Timbale

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?"

This is a great response, Entre, thank you. I also read Anthem at some point, and I agree, from what I remember of it, it didn't feel much different from other dystopian sci-fi I had read. I never bothered with any of her other work - I think by the time The Fountainhead had crossed my path I already had heard some strong rebukes of Rand's perspective. 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.

I also acknowledge that there may be members who are libertarian or staunchly conservative and feel that the sentiments of those songs and others from that era of Rush's output represent their world view.

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 know there are some people who like Rush who don't even particularly engage with the words...but Neil's lyrics have always been of almost equal importance to me in terms of the impact of their work on my life. (I also of course know that Peart moved away from the influence of Objectivism in the early 80s...) I was 10 or 11 when I really started getting into Rush, and as I delved into their discography, I kinda took the trip back from the more immediately relatable Signals to the long pieces and epics of the 70s. I don't think the Randian nature of the lyrics really struck me back then. A stanza like this - Live for yourself, there's no one else More worth living for Begging hands and bleeding hearts Will only cry out for more - likely seemed very matter of fact to me. I understood the words and their meaning, but I didn't process it as a perspective on the world. I'm sure I saw it as a statement of rugged individualism, rather than a possibly political or sociological viewpoint on how to live your life i.e. helping others is not a value worth pursuing. (It does seem like Peart, at least in later interviews, leaned into the individualism aspect and away from the libertarian, everyone for themselves implications of those lyrics.) I love Anthem, it is one of their great early era songs...but if a current band wrote a song with those lyrics...I'd really not be into it. I feel similarly about Something For Nothing...a song that I never found "offensive", and still don't, but it is a way of looking at the world that I really, really don't share. So I have an uncomfortable relationship with that part of the band's output ... and I do wonder, if I had been a teen in the early 70s, if I would have been turned off of Rush for that aspect of their (or at least Peart's) point of view. And I wonder how others on here feel about the Ayn Rand connection.

I was going to use Tom Waits as an example, actually. (I'm a huge fan). I understand why "regular" people dislike Rush, just like I understand that regular people dislike Tom Waits, or Dylan, or Leonard Cohen, or anyone else who does some things outside the norm of the mainstream. I think the difference is Tom Waits (in general) is celebrated in the mainstream for his "outsiderness", while Rush were vilified for it. I've always thought that Waits was considered sort of uncool in a very cool way...where Rush is uncool in an uncool way. It's this difference that fascinates me. And with Waits, I'm sure there were people in the press who loved his drunken piano crooner phase but hated the junkyard orchestra era in the 80s...and vice versa. But with Rush, a lot of the reviews I was reading at least, the journalists just never gave them the credit that they could grow and change...which they did.

Very well expressed, I enjoyed reading that a lot. And I agree with you...except that it should be the critics job to not have a pre-conceived notion about what they are going to listen to. I remember Roger Ebert saying once, and I believe he may have been quoting Francois Truffaut, that a person goes to see a film...and the critic must admit they are that person. Meaning, you will have a human response that transcends some of the things we're talking about. I think (of course I don't know) that some reviewer who hated 2112 may just, if they had been really honest with themselves, and therefore with their readers, have liked the chorus of Middletown Dreams or the verses of Losing It. That they moved them in a way that they wouldn't have thought a Rush song could. But your Nickelback example is a good one for me, personally, because I do not care if they wrote a song I might like. I can do without it. BUT, if my job was to review that record, I would hope I could see my way clear to being honest. And maybe all those who said they hated, hated, hated Rush right down the line were being honest...but I just have a hunch that they weren't.

But it's not about being radio friendly. Led Zeppelin were very radio friendly, but many critics (Rolling Stone being the prime example) were cool toward them. If those critics hated them for jumping on the prog train, why weren't they coming around when they put out an album like Power Windows...instead of saying "this is cold, unlistenable, tuneless garbage"? I have found that NOW, with time, and the removal of the context of what Rush was back in the day, that people's reactions to their music now are far less polarizing. If you watch more than a handful of "reaction" videos to Rush (I know that's not exactly the same as a music journalist's reaction) you see a lot of people call Geddy's voice "interesting" or "unique". But not a lot of people treat it like it's a barrier to the music itself. (I imagine the end of Cygnus X1 might change their minds.... ;) )

