Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

What band do you think has the most combined talent, and is still making records. (that leaves out led zeppelin, beetles and so on)

For me it would have to be Tool. Amazing drummer and singer, good but not great bassist and guitarist. Their music seems to flow so naturally and there is no band like them that I'm aware of.

Originally posted by dirkdirden
good but not great bassist and guitarist.

Hahahahahaha.

But seriously, Rush, if we're discussing musicianship.

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Hahahahahaha.

But seriously, Rush, if we're discussing musicianship.

-AC

Rush is still making albums? Yeah saw a video with the drummer in the glass box that was bad ass.

You think Justin Chancellor isn't a great bassist?

Not a good start, but anyway.

What do you mean by talent? Define it a bit better. Technical skill?

Dream Theatre are one of the most skilled bands. then of course i could mention jazz bands for hours, but you wouldn't have heard them anyway so no use really.

Old School Rock "The Who"

last 15 years or so "Tool"

Originally posted by vanice
Dream Theatre are one of the most skilled bands. then of course i could mention jazz bands for hours, but you wouldn't have heard them anyway so no use really.

you are sooooooo cool.

pound for pound, it might be lightning bolt. a drummer who can spazz fill in made up time signatures for loops that last multiple measures, and a bassist who can make a good three instruments worth of sound.

Punk: NoMeansNo
No Real Genre: The Mars Volta

I'm going to have to say either Dream Theater or Rush.

Tool has a hell of a lot of talent, as does Fantomas

Journey or Rush.

Journey's sold more albums, was more popular in their prime, has a much better singer (Geddy Lee sucks as a vocalist), and a better guitarist.

Rush, though, has managed to keep their act together (same three guys) for about five years or so longer than Journey has, and there's three of them.

Originally posted by Gideon
Journey or Rush.

Journey's sold more albums, was more popular in their prime, has a much better singer (Geddy Lee sucks as a vocalist), and a better guitarist.

Rush, though, has managed to keep their act together (same three guys) for about five years or so longer than Journey has, and there's three of them.

*And they're much, much better at everything than Journey.

-AC

so far Dream Theater is the only band I haven’t herd. I'll ask for them for Christmas.

Use any definition of talent you want. I just need some new artists that aren’t the same poprocks emo indie crap that fills alternative stations. I am having trouble finding new music to listen too.

I need about 4 or 5 more cd’s for Christmas so keep them coming if you can.

Rush - 2112
Opeth - deliverance
Faith No More - Angel Dust
Black Sabbath - Best Of 1970 - 1978
Sonic Youth - EJSTANS
Marvin Gaye - What's Goig On
Led Zeppelin - Led Zeppelin IV
Joni Mitchell - Hejira, Dreamland
Fantomas - Suspended Animation
Ramones - Rocket for Russia
The Cure - Pornography, Disintegration
Audioslave - Revelations
Alice in Chains - Dirt, Unplugged
Sufjan Stevens - Illinois
Chris Cornell - Euphoria Morning
Arcade Fire - Funeral
Tricky - Maxinquaye
Portishead - Dummy
Devo - Hot Potatos
Iron and Wine - The Sea and the Rythm
Massive Attack - Blue lines
Tom Waits- Bone machine
Leonard Cohen- New skin for the old ceremony, Songs of Leonard Cohen
Frank Zappa- Sheik Yerbouti
Velvet underground- Velvet underground, Andy Warhol´s velvet underground
Godspeed You! Black Emperor - f#a#infinity
Syd Barrett - The Badcap Laughs

I never thought I would see The Ramones in a "Most talented Band" list.

This said, you have a nice list. It's good to see that Joni Mitchell is still respected.

Originally posted by Kid Kurdy
I never thought I would see The Ramones in a "Most talented Band" list.

This said, you have a nice list. It's good to see that Joni Mitchell is still respected.

What? No, that's not a most talented list. That's just my Christmas wish list ...to give him ideas beyond who is most talented.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Rush - 2112
Opeth - deliverance
Faith No More - Angel Dust
Black Sabbath - Best Of 1970 - 1978
Sonic Youth - EJSTANS
Marvin Gaye - What's Goig On
Led Zeppelin - Led Zeppelin IV
Joni Mitchell - Hejira, Dreamland
Fantomas - Suspended Animation
Ramones - Rocket for Russia
The Cure - Pornography, Disintegration
Audioslave - Revelations
Alice in Chains - Dirt, Unplugged
Sufjan Stevens - Illinois
Chris Cornell - Euphoria Morning
Arcade Fire - Funeral
Tricky - Maxinquaye
Portishead - Dummy
Devo - Hot Potatos
Iron and Wine - The Sea and the Rythm
Massive Attack - Blue lines
Tom Waits- Bone machine
Leonard Cohen- New skin for the old ceremony, Songs of Leonard Cohen
Frank Zappa- Sheik Yerbouti
Velvet underground- Velvet underground, Andy Warhol´s velvet underground
Godspeed You! Black Emperor - f#a#infinity
Syd Barrett - The Badcap Laughs I've got 12 of those CD's

Originally posted by Bardock42
What? No, that's not a most talented list. That's just my Christmas wish list ...to give him ideas beyond who is most talented.

If I don't asked for talented bands I'll get sugestions like simple plan and nickelback, and I don't like simple plan and nickelback.

Out of you list I'll check out Fantomas, Opeth and Godspeed You! Black Emperor. Everything else I have either already herd or not interested in.

Need about 2 or 3 more.

Originally posted by ~Da Rev~
I've got 12 of those CD's

I've got none.

Originally posted by dirkdirden
If I don't asked for talented bands I'll get sugestions like simple plan and nickelback, and I don't like simple plan and nickelback.

Out of you list I'll check out Fantomas, Opeth and Godspeed You! Black Emperor. Everything else I have either already herd or not interested in.

Need about 2 or 3 more.

Yeah, though people that like Simple Plan might claim they are the most talented.

Originally posted by Bardock42

Yeah, though people that like Simple Plan might claim they are the most talented.

Yeah maybe.

Asked some people at work and got one more sparta. So that leave 1 or 2 more for my chirstmas list.

Dream Theater
Fantomas
Opeth
Godspeed You! Black Emperor
Sparta
...

The Smiths?

Originally posted by Bardock42
The Smiths?

Don't like the singer, but the music is good.

Originally posted by dirkdirden
Don't like the singer, but the music is good.

Yeah, good stuff.

Well, Jeff Buckley obviously (which reminds me why the hell is Sketches not on my list.)
PJ Harvey
Rage Against The Machine?

Originally posted by Bardock42
Yeah, good stuff.

Well, Jeff Buckley obviously (which reminds me why the hell is Sketches not on my list.)
PJ Harvey
Rage Against The Machine?

I'll add Jeff Buckley, and I have all of rage.

Dream Theater
Fantomas
Opeth
Godspeed You! Black Emperor
Sparta
Jeff Buckly.

This should be good enough list for chirstmas.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Rush - 2112
Opeth - deliverance
Faith No More - Angel Dust
Black Sabbath - Best Of 1970 - 1978
Sonic Youth - EJSTANS
Marvin Gaye - What's Goig On
Led Zeppelin - Led Zeppelin IV
Joni Mitchell - Hejira, Dreamland
Fantomas - Suspended Animation
Ramones - Rocket for Russia
The Cure - Pornography, Disintegration
Audioslave - Revelations
Alice in Chains - Dirt, Unplugged
Sufjan Stevens - Illinois
Chris Cornell - Euphoria Morning
Arcade Fire - Funeral
Tricky - Maxinquaye
Portishead - Dummy
Devo - Hot Potatos
Iron and Wine - The Sea and the Rythm
Massive Attack - Blue lines
Tom Waits- Bone machine
Leonard Cohen- New skin for the old ceremony, Songs of Leonard Cohen
Frank Zappa- Sheik Yerbouti
Velvet underground- Velvet underground, Andy Warhol´s velvet underground
Godspeed You! Black Emperor - f#a#infinity
Syd Barrett - The Badcap Laughs

funeral is a wonderful album, but i would stay the hell away from audioslave. you can hear tom morello's hate for the band in the half-assed guitar. don't expect sufjan to blow your mind, he's still quite good but a bit overhyped. if you don't have any other tom waits, also get mule variations, swordfishtrombone, and rain dogs. similarly, also check out velvet undeground's "loaded", sounds a bit like a weirder nashville skyline-era dylan. oh, and if you're not that experienced with sonic youth, i've found all albums besides EVOL, sister, daydream nation, and rather ripped to be pretty useless. yeah, even goo and dirty.

otherwise...merry christmas.

Originally posted by manorastroman
funeral is a wonderful album, but i would stay the hell away from audioslave. you can hear tom morello's hate for the band in the half-assed guitar. don't expect sufjan to blow your mind, he's still quite good but a bit overhyped. if you don't have any other tom waits, also get mule variations, swordfishtrombone, and rain dogs. similarly, also check out velvet undeground's "loaded", sounds a bit like a weirder nashville skyline-era dylan. oh, and if you're not that experienced with sonic youth, i've found all albums besides EVOL, sister, daydream nation, and rather ripped to be pretty useless. yeah, even goo and dirty.

otherwise...merry christmas.

I find Audioslave to be rather excellent.
Also, Sufjan already did blow my mind with Michigan. But hey. Thanks for the suggestions.

I like Audioslave but I do have to agree that Tom really doesn't show his talent in the band, but they are still good, but not as good as rage.

well if he blew your mind with michigan, illinois is a stronger album overall. it's much more...urgent than michigan as well. and he's totally dropped the religious undertones from the seven swans era.

I prefer Michigan I think.

Also, Sparta aren't that good.

Also, I have nearly all of those cds (for a logical reason).

Edit:

Punk: NoMeansNo
No Real Genre: The Mars Volta
Rock: Frank Zappa and the Mothers of Invention

Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
I prefer Michigan I think.

Also, Sparta aren't that good.

Also, I have nearly all of those cds (for a logical reason).

What reason would that be, wanker (that's some British term by the way. I don't know what it means, but it is insulting. Useful. Also not censored.)?

Yeah audioslave is awesome. I like their new album.

i almost forgot: songs of love and hate, songs from a room, and death of a ladies man are three excellent leonard cohen albums, and he had one in the eighties that was very cool and very weird...i think it was called i'm your man.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
*And they're much, much better at everything than Journey.

-AC

Lol, you're kidding, right...?

Journey:
- 29th best selling music group of all time.
- A guitarist (Neal Schon) who played with Eric Clapton, Carlos Santana, and B.B. King at age fourteen (later getting offers from both Clapton and Santana to join their respective bands).
- Steve Perry (who's got a better range, more power, more control, and more popularity as a singer).
- Inventors of the power ballad.

Hell, Journey was so big they had a freakin' Atari game made for them.

Rush:
- Neil Peart (the God of Drums)
- 30+ years as a band.
- Three members.
- Strong cult following.

