michael saulnier Posted May 1, 2001 Share Posted May 1, 2001 It's interesting to see which entertainers make an impact on people. There are sometimes individuals or groups we all have strong emotions about. Mohammed Ali for example. Most people either love or hate the guy. It's rare to find an "I don't care attitude". Judging from some of the posts on this board, Rush is in the same boat. Love and hate is found in abundance, few "don't care". Put me down in the Love category. I think they're an exciting live band with a high level of "musicianship". The song writing is often against the "trends" of the time, and the POV of most of the lyrics tends to match my world view. Few trios attempt to get so much "sound" out of themselves and they typically carry it off well. I also like Lifeson's solo sound and attitude... What do you think? guitplayer I'm still "guitplayer"! Check out my music if you like... http://www.michaelsaulnier.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sbrock1san.rr.com Posted May 1, 2001 Share Posted May 1, 2001 I don't think their music has held up for me over time. However, I think Alex Lifeson is one amazing guitarist and they are a great live band. Most of the people I know who love them, don't like their lyrics. That's kind of rare in music. I like them because they took risks musically. Too many rock bands play it safe and are afraid to fail. Their last album was the only time I ever heard them play it safe and be "trendy" at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fantasticsound Posted May 1, 2001 Share Posted May 1, 2001 I have a strange vibe for Rush. I love a lot of their music, particularly from Moving Pictures to Power Windows. (Although I have lots of favorite individual songs from earlier and later albums.) The weird part is that I don't seem to get the same kind of payoff, emotionally, from their music that I get from other music I love. There is certainly an element of strong emotion attached to the songs, but... I can't even describe it. I can see how a lot of their music fails to move some people, but... I can't say WHY. It's weird. I don't listen to them much anymore, but... It's not because the music hasn't held up to the test of time. As for live, they just plain rock! I had the pleasure of running spot in Nashville for the tour in 1997. Only problem was I had to concentrate on Geddy Lee when I really wanted to focus on Alex's playing. My buddy had the best gig of all that night. He was in the truss directly above Neil Peart. All he had to do was lock down the spot and change colors. Not to mention he could examine Neil's playing from about 15 - 20ft. up! Too bad he doesn't play.. anything! &^%*(^*^%^$^#$@#$%!@!!! The concert was a blast, anyway. Neil It's easiest to find me on Facebook. Neil Bergman Soundclick fntstcsnd Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lee Flier Posted May 1, 2001 Share Posted May 1, 2001 Blah. Put me in the "hate" category (sorry Khan http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/biggrin.gif). I can honestly say that if I'm in a restaurant or someplace and Rush comes on the radio, my nervous system goes all haywire and I get all irritated and I have to leave the room. It's a very gut-level thing. I can't say that about too many bands. But other than that, they're great! http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/biggrin.gif --Lee Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tedster Posted May 1, 2001 Share Posted May 1, 2001 I like Max Webster better, eh? "Cisco Kid, was a friend of mine" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D. Gauss Posted May 1, 2001 Share Posted May 1, 2001 i just don't dig neil peart. sterile, sterile, sterile. i'll take john bonham anyday, mistakes and all... -d. gauss Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ian Stewart Cairns Posted May 1, 2001 Share Posted May 1, 2001 Ah, interesting one this. In my early teens I fell head-over-heels in love with Rush. At the time my favourite band was AC/DC, but I was getting a little tired of restrictive 3-chord rock'n'roll and longed to hear something new. Then one night on a late night radio show, I heard something which seemed to fit the bill. I regarded it as utterly bizarre. It even had a bizarre title. It was called Bytor and the Snow Dog. Yet somehow it intrigued me. It was different. Is that a man or a woman caterwauling (you couldnt really call it singing under the trade descriptions act)? Whoa, what a hot guitar player. What an amazing drummer. What strange melodies. Man I love that bit before the slow bit bum-da-da, bum-da-da bum da-da, bum-da bum da-da, bum bum da-da, bum da... ...SPLURGE The next week the same show played Tom Sawyer and Red Barchetta. That was that. Rush had cast me under its spell. In subsequent weeks and months and years I saved up enough money to buy all the Rush albums. I scrutinized their album covers and inner sleeves for some hidden message(s) and listened to the contents with devotion. I loved the everything about the band. I loved the messages in the lyrics (at age fifteen I self-righteously declared the song Freewill to be *my anthem*). I loved the complex arrangements, the great playing, the fact that they used the word segue on one of their albums (hmm, now what does segue mean?). I loved that they were unfashionable (I even bought a white jacket as a homage to Signals era Lifeson). I loved the *borrowed* sci-fi imagery, I loved the overplayed drums, I loved the e-x-t-e-n-d-e-d guitar solos. I loved the lopsided 7/4 riffs, the joyous, yet precise tuttis, the amazing bass playing. I loved saying No, honestly, that really is a man