Do any of you fine fellows like Rush?

[deanmass]

OK...I am chiming in...

The Stone are 180 degrees away from Rush. I used to hate the Stones, but I have some to appreciate them over the years, but not so much that I put them in the same league as Rush.

I have seen Rush 7 times live, and enjoyed every one of the shows. These 3 guys work their asses off, and were doing things live that most other rock band could not even dream up let alone pull off. They were at the forefront of pushing their individual instruments to the front of every major music mag, and they each inspired many musicians to stretch into musical territory beyond what most young rock musicians start off learning. They have also done this while remaining drug free, and stable. I still love them, and they are as impressive today as they were when I first heard them at about 12 years old. The last bunch of CD's are spotty, but the new one is very, very good, and I think Geddys' solo CD was very underrated.

So, I am getting pissed off and tired of people bagging on Rush. Yes, Geddy's voice is love it or hate it, but I cannot stand to even look the Stones. Charlie Watts the king of 4/4? meh...Keith 5 string? Needs the 6th to tie off and shoot up...Meh...the guy can barely talk he has done so many drugs..Mick? Meh. Please jog away from the mic. Bill Wyman? Boring (so boring that he has been replaced a few times after marrying a young girl) The Stones are about posturing and style. Rush is a musicians band. Most rock musicians are male , which is why the audience is made up off males. Generally, musicians turn out to see Rush play. Listeners and gawkers (watch Mick rooster Dance) see the Stones. I have never understood the musical cred the Stones got, especially when compared to their contemporaries like the Beatles and Led Zep. Both of these band can blow the Stones off the stage musically, as can Rush. Does Rush over play? Maybe, but at least they TRIED to do things that were musically interesting and different, and stretched as musicians. Rush's lyrics can be heady as well. They do not have an 'Angie' (great song, 30 years old though), but they do have Red Barchetta ( my all time fave driving song), Freewill (lyrically brilliant), YYZ ( still gives many people fits trying to play it) and DOZENS of other iconic rock songs, most are musically diverse. And the comment about Ayn Rand references? Have you ever tried to READ Ayn Rand (yes I have and did)? It gives me a headache. Someone reading it, digesting it and applying it lyrically in a song is worthy off at least points for effort. Neil writes lyrics based on what he is reading on he road. They do not write about getting laid, drunk or stoned. They write about bigger things. Life. Death. Dreaming. Fame. Loneliness. Being homesick. Losing friends.

Rush are nominated for a grammy this year. I hope hey win it. They sure as hell deserve after all the work they have put in, their contribution to music in general, and the bashing they have taken over the years.

[richardmac]

"Presto" was the first Rush album I had a hard time getting into. It started going downhill from there. When I picked up "Test For Echo", I listened to it once, and then again just to make sure I couldn't stand it, and I've had no desire to touch it again. Sadly, I haven't been able to bring myself to purchase another Rush album since. Prior to "Presto", I was a huge fan. Their approach was always off center, their arrangements were interesting, and their lyrics always gave me something to ponder.

 

 

It was almost scary reading that post, because I felt the exact same way. They lost me after Moving Pictures.

[Lee Flier]

LOL dean you're cracking me up. I've noticed that most Rush fans take it personally if somebody doesn't like Rush - they have to respond by bagging on the other person's favorite band. It's OK with me if you don't like the Stones - you're wrong that they only write about getting drunk, stoned or laid - they've written lots of songs about all the subjects you mention Rush writing about and more, only I think they do it better. But that's OK if you don't feel like digging through their catalog to find that out.

 

And yes I've read most of Ayn Rand's books. Warts and all, I actually liked most of them a lot. I'd tons rather sit through reading an Ayn Rand book than listen to Rush's poor paraphrasings of them. That was my point - I understand what Rush are trying to do lyrically but I just don't think they do it very well. Maybe they just seem too arrogant and self important about it, to me anyway. There are other artists who are "cerebral" - the Police, for instance - that I think do a much better job of it.

