Jump to content

Rush - LA Times bashes them


VinylFan

Recommended Posts

  • Members

I swear we already had this discussion. I remember defending Rush and having people tell me I was wrong. LOL


My first concert was Rush, and have never seen them since, but want to badly. I saw them in 1985 at the Spectrum, GuP tour, first night of a two-night show. Their performance was amazing, the light show and lasers were amazing, and their tone was incredible, especially considering that most other bands (I saw a LOT of concerts there between 86 and 89) sounded like ass in that place- it had a horrible PA system and was too noisy.


So anyways, I never cared for the RRHOF, as some of the bands they've indicted over the years are just terrible bands that offered nothing new, and innovative bands are pushed aside. Their 'voting' system is horribly inadequate.. the whole system of nomination and selecting only one winner makes it so that they could have 5 bands worthy, but only one gets through, and two years later nominate 5 bands that suck, yet the bands from two years ago don't even get a shot. The best of the best shouldn't have to wait in line to compete with crap bands, and sometimes lose because of some morons bad taste, which is exactly what happens.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

Quote Originally Posted by jrockbridge

View Post

Basically, Randall Roberts says that he doesn't like RUSH because it doesn't have enough 'blues influence' and they don't deserve to be inducted into the R 'n' R HOF because he doesn't like them. Well, I don't like apples because they are not enough like oranges and therefore apples should not be considered fruit. Same type of logic. Who cares what the guy thinks or even what the R 'n' R HOF thinks? RUSH is unique and that's what makes them special to me. I don't need validation for liking RUSH. Hatters gonna hate.

 

Is RUSH supposed to always be capitalized? Is there something I don't know about the band?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

Quote Originally Posted by guido61

View Post

Is RUSH supposed to always be capitalized? Is there something I don't know about the band?

 

I believe RUSH is always written in upper case letters on their albums, t-shirts and posters. But, I certainly don't give anybody a hard time if they write the name as Rush, rush or ever rUSH.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

Quote Originally Posted by jrockbridge

View Post

^ I feel bad for the typesetter who messed up that album cover. poke.gif


I just looked over the album covers. The name is mostly written in caps, but not always.

 

I'm just messing with you. I, too, don't care how it's written. I just thought it odd because I've never seen anyone write it all caps before, and when that's done it's usually for a reason--like the name is an acronym or something. So I thought maybe there was something about the name I didn't know.


Like it stands for Really Underappreicated Soggy Has-beens or something....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

Quote Originally Posted by guido61

View Post

I'm just messing with you. I, too, don't care how it's written. I just thought it odd because I've never seen anyone write it all caps before, and when that's done it's usually for a reason--like the name is an acronym or something. So I thought maybe there was something about the name I didn't know.


Like it stands for Really Underappreicated Soggy Has-beens or something....

 

I think this way (rUSh) is my favorite...


single-bravado-cover-s.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
Quote Originally Posted by richardmac View Post
Two things that are totally irrelevant - rock critics and the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame. I've never had any use for music critics. Music appeals to different people in different ways, and rock critics are wanna be musicians who sit on the sidelines and pretend they have important knowledge and opinions. I've got more respect for the 16 year old kid who writes his first awful song and puts it on youtube.

The Rock and Roll Hall of Fame is even dumber. Self important people who think their opinions matter more than everyone else's, deciding to determine who was "most important" in rock history. It's a truckload of {censored}, because a crock isn't big enough.

When I was younger, Rolling Stone published a book of album reviews (they may still do this, I could care less.) And it was fun to look at the reviews for the Doors records. Before the big "No One Here Gets Out Alive" Doors revival happened, RS bagged on the Doors records and rated them awful. Once they were the hip cool thing after the book came out, RS gave the records stellar reviews.

AS for Rush, people loved or hated them and still do. I was a Rush fan up through Moving Pictures and then they lost me. Now the band is touring a new album and playing 3 hour shows. And the decent seats are $90. Geddy Lee has half the vocal range he used to have and it's downright painful to hear him try to sing the old songs. But I respect those guys because aside from being monster musicians, they're still out there doing their thing.
^^
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

Quote Originally Posted by richardmac

View Post

I've never had any use for music critics. Music appeals to different people in different ways, and rock critics are wanna be musicians who sit on the sidelines and pretend they have important knowledge and opinions.

 

I think the thing to remember is the audience of rock critics isn't musicians. I hear this complaint about music critics from musicians a lot, but even as musicians we don't necessarily expect movie critics to be actors or directors, or restuarant critics to be chefs or restauranteers, or wine critics to be vintners.


In fact, most of us revert back to general public status and usually PREFER critics in these other fields to be "just regular guys" so that we can get opinions we hope will agree with our own rather than some snobby opinion by someone droning on about technical proficiencies we don't understand nor really care to. We just want to know if we're gonna like the food or not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

Quote Originally Posted by 3shiftgtr

View Post

FIFY.


And still Richard gets it. Richard always does.

 

Of course this ^




By the same token, stikkum in there. They do pass for famous.


 

Quote Originally Posted by PhilGould

View Post

They may pre-date Rush, but the fact is that they're not the multi-gold and platinum selling, stadium selling-out, chart-topping bands here and now. Rush were and still are because they have more or less consistently produced good music right from the 70s until now. Better still, they've produced good PROG music, creating a hardcore fanbase in the process. Meanwhile the likes of many other prog bands largely faded away or were at least diminished over time.

 

Platinum is indeed a badge of fame; also proof they are average. I think they've cranked out a body of sophomoric treatises for browbeaten rockers. Or intel for RCM

or both lol.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I think what made life great in the yesteryears was that the critics were ultimately gods, in the sense that they were the DJ's who had their fingers on the pulse of the listeners (and took calls/listened to them!). That was the ultimate filter that brought us (arguably) really great music in the past. In fact, even Rush owes their initial success to a DJ in Cleveland who played the crap out of their first album when the rest of the music world wouldn't touch them.


I know it's a pipe-dream, but when they allow DJ's back into radio and let them spin what they want, edit out the bad ones.. well then we will have really great music pouring out all over the place.


I don't know why, but I do find that much of today's music is far and above most everything in the last 15-16 years, 2012 has been a GOOD year for 'modern rock', even great, I'd say.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

The Los Angeles Times rock critics, Rolling Stone Magazine, and other so-called critics have to eat crow.



December 11, 2012

Rush, Randy Newman, Donna Summer among 2013 Rock Hall inductees


Rush was the top vote getter in a new move this year in which hall officials allowed the public to weigh in on who ought to be inducted.



But the Los Angeles Times guy who has been bashing Rush for years, bashes them and their fans again! That guy consistently gets his facts wrong; previously he called The Meters a NY band, he incorrectly says Summer's song is "Hot Girls", he just goes on and on like that. He clearly does not know what he is talking about much of the time. It's amazing how this guy could get a job as a rock critic, his job title ought to be "forever marked with an asterisk" because he is so out of touch. The comments on the LA Times website pick apart his inaccuracies.


December 12, 2012

Critic's Notebook: Validity and the Rock Hall

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...