Neil Peart down on band's 70s work

And speaking of distorted value systems, demanding artists to challenge the status quo, take risks and make a statement and then also spare your feelings and be dishonest in their appraisal of their own work is what I call a warped sense of values.  The worst that could be said of Peart was he was pretty honest in his views about Rush's older albums.  Hey, go listen to some Kenny G if you just want people who are nice and all that all the time.

Edited by rogerthat - March 30 2014 at 11:58

rogerthat wrote: Very perceptive post there.  I remember feeling that the Ayn Randisms were quite tempered on Snakes & Arrows (and some songs even expressed bitter disillusionment) and saying as much to another fan, who then informed me about Peart's personal tragedies.

 

I get what Neil is saying and I don't disagree with him. But, I still like alot of that music. For him though, ya gotta remember, it was a time in his life that is no more. I mean his first wife and child were around then. That could leave a person with a mind-set that has the whole period of their life boxed up ina corner of their memory that may just be better off for them left there. I mean losing a spose is one thing. But losing a child? Your soul may just be ripped apart and everything that surrounded that time period with it. I know I don't wish that on anyone.

Finnforest wrote: Wondering what Rush fans think of a recent Neil Peart quote, which would seem to diss some of their most beloved albums....No 2112, no Hemispheres, no Permanent Waves???  Say it ain't so Neil!  "Those were the growing years. I often equate that to children's drawings on the refrigerator that hang around too long, you know?I really wish they would just go away.  I think we really started....wow, given my druthers, I would make our first album "Moving Pictures."  I can't think of a single reason not to do that!" Great drummer, but I think he's cracked on this one.  I love their early work.

Holy crap, Neil!!?

Well, I suppose he is entitled to his own opinion.

Man...children's drawings on the fridge kept too long. Well, color me blue cause I'm a little sad he thinks this way.
Although, then again, I prefer 80's Rush the most but HEMISPHERES was such and advanced piece of work; however I do remember RUSH clearly saying/being, as a band, very stressed out while making that album. Don't blame them, really. LA VILLA STRAGIATO...the bench mark of drumming!!! I suppose Neil wouldn't think so.

It's curious also that Neil will criticize Rush's earlier work and yet in 2004 they do a fantastic albums of covers.

I mean if they can do Crossroads and Summertime Blues and have fun why not toss Need Some Love or Best I Can into a few setlists!

Rush is a band I would love to hang out with.  Probably more so than 9 out of my 10 favorite bands.  They're just cool.

Horizons wrote: Why not Permanent Waves..? Come on Neil. You're starting to show your age. I can understand why he would brush off albums like Hemispheres and Caress of Steel, but MP's sister album? :<

Er, ah, what? Understanding brushing off Hemispheres? I don't. Or Farewell to Kings, for that matter. And Permanent Wave being Moving Pictures' sister album? Nope. More like Moving Pictures' retarded younger brother.

I guess my hopes of them touring Hemispheres in it's entirety are dashed. Oh bother.

They probably couldn't play it now anyway. they all but said in Beyond the Lighted Stage they had enormous trouble playing it back then.

I understand his view on it, though it is a bit of a back hand to the millions of fans who love/loved those albums. Artists need to keep moving forward, and where would Rush be if they had just kept making Hemispheres or 2112 over and over again?  Probably they would be even more loved by the prog world, but have a fraction of their current fame.

I understand the people who feel slighted by his comment, as I generally prefer just about everything before Grace Under Pressure to everything after it.  I'd much rather hear 2112 than Hold Your Fire.  However, there is no question the band progressed very steadily until the mid-90's, where I think they lost the plot.  They seem to have regained some fire with Vapor Trails and Clockowork Angels though.

Still, I think artists are certainly entitled to say whatever they want about their work and I can see how they can be far more critical than any fan or even casual listener of their work would be.  I also feel a bit irritated when David Gilmour and Roger Waters call their pre-Meddle albums "rubbish".  Those are my favorite Floyd albums, and to me it all started to get very clinical and contrived from Dark Side on (though they are all still great albums, nonetheless).

With Rush, I see a much more gradual and steady progression of skill and sophistication from album to album.  Looking back can help reinvigorate an old bands new material, but obviously recreating the past is impossible if it even was desirable. Even fans would probably not be thrilled about Rush putting out Hemispheres 2 or something like that (of course, they'd buy it dutifully anyway I imagine).

Anyway, I don't feel any anger at Peart for his comments.  I just realize he sees his work in a different perspective than I do.  I do think he could have worded it better, because I doubt even he would call those albums worthless (which is how it comes off as, the way he words it).


Edited by infandous - March 14 2014 at 10:36

hot damn....