Nightshade wrote:I fail to see how a musician can not like one of the world's preeminent rock bands. They're absolutely fucking amazing, brilliant lyrics, fantastic musical ability from all three of them, they're the total package. Damn, what's not to like? What Rush have you listened to? Signals is excellent, as is Moving Pictures. For true classic Rush, give Fly By Night or 2112 a go.
ok, I'll give it another go. I think my problem with them is the same problem I have with bands like Muse - great technique which tends to (IMO) overpower the songwriting
how dare you... and i TOTALLY disagree with your take on Muse.... Geebs
I'd have to agree with Geebs on Rush. Sure, they're technically excellent, but their songs suck.
I was debating this with a collegue the other day. We were saying "This song is really good, but I still don't like it". It's like you recognize that it is good at what it does, but it still doesn't appeal to you. It's the same thing with Rush for me (as well as with a lot of other "great" bands like Pink Floyd for example). They're great, but I still don't like them.
Grudge wrote:I'd have to agree with Geebs on Rush. Sure, they're technically excellent, but their songs suck.
I was debating this with a collegue the other day. We were saying "This song is really good, but I still don't like it". It's like you recognize that it is good at what it does, but it still doesn't appeal to you. It's the same thing with Rush for me (as well as with a lot of other "great" bands like Pink Floyd for example). They're great, but I still don't like them.
Well, to each their own. There really is no 'best' band or music, but Rush's technical competence is near-unparalleled.
Nightshade wrote:Well, to each their own. There really is no 'best' band or music, but Rush's technical competence is near-unparalleled.
techinical competence has rather little to do with good music though IMO
it's like audiophiles fiddling around with $200/meter speaker cables, or Toto fans singing praises over the awesome production of their albums - that hasn't really anything to do with good music. A good song recorded with a cheap tape recorder in someone's bedroom, played on a dinky $50 mini system is still a good song though.
Nightshade wrote:Well, to each their own. There really is no 'best' band or music, but Rush's technical competence is near-unparalleled.
techinical competence has rather little to do with good music though IMO
it's like audiophiles fiddling around with $200/meter speaker cables, or Toto fans singing praises over the awesome production of their albums - that hasn't really anything to do with good music. A good song recorded with a cheap tape recorder in someone's bedroom, played on a dinky $50 mini system is still a good song though.
That's an excellent point. i.e. Springsteens Nebraska. However, RUSH is a mind-blowingly enjoyable band for some of us.
[color=#00FF00][b]"How do you keep the natives off the booze long enough to pass the test?" Asked of a Scottish driving instructor in 1995.[/b][/color]
Nightshade wrote:Well, to each their own. There really is no 'best' band or music, but Rush's technical competence is near-unparalleled.
techinical competence has rather little to do with good music though IMO
it's like audiophiles fiddling around with $200/meter speaker cables, or Toto fans singing praises over the awesome production of their albums - that hasn't really anything to do with good music. A good song recorded with a cheap tape recorder in someone's bedroom, played on a dinky $50 mini system is still a good song though.
of course it's subjective, I'm however trying to argue the point that there are other elements to music than technical competence that are more important
Awesome, fantastic music that transcends the performance and/or skill of the musicians
of course, the arrangement and the way it is performed does add something to the song, but on the other hand, the arrangement and the performance is meaningless if you take away the song itself
I understand that you are trying to upset me DRuM, but I'm not going to argue with you about Toto. They're a great band who's done a bunch of great songs, but they're just not my cup of tea.
I'm not very surprised that dull old you like them though. From the look of you, you seem to have been in your heyday right there back in the 80's too.
of course it's subjective, I'm however trying to argue the point that there are other elements to music than technical competence that are more important
Which is again, entirely subjective. Look, we're really arguing taste here, so there's no end to it.
ffs, NO. I'm merely stating that 'other factors being more important' is a very subjective argument and that any factor you deem 'more important' may be meaningless to me or anyone else. There is no end to this debate, so why pursue it?
Grudge wrote:I understand that you are trying to upset me DRuM, but I'm not going to argue with you about Toto. They're a great band who's done a bunch of great songs, but they're just not my cup of tea.
I'm not very surprised that dull old you like them though. From the look of you, you seem to have been in your heyday right there back in the 80's too.
Well by what criteria do you say toto are a great band who've done great songs if you don't even like them? I'll help you out here. They're some of the most technically competent musicians in the world who also happened to write great songs. It's just a shame you don't appreciate great songs or decent musicianship, as witnessed by your love of white stripes, lol.
Nightshade wrote:ffs, NO. I'm merely stating that 'other factors being more important' is a very subjective argument and that any factor you deem 'more important' may be meaningless to me or anyone else. There is no end to this debate, so why pursue it?
well, DRuM it's just a shame you don't appreciate great songs or decent musicianship, as witnessed by your inability to understand the white stripes, lol
so you can't see a situation where you can recognize something as being good, although despite that not suite your own personal tastes?
Nightshade wrote:ffs, NO. I'm merely stating that 'other factors being more important' is a very subjective argument and that any factor you deem 'more important' may be meaningless to me or anyone else. There is no end to this debate, so why pursue it?
sure, ok
so what are we debating in this thread then?
I'm referring to the direction in which you're taking the thread, but your point is valid to the topic as a whole.
