Rush - Far cry

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Rush is completely overblown and pretentious. Awful. Utterly awful. Misunderstand everything that's vital about rock 'n' roll. Good technical skills, but their music is a triumph of precision over passion.

As Stephen Malkmus of Pavement said in "Stereo" (Brighten the Corners, 1997), "What about the voice of Geddy Lee/ How did it get so high/ I wonder if he talks like an ordinary guy."

Sounds like typical Rolling Stone boiler plate. Some people just don't like technically pure/highly arranged music. Rolling Stone and seemingly Ty don't like that ype of music. Thought the same thing about 'Boston.' Want music with an 'edge.' Pretentious? perhaps. Lacking passion? 2112 lacks passion? Red Barchetta. Trees. I think I'm going bald! Interesting - Rush repeatedly sings about loss of personal freedoms to the machine of technology and totalitarianism, they sing about life's passages and they lack passion? Geddy Lee is an aquired taste (or not). Neal Peart is probably one of the smartest guys in rock ever. But, as someone mentioned, music is about taste, and if you don't like Rush, I have no problem with that. But precision OVER passion? Hardly. You can choose a ready guide in some celestial voice. If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice. You can choose from phantom fears and kindness that can kill. I will choose a path that's clear, I will choose free will. (and Rush).

Ayn, I would expect this from you. Anyone who uses a psudeo philosopher like Rand is suspect. Not to mention that Peart was heavily influenced by Rand...and, like most Randist/Randians came across her work at an early age.

Boston: C'mon. Corporate Rock at its finest..or worst.

rock n roll is supposed to be dirty and raw. There is nothing dirty and raw in Rush or Boston. It is all precision and no passion. All that prog rock is just wanking off. Singing about a topic doesn't make it passionate. Same as a politician.

As for mentioning songs...puhleaze. I'm more than familiar. When I was a child I indulged in childish things.

Peart: um, a little factual basis. Your opinion doesn't make it so. And, by arguing based on "smart" you are proving my point. Rock isn't about being smart. But, what makes him so smart. Do you have an IQ score. He didn't attend college, and I believe he dropped out of high school..so his exposure to great works is probably quite limited. AS evidenced by his lyrics. Lyrics primarily influenced by fantasy and sci fi lit hardly qualify as "smart."

Or cribbing from Shakespeare, hello Limelight.

Trees: OMG. What a joke. I still crack up over the lyrics. That song is the turd that most Rush fans endure.

And, quoting a Rush song is truly laughable.

[mraynrand]

rock n roll is supposed to be dirty and raw.

That's all you needed to write. It defines your position and is a statement of opinion, not fact. You could more effectively argue that 'raw and dirty' defines rock and roll for you, or alternaively you could argue that 'raw and dirty' it is a type of rock and roll, and Rush is a different form of music. If that works for you, fine. It doesn't take away the appeal that Rush has for me or others. I like Dylan's 'Positively Fourth Street', but to me the lyrics describe a distinct kind of passion from 2112 or 'Marathon' off Power Windows. Nothing you've written convinces me that there isn't passion in the music of Rush, most likely because it is a personal experience. Some find passion in Enya for shits sake. Most of the rest of what you you wrote was just insulting hogwash.

P.S. Rand's metaphysics and Epistemology are no less advanced that Spinoza's and in many cases easier to follow. Certainly her exposition is easier to grasp (and critique) than say Spinoza or Aquinas, simply due to the manner in which they wrote (obviously writing to different audiences in different eras). Often, I find that people disagree with philosophers not because of their intellect or ability to argue points, but because of their conclusions. Hume and Decarte were brilliant writers and philosophers and argued in spectacular and convincing manner, yet often arrived at different conclusions, most likely due to initial biases. It fascinating to compare them, their assumptions, arguments and their conclusions with Rand. But of course, it's far more simple, and simple-minded to dismiss something based purely on personal preference. Your view on Rock music exemplifies this.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

rock n roll is supposed to be dirty and raw.

