Jump to content

Rush and Rand


Timbale
 Share

Recommended Posts

I loved Rand's novels as epic storytelling when I was younger. I loved the message of artistic freedom and excellence in The Fountainhead, and Atlas Shrugged impressed me as a huge achievement because it broke every rule of character building in fiction but still managed to be compelling. But I was truly gobsmacked when I found out years later that anyone took Objectivism seriously as any kind of viable philosophy by which to live life in the real world.

 

Good post, and I agree. This was a phase for Neil. Next album, it was on to fantasy and Tolkien. Then 2112, where his thoughts had evolved even further. The evolution is fun to watch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The way Rush dabbling with Objectivism was dealt with by the British press was ugly and that "stain" (not my feelings, but the way the critical world felt) didn`t get washed off, even though it`s a million miles from sentiments expressed by Neil from the 80s onwards.

 

But I do wonder how many critics are now in their slippers and listening to Wagner? I`m as guilty as anyone for making a judgement for a non-musical reason, but I do think a musician`s catalog is more interesting when viewed as a whole, not hanging onto one song or record and assuming the band never changed. I`d hope a critic would have an evolving view, just as any human that lives a life.

 

(And I`m looking forward to a documentary called Look Away. It`s about 70, 80s rockstars and the sexual abuse of minors that everyone knows occurred but has chosen to ignore - Steven Tyler, for example, will be in the spotlight for such things as taking an underage girl on tour, legally obtaining guardianship from her mother, getting her pregnant, then an abortion etc. Probably bigger issues than reading Ayn Rand.)

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The way Rush dabbling with Objectivism was dealt with by the British press was ugly and that "stain" (not my feelings, but the way the critical world felt) didn`t get washed off, even though it`s a million miles from sentiments expressed by Neil from the 80s onwards.

 

But I do wonder how many critics are now in their slippers and listening to Wagner? I`m as guilty as anyone for making a judgement for a non-musical reason, but I do think a musician`s catalog is more interesting when viewed as a whole, not hanging onto one song or record and assuming the band never changed. I`d hope a critic would have an evolving view, just as any human that lives a life.

 

(And I`m looking forward to a documentary called Look Away. It`s about 70, 80s rockstars and the sexual abuse of minors that everyone knows occurred but has chosen to ignore - Steven Tyler, for example, will be in the spotlight for such things as taking an underage girl on tour, legally obtaining guardianship from her mother, getting her pregnant, then an abortion etc. Probably bigger issues than reading Ayn Rand.)

Rush's treatment by, in partucular the UK press was more about the state of music journalism at the time and its rabid hatred of anything deemed 'old rock'.

As you say, a musician's career is an evolving entity and should be viewed as such. I can see Rush's career having evolved right from 1974 all the way to the final album and I love them for that..

There are a lot worse things out there in the world than a few Ayn Rand lyrics.

 

There is a minefield out there in the music business if you want to look hard enough.....

and as for life on the road, underage sex, groupies, drugs etc etc. - best not to even start thinking about it ...... it goes way back to Jerry Lee Lewis and probably beyond.

If we start branding musicians for some of this behaviour, we will have precious little to listen to!!

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

... I think he's a misinformed windbag who should shut the f**k up, ...

 

Probably unwise for me to poke the outraged bear, but why should someone who says or performs something you do not like "shut the f*ck up"? Is there simply no room in today's society for people with differing viewpoints to simply agree to disagree? Are folks only allowed to produce art that you agree with?

 

What other forms of speech would you be in favor of censoring?

 

I do not agree with all aspects of Ayn Rand's philosophy, but her positions were arrived at through a life of experience. She summed up her philosophy as follows:

 

"My philosophy, in essence, is the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute." -- Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged

 

Is there nothing in that statement that you can support? Is the expression of that philosophy something that no one should be allowed to consider and discuss?

 

To be clear, this post is not meant to be an attack of any sort, nor is it a defense of Ayn Rand or her philosophy. My objection is to the suggestion that she, or Eric Clapton, or anyone else for that matter, should not be allowed to express their points of view.

 

The harm is not in the existence of too many points of view, some of which some people find objectionable. The harm is in allowing too few points of view.

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

... I think he's a misinformed windbag who should shut the f**k up, ...

