Customer Discussions > Music forum

Rush Vs. Yes


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-25 of 190 posts in this discussion
Initial post: Jul 22, 2011 11:11:41 AM PDT
S. Kile says:
Which do you think is better in shear opinion, Rush or Yes, both of the progressive rock genre

Posted on Jul 22, 2011 11:34:12 AM PDT
[Deleted by Amazon on Jul 22, 2011 5:54:56 PM PDT]

Posted on Jul 22, 2011 12:18:07 PM PDT
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

Posted on Jul 22, 2011 3:54:22 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jul 22, 2011 3:55:46 PM PDT
zlh67 says:
Well, Yes has had around 31 band members, Rush has had 4 but.... I'll still take Rush. Yes are musical giants too, but Rush is just a more powerful band imo, and better/more consistent as songwriters. If you put Yes's 10-15 best songs against those of Rush, it'd be a much closer competition, but all things considered -- complete discography, live performance, etc.? RUSH

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 22, 2011 4:54:13 PM PDT
onsenkuma says:
Early Yes were creative and original from the get go. Early Rush sounded like...a Zeppelin covers band. I've never much cared for girly-man type singers PERIOD but I'll take Anderson's smokey tones over Lee's munchkin with a lungful of helium squeal any day. Here's the thing, though: I really can't stand much of anything Yes did after Going For the One, but I saw Rush in concert about six years back and they were, well pretty PHENOMENAL actually. Very tight band.

Posted on Jul 22, 2011 5:10:16 PM PDT
Music Luver says:
Rush is just a watered down over commericalized version of progressive rock. They copied Yes or tried to but have never come close.

SOWWY!

Posted on Jul 22, 2011 5:30:06 PM PDT
yes isn't hard progressive like rush. and rush started out as melodic metal. so there is no comparison. other than rush's 80's onwards work. yes is fantastic prog rock, rush is great melodic metal prog rock fusion. how can I compare them?

Posted on Jul 22, 2011 5:53:31 PM PDT
Rod Hansen says:
Depends on what you're listening for. Musically, I think Yes might have the edge in their ability to pull off harmonies and, note for note, I think their players might be superior musicians to Rush (not to put Rush down at all - they're amazing as well).

Geek-points aside, I have to say I enjoy Rush's music more than Yes's. I guess I just like Geddy Lee's high-pitched banshee wail far more than Jon Anderson's.

Posted on Jul 22, 2011 8:17:09 PM PDT
I like both bands a lot and have for many many years. My favorite line of any song comes from Yes, but Rush gets the nod from me. Some of their stuff approaches perfection of musicianship, lyrical meaning, songwriting, and production. Two great bands.

Posted on Jul 22, 2011 9:18:55 PM PDT
A customer says:
I'm not one to gush over either band, but I can't deny that Rush is one of the most talented three pieces of all time. I'll pick Rush.

Posted on Jul 23, 2011 1:35:30 AM PDT
Music Luver says:
Jon Anderson's voice is smooth, lyrical and always in key.

Geddy Lee sounds like finger nails on a chalk board.

Yes' songs are very well contructed. Rush is just crescendo after crescendo, inane lyrics. They are really more heavy metal than prog.

Posted on Jul 23, 2011 3:16:45 AM PDT
Hinch says:
Yes vs who?

lol!

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 23, 2011 2:16:57 PM PDT
Where can I buy a chalkboard like that?

Posted on Jul 23, 2011 2:18:15 PM PDT
I'll just say this, I listen to Rush a whole lot more often.

Posted on Jul 25, 2011 2:16:00 PM PDT
Fischman says:
Chris Squire--Great Bassist. Geddy Lee--Far better. (btw, both played Rickenbacker's in their heyday--great bass tone for progressive rock/progressive metal)
Steve Howe--Amazing Guitarist. Alex Lifeson--Still Better.
Drums--absolutely no contest--Peart is it. Period.
Lyrics--see "drums"

Vocals--largely a matter of taste. I understand how one could be turned off by Geddy's banshee wail, but I'll take it over Jon's thin and borderline whiny/nasal timbre.

Integration of the parts--tossup--both groups are very creative and broke new ground. Not only were all the musicians in both bands individually great, the groups still somehow became greater than the sum of their parts--astonishing in both cases.

Overall Musicality--Goin' back to Rush here. Both groups are amazing at their best, but sometimes Yes got too experimental for their own good and really dropped a bomb.

For longevity and continued evolution, again it's Rush. No two albums sound the same, either musically or lyrically. And they're still at it!

Posted on Jul 25, 2011 2:55:00 PM PDT
Mod Rocker says:
BOTH AWESOME !

not sure about this thread ...

for both bands though, I go for the " kimono " years.. sigh...

Posted on Jul 25, 2011 3:21:32 PM PDT
Jon says:
The biggest difference for me is the groove, or feel of the rhythm section; I don't hear Rush as having any at all. Sure, Peart is a terrific technician, and Geddy can play some bass lines that are difficult (particularly when singing) - Squire has always locked in well with the drummer, no matter who it was.

Posted on Jul 25, 2011 3:23:33 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jul 25, 2011 3:25:18 PM PDT
In terms of the progressive rock genre, I'd take Emerson, Lake and Palmer over EITHER Rush or Yes. Easily. ELP had an aggressive thrust to their sound that was due to both Keith Emerson's keyboard wizardry and Carl Palmer's jazz-like drumming, and it was nicely balanced by Greg Lake's memorable ballads. 'Brain Salad Surgery' is probably the best progressive rock album ever. It's just relentless and never stops moving, except for Lake's gentle "Still...You Turn Me On". "Karn Evil 9" just explodes with total virtuosity in both the playing and the way it's constructed.

