mmmmmmmmm............ strongly disagree about neil peart the one and only kieth moon would top any poll. lets get one thing clear its all opinion yeah, as for lead gutar eddie van halen, and bass steve harris what a bass man! and lyricist too, each have their own style i personally think roger taylor is a great drummer, jd great bass man, and bm a fine gutarist put em all together and youve got the best fukin band ever!
Thread
Posts in chronological order
i said 'pert' is one of the best, yea moon and a few others, but pert is in the top five.
For technical ability, give me Peart; for just raucous and good-time drumming, Moon - any day.
Entwistle is the best bassist in my opinion, up there with Squire, John Paul Jones, and Jack Bruce.
Entwistle is the best bassist in my opinion, up there with Squire, John Paul Jones, and Jack Bruce.
keith moon was the most gifted and lets face it! flawed drummer ever i love his solos, he is so manic but hey hes great just to see those 2 bass drums! come on! you know your gonna get a show
as a post script what do yous reckon of moon playin "now im here" would that be good!
as a post script what do yous reckon of moon playin "now im here" would that be good!
i knew my trump card would work..hehe
les claypool is only slightly behind Entwistle, i agree entwistle is probably the best. my all star band 'Mercury' on vocals and may on guitar, 'moon' on drums and 'Entwisle' on bass. 'pert' is pretty close. talyor is bit underated if you listen to 'sheer heart attank', and 'opera'.
good choice........... on bass youve gotta have steve harris the most technically gifted bass player ever..... paul mccartney and mark king aside
Wow... we kind of strayed.
Back to Rush, I wasn't trying to diss them, they seem like great guys and I'm enjoying their music, actually. But it kills me how some people feel the need to rate artists as "best", you know??
Example: I LOVE David Gilmour's playing soooooo much, but it's hard to try and convince somebody who's listening to Pink Floyd for the first time just how great he is... no one could claim that he's the best technical player or the fastest guitarist.
Now that I think about it, just to clear this up: JUST BECAUSE A GUITARIST PLAYS THREE OR FOUR NOTES OVER AND OVER AT LIGHTING SPEED DOES NOT EQUATE HIM AS BEING A GREAT TECHNICAL PLAYER. Not that anyone here has said that, but it kills me how many say: "Well, he doesn't play fast very all the time, he must not be as good".
That just bugs me.
Back to Rush, I wasn't trying to diss them, they seem like great guys and I'm enjoying their music, actually. But it kills me how some people feel the need to rate artists as "best", you know??
Example: I LOVE David Gilmour's playing soooooo much, but it's hard to try and convince somebody who's listening to Pink Floyd for the first time just how great he is... no one could claim that he's the best technical player or the fastest guitarist.
Now that I think about it, just to clear this up: JUST BECAUSE A GUITARIST PLAYS THREE OR FOUR NOTES OVER AND OVER AT LIGHTING SPEED DOES NOT EQUATE HIM AS BEING A GREAT TECHNICAL PLAYER. Not that anyone here has said that, but it kills me how many say: "Well, he doesn't play fast very all the time, he must not be as good".
That just bugs me.
good point its all relevant
Actually from a technical musician stand point, Rush is rock solid. They may not have had the hits that Queen has, but is that the only measure of success? Geddy Lee may be a bit over the top as bass players are concerned, but Neil Peart is without a doubt one of the best drummers of all time. He and John Bonham are the measuring stick for all other rock drummers. I'm sure that Roger Taylor would agree. Hell, at least Peart can still play. After years of drum machines and inactivity, we're not so sure about Taylor.
I've never heard of that band before !!
If they are better than Queen (witch I doubt) how come they aren't famous ???
Queen got famous because they are so good :)
If they are better than Queen (witch I doubt) how come they aren't famous ???
Queen got famous because they are so good :)
It's obvious that your friend was exaggerating Rush's talents, and is just very impressed with them, being a new band and experience to him.
However, Rush isn't untalented. Rush isn't "bad." And they are indeed quite "famous." Rush is a group that retains a fanatic fan following, though remains somewhat outside mainstream; similar to The Grateful Dead or Dave Matthews Band. They are very talented, and many critics consider Neil Peart to be one of the very greatest drummers of all time.
I don't think either Queen or Rush can really clearly be described as "better" than the other. Both made music that is enduring, technically incredible and emotional.
I think it's a bit unfair for some here to insinuate that Rush was technically superior to Queen while Queen had more emotion. I can see where that is true in some ways, however, you have Freddie Mercury, an incredibly technically superior vocalist, Brian May, a guitar wizard; you can't overlook that. And to say you can't hear emotion in Rush's songs--well, I'm not a fan, but go back and listen to some of their stuff. Music stems from emotion, and technical superiority is nothing without emotions and ideas to catalyze putting that know-how into work.
In terms of popularity, Queen definitely has the edge though, I agree with that.
However, very few "which artist is better" disputes have any clear cut winner or logical conclusion. It would have to include maybe Elvis, Little Richard or Chuck Berry, the creators of rock......The Beatles, the innovators of crafting melody, experimentation, perhaps the rgeatest rock influence ever......Led Zeppelin and Jimi Hendrix, the pioneers of heavy rock music that inspired everyone from contemporaries Deep Purple and Black Sabbath to followers like our beloved Queen and aforementioned Rush...it's very hard in the rock universe to come up with a clear answer to a better-than dispute, because different music connects with different people on different levels.
I, personally, believe that both groups are incredibly underrated by American rock critics (though in the last few years some have come along with regards to Queen.)
Anyway, yeah, hope that maybe struck a few chords with some people.
However, Rush isn't untalented. Rush isn't "bad." And they are indeed quite "famous." Rush is a group that retains a fanatic fan following, though remains somewhat outside mainstream; similar to The Grateful Dead or Dave Matthews Band. They are very talented, and many critics consider Neil Peart to be one of the very greatest drummers of all time.
I don't think either Queen or Rush can really clearly be described as "better" than the other. Both made music that is enduring, technically incredible and emotional.
I think it's a bit unfair for some here to insinuate that Rush was technically superior to Queen while Queen had more emotion. I can see where that is true in some ways, however, you have Freddie Mercury, an incredibly technically superior vocalist, Brian May, a guitar wizard; you can't overlook that. And to say you can't hear emotion in Rush's songs--well, I'm not a fan, but go back and listen to some of their stuff. Music stems from emotion, and technical superiority is nothing without emotions and ideas to catalyze putting that know-how into work.
In terms of popularity, Queen definitely has the edge though, I agree with that.
However, very few "which artist is better" disputes have any clear cut winner or logical conclusion. It would have to include maybe Elvis, Little Richard or Chuck Berry, the creators of rock......The Beatles, the innovators of crafting melody, experimentation, perhaps the rgeatest rock influence ever......Led Zeppelin and Jimi Hendrix, the pioneers of heavy rock music that inspired everyone from contemporaries Deep Purple and Black Sabbath to followers like our beloved Queen and aforementioned Rush...it's very hard in the rock universe to come up with a clear answer to a better-than dispute, because different music connects with different people on different levels.
I, personally, believe that both groups are incredibly underrated by American rock critics (though in the last few years some have come along with regards to Queen.)
Anyway, yeah, hope that maybe struck a few chords with some people.
My goodness, a thoroughly educated, thoughtful post. Well done.
I think theyre quite good - but theyre bloody ugly.
Well said, QueenZeppelin. You are quite right. It's not fair to comare...
however I remain w/ the opinion that Rush's sound feels slightly dry to me. Not that it's not excellent music, naturally.
however I remain w/ the opinion that Rush's sound feels slightly dry to me. Not that it's not excellent music, naturally.