Why I Hate Rush


It's sometimes hard to articulate why I don't like this band. The 3 guys mostly seem pretty cool and are obviously talented musicians. Taste in music is subjective and if you like them, great. But there is no denying this is a polarizing band.

I don't like their music because it appears devoid of any outside influence. Rush plays so precise but without any passion-- it is like their music was made in a vacuum sealed off from all human exposure. When I hear a band I like, the Stones or U2 or Wilco, I can hear generations of musical influence. With Rush, I hear a bunch of soul-less robots. Maybe that comes from being a Canadian band where there are not many black people and it's too freaking cold to go outside or something. Plus, there lyrics are incredibly heavy-handed--no nuance, nothing left to the imagination. If you dig them, great. But I thought I'd take a stab at why some people don't like them.

reply

Well, I can't remember who said it in the movie, but the Rolling Stones have overly explained. Led Zepplin have been overly explained. Aerosmith have been overly explained. We know what motivated their music and what inspired them to make the same music year after year. Nothing has ever been said about Rush. The guy behind the movie "I Love You, Man" is a huge Rush fan and he was given a forum to explain HIS love of the band through Jason Segal's character.

I wasn't a Rush fan in high school until I hooked up with my boyfriend(now husband)in 1985. I now wish I can go to one of their concerts again and take our son.

You have one person's opinion and I hope you receive others.

The New York Rangers suck. And Sidney Crosby is a cry baby!

reply

OP, imo Rush fandom is like a secret club that you didn't even know isn't all-inclusive.

It's like a secret language that you didn't ever think you'd learn, but has now become part of you.

Rush don't care what the masses think, just listen to Spirit Of Radio -- they lyrics -- and realize that was a "mainstream hit" and still gets MS radio play.

Rush plays from their heart, with complexities and layers upon layers that are appreciated by those who take the time to really listen, to focus on one instrument or one segment of a song, instead of having it play in the background.

They ain't as accessible as the Beatles, they aren't as formulaic as the Stones, and they aren't as polical as U2. Yet they have evolved and adapted and survived all this time and keep putting out hugely selling albums and tours... but even if that popularity died down they would keep plugging away, even if to only 200 people in a tiny little lounge.


THAT is the kind of passion that you are completely overlooking. They are confident in what they do and how they do it, and they aren't trying to force it and be over the top (like how Bono often comes across) ... and they're never gonna be guilty of "phoning it in" kind of accusations.

Go back to your Nickelback albums if you wish. I'm fine with a huge variety of musical genres, but Rush always works for me. And they continue to surprise me.





- - -

Chipping away at a mountain of pop culture trivia,
Darren Dirt.

reply

Play it on an instrument. Then, you just might get it.

Playing Stones, U2, or Wilco songs would never make the audition in the bands I've played in. La Villa Strangiato did, and still does. Show me - don't tell me.

I play some very complex music, Yes, Genesis, Rush, etc. Bands that take years to really play well. Strumming out a G-C-D chord progression for the billionth time just doesn't sound new to me, anymore. And Rush music is absolutely full of influences BUT - musicians tend to pick up the cues, more than non-musicians. And that may be the real reason why some people don't like them - they don't play, themselves.

And for as much damning press as Rolling Stone has given Rush, I was FLOORED to see David Fricke actually give them praise. Maybe the dinosaurs are finally dying out, there. Even Genesis finally got Clevelanded...

this postage has been deleted by the messer

reply

It makes no difference to me who can play the fastest or most "complex" music. Who really cares? Music is about passion, not technique--at least to me. (If you don't think Nels Cline from Wilco is an elite guitarist, however, listen to his solo on Impossible Germany.) Is Keith Richards a virtuoso? Certainly not. Is he a great rock and roll guitarist and song-writer? Go listen to Wild Horses or Can't you Hear Me Knocking and tell me isn't.

