L.A. Times Writer gives interesting review of Monday's show

[jjgittes]

Some of you may recall Los Angeles Times critic Randall Roberts writing a column that Rush does not deserve to be in the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame. He had never seen Rush live and here is his review of Monday's concert in Los Angeles..

http://www.latimes.c...,0,423523.story

Edited November 21, 2012 by jjgittes

[FountainOfSyrinx]

This guy is what the South Park creator was talking about on the documentary... "You gotta give it up for them now. YOU JUST GOT TO. Or else your being an old dickhead."

 

Blah blah blah.

[Stan Getz]

His tune never changes...luckily none of us care what he thinks.

[Chicken hawk]

His tune never changes...luckily none of us care what he thinks.

 

EXACTLY !!

[robertrobyn]

loser!!!!!!!

[spock]

I agree that people can disagree about tastes in music - even I, a non-music journalist, can see that.

 

But the heart of the article is this: "Rush is good but not notable... But if the group were completely erased from history, rock would sound and feel the same today."

 

So, it's the Rock and Roll Hall of Influence? No, it's a Hall of Fame: (def: great renown, public estimation or reputation). I can see his point; theyv'e accomplished so little in their scant years of touring. They've achieve no renown for their abilities. Aside from all the famous musicians in BTLS who mentioned the impact of RUSH on their playing, I can hardly think of any influence they've had...

 

Notable - no, nothing in their number of albums released, concert sales, awards, longevity, professionalism, friendship...no, nothing there either.

 

I believe we never really mentally leave high school. And, so many still assess their own coolness by who they don't like to listen to. He must be soooo very cool.

 

He did mention that he likes groove, although what the hell that has to do with rock music is anyone's guess -

 

"I see red...and it hurts my head" Oops, sorry about that, I was grooving there for a second...

[GotPeart]

So basicaly his article says "yeah, it was a good 'show', but here is why they shouldn't be in the Hall".

 

Whatever. Hey - I'm sure there are plenty of artists I don't particularly like - doesn't mean I don't appreciate what they do, or what they've brought to the table. Bob Dylan and Neil Young are a couple. Sure there are some songs I like, but I wouldn't say I'm a fan. That being said - I respect what they've done, and undersatnd why people would like them.

 

You can say the same about Prince. You may or may not like his music, but you damn well better recognize his talents. I for one am a fan. Crazy huh?

 

Anyway - my point is - I just wasted about 5 minutes of my life reading a review of a concert that he didn't review. He also clearly doesn't know much about Rush or about CA in the way he references them.

[Huge Ackman]

"But if the group were completely erased from history, rock would sound and feel the same today."

 

This one statement is too filled with judgement. Most of the balance of the review was pretty thoughtful and acknowledged that "quality" is purely subjective. And so far, Rush had not met with his approval. That's different than saying they are "bad". I was impressed with the over-all tone of the review in that it gave props to the guys as performers and musicians but that the band just wasn't one the reviewer particularly cares for. Except for this one statement, the review is pretty decent, especially coming from someone who isn't really a fan of the band. Oh well, to each their own. And as this guy admits at the end:

 

"Who needs the Hall of Fame? These guys are showered with adulation every time they get onstage."

 

http://i190.photobucket.com/albums/z33/bfwgjma/Rush%202010%20Red%20Rocks%208-18/RushatRedRocks2010430.jpg

[zac2112]

I thought it was a thoughtful, honest review of a band he doesnt particulary like which is fine by me, even though he clearly didnt budge much from his pre conceived opinions, at the end of the day everyone likes thier own brand of vodka, this so called "critic" gets to write an opinion in a newspaper that means nothing more or less than mine or any other fan of music other than some dopey editor pays the guy to do it.

 

Where this Randall dude falls of the cliff is his supporting opinions on why the boys arent hall worthy, his reasons are utter idiocy, the case has been made too many times to even go there! Nothing would be cooler if upon an invitation to join the hall the boys gave them a polite "no thanks," it would be EPIC!

[paul2112]

Only 6,000 fans were there?

