Snippets of interview with Geddy

[laughedatbytime]

Haven't seen this posted here. If it has been, standard mea culpas apply.

 

Sorry to interrupt the threads about food, shoes, and shirts.

 

http://www.terrorizer.com/blog2.php/2012/0...ssive-rock-band

 

In a recently conducted interview with Terrorizer the 58-year-old Rush frontman commented on the term "progressive rock":

 

"For me, you look at a band like Radiohead, who I am always impressed with, I think they're enormously talented. To me, they're a progressive rock band. You don't have to sound a particular way to be a progressive rock band, and that's my view on it. We are a hard rock band, we are a progressive rock band, but our roots are in hard rock more than they are in ELP or something like that. It's different strokes for different folks. Radiohead are a kind of progressive alt band I guess, but the key is that they're trying to bring other things into their music, and that's what a progressive band does, tries to expand what they are by adding other influences without too much prerequisite."

 

The band's 19th opus is released June 11 on Roadrunner. There will be more news in Terrorizer and Terrorizer.com, so keep your eyes peeled folks.

 

 

http://www.terrorizer.com/blog2.php/2012/0...ew-rush-album-2

 

Rush frontman Geddy Lee spared a few minutes on a recent jaunt to the UK to tell Terrorizer all about their forthcoming album 'Clockwork Angels'.

 

'Clockwork Angels' is a story about a man's adventure through a world of steampunk and alchemy. What came first? The concept or the music?

 

"I think what came first actually was the visual image - the whole alchemic steampunk idea. We got very excited about writing something in that world, and I think after that we looked to make that kind of happen. So Neil [Peart, drummer] came up with this idea for the storyline, being influenced by other writers that he has noted, like Voltaire and Joseph Conrad. That helped him put together the character and push the story along, and the world of this kind of thing that we were talking about visually helped us get a style for the writing of the record."

 

To what extent did you have an input into the concept and lyrics? Were steampunk and alchemy things you were personally interested in?

 

"I've always enjoyed steampunk as a visual genre. There are a lot of film makers that rely on that and borrow from it. It's certainly not a new idea. So when Neil mentioned that he was interested in it, I was already familiar with that thing; it was very intriguing. As he was developing ideas for the story, he would send lyrics to me. As songwriter of melody, I have to be in sync with him, so we would go back and forth quite a lot, discussing every song. Some of the songs I felt were very close to what I needed to put a song around, and Alex [Lifeson, guitarist] agreed with me. I write the music with Alex but I write the vocal melodies myself. Other things needed much more talking through, much more discussion, because I didn't want the songs and the music to be tied down by the story. It needed to have that independence; each of those songs needed to feel like they could exist on their own."

 

Neil collaborated with sci-fy writer Kevin J Anderson, who is now turning the story into a book. Is that something you guys were endorsing?

 

"Yeah well, I liked that idea because it took a lot of pressure off of things [that] I had to include in the lyrics! I could say, 'Well you can just put that in the book then, it'll be fine'. So, that helped make it a better musical journey in that I wasn't so restricted by plot twists and trying to make sense that he appears here, then he appears there. That's something that can be flushed out in a novel, but not necessarily important for a musical journey because the music itself is what gives you some colour and paints the picture."

Edited May 28, 2012 by laughedatbytime

[Animate]

Geddy seems to be re-enforcing that he views Rush as a Hard Rock band, first and foremost.

[snowdog2112]

QUOTE (Animate @ May 28 2012, 08:33 AM)

Geddy seems to be re-enforcing that he views Rush as a Hard Rock band, first and foremost.

He's said the exact same thing repeatedly for decades because that's what they are more than anything else.

[trenken]

QUOTE (Animate @ May 28 2012, 09:33 AM)

Geddy seems to be re-enforcing that he views Rush as a Hard Rock band, first and foremost.

I dont really know why they're ever even referred to as a prog band. They only really touched on what was defined as progressive at the time for just a few years, and none of those albums were really full prog albums anyway. They each just had some longer songs on them with deeper lyrical concepts.

 

After that and since then, they've been a regular rock band for decades now, and hell, even became a soft rock band for a while. Some of whats on Presto and RTB would not be out of place on a soft rock station between Elton John and Billy Joel. Stuff like , Bravado, Heresy, Anagram, is not hard rock at all.

 

So I dont even think its fair to call them a hard rock band. They're a rock band. Theyve covered too many styles so just plain rock as a general term I think is the best way to describe them.

[losingit2k]

They are a progressive, Hard, Soft, rock, Metal band!