 

Probably unwise for me to poke the outraged bear, but why should someone who says or performs something you do not like "shut the f*ck up"? Is there simply no room in today's society for people with differing viewpoints to simply agree to disagree? Are folks only allowed to produce art that you agree with?

 

What other forms of speech would you be in favor of censoring?

 

I do not agree with all aspects of Ayn Rand's philosophy, but her positions were arrived at through a life of experience. She summed up her philosophy as follows:

 

"My philosophy, in essence, is the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute." -- Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged

 

Is there nothing in that statement that you can support? Is the expression of that philosophy something that no one should be allowed to consider and discuss?

 

To be clear, this post is not meant to be an attack of any sort, nor is it a defense of Ayn Rand or her philosophy. My objection is to the suggestion that she, or Eric Clapton, or anyone else for that matter, should not be allowed to express their points of view.

 

The harm is not in the existence of too many points of view, some of which some people find objectionable. The harm is in allowing too few points of view.

There is nothing about that statement that I dislike. I don`t see how, at its most stark, it has to be seen as an evil that was almost on a par with fascism. How those words are interpreted to fit other agendas... there`s the ugly part. Even some of The Bible looks good on paper - any text must be separated from its believers and judged as such.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The way Rush dabbling with Objectivism was dealt with by the British press was ugly and that "stain" (not my feelings, but the way the critical world felt) didn`t get washed off, even though it`s a million miles from sentiments expressed by Neil from the 80s onwards.

 

But I do wonder how many critics are now in their slippers and listening to Wagner? I`m as guilty as anyone for making a judgement for a non-musical reason, but I do think a musician`s catalog is more interesting when viewed as a whole, not hanging onto one song or record and assuming the band never changed. I`d hope a critic would have an evolving view, just as any human that lives a life.

 

(And I`m looking forward to a documentary called Look Away. It`s about 70, 80s rockstars and the sexual abuse of minors that everyone knows occurred but has chosen to ignore - Steven Tyler, for example, will be in the spotlight for such things as taking an underage girl on tour, legally obtaining guardianship from her mother, getting her pregnant, then an abortion etc. Probably bigger issues than reading Ayn Rand.)

Rush's treatment by, in partucular the UK press was more about the state of music journalism at the time and its rabid hatred of anything deemed 'old rock'.

As you say, a musician's career is an evolving entity and should be viewed as such. I can see Rush's career having evolved right from 1974 all the way to the final album and I love them for that..

There are a lot worse things out there in the world than a few Ayn Rand lyrics.

 

There is a minefield out there in the music business if you want to look hard enough.....

and as for life on the road, underage sex, groupies, drugs etc etc. - best not to even start thinking about it ...... it goes way back to Jerry Lee Lewis and probably beyond.

If we start branding musicians for some of this behaviour, we will have precious little to listen to!!

There`s a reckoning a`comin`!!!
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

... I think he's a misinformed windbag who should shut the f**k up, ...

 

Probably unwise for me to poke the outraged bear, but why should someone who says or performs something you do not like "shut the f*ck up"? Is there simply no room in today's society for people with differing viewpoints to simply agree to disagree? Are folks only allowed to produce art that you agree with?

 

What other forms of speech would you be in favor of censoring?

 

I do not agree with all aspects of Ayn Rand's philosophy, but her positions were arrived at through a life of experience. She summed up her philosophy as follows:

 

"My philosophy, in essence, is the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute." -- Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged

 

Is there nothing in that statement that you can support? Is the exp<b></b>ression of that philosophy something that no one should be allowed to consider and discuss?

 

To be clear, this post is not meant to be an attack of any sort, nor is it a defense of Ayn Rand or her philosophy. My objection is to the suggestion that she, or Eric Clapton, or anyone else for that matter, should not be allowed to express their points of view.

 

The harm is not in the existence of too many points of view, some of which some people find objectionable. The harm is in allowing too few points of view.

 

I’m betting Timbale has a similar view about Clapton’s anti-lockdown bent to me: it’s ill informed. I agree that ill informed opinions have every right to be voiced, and I don’t thing they shouldn’t have that right. However, that doesn’t stop me from wishing they wouldn’t be voiced. It’s like wishing someone didn’t make a frivolous, expensive lawsuit. I have no qualms with every person’s right to sue for any reason where I live. I just wish that people didn’t decide to sue frivolously. Free speech is sacred and legal action should never be taken to prevent it, but that doesn’t mean I’m going to be glad everyone says exactly what’s on their mind all the time.

