Red Mosquito

How is rush not on the mount rushmore of rock bands?

Matters wrote:The Mount Rushmore of rock bands is

Chuck Berry, Elvis and Bob Dylan are not rock bands.

washing machine wrote:How is rush not on the mount rushmore of rock bands?

What about the voice of Geddy Lee
How did it get so high?
I wonder if he speaks like an ordinary guy?

Matters wrote:

Matters wrote:The Mount Rushmore of rock bands is

Chuck Berry, Elvis and Bob Dylan are not rock bands.

Explain yourself…

Though at least for me when I mention these artists I am being inclusive of their backing bands.

washing machine wrote:How is rush not on the mount rushmore of rock bands?

because they're canadian

Chris_H_2 wrote:

washing machine wrote:How is rush not on the mount rushmore of rock bands?

because they're canadian

We said Mount Rushmore, not more Rush.

dad wrote:

washing machine wrote:How is rush not on the mount rushmore of rock bands?

What about the voice of Geddy Lee
How did it get so high?
I wonder if he speaks like an ordinary guy?

I know him and he does
You're my fact-checkin' cuz

liebzz wrote:

Matters wrote:

Matters wrote:The Mount Rushmore of rock bands is

Chuck Berry, Elvis and Bob Dylan are not rock bands.

Explain yourself…

Though at least for me when I mention these artists I am being inclusive of their backing bands.

time for the rock vs rock n roll distinction...

spike wrote:

liebzz wrote:

Matters wrote:

Matters wrote:The Mount Rushmore of rock bands is

Chuck Berry, Elvis and Bob Dylan are not rock bands.

Explain yourself…

Though at least for me when I mention these artists I am being inclusive of their backing bands.

time for the rock vs rock n roll distinction...

For me it’s not about rock v rock and roll, it’s about a band vs a solo artist. My original comment specified bands. The Mount Rushmore of rock (and roll) is going to look different than the Mount Rushmore of rock (and roll) bands.

Chuck Berry might be the greatest thing to ever happen to rock and roll, but he’s not a band. He played with countless different backing musicians throughout his career and iirc often used the house band for whatever venue he was playing.

The Beatles
The Stones
Zep

Can’t really decide on a fourth. Buddy Holly and the Crickets, maybe?

Matters wrote:

spike wrote:

liebzz wrote:

Matters wrote:

Matters wrote:The Mount Rushmore of rock bands is

Chuck Berry, Elvis and Bob Dylan are not rock bands.

Explain yourself…

Though at least for me when I mention these artists I am being inclusive of their backing bands.

time for the rock vs rock n roll distinction...

For me it’s not about rock v rock and roll, it’s about a band vs a solo artist. My original comment specified bands. The Mount Rushmore of rock (and roll) is going to look different than the Mount Rushmore of rock (and roll) bands.

Chuck Berry might be the greatest thing to ever happen to rock and roll, but he’s not a band. He played with countless different backing musicians throughout his career and iirc often used the house band for whatever venue he was playing.

The band vs solo thing never made sense to me when it comes to this sort of rankings/lists. There are plenty of bands that are a one man show and plenty of technically solo artists that are major collaborators with their “backing band”. Tom Petty and Springsteen probably collaborated with their guys more than John Fogerty or Kurt Cobain did.

Yup

bada wrote:

Matters wrote:

spike wrote:

liebzz wrote:

Matters wrote:

Matters wrote:The Mount Rushmore of rock bands is

Chuck Berry, Elvis and Bob Dylan are not rock bands.

Explain yourself…

Though at least for me when I mention these artists I am being inclusive of their backing bands.

time for the rock vs rock n roll distinction...

For me it’s not about rock v rock and roll, it’s about a band vs a solo artist. My original comment specified bands. The Mount Rushmore of rock (and roll) is going to look different than the Mount Rushmore of rock (and roll) bands.

Chuck Berry might be the greatest thing to ever happen to rock and roll, but he’s not a band. He played with countless different backing musicians throughout his career and iirc often used the house band for whatever venue he was playing.

The band vs solo thing never made sense to me when it comes to this sort of rankings/lists. There are plenty of bands that are a one man show and plenty of technically solo artists that are major collaborators with their “backing band”. Tom Petty and Springsteen probably collaborated with their guys more than John Fogerty or Kurt Cobain did.

