Catalog size wise, is Rush by far the greatest band ever?

[funinspace]

Journey, I find their whole concept of bubble gum pop rock grating!

LOL...we find some quality common ground.

Uhm...David Bowie went from 1967 to his death in 2016, and that is 40 years by albums.

Great albums nearest the end?

His last album charted well, as the rock icon had died, so that doesn’t tell us much. But his previous album did very well, won awards, and had good metascore from reviewers. Though I don’t care for all of his music, I give him credit for not stagnating. Who gets to define 'great album'
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Bowie#1999.E2.80.932012:_Neoclassicist_Bowie

A music video for "Where Are We Now?" was released onto Vimeo the same day, directed by New York artist Tony Oursler.[176] The single topped the UK iTunes Chart within hours of its release,[177] and debuted in the UK Singles Chart at No. 6,[178] his first single to enter the Top 10 for two decades (since "Jump They Say" in 1993). A second video, "The Stars (Are Out Tonight)", was released 25 February. Directed by Floria Sigismondi, it stars Bowie and Tilda Swinton as a married couple.[179] On 1 March, the album was made available to stream for free through iTunes.[180] The Next Day debuted at No. 1 on the UK Albums Chart, was his first album to achieve that position since Black Tie White Noise (1993), and was the fastest-selling album of 2013 at the time.[181]
<snip>
Blackstar was released on 8 January 2016, Bowie's 69th birthday, and was met with critical acclaim.[200] Following his death on 10 January, producer Tony Visconti revealed that Bowie had planned the album to be his swan song, and a "parting gift" for his fans before his death.

Heck...I just realized that Marilyn Manson has now been at it for over 20 years....I'm getting seriously old.

 

[Horatio Parker]

Yeah, it was on uber-sale for the MP3s on Amazon, so I snatched it and just hadn't gotten to it yet. Rush did lull in the late 80s with more electronic driven stuff, but they recovered.

Thank goodness we have blu-ray tech so they have blu-rays of their last concerts.

The Tragically Hip come to mind, their discography is pretty flawless from front to back. I'd throw Radiohead and Joni Mitchell in that camp, too.

But they aren't old enough yet. I'm talking about a band who is in their 30+ years and releasing great music still.

Rush seems like an odd case to me here because they seem like a group whose skill lies more in technicality than song-writing, although admittedly I've never given them the proper time of day.

I'd say Vapor Trails and Snakes and Arrows/Clockwork Angels are poignant from a song writing POV, Vapor Trails regarding loss (Peart went through hell) and religion.

So technically they keep doing what they do, but I don't recall many 'timeless' Rush songs with tons of play.

Their most played music is early 80s stuff (Moving Pictures), but they definitely have radio anthems like Spirit of Radio / Tom Sawyer and plenty of radio hits Working Man / Subdivisions / Closer to the Heart.

So if we're talking pure technical output some Jazz players come to mind, Duke Ellington, Miles Davis, John Coltrane.

I'm talking 30+ years and still making a great album. The Who's last great albums was early to mid 70s. Some say the Rolling Stones haven't released a great album since the later 60s. Many other top bands haven't released albums in a decade plus.

In terms of pure longevity Rush are most certainly near the top, I just mention the other artists because they're in the ball-park re: longevity + quality

Tragically Hip: 29 years
Joni Mitchell: 34 years
Radiohead: 23 years (given they haven't released a ton of albums, but some of their records are considered the greatest in the modern canon)

Jazz careers aren't quite as analogous to modern Rock, but Ellington was a pretty solid composer for fortyish years, Davis around thirty.

Not really contrasting these groups with Rush, but they are more examples of artists with significant staying power. It really doesn't happen too often.

Black Sabbath comes to mind as well when it comes to rock music, so long as you don't mind their frequent lead singer changes. Overall album quality, and technical ability are not quite as good as Rush IMHO, but I am sure there are some rock fans who will disagree with that.

