What's the best Genesis album?

Genesis have 6 classics, whereas Rush have 8 - so there y'go, yet another level on which Rush annihilate Genesis.

i don't think any of the rush albums that absorb new wave are as consistent as duke, abacab, or even shapes

also peart is a terrible lyricist

xpost Not Moving Pictures or Permanent Waves or Signals? I disagree.

Peart > Collins, obviously

No way. They are very different drummers, but Peart is not "clearly" superior, unless you subscribe to the Peart-is-the-greatest-drummer-of-all-time stance. Collins and Peart are equally creative and talented, and for a time equally busy/chops-heavy. Still, not to bash on Peart at all (because he's awesome and I like Rush better than Genesis, too), but I couldn't imagine him filling all the stylistic roles Collins has, from Zep to Motown to fusion to ... I mean, it just goes on. Collins is like one of those great session drummers able to impart his own personality with each performance. And he grooves and swings, which Peart, for all his awesomeness, just doesn't do much of. Or need to do!

80-82 is my favourite era of Rush so I do think they win on the new wave front. That said I've never thought of Genesis as being particularly new wavy anyway bar a handful of songs - their '80s albums are quite eclectic but to me they lean more towards just straight MOR/rock. I guess there was a lot of overlap at that time.

Duke and Invisible Touch are the only two albums that could remotely compete with anything that Rush released 1980-1985. In terms of Rush's discography from the beginning up to 1985 and Genesis' discography in the same period, the Rush albums are relatively filler and fat-free.

@josh oh i was talking mostly about signals, grace under pressure, and power windows. signals is my fav rush record but even then i don't like it as much as duke. idk, maybe it's time to spend more time with the rush catalog lol

...and here i thought we could be friends. Eight classic Rush records... you're high (and Invisible Touch sux).

Josh; you are wise -- my arguments would be better expressed if filtered through your pen.

I find the idea that Peart doesn't "groove" or "swing" really funny and pretty much demonstrates a lack of knowledge about the guy's drumming. Of course, naturally, from a purely technical perspective alone Peart > Collins, but there's more to Peart's drumming than that. He was at his peak for longer too.

oy vey. Can there be a Genesis Vs Rush poll so we can go back to matters at hand? lol

xpost You are totally wrong about Peart. His parts are totally precise, totally arranged, totally deliberate and totally not spontaneous. And totally awesome. That's their brilliance! Even his solos are totally composed! Not a dig on him, just a very different style that does not demand groove or swing or whatever. Anyway, let's go to the tape:

Neil Peart does Buddy:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aT9333XiR4U

Phil Collins big band:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JT5UslpgPUA

I mean, neither is playing the Village Vanguard.

Peart did stay at his peak longer, I'll give you that. But he worked really hard at that, too - taking lessons, reassessing/changing his technique - and it played a big role in his retirement.

Don't get me wrong, they're both great! But Neil Peart is perfect for Rush and only for Rush. Collins is far more versatile.

I mean, Collins doing his best Jaki here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KXDrTZMVINo

Through-composing and arranging ones parts has nothing to do with ones ability to "swing" ...

Sure. But it does discredit an occasional looseness and spontaneity as an attribute. Peart is like a machine, which is what I love about him. Not a time-keeping machine, just a total wind-up do his thing machine.

It's a different discussion, but I've often wondered about certain rarified virtuosos, if they're so into their thing that that's all they can do. Again, that's not a dig at Peart at all. But I was really impressed several months ago coming across some video of Mike Portnoy playing the Beatles. Not that I like Portnoy's playing - I hate Dream Theatre - but I was just impressed he could set aside ego and do his best Ringo. Could a guitarist as prima facia virtuoso as, say, Steve Vai, even play a sloppy version of "Wild Thing?" Without doing his weedle-weedle? I saw a clip of Adrian Belew once - he's another guitarist who just does his thing - and he was talking about influences, and it was a bit like pulling teeth. The interviewer finally got him to concede Hendrix, and then it took another round of coaxing to get Belew to even minimally demonstrate some Hendrix-like licks.

Anyway, Peart's, yeah, through-composed approach to drums is (or was) essentially unique. That's what makes him special. But it's also what makes it so hard for me to compare him to other drummers.

Josh has it right -- Peart is a technician; adept, yes, but still a craftsman.

Sure. But it does discredit an occasional looseness and spontaneity as an attribute.

Rush were never about jamming/improvising and neither really were Genesis, but that doesn't mean they couldn't do it and of course being musicians of their calibre I'm sure they could. Basically, your argument boils down to "Collins is a better drummer because he's done more session work", and I disagree.

Peart > Bruford > Palmer > Collins > White

i might as well add to this clusterfuck by asserting that genesis vs. rush is not a great debate to me because i do not feel that Rush is prog qua prog anyway, they are a hard rock band with prog tendencies.

I can't articulate why but trust me I am absolutely right.

..and sh@kedown has it right as well

Yep, they were very much that from 1975-1977 ... but it highlights another strength Rush have over Genesis: they rocked more. Like I said earlier, no far-too-long meandering 12 string guitar detours.

Rush were never about jamming/improvising and neither really were Genesis

the majority of genesis songs were born out of collective jamming

they talk about this all the time

xxpost:

I mean, it's called progressive rock, so too right the rocking is important.

