I don't like Rush. The easy route would be to just leave it at that, but unfortunately the situation is more complicated than that simple dismissal would suggest. The thing is, I really like a lot of Rush songs, and I'm generally favorable towards many of their albums. Plus, I like all of the individual band members as instrumentalists, and I even don't have anything against Geddy Lee's voice (usually the main sticking point for people who hate the band). And yet, whenever somebody asks me if I like Rush, my immediate answer is always "no," and my disposition when I'm asked why is always negative.

Despite some who might think that my love of Yes and relative disdain for Rush comes from becoming acquainted with the former before the latter, this is actually far from the truth. I became pretty well acquainted with the band early on in my rock education, as my brother went through a major Rush phase when I was 16 and 17, and I heard their songs on a regular basis. Plus, I listened to classic rock radio pretty frequently at that time, and Rush got quite a lot of airplay, so I got to listen to them a lot. I was certainly impressed by their instrumental skills, but I didn't have much particular affection for them, and never actively sought out their albums like I was doing for The Moody Blues or Pink Floyd. As an aside, between my brother's general love for them through Moving Pictures but hesitation thereafter, as well as the fact that the Rush songs I heard on the radio never seemed to go past 1982 (except for play from Counterparts and Test for Echo), I began to get the impression that the general feeling towards Rush was that they were a nice 70's and early 80's band, but got too synth-heavy and 80's-ish, before having a bit of a mid-90's comeback. Of course, I later learned that that wasn't the overall fan consensus at all (there are certainly many Rush fans who feel that way, but there are a LOT, as I've found, who consider the 80's stuff their peak), but that impression stuck with me for a long time.

When I got into college, and started reading the Mark Prindle site more regularly, I found that somebody had posted a link to a site where all of their albums through Hold Your Fire could be obtained as 64K mono (less than tape quality) mp3's. Well, I decided this was as good of an opportunity to get seriously acquainted with the band as any, so I downloaded all of them (I also owned a copy of Exit...Stage Left, which I liked quite a bit). Eventually, I upgraded all of those albums to CD, but even as I became extremely familiar with the entire Rush discography, my opinion of them just refused to improve significantly. Sure, almost every one of their albums had a small number of songs that I liked a lot, but I almost never felt the mood to listen to any of their albums straight through. Eventually, when I started my own websites, I had no real desire to ever review Rush, but after a little over a year, I found myself in a bind; I had almost run out of bands whose complete discographies I posessed and whom I knew well. To stall for time and to give myself some breathing room to start grabbing every Stones and Dylan and King Crimson album I could find, I spent a couple of months churning out Rush reviews, and in so doing produced the greatest flamebait on my entire website. Hell hath no fury like a Rush fan who feels his favorite band has been slighted, and since I'm one of the few people on the internet who would bother to make a Rush page that wasn't extremely positive towards the band, I've felt the brunt of it. Some commentators have been extremely polite and have produced a good dialogue of sorts, but some ... I digress, anyway.

Any discussion of Rush's merits and flaws must inevitably come around to the point that is most obviously in Rush's favor; all three members (Alex Lifeson on guitar, Geddy Lee on bass, Neil Peart on drums) were/are exceptionally proficient at their respective instruments. All three are often regarded as among the greatest rock musicians ever at their instruments, and while I think it's a stretch to proclaim any of them THE absolute best at what they do (I still far prefer Keith Moon and Bill Bruford to Neil Peart, for instance), all three are definitely near the top of their professions. I actually like Lifeson the most of the three, mainly because of his versatility; the man could shred with any hair-metal guitarist (the solo in The Analog Kid has got to be one of the most breathtaking guitar passages I've ever heard), but he also had a strong gift for providing ambient texture. While I really like Lifeson, though, that shouldn't be taken to shortchange the others too much. Essentially, Rush took the Power Trio concept to its ultimate height in terms of raw talent, and that says something.

One thing about Rush and its collective instrumental abilities that I think largely explains the devotion the band receives from some is that the band, with only a few notable exceptions, rarely shows much in the way of restraint. This isn't to say that every song from them is a shred-fest or anything like that, but rather that, with few exceptions, the band members go out of their way to demonstrate, in some form or another, a significant percentage of the full extent of their chops in most of their songs. Rush arrangements are almost always very intricate and very "busy," and I don't think it would be unfair to say that the band routinely used its technical proficiency and its ability to create technically interesting arrangements as a bit of a crutch in its general songwriting approach. Even if they didn't have a great idea for a song on its own, they seemed to assume that they would able to make the song based on that idea worthwhile as long as they made the arrangement interesting, whether in terms of band interplay or even just sticking an intricate bassline into the background just to have it there. And it's not as if I can really blame them for that; I can't hold it against a band for creating around its strengths.

The reason I bring this up is that I think that one's attitude towards that approach will largely determine one's attitude towards Rush. A fundamental question, as I see it, is this: is a great arrangement enough on its own to at least make a song good, if not great? If your answer to that question is that it almost certainly will, then Rush fandom may just be for you. My opinion on this question is as follows: a great arrangement can easily make a bad song mediocre, and can easily make a good song great, but it is hard for a great arrangement to make a mediocre song good. If you're a Rush fan, you'll probably disagree with this, but for me, a disturbingly large chunk of the Rush catalogue consists of well-arranged mediocrity. Sure, there are a lot of great songs to be found, but I'd have a tough time counting all of the many instances where I hear the band energetically doing its thing while my mind can't help but drift away. And you know, that's a problem given that I'm in the upper 5% of the music listening population in terms of favorability towards prog rock and complicated, busy arrangements on the whole. Rush ends up reminding me a lot of Dream Theater in its overall approach, and that is NOT a compliment given that DT may bore me more than any other band I've ever heard. I like Rush a lot more than DT, of course, but the pattern is similar, and that's a problem. When Rush writes what my brain considers a good melody or a good riff, I like their stuff just fine; unfortunately, that probably happens less than half of the time.

Switching gears for a bit, I want to say something about Rush's general evolutionary path. While Rush never significantly deviated from its core power trio sound (though the synths started to really drown out the sound for a bit there in the 80's), they did manage to cover an interesting amount of territory in their career. They started out as a fairly straight-forward hard rock band (with some fantasy elements here and there), before switching, uh, mid-album into a full-fledged prog rock band for a few years. Then they became an arena rock band, with an ever-increasing concentration of synthesizers, before synths first became an equal player in the band's sound and then kinda dominated things (giving somewhat of an artsy feel to the sound) despite the ostensible hard rock base of the band's sound. Then the band kinda went back to a poppier (and less impacting) version of its classic arena rock days, eventually remembering to make the guitars as powerful as they probably should be.

So anyway, Rush certainly should be given some credit for taking on many approaches in their career, and for the fact that they never really stopped evolving over time. But how much should that really work in their favor? In their initial hard rock days, they did have some great songs, but overall the band didn't really go beyond the level of decent Led Zeppelin/Deep Purple/Black Sabbath imitators. When they became a prog band, they were helped by the fact that most of the "classic" prog bands were past their best days, and while some of the band's prog numbers are very impressive in their own right, a lot of it just doesn't really compare to the best work of those bands (though it seems okay in comparison to the contemporary lesser works of those bands). The point is, despite some good songs, it's hard for me not to see the overall body of Rush's 70's work as pretty second rate, and that hurts.

When the band hit the 80's and firmly entered the world of arena rock, it finally found an approach that would allow it to stand out from the crowd; other arena rock bands sure as hell couldn't play like this, and few (if any) others showed the interest Rush did in incorporating synthesizers in new and creative ways. By Signals, which I consider the band's studio peak, the band had gotten its sound as good as it was gonna get, at least in terms of balancing their "traditional" instrumentation vs. all the 80's synthesizers and production. Unfortunately, and I know many will disagree with me on this, I can't help but think that the band totally messed up the balance over the next three albums (the band does deserve some credit, though, for trying out an approach that pretty much nobody else was attempting). I've actually come to like the sound of Power Windows quite a bit over the years (even if I don't like all of its songs), but the sound and production of the albums that bookend it has never sat well with me at all (even if the two albums irritate me for different reasons). If 80's keyboards and production values don't bother you at all, then you might be ok; for me, those albums didn't age well at all. But back on topic: the band went back to a more conventional rock approach after Hold Your Fire, stripping away most of the artsy trappings, but by this time it was basically a shell of its former self, even if it eventually put out a couple of albums that I like quite a bit. So really, the amount of time that I consider the band to have approached "great" on an overall level is pretty small, and when their albums even during this time weren't consistent enough for me to consider them truly great, that's a big problem.

Finally, there's one other big, BIG problem I have with Rush, and that is Neil Peart's lyrics. Ok, yes, the man has penned some great lyrics in his life (starting in the 80's, when he started focusing on more "humane" matters, he moved up from "horrendous" to "head-smashingly spotty" in his output), I'll give that. Unfortunately, I just don't like the man's approach to lyric writing. To use an example of a lyricist I like but whom most people hate, I actually like the lyrics Jon Anderson pens for Yes; he mostly worked in surrealism, and the main purpose of his lyrics were to create a kind of whispy mysticism that worked as effective counterpoint to the guitars and keyboards. Sure, he allowed his own personal philosophies to enter his texts, but he almost always obscured and obfuscated his meanings drastically, and he drew upon sources that relatively few in the Western world knew about.

Neil Peart, on the other hand, never seemed to really buy into the notions of obscurity and obfuscation. A lot of rock lyricists choose to write about "shallow" things in a dumb way; a lot of great lyricists write about "shallow" things in an intelligent way; a select few have the ability to write about "deep" things in an intelligent way. Simply put, Neil Peart routinely committed the cardinal sin of writing about "deep" things in some of the dumbest ways imaginable. Now, to be fair, part of this is because I have a deep-seated dislike of the concept of Objectivism, which I once heard brilliantly described as a "philosophy for 14-year olds," so all the Ayn Rand/free will etc stuff just doesn't resonate positively with me at all. But between the bad Tolkien tributes, and the bad Greek mythological fan fictions, and a myriad of individual stanzas that make me cradle my face in my hands, I just have to go out of my way to ignore Peart's lyrics a great deal of the time. I can see where his philosophical and literary bluntness might be appealing - a lot of his lyrics read as Western Philosophy and the Human Condition for Dummies - but it is not for me at all. Too often, even in a lot of songs where I like his lyrics, I feel like I'm listening to the poetry of a high school Freshman who just bought The Dictionary of Cultural Literacy and a thesaurus, and that makes me very uncomfortable. If the rest of the song is great enough, I can enjoy the song just fine overall despite disliking the lyrics (see: Free Will, or the first side of Hemispheres), but it's the moments when there's not enough to distract me from the lyrics that have largely driven my feelings of ill will towards the band.

In the end, though, despite a lot of negative feelings towards the band overall, I end up giving them a solid ** out of ***** (note that I will only review bands that I consider good enough to at least muster a * rating). I mean, they do have quite a few albums that I consider very good (or better), and there are lots of Rush songs that I'm perfectly happy to hear at any time, so this rating doesn't seem that out of line, regardless of my complaints. I can't imagine that that brings much solace to fans of the band, but whatever.

What do you think of Rush?

Awake600@aol.com

Oh boy, I had a feeling we were gonna disagree big time on these guys, seeing your comments on them from other pages, including my own. Your opinion of Rush is interesting, though, most people either love or hate the band, whereas you fall somewhere in the middle - seemingly respecting them and very much enjoying some of their stuff, but never really being blown away by their catalog. Anyway, I can certainly understand your rating of 2 for them - their albums did have a little problem with inconsistency, with some exceptions. Nevertheless, all three are phenomenal musicians. Geddy Lee and Neil Peart, while not my favorite bassists and drummers ever, are some of the most distinctive players at their instruments (even if predecessors like Chris Squire and Keith Moon are superior), and the thing that strikes me most about Alex Lifeson is that the emphasis was (and still continues to be) hardly ever on soloing like practically all prog rock guitarists, but on great riffing in the early days and one of the coolest ambient guitar tones ever captured on record in the 80s period.

As for my ultimate rating for the band, they reach a 4 on my scale without much problem at all - yup, as high as Yes, and maybe even higher (I'll leave that up to when I acquire that band's post 77 stuff). Unlike you, the best Rush material has absolutely HOOKED me like few bands ever have, and a lot of it has earned a place amongst my favorite songs of all time (2112, Marathon, The Necromancer, Distant Early Warning, Limelight and Natural Science I consider their biggest accomplishments). The sheer hard rocking power of their early days (reaching the pinnacle on their "2112" tour de force) and the 80-85 period where the lyrics and the music in my opinion flowed in absolutely perfect unison together, creating moods that got me severely addicted for a long long time. IMO they haven't created a great album since then, and have had a couple stinkers in my mind with Roll The Bones and Counterparts, but oh well. Still doesn't diminish what they've done before.

