Jump to content

Rolling Stone: Rush Makes Top 50 Must See Live Bands


Recommended Posts

DMB at 25.. Love to see my second fave up there.

 

The Music Radar poll from a couple years back is all you need to know, Rush as the #1 Live Act touring today. I believe that to be true.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

U2 is on my bucket list. I almost saw them in the eighties but had to choose one show I could afford at the time and chose Prince on the Purple Rain tour.
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

U2 is on my bucket list. I almost saw them in the eighties but had to choose one show I could afford at the time and chose Prince on the Purple Rain tour.

You made a great choice my friend...Prince is simply amazing
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

U2 is on my bucket list. I almost saw them in the eighties but had to choose one show I could afford at the time and chose Prince on the Purple Rain tour.

 

:facepalm: X 1000000!!!

 

Not quite understanding your reaction but to each their own. :eh:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Four decades into their career, Geddy, Alex and Neil still put on the same kind of incredible show that destroyed pot smoke-clogged arenas back in the Seventies, mixing oldies like "The Spirit of Radio" and "Subdivisions" big chunks of their excellent 2012 album Clockwork Angels. Neil Peart, now 60, remains the single greatest drummer alive and guitarist Alex Lifeson is almost as versatile and powerful as the dude sitting at the massive kit behind him. "Every song rates a standing ovation," says Metallica manager Cliff Burnstein.

Showstopper: Rush don't play a single song from the 1970s during their main set, but in the encore they bust out three sections of their 1976 magnum opus 2112.

 

Well, Rolling Stone does think Matt Taibbi is a competent "journalist" so cut it some slack.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39th...Wow!!!

:moon: :moon: :moon: :moon: Thanks RS :moon: :moon: :moon: :moon:

Unless I'm reading that wrong, I think it means Rush is listed 39th out of 50..?

That's what it means. Even though this thread has been up for a while, since I am bored, I decided to check out the list. I can't even criticize the list cause I haven't heard of half of them..... The walls of this cave I dwell in get thicker by the day...... :unsure:
Link to comment
Share on other sites

U2 is on my bucket list. I almost saw them in the eighties but had to choose one show I could afford at the time and chose Prince on the Purple Rain tour.

I caught ZOO TV in Oakland and it was phenomenal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm going to defend R.S here for a minute..

 

I think many of us are forgetting that the old school rock journalists from the 70s/80s are gone.. The props they are giving Rush in recent years are genuine IMO.. It's the changing of the guard.. I'm guessing a majority of the writers grew up with Rush and get it..

Edited by Xanadoood
Link to comment
Share on other sites

lester bangs is dead, and christgau, dave marsh, jon landau and other "the only good music is springsteen, the clash, and elvis costello" types aren't relevant anymore. I'm sure there are a few rush fans who write for RS now.

 

keep in mind, it's not the magazine itself that hated rush. it was the individual reviewers. it just so happened that most of the prominent rock critics during the 70s and early 80s were older than the guys in rush, and never really liked prog rock or heavy music to begin with. I think rolling stone's a shitty magazine, yes, but it's not the magazine itself that hates a band, it's the magazine's staff. rolling stone gave the first two zeppelin albums negative reviews, and gave mostly positive reviews for their other records. different journalists have different opinions

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

lester bangs is dead, and christgau, dave marsh, jon landau and other "the only good music is springsteen, the clash, and elvis costello" types aren't relevant anymore. I'm sure there are a few rush fans who write for RS now.

 

keep in mind, it's not the magazine itself that hated rush. it was the individual reviewers. it just so happened that most of the prominent rock critics during the 70s and early 80s were older than the guys in rush, and never really liked prog rock or heavy music to begin with. I think rolling stone's a shitty magazine, yes, but it's not the magazine itself that hates a band, it's the magazine's staff. rolling stone gave the first two zeppelin albums negative reviews, and gave mostly positive reviews for their other records. different journalists have different opinions

 

Yup. Prog and Hard Rock.. What Rush were..critics despised both styles

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...