I'll give Rush the all around props for having Neil, and being together for so long - as well as having all their original members. But, with the exception of Peart, Journey's members outclass Geddy and Alex. By a lot.

Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
I prefer Michigan I think.

Also, Sparta aren't that good.

Also, I have nearly all of those cds (for a logical reason).

Havn't hurd there new album. I didn't like there old one but considering At the drive in was and still is one of my favorite bands I'll give sparta another shot to impress me.

Feel free to give suggestions of a good band for me to try out.

Originally posted by Gideon
Lol, you're kidding, right...?

Let's see:

Originally posted by Gideon
29th best selling music group of all time.

Means nothing.

Originally posted by Gideon
A guitarist (Neal Schon) who played with Eric Clapton, Carlos Santana, and B.B. King at age fourteen (later getting offers from both Clapton and Santana to join their respective bands).

So what's the accolade? The fact that he merely played with great guitarists? Big deal, it doesn't mean Journey are better than Rush does it?

Originally posted by Gideon
Steve Perry: (who's got a better range, more power, more control, and more popularity as a singer

The first three are arguable and the last one means nothing. Britney Spears is more popular than Geddy Lee, what's your point?

Originally posted by Gideon
Inventors of the power ballad.

A) They didn't invent the power ballad.

B) That's not something they should be thanked for.

C) This isn't proving they're better than Rush.

Originally posted by Gideon
Hell, Journey was so big they had a freakin' Atari game made for them.

I'm waiting for you to prove Journey are better than Rush, a more talented band, not more successful and known.

Originally posted by Gideon
Rush:
- Neil Peart (the God of Drums)
- 30+ years as a band.
- Three members.
- Strong cult following.

Let's add more:

- Better bassist.
- More revered in the art of musicianship and contribution to music, important music, not shit music (Journey allegedly gave us the power ballad, Rush gave us 2112, Moving Pictures etc).

Originally posted by Gideon
I'll give Rush the all around props for having Neil, and being together for so long - as well as having all their original members. But, with the exception of Peart, Journey's members outclass Geddy and Alex. By a lot.

Hardly any bands have a bassist more technically skilled than Geddy Lee, let alone Journey. That's a fact.

This is about talent and who is the better band, so throw away all your popularity and sales records, also the video game BS. Rush are better musicians creatively (Opinion) and technically (Fact regarding Geddy and Neil). So in a thread about "Who is the most TALENTED band?", Journey shouldn't even be namedropped, much less contesting with Rush.

However, the very fact that you're arguing this point suggests that you're too stupid to see otherwise.

-AC

Saw thread and was instantly gonna say Led Zepplein...

Perhaps alive today,

Rolling Stones
Pink Floyd (Not techinically together but all still alive apart from Sid)
Radiohead
Muse
Beach Boys
Paul McCartney (Obviously)

Originally posted by Kitay
Paul McCartney (Obviously)

He's the most talented band?

Why obviously?

-AC

Originally posted by Kitay
Saw thread and was instantly gonna say Led Zepplein...

Perhaps alive today,

Rolling Stones
Pink Floyd (Not techinically together but all still alive apart from Sid)
Radiohead
Muse
Beach Boys
Paul McCartney (Obviously)

Yeah good names but I'm looking for somehthing I haven't already sucked the life out of. I never thought I would get tired of the led but I am.

Originally posted by Bardock42
What reason would that be, wanker (that's some British term by the way. I don't know what it means, but it is insulting. Useful. Also not censored.)?

Coz zis iz mein teil.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
He's the most talented band?

Why obviously?

-AC

Well kinda thought Band/Artist...

Obviously due to the fact of the guys songwriting abilites. Ok some were with the legend John Lennon but songs like Live and Let Die, Hey Jude, Let it Be etc kinda justify his talent in my view...

Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
Coz zis iz mein teil.

Hahahahahaha.

-AC

Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
Coz zis iz mein teil.

Sounds true enough. Continue with your life now.

Originally posted by Kitay
Well kinda thought Band/Artist...

Obviously due to the fact of the guys songwriting abilites. Ok some were with the legend John Lennon but songs like Live and Let Die, Hey Jude, Let it Be etc kinda justify his talent in my view...

Highly subjective area, though.

Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
Highly subjective area, though.

In what respect?

...kinda think that Audioslave, Greenday and U2 are amongst the tops today.

Originally posted by BobbyD
...kinda think that Audioslave, Greenday and U2 are amongst the tops today.

...I dunno, I somehow don't.

Originally posted by Kitay
In what respect?

Sit down and let me tell you something.

You see...Paul McCartney...*Sigh*...he isn't factually anything great. Sorry you had to hear it from me.

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Sit down and let me tell you something.

You see...Paul McCartney...*Sigh*...he isn't factually anything great. Sorry you had to hear it from me.

-AC

He was in the Beatles cry

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
You see...Paul McCartney...*Sigh*...he isn't factually anything great. Sorry you had to hear it from me.

-AC
That's Sir Paul McCartney young man. Don't you forget it.

It means that they appealed to the public on a scale much greater than Rush.



Oh, no. The fact that he "merely" played with great guitarists at the age of fourteen, and a year later, was asked by two of those three to join their respective bands.

Guess you missed that though.



Arguable? Let's hear the massive rebuttle.



Most "music historians" and musicians seem to think so, if the TV specials on Journey - including Behind the Music - are any indication.



In your opinion.



Yeah, and like you're proving otherwise.



The bottom line is that, in most cases, talent is usually a prerequisite for a successful band. Especially when you have Steve Perry and Neal Schon (waiting for you to argue that Alex Lifeson is better than him, lol) in the band.



Please. My opinion is crap, but yours is now a God-given fact? Don't work like that. So statements like "Journey gave us shit music" aren't going to hold weight. Especially when more the general public seems to disagree, if record sales are any indication (which they are).



That's a fact?

Oh, okay. Then I suppose Neal Schon being a much better guitarist than Alex Lifeson is a fact.



Rush is the overall better band. Journey's up there, though, in my opinion.

Which, lol, clearly amounts to nothing, right - in comparison to yours? I love the proof by the way "this is a fact".



Does calling people "stupid" over the internet make you feel big?

ac, you're anti-beatles thing weirds me out. whatever your feelings may be, paul mccartney is "factually" great, insofar as a songwriter can be "factually" anything. he has very good range vocally (and wonderful at harmonizing), he was a melodic genius, he played a fairly mean bass, and he's written some undyingly good tunes.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Sit down and let me tell you something.

You see...Paul McCartney...*Sigh*...he isn't factually anything great. Sorry you had to hear it from me.

-AC

In your eyes who or what makes someone great/talented?

Besides the fact Paul can play bass, guitar, piano, harmonica, can sing, can write also can play the drums to a high standard aswell. Not really talented

I'm not even a Paul fan tbh much prefer John Lennon but can't fight his case in this thread

Originally posted by Kitay
In what respect?

In...because...

What am I answering again? I just told you, it's a highly subjective area.

In the respect that it is.

Originally posted by Kitay


I'm not even a Paul fan tbh much prefer John Lennon but can't fight his case in this thread

yes you can fight his case

why...because there are more talented songwriters...more talented bass players...more talented singers...more talented pianists...more talented...well you get my point

jack of all trades...master of none

doesn't make you talented does it?

Originally posted by manorastroman
ac, you're anti-beatles thing weirds me out. whatever your feelings may be, paul mccartney is "factually" great, insofar as a songwriter can be "factually" anything. he has very good range vocally (and wonderful at harmonizing), he was a melodic genius, he played a fairly mean bass, and he's written some undyingly good tunes.

Pardon? I like The Beatles, but just because I'm not tonguing their collective anii doesn't mean I am anti-Beatles.

He isn't factually great unless you can prove beyond all deniability and preference that he is. You can't, it's subjective. We're discussing musicianship, not preference. No preference is factual.

Originally posted by Gideon
It means that they appealed to the public on a scale much greater than Rush.

Means nothing in relation to this thread, at all.

Originally posted by Gideon
Oh, no. The fact that he "merely" played with great guitarists at the age of fourteen, and a year later, was asked by two of those three to join their respective bands.

How does this make Journey a more talented band than Rush?

Originally posted by Gideon
Guess you missed that though.

I missed how it's relevant to one collective band being more talented musicians than another, sure.

Originally posted by Gideon
Arguable? Let's hear the massive rebuttle.

Most "music historians" and musicians seem to think so, if the TV specials on Journey - including Behind the Music - are any indication.

You're judging by TV specials? I laugh at you. TV Specials would have you believe Motley Crue were more talented than Rush.

Originally posted by Gideon
In your opinion.

Yes.

Originally posted by Gideon
Yeah, and like you're proving otherwise.

What? Geddy Lee is a much more revered and respected bassist than most musicians in general, let alone Journey's. I needn't mention Peart. Rush's rhythm section is more instrumentally talented than Journey as an entire band.

If we are NOT discussing technical ability and are discussing preference, then you have a case, cos that's subjective.

Originally posted by Gideon
The bottom line is that, in most cases, talent is usually a prerequisite for a successful band. Especially when you have Steve Perry and Neal Schon (waiting for you to argue that Alex Lifeson is better than him, lol) in the band.

So? Geddy Lee and Neil Peart are far better musicians than all of Journey. They are more respected, they are more revered, and that is what we are discussing isn't it? Instrumental talent. In which Rush are superior.

Geddy Lee walks around playing keyboard and bass at the same time with almost unmatched competence AS he works floor pedals.

Neil Peart performs a drum solo going through every single style of drumming bar metal and actually makes it sound brilliant.

Journey? Power ballads.

Originally posted by Gideon
Please. My opinion is crap, but yours is now a God-given fact? Don't work like that. So statements like "Journey gave us shit music" aren't going to hold weight. Especially when more the general public seems to disagree, if record sales are any indication (which they are).

It's a fact they have a better bassist and it's a fact that when it comes down to MUSICAL RESPECT FROM OTHER MUSICIANS, Rush have much more backing than Journey ever will.

We are not discussing public opinion, we're debating who is the most talented band. Sales do not prove how skilled musicians are, they prove who is popular at the time. Popularity doesn't make Journey more talented, it makes them more popular.

Get it? Good.

Originally posted by Gideon
That's a fact?

It's a fact that he's better than Journey's bassist, yes.

Originally posted by Gideon
Oh, okay. Then I suppose Neal Schon being a much better guitarist than Alex Lifeson is a fact.

How does that tie in to me saying Geddy Lee is better than Journey's bassist? He is because he is. Lifeson probably is better.

Schon was reduced to playing with Michael Bolton as soon as Eddie Van Halen showed up and started showing people who guitar should be played.

Originally posted by Gideon
Rush is the overall better band. Journey's up there, though, in my opinion.

Then why did you continue this?

