Jump to content

Hating Rush


Timbale
 Share

Recommended Posts

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.

 

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.

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

So...why have a grudge against Rush? Why so much vitriol?

 

Because of our society's innate need to hate or scapegoat someone or something.

 

When a truly original and even unique artist comes on to the scene, there will always be a percentage of fans who have to "hate" that artist. People just don't get into the artist's works, usually because they don't understand it. That lack of understanding can lead to anger and a contempt for that artist.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I`m surprised by the idea of hating Rush. The more logical expression would be of complete indifference, to ignore them if they`re not your thing. I can`t say I hate bands I don`t listen to or genres that don`t grab me, as I`d have to know a lot of their material before I could forge such a precision argument. You can`t hate something you don`t really know; that`s just a prepubescent intestinal response to very limited information.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of the people I know who don't really care for Rush, all of them say it's because of Geddy's voice, and I completely get that. I'm not sure there's much disagreement that his voice isn't very good, but it was good enough, apparently.

Those people didn't pay attention to his singing after 1980, I guess. He began to sing with chest voice and his sense of melody greatly improved.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lots of reasons i'm sure.

 

i love Tom Waits but could TOTALLY see why someone would hate his music.

 

same with Rush. Maybe peoplle hate the longer tracks or hate geddy's voice? Neil's Lyrics can come off hoilier than thou perhaps?

 

take your pick as with anything.

 

Mick

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't forget that a lot of uneducated people were intimidated by Neil's lyrics. They couldn't understand what the words meant.

 

These are the same people who hated school, and don't read books. They know what they know types. LOL

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't forget that a lot of uneducated people were intimidated by Neil's lyrics. They couldn't understand what the words meant.

 

I kinda doubt anybody hates Rush because they’re uneducated and don’t understand Neil’s lyrics. I feel like the only people who hate Neil’s lyrics are those who do understand them and think they’re preachy or have bad influences or are clunky or something like that. I have no clue what the words to Sigur Rós’ music mean, but I still enjoy the music.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of the people I know who don't really care for Rush, all of them say it's because of Geddy's voice, and I completely get that. I'm not sure there's much disagreement that his voice isn't very good, but it was good enough, apparently.

Those people didn't pay attention to his singing after 1980, I guess. He began to sing with chest voice and his sense of melody greatly improved.

 

He always sang full voice. His full voice just happened to be incredibly high. Same with Robert Plant. There are probably a couple examples of high falsetto screams, but most everything he ever sang was full voice. The first time I ever noticed Geddy using falsetto was Vapor Trails.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i don't know about the uneducated shit my Granda LOATHED them. college educated wrote multiple books about nursing.

 

before you say yea but she was an old lady. true......but....She liked Yes.......Pink Floyd......Hendrix??? OZZY anybody?????

 

so that uneducated stuff.......kinda insulting.

 

Mick

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

i don't know about the uneducated shit my Granda LOATHED them. college educated wrote multiple books about nursing.

 

before you say yea but she was an old lady. true......but....She liked Yes.......Pink Floyd......Hendrix??? OZZY anybody?????

 

so that uneducated stuff.......kinda insulting.

 

Mick

 

oh shit i twisted that around....uh......but you get my broader point, lol

 

Mick

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

i don't know about the uneducated shit my Granda LOATHED them. college educated wrote multiple books about nursing.

 

before you say yea but she was an old lady. true......but....She liked Yes.......Pink Floyd......Hendrix??? OZZY anybody?????

 

so that uneducated stuff.......kinda insulting.

 

Mick

 

My dad isn’t college educated. He is smart, but school wasn’t his thing. Obviously he loves Rush.

Edited by Entre_Perpetuo
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of the people I know who don't really care for Rush, all of them say it's because of Geddy's voice, and I completely get that. I'm not sure there's much disagreement that his voice isn't very good, but it was good enough, apparently.

Those people didn't pay attention to his singing after 1980, I guess. He began to sing with chest voice and his sense of melody greatly improved.

My ex didn't like their early stuff because of his voice but enjoyed everything PeW and later.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lots of reasons i'm sure.

 

i love Tom Waits but could TOTALLY see why someone would hate his music.

 

same with Rush. Maybe peoplle hate the longer tracks or hate geddy's voice? Neil's Lyrics can come off hoilier than thou perhaps?