I freely admit to not having any musical ability, so maybe I can't appreciate Rush on the same level you do. But I get zero visceral reaction from them when I hear their music. Give me Charlie Watts and his 5 piece drum kit over Neil Pert's self indulgent 50 piece kit any day. Sometimes less is more.

I'd throw Yes and Genesis in there with Rush. All technique, no heart.

reply


"I'd throw Yes and Genesis in there with Rush. All technique, no heart."



That quote makes me think of the Hemispheres album, maybe the OP should check it out sometime.


I don't understand why people feel the need to denigrate an art form, it means what it means to different people; totally subjective. I don't go out of my way to listen to the Rolling Stones but I don't sit around bad-mouthing them either.





http://www.imdb.com/mymovies/list?l=30033672

reply

So much for the "hard to articulate why I don't like this band" comment. You can articulate, just fine. You don't like them, and you're convinced others shouldn't, either.

Yes, Genesis, and Rush have more heart than any of the bands you've listed. Is that articulate enough? I doubt it.

Listen to what you like, and quit trying to make everything work for your P.O.V.
It won't, can't, and shouldn't have to. But that doesn't make it bad, either.

I'll never understand why some non-musicians really LOVE Rush, while the majority seem to loathe them. I guess people really are at different points along the same path. And I will fully admit that post-Signals, I've really lost a lot of interest in Rush, too. But their progressive period is when they owned the world. And that's exactly why this film was even made...

this postage has been deleted by the messer

reply

I'm not trying to convince others not to like them. As I said, music is subjective and you like whatever you like--I'm merely saying why I don't like them.

I also find it ironic that a band which, to me, is devoid of influence, has been such a big influence on other bands and musicians as shown by this movie. Certainly Rush is a relevant band and I respect them. I just don't dig them.

reply

I for the most part, was in agreement with your assessment that Rush are a very linear band with no soul to their music. But after watching this documentary, I became very intrigued with them. I downloaded and listened to 2112 with headphones on and that has to be one of the most brilliant works of music ever recorded. There is definitely a stronger element of Alex Lifeson on that album which makes it easier to identify with because, as you said, it is difficult for people to adjust to any form of art that is not born of latter influences. I agree that (later) once Lifeson seemed to fade in the back ground, the music really became more robotic - almost as if it were a text book reference for musicians. This was the result of the music being more centered around Neil Peart's musical influence. While very original and extremely complex, the Neil Peart-lead era of Rush was very reflective of his drumming and personality - very complex, formulaic, contrived-originality. As evidenced in the doc, when he (Peart) was asked to play the Buddy Rich gala, he was absolutely lost which is why he hired Freddie Gruber to help him overcome his lack of "soul." To your point of their music being devoid of influence - I don't think that's a bad thing. Had they not been original, they would not have influenced so many musicians.

reply

[deleted]

rsr26, how much have you actually listened to?
Have you listened to Limelight, Madrigal or Territories?
I was in London once and it was raining and the lyrics to The Camera Eye were so clear.
I love the blues but this band is so much more.
Maybe it is your lack of musical talent. Maybe this band really is a musician's band and your appreciation of music is too basic to get it.
Watch the Rush in Rio DVD where the South American fans identify with Rush's humanist leanings. Maybe that's the problem, Rush's appeal to the "who am I?" crowd rather than the "why aren't I?"
U2 explained: www.youtube.com/watch?v=H6Go2DK9VtQ

reply

Potcher, The Camera Eye is my absolute favorite Rush song. I can't even explain it, but when the long instrumental intro starts, I am there. I feel it. I see it. I smell it. There is not another 10 minutes in my life that goes by so beautifully, without regard to time or anything around me. Even with repeated listenings. My favorite album is probably Hold Your Fire, so I am a big fan of the Geddy/synth heavy era. Also love everything since. But I do love the older stuff. The lyrics just don't move me as much, with exceptions as above and songs like Witch Hunt. All Rush is fascinating to the inspired listener, and is as far as being soulless as it could be. Wow.

