Why I hate Permanent Waves

[Union 5-3992]

I remember receiving a lot of flack for voting against this album once so I'll post some reasons as to why I did:

 

1. The music, while no doubt technically accomplished on all fronts (especially Neil Peart's drumming) feels sterile, formulaic, and with few compositional risks taken (and when they ARE taken, they're inevitably embarrassing). It almost feels like a combination of the worst possibilities of '70s arena rock (cheesily anthemic choruses, overwrought hooks, boring songwriting) and '70s prog rock (self-indulgent chops, overextended song lengths, goofy pseudointellectual lyrics). Rush tries to appeal to a middle ground between experimentation and accessibility; nothing wrong with that, but their music fails at both.

 

2. Neal Peart's lyrics are often embarrassingly overwrought and pretentious, often reading like they were written by an acne-afflicted teen whose access to literature is limited to a copy of Atlas Shrugged and a handful of bad fantasy/sci-fi novels.

 

3. The synths, when applied, almost always end up sounding dated and artificial. While not as bad as, say, Yes or ELP, they're annoying enough to be noticeable, especially on their '80s work.

Edited February 25, 2015 by Union 5-3992

[Narps]

While not as bad as, say, Yes or ELP, they're annoying enough to be noticeable, especially on their '80s work.

.....

[The Analog Cub]

...I disagree!

 

[LedRush]

Everything you see as a negative I think are strengths of the album. The music, the lyrics, the limited use of synths that aren't dated like the oppressively dated Signals/HYF era...I can't disagree any more on all these points.

[The Analog Cub]

Natural Science. NATURAL SCIENCE. COME ON

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

I remember receiving a lot of flack for voting against this album once so I'll post some reasons as to why I did:

 

1. The music, while no doubt technically accomplished on all fronts (especially Neil Peart's drumming) feels sterile, formulaic, and with few compositional risks taken (and when they ARE taken, they're inevitably embarrassing). It almost feels like a combination of the worst possibilities of '70s arena rock (cheesily anthemic choruses, overwrought hooks, boring songwriting) and '70s prog rock (self-indulgent chops, overextended song lengths, goofy pseudointellectual lyrics). Rush tries to appeal to a middle ground between experimentation and accessibility; nothing wrong with that, but their music fails at both.

 

2. Neal Peart's lyrics are often embarrassingly overwrought and pretentious, often reading like they were written by an acne-afflicted teen whose access to literature is limited to a copy of Atlas Shrugged and a handful of bad fantasy/sci-fi novels.

 

3. The synths, when applied, almost always end up sounding dated and artificial. While not as bad as, say, Yes or ELP, they're annoying enough to be noticeable, especially on their '80s work.

 

LIES!!!!

[bluefox4000]

It's the album that secured me as a fan......so i can't agree.

 

but respect for having the guts to post that, lol

 

Mick

[geezer]

Oh, sorry, I thought I was in The Rush Forum!

 

Bloody cyberspace!

 

 

[Segue Myles]

I think it good to be honest.

 

At least we have an opposing opinion, and I sort of agree (PeW isn't a favourite of mine anymore).

[tx_rush]

Of all the Rush albums, the two that 99.9% of people like (not saying are there favorites) are Moving Pictures and Permanent Waves

I remember receiving a lot of flack for voting against this album once so I'll post some reasons as to why I did:

 

1. The music, while no doubt technically accomplished on all fronts (especially Neil Peart's drumming) feels sterile, formulaic, and with few compositional risks taken (and when they ARE taken, they're inevitably embarrassing). It almost feels like a combination of the worst possibilities of '70s arena rock (cheesily anthemic choruses, overwrought hooks, boring songwriting) and '70s prog rock (self-indulgent chops, overextended song lengths, goofy pseudointellectual lyrics). Rush tries to appeal to a middle ground between experimentation and accessibility; nothing wrong with that, but their music fails at both.

 

2. Neal Peart's lyrics are often embarrassingly overwrought and pretentious, often reading like they were written by an acne-afflicted teen whose access to literature is limited to a copy of Atlas Shrugged and a handful of bad fantasy/sci-fi novels.

 

3. The synths, when applied, almost always end up sounding dated and artificial. While not as bad as, say, Yes or ELP, they're annoying enough to be noticeable, especially on their '80s work.

 

http://www.amazon.com/review/R34ZP3ZFGC7RZ8

Edited February 25, 2015 by tx_rush

[LedRush]

Of all the Rush albums, the two that 99.9% of people like (not saying are there favorites) are Moving Pictures and Permanent Waves

I remember receiving a lot of flack for voting against this album once so I'll post some reasons as to why I did:

 

1. The music, while no doubt technically accomplished on all fronts (especially Neil Peart's drumming) feels sterile, formulaic, and with few compositional risks taken (and when they ARE taken, they're inevitably embarrassing). It almost feels like a combination of the worst possibilities of '70s arena rock (cheesily anthemic choruses, overwrought hooks, boring songwriting) and '70s prog rock (self-indulgent chops, overextended song lengths, goofy pseudointellectual lyrics). Rush tries to appeal to a middle ground between experimentation and accessibility; nothing wrong with that, but their music fails at both.

