maxpower

I think there's a couple of posters in this thread who need to develop a keener sense of irony and sarcasm :eyeroll:

 

I am sure that most posters get the irony and sarcasm. The point is that this trolling in every Peart-related topic isn't funny. Its boring and ruins any real conversation. Maybe some posters need to come up with new jokes instead.

I think they should replace Neil with any stiff they can find and go out on the road and call it Rush. Utterly overrated.

 

So overrated that you tell this in almost every post. You seem like an obsessive fanboy who can't get over the fact that Peart is on a well-earned retirement.

 

I'm thrilled he's retired! Can you imagine how desperate Geddy and Alex were in 1974 that this guy got the gig? I can only imagine what rush would have become with a drummer who plays with actual feel. And writes better than a junior high schooler who just read The Fountainhead.

 

Yes i am sure that they hated every second of the forty years they played with Peart. If you don't like Neil's drumming it is pretty much impossible for you to like Rush. And if you think he lacks the "feel" then so do Geddy and Alex.

 

I'm sure it was something they tolerated. It's what most Rush fans have always done. If you think Neil is a great drummer then you must not play with any feel either. Discerning musicians know better.

 

''Most Rush fans''. I have never met a Rush fan who hates Peart or his drumming. Maybe there are some of those lurking in their mothers basements but any Rush fan with a brain and normal life appreciates huge part of the band that is Neil's drumming.

 

He has been a black hole of suck for 40 years. His Groove can't hold a candle to a drummer like Phil Rudd. But it's his lyrics that really killed any real chance for super stardom the band had.

 

Obvious troll. I like AC/DC and Phil Rudd too but you wouldn't want to see him drumming for Rush? It seems like you don't understand what Rush is all about. It isn't about the groove or the "feel".

 

Rush is Lee, Lifeson and Peart and no-one else. Each of them is a part that cannot be replaced. If you hate one of them you also hate Rush as a whole.

I think they should replace Neil with any stiff they can find and go out on the road and call it Rush. Utterly overrated.

 

So overrated that you tell this in almost every post. You seem like an obsessive fanboy who can't get over the fact that Peart is on a well-earned retirement.

 

I'm thrilled he's retired! Can you imagine how desperate Geddy and Alex were in 1974 that this guy got the gig? I can only imagine what rush would have become with a drummer who plays with actual feel. And writes better than a junior high schooler who just read The Fountainhead.

 

Yes i am sure that they hated every second of the forty years they played with Peart. If you don't like Neil's drumming it is pretty much impossible for you to like Rush. And if you think he lacks the "feel" then so do Geddy and Alex.

 

I'm sure it was something they tolerated. It's what most Rush fans have always done. If you think Neil is a great drummer then you must not play with any feel either. Discerning musicians know better.

 

''Most Rush fans''. I have never met a Rush fan who hates Peart or his drumming. Maybe there are some of those lurking in their mothers basements but any Rush fan with a brain and normal life appreciates huge part of the band that is Neil's drumming.

I think they should replace Neil with any stiff they can find and go out on the road and call it Rush. Utterly overrated.

 

So overrated that you tell this in almost every post. You seem like an obsessive fanboy who can't get over the fact that Peart is on a well-earned retirement.

 

I'm thrilled he's retired! Can you imagine how desperate Geddy and Alex were in 1974 that this guy got the gig? I can only imagine what rush would have become with a drummer who plays with actual feel. And writes better than a junior high schooler who just read The Fountainhead.

 

Yes i am sure that they hated every second of the forty years they played with Peart. If you don't like Neil's drumming it is pretty much impossible for you to like Rush. And if you think he lacks the "feel" then so do Geddy and Alex.

I think they should replace Neil with any stiff they can find and go out on the road and call it Rush. Utterly overrated.

 

So overrated that you tell this in almost every post. You seem like an obsessive fanboy who can't get over the fact that Peart is on a well-earned retirement.

You've read through his 3509 posts to ascertain that? Huh, that's pretty obsessive too.

 

Almost every post i have seen in topics related to Neil by him. These Peart-haters are obviously either trolling or just plain delusional fanatics who are bullying a 66 year old man just because he wants to retire. Some people just need to get out of their parents basements and get a life. Rush is done.

I think they should replace Neil with any stiff they can find and go out on the road and call it Rush. Utterly overrated.