Ah well, it's interesting how, so far, this thread has not devolved into insults and name calling like most do when someone is not a fan of the subject being discussed. I probably won't read too much more. I think we (fans) all enter a different dimension when truly experiencing Rush, and are better people for it.

Hmmm (rsr26), so Rush has never been inspired or influenced by Led Zeppelin or the blues, just to name 2 easy ones? LMAO...

reply

It's one thing to suggest reasons why people don't like them, or even articulate why you personally don't, but the extremely negative comments that followed weren't exactly polite.

Rush does play with passion - plenty of it. All of the bands you've stated play with passion only play with passion. I sat down once and watched a live performance by Wilco, and was immediately turned off because the guitarist was just slamming the *beep* out of it to make noise. There was no melody, no progression, just pure unbridled emotion. If that's your thing, that's cool, but I can hardly call that good musicianship.

And Rush is devoid of influence? Are you kidding me? Can you even make music without influence? Just because their songs don't sound exactly like another band's that came a decade prior doesn't mean they're devoid of influence.

Essentially what you've stated is: "Rush doesn't have the style that I like to have with my music."

You've tread on shaky ground. To be honest, I think there are two different kinds of music listeners: The one's who are familiar with music in all forms, and enjoy listening to a diversity of sounds and textures. The second, where I think you might fit in, are people literally listen to music to extract the style.

reply

"I also find it ironic that a band which, to me, is devoid of influence"

Cream
The Police
Genesis
Kiss
The Beatles
The Who
Led Zeppelin
Yes

Just a few of the bands that have influenced them. Not to be rude but you're either a troll or a complete idiot.

reply

Personally, I'm not a fan. I absolutely respect their skill, creativity and work ethic, but their music just doesn't appeal to me. That said, I don't get why you think any of us gives a crap about

I'm merely saying why I don't like them.

Seriously, is your ego so inflated that you think a bunch of random strangers are going to give a flying squirrel butt what you think of Rush?

Get over yourself.

-----
WORDS MEAN THINGS!

reply


Ironically, I tend to find the Bands you find intersting..... boring. The Stones have their undeniable place in R&R history,as do Bruce Springsteen, the Beatles, etc, but I never gravitated to any of them, and possibly for the simplicity you seem to gravitate to, or it just doesnt stir the soul.

Bands like Nickelback & U2 also do absolutely nothing for me, and I feel people gravivtate to them just because its fashionable, like gathering up as many facebook friends as you can to impress, or having the latest Cell phone.

I feel Many Rush fans are possibly attracted to their anti establishment mentality, as well as the fact, they have tried and experimented with many different musical approaches and sounds over the years, its really hard to ever get bored with them.

I agree if you arent already a Rush fan, going back quite awhile now, if you grabbed the last 5 or so CD`s and listened for the first time, its not the most likeable music, even I find myself forcing myself to like it, but eventually there are a few songs I end up liking, few have had the same success as Moving pictures as far as mainstream success and every song being pretty good.

Anyways, the mark of a really good Band is how they perform live, can they sound as good as on a CD? Sadly many Bands cant, Rush always did, and puts on a great show every time.

reply


I love Rush, but understand why you might dislike them. They are very technical and play complex tempos, that's why it's harder to connect with some of their songs with so much time changes. As I am a musician, that might play all difference.

Now about Genesis, can you really tell they have no heart? Have you ever listen to the Musical Box? That song is heart all over... I would go as far as to say no band as more heart than they have.

If you give Musical Box, White Mountain, Anyway, Firth of the Fifth and Cinema Show a listen and then you still feel it doesn't convey feelings, just check if your heart isn't made of stone...

reply

[deleted]

Haters Gonna Hate

reply

You like U2 or Wilco, do you honestly think your opinion matters? Maybe if all of Rush's songs sounded exactly the same and were rip-offs of other artists you'd like them, because you don't seem to like bands with "no outside influences" (otherwise known as originality).

reply

'Soul-less robots'?? I don't get it. How can you hear a newer song like 'Far Cry' or an older song, say, 'I Think I'm Going Bald', and call that 'soul-less'?? When I hear U2, I hear FM radio schmaltz. But when I hear Rush, I hear music made by people with a passion for playing.

reply

I'm not going to try to convert you or judge your assessment of the band, but I am really curious what role knowing or hearing the influences of a particular band plays in your appreciation of their music.