 

2. Neal Peart's lyrics are often embarrassingly overwrought and pretentious, often reading like they were written by an acne-afflicted teen whose access to literature is limited to a copy of Atlas Shrugged and a handful of bad fantasy/sci-fi novels.

 

3. The synths, when applied, almost always end up sounding dated and artificial. While not as bad as, say, Yes or ELP, they're annoying enough to be noticeable, especially on their '80s work.

 

http://www.amazon.com/review/R34ZP3ZFGC7RZ8

 

Why and how did you find that?

[tx_rush]

Some people dislike certain rush albums- I really dig COS, but can understand why its not someones cup of tea. I can see this for every Rush album except Moving Pictures and Permanent Waves. Not saying they are everyones favorites but most can at least say they are dang good albums

 

To me, you posting this, and having to find someone elses arguement (who isnt even a Rush fan) indicates that you are just trying to be contrarian just to stir things up or get attention

[tx_rush]

Of all the Rush albums, the two that 99.9% of people like (not saying are there favorites) are Moving Pictures and Permanent Waves

I remember receiving a lot of flack for voting against this album once so I'll post some reasons as to why I did:

 

1. The music, while no doubt technically accomplished on all fronts (especially Neil Peart's drumming) feels sterile, formulaic, and with few compositional risks taken (and when they ARE taken, they're inevitably embarrassing). It almost feels like a combination of the worst possibilities of '70s arena rock (cheesily anthemic choruses, overwrought hooks, boring songwriting) and '70s prog rock (self-indulgent chops, overextended song lengths, goofy pseudointellectual lyrics). Rush tries to appeal to a middle ground between experimentation and accessibility; nothing wrong with that, but their music fails at both.

 

2. Neal Peart's lyrics are often embarrassingly overwrought and pretentious, often reading like they were written by an acne-afflicted teen whose access to literature is limited to a copy of Atlas Shrugged and a handful of bad fantasy/sci-fi novels.

 

3. The synths, when applied, almost always end up sounding dated and artificial. While not as bad as, say, Yes or ELP, they're annoying enough to be noticeable, especially on their '80s work.

 

http://www.amazon.co.../R34ZP3ZFGC7RZ8

 

Why and how did you find that?

 

I just copied a chunk of his post and googled it, it didnt seem like something he wrote

[G Lee]

 

3. The synths, when applied, almost always end up sounding dated and artificial. While not as bad as, say, Yes or ELP, they're annoying enough to be noticeable, especially on their '80s work.

 

While I disagree with these opinions regarding Permanent Waves on the whole, this particular statement bothered me a little. I've been noticing a lot of people around here citing problems with certain music sounding "dated". It just keeps me wondering, what the hell is the problem with that? Isn't everything somewhat "dated" for whatever period it was made in? You never hear this in regards to Mozart, and yet I'm sure it applies there as well. And yet, when people hear that something sounds "dated" from within the last 50 years, it's a negative thing. So...it's a crap thing to capture a moment in time? Somebody enlighten me here please...

 

(**Sorry, totally veered off there. Side rant complete :eyeroll: .)

[JohnRogers]

http://www.amazon.com/review/R34ZP3ZFGC7RZ8

Mr Union was horribly wrong ten years ago as he is today. In the mean time post 4 in thread sums it up nicely. I'll perform ambassador duty later for now I need to see a contractor aboot my cigar lounge. A place where ladies and gentlemen will be able to discuss the finer points of Permanent Waves over a Cigar and Bourbon.

[JARG]

Of all the Rush albums, the two that 99.9% of people like (not saying are there favorites) are Moving Pictures and Permanent Waves

I remember receiving a lot of flack for voting against this album once so I'll post some reasons as to why I did:

 

1. The music, while no doubt technically accomplished on all fronts (especially Neil Peart's drumming) feels sterile, formulaic, and with few compositional risks taken (and when they ARE taken, they're inevitably embarrassing). It almost feels like a combination of the worst possibilities of '70s arena rock (cheesily anthemic choruses, overwrought hooks, boring songwriting) and '70s prog rock (self-indulgent chops, overextended song lengths, goofy pseudointellectual lyrics). Rush tries to appeal to a middle ground between experimentation and accessibility; nothing wrong with that, but their music fails at both.

 

2. Neal Peart's lyrics are often embarrassingly overwrought and pretentious, often reading like they were written by an acne-afflicted teen whose access to literature is limited to a copy of Atlas Shrugged and a handful of bad fantasy/sci-fi novels.

 

3. The synths, when applied, almost always end up sounding dated and artificial. While not as bad as, say, Yes or ELP, they're annoying enough to be noticeable, especially on their '80s work.

 

http://www.amazon.co.../R34ZP3ZFGC7RZ8

 

Why and how did you find that?

 

I just copied a chunk of his post and googled it, it didnt seem like something he wrote

 

And (big clue) his post is formatted to look like it was the result of a copy/paste.