[treeduck]

Wait a minute...I get it, you people on this forum are RUSH fans and you're talking about RUSH...

 

Right, now I get it, I thought this was a ladies underwear fashion tips forum all these years...

 

:clap: :givebeer: :smoke:

[Rushman14]

Hollywood Reporter offered a much more positive review.

 

Rush called its 2010-11 jaunt the Time Machine Tour, but that moniker easily could have been reserved for the current one. It would be fitting not only because of a stirring set list flecked with long-dormant period pieces but also due to the superb performance by three guys born in the early 1950s.

 

our editor recommendsRush: Concert Reviewhttp://www.hollywoodreporter.com/sites/all/themes/thr/images/elements/icon_red_darrow.png

Simply put, Monday’s sold-out show at the Gibson Amphitheatre was another triumph for a band that never seems to deliver anything but.

As great as the playing was, this show was equally memorable for the content. Whereas the Time Machine Tour was highlighted by a complete run-through of Rush’s 1981 album Moving Pictures, this one offered a surprising slew of mid-’80s nuggets that served as a perfect preamble for a heaping dose of its terrific new Clockwork Angels album. Nine of its 12 tracks were deployed, drawing big cheers, not just polite applause.

“Tonight we’ve got, oh, 600 songs to play,” singer-bassist Geddy Lee said early on. A bit of an exaggeration, sure, but there were nearly 30 of them over 2½ hours-plus, and the set list served both as an introduction to strong new material and a gift to the old-time fans. The Clockwork Angels Tour has the venerable band reaching deep into its midcareer archives for songs absent from the live stage since the Reagan and elder Bush years. All that was missing was a DeLorean that runs on 1.21 jigowatts.

But they aren’t being dusted off for simple nostalgia; many of the Cold War-era deep tracks are eerily resonant today. We got the cautionary reality check of “Grand Designs” (“So much poison in power/The principles get left out”); the be-wary-of-progress sentiment in “The Analog Kid” (“When I leave I don't know what I'm leaving behind”); the cloud of a renewed nuclear threat in “Manhattan Project” (“Fools try to wish it away”); and, perfect for the Internet era, the identity-crisis plea of “The Body Electric” (“Images conflicting into data overload”). All were played with Rush’s typical precision and force.

[Analog_Bro]

All in all this guy is entitled to his opinion, although I don't get why he thinks of the Rock Hall of Fame as a real accomplishment - it is just a arbritrary orginization with no clear rules as to who gets in besides who the people running it want to put in.

 

This guy is saying that if Rush didn't exist rock would sound the same - well Madonna is in the Hall of Fame too so his point doesn't make much sense. Well the Rock Hall of Fame doesn't make much sense to begin with

[treeduck]

Madonna has John Wayne's old

All in all this guy is entitled to his opinion, although I don't get why he thinks of the Rock Hall of Fame as a real accomplishment - it is just a arbritrary orginization with no clear rules as to who gets in besides who the people running it want to put in.

 

This guy is saying that if Rush didn't exist rock would sound the same - well Madonna is in the Hall of Fame too so his point doesn't make much sense. Well the Rock Hall of Fame doesn't make much sense to begin with

 

Madonna has John Wayne's old saddlebags under her nylons! Film fans have been looking for them for years!

[Principled Man]

Who needs the Hall of Fame? These guys are showered with adulation every time they get onstage.

 

 

This is the only part of the guy's essay that matters.

 

Why do music critics have to digress from a simple concert review with 1,000 words of irrelevant, self-serving blah blah blah...???

[1-0-0-1-0-0-1]

All the telltale short-sighted "I don't get Rush because I'm a big Springsteen snob" Rush-hater phrases are there:

• "That's a lot of math to consider, but then this is a power trio that over 40 years has built musical equations and sonic geometry like particle engineer..." (The math thing AGAIN???)
  
• "Its audience is a devout and vocal one, and many have memorized the lyrics to all of its songs..." (As if that makes Rush fans different than any other rock fans.)
  
