Is RUSH better than the Beatles

[goose]

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!

Well, when improve results in things like a reggae Working Man, you can see why fans and the band alike prefer they play it straight.

[coventry]

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.

 

As if a top numerical list is any measure of influence.

 

The Police released 5 albums; Talking Heads released 8; yet each of those artists had a far greater impact on rock music development and legacy than Rush has.

[coventry]

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...

 

Sweet Jesus. Someone still judging music by a musician's virtuosity.

 

Rather than how perfect a fit and complement each musician is to his or her band.

 

As if the Beatles could have gotten anywhere with Neil behind the kit - and vice versa with Rush and Ringo.

[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.

 

As if a top numerical list is any measure of influence.

 

The Police released 5 albums; Talking Heads released 8; yet each of those artists had a far greater impact on rock music development and legacy than Rush has.

 

Um... No.

[Ancient Ways]

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.

 

As if a top numerical list is any measure of influence.

 

The Police released 5 albums; Talking Heads released 8; yet each of those artists had a far greater impact on rock music development and legacy than Rush has.

 

Um... No.

 

The police had an immediate impact but I don't hear too many artists these days saying they were a big influence. Talking heads are still a niche thing. You still hear artists in the 90s and 2000s saying how big an influence rush was such as Trent Reznor, billy corgan, Metallica, foo fighters, etc

[goose]

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.

 

As if a top numerical list is any measure of influence.

 

The Police released 5 albums; Talking Heads released 8; yet each of those artists had a far greater impact on rock music development and legacy than Rush has.

 

Um... No.

 

The police had an immediate impact but I don't hear too many artists these days saying they were a big influence.

You might want to ask a guy named Alex Lifeson.

[LedRush]

Double post. Edited September 9, 2013 by LedRush

[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.

 

As if a top numerical list is any measure of influence.

 

The Police released 5 albums; Talking Heads released 8; yet each of those artists had a far greater impact on rock music development and legacy than Rush has.

 

Um... No.

 

The police had an immediate impact but I don't hear too many artists these days saying they were a big influence.

You might want to ask a guy named Alex Lifeson.

 

Yup. Page, Hendrix, Clapton and Townsend. No mention of Summers or whoever played guitar in the Talking Heads that I remember.

[KenJennings]

Yes. Rush are better than the Beatles.

 

Sadly, those of us who believes this are in the extreme minority.

[KenJennings]

Rush are my favorite band, and even STILL I don't think they're better than The Beatles.

 

Wait, what?

 

If Rush is your favorite band, then how do you not think they're better than The Beatles?

Edited September 9, 2013 by KenJennings

[goose]

 

 

The police had an immediate impact but I don't hear too many artists these days saying they were a big influence.

You might want to ask a guy named Alex Lifeson.

 

Yup. Page, Hendrix, Clapton and Townsend. No mention of Summers or whoever played guitar in the Talking Heads that I remember.

Alex in Guitar World, August, 2007:

GW At the time, how influenced were you by new wave? Many of the songs on the album are short and poppy, at least by Rush standards, and your guitar sounds bear certain similarities to that of Andy Summers.

LIFESON I was very influenced, in many ways. I cut my hair! [laughs] That shocked a lot of our longtime fans who were used to my long, flowing locks. Also, I started dressing cooler, more au courant, wearing bright, colorful blazers and ties. I didn't look like I'd just come from a Renaissance fair. [laughs]

It was time for all of us to change, musically, visually-our entire attitude. The songs got shorter, more accessible. It felt good to become a bit of a new band. We were listening to the Police, and their impact was huge. We saw that a rock trio could do so many different things.

GW However, a hint of that impact was apparent on Permanent Waves-the reggae break in 'The Spirit of Radio' and on 'Vital Signs,' from Moving Pictures.

LIFESON Yep. That was early Police influence. Their rhythms, their sounds- It was as exciting as when Cream came out. For us, it was a matter of using those new wave influences in ways that enhanced, but didn't degrade, what we were doing.

There was the Edge too. What he did with the echo pedal is beyond measure. Yeah, the Edge and Andy Summers were very high on my list in those days. Still are. http://www.guitarworld.com/rush-vital-signs-0?page=0,1

[LedRush]

 

 

The police had an immediate impact but I don't hear too many artists these days saying they were a big influence.

You might want to ask a guy named Alex Lifeson.

 

Yup. Page, Hendrix, Clapton and Townsend. No mention of Summers or whoever played guitar in the Talking Heads that I remember.

Alex in Guitar World, August, 2007:

GW At the time, how influenced were you by new wave? Many of the songs on the album are short and poppy, at least by Rush standards, and your guitar sounds bear certain similarities to that of Andy Summers.

