Being an avowed Jazz Fusion man,I agree with your assessment of Rush.
That's why I was drawn to Rush and not Pink Floyd.
Which I found exceedingly depressing.
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
That's why I was drawn to Rush and not Pink Floyd.
Which I found exceedingly depressing.
I wouldn't generally think to compare these two bands, they're almost polar opposites in approach. But if pressed for an answer, I'd say the vocals. Love GL's playing but his vocals have that "nail on chalkboard" factor.
Plus PF's lyrics are accessible and relatable. A totally different level of songwriting, IMO.
Plus PF's lyrics are accessible and relatable. A totally different level of songwriting, IMO.
Like this?
But seriously, each band was born of utterly separate times and places, and Rush derived their influences from the era that Floyd helped create.
Pink Floyd is more popular than Rush because, while Rush has INCREDIBLE bass licks and writing overall, that chick singer's voice just gets a little shrill and annoying sometimes. It's not her fault though.
It's all subjective but to me PF has better songwriting and is infinitely more listenable to most people. Rush wins on virtuosity but the songs don't move me.
Because
Dark Side of the Moon
Wish You Were Here
And The Wall
….like LEGITIMATELY that is reason enough alone. ONLY The Eagles, Stones, Beatles and Fleetwood Mac are in the same competitive hemisphere as far as their popularities and legacies are concerned.
Dark Side of the Moon
Wish You Were Here
And The Wall
….like LEGITIMATELY that is reason enough alone. ONLY The Eagles, Stones, Beatles and Fleetwood Mac are in the same competitive hemisphere as far as their popularities and legacies are concerned.
Holy free holy, didn't we already do this thread or something very close to it recently? And it was closed, for good reason
agreed. ok ok we get it...you dont like rush or geddys vocals
That's not it at all. They have been various versus threads that have been shut down on talk base why must we compare bands that have nothing to do with each other at all?
talk base
Is that some sort of weird joke?
Is that some sort of weird joke?
The holes aren't free, they're frijoles or beans.
There's line in a song (can't remember the source) "It's not the band I hate, it's their fans". Back in the late '70s, that's how I felt about Rush, Led Zepplin, and anyone who believed that we don't need no edjacation.
I wasn't born until 1980 so this stuff was already all "classic rock" by the time I was aware of it, but this sentiment resonates with me when it comes to other acts and genres, and even beyond music
David Gilmour's amazingly lyrical guitar tone and phrasing (the man knows how to make the guitar sing) is one of the reasons of Pink Floyd's popularity as well.
Well 2 out 3 are much better singers.
The songs are better.
The lyrics are much much much better.
RUSH has better virtuosity with their musicianship but that's not enough to make up for all the other things.
And any lack of virtuosity in David Gilmour's guitar playing was more than offset by his unparalleled melodic sensibilities.
The songs are better.
The lyrics are much much much better.
RUSH has better virtuosity with their musicianship but that's not enough to make up for all the other things.
And any lack of virtuosity in David Gilmour's guitar playing was more than offset by his unparalleled melodic sensibilities.
Last edited:
