Is RUSH better than the Beatles

[bathory]

how did talking heads have a negative influence? have you even heard any of their albums?

[bathory]

I swear, I'm beginning to think that you must be able to talk out of your ass to be allowed on this forum

[LedRush]

how did talking heads have a negative influence? have you even heard any of their albums?

 

I own Speaking in Tongues, Little Creatures and Stop Making Sense. There's a lot of fluff but some killer tunes as well.

 

But the move in the 80s towards synth, poppier songs and simpler music was a negative influence in my book.

[LedRush]

I swear, I'm beginning to think that you must be able to talk out of your ass to be allowed on this forum

 

That explains how you got here :P

[Lerxster]

They shoot horses, don't they?

[rushgoober]

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

 

Stones?

The Who?

 

sorry, yeah, excellent points. i had thought about them previously, just not when i was making that post. anyway, the point is groups who fit in that category are a TINY number of groups, and unfortunately rush ain't one of 'em.

[LedRush]

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

 

Stones?

The Who?

 

sorry, yeah, excellent points. i had thought about them previously, just not when i was making that post. anyway, the point is groups who fit in that category are a TINY number of groups, and unfortunately rush ain't one of 'em.

 

But the Stones and the Who have a lot of filler songs. Most of the Stones' catalogue is filler, and they aren't as good musicians as the other bands, either. I love both of those bands, but they don't hold a candle to Zep or the Beatles. I put Pink Floyd between those groups, and perhaps lower seeing as you've added "accessibility" as a criterium.

[Tony R]

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.

 

 

Alternate reality?

 

[rushgoober]

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

 

Stones?

The Who?

 

sorry, yeah, excellent points. i had thought about them previously, just not when i was making that post. anyway, the point is groups who fit in that category are a TINY number of groups, and unfortunately rush ain't one of 'em.

 

But the Stones and the Who have a lot of filler songs. Most of the Stones' catalogue is filler, and they aren't as good musicians as the other bands, either. I love both of those bands, but they don't hold a candle to Zep or the Beatles. I put Pink Floyd between those groups, and perhaps lower seeing as you've added "accessibility" as a criterium.

 

i agree about the filler for both groups, though the who do have some outstanding albums with almost no or no filler at all, whereas the stones don't. regardless, in terms of sheer influence i can see both those groups being mentioned. still, i don't think either one of them had the consistency of the beatles, zep or floyd.

[greyfriar]

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

 

Stones?

The Who?

 

sorry, yeah, excellent points. i had thought about them previously, just not when i was making that post. anyway, the point is groups who fit in that category are a TINY number of groups, and unfortunately rush ain't one of 'em.

 

But the Stones and the Who have a lot of filler songs. Most of the Stones' catalogue is filler, and they aren't as good musicians as the other bands, either. I love both of those bands, but they don't hold a candle to Zep or the Beatles. I put Pink Floyd between those groups, and perhaps lower seeing as you've added "accessibility" as a criterium.

 

i agree about the filler for both groups, though the who do have some outstanding albums with almost no or no filler at all, whereas the stones don't. regardless, in terms of sheer influence i can see both those groups being mentioned. still, i don't think either one of them had the consistency of the beatles, zep or floyd.

Personally I would rate The Who higher than the Stones. I think they have a bunch of very good albums where I can't see any filler songs. I'm talking of Tommy, Quadrophenia, Who's Next and Who Are You.

In the end music is always a matter of taste, that we love to enjoy and discuss.

[LedRush]

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

 

Stones?

The Who?

 

sorry, yeah, excellent points. i had thought about them previously, just not when i was making that post. anyway, the point is groups who fit in that category are a TINY number of groups, and unfortunately rush ain't one of 'em.

 

But the Stones and the Who have a lot of filler songs. Most of the Stones' catalogue is filler, and they aren't as good musicians as the other bands, either. I love both of those bands, but they don't hold a candle to Zep or the Beatles. I put Pink Floyd between those groups, and perhaps lower seeing as you've added "accessibility" as a criterium.

 

i agree about the filler for both groups, though the who do have some outstanding albums with almost no or no filler at all, whereas the stones don't. regardless, in terms of sheer influence i can see both those groups being mentioned. still, i don't think either one of them had the consistency of the beatles, zep or floyd.

 

Agreed on all points.

[LedRush]

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

 

Stones?

The Who?

 

sorry, yeah, excellent points. i had thought about them previously, just not when i was making that post. anyway, the point is groups who fit in that category are a TINY number of groups, and unfortunately rush ain't one of 'em.

 

But the Stones and the Who have a lot of filler songs. Most of the Stones' catalogue is filler, and they aren't as good musicians as the other bands, either. I love both of those bands, but they don't hold a candle to Zep or the Beatles. I put Pink Floyd between those groups, and perhaps lower seeing as you've added "accessibility" as a criterium.

 

i agree about the filler for both groups, though the who do have some outstanding albums with almost no or no filler at all, whereas the stones don't. regardless, in terms of sheer influence i can see both those groups being mentioned. still, i don't think either one of them had the consistency of the beatles, zep or floyd.

Personally I would rate The Who higher than the Stones. I think they have a bunch of very good albums where I can't see any filler songs. I'm talking of Tommy, Quadrophenia, Who's Next and Who Are You.

In the end music is always a matter of taste, that we love to enjoy and discuss.

 

Agreed.