There's a tradeoff between complexity and groove. Sabbath keeps its eye on the rhythm ball. Prog rock with all its flurrys, unison hits, runs and meter changes loses some oomph. If your listening tastes are more intellectual, that's ok. But if your preference is more elemental, more gut, you might prefer groups like BS.

It's funny in an odd way that no one mentioned Zappa in this connection. True, he's out of the longevity contest, but he was very prolific.

Do rock fans consider Zappa progressive rock? I never did, but only because I only saw the term related to groups like Yes.

 

[funinspace]

Yeah, it was on uber-sale for the MP3s on Amazon, so I snatched it and just hadn't gotten to it yet. Rush did lull in the late 80s with more electronic driven stuff, but they recovered.

Thank goodness we have blu-ray tech so they have blu-rays of their last concerts.

The Tragically Hip come to mind, their discography is pretty flawless from front to back. I'd throw Radiohead and Joni Mitchell in that camp, too.

But they aren't old enough yet. I'm talking about a band who is in their 30+ years and releasing great music still.

Rush seems like an odd case to me here because they seem like a group whose skill lies more in technicality than song-writing, although admittedly I've never given them the proper time of day.

I'd say Vapor Trails and Snakes and Arrows/Clockwork Angels are poignant from a song writing POV, Vapor Trails regarding loss (Peart went through hell) and religion.

So technically they keep doing what they do, but I don't recall many 'timeless' Rush songs with tons of play.

Their most played music is early 80s stuff (Moving Pictures), but they definitely have radio anthems like Spirit of Radio / Tom Sawyer and plenty of radio hits Working Man / Subdivisions / Closer to the Heart.

So if we're talking pure technical output some Jazz players come to mind, Duke Ellington, Miles Davis, John Coltrane.

I'm talking 30+ years and still making a great album. The Who's last great albums was early to mid 70s. Some say the Rolling Stones haven't released a great album since the later 60s. Many other top bands haven't released albums in a decade plus.

In terms of pure longevity Rush are most certainly near the top, I just mention the other artists because they're in the ball-park re: longevity + quality

Tragically Hip: 29 years
Joni Mitchell: 34 years
Radiohead: 23 years (given they haven't released a ton of albums, but some of their records are considered the greatest in the modern canon)

Jazz careers aren't quite as analogous to modern Rock, but Ellington was a pretty solid composer for fortyish years, Davis around thirty.

Not really contrasting these groups with Rush, but they are more examples of artists with significant staying power. It really doesn't happen too often.

Black Sabbath comes to mind as well when it comes to rock music, so long as you don't mind their frequent lead singer changes. Overall album quality, and technical ability are not quite as good as Rush IMHO, but I am sure there are some rock fans who will disagree with that.

There's a tradeoff between complexity and groove. Sabbath keeps its eye on the rhythm ball. Prog rock with all its flurrys, unison hits, runs and meter changes loses some oomph. If your listening tastes are more intellectual, that's ok. But if your preference is more elemental, more gut, you might prefer groups like BS.

As someone who never really got into BS, beyond a few of their hits, I'd be curious to know if BS fans think their later stuff is still good. Though its funny, I like some of Ozzy's later efforts and can get into Rob Zombie, Ramstein, and Manson for that elemental groove, or NIN for the hell of it.

It's funny in an odd way that no one mentioned Zappa in this connection. True, he's out of the longevity contest, but he was very prolific.

Do rock fans consider Zappa progressive rock? I never did, but only because I only saw the term related to groups like Yes.

I was thinking of mentioning Zappa, but refrained mostly as I really can't listen to more than a few minutes of his music. I'd call it Zappa rock.

 

[PyramidHead]

I dislike Rush, but I can appreciate their consistent output. But the best prog band ever are the inventors of prog, King Crimson. They were forward-thinking enough to abandon the tired tropes of the 70s era and actually progress, instead of rewriting the same 12-minute symphonic rock piece over and over a la Yes. In this sense, KC aren't really prog as such, as they don't sound anything like Rush or Tull or Yes. Even in the 80's, they reinvented their sound in a way that wasn't a blatant sellout to whatever was popular at the time.