On the subject of lyrics, I do agree with you that in the 70's Neil Peart did have a problem with (often childish) pretentiousness - for instance, I'm still debating whether the lyrics in "2112" are laughable nonsense or an incredibly powerful statement - maybe both, I don't know - I wouldn't say that mattered all that much, as the music around them was powerful enough to sometimes overlook that. Not always, though, as he did hit some low points such as the awful awful awful "Cygnus X-1" and more silly numbers like "By-Tor & The Snow Dog".

However, several of the lyrics he contributed throughout the 80's just floor me in the approach to the subject matter (which was always done in a down to earth, accessible fashion), and combined with the instrumental talents of him and the other members in setting them to music, some of my most unforgettable listening experiences came out of it. Yeah, Grace Under Pressure and Power Windows may be too cold and synth-dominated (though I think Alex still makes his presence felt on the latter, though I will admit he doesn't on the other 82-87 albums), but damn it, they work in conveying what the lyrics deal with. Sure, Peart had a couple missteps during this time ("Second Nature", "Red Lenses") but I'll be damned if I'm not seriously affected by his thoughts on the power of music, social separation, concentration camps, nuclear war, growing older, the creation of man, the pros and cons of the stage, and suchlike in this context. I also find his pieces like "Vital Signs" and "The Body Electric" to be nice evidence that he also had a sense of humor, even if an odd one.

I've never actually come across anyone who had much of a problem with the lyrics and didn't mind Geddy Lee's voice at all either. As you probably are aware, it was the vocals that originally turned me off to the band in the first place - luckily I have seen the error of my ways since then, but there are still moments on A Farewell To Kings and Hemispheres that annoy the crap out of me. I'll acknowledge he has been very pleasant to listen to since '82 though (I've even mentioned that on Hold Your Fire I consider his vocals to be great). And unlike Tony Banks, Geddy also knew when to stop with his keyboards (which I've never personally been bored or offended by - on HYF it's not necessarily his overuse of them that's the problem, it's the melodies that they're playing and production) - note that after that one, they released the very raw and straightforward effort in Presto, and have come closer to their roots since then.

Since Rush is one of those few bands that have a very decent sized output which I have enough of a great knowledge of (all that I'm only not that interested in yet are their other three live albums, though I will get to them eventually - it's just that I'm generally disinterested in live work from practically all bands except for The Who, maybe) I'll do my picks based on your over/under/best/worst thing:

Best - Moving Pictures : 14
(in my opinion, this is an extremely consistent and mindblowing album best showing their style - even the lesser tracks on here rule)

Worst - Counterparts : 7
(this one is REALLY where I can see the 'Peart is an absolutely terrible' lyricist idea, plus it's forced grunge)

Overrated - A Farewell To Kings : 9
(maybe it's the most technical album they ever did, but I still think a good amount of it is way too unfocused and lame)

Underrated - Caress Of Steel : 12
(laugh all you want, but for me along with P/G (author's note: P/G is shorthand for Grace Under Pressure) this showcases the darker side of Rush best, and a good heavy/light balance)

OK, I know from this comment it may seem like I'm a Rush fanatic, but I'm not. I will say they've had their share of crap (when a song from them is bad, it's cringe-worthy beyond words) and they aren't even in my top 5 bands (though not too far off). It's just that I always feel the need to share my thoughts on/defend them for some reason. Maybe Geddy Lee is controlling my brain, which is a good thing - maybe I'll learn to play bass, keys and sing at the same time like he can. ;)

Semiramis2@aol.com

Wowee only one reply to that gentle Rush bashing. Net-connected Rush fanatics are out there. Just have to wait a bit until the flames start. I used to be a Rush fanatic and if you post my crappy opinions, there'll be two people talking about Rush on your site!

My take on Rush is this. Take a modestly heavy guitar riff that has some sort of weird guitar effect that is still very hard to pinpoint, mirror that with a very thick heavy bass, and then place analog synths in the background of all that. The reason I bought Rush albums was because I was looking for a "sci-fi" band and they were the best I found. And the combo of those three instrumental sounds best fit a "sci-fi" sound. YYZ is probably the closest to this "sci-fi" ideal. Keeping this in mind, I ignore Rush between 1974 till 1977. 2112 is still a grey area. Rush between 1977 and around 1987 is the chewy golden center. Rush after 1987 is like eating a candy wrapper. Despite the common opinion that Moving Pictures is their best, I would say Hold Your Fire is better. When you analyze the guitar parts and the lyrics and singing and rhythms, this album is crap. Alex Lifeson does nothing on this album and Geddy's haircut and low-cut tight shirt are eyesores. But just listen to that reverb! What the hell did they do to the synths and the guitars and the vocals? It's like echo from heaven! Can I say that Hold Your Fire is Rush's best album solely based on its overproduction and over-effecticized-ness?

(author's note): Sure, if that's what floats your boat.

Hell yes. Give the album a second listen and while you do, think of old 80's CGI video of computerized futuristic utopias with humanoid robots making skyscrapers and flying cars docking into really tall parking garages.

P.S. I just have to say your site is pretty cool but unfortunately it is a piece of shit. So is my "review" of Rush and so is that George Starostin guy's site (either you copied him or he copied you).

(author's note): I DIDN'T COPY HIM OR PRINDLE, WE JUST HAPPEN TO HAVE EERILY SIMILAR MUSICAL TASTES. IF YOU DON'T BELIEVE ME COMPARE MY YES SITE WITH GEORGE'S AND MY WHO SITE WITH PRINDLE'S.

I say this just because of what Frank Zappa said once... "Writing about music is like dancing about architecture".

(author's note): Actually, that's a Herman Goëthe quote. And I still think it's bull.

And he's right. Then all music critics are absolutely useless people!

(author's note): Then what does that say about the music critic critic?

If we were on a lifeboat and needed to jettison somebody, music critics would go first. Especially rock critics!

(author's note): Must ... control ... fist ... of death ....

In any case, this gentle soul has misunderstood the purpose of the site. I'm not trying to give my take on things as the ultimate truth - that's pointless. What I AM trying to do is tell how various musical pieces fit within MY "this rules" paradigm. From there, people can compare their paradigms to mine (and don't tell me that people don't have them) and make adjustments accordingly to decide how good they think a piece of music is.

Awake600@aol.com

Hey, I resent those comments against music critics, especially since I review albums myself. Sure, some of them may be all high and mighty and act like their opinion is the absolute truth (Rolling Stone and Wilson And Alroy on occasion), but I was taught as a journalism major that once someone gets thrust into the spotlight and gains celebrity status, anyone is free to publicly criticize their work (not just in music - also in movies) in any way they like. There are limits of course, like overly slanderous personal attacks and the usual journalist etiquette, but by and large critics take advantage of the oppportunities given to them to voice their opinions. And in my view, most of the personal record review sites (like this one for instance) voice their opinions in an intelligent enough manner that they can sound totally believable, but they also leave the door open for other counterarguments on the album - that's the great thing about interactivity. I can find a lot to criticize about Rush music as much as I love a great deal of it, but I'd never attack them as people. Geddy and Alex, judging from interviews I've read and accounts from other people that have met them, seem like some of the most down to earth and genuinely nice and humorous musicians around. I don't know as much about Neil, since he doesn't seem to talk to the media much (especially nowadays), but even he seems like a cool person from reading his 'journals' online that chronicle the band's recording and tour experiences for certain albums. But that's getting off the subject.

And my take on the 'similarity' thing: there will be albums that A LOT of us in the reviewing community agree on, and I think a lot of the sites around subconciously influence one another. This site is a fabulous example of combining the Starostin and Prindle way of rating while still incorporating distinct personality and without sounding sickeningly derivative. And yeah, both of those Yes sites are worth a read for two quite interesting perspectives. "Jon Anderson is a graphomaniac!" "He did put thought in the Tales lyrics! Really! He did!" ;)

George Starostin (gstarst@yahoo.com)

Okay, this is not a comment on Rush (because frankly speaking, I haven't heard that much of Rush yet to have much to comment on), but rather a response to that ambivalent Babylonian gentleman, especially since he was so kind to positively mention my name.

Actually, I like the idea of dancing about architecture. Why not? If we can impersonate literary works in the form of a ballet, why can't we express our feelings about the glorious works of architecture in the form of a dance? This is perfectly possible. Okay, and if the idea still sounds rather schizophrenic to you, what about 'painting about architecture'? Expressing one's feelings about one form of art through another form of art is perfectly normal and accessible in any kind of way. Whoever WAS the original author of that idea certainly didn't take too much time to think on it.

Another point that Mr 'Semiramis2' has obviously missed: while cruising on a lifeboat, neither me nor John nor, I guess, anybody in this free-flowing 'web reviewer community' wouldn't be jettisoned at all. And why? Because it's not our main occupation! I would be the first to agree that PAID, PROFESSIONAL musical critics are generally worthless, with a few notorious exceptions. But what the hell do you have against us mere guys who are doing this for nothing but fun and entertainment? (And I certainly don't count the CDNow links because CDNow doesn't actually control or determine our working process for us in any way). If you disagree, then say so. If you agree, then say so. If you hate us for some personal reason, get the hell out of here - the Web has millions of sites that would be more useful for you. But before making pompous and vague statements like 'all music critics are absolutely useless people', you'd better try and overcome your own limitations. If we're useless for YOU that doesn't mean we will be useless for everybody else.

What bugs me most about these kinds of Babylonian comments using absolutely pre-Babylonian logics is that people like these make all kinds of generalizations ('your sites suck', 'musical critics are worthless') simply because their OPINION on SOMETHING does not match the opinion of the person they're addressing. It's a rather simple logical process, see? "I like Rush ==> he doesn't like Rush ==> his Rush reviews suck ==> his musical reviews suck ==> all musical critics are worthless". I dare say that if the musical tastes of Mr Semiramis2 coincided with the tastes of Mr John McFerrin one hundred percent, he would never even begin thinking about all this theoretical stuff. It's a piss-poor case of psychological defense: "if I don't put this guy down NOW and ON THE SPOT, he will shatter my trust in myself! I like Rush and he doesn't - surely one of us is mentally defective! But it can't be me, so it has to be him, and I'll go out of myself to prove it".

Ugh. Things like that make me sick, and it only makes me more sick when I realize that the majority of people are actually structured in the way that this Hammurabi guy is. Guess humanity hasn't made much progress since Mesopotamian times.

Pat D. (pd6941@albany.edu)

Hey, i am a pretty big Rush fan, but at least you are in depth about your dislikes for the band rather than just saying "Rush sucks" and "Yes rules". Personally, i dont care for Yes, simply because i believe Jon Anderson to have one of the worst voices in recorded music. Geddy isnt too great either, but i'll take him anyday over Anderson. Thats just my personal preference; i realize there are a LOT of people who think exactly the opposite.

I will also admit that most of the time i dont really give a damn about lyrics unless they are really stupid, like say, the kind Mr. Fred Durst usually comes up with. But i will agree that when i went to look at the Rush lyrics page, some of Neil's lyrics seemed to have no point whatsoever and the ones that did were kind of silly.

As for your comments on Neil's playing ability, i'd like to differ. I hate Keith Moon. The guy had absolutely no restraint whatsoever in his playing, He also had the tendency to use the exact same tom roll over and over again which always seemed too slow for the song. Sometimes i'd be listening to a who song, enjoying it immensely, and then get really pissed off when Keith started playing off the beat, overplaying to the point to where the basic rhythm of the song was unfollowable. Which is a damn shame because Entwhistle was laying down many a fine bassline. And finally, i dont think Moon was anywheres near as technically gifted or as fast as Neil.

I think Bruford is/was a very fine drummer. And i'd put him light years ahead of Moon as well, though i'd still give the trophy to Neil in the end, but that may be just my Rush bias shining through.

Anyways, i enjoyed your comments on Rush, and i thought them to be well thought out and written. Keep up the good work!

