Jump to content


Rush and Rand


  • Please log in to reply
42 replies to this topic

#21 Relayer2112

Relayer2112

    Prime Mover

  • Members
  • 627 posts
  • Gender:Not Telling

Posted 13 September 2021 - 08:31 AM

The lyrics are probably some, if not all, of the reason that Neil referred to revisiting Rush's older songs as "looking at his old elementary school drawings".

Sponsored Post

#22 JARG

JARG

    Pinky Moe

  • Members *
  • 26480 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Just east of Lyra, northwest of Pegasus...
  • Interests:Cycling, guitar playing

Posted 13 September 2021 - 03:43 PM

View PostTimbale, on 12 September 2021 - 04:50 PM, said:

Some of the responses in the  "Hating Rush" topic I started made me want to ask people about this specific aspect of Rush.

How do you feel about the Ayn Rand influence on some of Peart's writing?

I view the influence favorably. Like Peart, I, too, was enamored by Rand's philosophy in my formative years. I've always liked that Rush has been a "thinking person's" band, making literature cool for a segment of the population that generally eschewed intellectual pursuits in favor of the carnal and banal (though even there, the debut album had its place).

#23 Entre_Perpetuo

Entre_Perpetuo

    Queenmaster

  • Members
  • 13016 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:The Solar Federation
  • Interests:Music, architecture, and childhood hobbies.

Posted 13 September 2021 - 03:52 PM

View PostJARG, on 13 September 2021 - 03:43 PM, said:

View PostTimbale, on 12 September 2021 - 04:50 PM, said:

Some of the responses in the  "Hating Rush" topic I started made me want to ask people about this specific aspect of Rush.

How do you feel about the Ayn Rand influence on some of Peart's writing?

I view the influence favorably. Like Peart, I, too, was enamored by Rand's philosophy in my formative years. I've always liked that Rush has been a "thinking person's" band, making literature cool for a segment of the population that generally eschewed intellectual pursuits in favor of the carnal and banal (though even there, the debut album had its place).

I think even on the debut they were a bit more thoughtful than they're given credit for.  Working Man is a relatable, understanding depiction of middle class working life. There's no judgement in its voice, just affirmative self-identification.  Here Again illustrates the difficulty of the mundane, how boring and monotonous touring life can become. And then there's Take A Friend, which is just really good advice.

On the other hand, there is In The Mood. :geddy:

#24 Timbale

Timbale

    The Seeker

  • Members
  • 129 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 13 September 2021 - 04:32 PM

View Postzepphead, on 13 September 2021 - 03:49 AM, said:

View PostEntre_Perpetuo, on 12 September 2021 - 07:48 PM, said:

View PostTimbale, on 12 September 2021 - 07:32 PM, said:

View Postthizzellewashington, on 12 September 2021 - 06:36 PM, said:

View PostTimbale, on 12 September 2021 - 05:26 PM, said:

Do you think it was...I don't know if this is the right word, but in lieu of a better term... do you think it was in any way irresponsible, or perhaps naive of Peart to cherry pick from Objectivism that way?  I don't know the answer to this myself....but somehow I'm imagining some band circa 2021 taking a quote here and a quote there from Jordan Peterson or Ben Shapiro and writing some songs...and then distancing themselves from the overarching perspective or viewpoint of those polarizing people.
Very different times we're in now than the mid-70s. A band publicly citing Ayn Rand as an inspiration probably wouldn't go over well today but you can't judge stuff written 40+ years ago by the standards of today. It also totally makes sense that Neil found inspiration in something kind of childish and simplistic when he was in his early 20s and still learning about the world, and then when he got a little older he was embarrassed by it and wanted to distance himself. We all have stuff we think is brilliant when we're that young but doesn't age well once you gain more life experience. I guarantee you everything you thought was deep and profound when you were in college you don't feel that way about now.

Totally agree with you about personal growth and all that.  But it is interesting because we're not talking about some college kid blathering on at the pub after a few pints...we're talking about a statement, artistic though it may be, that they put out into the world.  I'm not knocking them for it or saying that Peart should have been made to "answer" for it 30 + years after he left that inspiration behind.

