Is RUSH better than the Beatles

[Hatchetaxe&saw]

Let's talk sentiment in a song performance. The Beatles "In My Life". A wonderful song. Let's compare a Rush song, something like "Nobody's Hero". To my ears, Rush is clumsy, they shot high and missed, especially lyrically. "In My Life" works on so many levels - musically, lyrically, emoitionally. One example on how The Beatles were better songwriters than Rush.

 

In My Life is a hymn for the ages. Nobody's Hero is a cack-handed mess.

 

 

And Revolution #9 is truly appalling. Piggies sounds like Close To The Edge in comparison.

 

wow, i didn't even catch that you just threw nobody's hero under the bus.

 

oddly, even though i absolutely LOVE nobody's hero, you've again proven why The Beatles are so much better. There are countless Beatles songs that truly speak to a generation, that are timeless and infinitely accessible. When Rush tries that, they get Nobody's Hero and the like. I diagree with you and think it's a GREAT song, but they simply cannot accomplish what The Beatles did. The closest song I can think of that could speak to the masses in an accessible way that The Beatles did all the time is Closer to the Heart - there's a reason that song has such enduring popularity and is such an anthemic sing a long popular song. Rush didn't make many of those, however, with that much crossover appeal.

 

I like the melody of Nobody's Hero, but the lyrics make it unlistenable, and Kamen's strings are unctuous & cloying.

 

They should have gotten George Martin to arrange the strings!

 

Reverend!

 

Considering how bang on they got the strings in CA, I'm surprised they went with Kamen's "kitchen-sink" approach. He was the arranger for hire in the 90s I suppose.

[ReRushed]

Let's talk sentiment in a song performance. The Beatles "In My Life". A wonderful song. Let's compare a Rush song, something like "Nobody's Hero". To my ears, Rush is clumsy, they shot high and missed, especially lyrically. "In My Life" works on so many levels - musically, lyrically, emoitionally. One example on how The Beatles were better songwriters than Rush.

 

In My Life is a hymn for the ages. Nobody's Hero is a cack-handed mess.

 

 

And Revolution #9 is truly appalling. Piggies sounds like Close To The Edge in comparison.

 

wow, i didn't even catch that you just threw nobody's hero under the bus.

 

oddly, even though i absolutely LOVE nobody's hero, you've again proven why The Beatles are so much better. There are countless Beatles songs that truly speak to a generation, that are timeless and infinitely accessible. When Rush tries that, they get Nobody's Hero and the like. I diagree with you and think it's a GREAT song, but they simply cannot accomplish what The Beatles did. The closest song I can think of that could speak to the masses in an accessible way that The Beatles did all the time is Closer to the Heart - there's a reason that song has such enduring popularity and is such an anthemic sing a long popular song. Rush didn't make many of those, however, with that much crossover appeal.

 

I like the melody of Nobody's Hero, but the lyrics make it unlistenable, and Kamen's strings are unctuous & cloying.

 

They should have gotten George Martin to arrange the strings!

 

Reverend!

 

Considering how bang on they got the strings in CA, I'm surprised they went with Kamen's "kitchen-sink" approach. He was the arranger for hire in the 90s I suppose.

 

Live and learn. Maybe they first learned what not to do with strings.

[rushgoober]

When I was a kid listening to the Beatles I danced around and shook my head, then they scared the crap out of me with "Revolution 9". Yep, they shaped my musical universe.

 

I always found it incredibly fascinating. It really made you take notice. I mean who makes a song like that, even then, and especially a group like The Beatles that were the biggest band in the world. It takes guts to go that far outisde of the box and experiment so wildly when under such an emormous spotlight.

 

Tape loops and sound collages were on the radar in 1968. Steve Reich, for example. Zappa also played around with the recording studio. But The Beatles had the guts to put it on a "pop" album. They balanced so many things, so many genres, and did so convincingly. Yes, they weren't the only ones experimenting, but they were under a microscope and scurtiny that artists like Zappa and Captain Beefheart weren't.

 

Very, very true, and I knew I was being somewhat inaccurate in my post as I'm a huge fan of 60's psychedelic music. I know that Zappa and Beefheart and actually TONS of other people were experimenting pretty wildly and going pretty far outside of the box, but Revolution 9 was among the MOST out there tracks of the era, and was one of the most non-musical tracks imaginable by the most well known musicians in the world. It might not have been quite as outrageous an experiment since it wasn't completely unprecedented, but to be done by a group of that stature was pretty unprecedented. Even a song like Helter Skelter was pretty revolutionary, even though there were other groups out there making very heavy music at the time like Blue Cheer, etc.

Edited September 10, 2013 by rushgoober

[LedRush]

the only two bands I will listen to all their songs... yes including I think I'm going bald and Why don't we do it in the road...

 

 

Bullshit. No one listens to Revolution 9. And how does Why Don't We Do It in the Road get singled out over the early covers or #9?

 

Revolution 9 is LITERALLY one of my top 2 favorite Beatles songs right up there with A Day In The Life. An absolutely BRILLIANT sound collage that was so far ahead of its time, its time hasn't even arrived yet (although groups like Zoviet France and The Hafler Trio make really great music), or anyone who's tried to duplicate something like that has generally failed. Pink Floyd's Heart Beat, Pig Meat is pretty great in a similar vein, though much shorter and slightly less ambitious.

 

Of course you do.

 

Of course you DON'T.

 

I've never heard it played on the radio, I've never met anyone who likes it, and I can't think of a situation in which I would be happy that the song pops up. I guess you could treat it like a piece of modern art and listen to it by yourself trying to analyze it for some meaning. And if that's your thing, that's great, I guess. But in any social situation the song is just a mood killer, almost along the lines of Yokos solo work, though those things are usually at least structurally songs. Honestly, I don't consider #9 a song at all. It's more like an editing mistake.

 

And if his thread is going to become a defense of that non-song, it really proves how far people will go to put any crap that the Beatles did onto a pedestal. Next someone will argue that Whole Lotta Yoko is the best work on Rolling Stones Rock and Roll Circus.

You're the one who keeps coming back at it and you seem to be the only one that doesn't like it. Most Rush songs have never been played on most radio stations. Your arguments are just laughable.

 

First hit in google:

http://www.telegraph...atles-song.html

 

Second hit

http://www.thetopten...-beatles-songs/

 

Third hit

 

http://blogs.houston...s_of.php?page=2

 

 

It was in every too 10 list if worst songs I saw. And the criticism was scathing. On lists where it wasn't number one, it seemed that people weren't really counting it as a song.

 

Listen, I know these lists are stupid, and of course tastes are subjective. But I really have a hard time believing that people don't recognize that #9 is among the least liked songs the Beatles ever made, and probably would hold the top spot.