 

But in general, I don't think "cerebral" works too well in rock anyway... to me it's kind of the whole point, that it isn't too brainy. Just because one has a brain doesn't mean it's appropriate to use all the time. If I want to use my frontal lobes I read a book or program a computer. Or go to a symphony or a jazz concert. When I hear drums and loud guitars, I don't want to think too much.

 

But that's just me, and I don't think my word is gospel or anything. If you like Rush, carry on. Like alphajerk I just had way too many people torture me with them in school, and I just never want to hear them again.

[Brian E. Balls]

OK...I am chiming in... The Stone are 180 degrees away from Rush. I used to hate the Stones, but I have some to appreciate them over the years, but not so much that I put them in the same league as Rush. I have seen Rush 7 times live, and enjoyed every one of the shows. These 3 guys work their asses off, and were doing things live that most other rock band could not even dream up let alone pull off. They were at the forefront of pushing their individual instruments to the front of every major music mag, and they each inspired many musicians to stretch into musical territory beyond what most young rock musicians start off learning. They have also done this while remaining drug free, and stable. I still love them, and they are as impressive today as they were when I first heard them at about 12 years old. The last bunch of CD's are spotty, but the new one is very, very good, and I think Geddys' solo CD was very underrated. So, I am getting pissed off and tired of people bagging on Rush. Yes, Geddy's voice is love it or hate it, but I cannot stand to even look the Stones. Charlie Watts the king of 4/4? meh...Keith 5 string? Needs the 6th to tie off and shoot up...Meh...the guy can barely talk he has done so many drugs..Mick? Meh. Please jog away from the mic. Bill Wyman? Boring (so boring that he has been replaced a few times after marrying a young girl) The Stones are about posturing and style. Rush is a musicians band. Most rock musicians are male , which is why the audience is made up off males. Generally, musicians turn out to see Rush play. Listeners and gawkers (watch Mick rooster Dance) see the Stones. I have never understood the musical cred the Stones got, especially when compared to their contemporaries like the Beatles and Led Zep. Both of these band can blow the Stones off the stage musically, as can Rush. Does Rush over play? Maybe, but at least they TRIED to do things that were musically interesting and different, and stretched as musicians. Rush's lyrics can be heady as well. They do not have an 'Angie' (great song, 30 years old though), but they do have Red Barchetta ( my all time fave driving song), Freewill (lyrically brilliant), YYZ ( still gives many people fits trying to play it) and DOZENS of other iconic rock songs, most are musically diverse. And the comment about Ayn Rand references? Have you ever tried to READ Ayn Rand (yes I have and did)? It gives me a headache. Someone reading it, digesting it and applying it lyrically in a song is worthy off at least points for effort. Neil writes lyrics based on what he is reading on he road. They do not write about getting laid, drunk or stoned. They write about bigger things. Life. Death. Dreaming. Fame. Loneliness. Being homesick. Losing friends. Rush are nominated for a grammy this year. I hope hey win it. They sure as hell deserve after all the work they have put in, their contribution to music in general, and the bashing they have taken over the years.

I couldn't have put it better myself (although I do like The Stones)

[deanmass]

Well, us Rush fans get protective:)

[Tedster]

I could spend an evening convincing you of the delights of Rush

I have a lot of respect for Mr. Lee, Mr. Lifeson, and Mr. Peart. I appreciate that they are a talented lot, and make a lot of widely acclaimed music.

That said, I'm not a huge Rush fan. While I appreciate they're very good at what they do, I would compare them with chefs who are very good at cooking food I don't personally care for. And, I suppose a lot of it centers around the fact that while Geddy is very good at singing like Geddy, I don't care for his voice. But then, I like Tom Petty, and a lot of people can't stand his voice, either, so I guess we're even.

So, by all means, if they float your boat, Rush on, most excellent Rush fan!

[UstadKhanAli]

As I said above, I'm actually not a huge Rush fan. I don't have any of their CDs, for instance. I like 'em, but they're not my favorite.

And - this is sorta ironic considering the thread - both times, the girls I went with actually took me to a Rush concert!

But y'know, I do think that they're rather pedantic with their messages of individualism and such, as Lee was eluding to (Ayn Rand's Anthem becoming Rush's 2112, etc.). And Peart's drumming can be military-stiff, not really groovy (although that seem to be changing as of late). So sometimes, I almost feel like I like Rush despite some of this. I enjoy 2112, but almost because it's so over the top and cheesy.