 

take your pick as with anything.

 

Mick

 

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.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1631308375[/url]' post='4945889']

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.

This is certainly why a large portion of their early fan base does. The mid 80s drove me away for a long time.

 

I've never heard the libertarian angle anywhere. That might be a little projection by some fans. Geddy’s voice isn’t for everyone. It’s no different from why people don’t like Ozzy, or DLR, or Steven Tyler.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The chief critical criticism I have read throughout the decades is mainly a distaste for prog. Critics find the musical feats get in the way of the song actually being good. And critics tend to find the words working to hard to be clever and ending up sounding pretentious instead. While the music changed a lot, what didn't change was the complex music and poetic wordsmithing. So critics hated it. They hated Genesis, Yes, and Tull for the same reasons.

 

Basically they hated prog. Other than Floyd. They always got a pass for some reason.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm going to use two Canadian examples here with Bachman-Turner Overdrive and Rush in relation to this topic.

 

Both bands were signed to Mercury Records, but each achieved success in a different way.

 

Members of both bands get mentioned in these article pieces and a 2002 video interview below.

 

Creem - March 1976

 

RUSH Pebbles & Bam-Bam In Alphaville

 

Lethbridge Herald - October 1976

 

Rush draws on reading material

 

Sharp Magazine - December 2012

 

How Three Nerds From Ontario Created A Musical Empire, And Why 2012 Was Their Greatest Year

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9hocv8EB_vk

 

It's kind of hilarious that Randy Bachman has praised Geddy, Alex, and Neil as individual musicians, but not the music per se.

 

Alex is featured in Bachman's documentary as noted here.

 

Perhaps critics will give praise to music that's easily accessible, but other music isn't given that praise.

Edited by RushFanForever
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't forget that a lot of uneducated people were intimidated by Neil's lyrics. They couldn't understand what the words meant.

 

I kinda doubt anybody hates Rush because they’re uneducated and don’t understand Neil’s lyrics. I feel like the only people who hate Neil’s lyrics are those who do understand them and think they’re preachy or have bad influences or are clunky or something like that. I have no clue what the words to Sigur Rós’ music mean, but I still enjoy the music.

I've known two people who didn't understand anything about 2112 or Ayn Rand and disliked them for that reason.

Primarily it's the early stuff. "Time Stand Still/I'm not looking back/but I want to look around me now" is pretty universal.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I`m surprised by the idea of hating Rush. The more logical expression would be of complete indifference, to ignore them if they`re not your thing. I can`t say I hate bands I don`t listen to or genres that don`t grab me, as I`d have to know a lot of their material before I could forge such a precision argument. You can`t hate something you don`t really know; that`s just a prepubescent intestinal response to very limited information.

Yeah, it takes something special to HATE an artist or group. For me, it's Kid Rock. I want to hurt him with my hands.

  • Like 3
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.

Why can't people just listen to their catalog with two different sets of ears?

It's like being angry at lasagna because it's not hamburger. You can enjoy both.

lol

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's kind of hilarious that Randy Bachman has praised Geddy, Alex, and Neil as individual musicians, but not the music per se.

 

Isn't one of the well known funny little tidbits about Neil that despite being really good friends with Stewart Copeland (The Police), Copeland has gone on record saying that he's not a fan of Neil's playing?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's also a big contingent of people, a lot of whom are music critics, that gravitate to rock that's more spontaneous and gut-level and "in the spirit" of three chords and rebellion and aren't going to be impressed by complicated time signatures and philosophical lyrics. That isn't a value judgment by me about which type of music is better than the other, I'm into stuff all across the spectrum, but there's a reason critics in the late 70s and early 80s were going to prefer stuff like the Clash or Elvis Costello or early pre-stadium U2 to stuff like Rush. The whole narrative at the time was that punk rock, which is EXTREMELY well-liked critically, happened as a response to the "excesses" of prog, and Rush is arguably the most commercially successful prog band of that era, so of course they're going to get the majority of the hate.

 

Personally, I'd argue that making a 20-minute concept piece in response to your label threatening to drop you if you don't get more commercial is as "punk rock" as it gets, but that's neither here nor there.

Edited by thizzellewashington
  • Like 6
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...