Neil Peart down on band's 70s work

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

*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.

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.

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.

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

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

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

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.

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

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

verslibre wrote: richardh wrote: Its weird though that he considers Moving Pictures as their first mature album and not Permanent Waves. They are virtually identical in approach and both have powerful material. Needs further explanation. For me Hemispheres is a bit of a bore but I do like 2112 and AFTK. I only like one song off the first 3 albums (By-Tor) so they can be consigned to the 'bin' from my perspective. Definitely. Maybe Neil had a brain fart and meant to name Waves but messed up. That album really is the beginning of the "new sound" they pursued and refined up through Power Windows. Sometimes rock veterans say weird things. I recall on eMpTyVee, when it used to be a music-focused network, an interview circa the early '90s where Rikki Rachtman asked Glenn Danzig if he would play Misfits and/or Samhain songs on his solo tour of the time. Glenn politely but sternly replied that those bands were of a certain time, and if you'd missed the boat, too bad. Fast-forward to the late '90s, and Glenn not only sustained his then-tour by playing Misfits songs, he had his former bandmate Doyle von Frankenstein join him for those songs every single night. In the late '80s Edgar Froese let slip some rumor that he was going to retire Tangerine Dream after the 1988 tour. He's still going 25 years later...and not only that, he's milked the band's legacy thoroughly, including but not limited to (as if!) re-recording/re-releasing Phaedra and Tangram, two of TD's most beloved recordings. Whether you consider it art or heresy, it's pretty clear Edgar does it to get a few more dollars.