Rush to be Inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame

[Shanndee]

I read an article in the paper today written by a music critic who has historically been highly critical of Rush. He has written nasty reviews of their older albums for Rolling Stone, which he stands by to this day.

However, the article explains that he believes that they have earned and deserve their place due to the fact that they are a better band now than they were 20 years ago. He said something to the effect of at a point in their career when most bands are just hanging on, this band writes and plays better than they ever have. They also change with the times and try new things.

So, congratulations to Rush for earning respect from a very critical critic!

 

[Flying Spaghetti Monster]

This may be the article that you are referring to!

 

[Shanndee]

That would be the one! Thank you for providing the link!

 

[Flying Spaghetti Monster]

Anytime. It's a good article!
And I'm happy for Rush, and other Rush fans. Rush fans aren't crazy for liking this band that is consistent, yet every changing, and dedicated to their music!

 

[1001001]

Here is an interesting "opposing" article, which came out before the HOF decision. A reviewer who doesn't like Rush goes to see Rush live:

http://www.latimes.com/entertainmen...e-gibson-amphitheatre-20121120,0,423523.story

 

[Neroon]

I heard a clip from an interview with Ann & Nancy Wilson, who seemed genuinely tickled that Rush made it in.

It's a pretty nice lineup of artists this year.
Ann: I was especially happy for Rush, and also for Randy Newman. Definitely those two in particular.

It's hard to picture that jam session at the end of the night.
Nancy: I don't think anyone does Rush songs except for Rush. That would require weeks of rehearsal.

Plus, I think it was Nancy that referred to Rush a "the thinking man's rock band. made for men. And girls like us." or something like that

 

[1001001]

It is hard to imagine the ending jam.

I don't see Geddy singing Short People, or Alex rocking out to What About Love?

 

[Starscream2112]

Well played Mayans, well played.

 

[marillion]

It is hard to imagine the ending jam.

I don't see Geddy singing Short People, or Alex rocking out to What About Love?

Maybe not, but you know what? Alex would dig playing with Nancy, I bet, and would have fun with it... That is the beauty of Alex Lifeson!

I've been a busy man this past week and completely missed the announcement... One friend on Facebook posted on my wall that she was concerned that I hadn't posted anything about the "announcement," to which I had no idea what she was referring... She later got back to me and told me.. I was filled with mixed emotions...

I've long held that if any band deserved to be in there, it was Rush, but they have been denied for so long, that their exclusion was more of a badge of honor than anything else, at this point...

I'm over the moon that the fans' voices have finally been heard, but I think had it been left to the powers that be and especially the critics, like the LA Times writer, Rush would never get in...

 

[J.T.B.]

I've long held that if any band deserved to be in there, it was Rush, but they have been denied for so long, that their exclusion was more of a badge of honor than anything else, at this point...

Yes indeed. In the early days everyone could pretty much agree, yes, Roy Orbison and the Beatles and Dylan... pretty obvious who should go in. But "rock and roll" splintered and sprawled so much in the '70s and '80s that the number of eligible artists who have been passed over now is fairly staggering. The further along we go with more becoming eligible, the more arbitrary, capricious and irrelevant the HoF will seem.

I'm not a Rush fan to say the least, but come on; the work was there, the impact was there, the influence was there, the fanbase was there. The HoF is a joke.

Justin

 

[Ar-Pharazon]

I can't say I've ever seen Alex play with anyone else outside of this:

[YT]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1tsw3nKDlBE[/YT]

Which is actually a cool thing. Rush is so tight knit, playing with only those three guys for almost 38 years. Most bands have some turnover in personnel, or at least the members do projects with other people.

 

[1001001]

It is hard to imagine the ending jam.

I don't see Geddy singing Short People, or Alex rocking out to What About Love?

Maybe not, but you know what? Alex would dig playing with Nancy, I bet, and would have fun with it... That is the beauty of Alex Lifeson!

I'm sure that's true. I know everyone will have a good time (maybe even Neil!).



I could see Rush playing Barracuda, maybe?

Chances are they'll pick some old 70's tune, something like they did on Feedback.

 

[gblews]

I've long held that if any band deserved to be in there, it was Rush, but they have been denied for so long, that their exclusion was more of a badge of honor than anything else, at this point...

Yes indeed. In the early days everyone could pretty much agree, yes, Roy Orbison and the Beatles and Dylan... pretty obvious who should go in. But "rock and roll" splintered and sprawled so much in the '70s and '80s that the number of eligible artists who have been passed over now is fairly staggering.

I'm going to disagree with you a bit here Justin. I think it really has been just the opposite of what you state above. "Rock and roll" in it's early days (the days of Little Richard, early Chuck Berry and early Elvis) encompassed most "popular" music. By "popular", I mean music listened to by "young people".

Beginning in the 70's, "rock and roll" began to be thought of as music that featured out-front guitars played mostly by long haired white guys exclusively. IMO, radio and the rock media (Rolling Stone especially) was to blame for much of this with the creation of FM "rock" stations that played only the aforementioned type music and identified it, and only "it", as "true" rock and roll. Now, many people particularly those born during and after the 70's think that rock and roll is this narrowly defined thing. It really wasn't that way through the 50's and 60's.

But, all that being said, my personal tipping point with the Rock HOF was the inclusion of Madonna, not because she "doesn't play rock", though. It is because I just don't think she is important enough musically to be included. This is my main gripe with some other inductees too.