One thing is that I truly believe many music critics/journalists are clueless as to what is good. They follow the trends, and do what their editors tell them to do. I mean, if you don't play an instrument, and haven't been in a band, how can you appreciate a band at a level above anyone else? You'd be a punter, like the rest of them. I believe this is hard for music critics to deal with. Also - during the 70s there was a bit of payola game being played - not just at radio (where I'm sure Rush's management partook in paying for plays), but with interviews, ads and placement. Rush rarely had to market themselves too much, since they had a built-in fanbase. In a way, Rush were there own tastemakers - they didn't need radio (even though radio obliged), rock rags or even much help from their labels. Anthem was its own entity, and I believe the industry resented that. Take a band like the Runaways, which was somewhat appreciated by the rock press - but they had a team of reps going out there and trying to sell their albums, and to create a buzz. The odds are very much against you when you're trying to break a band into the mainstream - it costs a great deal of money, drugs and hooker blowjobs (I heard a recent interview with Ann Wilson who recounts that hookers were a strategy in getting their songs played on the radio). Rush were an organic band - a working class, working outfit out of the gate. Strong musicians with attitude. College educated, struggling white east coast snobs hate that shit. This is an interesting perspective - the fact that they were an island onto themselves within the industry may have isolated them from the machine itself. It still makes me wonder why there weren't more rock critics - as a group, I would imagine, fairly anti-establishment types - who didn't relate more to Rush's "otherness", then.

I've been reading through album reviews that are linked on Cygus X1.net, and found myself asking the question... why did/do people who hate Rush really, really hate them? I know Geddy (and maybe the others) have said that the early reviews were bad because the band hadn't found its own identity, and was directly competing with musical influences who were releasing albums at the same time (Zeppelin, Yes, The Who etc...). I've never bought that as a reason, but that's his opinion. But something that struck me while reading those reviews was that many people seemed to hold on to their distaste for Rush as the band progressed and changed. It's not like there are a lot of reviews where the journalist says "I hated Lee's high, squeaky voice on A Farewell To Kings, but I now enjoy his singing on songs like Mystic Rhythms." I find it funny that you could hate 2112 and Moving Pictures and Hold Your Fire. Like, I understand someone not liking them...but from a reviewing point of view, to say that Temples Of Syrinx and Distant Early Warning are essentially the same goes into a place that feels more like a grudge than anything else. So...why have a grudge against Rush? Why so much vitriol? It really seems like some of those reviewers were sharpening their pens even before they heard the new record. I'm not asking why someone wouldn't love Rush - I understand that they are not to everyone's taste - but many people seemed determined to not give them any credit. Not an inch. Is there something unique in Rush that brought that out in mainstream journalists?

I had never heard this song before. This sounds to me like if Cameron Crowe were making an "Almost Famous" type movie about a touring band in 79' - '80, this is the generic song that he and Frampton and Nancy Wilson would write as their big hit.

This made me genuinely laugh out loud. I feel your pain, Chemistry - it's the last thing we need.

On the Counterparts tour (if my math is correct), Rush performed the Hemispheres' Prelude for the first time in 13 years. (I remember being totally shocked/blown away that they pulled that out...) Do you think that ANY part of that decision had to do with the thematic connection between Hemispheres and the concept of the counterpart?

I adored him as Chalky White on Boardwalk Empire. What a sad loss.

Cromartie gets the biggest in joke on the back of the Signals album, as well...

Don't Look Back - Bob Dylan. I've seen it many times - a truly great film.

I like Tears For Fears, much more now than I did at the time...and actually, the record after this one, The Seeds Of Love, I think is a really great album. But, man, you have it up against the heaviest of hitters! Quadrophenia is just so damn stellar. For me the run of the first 5 tracks (six if you include I Am The Sea off the top) is just the strongest run of songs I can think of on maybe any record. It dips the tiny, slightest bit for Dirty Jobs and Helpless Dancer, but then ends out side 2 with Is It In My Head (a song that should be a classic rock staple but isn't) and the magnificent Had Enough. It's so strong. A lot of double albums sag in the second half, and sometimes I think Quad does, too...but then when I put it on I remember how good the second record is. I do think Dr Jimmy is a bit too long...but in general it all builds nicely to The Rock before the beautiful denouement of Love Reign O'er Me. There might be better Who albums, or ones that are equal at least, but I think this is Townshend's best work with the band for sure.

There are actually a fair number of albums that would beat out 2112 for me - it's my least favourite classic Rush record - but a band like Foreigner ain't gonna do it.

Nailed it.