 

What's the difference if it's one of their most popular songs or not? Is popularity now your barometer for whether something is great or not? Among your precious latter day Rush from Presto through Vapor Trails, guess which album is the mostly highly regarded, and by a significant margin? That's right, it's Counterparts, the bane of your existence. Do you suddenly love it now because it's the most highly regarded?

 

http://rateyourmusic.com/artist/rush

 

I made a joke about it being not popular, and people pushed back. Counterparts is demonstrably less popular than RTB, but you're right that it doesn't effect how much I like the music.

 

Did you click on the link above? For Roll the Bones, 1,335 people voted on it and the aggregate rating out of 5 is 3.25. For Counterparts, 1,358 people voted on it and the aggregate rating out of 5 is 3.52. And there it is, demonstrably.

 

About 1.5 million people voted with their wallets to buy RTB, while about 1.1 million voted to buy CP. The singles charted better and sold more copies. The songs were played on the radio more. I'll take sample sizes in the millions over a small group of hardcore fans on a niche website when discussing wide popularity, thank you very much.

 

Give me a f*cking break. Album sales are NO barometer at all of quality. There's no way in hell you really believe that, do you? By that measure, Moving Pictures is 3 times better than Hemispheres, 2112 is twice as good as Permanent Waves, etc. It's all here in YOUR thread:

 

http://www.therushfo...e__hl__platinum

 

I would go on to say that then Moving Pictures is 12 times better than VT, but you would cry unfair - albums don't sell as well these days. And that's EXACTLY my point - there are 800 different factors why a given album sells better than another. If you really want to go down this route, here's another example - according to your "theory" Led Zeppelin III is equal to In Through The Out Door. Both of them sold 6 million copies in the U.S. Are you REALLY going to say each album is as equally popular? Titanic made $658 million domestically. The Shawshank Redemption made $28 million. Is Titanic 23 times better Shawshank? Do you see how ridiculous your argument is?

 

Only you could stare 1,300 plus votes in the face and say the results are wrong because you disagree with them. I don't care how many copies of an album sold - what do people actually think of them once they own them?

 

And of course, who really gives a shit? If you like an album better, it doesn't and shouldn't matter what anyone else says, but when you go around saying that one album is demonstrably less popular than another and can't back it up, I'm going to call you on it.

 

I didn't read your post because I was talking about what is popular. Sales numbers and chart positions demonstrate popularity. Rankings done by a tiny number of self-selected rush fans on a niche site don't.

 

:LMAO:

 

yes, i used YOUR sales numbers from YOUR thread to show how ludicrous your argument was.

 

you didn't read my post? really, THAT'S your response? you should, as i absolutely DEMOLISHED your argument. or did you read it and you were so owned by it that you pretended not to read it? either way: :crazy:

 

i guess there's no response to crazy. :eyeroll:

 

Holy crap that was dumb. I thought it was a show, but judging by your self-congratulatory antics, it's not.

 

Anyway, I was talking about popularity. Sales numbers are highly relevant in that discussion. You brought up some small, random site from the Internet to inject quality into the discussion of popularity, and then confused the difference between the two. I dismissed this as off topic because I was referring to popularity, not quality. You doubled down on crazy, and ranted and raved about how sales doesn't equate to being quality, but then you oddly argue that you have refuted my arguments on popularity by showing how sales don't equal quality. It's so weird you can't make it up! You write as if you are two different people having an argument with yourself, except it's all jumbled together.

 

Anyway, as I said before, sales numbers and chart positions are good indicators of popularity. Rankings done by a tiny number of self-selected rush fans on a niche site aren't.

 

All this because I made a joke about how unpopular #9 is. Geez people need to mellow the f**k out.

 

[rushgoober]

Let's talk sentiment in a song performance. The Beatles "In My Life". A wonderful song. Let's compare a Rush song, something like "Nobody's Hero". To my ears, Rush is clumsy, they shot high and missed, especially lyrically. "In My Life" works on so many levels - musically, lyrically, emoitionally. One example on how The Beatles were better songwriters than Rush.

 

In My Life is a hymn for the ages. Nobody's Hero is a cack-handed mess.

 

 

And Revolution #9 is truly appalling. Piggies sounds like Close To The Edge in comparison.

 

wow, i didn't even catch that you just threw nobody's hero under the bus.

 

oddly, even though i absolutely LOVE nobody's hero, you've again proven why The Beatles are so much better. There are countless Beatles songs that truly speak to a generation, that are timeless and infinitely accessible. When Rush tries that, they get Nobody's Hero and the like. I diagree with you and think it's a GREAT song, but they simply cannot accomplish what The Beatles did. The closest song I can think of that could speak to the masses in an accessible way that The Beatles did all the time is Closer to the Heart - there's a reason that song has such enduring popularity and is such an anthemic sing a long popular song. Rush didn't make many of those, however, with that much crossover appeal.

 

I like the melody of Nobody's Hero, but the lyrics make it unlistenable, and Kamen's strings are unctuous & cloying.

 

They should have gotten George Martin to arrange the strings!

 

Reverend!

 

Considering how bang on they got the strings in CA, I'm surprised they went with Kamen's "kitchen-sink" approach. He was the arranger for hire in the 90s I suppose.

 

Live and learn. Maybe they first learned what not to do with strings.

 

IDK, all personal taste I guess. I think Nobody's Hero's lyrics were awesome and they really spoke to me. I love Nobody's Hero more than any individual track on CA, though there were definitely some great tracks on that album.

[Hatchetaxe&saw]

Let's talk sentiment in a song performance. The Beatles "In My Life". A wonderful song. Let's compare a Rush song, something like "Nobody's Hero". To my ears, Rush is clumsy, they shot high and missed, especially lyrically. "In My Life" works on so many levels - musically, lyrically, emoitionally. One example on how The Beatles were better songwriters than Rush.

 

In My Life is a hymn for the ages. Nobody's Hero is a cack-handed mess.

 

 

And Revolution #9 is truly appalling. Piggies sounds like Close To The Edge in comparison.

 

wow, i didn't even catch that you just threw nobody's hero under the bus.

 

oddly, even though i absolutely LOVE nobody's hero, you've again proven why The Beatles are so much better. There are countless Beatles songs that truly speak to a generation, that are timeless and infinitely accessible. When Rush tries that, they get Nobody's Hero and the like. I diagree with you and think it's a GREAT song, but they simply cannot accomplish what The Beatles did. The closest song I can think of that could speak to the masses in an accessible way that The Beatles did all the time is Closer to the Heart - there's a reason that song has such enduring popularity and is such an anthemic sing a long popular song. Rush didn't make many of those, however, with that much crossover appeal.

 

I like the melody of Nobody's Hero, but the lyrics make it unlistenable, and Kamen's strings are unctuous & cloying.

 

They should have gotten George Martin to arrange the strings!

 

Reverend!

 

Considering how bang on they got the strings in CA, I'm surprised they went with Kamen's "kitchen-sink" approach. He was the arranger for hire in the 90s I suppose.

