My 16 Year Old Son's Case For Rush in the RRHOF

[Kudzu Guillotine]

There is something about Kiss Alive I like, there is sort of a rawness that, for me, was lost in hard rock a few years down the road. Rush, for me, is too clean to much musicianship, and not enough song (though I have to admit, I'm not all that familiar with the catalog).

The only Kiss album I own on CD is Alive! which I bought a year or so ago just for the trip down memory lane. What kills me is knowing now that so many of the great live albums I enjoyed so much as a kid were all supposedly overdubbed in the studio afterwards. In regards to Rush, I think Neil Peart is an excellent songwriter, even if a great deal of what he writes about is sci-fi/mythology related. I was never a huge Yes fan but I always appreciated them but once Rush came along, I liked them much better. Not sure why exactly but maybe it had something to do with their music being much more digestible to my ears. By the way, this is coming from someone that was never a big prog rock fan. The thing about Rush is that they are just as fresh and innovative sounding today as they were when I first heard them in the mid-70s.

That begs the question, do you need to be a good musician to be a good rock n roll star. Were Dylan, The Beatles and the Stones great musicians? While Yes were considered to be great musicians (Steve Howe, Chris Squire, Rick Wakeman et al), but listen to them now, and they are almost comical, their lyrics in particular.

What makes a good rock n roll star? Is rock n roll about being a musician? Or, is it about the image, the style, the overall presentation? What are those damn Rock n Roll Hall of Fame voters looking for?

I've mentioned it previously in this thread but I think one of the key things is influence, it's definitely part of the criteria mentioned on the Rock n' Roll Hall of Fame website.

[Bill in CT]

Mind-blowing moment for me--knowing that Jackie Wilson got into the HOF before The Beatles and The Rolling Stones. Don't get me wrong, Jackie is incredible...but wow.

I think that was simply a function of the 25-year rule. Wilson started putting out records in 1957...long before The Beatles and The Rolling Stones.

[Kudzu Guillotine]

Even with the 25 year rule (which I think is a good way to measure influence and the longevity thereof), it's still no guarantee that someone is going to be inducted the very first year they become eligible. For instance, Stevie Ray Vaughan has been eligible since 2008 (Texas Flood came out in 1983) but I don't recall him even being up for a nomination yet.

[John A Arkansawyer]

With Rush, it's hard for me to get past the voice, but I sure did enjoy the cover album they did a while back, squeaky voice or not.

[one belt loop]

SWEET CAROLINE!
GOOD TIMES NEVER SEEMED SO GOOD!

[Flying Rabbit]

Mind-blowing moment for me--knowing that Jackie Wilson got into the HOF before The Beatles and The Rolling Stones. Don't get me wrong, Jackie is incredible...but wow.

I think that was simply a function of the 25-year rule. Wilson started putting out records in 1957...long before The Beatles and The Rolling Stones.

http://www.digitaldreamdoor.com/pages/best_halloffame.html

Absolutely. It was a definite chronological process for awhile. Which is kinda weird in some ways, but hardly arguable against.

Also, and I don't recall this being discussed--but what is all yr all's opinion on acts not necessarily "rock" being inducted? Beastie Boys, Madonna, Abba? SRV was just mentioned a few times--he's in the Blues HOF, does he need to be in the RnRHOF to be validated? Or is being in the genre he's most associated with's HOF just as good? Does it matter?

[Zip City]

I think RnR, in this case, is an all-encompassing term for modern music.

[sactochris]

I think Jann Wenner is a complete tool who mistakenly thinks his magazine is still somehow relevant. The RRHOF is a complete joke.

[Kudzu Guillotine]

I got a free subscription to Rolling Stone a year or so ago, I think it's still a great magazine even if I don't always agree with who they put on the cover.

I don't think Madonna belongs in the Rock n' Roll Hall of Fame but the Beasties do. I'm not a fan of the Beastie Boys but rap has influenced rock and vice versa so I can see why they were inducted.

[Gang Green]

With Rush, it's hard for me to get past the voice, but I sure did enjoy the cover album they did a while back, squeaky voice or not.

I seem to be the only one taking Yes over Rush in the battle of the Prog Rock bands with the squeaky voices and who sing about weird Science Fiction stuff. I saw Yes at the Providence Civic Center in 1978 a couple of months after I saw Zeppelin at the Garden, and, I hate to admit this, but I enjoyed the Yes show alot more. Maybe it was because Yes didn't have three twenty minute guitar solos and a 45 minute drum solos with M-80's and Roman Candles popping off all around me (I think I had a little PTS after than Zep show). Somehow, it was easier to endure Close to the Edge (only a 40 minute song). Then I saw Peter Frampton at the end of that summer and he blew them both away, or course he had help from R2D2 who joined him on stage to plug Star Wars which was released that summer, like Star Wars really needed a plug. What a great summer that was.