Philip Maddox (slurmsmckenzie@hotmail.com)

OK, it's time for me to throw my two cents into this "music critic" debate. Yep, a lot of professional music critics are annoying because you just know that they aren't being honest - c'mon, do you really think that all of these critics are head over heels in love with Limp Bizkit (one guy even called Significant Other "a rap metal Blood On The Tracks" - so you're saying that Robert Zimmerman and Fred Durst belong in the same sentance?). Un-professional critics certainly don't require that much heat though - they're paying for all these records and just expressing their opinion because they feel like it. Reviews like this aren't written to offend anybody, make money, or bring down the evil Rush empire - they're written for fun and maybe to give guidance to new music fans, or maybe to provoke intelligent discussion. So these reviews aren't really useless - if they're being read and provoke some sort or reaction, they've achieved something (people don't post stuff for no one to look at, after all).

I completely disagree with Semiramis2's opinion on words being useless in describing rock music. If I just bought records based on the covers of the albums, I certainly wouldn't have ever purchased Live At Leeds, which is one of my favorite albums. I certainly wouldn't have purchased The Beatles, since that has no cover to speak of. Those are two of my all time favorite albums. I purchased the album Gub by Pigface based largely on its cool cover, and it's one of the worst things I've ever heard. Words help people find music they would have overlooked otherwise. And hey, if nobody told you about an album ("Hey man, so-and-so rules!"), you probably wouldn't have gotten it. Statements of opinion help people immeasurably.

Well, while I'm here, I'd better say SOMETHING about Rush... all I have is Moving Pictures, and aside from Tom Sawyer, Limelight, and bits of YYZ (which rule), it's all well played, but completely unmemorable, so I'd probably give it something like a 6(9).

Stephen B Marseille (sbm82@columbia.edu) (7/21/01)

Wow! You have articulated beautifully a general description of Rush which often struck me when listening to them but which I could never seem to put into words myself. Kudos! I;ve looked through many of your pages and have found that, in regards to most bands, I disagree with you as often as I agree with you... but when it comes to Rush, I cannot agree more. Geddy's voice isn't that bad; keyboards killed the band; Peart is a great drummer, but not THAT great; and the lyrics are so sophomoric that you want to smack them upside the head (particularly since they are so pretentious about them and try to pass them off as serious thought).

Good call.

WKBEN@aol.com (8/15/01)

I've been enjoying your site, but your statement in the Rush section that Neil Peart is "an absolutely terrible lyricist" is way off base and demands a response. Your primary argument is that Neil's lyrics tend to be based on subject matter "that is extremely well known in our culture" such as D&D, Greek mythology or the philosophy of Ayn Rand. Your argument is flawed for two reasons. The first is that the influences you mention were only present for a fraction of the band's career. You will be hard pressed to find any hint of such subject matter after 1978. Rush's lyrics in the 80's and 90's tend to have a humanitarian tone (see songs such as The Pass, Nobody's Hero, Scars, Losing It, Territories, etc). Secondly, you fail to provide any explanation of why lyrics that deal with "well known" subjects such as Greek mythology or Ayn Rand are necessarily terrible.

A favorite target of Rush bashers is 2112. It's a shame that Neil decided to mention Ayn Rand in the liner notes, because had that not been there it is doubtful that most listeners (and critics) would have any clue that the lyrics are connected to her philosophy. Far from being a soapbox from which to promote Rand's right wing political views, 2112, like many Rush songs, deals with individualism. Individualism is also a prominent theme in Rand's work, which Neil was influenced by. That is about the extent of the connection.

Let's take a look at the lyrics of 2112. At its core it is a simple story of a man who finds something (a guitar) and creates something (his music) that is precious to him. The authority figures in this man's life feel threatened by his creativity and destroy his guitar. They attempt to crush his spirit and his dreams, but ultimately fail to do so. It's a fairly universal story of individual struggle, which clearly stems from the band's own experience trying to resist the pressure from the record company who wanted them to abandon the more progressive path they had taken with their third album and return to the more successful yet conventional formula of the first two albums. The sci-fi backdrop and characters provide color and emotion and in my opinion succeeds in this regard. Is it great literature? No. Is it a unique, entertaining and possibly inspirational rock song? Yes.

Let's take Hemispheres next, the source for your Greek mythology cut. To be honest, Hemispheres is not one of my favorite examples of his writing, but to flatly dismiss it, as bad Greek mythology would be to miss the point. On the outside, it is simply a story of warring Greek gods. On the next level it is a description of the heart/mind dichotomy, which is a common them in literature. Finally, on the third level, it is a tale of the dangers of extremism and the necessity for balance. Certainly the need for balance, in any aspect of our lives, is a valuable insight. Once again I would not suggest this is great poetry or philosophy but I am very willing to claim that it possesses far more value than the vast majority of rock lyrics, which tend to either be shallow and banal or completely nonsensical and incoherent.

Let's look at Vital Signs next, which I believe you describe as an example of dorkiness. Certainly the lyrics, which mention circuits, polarities and memory chips, border on the abstract and the nerdy, but clearly the words are meant to compliment the staccato, precise sound of the music. The bridge verse brings the lyrics into focus:

"Leave out the friction
the fact is; this friction
Will only be worn by persistence.

Leave out conditions -
Courageous convictions,
Will drag the dream into existence."

The song fades out repeating the lines

"Everybody got to deviate from the norm
Everybody got to elevate from the norm"

Clearly the theme of individualism is apparent here. I think it smacks of cynicism to dismiss these lyrics as laughable, as one of your commentators did. What would be your motivation to create this website and share your writing and views with a larger audience, if not partially some desire to "elevate from the norm"? Why slam on a song that might provide similar inspiration to others?

One valid criticism of these songs may be a didactic tone, however, there are many excellent Rush songs that have a mellower observational tone. I'm not saying that Neil is the greatest rock lyricist or that everyone should love his stuff, but to say he is absolutely terrible is simply not reasonable, especially considering the low quality of most rock lyrics. There certainly are some duds in their catalog but in general the lyrics are clever, well crafted and often thought provoking. I will throw out some snippets to illustrate this.

>From Entre Nous
"We are strangers to each other
Full of sliding panels,
An illusion show.
Acting well rehearsed routines
or playing from the heart?
Its hard to know."

>From Digital Man
"He picks up scraps of conversation
radio and radiation
>From the dancers and romancers
With the answers but no clue."

>From Scars
"Pleasure leaves a fingerprint
as surely as mortal pain
In memories they resonate
And echo back again"

>From Available Light
"Play of light, a photograph
The way I used to be
Some half-forgotten stranger
Doesn't mean that much to me"

>From Totem
"Angels and demons dancing in my head
Lunatics and monsters underneath my bead
Media messiahs preying on my fears
Pop culture prophets playing in my ears."

>From Distant Early Warning
"Left and rights of passage
Black and whites of youth
Who can face the knowledge
That the truth is not the truth?
Obsolete
Absolute"

Its hard to convey the full meaning of a song by displaying only a portion of the words, but I trust the quality and intelligence of these lyrics should be apparent.

Tom Johnson (signals2000@home.com) (9/03/01)

What exactly was your point in reviewing a band you don't seem to care for?

(author's note): I've answered this on previous pages, I'm not going to do it again.

This is why critics suck - you review albums by bands that you don't like. Obviously, if you don't like the band, the genre, whatever, to begin with, you are not going to enjoy the music no matter what. And just because you've downloaded a bunch of mp3s does not mean that you should be reviewing the music. You are not *into* the music in a way that gives you the perspective a fan would have. I'm not going to sit here and tell you that everything Rush has done is brilliant - it's not true, nor is it true for any musician or group. What I am going to tell you is that you reviewed Rush with a preconceived notion that you already disliked much of what you knew about them. Your review is tainted by your point of view.

(author's note): Yeah, points of view don't AT ALL belong in analysis of music!

You have the same problem most critics have - you have a deep desire to attract attention, and that overrides your ability to review music in a way that means something to others. You are simply looking to elicit a reaction from people. THIS is what makes people think critics are idiots.

And I REALLY don't understand how you can say Neil Peart is a "terrible" lyricist. His lyrics are almost consistently thoughtful, it's pretty rare that he really does write a truly BAD lyric. And you admitting that you think Jon Anderson writes good lyrics drops any respect I might have had for you. I've been a Yes fan for many years for about as many years as a Rush fan, but a lot of the reason why I no longer worship Yes like I used to is because Jon's lyrics are complete and utter BS. Anyone with a decent knowledge of the English language can throw something together that equals what Jon Anderson can - just look at the JA Song Generator on the internet for a great example. (Or check out Mike KeNeilly's endearing tribute, "Faithful Axe" on his album Boil That Dust Speck - it's hilarious and spot-on.) Yes, I admit, some of the early Rush lyrics are pretty lame - the whole 'objectivism' theme that ran through many of the early tracks (obviously NOT from the self-titled first album) seems very forced and grew tiresome to me, but the lyrical structure and usually the contents therein were very well done. Neil's not known for his deeply heart-felt, moving writing, but his somewhat second-hand point of view actually adds something to the lyrics. In general, I think his lyrics reflect the thinking of a wise elder - he's watching everything going on, doesn't really take part, but passes his judgement on to the younger followers in a way that isn't insulting or childish, as most bands do.

And I really have to slam you for your review of Presto - easily Rush's best album. This is an album that is understated, stately, and grand without having to do anything over-the-top to say so. From what I have seen on the Rush newsgroup, in mailing lists, and in general thoughts I've run across, Presto is considered to be a favorite among most Rush fans. You're entitled to your opinion, but I think again that your opinion is more based on wanting to make a statement than really from how you feel about the music.

(author's note):!!!!! Lemmee get this straight - because my opinon doesn't agree with yours, you're assuming that I don't actually hold that opinion, but rather am pretending to hold it to attract attention??!!!

I don't know exactly what you are trying to accomplish with these so-called reviews, but resorting to the same boring insults all critics use is just childish. Review what you know and love, and your review will be truthful. When you step outside of the musical universe that you know like the back of your hand, you reveal all your weaknesses. Stick to reviewing Yes - it's obvious you have a great love of their music. You seem to be easily able to review their music with the kind of distance that a GOOD critic should have, and that's because you ARE a fan. If I were new to Yes, I would trust what you have to say because I can tell by the way you write about their music in a loving, yet disaffected way. You know Yes inside-out and that gives you a perspective that a lesser fan would not have. And this is exactly why your reviews of Rush are so weak - it is plainly obvious that you don't seem to really care about the music or the people behind it. You are entitled to your opinion but when it's an *uninformed* opinion, no one can take it seriously. You are simply taking jabs at Rush - and all the same jabs that have been so done to death by countless other reviewers. That's the low, childish, and simple-minded route. Sad.

(author's note): Let's get this straight, people. Repeat after me if necessary. This. Is. Not. A. Fan. Site.

Carl Houghton (auto2112@btinternet.com) (1/24/02)

Well it seems that a album reviewer can no longer hold his own opinion judging by what Mr. Johnson has to say on the matter. If Mr. John can't say what he feels about a band / album, then what's the point ina llowing him the freedom to voice his opinion? Just because he dislikes such a group with his own good reasons doesn't mean that because someone else loves them he is wrong. I have to disagree with McFerrin about his Rush album reviews, but only because I listen to them in their most basic context. The moment people start talking guitar riffs, drum la-dee-da, then that's it, i ain't got a clue how to respond. I absolutely love albums which McFerrin gave incredibly low ratings (IMO of course), but i don't slam him. Just take a look at his band ratings. He gave 'The Who' a 5 out of 5 who i have never been able to get into and gave my beloved Rush and Pink Floyd lower scores, who I think are much much more better than 'The Who'. But no-ones wrong. If I wanted to write a album by album review of 'The Who and slag them off in every instance without good reason then I could, but i'd get kicked off at for two reasons: 1. Everyone would nitpick at the fact i hadn't given good reasons

2. A lot of people through their sheer love for the group would immediately proceed to state I was wrong, whether i'd given good reasons or not.

If we lived in a society where every review was amazing just to please the fans of said review, it'd be a society of consumers totally gutted from buying a shit Slipknot album after hearing that it had lyrical 'genius'; pure lies course.

George Starostin (gstarst@rinet.ru) (5/19/02)

I don't want to be as verbose as Mr WKBEN, but I would want to just concentrate everybody's attention on this paragraph from his ode to Neil Peart's powers:

"Let's take Hemispheres next, the source for your Greek mythology cut. To be honest, Hemispheres is not one of my favorite examples of his writing, but to flatly dismiss it, as bad Greek mythology would be to miss the point. On the outside, it is simply a story of warring Greek gods. On the next level it is a description of the heart/mind dichotomy, which is a common them in literature. Finally, on the third level, it is a tale of the dangers of extremism and the necessity for balance. Certainly the need for balance, in any aspect of our lives, is a valuable insight. Once again I would not suggest this is great poetry or philosophy but I am very willing to claim that it possesses far more value than the vast majority of rock lyrics, which tend to either be shallow and banal or completely nonsensical and incoherent."