But one thing I have to admire about Rush is that they do take some of the themes of individualism and such to heart. At least they have some ambition lyrically and musically, and for that alone, they should worthy of some admiration.

[UstadKhanAli]

I actually don't think that the Stones are just about posturing and style (I say this while Mick admittedly grates on me with his peacocking). I think those are really great songs that they've written, really groovy, and that Charlie Watts sounds really freakin' awesome as a drummer. And I've always liked the guitar playing. Have they not written some of the greatest, most recognizable guitar riffs? And you can pretty much do the "needle drop" test on any Stones song and, within a couple of seconds, tell that it's the Stones.

[bp]

I can take 'em or leave 'em. More of a short dose works better. Add to that Geddy's voice sometimes comes across like a brain dart. OUCH.

[UstadKhanAli]

I can take 'em or leave 'em. More of a short dose works better. Add to that Geddy's voice sometimes comes across like a brain dart. OUCH.

His voice has actually mellowed with age, and I think become far more listenable.

That said, how many other singers would go ahead and sing both parts of a dialogue ("2112")? One shrieky, one mellow, switching back and forth. Now like or not, that's some really fun stuff!!!

[Brian E. Balls]

I actually don't think that the Stones are just about posturing and style (I say this while Mick admittedly grates on me with his peacocking). I think those are really great songs that they've written, really groovy, and that Charlie Watts sounds really freakin' awesome as a drummer. And I've always liked the guitar playing. Have they not written some of the greatest, most recognizable guitar riffs? And you can pretty much do the "needle drop" test on any Stones song and, within a couple of seconds, tell that it's the Stones.

Yep, the four-album sequence of Beggars Banquet, Let it Bleed, Sticky Fingers, and Exile on Main Street are the Stones' purple patch in my opinion, and some of the best albums ever recorded

[UstadKhanAli]

Yep, the four-album sequence of Beggars Banquet, Let it Bleed, Sticky Fingers, and Exile on Main Street are the Stones' purple patch in my opinion, and some of the best albums ever recorded

Yeah, now that's a pretty damn good run, wouldn't you say? Those are good, strong, unique songs. The Stones are obviously plenty good musicians who write good, memorable songs. And the guitar interplay, especially during this period, is gorgeous.

BTW, prog-rock fans, if you really love complicated, stop-on-the-dime, dynamic, ultra-fluid passages with a decent-sized ensemble that play tighter than tight, look outside progressive rock at Gamelan Cudamani. They will have any prog-rock band weeping and looking for the exits, and do it with more flair and panache than any of them. Words cannot possibly describe how incredibly gifted these people are, or how beautiful their music is.

[Brian E. Balls]

Yeah, now that's a pretty damn good run, wouldn't you say? Those are good, strong, unique songs. The Stones are obviously plenty good musicians who write good, memorable songs. And the guitar interplay, especially during this period, is gorgeous. BTW, prog-rock fans, if you really love complicated, stop-on-the-dime, dynamic, ultra-fluid passages with a decent-sized ensemble that play tighter than tight, look outside progressive rock at Gamelan Cudamani. They will have any prog-rock band weeping and looking for the exits, and do it with more flair and panache than any of them. Words cannot possibly describe how incredibly gifted these people are, or how beautiful their music is.

I'll check 'em out!

[UstadKhanAli]

They're especially great when you see them live. Truly a treasure to Balinese gamelan music and the rest of the world (they're also a non-profit collective that teaches gamelan music to hundreds of people, including boys and girls, per year, keeping the tradition alive for future generatiosn). I rarely get this enthusiastic about a music act, but to see them live is a seriously special treat. Unfortunately, i can't seem to find their latest release online anywhere. I purchased it at their show at UCLA's Royce Hall.

[KHAN]

Best band ever!!!!

[cooterbrown]

I like Rush, too...and I also get real annoyed when people use the tired old "intricate, dime-turning time signature change and dog-calling falsetto shrieking of high schoolish Ayn Randisms" jabs.

 

The last time one could honestly hang that line on them, was in 1978.

 

I've never thought of them, even at their most prententious/ambitious, to be anything more than a "hard rock band with higher aspirations."

 

While I agree that most of Peart's lyrics are totally overrated, and often embarrassingly middlebrow-level, phlisophically (with the exception of Vapor Trails, where Peart actually laid himself open, on several songs), that is not what interests me about their music.

I'm more interested in if it rocks, or not, and the mojority of their catalog does, and although they just about left that genre in the late 80's, they got back to it with Counterparts, and on into their current stuff.

 

I have been to at least one show on every tour since 1980, and mulitple shows over the last few tours. I can honestly say the crowd at each show is, at bare minimum, 30% female... and probably more than that in Atlanta. Sat right next to a Georgia Tech hottie, as a matter of fact, on the R30 tour, and we did the Bump to "Roll the Bones".

 

LOTS of younger people, were at these shows, too.

In fact...the shows I saw in Atlanta were basically the same mix of age and gender as the last Stones concert I went to, a few years ago.

 

While I can easily see the image, music, and relevance of Rush, in their Renaissance Fair-attired heyday, as being ridiculous to many people, IMO, it is far less ridiculous than the image, music, and relevance of the current Rolling Stones.

[Super 8]

It was almost scary reading that post, because I felt the exact same way. They lost me after Moving Pictures.

Oh, so you're one of the old Rush fans.

"Signals" and "Grace Under Pressure" got too synthy for the first gen fans, but I thought they were fantastic albums. And I love the Moog and Oberheim synths. "Grace" is an especially moody album. The music and the cover art are so perfectly married. It's probably their most consistent album, and certainly a favorite of mine. I think you should give these albums a second chance.

"Power Windows" and "Hold Your Fire" are both fine albums, but I don't think they've aged as well as their other work has.

"Presto" and "Roll the Bones", in my opinion had bright spots, but I definitely feel that their songs were becoming far more repetitive and less interesting to listen to.

"Counterparts" was an improvement, but I'd still say maybe half the songs didn't really meet the standard I'd set for Rush.

As was my custom, I bought "Test For Echo" sound unheard, and was blown away by how bad it was. "Driven" was good, and maybe one other song. The rest was awful.

I heard that "Vapor Trails" was very good, but that it suffered from the compactor/loudifier treatment in the mastering, which means I'm probably going to find it unlistenable even if the material is good.

I have not heard much about "Snakes and Arrows". My bass player friend, and fellow Rush fan is encouraging me to pick it up and try it. I remain cautious however.

[Brian E. Balls]

Oh, so you're one of the old Rush fans. "Signals" and "Grace Under Pressure" got too synthy for the first gen fans, but I thought they were fantastic albums. And I love the Moog and Oberheim synths. "Grace" is an especially moody album. The music and the cover art are so perfectly married. It's probably their most consistent album, and certainly a favorite of mine. I think you should give these albums a second chance. "Power Windows" and "Hold Your Fire" are both fine albums, but I don't think they've aged as well as their other work has. "Presto" and "Roll the Bones", in my opinion had bright spots, but I definitely feel that their songs were becoming far more repetitive and less interesting to listen to. "Counterparts" was an improvement, but I'd still say maybe half the songs didn't really meet the standard I'd set for Rush. As was my custom, I bought "Test For Echo" sound unheard, and was blown away by how bad it was. "Driven" was good, and maybe one other song. The rest was awful. I heard that "Vapor Trails" was very good, but that it suffered from the compactor/loudifier treatment in the mastering, which means I'm probably going to find it unlistenable even if the material is good. I have not heard much about "Snakes and Arrows". My bass player friend, and fellow Rush fan is encouraging me to pick it up and try it. I remain cautious however.

Earthshine from Vapor Trails is a masterpiece

Listen to Snakes and Arrows - you'll love it!!

[Super 8]

come across to me like a teenage kid trying to impress everybody with "Look, I've read lots of books!" They just bludgeon people over the head with badly paraphrased Ayn Rand quotes and crap like that and it's deadly preachy and tiresome.