LIFESON I was very influenced, in many ways. I cut my hair! [laughs] That shocked a lot of our longtime fans who were used to my long, flowing locks. Also, I started dressing cooler, more au courant, wearing bright, colorful blazers and ties. I didn't look like I'd just come from a Renaissance fair. [laughs]

It was time for all of us to change, musically, visually-our entire attitude. The songs got shorter, more accessible. It felt good to become a bit of a new band. We were listening to the Police, and their impact was huge. We saw that a rock trio could do so many different things.

GW However, a hint of that impact was apparent on Permanent Waves-the reggae break in 'The Spirit of Radio' and on 'Vital Signs,' from Moving Pictures.

LIFESON Yep. That was early Police influence. Their rhythms, their sounds- It was as exciting as when Cream came out. For us, it was a matter of using those new wave influences in ways that enhanced, but didn't degrade, what we were doing.

There was the Edge too. What he did with the echo pedal is beyond measure. Yeah, the Edge and Andy Summers were very high on my list in those days. Still are. http://www.guitarworld.com/rush-vital-signs-0?page=0,1

 

And Byrne's guitar work?

[Ancient Ways]

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.

 

As if a top numerical list is any measure of influence.

 

The Police released 5 albums; Talking Heads released 8; yet each of those artists had a far greater impact on rock music development and legacy than Rush has.

 

Um... No.

 

The police had an immediate impact but I don't hear too many artists these days saying they were a big influence.

You might want to ask a guy named Alex Lifeson.

 

I don't think Alex has played anything influenced by the police since the 80s (maybe rtb early 90s) but its a fair statement.

[coventry]

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.

 

As if a top numerical list is any measure of influence.

 

The Police released 5 albums; Talking Heads released 8; yet each of those artists had a far greater impact on rock music development and legacy than Rush has.

 

Um... No.

 

The police had an immediate impact but I don't hear too many artists these days saying they were a big influence. Talking heads are still a niche thing. You still hear artists in the 90s and 2000s saying how big an influence rush was such as Trent Reznor, billy corgan, Metallica, foo fighters, etc

 

Warning: snarkiness ahead.

 

Right - it's all about artists in the 2000's. Thank you, Fred Durst and company.

 

And I love when a Rush fan calls Talking Heads a "niche" band. Nice projection.

 

Anyhow, ledrush; um, yes. Any suvey of musicians and music business in terms of which artists have been most influential inevitably ends with the Beatles and the Stones as 1 and 2. And The Police and Talking Heads are up there, usually in the top ten.

 

Please stop being blinded by your idolation. And refer to "Vital Signs", et al, for The Police's influence on Lifeson.

[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.

 

As if a top numerical list is any measure of influence.

 

The Police released 5 albums; Talking Heads released 8; yet each of those artists had a far greater impact on rock music development and legacy than Rush has.

 

Um... No.

 

The police had an immediate impact but I don't hear too many artists these days saying they were a big influence. Talking heads are still a niche thing. You still hear artists in the 90s and 2000s saying how big an influence rush was such as Trent Reznor, billy corgan, Metallica, foo fighters, etc

 

Warning: snarkiness ahead.

 

Right - it's all about artists in the 2000's. Thank you, Fred Durst and company.

 

And I love when a Rush fan calls Talking Heads a "niche" band. Nice projection.

 

Anyhow, ledrush; um, yes. Any suvey of musicians and music business in terms of which artists have been most influential inevitably ends with the Beatles and the Stones as 1 and 2. And The Police and Talking Heads are up there, usually in the top ten.

 

Please stop being blinded by your idolation. And refer to "Vital Signs", et al, for The Police's influence on Lifeson.

 

The Talkin Heads as a top 10 most influential band ever? Ridiculous. Their influence was largely negative and short lived, thankfully for all of us.

[coventry]

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.

 

As if a top numerical list is any measure of influence.

 

The Police released 5 albums; Talking Heads released 8; yet each of those artists had a far greater impact on rock music development and legacy than Rush has.

 

Um... No.

 

The police had an immediate impact but I don't hear too many artists these days saying they were a big influence. Talking heads are still a niche thing. You still hear artists in the 90s and 2000s saying how big an influence rush was such as Trent Reznor, billy corgan, Metallica, foo fighters, etc

 

Warning: snarkiness ahead.

 

Right - it's all about artists in the 2000's. Thank you, Fred Durst and company.

 

And I love when a Rush fan calls Talking Heads a "niche" band. Nice projection.