Now: I am in no way trying to deny that the heart/mind dichotomy is a common theme in literature - on the contrary, it is a WAY too common theme, that has doubtlessly been explored by at least several thousand writers, painters, musicians, and philosophers prior to Neil Peart's existence. Nor am I denying the "need for balance". The major gripe with Mr Peart doesn't happen to be with his exploring strange, or weird, or offensive, or just dumb topics. The major gripe is that Mr Peart has nothing to say that has not been said, in much better ways or at least JUST as well, before.

Now of course one could say that themes of heart and mind dichotomy, individualism, etc., etc. aren't that much less complex/thought provoking than lyrical subjects explored by better rock lyricists, such as - in the prog genre - Peter Gabriel and Peter Hammill, for instance. However, the thing with rock lyrics, or, in fact, with most of the lyrics/poetry of the second part of the XXth century, is that, since they just can't help but explore already explored topics, the important thing is not WHAT you say, but HOW you say it. This is the problem that usually evades Peart and suchlike defenders - the FORM in these lyrics is just as important, and arguably more important, than their SUBSTANCE. And by FORM I mean trying to find new, previously unexploited, non-cliched, non-stagnant ways of expressing these subjects. Neil Peart isn't the worst lyricist to have ever existed, but he has nothing on, say, the subtle wit and word games of 'Dancing With The Moonlit Knight'. Likewise, he hasn't got the grip and the all-out erudition of Peter Hammill, whose lyrics draw upon much more imagery and far more original, imaginative constructions, than Peart, whose lyrics often end up seeming like they come straight from an advanced course in psychology, or from one of Ayn Rand's novels for that matter.

Returning to 'Hemispheres' - like I said, I don't mind being told about the heart/soul dichotomy; I DO mind being told about it in a pretentious, bombastic manner by a guy who actually does nothing but chew the same cud that has already been chewn by many an illustrious writer/poet/philosopher before him. Essentially, it's just a "poor man's course in deep thinking" - it can certainly be of some use to your average illiterate Rush fan who's too lazy to read, I dunno, Aristoteles, for instance, but who will be willing to give Neil Peart a try just because, uh, Rush rock, man.

And finally, on the last phrase: "Once again I would not suggest this is great poetry or philosophy but I am very willing to claim that it possesses far more value than the vast majority of rock lyrics, which tend to either be shallow and banal or completely nonsensical and incoherent."

No, it doesn't. Had these ideas belonged to Neil Peart, had he found a better way of expressing them, maybe they COULD possess far more value. But taken in the overall cultural context of what was happening before Rush's existence, or at the same time, I will quite positively say that lyrics like the Ramones' "Now I wanna sniff some glue, now I wanna have something to do, all the kids wanna sniff some glue, all the kids want something to do" possess far more value than an absolute majority of what has been written by Mr Peart, just because the Ramones actually found a NEW - let's call it "ultra-minimalistic" way - of expressing angry teen sentiments that hasn't certainly been used before them (not even, say, early Beach Boys records dared to strip the lyrics in such a brutal way to their bare essence). It's similar to the way in which Malevich would be superior to people who would want to start imitating Raphael at the same time.

I am positively sure not everybody will want to agree with this point of view, but I hope that everybody will at least get a better understanding of the problems some people can, and do, have with the lyrics of Mr Peart and suchlike after reading this. If not - too bad.

JAVIER FERNANDEZ (kornlinkinbizkit6969@hotmail.com) (11/06/02)

DEAR JOHN,

I TINK U SUCK.

LOVE
JAVIER

PS: FILE UNDER "RUSH"

Fernando H. Canto (sirmustapha@ig.com.br) (12/18/02)

I like Rush a lot, but not the same way certain 14-year-olds worship Led Zeppelin. Really, I don't hold any kind of hate against your opinions, since you managed to make them respectable. Now, what really leaves me a bit intrigued is that you, sometimes, seem to have 'something' against Rush that you can't describe here. I don't know, but it might be some kind of bias, or maybe it's just me.

Whatever, I still like these guys' stuff, even though I don't have their entire material (and don't intend much to have). You know, I met their music around 2 years ago, in a time when I was just getting started on rock. Queen was the band that first captured my attention and admiration, and I was getting attuned to U2. My cousin told me I should listen to Rush, and I decided to download Tom Sawyer that day. From then on, I got every Rush MP3 I could put my hands on by the time. So, they were the first prog band that I became a fan of, and it was thanks to them and Queen that I got introduced to Pink Floyd, Jethro Tull, Yes and other non-prog bands as well. But my admiration for their work hasn't diminished a bit. Their prime period (Hemispheres -- Signals) is still top notch for me.

What you say about Peart's lyrics is somehow, umm, strange. Indeed, his work prior to Permanent Waves is just flat. I don't consider it BAD, just annoying. See, Hemispheres doesn't have anything offensive, just annoying. It seems to me that, to enforce their prog interests, he thought it was mandatory he should stick to mythology and fantasy themes. Fortunately, he left this era, and has since then, presented us with rather impressive work. From PeW on, I think he became a superb lyricist. You mentioned Subdivisions, and it is, indeed, a highlight. But there's more, and he doesn't write as a phylosophy enthusiast. His themes are, most of the times, very, uh, 'human' and very palpable. See, The Weapon holds a subtle bitterness in it that has always intrigued me, Limelight has a very precise look at media exposure, yet doesn't feel dry. Some lyrics are simplistic but effective, like New World Man, and some are downright amusing, like Superconductor. His dorky attacks, like on Chemistry, don't seem serious at all, and might feel even self-parodic sometimes.

But enough of lyrics. It's these guys' music that interests me. There's no doubt that the three are superb instrumentists. Peart, as a drummer, had a very strong impact on me for the first time. You know, I don't consider him to be the BEST, but he's smart. You know, he just doesn't seem to calculate all his moves to make show-offs of extraordinary fills and stuff. Nah. Just the way he plays the rhythm tracks are already complicated, yet he manages it like a child's toy. And the ultra wide range of fills and embellishments are all perfectly on place, and never sound self-important or show-offy. Geddy and Alex are both wizards, especially the latter. His solos are all impressive, in some way, yet all his guitar work is interesting. Also, I'm surprised you don't have any gripes against Geddy's voice. I also have nothing against it. Even, I consider him an extremelly competent vocalist. Even if some think his voice sounds like crap, his singing is flawless, and he makes good use of different intonations.

So, whatever. See? No hate mail. :-D Keep up the site, it's worth it.

Jeff Hendershott (acdc@bright.net) (12/15/03)

Damn it all! I tried to find a site where the great, all-knowing musical philosopher George Starostin doesn't chime in with his condensending remarks. I guess no such site exists. Be that as it may, I like your site a hell of a lot more than most I've seen (congrads!). As for Rush, I tend to agree with you on Neil's lyrics. He's kind of a self-proclaimed "intellectual" and that tends to find its way into the songs. But he does have some good lyrics here and there. I disagree on your evaluation of him as a drummer. He's as good as it gets. The guy has all the licks and can just rock! Thanks and I hope your site thrives.

don key1972 (pmky27@yahoo.com) (1/19/04)

I just wanted to comment on something Semiramis2 said about HYF: "Give the album a second listen and while you do, think of old 80's CGI video of computerized futuristic utopias with humanoid robots making skyscrapers and flying cars docking into really tall parking garages."

I don't know what a CGI video is but this is EXACTLY the kind of thing the album made me think about back when I used to listen to it a lot. It really blew me away when I read that.

Vasse Anthony (Anthony.Vasse@services.fujitsu.com) (2/24/04)

I followed Rush for quite a few years. I loved some of the guitar solos. Especially on A Farewell to Kings and Hemispheres. I agree now that the lyrics seemed to be objective always trying to make a point, always trying to round off the songs. They did go too far and became too poppy and bland ( songs like Time stand still were over done).

I think A Farewell to Kings is a classic album just for the ideas, the mixture of Classical and Electric guitars was so stark. Nobody had really pulled it off before.

(author's note): With all due respect, a person who says that hasn't listened to enough bands or albums.

The guitar riffs and rhythms were so powerful. The cover was great, the solos were innovative, compelling, wild and passionate.

I use to like Tom Sawyer for the solo. By then I expected Rush to be different but didn't realise how the objectivity in the lyrics would cloak all of there songs so to speak. By the time Tom Sawyer came out Rush had started to have a strong formula in there songs. It didn't please me, alot of the song sections were so clear cut, they needed more rhthmic ideas, better riffs. The riffs were too heavy, too pedantic.

One of my all time favourites must be Just between us ( I think that is what it's called "We are planets to each other .....etc) fantastic electric guitar riffs with synthesisor.

Rush were an inspiration for quite a while. I think they deserve more than a 2 out of 5. They were pioneers. They stuck at it and nobody is perfect. It's hard to come up with a wining formula near impossible. Just for the better songs I would give them 4 or even 5 out of 5. What's in a mark anyway.Who's keeping records here.

Stephen D'Amico (pestilence008@optonline.net) (2/24/04)

Steve D'Amico once again. After more carefully perusing through some of the general comments about Rush, I thought I'd chime in with my own dogmatic opinion and make a few rebuttals. First and foremost is your own feelings toward Neil Peart as a lyricist. Do not get me wrong, everyone is entitled to their own opinion(Especially if its given in a non-abrasive and reasonable manner as you have done), however I feel I need to strongly address this issue. Despite being an immense fan of Rush, I will not irritate everyone reading this post with streams of incessant praise for the perfection in Neil's writing. The fact of the matter is that Neil is not perfect, nor am I about to defend him as the best rock lyricist of all time. HOWEVER, that being said, flat out dismissing him as a "terrifible" lyricist seems abit absurd, unfair, and misrepresentive. I consider a great majority of Neil's lyrics to be very intelligent, especially everything following Hemispheres. And with that said, I don't necessarily understand why every review I've read of said album has to absolutely SLAM the lyrics of this song. Granted, it isn't literary genius boasting fancy vocubulary and obsure mystical allusions, but come on, it's got some cool ideas in there.

(author's note): The problem, as I see it, is that none of the cool ideas that may exist in the song came from the mind of Neil, but all of the "bad" parts, which is basically how the ideas are packaged, are his baby. To me, a cool lyrical idea is not using heart/mind dichotomy cliches (though I guess to an extent it comes down to whether something that is not "commonly" talked about can be cliched - I'd say definitely yes, perhaps others would not). To me, a cool lyrical idea is "It is chicken, it is eggs, it is in between your legs" or "What chance now of holding fast the line, defying death and time - Everything we had is gone? Everything we laboured for and favoured more than earthly things reveals the hollow ring of false hope and of false deliverance" or anything from Desolation Row. Your mileage may vary, however.

Neil Peart does have a tendency to make his lyrics read as if he's an arrogant pedagogue preaching from a his intellectual pulpit, but can you really dismiss them all on this account? Or what about his humanitarian songs(as others have pointed out) that you fail to even MENTION in some of your reviews? Those deserve some praise. Hehe, Alright, I think that's it for the lyrics. On to the second issue. (and a lot more brief, I promise).

(author's note): I guess the big thing for me in that regard is that, as soon as Neil "matured" as a lyricist, his lyrics lost the grotesqueries that made me pay any attention to them in the first place. Even so, I like quite a few of his lyrics, I should note - it's just that the instances that I don't like make me smash my head against the wall in disgust.

Neil Peart's playing ability. This is directed at those people who claim "Neil just isn't that great"(feigning giving a "realistic" analysis of his drumming). Umm. Yes he is that great. The man is a nearly FLAWLESS player, surmounting virtually all drummers in the rock arena. (Easily someone as untechnical - is that a word? as Keith Moon). You may PREFER other drummers over Neil or even appreciate someone elses style more than his, but his technique is almost untouchable. If you need any convincing, just watch the man play live. Now don't get me wrong, Neil may not be the fastest drummer ever(as he never seems to use his double bass) or the most influenial, nor is his playing necessarily the most complex. But his supreme technical proficiency can not be denied. Also, he's quite eclectic - Rock, jazz, swing, big band, tribal, and blues all find their way in his style.

Just a minor note: Neil Peart did NOT write the lyrics to 2112 with Ayn Rand's Anthem in mind. He noticed the similarities to the story after he completed it and decided he didn't want to earn the title of plagiarizer. In this regard, I feel its unfair to classify Neil Peart as someone who "Champions the writings of Ayn Rand."

