PaattMaann Posted December 13, 2012 Posted December 13, 2012 Listen to 2112, Counterparts or Clockwork Angels and tell me they're all synthesized. 80s Rush was the synth / keyboard era. Early Rush and recent Rush bears absolutely no resemblance to that era. actually really like 2112 (well, side one, side two - meh, not so much) - kinda like the whole "concept album" aspect of it... havent listened to "new rush" - I would be more interested in it if its not all synthesized garbage, as you say it is.. but ill stick to my main point, which was the rush bores me (2112, side one, aside) and ill take a major pass
BillsFanNC Posted December 13, 2012 Posted December 13, 2012 The stones lps are different, my gosh go listen to them They are probably the least guilty of repeating themselves of the four bands I listed, I'll give you that.
Helpmenow Posted December 13, 2012 Posted December 13, 2012 actually really like 2112 (well, side one, side two - meh, not so much) - kinda like the whole "concept album" aspect of it... havent listened to "new rush" - I would be more interested in it if its not all synthesized garbage, as you say it is.. but ill stick to my main point, which was the rush bores me (2112, side one, aside) and ill take a major pass. Snakes and arrows! They are probably the least guilty of repeating themselves of the four bands I listed, I'll give you that. The stones do blues, country and rock!
ExiledInIllinois Posted December 13, 2012 Posted December 13, 2012 You realize of course that that critique of Rush, as wrong as it is, is a far more appropriate way to describe several bands already in the hall. AC/DC, Aerosmith, The Rolling Stones, Van Halen and others have made essentially the same album time after time for their whole careers. I am not sure of The 'Stones... I am not a big fan but, they have evolved following the popular trends in music for any given period. What I am saying is, it doesn't always all sound the same to me. It is hard for me with The Rolling Stones... There is stuff I like and stuff I don't... Some will cringe... But Dead Flowers (Sticky Fingers) & Waiting on a Friend (Tattoo You) are favorite Stones' works... Just my $.02... IMO.
BillsFanNC Posted December 13, 2012 Posted December 13, 2012 actually really like 2112 (well, side one, side two - meh, not so much) - kinda like the whole "concept album" aspect of it... havent listened to "new rush" - I would be more interested in it if its not all synthesized garbage, as you say it is.. but ill stick to my main point, which was the rush bores me (2112, side one, aside) and ill take a major pass 80s era Rush fits that synth label, 5 albums out of their 18(?) album catalog. I have no problem with Rush boring you either, you either get it or you don't.
ExiledInIllinois Posted December 13, 2012 Posted December 13, 2012 They are probably the least guilty of repeating themselves of the four bands I listed, I'll give you that. I agree. They have followed the mainstream popular trends though... IMO. Or were the the commercial success setting those trends...
Helpmenow Posted December 13, 2012 Posted December 13, 2012 (edited) Beggars banquet and some girls. Edited December 13, 2012 by roush
Gugny Posted December 13, 2012 Posted December 13, 2012 actually really like 2112 (well, side one, side two - meh, not so much) - kinda like the whole "concept album" aspect of it... havent listened to "new rush" - I would be more interested in it if its not all synthesized garbage, as you say it is.. but ill stick to my main point, which was the rush bores me (2112, side one, aside) and ill take a major pass 2112 is probably my favorite Rush album of all time. As a casual fan, I can see how only side 1 would be appealing, but there is some ridiculously amazing stuff on the rest of the album, lyrically, musically and vocally. You should give "Fly By Night" a try, too. Awesome, awesome stuff, as well as "Caress of Steel." Those three albums, to me, cannot be topped by any other Rush albums. The drums in By-Tor and the Snowdog almost sound fake they're so sick. And that can go for a hundred Rush tunes. You add Geddy Lee's bass playing and Alex Lifeson's guitar playing, and they're a bonafide "supergroup." I have bands and artists who I like more (Zep, SRV, Hendrix, Jane's, Beatles to name a few), but I can't honestly say that those bands are more purely talented than Rush. I think Page, SRV and Hendrix are better guitar players than Lifeson, but as far as overall band talent goes, no way do they compare to Rush, in my opinion. And Rush hasn't had "commercial success" since, I dare say, "Hold Your Fire," in which they had Aimee Mann sing in a tune ("Time Stand Still"). They keep pumping out albums, but they make their money touring. Anyway ... I love Rush and I'm glad the got in to the RRHOF, even if it is a joke.