[Lorraine]

I can't even take this seriously, and no matter how I may dislike a certain Rush album, there is nothing that they have done that I would apply the word "hate" to.

[Lorraine]

Union, what's your favorite Rush album?

[tx_rush]

Of all the Rush albums, the two that 99.9% of people like (not saying are there favorites) are Moving Pictures and Permanent Waves

I remember receiving a lot of flack for voting against this album once so I'll post some reasons as to why I did:

 

1. The music, while no doubt technically accomplished on all fronts (especially Neil Peart's drumming) feels sterile, formulaic, and with few compositional risks taken (and when they ARE taken, they're inevitably embarrassing). It almost feels like a combination of the worst possibilities of '70s arena rock (cheesily anthemic choruses, overwrought hooks, boring songwriting) and '70s prog rock (self-indulgent chops, overextended song lengths, goofy pseudointellectual lyrics). Rush tries to appeal to a middle ground between experimentation and accessibility; nothing wrong with that, but their music fails at both.

 

2. Neal Peart's lyrics are often embarrassingly overwrought and pretentious, often reading like they were written by an acne-afflicted teen whose access to literature is limited to a copy of Atlas Shrugged and a handful of bad fantasy/sci-fi novels.

 

3. The synths, when applied, almost always end up sounding dated and artificial. While not as bad as, say, Yes or ELP, they're annoying enough to be noticeable, especially on their '80s work.

 

http://www.amazon.co.../R34ZP3ZFGC7RZ8

 

Why and how did you find that?

 

I just copied a chunk of his post and googled it, it didnt seem like something he wrote

 

And (big clue) his post is formatted to look like it was the result of a copy/paste.

 

Yeah... I noticed that too.......subconsciously..........

[Fat Stick]

How can you be a Rush fan and "hate Permanent Waves"???

[Geddyleegenes]

Here's that entire review from Amazon. Whether Union (the OP) and Shotgun Method are the same person, Union can admit to or not.

 

-----

8 of 55 people found the following review helpful

2.0 out of 5 stars Their appeal eludes me., September 11, 2005

By

Shotgun Method

This review is from: Permanent Waves (Audio CD)

By all rights, I should like Rush. It's not like I have a total aversion to '70s prog/art rock, being that I enjoy Gentle Giant, King Crimson, Pink Floyd, Magma etc. And I also enjoy some of the later prog and prog-metal bands that Rush influenced (Tool, Mars Volta, Spiral Architect, Queensryche).

 

However, the trio of Lifeson, Lee, and Peart have never made an album that I could listen to without simply clicking the "off" button midway thru.

 

I'll try to illuminate the various reasons without getting too snarky:

 

1. The music, while no doubt technically accomplished on all fronts (especially Neil Peart's drumming) feels sterile, formulaic, and with few compositional risks taken (and when they ARE taken, they're inevitably embarrassing). It almost feels like a combination of the worst possibilities of '70s arena rock (cheesily anthemic choruses, overwrought hooks, boring songwriting) and '70s prog rock (self-indulgent chops, overextended song lengths, goofy pseudointellectual lyrics). Rush tries to appeal to a middle ground between experimentation and accessibility; nothing wrong with that, but their music fails at both.

 

2. Neal Peart's lyrics are often embarrassingly overwrought and pretentious, often reading like they were written by an acne-afflicted teen whose access to literature is limited to a copy of Atlas Shrugged and a handful of bad fantasy/sci-fi novels.

 

3. Geddy Lee... ack. I've heard him described as a "squirrel on helium." As accurate as this is, I'd have to say that's being somewhat charitable. No, imagine a squirrel on helium with its tender bits in a clamp while being chased by a cat. Lee's terrible voice only serves to further emphasize the aforementioned geeky lyrics.

 

4. The synths, when applied, almost always end up sounding dated and artificial. While not as bad as, say, Yes or ELP, they're annoying enough to be noticeable, especially on their '80s work.

 

5. As a sidenote, judging by Mr. Peart's biographies he appears to be an insufferably humorless and egotistical individual.

 

Don't even get me started with the recent Feedback EP--their own music is bad enough without trying to mess up classics by The Who, Buffalo Springfield, et al.

 

For a real art/prog fix, I'd advise you to pick up Gentle Giant's Octopus or any of King Crimson's Mk IV albums (Red, Larks' Tongues, Starless & Bible Black) and give Rush a pass.

[bluefox4000]

I can't even take this seriously, and no matter how I may dislike a certain Rush album, there is nothing that they have done that I would apply the word "hate" to.

 

you are a better fan then i

 

Mick

[Lost In Xanadu]

http://www.pureprospa.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/Permanent_Wave.png

 

How 'bout these permanent waves?

[Lorraine]

Who's the Permanent Waves Ambassador? Whoever you are, you're fired.

[Segue Myles]

I think Permanent Waves is a great album, but to my ears is neither as exhilarating as Hemispheres or as iconic and memorable as Moving Pictures.