If Rush had a singer with a better voice, added a few more melodic moments and toned down the sci-fi oriented lyrics, they could have been the next ELP. Rush certainly has the instrumental chops (all three are outstanding musicians), but Geddy's voice and the sometimes pretentious songwriting go way overboard.

As far as Yes...Squire is a superb bassist and Howe is an excellent guitarist, but their material is wildly inconsistent and often aimless. Just my opinion, of course.

King Crimson and early Roxy Music (when Brian Eno was in the band) are also examples of progressive rock that cut both Rush and Yes to shreds.

Posted on Jul 25, 2011 3:28:08 PM PDT
CD Lover says:
This is a "no-win" topic. Some like both Rush and Yes, but most love one and can't stand the other. It's been that way since I was in high school 35 years ago. I've always loved Yes and think Rush is unlistenable, but others feel just the opposite way. I completely understand how some like Anderson's voice and hate Lee's and vice-versa. Both bands' fans are fanatical, so again - there's just no winning here.

Posted on Jul 25, 2011 4:08:07 PM PDT
Rush

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 25, 2011 4:31:31 PM PDT
Wouldn't "no-win" be if you didn't like either of them?

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 25, 2011 5:37:14 PM PDT
Music Luver says:
You are right it is no win.

I also think Rush is unlistenable, their stuff never did anything for me. Someone once said to me take a bunch of Seconal and you'll love Rush live. I passed.

A lot of people equate a lot of fast runs as being technically awesome. Which they do, but it says nothing musically.

Jon, you are right they have absolutely NO groove.

The members of Yes all have classical backgrounds which helped them to be so melodic and interesting.
Rush sounds like they listened to Led Zeppelin and Yes and tried to make it into something.... FAIL!

Even the great Zep on their last couple of albums sounded like they were trying to be more prog which didn't always work.

Posted on Jul 25, 2011 6:01:35 PM PDT
Rush failed?

Posted on Jul 25, 2011 7:11:24 PM PDT
Fischman says:
"A lot of people equate a lot of fast runs as being technically awesome. Which they do, but it says nothing musically."
Alex Lifeson is far from being a mindless shredder. His musicality is beyond reproach. He plays individual chords that few others can conceive, let alone incorporate into meaningful music--he then strings them together into mind-blowing progressions. Just because it doesn't strike your ear right, doesn't mean it isn't absolutely freaking brilliant. In fact, this is one area where the two groups are similar. Steve Howe also lays out some very unique chord progressions into great, meaningful music.

. . . they have absolutely NO groove."
Well, that must be pretty much in the ear of the beholder. You can't hear a groove in YYZ (I could name many more)? Besides, when has a groove been a prerequisite for great music? I would argue that too much groove drops you into the mindless prattle that has dominated much of pop music since its inception. Rush is challenging but musical, which is what makes it so great.

"The members of Yes all have classical backgrounds . . . "
Not necessecarily so--from Steve's website: "I learned to play in a house in London where I was born and I just sat there and practiced and pretended I could play and copied things, and that's really how I learned to play, by ear, by looking at chord books and by listening to guitarists for ten years." Steve is pretty much self-taught. The guitarists he listened to were Chet Atkins and Barney Kessel, not Andres Segovia and John Williams. Lifeson, on the other hand, did engage in concentrated classical study for a period of time.

" . . . which helped them to be so melodic and interesting."
Just as in "groove," melodic doesn't necessarily mean "interesting." In fact, the most melodic stuff is bland, saccharine crap, while lots of less melodic stuff is among the most interesting. It's hard to find melody in Stravinsky, but that's really interesting stuff, even if it's not initially pleasing to the ear. So it is with Rush.

"Rush sounds like they listened to Led Zeppelin and Yes and tried to make it into something.... FAIL!"
Really? Rush has put out 18 studio albums of all original material. While the first album could be considered derivative of Zep, after that, they quickly evolved their own unique sound. Furthermore, that sound condinued to evolve from album to album. There is so much diversity in their catalog, it's (I'm trying to be nice here) really disingenuous to say they are derivative of any two groups be they Yez, Zep or anybody else. Rush charted their own course as much or more than any band in Rock history.

Look, I get that Rush isn't everybody's cup of tea, but there's a big difference betwen not liking something and saying it has no musical value.

I'll stick with this as a win-win.

Posted on Jul 25, 2011 7:54:43 PM PDT
I like both Yes and Rush - didn't think there was choice. I've made more of an effort to see Yes in concert bu have seen both. Unfortunately the Rush tour was for Roll The Bones - meh. Sometimes I like to listen to fingernails on a chalkboard Naked City
‹ Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next ›
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


Recent discussions in the Music forum

Discussion Replies Latest Post
What Are You Listening To? (Volume Three) 4080 4 minutes ago
The Music Of Our Lives 6713 17 minutes ago
What are you listening right now? 1189 18 minutes ago
What were the Last Five CD's You Purchased...(Be Honest). 4450 21 minutes ago
Song Game...10 songs where.... 4929 51 minutes ago
Zappa artists 19 3 hours ago
Short but impactful careers in music 69 3 hours ago
Who is/was the most underated band? 55 4 hours ago
Long Careers in Music 57 5 hours ago
Favorite 2014 Albums? 176 6 hours ago
Suicide Songs 218 6 hours ago
Your Ten Favorite Albums Of The 2000s 57 6 hours ago
 

This discussion

Discussion in:  Music forum
Participants:  60
Total posts:  190
Initial post:  Jul 22, 2011
Latest post:  Sep 14, 2014

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 2 customers

Search Customer Discussions