I'm not discussing subjectivity or music, I'm discussing ability. You can prefer who is better than someone else. Journey are not a factually talented group of musicians in comparison to virtuosos like Rush. Whether or not you think they make the best music ever is up to you, that's entirely opinion. Talent isn't.

Originally posted by Gideon
Which, lol, clearly amounts to nothing, right - in comparison to yours? I love the proof by the way "this is a fact".

Opinion Vs Fact doesn't often go on for too long, unless you happen to be stupid enough not to tell the difference.

Preference: Music, creativitiy = Subjective.

Talent: Ability = Objective.

Originally posted by Gideon
Does calling people "stupid" over the internet make you feel big?

Yeah, makes me feel brutal, like Nathan Explosion (That's a joke, I call you stupid if I genuinely think you're being stupid.).

Originally posted by Kitay
Besides the fact Paul can play bass, guitar, piano, harmonica, can sing, can write also can play the drums to a high standard aswell. Not really talented

I said he's not factually anything that would permit him being put up against the world's best technical musicians.

He's a talented creative musician, at least he was, and he can play bass well. He's not Geddy Lee, he's not Victor Wooten, he's not Trevor Dunn, he's not Les Claypool. These are factually madly talented bass players.

-AC

The point is that, contrary to your belief, each of Rush's members don't outclass that of Journey's. Peart is a better drummer. Geddy Lee is an all around better musician. But, he's not the more talented singer. I'll take the guy who was nicknamed by other singers as "The Voice" - Steve Perry. Alex Lifeson is not more talented than Neal Schon, who was a child prodigy to such a degree that he wasn't even a legal adult when he was recruited by Santana and Eric Clapton - who are, most decidedly, more talented and more influential than Rush.

So, if your point is that "each of Rush's members are greater than Journey's", your point has just been buried.



Once again: Rush is the better band. You imply, however, that each of their members just kick Journey's ass. They don't. Journey's got the better singer and the better guitarist.



TV specials in which experts and other musicians are interviewed. In essence, their peers. Not users named "Alpha Centauri" who pretend to have an opinion that is something God himself would institute.



You're trying to dodge the point, aren't you? I'm not saying that Journey is the better band. They're the more popular one, yes, and the more commercially successful one (by a hell of a lot, too). My point is that Rush's members simply don't outclass Journey's - whose guitarist and singer outstrip that of Rush's own.



Lifeson's probably better? Lmao! Why? Because he's in Rush, right?

Or, wait, because you say so?

Yeah... right...



Please. Van Halen > Lifeson, too, and by a mile. Schon was still with Journey when Eddie got big - not with Bolton. But, nice try. Then again, it would help if you understood Eddie Van Halen had the entire band based around him (hence "Van Halen", whereas Journey was based around Steve Perry.

Hagar and Roth don't exactly measure up in comparison as singers.



Please. Schon is a virtuoso. A child prodigy. What is Lifeson? Perry is a singer who has influenced countless pop singers for the past twenty years - constantly heralded by fans and fellow singers alike as possessing an "incredible voice" according to Jon Bon Jovi.

If you're implying that Journey's members aren't talented, or "factually talented" (where the hell do you come up with these so-called "facts"?), then maybe you deserve the "stupid" moniker that you like to hand out to others who simply don't agree with your pompous declarations of "fact".



I may be the first to tell you this, man, but because you proclaim it fact doesn't make it so.

Originally posted by Gideon
The point is that, contrary to your belief, each of Rush's members don't outclass that of Journey's.

And you intended to prove this by saying "Journey sell more" how?

Originally posted by Gideon
Peart is a better drummer. Geddy Lee is an all around better musician. But, he's not the more talented singer. I'll take the guy who was nicknamed by other singers as "The Voice" - Steve Perry.

You can take him all you want, the fact is Geddy Lee's vocals have incredibly high note register. What does Perry have? Crooney vocals that make people think he's good. Where have I heard that before?

Originally posted by Gideon
Alex Lifeson is not more talented than Neal Schon, who was a child prodigy to such a degree that he wasn't even a legal adult when he was recruited by Santana and Eric Clapton

WAS a child prodigy. What did he become? Michael Bolton's guitarist. I'll leave you there.

Originally posted by Gideon
who are, most decidedly, more talented and more influential than Rush.

Hahahahahahahaha. Clapton and Santana more talented and influential than Rush. Nobody in Santana tops Peart or Lee, Clapton isn't better than Peart or Lee, but he's probably better than Lifeson. Rush are better musicians, they are more talented instrumentalists.

As for saying Rush are less influential, pfft. Influential bands were influenced by Rush.

Originally posted by Gideon
So, if your point is that "each of Rush's members are greater than Journey's", your point has just been buried.

Buried by what? "Schon was a guitar prodigy."? So what? How revered is he now? Do a poll among revered musicians ABOUT revered musicians, and in the guitarist section we'll see how Schon rates. Do one of bassists and we'll see how Geddy Lee rates, shall we? Geddy Lee is lauded by people who don't even like Rush, or his voice.

Originally posted by Gideon
Once again: Rush is the better band. You imply, however, that each of their members just kick Journey's ass. They don't. Journey's got the better singer and the better guitarist.

Better singer in what way? Technique and ability? Geddy Lee has a higher range. Alex Lifeson is STILL regarded as a master guitarist, Schon WAS a child prodigy. So what? He was good at 14. Live in the moment all you want.

Originally posted by Gideon
TV specials in which experts and other musicians are interviewed. In essence, their peers. Not users named "Alpha Centauri" who pretend to have an opinion that is something God himself would institute.

I'm not pretending to have a godly opinion, but thanks for saying so.

Secondly, being a musician doesn't make you an expert. Vince Neil is a musician, but the day his opinion on INSTRUMENTALISTS is more valid than the likes of Dream Theater, I'll agree with you. All those specials are is mostly ageing rockers who have nothing better to do than talk about the era that made them famous.

Rush don't. Rush are still around, still revered, still loved.

Originally posted by Gideon
You're trying to dodge the point, aren't you? I'm not saying that Journey is the better band. They're the more popular one, yes, and the more commercially successful one (by a hell of a lot, too). My point is that Rush's members simply don't outclass Journey's - whose guitarist and singer outstrip that of Rush's own.

But conversely you are suggesting Journey outstrip Rush by having a better singer (they don't) and guitarist (they don't). You are claiming Steve Perry is a better singer, why? "Range". What range? Geddy Lee hits amazingly high notes, that's ability. I've never heard Steve Perry doing anything besides hold notes and croon, and yes, I've heard a lot of Journey.

As for Schon, all you have is "He was a child prodigy.". So what? He was really good at 14. That's the problem with prodigies, you're no prodigy if you can't back it up. Good at 14, then what? Where did his talent go? He didn't get better, he got older, then he got with Michael Bolton.

Alex Lifeson developed a bone condition in his fingers and he can still play full gigs of technically brilliant fretwork.

Originally posted by Gideon
Lifeson's probably better? Lmao! Why? Because he's in Rush, right?

No, cos he's a better guitar player. I like Matt Bellamy of Muse, but he's not better than Lifeson. You liking Schon doesn't make him better. Schon better? Why? Cos he's was good when he was 14?

Originally posted by Gideon
Please. Van Halen > Lifeson, too, and by a mile.

Wasn't denying it.

Originally posted by Gideon
Schon was still with Journey when Eddie got big - not with Bolton. But, nice try. Then again, it would help if you understood Eddie Van Halen had the entire band based around him (hence "Van Halen", whereas Journey was based around Steve Perry.

Eddie Van Halen showed everyone up because he was better, including Schon. Unless you are claiming Schon is better than Van Halen...

Originally posted by Gideon
Please. Schon is a virtuoso. A child prodigy.

I'm starting to think you have a fixation with the fact that he was a child...because you keep bringing it up without proving anything.

Originally posted by Gideon
What is Lifeson?

A still-playing, still revered, still influential guitarist who can still play excellently.

Schon? He's not a 14 year old prodigy anymore.

Originally posted by Gideon
Perry is a singer who has influenced countless pop singers for the past twenty years

Hardly an accolade. He's an accessible singer, that's why.

Like Dairy Milk chocolate, it's just chocolate, no effort required to like it or get used to a different taste, so it's the best selling.

Originally posted by Gideon
constantly heralded by fans and fellow singers alike as possessing an "incredible voice" according to Jon Bon Jovi.

Hahahahaahaahaha.

"According to Jon Bon Jovi.". Says it all. When did Jon Bon Jovi become an instrumental and technical barometer in music?

Originally posted by Gideon
If you're implying that Journey's members aren't talented, or "factually talented" (where the hell do you come up with these so-called "facts"?), then maybe you deserve the "stupid" moniker that you like to hand out to others who simply don't agree with your pompous declarations of "fact".

You're the one ignoring fact, you're the one with the age-fetish.

Originally posted by Gideon
I may be the first to tell you this, man, but because you proclaim it fact doesn't make it so.

I know. What's your point?

-AC

By proving that the general public seems to disagree with your rather distorted assumption that Journey isn't talented in the face of bands such as Rush.



You proclaimed in this "accolade" that you've listened to a lot of Journey. I'm pretty much doubting that at this point. Are you judging talent by sheer high note register? Then Axl Rose must be a living god in your eyes. But, I'll humor you. Pop in some "Infinity", "Evolution", or "Departured". Perry's got an incredible high register - and, what's more, he can go lower than Lee can as well.

He has such a control over his voice that he was able to modulate it to go from singing with the angels in the '70s to metal-esque songs in the '80s.

Even implying that Lee is on par with Perry in vocal ability is absurd.



He played on a studio album for Michael Bolton as a guest musician, due to Journey's Jonathan Cain producing Bolton's album and persuading him to play on it.

He's still playing for Journey now, but he also played for Hardline, Bad English, and HSAS (with Sammy Hagar). Hell, Hagar said in an interview that Schon can play as good as Eddie.

It'd help if you actually knew what you were talking about.



It is absurd to say that Clapton and Santana were more talented and influential than Rush? Dude, are you high? Lifeson was inspired by both of these guys. But, yeah, you're the guy proclaiming that McCartney isn't "factually talented" either.

Carlos and Eric are both more talented than any member of Rush, especially Lee and Lifeson.



Your point?

David Lee Roth and Hagar (who couldn't stand Journey as a band) lauded Schon and Perry as musicians. Bon Jovi, Brett Michaels, Josh Groban, so on and so forth.

Lifeson wasn't a child prodigy, anyways.

As for saying Rush are less influential, pfft. Influential bands were influenced by Rush.



No.

The higher range includes the difference between the low notes and high notes. Perry can go lower than Geddy Lee, and higher. He's got the better range. Schon is also regarded as a skilled guitarist, even by people who can't stand Journey - whom critics hated for the longest time.



Constantly spitting out "this is a fact" doesn't help your case.



Please. Your attempts to discredit the interviews and opinions of the peers of these musicians are laughable. If that's the best you've got, maybe we should agree to disagree.