singing. --------------------------------------------- A swirling CygnusX1-esque dissolve brings us up-to-date. http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/biggrin.gif --------------------------------------------- That was then. I dont listen to Rush anymore. I find their music largely unappealing, somewhat pompous and certainly pretentious. Comical even. Nowadays when I hear Pearts lyrics they come across like a speech from an objectivist rally. And like Ayn Rand herself, the lyrics are not exactly profound, not exactly original and not exactly poetic. In spite of all this, like a brother who is curiously defensive of a sister he routinely beats up, I find myself defending Rushs right to exist against all-comers. Perhaps it really is all in the blood? Rush played an important part in my adolescence. They showed me that rock music need not consist of simply 3 chords played with abandon (and the obligatory heavy distortion). They taught me that a strong sense of light and shade dynamics- is crucial to great music. In spite of their bombastic nature and their singular lack of poetic impulse, Pearts lyrics did advise you to think for yourself, to take responsibility for your life (an important if hardly rocknroll inspired - message to receive at any time in ones life). I discovered the glorious Roland Jazz Chorus amp through A Farewell to Kings and subsequently bought one (once again aping Lifeson.) I loved it all at the time, and I suspect there is a part of me that always will. Ian This message has been edited by Ian Stewart Cairns on 05-01-2001 at 05:35 AM Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KHAN Posted May 1, 2001 Share Posted May 1, 2001 I used to love Rush, but now I've see the light ... http://cwm.ragesofsanity.com/contrib/owen/council.gif So Many Drummers. So Little Time... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chip McDonald Posted May 1, 2001 Share Posted May 1, 2001 Originally posted by KHAN: I used to love Rush, but now I've see the light ... http://cwm.ragesofsanity.com/contrib/owen/council.gif I once saw Super Greg drop the needle back in '99, it's good to see he's still as "serious" as ever. Monobrows 4-eva! (man, that's a GREAT link Khan... Everyone should check out Super Greg's Quicktime... The funniest thing though is the the front of the DJ stand, that's so surreal it's kinda not funny....) Rush... ... were quite silly lyrically and fashion wise when they started. Oh well. I like their stuff up until Power Windows. Peart is stentorian in his approach, and I understand the angle of "he's too technical/stiff" etc., but I love his cleverness and that clinical feel is just part of the gestalt of Rush. Lifeson managed to keep his playing fresh many years in a row as well, incorporating reggae and some Holdsworth touches along the way. I have a sinking feeling Dave Matthews Band, with the switch to Glen Ballard, is going to be the Rush of this decade: "man, I really liked them until that record that came out with "I Did It"... You'll still have die hard Dave Matthews fans, just like with Rush and all of their new releases, but they'll all confide in truly liking "the old stuff" the most. I HATE when bands switch producers and try to artificially reinvent themselves.... It's not like Rush or DMB were putting out an endless stream of AC/DC records, they didn't NEED to change producers... ahg... http://www.mp3.com/chipmcdonald Guitar Lessons in Augusta Georgia: www.chipmcdonald.com Eccentric blog: https://chipmcdonaldblog.blogspot.com/ / "big ass windbag" - Bruce Swedien Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TRiP Project Posted May 1, 2001 Share Posted May 1, 2001 My earliest memories of Rush were when I stood on the back of my parents couch recording a concert off the King Biscuit Flower Hour, I was about 8 then. (I guess it wasn't my earliest memory, or I wouldn't have known about them to want tape them, but anyway)... I listened and liked them up until I was about 18, and still do, to an extent. But at a certain point, I did start to notice a more 'clinical' vibe coming from them. It didn't make them worse in my eyes, just not as appealing. Move to about a year ago, I ordered 2112 through amazon.com on some sort of whim (I never really listened to the whole thing before, just parts, radio hits, whatever). I couldn't sleep one night, so at around 3am, I put it in, put on the headphones and listened to it start to finish... and I haven't put it in again. I found a lot of the singing very annoying, the conceptual theme weak, and the lyrics pretty irritating... Maybe when it came out in '76? it would have been more inspiring, but it did nothing for me... I'm sure it did open some doors tonally, as far as using suspended chord voices, etc... But as far as an emotionally charged uplifting experience, that it isn't... The chickens are coming and I just can't pretend ... Sung by an 8 year old Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ricknbokker Posted May 2, 2001 Share Posted May 2, 2001 Oy vey!! As soon as I saw the topic, I KNEW we were gonna hear from you, Lee! http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/biggrin.gif Rush?? Definitely a love hate thing for me. I was in my first real band, and just learning to play guitar. I was in bad shape already, because I had recently heard some guy named Eddie Van Halen's "song' called Eruption. What did I think I was doing? Try to learn guitar??!! Why bother?? (I was 14) Anyway, I was not in a very confident frame of mind. I went to practice one day, after two weeks away, and the band asked if I had ever heard of Rush. I told them I tried it once, but I thought I was having