But the fact that millions DO really like his vocals, by all means he should. I can relate though, as I'd love to get into Sons Of Apollo, but the vocals don't work for me, so I move onto to other bands.
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
On an elemental level, I'd much rather be the bassist to Nick Mason than to Neil Pearl.
When one really connects and grasps Rush, a huge perspective shift occurs. Not meant to be a slight, but when a person connects with Rush, they have as much or more depth than any band that's ever existed. I will say Waters and Floyd offer a very unique emotional vulnerability that I love. Rush does not overplay as you suggest. I think that would apply to Dream Theater. I am a big fan of theirs, but if they would do a lot less solos and have shorter, tighter songs, like on Falling Into Infinity, I'd like them even more. I'd say the same about the non Trevor Rabin Yes.
Most of their fans, which are in the millions.
Respectfully I couldn't disagree more. In the therapy field you see men and women get emotionally real, and you see a whole different side than the BS that society projects. U2 are also a great example of healthy emotion that appeals to all. Their song Sometimes You Can't Make It On Your Own... If that don't hit your heart, you are emotionally consitipated, which in fact, many people are...
Last edited:
Totally relate. Signals was the last album that amazed me until Vapor Trails. I read Neil's amazing book Ghost Rider, which sets one up for really connecting with Vapor Trails. When I see their concert or documentary dvd's, they play songs from the 90's like Bravado, which I've grown to like. For Floyd, I think Wish You Were Here through The Final Cut are stellar, and the rest have bits I enjoy.
Last edited:
Seen em in concert, tons of ladies. Watch their concert dvd's, lots of ladies. Must respectfully dispute your "It is a fact that Rush's audience is mostly male." Which is good news.
As I seem to feel the need to point out again and again, the original question does not presuppose that Pink Floyd is better than Rush because they've sold more stuff and are more broadly known (which is indisputable). If people want to discuss which is better I suppose that's fine, but they really ought to do it without suggesting that the OP asked something they didn't, and especially without suggesting that it's a stupid question. I would agree that asking which is better is pointless, and that greater sales do not necessarily equal greater music, but neither of those angles really address the actual question. Swapping in Britney for Pink Floyd will hopefully make the point about popularity and quality for some, though
Yes! They are both phenomenal bands. Trying to say who is better is devil's fodder.As I seem to feel the need to point out again and again, the original question does not presuppose that Pink Floyd is better than Rush because they've sold more stuff and are more broadly known (which is indisputable). If people want to discuss which is better I suppose that's fine, but they really ought to do it without suggesting that the OP asked something they didn't, and especially without suggesting that it's a stupid question. I would agree that asking which is better is pointless, and that greater sales do not necessarily equal greater music, but neither of those angles really address the actual question. Swapping in Britney for Pink Floyd will hopefully make the point about popularity and quality for some, though
But original question does state that PF IS more popular.... what am i missing?As I seem to feel the need to point out again and again, the original question does not presuppose that Pink Floyd is better than Rush because they've sold more stuff and are more broadly known (which is indisputable).
Pink Floyd is more popular. They sell more stuff and have more name recognition (globally, and overall). This is measurable.
Saying something is more popular isn't the same as saying something is better. McDonalds sells way more food and has way more name recognition than Chez Panisse* (fact!). By saying that, have I just said that food from McDonald's is better than food from Chez Panisse? Of course not!
My favorite musical artists are considerably less popular than either Pink Floyd or Rush, which is really saying something as David Gilmour is my favorite lead guitarist of all time, and Geddy Lee is right up there among my favorite bassists. I choose to listen to High On Fire easily ten times more often than either Pink Floyd or Rush, though. To me, High On Fire is "better" than either of them, at least when it comes to what I want to listen to; clearly that's just my personal taste, which no amount of facts will change.
The actual question here as I understand it could be rephrased as "why do more listeners personal tastes tend toward Pink Floyd rather than Rush?" 20-some pages into the thread, the answer seems to be something like "Pink Floyd's music has more in common with what most listeners want from their listening experience" or "Pink Floyd's music checks more boxes for more listeners." Someone mentioned Pink Floyd's head start, but no one has really addressed the business or marketing aspects, which I suspect also have much to do with this.
I'm surprised that this bothers Rush fans—ostensibly cerebral types—to such a degree. Isn't part of the fun of being a Rush fan feeling like part of an exclusive group that "gets it?" I know I derive some satisfaction from my taste for the relatively obscure.
*and I'm not saying Pink Floyd is McDonald's and Rush is Chez Panisse! I wouldn't eat at either restaurant, but I'll happily listen to either band.
I met Rush loading their truck and bus one morning just outside my Nashville office - and their hotel. They did their show on Sunday night, and were still groggy. The did sign a few autographs, but being Monday morning I was also a little groggy. Just watched and went on to work. A year or so later I went the the PF concert at Vanderbilt Stadium - about 50,000 inside and another 10,000 outside in lawn chairs. Everyone had a party inside or outside. At times I could hear those outside more than those inside, which was probably due to most inside were groggy - well you know. Police were outside with them. No police inside the stadium with us. I think as people began to 'wake up' the PF concert got more fun. Just my take on those waking up during the PF concert and Rush early morning trying to wake themselves up.
Obnoxious personalities? Really?
Up next, what works best? Regular clothes pins, or, the springy kind?
I see someone got a thesaurus for Xmas.
Yeah, I don't get this either.
Everything I've watched about them, they come across as pretty grounded and pretty nice people.
