Jump to content

The Rolling Stone Article


HigherWater

Recommended Posts

QUOTE (pm1970 @ Jul 2 2008, 12:16 PM)
Found this quote on Wikipedia so, not sure if it's true but, this statistic alone should qualify them for the RRHOF if it is true . Even though they don't care and we don't care- about th RRHOF- Rush's sales are pretty impressive

"As a group, Rush possesses 24 gold records and 14 platinum (3 multi-platinum) records. These statistics place Rush fifth behind The Beatles, The Rolling Stones, Kiss and Aerosmith for the most consecutive gold and platinum albums by a rock band"

It's true. You can look up the numbers from RIAA

 

http://www.riaa.com/goldandplatinumdata.php?table=tblArtTal

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 117
  • Created
  • Last Reply
Just re-read the article when I saw it on the news stand (no, I didn't buy it, I put it back). It reads better the second time through, or maybe in person. It struck me as Rs saying "Oh, by the way RS fan, here's what you might have missed in the last 34 years, if you only listen to us!"
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I took our copy of RS home from the Library last night and read the article. It is a decent article about Rush and their history.

Rush's lyrics, music, and dare I say 'normal' or 'real', instead of 'nerdy' lifestyle(s) are reasons I started listening to them in the first place.

 

I just wish I found them as a teenager, not someone in my 30's. I believe my life would have been different - but I would still be a Librarian though...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Above....poster asked if Yes wes in the RRHOF.....they have had more members in that band at different times than the Transsiberian Orchestra. If they do get inducted they need to add Jon Anderson, Steve Howe, Chris Squire, Alan White, Bill Bruford, Tony Kaye, Peter Banks, Patrick Moraz, Trevor Rabin, Trevor Horn, Geoff Downes, Billy Sherwood, Igor Khoroshev, and Rick Wakeman. Lets see, that's 14 members at various times. It really seems to me that band is more of a hobby for some of those guys rather than a true 'rock band'....don't get me wrong, I loved the music, but I don't think that the RRHOF has a place to put 14 members of any band in any one place. No comparison to 2.gif whatsoever and if they were to induct Yes before Rush I would move out of the state of Ohio i do believe! sarcasm.gif
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was kind of disappointed by the article. When I had heard a month ago that Rush had a Rolling Stone reporter with them, I was anticipating something special..if not a cover then at least a really good in-depth interview and article that went places with Rush no one else had before...because doesn't Rolling Stone kind of have that reputation?

 

Instead, we get ONLY 4 pages of pretty much the same stuff we've always gotten. I mean, as other posters have mentioned, this guy had access to Neil for God's sake! Unheard of these days...and he's quoted what only 3 or 4 times with very little new?

 

And, I think the writer really overdid the "nerd" thing. Yeah, I'm a Rush "Geek", but when I think of a nerd I think of a dweeb that can't get laid, goes to ComicCons, and knows every line to every Star Trek episode...er, maybe some Rush fans do qualify for that...but that's not me! And most of my friends that are Rush fans are not that at all...(though i have seen some "interesting" looking people at Rush concerts). I don't care for being called a Nerd for being so into Rush.

 

In fact, this is the 2nd time this week I've been associated with a "nerd" thing...the other being Guitar Hero, which I'm a huge lover of, and I guess that's for nerds too???

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (LeaveMyThingAlone @ Jul 3 2008, 11:23 PM)
?I was kind of disappointed by the article. When I had heard a month ago that Rush had a Rolling Stone reporter with them, I was anticipating something special..if not a cover then at least a really good in-depth interview and article that went places with Rush no one else had before...because doesn't Rolling Stone kind of have that reputation?

Instead, we get ONLY 4 pages of pretty much the same stuff we've always gotten. I mean, as other posters have mentioned, this guy had access to Neil for God's sake! Unheard of these days...and he's quoted what only 3 or 4 times with very little new?

And, I think the writer really overdid the "nerd" thing. Yeah, I'm a Rush "Geek", but when I think of a nerd I think of a dweeb that can't get laid, goes to ComicCons, and knows every line to every Star Trek episode...er, maybe some Rush fans do qualify for that...but that's not me! And most of my friends that are Rush fans are not that at all...(though i have seen some "interesting" looking people at Rush concerts). I don't care for being called a Nerd for being so into Rush.

In fact, this is the 2nd time this week I've been associated with a "nerd" thing...the other being Guitar Hero, which I'm a huge lover of, and I guess that's for nerds too???

The article is FOUR pages?!!!

Hell, that's way more then i would expect.

The last time i remember reading RS doing anything on Rush as a band(they did a brief Q&A with Geddy some years back) Was 1981 during Moving Pictures tour, a paragraph buried in the back next to the advertisements with a blurry out of focus picture of Alex and Geddy.

Someone did post a good review of T4E concert that Rolling Stone gave also.

The nerd thing, that's a requirement for Rolling Stone writers spineless and afraid don't want to upset there peers. After all Rolling Stone is such a trend setting cutting edge hip magazine. laugh.gif eyesre4.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (vital signz @ Jul 3 2008, 07:06 AM)
Above....poster asked if Yes wes in the RRHOF.....they have had more members in that band at different times than the Transsiberian Orchestra. If they do get inducted they need to add Jon Anderson, Steve Howe, Chris Squire, Alan White, Bill Bruford, Tony Kaye, Peter Banks, Patrick Moraz, Trevor Rabin, Trevor Horn, Geoff Downes, Billy Sherwood, Igor Khoroshev, and Rick Wakeman. Lets see, that's 14 members at various times. It really seems to me that band is more of a hobby for some of those guys rather than a true 'rock band'....don't get me wrong, I loved the music, but I don't think that the RRHOF has a place to put 14 members of any band in any one place. No comparison to 2.gif whatsoever and if they were to induct Yes before Rush I would move out of the state of Ohio i do believe! sarcasm.gif

I'd move out of Ohio, anyway...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (PuppetKing2112 @ Jun 28 2008, 02:17 PM)
QUOTE (Xanadu93 @ Jun 28 2008, 10:13 AM)
I wonder if Yes are in the RRHOF?  unsure.gif

They aren't.

