Led Zeppelin vs. Rush

[Thorngrub]

*For the record: I won't vote, cuz neither is "better" than the other . . .

[Adam]

At this point, I haven't listened to enough Rush, so I'll consider Zep to be better.
That being said, as I get more Rush albums, that could change cause I've bought 3 and I love what I'm hearing.

[Thorngrub]

I mean, breakin it down:

~RUSH has better lyrics (that much is certain)
~Zep brings the "slop" (thanks Cook)
~Alex is a virtuoso
~Jimmy smokes on guitar while smokin' a cig
~Neil Peart may be the world's best drummer
~But there will never be another "Bonzo" . . . No How; No Way
~Zep set the precedent
~Rush carries the Torch


There is no comparison; only contrast.

[riley]

pcook said:

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.

This is fair. I like either approach on any given day. Sometimes (more often these days), I like the sloppy ill planned indie approach. Other days, pure technique is appealing. Regardless, I can see why some people would shy away from Rush if they felt like they were listening to a clinic at times.

[riley]

ded said:

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.

I would take it a step further in that they set the bar for progressive contemporaries and predocessors like Yes, King Crimson, Queen and ultimately Tool and Dream Theatre. Even Radiohead have noted Rush as an influence.

[Thorngrub]

I agree with that Riley, almost entirely (w/the single exception of King Crimson, as they came onto the scene in 1969, a full 5 years before Rush). But I will say they may've played a part in helping Crimson shape the juggernaut of their overall sound towards progressive tendencies. . . who knows, they may have influenced each other as they moved forward into those musical realms.


The more I think about it, I should vote for RUSH over Zep as they are clearly the "better" of the two bands. ;D

[Galactus]

Yes's first album came out the same year (I had an argument all lined yesterday about why Pink Floyd didn't invent even a large chunk of progy-art metal but nobody pushed it so I let it go).

[riley]

I'm currently formulating an argument that "progy" isn't a word.

[skvorisdeadsorta]

Genesis was also in the late sixties as well.......oh yeah and Genesis with Peter Gabriel totally slays Rush AND Led Zeppelin.

[melon1]

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.

Well said, Riley. I would even go so far as to say they could pull off more as a band than any band I've ever heard when it comes to technicality and showing off. Impressed doesn't even begin to describe my thoughts on them. But music is about so much more than impressive technique and ability. When it comes to feeling the music, I prefer Zeppelin as much as I would a filet minon over a ritz cracker.

[melon1]

kool said:

melon1 said:

And most importantly, Jimmy Page is the greatest songwriter of the 20th Century. Yeah, I said it.

Agreed. Although not the best guitarist, he had a way with a melody no one else ever had. Simple, direct, powerful, beautiful.

How refreshing to see someone actually agree with me on this. I never dreamed that would happen. And you're right that he's certainly not the best guitarist. That would go to Mr. Hendrix, obviously. Whoever hasn't heard "Woodstock Improvisation/Villanova Junction" in a while should give it another listen. That performance alone makes his superiority undeniable.

[Kensterberg]

Jimmy Page is a wanker. Plant is a wanker. Bonham could be a wanker, esp. in concert. Jones really wasn't a wanker, but with the other three more than making up for this, the inevitable conclusion is that Led Zep was a bunch of wankers.

Much as I hate to admit this, only one of the three guys in Rush can be accused of this cardinal sin: Neil Peart. Lifeson's riffs tend to be very concise - he doesn't play a lot of excess notes. Lee's vocals can veer into wankerdom at times, but then again, look at the shit that Peart has given him for lyrics (see The Trees, By-Tor and the Snow Dog, etc.), but his bass playing is at once showy, tuneful, and focussed. Peart's the only one who really is a wanker, and so the conclusion has to be that Rush are not a bunch of wankers.

To sum up:

Led Zep = wankers (bad)
Rush = not wankers (good)

This helpful update brought to you by the North American Society to Reduce Pointless Wankery in All It's Manifestations (NASPWAIM).

;D

[skvorisdeadsorta]

I'll take Peart's wankery over Zep's bozo releases.......sorry, man, but as a drummer, it's great to hear guys like Peart who can totally wail and not sound stupid.

[maarts]

I don't care whether certain people are wankers, as long as the music's good.
How else can people stand Guns 'n Roses?

[melon1]

Ken, I consider your definition, mockery and dismissal of "wankery" to be more extreme than my feelings toward any given sin forbidden by God in the frickin' Bible. It seems to me that to you, when someone is feeling so much energy, passion and emotion that they don't know what to do with themselves and it ends up coming out on their instrument, you write it off as wankery immediately, when actually some of the greatest music ever played has come out in that very form. In other words, I certainly won't be donating to the NASPWAIM.