Rush are Rush and Queen are Queen, Rush is Canadian and Queen are British...
Don't compare them, they're two totally different bands. Hats off to Lester B for the definition!
Thread
Posts in chronological order
I've been listening to both bands almost 25 years and I have no problem with it. Why even try to compare something such different as these two bands are ?
Rush suck compared to Queen. End of story. Yeah, Neil Pert plays great drums but he doesn't have the flare of a rock star as Taylor.
Pert could get up there and amaze the audience with his drum solos for like two minutes before you were ready to get up to the restroom. Only percussionists can really fully enjoy Pert and that is b/c they are an odd group of folks.
Taylor, besides being a heck of a drummer himself, provided a dimension for Queen that was more important to the band as a whole compared to what Pert delivered to Rush. Taylor gave the band some attitude; brought punk and straight ahead rock along with May to the forefront of Queen. He also was the most vocal in the band on political issues.
And as bands, Queen are up there with the Beatles. Rush is a second tier band... they are good for a show and amazing technically but boring personalities and half of the stage presense great bands need. I've always thought of Rush as Collective Soul in a way... great technically but boring at the end of the day. You always know what to expect.
Pert could get up there and amaze the audience with his drum solos for like two minutes before you were ready to get up to the restroom. Only percussionists can really fully enjoy Pert and that is b/c they are an odd group of folks.
Taylor, besides being a heck of a drummer himself, provided a dimension for Queen that was more important to the band as a whole compared to what Pert delivered to Rush. Taylor gave the band some attitude; brought punk and straight ahead rock along with May to the forefront of Queen. He also was the most vocal in the band on political issues.
And as bands, Queen are up there with the Beatles. Rush is a second tier band... they are good for a show and amazing technically but boring personalities and half of the stage presense great bands need. I've always thought of Rush as Collective Soul in a way... great technically but boring at the end of the day. You always know what to expect.
I don't think Rush was an awful band, but IMO they also weren't as great as so many people think they were.
Besides, I'm not very fond of the lead singer. For many years I thought it was some woman with a witchy, creepy, and unusual type of voice like Stevie Nicks.
Later I found out it was a dude.
Besides, I'm not very fond of the lead singer. For many years I thought it was some woman with a witchy, creepy, and unusual type of voice like Stevie Nicks.
Later I found out it was a dude.
Normally, I wouldn't respond to a thread like this. Some people like Rush, some people don't. Music is all about subjectivity, so who really cares if some people blindly dimiss Rush. I like them and could give a rat's ass about other people's opinions on the matter, really.
But then, I read this sentence...
... and I begin to realize that people make comments without any relation to the truth. Roger may have added a rock and roll persona to Queen, but Peart gave Rush lyrics. You see, he's the main (if not sole) lyricist for the band, and without him contributing words to every Rush song since he joined in 1975ish, there would be nothing to sing along to. I'm thinking that's pretty important.
But then, I read this sentence...
Taylor, besides being a heck of a drummer himself, provided a dimension for Queen that was more important to the band as a whole compared to what Pert delivered to Rush.
... and I begin to realize that people make comments without any relation to the truth. Roger may have added a rock and roll persona to Queen, but Peart gave Rush lyrics. You see, he's the main (if not sole) lyricist for the band, and without him contributing words to every Rush song since he joined in 1975ish, there would be nothing to sing along to. I'm thinking that's pretty important.
I hate Rush.
But not because of what that kid said, and not in huge defense of Queen.
But I personally think that Rush sucks....
Just from what I have heard.
Cheers
But not because of what that kid said, and not in huge defense of Queen.
But I personally think that Rush sucks....
Just from what I have heard.
Cheers
Lester, one of the few posters on this board with a brain, along with QueenZeppelin. Both were great posts. OhioBobcat555's somewhat anti-Rush post made sense as well, although I disagree with it, being a Rush fan.
No need for me to go on a "QZ is mostly a bunch ignorant pricks" rant. Thanks for covering that for me.
Roger Taylor has never been and never will have more than a fraction of Neil Peart's talent on the drums. Deacon is nowhere near Geddy Lee on the bass, and I'd say May and Lifeson are at about the same technical level... although I will agree that May's playing has always had more emotion.