 

 

Not nearly as preachy or tiresome as these diatribes you seem compelled to make every time a Rush thread comes up.

We get it, you don't like Rush. Why do we need to have this visceral reaction every from you every time Rush, E-drums, or Phil Collins gets mentioned?

 

They always seem to go in this order:

1. I hate it.

2. These are the reason's why it sucks so bad.

3. Oh, but it's okay if you like it, just don't push your crap off on me.

 

Which begs the question, why did you bother posting in the first place? I mean, I understand expressing an opinion on a subject, but there is such consistency to this, you could almost cut & paste it.

Sorry, It makes no sense to me.

 

 

Passion would be about the last thing on my mind at a Rush concert... well of course, the first thing on my mind would be "Get me the hell out of here!"

 

 

Bulllllllll{censored}.... You'd be arguing with all of the fans about why their music sucks. And they'd be asking you the same thing, "Why are you even here?"

 

As a side note, I'm not aware of the Ayn Rand rip-off's you refer to. I've never been into the Objectivism thing. I'm guessing it's on their early albums.

I don't know how someone could listen to a song like "Afterimage" or "Nobody's Hero" and see no passion in the writing.

 

Good or bad, I always appreciated Rush's willingness to explore. I guess that's why their more recent albums have held less interest for me. It seems like they found their groove and don't really want to take it anywhere.

[Jeff da Weasel]

Oh my freakin GOD, you people are arguing over who likes Rush and who doesn't? Who gives a {censored}? It's insane.

 

Let's next argue about whether Rush is better or worse than Earth, Wind and Fire.

 

Now let's argue about whether football is better than soccer.

 

Now let's argue about whether sorbet is better than traditional ice cream.

 

Morons argue over items of subjectivity. If you're arguing, you're a moron. Debate that for awhile.

[Magpel]

I was certainly positioned and predisposed to like Rush. When I first heard of them, Kansas was probably my favorite band (or Little Feat). I liked prog, and I liked grand theatrical hard rock in the tradition of early Deep Purple.

But somehow Rush never did it for me. It didn't get me as prog or as hard rock--not quite involved or intricate enough for the one (Gentle Giant became my idea of prog) and too stiff and strident for the other--for hard rock, I prefer sleazier stuff like old VH.

These are highly subjective impressions, if course. I certainly give them their due. They were good for a long time, they've been a huge influence on many bands I have liked--early Primus, for example. The drummer bums me out, I'm afraid.

[Brian E. Balls]

Oh my freakin GOD, you people are arguing over who likes Rush and who doesn't? Who gives a {censored}? It's insane. Let's next argue about whether Rush is better or worse than Earth, Wind and Fire. Now let's argue about whether football is better than soccer. Now let's argue about whether sorbet is better than traditional ice cream. Morons argue over items of subjectivity. If you're arguing, you're a moron. Debate that for awhile.

:D:thu:

[Jeff da Weasel]

[Ani]

When I was younger, I was never into Rush. I could never make it past the voice of Geddy long enough to listen to the lyrics. His voice has the same effect on me as what Dolly Parton and Willie Nelson do; it makes my skin crawl.

Mostly, whenever I would hear a tune of theirs come on the radio, I would change the dial before the first measure was through. It wasn't until I was presented a situation that forced me to listen to their music that I gained an appreciation for their music. They played a LOT of Rush tunes at the gym where I used to weight train; absolutely AWESOME music to get the adrenalin flowing while doing fast reps to tone. Still, I toned out Geddy's voice and neglected to listen to the lyrics; pardon the pun.

With this discussion, I "googled" Rush lyrics and, of all those listed, I only recognized 2 songs that I am familiar with; Tom Sawyer and Freewill. After reading through the written lyrics, I do recall hearing Freewill one time where one of the lines caught my attention enough to make a mental note to listen to the lyrics more intently the next time I heard them.... haven't heard them since. Haven't sought to hear them either. In reading through a few of their lyrics online just now; the lyrics ARE catchy and invite a person to seek beyond the surface. It's just that ... Geddy's voice, well it's going to have to grow on me a little bit more.

[alphajerk]

i thought the thread was about heroin...