 

[canadianice]

QUOTE (trenken @ May 28 2012, 09:44 AM)

QUOTE (Animate @ May 28 2012, 09:33 AM) Geddy seems to be re-enforcing that he views Rush as a Hard Rock band, first and foremost. I dont really know why they're ever even referred to as a prog band. They only really touched on what was defined as progressive at the time for just a few years, and none of those albums were really full prog albums anyway. They each just had some longer songs on them with deeper lyrical concepts.   After that and since then, they've been a regular rock band for decades now, and hell, even became a soft rock band for a while. Some of whats on Presto and RTB would not be out of place on a soft rock station between Elton John and Billy Joel. Stuff like , Bravado, Heresy, Anagram, is not hard rock at all.   So I dont even think its fair to call them a hard rock band. They're a rock band. Theyve covered too many styles so just plain rock as a general term I think is the best way to describe them. "soft rock band"

[Gedneil Alpeart]

QUOTE (trenken @ May 28 2012, 09:44 AM)

QUOTE (Animate @ May 28 2012, 09:33 AM) Geddy seems to be re-enforcing that he views Rush as a Hard Rock band, first and foremost. I dont really know why they're ever even referred to as a prog band. They only really touched on what was defined as progressive at the time for just a few years, and none of those albums were really full prog albums anyway. They each just had some longer songs on them with deeper lyrical concepts.   After that and since then, they've been a regular rock band for decades now, and hell, even became a soft rock band for a while. Some of whats on Presto and RTB would not be out of place on a soft rock station between Elton John and Billy Joel. Stuff like , Bravado, Heresy, Anagram, is not hard rock at all.   So I dont even think its fair to call them a hard rock band. They're a rock band. Theyve covered too many styles so just plain rock as a general term I think is the best way to describe them. Their music has gone through a lot of stages and changes over their career. Whatever label you want to apply to describe them, nobody should ever minimize how "progressive minded" they have been with their music over time.....absorbing contemporary influences, yet retaining their core signatures and simultaneously pushing for new musical territory. There are some rock bands that just stick to a formulaic sound and style without too much versatility in their music. I dont think Rush would be as strong today as a band or even exist altogether, had they been more of a unidimensional band. Thankfully they have adapted over time and remained relevant contemporarily.

[snowdog2112]

Definitions for these kinds of things are really pointless. Yes and Pink Floyd are always broadly counted under the "rock" label but it's hard for me to really define them that way. So many of those iconic bands just simply sound like themselves and I don't even bother to think about what "type" they are. But as Geddy has said several times Rush is most closely following the pattern of The Who more than anything.

 

It's funny that I almost always see The Who called rock, hard rock, or classic rock, but never progressive rock. Hell, they practically invented what people think of as progressive rock. Tommy and Quadrophenia are two of the ultimate concept albums with interlinked musical themes, overtures, instrumentals, album-length stories, etc. The Who Sell Out was also a full concept album that came out in 1967, and A Quick One, While He's Away was the first attempt that I'm aware of to do a long piece of music essentially stitching together several different song ideas and that was in 1966. They invented everything we think of as being classic 70s prog and yet they're almost never listed with Pink Floyd, Genesis, Yes, etc. because they did other things, too. Just like Rush. The Who did concept stuff, instrumentals, hard rock, light rock, acoustic rock, pop rock, synth rock, basically everything so they weren't defined by any one style. That's exactly the way Rush has been.

 

 

 

[Principled Man]

QUOTE (snowdog2112 @ May 28 2012, 10:17 AM)

It's funny that I almost always see The Who called rock, hard rock, or classic rock, but never progressive rock. Hell, they practically invented what people think of as progressive rock. Tommy and Quadrophenia are two of the ultimate concept albums with interlinked musical themes, overtures, instrumentals, album-length stories, etc. The Who Sell Out was also a full concept album that came out in 1967, and A Quick One, While He's Away was the first attempt that I'm aware of to do a long piece of music essentially stitching together several different song ideas and that was in 1966. They invented everything we think of as being classic 70s prog and yet they're almost never listed with Pink Floyd, Genesis, Yes, etc. because they did other things, too. Just like Rush. The Who did concept stuff, instrumentals, hard rock, light rock, acoustic rock, pop rock, synth rock, basically everything so they weren't defined by any one style. That's exactly the way Rush has been.

 

As with many bands, The Who was pigeon-holed. In their case, they were the rebels, the bad boys, the authority-defiant band of their generation.....and it was primarily the drum-smashing My Generation that got them pigeon-holed that way. No music that came afterwords, no matter how brilliant or progressive it was, changed the band's image.

 

 

[Principled Man]

QUOTE (Gedneil Alpeart @ May 28 2012, 10:01 AM)

I dont think Rush would be as strong today as a band or even exist altogether, had they been more of a unidimensional band. Thankfully they have adapted over time and remained relevant contemporarily.

If they had continued with 2112-type or Moving Pictures-type songs, they would have broken up years ago....just from the boredom and stagnation. That's what sets them and a few other bands apart from the rest. They grew up and achieved wisdom, while other bands didn't it. They still seek to find the "better Rush". They earn far more respect from fans and other musicians than all the other bands who just go thru the motions.

 

 

[RushBowler2112]

They. Are. RUSH.

 

/end discussion

[beherit]

hoping they rap on this album