Jump to content

Guardian Newspaper Reproduces NME Rush Interview From 1978


Tony R
 Share

Recommended Posts

http://www.theguardi...rocks-backpages

 

 

As Rush kick off their R40 Live 40th anniversary tour, ROCKS BACKPAGES takes a trip back to 4 March 1978, where Miles, writing for New Musical Express, questions the band’s supposed ‘proto-fascism’

 

 

 

Rush: 'You have no freedom. You do what you’re told to do. By the socialists'

 

 

 

 

"They are actually very nice guys. They don’t sit there in jackboots pulling the wings off flies. They are polite, charming even, naïve – roaming the concert circuits preaching what to me seems like proto-fascism like a leper without a bell."

 

 

 

 

 

Worth a read for you Rush fans under the age of 50. This goes back to the days when UK music paper the NME considered Rush to be a threat to "our nation's" youth.

 

 

The article finishes with this:

 

 

"Make sure that next time you see them, you see them with your eyes open, and know what you see. I, for one, don’t like it."

 

​And he isn't referring to the band or their music, he's referring to their lyrics and politics.

Edited by Tony R
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Describing Ayn rand as american is misleading at best. To understand why she believed the way she did you must be aware of her russian birth and time spent there. However, I have never seen this article before or anything close to resembling these types of comments from rush previously. Neil literally sounds like Rush Limbaugh
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gotta be honest, I don't think I would enjoy Neil's company. Every interview I read of his, and the little I have read of his books, and the majority of his more recent lyrics, make me think that he is a bit to full of his own idea's. Reading this, I gotta say, I didn't like them at all. Not really sure why they would even want to speak about politics the way they did, sure the question was posed, but they should have skirted it and spoke about the music instead.
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"I had to ask the obvious: if it was true freedom for the workers at a factory to bargain with the boss, why wouldn’t they be even more free if they did away with him altogether, and simply ran the place themselves as a workers’ council – after all, they do all the work?"

 

That's the obvious? :facepalm:

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Oh God, sell your soul to the company. I hope none of you went to the Rush concert on dole money. That wouldn’t fit in with Rush’s philosophy at all."

 

A completely ignorant comment that demonstrates the author is incapable of an intelligent thought.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And the connection between freedom of choice and individualism and fascism is so ridiculous, it's hard to believe that anyone could even forward it.
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yet another example of how serious music writers and critics took themselves in the 70s and 80s. Granted, the written/published word meant more at the time. The bad part about that, of course, is that articles and reviews were about the only means of actual access to artists outside of going to concerts and buying albums, which left the writer in control...and writers can create both reverence of mythical proportions or undeserved cynical impressions that may be far outside any actual reality.

 

"Hipsters" and their self-absorbed need to only use criticism as a means to validate their own smug intelligence have been around for decades.

 

Wonder what these writers would have to say now about these articles?

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

]It just seemed to me that with the Stones or Zappa, who are also very professional, that the individual personalities come across, whereas Rush behaves as one.[/size]

 

Why in the world would this be seen as a negative when talking about a band of performance artists?

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah the interviewer does sound incredibly annoying but I guess Rush weren't viewed as the heavyweights that they would become so there was probably an abundance of criticism still.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the review is spot on myself. And in all honesty, he gives a good impression of the band, he just highlights some rather interesting views that he thinks could benefit the music. CoS bombed, and yet he sounds like he still has hope.

 

Anyone who ever writes anything bad about Rush always gets crushed. If this was a glowing review everyone would say how great he is and what a legend and stuff.

 

Boring.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the review is spot on myself. And in all honesty, he gives a good impression of the band, he just highlights some rather interesting views that he thinks could benefit the music. CoS bombed, and yet he sounds like he still has hope.

 

Anyone who ever writes anything bad about Rush always gets crushed. If this was a glowing review everyone would say how great he is and what a legend and stuff.

 

Boring.