Anyway, in the end I'd just like to say that I enjoy your site immensely and I find that I frequent it very often. I find your knowledge of music quite vast and your reviews extremely informative. Keep up the great work.

Stephen D'Amico

Niclas Powell (nickpowell@mac.com) (4/14/04)

rush r awsome i think there the best band ever

James Watson (mazesun@charter.net) (5/12/04)

Today is May 9=04. infact I found myself listening to my 24 year old Permanent Waves show concert bootleg tape. I flipped on mtv to see TRAIN, BLINK 182 and the like and I teared up with laugher trying to cover BY-TOR or Natural Science? okay, Sex Pistols & Kurt Cobain proved no experience necessary to rock but why do most new bands seem to be going backwards? atleast there's Dream Theater to save the day. RUSH quite simply can stand beside Zeppelin & Queen noone else can say that.

ThunderDad17@aol.com (9/20/04)

IF you don't like them, don't listen to them . EH ! So you are a loser, to bad . RUSH RULES Ive seen all good people that don't compare with any Rush I'm on my way. They don't compare F off.

Brendan Kolk (bluerush@gmail.com) (1/17/05)

As apparent in my email name, I'm a big Rush fan, and definatly have to say they are a big influence in my life (all be it I'm 15, and have a drum set, so we can see that one coming along). However, I'm not gonna flame you, because, meh, I don't really want to. And I can't, and shoudln't. You gave your opinion of the band, no matter how much some people don't apreciate that, I do. I mean, I quite franakly disagree, but that's not the point here.

I wouldn't have emailed you at all...but I just couldn't get over the fact that you called Neil a bad lyricist. Sure, some of his stuff was a "comical" effort, to say the least *Rivendell, I THink I'm Going Bald, Dog Years, Red Lenses, etc.* but some of his writing is very deep and meaningful. Freewill and Roll the Bones stand out as two great songs to me. I mean, I can never get over this :

"Faith is cold as ice
why are little ones born only to suffer
for the want of immunity
or a bowl of rice
who would hold a price
on the heads of the innocent children
if theres some immortal power to control the dice"
I know those are, without a doubt, very controversial lyrics, but he gets his point across right there. And even though they went and killed the song with a Rap section, you have to remember they are, above all, artists, who wil try different things. And while I'm talking about the Roll the Bones album, the ending to the song Bravado really has some awesome playing in it, this is not just a "pop" album. Neil has a really complicated part, and from what I've heard, nailed it in one take of the song.

But another example of good lyrics is the entire Hold Your Fire album. I mean, sure it was a crappy album, I hardly lever listen to it, but the lyrics on there are definatly great. time Stand Still moves me in so many ways.

It's obvious however, that your very partial to guitar in the music, which isn't so much what I listen for, so this could explain the difference in some opinons. *shrugs* or maybe I'm jsut a jerk, lol.

Anyway, at least your better than RollingStone, who give Rush no credit, and you aren't biased, like any other Rush reviewer, you just state your opinion.

SolomonsOther@aol.com (03/15/05)

I hereby dub Rush a great band with way too many mediocre/bad songs. I am not a major Rush fan, my tastes lean towards Frank Zappa, King Crimson, and Yes... meaning I'm one of those dudes who couldn't give a shit what the vocalist is singing about most of the time, as long as the music represents itself. The problem with Rush is that their ideology sometimes overwhelms their ability to construct meangful music. (I know it's an oxymoron, but you know what I mean.) I can't really get into Neil Peart's lyrics. I understand them, no problem, but I'm just not interested. I'm happy Geddy is such a fine vocalist. As far as screaming elves spouting exitenstialist philosophies go, Jon Anderson is Oberon... but Gedy Lee woud make a passable Puck, I think. Oh, and I still have yet to understand why Alex Lifeson is in the band... but I'm glad he is.

(Oh, and about the screaming elf joke... I'm a big Yes/Anderson fan, so don't interpret that as an insult. *likes screaming elves spouting existentialist philosophies... but only if they're good at it*)

Leo cyfer (leocyfer@hotmail.com) (06/25/05)

(author's note): I probably should get out of the habit of doing this, but since this just bugged me so much, I'm including my emailed reply

First off, talk about flip flopping back and forth. Do you like the band, or not. two out of five?

Two out of five is not a low grade; any band that makes the site is at least somewhat "worthy" in my eyes. And it's certainly possible to hate a band in principle and still enjoy much of a band's output. I can never understand how people can fail to understand that.

Pretty low grade coming from someone who obviously doesn't have a musical clue as to the intricacies of playing a single instrument, let alone three.

Utterly irrelevant. If your argument were to hold true, everybody who had strong instrumental ability would love Rush. Well, guess what? My brother is an ass-kicking bassist, who also has dabbled in other instruments. His respect for Rush *lessened* after he started playing bass, because he realized that all of the band's instrumental pyrotechnics were *worthless* as entities unto themselves, and that it is the application of the talents of a band that is what matters.

Neil Peart is a horrible lyricist?

Much of the time, yes. At least I think so.

I admit that not all his lyrics have been of the Shakespearian caliber you seem to require in your rock music, but read the lyrics to a Who song,

There is more emotional power to be found in the line "Apologies mean nothing when the damage is done, but you can't switch off my loving like you can't switch off the sun" than in the entire Rush catalogue, as far as I'm concerned.

Or in "You were under the impression that when you were walking forward that you'd end up further onwards, but things ain't quite that simple. You got altered information, you were told to not take chances, you missed out on new dances, and now you're losing all your dimples."

Or in "You hold the gun, and I hold the wound, and we stand looking in each other's eyes. We both think we know what's right; we both know we know what's wrong; we tell ourselves so many many many lies. We're not pawns in any game, not tools of bigger men; there's only one who can really move us all. It all looks fine to the naked eye, but it don't really happen that way at all."

or Led Zeppelin, Yes

Yes is a special case because their lyrics aren't *intended* to be read as literal texts; Yes vocals and lyrics have as their primary purpose to act as counterpoint to the other instruments. Besides, above all, the style of Yes lyrics is unique, with nobody even coming close to replicating it.

or my fav, Bruce Springsteen. The man made an anthem out of basically singing "Born in the USA" over and over and over again, with pretty much the same cord progressions, or lack there of. Americans, not the brightest bulbs in world musical culture, immediately adopted this song as the defacto patriotic anthem of the twentieth century. And called him the "Boss" to boot. Crap!

I dislike Springsteen as much as you do, dude. It's worthless to spend so much energy elaborating on a point if it turns out that the person to whom you're arguing already agrees with you.

I just purchased the Rush in Rio DVD, and have enjoyed all 3 plus hours of it. While you attempt to be terribly clinical in your review of the band, what qualifies you to be such a critique? If one doesn't play an instrument, or write anything other then harsh criticism, how can one judge so harshly the performances of others. Personal taste? A doctorate in English? I doubt you have either.

Uh, I'm qualified for the same reason you are; I've heard Rush and I've heard other music. Period. If one has formed an opinion of how one band is *in comparison to others*, that is sufficient to give critique. If you actually bothered to look at the entire site, you would see that Rush is only one of many bands I've already reviewed and plan to further review. If I like other bands more than Rush *and* have reasons for it, there's no reason to pretend otherwise.

I fully admit, I have only a handful of Rush albums and CD's but as I've tried to teach my daughter, things you don't like aren't "crap" they just don't suit you personally.

You haven't read the site introduction. I am *not* trying to present an "objective opinion" with my site, because I believe that such a thing does not exist; I am only *elaborating* on a subjective opinion that happens to be fairly nuanced. If you can't make the distinction between the two you probably shouldn't read sites like mine.

I'd love to see you try and play bass parts with your feet, keyboard parts with your hands, and sing all at the same time. You wouldn't know whether you were punched, bored, or drilled!

Again, this is irrelevant. People create music for the purpose of entertaining other people (even if they claim otherwise; at the least, they're entertaining some people by not entertaining them in a "normal" way, a la The Mothers of Invention); if something doesn't entertain or interest somebody, then that person has no obligation to enjoy it no matter how much "technical" ability went into the creation of it. Furthermore, while I admit that Geddy doing all three was a fairly unique phenomenon (though frankly I wish he would've stuck to bass and singing and not let keyboards eat his soul), I can think of plenty of bassists and singers and keyboardists with as much or more technical ability than Geddy. Am I therefore required to like the entire output of those guys as well? I would say no; if I like all of something, then all of that something is cheapened. Passionately enjoying some things means that some things must be passionately disliked.

Finally I'd like to take you to the wall on your choice of "better" drummers over Mr. Peart. "I'd take Kieth Moon or Bill bruford.."

Bruford I'll let go, but Moon I have no love or respect for at all. Period! Most of the Who's early recordings sound like he drew the short straw and simple climbed behind the kit, and started bashing away. Drum rolls any place he pleased, cymbal crashes everywhere, and all this was take to be fresh and brilliant. By a populous addled on acid, pot and meth. In that state of mind, I would have sounded fresh and brilliant.

I think you vastly underrate Moon's ability to do all of these cathartic rolls and bashes and to *still not destroy the rhythm of the piece*. If you want to hear what Moon actually sounds like when he's ruining a song, look up the Kids are Alright version of My Wife. Otherwise, Moon's genius lay in the fact that he was essentially able to *imply* a beat without actually laying it down constantly. Again, though, this is a totally separate discussion.

Neil Peart is by far one of a list of truly great rock drummers, but it doesn't stop there, as his tribute album to the late Buddy Rich will a test, he can knock out jazz, swing and big band with equal a plum.

I do indeed think that from a purely technical perspective, Peart is indeed a great drummer. Hell, his peformances are often fantastic. I also think that he is inferior to Bruford in every area that he dabbles in, but that's not a terrible crime. In any case, I never made any sort of claim that Peart's drumming even approaches a "weak link" in the band, far from it; he is certainly one of Rush's primary strengths.

If Kieth Moon were alive today, I doubt he'd get past the first cord of any type of music other then that of the Who. A one trick pony, who wasn't very good at the trick, actually.

I'm not some teenage Rush fan, nor am I some middle aged guy who has RUSH Rules as a bumper sticker. Every band has records that are less then perfect, and I apparently can see and appreciate this more then the sudo critique you think you are.

Uh, of course every band has records that are less than perfect. What exactly is your point in saying this? Do you even know?

Again, you have to understand something. While this may not be apparent from reading only one individual page (though frankly it's not my fault if somebody makes a judgement from only one page when I've put as much work as I have into the site as a whole and have made it all easily accessible), I hardly think Rush sucks in the grand scheme of things. If I thought Rush was a crap band, they wouldn't even get reviewed. My problem with Rush is that I don't think they do most of the things they do *as well* as a score of similarly-minded bands.

Johnny Troy (beachhousejohnny@yahoo.com) (1/16/06)

hey man,

I like your site....a great read. Surprised that you are not as much of a Rush fan...but all Rush fans are surprised by dissenting opinion (we are a surly bunch aren't we??)...

anyway - been checking out some older Genesis (downloaded The Knife - EXCELLANT tune) per your recommendations and am liking what I hear.

Glad you took a stab at Sabbath as well. Amazing band....

Keep up the good work...I look forward to more!

"jevka@excite.com" (jevka@excite.com) (03/03/06)

interesting page...but i think the problem here may be, well, you.

you are not a rush fan - pure and simple. you never will be a rush fan (this is clearly evidenced by the fact that find only TWO songs on Moving Pictures to be interesting.), that is fine, that is dandy, this is that thing that, you know, goes around like that and does that other thing, and nobody cares. that's why whenever someone asks me to "introduce" them to "this band rush" i make them listen to Hemispheres and Signals first, cuz if you can't dig those two records, then fuggit, you ain't gonna get the rest of the catalog and you're never gonna appreciate RUSH.

while i admire your candor and respect your personal sensibilities, i believe you'd be better off not listening to rush at all and spending your time on other pursuits. yes, Mr. Peart's lyrics can be pretentious, wordy, tiresome, irritating, insular, selfish, childish...but that's just one of the reasons why rush fanatics like myself love rush. of course some of the band's little 'experiments' have failed - all good scientists find some eighty-odd percent of their adventures fruitless or boring: the important thing is that they keep working, and surely no one could consider rush a lazy band.

but wait...you think this
"Dantalion will ride again Raging forth underland
The course of evils standing straight Grind to grind
Hot metal will abound the land Churning out shout
As the form regards our blazing hand
Future times will stand and clearly see
Of the course of innocence"
is good work, but you think the lyric to Hemispheres sucks? (clears throat, nods, exits to dark alley, disappears.).

