Monet is pronounced the same in French as how they pronounce Money in the Pink Floyd song.
You can hear it in the videos here Link Removed
And Money song
Enjoy the benefits of a premium membership!
Upgrade Account
-
TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
Join free Log in
Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.
Why is Pink Floyd more popular and appealing than Rush?
- Thread starter MidnightRunner
- Start date
You can hear it in the videos here Link Removed
And Money song
Because Rush suck, outside of a few decent songs. And their odious politics and obnoxious personalities only make it easier to hate them. And their simpering fanboys are the icing on the cake.
Songs. In between Roger's most miserable dirges PF had some decent tunes. That flowed & dare I say it, grooved.
Also, lack of comedy helium vocals swings it for me
Better tunes.
Of the major progressive bands of my youth, ELP had showmanship and bombast, Yes had spectacular technical chops, Genesis had musicianship and whimsy, and Floyd had the best tunes.
Of the major progressive bands of my youth, ELP had showmanship and bombast, Yes had spectacular technical chops, Genesis had musicianship and whimsy, and Floyd had the best tunes.
Rush is kind of cerebral, aimed at appealing with clever techniques such as changing time signatures multiple times in a song. It appeals to musicians and the few others who have the mental chops to appreciate that stuff. Even then, it doesn't actually groove.
My theory is that most of the general public don't even have a brain/ear to appreciate what's happening musically. They just want a song they can easily process and tap their foot to(i.e. no weird time signatures) and chord sequences they can already relate to, not one they have to work at or takes them outside their musical comfort zone.
My theory is that most of the general public don't even have a brain/ear to appreciate what's happening musically. They just want a song they can easily process and tap their foot to(i.e. no weird time signatures) and chord sequences they can already relate to, not one they have to work at or takes them outside their musical comfort zone.
These are two of my favorite bands. Pink Floyd connects much more on a deep emotional level. That's not to say Rush doesn't connect emotionally, but Water's writing is among the most emotionally vulnerable writers in the world, especially back then, and deeper than anyone I can think of. Peart's lyrics are amazing too, but more logic with emotion. I recall discovering The Wall around age 17 and it was shocking how emotionally raw, real and open Waters was. Add Gilmour's incredibly emotionally guitar and they are on the top of the mountain for what they do.
Last edited:
Worked with a drummer years ago - wait, TRIED to work with a drummer years ago - who was a big Rush fan. Just about every song we tried to learn, yea you guessed it, was way over-drummed. He was complicated and we wanted to make bar/dance music. Needless to say, that band fell apart pretty quick and that drummer went on to do a lot of other interesting things, except to ever bond with a band. Too bad because technically he was amazing.
Pink Floyd was part of the era when many bands wrote and perform music that studio engineers were able to easily master into amazing albums.. one song just seemed to flow into, or stand up the next song. I like (or loved) most of Pink Floyds albums from end to end.. can't say that for Rush. But certainly from a technical standpoint Rush was every bit as talented, theory-wise, maybe more. To musicians that's important. To the majority of the folks who comprise the ticket buying audience, not so much.
Pink Floyd was part of the era when many bands wrote and perform music that studio engineers were able to easily master into amazing albums.. one song just seemed to flow into, or stand up the next song. I like (or loved) most of Pink Floyds albums from end to end.. can't say that for Rush. But certainly from a technical standpoint Rush was every bit as talented, theory-wise, maybe more. To musicians that's important. To the majority of the folks who comprise the ticket buying audience, not so much.
Last edited:
I'll just throw in that some of the biggest, most fanatical Rush-heads I've known have been women. I'm talking like, exchanged postcards with Neil Peart, dissected Didacts and Narpets lyrics, had opinions on Chicago Guy from Show of Hands, celebrated 24th of May because it was in a song, level of nerdy Rush fandom.
I've known lots of casual Floyd fans, lots of them women, but none who were all that into Floyd.
It could be that more of Pink Floyd's music was closer to the kind of pop (and stoner) rock out at that time, and so, easier to audibly digest. Their lush musical landscapes and made for headphones sound effects really drew people in, myself included.
And during those days, Geddy's voice was pretty high and shriek-y, and Rush's music was impressively complex for a bunch of guys who never went to music school, but sounded like they did and aced every course. And think about 2112 - who else tf could have come up with that other than Rush? Good as it was, it was almost like a fantasy book in musical form, made for bookworms like myself who stayed in my room reading HHGTTG while other kids were playing outside. Displaced, awkward nerdy guys like me flocked to Rush because they were collectively one of us, and spoke a musical language only we could really understand. That kind of made it a club for nerds and we were glad that the normies couldn't understand it all. Rush, and our fellow fans, were our own clique, radio play be hanged. The girls of our days had their own music they liked and typically couldn't find a groove or singable chorus in most of Rush's music, and so stayed away.
Conversely, Pink Floyd's more "normal" male voices and laid back groove simply had greater mass appeal to guys and gals alike. While some of their stories were fantastical, they were also more personal. In those years, many more people knew what it was like to be "comfortably numb" than had lived in the limelight, and so Floyd's music was more relatable by both genders. When listening to a Pink Floyd record in the dark in one's bedroom, it was easy to be enveloped by the soundscapes and carried away. Rush? Made me want to turn on the lights and play air drums the whole time. You get the idea.
Moving on...
A quick check of Billboard's Hot 100 shows:
Pink Floyd had one #1, one Top Ten, and five songs in the Top 100. Dark Side of the Moon has sold over 50 million copies worldwide since its release.
Rush had zero #1 songs and zero Top Ten, but seven songs in the Top 100. Their top selling record, Moving Pictures, has sold 4 million worldwide since release.
Last edited:
Yes, skill can be so overrated. If it doesn't connect, it's like a brilliant book with too many details.
This! Great summation.
I found Rush's music was something you had to "contend with". I always find myself paying attention and thinking. Floyd was more relaxing and emotionally moving. Each had a different connection to the brain.
I love both, but for different reasons.
I have known a lot of women that rank The Wall as among their favorite albums. It is the THE best selling double album of all time. That tells you it was bought by all peoples.
Interesting conversation that will change not 1 opinion, LOL!!! My guess would be that Rush 'peaked' with Moving Pictures which was released in 1981 to technically not the 70's. I am a fan of both, but as a Canadian growing up in the 70's/80's Rush will always hold a soft spot.
Separating the 'better than' from the 'more popular than' question, I would imagine there could be the factor of Rush coming out of Canada that may have improved a wider-spread popularity.... If Rush had never gotten their initial foothold into the Detroit radio market with "Working Man" they may have never made a dent in the USA compared to their level of general awareness of the public in Canada.
To mans-plain the women's perspective, at least from a sample size of 1 (my wife), she depressingly bases her opinion of Rush on Geddy Lee being unattractive.... not exactly a measure based on anything related to song-writing or performing talent.... :-(