That's all you needed to write. It defines your position and is a statement of opinion, not fact. You could more effectively argue that 'raw and dirty' defines rock and roll for you, or alternaively you could argue that 'raw and dirty' it is a type of rock and roll, and Rush is a different form of music. If that works for you, fine. It doesn't take away the appeal that Rush has for me or others. I like Dylan's 'Positively Fourth Street', but to me the lyrics describe a distinct kind of passion from 2112 or 'Marathon' off Power Windows. Nothing you've written convinces me that there isn't passion in the music of Rush, most likely because it is a personal experience. Some find passion in Enya for shits sake. Most of the rest of what you you wrote was just insulting hogwash.

P.S. Rand's metaphysics and Epistemology are no less advanced that Spinoza's and in many cases easier to follow. Certainly her exposition is easier to grasp (and critique) than say Spinoza or Aquinas, simply due to the manner in which they wrote (obviously writing to different audiences in different eras). Often, I find that people disagree with philosophers not because of their intellect or ability to argue points, but because of their conclusions. Hume and Decarte were brilliant writers and philosophers and argued in spectacular and convincing manner, yet often arrived at different conclusions, most likely due to initial biases. It fascinating to compare them, their assumptions, arguments and their conclusions with Rand. But of course, it's far more simple, and simple-minded to dismiss something based purely on personal preference. Your view on Rock music exemplifies this.

Sorry, but you are wrong. I defined Rush as misunderstanding Rock. They do. If you wanna argue that they get "prog rock" then fine, argue it. But, rock n roll is is dirty, raw, and comes from a mix of blues, etc.

I never argued that you can't like them. Go right ahead. Why would I expect you to have good taste. Your avatar is of Rand.

But, I notice that there is no rebuttal regarding your statment of smarts regarding Peart.

P.S. Rand. You can hold onto your views, but in the pantheon of philosophers Rand is knocking on the door and hoping to get in. No one considers her to be a great philosopher except her small rabid followers.

[mraynrand]

Sorry, but you are wrong. I defined Rush as misunderstanding Rock. They do. If you wanna argue that they get "prog rock" then fine, argue it. But, rock n roll is is dirty, raw, and comes from a mix of blues, etc. .

If I'm wrong, then you agree with me. It depends on your definition of rock. By Your definition of Rock, Rush is not a rock band. It's pretty simple, but you've made it complicated

I never argued that you can't like them. Go right ahead. Why would I expect you to have good taste. Your avatar is of Rand.

Again, this is personal opinion and taste. I'm certain that I and many others wouldn't care for some music or writings that you like. You used the word 'taste' not talent. Clearly Rush is talented as is Rand. Taste is a separate issue. Ranking their respective talent would also involve a great deal of subjectivity.

But, I notice that there is no rebuttal regarding your statment of smarts regarding Peart.

Why bother? Your challenge involved producing an IQ test. How unreasonable is that? If I did producde one, you'd probably quote the various sources that dispute the validity of IQ tests, based on for example, racial biases. It's simple - I think Pearts' lyrics are clever and interesting and show a wide rande of knowlege and understanding and therefore I conclude that he's a smart guy.

P.S. Rand. You can hold onto your views, but in the pantheon of philosophers Rand is knocking on the door and hoping to get in. No one considers her to be a great philosopher except her small rabid followers.

I do hold my views and and not part of her rabid following, though I do like to challenge people to adress some of the issues she's raised. Richard Rorty and John Rawls probably would not be consided among the 'pantheon' of phlosophers, yet Rand's ideas flushed these incompetents down the toilet. What is interesting about Rand is what she was trying to combat, particularly in the 60s. In that era, a number of would be philosophers were trying to push the idea that sensory input was not required for aquiring knowledge and Rand argued effectively against this notion. Probably one of her most effective essays was 'Sullivan versus Kant.' Sensory input (which requires the presumption of the primacy of existence) is at the very least permissive for concept formation.

The reason John Galt is my avatar is that I like Rand's ideas regarding the nobility and purpose of Man, and the wonder and awe at the ability and range of human achievement. What does your avatar celebrate?

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Sorry, but you are wrong. I defined Rush as misunderstanding Rock. They do. If you wanna argue that they get "prog rock" then fine, argue it. But, rock n roll is is dirty, raw, and comes from a mix of blues, etc. .

