Texas King Posted March 21, 2017 Share Posted March 21, 2017 What you think? I know many people who are not Rush fans call Neil Peart a very pretentious songwriter. I don't get what is pretentious about Rush music? Esp. their 70's prog output is called pretentious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On TheRoad To Adventure Posted March 21, 2017 Share Posted March 21, 2017 What you think? I know many people who are not Rush fans call Neil Peart a very pretentious songwriter. I don't get what is pretentious about Rush music? Esp. their 70's prog output is called pretentious. I haven't heard this term used in relation to Neil's songwriting, but one of the definitions of "pretentious" in Webster's dictionary is "Making demands on one's skill, ability or means." The lyrics are complex and force you to think - the lyrics are certainly on the intellectual side. It's hard to focus on Rush lyrics at a party, which is why it is conducive to listening while alone or in a quiet place with a friend. Secondly, the instrumental parts of the songs are complex and hard to play. Just my two cents worth. I don't know why the term pretentious would be specifically applied to the 70's stuff, though. Anyone have any other ideas? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mystic Slipperman Posted March 21, 2017 Share Posted March 21, 2017 It's a popular term to use if you don't like something simply 'cause it's not your bag. Maybe Rush WERE pretentious at times... they were constantly stretching themselves to their limits. By their own admission, they felt that Hemispheres was pushing them as far as they could go in that particular musical direction. Lyrically Neil stretched a lot too... he did records loosely based on themes.. not necessarily concept records but sometimes the songs would more-or-less hold together under a topic. Roll the Bones comes immediately to mind in this instance. Maybe his "wordiness" makes people go "Hey man, this ain't Rock & Roll, three chords and the truth!". Whatever. That kind of stuff should be rewarded in our socities, not mocked. 7 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JARG Posted March 21, 2017 Share Posted March 21, 2017 (edited) What you think?Unusual compositions, odd time sigs, lyrics that alternated between being preachy and geeky, "Overture" and "Grand Finale", etc... Edited March 21, 2017 by JARG 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mystic Slipperman Posted March 21, 2017 Share Posted March 21, 2017 Another point: Critics like to use "pretentious" for anything related to the whole "prog-rock" thing. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
taurus Posted March 21, 2017 Share Posted March 21, 2017 Back in the day, Rolling Stone and Creem magazine and across the pond I guess it would of been Melody Maker and New Music Express, were the arbiters of taste. And they liked prog-rock up to 1972 but in 1973 A Passion Play and Tales from Topographic Oceans were released, it was all too much to bear and their love of prog collapsed. From there on in, anything prog-like got labelled as pretentious and self indulgent - and everyone wanting to appear knowledgeable and hip, adopted that stance. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
apetersvt Posted March 21, 2017 Share Posted March 21, 2017 (edited) La Villa Strangiato is subtitled - 'An Exercise In Self Indulgence'. So one could argue that the band is calling itself pretentious. Edited March 21, 2017 by apetersvt 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goose Posted March 21, 2017 Share Posted March 21, 2017 (edited) What you think? I know many people who are not Rush fans call Neil Peart a very pretentious songwriter. I don't get what is pretentious about Rush music? Esp. their 70's prog output is called pretentious.Simultaneously pretentious and sophomoric is a common criticism. I don't totally disagree. Edited March 21, 2017 by goose 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluefox4000 Posted March 21, 2017 Share Posted March 21, 2017 What you think? I know many people who are not Rush fans call Neil Peart a very pretentious songwriter. I don't get what is pretentious about Rush music? Esp. their 70's prog output is called pretentious.Simultaneously pretentious and sophomoric is a common criticism. I don't totally disagree. i can't totally disagree either.The lyrics to the 70's stuff at points s just......jeez, lol Mick 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ReRushed Posted March 21, 2017 Share Posted March 21, 2017 I never got the impression that Rush was pretending to be something they are not. 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluefox4000 Posted March 21, 2017 Share Posted March 21, 2017 I never got the impression that Rush was pretending to be something they are not. so they wore Japanese kimonos daily? lol I'm just messing with you.......i get ya. Mick 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ReRushed Posted March 21, 2017 Share Posted March 21, 2017 I never got the impression that Rush was pretending to be something they are not. so they wore Japanese kimonos daily? lol I'm just messing with you.......i get ya. MickThey always dressed appropriately following the then current trend. I still roll my eyes at the GUP mullets! Anyway, musically I always felt they were sincere. I do acknowledge that when Neil steps out of his comfort zone it can be cringeworthy, for example "Nobody's Hero". Hobbits and spaceships not so much! 