Ok, Rush vs U2 LIVE

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.
You might get better responses from people if you didn't come in here and saying something that pretty much comes across like this:

"All right, listen, you turkeys! Rush is the greatest band ever! U2 are sellouts and utter crap! My opinion is fact!"

You're not reading what I'm saying.

It IS a FACT that U2 HAVE sold out and Rush HAVE NOT. And it IS a FACT that all three members of Rush are better musicians than U2 are, technically speaking - ANY musician can tell you that. Whereas, it's just my OPINION if I think Rush is the greatest band ever.

Get it?

You also might want to consider that some of the people who disagree with you a) have heard Rush; b) acknowledge their technical prowess and mad musical skillz; c) and STILL DON'T LIKE THEM ANYWAY.

So what? That's not the issue here.

Just because someone doesn't like Rush on this site doesn't make them some sort of drooling, whiny fanboy/girl.

I never said it did.
 
The one thing I never quite understood was how many try and label Rush as this incredibly "innovative" band, they weren't. Yes they tried a lot of different things, but most of it was in step with their contemporaries at the time (except the chicken thing, but that was just stupid).

Hogwash. Rush arguably invented the progressive hard rock genre in the mid 70s. Not to mention Alex's innovative utilization of suspended chords/arpeggios, etc., etc.
 
You're not reading what I'm saying.

It IS a FACT that U2 HAVE sold out and Rush HAVE NOT. And it IS a FACT that all three members of Rush are better musicians than U2 are, technically speaking - ANY musician can tell you that.

This is possibly the silliest thing I've read on Interference. I'm a musician who's seen both bands live, and Rush was beyond terrible live. Technicality is completely irrelevant to making good art, whether it's music or otherwise. In addition to that, ALL art ends up coming down to personal preference and connection. All of these comparisons are completely pointless and useless, as one person's treasure is another's trash.

:)
 
You're not reading what I'm saying.

It IS a FACT that U2 HAVE sold out and Rush HAVE NOT. And it IS a FACT that all three members of Rush are better musicians than U2 are, technically speaking - ANY musician can tell you that. Whereas, it's just my OPINION if I think Rush is the greatest band ever.

Get it?

Who gives a shit? Their songs are terrible.
 
This is possibly the silliest thing I've read on Interference. I'm a musician who's seen both bands live, and Rush are fucking horrible. OMG, what happened to your proof!!!//???//?/??!!?//11/??

:)

I've never seen them live, but I did see the Rush "30" dvd and they were very good, especially the drummer. The drum solo in that performance in Germany was incredible.
 
Aw, hey now, baby,
Well, I like your smile
Wont you come and talk to me
For a little while

Well, youre makin me crazy
The way you roll them eyes
Wont you come and sit with me
Ill tell you all my lies

Hey baby, its a quarter to eight
I feel Im in the mood
Hey baby, the hour is late
I feel Ive got to move

Well, hey now, baby
Dont you talk so fast
Im just tryn to make these good times,
Im tryn to make it last

Evrythings getting hazy
Now honey, whered you go?
I just want to find out, baby
Whered you learn what you know?

Hey baby, its a quarter to eight
I feel Im in the mood
Hey baby, the hour is late
I feel Ive got to move

Well, hey now, baby
Said, I like your style
You really got me, baby
Way down deep inside

Oo, you drive me crazy
Baby, youre the one
I just want to rock-and-roll you woman
Until the night is gone

Hey baby, its a quarter to eight
I feel Im in the mood
Hey baby, the hour is late
I feel Ive got to move

That song doesn't give a general idea of what Rush's lyrics are about whatsoever, since Neil Peart hadn't joined the band yet. ANY Rush fan knows that. The song in question was from their very first album in 1974.



------------
geddy-lee.jpg

HONEST.LAAAAY. this is obscene.




This is a FAR worse mullet! :applaud::applaud::applaud:
 
This is possibly the silliest thing I've read on Interference. I'm a musician who's seen both bands live, and Rush was beyond terrible live. Technicality is completely irrelevant to making good art, whether it's music or otherwise. In addition to that, ALL art ends up coming down to personal preference and connection. All of these comparisons are completely pointless and useless, as one person's treasure is another's trash.

:)

But tribute bands, and also Rush, are the enemies of art.
 
This is possibly the silliest thing I've read on Interference. I'm a musician who's seen both bands live, and Rush was beyond terrible live.

That's your opinion.

Technicality is completely irrelevant to making good art, whether it's music or otherwise.

That's your opinion. And my point is regarding that Rush are better musicians than U2 - which is a FACT.

In addition to that, ALL art ends up coming down to personal preference and connection. All of these comparisons are completely pointless and useless, as one person's treasure is another's trash.

Not true.
 
Bono's 84-85 mullet kicks Geddy's hands down...:up:

I've seen both bands, while I enjoyed Rush, I was exhilirated by U2...:rockon:

While Rush has a pretty loyal following and puts on a pretty good show, the U2 show is hands down a far more emotional experience...and the music is not as drawn out and there are no solos by each member to bore us to tears...so I say KISS puts on the better show...:shifty:
 
Hey guys, if Moggio writes something, it's a FACT. If anyone else writes something, it's just their opinion and not true.

ANY Rush fan would know that.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom