Quote:
|
Originally Posted by boo boo
Who's better is subjective (here i go again) but i'm further convinced that The Who are superior, and for several reasons... I simply think they had better musical, lyrical and thematic ideas... Which made up for what they lacked in skill (compared to Rush that is, because The Who are actually a very capable band) and more importantly a more effective and influencial rock band... Even though Lifeson is better than Townshend, Lee better than Entwhistle, Peart better than Moon, etc... The Who had more chemestry, someone like Lifeson is replacable, sure he is a very good player, but he's the weakest musician in the band, and many musicians can play like him.... Now The Who could came back with Michael Portnoy on drums and Michael Manring on bass but they simply wouldn't be The Who... That's just how important each member was to the band.
|
Yeah, that's a good point and I agree that good songwriting and musical style are every bit as important, and sometimes more so, than talent. I personally think that Rush have a lot of chemistry too, but as you said yourself, it's very subjective.
Welcome to Music Banter Forum! Make sure to register - it's free and very quick! You have to register before you can post and participate in our discussions with over 17,000 other registered members. After you create your free account, you will be able to customize many options, you will have the full access to over 300,000 posts.
Linear Mode