Delete This Account Posted December 13, 2012 Posted December 13, 2012 (edited) All I know is Public Enemy is better than all the other bands that got in put together. Got to say i don't get the hate for the rock and roll HOF. These aren't official rankings. So a tourist trap in cleveland wants to give Donna Summer an award, who cares? It's an annual arena rock circle jerk. This whole ceremony just means there will be something mildly intetesting on tv one day in the spring. i understand your point of view Astro, and yet this is a so-called hall of fame that need not have gone the route of a Times Square tourist trap (which now just happens to be the one place in NYC that i avoid). if the powers that be refused to sell out -- much like many of the artists they've inducted -- then it could well stand up as a reputable place for those of us who carry the Rock and Roll finger-in-the-air flag to visit. and yet, much like the corporate-infused music industry and its ultra-grammification of money over taste, it's went the other way. it's become nearly everything that rock isn't, and should be shunned, despised and villified. and yet, it had potential. of course i'm romanticizing here. but there are places -- though few -- that have found a more balanced approach to filling its walls without dreck and sugary fluff. the Pro Football Hall of Fame is considered hallow ground for football fans because it's difficult to get in. and the wonder of Sun Studios in Memphis is because it is not a shrine to Elvis, but a tribute to all the people who went through that building. heck, Memphis also has the Civil Rights Museum, which goes beyond MLK. it's sad but no surprise that what they built in Cleveland has become a pure and utter joke. but to say you don't get the hate for it, well, to not hate it is to accept it, and i hope to never get there, ever. jw Edited December 13, 2012 by john wawrow
Helpmenow Posted December 13, 2012 Posted December 13, 2012 Snakes and arrows is good in my opinion, I was turn on to that cd. As for rock n roll hall one great place to visit.
Buftex Posted December 13, 2012 Posted December 13, 2012 (edited) i understand your point of view Astro, and yet this is a so-called hall of fame that need not have gone the route of a Times Square tourist trap (which now just happens to be the one place in NYC that i avoid). if the powers that be refused to sell out -- much like many of the artists they've inducted -- then it could well stand up as a reputable place for those of us who carry the Rock and Roll finger-in-the-air flag to visit. and yet, much like the corporate-infused music industry and its ultra-grammification of money over taste, it's went the other way. it's become nearly everything that rock isn't, and should be shunned, despised and villified. and yet, it had potential. of course i'm romanticizing here. but there are places -- though few -- that have found a more balanced approach to filling its walls without dreck and sugary fluff. the Pro Football Hall of Fame is considered hallow ground for football fans because it's difficult to get in. and the wonder of Sun Studios in Memphis is because it is not a shrine to Elvis, but a tribute to all the people who went through that building. heck, Memphis also has the Civil Rights Museum, which goes beyond MLK. it's sad but no surprise that what they built in Cleveland has become a pure and utter joke. but to say you don't get the hate for it, well, to not hate it is to accept it, and i hope to never get there, ever. jw JW- respectfully...have you ever been to the Rock n'Roll HOF? I am assuming not...it is not perfect, but I don't think it hurts anyone/anything that it exists...sure, I could have lived without seeing the 900 different Stevie Nicks dresses they have on display....but for me, it was worth it just to see the awesome Clash exhibit they had, the recreation (using donated items) of backstage at a Stones show from 1976 (complete with Keith's guitar crate, bumper attached "work free drug place")...there is just way too much history, and too many amazing artists represented to scoff it off, IMO. What are you gonna do when the Mats make it in? Edited December 13, 2012 by Buftex
