Pretty sure they had a well known reputation as nice guys without blown up egos that were nice to their fans.
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 certainly should have been more sensitive, considering your username. My sincerest apologies, sir.
I resent the implication that non-springy clothes pins are the "regular" kind.
Yep. And among themselves they were always like best friends or even brothers. We definitely can't say the same for many members of big rock bands.
Agree. I love when a song is in an odd time sig, and yet its still completely listenable. Its what attracted me to Rush before I even understood why. I just knew it was different and it checked all the right boxes for me. Progressive / heavy / sometimes jazzy / technical, and always kept you wondering and anticipating what was coming next. PF is awesome too.
It seems the consensus is that PF IS more popular and appealing. They weren't when and where I grew up but after watching this thread I cant disagree. As to "more popular", I think the answer is simply that PF wrote more songs that more people liked more and wanted to hear more often. As for "more appealing", I suppose rush is too polarizing and simply cant be considered more appealing by default.
Because as we know, Mr. Waters is lovely and that Mr. Lee... well, enough said.
I respect your opinion and beg to differ on the grounds of advertising, marketing and the existence of soap operas. This comment wasn't meant as a universal judgement on all people, rather a general rule of thumb. Men and women are different and respond to stimuli differently. Love songs are geared towards the focus group of women (as are "chick flicks") and egotistical show off music is aimed at men. It is simply marketing, and research has been done by savvy corporations into how best to make a profit. This is what sells, so it must have a valid reason behind it. I love women for their compassion and empathy. As a man, I wish I understood them better. I admire men for their abilities, too. We're straightforward and tend to look at life as a series of problems to be solved. I'm also glad I haven't been exiled into the internet wilderness yet by the TB mods.
I am not sure how true that is compared to men and women being expected to respond differently. But then that reminds me of the recent BBC radio show about The Cure's 'Boys Don't Cry' and how a couple left up a huge poster of Robert Smith in their child's nursery...
I don't mind Rush, but they really strike me as a band that needed its Plant or Daltrey
I wasn't going to bother responding, but given the number of comments, I feel I should probably elaborate.
Re: Rush's obnoxious personalities. I think Alex Lifeson is the worst - his 'blah blah blah' speech at the hall of fame is a good example, as are his signature on-stage 'rants'. Or the time he pushed (and spit on) a cop and was arrested for it:
Rush Guitarist Charged
RUSH - More Details Surface On Alex Lifeson's Arrest
Lifeson, of course, probably had a massive chip on his shoulder because he was the guitar player in a band where he was being overshadowed by the bassist and drummer. And for a stretch of the 1980s, he appeared in danger of being made redundant. By keyboards, no less.
Neil Peart seemed to have mellowed a bit with age, but this interview from the 1970s shows a) how completely clueless he was about pretty much anything to do with socialism b) what a dick he was:
Rush: 'You have no freedom. You do what you're told to do. By the socialists'
Of course, one might argue that the article above is more a reflection of their odious political views. But those particular views are completely obnoxious - not least because Peart was so clearly talking out of his ass and didn't know close to anything about socialism (whether or not socialism is a good thing is a separate issue - but if you're going to be so outspoken, you should at least know what you're talking about).
Geddy Lee seems the most reasonable person in the group. Which is great for me, because I honestly rate him as a bass player. I like the way he plays. His singing was great in the early years, but I am not a fan overall (the high-pitched vocals worked well when he was screaming them, but not when he's crooning or whatever).
Peart no doubt was a very technically gifted drummer. But his style was terrible. Too busy. And his lyrics were awful. But a lot of people are stupid enough to like Ayn Rand and Game of Thrones, so YMMV.
The worst part about Rush, of course, are their fans. And that's not the band's fault. But their fans are insufferable.
Re: Rush's obnoxious personalities. I think Alex Lifeson is the worst - his 'blah blah blah' speech at the hall of fame is a good example, as are his signature on-stage 'rants'. Or the time he pushed (and spit on) a cop and was arrested for it:
Rush Guitarist Charged
RUSH - More Details Surface On Alex Lifeson's Arrest
Lifeson, of course, probably had a massive chip on his shoulder because he was the guitar player in a band where he was being overshadowed by the bassist and drummer. And for a stretch of the 1980s, he appeared in danger of being made redundant. By keyboards, no less.