 

Live and learn. Maybe they first learned what not to do with strings.

 

IDK, all personal taste I guess. I think Nobody's Hero's lyrics were awesome and they really spoke to me. I love Nobody's Hero more than any individual track on CA, though there were definitely some great tracks on that album.

 

It's a funny album, CP. I LOVE Everyday Glory, but Stick It Out is one of the worst songs I've ever heard. It's a f***ing mess. Yet, people love it. Huzzah for differences!

[rushgoober]

the only two bands I will listen to all their songs... yes including I think I'm going bald and Why don't we do it in the road...

 

 

Bullshit. No one listens to Revolution 9. And how does Why Don't We Do It in the Road get singled out over the early covers or #9?

 

Revolution 9 is LITERALLY one of my top 2 favorite Beatles songs right up there with A Day In The Life. An absolutely BRILLIANT sound collage that was so far ahead of its time, its time hasn't even arrived yet (although groups like Zoviet France and The Hafler Trio make really great music), or anyone who's tried to duplicate something like that has generally failed. Pink Floyd's Heart Beat, Pig Meat is pretty great in a similar vein, though much shorter and slightly less ambitious.

 

Of course you do.

 

Of course you DON'T.

 

I've never heard it played on the radio, I've never met anyone who likes it, and I can't think of a situation in which I would be happy that the song pops up. I guess you could treat it like a piece of modern art and listen to it by yourself trying to analyze it for some meaning. And if that's your thing, that's great, I guess. But in any social situation the song is just a mood killer, almost along the lines of Yokos solo work, though those things are usually at least structurally songs. Honestly, I don't consider #9 a song at all. It's more like an editing mistake.

 

And if his thread is going to become a defense of that non-song, it really proves how far people will go to put any crap that the Beatles did onto a pedestal. Next someone will argue that Whole Lotta Yoko is the best work on Rolling Stones Rock and Roll Circus.

You're the one who keeps coming back at it and you seem to be the only one that doesn't like it. Most Rush songs have never been played on most radio stations. Your arguments are just laughable.

 

First hit in google:

http://www.telegraph...atles-song.html

 

Second hit

http://www.thetopten...-beatles-songs/

 

Third hit

 

http://blogs.houston...s_of.php?page=2

 

 

It was in every too 10 list if worst songs I saw. And the criticism was scathing. On lists where it wasn't number one, it seemed that people weren't really counting it as a song.

 

Listen, I know these lists are stupid, and of course tastes are subjective. But I really have a hard time believing that people don't recognize that #9 is among the least liked songs the Beatles ever made, and probably would hold the top spot.

 

What's the difference if it's one of their most popular songs or not? Is popularity now your barometer for whether something is great or not? Among your precious latter day Rush from Presto through Vapor Trails, guess which album is the mostly highly regarded, and by a significant margin? That's right, it's Counterparts, the bane of your existence. Do you suddenly love it now because it's the most highly regarded?

 

http://rateyourmusic.com/artist/rush

 

I made a joke about it being not popular, and people pushed back. Counterparts is demonstrably less popular than RTB, but you're right that it doesn't effect how much I like the music.

 

Did you click on the link above? For Roll the Bones, 1,335 people voted on it and the aggregate rating out of 5 is 3.25. For Counterparts, 1,358 people voted on it and the aggregate rating out of 5 is 3.52. And there it is, demonstrably.

 

About 1.5 million people voted with their wallets to buy RTB, while about 1.1 million voted to buy CP. The singles charted better and sold more copies. The songs were played on the radio more. I'll take sample sizes in the millions over a small group of hardcore fans on a niche website when discussing wide popularity, thank you very much.

 

Give me a f*cking break. Album sales are NO barometer at all of quality. There's no way in hell you really believe that, do you? By that measure, Moving Pictures is 3 times better than Hemispheres, 2112 is twice as good as Permanent Waves, etc. It's all here in YOUR thread:

 

http://www.therushfo...e__hl__platinum

 

I would go on to say that then Moving Pictures is 12 times better than VT, but you would cry unfair - albums don't sell as well these days. And that's EXACTLY my point - there are 800 different factors why a given album sells better than another. If you really want to go down this route, here's another example - according to your "theory" Led Zeppelin III is equal to In Through The Out Door. Both of them sold 6 million copies in the U.S. Are you REALLY going to say each album is as equally popular? Titanic made $658 million domestically. The Shawshank Redemption made $28 million. Is Titanic 23 times better Shawshank? Do you see how ridiculous your argument is?

 

Only you could stare 1,300 plus votes in the face and say the results are wrong because you disagree with them. I don't care how many copies of an album sold - what do people actually think of them once they own them?

 

And of course, who really gives a shit? If you like an album better, it doesn't and shouldn't matter what anyone else says, but when you go around saying that one album is demonstrably less popular than another and can't back it up, I'm going to call you on it.

 

I didn't read your post because I was talking about what is popular. Sales numbers and chart positions demonstrate popularity. Rankings done by a tiny number of self-selected rush fans on a niche site don't.

 

:LMAO:

 

yes, i used YOUR sales numbers from YOUR thread to show how ludicrous your argument was.

 

you didn't read my post? really, THAT'S your response? you should, as i absolutely DEMOLISHED your argument. or did you read it and you were so owned by it that you pretended not to read it? either way: :crazy:

 

i guess there's no response to crazy. :eyeroll:

 

Holy crap that was dumb. I thought it was a show, but judging by your self-congratulatory antics, it's not.

 

Anyway, I was talking about popularity. Sales numbers are highly relevant in that discussion. You brought up some small, random site from the Internet to inject quality into the discussion of popularity, and then confused the difference between the two. I dismissed this as off topic because I was referring to popularity, not quality. You doubled down on crazy, and ranted and raved about how sales doesn't equate to being quality, but then you oddly argue that you have refuted my arguments on popularity by showing how sales don't equal quality. It's so weird you can't make it up! You write as if you are two different people having an argument with yourself, except it's all jumbled together.

 

Anyway, as I said before, sales numbers and chart positions are good indicators of popularity. Rankings done by a tiny number of self-selected rush fans on a niche site aren't.

 

All this because I made a joke about how unpopular #9 is. Geez people need to mellow the f**k out.

 

You're just raving like a lunatic at this point. Self-selected - what kind of crock is that term? Rateyourmusic.com is not a niche site: http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/rateyourmusic.com#trafficstats and http://www.alexa.com/topsites/category/Top/Arts/Music/Reviews

 

You don't want to deal with the fact that you're wrong so you dismiss all evidence that disproves your lunacy. It's fine, you're entitled.

[rushgoober]

Let's talk sentiment in a song performance. The Beatles "In My Life". A wonderful song. Let's compare a Rush song, something like "Nobody's Hero". To my ears, Rush is clumsy, they shot high and missed, especially lyrically. "In My Life" works on so many levels - musically, lyrically, emoitionally. One example on how The Beatles were better songwriters than Rush.