Journey's tour with Def Leppard has been the most successful this year. Again: the public seems to enjoy Journey more than Rush, if record sales are indication (which they are).



Like I said before, you claim that Lee has a better range (he doesn't) and that Lifeson is a better guitarist (he's not), by just saying so. I've put more on the table than you have, and you seem to just rely on your opinion - which means what, exactly?

You're either lying about Lee or you are simply ignorant of Perry's skills, and your constant boasting of Lifeson's superior ability means jack when Schon was a virtuoso and a child prodigy, and Lifeson was neither.



You claim to listen to a lot of Journey. Clearly you don't. Perry hits even higher notes than Lee.



Yeah... you don't know what you're talking about, do you?



Oh, and Schon can't? Yeah... Journey's infamous for rigorous touring and 3+ hour concerts. My Dad went to Rush's 30 year anniversary concert, and it lasted shy of two hours with the band taking two 15 minute breaks.

Please. When it comes to melodics and speed, few guitarists can match Schon.



Yeah, you've done so well, proving Lifeson's better, lmao. Schon was recognized as good enough to play with Clapton and Santana when he was a young teen. That proves his skill. Lifeson's the guitarist for a progressive rock band that never achieved any noteworthy commercial success.

Wonder why.



Sammy Hagar and David Lee Roth certainly seem to think that Schon is as good as Eddie.



I keep forgetting that you're dishing out facts like they're party favors. Please. You've brought less to the table. Schon = prodigy. Lifeson = not a prodigy.



Yeah. Schon's a 50-something year old prodigy still fronting a band who has done much better than Rush. He's still playing, too, but clearly you don't know what you're talking about.



Wow! Glad to see that you know why these singers are influenced by Perry. You can read minds, can't you?

There's the alternative that maybe, just maybe, the guy's a talented singer, and moreso than Lee.



Since he was an extremely successful person fronting an extremely successful band (unlike Rush). Better yet, when did you become an instrumental and technical barometer in music?



No. I'm the one proving that Schon, at age 14, was regarded as a better guitarist than Lifeson is in his 50s.

Originally posted by Gideon
By proving that the general public seems to disagree with your rather distorted assumption that Journey isn't talented in the face of bands such as Rush.

How? Sales dictate popularity, not talent. Sales don't prove anything, because Rush are the more talented band.

Originally posted by Gideon
You proclaimed in this "accolade" that you've listened to a lot of Journey. I'm pretty much doubting that at this point.

Of course you are. I knew you'd say that when I said it.

Originally posted by Gideon
Are you judging talent by sheer high note register? Then Axl Rose must be a living god in your eyes. But, I'll humor you. Pop in some "Infinity", "Evolution", or "Departured". Perry's got an incredible high register - and, what's more, he can go lower than Lee can as well.

Many people have high note registers if they can hit high notes, but it's the pinnacle of Lee's range that you should focus on.

Originally posted by Gideon
He has such a control over his voice that he was able to modulate it to go from singing with the angels in the '70s to metal-esque songs in the '80s.

Wow, a singer with control over his voice. Let's give the man a trophy!

Originally posted by Gideon
Even implying that Lee is on par with Perry in vocal ability is absurd.

To a Journey fanboy, clearly. Rush aren't even close to being my favourite band, but it doesn't take a genius to notice they are better instrumentalists.

Originally posted by Gideon
He played on a studio album for Michael Bolton as a guest musician, due to Journey's Jonathan Cain producing Bolton's album and persuading him to play on it.

So he lacks perception enough to see that Bolton is a whore also? Man, Schon isn't looking good right now.

Originally posted by Gideon
He's still playing for Journey now, but he also played for Hardline, Bad English, and HSAS (with Sammy Hagar). Hell, Hagar said in an interview that Schon can play as good as Eddie.

Hagar was wrong, Eddie is a much better guitarist, to even speak of Schon as being close is pathetic, and if that's what you're suggesting I'm going to write you off.

Originally posted by Gideon
It'd help if you actually knew what you were talking about.

When you haven't just suggested Schon and Van Halen are equal, we'll chat about who knows what.

Originally posted by Gideon
It is absurd to say that Clapton and Santana were more talented and influential than Rush? Dude, are you high? Lifeson was inspired by both of these guys.

So? How does that mean they were more influential? Metallica were influenced by some obscure metal bands. Are they more influential than Metallica simply because they are their influences? No.

Originally posted by Gideon
But, yeah, you're the guy proclaiming that McCartney isn't "factually talented" either.

I know it's shocking that people have the ability to NOT bow down and lick the very penis of Paul McCartney just because he's a former member of The Beatles, but it's possible. Try it.

Originally posted by Gideon
Carlos and Eric are both more talented than any member of Rush, especially Lee and Lifeson.

Carlos Santana is better than all of Rush? You're right, your opinion doesn't mean anything. Not anymore.

Originally posted by Gideon
Your point?

David Lee Roth and Hagar (who couldn't stand Journey as a band) lauded Schon and Perry as musicians. Bon Jovi, Brett Michaels, Josh Groban, so on and so forth.

And who are they? Two average singers, two shit singers and a pseudo-tenor. Dream Theater hold Rush in highest regard, Dream Theater being a collective that is arguable the most technically talented in the world. Compared to your little hair metal examples, that's counting for something.

Originally posted by Gideon
Lifeson wasn't a child prodigy, anyways.

What's with the child worship? Do you still think Schon is 14? Don't answer that, actually...

Originally posted by Gideon
The higher range includes the difference between the low notes and high notes. Perry can go lower than Geddy Lee, and higher. He's got the better range. Schon is also regarded as a skilled guitarist, even by people who can't stand Journey - whom critics hated for the longest time.

You don't have a credible opinion Mr. Santana is better than all of Rush. Secondly, I didn't say he wasn't regarded as skilled, I said he's not better than Lifeson.

Originally posted by Gideon
Constantly spitting out "this is a fact" doesn't help your case.

I don't need it to. I'm not going to sit here trying to make you stop being ignorant of fact, I know it's a fact. It's not deniable, realistically. Only if you're ignorant who refuses to accept.

You will never agree with me, but unlike subjective debates, I don't need you to. It's like debating who's better: Schon or Hendrix. I don't need to debate it.

Originally posted by Gideon
Please. Your attempts to discredit the interviews and opinions of the peers of these musicians are laughable. If that's the best you've got, maybe we should agree to disagree.

Why should we agree to disagree? It's the truth, you know it as well as I do. VH1's The Story of Metal, right? Who was on it?

Tedd Nugent, DeVille, members of Quiet Riot, Brett Michaels, Sebastian Bach, Ace Frehley...do I have to continue? Why weren't Mastodon there? Metallica? Slayer? Because they're not shackled to an era, they're not shit, they're not in need of exposure.

All those specials are is as I said, ageing rockers hanging on to past glories.

Originally posted by Gideon
Journey's tour with Def Leppard has been the most successful this year. Again: the public seems to enjoy Journey more than Rush, if record sales are indication (which they are).

The public enjoy Fall Out Boy more than Rush, so if we apply your rationale there...Fall Out Boy are better? You don't know how to perceive correctly, and your examples prove it.

Originally posted by Gideon
Like I said before, you claim that Lee has a better range (he doesn't) and that Lifeson is a better guitarist (he's not), by just saying so. I've put more on the table than you have, and you seem to just rely on your opinion - which means what, exactly?

You've put VH1 specials on the table. Like I said, I realised before that you are not going to yield, and where as I might try to make you yield if this were a subjective debate, I've also realised you're sheer ignorance personified, nor do you know what you're on about (Schon equal to Van Halen, Santana better than all of Rush).

So then I realise that me knowing it's a fact is enough. You don't need to agree, you can't actually disagree, you're just trying to.

Originally posted by Gideon
You're either lying about Lee or you are simply ignorant of Perry's skills

Interesting. "You're either lying about Lee or you are simply ignorant of Perry's skills.". If you knew enough of Lee to judge, you'd know if I was lying or not, but you're not sure...which means you're probably ignorant to Lee's skills.

Oh and how the tables turn.

Originally posted by Gideon
and your constant boasting of Lifeson's superior ability means jack when Schon was a virtuoso and a child prodigy, and Lifeson was neither.

Lifeson IS a virtuoso NOW, he doesn't NEED to be a 14 year old prodigy. Nobody looks at Lifeson and says "He's no good, he wasn't that good when he was 14!". That's all Schon's famous for besides being in a famous band, being a child prodigy. He's not famous for continuing it, Lifeson is.

Originally posted by Gideon
You claim to listen to a lot of Journey. Clearly you don't. Perry hits even higher notes than Lee.

And we see the genius logic of Gideon.

I clearly don't know Journey because I simply disagree. I don't listen to them cos they're shit, I have listened to them because my aunt is an immense fan. I don't judge unless I've listened.


Originally posted by Gideon
Yeah... you don't know what you're talking about, do you?

You said: Santana > Rush.

Schon = Van Halen.

I'd suggest you hide. Nothing I ever say will look as bad.

Originally posted by Gideon
Oh, and Schon can't? Yeah... Journey's infamous for rigorous touring and 3+ hour concerts. My Dad went to Rush's 30 year anniversary concert, and it lasted shy of two hours with the band taking two 15 minute breaks.

Yeah, because it's harder when you're actually playing hard, complex, technical music for two hours, especially when you've been doing it since the late 70s.

Originally posted by Gideon
Please. When it comes to melodics and speed, few guitarists can match Schon.

Hahahahahahahahahahahahaha. Anyone can noodle around on guitars and make it sound dazzling, metal guitarists do it all the time. Whether or not you're actually playing technically hard material is another matter.

Malmsteen is fast, faster than Schon, but he's nowhere close to Paul Gilbert technically. Speed doesn't mean a whole lot without backing.

-AC

Originally posted by Gideon
Yeah, you've done so well, proving Lifeson's better, lmao. Schon was recognized as good enough to play with Clapton and Santana when he was a young teen. That proves his skill. Lifeson's the guitarist for a progressive rock band that never achieved any noteworthy commercial success.

Let's run down your core defenses:

- He was a child prodigy.

- He played with Clapton at 14.

- Journey were more popular.

Plan to come up with anything that...you know, works?

As for your last line, that proves that YOU are the one ignorant to the skills of Rush. Not me being ignorant to the skills (or lack thereof) of Journey.

Originally posted by Gideon
Sammy Hagar and David Lee Roth certainly seem to think that Schon is as good as Eddie.

He's not, though. Eddie Van Halen invented new ways of playing and Schon was left standing in the dust going "I CAN STILL PLAY FAST!", but nobody gave a shit.

Why are you even suggesting that Schon is equal?

Originally posted by Gideon
You've brought less to the table.

Originally posted by Gideon
Schon = prodigy. Lifeson = not a prodigy.

...for the ?th time. Yeah, you're serving gourmet.

