Neil Peart down on band's 70s work

Jeffro wrote: Finnforest wrote: Intruder, I know exactly what you mean, it does get old.  It's almost a cliche at this point.  I'm a rock fan.  Most of the long running bands I appreciate had a particularly great peak period, almost always relatively early in their career, when they are in their 20s to early 30s.  It was a time (often) before they had families and children, when the band was their family so to speak, and when music was their life.  That, along with the fire and imagination of youth provides that oomph factor. it seems like some musicians can't accept that they hit their peak and then could never get there again. The idea that the newest stuff is the "best they've ever done" is at times, complete rubbish and just spin. I mean, who really expects them to say that it's not as good as what they did 20 years ago?

I you make music, your newest stuff is the best ever, You just spent month creating it. At a listener it another story.

Neil is entitled to his opinion, of course. And I'm entitled to mine. And for me, Rush's best years were the 70s, including the first album, which I have loved for 40 years.

Intruder, I know exactly what you mean, it does get old.  It's almost a cliche at this point.  I'm a rock fan.  Most of the long running bands I appreciate had a particularly great peak period, almost always relatively early in their career, when they are in their 20s to early 30s.  It was a time (often) before they had families and children, when the band was their family so to speak, and when music was their life.  That, along with the fire and imagination of youth provides that oomph factor.

Which is why they abandoned most of their 70's material on the last tour I guess.   I've definitely moved on to other bands over the last 15 years.  Still enjoy listening to their classic albums every now and again though.

Edited by yesrushdt - August 29 2014 at 17:33

The band Echolyn(especially one or two members of the band in particular)are not too keen on their early albums(especially the first one)also. It's probably not uncommon for musicians to not think too highly of their early stuff.

steve j wrote: Going back to the original quote. I don't think this is a recent quote.  I recall this being said a long time ago, and I think he was talking about the really early albums not 2112 onwards.  I may be wrong but the quote rang a bell.

No, it was relatively recent (I think it was one of the latter day DVD extras interviews, I can't remember which one anymore)

And he was talking about just what it says....pre MP albums.  He did not exclude 2112-PWaves as you suggest. 


Edited by Finnforest - August 26 2014 at 17:28

Going back to the original quote. I don't think this is a recent quote.  I recall this being said a long time ago, and I think he was talking about the really early albums not 2112 onwards.  I may be wrong but the quote rang a bell.

I totally agree Rush music is not easy to categorize, and not that I like doing that myself. But yes, back in the day like 70's, their early albums I would consider more metal than anything else. They were a 3-pc with no keyboards and heavy distorted guitar and heavy drumming.

Heck most people thought the debut album was a new Zeppelin album. Once they started to refine the sound, more melodic and throw in Neil's lyrics towards progressive themes, some of the metal attributes went away.

You can call it Rush Metal ....I don't think Priest and Motorhead were the same kind of metal if you want to get technical.

Not in the way that metal does. Like I said, they get heavy but I wouldn't consider any heavy and angry music to be necessarily metal just because of that. A lot of punk is heavy and angry but not metal. A lot of rock'n'roll is angry and was heavy for its' time but still isn't metal. Free jazz can be very aggressive and loud and intense but most certainly is not metal. I don't think it necessarily makes a difference in the matter of the quality of Rush but I personally can't see them as metal music. If i did, I would also have to call King Crimson a metal band because of the opening riff of 21st Century Schizoid Man or the heavily distorted parts on Larks Tongues In Aspic, which I do not.

Edited by Sumdeus - August 25 2014 at 21:26

Mirror Image wrote: ProgMetaller2112 wrote: Mirror Image wrote: I never thought of Rush as a prog metal band and I never will. Then again it's hard to categorize them as just a Prog Rock band  That's beauty of their music. It doesn't fit cozily into any category.