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
I can agree with this......for example, guitar players... Vai, Satriani and a load of other twiddly twiddlies are incredible players, but my favourite all time guitar solo is Tommy Bolin's 'Wild Dogs'.....relatively straight forward, but always, always moves me
I know more Rush lyrics than PF that I can immediately remember, but there aren't many lyrics in Astronime Domine...
PF lyrics often have a more memorable turn of phrase as they seem more likely to borrow from accepted patterns, but it's not to say that Rush doesn't at times, or have chantable words. I know people who can recite the whole of The Trees, but it's much wordier with fewer repetitions than the average PF song, e. g. (similar time period) Comfortably Numb.
PF lyrics are often more personally relatable, on average, and less bombastically political, but there are overlaps. Time is a more high-brow exposition of ageing than I think I'm Going Bald, for example.
Even in other parts of the North of the UK, Newcastle Brown Ale was the rock night lubrication of choice back then...
I'm a Geordie, but I wouldn't wash my feet in Newcy Brown.....no offence to you!
I'm a Guinness man I'm afraid. Probably my mother's Irish roots
I would like to hear spirit of radio SUNG in a mister haney from green acres voice.
Both could have been improved with yodeling.
I liked the Floyd well enough, but with the exception of Dark Side of the Moon, if I listen to them frequently I find them boring, boring, boring. And even Dark Side which is mainly all about emotive and mood listening as it's major appeal will with repeated listening, get boring quickly. While the music may be creative it's just not that interesting.
Rush on the other hand is anything but that. Their music and songs may not have the massive commercial appeal of Floyd, but boring is 1 adjective that cannot be attached to them. As to the constant dissing of Lee's voice on here, I can agree the earlier Rush, when his singing range was born out of need to cut thru the mix, had certainly got a bit overbearing. However Rush was acutely aware of this and by the time Permanant Waves came along, in defense of Geddy, he was singing far more songs in a lower range. And by Moving Pictures onward I found it far more palatable as made obvious by their skyrocking mass appeal which to this day, I don't think is a lot less than PF. In short, he rarely shrieked his vocals anymore unless need demanded it, performing 1 of the very early songs and even then then he had way more timbre and sonic quality to his voice than the early days.
As to my ultimate Prog Rock preference I would agree with some previous posters and put Yes on top. They had best of all worlds including superb operatic quality vocals, along with interesting masterfully crafted songs, played by virtuoso musicians.
Rush on the other hand is anything but that. Their music and songs may not have the massive commercial appeal of Floyd, but boring is 1 adjective that cannot be attached to them. As to the constant dissing of Lee's voice on here, I can agree the earlier Rush, when his singing range was born out of need to cut thru the mix, had certainly got a bit overbearing. However Rush was acutely aware of this and by the time Permanant Waves came along, in defense of Geddy, he was singing far more songs in a lower range. And by Moving Pictures onward I found it far more palatable as made obvious by their skyrocking mass appeal which to this day, I don't think is a lot less than PF. In short, he rarely shrieked his vocals anymore unless need demanded it, performing 1 of the very early songs and even then then he had way more timbre and sonic quality to his voice than the early days.
As to my ultimate Prog Rock preference I would agree with some previous posters and put Yes on top. They had best of all worlds including superb operatic quality vocals, along with interesting masterfully crafted songs, played by virtuoso musicians.
They can pretty much take me down emotionally in about 4mins from whatever high I might be on at that point.
Then I need "In The Stone" from EW&F to pick me up. Just the intro of that song picks me up EVERY.SINGLE.TIME
Are you making this political now? The US (thank god I dont live there) is bad enough as it is!!
[EDIT: this is of course an IRONIC comment. Please do not take it literal!]
Last edited:
I know this going to probably get me banned from TB for life, so before finishing the post I'd like to say bye to all of my online TB friends for decades of fun, friendship and information. That said: here goes:
Women are emotionally motivated, men are logically motivated. Women appreciate songs that make them feel something (good, bad, whatever, just the sensation of feeling), men want to compete and have their jaws drop over some impossible (or highly improbable) musical feat that they'll wear out a recording of trying to decipher. This isn't to say that women don't appreciate virtuosity and men don't have feelings, but it is what drives them. Pink Floyd and Rush aren't the same type of band despite both being considered "progressive rock". I think Pink Floyd's music tends to get along better in a background music setting that Rush's does. Rush forces you to listen. Maybe the intensity isn't consistent with an overall feeling of well-being.
Women are emotionally motivated, men are logically motivated. Women appreciate songs that make them feel something (good, bad, whatever, just the sensation of feeling), men want to compete and have their jaws drop over some impossible (or highly improbable) musical feat that they'll wear out a recording of trying to decipher. This isn't to say that women don't appreciate virtuosity and men don't have feelings, but it is what drives them. Pink Floyd and Rush aren't the same type of band despite both being considered "progressive rock". I think Pink Floyd's music tends to get along better in a background music setting that Rush's does. Rush forces you to listen. Maybe the intensity isn't consistent with an overall feeling of well-being.
Floyd great to chill out to. Rush tiring to listen to, and after a few tracks becomes tiresome (to me). Others appreciate things differently - that's fine.
