Neil Peart down on band's 70s work

^ Agreed, and as much as I dislike GUP, it is when Alex's playing really takes on the unique tone-oriented style it has.

Speaking in a musician point of view... (any art for that matter)

I find it weir really. Perhaps if he was referring to their first 2 albums (or three, if you count the very first without him) it would be easier to agree, but after 2112 (and until "Moving Pictures" or "Signals") you would have what, at least here, would be considered their essential material. Many talk here about artists getting better because of experience, and being perhaps too young at their early 20's to make great albums... however, what I have seen is that most of the major masterpieces, at least from prog, come from their early albums (perhaps not the earliest, sometimes they needed 2 or 3 albums to get polished and take out their best), and those albums were usually made by people at their early 20's. And usually they just can't capture the same magic again later in their life, no matter how much experience they have obtained. Perhaps they get to do some great songs or even an album if they are "lucky", but it seems that many of those artists had certain amount of brilliance to give, and once it is spent, they already gave the best they had to give.

Triceratopsoil wrote: Permanent Waves is their best album so obviously he's drunk.

Edited by The Neck Romancer - February 26 2014 at 20:50

rdtprog wrote: Neil will try to stop this to come out, because it covers almost all the period he prefer to forget! http://www.bravewords.com/news/218706

Biff Tannen wrote: I don't think he is saying that ever Rush album they did from the 1980 till now is better than every 70s album, but that those 70s albums when they were experimenting were like starter albums and Moving Pictures was, in his view, the first album where they got it all right.  If you read the Contents Under Pressure book, Neil is very fond of the synth era albums (1982-1987), which I can see since that is when he was at his best lyrical peak, he was more experimental with drums during that time period, and his drum sound was awesome then.

Very good points all.

Ambient Hurricanes wrote: *Sees Rush thread* *Comes out of hiding* I think he has a point to an extent.  I would agree with Neil (and the rest of the band) that Rush really found their sound around the PW/MP era; their earlier efforts were ambitions (and occasionally brilliant) but they only really achieved a consistently cohesive, mature sound around 1980 or so.  The ideas were there, they weren't just developed in the same skillful, subtle way that they were in the 80s and afterward.  If you actually analyze Rush songs from a compositional standpoint (and I'm a composer of both classical and rock music) you start to realize that although early Rush sounds more ambitious and complex on the surface, it actually gets more compositionally interesting as you get into the 80s; the band gets better at actually developing the themes they introduce (their ideas were incredible in the 70s but they really didn't do a whole lot with them); they start to introduce variations over the course of a verse-chorus structure instead of merely repeating sections with different lyrics; the music just generally becomes more intricate and yeah, they get better at writing melodies.  Plus, the lyrics get better; not that they were bad in the 70s, but they were a bit obvious in their imagery and the way they conveyed their messages. I can't agree with Neil in his outright dismissal of the band's early work; their youthful energy, ambition, and potential produced some great stuff and some outright masterpieces, including 2112 (the song) and Hemispheres (the album).  Although they hadn't matured as songwriters yet, they were still brilliant musicians who hadn't quite brought their craft to mastery. I think this thread illustrates why I like Vapor Trails so much; it perfectly fuses the raw aggression and energy of Rush's early years with the intricate maturity of their later period.

*Sees Rush thread* *Comes out of hiding*

I think he has a point to an extent.  I would agree with Neil (and the rest of the band) that Rush really found their sound around the PW/MP era; their earlier efforts were ambitions (and occasionally brilliant) but they only really achieved a consistently cohesive, mature sound around 1980 or so.  The ideas were there, they weren't just developed in the same skillful, subtle way that they were in the 80s and afterward.  If you actually analyze Rush songs from a compositional standpoint (and I'm a composer of both classical and rock music) you start to realize that although early Rush sounds more ambitious and complex on the surface, it actually gets more compositionally interesting as you get into the 80s; the band gets better at actually developing the themes they introduce (their ideas were incredible in the 70s but they really didn't do a whole lot with them); they start to introduce variations over the course of a verse-chorus structure instead of merely repeating sections with different lyrics; the music just generally becomes more intricate and yeah, they get better at writing melodies.  Plus, the lyrics get better; not that they were bad in the 70s, but they were a bit obvious in their imagery and the way they conveyed their messages.

I can't agree with Neil in his outright dismissal of the band's early work; their youthful energy, ambition, and potential produced some great stuff and some outright masterpieces, including 2112 (the song) and Hemispheres (the album).  Although they hadn't matured as songwriters yet, they were still brilliant musicians who hadn't quite brought their craft to mastery.

I think this thread illustrates why I like Vapor Trails so much; it perfectly fuses the raw aggression and energy of Rush's early years with the intricate maturity of their later period.

Actually, that quote is from 2004, in the Contents Under Pressure book. 

Edited by altaeria - February 26 2014 at 11:25