 

So overrated that you tell this in almost every post. You seem like an obsessive fanboy who can't get over the fact that Peart is on a well-earned retirement.

For my two cents, I've never griped with any of his 70s stuff. You want to write fantasy lyrics? Fine by me, as long as they portray a likable fantasy. Most often I find they do. In fact many of his non-fantasy lyrics from the 70s I love as well. Something For Nothing, Circumstances, In The End. I find these personally inspiring. As far as his 80s lyrics, I like them just as much, but for different reasons. He trades in fantasy references for a kind of everyday social motivation/commentary that I find unforgettable and affirming. Natural Science, Limelight, Subdivisions, Losing It, The Camera Eye. Wonderful, wonderful stuff. Heck, I can get some pretty motivational meaning out of Tom Sawyer with a little bit of work. I do think he started having some notable misses around HYF/Presto. I've never cared so much for his word game lyrics (though Red Lenses has a couple nice lines and works well with Ged's delivery). Also, once his everyday life lyrics started getting very on the nose, they lost their magic. However, I don't really mind until CP. Some of the lyrics on that album are just unpleasant to hear, cringey at best really. T4E isn't quite as bad, but mostly trades in an acute displeasure for a dull boredom. I've never really read much of the lyrics on VT actually, and the production is such that I don't really pay attention to them when I listen to it, but what I have made out of them has been a return to form. SnA is where Neil begins to get too preachy for my taste (Faithless could easily be my least favorite Rush song, by the numbers ballad with lyrics I truly dislike). But CA brings it all back home for me with Neil's grand return to fantasy, something I believe he writes well. Were there another album in the works, I would hope Neil would mine his fantasy side for inspiration once again, as I don't think he ever lost his touch in that genre of lyric.

 

I think that Snakes & Arrows contains couple of Neil's best lyrics. People who call songs like Faithless ''preachy'' are usually those who are offended because they contain a view that is different than their own.

 

Faithless does contain a view different than my own, and I don’t disrespect Neil for holding that view. However I still dislike the lyric of it, the same way I dislike most Christian rock for being too preachy, despite the fact I believe the vast majority of the content myself.

 

Well your first sentence confirms my suspicion. Neil's lyrics have always been kind of ''preachy''. Some like them and some do not. Faithless is in my opinion a very strong lyric and the only dislike seems to come from adults who for some reason believe in these children's stories that are called religion.

 

I don’t like the lyric. And not because it’s against my views, but because I find the way Neil illustrates his views to be preachy.

 

By the way, I’m only 20, and first heard the song when I was about 14. Didn’t like the lyric then; don’t like it now.

 

Something For Nothing which you mentioned is as ''preachy'' as Faithless. I see double standards here. Both are great songs of course.

 

I disagree, and that’s okay. Why do you persist?

 

Just pointing out the obvious double standards when you dismiss one ''preachy'' song while liking the other just because you are offended because the writer thinks differently. Nothing more.

 

I’m not offended that Neil thinks differently than I do. In fact I’m quite glad that I admire so much of the work of someone with whom I don’t see eye to eye. I don’t like the lyrics to Faithless, but I admire the lyrics to Freewill. I don’t like the lyrics to Anagram, but I admire the lyrics to Cygnus X-1. I don’t like the lyrics to Justin Beiber’s Baby, but I adore the lyrics to Queen’s Bohemian Rhapsody. If that means I’m offended by Neil’s beliefs, then the moon is made of cheese. Have a good day.

 

You clearly missed my point. Of course you can like some songs and dislike others. The point was that if your argument is that Neil's lyrics started to be too preachy in Snakes & Arrows you have double standards because they always were ''preachy''. I cannot have avoided noticing that many who dislike Snakes & Arrows believe in these children's stories called religion.

Is it OK to dislike S&A because the music is as much a turgid, often atonal, boring slog as the lyrics are a turgid, monotonic, boring slog that approach the boring, condescending monotony of his prose (though never quite get there, because, well, nothing possibly could).

 

And, yeah, we get you don't like religion and think it's beneath you, you don't need to throw in the same slam every time you post.

 

Some people just don't get the point. I was just pointing out the double standards of saying that Neil's lyrics got too preachy in Snakes & Arrows. They have ALWAYS been preachy just this time some people got offended because they contained criticism of religion. It is of course ok to not like some songs while liking the others.