But...it is interesting that the pushback they received in the press directly about the Rand influence is often now couched in context of the press being inappropriate.  I'm thinking of course of that moment where some journalist made reference to them being fascists.  Now, I know Fascism and Objectivism are not the exact same thing...but it's always about how that was offensive given Geddy's background....and not about the viewpoint within their lyrics that the journo was responding to.

I guess the point I'm getting at, or the thing that I'm interested in delving into, is what would it be like to say to Geddy Lee "does the artistic freedom angle in songs like Anthem outweigh the distain for the 'bleeding hearts' of society?  As a message that you're putting in a song and singing night after night...is it valid to emphasize that part of Rand's thoughts while the other parts get dragged along?"

I think Geddy has mentioned before the fascist insults were incredibly insulting because of his parents' experiences in WWII.  I also think on those early albums Geddy probably didn't exercise as much of a "veto power" on Neil's lyrics since they were just happy to have someone who could write decent lyrics. I'm also betting Neil was the one to introduce the other two to Ayn Rand, so whatever Neil thought about it they probably shared his opinion at first.  Once it's on the record, it would be insulting to long time fans to change the lyrics. Like, "hey, you know that song you loved for years that may have introduced you to some interesting literature? We're changing a few words because we don't agree with them anymore." That wouldn't go over well. Just look at the reaction to Paramore turning their backs on one of their signature songs for some much more egregiously insulting lyrics: controversy. Rush didn't want controversy, they just wanted to play music for their fans and for themselves. A song is sort of like a time capsule too, and it would be like trying to erase history to change the words. I think they also went on the assumption that its unlikely anyone but fans are going to listen to that song anyway, and Rush fans tend to know enough about the band to know all about the Rand thing and to forgive an odd line or two 40 years down the road.
I remember back in the day the NME (New Musical Express) accused Rush of being Nazis. But by then the NME were so left wing in their views and hated any old style rock bands.
I laugh now because they were so convinced that punk had destroyed the so called mucical dinosaurs forever ...... wrong!
Frankly for me it's Rand shmand .... I don't give a toss. I liked their music then and bought it, and I still like their music today and would still buy it....... with all music & lyrics intact.
We are all far too sensitive these days ...... if you don't like it, then just don't listen to it.

With sincere respect -

I didn't broach the topic because I'm too sensitive and can't handle the messages in the more Objectivist era of the band...I just thought it would make an interesting topic because I imagined that I'm not the only one who finds "live for yourself, there's no one else more worth living for" a fairly unworthy message to get behind.  (As I also stated, I'm sure there are some people who connect to it or maybe even agree...)

For me, it's not as simple as "if you don't like it, then just don't listen to it".  They are songs that entered my life at a time before I had perhaps formed my own worldview...and now, as an adult, I have a band that is among my favourites that has a small handful of songs that have a socio-political viewpoint that I really disagree with.  It doesn't keep me up at night, and it doesn't make me skip Something For Nothing when it comes on.  I just find it interesting is all.

If it was new music - from them or some other band - with that Objectivist bend to it, I likely wouldn't give it the time of day.  As an example, Eric Clapton's new "song".  If I actually liked the music (which I don't, it's dreadful), I would still give it a HARD pass, because I think he's a misinformed windbag who should shut the f**k up, and no matter how gorgeous a melody or ripping a guitar solo a song has, if it's pedalling some bullshit I don't agree with, I'm not gonna bother with it.

#25 zepphead

zepphead

    The God Of Balance

  • Members
  • 5517 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:N. Ireland
  • Interests:Music .. Collecting music, listening, attending concerts, gym, horse racing, travelling, food & drink.