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

The way Rush dabbling with Objectivism was dealt with by the British press was ugly and that "stain" (not my feelings, but the way the critical world felt) didn`t get washed off, even though it`s a million miles from sentiments expressed by Neil from the 80s onwards.

 

But I do wonder how many critics are now in their slippers and listening to Wagner? I`m as guilty as anyone for making a judgement for a non-musical reason, but I do think a musician`s catalog is more interesting when viewed as a whole, not hanging onto one song or record and assuming the band never changed. I`d hope a critic would have an evolving view, just as any human that lives a life.

 

(And I`m looking forward to a documentary called Look Away. It`s about 70, 80s rockstars and the sexual abuse of minors that everyone knows occurred but has chosen to ignore - Steven Tyler, for example, will be in the spotlight for such things as taking an underage girl on tour, legally obtaining guardianship from her mother, getting her pregnant, then an abortion etc. Probably bigger issues than reading Ayn Rand.)

Rush's treatment by, in partucular the UK press was more about the state of music journalism at the time and its rabid hatred of anything deemed 'old rock'.

As you say, a musician's career is an evolving entity and should be viewed as such. I can see Rush's career having evolved right from 1974 all the way to the final album and I love them for that..

There are a lot worse things out there in the world than a few Ayn Rand lyrics.

 

There is a minefield out there in the music business if you want to look hard enough.....

and as for life on the road, underage sex, groupies, drugs etc etc. - best not to even start thinking about it ...... it goes way back to Jerry Lee Lewis and probably beyond.

If we start branding musicians for some of this behaviour, we will have precious little to listen to!!

There`s a reckoning a`comin`!!!

53804934.jpg
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

... I think he's a misinformed windbag who should shut the f**k up, ...

 

Probably unwise for me to poke the outraged bear, but why should someone who says or performs something you do not like "shut the f*ck up"? Is there simply no room in today's society for people with differing viewpoints to simply agree to disagree? Are folks only allowed to produce art that you agree with?

 

What other forms of speech would you be in favor of censoring?

 

I do not agree with all aspects of Ayn Rand's philosophy, but her positions were arrived at through a life of experience. She summed up her philosophy as follows:

 

"My philosophy, in essence, is the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute." -- Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged

 

Is there nothing in that statement that you can support? Is the expression of that philosophy something that no one should be allowed to consider and discuss?

 

To be clear, this post is not meant to be an attack of any sort, nor is it a defense of Ayn Rand or her philosophy. My objection is to the suggestion that she, or Eric Clapton, or anyone else for that matter, should not be allowed to express their points of view.

 

The harm is not in the existence of too many points of view, some of which some people find objectionable. The harm is in allowing too few points of view.

 

Capoetc -

 

I'm not an outraged bear...you're free to poke me all you like. :)

 

I was being somewhat of a smart ass in regards to Eric Clapton, I will grant you. My personal opinion is that he is espousing ill-informed rubbish that emboldens people to make choices that are extending this goddamned pandemic in the name of "personal freedom" as if communal responsibility is of no value and shouldn't be prioritized in a time of crisis. One of my closest friends works in health care, and I have seen her struggle and grieve over and over and over again watching families say goodbye to loved ones via an ipad because they cannot even be in the room as they die. Having a multi-millionaire who could very, very easily sit this pandemic out - he doesn't need to tour to support himself - saying "enough is enough" or whatever is really really distasteful to me. (If he's dying to create during this time, he certainly can write and record.).

 

And the thing is...I agree with you, yes, he has the right to say whatever he wants. I am not talking about censorship (despite saying flippantly that he should shut the f**k up). But I feel that we are living through a time where the focus on individual rights is so extreme that it is completely eclipsing any sense of common good or responsibility to others. As Neil wrote "I'm so full of what is right, I can't see what is good." This sums a lot up for me. This is the people who won't wear a mask because they feel the government doesn't have the authority to tell them to do so. They may very well be right - but the shithead who leaves a wife, 3 kids with a fourth on the way mourning his anti-mask/anti-vax ass sure couldn't see what was good.