Delete This Account Posted December 13, 2012 Posted December 13, 2012 (edited) JW- respectfully...have you ever been to the Rock n'Roll HOF? I am assuming not...it is not perfect, but I don't think it hurts anyone/anything that it exists...sure, I could have lived without seeing the 900 different Stevie Nicks dresses they have on display....but for me, it was worth it just to see the awesome Clash exhibit they had, the recreation (using donated items) of backstage at a Stones show from 1976 (complete with Keith's guitar crate, bumper attached "work free drug place")...there is just way too much history, and too many amazing artists represented to scoff it off, IMO. What are you gonna do when the Mats make it in? i have been to the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame, and it was quite a whelming experience. it was like 6 years ago, and i've really found no reason to go back. they had some big homage to U2, on the top floor, which i didn't care for. i'm a bit over-bonoed, and zooropa was a joke. the interactive displays they had in the main entrance were pretty cool, and i was quite excited to see one reference to The Replacements. as for the rest, there was a lot of good and bad to it. the worst was the poor and over-priced selection of CDs in the gift shop. gouge city, which was enough for me to know this stood as a monument to corporate stooges than it did to Iggy and the Stooges. that, however, was not my point. my point was not what's inside the actual hall of fame, it's the parade of middling, average acts that they continue to allow in to water down the place's credibility for the sake of making a fast buck. i won't deny that U2, based on its first four or five albums doesn't belong. but the more rush's and b52s they bring in, the less space there is for what truly belongs in what should be a rock and roll hall of fame. hey, i listened to rush. i've even got several of their albums. my first concert was a rush show back in 1979. and i like the b52s, as well. that doesn't make them hall-worthy. heck, it doesn't even mean i think they're good as opposed to palatable. trouble is, they're letting everybody and their pet lizard in these days. jw oh, in regards to if the 'Mats get in, i can't see that happening. and if by the off-chance they do, i truly hope and believe that they'll turn it down. i cannot see Paul showing up. Edited December 13, 2012 by john wawrow
BillsFanNC Posted December 13, 2012 Posted December 13, 2012 i have been to the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame, and it was quite a whelming experience. it was like 6 years ago, and i've really found no reason to go back. they had some big homage to U2, on the top floor, which i didn't care for. i'm a bit over-bonoed, and zooropa was a joke. the interactive displays they had in the main entrance were pretty cool, and i was quite excited to see one reference to The Replacements. as for the rest, there was a lot of good and bad to it. the worst was the poor and over-priced selection of CDs in the gift shop. gouge city, which was enough for me to know this stood as a monument to corporate stooges than it did to Iggy and the Stooges. that, however, was not my point. my point was not what's inside the actual hall of fame, it's the parade of middling, average acts that they continue to allow in to water down the place's credibility for the sake of making a fast buck. i won't deny that U2, based on its first four or five albums doesn't belong. but the more rush's and b52s they bring in, the less space there is for what truly belongs in what should be a rock and roll hall of fame. hey, i listened to rush. i've even got several of their albums. my first concert was a rush show back in 1979. and i like the b52s, as well. that doesn't make them hall-worthy. heck, it doesn't even mean i think they're good as opposed to palatable. trouble is, they're letting everybody and their pet lizard in these days. jw oh, in regards to if the 'Mats get in, i can't see that happening. and if by the off-chance they do, i truly hope and believe that they'll turn it down. i cannot see Paul showing up. See, there are probably a dozen or more bands you can point to before Rush to make your argument that the hall is watered down. Honestly, by what criteria would you argue that Rush doesn't belong there?