Posted 13 September 2021 - 04:58 PM

View PostTimbale, on 13 September 2021 - 04:32 PM, said:

View Postzepphead, on 13 September 2021 - 03:49 AM, said:

View PostEntre_Perpetuo, on 12 September 2021 - 07:48 PM, said:

View PostTimbale, on 12 September 2021 - 07:32 PM, said:

View Postthizzellewashington, on 12 September 2021 - 06:36 PM, said:

View PostTimbale, on 12 September 2021 - 05:26 PM, said:

Do you think it was...I don't know if this is the right word, but in lieu of a better term... do you think it was in any way irresponsible, or perhaps naive of Peart to cherry pick from Objectivism that way?  I don't know the answer to this myself....but somehow I'm imagining some band circa 2021 taking a quote here and a quote there from Jordan Peterson or Ben Shapiro and writing some songs...and then distancing themselves from the overarching perspective or viewpoint of those polarizing people.
Very different times we're in now than the mid-70s. A band publicly citing Ayn Rand as an inspiration probably wouldn't go over well today but you can't judge stuff written 40+ years ago by the standards of today. It also totally makes sense that Neil found inspiration in something kind of childish and simplistic when he was in his early 20s and still learning about the world, and then when he got a little older he was embarrassed by it and wanted to distance himself. We all have stuff we think is brilliant when we're that young but doesn't age well once you gain more life experience. I guarantee you everything you thought was deep and profound when you were in college you don't feel that way about now.

Totally agree with you about personal growth and all that.  But it is interesting because we're not talking about some college kid blathering on at the pub after a few pints...we're talking about a statement, artistic though it may be, that they put out into the world.  I'm not knocking them for it or saying that Peart should have been made to "answer" for it 30 + years after he left that inspiration behind.

But...it is interesting that the pushback they received in the press directly about the Rand influence is often now couched in context of the press being inappropriate.  I'm thinking of course of that moment where some journalist made reference to them being fascists.  Now, I know Fascism and Objectivism are not the exact same thing...but it's always about how that was offensive given Geddy's background....and not about the viewpoint within their lyrics that the journo was responding to.

I guess the point I'm getting at, or the thing that I'm interested in delving into, is what would it be like to say to Geddy Lee "does the artistic freedom angle in songs like Anthem outweigh the distain for the 'bleeding hearts' of society?  As a message that you're putting in a song and singing night after night...is it valid to emphasize that part of Rand's thoughts while the other parts get dragged along?"

I think Geddy has mentioned before the fascist insults were incredibly insulting because of his parents' experiences in WWII.  I also think on those early albums Geddy probably didn't exercise as much of a "veto power" on Neil's lyrics since they were just happy to have someone who could write decent lyrics. I'm also betting Neil was the one to introduce the other two to Ayn Rand, so whatever Neil thought about it they probably shared his opinion at first.  Once it's on the record, it would be insulting to long time fans to change the lyrics. Like, "hey, you know that song you loved for years that may have introduced you to some interesting literature? We're changing a few words because we don't agree with them anymore." That wouldn't go over well. Just look at the reaction to Paramore turning their backs on one of their signature songs for some much more egregiously insulting lyrics: controversy. Rush didn't want controversy, they just wanted to play music for their fans and for themselves. A song is sort of like a time capsule too, and it would be like trying to erase history to change the words. I think they also went on the assumption that its unlikely anyone but fans are going to listen to that song anyway, and Rush fans tend to know enough about the band to know all about the Rand thing and to forgive an odd line or two 40 years down the road.
I remember back in the day the NME (New Musical Express) accused Rush of being Nazis. But by then the NME were so left wing in their views and hated any old style rock bands.
I laugh now because they were so convinced that punk had destroyed the so called mucical dinosaurs forever ...... wrong!
Frankly for me it's Rand shmand .... I don't give a toss. I liked their music then and bought it, and I still like their music today and would still buy it....... with all music & lyrics intact.
We are all far too sensitive these days ...... if you don't like it, then just don't listen to it.

With sincere respect -

I didn't broach the topic because I'm too sensitive and can't handle the messages in the more Objectivist era of the band...I just thought it would make an interesting topic because I imagined that I'm not the only one who finds "live for yourself, there's no one else more worth living for" a fairly unworthy message to get behind.  (As I also stated, I'm sure there are some people who connect to it or maybe even agree...)

For me, it's not as simple as "if you don't like it, then just don't listen to it".  They are songs that entered my life at a time before I had perhaps formed my own worldview...and now, as an adult, I have a band that is among my favourites that has a small handful of songs that have a socio-political viewpoint that I really disagree with.  It doesn't keep me up at night, and it doesn't make me skip Something For Nothing when it comes on.  I just find it interesting is all.