This is very interesting to me - it was a rock song lamenting the death of good old "rock and roll"... and now it completely sounds like an old, dated rock & roll song that must be hard for anyone under 40 to remotely relate to. I kind of love that it has suffered this fate - it's such a good ole boy piece of snobbery - I'd MUCH rather hear a tango, and there are at least 20 disco songs I'd listen to in a heartbeat before this tune. There's an amusing irony that Seger is saying "today's music ain't got the same soul" when this tune is such a souless, corporate sounding piece of forced nostalgia. I guess I'm not that big a fan. ;)

Love all eras of the Stones (up to about 1981), but my fave is the Mick Taylor years - I easily could have just listed songs from Goat's Head Soup, Exile and Sticky Fingers. But... Street Fighting Man Gimme Shelter I Am Waiting All Down The Line Under My Thumb Angie Can't You Hear Me Knocking Moonlight Mile Coming Down Again Waiting On A Friend You Can't Always Get What You Want Miss You Salt Of The Earth Happy Mother's Little Helper Shattered Doo Doo Doo Doo Doo (Heartbreaker) She's A Rainbow Ruby Tuesday Heaven

Doom and Gloom! A rare example of a late-career song that actually kicked!

Hard votes!! I missed the round where The Lamb disappeared I guess. I understand people who find it to be too much with too many meandering bits, but it is such a master work! I love sinking into that Lamia pool and letting the whole thing flow over me... Voting to eliminate Foxtrot feels like madness, if for no other reason than Supper's Ready is likely their single greatest achievement as a song. And I totally adore both albums, but for me there is more that I cannot live without on Selling England. Like, I think Get'm Out By Friday is fun - a very Gabriel sense of dark humour about it - and the playing is heavy - but as a song, I don't LOVE it the way I love Firth Of Fifth or Cinema Show. I feel a bit the same about Watcher Of The Skies (blasphemous, I know!). It is a total classic, and a dramatic, powerful show opener, but I'd rather listen to Dancing With The Moonlit Knight - it's more melodic and interesting, and in spots, as heavy as Watcher. I don't think Selling England is perfect, but I actually don't think Genesis has a perfect Rumours, Who's Next, Moving Pictures type record. Maybe it's because they had 3 main writers and one other (Hackett) fighting to be heard. I think the variety is part of the charm...but it leaves them with albums that aren't 100% cohesive. But Selling England for me might be the closest thing. Epping Forest is a bit of a mess...but I never skip it when listening to the record. I'm also not that crazy about the reprise of Moonlit Knight at the end of Cinema Show...but it does have a nice, dreamy quality as it fades away. I also think the band were just growing in leaps and bounds, and again, although I LOVE Foxtrot, I think their playing as individuals on Selling England is superior. I also think it's a better produced record, sonically. I'm gonna go listen to Supper's Ready now.

See I think Time Table is absolutely gorgeous and a totally necessary break in the big action of the other three songs on side 1. I also think people often forget about the incredible instrumental break in Robbery, Assault, And Battery. I hear you on Time Table - that is probably a fair point, in relation to the running order of the record. It is a lovely tune. (I also think that Can Utility And The Coastliners might be the most classic, essential, relatively unknown Genesis track in their catalogue - it's almost everything I love about them in one song...) And I love an odd-time jam...but the one in Robbery just doesn't do it for me - the crazy signature feels forced to me. But...Phil as a drummer is on fire throughout the song, so I can enjoy it on that basis. :)

I give Selling England immunity - it is as near to perfect as Genesis got (despite the fact that I may actually like The Lamb a bit better). Also, I got on this thread boat late... W&W for me is deserving of immunity as well - an all time fave! I voted Trick Of The Tail off, but that's a really hard choice. It is a superb album. I feel that Robbery Assault and Battery takes it down a bit for me...I don't hate it, but it's a little too "cute" for my taste. I feel similarly about Time Table on Foxtrot - not a terrible song, but one that I don't return to very often. But it is impossible to vote it off over Trick, because, well, Supper's Ready.

Bob, right on down the line. Obviously Thriller is a huge record, but I actually find it a bit hit and miss. The hits are HITS, by god, but the other tunes do very little for me. (And The Girl Is Mine is SO inferior to Say, Say, Say!). Blood On The Tracks didn't have the same impact on Bob's career as Thriller did on MJ's...but to me it is the superior artistic statement. As an artist, I just think Bob towers over Jackson. And song-wise, Billie Jean is my fave off of Thriller - a killer groove and just a perfect pop song. But Tangled Up In Blue is...well, it's just classic Dylan.