 

Anyhow, ledrush; um, yes. Any suvey of musicians and music business in terms of which artists have been most influential inevitably ends with the Beatles and the Stones as 1 and 2. And The Police and Talking Heads are up there, usually in the top ten.

 

Please stop being blinded by your idolation. And refer to "Vital Signs", et al, for The Police's influence on Lifeson.

 

The Talkin Heads as a top 10 most influential band ever? Ridiculous. Their influence was largely negative and short lived, thankfully for all of us.

 

Much the same is said about Rush by most people.

 

Anyhow, this is essentially an unarguable point (as in it's too relative to have any true outcome), but yes, Talking Heads influenced rock music with their use of polyrhythms and dynamics. Fred Byrne himself helped start and perpetuate music minimalism -- something Rush has never subscribed to.

[GeddysMullet]

Rush are my favorite band, and even STILL I don't think they're better than The Beatles.

 

Wait, what?

 

If Rush is your favorite band, then how do you not think they're better than The Beatles?

 

Because "best" and "favourite" are not synonymous, and some people know it.

[snowdogged]

Camelot, tis a silly place. Edited September 9, 2013 by snowdogged

[Xanadoood]

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.

 

As if a top numerical list is any measure of influence.

 

The Police released 5 albums; Talking Heads released 8; yet each of those artists had a far greater impact on rock music development and legacy than Rush has.

 

Um... No.

 

The police had an immediate impact but I don't hear too many artists these days saying they were a big influence. Talking heads are still a niche thing. You still hear artists in the 90s and 2000s saying how big an influence rush was such as Trent Reznor, billy corgan, Metallica, foo fighters, etc

 

Warning: snarkiness ahead.

 

Right - it's all about artists in the 2000's. Thank you, Fred Durst and company.

 

And I love when a Rush fan calls Talking Heads a "niche" band. Nice projection.

 

Anyhow, ledrush; um, yes. Any suvey of musicians and music business in terms of which artists have been most influential inevitably ends with the Beatles and the Stones as 1 and 2. And The Police and Talking Heads are up there, usually in the top ten.

 

Please stop being blinded by your idolation. And refer to "Vital Signs", et al, for The Police's influence on Lifeson.

 

The Talkin Heads as a top 10 most influential band ever? Ridiculous. Their influence was largely negative and short lived, thankfully for all of us.

 

Much the same is said about Rush by most people.

 

Anyhow, this is essentially an unarguable point (as in it's too relative to have any true outcome), but yes, Talking Heads influenced rock music with their use of polyrhythms and dynamics. Fred Byrne himself helped start and perpetuate music minimalism -- something Rush has never subscribed to.

 

Not a big Rush fan, hah?

[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.

 

As if a top numerical list is any measure of influence.

 

The Police released 5 albums; Talking Heads released 8; yet each of those artists had a far greater impact on rock music development and legacy than Rush has.

 

Um... No.

 

The police had an immediate impact but I don't hear too many artists these days saying they were a big influence. Talking heads are still a niche thing. You still hear artists in the 90s and 2000s saying how big an influence rush was such as Trent Reznor, billy corgan, Metallica, foo fighters, etc

 

Warning: snarkiness ahead.

 

Right - it's all about artists in the 2000's. Thank you, Fred Durst and company.

 

And I love when a Rush fan calls Talking Heads a "niche" band. Nice projection.

 

Anyhow, ledrush; um, yes. Any suvey of musicians and music business in terms of which artists have been most influential inevitably ends with the Beatles and the Stones as 1 and 2. And The Police and Talking Heads are up there, usually in the top ten.

 

Please stop being blinded by your idolation. And refer to "Vital Signs", et al, for The Police's influence on Lifeson.

 

The Talkin Heads as a top 10 most influential band ever? Ridiculous. Their influence was largely negative and short lived, thankfully for all of us.

 

Much the same is said about Rush by most people.

 

Anyhow, this is essentially an unarguable point (as in it's too relative to have any true outcome), but yes, Talking Heads influenced rock music with their use of polyrhythms and dynamics. Fred Byrne himself helped start and perpetuate music minimalism -- something Rush has never subscribed to.

 

No, that's not what most people say. Most people say "I recognize they are great musicians and influence tons of other musicians, but I just can't get into them. The chick who sings for them is grating on the ears." Or, "Rush was great and influential in the beginning, but what the hell happened to them in the 80s? That synth stuff sucked."

[rushgoober]

Rush are my favorite band, and even STILL I don't think they're better than The Beatles.

 

Wait, what?

 

If Rush is your favorite band, then how do you not think they're better than The Beatles?