Your basis for Schon being better is because he was good at 14. Lifeson is better now, he has been better for ages. It doesn't matter who was good at 14.

Originally posted by Gideon
Yeah. Schon's a 50-something year old prodigy still fronting a band who has done much better than Rush.

It doesn't matter if they've "done better". Commercial success doesn't equal talent.

Originally posted by Gideon
He's still playing, too, but clearly you don't know what you're talking about.

I do, unfortunately for you.

Originally posted by Gideon
Wow! Glad to see that you know why these singers are influenced by Perry. You can read minds, can't you?

There's the alternative that maybe, just maybe, the guy's a talented singer, and moreso than Lee.

Maybe...but probably not.

Originally posted by Gideon
Since he was an extremely successful person fronting an extremely successful band (unlike Rush).

Why, oh why do you keep mentioning success? Please tell me. Why does success count? Britney Spears is successful, more than Rush. Put it out of you mind. Success = Nothing.

Bon Jovi fronted a majorly successful band, right? Right. When did he become someone, like John Petrucci for example, who is madly revered for his skills? He didn't, did he?

Originally posted by Gideon
No. I'm the one proving that Schon, at age 14, was regarded as a better guitarist than Lifeson is in his 50s.

Right. Schon in his 50s isn't, though.

Who's better now? Lifeson. Why does it matter how good he was almost four decades ago? Now he's not as good as Lifeson.

-AC

As an aside; That was a bit of a hefty post, so from now on I'm going to keep it on point also.

Rush Vs Journey; Instrumental talent, are the only points I'll reply to.

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
As an aside; That was a bit of a hefty post, so from now on I'm going to keep it on point also.

Rush Vs Journey; Instrumental talent, are the only points I'll reply to.

-AC

Yeah. I was told that you pretty much don't change your mind, so I'm not going to try it. However, for the sake of argument, tomorrow, I'm going to be offering a rebuttle to it.

I'll be pointing them out to you, tomorrow.

'Night.

Originally posted by Gideon
Yeah. I was told that you pretty much don't change your mind, so I'm not going to try it. However, for the sake of argument, tomorrow, I'm going to be offering a rebuttle to it.

I'll be pointing them out to you, tomorrow.

'Night.

I won't change my mind cos I have facts backing me up, and I'm more than willing to continue this. My point was to keep this thread clean and make the posts meaningful if they have to be lengthy.

So as far as my post goes, feel free to ignore anything that isn't to do with Rush or Journey, because that's who it's about.

-AC

rush vs journey? talk about clash of the titans..geez.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Pardon? I like The Beatles, but just because I'm not tonguing their collective anii doesn't mean I am anti-Beatles.

He isn't factually great unless you can prove beyond all deniability and preference that he is. You can't, it's subjective. We're discussing musicianship, not preference. No preference is factual.

which is why i specified that despite your personal preference, or at least your proffered music board persona preference, paul mccartney is "factually" untouchable. regardless of your ideas held or put forth, can you really deny that mccartney has written some of the most inscrutable songs in recorder music history? that his harmony's are solid, that his bass melodies are both complex and creatively important?

Originally posted by manorastroman
can you really deny that mccartney has written some of the most inscrutable songs in recorder music history? that his harmony's are solid, that his bass melodies are both complex and creatively important?

I can, because it's not objectively so.

-AC

Paul Macartney is one of the greatest musical artists ever. Great songwritter, great bassist, great piano player, etc. One of the most complete musical artistis of all time, to say the oppossite is just bullshit.

Originally posted by Bardock42
...I dunno, I somehow don't.



Good 'ol Bardock, for ya'.

Seriously, to deny the talent of sir Paul Macartney, one of the best and most important music artist ever, its just ignorant. He was great, he is great and he will be great.

I dont like people like iron maiden, metallica or guns and roses, but i dont deny their talent. One thing is dont like a thing and the other is say lies and being a musical ignorant.

Originally posted by bakerboy
Seriously, to deny the talent of sir Paul Macartney, one of the best and most important music artist ever, its just ignorant. He was great, he is great and he will be great.

I dont like people like iron maiden, metallica or guns and roses, but i dont deny their talent. One thing is dont like a thing and the other is say lies and being a musical ignorant.

Why don't you just ask to fellate the man?

I'm not denying his talent as a bass player, which is decent, I'm saying it's stupid to say he's factually an amazing songwriter. It's not factual, it's preference.

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Why don't you just ask to fellate the man?

I'm not denying his talent as a bass player, which is decent, I'm saying it's stupid to say he's factually an amazing songwriter. It's not factual, it's preference.

-AC

Ill do it when you'll do the same with mike patton.

What is stupid is to deny his talent as a songwriter. Do you want a proof? heard his songs, nothing more. Enough proof of his amazing talent as a songwriter.

But if you can keep the preference theory, all the art is subjetive and its all about preference. But the talent is the talent, you have it or you havent it. And Paul has it for sure, and its clear.

Originally posted by bakerboy
Ill do it when you'll do the same with mike patton.

What is stupid is to deny his talent as a songwriter. Do you want a proof? heard his songs, nothing more. Enough proof of his amazing talent as a songwriter.

But if you can keep the preference theory, all the art is subjetive and its all about preference. But the talent is the talent, you have it or you havent it. And Paul has it for sure, and its clear.

There are a couple of people I would put alongside Mike Patton, you act as if nobody is worthy of polishing The Beatles shoes. Nothing I've said about Patton is false, you give The Beatles false accolades.

Second, that's all you can say. "Hear his songs and deny it if you're stupid.". It's not a fact that he's an amazing songwriter, it's pure opinion and THAT is a fact.

-AC

Wow...been watching this closely......and, not to throw coal on anyone's fire here, but, I personally think Journey can't touch Rush. Nor, do I think should anyone knock Paul McCartney...is a music icon.

That's my 2 cents. Cheers.

*runs*

Who's knocking him?

That's the thing with you Beatles fans. Anybody so much as suggests he's not Jesus of Nazereth and you say "Don't knock McCartney!". Who is? I'm not.

-AC

Perhaps the thread started could define what he means by "Talented", so we can actually be clear on what we're debating here.

-AC

The problem is this, AC: what you have described as "fact", for the most part, has only been an interpretation of your opinion only. I want to see some solid proof that supports your theory that Perry > Lee and that Lifeson > Schon. I've offered you accounts of when Sammy Hagar and David Lee Roth have both stated that Schon can play as good as Eddie Van Halen (whom we both agree to be better than Lifeson), and what was your response? "No, he can't". You lack the authority to make such a claim. For one, Hagar has worked with both Neal and Eddie. You have not. Secondly, Hagar is an extremely successful musician who can accurately gauge the skill of another musician. You are not. You and I are not experts - so we can't sit here and pass off our assessments as fact without proper support.

All you've done, essentially, is sit here and attempt to knock out these accounts with some of your own opinions - and then you proclaim them as fact. This clearly is not the case; it isn't your call.

You also attempt to knock the whole "child prodigy" issue, which is rather sad, in my opinion. Being a child prodigy, especially musically speaking, is a rather big deal. Beethoven and Mozart were child prodigies, and yet I don't see critics or otherwise attempting to cheapen such an achievement. Schon was fourteen when he was considered good enough to play, professionally, for Carlos Santana and Eric Clapton. Lifeson can't pull anything like that to his name, and for you to even imply otherwise begs the question - where has Lifeson proved his skills like that?

So, instead of saying "No" or "That means nothing" or "They aren't factually talented" like a broken record, back up your words.

On the subject of Steve Perry vs. Geddy Lee, you proclaimed that Lee is good "because he sings in extremely high register". You then claimed to have listened to a lot of Journey before. What makes me doubt that is the obvious fact that Perry, too, sings in extremely high vocal register - so that ability is not unique to just Lee alone. You then went on to claim that Lee has the "better range". He doesn't. The longer range is widely considered to be the "better range". Geddy Lee does not have it.

Perry was able to sing outrageously high pitched notes throughout the '70s and early '80s. Listen to songs such as "Wheel in the Sky", "Somethin' to Hide", "Mother, Father", "Lay it Down", and "I'm Cryin'". These are but a handful of examples of Perry's ability to hit and maintain upper register vocals effortlessly.

Then, in 1983, Journey decided to run down a new venue with Frontiers - in a more edged, hard rock feel. For this, Perry intentionally lowered his register to sing baritone and with a much, much rougher edge. For songs like that, see "Separate Ways", "Chain Reaction", "Edge of the Blade", "Back Talk", and "Faithfully".

When has Geddy Lee offered such an arsenal of vocal hits? Answer: he hasn't. Which is why you're not going to hear of many celebrities and professional singers inspired or fans of his voice. Perry's got countless fans and countless followers.

Perry's got a better range than Lee. He's got more control. He's certainly had more influence as a singer. Lee is not the more technical or "better" singer on paper.

Originally posted by bakerboy
Paul Macartney is one of the greatest musical artists ever. Great songwritter, great bassist, great piano player, etc. One of the most complete musical artistis of all time, to say the oppossite is just bullshit. Songwriting ability can never be factual, since music is subjective. Stop trying to pass your narrow opinions off as fact.

Originally posted by Gideon
The problem is this, AC: what you have described as "fact", for the most part, has only been an interpretation of your opinion only. I want to see some solid proof that supports your theory that Perry > Lee and that Lifeson > Schon.

I don't think Perry is better than Lee as a singer, not sure why you said that.

Your proof of Schon being better is what? That he was amazing at 14. What relevance does that have to today? He's highly regarded, fine. Nobody is contesting this. What I'm trying to figure out is why you're harping on an irrelevant point. Forget his age and how good he WAS at 14, fast forward to when he was an adult. What happened? He got overshadowed by better guitarists.

He played music that, CREATIVELY, hit a lot of chords (N.P.I) with people, but we're not discussing creativity, we're discussing ability.

Originally posted by Gideon
I've offered you accounts of when Sammy Hagar and David Lee Roth have both stated that Schon can play as good as Eddie Van Halen (whom we both agree to be better than Lifeson), and what was your response? "No, he can't". You lack the authority to make such a claim. For one, Hagar has worked with both Neal and Eddie. You have not. Secondly, Hagar is an extremely successful musician who can accurately gauge the skill of another musician. You are not. You and I are not experts - so we can't sit here and pass off our assessments as fact without proper support.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ULEBSxP725w

That's why Eddie Van Halen is better.

Another reason is how he invented a few techniques that are still used prominently today. Another reason would be the fact that when he came through, he overshadowed Neal Schon himself.

"The late-1970s arrival of Eddie Van Halen quickly eclipsed Schon's bravado, giving rise to a new era of the technically facile rock guitar virtuoso.".

Furthermore, Hagar can play guitar, he's not a masterful player. Masterful players have actually hailed Van Halen as the best ever. I disagree, but he's certainly better than Schon.

