Lucas Posted May 16, 2015 Share Posted May 16, 2015 YES is probably the best example of a fantastic band who had great chops, and fit those abilities into the context of great songs ... But when looking at, for example, Steve Howe - Howe is an amazing guitarist and musician, but he's not "classically trained" .. Steve Howe has some broad influences, which obviously include classical music and flamenco ... And his genius is weaving those influences into his own style and compositions .. But Howe does not possess the discipline and technique of a trained guitarist - his hand positions and, for example, rolls in a song like Mood For A Day are amateurish when compared to true flamenco players .. Do that make Steve Howe any less of a musician ?? ... Absolutely NOT ... To me, his brilliance is in his style - HIS style, not a force fed or trained style ... I realize this has strayed from the original question - "Bands You Like More Than Rush" - but, in a way, that is my point - "liking" a band is very different than pointing out that other bands or musicians might have more training or schooling than another band ... The "musicianship" aspect could be endless - at some point, there must be appreciation for the creativity and vision of a musician, and that needs to be included in how "accomplished" they are .... You don't think people appreciate Rush for the musicians they are? Of course I do .. but this is where it becomes very subjective ..... I take into account the framework in which RUSH operates - their songs .... You cannot compare something like La Villa to a piece like Al D's Race With Devil - the chops and learning in an Al DiMeola or Return To Forever composition are beyond what RUSH ever did .. But, IMHO, that does NOT make Geddy Alex and Neil any less musically accomplished or inferior ... The balance of their chops with their creativity make me enjoy them more I like Al DiMeola a lot - I think he's head and shoulders above his contemporaries - but if you've ever heard his attempts at a pop song ( I Can Tell ) or his stiff version of Jumpin' Jack Flash, the old Dirty Harry quote comes to mind: "a man's got to know his limitations" And all musicians have limitations, no matter how well trained 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ReRushed Posted May 16, 2015 Share Posted May 16, 2015 I try not to rank the bands I enjoy listening to (though, the Beatles are a permanent lock at No. 1). Usually, the band I am currently listening to is my favorite band, especially bands I've enjoyed for years. I enjoy "musicianship" debates and I always come around to the band Wire. They wrote a song called "Drill". It's basically one chord, maybe it's not even a chord, they just seem to scratch the strings. Bruce Gilbert, the guitarist, says about the song, "Classic Wire object; minimal musical information; relentless/funny/ inexplicable/abstract. Can be played by anybody who can keep a beat." I think it's great. Wire rules. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EagleMoon Posted May 16, 2015 Share Posted May 16, 2015 YES is probably the best example of a fantastic band who had great chops, and fit those abilities into the context of great songs ... But when looking at, for example, Steve Howe - Howe is an amazing guitarist and musician, but he's not "classically trained" .. Steve Howe has some broad influences, which obviously include classical music and flamenco ... And his genius is weaving those influences into his own style and compositions .. But Howe does not possess the discipline and technique of a trained guitarist - his hand positions and, for example, rolls in a song like Mood For A Day are amateurish when compared to true flamenco players .. Do that make Steve Howe any less of a musician ?? ... Absolutely NOT ... To me, his brilliance is in his style - HIS style, not a force fed or trained style ... I realize this has strayed from the original question - "Bands You Like More Than Rush" - but, in a way, that is my point - "liking" a band is very different than pointing out that other bands or musicians might have more training or schooling than another band ... The "musicianship" aspect could be endless - at some point, there must be appreciation for the creativity and vision of a musician, and that needs to be included in how "accomplished" they are .... You don't think people appreciate Rush for the musicians they are? Of course I do .. but this is where it becomes very subjective ..... I take into account the framework in which RUSH operates - their songs .... You cannot compare something like La Villa to a piece like Al D's Race With Devil - the chops and learning in an Al DiMeola or Return To Forever composition are beyond what RUSH ever did .. But, IMHO, that does NOT make Geddy Alex and Neil any less musically accomplished or inferior ... The balance of their chops with their creativity make me enjoy them more I like Al DiMeola a lot - I think he's head and shoulders above his contemporaries - but if you've ever heard his attempts at a pop song ( I Can Tell ) or his stiff version of Jumpin' Jack Flash, the old Dirty Harry quote comes to mind: "a man's got to know his limitations" And all musicians have limitations, no matter how well trained Sure they do. That was my point to start with. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tangy Posted May 16, 2015 Share Posted May 16, 2015 The idea that rush was bar band quality or they were not top tier players as stated above in the 70's is laughable. I'm with you. The point being made is that 70's Rush was a "bar band" when compared with the likes of ELP, Yes, Genesis, and Kansas, but I just don't agree at all. I think they are all comparable musicians. "Hemispheres Neil" doesn't stack up against Phil Ehart? No way in hell that's true."Hemispheres Geddy" sucks when compared with Mike Rutherford? Seriously?"Hemispheres Alex" is "bar band" musician compared with Kerry Livgren? Give me a break. Perhaps Hemispheres is not as complex or symphonic as something like Brain Salad Surgery or Close to the Edge, but no way are Geddy, Alex and Neil "bar band" players, IMO. You're allowed to disagree. It's a free country. :) I'm talking about technical ability. No way were the boys in the same category with classically trained musicians. They just weren't. Seems a little snobbish and something that someone with some training would say. According to that logic. if I have training then I'm a snob, if I don't have training then I just don't know what I'm talking about. It's just possible that I do know what I'm talking about and your defensiveness is just keeping you from seeing what I'm saying. People hate to have their preconceptions challenged and I think that's what's going on here. Lets try a new angle. my opinion versus yours. That really means very litle. I think the general public do think/perceive rush as top tier in the form of the numerous awards from magazines like modern drummer etc etc.The accolades started in 1980 and grow every year. Not proof positive but far more credible than an opinion.. How do you explain that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Segue Myles Posted May 16, 2015 Author Share Posted May 16, 2015 YES is probably the best example of a fantastic band who had great chops, and fit those abilities into the context of great songs ... But when looking at, for example, Steve Howe - Howe is an amazing guitarist and musician, but he's not "classically trained" .. Steve Howe has some broad influences, which obviously include classical music and flamenco ... And his genius is weaving those influences into his own style and compositions .. But Howe does not possess the discipline and technique of a trained guitarist - his hand positions and, for example, rolls in a song like Mood For A Day are amateurish when compared to true flamenco players .. Do that make Steve Howe any less of a musician ?? ... Absolutely NOT ... To me, his brilliance is in his style - HIS style, not a force fed or trained style ... I realize this has strayed from the original question - "Bands You Like More Than Rush" - but, in a way, that is my point - "liking" a band is very different than pointing out that other bands or musicians might have more training or schooling than another band ... The "musicianship" aspect could be endless - at some point, there must be appreciation for the creativity and vision of a musician, and that needs to be included in how "accomplished" they are .... You don't think people appreciate Rush for the musicians they are? Of course I do .. but this is where it becomes very subjective ..... I take into account the framework in which RUSH operates - their songs .... You cannot compare something like La Villa to a piece like Al D's Race With Devil - the chops and learning in an Al DiMeola or Return To Forever composition are beyond what RUSH ever did .. But, IMHO, that does NOT make Geddy Alex and Neil any less musically accomplished or inferior ... The balance of their chops with their creativity make me enjoy them more I like Al DiMeola a lot - I think he's head and shoulders above his contemporaries - but if you've ever heard his attempts at a pop song ( I Can Tell ) or his stiff version of Jumpin' Jack Flash, the old Dirty Harry quote comes to mind: "a man's got to know his limitations" And all musicians have limitations, no matter how well trained Sure they do. That was my point to start with. The trolls are looking for a new target. Rise above it (like I so totally failed to do the other day haha) 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EagleMoon Posted May 16, 2015 Share Posted May 16, 2015 YES is probably the best example of a fantastic band who had great chops, and fit those abilities into the context of great songs ... But when looking at, for example, Steve Howe - Howe is an amazing guitarist and musician, but he's not "classically trained" .. Steve Howe has some broad influences, which obviously include classical music and flamenco ... And his genius is weaving those influences into his own style and compositions .. But Howe does not possess the discipline and technique of a trained guitarist - his hand positions and, for example, rolls in a song like Mood For A Day are amateurish when compared to true flamenco players .. Do that make Steve Howe any less of a musician ?? ... Absolutely NOT ... To me, his brilliance is in his style - HIS style, not a force fed or trained style ... I realize this has strayed from the original question - "Bands You Like More Than Rush" - but, in a way, that is my point - "liking" a band is very different than pointing out that other bands or musicians might have more training or schooling than another band ... The "musicianship" aspect could be endless - at some point, there must be appreciation for the creativity and vision of a musician, and that needs to be included in how "accomplished" they are .... You don't think people appreciate Rush for the musicians they are? Of course I do .. but this is where it becomes very subjective ..... I take into account the framework in which RUSH operates - their songs .... You cannot compare something like La Villa to a piece like Al D's Race With Devil - the chops and learning in an Al DiMeola or Return To Forever composition are beyond what RUSH ever did .. But, IMHO, that does NOT make Geddy Alex and Neil any less musically accomplished or inferior ... The balance of their chops with their creativity make me enjoy them more I like Al DiMeola a lot - I think he's head and shoulders above his contemporaries - but if you've ever heard his attempts at a pop song ( I Can Tell ) or his stiff version of Jumpin' Jack Flash, the old Dirty Harry quote comes to mind: "a man's got to know his limitations" And all musicians have limitations, no matter how well trained Sure they do. That was my point to start with. The trolls are looking for a new target. Rise above it (like I so totally failed to do the other day haha) Intelligent conversation just goes over the heads of so many people here. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