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goose Posted March 21, 2017 Share Posted March 21, 2017 I never got the impression that Rush was pretending to be something they are not.They do admit in interviews that in the 70's they were intentionally composing complex arrangements for the sake of showing their chops, which is a common knock in general against prog rock. Note how in interviews they talk about the 80's being a shift toward writing more within the song, and their playing virtuosity being still present, but more disguised. 6 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ReRushed Posted March 21, 2017 Share Posted March 21, 2017 I never got the impression that Rush was pretending to be something they are not.They do admit in interviews that in the 70's they were intentionally composing complex arrangements for the sake of showing their chops, which is a common knock in general against prog rock. Note how in interviews they talk about the 80's being a shift toward writing more within the song, and their playing virtuosity being still present, but more disguised.Sure. But I don't necessarily think that's being pretentious. Dressing up like a flower or writing an entire concept album that doesn't make much sense or playing an elevating drum set, stuff like that is more pretentious than showing off your chops. I get how certain types think Rush comes across pretentious, I just think Rush never pretended or exalted themselves. Following trends or the zeitgeist isn't necessarily pretentious. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
taurus Posted March 21, 2017 Share Posted March 21, 2017 Isn't there pretension/indulgence baked right into the cake when one declares themselves an artist, chooses to "create" music, record it and offer it up for people to purchase and on top of that, appear at a public venue, go up on stage and perform for people - and as a final audacity, charge money. You want to create? Good - keep it to yourself you self-important t**t. I don't buy the pretentious knock against Rush or prog in general. Certainly no more than the audacity of Bowie, Dylan, Iggy, Ramones, Nirvana or anyone else who created and wanted to share it with the world. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
treeduck Posted March 21, 2017 Share Posted March 21, 2017 Not by me, I think of it as heavy metal! :haz: :haz: :haz: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EagleMoon Posted March 21, 2017 Share Posted March 21, 2017 It takes a little more effort to get into them. They are a little bit like Star Trek. So many nuances to their music. How things are put together, the meaning of the lyrics etc. Neil doesn't write lyrics that are one-dimensional. To some people, pretentious means anything that takes any mental effort. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ancient Ways Posted March 21, 2017 Share Posted March 21, 2017 The heyday of Rush was during punk and nu wave. By comparison they seemed pretentious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
djflex Posted March 22, 2017 Share Posted March 22, 2017 Perhaps, most prog type music could be considered a bit pretenious. But thats ok, i just think not everyone likes complex music. And rush is certainly that. Most of the world is happy singing along to whatever crap they are playing on top 40 radio Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Honest Man Posted March 29, 2017 Share Posted March 29, 2017 Some good points made here. I always felt they got that label early on because they did not write about the usual crap ( love,women, sex, drugs, partying) their music actually had something worthwhile to say, so the rest of the music world looked at RUSH like "they think they are smarter or better than us" so they labeled them pretentious. That is my personal take on it. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. JD Posted March 29, 2017 Share Posted March 29, 2017 I don't know. Maybe because it is to complex for some people to understand. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Entre_Perpetuo Posted March 29, 2017 Share Posted March 29, 2017 Rush are associated with virtuosity and progressive rock, which much of society find synonymous with the label "pretentious." Simple as that. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xanadoood Posted March 29, 2017 Share Posted March 29, 2017 (edited) It was based off the time they came on the scene. Prog and hard rock/ metal were despised by the critics. Rush combined both at the height of Punk and dawning of new wave. What amazes me is a band like Radiohead, with song titles like Subterranean Homesick Alien, got a pass from critics. And to be fair, Rush were young and juvenile, Neil's lyrics being the main culprit. If they had continued with the Cygnus stuff into the 80s, yeah.. pretty damn pretentious and silly at that point. Edited March 29, 2017 by Xanadoood 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Segue Myles Posted March 29, 2017 Share Posted March 29, 2017 I just think it's because they can come across as a band who think they are smarter than they really are. But once you see what goofball's they are in reality that perception is shattered. For the better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ILSnwdog Posted March 29, 2017 Share Posted March 29, 2017 What you think?Unusual compositions, odd time sigs, lyrics that alternated between being preachy and geeky, "Overture" and "Grand Finale", etc...If that stuff is truly pretentious, and loving pretentious music is wrong, than I don't want to be right! :banana: 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now