"Before the release of Van Halen's eponymous first album, Van Halen would often play solos and his more complex riffs with his back to the live audience. This was done at the advice of his bandmates to prevent any guitar players from stealing his style and technique before the album came out in 1978.".

Schon's just a reasonably regarded guitarist. Everything about Eddie Van Halen right down to his tuning and set up is legendary and innovative.

Originally posted by Gideon
All you've done, essentially, is sit here and attempt to knock out these accounts with some of your own opinions - and then you proclaim them as fact. This clearly is not the case; it isn't your call.

What have you done, though? Nothing besides "He was a 14 year old prodigy.". I've offered up a lot more than you have.

Originally posted by Gideon
You also attempt to knock the whole "child prodigy" issue, which is rather sad, in my opinion. Being a child prodigy, especially musically speaking, is a rather big deal. Beethoven and Mozart were child prodigies, and yet I don't see critics or otherwise attempting to cheapen such an achievement.

You don't see critics overlooking the music they made in favour of their age either. People often forget how young Hendrix was because his music was so good.

If all you can do is say Schon was madly regarded as great when he was 14, then you're not saying much. Good luck to the man, having such talent at a young age is brilliant, but we're not discussing that. There's more to the debate.

Originally posted by Gideon
Schon was fourteen when he was considered good enough to play, professionally, for Carlos Santana and Eric Clapton.

Polly, wanna cracker?

Originally posted by Gideon
Lifeson can't pull anything like that to his name, and for you to even imply otherwise begs the question - where has Lifeson proved his skills like that?

What? Where on Earth did I say Lifeson was a child prodigy? I simply said he is the better guitarist. YOU are the one who is making this 14 year old issue the focus of your debate.

Originally posted by Gideon
So, instead of saying "No" or "That means nothing" or "They aren't factually talented" like a broken record, back up your words.

The day you stop using his irrelevant age is the day I'll stop telling you it means nothing. It means nothing to this debate, because we're not discussing who was the better child prodigy, we're discussing who the better guitarist is.

Originally posted by Gideon
On the subject of Steve Perry vs. Geddy Lee, you proclaimed that Lee is good "because he sings in extremely high register". You then claimed to have listened to a lot of Journey before. What makes me doubt that is the obvious fact that Perry, too, sings in extremely high vocal register - so that ability is not unique to just Lee alone. You then went on to claim that Lee has the "better range". He doesn't. The longer range is widely considered to be the "better range". Geddy Lee does not have it.

I never said it was unique to Lee, I said he simply does it better and like a hypocrite, all you do is say "He doesn't.".

The Temples of Syrinx has Geddy Lee singing not only in high range, but doing so consistently and throughout, he performs it to this day. Steve Perry has noticeably declined.

Originally posted by Gideon
Perry was able to sing outrageously high pitched notes throughout the '70s and early '80s. Listen to songs such as "Wheel in the Sky", "Somethin' to Hide", "Mother, Father", "Lay it Down", and "I'm Cryin'". These are but a handful of examples of Perry's ability to hit and maintain upper register vocals effortlessly.

I've heard those songs, I'm not saying the man can't sing, I'm saying he's not a better singer than Geddy Lee.

George Fisher of Cannibal Corpse can do insanely long vocal show offs, harsh ones, but the fact that he's shit means that it doesn't count for anything.

Originally posted by Gideon
Then, in 1983, Journey decided to run down a new venue with Frontiers - in a more edged, hard rock feel. For this, Perry intentionally lowered his register to sing baritone and with a much, much rougher edge. For songs like that, see "Separate Ways", "Chain Reaction", "Edge of the Blade", "Back Talk", and "Faithfully".

I know these songs, you're not telling me anything I'm unaware of. You are just too naive to believe that someone could know about Journey and still not like them or regard them higher than Rush, woe betide.

So what's your assumption? Because Geddy Lee hasn't done that, he can't?

Originally posted by Gideon
When has Geddy Lee offered such an arsenal of vocal hits? Answer: he hasn't.

He hasn't used them, doesn't mean he can't. Given the ability of the man, I don't think you should be assuming anything.

Originally posted by Gideon
Which is why you're not going to hear of many celebrities and professional singers inspired or fans of his voice. Perry's got countless fans and countless followers.

Geddy Lee's voice is an acquired taste. You love it or hate it, but the fact that it's technically brilliant is undeniable.

Steve Perry is an accessible singer, he's a safe vocalist. I'm not knocking him for that, I'm just telling the truth. He hardly sounded unique.

Originally posted by Gideon
Perry's got a better range than Lee. He's got more control. He's certainly had more influence as a singer. Lee is not the more technical or "better" singer on paper.

Who cares about paper? Freddie Mercury, on paper, had a four octave range. That's Kate Bush territory. He never used it because he couldn't do so, so I'm not going to regard him in the same way as I do Kate Bush, who does use it.

Perry being varied doesn't mean he's using everything he has, and as I've said, he's noticeably decreased. Lee hasn't.

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
The Temples of Syrinx has Geddy Lee singing not only in high range, but doing so consistently and throughout, he performs it to this day. Steve Perry has noticeably declined.

Steve Perry’s voice hasn’t actually declined at all. The deepening of his voice is due to old age, it happens to everyone. He is still able to hit all the notes he used to which he continues to do on record. Steve Perry has always been an impeccable live singer. Every night he would go out and perform to the best of his ability. The song “Mother Father” by Journey is infinitely harder and more complex to sing then every Rush song.
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
I've heard those songs, I'm not saying the man can't sing, I'm saying he's not a better singer than Geddy Lee.

What do you mean by “better”? Technically speaking Perry ass rapes Geddy as far as vocals go. If you mean better to you then that’s completely subjective.
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
He hasn't used them, doesn't mean he can't. Given the ability of the man, I don't think you should be assuming anything.

What ability does Geddy have? He doesn’t display any vocal ability beyond having a higher pitched voice then most men. Perry on the other hand has a much wider range which is proven both on record and live. His power absolutely destroys Geddy’s as well as his control. Perry has much more control over his voice.
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Geddy Lee's voice is an acquired taste. You love it or hate it, but the fact that it's technically brilliant is undeniable.

There is nothing technically brilliant about Geddy Lee’s vocals.
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Steve Perry is an accessible singer, he's a safe vocalist. I'm not knocking him for that, I'm just telling the truth. He hardly sounded unique.

Who else sounds like Steve Perry? You clearly haven’t been listening to any of his music if you say something like that.

Anyways here is a video of Perry singing Mother, Father live.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iUkHffR3CUY

I'll be back later. In the meantime, listen to some Schon:

http://www.soulsirkus.com/SS%20Samplers/My%20Sanctuary.mp3
(the guitar solo is near the end of this clip)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BwZJ5HgcLss

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cSh5nJK88cw
(Neal performing the Star Spangled Banner)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yd_-7qed0vE

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ebsoV1S_6cI

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eu16WtYl3YM

Originally posted by Pazzo
Steve Perry’s voice hasn’t actually declined at all. The deepening of his voice is due to old age, it happens to everyone. He is still able to hit all the notes he used to which he continues to do on record. Steve Perry has always been an impeccable live singer. Every night he would go out and perform to the best of his ability. The song “Mother Father” by Journey is infinitely harder and more complex to sing then every Rush song.

What do you mean by “better”? Technically speaking Perry ass rapes Geddy as far as vocals go. If you mean better to you then that’s completely subjective.

What ability does Geddy have? He doesn’t display any vocal ability beyond having a higher pitched voice then most men. Perry on the other hand has a much wider range which is proven both on record and live. His power absolutely destroys Geddy’s as well as his control. Perry has much more control over his voice.

There is nothing technically brilliant about Geddy Lee’s vocals.

Who else sounds like Steve Perry? You clearly haven’t been listening to any of his music if you say something like that.

That's very good, now try saying something that Gideon hasn't said, that I haven't already replied to, mysterious new member.

"The song 'Mother Father' by Journey is infinitely harder and more complex to sing then every Rush song.".

That was almost as good as Gideon's "Santana is better than all of Rush.".

-AC

Originally posted by Gideon
I'll be back later. In the meantime, listen to some Schon:

http://www.soulsirkus.com/SS%20Samplers/My%20Sanctuary.mp3
(the guitar solo is near the end of this clip)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BwZJ5HgcLss

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cSh5nJK88cw
(Neal performing the Star Spangled Banner)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yd_-7qed0vE

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ebsoV1S_6cI

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eu16WtYl3YM

I've listened to Schon, accept this fact. Accept that someone can know Schon, know his work and still not think he's better than Eddie Van Halen or Alex Lifeson.

"He is disagreeing, he must not know Schon.". No, I do know him, that's why I am saying what I am. Stop assuming I haven't.

It's also funny how everyone that comments is saying "He's good, but don't overrate him.", and "Eddie came along and shut him up.".

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
I've listened to Schon, accept this fact. Accept that someone can know Schon, know his work and still not think he's better than Eddie Van Halen or Alex Lifeson.

"He is disagreeing, he must not know Schon.". No, I do know him, that's why I am saying what I am. Stop assuming I haven't.

-AC

Lmao.

Or, perhaps you don't want to be faced with Schon's superior fretwork in the case of Lifeson.

If you've seen all those (which I doubt), I'm impressed.

"I am God. My opinion is fact. Schon is terrible and so is Paul McCartney. I can make assumptions like these without backing them up, due to the God-complex that I have." - AC.

It's also kind've funny to see the other people say that it was excellent, and that this version was the best that they've heard.

Damn. Selective reading much? Byproduct of the whole God complex?

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
That was almost as good as Gideon's "Santana is better than all of Rush.".

-AC
Fantastic rebuttal I must say. I noticed you also ignored all my points because you are clearly talking through your ass. And I do not find what is so funny about Mother, Father being more complex vocally than any Rush song, because it is. If you actually take the time and watch that video you will see how Perry displays impeccable control over his voice. Geddy Lee has never touched anything that difficult.

Originally posted by Gideon
Lmao.

Or, perhaps you don't want to be faced with Schon's superior fretwork in the case of Lifeson.

And I'M the one with the God complex? Funny how you can decide what I mean isn't it?

No, it's not. Accept the fact that someone can know him and not rate him above Eddie Van Halen and also Lifeson.

Originally posted by Gideon
If you've seen all those (which I doubt), I'm impressed.

"I am God. My opinion is fact. Schon is terrible and so is Paul McCartney. I can make assumptions like these without backing them up, due to the God-complex that I have." - AC.

It's genuinely hilarious how you're now making shit up that I didn't say, and I'm the one with the God complex. Attacking me, not my debate, funny. The act of desperate men.

Originally posted by Gideon
It's also kind've funny to see the other people say that it was excellent, and that this version was the best that they've heard.

That may be the case, it doesn't detract from the fact that Eddie Van Halen showed him up, and it's obviously a memorable era otherwise nobody would remember it.

Originally posted by Gideon
Damn. Selective reading much? Byproduct of the whole God complex?