[John A Arkansawyer]

I seem to be the only one taking Yes over Rush in the battle of the Prog Rock bands with the squeaky voices and who sing about weird Science Fiction stuff.

I never really cared for either band, though I did have a couple of Yes albums back in the day. Strange, because I was and remain a big reader of fantasy and science fiction. My prog rock band was Emerson, Lake, and Palmer. And speaking of good drummers, I still like Palmer's solo side of Works, Vol. 1 the best.

[RevMatt]

When it comes to prog rock, my all-time fave is King Crimson.

[John A Arkansawyer]

When it comes to prog rock, my all-time fave is King Crimson.

I didn't care for the pre-Discipline records, but having heard that particular amazing band (Fripp, Belew, Levin, and Bruford) play the earlier material, I should have sought it out. Where would you recommend I start?

Trivia note about me: The first record review I ever wrote was about King Crimson's Beat.

[one belt loop]

With Rush, it's hard for me to get past the voice, but I sure did enjoy the cover album they did a while back, squeaky voice or not.

I seem to be the only one taking Yes over Rush in the battle of the Prog Rock bands with the squeaky voices and who sing about weird Science Fiction stuff. I saw Yes at the Providence Civic Center in 1978 a couple of months after I saw Zeppelin at the Garden, and, I hate to admit this, but I enjoyed the Yes show alot more. Maybe it was because Yes didn't have three twenty minute guitar solos and a 45 minute drum solos with M-80's and Roman Candles popping off all around me (I think I had a little PTS after than Zep show). Somehow, it was easier to endure Close to the Edge (only a 40 minute song). Then I saw Peter Frampton at the end of that summer and he blew them both away, or course he had help from R2D2 who joined him on stage to plug Star Wars which was released that summer, like Star Wars really needed a plug. What a great summer that was.

I'd take Yes over Rush any day, though I am fine with Rush in general.

By the way, I just ran across a very good Peter Frampton bootleg from 1979, if you are interested.

[dogstar]

When it comes to prog rock, my all-time fave is King Crimson.

I didn't care for the pre-Discipline records, but having heard that particular amazing band (Fripp, Belew, Levin, and Bruford) play the earlier material, I should have sought it out. Where would you recommend I start?

Trivia note about me: The first record review I ever wrote was about King Crimson's Beat.

I'm with RevMatt on this.

I love the discipline era stuff too but prefer the Wetton/Fripp/Bruford/Cross stuff - check out Red , Larks Tongues in Aspic and Starless and Bible Black . The stuff before this is OK but these albums would probably have been where they drew the earlier stuff from when they played live..

[Flying Rabbit]

When it comes to prog rock, my all-time fave is King Crimson.

Really dig KC, but I'll toss out that I also am a big fan of Soft Machine and Gentle Giant.

If you really want to lose yrself on a genre--http://www.progarchives.com/. Discovered this site a number of years ago and man, did it open some crazy doors.

[Slipkid42]

I never considered Rush to be a prog rock band, but I guess in retrospect they might've been. They were a hard rock band when they started out & that's when I first heard them. Neil Peart joined them for the 2nd album & started writing the lyrics & that is when it got otherworldy. But they still had their hard edge & they still had some songs that weren't supernatural or futuristic. Bastille Day, Something For Nothing, Passage To Bangkok & Red Barchetta were straight up rockers. Afterimage is pretty song about a friend who died. The success of 2112 is why I think that Rush got stuck in a fantasy/sci-fi rut. At that point Rush was not considered a prog rock band by anyone. They were hard rock gods on the level of BOC & AC/DC & UFO. After 2112, I'd guess you'd have to say that they were prog rock. They did have some long complicated songs (as did Yes & Floyd & King Crimson). They were damn good songs though (if you were interested enough & had enough attention span). Rush kinda lost me, not so much for the sci-fi tangents, as it was their selling out. Tom Sawyer & Free Will are the kind of corporate drivel songs that stick in TC's craw (mine too). Spirit of Radio & Limelight aren't much better (could this be when you were in high school, Rabbit?). Of course that's all anyone ever hears of Rush now days (and none of their prior greatness). It ain't a wonder so many people think they suck.