Not sure if you read the link I posted earlier but neil has taken issue with the content of that interview. I thought that was the issue not wether or not we liked it.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the review is spot on myself. And in all honesty, he gives a good impression of the band, he just highlights some rather interesting views that he thinks could benefit the music. CoS bombed, and yet he sounds like he still has hope.

 

Anyone who ever writes anything bad about Rush always gets crushed. If this was a glowing review everyone would say how great he is and what a legend and stuff.

 

Boring.

Not sure if you read the link I posted earlier but neil has taken issue with the content of that interview. I thought that was the issue not wether or not we liked it.

 

Oops...I stupidly thought I was reading the page with the CoS review.

 

Oh nooo...I hated this dumb article, it made Neil sound like a jerk and you would come away thinking the music is all about preaching their political views.

 

OK...slap me

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the review is spot on myself. And in all honesty, he gives a good impression of the band, he just highlights some rather interesting views that he thinks could benefit the music. CoS bombed, and yet he sounds like he still has hope.

 

Anyone who ever writes anything bad about Rush always gets crushed. If this was a glowing review everyone would say how great he is and what a legend and stuff.

 

Boring.

Not sure if you read the link I posted earlier but neil has taken issue with the content of that interview. I thought that was the issue not wether or not we liked it.

 

Oops...I stupidly thought I was reading the page with the CoS review.

 

Oh nooo...I hated this dumb article, it made Neil sound like a jerk and you would come away thinking the music is all about preaching their political views.

 

OK...slap me

 

I actually think Neil comes out looking ok in this. If you have any general knowledge about the world, economics, or politics, you immediately see that the critic is off-his-rocker stupid. It's also clear that the magazine wanted to attack Rush. Why would it be necessary to have someone who knows Ayn Rand to review the band unless you were planning a political-based article? The magazine heard that Rand was a fascist (a laughably ignorant position), got the one reviewer who heard of her, and went forward with a political hack piece.

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

for those of us alive in 78, i'm sure we all had idoitic thoughts and expressions at the time.

 

In my advancing years, I've become very adept at filing things under 'irrelevent' or 'don't f ing care' which will be the place for this article. Life is about 5% really important stuff and 95% irrelevant bullshit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

for those of us alive in 78, i'm sure we all had idoitic thoughts and expressions at the time.

 

That year, I only cared about getting stoned. :doh:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

At the time, UK journalists on the whole, concentrated on the Rand connection.

 

Their bias, then crossed over into their view of the music .

 

It was years before they gave the band their dues.

 

Fortunately, the fans were not swayed.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The article finishes with this:

 

 

"Make sure that next time you see them, you see them with your eyes open, and know what you see. I, for one, don’t like it."

 

​And he isn't referring to the band or their music, he's referring to their lyrics and politics.

 

If only he would have taken his own advice. He had no clue what he was seeing, and no understanding of the nature of fascism. Whatever her faults, Rand was the antithesis of a fascist.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gotta be honest, I don't think I would enjoy Neil's company. Every interview I read of his, and the little I have read of his books, and the majority of his more recent lyrics, make me think that he is a bit to full of his own idea's. Reading this, I gotta say, I didn't like them at all. Not really sure why they would even want to speak about politics the way they did, sure the question was posed, but they should have skirted it and spoke about the music instead.

You wouldn't enjoy his company because of all the psychological nudity you'd experience...in terms of skirting what the reporter was throwing their way, well let's just say you don't throw 50 mph fastballs to Barry Bonds...you just don't (all credit for that goes to 2112street). Dude got freaking owned big time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Think it was a bit deceptive to print this without any followup to Rush as they are today....trying to sell some papers???? :facepalm:

The best comment was this "Actually, most Rand fans are teenagers and young adults with little experience of the world. Happily, most of them grow out of it."

 

Enough said :Neil:

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Think it was a bit deceptive to print this without any followup to Rush as they are today....trying to sell some papers???? :facepalm:

The best comment was this "Actually, most Rand fans are teenagers and young adults with little experience of the world. Happily, most of them grow out of it."

 

Enough said :Neil:

The reporter was a cod. Really looking to make Rush look awful.
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...