(author's note): No, I think those lyrics are terrible, and I said as much on my Yes page

as a rush nut, i often question my own loyalty to and admiration for this weird canadian three pieced anomaly. some days i try rather aggressively to convince myself that they really do suck, (honestly, i do.)...but i just can't make it stick.

i guess the gentle souls comprising rush should have spent their time making safe, commercially viable records like the ones Aerosmith keeps sticking their dicks into...or maybe rush really does fucking rule.

Pedro Andino (pedroandino@msn.com) (03/12/06)

all web critics suck the biggest cock!

Mark Edwards (medwards@stx.rr.com) (04/25/06)

The BIG question about Rush, is whether they get hammered for being fans of Rand. Most people don't even know or want to know who Rand is. Stoo, we all know that Rand is "The Queen Bitch". But the more broad question is, "Is Rand Correct?". Objectivism isn't going to go away, even though the Libertarian Party probably will!

I have read Rand's books extensively. She is correct, in my opinion. College professors who hate her, I say FUCK YOU, you have proven now that you ARE IDIOTS! And you do deserve getting left behind. Yes, even college professors can be idiots (all it takes to get this out, is, well, to not be under their thumb anymore).

A philosophy for 14 year olds, huh? Well, here is the problem. A dumb 14 year old is surely dumb. What do you get when he turns 50? A dumb professor!

Rand will outlast you. And Rush's songs are all the better for it. Rush's songs will have a long life. Have you ever seen the audience to the 1980's Rush Grace Under Pressure concert on MTV? They were not the deadbeats. The intelligent crowd is the Rush fans. By their nature, Rush can't get a huge audience, as they are not sucking up to idiots. When I went to my first Rush show, just a couple of years ago, I was shocked at the demographics of the fans. They were for the most part, MUCH more intelligent people than your average rock fans. Were you watching this phenomenon? Did you notice?

There is hope.

So, Stoo, here is an Objectivist question for you. Are terrorists at fault or is it Islam itself? There are other religions persecuted out there, just as bad as the Muslims, and they don't go around assassinating and intimidating everybody. The 9/11 bombers weren't poor or uneducated. But they were, horribly screwed up philosophically.

Objectivists have it understood correctly. Were waiting to see how many decades it will take people like you to figure it out. Were waiting, and guess what, nada, nothing is coming from you. Nothing. It's a boring life waiting on you guys to wake up. I think your generation will just have to die off, worthless.

(author's note): BEST. COMMENT. EVER.

john cantwell (jfcantwell@eircom.net) (05/12/06)

Some feedback to your work..... it's a pleasure to see reviews that do a proper analysis of musical subject matter instead of lurching to a fannish extreme at one end or the other. I normally read sites rather than respond to them but the linkage of Rush and The Who here reminded me of my own teenage days growing up in Dublin when I had one good friend who was a Who fan and another one who was a Rush fan and they got me into these groups. I was a regular reader of NME from about age 14 when Hemispheres came out till about 18 when Moving Pictures appeared, which helped me think more about the music and be an amateur critic. For my friends it was the "sci-fi" sound of Rush at that time that set them apart and made them compelling listening. The multipart songs they produced were pretty unusual for anyone used to pop music and they stood in complete contrast to the new wave and punk stuff that my group of friends disdained. Whether the lyrics are good or bad or predictable is a matter of opinion, for me if they fit into the music and enhance it or advance a narrative then they are good enough; this is generally true of the "sci-fi" Rush works.

I never thought to compare Moon and Peart directly, just looked at each artist's performance in isolation and on its own merits. Anyone can find a poor performance with which to slate a musician or a better one with which to praise them so it depends on the time and place concerned. It also depends on you and what your own attitudes may be at the time. Obviously live performances are more problematic as any error can ruin them. Or some idiot in the crowd who yells during a quiet section can mess things up for the serious fan. So the studio stuff is generally better if you are looking for musical perfection. In between we have "live in studio" - I still think that Moon's performance on the studio video of "Who Are You?" is terrific. Another point that critics would have made about the Who and Rush in those days (also Led Zeppelin) was their high quality live performance as a unit rather than as individuals. So it also depends on whether you want to dissect individual performances or appreciate the results as a whole. My attitudes to Rush changed over the years as I got older; the "sci-fi" or fantasy sound was less noticeable after Moving Pictures and whenever I heard later Rush works they did indeed seem to have gone into a repetitive slump - from distinctive and memorable to instantly forgettable. The lyrics also appeared to be semi-detached from the music. In the last few years my nephew gave me some of the later CDs; of these I enjoyed some tracks like "The Body Electric" (which at least is about an android) but now my tastes are diffused so it's hard to have the same feelings about a group that you had half a lifetime ago. Maybe I have too much balance of heart and mind now.... Finally I'd like to point out one more Who-Rush linkage I discovered lately - if you play the Necromancer - Return of the Prince, between the vocal sections, you can quite easily sing on top "Out here in the fields ... I don't need to be forgiven", from Baba O'Riley. Small world. Keep up the good work, JFC.

slackers united lmt. (sulcomics@hotmail.com) (09/20/06)

Unlike many of the people below me (or above, however the posting system works), I'd have to agree with 99% of what you said (The 1% being it took sometime to get used to Geddy's vocals). To make a statement as bold as Peart's lyrics are mostly dumb is a, in one hand 100% correct, and in another, almost unthinkable to say (or type) outloud because of the reverance that most of the fans place on them, such as the person who took the time to type out said lyrics in an attempt to prove you wrong (although even if he put the greatest lyric of them all, it would still fall under your "most of the time" statement) or the Objectivist who comes off as someone who thinks Ayn Rand is the next Karl Marx (or in other words, the inventor of another thoery that sounds nice, but wouldnt work) and basically states that any one who disagrees is wrong? Are you serious? I'd like to call myself a rush fan, being that I enjoy there music (for the most part), but I dont know if that name can be applied to someone who A.) doesn't think they are true Gods, the ones who know all the right philosophy and can do know wrong, and B.) Isn't willing to suck them off in the figuritive sense (ie: RUSH ISE TEH GRAETEST BAND EVAR!!1!) or in the literal sense (which by the sounds of it is what they would love to givin the chance). But I digress, in closing, good job on the site, stick to your opinions, and to those who who may bash you for your said opinions, deal with it.

Benjamin Musclow (godesteem@gmail.com) (10/27/06)

You are certainly entitled to your opinion, but it would be profitable to provide a few more concrete reference points so that the viewer can actually make an objective comparison. For instance, you call Neil Peart's lyrics "stupid", "ridiculous", etc, without providing examples of lyrics which are not in that category (from other bands). While I would conceed that Peart's lyrics are far from wisdom-rich at all times (Roll the Bones is a desparately quick retreat from the challenges of faith to a meaningless random existentialism; Between the Wheels is disjointed and difficult to sing, etc.), complaining that a three minute song's lyrics are the most stupid on an album (your citation " You can be the Captain, and I will draw the Chart, sailing into destiny, closer to the heart") screams for some objective standard! Just what is a "smart" lyric? If you wish to remain purely subjective, putting numerous Beatles albums on the top of your list (nothing but nice pop commercial ditties, where is the musicianship?), then so be it. Just don't expect many people to take you seriously - I could say the Beatles are a prim and proper garage band and get away with it.

mike noto (thepublicimage79@hotmail.com) (12/12/06)

I feel so sorry for you. My faith in humanity has been lowered. Significantly.

This is NOT a flame towards you.

I have never, in my life, seen such a rancid, mouthbreathing, sniveling, pretentious, and hideously sanctimonious group of idiotic losers in one place before. None of these fools know how to think for themselves, and they go to dogmatic blowhards like Ayn Rand so that they can feel even better about mindlessly condescending to anyone who doesn't agree exactly with what they think is the truth.

And those people who flamed you are all whiter than Wonder Bread after two weeks in the Antarctic.

As far as Rush goes, I've had severe problems with enjoying the few songs I've heard by them, due to the fact that Geddy Lee's nasal, dorky whine is about as listenable as Tiny Tim trying to play cock rock.

graham burnett (grayburnett@btinternet.com) (12/31/06)

hi there thankyou for reviewing rush. these are my thoghts on your thoughts about rush. first of all you need to listen to a cd version of the albums on a half decent stereo, not some crappy mp3 where the sound quality is rubbish. it you do not like neil as a drummer and lyricist then fine, but most rock drummers say he is the best drummer in the world eg the guy from dream theatre; he took keith moon as a influence and added all sorts of styles

(author's note): Huh? I like Neil's drumming! I just think he's not the greatest drummer in the world; those two statements are not mutually exclusive. Also, I must chime in with my obligatory "Dream Theatre sucks" comment.

i like rush alot but not everything they have done is great like most bands, but you do seem to be quite negative about them, i look upon rush as a would be led zep then growing out of that and looking for a new role to play in music and because of that they are always searching and because of that mistakes are made, but the flip side to that are some brilliant albums.

thay could not carry on playing led zep and anyway they can outplay led zep. led zep could not play rush and what would of led zep sounded like 30 years later, would they be still realesing vibrant relevant music, the answer to that is no. The best rush work is as good as led zep. led zep could never realease power windows (a tecno rock synth laden master piece)

i can go on
but first of all please get the albums and listen to them with the view that they are always moving forward with their music unlike most bands

Karen & Steven (skernst@optonline.net) (07/19/07)

Far be it for me, an average man, to critique a cultural, almost iconic group of musicians..

But I'm going to anyway... July 8th, 2007 at @ 7:40pm..

In my opinion, Geddy, John and Neil have such a balanced sound and none of the pagentry that goes along with a lot of the groups around today. Their one extravegence is a hell of a light show. Pyrotechnics and lasers and smoke (old school)...And of all things Chicken rottiseries.

Other than that what else needs to be on stage except for the three of them and their "toys"...

All of them are effortless with their instruments. When the time seemed right, each went into their own little corner of the show with just playing on their minds. No egos, no flaming guitar tricks, just down to earth, solid, rock and roll...

John made a 12 string sing like a bird for 7 minutes...Neil's time was spent moving about two sets of drums on a turntable and he lit up the place with an amazing variety of styles, even tracking in with some prerecorded big band stuff sans percussion... And Geddy, playing for us as much as he plays for himself. Having fun and singing very The crowd seemed demure when they played their new stuff, but when the favorites came out, the place erupted...

All in all a great way to spend a rather warm July evening...As far as I'm concerned, the best concert I've seen in years...

Thanks for your attention...

Matthew Barker (matthew_p_barker@bigpond.com) (04/29/08)

You have pieced together an interesting critique on each of the albums, but there is a lot of juvenile criticism here, which in the end, ironically suggests that you are in love with this band absolutely and they have become something of an obsession, since you have take the time to write about each album and create a website. A lot of the most ardent Rush fans are those who bite the band with criticism but then confess love at the same time, and I guess this is a necessary process which people undertake unconsciously to evaluate the work of a genuine artist.

  Let's cut to the chase. I am 42 years of age and have loved and hated Rush throughout the years since I was 16 when I first discovered them. In the final analysis, what I have conceded is that Rush have done something very unique, heroic and extraordinary in the history of rock music, that is, they have created music which has social importance, and at the same time, the music and lyrics together convey something along the lines of a universal concern for the world situation, the common problem of ordinary people, the struggle of the individual against the mass, and the wonder and mystique of life itself, which is utterly mysterious and wonderful (Mystic Rhythms).

  Let's face it, what other rock band would write a lyric such as follows:

  No his mind is not for rent, to any God or Government...

  or

  I'm not giving in to security under pressure
I'm not missing out on the promise of adventure
I'm not giving up on implausible dreams
Experience to extremes
Experience to extremes...

  These are pivotal, heroic Rush lines, they convey the essence of the individual struggle, since Rush's music is essentially about transcending mediocrity, finding a way through the chaos, discovering pure individuality, achieving mental clarity and so on, in order to be alive and fulfill the moral obligation of being a sensible and just person of society- a Tom Sawyer who does not care for the morality of the community and instead discovers his unique individuality amidst the surrounding chaos, alone. It is a heroic struggle and only the strongest among us can achieve it.

  All the phenomena expressed in the Peart lyrics reveal the elemental things which become an essential part of an individuals self-discovery. Neil Peart is in reality a professional artist, the boys together know exactly what they're doing when they work with Neil on the songs, they're extremely clever with their approach and have discovered the alchemy and power of art to realise their artistic ambitions.

  A lot of your criticism is directed at 3 very serious professionals. On balance, outside their responsibilities of the Rush phenomenon, they lead perfectly ordinary lives and are just like you and me, but Neil is the very essential element who is the genuine artist in the band. He knows what must be done and how the music is to be ultimately styled to create the artistic message. He discovered the alchemy of art early in his life.

