What’s wrong with Rush?
Nothing.
Some people don’t like what they do and make an issue of it.
I’m a Rush fan who used to get pissed off by this. Now I find it amusing.
Well, since I made the statement regarding the definition of rock listed above, I’ll respond. Yes musical styles evolve - look at jazz moving from early stride/dixieland beginnings, through swing to bebop, hardbop, cool and free. Rock has clearly evolved, too - from rockabilly/R&B though blues-based rock, hard rock, punk, etc. With rock, it seems to grow layers of complexity and then, about once a decade or so, it explodes and is stripped down to a simpler form again.
50’s - from simple early rock up through Motown Wall of Sound and Beatles Sgt Pepper production art pieces - blown up by simpler blues-based rock in the 60’s
70’s - blues-based rock evolved into layered prog rock and “corporate” rock and was blown up by punk
80’s - hair metal was blown up by grunge. New wave got too overblown and was blown up by techno and, oh, acid house and trip hop…and of course early hip hop enters the picture and has been going through similar cycles.
So it seems to me that the essential aspect of rock is its return to simplicity and, yes, three chord songs about rebellion and lust. If that is the case - and IMHO it is - then Rush, at least initially, represents a band that was at the tail end of a cycle right before rock returned to its roots. This is all a way of agreeing with posters who say they aren’t critics’ darlings - I think this is why.
I am not a huge Rush fan, but find no need to be dismissive. They have accomplished a lot in their careers and each is very talented on their instrument. And they have endured. They have a rabid fanbase - I can think of many of my music oriented friends who are absolutely nuts over them - and play to that crowd while they are also moving their music along. Bottom line? They are a acquired taste that a ton of people have acquired - they aren’t mainstream rock, don’t aspire to be and have had a great run…
The title of the thread is “What’s wrong with Rush?” If you can’t take people being critical of them, then avert your eyes.
Heh. What I find really interesting is that people have such strong views on Rush - seems this is one band people either love or hate, and both sides are certain they are right. 
[For the record, I like them a lot.]
Not really. All three of those genres have moved pretty far beyond their 70s roots.
Me, I’m not a huge Rush fan, but I like 'em. As far as their influence goes, the influence of prog rock on metal pretty much can’t be overstated, so as the first (relatively) heavy prog band, I’d say they were pretty important in the overall direction at least one genre took.
Just standing “the test of time” doesn’t make a band great. Again, the Pixies, who I was just blown away by, have been around for more than 20 years - but if you really like Rush and their business, you’d probably hate them.
Will do.
Please. Note that my dislike of Rush doesn’t say much about my taste in music as a whole. Ever heard Spem In Alium, by Thomas Tallis? Brilliant, brilliant work. It’s quite long, and it’s also perhaps the most complex piece of choral music ever created. It’s coherent, but that’s perhaps not the best word to separate it from Rush. It’s memorable, and it brings out so many emotions within me.
When I hear a Rush song being complex, I think, “Oh, those wacky Rush dudes. They can sure wail, or whatnot.” When I hear all of the incredible details in Spem In Alium, I’m too busy being in euphoria to think much of anything.
Gadfly, can you possibly get any more subjective about this with words like memorable, powerful and euphoria. Please. This is so tiring. Like what you want but don’t pretend you are objective with words like coherent.
Ultafilter, I disagree. I find Greenday quite derivitive of the Sex Pistols to give one example. Black Sabbath are constantly mined in metal in my opinion.
To directly answer the OP…
Geddy Lee’s voice.
For similar reasons I also dislike Uriah Heep
I hear a lot of difference between Green Day and the Sex Pistols. It’s pretty clear that there’s influence there, but I can’t see how you’d fairly call them derivative.
And–although I’ll probably lose whatever metal cred I’ve gained here for saying this–I really don’t think that Black Sabbath is as influential as everyone makes them out to be.
Well, art is always subjective. That’s the nature of the beast. I loathe Rush. Other people love them. But I have the right to speak about how I dislike their music, just like you have the right to speak up about liking them.
Well, that’s just a pile o’ bands I don’t like! Thanks for the info, though.
It sure is hard. Too hard for Rush, if the stuff I’ve heard is any measure.
You want to talk tiring? What I find tiring is that you can’t have threads like this without someone voicing the complaint you just made. Of course Gadfly’s opinion is subjective. So is yours. So is every post in this thread. It’s art, for the love of fuck. Objectivity never even enters into it. The idea that “15 minute long instrumental piece with 17 sections” is better than a “4 minute pop song with maybe 3 or 4 parts at most” is itself entirely subjective. Complexity does not equal quality. Popularity does not equal quality. Longevity does not equal quality. The only way to measure quality is to experience the work in question and ask yourself, “Do I like this?”
I’ve listened to Rush. I don’t like what I’ve heard. They are not a good band. Simple as that.
Damn! Getting the beatdown here.
Some other bands that have listed Rush as huge influences:
Primus
Metallica (granted, their latter-day stuff isn’t too good, but back in the 80s when they were making glorious music Rush was one of their big inspirations. Geddy, Alex, and Neil are thanked in the credits on Master of Puppets).
Meshuggah
Tool
Soundgarden
Nine Inch Nails
Opeth
Foo Fighters
Oh, and Miller…
Ok, fine. This is a subjective opinion. Nothing wrong with that.
But now you’re making an objective statement, and backing it up with subjective opinion. I say that Rush is a good band. You say that they are not. Who is correct? Do any objective criteria exist for determing the quality of a band, especially when they inspire such polarized opinions?
I have nothing against prog-rock, and I think that as a style it’s too often trashed. But a lot of it I don’t care for and Rush falls into that camp, as does Yes. With Rush, it’s the vocals and (sometimes) the lyrics. I’m speaking primarily of their earlier albums, as I’ve only heard radio cuts from their later efforts. In the later stuff I’ve heard, I don’t find the music at all visceral.
I can’t wait for the next Porcupine Tree release though, and it’s about time for me to pick up Selling England by the Pound on CD, as I only have it on vinyl.
How about influence, sales, longevity, and musical skill?
There are also less objective criteria like pop appeal, artistic merit, and the ability to make complex, coherent music.
Well, no beatdown intended. We simply disagree about music. 
Well, then, Rush is doing pretty well, I would say.
No, I’m not. “Rush is a bad band,” can never, under any circumstances, be an objective statement. It is impossible to make an objective statement using purely subjective criteria, such as “good,” “bad,” or any synonyms thereof.
We both are correct, obviously, as we are both relating our subjective interpretations.
No. There are no objective criteria in art.
I think you are having problems inserting the assumed words, “I think” in front of his statement.
Indeed. I try not to assume words are there unless I see them. It usually makes for less misunderstanding.