What is the point of this?
All of the above are great bands but are vastly different.
Rush is a prog-rock band and is/was very technical musically and lyrically cerebral. Many of their songs are over 15 minutes long with key-changes.
Van Halen is a party band and very FM
radio friendly. Sure Eddie Van Halen is a great soloist that uses many chords foreign to rock music just as Alex Lifeson but other than that, they are far removed from each other.
I've never seen Geddy Lee flying in a harness dangling from a rope above the crowd.
Rush is in a class all by themselves.
|Quoting EA CO AS (Reply 1):|
This "contest" is clearly a fraud when you have Guns n' Roses beating both The Rolling Stones and Led Zeppelin in a "classic rock" contest.
about the Led Zeppelin comparison.
Slash and that punk Axel Rose aren't even good enough to cut the grass and take out the garbage for Robert Plant, John Paul Jones and Jimmy Page.
Led Zeppelin are Gods! Guns & Posers are trash!
Rolling Stones is just an over-rated simpleton rock band that gets praise for coming from the UK during the 1960s. The Beatles, Moody Blues, Yes, Genesis and even the Electric Light Orchestra are far more superior British bands that came out of the 1960s.
Rolling Stones is in the league with Cocoa Cola, Nike, Shell, Toyota, Microsoft, Apple, Heinz, Starbucks and other products. They're not a band, they're a 'brand' and honestly, I prefer to support and listen to KISS if I'm going to support a rock 'brand'. There is no false pretense about KISS unlike the Rolling Stones.
I get more bang for the buck with KISS unlike the Rolling Stones.
Now THAT'S a fair comparison.