a heart attack, and decided I'd never suck anything out of a ballon again! http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/redface.gif When they got me straightened out on THAT faux pas, They played me a tape of Rush's 2112. They said, "We're gonna do the whole album side!" Then, upon replay, the tape got eaten. (love that lo-fi gear!!)That was the last time I ever heard the recording. What happened? Well, it took months, but we learned the whole album side, AND Cygnus X-1 from Farewell to Kings. These were virtually the first songs I learned how to play on guitar. (later, in another band, I would learn all the bass parts!) We were SOOOO proud of ourselves. And every other guitar player and bassist in the whole area came to us to learn how to do it. Now, the downside. We started gigging, and every time we played the Rush songs, when we were done there would be like, two guys and the soundman goin' YEAH, YEAH, YEAH!!! The rest of the crowd(?) would look at us funny, NOT clap, and yell things like "DO PARANOID!!...PLAY SOME ZEP!!!...ROCK AND ROLLLLLLL!!!! Disturbing, to say the least. So? Yes, I still listen to Rush on occasion. But I can't love them. Appreciate them? Absolutely. But they should appreciate ME for doing what I did, dammit! Practicing all those long months...(cue violin)... slaving away for hours...(more violins; swelling) doing EVERYTHING I COULD FOR THE BAND, MAN....JUST TO HEAR (crescendo...) Do Paranoid, man. Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ricknbokker Posted May 2, 2001 Share Posted May 2, 2001 Oh yeah, everything Ian said too!!! http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/biggrin.gif Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dansouth Posted May 2, 2001 Share Posted May 2, 2001 Originally posted by Lee Flier: I can honestly say that if I'm in a restaurant or someplace and Rush comes on the radio, my nervous system goes all haywire... My nervous system goes haywire, too, and I kinda like it. http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/wink.gif Why do you think they're called "Rush"? For those who don't care for this adrenaline effect, I suggest something soothing, like Perry Como, Johnny Mathis, or Pink Floyd. :-P Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sbrock1san.rr.com Posted May 2, 2001 Share Posted May 2, 2001 One Rush track has always stood out for me, "Natural Science" off the Permanent Waves album. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michael saulnier Posted May 2, 2001 Author Share Posted May 2, 2001 Originally posted by Chip McDonald: Rush... I HATE when bands switch producers and try to artificially reinvent themselves.... It's not like Rush or DMB were putting out an endless stream of AC/DC records, they didn't NEED to change producers... ahg... http://www.mp3.com/chipmcdonald Ummmm... would you have wanted to hear the Beatles stay in the early 60's Beatlemania era and never make Revolver or Sgt. Pepper? This doesn't sound like you Chip... are you a victim of identity theft or something? http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/biggrin.gif guitplayer ------------------ http://www.acousticvoodoo.com I'm still "guitplayer"! Check out my music if you like... http://www.michaelsaulnier.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nrg music Posted May 2, 2001 Share Posted May 2, 2001 guitplayer wrote: >>Ummmm... would you have wanted to hear the Beatles stay in the early 60's Beatlemania era and never make Revolver or Sgt. Pepper?>> Personally speaking YES!! I never did get on with the beatles after the Beatlemania era and I for one certainly think they wrote and recorded their best material during that time... As for Rush..... well suffice it to say I'm with Lee with brass knobs on http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/smile.gif Stay cool Simon http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/eek.gif ...remember there is absolutely no point in talking about someone behind their back unless they get to hear about it... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lee Flier Posted May 2, 2001 Share Posted May 2, 2001 Originally posted by dansouth@yahoo.com: My nervous system goes haywire, too, and I kinda like it. http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/wink.gif Why do you think they're called "Rush"? For those who don't care for this adrenaline effect, I suggest something soothing, like Perry Como, Johnny Mathis, or Pink Floyd. :-P It has nothing to do with adrenaline. It's more like a pinched sciatic nerve. http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/biggrin.gif --Lee Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rosespappy Posted May 2, 2001 Share Posted May 2, 2001 Interesting that Floyd was mentioned.Programatic music has been attempted by a precious few in the rock genre. Zappa is among my favorites,Alan Parsons was for better or worse entirely programatic, Floyd was,The Who,and Rush. There were others, but not tons. Rush has to be heard from side a to b to be grasped fully. Still not my favorite, but I can dig a good story set to music anyday. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chip McDonald Posted May 2, 2001 Share Posted May 2, 2001 Originally posted by SteveRB: One Rush track has always stood out for me, "Natural Science" off the Permanent Waves album. Brilliant drum fill on the break, nice clean and fairly dry sound.... http://www.mp3.com/chipmcdonald Guitar Lessons in Augusta Georgia: www.chipmcdonald.com Eccentric blog: https://chipmcdonaldblog.blogspot.com/ / "big ass windbag" - Bruce Swedien Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chip McDonald Posted May 2, 2001 Share Posted May 2, 2001 Originally posted by guitplayer: Ummmm... would you have wanted to hear the Beatles stay in the early 60's Beatlemania era and never make Revolver or Sgt. Pepper? No, but I wouldn't want to hear them try to *force* their way into Revolver or Sgt. Pepper. They ergonomically did what they did; they didn't hire a new producer, or decide they were not going to play in a manner associated with them. This doesn't sound like you Chip... are you a victim of identity theft or something? http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/biggrin.gif No (although that has happened to me in meat space before....); I just think the bands I mentioned have more in them without the need of outside "guidance". Rush - every record sounded different - *ironically* until Power Windows, at which point things became very generic IMO. Same with DMB. Metallica - geez, I don't want to think about that.... All of those bands can fall prey to someone reflexively going "yeah yeah yeah, all their records sound the same" - yes, because those bands are fortunate enough to have an *idiomatic* sound. If those bands feel that's not enough of a reward for them to work within, then ok - quit, form a new band. It's not that I want another _Moving Pictures_, or _Hemispheres_ - I just want the logical succession to _Signals_, NOT "Rush trying to be some weird mediocre pop band". Horrible, horrible... Same with Dave Matthews: I've heard some of the stuff he was working on with Lillywhite, and it was cool... Yeah, sounded like a continuation of previous DMB recordings; but at the same time it's not like each one of those records don't have identity. I see no problem with that. Metallica - I don't really need to say anything, do I? AC/DC on the other hand: they've effectively released various differently recorded versions of _Back in Black_ over the years, more or less. On the other hand - who wants to hear THEM try to be a pop band? I suppose that's what they tried on "Who Made Who" - which IMO sucked like prunes when you were expecting strawberries maybe... My concern is for the "song that will never be heard", because they (any of the above) were too busy trying to *not* sound like themselves. Rush was doing just fine evolving with time, and then WHAMMO! You can't hear the guitar anymore, the gate reverb drowns everything out, Peart is playing "simple" beats, Geddy is trying to "emote", there's goes the classic stereotypical Rickenbacher growly bass sound... Those elements define what is "Rush"; there's plenty that can be done within those limits, but it *will* still sound like "Rush" - for the same reason Rush-influenced bands sound like them. It wasn't Peart playing busy, Geddy playing busy with a Rick sound, Lifeson playing a hollowbody through Marshalls that *limited* them - that's their identity. It's really stupid to pretend that's not them. I don't want to hear Neil Peart playing straight like Stan Lynch; Lynch does it better. I don't want to hear Lifeson playing Soundgarden inspired riffs; Thayil and Cornell did it better. Geddy playing a "normal" sound, holding the bottom down - that's James Jamerson, not Geddy. Geddy *singing with blues emotional inflection* - I'd much rather hear (again) Cornell do it. But I sure wouldn't want to hear a band made up of James Jamerson, Lynch, and Chris Cornell doing Rush tunes! The Beatles are really an unfair comparison.... Hmm.. Pink Floyd made some crazy leaps and bounds from record to record, but who else? The root of the topic is that there is a "vibe" to great bands. You either get it or you don't. If you do, a lot of times *because* it's a great band you're not likely to be immediatly[/b] accepting or the mood another band's sound asks of you. Hence, Lee doesn't like Rush. If I'm in the mood to hear Rush, I'm definitely not in the mood to hear Keith Richards. For me to get to the Stones I have to jump off after a detour, like say through some old blues or even motown... at which point yeah, Neil Peart seems silly in comparison. Buts it's all perspective and application. Which is why I find most of what's on the radio pointless: what is the application? The only mood I get from most music on the radio now is the sensation of "being in the now", acceptable social trendiness. *THAT* is what's being sold today, plain and simple. Not music, not something that creates a mood or sets a vibe up, but "the sensation of acceptable social trendiness". It comes and goes, fast - which sells. Society is now trained to the activity of insuring that warm feeling of "I'm not lagging behind". Which is why it's even doubly sillier that Rush is trying to be a pop band: they'll never be "socially acceptably trendy". It's pointless. That's only one direction for them to take; it's not required they switch producers and instruments to keep moving forward, although I can understand that they could be restless... I just wish they'd take a step back and rethink the whole thing, though. http://www.mp3.com/chipmcdonald Guitar Lessons in Augusta Georgia: www.chipmcdonald.com Eccentric blog: https://chipmcdonaldblog.blogspot.com/ / "big ass windbag" - Bruce Swedien Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D. Gauss Posted May 2, 2001 Share Posted May 2, 2001 <> awright, this'll get me shitstorm thrown my way but... anyone consider that perhaps some of these guys for lack of a better term "grow up" and realize that music isn't always just about "look what i can do?" i don't think anybody forced genesis, rush or yes to start making poppier songs. maybe they just don't feel like they have to prove to people that they can play difficult