Jump to content

Hating Rush


Timbale
 Share

Recommended Posts

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?

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

why did/do people who hate Rush really, really hate them?

These are clearly people with terrible taste and judgment. Like someone ordering a steak well done with ketchup and a diet coke accompaniment.

  • Like 8
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe it's because they went from being one of the GREAT rock power trios to a sad Flock of Seagulls tribute act & expected everyone to just accept it.

That never happened, not in this universe anyway.

  • Like 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

 

 

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.

Edited by chemistry1973
  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

From what I always remember the only real negative that was constantly harped upon was Geddy's vocals....at least in my circle ..'75 '76,..certainly wasn't the music.My High School days Rush was getting praise.

 

Rush were jumping on the prog train but it was already waning ...with Neil's sci-fi epics, that with Geddy's vocals it was only natural for the critics to latch on to that.

 

I think your reading too much into it........it's as simple as Rush wasn't a radio friendly band which in many respects it's what kept the fan base growing.

 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

 

 

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.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

From what I always remember the only real negative that was constantly harped upon was Geddy's vocals....at least in my circle ..'75 '76,..certainly wasn't the music.My High School days Rush was getting praise.

 

Rush were jumping on the prog train but it was already waning ...with Neil's sci-fi epics, that with Geddy's vocals it was only natural for the critics to latch on to that.

 

I think your reading too much into it........it's as simple as Rush wasn't a radio friendly band which in many respects it's what kept the fan base growing.

 

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.... ;) )

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

They made the music that they wanted to make and they didn't try to just make what their audience wanted to hear. I'm not saying it's a bad thing, I admire it a lot, but it definitely left a bad taste in people's mouths. A lot of bands get criticized by fans for "changing their sound", especially Rush. Also, some people view their music as "too serious", which is dumb to me but to each their own.

 

Side note, it amazes me when people who hate Rush try to downplay their musical talent. Objectively speaking, they are very talented musicians and I think it's unfair to say that they're not just because you don't like their music.

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've had people describe Rush as too busy. Or as a wall of sound, wall of noise. They overplay. They're too complicated. You can't just listen to it, you have to think. Stuff like that.

 

Of course, chipmunk on helium.

 

Fair enough. Folks can't like everything.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Geddy's voice and some don't like Ayn Rand may be the reasons and myself with the latter. I'm no satanist but that doesn't stop me from listening to F'in Slayer. :haz: I'm not a born again fundie but that don't stop me from listening to (when they're good) Megadeth. Edited by invisible airwave
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the Ayn Rand connection earned them enemies in the establishment rock press and others just followed suit. Bands/artists have s brief moment where they're the darlings of the rock press, but then something happens, they fall out of favour and can do no right after that. Press loved Jethro Tull until A Passion Play - couldn't get a break after that. Alice Cooper was the shit for 1971/72 then dropped. Goes on and on. Only The Beatles, The Stones, Dylan, all things Mo-town and maybe a few others, were consistently embraced in the 70's (the only decade that matters)
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

why did/do people who hate Rush really, really hate them?

These are clearly people with terrible taste and judgment. Like someone ordering a steak well done with ketchup and a diet coke accompaniment.

 

Some people are animals!

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have one good childhood friend that is really into all kinds of music and yet he is one of the ones who doesn't like Rush. (He tries to keep it to himself around me; he knows how I feel! :P )

 

The reasons he has mentioned for disliking them is that he feels they are pretty derivative and kind of clinical; I don't know if that's the best way to describe it but I have heard a few people mention it before. The feeling that Rush, for a lot of people, isn't the band you're gonna blast out the car window on the first day of summer. Yet among we Rush fans, so many songs stir deep emotions, even if it is a song about Trees or whatever. :) I dunno, I got nuthin'.

 

ETA- Not my husband ! :lol: He is Mr. Deep Purple but is coming over to the dark side. Has come to admire Alex's guitar work quite a bit. :)

Edited by blueschica
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Most common (and honestly, understandable) reasons I've come across for people not liking Rush:

 

*Geddy's voice (I've always liked it from the beginning but it's certainly not for everyone)

 

*The Ayn Rand/libertarian thing (Neil pretty strongly distanced himself from that stuff after about 1980 but you can't expect most people who aren't diehard fans to know that if they already had that perception)

 

*The idea that they're incredible technical musicians whose music is sterile/soulless (I don't agree in Rush's case but there are bands I feel that way about so I can understand where someone is coming from if they feel that way)

 

I'm way past the stage in my life where I get mad that someone else doesn't like the same music as me.