Astrojanitor Posted December 13, 2012 Posted December 13, 2012 i understand your point of view Astro, and yet this is a so-called hall of fame that need not have gone the route of a Times Square tourist trap (which now just happens to be the one place in NYC that i avoid). if the powers that be refused to sell out -- much like many of the artists they've inducted -- then it could well stand up as a reputable place for those of us who carry the Rock and Roll finger-in-the-air flag to visit. and yet, much like the corporate-infused music industry and its ultra-grammification of money over taste, it's went the other way. it's become nearly everything that rock isn't, and should be shunned, despised and villified. and yet, it had potential. of course i'm romanticizing here. but there are places -- though few -- that have found a more balanced approach to filling its walls without dreck and sugary fluff. the Pro Football Hall of Fame is considered hallow ground for football fans because it's difficult to get in. and the wonder of Sun Studios in Memphis is because it is not a shrine to Elvis, but a tribute to all the people who went through that building. heck, Memphis also has the Civil Rights Museum, which goes beyond MLK. it's sad but no surprise that what they built in Cleveland has become a pure and utter joke. but to say you don't get the hate for it, well, to not hate it is to accept it, and i hope to never get there, ever. jw i understand your point of view Astro, and yet this is a so-called hall of fame that need not have gone the route of a Times Square tourist trap (which now just happens to be the one place in NYC that i avoid). if the powers that be refused to sell out -- much like many of the artists they've inducted -- then it could well stand up as a reputable place for those of us who carry the Rock and Roll finger-in-the-air flag to visit. and yet, much like the corporate-infused music industry and its ultra-grammification of money over taste, it's went the other way. it's become nearly everything that rock isn't, and should be shunned, despised and villified. and yet, it had potential. of course i'm romanticizing here. but there are places -- though few -- that have found a more balanced approach to filling its walls without dreck and sugary fluff. the Pro Football Hall of Fame is considered hallow ground for football fans because it's difficult to get in. and the wonder of Sun Studios in Memphis is because it is not a shrine to Elvis, but a tribute to all the people who went through that building. heck, Memphis also has the Civil Rights Museum, which goes beyond MLK. it's sad but no surprise that what they built in Cleveland has become a pure and utter joke. but to say you don't get the hate for it, well, to not hate it is to accept it, and i hope to never get there, ever. jw As per usual Ron House says it best: The induction process is just a way to get bodies through the door. Now eligible are bands who recorded their first album in 1988 or earlier. Husker Du, Mats, Minutemen, Joy Division, New Order, PIL, Magazine, Sonic Youth, Meat Puppets, Television, Richard Hell, Jesus and Mary Chain, Monks, so on so on so on....all more important and influential than 90% of what's in there. But cult acts that didn't sell a ton of records. People will flock to see Jim Morrison's leather pants, but Tom Verlaine's jazzmaster? No one really cares. Besides, is there anything less rock and roll than a museum of rock and roll. It's a fun way to kill a few hours if you find yourself in Cleveland. But my advice is to never find yourself in Cleveland. The rock and soul museum in Memphis is one that's done right. It's at the site of the old Stax studios, really amazing exhibits, only like $7 to get in, and none of this silly ranking of bands inductions imply.
Delete This Account Posted December 13, 2012 Posted December 13, 2012 (edited) See, there are probably a dozen or more bands you can point to before Rush to make your argument that the hall is watered down. Honestly, by what criteria would you argue that Rush doesn't belong there? well, if you want to base it on longevity, i guess rush is in. what genre they represent is a more apt question to me. though technically sound, they're odes to red borshetta's kind of leave me lost in its insincerity. that said, they seem to have captured and reflected the cold concrete fourth-rate metropolis of a city they hail from. to me, they made it somehow despite themselves, kind of like genesis and its odd fairy tale odes. they sold records, and yet, is that what makes rock and roll the vibrant mess that it was and remains? i don't think so. and that's my opinion. this isn't a modern music hall of fame. this is the Rock and Roll hall of fame. and there is a distinction, i think, when i think of what defines rock and roll. it's Elvis being filmed from the waist up so his hip-shake swivel isn't broadcast. it's what the Rolling Stones did in bridging the past and what's still the present with Exile. it's everything that Joe Strummer did, and Keith Richards pumped into his veins. and it's the 'Mats being banned from Saturday Night Live for refusing to follow Lorne Michaels' orders and going ahead and swearing on live TV. it's not three guys standing on a stage, impersonally and with no connection to the crowd in some big arena, going on in some high-pitched squeal about tom sawyer. the Tragically Hip have done far more in pushing music forward with their unique grumble than most any Canadian artist has done this side of Neil Young and Joni Mitchell. but that's just me. jw Edited December 13, 2012 by john wawrow