They are currently on tour as an 8-piece "double quartet" with 3 drummers! It's overkill, but it's unlike anything you're likely to hear elsewhere.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Someone asked about what "great" meant. "Great" to me means the album is great, not going through the motions, but something new, something that needed to be created because of art, not because of a contract or a band wanted to remain "relevant". This isn't a fanboy sort of Rush is the best ever, you can go fuck off type of thread. It is more of a genuine question because my knowledge of music is very sheltered.

It's funny in an odd way that no one mentioned Zappa in this connection. True, he's out of the longevity contest, but he was very prolific.

Do rock fans consider Zappa progressive rock? I never did, but only because I only saw the term related to groups like Yes.

Zappa's deadness kind of takes him out of the running for long career of releasing great albums. I'd consider Zappa created music, to belong to the Zappa genre.

 

[KeepTalking]

Yeah, it was on uber-sale for the MP3s on Amazon, so I snatched it and just hadn't gotten to it yet. Rush did lull in the late 80s with more electronic driven stuff, but they recovered.

Thank goodness we have blu-ray tech so they have blu-rays of their last concerts.

The Tragically Hip come to mind, their discography is pretty flawless from front to back. I'd throw Radiohead and Joni Mitchell in that camp, too.

But they aren't old enough yet. I'm talking about a band who is in their 30+ years and releasing great music still.

Rush seems like an odd case to me here because they seem like a group whose skill lies more in technicality than song-writing, although admittedly I've never given them the proper time of day.

I'd say Vapor Trails and Snakes and Arrows/Clockwork Angels are poignant from a song writing POV, Vapor Trails regarding loss (Peart went through hell) and religion.

So technically they keep doing what they do, but I don't recall many 'timeless' Rush songs with tons of play.

Their most played music is early 80s stuff (Moving Pictures), but they definitely have radio anthems like Spirit of Radio / Tom Sawyer and plenty of radio hits Working Man / Subdivisions / Closer to the Heart.

So if we're talking pure technical output some Jazz players come to mind, Duke Ellington, Miles Davis, John Coltrane.

I'm talking 30+ years and still making a great album. The Who's last great albums was early to mid 70s. Some say the Rolling Stones haven't released a great album since the later 60s. Many other top bands haven't released albums in a decade plus.

In terms of pure longevity Rush are most certainly near the top, I just mention the other artists because they're in the ball-park re: longevity + quality

Tragically Hip: 29 years
Joni Mitchell: 34 years
Radiohead: 23 years (given they haven't released a ton of albums, but some of their records are considered the greatest in the modern canon)

Jazz careers aren't quite as analogous to modern Rock, but Ellington was a pretty solid composer for fortyish years, Davis around thirty.

Not really contrasting these groups with Rush, but they are more examples of artists with significant staying power. It really doesn't happen too often.

Black Sabbath comes to mind as well when it comes to rock music, so long as you don't mind their frequent lead singer changes. Overall album quality, and technical ability are not quite as good as Rush IMHO, but I am sure there are some rock fans who will disagree with that.

There's a tradeoff between complexity and groove. Sabbath keeps its eye on the rhythm ball. Prog rock with all its flurrys, unison hits, runs and meter changes loses some oomph. If your listening tastes are more intellectual, that's ok. But if your preference is more elemental, more gut, you might prefer groups like BS.

As someone who never really got into BS, beyond a few of their hits, I'd be curious to know if BS fans think their later stuff is still good.

Their last album, 13, was a damn good Sabbath album and well received by critics as well as fans, but there were 18 years between that and the previous album. Most everything after Dio left the band has been mediocre, at best. I actually liked Born Again, I just loved the idea of Ian Gillan fronting Sabbath, but production values on that album were terrible, and it was critically panned. Dehumanizer, which featured Dio back as the lead vocalist was the only bright spot for me in the intervening 30 years, but it was not well received by critics, either.