If I'm wrong, then you agree with me. It depends on your definition of rock. By Your definition of Rock, Rush is not a rock band. It's pretty simple, but you've made it complicated

I never argued that you can't like them. Go right ahead. Why would I expect you to have good taste. Your avatar is of Rand.

Again, this is personal opinion and taste. I'm certain that I and many others wouldn't care for some music or writings that you like. You used the word 'taste' not talent. Clearly Rush is talented as is Rand. Taste is a separate issue. Ranking their respective talent would also involve a great deal of subjectivity.

But, I notice that there is no rebuttal regarding your statment of smarts regarding Peart.

Why bother? Your challenge involved producing an IQ test. How unreasonable is that? If I did producde one, you'd probably quote the various sources that dispute the validity of IQ tests, based on for example, racial biases. It's simple - I think Pearts' lyrics are clever and interesting and show a wide rande of knowlege and understanding and therefore I conclude that he's a smart guy.

P.S. Rand. You can hold onto your views, but in the pantheon of philosophers Rand is knocking on the door and hoping to get in. No one considers her to be a great philosopher except her small rabid followers.

I do hold my views and and not part of her rabid following, though I do like to challenge people to adress some of the issues she's raised. Richard Rorty and John Rawls probably would not be consided among the 'pantheon' of phlosophers, yet Rand's ideas flushed these incompetents down the toilet. What is interesting about Rand is what she was trying to combat, particularly in the 60s. In that era, a number of would be philosophers were trying to push the idea that sensory input was not required for aquiring knowledge and Rand argued effectively against this notion. Probably one of her most effective essays was 'Sullivan versus Kant.' Sensory input (which requires the presumption of the primacy of existence) is at the very least permissive for concept formation.

The reason John Galt is my avatar is that I like Rand's ideas regarding the nobility and purpose of Man, and the wonder and awe at the ability and range of human achievement. What does your avatar celebrate?

Agreed, Rush is not a rock band. But, even in prog rock they are pretty substandard. Would you put them in the same level as YES. Now, I think Yes is overblown and pompous (the same reasons others love them), but Rush is a far cry from them.

Rush talent. Without a doubt they have talent. I never argued against that. What i clearly stated is that they misunderstand everything about Rock. rod stewart is clearly talented, but has squandered his talent. That isn't a hard concept.

There is no doubt that Peart is a fantastic drummer..and might even be inclined to label him a percussionist.

Taste: So, you are arguing in favor of subjectivity. There is no high art or low art...it is all decided by each individual? wouldn't have figured that as your position. Course, I don't agree with that. Usually reserve that line for PC/liberal limo/feminist types. Instantly defeat that argument by stating that Hustler is art. If it is all subjective than Hustler is art. Fits of apoplexy start.

Interesting position for someone who doesn't like rap.

Rush/Rand: I wouldn't agree with that. Rand is far more talented than Rush. Surprised?

Smart: No IQ was necessary. You claimed one of the smartest. All i asked was for some sort of measuring stick. If one didn't finish high school, attend college then I'm guessing that they aren't smart or wordly. It is possible, that is why we use tests like IQ.

Using Rush's lyrics to make your case is at best poor. As an English major who got paid to write, I can say that their lyrics are far from good. They appeal to the bong hits crowd. Or those that think fantasy/sci fi is high art. (not saying it can't be..but, there is more dreck in that genre than most)

Avatar: Mine? Just having fun.

[Scott Campbell]

Green is one of my favorite colors. It's way better than red.

[Freak Out]

Green is one of my favorite colors. It's way better than red.

Better dead than red. Green is good...but so is blue.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Green is one of my favorite colors. It's way better than red.

Poor analogy, would expect more from you scott.

[the_idle_threat]

Green is one of my favorite colors. It's way better than red.

Well done.

[Scott Campbell]

Green is one of my favorite colors. It's way better than red.

Poor analogy, would expect more from you scott.

You'd have to be high on crack to expect more from me.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Green is one of my favorite colors. It's way better than red.

Poor analogy, would expect more from you scott.

You'd have to be high on crack to expect more from me.

Touche.