Rush are one of those few bands who have strong songwriters in every member, and continue to put out quality albums. Also, Rush is one of those very few bands whose every song has some kind of redeeming quality, be it some instrumental aspect, the vocal performance, or the lyrics. There is no filler from these guys, ever. They put on an incredible show, too.
The fact that Rush were never hugely commercially successful on the singles market should say NOTHING about their quality of music. Musical quality is musical quality - period. In the end, everything comes down to taste, but it cannot be disputed that 2112, Permanent Waves, and Moving Pictures are three of the most influential albums of all time.
In fact, one perk of not being a huge singles band is that you can play a concert and not feel forced to perform certain songs. If they didn't play Spirit Of Radio and Tom Sawyer, I, and most other fans, wouldn't care. Virtually every heavily pop-oriented band is required to play their hits. Rush does not fall into that category - anything they would play at their shows will make most fans happy.
Rush are legends. By far, the most successful group ever to emerge from Canada. Long live Rush!
No need for me to go on a "QZ is mostly a bunch ignorant pricks" rant. Thanks for covering that for me.
Roger Taylor has never been and never will have more than a fraction of Neil Peart's talent on the drums. Deacon is nowhere near Geddy Lee on the bass, and I'd say May and Lifeson are at about the same technical level... although I will agree that May's playing has always had more emotion.
Rush are one of those few bands who have strong songwriters in every member, and continue to put out quality albums. Also, Rush is one of those very few bands whose every song has some kind of redeeming quality, be it some instrumental aspect, the vocal performance, or the lyrics. There is no filler from these guys, ever. They put on an incredible show, too.
The fact that Rush were never hugely commercially successful on the singles market should say NOTHING about their quality of music. Musical quality is musical quality - period. In the end, everything comes down to taste, but it cannot be disputed that 2112, Permanent Waves, and Moving Pictures are three of the most influential albums of all time.
In fact, one perk of not being a huge singles band is that you can play a concert and not feel forced to perform certain songs. If they didn't play Spirit Of Radio and Tom Sawyer, I, and most other fans, wouldn't care. Virtually every heavily pop-oriented band is required to play their hits. Rush does not fall into that category - anything they would play at their shows will make most fans happy.
Rush are legends. By far, the most successful group ever to emerge from Canada. Long live Rush!
The big problem with comparing the two is Rush and Queen are two completely differenty types of progressive (if you even choose to view Queen as prog). Queen is certainly more emotional, while Rush is more logical. (that's not to say Rush have never had emotional songs. the whole of 'Grace Under Pressure' is one of the most emotional albums ever written by anyone, in my opinion.) if you were going to do a fair comparison between the bands, though, Rush has far more in common with the likes of ELP and Yes, while Queen has more in common with The Who.......and Yes. (Okay, okay -- so it's hard to pin down Yes.
Who's technically superior, though?
Drums -- it's no contest. Neil Peart is definately one of the greatest drummers to have ever lived. Despite what he himself would say, many put him on par with Buddy Rich.
Bass -- I hate to say it, but Geddy Lee can play circles around John Deacon. That's not to say John isn't good -- it's just two different types of playing. John plays just classic bass lines, where Geddy actually uses his bass to play a counter-melody, which requires a whole lot more work.
Guitar -- Brian stands out on his own far more than Alex Lifeson, but Lifeson's good. Listen to the studio verion of "The Analog Kid" of 1982s 'Signals', and prepare to have your jaw hit the floor.
Vocals -- come on. Do we even need to talk about this one?
Who's technically superior, though?
Drums -- it's no contest. Neil Peart is definately one of the greatest drummers to have ever lived. Despite what he himself would say, many put him on par with Buddy Rich.
Bass -- I hate to say it, but Geddy Lee can play circles around John Deacon. That's not to say John isn't good -- it's just two different types of playing. John plays just classic bass lines, where Geddy actually uses his bass to play a counter-melody, which requires a whole lot more work.
Guitar -- Brian stands out on his own far more than Alex Lifeson, but Lifeson's good. Listen to the studio verion of "The Analog Kid" of 1982s 'Signals', and prepare to have your jaw hit the floor.
Vocals -- come on. Do we even need to talk about this one?