stuff. some great players take along time to learn to appreciate a hum-able tune. even outside of prog rock, bands evolve towards pop. take a band like soul asylum, or the replacements which both began as hardcore thrash bands and 5 or six records into their career wrote some really great tunes. i think a lot of guys starting out (especially heavy metal drummers) get caught up in the "if i play real simple, people will think i suck" school. there's a great story about a famous artist who called in heaveyweight session guy to add his "magic" to the track. the guy listened to the track and said "sorry, but's fine as it is. it don't need a thing from me." just a theory..... in truth, they probably all did sell out! -d. gauss Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michael saulnier Posted May 3, 2001 Author Share Posted May 3, 2001 Considering the amount of success Rush has had in terms of cd sales and concerts, it doesn't seem to me that they would "need" to "sell-out". At the same time I think artists have the right to decide if a certain music trend catches their attention. And if the exploration of that leads them to try out different producers, studios, sounds, and genre's... who are we to tell them they shouldn't. Often this bombs commercially, but it's their choice. Of course, we vote with our dollars, so they'll get a pretty good feel if their new ventures are commercially "good"... And if THEY like it... I bet they don't care if WE do! As for me, I'd rather Rush continue to pursue their muse, and not be content to simply remake their previous music. guitplayer I'm still "guitplayer"! Check out my music if you like... http://www.michaelsaulnier.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fantasticsound Posted May 3, 2001 Share Posted May 3, 2001 Which is why I find most of what's on the radio pointless: what is the application? The only mood I get from most music on the radio now is the sensation of "being in the now", acceptable social trendiness. *THAT* is what's being sold today, plain and simple. Not music, not something that creates a mood or sets a vibe up, but "the sensation of acceptable social trendiness". It comes and goes, fast - which sells. Society is now trained to the activity of insuring that warm feeling of "I'm not lagging behind". Thank you Chip! That was very well said and I wholeheartedly agree! Pop songs don't bother me, but I don't get the payoff from a lot of new pop music. That said, there is a fine line that celebrities walk in choosing their career path. Some choose to do the same thing, different day. Some demand a new challenge, completely different from their past. We, the public, decide every which way who gets to change and who is typecast, willingly or not. How do we do this? With our dollars, of course! As they say on all the cop and law shows, you want to know why something happens, follow the money. If an artist evolves, and our money keeps flowing into their bank accounts, then it's a great success. If the money drys up, it was a mistake. But some artists don't care. They'd rather make something THEY appreciate than suck up to pop culture. Gerry House, the reigning morning DJ in Nashville is always challenging people who say a country artist is selling out by releasing vanilla, radio friendly tunes. His opinion is that there isn't a such thing as too pop in radio. Artists are out there to MAKE MONEY playing music. The radio station plays popular songs because.. they're popular. People like them and want to hear them. Duh. Does this mean anything when an artist or band I like makes music that I don't enjoy. No. But who am I to DEMAND they make music the way I think they should? I can, however, voice my OPINION that I don't like the new direction. Same if I feel they are playing it safe to the point of redundancy. I'll let someone else talk about REM, or U2, or a hundred other famous acts that some feel have sold out, and others still enjoy. MHO Neil It's easiest to find me on Facebook. Neil Bergman Soundclick fntstcsnd Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skip_dup1 Posted May 3, 2001 Share Posted May 3, 2001 I usually don`t quote other people, but... "If it sounds good, it is good-" Duke Ellington Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chip McDonald Posted May 3, 2001 Share Posted May 3, 2001 Originally posted by d gauss: awright, this'll get me shitstorm thrown my way but... anyone consider that perhaps some of these guys for lack of a better term "grow up" and realize that music isn't always just about "look what i can do?" That makes me want to say something non-p.c..... "No". Hmmm. It's like this: Somewhere around the mid 70's some smart but un-musical person figured out that if they postured arrograntly enough, they could put the argument over that musicianship = bad taste. This meme exploded into the alternative culture of the mid 80's. "Look what I can do" is a false aspersion. When the guys in Rush play a song that the guys in say Generic Pop Band #76874 can't play, that doesn't mean they're showing off. Conversely - when the guys in generic Pop Band #76784 play a solo bit they can barely get out *that* is an idiotic example of bad taste and showing off! Bozo musicians like to deride groups like Rush on their chops, nto realizing that to *some* people something that seems difficult to one group of musicians is just "idling along" to others. Meanwhile those very same critical musicians get up in front of people and play on the edge of their ability - with very little awareness of what they're doing - and claim that is some how simultaneously superior AND in better taste. Total bullshit. Music is music