You’re right, grating is probably not the right word - surely not grating as in Rush.
When I mentioned production, I meant the way they are produced - not the quality of production. Example: I think Phil Specter’s wall of sound was technically amazing and certainly top notch, but I don’t personally care for that sound.
Totally agree, although I’ll add that Zeppelin had a distinct advantage with the ubiquitous ‘Get the Led Out’. When I first discovered them in my older brother’s record collection, I was surprised at how many songs I knew from the radio.
My answer to this question is always Steely Dan.
Hehe, my take on Steely Dan is they’re one of those bands that I shouldn’t like, but sometimes they’re so good I can’t help myself. So much of their stuff is basically exquisitely crafted muzak with very edgy subject matter*, but other times it’s arranged so well, I don’t care (“Peg”). Other times the solos and the arrangement are so nutso and wonderful they make the whole thing work in a very wonderful way (“My Old School”, “Reelin’ in the Years”, “Do it Again”).
But a whole record of them? Ehh, maybe not.
*Any doubts about this? I’ll quote Pete Christleb, who played sax on “Deacon Blues”:
I spent most of my teen years ridiculing them whenever someone tried to enlighten me. Zeppelin and The Beatles were more my cup of tea. But, much later in life, I was asked to join a Grateful Dead tribute band, which I did. The more I played the music, the more it grew on me (which I was not expecting). I’ve now been playing their music for almost a decade, and consider myself a fan. Not a rabid fan, but I learned to appreciate Robert Hunter’s lyrics, and found their music to be deeper than it appears on the surface. And that’s even without a drug-addled brain. I get that they aren’t for everyone, but there really are some songwriting gems in their catalog. Songs that never got played on the radio but were certainly worthy of it.
To be fair, even Geddy Lee loathes “Lakeside Park”.
I live with a Rush fan, and it’s a measure of how much I love him that I have attended four Rush shows. He’s not obnoxious about it, though, and he never imposes it on me (much as I try not to inflict the more lugubrious alt-rock bands I like on him).
We realized a while ago that the main difference in our musical tastes - which overlap to a very great extent) is that he pays more attention to the music and I pay more to the lyrics. So while I’m cringing at the inane clunky Rush lyrics, he’s appreciating their musical mastery, and while I’m appreciating the clever wordplay in a Pete Droge album, he’s suffering from the slide guitar.
Lyrics don’t make or break music to me. Even the best songs in the world often have inane lyrics - look at Zeppelin, or Little Richard, or…ad infinitum.
Great lyrics can elevate a great song, but they are not neccessary.
When I listen to music, I mostly tune into the bass and the drums, so Rush fits my needs very well.
I do get it; a band with such a huge cult following, (drug-addled brains or not) surely has talent. I can’t get into them, but can appreciate they are popular for good reason.
Whereas I am just the opposite; my favorite instrument is the oldest one, the human voice, and the instrumentation is only there to support the singer and the story she’s telling. I can appreciate the talent of an Eddie Van Halen, Slash, or Neil Peart; but their art doesn’t move me the way an Adele or Ani DiFranco or Mark Knopfler vocal does.
Oh, vocals are important, too. There are many singers I don’t care to listen to. Geddy Lee isn’t one of them, even though I don’t consider him an especially fine vocalist. But I appreciate musical craftpeople over all else: people who write their own songs, while also playing an instrument, or in Lee’s case, a bunch of instruments, and singing. Music is not only about how it sounds; it’s also about the context.
It’s funny isn’t it. Elton John is objectively a good singer, I don’t know why I don’t like his songs. But take the song Don’t Let The Sun Go Down On Me… when I heard George Michael sing it, it changed the whole dynamic for me.
Currently Taylor Swift is playing her 3rd night in a row of sold out shows at Soldier Field. I can appreciate that, although I don’t need Taylor Swift music in my life. But you know who sells out Soldier Field three nights in a row? The Rolling Stones, the Grateful Dead, A Hypothetical Fucking Beatles Reunion.
More power to you, Taylor Swift.
Rush could have… 
I want to like Rush, I really do, but I can’t stand Geddy Lee’s voice; and what I have heard has no harmony vox, either.
I enjoy well written lyrics.^ I have long thought the best songwriters were Cohen, Simon and Dylan. Rabid fans of Rush see some very deep philosophical shyte in some of the songs, which manages to elude me. But they are certainly talented musicians.
^ The very best songs are also well written. Of course there are lots of good songs that are not well written or are instrumental. And a few songs that are well written but mediocre.
U2 - They have some good songs but the world of music would be fine with or without them. I’ve never found what I was looking for while listening to their music. Rattle and Hum is pretty good though.
YES - They’re OK, but I just don’t get it. Most of their stuff is boring to me. They have a handful of good songs. But, overall, I can’t listen to them for very long.
Snerk.
I was the same way, except it was Roger Daltry’s version that did it.
I think it’s not fair to pick out Trees to show Rush lyrics are inane and clumsy, as put by several upthread. It’s the song that everyone, including the band, thinks is silly.
I don’t know in what universe the lyrics to, say Witch Hunt, or Subdivisions, or Manhattan Project are inane. Clumsy is arguable, though.