When I'm telling you what you said, we can discuss God complexes.

Originally posted by Pazzo
Fantastic rebuttal I must say. I noticed you also ignored all my points because you are clearly talking through your ass.

I ignored your points because Gideon has said the same ones for the past page or so. Why should I repeat what I've said? You've got eyes.

Originally posted by Pazzo
Geddy Lee has never touched anything that difficult.

Proof?

-AC

You're one to speak of proof? You discount Sammy Hagar's testimony simply because you don't agree with it. That is both delusional and pathetic considering you've never worked with Neal Schon or Eddie Van Halen, and aren't a credible source or expert, whereas he is.

You also speak of hypocrisy, lol, which is kind've dumb, given the above.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
I ignored your points because Gideon has said the same ones for the past page or so. Why should I repeat what I've said? You've got eyes.


Proof?

-AC
Excellent cop out, I read your post and commented on it. I have not repeated anything that he said. And you’re telling me that I’m repeating what he said when in reality you know that you are unable to back up anything you say.

And proof would be that Geddy has never sung anything close to being in the range of Mother Father, He has never displayed the power or control to sing that song. I have heard more Rush than you have of Journey so calling me biased would be illogical. If you would like to point me to a song sung by Geddy that you think Perry would not be able to do I will gladly listen to it (and then laugh)…but no seriously ask anyone who sings on a regular basis and they will tell you Perry destroys Geddy. My friend has been singing for a few years now and later on I’ll have him come to this thread and prove to you with note evidence how much better Perry is.

Originally posted by Gideon
You're one to speak of proof? You discount Sammy Hagar's testimony simply because you don't agree with it. That is both delusional and pathetic considering you've never worked with Neal Schon or Eddie Van Halen, and aren't a credible source or expert, whereas he is.

The fact that it's a well known event; Eddie Van Halen arriving, inventing new techniques, patenting invented guitar parts and overshadowing Schon, is one piece of evidence. The fact that he's one of the best guitarists ever is another.

Originally posted by Pazzo
Excellent cop out, I read your post and commented on it. I have not repeated anything that he said. And you’re telling me that I’m repeating what he said when in reality you know that you are unable to back up anything you say

I understand you're feeling like Rambo right now, coming in and trying to counter me, but this isn't the first time something like this has happened. I ignored your points because yes, Gideon has said almost exactly the same things.

Originally posted by Pazzo
And proof would be that Geddy has never sung anything close to being in the range of Mother Father, He has never displayed the power or control to sing that song.

Proof? Let me just put this shoe on the other foot, brb.

Originally posted by Pazzo
I have heard more Rush than you have of Journey

That sounds like an assumption about the music I've heard, that's not very smart of you, Pazzo.

What a fool, tsk tsk.

Originally posted by Pazzo
If you would like to point me to a song sung by Geddy that you think Perry would not be able to do I will gladly listen to it (and then laugh)…but no seriously ask anyone who sings on a regular basis and they will tell you Perry destroys Geddy. My friend has been singing for a few years now and later on I’ll have him come to this thread and prove to you with note evidence how much better Perry is.

Hmm? Oh, yes, I'll tell you a song so you can predictably go away, come back and say "Perry could sing that.".

Look, I've done this before with so many people and it's really tired.

Your friend? Yes, he's really going to be impartial isn't he? Haha, no. Or is this the part where you sign up as a new account and say "Perry destroys Lee!"?

So, word of advice:

Don't assume what music I've heard and don't make stupid claims like "I'll get my friend on here.".

-AC

Sounds to me like you just absolutely refuse to give credit to Hagar's remarks. Like I said, whether or not you agree is irrelevent; Hagar worked with Schon and Van Halen. He's seen them both play. If he says that Neal can "play" as good as Eddie, it isn't your place to disagree, and it isn't your place to say otherwise - because then, all you have is an unsupported and uneducated opinion.

Likewise, have we been through this before? Schon was a blues-inspired guitarist playing for an arena rock band fashioned around Perry's vocals. Eddie Van Halen was part of the new metal scene with a band derived from his namesake. The attention on them was much different. If you want to get a good account of Schon's skills as a guitarist, perhaps you ought to branch out and listen to more than Journey. Listen to his solo albums, Bad English, Hardline, or his jam sessions with other musicians.

But, that would require you to not be so obtuse.

Well once again you don’t actually counter any of my arguments. And no my friend Frank will be here rather shortly to explain to you why Perry is better, even though it should be most obvious to people who have ears. Geddy has a high timbre, that’s about all he has up his sleeve. I don’t know why this is so hard for you to fathom. Perry’s range is larger…this is including low and high notes. Perry’s control over his head voice is almost unmatched…Geddy Lee just sounds like a Squirell with a few rubber bands tied around his balls. So please tell me what makes Mr. Geddy a more technical vocalist than Steve Perry. From what I can gather he doesn’t touch Perry in any way shape or form. But please enlighten me with your extensive knowledge on vocals. And please give me a better answer than “Oh I already explained this on the other page” because you have explained absolutely nothing yet.

Wow, you guys posted at EXACTLY the same time!

Originally posted by Gideon
Sounds to me like you just absolutely refuse to give credit to Hagar's remarks. Like I said, whether or not you agree is irrelevent; Hagar worked with Schon and Van Halen. He's seen them both play. If he says that Neal can "play" as good as Eddie, it isn't your place to disagree, and it isn't your place to say otherwise - because then, all you have is an unsupported and uneducated opinion.

I like Sammy Hagar, but I don't rate his opinion above the likes of Slash, Steve Vai, Prince etc. Not when it applies to guitar playing.

He is entitled to his opinion of "Schon is as good.", if he means just creatively, then fine. Preference. Technically, Schon isn't better.

Originally posted by Gideon
Likewise, have we been through this before? Schon was a blues-inspired guitarist playing for an arena rock band fashioned around Perry's vocals. Eddie Van Halen was part of the new metal scene with a band derived from his namesake. The attention on them was much different. If you want to get a good account of Schon's skills as a guitarist, perhaps you ought to branch out and listen to more than Journey. Listen to his solo albums, Bad English, Hardline, or his jam sessions with other musicians.

Oh give it a rest.

You dare to tell me that Van Halen got attention because he was in a band with his name on? Why didn't Alex get attention then? Gene Simmons signed Van Halen, or got them signed, because he heard Eruption by Eddie Van Halen. It wasn't his name, it was his ability that grabbed people's attention and overshadowed many, many others. Including Schon.

Originally posted by Pazzo
And no my friend Frank will be here rather shortly to explain to you why Perry is better, even though it should be most obvious to people who have ears. Geddy has a high timbre, that’s about all he has up his sleeve. I don’t know why this is so hard for you to fathom. Perry’s range is larger…this is including low and high notes. Perry’s control over his head voice is almost unmatched…Geddy Lee just sounds like a Squirell with a few rubber bands tied around his balls. So please tell me what makes Mr. Geddy a more technical vocalist than Steve Perry. From what I can gather he doesn’t touch Perry in any way shape or form. But please enlighten me with your extensive knowledge on vocals.

Oh, he has a name. Therefore he isn't you and is definitely going to be impartial. If you expect me to even give this pathetic technique the time of day...pfft.

All you just said was everything Gideon says. "Perry can go low and high, better range.". I've seen it all before Gide...I mean Pazzo. One or the other, please. I'll reply to you or I'll reply to him, but if you're both gonna daisy chain each other, I'll leave you to it.

Geddy Lee has sustained his sound, range and sustain through all these years. Perry has not.

-AC

Alright this is Frank, Pazzo's friend. Ok now after listening to both Steve Perry and Geddy Lee, Im somewhat confused as to how you believe Geddy Lee is a more technically skilled singer than Steve Perry. Let's start with a few examples. For one Steve Perry sings straight through is passagio's to hit every note dead on. If you don't know what a passagio is, its where the breaks in your voice are from low to middle chest, and middle to head voice. Geddy seems to avoid this by singing very pinched where any apparent passagio wouldnt be there. He basically hides his voice and sings with practically no support. Steve Perry however sings everything straight into his palette so that the tone and sound can ring and carry to get maximum power and overtones. Geddy doesnt hit every note with an intent, he basically hears something in his head and lets his voice do it rather than controlling his voice. I could make myself sound pinched and annoying also, and if you find that unique, well, you may be right, however i dont recall being unique a factor in whos better. If you like him fine, but no way in hell could you ever convince me that Geddy is better than Perry. If you need to hear something difficult sung by Perry then listen to Mother, Father. If you want to hear his versatility listen to Rubicon and then listen to one of his solos works, Summer of Luv. I have heard many live concerts sung by Steve Perry and have heard no one else top his performances. His endurance is rather amazing beign that he sang 2 hour sets every night of the summer and rarely had a bad night.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Oh, he has a name. Therefore he isn't you and is definitely going to be impartial. If you expect me to even give this pathetic technique the time of day...pfft.

All you just said was everything Gideon says. "Perry can go low and high, better range.". I've seen it all before Gide...I mean Pazzo. One or the other, please. I'll reply to you or I'll reply to him, but if you're both gonna daisy chain each other, I'll leave you to it.

Geddy Lee has sustained his sound, range and sustain through all these years. Perry has not.

-AC
Feel free to have an administrator do an IP address check. I am not Gideon or Frank, stop being ignorant.

And you have yet to prove me wrong that Perry’s range is larger. It’s quite interesting how you resort to calling me and Gideon the same person for your arguments…when you should be trying to back up your Geddy argument with factual claims.

Perry sustained his sounds throughout the 70’s all the way to the late 80’s. His voice began to deepen, it did not get worse it just changed. While he sounds different now he is still able to hit the same notes he used to. So I fail to see your logic here…I mean I guess it doesn’t matter to you that Perry remained more technical than Geddy throughout his entire career. And you still haven’t watched or commented on that video I posted…Interesting.

Originally posted by FrankMLM
Alright this is Frank, Pazzo's friend.

See, now why would you say that? Pazzo has spent most of his time convincing me that he has a friend coming here to debate an issue on which he, and coincidentally Gideon, is having trouble with. Then abracadabra, you show up...the same day as "Pazzo", and voila!

Moreover, you and him posted at EXACTLY the same time, just like him and Gideon.

It's not just coincidence when this happens twice.

Originally posted by FrankMLM
Ok now after listening to both Steve Perry and Geddy Lee, Im somewhat confused as to how you believe Geddy Lee is a more technically skilled singer than Steve Perry.

Shocker there.

Originally posted by FrankMLM
Let's start with a few examples. For one Steve Perry sings straight through is passagio's to hit every note dead on. If you don't know what a passagio is, its where the breaks in your voice are from low to middle chest, and middle to head voice. Geddy seems to avoid this by singing very pinched where any apparent passagio wouldnt be there. He basically hides his voice and sings with practically no support. Steve Perry however sings everything straight into his palette so that the tone and sound can ring and carry to get maximum power and overtones.

