In my endless quest for new, interesting music I came across Rush. They’re not something to write home about, but quite good, with plenty of skills and tons of good songs. But I also noticed there is some prejudice floating around: many of the magazines and web sites I read describe them as “that fantasy-writing group”, or “that D&D-influenced group”, and I don’t think that’s right, or even fair, given the snotty tone they (the writers) assume.
I realize they did quite a few objectonable things, such as going for extended compositions (2112 and the like) when they were out of fashion, and when they could not actually justify their lenght; but even there, being out of fashion doesn’t mean being bad. The complaints about over-extending and padding their extended pieces are often on the spot, IMHO, but even then, they don’t do it anymore, right? How many years is it? And I don’t think they wrote so much fantasy-D&D stuff at all, not that there’s anything wrong in that…
I read Geddy Lee (bass player in Rush) say that a journalist from Rolling Stone magazine admitted to him (under a promise of anonimity) that they receive quite a lot of requests to write about Rush, and they are uniformly ignored.
So, well, what’s so wrong with Rush to make critics so, well, critic?
Well, none of them have OD’d, spent all their money on wretched excess, been involved in a shoting, or are particularly attractive. They just make cool music.
Most prog-bands are more than a tad snickered at by popular-music critics. Their comments tend to be peppered with such choice words as pretentious, overblown, self-important, etc. And while Rush isn’t nearly as prog-ish as they once were, they still often get lumped in with that group.
Prog seems about as respected as glam-metal, unfortunately.
NOTHING is wrong with Rush, especially older Rush. I see their work as revolutionary as the Beatles. If the Beatles would have faced such critics, they’d be panned, too. The critics have to put down good work…it’s in their genes!
IMHO, prog rock is considered pretentious, moving away from the things that make rock, well, rock - tight, 3-chord blasts of teenage rebellion and lust. Wanting to talk about the spirit of radio, or how a Lamb Lies Down on Broadway (I know: Genesis; but making my point about prog here, and they are prog) or spending a whole album reinterpreting a classical piece (ELP with Pictures at an Exhibition).
Rush, especially early Rush, is prog - for some people that is an automatic checkout…
This one time, when I was, like, 15, I drank a beer and spun around in a circle real fast until I became dizzy and fell down, and then I listened to a Rush song and it was, you know, intense.
There are only three things wrong with Rush, and that is Geddy Lee, Neil Peart and Alex Lifeson.
My brother instituted a “no Rush, no country” rule for the DJ at his wedding, and was highly praised by all.
I will grant that the opening to “Tom Sawyer” is pretty good.
Still, the OP raises an interesting point. When I was in high school, my favorite band was Iron Maiden. My best friend loved Rush. Why were these our favorite bands? We were both huge D&D geeks, and these two bands made songs that seemed tailored for our interests. So, I kinda get my back up over that particular suggestion. There’re so many other reasons to hate Rush without bagging on gamers, you know?
As revolutionary as the Beatles? That’s pretty bold. Can you back that up? What other popular/succesful/influential bands were influenced directly by Rush? Purely personal reactions to the music aside, they always seemed a bit of a dead-end to me, in terms of influencing musical culture as a whole. Who am I overlooking?
The reasosn Rush gets panned by the critics are simple.
For one thing, Rush doesn’t make the kind of music the critics want them to make. The critics really expect every band to sound alike. They expect artists to follow trends. Rush, however doesn’t sound like anybody else. They do whatever the hell they want to do, and have been doing so for thirty years now. The high-and-mighty critics honestly believe that they, themselves, are the final word on style. The perceive themselves to be our Honored Arbiters of What Is Cool. So when Rush doesn’t do what the critics think is cool, and yet they still make gold records and sell out concerts, the critics are offended.
Did you know that Rush is THIRD on the all-time list for consecutive gold albums, behind only The Rolling Stones and Kiss?
Reeeealllly? Can you actually offer a meaningful criticism of the percussion skills of Mr. Peart? Geddy Lee, whether you like his voice or not, is an amazing bass player and keyboardist. If you don’t like them, fine, but you can’t say they aren’t good at what they do. Alex Lifeson is also good, but the other two are world-class and could play the pants off most of their current competition (and past competition also).
Alex is a world-class guitar player. He’s also quite a songwriter on his own. I found his solo album (Victor, sadly overlooked) to be stronger, lyrically, than a lot of the Rush albums. As opposed to Lee’s solo record, which was forgettable.
Ok you need to find a way to witness Neil Peart playing drums live (or on video - just see him) and then come back and write a report on why you still think there is something “wrong” with him because I’m sure we’d all like to see how a crazy person thinks.
I think part of it might be political. Neil Peart was, at one time, a disciple of Ayn Rand. The songs from 2112 through Signals were overtly Objectivist. On the other hand, the rock critics of the era were old leftys from the counterculture, and they HATED Ayn Rand. Rush got tarred by association.
The Beatles were panned early in their careers, but from Revolver onward they showed a capacity for growth and for engaging the interest of audiences other than teenaged girls. Today people think everything they touched was gold, but prior to Sgt. Pepper, they had the same stink about them that Justin Timberlake currently enjoys (I was watching some clips from American Bandstand made right before Sgt. Pepper was released and was surprised at how hostile and skeptical many of the kids, especially the boys, were towards the Fab Four).
Rush… Well, they do what they do really well, but they hit the same creative dead end as their peers in Styx, Yes and ELP without having the decency to disband or quit recording. They’re kind of a caricature of the big goofy bands that Kurt Cobain used to make fun of and don’t seem to be aware of the running joke.