 

In My Life is a hymn for the ages. Nobody's Hero is a cack-handed mess.

 

 

And Revolution #9 is truly appalling. Piggies sounds like Close To The Edge in comparison.

 

wow, i didn't even catch that you just threw nobody's hero under the bus.

 

oddly, even though i absolutely LOVE nobody's hero, you've again proven why The Beatles are so much better. There are countless Beatles songs that truly speak to a generation, that are timeless and infinitely accessible. When Rush tries that, they get Nobody's Hero and the like. I diagree with you and think it's a GREAT song, but they simply cannot accomplish what The Beatles did. The closest song I can think of that could speak to the masses in an accessible way that The Beatles did all the time is Closer to the Heart - there's a reason that song has such enduring popularity and is such an anthemic sing a long popular song. Rush didn't make many of those, however, with that much crossover appeal.

 

I like the melody of Nobody's Hero, but the lyrics make it unlistenable, and Kamen's strings are unctuous & cloying.

 

They should have gotten George Martin to arrange the strings!

 

Reverend!

 

Considering how bang on they got the strings in CA, I'm surprised they went with Kamen's "kitchen-sink" approach. He was the arranger for hire in the 90s I suppose.

 

Live and learn. Maybe they first learned what not to do with strings.

 

IDK, all personal taste I guess. I think Nobody's Hero's lyrics were awesome and they really spoke to me. I love Nobody's Hero more than any individual track on CA, though there were definitely some great tracks on that album.

 

It's a funny album, CP. I LOVE Everyday Glory, but Stick It Out is one of the worst songs I've ever heard. It's a f***ing mess. Yet, people love it. Huzzah for differences!

 

Everyday Glory is for me the weakest song on the album! But I do love the album as a whole.

[LedRush]

Let's talk sentiment in a song performance. The Beatles "In My Life". A wonderful song. Let's compare a Rush song, something like "Nobody's Hero". To my ears, Rush is clumsy, they shot high and missed, especially lyrically. "In My Life" works on so many levels - musically, lyrically, emoitionally. One example on how The Beatles were better songwriters than Rush.

 

In My Life is a hymn for the ages. Nobody's Hero is a cack-handed mess.

 

 

And Revolution #9 is truly appalling. Piggies sounds like Close To The Edge in comparison.

 

wow, i didn't even catch that you just threw nobody's hero under the bus.

 

oddly, even though i absolutely LOVE nobody's hero, you've again proven why The Beatles are so much better. There are countless Beatles songs that truly speak to a generation, that are timeless and infinitely accessible. When Rush tries that, they get Nobody's Hero and the like. I diagree with you and think it's a GREAT song, but they simply cannot accomplish what The Beatles did. The closest song I can think of that could speak to the masses in an accessible way that The Beatles did all the time is Closer to the Heart - there's a reason that song has such enduring popularity and is such an anthemic sing a long popular song. Rush didn't make many of those, however, with that much crossover appeal.

 

I like the melody of Nobody's Hero, but the lyrics make it unlistenable, and Kamen's strings are unctuous & cloying.

 

They should have gotten George Martin to arrange the strings!

 

Reverend!

 

Considering how bang on they got the strings in CA, I'm surprised they went with Kamen's "kitchen-sink" approach. He was the arranger for hire in the 90s I suppose.

 

Live and learn. Maybe they first learned what not to do with strings.

 

IDK, all personal taste I guess. I think Nobody's Hero's lyrics were awesome and they really spoke to me. I love Nobody's Hero more than any individual track on CA, though there were definitely some great tracks on that album.

 

It's a funny album, CP. I LOVE Everyday Glory, but Stick It Out is one of the worst songs I've ever heard. It's a f***ing mess. Yet, people love it. Huzzah for differences!

 

Agreed.

[LedRush]

the only two bands I will listen to all their songs... yes including I think I'm going bald and Why don't we do it in the road...

 

 

Bullshit. No one listens to Revolution 9. And how does Why Don't We Do It in the Road get singled out over the early covers or #9?

 

Revolution 9 is LITERALLY one of my top 2 favorite Beatles songs right up there with A Day In The Life. An absolutely BRILLIANT sound collage that was so far ahead of its time, its time hasn't even arrived yet (although groups like Zoviet France and The Hafler Trio make really great music), or anyone who's tried to duplicate something like that has generally failed. Pink Floyd's Heart Beat, Pig Meat is pretty great in a similar vein, though much shorter and slightly less ambitious.

 

Of course you do.

 

Of course you DON'T.

 

I've never heard it played on the radio, I've never met anyone who likes it, and I can't think of a situation in which I would be happy that the song pops up. I guess you could treat it like a piece of modern art and listen to it by yourself trying to analyze it for some meaning. And if that's your thing, that's great, I guess. But in any social situation the song is just a mood killer, almost along the lines of Yokos solo work, though those things are usually at least structurally songs. Honestly, I don't consider #9 a song at all. It's more like an editing mistake.

 

And if his thread is going to become a defense of that non-song, it really proves how far people will go to put any crap that the Beatles did onto a pedestal. Next someone will argue that Whole Lotta Yoko is the best work on Rolling Stones Rock and Roll Circus.

You're the one who keeps coming back at it and you seem to be the only one that doesn't like it. Most Rush songs have never been played on most radio stations. Your arguments are just laughable.

 

First hit in google:

http://www.telegraph...atles-song.html

 

Second hit

http://www.thetopten...-beatles-songs/

 

Third hit

 

http://blogs.houston...s_of.php?page=2

 

 

It was in every too 10 list if worst songs I saw. And the criticism was scathing. On lists where it wasn't number one, it seemed that people weren't really counting it as a song.

 

Listen, I know these lists are stupid, and of course tastes are subjective. But I really have a hard time believing that people don't recognize that #9 is among the least liked songs the Beatles ever made, and probably would hold the top spot.

 

What's the difference if it's one of their most popular songs or not? Is popularity now your barometer for whether something is great or not? Among your precious latter day Rush from Presto through Vapor Trails, guess which album is the mostly highly regarded, and by a significant margin? That's right, it's Counterparts, the bane of your existence. Do you suddenly love it now because it's the most highly regarded?

 

http://rateyourmusic.com/artist/rush

 

I made a joke about it being not popular, and people pushed back. Counterparts is demonstrably less popular than RTB, but you're right that it doesn't effect how much I like the music.

 

Did you click on the link above? For Roll the Bones, 1,335 people voted on it and the aggregate rating out of 5 is 3.25. For Counterparts, 1,358 people voted on it and the aggregate rating out of 5 is 3.52. And there it is, demonstrably.

 

About 1.5 million people voted with their wallets to buy RTB, while about 1.1 million voted to buy CP. The singles charted better and sold more copies. The songs were played on the radio more. I'll take sample sizes in the millions over a small group of hardcore fans on a niche website when discussing wide popularity, thank you very much.