Astrojanitor Posted December 13, 2012 Posted December 13, 2012 (edited) As an afterthought, one of the main problems with this who induction concept is that they induct members of bands. So take something like Deep Purple. Those guys were essentially 4 completely different bands that all had the same name. A couple incarnations were awesome, a couple sucked. So who gets in? It's like Rainbow. Rising is one of the great albums, but are you going to induct Joe Lynn Turner? No. So no Rainbow. Or which of the 30 people who have been in KISS makes the cut. They deserve to get in, but Eric Singer, Mark St John, Vinnie Vincent, Eric Carr, Tommy Thayer et al sure don't. The HOF would be much much cooler if it inducted records and/or singles and not bands. That's something that would at least make sense. I mean those Donna Summer/Georgio Morodor (sp?) singles are amazing, but she didn't exactly have a hall of fame career. Anyway, long rant short, where's the record hall of fame? Edited December 13, 2012 by Astrojanitor
NoSaint Posted December 13, 2012 Posted December 13, 2012 (edited) well, if you want to base it on longevity, i guess rush is in. what genre they represent is a more apt question to me. though technically sound, they're odes to red borshetta's kind of leave me lost in its insincerity. that said, they seem to have captured and reflected the cold concrete fourth-rate metropolis of a city they hail from. to me, they made it somehow despite themselves, kind of like genesis and its odd fairy tale odes. they sold records, and yet, is that what makes rock and roll the vibrant mess that it was and remains? i don't think so. and that's my opinion. this isn't a modern music hall of fame. this is the Rock and Roll hall of fame. and there is a distinction, i think, when i think of what defines rock and roll. it's Elvis being filmed from the waist up so his hip-shake swivel isn't broadcast. it's what the Rolling Stones did in bridging the past and what's still the present with Exile. it's everything that Joe Strummer did, and Keith Richards pumped into his veins. and it's the 'Mats being banned from Saturday Night Live for refusing to follow Lorne Michaels' orders and going ahead and swearing on live TV. it's not three guys standing on a stage, impersonally and with no connection to the crowd in some big arena, going on in some high-pitched squeal about tom sawyer. the Tragically Hip have done far more in pushing music forward with their unique grumble than most any Canadian artist has done this side of Neil Young and Joni Mitchell. but that's just me. jw while i get all that, and i wouldnt go too far out of my way as a great pilgrimage to the location.... i would also say there are worse ways to spend a day, especially in cleveland. while it may not reach the loftiest of rock n roll ideals, it is an interesting look into the world of music over the years - and thats an industry that greatly struggles with the ideals of commercialization vs raw products - creativity vs connecting to the masses etc.... in its own way, its become a snapshot of the music industry. Edited December 13, 2012 by NoSaint
Delete This Account Posted December 13, 2012 Posted December 13, 2012 while i get all that, and i wouldnt go too far out of my way as a great pilgrimage to the location.... i would also say there are worse ways to spend a day, especially in cleveland. while it may not reach the loftiest of rock n roll ideals, it is an interesting look into the world of music over the years - and thats an industry that greatly struggles with the ideals of commercialization vs raw products - creativity vs connecting to the masses etc.... in its own way, its become a snapshot of the music industry. trust me, the one great pilgrimage all music lovers need to do is head down Memphis. there is something very vibrant still going on there, where much of what we're listening today -- the good, especially, and some bad -- all began. and there's so much depth there that you can actually overlook some of the schmaltz of Beale Street and graceland. in fact, i had one of the best conversations about music -- referencing Alex Chilton among many -- in a bar on Beale which made the place even more memorable. jw
LabattBlue Posted December 13, 2012 Posted December 13, 2012 (edited) has anyone been to rnr hof? I was thinking about a trip to hit up this and the nfl hof (never been there either). Is it a waste of time? I had a chance to visit both when I went to see the Bills play Cleveland in September. Surprisingly, I enjoyed the R&R HoF(which many say is very boring) more than the Pro Football HoF(which was a lot smaller than I expected). SB displays sucked. I know they are doing a renovation/expansion. Hopefully more space will be dedicated to the NFL's biggest game of the year when all is said and done. Edited December 13, 2012 by LabattBlue
Recommended Posts