Don't take this the wrong way because I am not trying to insult you, but I get the impression that you have limited knowledge of the musical landscape from the late 60s to mid-70s - if you do not pick up on RUSH's influences. Or else, you don't have much experience listening to RUSH.

Sure, I find them to be pretty original in their sound - but I can tell where they came from (and from where they continue to be influenced throughout their discography) Heck, those first albums have Led Zep influence written all over. The Yes influence is major on their heavy prog period (especially for Lifeson). I hear The Who in a lot of that early stuff as well. Listen to how Lifeson's style changes from the 70s to the 80s, he adopted a lot of popular guitar techniques of the time. And when Alternative Rock became big in the early 90s, Rush ditched the synths and started making music appropriate for the landscape ('Roll the Bones' has a rap section in the middle, which was clearly a 'sign of the times').

I could go on and on about their obvious influences but, like I said, I'm really only replying to find out how knowing or hearing the influences of a particular band will affect your thoughts and feelings about that band's music.

An interesting aside: Of all the bands you listed, the one I hear the least obvious influence in their sound is U2. They have a pretty unique sound - especially early on. Maybe that is just from my limited experience with their music. But I find The Edge's sound to be pretty unemotional, actually, because most of what you are hearing is processed to the point where you can't even hear what he is actually playing. Have you seen 'It Might Get Loud'? The documentary with Edge, Jimmy Page, and Jack White? There is a part where Edge plays a recognizable U2 song and then turns all the delays and stuff off and you hear what he is actually playing - it only barely resembles (if you have a good ear) the part you hear during the song. Processing your parts into oblivion sounds very robotic to me (effects processors are electronic machines that perform a function and/or process information and manipulate it in the manner in which they are programmed - very similar to robots). Although I appreciate The Edge as an artist and a musician.

reply

goodbye--Fair points all. It's hard to put my finger on why I don't like them--I guess I just don't and that's that. Obviously they are great musicians, even a hater like me would never say otherwise. I just do not respond emotionally to them--which, for me, is a critical component of music.

Take a new band like "The Hold Steady." (Ironically, I think they are fans of Rush.) Anyway, they are not the best technical musicians but I could identify with their music and lyrics in a way that I can't with Rush. Maybe it's Rush's "pretentious" lyrics--yes I used that word even though Pert denies it specifically in the documentary. But albums like "2112" that set out to be hard core concept albums about some futuristic non-sense are almost beyond parody. The band (and their fans) also appear to be totally lacking in a sense of humor. At least musically. They take themselves way too seriously. You like Ayn Rand? Good for you. Maybe my problem with Rush is with their aesthetics as much as their music. I am not trying to tell others they are wrong for liking them. Dig what you dig. Just not my thing.

reply

But albums like "2112" that set out to be hard core concept albums about some futuristic non-sense are almost beyond parody. The band (and their fans) also appear to be totally lacking in a sense of humor. At least musically. They take themselves way too seriously.


Did you skip over the part in the documentary about how they came about with the concept for 2112? Because you clearly missed the boat by a mile. Their record company was furious with them because Caress of Steel was a bust, and demanded they release an album of singles. So the band decided they were not going to be told what to do, and would go out on their own terms whether it be down the tubes or in a blaze of glory, which is pretty much the theme to 2112.

And as for the lacking in the sense of humor, their latest tour is one self-deprecating stab at themselves after another.

Hate them if you want , but please get your facts straight. You're dealing with possibly the most rabid fan base of any group in history.