 

Give me a f*cking break. Album sales are NO barometer at all of quality. There's no way in hell you really believe that, do you? By that measure, Moving Pictures is 3 times better than Hemispheres, 2112 is twice as good as Permanent Waves, etc. It's all here in YOUR thread:

 

http://www.therushfo...e__hl__platinum

 

I would go on to say that then Moving Pictures is 12 times better than VT, but you would cry unfair - albums don't sell as well these days. And that's EXACTLY my point - there are 800 different factors why a given album sells better than another. If you really want to go down this route, here's another example - according to your "theory" Led Zeppelin III is equal to In Through The Out Door. Both of them sold 6 million copies in the U.S. Are you REALLY going to say each album is as equally popular? Titanic made $658 million domestically. The Shawshank Redemption made $28 million. Is Titanic 23 times better Shawshank? Do you see how ridiculous your argument is?

 

Only you could stare 1,300 plus votes in the face and say the results are wrong because you disagree with them. I don't care how many copies of an album sold - what do people actually think of them once they own them?

 

And of course, who really gives a shit? If you like an album better, it doesn't and shouldn't matter what anyone else says, but when you go around saying that one album is demonstrably less popular than another and can't back it up, I'm going to call you on it.

 

I didn't read your post because I was talking about what is popular. Sales numbers and chart positions demonstrate popularity. Rankings done by a tiny number of self-selected rush fans on a niche site don't.

 

:LMAO:

 

yes, i used YOUR sales numbers from YOUR thread to show how ludicrous your argument was.

 

you didn't read my post? really, THAT'S your response? you should, as i absolutely DEMOLISHED your argument. or did you read it and you were so owned by it that you pretended not to read it? either way: :crazy:

 

i guess there's no response to crazy. :eyeroll:

 

Holy crap that was dumb. I thought it was a show, but judging by your self-congratulatory antics, it's not.

 

Anyway, I was talking about popularity. Sales numbers are highly relevant in that discussion. You brought up some small, random site from the Internet to inject quality into the discussion of popularity, and then confused the difference between the two. I dismissed this as off topic because I was referring to popularity, not quality. You doubled down on crazy, and ranted and raved about how sales doesn't equate to being quality, but then you oddly argue that you have refuted my arguments on popularity by showing how sales don't equal quality. It's so weird you can't make it up! You write as if you are two different people having an argument with yourself, except it's all jumbled together.

 

Anyway, as I said before, sales numbers and chart positions are good indicators of popularity. Rankings done by a tiny number of self-selected rush fans on a niche site aren't.

 

All this because I made a joke about how unpopular #9 is. Geez people need to mellow the f**k out.

 

You're just raving like a lunatic at this point. Self-selected - what kind of crock is that term? Rateyourmusic.com is not a niche site: http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/rateyourmusic.com#trafficstats and http://www.alexa.com/topsites/category/Top/Arts/Music/Reviews

 

You don't want to deal with the fact that you're wrong so you dismiss all evidence that disproves your lunacy. It's fine, you're entitled.

 

Let's pretend that the, by definition, self selected voters on the small site actually meant something when deciding how well received Rush albums are. It is irrelevant to my statements on popularity.

[rushgoober]

the only two bands I will listen to all their songs... yes including I think I'm going bald and Why don't we do it in the road...

 

 

Bullshit. No one listens to Revolution 9. And how does Why Don't We Do It in the Road get singled out over the early covers or #9?

 

Revolution 9 is LITERALLY one of my top 2 favorite Beatles songs right up there with A Day In The Life. An absolutely BRILLIANT sound collage that was so far ahead of its time, its time hasn't even arrived yet (although groups like Zoviet France and The Hafler Trio make really great music), or anyone who's tried to duplicate something like that has generally failed. Pink Floyd's Heart Beat, Pig Meat is pretty great in a similar vein, though much shorter and slightly less ambitious.

 

Of course you do.

 

Of course you DON'T.

 

I've never heard it played on the radio, I've never met anyone who likes it, and I can't think of a situation in which I would be happy that the song pops up. I guess you could treat it like a piece of modern art and listen to it by yourself trying to analyze it for some meaning. And if that's your thing, that's great, I guess. But in any social situation the song is just a mood killer, almost along the lines of Yokos solo work, though those things are usually at least structurally songs. Honestly, I don't consider #9 a song at all. It's more like an editing mistake.

 

And if his thread is going to become a defense of that non-song, it really proves how far people will go to put any crap that the Beatles did onto a pedestal. Next someone will argue that Whole Lotta Yoko is the best work on Rolling Stones Rock and Roll Circus.

You're the one who keeps coming back at it and you seem to be the only one that doesn't like it. Most Rush songs have never been played on most radio stations. Your arguments are just laughable.

 

First hit in google:

http://www.telegraph...atles-song.html

 

Second hit

http://www.thetopten...-beatles-songs/

 

Third hit

 

http://blogs.houston...s_of.php?page=2

 

 

It was in every too 10 list if worst songs I saw. And the criticism was scathing. On lists where it wasn't number one, it seemed that people weren't really counting it as a song.

 

Listen, I know these lists are stupid, and of course tastes are subjective. But I really have a hard time believing that people don't recognize that #9 is among the least liked songs the Beatles ever made, and probably would hold the top spot.

 

What's the difference if it's one of their most popular songs or not? Is popularity now your barometer for whether something is great or not? Among your precious latter day Rush from Presto through Vapor Trails, guess which album is the mostly highly regarded, and by a significant margin? That's right, it's Counterparts, the bane of your existence. Do you suddenly love it now because it's the most highly regarded?

 

http://rateyourmusic.com/artist/rush

 

I made a joke about it being not popular, and people pushed back. Counterparts is demonstrably less popular than RTB, but you're right that it doesn't effect how much I like the music.

 

Did you click on the link above? For Roll the Bones, 1,335 people voted on it and the aggregate rating out of 5 is 3.25. For Counterparts, 1,358 people voted on it and the aggregate rating out of 5 is 3.52. And there it is, demonstrably.

 

About 1.5 million people voted with their wallets to buy RTB, while about 1.1 million voted to buy CP. The singles charted better and sold more copies. The songs were played on the radio more. I'll take sample sizes in the millions over a small group of hardcore fans on a niche website when discussing wide popularity, thank you very much.

 

Give me a f*cking break. Album sales are NO barometer at all of quality. There's no way in hell you really believe that, do you? By that measure, Moving Pictures is 3 times better than Hemispheres, 2112 is twice as good as Permanent Waves, etc. It's all here in YOUR thread:

 

http://www.therushfo...e__hl__platinum

 

I would go on to say that then Moving Pictures is 12 times better than VT, but you would cry unfair - albums don't sell as well these days. And that's EXACTLY my point - there are 800 different factors why a given album sells better than another. If you really want to go down this route, here's another example - according to your "theory" Led Zeppelin III is equal to In Through The Out Door. Both of them sold 6 million copies in the U.S. Are you REALLY going to say each album is as equally popular? Titanic made $658 million domestically. The Shawshank Redemption made $28 million. Is Titanic 23 times better Shawshank? Do you see how ridiculous your argument is?

