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

[toscanobarga]

Look not everyone gets or likes Rush, I get that. I gave up caring what rock "critics" liked when I was in high school. The only critic who matters is me, if i like it i don't give a crap what anyone else thinks.

 

The only thing that irked me abou tthis review was that he made himself the focal point of the review, not the band or the music.

 

Just narcissistic rubbish, but frankly not untypical of the LA Times. Robert Hilburn was the last guy they had who actually tried.

[Todem]

The fact he does not think their are important in the grand scheme tells me everything.

 

He is not a musician.

 

He is a wanna be.

 

He is what will call a music critic.

 

Because when you have dozens of amazing players and bands pointing to Rush as the reason they play and are who they are today,

 

That means they were quite important to rock music and the evolution of so many future bands that have made their own mark on rock music.

 

Metallica

Smashing Pumpkins

Trent Reznor

The Foo Fighters

Dream Theatre

Porcupine Tree

 

We can go on and on and on.

 

A well written review and he had the courtesy to know the bands material.

 

 

But as he said. Let's agree to disagree.

[Todem]

Look not everyone gets or likes Rush, I get that. I gave up caring what rock "critics" liked when I was in high school. The only critic who matters is me, if i like it i don't give a crap what anyone else thinks.

 

The only thing that irked me abou tthis review was that he made himself the focal point of the review, not the band or the music.

 

Just narcissistic rubbish, but frankly not untypical of the LA Times. Robert Hilburn was the last guy they had who actually tried.

 

Exactly. I never gave a shit nor do I today what anyone thinks about Rush.

 

I only care what get's me off. LOL.

[Weakly Criminal]

The fact he does not think their are important in the grand scheme tells me everything.

 

He is not a musician.

 

He is a wanna be.

 

He is what will call a music critic.

 

Because when you have dozens of amazing players and bands pointing to Rush as the reason they play and are who they are today,

 

That means they were quite important to rock music and the evolution of so many future bands that have made their own mark on rock music.

 

Metallica

Smashing Pumpkins

Trent Reznor

The Foo Fighters

Dream Theatre

Porcupine Tree

 

We can go on and on and on.

 

A well written review and he had the courtesy to know the bands material.

 

 

But as he said. Let's agree to disagree.

 

Exactly. He's the musical equivilant of a jock sniffer.

[Wingmaster]

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

 

Read the review, and the only thing less impressive than his opinion is his review, which was well written I suppose, but semi-vapid, was his implicit logic and basis for argumentation.

 

I couldn't tell if he was trying to save as much face as possible w/o sounding like a complete buffoon, or whether this clown is so out of tune w/ music, both generally as well as specifically. (Rush in the context of Rock)

 

No one wants to hear my opinions on this clown, so let's get to a couple of quick facts.

 

For starters, two of the band members, Lee and Peart are regarded by many, particularly in Peart's case, as the best in the biz. Mike Portnoy is the next drummer that comes to mind that has actually turned rock drumming into a musical experience and not merely a time-keeping exercise. Lifeson also makes most respectable lists of guitar players and any live performance of Rush, but particularly the Clockwork Angels tour, should go well beyond demonstrating his versatility and skill. ... and I don't even play guitar.

 

Moreover, anyone that's qualified to review music and having seen these guys live that does not focus on, or at least strongly comment on the individual skill of the individual musicians absolutely has to be questioned in terms of fitness for even opening their mouth much less allowing words to escape from it related to that same live performance.

 

Secondly, and in responding to this comment of his;

 

Like hundreds of other rock bands, 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.

 

... apparently this clown is unfamiliar with the ranks of the inductees to the R&R HoF.

 

I took a quick peek at the R&R HoF members/inductees to see exactly what kind of grand company Rush has been excluded from due to their "non-notable" status.

 

Here's a list;

 

http://en.wikipedia...._Fame_inductees

 

I won't even bother commenting on some of these inductees in contrast, but when, as an avid music fan, one finds oneself asking 'who is/was that,' well, that kind of speaks for itself.