 

And my feelings on all of that feed into my feelings about Objectivism, I suppose. I honestly don't really find anything to agree with in that Rand quote. It is, I suppose, a valid point of view, or at least a valid philosophical viewpoint, but from my perspective the moment it is dragged into the real world as a practice it creates serious societal issues. From the first thought the concept of man as a heroic being I'm already kinda out. It takes a level of selfish, myopic thinking to believe that humans by their very existence are heroic. I just don't agree. They sure can be, but it's not the default setting. I also don't believe that one's own happiness is the moral purpose of their life. I just do not. I understand others do. Also not on board with productive achievement being the noblest activity. Not against productive achievement...but to me the idea that it is superior to other modes of human endeavour is problematic, especially in real-world applications. I bet Rand would have thought Branson and Musk dicking around in space was the ultimate in human fulfillment...whereas I find it rather useless and even mockable. But I support their right to do it. ;)

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So Neil, an atheist to my knowledge, is the guy that wrote:

 

You can surrender without a prayer

But never really pray

Pray without surrender

 

 

So why did no one call him out for invoking communication with a higher power/God when in fact doesn't believe in one?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So Neil, an atheist to my knowledge, is the guy that wrote:

 

You can surrender without a prayer

But never really pray

Pray without surrender

 

 

So why did no one call him out for invoking communication with a higher power/God when in fact doesn't believe in one?

Not all lyrics are autobiographical or written from one's own perspective...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So Neil, an atheist to my knowledge, is the guy that wrote:

 

You can surrender without a prayer

But never really pray

Pray without surrender

 

 

So why did no one call him out for invoking communication with a higher power/God when in fact doesn't believe in one?

Not all lyrics are autobiographical or written from one's own perspective...

 

Indeed. Demonstrating that you understand a point of view does not necessarily mean you hold that point of view.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd rather listen to Ayn Rand songs with awesome music than songs on the right side of history done by awful pop stars like Katy Perry. Same goes with the whole Satan thing with Slayer. The sinners are much more fun when it comes to music. Am I right? Asking for a boxer turned pianist from Long Island.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So Neil, an atheist to my knowledge, is the guy that wrote:

 

You can surrender without a prayer

But never really pray

Pray without surrender

 

 

So why did no one call him out for invoking communication with a higher power/God when in fact doesn't believe in one?

 

You don't need to believe in a higher power to understand that praying includes an aspect of surrender. There is nothing to "call him out" over.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd rather listen to Ayn Rand songs with awesome music than songs on the right side of history done by awful pop stars like Katy Perry. Same goes with the whole Satan thing with Slayer. The sinners are much more fun when it comes to music. Am I right? Asking for a boxer turned pianist from Long Island.

 

Katy Perry's not awful. Modern pop has much much worse stars to offer. Though she is inconsistent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I’m betting Timbale has a similar view about Clapton’s anti-lockdown bent to me: it’s ill informed. I agree that ill informed opinions have every right to be voiced, and I don’t thing they shouldn’t have that right. However, that doesn’t stop me from wishing they wouldn’t be voiced. It’s like wishing someone didn’t make a frivolous, expensive lawsuit. I have no qualms with every person’s right to sue for any reason where I live. I just wish that people didn’t decide to sue frivolously. Free speech is sacred and legal action should never be taken to prevent it, but that doesn’t mean I’m going to be glad everyone says exactly what’s on their mind all the time.

 

Free speech exists precisely to protect the voices of the people who we disagree with the most.

Even if their opinions are odious.

That's when free speech is most necessary.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I’m betting Timbale has a similar view about Clapton’s anti-lockdown bent to me: it’s ill informed. I agree that ill informed opinions have every right to be voiced, and I don’t thing they shouldn’t have that right. However, that doesn’t stop me from wishing they wouldn’t be voiced. It’s like wishing someone didn’t make a frivolous, expensive lawsuit. I have no qualms with every person’s right to sue for any reason where I live. I just wish that people didn’t decide to sue frivolously. Free speech is sacred and legal action should never be taken to prevent it, but that doesn’t mean I’m going to be glad everyone says exactly what’s on their mind all the time.

 

Free speech exists precisely to protect the voices of the people who we disagree with the most.

Even if their opinions are odious.

That's when free speech is most necessary.

 

I don’t disagree. I just disagree with Clapton, which is also my right.

  • Like 2
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...