Another Band Stands the "Test of Time" (?)
I am well aware that RUSH is a "love 'em, hate 'em" kind of band - mostly due to the annoying pitch of the lead singer's voice. But I was listening to a couple tracks from the CD "Signals" last week. This CD is now 21 years old, but some of the music therein seems right at home in today's high tech society, and the lyrics on some cuts are particularly relevant still. Maybe it's just because it's one of my favorite CD's, but I hadn't listened to it in a couple years...yet it still seemed fresh / so original compared to most of the angst-ridden, raspy voiced, false hard-core copy-crap on the radio these days.
If I remember right, Neil Pert basically wrote all the music and most of the lyrics, which is pretty amazing when you consider it. Don't know any other drummers that do that - other than Phil Collins maybe, but he's not even in the same league as RUSH IMO. He's got talent obviously, but his songs don't hold water for more than a few years generally.
What do you guys think? Please note, if you think RUSH sucks donkey balls, we don't need to hear from you on this issue as we gather you would vehemently disagree.
But what about those who maybe listened to RUSH a few years back but no longer - do they pass the test? I say yes, and with flying colors. Particularly the CD's Signals, Moving Pictures and Vital Signs (think that's what it's called). I wouldn't put them on the same pedestal as say Pink Floyd, but I would compare them to that band in the sense that their music is equally original and still kicks booty 20 years later.
[ 09-10-2002: Message edited by: Moogs ]</p>
If I remember right, Neil Pert basically wrote all the music and most of the lyrics, which is pretty amazing when you consider it. Don't know any other drummers that do that - other than Phil Collins maybe, but he's not even in the same league as RUSH IMO. He's got talent obviously, but his songs don't hold water for more than a few years generally.
What do you guys think? Please note, if you think RUSH sucks donkey balls, we don't need to hear from you on this issue as we gather you would vehemently disagree.
But what about those who maybe listened to RUSH a few years back but no longer - do they pass the test? I say yes, and with flying colors. Particularly the CD's Signals, Moving Pictures and Vital Signs (think that's what it's called). I wouldn't put them on the same pedestal as say Pink Floyd, but I would compare them to that band in the sense that their music is equally original and still kicks booty 20 years later.
[ 09-10-2002: Message edited by: Moogs ]</p>
Comments
And I have free tickets to see them this Sunday!
I think they hold up. In some ways, they were probably too hip for the room back in the day, so...
When "Limelight" comes on the radio, I ALWAYS turn it up a few notches.
Actually I think it's just that one of my friends really hates Rush, and is annoyed by the fact that I and another of our good friends really love Rush, so he always sings this song in a really annoying voice and intentionally gets some of the words wrong, so now when I hear the real song I'm reminded of my friend's incredibly annoying version of it. Maybe that's the problem.
Moving Pictures was probably thier most popular album ever, but I still prefer thise earlier works. Fly by Night, A Farewell to Kings, 2112, all excellent albums with some of the best music ever recorded. I think after Grace Under Pressure they got a little too commercial for my tastes, but that's just what happens to most bands after a while. It's hard to remain fresh, and come-up with cutting edge material after so many years of being in the business.
Some of the synergy between Alex Lifeson's (sp?) lead guitar and Geddy's bass riffs are incredible. For a three man band, these guys kick ass. Make ZZ Top look like Bubblegum (which they were in a way), even though I think the beards were the coolest.
Though I bet in another 10 years, Pearl Jam will have stood the test of time as well. The only band I can think of from the 90's that will have done so on a wide scale with a variety of their works.
Also, I don't mean to imply there weren't other good bands in the 90s, just very few that will "stand the test of time" so to speak. Pearl Jam is the only band I can think of that has made a definitive mark over the course of the last 12 years, and whose stuff is just as good today as the first day it came out.
I mean look at bands like Counting Crows and Hootie and all those one CD wonder bans. Their stuff was good by and large, but it was all feel-good fluff for the most part. Where are they now? Wherever that is, I guarantee you they won't be listened to on a wide scale 10 years from now. Most people won't even remember them.
90's pop-rock (not talking about NSync and their ilk, talking about real rock) was clearly more substantive and lasting than that of the 1980's, but it still won't last IMO.
<strong>I doubt Nirvana will still enjoy widespread popularity 10-15 years from now. Their biggest hits will be played by some radio stations, and some die hard fans will remain, but sadly they weren't even around long enough to make a dent IMO.
Also, I don't mean to imply there weren't other good bands in the 90s, just very few that will "stand the test of time" so to speak. Pearl Jam is the only band I can think of that has made a definitive mark over the course of the last 12 years, and whose stuff is just as good today as the first day it came out.
I mean look at bands like Counting Crows and Hootie and all those one CD wonder bans. Their stuff was good by and large, but it was all feel-good fluff for the most part. Where are they now? Wherever that is, I guarantee you they won't be listened to on a wide scale 10 years from now. Most people won't even remember them.
90's pop-rock (not talking about NSync and their ilk, talking about real rock) was clearly more substantive and lasting than that of the 1980's, but it still won't last IMO.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Pearl Jam is awesome,,
Counting Crows are going strong. Their new album is doing well sales wise and I absolutely love it. Great album. Not a bad song on it. Really, if you like them a little, get it. Worse song on it is American Girls which stands out as a tune produced for radio play. but the rest are great. and so have their other albums. Just because they aren't as popular as they once were doesn't mean they have lost what made them good.
I agree on the Pearl Jam thing...
Nirvana has a good chance of standing the test of time. But they would've had a better chance if they'd made more music.
Radiohead is another 90's band, albeit late 90's, that will still be talked about in 10 years I think.
And don't forget the beastie boys! They're from the 80's even!!
And moogs, have you checked your PMs?
There have been a TON of one CD/three single "wad shooters" coming down the pike in the 5-10 years.
Like it or not, there are no Beatle or Rolling Stones (hell, not even a Kinks) type of band out there!
No commercially AND critically huge bands. It's one or the other, for the most part.
[ 09-13-2002: Message edited by: pscates ]</p>
Scates: I have to agree - the next Dr. Pepper of rock-n-roll is nowhere to be found! Classics are in short supply ... I also agree that this is the norm though, and not the exception. If you did the stats, probably 97 or 98% of the pop/rock/R&B bands that get to the point of having a CD in the stores, never make it past CD #2, as it were.
Of those that do, I bet less than 20% are still listened to / played by radio stations regularly 5-10 years later.
[ 09-13-2002: Message edited by: Moogs ]</p>