If it was new music - from them or some other band - with that Objectivist bend to it, I likely wouldn't give it the time of day.  As an example, Eric Clapton's new "song".  If I actually liked the music (which I don't, it's dreadful), I would still give it a HARD pass, because I think he's a misinformed windbag who should shut the f**k up, and no matter how gorgeous a melody or ripping a guitar solo a song has, if it's pedalling some bullshit I don't agree with, I'm not gonna bother with it.
I think it is a very good subject to broach - makes for interesting conversation.
As for all the socio-political or Objectivist stuff .... perhaps I have a somewhat simplistic approach ....
For me the period of 1974-1982 was the era when Rush produced all their greatest albums. A rock band creating great rock songs. Did I get wound up about some sort of sinister political sub plot??? err no ... I was just enjoying fine music.
The problem (in my opinion) of over analysing lyrics is that you are potentially opening a hornet's nest. A significant number of hard rock bands have lyrics about giving it some good lovin' etc etc. Could this be considered degrading to women?? Should we be concerned? Other bands sing about the wonders of Satan and his minions - is our mortal souls in peril?
I just enjoy good rock music and do not look at it as anything other than entertainment.

Edited by zepphead, 13 September 2021 - 04:59 PM.


#26 Rush Cocky

Rush Cocky

    Go Cocks!

  • Members
  • 12160 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:About 34 deg N, 81 deg W

Posted 13 September 2021 - 04:59 PM

View PostGeddysMullet, on 13 September 2021 - 07:13 AM, said:

I loved Rand's novels as epic storytelling when I was younger. I loved the message of artistic freedom and excellence in The Fountainhead, and Atlas Shrugged impressed me as a huge achievement because it broke every rule of character building in fiction but still managed to be compelling. But I was truly gobsmacked when I found out years later that anyone took Objectivism seriously as any kind of viable philosophy by which to live life in the real world.

Good post, and I agree.  This was a phase for Neil.  Next album, it was on to fantasy and Tolkien. Then 2112, where his thoughts had evolved even further.  The evolution is fun to watch.

#27 tangy

tangy

    The Great Progholio

  • Members
  • 11355 posts

Posted 13 September 2021 - 07:53 PM

Neil should of smoked better weed and read Walden......



#28 IbanezJem

IbanezJem

    The God Of Balance

  • Members *
  • 6296 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Bonchester Bridge, Scotland
  • Interests:Very few interests, but many passions

Posted 14 September 2021 - 03:11 AM

The way Rush dabbling with Objectivism was dealt with by the British press was ugly and that "stain" (not my feelings, but the way the critical world felt) didn`t get washed off, even though it`s a million miles from sentiments expressed by Neil from the 80s onwards.

But I do wonder how many critics are now in their slippers and listening to Wagner? I`m as guilty as anyone for making a judgement for a non-musical reason, but I do think a musician`s catalog is more interesting when viewed as a whole, not hanging onto one song or record and assuming the band never changed. I`d hope a critic would have an evolving view, just as any human that lives a life.

(And I`m looking forward to a documentary called Look Away. It`s about 70, 80s rockstars and the sexual abuse of minors that everyone knows occurred but has chosen to ignore - Steven Tyler, for example, will be in the spotlight for such things as taking an underage girl on tour, legally obtaining guardianship from her mother, getting her pregnant, then an abortion etc. Probably bigger issues than reading Ayn Rand.)

#29 zepphead

zepphead

    The God Of Balance

  • Members
  • 5517 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:N. Ireland
  • Interests:Music .. Collecting music, listening, attending concerts, gym, horse racing, travelling, food & drink.

Posted 14 September 2021 - 09:02 AM

View PostIbanezJem, on 14 September 2021 - 03:11 AM, said:

The way Rush dabbling with Objectivism was dealt with by the British press was ugly and that "stain" (not my feelings, but the way the critical world felt) didn`t get washed off, even though it`s a million miles from sentiments expressed by Neil from the 80s onwards.