Though its funny, I like some of Ozzy's later efforts and can get into Rob Zombie, Ramstein, and Manson for that elemental groove, or NIN for the hell of it.

It's funny in an odd way that no one mentioned Zappa in this connection. True, he's out of the longevity contest, but he was very prolific.

Do rock fans consider Zappa progressive rock? I never did, but only because I only saw the term related to groups like Yes.

I was thinking of mentioning Zappa, but refrained mostly as I really can't listen to more than a few minutes of his music. I'd call it Zappa rock.

Zappa was all over the place, his sound changed constantly, and much of his output cannot really be described as rock music. Oddly enough, that is just about all one needs to do to be considered "progressive" these days. I would say he was most progressive, in a traditional sense, with the Mothers of Invention.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Zappa was all over the place, his sound changed constantly, and much of his output cannot really be described as rock music. Oddly enough, that is just about all one needs to do to be considered "progressive" these days. I would say he was most progressive, in a traditional sense, with the Mothers of Invention.

I don't think Zappa was pretentious enough to be qualified as progressive.

 

[Horatio Parker]

Zappa was all over the place, his sound changed constantly, and much of his output cannot really be described as rock music. Oddly enough, that is just about all one needs to do to be considered "progressive" these days. I would say he was most progressive, in a traditional sense, with the Mothers of Invention.

I don't think Zappa was pretentious enough to be qualified as progressive.

I'm sure Zappa would've dislike any terms that lumped him in with bands like Rush. My nutshell analysis of Zappa is that he considered himself too smart for the rockers and too hip for the classical-ers. I like Zappa, but, like Russia and Syria, my support isn't unconditional.

 

[connick]

One band that has been around for a long time and keeps putting out albums (of varying quality between and within them) is Sparks. They're hard to pin down in terms of theme or genre since each album seems to go off in a completely different direction from the last. They started in '71 and have 22 studio albums so I'd count them in the running. As I alluded to parenthetically, their songs are hit-or-miss for me but there are some absolute gems among their discography. I particularly enjoy "This Town Ain't Big Enough for the Both of Us" off of the "Plagiarism" album and "The Rhythm Thief" off of "Lil' Beethoven".

 

[Horatio Parker]

Someone asked about what "great" meant. "Great" to me means the album is great, not going through the motions, but something new, something that needed to be created because of art, not because of a contract or a band wanted to remain "relevant". This isn't a fanboy sort of Rush is the best ever, you can go fuck off type of thread. It is more of a genuine question because my knowledge of music is very sheltered.

It depends very much on context. One context is personal, like your criteria. But albums that are hugely influential can be called great even if you despise them. And the longer they're influential, the greater they are. In the classics, Bach is the greatest, for many reasons. Doesn't matter what anyone in particular thinks, because enough people do to make it so.

Cobain considered Get The Knack a great album. Is it? Never heard it, I dunno. But Cobains opinion carrries weight.

 

[funinspace]

Someone who Jimmy Anywho, I wasn't worried about this being a fanboy flaming thread.... And yeah, I shouldn't have said "Zappa rock", but "Zappa genre".

Someone asked about what "great" meant. "Great" to me means the album is great, not going through the motions, but something new, something that needed to be created because of art, not because of a contract or a band wanted to remain "relevant". This isn't a fanboy sort of Rush is the best ever, you can go fuck off type of thread. It is more of a genuine question because my knowledge of music is very sheltered.

It depends very much on context. One context is personal, like your criteria. But albums that are hugely influential can be called great even if you despise them. And the longer they're influential, the greater they are. In the classics, Bach is the greatest, for many reasons. Doesn't matter what anyone in particular thinks, because enough people do to make it so.

Yep, great albums and great artists/groups are complicated and require context.