Rush are OK, I guess.....
I went to see them last summer and they were pretty good for the most part.
BUT THEY CAN NEVER COMPARE TO QUEEN!!!!!!!
I went to see them last summer and they were pretty good for the most part.
BUT THEY CAN NEVER COMPARE TO QUEEN!!!!!!!
Thank you once more, SIR GH! That had to be said. Rush is a great band with fantastic musicians.
Why are you friends with such a rude guy?!? Oh, and I think he is just jealous, anyway. I never heard of Rush.It sounds stupid. Oh, If I offended anyone except Awesome's friend, I'm sorry. Anyway, I don't think anyone can beat Queen; Queen had many, many hits, but I never even HEARD of Rush.
Then I suggest you go and listen to some Rush before making such assumptions - I agree with everything Sir GH said.
If you ask me, Rush is a very accomplished band that, in my mind, is up there along with Queen. I like them both.
Rush, started around the same time Queen began, their solo album was released in 1974, while Queen's was in '73. Both have had very successful albums here in the US, for example, 1981's Moving Pictures can be compared to Queen's 1980 venture, The Game. Both hit hard on the charts and recieved rave reviews.
Both bands have memorable songs, Queen has "Bohemian Rhapsody", "Another One Bites The Dust", and "We Will Rock You". Rush has "Limelight", "Working Man", and "Tom Sawyer", the latter being heard countless times on 80's rock radio stations.
Both bands have a song that is not very well known, but are songs that I enjoy hearing. For example, Rush's "Distant Early Warning" and "Red Sector A", featured on 1984's Grace Under Pressure, are songs that I really like, while Queen has "Action This Day" from Hot Space, and "Machines" from The Works.
Either way, Queen is forever known as one of the greatest bands in the world, but so is Rush. To this day, Rush continues to delight millions of fans after 30 years in the business. So does Queen, but unfortunately without the prescence of Freddie or John. The heart is still there, though.
In closing, Rush is a very respected, talented, memorable band with a large quantity of hits and albums to be proud of, but Queen, in my mind, will always be the best.
Rush, started around the same time Queen began, their solo album was released in 1974, while Queen's was in '73. Both have had very successful albums here in the US, for example, 1981's Moving Pictures can be compared to Queen's 1980 venture, The Game. Both hit hard on the charts and recieved rave reviews.
Both bands have memorable songs, Queen has "Bohemian Rhapsody", "Another One Bites The Dust", and "We Will Rock You". Rush has "Limelight", "Working Man", and "Tom Sawyer", the latter being heard countless times on 80's rock radio stations.
Both bands have a song that is not very well known, but are songs that I enjoy hearing. For example, Rush's "Distant Early Warning" and "Red Sector A", featured on 1984's Grace Under Pressure, are songs that I really like, while Queen has "Action This Day" from Hot Space, and "Machines" from The Works.
Either way, Queen is forever known as one of the greatest bands in the world, but so is Rush. To this day, Rush continues to delight millions of fans after 30 years in the business. So does Queen, but unfortunately without the prescence of Freddie or John. The heart is still there, though.
In closing, Rush is a very respected, talented, memorable band with a large quantity of hits and albums to be proud of, but Queen, in my mind, will always be the best.
Why are you friends with such a rude guy?!?
Haha, if you must know I didn't speak to him for 6 days... he's kind of obnoxious when it comes to music. He is a rock music encyclopedia but it must be said that as far as technicality he doesn't really know shit... I play 7 instruments (some better than others) and sing. He plays the bass. (not even that good). What I'm saying is Not that I think I'm better than him but that I intimidate him. (not that HE'D ever admit that).
Yes he was very rude to me, but I let him know that how he acted was ridiculous and he better never talk to me that way again. (yay, girl power :P)
I like other bands besides Queen, but there is one thing the rock world (and a band) never had before and will never have again .... another Freddie Mercury. I can`t think of any other guy with such an amazing talent for writing songs, that are not only pure genius on a musical level but at the same time very commercial. And of another one who has voice in rock and pop with this range.
13 years have past .... and the rock and pop world still doesn`t realize properly what a talent we have all lost!
13 years have past .... and the rock and pop world still doesn`t realize properly what a talent we have all lost!