Neil Peart seemed to have mellowed a bit with age, but this interview from the 1970s shows a) how completely clueless he was about pretty much anything to do with socialism b) what a dick he was:
Rush: 'You have no freedom. You do what you're told to do. By the socialists'
Of course, one might argue that the article above is more a reflection of their odious political views. But those particular views are completely obnoxious - not least because Peart was so clearly talking out of his ass and didn't know close to anything about socialism (whether or not socialism is a good thing is a separate issue - but if you're going to be so outspoken, you should at least know what you're talking about).
Geddy Lee seems the most reasonable person in the group. Which is great for me, because I honestly rate him as a bass player. I like the way he plays. His singing was great in the early years, but I am not a fan overall (the high-pitched vocals worked well when he was screaming them, but not when he's crooning or whatever).
Peart no doubt was a very technically gifted drummer. But his style was terrible. Too busy. And his lyrics were awful. But a lot of people are stupid enough to like Ayn Rand and Game of Thrones, so YMMV.
The worst part about Rush, of course, are their fans. And that's not the band's fault. But their fans are insufferable.
Oh - and I wanted to clarify a few things, before people ask.
1) I've not heard every Rush album. But when I was in high school, my best friend was a huge Rush fan and he drove me to and from school. As a result, I had the opportunity to hear pretty much all the albums through Hold Your Fire (the 'new' record at the time) [Edit - I think Presto, too - it came out when I was a senior. Just didn't make as much of an impression, apparently]. Later on in uni, he subjected me to Counterparts and Test For Echo. So I've not heard the other ones. And of the early albums, the only one I know I haven't heard at all is the first one, funny enough. But my friend was a drummer and so was a Peart fan.
2) Whilst I find their politics gross, the political views of bands aren't something I worry about too much. I mean, if they were Nazis, I'd never listen to them (of course). But if I limited my musical tastes to bands that share my worldview, there wouldn't be many records in my collection.
3) I *do* like some Rush material - particularly the earlier stuff. But I think they've never done an album that is good all the way through. I like Fly By Night the most. I have also never enjoyed prog rock, so it's probably no big surprise that all that extended wankery you find on the early records fell flat with me.
4) If the first thing you hear about a band from their ardent fans is how talented/technically proficient they are, run away!
1) I've not heard every Rush album. But when I was in high school, my best friend was a huge Rush fan and he drove me to and from school. As a result, I had the opportunity to hear pretty much all the albums through Hold Your Fire (the 'new' record at the time) [Edit - I think Presto, too - it came out when I was a senior. Just didn't make as much of an impression, apparently]. Later on in uni, he subjected me to Counterparts and Test For Echo. So I've not heard the other ones. And of the early albums, the only one I know I haven't heard at all is the first one, funny enough. But my friend was a drummer and so was a Peart fan.
2) Whilst I find their politics gross, the political views of bands aren't something I worry about too much. I mean, if they were Nazis, I'd never listen to them (of course). But if I limited my musical tastes to bands that share my worldview, there wouldn't be many records in my collection.
3) I *do* like some Rush material - particularly the earlier stuff. But I think they've never done an album that is good all the way through. I like Fly By Night the most. I have also never enjoyed prog rock, so it's probably no big surprise that all that extended wankery you find on the early records fell flat with me.
4) If the first thing you hear about a band from their ardent fans is how talented/technically proficient they are, run away!
Last edited:
Wow, I never realized just how ideological they were back then. I totally agree with their stage philosophy though:
"It seemed as though Rush's performance existed as closed-off totality of its own, quite separate from anything the audience might do, and could have been performed the same just as easily anywhere on the planet. It wasn't a two-way thing at all."
Quite different from later, no? From what I understand, they regularly engaged with audiences (at least in the 90s). Lots of banter, etc. I think they stopped taking themselves *quite* as seriously.
I wonder if this wouldn't help propel the debate forward.
If Neil's representing the band there, which would be true-to-form, his focus is on politics, in no uncertain terms. The program, perhaps ironically, capitalizes on a blend of sport, mass media, and politics, that you can see used to great effect on amused to death — not Floyd directly but not necessarily counter to Floyd's voice. Two sides of the same coin, perhaps?
FWIW, I find Roger Waters to be unbearable. I am not a huge Pink Floyd fan, though I have to say I like more of their music to that of Rush. But, as with Rush, I don't think they have that many albums that I think are completely listenable. I like Meddle okay and Dark Side of the Moon. I can't tell if I like Atom Heart Mother.
