driven to learn more, which is probably why I still anticipate anything new he does, and why I also enjoy his solos so much. But until recently, he barely ever improvised anything, especially at concerts. To think that a drummer who can't or won't fly by the seat of his pants is better than drummers who do so every show, with grace, poise and style as well as unimaginable chops, doesn't make sense to me. But you could probably say he's the best rock drummer/author/motorcyclist/lyricist. I just don't assume that my favorite choice of anything makes it the best there is. There is plenty out there I haven't been exposed to yet. When I think I've heard "the best," eventually someone inevitably comes along and says, "hey, if you think that's great, you should check out this..." And I may agree it's better once I check it out.

 

I think chops and technique are overrated. Neil has both in spades. Are there jazz guys who blow him away in that regard? Sure. But then Bonham and Moon must be overrated as well, cause those guys aren't even close to the jazz guys either.. I think the issue with Neil is his popularity among the general public.. He's probably the most well known drum god among folks who wouldn't know who say, Dave Weckl is.. So peeps get annoyed that his name is brought up as " greatest drummer ever!! " .. Not Neil's fault

[goose]

I'm not surprised by the poll results, especially on a Rush board, but I am disappointed. Rush are my favorite band, and even STILL I don't think they're better than The Beatles. There's personal bias and subjective opinion, and then there's the obvious truth.

There is no obvious truth when it comes to this kind of topic.

I think there is. In terms of influence and song-writing alone the Beatles are so far beyond RUSH it's kind of a silly discussion. "Yesterday" alone has more than 2,200 cover versions. Goobs is right, for once. ;)

 

I'm right all the time - I can't help it if you don't notice. :P

:clap:

[losingit2k]

I think we can say Neil is one of our favorites without saying no one has better chops or is better at specific drum abilities than him. Maybe we just like his style. I like his musicality, his fills, and how is is never satisfied. He writes lyrics and novels. As much as he gets criticized, he actually shares more info about himself than most musicians out there in his writing. I don't think he's the best on the planet but I think he's the best rock drummer/lyricist/author on the planet.

 

Excellent point. I still enjoy his playing, and he is still driven to learn more, which is probably why I still anticipate anything new he does, and why I also enjoy his solos so much. But until recently, he barely ever improvised anything, especially at concerts. To think that a drummer who can't or won't fly by the seat of his pants is better than drummers who do so every show, with grace, poise and style as well as unimaginable chops, doesn't make sense to me. But you could probably say he's the best rock drummer/author/motorcyclist/lyricist. I just don't assume that my favorite choice of anything makes it the best there is. There is plenty out there I haven't been exposed to yet. When I think I've heard "the best," eventually someone inevitably comes along and says, "hey, if you think that's great, you should check out this..." And I may agree it's better once I check it out.

 

Rush have three issues with improvisation: their light show, samples, and us. They have so much synced to light show that improv is basically impossible. They also use so many prerecorded samples that I think it would be very difficult to trigger samples at correct times if they were improvising a lot. Then there's us. I think the majority of rush fans would lose thir minds if rush didn't play their songs almost exactly like the record. For some reason we have accepted the silly changes in tsor and temples though.

 

Agreed, we as fans have placed RUSH in a bottle and not allowed them to expand as writters and musicians at their choosing. Its amazing they came up with Clockwork Angels at all. Heaven forbid they actually record with an actual orchestra someday and create songs like "A Day in the life" "Yesterday" or "All we need is Love". Remove the chains people, Remove the chains!

Edited September 8, 2013 by losingit2k

[Cygnus Xanadu-1]

Impact, accomplishments, songwriting, influence, legacy, sales etc., yes.

Skill, musicianship, longevity, live performances, no.

 

The Beatles are better than Rush if you look at what they achieved, but for the live performance, the musicianship and the all-round niceness, Rush trumps the Beatles.

 

Mind you, Rush actually has a drummer...