*Pbt.* *Pbt.* *Pbt.* I have a hair on my tongue; I can't get it off.

reply

Actually I've heard the "souless" argument before - sometimes I understand, but it depends on what you're listening to. Listen to a song like Chemistry live and it sounds like Geddy is trying his hardest to make those cumbersome lyrics into a song and he's having a hard time with it - and it's hard to be soulful in that situation. But then listen to "Beneath, Between and Behind" or "Bastille Day" and you know Geddy's capable of it. I just think the people who think Rush has no "soul" are listening to some of the more sanitized 80's material.

In other words, Rush has it in them to be very mechanical and sterile - but certainly not everything, not even a a majority of their catalog, is like that.

As for influences - in the early days the Zeppelin influence was obvious. In the middle days the Yes influence was obvious. In the early 80's the Police influence was obvious. In the mid 80's to the early 90's they were influenced by production techniques that put me to sleep so I'm not sure. In the Vapor Trail era there's a strong industrial influence, but then they went back to making coma rock so I'm not sure.

As for sense of humor - even Rush must know they come across this way sometimes which is why they've gone out of their way to look occasionally goofy as early back as "I Think I'm Going Bald". But yeah - they can certainly come across as self-indulgent narcissists, there's no way around it. Rush is an album rock band - you can never know them with one song or one album. They are their whole catalog and that's the only way to objectively judge them.

reply

Aleis--You seem to be a fan capable of at least listening to, and offering your own, criticisim of the band. I think the Led Zepp influence is ridiculous though. Zep was a heavily blues influenced rock band and, in their first four albums at least, there was an edge to their music that you don't find in Rush. Zepp is organic, grimey rock and roll whereas Rush is like synthetic music put through a purification process with all traces of humanity removed from it. The very thing that makes them popular with some people--their precision--is what turns me off.

reply

Precision is the EXACT thing that made Rush what they are today. You really don't know this music, so please, just stop.

Thank you.

"I think the Led Zepp[sic] influence is ridiculous though." Nobody else seems to think this - why is that? Maybe because Rush themselves said it? What do they know? They're just a bunch of U2 wannabees who can't fill stadiums...

this postage has been deleted by the messer

reply

Regarding Zeppelin - you hear it with the first Rush album for sure. "Here Again" is very heavy blues and Geddy's high pitch wail is very much like the studio version of "The Song remains the Same." It's not an out of line comparison if you keep it to the first album. Because yeah, you'd never hear those Neil Peart lyrics from Robert Plant ever - apples and oranges.

I think Rush are perfectionists, much like Pink Floyd, whereas Zeppelin were, as you said, organic. They kind of flowed into their music and allowed for improv, something Rush's carefully rehearsed music would never allow. It's a matter of taste obviously, but that was kind of the essence to progressive rock. It was very symphonic in a way, like classical music. You don't see the Philadephia Philharmonic improving Beethoven's 9th! And yet you wouldn't say they or Beethoven are without passion. I don't think this makes Rush a bad band, it's just a different experience. Also I think their music reflects their personalities - consummate professionals and a high demand on themselves for perfection. But I don't see how that constitutes a lack of humanity - Geddy's voice is passionate as hell in the early Rush days and even in the middle period you could feel the energy from it. 1985 and on up, I agree with you. Geddy's voice might as well have been programmed. But look at Robert Plant during his first few albums in that same time period - "In the Mood" wasn't exactly "Immigrant Song" was it!

Musically I think Peart has always been a technical virtuoso and for being a Keith Moon fan, I always wondered why he was so controlled. And Lifeson - much like Geddy lee, had his day of extremely passionate playing. His solos on "2112" or the live version of "By-Tor and the Snow Dog" (for just 2 examples) are incredibly soulful.