 

Otherwise, let's take one of the more recent inductees, and a recognized one, ... The Ramones.

 

Not being able to recognize one single Ramones song, I looked the up on Wiki and here's what I see;

 

To start, anyone suggesting that Rush is too "pigeon-holed" with a band like The Ramones inducted is an ignoramus. (generally speaking) And The Ramones is not the only inductee as a basis for making that statement. Moreover, punk is about as pigeon-holed as one can get within the genre of "rock."

 

Secondly, other than the album name, "Ramones," of which I cannot recall a single song, on the album, there is not one other of their album names that I recognize. I'd wager that most true Rock and Roll fans also cannot.

 

Thirdly, The Ramones have 14 albums to Rush's 20, many of which are widely recognizeable by name, even among non-Rush fans.

 

As to singles, The Ramones have a whopping three singles that charted in the Billboard top-100 in the U.S., ever, with 66th having been their best. In the U.K. they had 14 chart in the top-100, of those, only 4 better than 54th, and of those four only one better than 22nd, and that was a song not even written by them but only covered by them finishing 8th, again, in the U.K. They had three whopping songs chart in the U.S. in the Modern Rock category, 4th, 6th, and 30th.

 

Rush has had 24 songs chart in Canada, 16 in the Billboard top-100, 37 chart in the U.S.'s Mainstream Rock top-100 including five #1's, two #2's, three 3's, two 4's, and w/ 21 of those 37 having been among the top-10 and including such widely recognizeable songs as Limelight, Tom Sawyer, Subdivisions, and New World Man. To suggest that songs such as Tom Sawyer and Limelight are not notable, displays a wealth of ignorance. Even in the U.K. where they appear to have done all but no marketing, they've charted 10 times.

 

The Ramones' lasted 20 years. Rush has been active for over 40 and has done an extraordinary, almost unheard of, job of keeping their music relevant and keeping up w/ the sounds of the times.

 

As to studio albums, of The Ramones 14 albums, in the U.S., four made the top-100 on Billboard in the U.S. (44th, 49th, 58th, and 63rd). That's less than 30% of their albums charting, none ever higher than 44th. In the U.K. 10 of their 14 charted within the top-100, only one better than 32nd at 14th.

 

Of Rush's 20 studio albums, 17 (85%) charted among the top-100 Billboard in the U.S. 14 of those 17 charted better than 32nd, all 14 among the top-20, 11 of the 14 among the top-10, with 8 of those 11 at 2nd, 2nd, 3rd, 3rd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, and 6th. In the U.K., 14 of Rush's 20 albums ranked better than 32nd with 9 of those among the top-10.

 

Their charting in Canada for albums is ridiculous.

 

So yeah, it's quite easy to see that Rush doesn't belong in the R&R HoF. (Biting sarcasm)

 

There are others on that list, I just plucked one w/ a recognizeable name, yet that was pigeon-holed, which critics claim Rush is, although I simply don't see it, yet one whose accolades are only recognizeable by only the most ardent of their fans.

 

And oh, just by the way, where does originality fit into the mix here? Few bands have been as original as Rush, if any, and in an era whereby much had already been done leaving even less room for originality, one would think that it would be lauded, not criticized.

 

As well, apparently the literary and historical references that have influenced Peart's, Lee's, and Lifeson's songwriting soars over this clown's head like Sputnik.

 

This review by Randall Roberts, and with my attempting to be completely objective given that I am a Rush fan, has several planes of ignorance attached to it against the backdrop that Rush does not belong in the R&R HoF. If this guy wanted to have any credibility, then given his criteria for admission/induction, coupled with the existing list of inductees, I would expect a corresponding statement by him that a good many of the artists currently in, on the magnitude of half, also should never have made it, ... by the same exact standards by which he claims that Rush should be denied. Yet, there isn't even that hint.

 

Apparently ...

 

On 24 February 2006, the Sex Pistols—the four original members plus Vicious—were inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame, but they refused to attend the ceremony, calling the museum "a piss stain".