 

Because "best" and "favourite" are not synonymous, and some people know it.

 

Exactly. I'm not letting personal bias get in the way of obvious truth. The Beatles changed the music industry forever. They're albums are extremely important. Their influence is incalcuable. They managed to make dozens of brilliant songs that are catchy, extremely accessible and spoke to countless millions of people. Almost none of that can be said of Rush. Yes, I personally have a bias towards them, but The Beatles are better in so many ways. Seriously, if you asked Geddy, Alex & Neil if they were better than The Beatles, they'd just say no after laughing hysterically for five straight minutes. Even they would know they're not The Beatles. They're a phenomenal band, but NO ONE did what The Beatles did. The only groups that could possibly come close in terms of massive influence, accessibility AND quality are Zep and Floyd.

Edited September 9, 2013 by rushgoober

[greyfriar]

... The only groups that could possibly come close in terms of massive influence, accessibility AND quality are Zep and Floyd.

 

Stones?

The Who?

[KenJennings]

Rush are my favorite band, and even STILL I don't think they're better than The Beatles.

 

Wait, what?

 

If Rush is your favorite band, then how do you not think they're better than The Beatles?

 

Because "best" and "favourite" are not synonymous, and some people know it.

 

When you're talking about something entirely subjective such as the enjoyment of music, yes they are synonymous.

[KenJennings]

Rush are my favorite band, and even STILL I don't think they're better than The Beatles.

 

Wait, what?

 

If Rush is your favorite band, then how do you not think they're better than The Beatles?

 

Because "best" and "favourite" are not synonymous, and some people know it.

 

Exactly. I'm not letting personal bias get in the way of obvious truth. The Beatles changed the music industry forever. They're albums are extremely important. Their influence is incalcuable. They managed to make dozens of brilliant songs that are catchy, extremely accessible and spoke to countless millions of people. Almost none of that can be said of Rush. Yes, I personally have a bias towards them, but The Beatles are better in so many ways. Seriously, if you asked Geddy, Alex & Neil if they were better than The Beatles, they'd just say no after laughing hysterically for five straight minutes. Even they would know they're not The Beatles. They're a phenomenal band, but NO ONE did what The Beatles did. The only groups that could possibly come close in terms of massive influence, accessibility AND quality are Zep and Floyd.

 

But this thread is asking about personal bias. The question is who is about the better band. That is an entirely subjective question, meaning you should only be answering based on your own 'biases'. The question asked for no objective, quantifiable, black and white hard numbers analysis. It asks you who is better. If you think rush is your favorite band, then by definition they are not just better-they are the best.

[LedRush]

Rush are my favorite band, and even STILL I don't think they're better than The Beatles.

 

Wait, what?

 

If Rush is your favorite band, then how do you not think they're better than The Beatles?

 

Because "best" and "favourite" are not synonymous, and some people know it.

 

Exactly. I'm not letting personal bias get in the way of obvious truth. The Beatles changed the music industry forever. They're albums are extremely important. Their influence is incalcuable. They managed to make dozens of brilliant songs that are catchy, extremely accessible and spoke to countless millions of people. Almost none of that can be said of Rush. Yes, I personally have a bias towards them, but The Beatles are better in so many ways. Seriously, if you asked Geddy, Alex & Neil if they were better than The Beatles, they'd just say no after laughing hysterically for five straight minutes. Even they would know they're not The Beatles. They're a phenomenal band, but NO ONE did what The Beatles did. The only groups that could possibly come close in terms of massive influence, accessibility AND quality are Zep and Floyd.

 

But this thread is asking about personal bias. The question is who is about the better band. That is an entirely subjective question, meaning you should only be answering based on your own 'biases'. The question asked for no objective, quantifiable, black and white hard numbers analysis. It asks you who is better. If you think rush is your favorite band, then by definition they are not just better-they are the best.

 

Ah, the old, familiar dance.

 

Step 1: KJ makes a ridiculous statement.

Step 2: Someone points out why it's ridiculous.

Step 3: KJ redefines words in a way they aren't usually used.

Step 4: Someone points this out to KJ.

Step 5: KJ makes a personal attack and avoids the previously made points.

Step 6: Someone points this out to KJ.

Step 7: KJ makes another personal attack and bitches about the other people, and then sulks away.

Step 8: Everyone has a good laugh at KJ's expense.

 

In the instant case, most people look beyond what they like in determining which band is better. For me, I look to musicianship, influence, and song quality, among other factors. I may like Rush more than Zeppelin, but they are close on song quality and musicianship, and Zeppelin crushes Rush in influence, so I'd go with Zeppelin.