Jump to content


If Rush HAD gotten the credit they deserve...


  • Please log in to reply
24 replies to this topic

#21 Slaine mac Roth

Slaine mac Roth

    Uber-Geek

  • Members *
  • 8106 posts
  • Location:Heart of Sherwood Forest
  • Interests:Music, reading, painting, my children, cinema

Posted 19 December 2004 - 03:34 PM

A question that has prompted some very good answers.  If you don't mind, I like to stick in my oar and share my opinions on the matter.

My answer would have to be a definite NO!  Not that I think success would have changed the sound and attitude of the band, more that it would have destroyed the band.

Take, for example, Guns'n'Roses - when they burst onto the scene they were greeted with great adulation and mass approval from both the audience and the press.  More than that, they managed to garner a significant degree of mainstream success.  What was the result - they imploded in a spectacular fashion and have gone beyond parody.

Rush, on the other hand have never received that sort of exposure.  Therefore, to a degree, that sort of pressure of expectation has never weighed highly on them allowing them to achieve their success on their own terms.  The only pressure to suceed comes from their devoted and passionare following and from themselves.  This has allowed them the freedom to experiment and remain fresh to which I give them a heartfelt trink38.gif  

Sponsored Post

#22 GhostGirl

GhostGirl

    Sweetheart of Dixie

  • Admin
  • 21936 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Alabama...DON'T JUDGE
  • Interests:It was what I was born for —
    to look, to listen,

    to lose myself
    inside this soft world —
    to instruct myself
    over and over

Posted 20 December 2004 - 08:58 AM

QUOTE (1-0-0-1-0-0-1 @ Dec 19 2004, 01:29 AM)
QUOTE (kazzman @ Dec 19 2004, 12:43 AM)
That's one of the things that I love about Rush so much is that they had the chance to grab into the mainstream but never did. The continued making music the way they wanted to, not the way MTV wanted them to.

Exactly. They're just under the radar, and that makes them cool.  cool.gif

Which makes all of us on our board here SUPER cool. cool.gif

smile.gif  

#23 barney_rebel

barney_rebel

    The Camera Guy

  • Moderator
  • 27064 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Markhong, Ontario

Posted 20 December 2004 - 09:00 AM

With songs like "Limelight", "Spirit of the Radio" and "Superconductor", and don't think they'll ever turn to crap like what Metallica did.

#24 Moonraker

Moonraker

    O_o

  • Members *
  • 6362 posts

Posted 20 December 2004 - 11:35 AM

QUOTE (Slaine mac Roth @ Dec 19 2004, 12:34 PM)
A question that has prompted some very good answers.  If you don't mind, I like to stick in my oar and share my opinions on the matter.

My answer would have to be a definite NO!  Not that I think success would have changed the sound and attitude of the band, more that it would have destroyed the band.

Take, for example, Guns'n'Roses - when they burst onto the scene they were greeted with great adulation and mass approval from both the audience and the press.  More than that, they managed to garner a significant degree of mainstream success.  What was the result - they imploded in a spectacular fashion and have gone beyond parody.

Rush, on the other hand have never received that sort of exposure.  Therefore, to a degree, that sort of pressure of expectation has never weighed highly on them allowing them to achieve their success on their own terms.  The only pressure to suceed comes from their devoted and passionare following and from themselves.  This has allowed them the freedom to experiment and remain fresh to which I give them a heartfelt trink38.gif

With Gn'R though it didnt help that the majority of the people were heroin addicts, alcoholics, control freaks.  They were that way before they became famous, and were destined to implode, despite having any success or not.  On the same note though, they still released the  Use Your Illusion albums which were a large progression away from simply the mainstream heavy metal that made them famous to a push towards songwriting.  Who would have ever thought a couple years after Welcome To The Jungle, a song like Estranged with Axl swimming with dolphins would be made confused13.gif

Edited by Moonraker, 20 December 2004 - 11:35 AM.


#25 Slaine mac Roth

Slaine mac Roth

    Uber-Geek

  • Members *
  • 8106 posts
  • Location:Heart of Sherwood Forest
  • Interests:Music, reading, painting, my children, cinema

Posted 20 December 2004 - 12:32 PM

Its true whay you say Moonie, I just used GnR as an extreme example of what can happen.

I think its significant to note that, at this time, the average life span of a sucessful, chart topping band is currently around three years.  I remember pointing out to my ex-girlffriend a few years ago how self-congratulatory so many acts got when they hit ten years (in that year Motley Crue, Slayer and Janet Jackson all released 'Best of...' compilations that made a big thing of them lasting for ten years).

Rush have managed 30 years with the same personnel - the only other band I can think of that have managed that are ZZ Top.  Its telling that both of these bands have, on the whole, been apart from the mainstream (although ZZ did have their MTV flirtation in the 80s).

I really do think that it is because of this lack of mainstream success that has kept them together for so long.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users