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

[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.

 

[H.P. Lovecraft]

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.

 

[H.P. Lovecraft]

They destroy Pink Floyd, I know that for sure. Genesis are too inconsistent to even compare with Rush.

King Crimson are the only competition there.

I'd say Floyd matches them. Genesis are for sure a rung down, but I think Floyd, Crimson, and Rush are all in the same league.

 

[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.

 

[H.P. Lovecraft]

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:

Ha. Cry more. Music has objective aspects yes, but they're limited to, for instance, the time signature or key of a song. Vocals cannot be objectively "uncharismatic", and there's no objective standard for a "bad album". If I were to claim a Nine Inch Nails album the pinnacle of musicality, you couldn't prove me wrong, and I couldn't prove myself right. Why? It's a negative claim. There's no objective metrics by which to substantiate anything qualitatively unless you're going by pure technical standards, which are just that, technical standards, and don't begin to encompass music as a whole. I never claimed greater intelligence, I merely called out those asking for objective substantiation of things that were clearly musical opinions, i.e. "Rush beats Pink Floyd". As for joining a university lit department, last I checked, universities, had, for the greater part, gone the opposite way of "intellectual". And what's with the faggy, bad romance novels?

 

[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.

 

[H.P. Lovecraft]

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.

Charisma is a subjective and intangible thing no matter how you slice it. Someone might just find My Bloody Valentine's vocals more suave and enticing in that way than they do with Garner's pipes in Sir Lord Baltimore. It's all up to the ears of the listener.

 

[Baroque]

 

[Jimmy... Dead.]

 

[The Ozzman]

Eric Clapton's crowning achievement: Layla and Other Assorted Love Songs

 

[CiG]

I much prefer Blind Faith but that shit rules too.

 

[H.P. Lovecraft]

Eric Clapton's crowning achievement: Layla and Other Assorted Love Songs

Eh, I think his crowning achievement was Cream. Nothing against Layla though, pure classic.

 

[Jimmy... Dead.]

 

[CiG]

You're fucking gay.