|
|
Post by kool on Apr 16, 2006 18:43:42 GMT -5
Rush completely aside, can we please stop propping Jimmy Page up as some sort of musical craft master. Last time I saw him he was drooling on himself in a Diddy video and whoring Kashmir. I think that is Jimmy's one and only major career fuck-up [the Diddy thingy]. I hate that song. I was never even a big fan of the original "Kashmir" to begin with. I've always found it too long, and kinda boring. Even so, it's still nowhere near as boring as anything Pink Floyd did... |
|
|
|
Post by riley on Apr 16, 2006 18:59:38 GMT -5
Contrary to how this is all playing out, I don't actually have as much of a hate on for Page as it appears. I would suggest he's overated, dated,and the notion of him writing better songs than say Eno or a bunch of other far more relevant artists is beyond absurd. I will just the same, with complete due respect, also suggest these all qualify as additional career fuck ups.     |
|
|
|
Post by riley on Apr 16, 2006 19:01:16 GMT -5
The Honeymooners could almost get a pass for being novel. I've also resisted all temptation to list Coda and Presence.
|
|
|
|
Post by poseidon on Apr 16, 2006 19:02:55 GMT -5
Rush.
|
|
|
|
Post by Galactus on Apr 16, 2006 19:07:12 GMT -5
Yeah, I think pretty much all of Page's non-Zeppelin projects are pretty strong arguments against him being the greatest songwriter of the 20th century.
|
|
|
|
Post by kool on Apr 16, 2006 19:28:36 GMT -5
The only one of those albums I own is the one he did with Coverdale. At the time, I thought it wasn't half bad. I will admit, I haven't listened to it since maybe 1998. I'm talking about the "major career fuck-ups" I know of. I own every Zep album up until Physical Graffitti, the a/m 'Coverdale-Page' album, and that Plant-Page half baked reunion from a few years back [whose title I can't for the life of me recall right now]. Still, Rush is way inferior and Patlogi voting for them only proves my point. j/k  |
|
|
|
Post by phil on Apr 16, 2006 22:00:22 GMT -5
Pink Floyd "only" invented a big chunk of a new Music genre ... Phil, I might or might not agree with you on that point, but I don’t really see it having any bearing on musical diversity. The point is that Rush was very good at what they did but you can't say they revolutionize the music scene in any way ... Anybody here can claim they find Pink Floyd music boring but it is only an assertion of their tastes and not a definitive judgment on Pink Floyd music value... |
|
|
|
Post by riley on Apr 17, 2006 4:20:03 GMT -5
The point is that Rush was very good at what they did but you can't say they revolutionize the music scene in any way ... On the contrary, I believe they revolutionized the way progressive musician based music was made. For people who aren't concerned or impressed with the mechanics of playing perhaps Rush don't come off as revolutionary. I can guarantee though, if you talk to any rock musician focussed on improving his or her craft and pushing the boundaries of the combined sounds instruments can make, they'll point to Rush. I'm losing the handle here since I'm trying to get a thought out before work. Btw, are we comparing Rush and Floyd now? I think what I'm trying to say is millions of people will readily admit Rush were probably the strongest technically adept collective of rock musicians in the last 36 years, making some of the most complex music. Many of them will then say they're not their cup of tea. Fair game, but by virtue of the recognition can't they be described as revolutionizing progressive music? |
|
|
|
Post by riley on Apr 17, 2006 4:21:25 GMT -5
As for the vote, I only expected Rush to get two votes, so this has been fun and more than a little surprising.
|
|
|
|
Post by Galactus on Apr 17, 2006 8:24:41 GMT -5
Riley's got a point, Rush didn't invent progish rock but they brought it the mainstream and inspired millions of future drummers. An arguement can be made that Rush may have been the catalyst for the technical metal that began in the early eighties with Iron Maiden and Queensryche. Rush found more of an audience in the NWOBHM crowd more then with American rock even though they've never been a metal band.
|
|
|
|
Post by Thorngrub on Apr 17, 2006 9:28:00 GMT -5
Without Zep . . . there is no Rush.
|
|
|
|
Post by Paul on Apr 17, 2006 9:35:17 GMT -5
Riley's got a point, Rush didn't invent progish rock but they brought it the mainstream and inspired millions of future drummers. An arguement can be made that Rush may have been the catalyst for the technical metal that began in the early eighties with Iron Maiden and Queensryche. Rush found more of an audience in the NWOBHM crowd more then with American rock even though they've never been a metal band. What's NWOBHM? |
|
|
|
Post by Paul on Apr 17, 2006 9:37:14 GMT -5
I heard a little bit of Rush over the weekend, still had problems accepting Mr. Lee's vocals...
Another thing that I wasn't too crazy about was how good they are. Now this may seem odd, but what I mean by that is for me, they are almost too technical. I kinda like a little slop in my rock n' roll.
|
|
|
|
Post by Kensterberg on Apr 17, 2006 9:45:53 GMT -5
Riley's got a point, Rush didn't invent progish rock but they brought it the mainstream and inspired millions of future drummers. An arguement can be made that Rush may have been the catalyst for the technical metal that began in the early eighties with Iron Maiden and Queensryche. Rush found more of an audience in the NWOBHM crowd more then with American rock even though they've never been a metal band. What's NWOBHM? New Wave of British Heavy Metal |
|
|
|
Post by Kensterberg on Apr 17, 2006 9:47:13 GMT -5
Without Zep . . . there is no Rush. But just being the older band doesn't necessarily make them the better band. Otherwise, there's no point to listening to anything new, is there? |
|