So again - you can't cover Rush with a blanket statement, it just doesn't work. In some cases you're right, but not the band as a whole. I think that's the anomaly of Rush - they just won't be pigeon-holed, good or bad. More interestingly, would Rush be looked at the same way had their first album been Grace Under Pressure?

reply

I really appreciate your analysis as opposed to some of the more vitriolic comments. I suppose I asked for it by calling the thread "Why I Hate Rush" but I really wanted to prompt discussion on this succesful, yet divisive, band. Some Rush fans are so defensive when someone hates on their band. And, in a way, I respect that level of passion. But the whole "dude you can't play music so your opinion is invalid" argument I hear from some fans is silly. Rush fans remind of Star Trek geeks in their level of intensity and cult like worship of their heroes.

I watched another documentary recently about the making of "Exile on Main Street." Now THAT is how rock and roll is made.

reply

Oh, brother...

this postage has been deleted by the messer

reply

I agree about the Rush geeks - and as much as I love Rush, I abhor that level of fandom in anything. As for the "Rush debate" - it comes down to the "music debate" - you like what you think sounds cool, period. I've heard every intellectual discussion in the world about Jack Johnson and Dave Matthews and what it comes down to is neither one turns my crank, so to speak! They just don't do it for me. No harm - no foul. Most reasonable people like different kinds of music and different kinds of bands because no one band is going to do it for you completely.

For people like me, Rush satisfies on a certain level. It was the first time I heard Tom Sawyer. The casual cool of that song affected me in a way not many songs have. That prompted me to seek out their back catalog and the rest is history. But other bands have done that for me too, bands very unlike Rush! And the thing was, when I heard Tom Sawyer I didn't marvel at how many instruments Geddy Lee played, or the relevance of the lyrics - I just thought it sounded cool. Everything else is irrelevant.

reply

[deleted]


Its just interesting that you go out of your way to make a thread and post that you Hate someone or something. There are lots of Music and Bands I don`t lie, but I simply choose not to listen to them, not look for an avenue to tell people I Hate on a particular Band.Sense of Humor? You`re thread is humerous in its own way, maybe we do understand humor.

reply

Of all the bands you listed, the one I hear the least obvious influence in their sound is U2. They have a pretty unique sound - especially early on. Maybe that is just from my limited experience with their music


I just want to point out, if by "early on" in U2's career you referring to the first 2-3 albums, the influence of Joy Division and Public Image Ltd is very prominent (and the band was never shy about their JD love), especially in the guitar-technique.

reply

It's simply a matter of what touches your heart. It can be invisible to most, but it's still intensley real for you. No music, past or present, has come close to reaching the depth of MY soul and heart that Rush's music has. Especially songs like Subdivisions (live from "A show of hands"), Middletown dreams, The pass or Marathon (also the live version from ASOH). I don't argue with people who have had similar experiences with bands like U2, MUSE or even The Police. To have a religious experience with music - to hear the angels sing, so to speak - is a rare and precious thing. Rush provoke such feelings in almost everyone who really gets into the band.

reply

[deleted]

A good thread this, rsr26 is one of the more respectful trolls I've ever come across, nice job.

I want to appoligize on behalf of my fellow rush fans calling you out for not having any musical knowledge. It is indeed riduculous - but what they mean, but probably do not posses the means to communicate, is that with Rush; knowledge about music will give you a very much deeper apreciation for the music.

On the bass, it took me one evening to learn 6 songs by the police and Money with Pink Floyd. Rush is different; Red Barchetta took me 2 weeks, and still; I can not nail that sucker. Circumstances almost made me cry it was so hard; and geddy is singing while playing that.

When you go through something like that, there is nothing left TO do but give up a measure of respect for the creators and performers of music like that.


I hope this helps shed some light on the issue; now perhaps you could help me?

Why on earth do you want to start a thread like this? It makes no sense to me, at all.

reply

When Geddy Lee himself mentions that it takes him weeks to be able to play bass, keys, and sing at the same time for just one song - you realize that the average person out there who is NOT a musician - won't ever really "get" Rush.

And I play entire albums of Rush songs dead-on. And they are a blast to play. But Yes is much harder to play on guitar...

this postage has been deleted by the messer

reply