But I do wonder how many critics are now in their slippers and listening to Wagner? I`m as guilty as anyone for making a judgement for a non-musical reason, but I do think a musician`s catalog is more interesting when viewed as a whole, not hanging onto one song or record and assuming the band never changed. I`d hope a critic would have an evolving view, just as any human that lives a life.

(And I`m looking forward to a documentary called Look Away. It`s about 70, 80s rockstars and the sexual abuse of minors that everyone knows occurred but has chosen to ignore - Steven Tyler, for example, will be in the spotlight for such things as taking an underage girl on tour, legally obtaining guardianship from her mother, getting her pregnant, then an abortion etc. Probably bigger issues than reading Ayn Rand.)
Rush's treatment by, in partucular the UK press was more about the state of music journalism at the time and its rabid hatred of anything deemed 'old rock'.
As you say, a musician's career is an evolving entity and should be viewed as such. I can see Rush's career having evolved right from 1974 all the way to the final album and I love them for that..
There are a lot worse things out there in the world than a few Ayn Rand lyrics.

There is a minefield out there in the music business if you want to look hard enough.....
and as for life on the road, underage sex, groupies, drugs etc etc. -  best not to even start thinking about it ...... it goes way back to Jerry Lee Lewis and probably beyond.
If we start branding musicians for some of this behaviour, we will have precious little to listen to!!

Edited by zepphead, 14 September 2021 - 09:06 AM.


#30 capoetc

capoetc

    The Seeker

  • Members
  • 201 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Dallas

Posted 14 September 2021 - 11:25 AM

Quote

... I think he's a misinformed windbag who should shut the f**k up, ...

Probably unwise for me to poke the outraged bear, but why should someone who says or performs something you do not like "shut the f*ck up"?  Is there simply no room in today's society for people with differing viewpoints to simply agree to disagree?  Are folks only allowed to produce art that you agree with?  

What other forms of speech would you be in favor of censoring?

I do not agree with all aspects of Ayn Rand's philosophy, but her positions were arrived at through a life of experience.  She summed up her philosophy as follows:

"My philosophy, in essence, is the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute." -- Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged

Is there nothing in that statement that you can support?  Is the expression of that philosophy something that no one should be allowed to consider and discuss?  

To be clear, this post is not meant to be an attack of any sort, nor is it a defense of Ayn Rand or her philosophy.  My objection is to the suggestion that she, or Eric Clapton, or anyone else for that matter, should not be allowed to express their points of view.  

The harm is not in the existence of too many points of view, some of which some people find objectionable.  The harm is in allowing too few points of view.

Edited by capoetc, 14 September 2021 - 11:26 AM.


#31 IbanezJem

IbanezJem

    The God Of Balance

  • Members *
  • 6296 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Bonchester Bridge, Scotland
  • Interests:Very few interests, but many passions

Posted 14 September 2021 - 11:40 AM

View Postcapoetc, on 14 September 2021 - 11:25 AM, said:

Quote

... I think he's a misinformed windbag who should shut the f**k up, ...

Probably unwise for me to poke the outraged bear, but why should someone who says or performs something you do not like "shut the f*ck up"?  Is there simply no room in today's society for people with differing viewpoints to simply agree to disagree?  Are folks only allowed to produce art that you agree with?  

What other forms of speech would you be in favor of censoring?

I do not agree with all aspects of Ayn Rand's philosophy, but her positions were arrived at through a life of experience.  She summed up her philosophy as follows:

"My philosophy, in essence, is the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute." -- Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged

Is there nothing in that statement that you can support?  Is the expression of that philosophy something that no one should be allowed to consider and discuss?  

To be clear, this post is not meant to be an attack of any sort, nor is it a defense of Ayn Rand or her philosophy.  My objection is to the suggestion that she, or Eric Clapton, or anyone else for that matter, should not be allowed to express their points of view.  

The harm is not in the existence of too many points of view, some of which some people find objectionable.  The harm is in allowing too few points of view.
There is nothing about that statement that I dislike. I don`t see how, at its most stark, it has to be seen as an evil that was almost on a par with fascism. How those words are interpreted to fit other agendas... there`s the ugly part. Even some of The Bible looks good on paper - any text must be separated from its believers and judged as such.