is music. It pisses me off that people try to paint musical taste into two corners - either "mature" or "immature". Listen to any of Dave Matthew's hits (save the recent one.. ack); there's going to be "difficult parts" in them, but that doesn't mean it's not a pop song. Hats off to the guys in Incubus, for putting a lot of oddball "difficult" parts into songs that are undeniably "pop songs". The Police - "Every Breath You Take" isn't exactly a pushover chord-wise. "Jesus Christ Pose" by Soundgarden is a pop song; the drumming in that tune is as difficult and more sophisticated than most old Rush tunes; "Black Hole Sun" has a ton of chord changes, and odd time parts: definitely a "pop" song. Rush doesn't have to "grow up" to be pop. "Pop music" to them apparently means a certain old-school style of singing, certain drum beats - many things that are "pop" in theory but has nothing to do with *being* pop. Any style of music can be "pop"; it's an attitude in approach, not "simplicity" itself, although dullards would like everyone to think that. Many pop songs *appear* simple, but are not. don't think anybody forced genesis, rush or yes to start making Genesis, Yes.... again, who wants to listen to them play pop music instead of the Beatles, or U2? Genesis road on timing of the moment, and the sound of Phil Collen's voice; again, Geddy Lee is *not* going to be a voice heard from millions of radios serenading people on the way home from work. poppier songs. maybe they just don't feel like they have to prove to people that they can play difficult stuff. Just because a part is more difficult to play than a simple 2/4 rock beat doesn't mean someone is trying to prove anything. People might actually like how it sounds for the sake of how it sounds, you know. some great players take along time to learn to appreciate a hum-able tune. "A hummable tune": I can hum most any Rush tune and a fan would recognize it. On the other hand, I know A LOT of poop ( Freudian slip there.... ).... POP songs that have *nothing* of a melody, it's merely a showcase for some sort of gimmicky sound. Let me hear you hum a verse to "The Real Slim Shady" and see if anyone can figure out what you're doing. I'll hum two notes from "YYZ".... What was that old game show, where the guy played a couple of notes from a pop song and the contestant had to identify it? That seems like a great skit possibility for Saturday Night Live. "Name That Tune 21st Century"... (monotone single note) "dadadadadadadadada... dadada.. dadada.. dadadadadadadad dadadad " (Limp Bisquit's ever hummable "I Did it All for the Nookie")... even outside of prog rock, bands evolve towards pop. take a band like soul asylum, or the replacements which both began as hardcore thrash bands I don't remember when either band was playing hardcore or thrash, but..... and 5 or six records into their career wrote some really great tunes. Actually, they merely got more competant as musicians. They made a step up in skill. caught up in the "if i play real simple, people will think i suck" True, but that doesn't conversely mean someone playing something "complicated" is doing so to prove anything. heaveyweight session guy to add his "magic" to the track. the guy listened to the track and said "sorry, but's fine as it is. it don't need a thing from me." Hmmm. These days drummers are ghosted so much I doubt that would happen. Hmm. The guy in Blink 182 is good. What's his face in Live was good. Daney Carey in Tool is great; but they're really the Rush of the 21st century - but they still have "pop songs" on the radio... of course Carter Beauford, busy playing and all. Tres Cool, primate parts and all, is solid. Hmmm.. the whole band in No Doubt seem competant... 311's guy is good, but they're really not on the radio anymore.... The rest - I wouldn't be surprised if most of the rest didn't have someone else play their stuff in the studio, or exist outside of ProTools.... Mozart was "pop music" at one time. "Pop music" is relative. Bo Didley proboably thought Buddy Holldy was fancier than he had to be. Buddy Holly would probably have attributed the same negatives to the Beatles you attribute to Rush: too many notes and chords, too fancy structures, tricky "show off" parts. Doesn't mean a thing: music is music is music. I don't particularly care for it, but "Tom Sawyer" is probably going to be heard on the radio many more years from now than probably most everything that's been in the top 10 so far this year. Fancy-smancy Neil Peart fill and all.... http://www.mp3.com/chipmcdonald Guitar Lessons in Augusta Georgia: www.chipmcdonald.com Eccentric blog: https://chipmcdonaldblog.blogspot.com/ / "big ass windbag" - Bruce Swedien Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D. Gauss Posted May 3, 2001 Share Posted May 3, 2001 chip, boy oh boy are you coming down hard on me! (i asked for a shitstorm and got it i suppose http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/smile.gif ) i've got nothing against prog rock in general ('cept maybe greg lake's and early geddy lee's voices and there only being guys at the concerts) but the "growing" up/selling out thing was just a theory. hell, besides owning records, i've seen live-- yes, crack the sky, tull, elp, starcastle, todd's utopia (my first concert!), and more all at the height of their half hour song excesses. as for pop, of course anything that sells is "pop." but i think it was understood to mean shorter, simpler song form, not playing. btw, i never mentioned here that i dislike rush. i think alex is great. i just prefer john bonham (or even the overplaying of carter beauford) to neil peart. you've got to admit (hell