 

Only you could stare 1,300 plus votes in the face and say the results are wrong because you disagree with them. I don't care how many copies of an album sold - what do people actually think of them once they own them?

 

And of course, who really gives a shit? If you like an album better, it doesn't and shouldn't matter what anyone else says, but when you go around saying that one album is demonstrably less popular than another and can't back it up, I'm going to call you on it.

 

I didn't read your post because I was talking about what is popular. Sales numbers and chart positions demonstrate popularity. Rankings done by a tiny number of self-selected rush fans on a niche site don't.

 

:LMAO:

 

yes, i used YOUR sales numbers from YOUR thread to show how ludicrous your argument was.

 

you didn't read my post? really, THAT'S your response? you should, as i absolutely DEMOLISHED your argument. or did you read it and you were so owned by it that you pretended not to read it? either way: :crazy:

 

i guess there's no response to crazy. :eyeroll:

 

Holy crap that was dumb. I thought it was a show, but judging by your self-congratulatory antics, it's not.

 

Anyway, I was talking about popularity. Sales numbers are highly relevant in that discussion. You brought up some small, random site from the Internet to inject quality into the discussion of popularity, and then confused the difference between the two. I dismissed this as off topic because I was referring to popularity, not quality. You doubled down on crazy, and ranted and raved about how sales doesn't equate to being quality, but then you oddly argue that you have refuted my arguments on popularity by showing how sales don't equal quality. It's so weird you can't make it up! You write as if you are two different people having an argument with yourself, except it's all jumbled together.

 

Anyway, as I said before, sales numbers and chart positions are good indicators of popularity. Rankings done by a tiny number of self-selected rush fans on a niche site aren't.

 

All this because I made a joke about how unpopular #9 is. Geez people need to mellow the f**k out.

 

You're just raving like a lunatic at this point. Self-selected - what kind of crock is that term? Rateyourmusic.com is not a niche site: http://www.alexa.com...om#trafficstats and http://www.alexa.com...s/Music/Reviews

 

You don't want to deal with the fact that you're wrong so you dismiss all evidence that disproves your lunacy. It's fine, you're entitled.

 

Let's pretend that the, by definition, self selected voters on the small site actually meant something when deciding how well received Rush albums are. It is irrelevant to my statements on popularity.

 

 

And still after all that complete insanity, Counterparts is a FAR better album than RTB, but enjoy your little fantasyland where that's not only incorrect, but you've proven it. :crazy:

 

Again, I guess there's no response to crazy.

[Lerxster]

You know, it's acknowledged that The Beatles, though respected by the members of Rush, are not a major influence on Rush. But, I dig the fact that on the R30 Tour during the end of "The Trees" Alex played the riffs to "I Feel Fine" and "Day Tripper":

 

http://www.musicintheabstract.org/rush-oddities/audio/30-year-tripper.mp3

I've read Alex expressing regret that one of those two songs wasn't included on Feedback.

 

I always thought that if Rush covered a Beatles song "Rain" would be the perfect one. I think Neil could add his personal touch to the drum fills, Alex could really push across the guitar, the bass line is wonderful and Geddy would play it perfectly and the lyrics and melody would much more appropriate for Geddy to sing rather than "I Feel Fine" or "Day Tripper".

 

I'm sure I'd read a couple years ago how Alex and friends covered Rain at the Orbit room, or maybe it was a charity show. White Ribbon something. Alex has definitely jammed on Rain. Would have been a great Feedback addition.

[LedRush]

the only two bands I will listen to all their songs... yes including I think I'm going bald and Why don't we do it in the road...

 

 

Bullshit. No one listens to Revolution 9. And how does Why Don't We Do It in the Road get singled out over the early covers or #9?

 

Revolution 9 is LITERALLY one of my top 2 favorite Beatles songs right up there with A Day In The Life. An absolutely BRILLIANT sound collage that was so far ahead of its time, its time hasn't even arrived yet (although groups like Zoviet France and The Hafler Trio make really great music), or anyone who's tried to duplicate something like that has generally failed. Pink Floyd's Heart Beat, Pig Meat is pretty great in a similar vein, though much shorter and slightly less ambitious.

 

Of course you do.

 

Of course you DON'T.

 

I've never heard it played on the radio, I've never met anyone who likes it, and I can't think of a situation in which I would be happy that the song pops up. I guess you could treat it like a piece of modern art and listen to it by yourself trying to analyze it for some meaning. And if that's your thing, that's great, I guess. But in any social situation the song is just a mood killer, almost along the lines of Yokos solo work, though those things are usually at least structurally songs. Honestly, I don't consider #9 a song at all. It's more like an editing mistake.

 

And if his thread is going to become a defense of that non-song, it really proves how far people will go to put any crap that the Beatles did onto a pedestal. Next someone will argue that Whole Lotta Yoko is the best work on Rolling Stones Rock and Roll Circus.

You're the one who keeps coming back at it and you seem to be the only one that doesn't like it. Most Rush songs have never been played on most radio stations. Your arguments are just laughable.

 

First hit in google:

http://www.telegraph...atles-song.html

 

Second hit

http://www.thetopten...-beatles-songs/

 

Third hit

 

http://blogs.houston...s_of.php?page=2

 

 

It was in every too 10 list if worst songs I saw. And the criticism was scathing. On lists where it wasn't number one, it seemed that people weren't really counting it as a song.

 

Listen, I know these lists are stupid, and of course tastes are subjective. But I really have a hard time believing that people don't recognize that #9 is among the least liked songs the Beatles ever made, and probably would hold the top spot.

 

What's the difference if it's one of their most popular songs or not? Is popularity now your barometer for whether something is great or not? Among your precious latter day Rush from Presto through Vapor Trails, guess which album is the mostly highly regarded, and by a significant margin? That's right, it's Counterparts, the bane of your existence. Do you suddenly love it now because it's the most highly regarded?

 

http://rateyourmusic.com/artist/rush

 

I made a joke about it being not popular, and people pushed back. Counterparts is demonstrably less popular than RTB, but you're right that it doesn't effect how much I like the music.

 

Did you click on the link above? For Roll the Bones, 1,335 people voted on it and the aggregate rating out of 5 is 3.25. For Counterparts, 1,358 people voted on it and the aggregate rating out of 5 is 3.52. And there it is, demonstrably.

 

About 1.5 million people voted with their wallets to buy RTB, while about 1.1 million voted to buy CP. The singles charted better and sold more copies. The songs were played on the radio more. I'll take sample sizes in the millions over a small group of hardcore fans on a niche website when discussing wide popularity, thank you very much.