Edited by thizzellewashington
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm gonna give my take before i read other posts in the thread:

 

 

 

 

Rush were initially dismissed by the music criticism establishment--the same people who gave Led Zeppelin IV an unremarkable one paragraph review and called Queen fascists for a song that isn't even on the record being reviewed at the time--because they were highly derivative of Led Zeppelin and Cream and didn't really have their own style figured out... also Geddy's voice. After they got Neil and really started hammering out their own sound, they were hammered for praising Ayn Rand (something people past college age have generally never found cool), playing in the shallow end of the prog pool (something critics past a certain age also never really found cool), and once again... Geddy's voice.

 

Drop the Aynd Rand criticism out, then back in, then out again, then drop in a criticism about The Trees's lyrics, and it's basically the same story running up to Permanent Waves. Though we can all see Rush getting more and more ambitious and generally becoming much better musicians and songwriters with every step, they were still writing "pretentious" lyrics and music which critics generally didn't appreciate, especially after hearing The Sex Pistols for the first time. Long after the original punk "revolution" (i.e. 15 minutes of fame) had subsided and while new wave and post punk were already hitting their cultural peak, Rush finally started shortening up the songs and taking on some more recent influences. However their main new influence was The Police, and I'm not sure if they garnered much critical praise before Ghost In The Machine or Synchronicity. Either way, the original criticism of being derivative would probably return to critics minds, as hypocritical as it is to complain a band isn't keeping up with the times than complain when they start keeping up with the times. Or honestly, 6 albums into their career, it's likely most critics had just already made up their minds about Rush. It didn't matter how much Rush had changed from their first album, and it wouldn't matter how much they changed going forward. The critics who hated Rush from the start and didn't immediately turn around when they got a glimpse of greater potential probably went into new Rush reviews unable to fathom enjoying this band's music, full stop.

 

I think critics had a few problems when they started leaving prog behind: 1. they didn't stop doing prog "soon enough," 2. they traded Yes and Led Zeppelin for The Police, 3. they still had some prog tendencies far into the 80s, 4. they did prog in the first place, 5. they still wrote nerdy "pretentious" lyrics, 6. ...Geddy's voice still sounded pretty darn high. The thing is, whatever it is about Rush that makes a Rush fan love them from one album to the next, through all the changes in their sound and style and Geddy's transformation from a screaming banshee to a yodeling one, that's probably the exact same thing that makes those critics hair stand on end and skin start to crawl. They didn't follow the "right" trends, or when they did they didn't do it at the "right" time or in the "right" way. They did it their own way, and critics didn't like Rush's way of doing things. By the 90s they'd probably be considered passé, and then it would take a steady stream of Rush-positive influence in various forms of media and in older fans taking younger children to Rush concerts and inducting them for most of the 00's before Dave Grohl would induct them into the RRHOF with the question, "when the **** did Rush become cool?!" It just took a long time for cooler heads to prevail, who were more likely to care about the changes from album to album, who had a chance to see how Rush prevailed at doing what they do in various evolutions over such a long period of time, who had been attending Rush concerts ever since they became fans. The original critics had their say at the start and judged the rest of the bands output by that beginning. Derivative, nerdy, pretentious, blowtorched cat on helium reference. That's all they saw. It didn't matter if it was 2112, Vital Signs, or Tai Shan.

 

 

 

 

Ask yourself this: if a band you hated, and had always hated, put out an album in a completely new style with new influences, maybe even a cooler style, would you suddenly start caring about them? Say Nickelback did a goth album, inspired by Depeche Mode and The Cure. Or say Imagine Dragons put out a progressive rock album, complete with a 20 minute sidelong epic about life and death and depression and revelation and blistering moog solos. Is it more likely that you suddenly fall for a band you've never liked because they put on new clothes and changed their accent and general conversational style, or would you be unable to look past the things they choose to keep? Chad Kroeger's grating voice would still be there after all. Imagine Dragons' massively compressed production style and simplistic choruses would probably survive. As simple listeners we don't have to care about what our least favorite musicians do, the crazy changes in sound and style they make. But as a music critic it might be your job to make sure you give the new Justin Bieber album at least 5 listens before writing your review. I hate Justin Bieber's music. I have since I was in middle school. I actively avoid hearing him anywhere I go. I don't want to know what his goth album or prog album or metal album or jazz album sounds like. I just don't care about him and I have little faith he can do any of those styles well. If I were forced to listen to him try one of them five times in a row for money, I probably wouldn't be too keen on writing him a positive review, even if it exceeded my expectations. Humans hold grudges, especially easy grudges that won't cause anyone else harm in the long run. Like sports rivalries, award show snubs, or especially grudges against music we don't like.

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

College educated, struggling white east coast snobs hate that shit.

 

I happen to be a college educated, job seeking, white, midwestern music snob... and I love it.

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

They should have kept Rutsey!

 

You'd be a bigger JR Flood fan. I'm calling it.

Edited by Entre_Perpetuo
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...