[New Digital Man]

The problem i have here is the word 'better' and perhaps someone can define what this actually means in the context of this thread? I don't particularly like the Beatles but i can understand why they would appeal to many people musically and i appreciate their genius as i do with many other artists even if they're not my thing! i think it's ridiculous somehow trying to compare two completely different styles of music which have little in common, you might as well say is Rush better than Bob Marley for all they have in common and so on! Just noticed the post above where the poster states that he would rate the Who higher than the Stones! Higher? Wtf does higher mean? I don't get it! Edited September 9, 2013 by New Digital Man

[LedRush]

The problem i have here is the word 'better' and perhaps someone can define what this actually means in the context of this thread? I don't particularly like the Beatles but i can understand why they would appeal to many people musically and i appreciate their genius as i do with many other artists even if they're not my thing! i think it's ridiculous somehow trying to compare two completely different styles of music which have little in common, you might as well say is Rush better than Bob Marley for all they have in common and so on! Just noticed the post above where the poster states that he would rate the Who higher than the Stones! Higher? Wtf does higher mean? I don't get it!

 

Like I and others have done, define "better" for yourself and then answer. Or dont. This is supposed to be fun.

Edited September 10, 2013 by LedRush

[snowdogged]

Rush covered a Beatles song but The Beatles never covered a Rush song.

 

End of discussion.

 

Thread closed

[Chicken hawk]

:rush:

[rushgoober]

The problem i have here is the word 'better' and perhaps someone can define what this actually means in the context of this thread? I don't particularly like the Beatles but i can understand why they would appeal to many people musically and i appreciate their genius as i do with many other artists even if they're not my thing! i think it's ridiculous somehow trying to compare two completely different styles of music which have little in common, you might as well say is Rush better than Bob Marley for all they have in common and so on! Just noticed the post above where the poster states that he would rate the Who higher than the Stones! Higher? Wtf does higher mean? I don't get it!

 

Like I and others have done, define "better" for yourself and then answer. Of dont. This is supposed to be fun.

 

No, it's serious. DEADLY serious.

[snowdogged]

The problem i have here is the word 'better' and perhaps someone can define what this actually means in the context of this thread? I don't particularly like the Beatles but i can understand why they would appeal to many people musically and i appreciate their genius as i do with many other artists even if they're not my thing! i think it's ridiculous somehow trying to compare two completely different styles of music which have little in common, you might as well say is Rush better than Bob Marley for all they have in common and so on! Just noticed the post above where the poster states that he would rate the Who higher than the Stones! Higher? Wtf does higher mean? I don't get it!

 

Like I and others have done, define "better" for yourself and then answer. Of dont. This is supposed to be fun.

 

No, it's serious. DEADLY serious.

Everything that you like is "DEADLY serious". ;)

[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.

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. ;)

15 pages of thread shows that there is no 'obvious truth' with this. It's simply a matter of which you LIKE more. 'The sun is hot' is an obvious truth....or is that 'fact'?

[LedRush]

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. ;)

15 pages of thread shows that there is no 'obvious truth' with this. It's simply a matter of which you LIKE more. 'The sun is hot' is an obvious truth....or is that 'fact'?

 

The sun is not hot compared to many other stars. :D

[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

 

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.

 

Why is it possible for most of us to have a civilized discussion while some of us just can't handle it? You are entitled to your opinion but you can turn it down a couple notches and be a bit more effective. Anyways, I'm a talking heads fan. But, I recognize they are an unknown to most people these days and I just don't hear people these days referencing them as an influence. It's not all about the 2000s or Fred durst.

[Ancient Ways]

The problem i have here is the word 'better' and perhaps someone can define what this actually means in the context of this thread? I don't particularly like the Beatles but i can understand why they would appeal to many people musically and i appreciate their genius as i do with many other artists even if they're not my thing! i think it's ridiculous somehow trying to compare two completely different styles of music which have little in common, you might as well say is Rush better than Bob Marley for all they have in common and so on! Just noticed the post above where the poster states that he would rate the Who higher than the Stones! Higher? Wtf does higher mean? I don't get it!

 

Only the OP can explain why they chose the word better. The rest of us are just stuck with it.

[bathory]

smoke some bud yall

[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.

 

Why is it possible for most of us to have a civilized discussion while some of us just can't handle it? You are entitled to your opinion but you can turn it down a couple notches and be a bit more effective. Anyways, I'm a talking heads fan. But, I recognize they are an unknown to most people these days and I just don't hear people these days referencing them as an influence. It's not all about the 2000s or Fred durst.

 

I thought I was being firm but fair. Seriously, ancientways, if you think this particular discussion isn't "civilized", you're a bit myopic. We're all disagreeing - some vehemently, some passively-agressive, some snarkily - but at the end of the day we'd probably be quite happy having a beer together and listening to the band that brought us here.

 

And i still disagree in that Talking Heads may be unknown to "most people". Um, whom? What demographic? If you're talkiong about the bubble-gum, vanilla music audience, then yes. But amongst musicians, music-lovers, and artists, Fred Byrne and his legacy live on quite strong.

 

And if people aren't mentioning them as much it's because their influenced has been internalized over the past three decades - the same way most musicians wouldn't say The Beatles were an influence, forgetting that The Beatles' influence has become such an impermeable weave into the pattern of our culture as to be indistinguishable from the very fabric it's part of.

[Grover]

I enjoy Rush more and listen to Rush way more. The Beatles had the ability to write hooks and draw in a listener. At first they were catchy but there was a lot of fluff. They developed into better songwriters and I would consider them ahead of Rush in the ability to write somewhat simple but great songs. This does reach the masses but also lasts. Complex bands or composers do not usually gain lasting fame with those pieces. Some of Led Zeppelin's more popular pieces are not the most complex or my favorites.