 

Give me a f*cking break. Album sales are NO barometer at all of quality. There's no way in hell you really believe that, do you? By that measure, Moving Pictures is 3 times better than Hemispheres, 2112 is twice as good as Permanent Waves, etc. It's all here in YOUR thread:

 

http://www.therushfo...e__hl__platinum

 

I would go on to say that then Moving Pictures is 12 times better than VT, but you would cry unfair - albums don't sell as well these days. And that's EXACTLY my point - there are 800 different factors why a given album sells better than another. If you really want to go down this route, here's another example - according to your "theory" Led Zeppelin III is equal to In Through The Out Door. Both of them sold 6 million copies in the U.S. Are you REALLY going to say each album is as equally popular? Titanic made $658 million domestically. The Shawshank Redemption made $28 million. Is Titanic 23 times better Shawshank? Do you see how ridiculous your argument is?

 

Only you could stare 1,300 plus votes in the face and say the results are wrong because you disagree with them. I don't care how many copies of an album sold - what do people actually think of them once they own them?

 

And of course, who really gives a shit? If you like an album better, it doesn't and shouldn't matter what anyone else says, but when you go around saying that one album is demonstrably less popular than another and can't back it up, I'm going to call you on it.

 

I didn't read your post because I was talking about what is popular. Sales numbers and chart positions demonstrate popularity. Rankings done by a tiny number of self-selected rush fans on a niche site don't.

 

:LMAO:

 

yes, i used YOUR sales numbers from YOUR thread to show how ludicrous your argument was.

 

you didn't read my post? really, THAT'S your response? you should, as i absolutely DEMOLISHED your argument. or did you read it and you were so owned by it that you pretended not to read it? either way: :crazy:

 

i guess there's no response to crazy. :eyeroll:

 

Holy crap that was dumb. I thought it was a show, but judging by your self-congratulatory antics, it's not.

 

Anyway, I was talking about popularity. Sales numbers are highly relevant in that discussion. You brought up some small, random site from the Internet to inject quality into the discussion of popularity, and then confused the difference between the two. I dismissed this as off topic because I was referring to popularity, not quality. You doubled down on crazy, and ranted and raved about how sales doesn't equate to being quality, but then you oddly argue that you have refuted my arguments on popularity by showing how sales don't equal quality. It's so weird you can't make it up! You write as if you are two different people having an argument with yourself, except it's all jumbled together.

 

Anyway, as I said before, sales numbers and chart positions are good indicators of popularity. Rankings done by a tiny number of self-selected rush fans on a niche site aren't.

 

All this because I made a joke about how unpopular #9 is. Geez people need to mellow the f**k out.

 

You're just raving like a lunatic at this point. Self-selected - what kind of crock is that term? Rateyourmusic.com is not a niche site: http://www.alexa.com...om#trafficstats and http://www.alexa.com...s/Music/Reviews

 

You don't want to deal with the fact that you're wrong so you dismiss all evidence that disproves your lunacy. It's fine, you're entitled.

 

Let's pretend that the, by definition, self selected voters on the small site actually meant something when deciding how well received Rush albums are. It is irrelevant to my statements on popularity.

 

 

And still after all that complete insanity, Counterparts is a FAR better album than RTB, but enjoy your little fantasyland where that's not only incorrect, but you've proven it. :crazy:

 

Again, I guess there's no response to crazy.

 

I've proven it's less popular.

[Lerxster]

Speaking of crazy, I think LR and RG need a comedy thread of their own. The LedRushGoober Show, where they can point/counterpoint various insignificant minutiae without cluttering up other threads with their incessant arguing.

[LedRush]

Speaking of crazy, I think LR and RG need a comedy thread of their own. The LedRushGoober Show, where they can point/counterpoint various insignificant minutiae without cluttering up other threads with their incessant arguing.

 

The bad news is it will only be unintentionally funny. The good news is that that is sometimes the best kind of funny.

[rushgoober]

the only two bands I will listen to all their songs... yes including I think I'm going bald and Why don't we do it in the road...

 

 

Bullshit. No one listens to Revolution 9. And how does Why Don't We Do It in the Road get singled out over the early covers or #9?

 

Revolution 9 is LITERALLY one of my top 2 favorite Beatles songs right up there with A Day In The Life. An absolutely BRILLIANT sound collage that was so far ahead of its time, its time hasn't even arrived yet (although groups like Zoviet France and The Hafler Trio make really great music), or anyone who's tried to duplicate something like that has generally failed. Pink Floyd's Heart Beat, Pig Meat is pretty great in a similar vein, though much shorter and slightly less ambitious.

 

Of course you do.

 

Of course you DON'T.

 

I've never heard it played on the radio, I've never met anyone who likes it, and I can't think of a situation in which I would be happy that the song pops up. I guess you could treat it like a piece of modern art and listen to it by yourself trying to analyze it for some meaning. And if that's your thing, that's great, I guess. But in any social situation the song is just a mood killer, almost along the lines of Yokos solo work, though those things are usually at least structurally songs. Honestly, I don't consider #9 a song at all. It's more like an editing mistake.

 

And if his thread is going to become a defense of that non-song, it really proves how far people will go to put any crap that the Beatles did onto a pedestal. Next someone will argue that Whole Lotta Yoko is the best work on Rolling Stones Rock and Roll Circus.

You're the one who keeps coming back at it and you seem to be the only one that doesn't like it. Most Rush songs have never been played on most radio stations. Your arguments are just laughable.

 

First hit in google:

http://www.telegraph...atles-song.html

 

Second hit

http://www.thetopten...-beatles-songs/

 

Third hit

 

http://blogs.houston...s_of.php?page=2

 

 

It was in every too 10 list if worst songs I saw. And the criticism was scathing. On lists where it wasn't number one, it seemed that people weren't really counting it as a song.

 

Listen, I know these lists are stupid, and of course tastes are subjective. But I really have a hard time believing that people don't recognize that #9 is among the least liked songs the Beatles ever made, and probably would hold the top spot.

 

What's the difference if it's one of their most popular songs or not? Is popularity now your barometer for whether something is great or not? Among your precious latter day Rush from Presto through Vapor Trails, guess which album is the mostly highly regarded, and by a significant margin? That's right, it's Counterparts, the bane of your existence. Do you suddenly love it now because it's the most highly regarded?

 

http://rateyourmusic.com/artist/rush

 

I made a joke about it being not popular, and people pushed back. Counterparts is demonstrably less popular than RTB, but you're right that it doesn't effect how much I like the music.

 

Did you click on the link above? For Roll the Bones, 1,335 people voted on it and the aggregate rating out of 5 is 3.25. For Counterparts, 1,358 people voted on it and the aggregate rating out of 5 is 3.52. And there it is, demonstrably.

 

About 1.5 million people voted with their wallets to buy RTB, while about 1.1 million voted to buy CP. The singles charted better and sold more copies. The songs were played on the radio more. I'll take sample sizes in the millions over a small group of hardcore fans on a niche website when discussing wide popularity, thank you very much.