even the guys in some of these bands admit) that a lot of that 70's prog stuff was sooooo self indulgent and doesn't hold up well over time. sign of the drug induced nixon era times i suppose... peace, -d. gauss Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lee Flier Posted May 3, 2001 Share Posted May 3, 2001 "Look what I can do" is a false aspersion. When the guys in Rush play a song that the guys in say Generic Pop Band #76874 can't play, that doesn't mean they're showing off. No. But well, Richard Thompson could play any Rush song if he wanted to. And he would probably STILL contend that they're showing off. http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/biggrin.gif Total bullshit. Music is music is music. It pisses me off that people try to paint musical taste into two corners - either "mature" or "immature". I've never tried to put music into those two categories but I do find it interesting how many people say "Well I thought Rush were great when I was 15, but now I think they sound stupid/pompous/self-indulgent." Let me put it this way: say you're a 15 year old boy and you're a great athlete and exceptionally strong and you can kick anybody's ass in football or beat up anybody in school in a fight. When you're 15 and your hormones are raging and your body has only recently come by that strength and ability, you're "immature" and you may abuse that power. In other words, you might be a bully. HOPEFULLY you go through your "bully" phase and you realize that it's not constructive and you go on to become a disciplined athlete and are gentle to your fellow man. You don't need to show your strength all the time. Everybody knows you've got it. That is considered "maturity". Of course, for some people that never happens and they go on to commit violent crimes or abuse women and end up in the NFL. http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/biggrin.gif I think maybe what d gauss was trying to say is that Rush were the musical equivalent of a neighborhood bully: they've got the chops and they whack you over the head with them and don't let you forget it for a minute. That is always the feeling I got from hearing them - that they WERE "showing off". Peart's lyrics too always sounded laughable, like the pompous bore who's bragging about how much classic literature he's read. I certainly don't get this feeling from every musician I know who has great chops. I am always the first to admire and appreciate any musician with great ability. But "great ability" includes having the discipline not to bludgeon me over the head with it. http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/biggrin.gif Your mileage may vary of course; I listen to music on a very visceral level and that is the way Rush's music makes me feel when I listen to it. --Lee This message has been edited by Lee Flier on 05-03-2001 at 10:48 AM Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D. Gauss Posted May 3, 2001 Share Posted May 3, 2001 thanks lee. -d. gauss Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chip McDonald Posted May 6, 2001 Share Posted May 6, 2001 Originally posted by d gauss: boy oh boy are you coming down hard on me! I like Rush, particularly all of the "bad" things attributed to them: fast drum fills, syncopated parts, silly pretentious lyrics. Your remark about them "growing up" by default places me in a negative category for liking the aspect you find "immature". It appears reflexive, as if someone would say "oh yeah, Keith Richard's is just a drunk", or "Zeppelin were a bunch of kooky hippies". By association, a fan is now in a negative light for liking the music of these people. lee's voices and there only being guys at the concerts) but There's probably just girls at a Boy's 2 Men concert, but you won't find me going to one or listening to their music.... sells is "pop." but i think it was understood to mean shorter, simpler song form, not playing. But it doesn't *have* to be short and simple is my point; that's just a stereotype. bands admit) that a lot of that 70's prog stuff was sooooo self indulgent and doesn't hold up well over time. "Self indulgent" is relative in an activity based upon self expression. Bach was pretty self indulgent being on the church's payroll and going around town being every part the baroque equivalent to David Lee Roth. Rock and roll is one of the most self indulgent things one can choose to do; it doesn't matter if it's a drummer who can play "short and simple" decides to do an 1/8th note fill, or Peart with 32nds. They're both making a choice to satisfy their own self-centric notion of what should be done, the manner in which they choose to do so is a matter of perspective. http://www.mp3.com/chipmcdonald Guitar Lessons in Augusta Georgia: www.chipmcdonald.com Eccentric blog: https://chipmcdonaldblog.blogspot.com/ / "big ass windbag" - Bruce Swedien Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chip McDonald Posted May 6, 2001 Share Posted May 6, 2001 Originally posted by Lee Flier: No. But well, Richard Thompson could play any Rush song if he wanted to. And he would probably STILL contend that they're showing off. http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/biggrin.gif I don't base my listening on Richard Thompson's presumptions. I could contend Richard Thompson is showing off by merely bothering to do a solo at all; he doesn't *have* to, after all. I've never tried to put music into those two categories but I do find it interesting how many people say "Well I thought Rush were great when I was 15, but now I think they sound stupid/pompous/self-indulgent." I agree, people say that. I understand why; they wrote a