I think Yes was better than Rush & King Crimson (although all 3 bands should be HOFers). Yes was extremely proficient w/their instruments & I never even seemed to notice that Starship Trooper was 10 minutes long or Close To the Edge was 18 minutes long. It might seem comical now, or a waste of too much precious time; to listen to Heart Of The Sunrise or Siberian Khatru. The rat race we live in has accelerated further still from the rat race of the 70's. Nobody has time to spare for the long songs (not to mention the drugs are different). I still cue up all 3 of these fine bands every now & then. They still sound great to me (even when I'm not trippin' my balls off).

[Kudzu Guillotine]

In 1977, I was in the ninth grade when I was gifted with All the World's A Stage (which was actually released in 1976). That's why I don't think there was any stigma surrounding Rush as there was years later once they reached mega-popularity with Moving Pictures. I love the epics such as "Xanadu" but I also love "Tom Sawyer" and lots of the other shorter songs (which they'd been doing all along, it didn't just start with Permanent Waves). I never saw it as "selling out" (an overly cliched concept, if ever there was one), as the liner notes to Exit...Stage Left read: "We didn't change, everybody else did!"

[Slipkid42]

Yeah, I seem to run into disagreement whenever I mention selling out. It may be cliche, but that doesn't mean it didn't happen. To me, they had altered their sound to become 'radio friendly'. There's no shame in anyone going for the bigger bucks. I just enjoy their earlier work more, that's all.

[RevMatt]

"Working Man", which was on Rush's first album, was very radio friendly in its day. When radio stations played that song listeners called in wanting to know when the new Led Zeppelin album would be in the stores. So, to say they "sold out" with "Spirit of the Radio" isn't entirely accurate. Actually, I really like that song. It condences all of these prog rock riffs into this relatively short song. It is so damn "pop" too. The song I really don't care for is "Closer to the Heart". I think it sounds more like Styx or Toto than Rush.

Regarding King Crimson, start with the first album and get them all. They changed with the times, but with each change they did things that no one else was doing. The first album has all that jazzy, classical stuff that was characteristic of prog rock at the time. But it also has stuff that pre-figured death metal by 20 years. With Discipline, Beat and Three of a Perfect Pair they took what artists like The Talking Heads, Brian Eno and Peter Gabriel were doing in the early eighties but totally Crimsonized it. Senior year in high school, the guys in my band would cut out of afternoon classes, go over to our singer's house, smoke up a fattie and study Discipline. About two years ago the guitarist from that band -- John R -- recorded an album with Tony Levin. When it came out I sent him an email congratulating him and said, "Who would have thought 28 years ago when we were cutting class and getting high while we listened to King Crimson that one of us would eventually record an album with Tony Levin?"

[Kudzu Guillotine]

Yeah, I seem to run into disagreement whenever I mention selling out. It may be cliche, but that doesn't mean it didn't happen. To me, they had altered their sound to become 'radio friendly'. There's no shame in anyone going for the bigger bucks. I just enjoy their earlier work more, that's all.

If you haven't done so already, I highly suggest watching the Behind the Lighted Stage documentary. Given the chance to "sell out" to the record company (Mercury), Rush chose to forge ahead with the album they already had in mind despite the head honchos at Mercury Records being vehemently against it. That record, 2112, turned out to be their biggest seller yet. Sorta reminds of what happened with some band called Wilco...

[Slipkid42]

KG - I did know that little tidbit. I have no problem w/2112. It is one of the finest albums in rock history. That was during the time I didn't feel as if Rush had 'sold out'.

[3milelake]

Rush in the RRHOF? Hell yeah. Body of work & can still sell out a world tour any time they want to hit the road, so many years later. I grew up with these guys. Yeah, Geddy has a weak/different voice, (I can think of a few others) but as an instrumental rock 'n roll band (never, ever understood the prog label) they brought it, and still can. I did fade away after Moving Pictures, still an impressive run. I do feel they were victims of a ton of bad press/reviews over the years that may well have tainted a lot of people from even attempting to search out the meat between the bread. Just my opinion...

As far as the original intent of this thread, I find it refreshing & not unsurprising that the next generation of music listener is tapping into stuff like this...

[Gang Green]

By the way, I just ran across a very good Peter Frampton bootleg from 1979, if you are interested.

Thanks, but I wouldn't be interested. That one night I loved Peter Frampton, but was done after that. Actually, I've been thinking of diving into some Humble Pie. I'm a fan of Steve Marriott and looking forward to the new Small Faces release, and, I would imagine that will bring me to Humble Pie.

Put, I can't think of too many pop/rock stars who tanked like Peter Frampton. He was, absolutely, on top of the world in 1978. After Frampton Comes Alive, he had several hits off "I'm in You. The world was his oyster. Then he did that "Sargent Pepper" movie with the Bee Gees and he was done. The movie was so bad it was, well, bad, but I think it was those overalls that did him in. Only Aerosmith and Earth Wind and Fire benefited with hits from that movie.