For my two cents, I've never griped with any of his 70s stuff. You want to write fantasy lyrics? Fine by me, as long as they portray a likable fantasy. Most often I find they do. In fact many of his non-fantasy lyrics from the 70s I love as well. Something For Nothing, Circumstances, In The End. I find these personally inspiring. As far as his 80s lyrics, I like them just as much, but for different reasons. He trades in fantasy references for a kind of everyday social motivation/commentary that I find unforgettable and affirming. Natural Science, Limelight, Subdivisions, Losing It, The Camera Eye. Wonderful, wonderful stuff. Heck, I can get some pretty motivational meaning out of Tom Sawyer with a little bit of work. I do think he started having some notable misses around HYF/Presto. I've never cared so much for his word game lyrics (though Red Lenses has a couple nice lines and works well with Ged's delivery). Also, once his everyday life lyrics started getting very on the nose, they lost their magic. However, I don't really mind until CP. Some of the lyrics on that album are just unpleasant to hear, cringey at best really. T4E isn't quite as bad, but mostly trades in an acute displeasure for a dull boredom. I've never really read much of the lyrics on VT actually, and the production is such that I don't really pay attention to them when I listen to it, but what I have made out of them has been a return to form. SnA is where Neil begins to get too preachy for my taste (Faithless could easily be my least favorite Rush song, by the numbers ballad with lyrics I truly dislike). But CA brings it all back home for me with Neil's grand return to fantasy, something I believe he writes well. Were there another album in the works, I would hope Neil would mine his fantasy side for inspiration once again, as I don't think he ever lost his touch in that genre of lyric.

 

I think that Snakes & Arrows contains couple of Neil's best lyrics. People who call songs like Faithless ''preachy'' are usually those who are offended because they contain a view that is different than their own.

 

Faithless does contain a view different than my own, and I don’t disrespect Neil for holding that view. However I still dislike the lyric of it, the same way I dislike most Christian rock for being too preachy, despite the fact I believe the vast majority of the content myself.

 

Well your first sentence confirms my suspicion. Neil's lyrics have always been kind of ''preachy''. Some like them and some do not. Faithless is in my opinion a very strong lyric and the only dislike seems to come from adults who for some reason believe in these children's stories that are called religion.

 

I don’t like the lyric. And not because it’s against my views, but because I find the way Neil illustrates his views to be preachy.

 

By the way, I’m only 20, and first heard the song when I was about 14. Didn’t like the lyric then; don’t like it now.

 

Something For Nothing which you mentioned is as ''preachy'' as Faithless. I see double standards here. Both are great songs of course.

 

I disagree, and that’s okay. Why do you persist?

 

Just pointing out the obvious double standards when you dismiss one ''preachy'' song while liking the other just because you are offended because the writer thinks differently. Nothing more.

 

I’m not offended that Neil thinks differently than I do. In fact I’m quite glad that I admire so much of the work of someone with whom I don’t see eye to eye. I don’t like the lyrics to Faithless, but I admire the lyrics to Freewill. I don’t like the lyrics to Anagram, but I admire the lyrics to Cygnus X-1. I don’t like the lyrics to Justin Beiber’s Baby, but I adore the lyrics to Queen’s Bohemian Rhapsody. If that means I’m offended by Neil’s beliefs, then the moon is made of cheese. Have a good day.

 

You clearly missed my point. Of course you can like some songs and dislike others. The point was that if your argument is that Neil's lyrics started to be too preachy in Snakes & Arrows you have double standards because they always were ''preachy''. I cannot have avoided noticing that many who dislike Snakes & Arrows believe in these children's stories called religion.

For my two cents, I've never griped with any of his 70s stuff. You want to write fantasy lyrics? Fine by me, as long as they portray a likable fantasy. Most often I find they do. In fact many of his non-fantasy lyrics from the 70s I love as well. Something For Nothing, Circumstances, In The End. I find these personally inspiring. As far as his 80s lyrics, I like them just as much, but for different reasons. He trades in fantasy references for a kind of everyday social motivation/commentary that I find unforgettable and affirming. Natural Science, Limelight, Subdivisions, Losing It, The Camera Eye. Wonderful, wonderful stuff. Heck, I can get some pretty motivational meaning out of Tom Sawyer with a little bit of work. I do think he started having some notable misses around HYF/Presto. I've never cared so much for his word game lyrics (though Red Lenses has a couple nice lines and works well with Ged's delivery). Also, once his everyday life lyrics started getting very on the nose, they lost their magic. However, I don't really mind until CP. Some of the lyrics on that album are just unpleasant to hear, cringey at best really. T4E isn't quite as bad, but mostly trades in an acute displeasure for a dull boredom. I've never really read much of the lyrics on VT actually, and the production is such that I don't really pay attention to them when I listen to it, but what I have made out of them has been a return to form. SnA is where Neil begins to get too preachy for my taste (Faithless could easily be my least favorite Rush song, by the numbers ballad with lyrics I truly dislike). But CA brings it all back home for me with Neil's grand return to fantasy, something I believe he writes well. Were there another album in the works, I would hope Neil would mine his fantasy side for inspiration once again, as I don't think he ever lost his touch in that genre of lyric.