troutman Posted May 16, 2015 Share Posted May 16, 2015 (edited) None. But VERY close seconds for me are Maiden, Zeppelin, Dream Theater and The Police.Dream Theater.... lol ??????? I get the DT love! Never listen to those who scoff. I like Rush more than Toto by a hair. Thats like having a bad nightmare. :P Edited May 16, 2015 by troutman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Segue Myles Posted May 16, 2015 Author Share Posted May 16, 2015 YES is probably the best example of a fantastic band who had great chops, and fit those abilities into the context of great songs ... But when looking at, for example, Steve Howe - Howe is an amazing guitarist and musician, but he's not "classically trained" .. Steve Howe has some broad influences, which obviously include classical music and flamenco ... And his genius is weaving those influences into his own style and compositions .. But Howe does not possess the discipline and technique of a trained guitarist - his hand positions and, for example, rolls in a song like Mood For A Day are amateurish when compared to true flamenco players .. Do that make Steve Howe any less of a musician ?? ... Absolutely NOT ... To me, his brilliance is in his style - HIS style, not a force fed or trained style ... I realize this has strayed from the original question - "Bands You Like More Than Rush" - but, in a way, that is my point - "liking" a band is very different than pointing out that other bands or musicians might have more training or schooling than another band ... The "musicianship" aspect could be endless - at some point, there must be appreciation for the creativity and vision of a musician, and that needs to be included in how "accomplished" they are .... You don't think people appreciate Rush for the musicians they are? Of course I do .. but this is where it becomes very subjective ..... I take into account the framework in which RUSH operates - their songs .... You cannot compare something like La Villa to a piece like Al D's Race With Devil - the chops and learning in an Al DiMeola or Return To Forever composition are beyond what RUSH ever did .. But, IMHO, that does NOT make Geddy Alex and Neil any less musically accomplished or inferior ... The balance of their chops with their creativity make me enjoy them more I like Al DiMeola a lot - I think he's head and shoulders above his contemporaries - but if you've ever heard his attempts at a pop song ( I Can Tell ) or his stiff version of Jumpin' Jack Flash, the old Dirty Harry quote comes to mind: "a man's got to know his limitations" And all musicians have limitations, no matter how well trained Sure they do. That was my point to start with. The trolls are looking for a new target. Rise above it (like I so totally failed to do the other day haha) Intelligent conversation just goes over the heads of so many people here. Its why I rarely come to the main Rush section of this forum Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EagleMoon Posted May 16, 2015 Share Posted May 16, 2015 YES is probably the best example of a fantastic band who had great chops, and fit those abilities into the context of great songs ... But when looking at, for example, Steve Howe - Howe is an amazing guitarist and musician, but he's not "classically trained" .. Steve Howe has some broad influences, which obviously include classical music and flamenco ... And his genius is weaving those influences into his own style and compositions .. But Howe does not possess the discipline and technique of a trained guitarist - his hand positions and, for example, rolls in a song like Mood For A Day are amateurish when compared to true flamenco players .. Do that make Steve Howe any less of a musician ?? ... Absolutely NOT ... To me, his brilliance is in his style - HIS style, not a force fed or trained style ... I realize this has strayed from the original question - "Bands You Like More Than Rush" - but, in a way, that is my point - "liking" a band is very different than pointing out that other bands or musicians might have more training or schooling than another band ... The "musicianship" aspect could be endless - at some point, there must be appreciation for the creativity and vision of a musician, and that needs to be included in how "accomplished" they are .... You don't think people appreciate Rush for the musicians they are? Of course I do .. but this is where it becomes very subjective ..... I take into account the framework in which RUSH operates - their songs .... You cannot compare something like La Villa to a piece like Al D's Race With Devil - the chops and learning in an Al DiMeola or Return To Forever composition are beyond what RUSH ever did .. But, IMHO, that does NOT make Geddy Alex and Neil any less musically accomplished or inferior ... The balance of their chops with their creativity make me enjoy them more I like Al DiMeola a lot - I think he's head and shoulders above his contemporaries - but if you've ever heard his attempts at a pop song ( I Can Tell ) or his stiff version of Jumpin' Jack Flash, the old Dirty Harry quote comes to mind: "a man's got to know his limitations" And all musicians have limitations, no matter how well trained Sure they do. That was my point to start with. The trolls are looking for a new target. Rise above it (like I so totally failed to do the other day haha) Intelligent conversation just goes over the heads of so many people here. Its why I rarely come to the main Rush section of this forum I see your point, but I don't think it's limited to just one section. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tangy Posted May 16, 2015 Share Posted May 16, 2015 YES is probably the best example of a fantastic band who had great chops, and fit those abilities into the context of great songs ... But when looking at, for example, Steve Howe - Howe is an amazing guitarist and musician, but he's not "classically trained" .. Steve Howe has some broad influences, which obviously include classical music and flamenco ... And his genius is weaving those influences into his own style and compositions .. But Howe does not possess the discipline and technique of a trained guitarist - his hand positions and, for example, rolls in a song like Mood For A Day are amateurish when compared to true flamenco players .. Do that make Steve Howe any less of a musician ?? ... Absolutely NOT ... To me, his brilliance is in his style - HIS style, not a force fed or trained style ... I realize this has strayed from the original question - "Bands You Like More Than Rush" - but, in a way, that is my point - "liking" a band is very different than pointing out that other bands or musicians might have more training or schooling than another band ... The "musicianship" aspect could be endless - at some point, there must be appreciation for the creativity and vision of a musician, and that needs to be included in how "accomplished" they are .... You don't think people appreciate Rush for the musicians they are? Of course I do .. but this is where it becomes very subjective ..... I take into account the framework in which RUSH operates - their songs .... You cannot compare something like La Villa to a piece like Al D's Race With Devil - the chops and learning in an Al DiMeola or Return To Forever composition are beyond what RUSH ever did .. But, IMHO, that does NOT make Geddy Alex and Neil any less musically accomplished or inferior ... The balance of their chops with their creativity make me enjoy them more I like Al DiMeola a lot - I think he's head and shoulders above his contemporaries - but if you've ever heard his attempts at a pop song ( I Can Tell ) or his stiff version of Jumpin' Jack Flash, the old Dirty Harry quote comes to mind: "a man's got to know his limitations" And all musicians have limitations, no matter how well trained Sure they do. That was my point to start with. The trolls are looking for a new target. Rise above it (like I so totally failed to do the other day haha) Intelligent conversation just goes over the heads of so many people here. Pot meet kettle! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EagleMoon Posted May 16, 2015 Share Posted May 16, 2015 YES is probably the best example of a fantastic band who had great chops, and fit those abilities into the context of great songs ... But when looking at, for example, Steve Howe - Howe is an amazing guitarist and musician, but he's not "classically trained" .. Steve Howe has some broad influences, which obviously include classical music and flamenco ... And his genius is weaving those influences into his own style and compositions .. But Howe does not possess the discipline and technique of a trained guitarist - his hand positions and, for example, rolls in a song like Mood For A Day are amateurish when compared to true flamenco players .. Do that make Steve Howe any less of a musician ?? ... Absolutely NOT ... To me, his brilliance is in his style - HIS style, not a force fed or trained style ... I realize this has strayed from the original question - "Bands You Like More Than Rush" - but, in a way, that is my point - "liking" a band is very different than pointing out that other bands or musicians might have more training or schooling than another band ... The "musicianship" aspect could be endless - at some point, there must be appreciation for the creativity and vision of a musician, and that needs to be included in how "accomplished" they are .... You don't think people appreciate Rush for the musicians they are? Of course I do .. but this is where it becomes very subjective ..... I take into account the framework in which RUSH operates - their songs .... You cannot compare something like La Villa to a piece like Al D's Race With Devil - the chops and learning in an Al DiMeola or Return To Forever composition are beyond what RUSH ever did .. But, IMHO, that does NOT make Geddy Alex and Neil any less musically accomplished or inferior ... The balance of their chops with their creativity make me enjoy them more I like Al DiMeola a lot - I think he's head and shoulders above his contemporaries - but if you've ever heard his attempts at a pop song ( I Can Tell ) or his stiff version of Jumpin' Jack Flash, the old Dirty Harry quote comes to mind: "a man's got to know his limitations" And all musicians have limitations, no matter how well trained Sure they do. That was my point to start with. The trolls are looking for a new target. Rise above it (like I so totally failed to do the other day haha) Intelligent conversation just goes over the heads of so many people here. Pot meet kettle! You're calling ME a troll? Seriously? I express an opinion and I'm a troll? Well I guess if I'm considered a troll I have the right outfit. http://img.auctiva.com/imgdata/1/2/3/9/3/0/2/webimg/611179112_o.jpg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Segue Myles Posted May 16, 2015 Author Share Posted May 16, 2015 YES is probably the best example of a fantastic band who had great chops, and fit those abilities into the context of great songs ... But when looking at, for example, Steve Howe - Howe is an amazing guitarist and musician, but he's not "classically trained" .. Steve Howe has some broad influences, which obviously include classical music and flamenco ... And his genius is weaving those influences into his own style and compositions .. But Howe does not possess the discipline and technique of a trained guitarist - his hand positions and, for example, rolls in a song like Mood For A Day are amateurish when compared to true flamenco players .. Do that make Steve Howe any less of a musician ?? ... Absolutely NOT ... To me, his brilliance is in his style - HIS style, not a force fed or trained style ... I realize this has strayed from the original question - "Bands You Like More Than Rush" - but, in a way, that is my point - "liking" a band is very different than pointing out that other bands or musicians might have more training or schooling than another band ... The "musicianship" aspect could be endless - at some point, there must be appreciation for the creativity and vision of a musician, and that needs to be included in how "accomplished" they are .... You don't think people appreciate Rush for the musicians they are? Of course I do .. but this is where it becomes very subjective ..... I take into account the framework in which RUSH operates - their songs .... You cannot compare something like La Villa to a piece like Al D's Race With Devil - the chops and learning in an Al DiMeola or Return To Forever composition are beyond what RUSH ever did .. But, IMHO, that does NOT make Geddy Alex and Neil any less musically accomplished or inferior ... The balance of their chops with their creativity make me enjoy them more I like Al DiMeola a lot - I think he's head and shoulders above his contemporaries - but if you've ever heard his attempts at a pop song ( I Can Tell ) or his stiff version of Jumpin' Jack Flash, the old Dirty Harry quote comes to mind: "a man's got to know his limitations" And all musicians have limitations, no matter how well trained Sure they do. That was my point to start with. The trolls are looking for a new target. Rise above it (like I so totally failed to do the other day haha) Intelligent conversation just goes over the heads of so many people here. Its why I rarely come to the main Rush section of this forum I see your point, but I don't think it's limited to just one section. Its worse here though haha! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tangy Posted May 16, 2015 Share Posted May 16, 2015 YES is probably the best example of a fantastic band who had great chops, and fit those abilities into the context of great songs ... But when looking at, for example, Steve Howe - Howe is an amazing guitarist and musician, but he's not "classically trained" .. Steve Howe has some broad influences, which obviously include classical music and flamenco ... And his genius is weaving those influences into his own style and compositions .. But Howe does not possess the discipline and technique of a trained guitarist - his hand positions and, for example, rolls in a song like Mood For A Day are amateurish when compared to true flamenco players .. Do that make Steve Howe any less of a musician ?? ... Absolutely NOT ... To me, his brilliance is in his style - HIS style, not a force fed or trained style ... I realize this has strayed from the original question - "Bands You Like More Than Rush" - but, in a way, that is my point - "liking" a band is very different than pointing out that other bands or musicians might have more training or schooling than another band ... The "musicianship" aspect could be endless - at some point, there must be appreciation for the creativity and vision of a musician, and that needs to be included in how "accomplished" they are .... You don't think people appreciate Rush for the musicians they are? Of course I do .. but this is where it becomes very subjective ..... I take into account the framework in which RUSH operates - their songs .... You cannot compare something like La Villa to a piece like Al D's Race With Devil - the chops and learning in an Al DiMeola or Return To Forever composition are beyond what RUSH ever did .. But, IMHO, that does NOT make Geddy Alex and Neil any less musically accomplished or inferior ... The balance of their chops with their creativity make me enjoy them more I like Al DiMeola a lot - I think he's head and shoulders above his contemporaries - but if you've ever heard his attempts at a pop song ( I Can Tell ) or his stiff version of Jumpin' Jack Flash, the old Dirty Harry quote comes to mind: "a man's got to know his limitations" And all musicians have limitations, no matter how well trained Sure they do. That was my point to start with. The trolls are looking for a new target. Rise above it (like I so totally failed to do the other day haha) Intelligent conversation just goes over the heads of so many people here. Pot meet kettle! You're calling ME a troll? Seriously? I express an opinion and I'm a troll? Well I guess if I'm considered a troll I have the right outfit. http://img.auctiva.com/imgdata/1/2/3/9/3/0/2/webimg/611179112_o.jpg Not calling anyone anything. I am awaiting a reply to the post before this. Shall i bump it for you to find. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Segue Myles Posted May 16, 2015 Author Share Posted May 16, 2015 YES is probably the best example of a fantastic band who had great chops, and fit those abilities into the context of great songs ... But when looking at, for example, Steve Howe - Howe is an amazing guitarist and musician, but he's not "classically trained" .. Steve Howe has some broad influences, which obviously include classical music and flamenco ... And his genius is weaving those influences into his own style and compositions .. But Howe does not possess the discipline and technique of a trained guitarist - his hand positions and, for example, rolls in a song like Mood For A Day are amateurish when compared to true flamenco players .. Do that make Steve Howe any less of a musician ?? ... Absolutely NOT ... To me, his brilliance is in his style - HIS style, not a force fed or trained style ... I realize this has strayed from the original question - "Bands You Like More Than Rush" - but, in a way, that is my point - "liking" a band is very different than pointing out that other bands or musicians might have more training or schooling than another band ... The "musicianship" aspect could be endless - at some point, there must be appreciation for the creativity