I agree with this in terms of there’s not a really meaningful distinction unless that solo artist was 100% solo. I do think The Who are one of the greatest bands. It’s still mind boggling how great a pairing Moon and Entwhistle were.

bada wrote:

Matters wrote:

spike wrote:

liebzz wrote:

Matters wrote:

Matters wrote:The Mount Rushmore of rock bands is

Chuck Berry, Elvis and Bob Dylan are not rock bands.

Explain yourself…

Though at least for me when I mention these artists I am being inclusive of their backing bands.

time for the rock vs rock n roll distinction...

For me it’s not about rock v rock and roll, it’s about a band vs a solo artist. My original comment specified bands. The Mount Rushmore of rock (and roll) is going to look different than the Mount Rushmore of rock (and roll) bands.

Chuck Berry might be the greatest thing to ever happen to rock and roll, but he’s not a band. He played with countless different backing musicians throughout his career and iirc often used the house band for whatever venue he was playing.

The band vs solo thing never made sense to me when it comes to this sort of rankings/lists. There are plenty of bands that are a one man show and plenty of technically solo artists that are major collaborators with their “backing band”. Tom Petty and Springsteen probably collaborated with their guys more than John Fogerty or Kurt Cobain did.

Totally see your point there. But the only thing that needs to make sense is that my comment was about bands.

Bruce Springsteen and the E street band and Tom Petty and the Heartbreakers are both bands. Bob Dylan and Chuck Berry are not. Pretty simple distinction really.

liebzz wrote:

bada wrote:

Matters wrote:

spike wrote:

liebzz wrote:

Matters wrote:

Matters wrote:The Mount Rushmore of rock bands is

Chuck Berry, Elvis and Bob Dylan are not rock bands.

Explain yourself…

Though at least for me when I mention these artists I am being inclusive of their backing bands.

time for the rock vs rock n roll distinction...

For me it’s not about rock v rock and roll, it’s about a band vs a solo artist. My original comment specified bands. The Mount Rushmore of rock (and roll) is going to look different than the Mount Rushmore of rock (and roll) bands.

Chuck Berry might be the greatest thing to ever happen to rock and roll, but he’s not a band. He played with countless different backing musicians throughout his career and iirc often used the house band for whatever venue he was playing.

The band vs solo thing never made sense to me when it comes to this sort of rankings/lists. There are plenty of bands that are a one man show and plenty of technically solo artists that are major collaborators with their “backing band”. Tom Petty and Springsteen probably collaborated with their guys more than John Fogerty or Kurt Cobain did.

I agree with this in terms of there’s not a really meaningful distinction unless that solo artist was 100% solo. I do think The Who are one of the greatest bands. It’s still mind boggling how great a pairing Moon and Entwhistle were.

There’s really no other rhythm section like them. After I go through a Who phase, listening to almost anything else feels somewhat empty. Townshend sacrificed a lot to allow for Entwistle and Moon to ball out.

Matters wrote:

bada wrote:

Matters wrote:

spike wrote:

liebzz wrote:

Matters wrote:

Matters wrote:The Mount Rushmore of rock bands is

Chuck Berry, Elvis and Bob Dylan are not rock bands.

Explain yourself…

Though at least for me when I mention these artists I am being inclusive of their backing bands.

time for the rock vs rock n roll distinction...

For me it’s not about rock v rock and roll, it’s about a band vs a solo artist. My original comment specified bands. The Mount Rushmore of rock (and roll) is going to look different than the Mount Rushmore of rock (and roll) bands.

Chuck Berry might be the greatest thing to ever happen to rock and roll, but he’s not a band. He played with countless different backing musicians throughout his career and iirc often used the house band for whatever venue he was playing.

The band vs solo thing never made sense to me when it comes to this sort of rankings/lists. There are plenty of bands that are a one man show and plenty of technically solo artists that are major collaborators with their “backing band”. Tom Petty and Springsteen probably collaborated with their guys more than John Fogerty or Kurt Cobain did.

Totally see your point there. But the only thing that needs to make sense is that my comment was about bands.

Bruce Springsteen and the E street band and Tom Petty and the Heartbreakers are both bands. Bob Dylan and Chuck Berry are not. Pretty simple distinction really.

If Creedence Clearwater Revival was called John Fogerty and Nirvana was called Kurt Cobain they would have sounded exactly the same but they somehow go from a band dynamic to a solo dynamic based on the name. If when Dylan worked with the Band he changed the name to Dylan and The Band then it magically becomes a real band and counts seems silly.

How would these bands be carved into Mt Rushmore? The entire line-up? That's a lot of work. Or just the frontman? Or maybe the logos, but that would look stupid

I think we carve a relief of each band's most popular album.