 

I think that Snakes & Arrows contains couple of Neil's best lyrics. People who call songs like Faithless ''preachy'' are usually those who are offended because they contain a view that is different than their own.

 

Faithless does contain a view different than my own, and I don’t disrespect Neil for holding that view. However I still dislike the lyric of it, the same way I dislike most Christian rock for being too preachy, despite the fact I believe the vast majority of the content myself.

 

Well your first sentence confirms my suspicion. Neil's lyrics have always been kind of ''preachy''. Some like them and some do not. Faithless is in my opinion a very strong lyric and the only dislike seems to come from adults who for some reason believe in these children's stories that are called religion.

 

I don’t like the lyric. And not because it’s against my views, but because I find the way Neil illustrates his views to be preachy.

 

By the way, I’m only 20, and first heard the song when I was about 14. Didn’t like the lyric then; don’t like it now.

 

Something For Nothing which you mentioned is as ''preachy'' as Faithless. I see double standards here. Both are great songs of course.

 

I disagree, and that’s okay. Why do you persist?

 

Just pointing out the obvious double standards when you dismiss one ''preachy'' song while liking the other just because you are offended because the writer thinks differently. Nothing more.

For my two cents, I've never griped with any of his 70s stuff. You want to write fantasy lyrics? Fine by me, as long as they portray a likable fantasy. Most often I find they do. In fact many of his non-fantasy lyrics from the 70s I love as well. Something For Nothing, Circumstances, In The End. I find these personally inspiring. As far as his 80s lyrics, I like them just as much, but for different reasons. He trades in fantasy references for a kind of everyday social motivation/commentary that I find unforgettable and affirming. Natural Science, Limelight, Subdivisions, Losing It, The Camera Eye. Wonderful, wonderful stuff. Heck, I can get some pretty motivational meaning out of Tom Sawyer with a little bit of work. I do think he started having some notable misses around HYF/Presto. I've never cared so much for his word game lyrics (though Red Lenses has a couple nice lines and works well with Ged's delivery). Also, once his everyday life lyrics started getting very on the nose, they lost their magic. However, I don't really mind until CP. Some of the lyrics on that album are just unpleasant to hear, cringey at best really. T4E isn't quite as bad, but mostly trades in an acute displeasure for a dull boredom. I've never really read much of the lyrics on VT actually, and the production is such that I don't really pay attention to them when I listen to it, but what I have made out of them has been a return to form. SnA is where Neil begins to get too preachy for my taste (Faithless could easily be my least favorite Rush song, by the numbers ballad with lyrics I truly dislike). But CA brings it all back home for me with Neil's grand return to fantasy, something I believe he writes well. Were there another album in the works, I would hope Neil would mine his fantasy side for inspiration once again, as I don't think he ever lost his touch in that genre of lyric.

 

I think that Snakes & Arrows contains couple of Neil's best lyrics. People who call songs like Faithless ''preachy'' are usually those who are offended because they contain a view that is different than their own.

 

Faithless does contain a view different than my own, and I don’t disrespect Neil for holding that view. However I still dislike the lyric of it, the same way I dislike most Christian rock for being too preachy, despite the fact I believe the vast majority of the content myself.

 

Well your first sentence confirms my suspicion. Neil's lyrics have always been kind of ''preachy''. Some like them and some do not. Faithless is in my opinion a very strong lyric and the only dislike seems to come from adults who for some reason believe in these children's stories that are called religion.

 

I don’t like the lyric. And not because it’s against my views, but because I find the way Neil illustrates his views to be preachy.

 

By the way, I’m only 20, and first heard the song when I was about 14. Didn’t like the lyric then; don’t like it now.

