Rush vs The Beatles

zachfive wrote: ^ The point is they were in the media, and like anyone in "the biz" will tell you any publicity is good publicity. Especially if the media is against you in such a rebellious time, as the 60's were. So it seems you may have shot yourself in the foot by saying that the media being against them was not a good thing, because I think it helped them tremendously...

hahhahahha... oh that is grand....   I must say.. no idea who that dude is... but something tells me that a spin of that old guy can be more exhilarating than the average Camel listening experience.  

Sacred 22 wrote: Camel smokes the Beatles. Camel wrote their own music and they can flat out play the Beatles as well. The Beatles............hmmmmmm, one of the biggest music frauds in the history of the music industry from my point of view.

you know... a simple exercise in the illustration of insanity...


Edited by micky - March 31 2009 at 18:57

Equality 7-2521 wrote: Leningrad wrote: Changing my vote to this.

Didnt he write some Yes songs?

BaldJean wrote: zachfive wrote: ^ The point is they were in the media, and like anyone in "the biz" will tell you any publicity is good publicity. Especially if the media is against you in such a rebellious time, as the 60's were. So it seems you may have shot yourself in the foot by saying that the media being against them was not a good thing, because I think it helped them tremendously... the point is they wrote excellent songs. why do you think so many of them have been  covered by hundreds of jazz musicians? you judge them more than 40 years later, with 40 years of prog in between. put yourself back in time, and you have to admit they did some really sensational things then

You are quite right but you'll never get them to understand this.

It's the same when people laugh about Ringo being one of the most influential drummers ever. Whenever I pick up a drum magazine and they ask a drummer (usually over 50 yrs old) who were their top 5 influences, Ringo's name invariably pops up. He may not be one of the best drummers ever but he inspired 1000s of people to play the drums.

zachfive wrote: ^ The point is they were in the media, and like anyone in "the biz" will tell you any publicity is good publicity. Especially if the media is against you in such a rebellious time, as the 60's were. So it seems you may have shot yourself in the foot by saying that the media being against them was not a good thing, because I think it helped them tremendously...

the point is they wrote excellent songs. why do you think so many of them have been  covered by hundreds of jazz musicians? you judge them more than 40 years later, with 40 years of prog in between. put yourself back in time, and you have to admit they did some really sensational things then

Stravinsky is my preferred over the The Beatles.

Petrovsk Mizinski wrote: Abstrakt wrote: HughesJB4 wrote: BaldJean wrote: HughesJB4 wrote: memowakeman wrote: BaldJean wrote: It is easier to understand than the fuss about Rush, at least from an historic point of view. I doubt we would have prog today if it hadn't been for the Beatles.   That is why i am not really a Beatles follower, i think their value is just from the historic point of view as you said, they openend doors for new music, sounds and new genres, but i find most of their music boring. I am not a true Rush follower either, but i actually listen to them more and prefer them over Beatles. Right on bro. I'd rather take a band that still has a lot of historical significance that I can actually enjoy listening to than a band with even more historical significance which I find to be garbage except for these 2 songs Helter Skelter and Revolution no.9. And I'm not a true Rush follower either, FWIW. there are a lot more songs by the Beatles which I can listen to and liking it still, not only "Helter Skelter" and "Revolution Nr. 9". songs like "Julia" or "I will" have wonderful melodies. the Beatles had a great knack for melodies, which is unrivalled by any other prog band, in my opinion. even conductor and composer Leonard Bernstein admired the melodies of the Beatles Fair enough. I still don't like The Beatles except those 2 songs That's because you're silly! Or because I don't buy into the media hype like some people do.

Get that man a Foster's.

Equality 7-2521 wrote: BaldJean wrote: the Beatles are sacrosanct? since when? certainly not in here. judging by some of the posts in the forum one would rather get the impression that Rush are sacrosanct . you just have to look at all the drummer polls which end 1) Peart .... nothing for a while... 2) others. True on a local level maybe, but globally as you said Rush are given relatively little credit, but The Beatles tend to considered to best band ever all over. As Hughes said it seems you have to apologize whenever you label The Beatles as worse than any other artists. I was only referring to Beatles choosers posting in this thread actually.

I don't think they tend to be considered the best band ever, and certainly not by me. but they are definitely one of the most influential bands ever. it is not just all hype about them, and anyone who says that should think again. of course their music has dated some, and there certainly were a lot of simple commercial songs by them in the beginning, but from "Rubber Soul" on they started to go in a different direction, and "Revolver" is already an excellent album that people should listen to as a whole before denigrating them. you may not like them, but their historic importance is beyond any doubt