I saw Rush shortly after what might be declared the peak of their popularity. That is, they were still a big band, but not quite as big as during the late 70's and early 80's.
Watching Peart on the drums was magical. He had 2 sets that rotated round him. He definitely puts almost all drummers to shame.
Many hear have commented on Lee's voice. I understand this. I like Rush and Yes - both groups that have singers with high voices (Yes has Jon Anderson), but I fully get someone saying they aren't a fan of the music because of this. I could never really get into the Smashing Pumpkins because Corgan's voice irritated me, yet, I realize how brilliant the songs were (I just felt Corgan ruined them as soon as he opened his mouth). Likewise, I feel the same about Bob Dylan - as soon as he opened his mouth a masterpiece became an annoyance. This is one reason I'm such a fan of U2 - I adore Bono's voice and always have. He has made songs soar and I appreciate him for it. He has turned an average song into a fantastic one because of his vocals.
Regardless, I felt Lee's vocals were perfect in concert. In fact, all of it was perfect.
And that, oddly enough, is the problem.
Rush performed EXACTLY like the album! Maybe they have changed since, but in the show I saw, it could have been like a record was playing. It was just like the album - brilliantly done, but too similar. Gone was the spontaneity (or at least the illusion of spontaneity) of a live performance. I love how U2 adds extra versus to songs or really makes a song come alive in concert. Songs like "With or Without You", "One", "Mysterious Ways", "Until the End...", "I Still Haven't...", "Love & Peace", "Elevation", "Sunday Bloody Sunday", etc., became even more powerful thanks to U2's performances in concert. Each had different arrangements than the album which made the song and the performance stand out.
So as great as Rush is, Bono's charisma, the extra passion in the performance, and the overall theatrics make U2 the "winner", if you will.