Jump to content

Why do so many critics hate Rush? One man's opinion...


laughedatbytime
 Share

Recommended Posts

As far as the overwhelming critical negativity towards Rush in the 1970s goes, it is understandable to a degree. It's important to remember that most of the writers during that era grew up with the music of the 50s and 60s. So by the time the heavier and more European styles of rock that began to appear in the early 70s it was really a new generation and I just think they had difficulty relating to it in some ways, which is why Sabbath, Zeppelin, Uriah Heep, etc. got such scathing reviews in the early days and Rush were an even more extreme evolution away from what they considered real or more traditional rock and roll. They did begin to earn some grudging respect in the 80s from a few critics at least.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rush songs have consistently traded in lyrics that celebrate the individual, that honor integrity in one’s actions, that place a high premium on the ability of hard-earned, vigilantly protected dreams to elevate individual existence beyond the pale of the status quo

 

Ironically, I believe that is part of the reason critics have never endeared themselves to Rush, let alone the fact they came out of the gate as a Zeppelin clone and no one jumped on them early. Critics love misery and complaining, not hope. As someone mentioned, the blues came from pain which begat rock. I recall many years ago the critic for the Los Angeles times wrote a scathing review of Barry Manilow who sold out like four shows here in Los Angeles in a matter of hours. The critic was ripped up and down by fans because he hated Manilow yet Springsteen and U2 could never do any wrong(as one guy joked, Springsteen is music to kill yourself by). I got to hear the writer speak once and he shared he actually got death threats after that review. His favorite album of all time is Springsteen's "Nebraska."

I remember when MTV took over and critics hated all music. Then Nirvana came along with their pain and suffering and voila, the critics embraced them like a long lost relative.

Ultimately, the "perfect" critic, albeit for movies, was the late Roger Ebert. He could watch a film and he might give a solid review to a dumb, action movie as well as some deep, gotta-love-it-because-it-is-independent film. Why was he perfect? Because he seemed to be able to enjoy the film on the level it was. Not many music critics can do the same.

I sort of look at Rush the same way as a film called "Con Air." Perhaps the silliest, ridiculous premise ever but it is a film that I happen to enjoy no matter how often it crops up on TV. I recall one critic saying "I don't know what this is but is certainly isn't filmmaking."

Rush may be the "Con Air" of music-critics don't get it because they aren't being paid to get it, they're paid to tell everyone we deserve better.

Edited by jjgittes
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rush critics are an embarrassment for all the reasons given above, but also because when they discuss the band, with few exceptions, they talk about Geddy's high voice and the songs that they wrote in the 70's. Their permanent definition of Rush is that of the Rush of the 70's. They can't even discuss the Rush of the 80's, 90's, 00's, or today. All that matters is that Geddy's voice is high, their songs are too long and pretentious, and Neil's lyrics are....well....pretentious.

 

 

It's an irresponsible and unprofessional mindset...... but I guess that is to be expected from rock star wannabes.

I'm suprised no one has mentioned the canadian aspect of all this...they're canadian. I think that played into the bias to some degree. Sounds petty I know, but i just imagine the high brow critics figuring that into their equation
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My take on Rolling Stone is this: they decide who will be "next", then write years' worth of articles in support of the people they've decided will be "next", then declare those people to have 'arrived', as predicted and supported, by Rolling Stone - their own self-fullfilling (and self-profiting) prophecies. They did not declare Rush to be "next", they did not support them, and damn sure weren't going to declare them as 'arrived' until they were forced to. A rare win for democracy.

 

Those who can (play), do; those who can't become critics...

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

=( lol, okok, i get it: no liking your own posts. However, i still do think that liking my own post is NOT like sucking my own dick. and just for the record, if i could i WOULD! =P RushOn everyone! \m/ Edited by jruiz2112
Link to comment
Share on other sites

=( lol, okok, i get it: no liking your own posts. However, i still do think that liking my own post is NOT like sucking my own dick. and just for the record, if i could i WOULD! =P RushOn everyone! \m/

 

Don't worry, all men would if they could, even if they say different! :LOL:

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think being Canadian has anything to do with it. Neil Young is Canadian, and critics slobber over him constantly.

 

it's true about critics being up on Young, it's a very good point. but, there's a bunch of non-Americans in there; like all the British acts, and of course ac/dc (australia), oh yea and ABBA (sweden). but, if our 'rock n roll' critics are rabid south park fans, then yea, it's because Rush's Canadian—and because blah blah blah! =D RushOn!!

Edited by jruiz2112
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd agree about the Canadian angle too. Not that it was a deciding factor for them being marginalized, but it's there for sure. Neil Young? He played with a bunch of Americans and wrote music for the masses to get stoned to. Easy for mainstream media to slobber over him (in the 60s-70s)... I never really liked Neil Young until he had his FU money and started really doing the 'stick it to the man' schtick.

 

Lots of good reasons here why Rush has been marginalized and deemed uncool by mainstream media. I think they were ahead of their time and it took a long time for critics to catch up to them. And when you factor ego into the mix, ie. ego of the critic (which are always huge) then you see why so many critics cling to that 70s era, Geddy's voice, long songs nonsense. They can't let it go. They can't understand that they have been a huge influence on modern day warriors who sling basses, guitars, drums and keys to make 'today's music.

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...