Funny, because if I didn't know better, and I do, I'd say you just made a load of shit up to make it sound like you know what you're talking about.

"Perry sings everything into his palette to get the tone powerful and maximum overtones.". Dude, get real.

Originally posted by FrankMLM
Geddy doesnt hit every note with an intent, he basically hears something in his head and lets his voice do it rather than controlling his voice.

Says who? Find me a quote where Geddy says he does this and I will concede.

Originally posted by FrankMLM
I could make myself sound pinched and annoying also, and if you find that unique, well, you may be right, however i dont recall being unique a factor in whos better.

Way to prove you aren't actually aware of singing ability.

If you think Geddy Lee is just whiney and annoying, then you honestly don't know about singing. He's known for having credible vocal talent.

Originally posted by FrankMLM
If you like him fine, but no way in hell could you ever convince me that Geddy is better than Perry.

Does it look like I'll lose sleep? No. Like I said, I know Geddy is, so convincing you/Gideon/Pazzo isn't necessary. You apparantly feel the need to make me agree, maybe that's just insecurity.

Originally posted by FrankMLM
If you need to hear something difficult sung by Perry then listen to Mother, Father.

It's like talking to a brick wall, three (one) of them.

Originally posted by FrankMLM
If you want to hear his versatility listen to Rubicon and then listen to one of his solos works, Summer of Luv. I have heard many live concerts sung by Steve Perry and have heard no one else top his performances.

So does that mean I'VE heard nobody top him? No. I have, Geddy Lee.

If you like Steve Perry, fine, but there's no way you'll convince me he's better than Perry (Oh...).

Originally posted by FrankMLM
His endurance is rather amazing beign that he sang 2 hour sets every night of the summer and rarely had a bad night.

Yeah I know! A singer that performs! What will come up next?

Originally posted by Pazzo
Feel free to have an administrator do an IP address check. I am not Gideon or Frank, stop being ignorant.

There are ways around it. It's all too obvious that there is genuinely some bs going on, I defy anybody else to deny it.

Originally posted by Pazzo
And you have yet to prove me wrong that Perry’s range is larger. It’s quite interesting how you resort to calling me and Gideon the same person for your arguments…when you should be trying to back up your Geddy argument with factual claims.

It's not for my arguments, it's because I believe there is something truly sad going on. You join today and of all the threads and all the people, reply to me with the exact arguments of Gideon, then "Frank" does.

It's rather sad and too obvious.

Originally posted by Pazzo
Perry sustained his sounds throughout the 70’s all the way to the late 80’s. His voice began to deepen, it did not get worse it just changed.

Oh that old trick. "It didn't get worse, it just changed.".

Yeah, like Tom Araya's voice "changed".

Originally posted by Pazzo
While he sounds different now he is still able to hit the same notes he used to. So I fail to see your logic here…I mean I guess it doesn’t matter to you that Perry remained more technical than Geddy throughout his entire career.

You're doing the same thing you are saying I shouldn't do.

Saying it without proving anything.

Originally posted by Pazzo
And you still haven’t watched or commented on that video I posted…Interesting.

Hahahahahahahahahaha.

How do you know I haven't watched it, you idiot?

Jesus.

This is too ridiculous.

-AC

Which will complicate your rather stupid assertion (which you have many of) that we're the same person. He's from another set of forums that I frequent, which specializes in music discussion.



Steve Vai has worked with Neal Schon before - Neal's been spotted jamming with Vai at his concerts. Slash and Neal toured with Bad Company, acting as guest guitarists in their jam sessions, and Slash was prepared to sign up with Soul Sirkus (Neal's side band) 'til Velvet Revolver came around.

Seems to me that they seem to be impressed with Neal's ability to play. Which, again, makes you the odd man out.

You're not in charge of Hagar's opinion, AC. He can think whatever the hell he wants. He's performed with Neal and Eddie; you haven't. Oops. Guess that makes him more educated and more familiar with the topic than you are - and in more of a position to make the call on which of the two is better.

You're not, so just shut up and move on, kay?



This is what's cute. This is a mirror-image of my account of Santana and Clapton and their dealings with Schon. I would point out that Schon was recognized by Clapton and Santana (yeah, like Gene Simmons is a "masterful player" or an icon compared to these two) when he was fourteen.

Wanna know why? Because of his ability. It grabbed people's attention, and overshadowed many others, like Lifeson.

Do you enjoy being a hypocrite, or does the God complex prevent you from realizing what you are?



Every sentence seems to underline the fact that you are a.) obtuse and b.) inept. Perry can go lower. Do you object? Prove otherwise. Perry can go as high. Do you object? Prove otherwise.

Proof = something you don't have.

Originally posted by Gideon
Which will complicate your rather stupid assertion (which you have many of) that we're the same person. He's from another set of forums that I frequent, which specializes in music discussion.

I'm pretty sure that's why he showed up when you were on the back foot and also why you, he and FrankMLM post at almost the exact same time. In two cases, EXACTLY the same time.

I'm not making this up.

Originally posted by Gideon
Steve Vai has worked with Neal Schon before - Neal's been spotted jamming with Vai at his concerts. Slash and Neal toured with Bad Company, acting as guest guitarists in their jam sessions, and Slash was prepared to sign up with Soul Sirkus (Neal's side band) 'til Velvet Revolver came around.

I'm aware, what's your point?

Originally posted by Gideon
Seems to me that they seem to be impressed with Neal's ability to play. Which, again, makes you the odd man out.

Why does it? Am I sitting here saying Neal Schon can't play? Or am I saying he's not better than Eddie Van Halen or Alex Lifeson? It's the last one.

Originally posted by Gideon
You're not in charge of Hagar's opinion, AC. He can think whatever the hell he wants.

Did I not say that? Let's look:

"He is entitled to his opinion of 'Schon is as good.', if he means just creatively, then fine. Preference. Technically, Schon isn't better.".

He can think what he wants, literally, but it doesn't change the fact that technically Eddie Van Halen is the better guitarist with regards to skill and ability. As far as MAKING music, totally subjective.

You can't prefer who is better. Someone is either better or they are not.

Originally posted by Gideon
He's performed with Neal and Eddie; you haven't. Oops. Guess that makes him more educated and more familiar with the topic than you are - and in more of a position to make the call on which of the two is better.

You are not getting my point, read what I'm saying. His opinion on them may be more valid from his experience with them compared to me, but not more than actual guitarists like Slash, Prince, Vai, Satch. All of whom consider Van Halen one of the absolute best ever.

Sammy Hagar does not have a more credible guitar opinion than those men.

Originally posted by Gideon
You're not, so just shut up and move on, kay?

First try understanding my points.

Originally posted by Gideon
This is what's cute. This is a mirror-image of my account of Santana and Clapton and their dealings with Schon. I would point out that Schon was recognized by Clapton and Santana (yeah, like Gene Simmons is a "masterful player" or an icon compared to these two) when he was fourteen.

What an idiot. I'm not praising the fact that Gene Simmons found him, f*ck Gene Simmons. I'm showing you that Eddie Van Halen was discovered and got fame as a result of his innovative and otherworldly guitar talents, talents that outshone almost everyone including Schon, ironically. You claimed it was his band, his name. It wasn't, because then it would apply to Alex Van Halen too.

Originally posted by Gideon
Wanna know why? Because of his ability. It grabbed people's attention, and overshadowed many others, like Lifeson.

Hahahahaha. WHY do you keep mentioning that?

I am not debating who is a better child guitarist, why are you?

Originally posted by Gideon
Do you enjoy being a hypocrite, or does the God complex prevent you from realizing what you are?

*Yawn*.

Originally posted by Gideon
Every sentence seems to underline the fact that you are a.) obtuse and b.) inept. Perry can go lower. Do you object? Prove otherwise. Perry can go as high. Do you object? Prove otherwise.

I'll do that, when you prove he can go higher, when you prove he can go lower. Show me songs that I already know, it won't matter because I already know them.

You see, all you can do is what you accuse me of. You can't prove it any more than I, because we'll never know the utter limits of both men.

Originally posted by Gideon
Proof = something you don't have.

Nor do you, on this account. The Schon debate has all but fizzled out for you and you are clutching to "HE WAS 14!".

-AC

You are, without a shadow of a doubt, the most obtuse and most stubborn person I've argued against on these forums.

The fact that your opinion is not a constituted fact has not sunk in at all.

Sammy Hagar said "Neal can play as good as Eddie can. Hell, Neal can play as good as anyone, really" in an interview that has been posted on Melodicrock.com. Understand that I am not talking about achievements or innovations; simply put, Hagar said that Neal can play a guitar as good as Eddie Van Halen can. For the final time, he has worked with both of these men, and has been in a band with both of them, too. He is in a position to judge which of the two is better. He says they can play equally. No one is denying that Van Halen has had more of an impact on music. But, it is a fact that Schon can play a guitar as good as Van Halen is. Especially when Steve Vai and Slash were impressed with Neal's ability to play. These two were men you cited as "credible sources".

You haven't worked with Neal or Eddie. You are not a credible source. What you say holds no bearing on the subject of "Eddie is much better than Schon" because the guy who worked with them both seems to disagree. Period.

As for Perry, I have provided several instances of him singing as high and even going lower. It is now your turn to provide me with songs from Rush that show off Geddy Lee's lower register. I'm doubting that that is going to happen, given your preferred method of denying accounts from others and making excuses.

If you can't provide, then it is simply that Perry's documented work shows a higher range and more control then Geddy Lee's documented work, which is what this is about. Which means that I win, and you lose.

If that doesn't do anything for you, by the way, we're going to have to agree to disagree.

Originally posted by Gideon
You are, without a shadow of a doubt, the most obtuse and most stubborn person I've argued against on these forums.

The fact that your opinion is not a constituted fact has not sunk in at all.

You're obviously ignorant to fact, but I'll use that quote later...

Originally posted by Gideon
Sammy Hagar said "Neal can play as good as Eddie can. Hell, Neal can play as good as anyone, really" in an interview that has been posted on Melodicrock.com.

The fact that Sammy Hagar's opinion is not fact has not sunk in yet.

Originally posted by Gideon
Understand that I am not talking about achievements or innovations; simply put, Hagar said that Neal can play a guitar as good as Eddie Van Halen can.

Right, and there are guitarists better than Hagar that say Van Halen does. Who has the more credible opinion on technical guitar skill and judging it accordingly? Sammy Hagar or Joe Satriani?

Originally posted by Gideon
For the final time, he has worked with both of these men, and has been in a band with both of them, too. He is in a position to judge which of the two is better.

How is he? Because he's been associated with them? That means NOTHING AT ALL.

He's in a position to say who he likes more, not who is FACTUALLY better. Listen to my point: If there are better technical guitar players than Sammy Hagar out there, calling Eddie Van Halen the best guitarist ever, while Sammy Hagar is saying Schon is as good, who has the more credible opinion? The amazing g