Cobain considered Get The Knack a great album. Is it? Never heard it, I dunno. But Cobains opinion carrries weight.

The Knack, seriously? That is funny. I mean I like the album, and in fact had the record, and now the digital copy, as I find most of the songs on it fun in a light way, as much as I like AC/DC for some fun harder rock. But it would never be on my list of great albums. Heck something like Olga Tañón's Te Acordarás de Mí is way better...and I think she is better than the over rated Shakira.

Sparks? Hum...I'll have to look them up, sounds interesting...

 

[Horatio Parker]

The Knack, seriously? That is funny. I mean I like the album, and in fact had the record, and now the digital copy, as I find most of the songs on it fun in a light way, as much as I like AC/DC for some fun harder rock. But it would never be on my list of great albums. Heck something like Olga Tañón's Te Acordarás de Mí is way better...and I think she is better than the over rated Shakira.

Sparks? Hum...I'll have to look them up, sounds interesting...

Might've been Cheap Trick...but IIRC it was the "My Sharona" album. That's the Knack, right?

 

[funinspace]

That's the Knack...
My, my, my, aye-aye, whoa!
M-m-m-my Sharona

 

[ZiprHead]

Is this topic limited to bands because I can think of several solo artists that could, as much as I like Rush, beat the crap out of them, music quality wise. Springsteen, Lou Reed, Cohen, Paul Simon, Willie Nelson, Elvis Costello... All with very long careers.

 

[Horatio Parker]

That's the Knack...
My, my, my, aye-aye, whoa!
M-m-m-my Sharona

You left out the "whooo"...gotta have the whooo...

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Is this topic limited to bands because I can think of several solo artists that could, as much as I like Rush, beat the crap out of them, music quality wise. Springsteen, Lou Reed, Cohen, Paul Simon, Willie Nelson, Elvis Costello... All with very long careers.

Sure.

 

[ZiprHead]

Is this topic limited to bands because I can think of several solo artists that could, as much as I like Rush, beat the crap out of them, music quality wise. Springsteen, Lou Reed, Cohen, Paul Simon, Willie Nelson, Elvis Costello... All with very long careers.

Sure.

Okay, let's take Springsteen. Every single album of original music, 17 of them, have all received high critical praise. Even the worst album, Human Touch, still gets 4/5 by Rolling Stone. He is also fourth on the list of artists with the most albums on Rolling Stones Top 500 Popular (as opposed to classical) Albums Of All Time link, beaten only by The Beatles, Rolling Stones and Bob Dylan.

Rush is a great band. Great rhythm hooks, generally pretty good lyrics, and of course the greatest drummer to have ever lived. They are probably the top in their particular genre. They've never met the depth and conveyance of the human experience and emotional upheavals of people like a true blue collar poet that Springsteen is though.

All this is, of course, subject to personal taste. But I have to say I don't think there is any other artist who is more consistently excellent than Springsteen.

I know I'm probably sounding like a fanboy but I really only own a few BS albums and rarely actually play them, I'd probably play Rush albums more (almost never listen to full albums anymore anyway unless it's jazz). I've heard one or two I would never want to listen to again. I do however respect the great songwriting and performing talent and consider him to be, as far as consistency goes, to be the best of the best.

 

[ronburgundy]

I love Rush. The key to them producing quality music for so long is a fortunate lack of death and lack of competing visions in the band.
Their debut album was okay, but they became far better when Neal Peart has added in 1975 and quickly took over almost all of the lyric writing, while Lifeson and Geddy Lee have dominated the music writing credits (although they aren't witing Peart's drum riffs for him).

That clean division of labor has prevented band-dissolving conflicts and their relatively non-rock lifestyles have kept them all alive.

Very few great bands can say that. Pink Floyd could have been great for 4 decades instead of 2 if Roger didn't treat it like it wasn't supposed to be fun, and Gilmore left most the songwriting to Roger.