Rush & Who, Prog-rock, etc.

[Lucas Bleicher <lbleicher@yahoo.com>]

Nelson9792@aol.com wrote:
<< A few years ago I was on a Rush list similar to
this 
one and I can assure you that the Rush fans do not
merely give a "surface listen." On the contrary, they
scrutinize every beat, note and lyric more than 
anyone else I’ve read. >>

That's true. I've seen sites on the net dedicated only
to analyzing rush lyrics and song structures...
 
<< Does it not stand to reason that those of us who
are drawn to The Who’s musicianship might also enjoy
Geddy Lee’s bass playing or Neil Peart’s drumming? >>

That's exactly how I think. I used to think that
Entwistle and Moon were the best musicians on their
instruments and that nobody in the world could never
get close to them. Later I noticed that if I have
sticked to that idea I wouldn't have the chance to
appreciate so many great musicians such as Jaco
Pastorius, Tony Levin, Neil Peart, Bill Bruford, and
so many others. Nowadays, I prefer to have no
"favourite" musicians. I just listen to everyone that
offers great music!

<< I agree that Who fans generally have high
standards, buy Geddy is a good bass player, Alex is a
good guitarist, Neil is a good drummer and a clever, 
intelligent lyricist. >>

Sure...

<< In a Who vs. Rush decision it has less to do with
standards than merely preference. >>

I second your words.


In the meanwhile, O'Neal, Kevin W.

<< No, John is an "incredible bassist", but Geddy is
an OK bassist.  All Geddy brought to playing bass is
the deep "clunky" sound of the Rickenbocker. Geddy
doesn't have Johns speed, musical talent, or ability
to improvise like John does. >>

Well, I always liked John better than Geddy too, but I
wouldn't get that shocked if someone told me the
contrary. I would certanly get shocked if someone said
to me that the bassist from Ramones is much better
than Entwistle or Geddy (someone once told me that
Nirvana's bassist was better than Entwistle. THAT is a
shock).

<< You have got to be *fucking* kidding me!
Alex Lifeson???????????????? Ask anyone on the street,
or even in a music store who Alex is, and I'm 
sure you'll get a puzzled look in return.
Alex Lifeson was the weak link in Rush.  He really is
not a good guitar player, at all. His playing was
un-imaginative, and simply immature. >>

Well, in fact I heard that opinion from many people.
The guitarist in my band (which is an enthusiast of
the likes of Yngwie Malmsteen) uses to say that Alex
Lifeson is Rush's doom, and that the band should have
a "good" guitarist instead, an opinion that I really
don't agree with. Ok, "technically" Alex is maybe
"inferior" to the other two, but mechanical technique
really isn't the main thing I seek on musicians. I
think that Alex Lifeson plays a very important role on
Rush, as he creates rithmically interesting and
creative solos. To me, listening to, say, his solo on
Limelight, is thousands times more interesting to hear
Yngwie Malmsteen playing millions of notes on his
songs. Pete also don't play millions of notes per
solo, and I like him. What catches me on Pete's
playing is his creativity on building intelligent and
memorable riffs.

<< Not impossible at all. Are you saying that you
can't compare Pete to say some Punk Band guitarist who
sucks, simply because they play differing styles. >>

Well, do you think that Alex Lifeson is on the same
level as, say, Johnny Ramone???

<< Ok, now I'm back with ya.  You've just put my two
favorite drummers side-by-side. I can't compare them. 
One style is totally different from the other, and
both are excellent at what they do. >>

Yeah. I would add also Bill Bruford to the list, which
is another style...

<< Let's not go there again. ;-) >>

Sure :)

On the other side, Mark R. Leaman wrote:

<< 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? >>

Well, I think that's just a problem with labels, I
don't care much about this. I like lots of prog bands
because they mix styles that I like and could never be
imagined together, so I don't care much if that's
being progressive or regressive, I just listen to it
for the music. But you are right, few prog bands
created something *completely* new, instead of just
experimenting with different styles. King Crimson,
maybe...

<< Devo, on the other hand, at least on their first
album did actually progress Rock. IMHO, of course. >>

Well, I just can't comment on this, I don't know
anything from devo...

<< Rush just never did anything that made me sit up
and take notice. >>

I think that what they were doing on the seventies was
something new, on rock. Still rock, but different.

<< I don't hate them or anything, like I do bands like
Kansas (also considered progressive BTW) >>

I think they're more of a hard rock band, no? I mean,
the 70's hard rock, which usually added more
instruments to the guitar-bass-drums line-up (as Deep
Purple and Uriah Heep).

<< I hope you will agree with me that The Who 
have more quality in their music, and more depth in
the lyrics, than Rush. >>

That's a really tough question. Both bands have great
musical quality and lyrics. How can we measure that?

If the deal was with The Who with a punk band, as
O'Neal supposed, then it would be really easy to say
who had more quality in their music, but I just don't
see any reason to say that Rush or The Who has more
musical quality than the other. At least to me, the
bands are on a level that makes that statement a
matter of tastes. I could say the same about, say,
Jethro Tull...

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

The Who certainly influenced a larger number of bands
then Rush did. But how can we measure originality? To
me both bands were original. I think that The Who was
the most original band on their style (60's
rock'n'roll scene), but their style is just too
different from that of Rush, which I also think is
original, and that wasn't being done by others on
their time.

<< 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. >>

To me, it's a personal statement. There are lots of
things that Neil Peart or Bill Bruford do and Keith
just couldn't do. At the same time, both Neil Peart
nor Bill Bruford had Keith's style. So, I think we
just can't say that one is better than the others. If
one of them mastered the three styles, then we could
say that, but that's not the case.

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

I'll agree with you on that :)

> 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... 

I TOTALLY agree with you on that one! I always felt
very unpleased with the idea that The Who didn't have
the recognition they deserved. To me, the space on
media which is commonly reserved to Beatles and
Stones, should be for Beatles and The Who. If this
serves as an example, the rolling stones is a band
that I have no doubt on saying that was inferior to
The Who...

<< 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. >>

Well, but the media, at least here in Brazil, just
keep on refering to them as "greatest rock band in the
world"...


And L. Bird wrote:

<< It's true that progressive groups often incorporate
older styles, but I always thought "progressive" meant
a willingness to experiment and disregard for
artificial musical barriers. >>

That's exactily what I like about the style...



__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Photos - Share your holiday photos online!
http://photos.yahoo.com/