Im glad theyre not. Bands like Yes and Rush are so far beyond RRHOF it's sickening to even think they belong there. Yeah its cool for 'regular' bands like Aerosmith or Led Zeppelin. But Rush and Yes are legendary (not by popularity, by MUSIC)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the change of editors at Rolling Stone led to this article. In the article, the author speaks of the RRHOF snub, but fails to mention Rolling Stone's snub of Rush. 34 years, thats a long time, and it should be f***ing embarrassing for the magazine that it's taken this long for anything to be written about Rush, aside from snide, condescending album reviews. But, this is progress, and I did buy my first Rolling Stone mag, so for what it's worth, good job RS, not just for the article, but for pulling your collective heads out of your asses. Good Obama articles, too.

 

peace...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (Bonghitsforjesus @ Jul 4 2008, 04:31 PM)
I think the change of editors at Rolling Stone led to this article. In the article, the author speaks of the RRHOF snub, but fails to mention Rolling Stone's snub of Rush. 34 years, thats a long time, and it should be f***ing embarrassing for the magazine that it's taken this long for anything to be written about Rush, aside from snide, condescending album reviews. But, this is progress, and I did buy my first Rolling Stone mag, so for what it's worth, good job RS, not just for the article, but for pulling your collective heads out of your asses. Good Obama articles, too.

peace...

Not that it makes much difference, but it hasn't been 34 years since RS did a feature article on Rush. It's been 27.

 

Rolling Stone did a feature article on Rush in 1981. Go here:

http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/214...from_the_people

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (Bonghitsforjesus @ Jul 4 2008, 04:06 PM)
QUOTE (vital signz @ Jul 3 2008, 07:06 AM)
Above....poster asked if Yes wes in the RRHOF.....they have had more members in that band at different times than the Transsiberian Orchestra.  If they do get inducted they need to add Jon Anderson, Steve Howe, Chris Squire, Alan White, Bill Bruford, Tony Kaye, Peter Banks, Patrick Moraz, Trevor Rabin, Trevor Horn, Geoff Downes, Billy Sherwood, Igor Khoroshev, and Rick Wakeman.  Lets see, that's 14 members at various times.  It really seems to me that band is more of a hobby for some of those guys rather than a true 'rock band'....don't get me wrong, I loved the music, but I don't think that the RRHOF has a place to put 14 members of any band in any one place.  No comparison to  2.gif whatsoever and if they were to induct Yes before Rush I would move out of the state of Ohio i do believe! sarcasm.gif

I'd move out of Ohio, anyway...

Don't blame Ohioans for the Rush Rock hall debate.

Always had a large loyal fan base here. Blame the powers that be in NYC and the other idiot so called music experts across the country who vote and select this not the fans. I think it would be proper if YES would get in before Rush.

Texas.. confused13.gif schla03.gif moon.gif tongue.gif pokey.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (GeddyRulz @ Jul 4 2008, 08:15 PM)
QUOTE (Bonghitsforjesus @ Jul 4 2008, 04:31 PM)
I think the change of editors at Rolling Stone led to this article.  In the article, the author speaks of the RRHOF snub, but fails to mention Rolling Stone's snub of Rush.  34 years, thats a long time, and it should be f***ing embarrassing for the magazine that it's taken this long for anything to be written about Rush, aside from snide, condescending album reviews.  But, this is progress, and I did buy my first Rolling Stone mag, so for what it's worth, good job RS, not just for the article, but for pulling your collective heads out of your asses.  Good Obama articles, too. 

peace...

Not that it makes much difference, but it hasn't been 34 years since RS did a feature article on Rush. It's been 27.

 

Rolling Stone did a feature article on Rush in 1981. Go here:

http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/214...from_the_people

thanks for the link to the old article from 81

 

 

 

I like how the RS writer tries to classify Rush and others as Heavy metal

 

His quote below...............

 

"fellow heavy-metal whipping boys REO Speed-wagon, Styx and AC/DC "

 

This shows they were morons even back then. I guess any band that happens to have long hair is"heavy metal? forget Rush and ACDC called heavy metal- how can anyone possibly call Styx or REO heavy metal (more like easy listening pop)

 

what total and complete douchbags these people are. Oh how i'd love 5 minutes in a room alone with one these RS guys and an aluminum bat. just kdding

Link to comment
Share on other sites

not sure if this has been mentioned or not, but i just think it's funny, in an ironic way, that the one time Rush gets a feature length article in Rolling Stone, the cover features Obama...and NO WRITING!

 

so, unless you're a diehard fan (like us) who knew the article was being written ahead of time, you'd look at the Obama cover, and not even notice that a Rush article was featured.

 

normally there would have been some kind of text on the cover announcing there was a Rush article, but of course this one issue has no writing whatsoever on the cover lol.

 

and, i thought the article was ok. more of a history of the band, which in a way makes sense since they've basically been ignored for about a generation or so by that magazine.

 

this article would, in a perfect world, lay the foundation for the followup article in a year or so, about whatever their next album, or path would be.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I could care less whether their next album gets a good or bad review from RS, as long as they actually review the thing, instead of doing some cop-out-ass shit like "If you're a Rush fan, add two stars. If you're not, subtract two." like they did for S&A.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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