bunch of silly lyrics, played a lot of notes. That's what they were good at. I suppose the people who say that are embarrassed to have bought into it lock stock and barrel; I don't care. I liked it when I was a kid and I still like it for the same reasons. Actually, I also suppose that's why I find it curious people are so gung ho to be public about how much they liked Kiss... Any rock music in general can always be seen as "stupid/pompous/self indulgent". Hmm. In fact, if one of those things are not going on, it's probably not rock music.... Let me put it this way: say you're a 15 year old boy and you're a great athlete and exceptionally strong and you can kick anybody's ass in I assume this is Rush you're alluding to.....? hormones are raging and your body has only recently come by that strength and ability, you're "immature" and you may abuse that power. In Yes. Placing these characteristics on a band requires your initial assumption not to be built upon subjective perspective. You can allude that Rush had musical traits equivalent to a 15 year old athletic bully; but for you to build upon that allusion and say therefore all attributes of the bully are applicable to the band doesn't work I think. disciplined athlete and are gentle to your fellow man. You don't need to show your strength all the time. Everybody knows you've got it. That is considered "maturity". Lee, this doesn't explain the nature of musical "maturity". I don't see it as "maturity", I see it as an identity problem. *They* may think they're being "more mature"; I don't care. My point is that the notion of "musical maturity" is flawed. You see it as a matter of degree based upon I presume note density or speed; I just see another creative choice. I think maybe what d gauss was trying to say is that Rush were the musical equivalent of a neighborhood bully: they've got the chops and they whack you over the head with them and don't let you forget it for a I think Rush are really like an Australian's nightmare and reminiscent of the musical equivalent of Don Pardo; they take the felt tip pen and make decoupage klein flasks out of them. Equivalent to a neighborhood bully? That's a perspective, it doesn't mean it's a provable quality and therefore further equatable to adolescence. The core assumption here is that Rush's core motivation was to show off; I say their mode of expression consisted of the act of playing technically demanding things. That can be perceived as "showing off"; whether it was or wasn't doesn't matter. That presumes that the only purpose in listening to it is to perceive "showing off", which isn't the case. minute. That is always the feeling I got from hearing them - that they WERE "showing off". I started listening to Rush before I was a "musician". My perception of their music was that the structure was non-standard, which made it *interesting* to me from the perspective that it contrasts with the expected. That's neither better nor worse, mature or immature; "showing off" structure wise did not occur to me, outside of the notion of "that was an interesting choice". Listening to Peart's playing was interesting, because while I didn't technically know what he was doing, I could hear that the rhythms were non-standard and non-traditional. Fast drum fills translated as merely a more complex little corner in a song, nothing more. "Showing off" was never the vibe I got except in his drum solo - which is the point. Hmm. Actually, what I liked about them is that from a non-muso critical listening experience, a lot of their old songs provided the perception of going from vignette to vignette: here, the vocal draws your attention; here, the drum fill; here, the little guitar part; here, the odd time change; here the bass fill; here, the overall groove; etc. Their early music did this seemlessly in what I think is a clever fashion. Their new music utilizes pop stereotypes - structures, drum beats, vocal styling, ornamented with phraseology from their past. That accomplishes nothing IMO. Likewise, I don't see that as "maturing", but a alteration of identity. Their musical corpus collosum has been split and there's two non-integrated personas battling for your attention IMO. Peart's lyrics too always sounded laughable, like the pompous bore who's bragging about how much classic literature he's read. ... and the Stones are just bragging about heroin and drunken sexual trysts gone awry.... That's one way of characterizing it. I could say Jagger is pureile and primitive, like the common cad who think's he's the shit. Look at what he wrote when they started out - they wanted to be considered "bluesmen", a bunch of white guys from England. So what? Taken out of context they're both silly, it's rock and roll. not to bludgeon me over the head with it. http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/biggrin.gif Your mileage may vary of course; I listen to music on a very visceral level and that is the way Rush's music makes me feel when I listen to it. The Stones bludgeon me with their incessant desire to portray the dismal wretched side of life, from their priviledged perspective of stately manors and Rolls Royces. Viscerally that's just as silly as Rush to me; they're not John Lee Hooker or Robert Johnson. Or Jaco Pastorius or Charlie Parker, both of whom played many more notes than Rush, and led a more "blue" life than the Stones. It's music, either you like what they do or you don't. http://www.mp3.com/chipmcdonald Guitar Lessons in Augusta Georgia: www.chipmcdonald.com Eccentric blog: https://chipmcdonaldblog.blogspot.com/ / "big ass windbag" - Bruce Swedien Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.