G."Duh-Bya" Rush and Al Who

["Mark R. Leaman" <mleaman@sccoast.net>]

> Hm... I think that comparing Rush and The Who is
> really a matter of tastes. Yeah, the first Rush album
> was just "inspired", but most of their 70's albums
> inspired a large number of bands with its mixture of
> hard rock and progressive music. For example: I just
> can't imagine Dream Theater without the previous
> existance of Rush.

Lucas:

I guess you could say that; I'm not a DT fan but if you're going to say that
I would have to include Savatage too. I've always had a problem with the
term "Progressive Rock" anyway since most of the bands are considered so
because they bring in elements of older music styles, like Classical or
Jazz. I mean, wouldn't that make them REGRESSIVE Rock rather than
progressive? Devo, on the other hand, at least on their first album did
actually progress Rock. IMHO, of course.
Rush just never did anything that made me sit up and take notice. They're
great musicians, granted, but the music didn't move me at all. `Course that
doesn't mean they didn't inspire, but it does have a bearing on their
quality. Devo made me laugh, at least. Rush has evoked no emotion in me
stronger than to reach out and turn the radio dial to another station. I
don't hate them or anything, like I do bands like Kansas (also considered
progressive BTW) and Loverboy (I'd label them "Pathetic Rock") and Bob Seger
(who I used to like until the 1000th time I heard Old Time RnR). I'd just
rather listen to something else, which is a personal choice of course.
However, as I used Rush and The Who for Bush and Gore, and my reasoning was
about depth and quality. I hope you will agree with me that The Who have
more quality in their music, and more depth in the lyrics, than Rush. Maybe
you won't, but for me it's not about comparing which is "better" (because
that's a personal choice) but instead about tangible areas of their music.

> Rush and Who have different styles, so I think we just
> can't say "this one is better than the other".

I'm sure I could make an argument that The Who's style was more original and
certainly more influential than Rush's.

> settle things. Geddy Lee and John Entwistle? Both are

But John is clearly better.

> incredible bassists. Pete Townshend and Alex Lifeson?

Alex is certainly the better lead player.

> like, but how to compare Alex and Pete, musically?

On their strengths and weaknesses.

> Then comes Keith Moon and Neil Peart. These two
> outstanding drummers have totally opposite styles, and
> they master their own style. How can we say that one
> is better than the other?

I can, I can say Keith is the greatest Rock drummer so far and feel good
about what I've said. Confident that Peart would agree, as Bonham agreed as
well.

> Rush and The Who, to me, is a bit senseless...

Well WHAT are we going to discuss, then? We have to discuss something or the
list is dead!

> Still I don't understand... How such a great band doesn't have a real
> legacy like the Stones or the Beatles out here... That's a shame... Like
> people will remember the Stones 50 years from now, but not The Who...

> BUT I FUCKING WILL!!!

Bjorn:

I feel your pain, having grown up as the only Who fan in Myrtle Beach (all
the while Pete Townshend was vacationing at the Baba Center five miles from
here). Don't worry; one thing I've learned is we will win in the long run.
Where are The Stones now? Nowhere.
Heh heh heh.

> I don't know.  I can't seem to get away from them.

Brian:

Yeah, well when Stern ended today the DJ said "And now for some Who!" And
played Heartbreaker/Living Loving Maid. Jerk. My hand reached for the
dial...



"The new President of The United States
        is what I would call a cunt "
                         Pete Townshend

               Cheers                 ML