 

Give me a f*cking break. Album sales are NO barometer at all of quality. There's no way in hell you really believe that, do you? By that measure, Moving Pictures is 3 times better than Hemispheres, 2112 is twice as good as Permanent Waves, etc. It's all here in YOUR thread:

 

http://www.therushfo...e__hl__platinum

 

I would go on to say that then Moving Pictures is 12 times better than VT, but you would cry unfair - albums don't sell as well these days. And that's EXACTLY my point - there are 800 different factors why a given album sells better than another. If you really want to go down this route, here's another example - according to your "theory" Led Zeppelin III is equal to In Through The Out Door. Both of them sold 6 million copies in the U.S. Are you REALLY going to say each album is as equally popular? Titanic made $658 million domestically. The Shawshank Redemption made $28 million. Is Titanic 23 times better Shawshank? Do you see how ridiculous your argument is?

 

Only you could stare 1,300 plus votes in the face and say the results are wrong because you disagree with them. I don't care how many copies of an album sold - what do people actually think of them once they own them?

 

And of course, who really gives a shit? If you like an album better, it doesn't and shouldn't matter what anyone else says, but when you go around saying that one album is demonstrably less popular than another and can't back it up, I'm going to call you on it.

 

I didn't read your post because I was talking about what is popular. Sales numbers and chart positions demonstrate popularity. Rankings done by a tiny number of self-selected rush fans on a niche site don't.

 

:LMAO:

 

yes, i used YOUR sales numbers from YOUR thread to show how ludicrous your argument was.

 

you didn't read my post? really, THAT'S your response? you should, as i absolutely DEMOLISHED your argument. or did you read it and you were so owned by it that you pretended not to read it? either way: :crazy:

 

i guess there's no response to crazy. :eyeroll:

 

Holy crap that was dumb. I thought it was a show, but judging by your self-congratulatory antics, it's not.

 

Anyway, I was talking about popularity. Sales numbers are highly relevant in that discussion. You brought up some small, random site from the Internet to inject quality into the discussion of popularity, and then confused the difference between the two. I dismissed this as off topic because I was referring to popularity, not quality. You doubled down on crazy, and ranted and raved about how sales doesn't equate to being quality, but then you oddly argue that you have refuted my arguments on popularity by showing how sales don't equal quality. It's so weird you can't make it up! You write as if you are two different people having an argument with yourself, except it's all jumbled together.

 

Anyway, as I said before, sales numbers and chart positions are good indicators of popularity. Rankings done by a tiny number of self-selected rush fans on a niche site aren't.

 

All this because I made a joke about how unpopular #9 is. Geez people need to mellow the f**k out.

 

You're just raving like a lunatic at this point. Self-selected - what kind of crock is that term? Rateyourmusic.com is not a niche site: http://www.alexa.com...om#trafficstats and http://www.alexa.com...s/Music/Reviews

 

You don't want to deal with the fact that you're wrong so you dismiss all evidence that disproves your lunacy. It's fine, you're entitled.

 

Let's pretend that the, by definition, self selected voters on the small site actually meant something when deciding how well received Rush albums are. It is irrelevant to my statements on popularity.

 

 

And still after all that complete insanity, Counterparts is a FAR better album than RTB, but enjoy your little fantasyland where that's not only incorrect, but you've proven it. :crazy:

 

Again, I guess there's no response to crazy.

 

I've proven it's less popular.

 

You keep telling yourself that, and maybe one day it will be true.

[GeddysMullet]

When was the last time you heard Hemispheres on the radio? :crazy:

 

Last time you played it! ;)

[rushgoober]

When was the last time you heard Hemispheres on the radio? :crazy:

 

Last time you played it! ;)

 

 

This is true! I've also played Revolution 9 for that matter. I'm talking regular commercial radio, however - I doubt it's happened very often!

 

BTW, I think I've decided that if I do another radio show again (and that very well may happen in the not too distant future - no guarantees), the show will be called The Mind Festival. :)

Edited September 10, 2013 by rushgoober

[snowdogged]

The best thing in this thread:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DPy2alWEZ-U

[losingit2k]

When was the last time you heard Hemispheres on the radio? :crazy:

 

Last time you played it! ;)

 

 

This is true! I've also played Revolution 9 for that matter. I'm talking regular commercial radio, however - I doubt it's happened very often!

 

BTW, I think I've decided that if I do another radio show again (and that very well may happen in the not too distant future - no guarantees), the show will be called The Mind Festival. :)

 

I love it! You can start with Operation Mindrive in its Entirety! ...What ? ah No?

 

Well your show sucks then! Honestly I can't wait for the day. I mean night! :drool:

[coventry]

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.

 

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.

 

How influential Talking Heads were or weren't and whether or not that influence was good certainly is subjective and relative, but...That dude's name is DAVID Byrne

 

Jesus - who the f**k is Fred Byrne?

 

Seriously. I'm wondering what was going through my mind when I dropped that name. I mean, I even briefly student taught at his high school in Baltimore....

 

Edit: Actually, I was probably thinking of Fred Schneider.

Edited September 10, 2013 by coventry

[snowdogged]

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.

 

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.

 

How influential Talking Heads were or weren't and whether or not that influence was good certainly is subjective and relative, but...That dude's name is DAVID Byrne

 

Jesus - who the f**k is Fred Byrne?

 

Seriously. I'm wondering what was going through my mind when I dropped that name. I mean, I even briefly student taught at his high school in Baltimore....

You taught at the high school that Fred Byrne went to?

[Lerxster]

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.

 

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.

 

How influential Talking Heads were or weren't and whether or not that influence was good certainly is subjective and relative, but...That dude's name is DAVID Byrne

 

Jesus - who the f**k is Fred Byrne?

 

Seriously. I'm wondering what was going through my mind when I dropped that name. I mean, I even briefly student taught at his high school in Baltimore....

You taught at the high school that Fred Byrne went to?

I think he taught at Fred Byrne High School.

[coventry]

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.

 

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.

 

How influential Talking Heads were or weren't and whether or not that influence was good certainly is subjective and relative, but...That dude's name is DAVID Byrne

 

Jesus - who the f**k is Fred Byrne?

 

Seriously. I'm wondering what was going through my mind when I dropped that name. I mean, I even briefly student-taught at his high school in Baltimore....

You taught at the high school that Fred Byrne went to?

 

There was probably a Fred Byrne there at one point or another :)

 

But yeah - Lansdowne High in southeastern Baltimore. What's a travesty is that there's nothing there to commemorate his presence. No plaque; nothing.

[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.

 

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.

 

I don't care to provide you with stats on most people. You won't be convinced anyways, not that I care. I do have a serious question. I can't find any evidence that david Byrne has gone by Fred Byrne. Why do you keep calling him Fred?