The thread where you talk about non-metal music you like.

[The Ozzman]

It does when your point was literally this:

How many did he have? You said he's better than Rush. Why exactly?

I said most prolific prog rock band but you're probably too high to notice I said that. Elvis and Mark E Unknown Motherfucker aren't either of those

 

[zabu of nΩd]

I said most prolific prog rock band but you're probably too high to notice I said that. Elvis and Mark E Unknown Motherfucker aren't either of those

Yes, obviously it's impossible for a band to be the greatest ever unless they're a 2nd/3rd gen prog band.

 

[The Ozzman]

Yes, obviously it's impossible for a band to be the greatest ever unless they're a 2nd/3rd gen prog band with a nasal vocalist.

>Formed in 1968
>3rd generation prog rock

Dumbass

 

[zabu of nΩd]

>Formed in 1968
>3rd generation prog rock

Dumbass

Rush wasn't doing shit for prog in 1968. They started out as a blues/hard rock band, and their first studio album was 1974.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rush_(band)#1968.E2.80.931976:_Blues_and_hard_rock_years

I said most prolific prog rock band but you're probably too high to notice I said that.

You actually said this, in case you're too drunk to recall:

As for Rush, they are the greatest and most prolific rock band of all time imo.

No mention of prog.

 

[The Ozzman]

I'm not wrong either way.

 

[zabu of nΩd]

I'm not wrong either way. Name a more prolific rock band that kept all members.

U2

http://www.rollingstone.com/music/features/is-u2-the-longestrunning-band-on-the-planet-20141104
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U2_discography#Albums

Wrong again LOL

 

[CiG]

Anyway, I'll repeat my opinion.

Rush destroy Pink Floyd, Genesis are too inconsistent to compare and King Crimson are the strongest case against Rush.

 

[The Ozzman]

U2

http://www.rollingstone.com/music/features/is-u2-the-longestrunning-band-on-the-planet-20141104
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U2_discography#Albums

Wrong again LOL

Obviously wrong because they haven't been going since 1975

Wrong again LOL

 

[zabu of nΩd]

Obviously wrong because they haven't been going since 1975

Wrong again LOL

You said "name a more prolific rock band that kept all members". Now look at that U2 discog and tell me Rush had more albums.

LOLOLOLOL

 

[The Ozzman]

You said "name a more prolific rock band that kept all members". Now look at that U2 discog and tell me Rush had more bad albums.

LOLOLOLOL

Rush had zero bad albums

 

[zabu of nΩd]

Rush had zero bad albums

Source?

 

[The Ozzman]

Source?

Your mother

 

[zabu of nΩd]

Anyway, I'll repeat my opinion.

Rush destroy Pink Floyd

I'll quote someone more articulate than myself, and who rates Pink Floyd very highly despite disliking them:

• 'The main attraction is the manner in which they present their songs. While I certainly cannot call Floyd the most talented band in rock history, they were certainly the greatest experimentators on this planet of ours. From the early feedback and electronic drums experimentation to the mad laughters and ticking clocks on Dark Side to the shiver-sending spooky atmosphere of The Wall, they were always the impeccable masters of special effects - and it was certainly that side of them that attracted most of the audience. They were simply unpredictable.'

Pink Floyd brought a wealth of great musical ideas to the world, whereas Rush is quite formulaic by comparison. Anyone who considers that a positive on Rush's part because of their "consistency" really does need to explain why Elvis Presley or the umpteenth multiplatinum hip-hop artist doesn't stand on the same pedestal.

On Dark Side of the Moon:

• 'The Dark Side Of The Moon, along with Sgt. Pepper, is one of the biggest "unifying" records of the century - equally capable of charming the demanding rock critic and the average record-buying consumer, equally palatable to art students writing their MA and to people who can easily set it on the same shelf where they keep their Kenny G.'s and their Michael Boltons. People who vehemently criticize the record often seem to do it against their will - perhaps out of noble purposes, or simply in order to "be different".'
  
• 'Take ʼTimeʼ, an equally stellar example of the "integrated package". You have all these clocks - explicitly ringing at the beginning in a confused-chaotic fashion, then fading out as a single Clock of Doom overrides all the individual tiny clocks. The bluesy verses and the gospel chorus are linked to that by means of all the time-related lyrics. The guitar solo is not just there because there should be a guitar solo - like the one in ʽMoneyʼ, it also depicts frustration and desperation, a sudden and violent fit that comes on the moment you realize that "you missed the starting gun".'
• 'ʽTimeʼ is a journey where every inch and every second make perfect and absolute sense, which - let us be frank about it - is not easily said about any random Yes, ELP, or King Crimson record.'

I'm pretty sure Rush never had an album as influential as Dark Side, or artists as high-profile as Radiohead who credited them as an influence. I've also never heard a Rush song with such a powerful message and delivery as "Time".