#32 IbanezJem

IbanezJem

    The God Of Balance

  • Members *
  • 6296 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Bonchester Bridge, Scotland
  • Interests:Very few interests, but many passions

Posted 14 September 2021 - 11:41 AM

View Postzepphead, on 14 September 2021 - 09:02 AM, said:

View PostIbanezJem, on 14 September 2021 - 03:11 AM, said:

The way Rush dabbling with Objectivism was dealt with by the British press was ugly and that "stain" (not my feelings, but the way the critical world felt) didn`t get washed off, even though it`s a million miles from sentiments expressed by Neil from the 80s onwards.

But I do wonder how many critics are now in their slippers and listening to Wagner? I`m as guilty as anyone for making a judgement for a non-musical reason, but I do think a musician`s catalog is more interesting when viewed as a whole, not hanging onto one song or record and assuming the band never changed. I`d hope a critic would have an evolving view, just as any human that lives a life.

(And I`m looking forward to a documentary called Look Away. It`s about 70, 80s rockstars and the sexual abuse of minors that everyone knows occurred but has chosen to ignore - Steven Tyler, for example, will be in the spotlight for such things as taking an underage girl on tour, legally obtaining guardianship from her mother, getting her pregnant, then an abortion etc. Probably bigger issues than reading Ayn Rand.)
Rush's treatment by, in partucular the UK press was more about the state of music journalism at the time and its rabid hatred of anything deemed 'old rock'.
As you say, a musician's career is an evolving entity and should be viewed as such. I can see Rush's career having evolved right from 1974 all the way to the final album and I love them for that..
There are a lot worse things out there in the world than a few Ayn Rand lyrics.

There is a minefield out there in the music business if you want to look hard enough.....
and as for life on the road, underage sex, groupies, drugs etc etc. -  best not to even start thinking about it ...... it goes way back to Jerry Lee Lewis and probably beyond.
If we start branding musicians for some of this behaviour, we will have precious little to listen to!!
There`s a reckoning a`comin`!!!

#33 Entre_Perpetuo

Entre_Perpetuo

    Queenmaster

  • Members
  • 13016 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:The Solar Federation
  • Interests:Music, architecture, and childhood hobbies.

Posted 14 September 2021 - 12:02 PM

View Postcapoetc, on 14 September 2021 - 11:25 AM, said:

Quote

... I think he's a misinformed windbag who should shut the f**k up, ...

Probably unwise for me to poke the outraged bear, but why should someone who says or performs something you do not like "shut the f*ck up"?  Is there simply no room in today's society for people with differing viewpoints to simply agree to disagree?  Are folks only allowed to produce art that you agree with?  

What other forms of speech would you be in favor of censoring?

I do not agree with all aspects of Ayn Rand's philosophy, but her positions were arrived at through a life of experience.  She summed up her philosophy as follows:

"My philosophy, in essence, is the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute." -- Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged

Is there nothing in that statement that you can support?  Is the exp<b></b>ression of that philosophy something that no one should be allowed to consider and discuss?  

To be clear, this post is not meant to be an attack of any sort, nor is it a defense of Ayn Rand or her philosophy.  My objection is to the suggestion that she, or Eric Clapton, or anyone else for that matter, should not be allowed to express their points of view.  

The harm is not in the existence of too many points of view, some of which some people find objectionable.  The harm is in allowing too few points of view.

I’m betting Timbale has a similar view about Clapton’s anti-lockdown bent to me: it’s ill informed. I agree that ill informed opinions have every right to be voiced, and I don’t thing they shouldn’t have that right. However, that doesn’t stop me from wishing they wouldn’t be voiced.  It’s like wishing someone didn’t make a frivolous, expensive lawsuit. I have no qualms with every person’s right to sue for any reason where I live. I just wish that people didn’t decide to sue frivolously.  Free speech is sacred and legal action should never be taken to prevent it, but that doesn’t mean I’m going to be glad everyone says exactly what’s on their mind all the time.

Edited by Entre_Perpetuo, 14 September 2021 - 12:03 PM.


#34 zepphead

zepphead

    The God Of Balance

  • Members
  • 5517 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:N. Ireland
  • Interests:Music .. Collecting music, listening, attending concerts, gym, horse racing, travelling, food & drink.