I make fun of Yes, but I had all their albums up to Tormato, and I saw them twice in concert. I was a fanatic. And, on occasion, I sneak out with my ipod to listen to them, but I don't tell my kids or they'll make fun of me.

I think Todd Rungren's song Black Maria off "Something/Anything." sounds pretty prog rock. I love that song.

[blackwll]

(obl - who was dreamier? Mark Lindsey, David Cassidy or Bobby Sherman?).

Well if you were askin me, I'd say Bobby Sherman,
mainly cuz he's from Alabama. and "Honey"makes me cry

Oh, yeah. Bobby Goldsboro.

"Honey" made me cry, too. There's a very definite period of time that involves visiting my grandparents and listening to a lot of their AM radio that conjures up that song and "Sweet Caroline."

Bobby Goldsboro is on a mural on my office building (local musicians - Ray Charles, ARS, Mickey from Jefferson Airplane, etc)

[Kudzu Guillotine]

KG - I did know that little tidbit. I have no problem w/2112. It is one of the finest albums in rock history. That was during the time I didn't feel as if Rush had 'sold out'.

I don't really think they ever "sold out". Like I said, they always had short songs on their albums right alongside the epic length ones so that's something they've been doing the entire time. Radio and the music media have always disowned them but here they still are and they sound just innovative and refreshing as ever. I don't think of that as "selling out".

As for the "prog label" when applied to Rush, I don't know where that comes from but that's the context in which some people refer to them. During the height of "alternative" music, I thought they fit perfectly into that genre as well.

In regards to Frampton, I really got burnt out on him (as many people did) following the success of Frampton Comes Alive!. After giving it a rest for many years I finally picked up the 25th Anniversary Deluxe Edition several years ago and was able to enjoy it again. Thing is, it's another one of those albums that was evidently doctored up after the fact. I have do doubt that is true but it seems like the producers would have come clean about it, especially when the deluxe edition was released. The Deep Tracks channel on XM plays a lot of the newer Frampton stuff and he's still a hotshit guitarist, just like he has always been. I know it's hard to look past the Frampton Comes Alive! baggage but if you're able to do that, you'll find he's still a very worthy musician. This is coming from someone that is just as burned out on Classic Rock radio and everything it represents than anyone else, even though that may not be immediately evident from some of my comments in this thread. I just try to be honest with myself and others about what I like and don't like. Some people like to give me shit for liking Rush or Jimmy Buffett but fuck 'em, it's not like I'm going to stop listening to their music. This may sound selfish but like it and that's all that's important to me, I'm not out to please others with my musical tastes (or apparent lack thereof).

[RevMatt]

As far as the original intent of this thread, I find it refreshing & not unsurprising that the next generation of music listener is tapping into stuff like this...

I pay close attention to what my own kids and high school kids who play in bands like and listen to, especially when it comes to older stuff. They don't have the baggage of whether or not bands like Rush were "cool" back in 1980. To them, it is only about the music.

[Kudzu Guillotine]

I was at a show by the Love Language at the Soapbox in Wilmington last summer when the DJ put on R.E.M.'s Reckoning before they came on. While I had time, I walked around and asked a few people (mostly college aged kids, which makes sense because of UNC-W and the fact that the Love Language is huge amongst that age group) if they knew who the group was. Not surprisingly, no one knew it was R.E.M. but they all liked it.

[Clams]

The RRHOF should have a separate wing for bands that were really good and/or popular but who might not otherwise be hall of fame caliber. Kind of like how any pitcher who throws a no hitter gets a spot in the baseball hall of fame.

[Flying Rabbit]

When I went, they do have some "special" exhibits highlighting certain things. I think this is what you are alluding to, correct?

I was thinking about this the other day, b/c of this thread--RRHOF is interestingly different than sports HOFs in that the music is still relevant, and at any point attitudes could change on a band. In other words, when a player retires, his stats are in black and white. There might be some revisionist history, but overall his numbers are his numbers. For instance if a player hit 200 HRs over his 17 season career, you can't go back and say "oh, he was known for being a HR slugger". That number is there.

On the other hand, when a band stops producing music, it can be discovered and interpreted in a completely different way than it originally was when it produced. For examples, see VU and The Stooges as HOF examples. What I find so interesting is that ultimately, music (like many of the arts) is so subjective, its sort of silly to claim on best over another--which makes a HOF for Rock so silly.

Does that make sense, or is it the ramblings of someone who has had too many cups of coffee on a hot Friday morning?