Wish You Were Here:

• 'Wish You Were Here is essentially the closest rock music ever came to producing a meticulously structured and engineered, yet also totally heartfelt requiem mass - and that, I think, is the angle under which one should always judge it. As in any large, multi-part piece of music, there will be parts that stun you and parts that let you breathe; climactic melodies that hit every nerve and auxiliary melodies that are not so great by themselves, but honestly play their role in the story. But it really does come across as a single powerful piece - the didactic tale of the rise and fall of a great hero'
• 'That first solo [of "Shine On You Crazy Diamond"], concluding part 1, without a single wasted note, makes me shiver every time, no matter how much I relisten to it - and it's not just the notes themselves: formally, Gilmour does not seem to be playing anything particularly outside of the standard Claptonesque blues idiom. Rather, it is the fatherly care that goes in each single note - the tone, the duration, the reverb, the relative strength of the pick; this is true mournful bliss that is all built on cliches and overcomes every one of it.'

Again, with that guitar passage in "Shine On", a uniquely powerful moment in the history of rock music.

"Pigs":

• 'Waters' vocals range from evil-grinning spiteful taunts on the verses to clenched-teeth aggressive insults in the chorus, and then, of course, there's the talkbox... simply put, ʻPigsʼ features the single best use of the talkbox effect in music history ... The overall feel of disgust and ugliness hangs so heavy above the entire track, you almost feel the need to take a shower once it's over.'

So we have hatred, disgust, desperation, mournfulness... a broad range of emotions (not to mention distinct atmospheres on a variety of albums) which Rush's comic book fantasy style doesn't even approach.

Saying Rush "destroys" Pink Floyd sounds kind of like saying a graphic novel series "destroys" Shakespeare while making no effort to appreciate Shakespeare's content and cultural influence. Unless you can give me examples of Rush's material that have the kind of qualities enumerated above, I can't help but find your statement ignorant.

http://starling.rinet.ru/music/pink.htm
http://starling.rinet.ru/music/Great Albums/002_Pink_Floyd_Dark_Side_Of_The_Moon.htm
http://starling.rinet.ru/music/Great Albums/004_Pink_Floyd_Wish_You_Were_Here.htm

 

[The Ozzman]

I'm pretty sure Rush never had an album as influential as Dark Side, or artists as high-profile as Radiohead who credited them as an influence.

Rage Against the Machine
Tool
Foo Fighters
several others have listed Rush as an influence. Check out their documentary.

 

[Oblivious Maximus]

Genesis are too inconsistent to compare

Perhaps some of the later albums but I'll always place them at the top of my prog list based on how strong their run from Nursery Cryme up to Duke was. Rush are one of the most consistent bands regardless of genre. Even the albums that a lot of fans consider "lesser" or "minor" are by and large solid.

 

[CiG]

'The main attraction is the manner in which they present their songs. While I certainly cannot call Floyd the most talented band in rock history, they were certainly the greatest experimentators on this planet of ours. From the early feedback and electronic drums experimentation to the mad laughters and ticking clocks on Dark Side to the shiver-sending spooky atmosphere of The Wall, they were always the impeccable masters of special effects - and it was certainly that side of them that attracted most of the audience. They were simply unpredictable.'

I don't see how this is true, Pink Floyd were rather late in the early experimentation game, many artist came before them and did more interesting things in my opinion.

I don't dislike Pink Floyd at all though, I'm definitely a fan.

Perhaps some of the later albums but I'll always place them at the top of my prog list based on how strong their run from Nursery Cryme up to Duke was. Rush are one of the most consistent bands regardless of genre. Even the albums that a lot of fans consider "lesser" or "minor" are by and large solid.

Genesis are my favourite progressive rock band actually.

 

[EspaDa]

@CASSETTEISGOD you like some good rap

 

[zabu of nΩd]

What is it with some of the troglodytes on this forum and positing opinions on music as fact? I can think Bieber is better than Sinatra and not technically be wrong. Why? Music is art, and art is subjective, if you're asking objective substantiation of a music opinion, or pretending to possess such a thing? Fuck you, blow me dryer than a Sahara sand dune you faux intellectual cock monkey.

You're oversimplifying, and being an asshole to boot. Music has both subjective and objective aspects, you just choose to ignore the latter.

If you're so obviously smarter than us "troglodytes," why don't you join a university lit department and make this your curriculum:

 

[CiG]

No music is subjective as it's a form of art.

 

[no country for old wainds]

people probably use 'charismatic' to represent a qualitative judgement quite often but it does have a definition that can be objectively applied IMO. i'd argue sir lord baltimore's vocals are objectively more charismatic than my bloody valentine's for example, and i don't intend that as a knock on the latter - they'd be ruined by 'charismatic' vocals.