and vision of a musician, and that needs to be included in how "accomplished" they are .... You don't think people appreciate Rush for the musicians they are? Of course I do .. but this is where it becomes very subjective ..... I take into account the framework in which RUSH operates - their songs .... You cannot compare something like La Villa to a piece like Al D's Race With Devil - the chops and learning in an Al DiMeola or Return To Forever composition are beyond what RUSH ever did .. But, IMHO, that does NOT make Geddy Alex and Neil any less musically accomplished or inferior ... The balance of their chops with their creativity make me enjoy them more I like Al DiMeola a lot - I think he's head and shoulders above his contemporaries - but if you've ever heard his attempts at a pop song ( I Can Tell ) or his stiff version of Jumpin' Jack Flash, the old Dirty Harry quote comes to mind: "a man's got to know his limitations" And all musicians have limitations, no matter how well trained Sure they do. That was my point to start with. The trolls are looking for a new target. Rise above it (like I so totally failed to do the other day haha) Intelligent conversation just goes over the heads of so many people here. Pot meet kettle! You're calling ME a troll? Seriously? I express an opinion and I'm a troll? Well I guess if I'm considered a troll I have the right outfit. http://img.auctiva.com/imgdata/1/2/3/9/3/0/2/webimg/611179112_o.jpg Its OK...I would rather talk to a pot or kettle than a troll. You ain't a troll. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EagleMoon Posted May 16, 2015 Share Posted May 16, 2015 YES is probably the best example of a fantastic band who had great chops, and fit those abilities into the context of great songs ... But when looking at, for example, Steve Howe - Howe is an amazing guitarist and musician, but he's not "classically trained" .. Steve Howe has some broad influences, which obviously include classical music and flamenco ... And his genius is weaving those influences into his own style and compositions .. But Howe does not possess the discipline and technique of a trained guitarist - his hand positions and, for example, rolls in a song like Mood For A Day are amateurish when compared to true flamenco players .. Do that make Steve Howe any less of a musician ?? ... Absolutely NOT ... To me, his brilliance is in his style - HIS style, not a force fed or trained style ... I realize this has strayed from the original question - "Bands You Like More Than Rush" - but, in a way, that is my point - "liking" a band is very different than pointing out that other bands or musicians might have more training or schooling than another band ... The "musicianship" aspect could be endless - at some point, there must be appreciation for the creativity and vision of a musician, and that needs to be included in how "accomplished" they are .... You don't think people appreciate Rush for the musicians they are? Of course I do .. but this is where it becomes very subjective ..... I take into account the framework in which RUSH operates - their songs .... You cannot compare something like La Villa to a piece like Al D's Race With Devil - the chops and learning in an Al DiMeola or Return To Forever composition are beyond what RUSH ever did .. But, IMHO, that does NOT make Geddy Alex and Neil any less musically accomplished or inferior ... The balance of their chops with their creativity make me enjoy them more I like Al DiMeola a lot - I think he's head and shoulders above his contemporaries - but if you've ever heard his attempts at a pop song ( I Can Tell ) or his stiff version of Jumpin' Jack Flash, the old Dirty Harry quote comes to mind: "a man's got to know his limitations" And all musicians have limitations, no matter how well trained Sure they do. That was my point to start with. The trolls are looking for a new target. Rise above it (like I so totally failed to do the other day haha) Intelligent conversation just goes over the heads of so many people here. Pot meet kettle! You're calling ME a troll? Seriously? I express an opinion and I'm a troll? Well I guess if I'm considered a troll I have the right outfit. http://img.auctiva.com/imgdata/1/2/3/9/3/0/2/webimg/611179112_o.jpg Its OK...I would rather talk to a pot or kettle than a troll. You ain't a troll. You mean I have to take my outfit back? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lucas Posted May 16, 2015 Share Posted May 16, 2015 If there is one post of mine that fails to fit into your definition of "intelligent conversation", I would appreciate it if you point it out .. That, or where I have been a "troll" ?? I am merely participating on a discussion board ( discussion being the key word ) 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tangy Posted May 16, 2015 Share Posted May 16, 2015 The idea that rush was bar band quality or they were not top tier players as stated above in the 70's is laughable. I'm with you. The point being made is that 70's Rush was a "bar band" when compared with the likes of ELP, Yes, Genesis, and Kansas, but I just don't agree at all. I think they are all comparable musicians. "Hemispheres Neil" doesn't stack up against Phil Ehart? No way in hell that's true."Hemispheres Geddy" sucks when compared with Mike Rutherford? Seriously?"Hemispheres Alex" is "bar band" musician compared with Kerry Livgren? Give me a break. Perhaps Hemispheres is not as complex or symphonic as something like Brain Salad Surgery or Close to the Edge, but no way are Geddy, Alex and Neil "bar band" players, IMO. You're allowed to disagree. It's a free country. :) I'm talking about technical ability. No way were the boys in the same category with classically trained musicians. They just weren't. Seems a little snobbish and something that someone with some training would say. According to that logic. if I have training then I'm a snob, if I don't have training then I just don't know what I'm talking about. It's just possible that I do know what I'm talking about and your defensiveness is just keeping you from seeing what I'm saying. People hate to have their preconceptions challenged and I think that's what's going on here. Lets try a new angle. my opinion versus yours. That really means very litle. I think the general public do think/perceive rush as top tier in the form of the numerous awards from magazines like modern drummer etc etc.The accolades started in 1980 and grow every year. Not proof positive but far more credible than an opinion.. How do you explain that? Still waiting...