  They may fail sometimes (I perfectly agree that the Vapor Trails CD sounds absolutely dreadful and cannot to this day understand why Rush allowed this dreadful mix to be released to the public domain???), then at other perfectly resolute times, they may succeed by a mile. Above all, who is better than Rush? There is King Crimson, Tool, Radiohead, the big 3 who are doing interesting things, but Rush to me express a much greater understanding of life. The only preoccupation an artist seriously has is the morality of life. What is the morality of life- not to be dishonest? When one discovers the laws of being, such as Neil has done, pure artistic expression can be achieved. Art has no interest other than in the morality of life, and all artists are supreme moralists, so each of the Rush songs convey a deep moral message - you will see it in all their lyrics if you look hard enough. For instance, Presto is about the struggle to maintain ones rationality after a personal revelation that the world is not afterall a good place and that you have found a solution to solve the worlds problems, but it cannot be done by a wave of the magic wand, you cannot solve the problem overnight, you must find a way of achieving your mission with rationality and with good practical sense, which can only be accomplished over a period of time, not with the "temperature rising" or by radiating too much heat than light- you must have your head about you. This is just one example of the deep humanity and wisdom to be found in some of their lyrics.

  So whether they succeed or fail I don't care anymore. There are some albums I like, some songs I very much love, then there are albums I don't very much like. But either way, it doesn't really matter does it, because here you have a band who are trying as best they can to produce a great article and I believe they have tried and succeeded more times than they have failed. In fact, I can listen to all their music over and over and never tire of it, so I guess I am an ardent fan!

If you are prepared to listen to music over and over more than 100 times because there is simply so much about it that is wonderful, then what else can great music possibly do, other than this?

---

Rush - 1974 Mercury
6 (9)

Best song: Working Man

In the beginning, before Neil Peart joined the band (the original drummer was one John Rutsey, who never really tries to make himself sound like a "drum god" on this album but at least sounds good enough), Rush was basically just another hard rock power trio, with one distinguishing feature; they could play the absolute living hell out of their instruments (well, they also had a singer who sounded like Robert Plant with his nuts in a vice, but we'll ignore that). They wore their influences on their sleeve, and none of the songs betray much in the way of stylistic originality (other than playing their instruments with greater ferocity than others did), so it's hard to rate this album as one of the band's best. Still, it's an interesting curiousity, and there are some parts here that rate with the best material the band did during the 70's.

The best tracks are the ones that bookend the album. Finding My Way, if nothing else, displays an incredible sense of showmanship as an opener in the incredibly energetic guitar lines, and the way Geddy's screeching vocals play off of the solid main riff is very impressive. Working Man, which closes the album, has an absolutely gargantuan slower riff in the verses, and an equally great faster riff which the band uses as the foundation of what's arguably the best pure jam the band ever did. I quite regret that Alex and Geddy didn't engage in these kinds of battles more often, honestly. This is one of the few Rush songs that I actively look forward to hearing on the radio; few things compare to the thrill of pumping the bass up to its highest level on my car stereo and blasting out my eardrums with that jam. And the extended ending, well, I like it just fine. After all, if Jethro Tull could have awesome extended codas, why couldn't Rush?

A third moderate highlight is What You're Doing, with a riff closely modeled off of that to Heartbreaker and a great heavy guitar sound, as well as an amusing Geddy vocal delivery. Unfortunately, the album doesn't have any other tracks that I find very good, and some actively annoy me. Need Some Love and In the Mood are short and novel for Rush, but they're kinda dumb and average to my ears (In the Mood at least has some goofy joviality, though). Before and After has a fairly pretty acoustic introduction, with a nice build into the electric parts, but eventually it's overcome by a fairly pedestrian rocker. Take a Friend has a moderately catchy chorus, but its opening and closing, as intricate and tricky as it might be, just seems pointlessly messy to me (an ill harbinger of Rush to come). And finally, Here Again is about as close to a clone of Since I've Been Loving You as could exist without actually copying the melody, and it really betrays Rush's status as a second class hard rock band.

Still, this is reasonable for a debut album. It's extremely unpolished, but it betrays a good amount of talent on the part of the band members. There's no concept or real ambition, but that's where part of the enjoyment comes from.

Send me your thoughts

---

Fly By Night - 1975 Mercury
8 (11)

Best song: Anthem

Wow. Neil Peart comes into the picture, and the band releases ... a really, really good album!?! I waver between giving it a 7 and an 8, but every time I listen to it I come away happy and pretty impressed. In a coup for Rush, I don't consider a single track on here bad, and I find some of them just terrific.

You know what I like most about this album overall? It's the FABULOUS production, which I think may be the best the band would ever have. The equalization is almost textbook for mid-70's hard-rock, as all of the instruments jump out at and throttle the listener without ever suffocating the listener in unnecessary heaviness. Not only that, but I'd say that even a die-hard Geddy hater would have a difficult time saying that Lee ruins a single one of these songs, as his vocal screams often propel the sound forward in a way that couldn't happen otherwise.

Just as important, though, is that quite a few of these riffs and melodies are good. The best of these, of course, comes from the opening Anthem, which might be in my top five tracks from the band. Sure, the lyrics annoy me in that wonderful Peart manner (the song is named after an Ayn Rand novel), but I cannot ignore all of the marvelous riffs that jump out throught these heavenly four minutes. Plus, I just adore the way that, as mentioned before, the band uses Lee's vocals as a way to catapult the jamming forward, especially when the "Wonders in the world! Wonders in the world! Wonders in the world! AAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRRRR ... *riffs*" part pops up. The guitar solos are great, too.

Originally, I thought the album was basically just Anthem with a bunch of filler, but that was a mistake. The title track is a great pop song; I mean, the riff is good, the guitar tone is solid, the vocal melody is memorable in a good way, and the chorus is very nice. Beneath, Behind, Between is somewhat neglected in the hierarchy of great Rush tunes, but I think that it has a great main riff, and having the vocal melody largely move in parallel with the guitar lines actually helps out the song. And finally, I'm very fond of In the End, which I rarely see touted as a good song. Yes, it's seven minutes, and its mid-tempo, and it's largely based on a single chord sequence on guitar, but I like the chord sequence, and I like the vocal melody Geddy sings over. Yup, if I was going to pick a song as "most underrated Rush song ever," this would be a strong contender.

The other four tracks are a step down, but still not bad. Making Memories is an acoustic number with a lot of drive, kinda sounding to me like something Led Zeppelin would have had as an outtake from the III sessions, and I generally like it. The slow, quiet acoustic ballad Rivendell (yet another evidence in support of this era of Rush being a bit of a Led Zeppelin knockoff; the obligatory Tolkien-influenced number) is kinda dippy, not really going anywhere, but I don't find it offensive, so it can stick around too.

If the album has clear weak links, it's in the remaining two tracks. Best I Can isn't horrible, but it dwells too much on the lyrical message (penned by Lee, not by Peart) at the expense of solid hooks or riffs, and it doesn't impress me much. And, of course, there's By-tor and the Snowdog. Don't get me wrong, it's not a bad song. The big problem I have is that, given that Geddy has repeatedly stated that Yes' Relayer is his favorite album, it's very difficult for me not to end up trying to compare this track to that album's Gates of Delirium (the structure is largely the same, except for a reprise of the opening vocal melody at the end). And if you go to my Yes page, you will see that that's a battle that By-tor just can't win. Still, the song is pretty funny, and I only find it really annoying when the band starts to show off its ability to start and stop on a dime, as if they think that that's enough to make them impressive as a prog rock band. It would improve live, anyway. But all complaining aside, I'm perfectly content with this album. I consider it the peak of the early, hard rock epoch of Rush, and I really think it belongs in any decent collection of 70's hard rock.

Se your thoughts

Awake600@aol.com

The lyrics to "Best I Can" were actually written by Geddy Lee (he's the only one given credit for the song in the liner notes), which may explain their cheeziness, but it's one of my favorites on the album just because of the direct power it has - plus that riffing at the end of each couple chorus lines is just too cool. When I first heard the album, I'd probably have given it a 5, since it the rest of it to me was such a letdown after "Anthem" (which you're dead right on - what an incredible song showcasing Geddy's bass virtuosity and vocal screeching), but I'd give it a low 7 (10). The two songs I can't get into that much are the longer ones. "By-Tor & The Snow Dog" is indeed a third rate "Gates Of Delirium", and is decent but just not that interesting, and "In The End" IMO is one of the 5 or 10 weakest songs they ever did - I find it incredibly boring and go-nowhere. But other than that, it's a good album. "Rivendell" in particular is an extremely underrated ballad, the tirack isghghfdgdfgfd a deservedly celebrated catchy hit, "Beneath Between & Behind" is a cool rocker and "Making Memories" is an easily forgettable, but still enjoyable piece.

---

Caress of Steel - 1975 Mercury
6 (9)

Best song: Bastille Day

And heeeere comes the artsiness. Oh sure, a third of the album is "normal" rock songs, but the rest is devoted to a couple of long, multi-part, atmospheric compositions of ... *ahem* ... varying quality. It's almost as if the band changed its mind in the middle of the recording sessions of what kind of band it wanted to be, and I can only imagine how confused the band's established fans were upon buying this. It doesn't help, either, that one of the decisions of Peart and company was to completely erase the strong production values of Fly by Night. The sound is very airy, almost of a demoish quality, and only the clever arrangements betray that this is, in fact, a finished product.

Even worse, the songwriting is clearly on a decline. Of the three regular songs that begin the album, only one of them meets the standard set by Anthem - the bitchin' opener Bastille Day. Oh sure, I can complain that the song would be tons better if the instruments were less "dead" sounding, but I cannot deny the quality of that riff and that chorus. But the other two songs ... ergh. Well, ok, Lakeside Park is an alright soft number, though quite overrated - I think that the high esteem that it receives from many fans is a product of its placement between a couple of duds. There are lots of good songs that feature a wistful look back at one's childhood, but this isn't one of the better ones. It's still ten times better than I Think I'm Going Bald, though, which sounds like it should have taken fifteen minutes to write (both lyrically and otherwise). Man, I'm not a Rush fan, but even I can't really believe that they'd run out of ideas this drastically so soon.

After Lakeside Park, we enter "artsy" territory with The Necromancer, a three part epic that introduces Rush The Mediocre Prog Band (whereas I Think I'm Going Bald showcased Rush The Mediocre Rock Band). The piece does have its good attributes, I'll give it that, like the menacing slide guitars at the beginning, or that part near the end where the band enters an intense jam, or that funny "happy" part near the end, but the rest of the piece doesn't please me at all. The lyrics are based on The Lord of the Rings (Frodo and Sam journeying towards Mordor in The Two Towers), but they end up sounding like generic gothic Dungeons and Dragons fantasy crap, and the music is often as dull as could possible be. There are some good solos, but the "dark" mood that envelopes the piece just sounds completely ridiculous, fake and stupid sounding to me, and that hurts things a lot.

Much to my surprise, the second half of the album isn't anywhere near as unenjoyable as The Necromancer. This side is taken up by the 20-minute side-long The Fountain of Lamneth, and while it has its problems, I generally enjoy the piece more than not. I can hear its weaknesses easily (and that's not even accounting for the lyrics); the structure is very reminiscient of Genesis' Supper's Ready (pleasant acoustic opening, introduction of a "main theme" that pops up at the end and in places in between, in this case), and it becomes insufferably boring at a few points, but still ... I mean, for starters, the "I am born ..." acoustic opening is extremely pretty. It even features some of Geddy's most timid and "vulnerable" singing, which should make it a relief for bashers of his voice. And dang it, I LOVE that guitar line that pops up every so often; it's fairly simple, but the 'epic' sound it produces is genuinely great. That line also gives birth to one of the greatest stretches of 70's Rush, with the great alternation between the "My eyes have just been opened" vocal melody and the "yet my eyes are drawn" chorus. The drum solo with the screaming is kinda stupid, as is the way it ends in that loud "Listen!," but the section into which it leads, No One at the Bridge, is quite nice. This section has quite a great guitar line, even if it is highly derivative of classic Genesis; the band had successfully expanded its skill set from good Zeppelin imitations to good Genesis imitations. Later is another solid acoustic number in Panacea, which is quite pretty (if not very memorable) and soothing, even if the lyrics are distractingly stupid. Of course, the Bacchus Plateau chunk could leave for all that I care, but the reprise of that great opening theme (The Fountain) closes things in a beautiful fashion, leaving me with a good feeling about the piece as a whole. And so, while the piece has many flaws (aside from what's already mentioned, the flow is a bit of an issue at times), The Fountain of Lamneth is still a perfectly reasonable, acceptable, and even enjoyable side-long piece.