I see the bands as having different goals.

Rush also had a musical sense of humor that Genesis lacked.

I firmly come down on the Rush side of the debate. And I agree Rush isn't really a prog band. I just won't say Peart is a better drummer than Collins. The latter is (was) a virtuoso, but was so much more versatile. Peart is the best Rush drummer we will ever see, which is enough, but not everything. Each one of the most creative drummers ever, regardless.

Rush also had a musical sense of humor that Genesis lacked.

Which is also to say, Rush may or may not be prog, but they most certainly were never art-rock.

xxxpost:

It doesn't matter how the songs were born - I'm perfectly sure several Rush songs were written and arranged that way and I know for a fact that the majority of Genesis songs weren't born out of collective jamming - maybe after Duke, certainly not before. Genesis' finished songs were mostly as set in stone as Rush's were.

I'd argue that Rush in the '80s were art rock.

the new Gier

I know for a fact that the majority of Genesis songs weren't born out of collective jamming

the lamb was born out of jamming! they talk about it in the freakin' doc!

i mean improvisation is just fast composition blah blah blah

The Lamb Lies Down on Broadway =/= "the majority of Genesis songs"

phil also made the v labored point in the lamb reissue doc that the lamb and "hold on my heart" were the product of people playing in a room together and that that's the thing tying the whole genesis discography together but ok pls enjoy yourself turrican

LOL @ "the new Geir" ... Wasn't Gabriel-era Genesis Geir's favourite band? Doubt he would have stood for them being compared unfavourably to Rush. He woulda been wrong, but no surprises there.

Wow, Genesis played in a room together, fucking hell...

Anyway, I'm gonna give A Trick of the Tail another spin, I'm in the mood to listen to the not-at-all-arranged-or-composed-and-totally-improvised likes of 'Dance on a Volcano' and 'Los Endos', not to mention 'Mad Man Moon' and the title track, which I hear Banks improvised from beginning to end and then brought to the band...

For what it's worth, Gabriel-era Genesis had mystique. Rush never did. Not a criticism, and Genesis never rocked as hard.

More importantly, who wore the better '80s hair? Was it Phil's never ending mullet or Geddy's raccoon hat?

Josh has it right -- Peart is a technician; adept, yes, but still a craftsman.

Unless I misunderstand what you mean by "technician" and "craftsman", this is not at all what I get from Josh's posts. If anything, he seems to be arguing that Collins is superior as a technician while Peart is so idiosyncratic that he only really works with Rush.

I don't think Collins is a superior technician, but I do think they are equally good drummers. Just that Peart's playing is pretty much only suited to Rush, whereas Collins can and does play well in numerous situations. Like, I have no doubt Vinnie Colaiuta could play anything Peart could, and then some, but Peart could not play "Nightshift" by the Commodores. And I have no doubt that Jeff Porcaro could play Rush songs, too, but Peart could not play "Billie Jean." Or Steely Dan, for that matter. Not that he needs to! Peart is perfect for Rush, and exceptional. But it's sort of like a conversation I had with a friend about the Edge. I don't rate the Edge as a guitar player, but if I was forming a U2 tribute band he would absolutely be my first pick. (Except Peart is awesome, of course.)

Porcaro was a great drummer and everything, but... no!

Y'see, Peart has very rarely done any work outside of Rush, but this has little to do with how well Peart would cope outside of Rush, and more to do with... well, if you're in a band with musicians of the calibre as the three members of Rush, then anything else is going to feel like a step down.

and y'know, it's turned into a TS: Collins vs. Peart, but Lee also knocks Rutherford into a cocked hat bass-wise and Lifeson is superior to Hackett. Rush didn't have a keyboard player per se., but they could always be relied on to provide tasteful synthesiser sounds on their records. Some of the synth sounds on Abacab and Genesis are a bit obnoxious.

Lee also knocks Rutherford into a cocked hat bass-wise and Lifeson is superior to Hackett.

No argument on this front.

musicians of the calibre as the three members of Rush, then anything else is going to feel like a step down.

Ha, this is no doubt how someone like, say, John McLaughlin might think of a band like Rush! (No offense to Rush intended.)

yeah i mean i like Rush but like I don't know like there's like several thousand jazz dudes that would knock them on their butts

or like Rik Emmitt from Triumph just to site another Canadian 70s/80s power trio, I'd say he's on par with Lifeson

Seriously? Rik Emmett?

I like Triumph fine on the radio (and own Thunder Seven) but they seem like pretty straightforward AOR to me. I can't recall anything where they've done the ambitious things Rush did with rhythm and harmony; nor do I think Emmett showed a command of a couple of different rock guitar styles like Lifeson did.

Also, you had Banks/Collins/Rutherford as the three-piece Genesis line-up, but they required extra musicians in order to play live - not so with Rush, who could replicate everything with only the three of them. Geddy multitasking with synths, bass, pedals and vocals. That's talent.

Seriously? Rik Emmett?

― No purposes. Sounds. (Sund4r), Friday, July 14, 2017 2:14 PM (twenty-six minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

haha ok i'm trolling but i find this whole conversation really bad IMO

Question: is Rush better or worse musicians than Booker T & the MGs?

Ha