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hemispheres4Echo Posted May 16, 2015 Share Posted May 16, 2015 Deep Purple Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EagleMoon Posted May 16, 2015 Share Posted May 16, 2015 The idea that rush was bar band quality or they were not top tier players as stated above in the 70's is laughable. I'm with you. The point being made is that 70's Rush was a "bar band" when compared with the likes of ELP, Yes, Genesis, and Kansas, but I just don't agree at all. I think they are all comparable musicians. "Hemispheres Neil" doesn't stack up against Phil Ehart? No way in hell that's true."Hemispheres Geddy" sucks when compared with Mike Rutherford? Seriously?"Hemispheres Alex" is "bar band" musician compared with Kerry Livgren? Give me a break. Perhaps Hemispheres is not as complex or symphonic as something like Brain Salad Surgery or Close to the Edge, but no way are Geddy, Alex and Neil "bar band" players, IMO. You're allowed to disagree. It's a free country. :) I'm talking about technical ability. No way were the boys in the same category with classically trained musicians. They just weren't. Seems a little snobbish and something that someone with some training would say. According to that logic. if I have training then I'm a snob, if I don't have training then I just don't know what I'm talking about. It's just possible that I do know what I'm talking about and your defensiveness is just keeping you from seeing what I'm saying. People hate to have their preconceptions challenged and I think that's what's going on here. Lets try a new angle. my opinion versus yours. That really means very litle. I think the general public do think/perceive rush as top tier in the form of the numerous awards from magazines like modern drummer etc etc.The accolades started in 1980 and grow every year. Not proof positive but far more credible than an opinion.. How do you explain that? Still waiting...... I didn't see this post before now. I was talking about 70's Rush, not 80's and beyond or did you miss MY first comment? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Segue Myles Posted May 16, 2015 Author Share Posted May 16, 2015 YES is probably the best example of a fantastic band who had great chops, and fit those abilities into the context of great songs ... But when looking at, for example, Steve Howe - Howe is an amazing guitarist and musician, but he's not "classically trained" .. Steve Howe has some broad influences, which obviously include classical music and flamenco ... And his genius is weaving those influences into his own style and compositions .. But Howe does not possess the discipline and technique of a trained guitarist - his hand positions and, for example, rolls in a song like Mood For A Day are amateurish when compared to true flamenco players .. Do that make Steve Howe any less of a musician ?? ... Absolutely NOT ... To me, his brilliance is in his style - HIS style, not a force fed or trained style ... I realize this has strayed from the original question - "Bands You Like More Than Rush" - but, in a way, that is my point - "liking" a band is very different than pointing out that other bands or musicians might have more training or schooling than another band ... The "musicianship" aspect could be endless - at some point, there must be appreciation for the creativity and vision of a musician, and that needs to be included in how "accomplished" they are .... You don't think people appreciate Rush for the musicians they are? Of course I do .. but this is where it becomes very subjective ..... I take into account the framework in which RUSH operates - their songs .... You cannot compare something like La Villa to a piece like Al D's Race With Devil - the chops and learning in an Al DiMeola or Return To Forever composition are beyond what RUSH ever did .. But, IMHO, that does NOT make Geddy Alex and Neil any less musically accomplished or inferior ... The balance of their chops with their creativity make me enjoy them more I like Al DiMeola a lot - I think he's head and shoulders above his contemporaries - but if you've ever heard his attempts at a pop song ( I Can Tell ) or his stiff version of Jumpin' Jack Flash, the old Dirty Harry quote comes to mind: "a man's got to know his limitations" And all musicians have limitations, no matter how well trained Sure they do. That was my point to start with. The trolls are looking for a new target. Rise above it (like I so totally failed to do the other day haha) Intelligent conversation just goes over the heads of so many people here. Pot meet kettle! You're calling ME a troll? Seriously? I express an opinion and I'm a troll? Well I guess if I'm considered a troll I have the right outfit. http://img.auctiva.com/imgdata/1/2/3/9/3/0/2/webimg/611179112_o.jpg Its OK...I would rather talk to a pot or kettle than a troll. You ain't a troll. You mean I have to take my outfit back? No. It folds into a gorgeous summer hat! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Segue Myles Posted May 16, 2015 Author Share Posted May 16, 2015 If there is one post of mine that fails to fit into your definition of "intelligent conversation", I would appreciate it if you point it out .. That, or where I have been a "troll" ?? I am merely participating on a discussion board ( discussion being the key word ) We weren't applying it to you. There are a couple of members giving EagleMoon flack, and in my world women should never be spoken to like that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EagleMoon Posted May 16, 2015 Share Posted May 16, 2015 If there is one post of mine that fails to fit into your definition of "intelligent conversation", I would appreciate it if you point it out .. That, or where I have been a "troll" ?? I am merely participating on a discussion board ( discussion being the key word ) We weren't applying it to you. There are a couple of members giving EagleMoon flack, and in my world women should never be spoken to like that. Thanks Segue. I'm just trying to have a civil discussion and people are getting their panties in a twist. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Segue Myles Posted May 16, 2015 Author Share Posted May 16, 2015 If there is one post of mine that fails to fit into your definition of "intelligent conversation", I would appreciate it if you point it out .. That, or where I have been a "troll" ?? I am merely participating on a discussion board ( discussion being the key word ) We weren't applying it to you. There are a couple of members giving EagleMoon flack, and in my world women should never be spoken to like that. Thanks Segue. I'm just trying to have a civil discussion and people are getting their panties in a twist. Its always alarming how some people get so defensive! Its so embarrassing to observe. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tangy Posted May 16, 2015 Share Posted May 16, 2015 The idea that rush was bar band quality or they were not top tier players as stated above in the 70's is laughable. I'm with you. The point being made is that 70's Rush was a "bar band" when compared with the likes of ELP, Yes, Genesis, and Kansas, but I just don't agree at all. I think they are all comparable musicians. "Hemispheres Neil" doesn't stack up against Phil Ehart? No way in hell that's true."Hemispheres Geddy" sucks when compared with Mike Rutherford? Seriously?"Hemispheres Alex" is "bar band" musician compared with Kerry Livgren? Give me a break. Perhaps Hemispheres is not as complex or symphonic as something like Brain Salad Surgery or Close to the Edge, but no way are Geddy, Alex and Neil "bar band" players, IMO. You're allowed to disagree. It's a free country. :) I'm talking about technical ability. No way were the boys in the same category with classically trained musicians. They just weren't. Seems a little snobbish and something that someone with some training would say. According to that logic. if I have training then I'm a snob, if I don't have training then I just don't know what I'm talking about. It's just possible that I do know what I'm talking about and your defensiveness is just keeping you from seeing what I'm saying. People hate to have their preconceptions challenged and I think that's what's going on here. Lets try a new angle. my opinion versus yours. That really means very litle. I think the general public do think/perceive rush as top tier in the form of the numerous awards from magazines like modern drummer etc etc.The accolades started in 1980 and grow every year. Not proof positive but far more credible than an opinion.. How do you explain that? Still waiting...... I didn't see this post before now. I was talking about 70's Rush, not 80's and beyond or did you miss MY first comment? I did as i posted a single post. Pretty sure you replied to me? Whatever. So they became top tier in the 80's? Seems unlikely to me but i am done splitting hairs over the definition of top tier. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Segue Myles Posted May 16, 2015 Author Share Posted May 16, 2015 The idea that rush was bar band quality or they were not top tier players as stated above in the 70's is laughable. I'm with you. The point being made is that 70's Rush was a "bar band" when compared with the likes of ELP, Yes, Genesis, and Kansas, but I just don't agree at all. I think they are all comparable musicians. "Hemispheres Neil" doesn't stack up against Phil Ehart? No way in hell that's true."Hemispheres Geddy" sucks when compared with Mike Rutherford? Seriously?"Hemispheres Alex" is "bar band" musician compared with Kerry Livgren? Give me a break. Perhaps Hemispheres is not as complex or symphonic as something like Brain Salad Surgery or Close to the Edge, but no way are Geddy, Alex and Neil "bar band" players, IMO. You're allowed to disagree. It's a free country. :) I'm talking about technical ability. No way were the boys in the same category with classically trained musicians. They just weren't. Seems a little snobbish and something that someone with some training would say. According to that logic. if I have training then I'm a snob, if I don't have training then I just don't know what I'm talking about. It's just possible that I do know what I'm talking about and your defensiveness is just keeping you from seeing what I'm saying. People hate to have their preconceptions challenged and I think that's what's going on here. Lets try a new angle. my opinion versus yours. That really means very litle. I think the general public do think/perceive rush as top tier in the form of the numerous awards from magazines like modern drummer etc etc.The accolades started in 1980 and grow every year. Not proof positive but far more credible than an opinion.. How do you explain that? Still waiting...... I didn't see this post before now. I was talking about 70's Rush, not 80's and beyond or did you miss MY first comment? I did as i posted a single post. Pretty sure you replied to me? Whatever. So they became top tier in the 80's? Seems unlikely to me but i am done splitting hairs over the definition of top tier. To be fair, you had no reason to split hairs in the first place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now