Posted 14 September 2021 - 01:11 PM

View PostIbanezJem, on 14 September 2021 - 11:41 AM, said:

View Postzepphead, on 14 September 2021 - 09:02 AM, said:

View PostIbanezJem, on 14 September 2021 - 03:11 AM, said:

The way Rush dabbling with Objectivism was dealt with by the British press was ugly and that "stain" (not my feelings, but the way the critical world felt) didn`t get washed off, even though it`s a million miles from sentiments expressed by Neil from the 80s onwards.

But I do wonder how many critics are now in their slippers and listening to Wagner? I`m as guilty as anyone for making a judgement for a non-musical reason, but I do think a musician`s catalog is more interesting when viewed as a whole, not hanging onto one song or record and assuming the band never changed. I`d hope a critic would have an evolving view, just as any human that lives a life.

(And I`m looking forward to a documentary called Look Away. It`s about 70, 80s rockstars and the sexual abuse of minors that everyone knows occurred but has chosen to ignore - Steven Tyler, for example, will be in the spotlight for such things as taking an underage girl on tour, legally obtaining guardianship from her mother, getting her pregnant, then an abortion etc. Probably bigger issues than reading Ayn Rand.)
Rush's treatment by, in partucular the UK press was more about the state of music journalism at the time and its rabid hatred of anything deemed 'old rock'.
As you say, a musician's career is an evolving entity and should be viewed as such. I can see Rush's career having evolved right from 1974 all the way to the final album and I love them for that..
There are a lot worse things out there in the world than a few Ayn Rand lyrics.

There is a minefield out there in the music business if you want to look hard enough.....
and as for life on the road, underage sex, groupies, drugs etc etc. -  best not to even start thinking about it ...... it goes way back to Jerry Lee Lewis and probably beyond.
If we start branding musicians for some of this behaviour, we will have precious little to listen to!!
There`s a reckoning a`comin`!!!
Posted Image

#35 Timbale

Timbale

    The Seeker

  • Members
  • 129 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 14 September 2021 - 02:11 PM

View Postcapoetc, on 14 September 2021 - 11:25 AM, said:

Quote

... I think he's a misinformed windbag who should shut the f**k up, ...

Probably unwise for me to poke the outraged bear, but why should someone who says or performs something you do not like "shut the f*ck up"?  Is there simply no room in today's society for people with differing viewpoints to simply agree to disagree?  Are folks only allowed to produce art that you agree with?  

What other forms of speech would you be in favor of censoring?

I do not agree with all aspects of Ayn Rand's philosophy, but her positions were arrived at through a life of experience.  She summed up her philosophy as follows:

"My philosophy, in essence, is the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute." -- Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged

Is there nothing in that statement that you can support?  Is the expression of that philosophy something that no one should be allowed to consider and discuss?  

To be clear, this post is not meant to be an attack of any sort, nor is it a defense of Ayn Rand or her philosophy.  My objection is to the suggestion that she, or Eric Clapton, or anyone else for that matter, should not be allowed to express their points of view.  

The harm is not in the existence of too many points of view, some of which some people find objectionable.  The harm is in allowing too few points of view.

Capoetc -

I'm not an outraged bear...you're free to poke me all you like.  :)

I was being somewhat of a smart ass in regards to Eric Clapton, I will grant you.  My personal opinion is that he is espousing ill-informed rubbish that emboldens people to make choices that are extending this goddamned pandemic in the name of "personal freedom" as if communal responsibility is of no value and shouldn't be prioritized in a time of crisis.  One of my closest friends works in health care, and I have seen her struggle and grieve over and over and over again watching families say goodbye to loved ones via an ipad because they cannot even be in the room as they die.  Having a multi-millionaire who could very, very easily sit this pandemic out - he doesn't need to tour to support himself - saying "enough is enough" or whatever is really really distasteful to me.  (If he's dying to create during this time, he certainly can write and record.).

