Many of my interests in the way of music and books are on new highs of popularity. Along with the writings of Robert E. Howard and Glen Cook, and the music of many Heavy Metal bands, the music of Canadian power trio Rush is finding a new audience, while maintaining its longstanding one. I've been an active fan of the band since 1989, and a casual one far longer, so this pleases me greatly. Between kids hooked on Guitar Hero/Rock Band, and folks of all ages becoming aware that many dinosaur bands still put on a far better show than most newer bands, Rush have become, dare I say it, "hip." It helps that they are still at the top of their game live, putting on great hard-rocking concerts during their 2007-2008 touring in support of the Snakes & Arrows album (with the tour captured for posterity on the Snakes & Arrows Live CD and DVD releases). I was fortunate to be able to see the band at Red Rocks on both legs of the tour.
Rush have been around since 1968, and put out their first album in 1974. That same year, soon after, Neil Peart ("peert," not "purt") joined as the new drummer, and with the second album in 1975, he took over the bulk of lyric writing. Guitarist Alex Lifeson and bassist/singer (and eventually, keyboardist too) Geddy Lee have always handled the writing of the music. The trio have tremendous chemistry, whether working together, or playing, and this has helped them endure for roughly 35 years. Snakes & Arrows was Rush's 19th studio album, and a host of live albums, DVDs, and best-of compilations are also available.
In this internet age, all of Rush's prodigious output is subject to reviews and criticisms, and I've noticed a trend over the past decade or so. Many who attempt to review the band's work only really enjoy a certain portion of it. Some like the proggy sci-fi epics of the mid-70's. For others, the polished, accessible early 80's material is the best. A few prefer the later 80's keyboard-heavy sound. Most are dismissive of the band's 90's output, though the two studio CDs released in the new millenium get a measure of respect.
I find it curious that I often read that a reviewer's prefered era of Rush music is "the real Rush." These reviewers tend to feel that the band "got away from what made them great," even as others provide similar sentiments for other eras of the band. I'm suprised by the lack of broad appreciation for Rush's music.
To me, it is very much a strength that the band has changed and evolved over the course of 35 years. We already have Motorhead to provide an example of sticking to your guns year after year. Such a lack of concern for trends and fashion is admirable, but Rush have been equally steadfast in their determination to write and play what they are feeling at a particular moment in time. They also haven't cared about being trendy, while still being aware of new influences capable of adding subtle growth and change to their sound. Once the listener gets past the notion of "this and only this is what Rush is," it becomes possible to realize that it is ALL Rush, on all 19 studio albums. Of course they have a different sense as composers at age 53 than they did at 23. The 19 albums give the opportunity to watch the band improve as songwriters and players, as they gradually come to the understanding that it wasn't necessary to show off on every song, all the time.
This change, in approach and in results, means that, for me as a listener anyway, the various albums appeal to different moods on different days. This gives the music great staying power, as I rarely tire of the band, since at least one release will likely feel appropriate on any given day. This may not be as true for those less given over to Rush geekdom, but the point remains valid that the changes in Rush's sound over the years is a strength, not a weakness. Those who are already fans of the band may have their opinion set in stone, but I hope this discussion has been useful to curious readers and casual fans. Happy listening!
Thought of the day: I finished Cruel Zinc Melodies, so I completed the entire 12 book Garrett, P.I series between mid June and late December of 2008! I'll gradually read them again the years ahead, but I have other works by Glen Cook to tackle first. I may try and make reading a bunch of Steven Erikson's Malazan Book of the Fallen series my pet project for 2009, but then again, something else might surprise me (as Garrett did) and seize that position. I'll find out in the days to come, Happy 2009 to all!
No comments:
Post a Comment