 

I would think that Roberts' opinion of the R&R HoF would more mirror that of the Sex Pistols if he's going to be consistent in his views. Not that I agree w/ them, but in terms of consistency, Roberts' hypocrisy and lack of consistency in the matter may be more that stain.

 

Finally, in the meantime, I'm all for hearing Roberts' list of bands that were able to remain prominent as well as relevant, not to mention musically sound despite his vapid reference to the relevance of blues in rock, for the near 40 years that Rush has. As I scan that list of inductees, most don't seem to have made it 20 much less 40.

 

As they say, it is better to remain silent and be thought of a fool, than it is to open one's mouth and remove all doubt.

 

[Editorial Note: I really don't care whether or not Rush makes it into the R&R HoF. At this point one could even argue whether or not it's even a good thing. Music and all that it stands for stands by itself and makes its own statement. I liked Rush as a kid in high school and college, but have grown to have them be my favorite single band of all time today, particularly after the Clockwork Angels album, which coupled with the book is a masterpiece of sorts. One would think that there would be room in the industry for recognizing a band that has been so utterly focused on musical perfection, one that was never afraid to step out of its current shell and take risks in making new albums/songs (in an ongoing basis thereby having no "shell" as it were), one that never made the news or "rumors" for deviant or immoral behavior, one whose members appear to be as intelligent as any in the industry and whose thoughts in terms of song-writing rival that of the bandmembers of Pink Floyd, although with a greater degree of lucidity, one in which the members have solid family lives and are therefore good examples to fans in that way, one that never had a need to incite their concert goers w/ gratuitious profanity just to elicit a response, one whose music speaks for itself, not to mention one that has as a trio, three consumate musicians in all respects.]

Edited November 23, 2012 by Wingmaster

[Wingmaster]

Look not everyone gets or likes Rush, I get that. I gave up caring what rock "critics" liked when I was in high school. The only critic who matters is me, if i like it i don't give a crap what anyone else thinks.

 

The only thing that irked me abou tthis review was that he made himself the focal point of the review, not the band or the music.

 

Just narcissistic rubbish, but frankly not untypical of the LA Times. Robert Hilburn was the last guy they had who actually tried.

 

Spot on!

 

Moreover, and perhaps ironically, regarding your first statement, if Peart, Lee, and Lifeson didn't think the same way, we wouldn't be here in this forum talking about them today! They are consummate professionals in every way, shape, and form.

[Wingmaster]

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.

 

LOL

[Wingmaster]

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.

 

Wish him [them] well.

[Wingmaster]

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.

 

Very good points!

[Todem]

Wingmaster,

 

AWESOME post. No reason to quote it....it said it all.

Edited November 23, 2012 by Todem

[drgrendel]

I thought it was a good read. I am glad that everyone does not fall all over Rush - that would be creepy. Calling the writer names is rather chilish though.

[shail]

never read critic reviews. after reading a few in my lifetime i realized how pointless it is to read an article on one persons personal taste. They can be subjective, personal, good and bad all wrapped up in an article. don't care. these days if you want to check out a restaurant, movie, new music or whatever you don't go through a critics write up. i'm surprised that critics still exist in this day and age.

[No1RushFan]

The review was nothing but self-serving.

He simply showed how much of a douch he is.

POP?

[Mr. Watchmaker]

I would agree that there are bands I am not particularly fond of but can appreciate anyway. Metallica would one of them. I didn't read the review; I should look it up to verify, but I believe it was Frank Zappa who said "Writing about music is like dancing about architecture."

[thizzellewashington]

I thought it was pretty thoughtful and honest. He doesn't like them. It happens. He doesn't think they're completely untalented or worthless. The two points I think are objectively untrue are the "rock music would be exactly the same if they never existed" thing and the "the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame is actually a measure of anything other than whose publicists Jann Wenner owes favors to" thing. The rest of it is fine.

[Curly]

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

 

I know that my life would not be the same.