L36TOS10

QUOTE (Dscrapre @ Oct 12 2012, 03:45 PM) QUOTE (L36TOS10 @ Oct 12 2012, 03:10 AM) Have they listened to Counterparts? Roll The Bones? The new album? Of course not. That would mean that they actually gave Rush a fair chance. Black shirt guy had nothing but positive things to say about TSOR, yet he didn't like it. Why? Because it wasn't "cool". The Sex Pistols and The Clash were cool so that's what he likes instead. They're sheep. People can like and dislike whatever they want to, don't get me wrong, but to understate the importance of a band, just because you personally dislike them, is just childish and unbecoming of a professional music journalist. Look, I HATE the Sex Pistols. In my eyes, their "music" was completely worthless. But, they were very important to the formation of punk and influenced many people. You can't deny them that. The heart of the matter is that if these two guys were on the voting committee, they wouldn't vote for Rush just because they don't like them. I bet that there are plenty of people on the voting committee who feel exactly the same way. I think it's worth pointing out that when Spirit of Radio was released in 1980 punk was itself already way past its sell by date. The Sex Pistols had split two years earlier in 1978 and the Clash were already a fairly ordinary mainstream rock band (e.g London Calling). So I guess these 'journalists' have got their timelines just a little bit confused. No one has to like Rush but for someone to put themselves across as a professional rock critic and then demonstrate a wilful ignorance of 75% of the output of one of the biggest rock bands of the last 40 years kind of makes them look like a pair of idiots.

I'm guessing these guys haven't actually listened to any Rush album released since 1980 because some of the stuff they saying (e.g not having a groove) just doesn't apply to any album from Signals onwards. Have they listened to Counterparts? Roll The Bones? The new album? I say this as a recent convert to Rush who held similar views for a long time but by a happy accident found myself re-introduced to this brilliant band. I think the prog-rock tag as applied to Rush is in any case way out of date. I just can't see any similarity between Rush and bands like ELP, Yes, Genesis etc. The RoR Hall of Fame is a pointless load of pants anyway.

QUOTE (bigalfan @ Oct 1 2012, 02:11 PM) Since you mentioned U2, I saw them live once...that was enough. I'm a recent convert to Rush so I haven't seen them live yet but I'm amazed that their reputation is overshadowed (e.g. in the music press) by a band like U2 who let's face it haven't made made a truly great album since 1991.

QUOTE (LeaveMyThingAlone @ Sep 16 2012, 05:39 AM) It's a rock concert dude. Give me a freaking break. These are the kinds of things that make people think all Rush fans are geeks. I've been to Metallica, Guns n Roses, Green Day, etc...believe me Rush crowds are Justin Bieber crowds compared to most rock crowds Yep, It's a rock concert but if what's being described above is anything like what I've seen at large gigs in the UK it soon crosses the boundary between being enthusiastic about the show and just being plain inconsiderate and obnoxious. These days when buying tickets I tend to use the facilities on website to position myself on the end of a row where it's always much easier to just step a few feet way from these assholes. All the more easier if there's no seating. Personally I think large part of the blame rests with the the venues and their insistence on allowing people to take alcohol into the arena. It's not a big issue at an outdoor show but in an indoor arena it does cause problems. I'm surprised people are still allowed to smoke in indoor arenas in the USA. That's not been allowed over here for many years (thank God).

Thank you all - and looking forward to my first Rush gig sin Sheffield and London next year!

QUOTE (Astroboy2112 @ Sep 13 2012, 01:56 PM) Basically, theres 2 kind of Rush fans the ones that are fans of the band (the artist) and enjoy their art and those who are fans of 4-5 of Rush albums but claim they are as big fans as those who love more than the 4-5 albums. The fans of the 4-5 albums claim that those 4-5 albums are the only worthwhile Rush music and eveybody who loves and appreciates the rest of Rush's discography are fanboys. Thats basically it. Hmm! Well my recent conversion was through the live albums from Different Stages onwards via the Mirrors bootleg and currently working my way backwards through their studio recordings. I am up to Grace Under Pressure and loving it. There's no albums I dislike - so far - though like all artists they appear to have had their low points - but not many. I guess I'm leaning towards the fanboy camp but that might change as I dig deeper. Bear in mind I'm also a Springsteen fan so my standards are set pretty low

Fanboy?

Hi, all, this is my first post being a very recent convert to Rush after assuming for the last 30 odd years that they were a boring prog band like Yes or King Crimson or something. I was wrong. They are a brilliant band who play glorious, life-affirming, I-have-died-and-gone-to-heaven rock music Anyway, I've recently been watching the Snakes and Arrows DVD and found that although I loved all the individual performances the setlist lacked pacing and the show doesn't quite build up in tension and excitment as, for example, the Rio DVD does. Then I find this forum and find you all arguing over setlists. I guess I'm a fan now! Is there room in the world for another sad obsessive?