• "Songs such as 'Grand Designs'...were the rock equivalent of gymnastic floor routines, with so many instrumental cartwheels, flips, spins and leaps..."
  
• "I didn't like the band's...constant need to impress us with its chops. But I'm more of a groove man..."
  
• "Lee's voice has always grated on me...and the concert didn't advance the cause."
  

Keeping in mind his comment about the huge amount of mail he received after his last negative Rush review, this next passage seems like journalistic trolling to me:

 

"Rush is good but not notable. Like that of many others, its music has created a tribe of followers through its admirable skill and effort. But if the group were completely erased from history, rock would sound and feel the same today. We'll have to agree to disagree about Rush's place in rock history. I don't think the band is that important."

 

He's entitled to his opinion, of course, but you don't have to like a band to appreciate the influence they've had on the musical landscape. Rush has obviously influenced a ton of bands (his comment on "YYZ" influencing Metallica would seem to illustrate that), so his opinion that they aren't "important" enough for the RRHOF is just his bias talking. Not that getting into the Hall means much these days, but that's another discussion...

[treeduck]

I don't worry about such articles, I stopped worrying some time in the 80s...

[CygnusGal]

Yes, I saw this review. "Pop music" critic. He is right; Rush is a terrible pop band.

 

[toscanobarga]

He succeeded in making the review about himself rather than the band.

 

Kudos !

 

:sarcastic:

[losingit2k]

This guys is so unimformed when it comes to RUSH's influence on Rock Music. I think he really should watch "Beyond the Lighted Stage" at least once.

 

[theredtamasrule]

Why are there rock critics in the first place? Rock is all about attitude and f**k you and anti-establishment...it doesn't get much more establishment than writing for a newspaper.

 

Millions of sold records would argue against Rush's lack of influence too. On one hand he is right, if Rush weren't around the pop music landscape wouldn't change that much...it would still be a steaming pile of crap but without a brilliant band with the guts to not sing about banging chicks, sipping gin n' juice and partying.

[Dscrapre]

Once again, this man has failed to adequately explain why Rush is unimportant. He spends half of the review listing off seemingly positive things about Rush, and then stubbornly backpedals with a few very sloppy jabs. He notes the band's influence on other artists in one part of the review and then later says that they have no influence at all.

 

The big problem with these critics is that they labor under the delusion that rock has rules. It doesn't. There is no rule that rock has to be bluesy. There is no rule stating that rock has to groove.

 

Mr. Roberts here has forgotten what art is all about. Just because you don't like something doesn't mean that it should be dismissed as irrelevant especially when all objective evidence proves it's relevance. The man even admitted that Metallica, an undeniably important band who's influence on rock will never be up for debate, was strongly influenced by Rush. The Smashing Pumpkins, Nine Inch Nails, The Foo Fighters, Steven Wilson, and COUNTLESS other major rock artists have also declared that they were influenced by the band.

 

Rush doesn't follow Randell Robert's rules. It's really a shame. If they did, they would play simple blues rock and Geddy would sing about how his baby left him. Just like everyone else.

 

Wouldn't that be exciting?

[Dscrapre]

Also, this quote sums up this guy perfectly. "I've never had a desire to push through to the other side of Lee's voice, and the concert didn't advance the cause."

 

Translation: "I've never tried to like Lee's voice because I didn't want to like it."

 

and in general: "I don't like Rush because I don't want to."

 

And this guy is getting paid for this.

[softfilter]

What a desperate little man wanting someone, anyone to agree he's right.

Insecure & unhappy who's opinion mean zero, failing at his profession. If Randall Roberts never bothered being eighth grade rock critic...

Junior highschool journalism would still read and sound the same.

Edited November 22, 2012 by softfilter

[rushfanforever!]

Where's someone willing to push this moron into traffic so he gets run over by a large bus?? Pick Me!!! I gladly volunteer to rid the earth of this idiot and fellow critics who don't appreciate :rush: !!! Clearly, he's confused as to what good music is all about. I'd be curious to hear what's on his "must listen to" list?!?!