 

Something For Nothing which you mentioned is as ''preachy'' as Faithless. I see double standards here. Both are great songs of course.

For my two cents, I've never griped with any of his 70s stuff. You want to write fantasy lyrics? Fine by me, as long as they portray a likable fantasy. Most often I find they do. In fact many of his non-fantasy lyrics from the 70s I love as well. Something For Nothing, Circumstances, In The End. I find these personally inspiring. As far as his 80s lyrics, I like them just as much, but for different reasons. He trades in fantasy references for a kind of everyday social motivation/commentary that I find unforgettable and affirming. Natural Science, Limelight, Subdivisions, Losing It, The Camera Eye. Wonderful, wonderful stuff. Heck, I can get some pretty motivational meaning out of Tom Sawyer with a little bit of work. I do think he started having some notable misses around HYF/Presto. I've never cared so much for his word game lyrics (though Red Lenses has a couple nice lines and works well with Ged's delivery). Also, once his everyday life lyrics started getting very on the nose, they lost their magic. However, I don't really mind until CP. Some of the lyrics on that album are just unpleasant to hear, cringey at best really. T4E isn't quite as bad, but mostly trades in an acute displeasure for a dull boredom. I've never really read much of the lyrics on VT actually, and the production is such that I don't really pay attention to them when I listen to it, but what I have made out of them has been a return to form. SnA is where Neil begins to get too preachy for my taste (Faithless could easily be my least favorite Rush song, by the numbers ballad with lyrics I truly dislike). But CA brings it all back home for me with Neil's grand return to fantasy, something I believe he writes well. Were there another album in the works, I would hope Neil would mine his fantasy side for inspiration once again, as I don't think he ever lost his touch in that genre of lyric.

 

I think that Snakes & Arrows contains couple of Neil's best lyrics. People who call songs like Faithless ''preachy'' are usually those who are offended because they contain a view that is different than their own.

 

Faithless does contain a view different than my own, and I don’t disrespect Neil for holding that view. However I still dislike the lyric of it, the same way I dislike most Christian rock for being too preachy, despite the fact I believe the vast majority of the content myself.

 

Well your first sentence confirms my suspicion. Neil's lyrics have always been kind of ''preachy''. Some like them and some do not. Faithless is in my opinion a very strong lyric and the only dislike seems to come from adults who for some reason believe in these children's stories that are called religion.

For my two cents, I've never griped with any of his 70s stuff. You want to write fantasy lyrics? Fine by me, as long as they portray a likable fantasy. Most often I find they do. In fact many of his non-fantasy lyrics from the 70s I love as well. Something For Nothing, Circumstances, In The End. I find these personally inspiring. As far as his 80s lyrics, I like them just as much, but for different reasons. He trades in fantasy references for a kind of everyday social motivation/commentary that I find unforgettable and affirming. Natural Science, Limelight, Subdivisions, Losing It, The Camera Eye. Wonderful, wonderful stuff. Heck, I can get some pretty motivational meaning out of Tom Sawyer with a little bit of work. I do think he started having some notable misses around HYF/Presto. I've never cared so much for his word game lyrics (though Red Lenses has a couple nice lines and works well with Ged's delivery). Also, once his everyday life lyrics started getting very on the nose, they lost their magic. However, I don't really mind until CP. Some of the lyrics on that album are just unpleasant to hear, cringey at best really. T4E isn't quite as bad, but mostly trades in an acute displeasure for a dull boredom. I've never really read much of the lyrics on VT actually, and the production is such that I don't really pay attention to them when I listen to it, but what I have made out of them has been a return to form. SnA is where Neil begins to get too preachy for my taste (Faithless could easily be my least favorite Rush song, by the numbers ballad with lyrics I truly dislike). But CA brings it all back home for me with Neil's grand return to fantasy, something I believe he writes well. Were there another album in the works, I would hope Neil would mine his fantasy side for inspiration once again, as I don't think he ever lost his touch in that genre of lyric.

 

I think that Snakes & Arrows contains couple of Neil's best lyrics. People who call songs like Faithless ''preachy'' are usually those who are offended because they contain a view that is different than their own.

I am very positive that Rush will play live in the future. Many bands have had ''farewell tours'' and ''retired'' but then came back to stage. Maybe shorter sets and gigs with opening acts. Have to hope for the best because i'm still dissapointed that they skipped Europe on the R40 tour. By far the best setlist in the last 10 years.