And the thing is...I agree with you, yes, he has the right to say whatever he wants.  I am not talking about censorship (despite saying flippantly that he should shut the f**k up).  But I feel that we are living through a time where the focus on individual rights is so extreme that it is completely eclipsing any sense of common good or responsibility to others.  As Neil wrote "I'm so full of what is right, I can't see what is good."  This sums a lot up for me.  This is the people who won't wear a mask because they feel the government doesn't have the authority to tell them to do so.  They may very well be right - but the shithead who leaves a wife, 3 kids with a fourth on the way mourning his anti-mask/anti-vax ass sure couldn't see what was good.

And my feelings on all of that feed into my feelings about Objectivism, I suppose.  I honestly don't really find anything to agree with in that Rand quote.  It is, I suppose, a valid point of view, or at least a valid philosophical viewpoint, but from my perspective the moment it is dragged into the real world as a practice it creates serious societal issues.  From the first thought the concept of man as a heroic being I'm already kinda out.  It takes a level of selfish, myopic thinking to believe that humans by their very existence are heroic.  I just don't agree.  They sure can be, but it's not the default setting.  I also don't believe that one's own happiness is the moral purpose of their life.  I just do not.  I understand others do.  Also not on board with productive achievement being the noblest activity.  Not against productive achievement...but to me the idea that it is superior to other modes of human endeavour is problematic, especially in real-world applications.  I bet Rand would have thought Branson and Musk dicking around in space was the ultimate in human fulfillment...whereas I find it rather useless and even mockable.  But I support their right to do it. ;)  

#36 driventotheedge

driventotheedge

    The God Of Balance

  • Members
  • 7058 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Vancouver,WA USA
  • Interests:Riding my Harley (2006 Road King)
    Razor clamming
    The Seattle Seahawks

Posted 14 September 2021 - 08:07 PM

So Neil, an atheist to my knowledge, is the guy that wrote:

You can surrender without a prayer
But never really pray
Pray without surrender



So why did no one call him out for invoking communication with a higher power/God when in fact doesn't believe in one?

#37 thizzellewashington

thizzellewashington

    Prime Mover

  • Members
  • 807 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:USA

Posted 14 September 2021 - 09:15 PM

View Postdriventotheedge, on 14 September 2021 - 08:07 PM, said:

So Neil, an atheist to my knowledge, is the guy that wrote:

You can surrender without a prayer
But never really pray
Pray without surrender



So why did no one call him out for invoking communication with a higher power/God when in fact doesn't believe in one?
Not all lyrics are autobiographical or written from one's own perspective...

#38 JARG

JARG

    Pinky Moe

  • Members *
  • 26480 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Just east of Lyra, northwest of Pegasus...
  • Interests:Cycling, guitar playing

Posted 14 September 2021 - 11:12 PM

View Postthizzellewashington, on 14 September 2021 - 09:15 PM, said:

View Postdriventotheedge, on 14 September 2021 - 08:07 PM, said:

So Neil, an atheist to my knowledge, is the guy that wrote:

You can surrender without a prayer
But never really pray
Pray without surrender



So why did no one call him out for invoking communication with a higher power/God when in fact doesn't believe in one?
Not all lyrics are autobiographical or written from one's own perspective...

Indeed. Demonstrating that you understand a point of view does not necessarily mean you hold that point of view.

#39 invisible airwave

invisible airwave

    Natural Science Theater 3000

  • Members
  • 32828 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Upland,CA

Posted 15 September 2021 - 12:09 AM

I'd rather listen to Ayn Rand songs with awesome music than songs on the right side of history done by awful pop stars like Katy Perry.  Same goes with the whole Satan thing with Slayer.  The sinners are much more fun when it comes to music.  Am I right?  Asking for a boxer turned pianist from Long Island.

#40 Timbale

Timbale

    The Seeker

  • Members
  • 129 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 15 September 2021 - 12:14 AM

View Postdriventotheedge, on 14 September 2021 - 08:07 PM, said:

So Neil, an atheist to my knowledge, is the guy that wrote:

You can surrender without a prayer
But never really pray
Pray without surrender



So why did no one call him out for invoking communication with a higher power/God when in fact doesn't believe in one?

You don't need to believe in a higher power to understand that praying includes an aspect of surrender.  There is nothing to "call him out" over.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users