I don't know all that much about Rush, but I'v heard a fair amount of their music in the last few years and it is easy to see that these fools can play like a mother_______. So, good on them for making it in. I tend now to think of a band who is inducted as being "HOF worthy" even if the HOF into which they are admitted has some questionable members.

 

[1001001]

I can't say I've ever seen Alex play with anyone else outside of this:



Which is actually a cool thing. Rush is so tight knit, playing with only those three guys for almost 38 years. Most bands have some turnover in personnel, or at least the members do projects with other people.

Alex has played with Porcupine Tree, on their song Anesthetize, but that was in the studio.

I wonder if Victor ever played any live shows? The album was almost all him anyway.

 

[Neroon]

Maybe not, but you know what? Alex would dig playing with Nancy, I bet,

Heck... I don't even play guitar and I'd dig hanging with her. She's still as cool as they come and darned fine guitarist.




Speaking of people glad to see Rush in the HoF:

 

[Ar-Pharazon]

I can't say I've ever seen Alex play with anyone else outside of this:



Which is actually a cool thing. Rush is so tight knit, playing with only those three guys for almost 38 years. Most bands have some turnover in personnel, or at least the members do projects with other people.

Alex has played with Porcupine Tree, on their song Anesthetize, but that was in the studio.

I wonder if Victor ever played any live shows? The album was almost all him anyway.

Damn. Totally forgot about Victor, which is bad since I had the album at some point.

 

[J.T.B.]

I'm going to disagree with you a bit here Justin. I think it really has been just the opposite of what you state above. "Rock and roll" in it's early days (the days of Little Richard, early Chuck Berry and early Elvis) encompassed most "popular" music. By "popular", I mean music listened to by "young people".

Beginning in the 70's, "rock and roll" began to be thought of as music that featured out-front guitars played mostly by long haired white guys exclusively. IMO, radio and the rock media (Rolling Stone especially) was to blame for much of this with the creation of FM "rock" stations that played only the aforementioned type music and identified it, and only "it", as "true" rock and roll. Now, many people particularly those born during and after the 70's think that rock and roll is this narrowly defined thing. It really wasn't that way through the 50's and 60's.

I completely agree with that, so I guess I didn't express well the point I was trying to make. Up through the '60s you had a comparatively small group of artists making "meaningful" rock and roll --as opposed to copycats and one-hit-wonders -- and it was stylistically pretty broad. It just seems that as the eligible artists get into the 1970s and '80s a more narrow view has been taken. I don't know what the formula is, but there are loads of artists who made groundbreaking, innovative, consistent albums who have been passed over year after year. Guns N' Roses, what, five albums and they get in the first year eligible, while Black Sabbath -- just an example -- was passed for 10 years? And Johnny Cash and Dusty Springfield are "in" but Merle Haggard and Dionne Warwick are "out"? I don't get it and never will, and don't give a damn for the "honor" the HoF is supposed to be.

Justin

 

[Nerys Myk]

Cash has solid Rock n Roll cred. Dusty had the blue eyed soul thing going on. Love Merle, but he's solidly country. Warwick, could she be any more pop?

 

[J.T.B.]

Cash has solid Rock n Roll cred. Dusty had the blue eyed soul thing going on. Love Merle, but he's solidly country. Warwick, could she be any more pop?

Those were just examples, but that kind of pigeonholing is what I don't get. I understand Johnny Cash going in, but he's not somehow less country. The influence of Haggard's lean, anti-Countrypolitan Bakersfield sound can be heard all over the Byrds-Burritos-CSN-Eagles axis of California rock and roll and well beyond. Dusty Springfield had one great soul-influenced album; most of her chart success was exactly the same kind of pop as Warwick was recording, and often the same Bacharach-David songs. Why is Warwick's "pop" less admissible than Brenda Lee's, or Abba's, or Madonna's?

As gblews said, "rock and roll" was not originally so rigidly defined. These kind of arbitrary, indefinable barriers of what's "in" and what's "out" seem exclusive, while I think the best rock and roll/popular music has been inclusive and diversely influenced.

Justin

 

[marillion]

I guess my thought is that "Rock n Roll" has become so loosly defined... The early pioneers, Bill Haley, the Fireballs, Buddy Holly, Richie Valens, Roy Orbison, Elvis, Jerry Lee and Chet Atkins (just to name a scant few) WERE Rock n Roll in their day, but found popularity as popular (or Pop) music started to change... Suddenly Rock of that era WAS pop music.. Oldies stations now are a mix of two.. (On a side note, as a former Oldies format DJ, I'm saddened that some of the music of my generation's early days (mid 70's) is now starting to creep into that format, dammit!!!)...

Country music has mostly been stand-alone, so entrants to their music hall of fame are easier to understand.. But then again, Country purists who favor Patsy, Hank Sr and others from the Grand Ol' Opry tend to dislike much of today's "Pop" oriented country from the likes of Toby Keith, Carrie Underwood and Garth Brooks.. Then you have the bluegrass crowd.. LOL...

Rock has so many definitions... Prog, Metal, Psychadelic, Folk, Hard, Soft, etc, with the subcatagory of "classic"...

It's hard for me to process acts like Madonna, Donna Summer, Abba and Dionne Warwick being inducted in the RRHOF.. In fact, it pisses me off in many ways...

But the arguement can be made that some of the acts we now consider Pop or Country, were at their outset, part of the Rock movement.. Rod Stewart, for example... These days, he's as "pop" as they come, but I don't think anyone could argue that in the late 60's and 70's, he was definitely a Rocker... Not by Rush standards, by any means, but Rock none the less...