Jump to content

Silas Lang

Members
  • Posts

    2976
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Silas Lang

  1. Yes- really good tribute, I thought. And here's a response from one of his fellow staff writers, NOT a really good tribute. Neil's body is barely cold and this jerk is slagging on him. https://www.national...een-this-wrong/ People who judge without a measure of mercy Always angry and dissatisfied Thank your stars you're not that way...
  2. Here's a nice long interview with Neil from 1990 that as a follower since 1981 I had never heard before
  3. https://twitter.com/DevorahLeah/status/1215751125984595968/photo/1
  4. Based on the live stuff I've heard, I'd say 90% of the time they were razor sharp and played with passion and precision. Their attitude on stage was always to take the music far beyond the records, to push themselves as far as possible, to take chances and to improvise which allowed the possibility for the real magic to happen. After '73 they only did three tours anyway.
  5. Two albums a year, original singles (A & B sides) not included on those albums (in the UK), touring around the world and a feature film.
  6. http://themusicexpress.ca/site/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/NorWester-76-Blue-Oyster-Cult.jpg http://tamdinle.com/data/artist_photos/blue-oyster-cult/blue-oyster-cult-2_27054583_big.jpg http://chart.mygoldmusic.co.uk/images/composers/201.jpg
  7. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cZtrn_HvzhE
  8. what a lovely dream it was... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y_nPGqavV58
  9. Whenever I listen to Quadrophenia all the way through it's always somewhat of a struggle whereas with Tommy the time seems to fly right on by...and Townshend's acoustic playing on Tommy is absolute genius.
  10. As far as the overwhelming critical negativity towards Rush in the 1970s goes, it is understandable to a degree. It's important to remember that most of the writers during that era grew up with the music of the 50s and 60s. So by the time the heavier and more European styles of rock that began to appear in the early 70s it was really a new generation and I just think they had difficulty relating to it in some ways, which is why Sabbath, Zeppelin, Uriah Heep, etc. got such scathing reviews in the early days and Rush were an even more extreme evolution away from what they considered real or more traditional rock and roll. They did begin to earn some grudging respect in the 80s from a few critics at least.
  11. Respect......from a chronically corrupt, hypocritical, elitist media club? I was hoping that the band would pass on it..... They've had all the respect in the world, and from all the right people - their record companies, promoters, fellow musicians, and fans. And I agree that the Establishment can go F*CK itself. The band didn't need any recognition from them. Respect......from a chronically corrupt, hypocritical, elitist media club? I was hoping that the band would pass on it..... They've had all the respect in the world, and from all the right people - their record companies, promoters, fellow musicians, and fans. And I agree that the Establishment can go F*CK itself. The band didn't need any recognition from them. I've always felt from day one that a hall of fame for something like rock & roll was a terrible idea that could never be properly executed. Over time its selection criteria has shown itself to be completely arbitrary and does not reflect anything of true merit. To be surprised or upset about any perceived unfairness regarding inclusion or exclusion is pointless. Why any Rush fan would celebrate the band finally being inducted into such an institution as if it's something to be proud of remains a mystery to me. It doesn't really matter because it's just based on subjective opinions of people like you and me. It's all meaningless.
×
×
  • Create New...