All in all, this will never be one of my favorite Rush albums, as the weaker features are just way too distracting for me to ignore. But, the stretches of beauty, rare as they sometimes seem, ultimately make the album at least passable and somewhat worth my while. Rush has done better, but they've also done worse.

Send me your thoughts

Awake600@aol.com

Call me crazy, but "The Necromancer" never bores me for a second. The lyrics are stupid, of course, but I don't really begin listening to Rush songs for lyrics until "The Trees". In my mind it's their second best song of the 70's behind only "2112", and it's certainly one of their better flowing art rock pieces, more memorable and coherent than "The Fountain Of Lamneth", which has its' moments also. The way the slow, dark and murky beginning builds up to awesome fast soloing and a GREAT uptempo ending just rules. A production style like this definitely wouldn't have suited the material on Fly By Night, but here it almost calls for it, as I can really picture the dark and threatening mystical places within these songs, and at the same time envision the band in their basement or something getting high, taking their vision to limitless heights - I'll take this stuff over A Farewell To Kings any day of the week. It's kind of difficult for me to see why fans ignore this record and proceed instead to 2112 (even Geddy is ashamed of it and even calls "Lakeside Park" a "lousy song"). An easy 8 - even with "I Think I'm Going Bald", which is sort of my guilty pleasure for this one. Very underrated, though I haven't seen many people put this one down too seriously, unlike the synth era. Blah.

Fernando H. Canto (sirmustapha@ig.com.br) (12/18/02)

I once had this album. On MP3. But I lost the bloody thing. So I'm not very much familiar with some stuff here, but I can pull off some memories. First off, this might be the worst produced Rush album ever. It could have lots and lots of bombast. COULD. But the bad production hurts. It kills lots of potential here. Especially on The Necromancer. You see, you dislike this one. But I think it could be an excellent piece, if not for the bad production. That fade-in is almost inaudible in the beginning, and it doesn't sound alive enough to achieve its potential. And well, the lyrics... *ahem* Forget it. But there are lots of great moments on there, and the final part is great. It IS a good song anyway, and when you get used to the clumsy production, it manages to cook. And cooks for real.

Now, The Fountain Of Lamneth, I'm not very familiar with that one. But the opening and closing sections are wonderful. The acoustic opening, that electric riff... lots of goodies here. The middle parts have lots of moments of sheer beauty and brilliancy. But alas, I'm VERY familiar with Bastille Day. Now this is something. Pure brilliancy on every second, even though the bad production does hurt it a bit. Still, it manages to make a fair match with Anthem. Lakeside Park is one marvellous tune, I think. It manages to be soft, but still have that same Rush trademark sound to it. I Think I'm Going Bald is just plain silly, though I hope they came up with less sillyism there...

So, anyway, a promising album this is, but nothing solid and great. Just nice to listen to when you're in a good mood.

---

2112 - 1976 Mercury
7 (11)

Best song: Tears

If there's such a thing as The Stereotypical Rush Album, then this is almost certainly it. Pretty much any serious discussion of Rush will bring this album up early on, and I've found reactions mostly tend to fall either into worshipping the album or spitting upon it. As often happens in such cases, I fall in the middle.

As with Caress, this album shows Rush showing itself as both a prog rock band and as a more conventional 70's hard rock band. This time around, though, this division actually seems to have been totally planned, and the confused feel of the last album is gone on this one. The production is also a LOT stronger and more forceful here than there, even if the sound still isn't as powerful as on Fly by Night. This album also lightly introduces synthesizers (and even a mellotron here and there) into the band's sonic pallette, and they work more effectively than I might have thought from just listening to the band's first three albums.

The first side is occupied in its entirety by the famous title track suite, with which I am not head-over-heels in love. The story is closely based off of Anthem (it also has some similarities to the plot of Lifehouse), and the liner notes contain the sentence, "Dedicated to the genius of Ayn Rand." Basically, the story concerns a future totalitarian society in which The Priests of the Temples of Syrinx control everything that people can read and listen to. One day, a man makes the archaeological discovery of an electric guitar, which he is instantly able to start playing in a way that produces coherent music. He shows the guitar to The Priests, thinking they'll be all proud of him and amazed at his discovery, but instead they tell him it's of no use to them and they destroy it. The protagonist then sulks about this (and has a vision of the world in which this guitar was created) until he's gotten so depressed that he kills himself. The end. Wow, Neil.

Needless to say, I'm not at all impressed by the concept of this piece, and it's really the quintessential example of why Rush tend to annoy the living crap out of me. The more "dramatic" moments of the piece work for me only as unintentional comedy; hearing Geddy squeal "I don't think I can carry on!" and "My lifeblood spills over..." inevitably makes me laugh every time, and the ending "announcement" is one of the most ridiculous things I've ever heard on a rock album. The closest comparison I could make would be to the ridiculous "This is our Independence Day!'" speech in that 1996 movie, and that is definitely not a compliment.

So ok, I don't like the lyrics or the story, but what about the music? Well, truth be told, I think the actual music of the Overture/Temples of Syrinx is fantastic, and close to the best (and at least the most powerful) music to come from Rush in the 70's. A bit too much of it is taken up with dated sound effects, but when the band is actually playing, it almost seems as if they've found a bottomless well of cool riffs. Plus, the lyrics are so over-the-top hilarious that, in the context of these good riffs, it's almost impossible for them to hurt anything, and they even almost contribute to my enjoyment of the piece. The rest of the piece, though, strikes me as thoroughly mediocre. Only the reprises of the opening theme have much of a positive effect on me at all; the rest of the time, the emphasis is clearly on the lyrics, and the music just isn't memorable to me in either melody nor in arrangements. So basically, the first half of the album consists of seven minutes of greatness, and thirteen minutes of me waiting for the second side to start.

The second half of the album, then, is where I get most of my enjoyment, and is the reason this album gets as high of a rating as it does. The Lifeson-penned hard-rocker Lessons is a messy throwaway, but I find every other song on the side to be good or better. Passage to Bangkok has a great set of riffs and some decent lyrics that seem to be about going to various drug-producing locations in the world, and is a Rush song I can easily get in the mood for. The Twilight Zone has some goofy lyrics, but they amuse me, and I find the introduction great and the song itself quite good, so it can stick around.

The last two tracks end the album on an extremely high note, and ultimately ensure the album its grade. My personal favorite is the oft-ignored but oh-so-beautiful ballad Tears. Laugh if you want, but I think it has an absolutely beautiful acoustic guitar line, a nice vocal melody, lyrics that are good enough for the song's purpose, and even effective mellotron use. Yes, it's a "wussy" song, but I can't help it if I think the wimpiest song on the album is easily the best. At the other extreme, the closing Something for Nothing is a screeching rocker with some nice guitar lines and a GREAT memorable chorus. The lyrics strike me as stupid and obnoxious (they read like a Libertarian creed in parts), but they're delivered with enough power that that is at least somewhat offset.

In the end, I actually consider this a perfectly ok album (I originally went with a 7(10), but my esteem for the last two tracks has only grown over time, so I nudged it up a whee bit), and a necessity for all Rush fans. It just so happens that my reasons for liking it will be different from the reasons that most Rush fans will have for enjoying it. Slice through the pomp and half-baked "artsiness" of the title suite, and what you're left with is a really decent 70's hard rock album.

Send me your thoughts

Awake600@aol.com

Somehow I knew you were going to put down the title track suite and give this album a 7 (10). It's understandable, though, since you have a dislike for Peart's lyrics and concepts. Here, the lyrics could have been written by a 14-year old poet, I'm not gonna argue that one. It is very childish in the way it's presented - 'Another toy, that helped destroy, the elder race of man'... 'it's got wires that vibrate, and give music, what can this thing be that I've found'....

BUT....

The song IMO is pushed to incredible heights due to the fact that this is Alex Lifeson's absolute peak as a guitarist, and that's saying a lot. I love your description about finding a bottomless well of cool riffs, but I feel it applies to the entire thing (particularly Overture/Syrinx though). The first two sections aren't even my favorite - the waterfall-like buildup to the 'Presentation' section through 'Discovery' has an awesome contemplative flow and when 'Presentation' finally hits - wow. I don't know, I suppose the lyrics should detract from the listening experience, but somehow they don't. The fact that Geddy practically sounds like a 14-year old elf screeching them in an over the top fashion backed by those RIFFS seriously adds charm and power to the piece. Yeah, it may be an obnoxious concept, but I could never call something so naive and childish overblown. This is, without a doubt, my favorite Rush song ever, and even though the album is only my 4th favorite in their catalog (and Hemispheres is probably the most quintessential), this is what I'd recommend starting out with first, and not just because I did too.

The only reason I wouldn't give it a higher 9 overall (I'd throw a 12 on this one), is that the other five songs almost seem like a totally unrelated EP. A very terrific 8 quality EP, but one that doesn't fit in nonetheless, judging by the feel "A Passage To Bangkok" has of a 'natural second song' that sounds as if it's followed a normal length first one, not a 20 minute piece. I have to agree "Tears" is the best conventional length number on here - unjustly overlooked, a great melody with Geddy's vocals and lyrics at their most beautiful, and "Bangkok" does indeed have a great riff. I think the lyrics to "The Twilight Zone", though, are the most cringe-worthy of the album - they make the title track look deep. Nevertheless, as always, the music is fantastic in the song and that's what matters most.

(author's note): Just wanted to point out that the reason I don't mind the lyrics to Twilight Zone is that here, the lyrics are FUNNY. Not in the so-overblown-that-they're-annoying manner of the title track, but in a truly chuckle-worthy way.

SiftingOne@aol.com (12/18/01)

I admit it that Rush is one of my favorite bands ever, but I will agree with you when it comes to 2112. It's very overrated, and the lyrics of Neil Peart are pretty non-sophisticated, and he probably was just getting the hang of it. The music for the most part is pretty good, especially in the Overture. I hated parts 3 & 4 (discovery and presentation) though parts 5 & 6 are very beuatiful in my opinion. I'd give that song a 7/10, only for making a worhty attempt at creating a decent epic, like they would in subsequent records.

Side Two of the record does not thrill me. I think a passage to bangkok and the twilight zone have pretty shitty lyrics, and Geddy (as much as i love him) didnt deliver them that well... and his high voice gets on my nerves. I liked Tears and Something for Nothing... a good way to close off an album, but this album is overrated and it sucks that it gets more recognition than Hemispheres or Permanent Waves. i'd give it a 6/10 (or a 9/15 in your scale)

TheRubberCow@aol.com (3/25/02)

hmmm.....well, I do like this album. I don't worship it. I'd say the title track is the best thing they made in the 70's, but that doesn't mean it's one of the best 20-minute tracks out there. I really just wrote to say that I keep hearing people (in various sources) say that the song has a happy ending, or that the main character "triumphed" over the authority figures, but judging by the last line "I don't think I can carry on this cold and empty life" and the piece ending with the government saying they've assumed control, it sounds like the guy killed himself.

Fernando H. Canto (sirmustapha@ig.com.br) (12/18/02)

I bought this LP along with Hemispheres. Mostly out of curiosity.

About the suite? Well, I can't deny the sheer power of the Overture / Syrinx part. It's prime distant early Rush! (get the pun? Ha! I can be the next Mark Prindle. Ehh... not.) They are all willing to shake and rock and kick and cook on there, and it sure starts things off marvelously. I don't think the rest is so mediocre. Presentation has some neat 70 bouncy guitar rock, and the chorus sections are good, and it presents a neat guitar solo reprising the Syrinx theme. Soliloquy is haunting, and creates the mood very well, and Grand Finale makes justice to its status of grand finale. It sounds truly apocalyptic, and I do think the vocal effects are cool. Notice that "attention all planets on the Solar Federation" has 7 words, and is repeated three times (21 words), and " we have assumed control" has 4 words, and is repeated three times as well (12 words). 21 - 12. Get it? Hoo!... Now, I do have some gripes. Oracle sounds too clumsy to me. It could have done better. And Discovery could have been shorter. Ok, it means the guy discovering the guitar, but well... it takes too much time, that's it. Still it has a great feel. The guitar sounds beautiful, and the transition into Presentation is just perfect.

The second side satisfies me, though. A Passage To Bangkok is fun, fun and fun. The pot lyrics are neat, and the guys rock for real on there. And Something For Nothing has a great 'epic' feel, and it sounds fabulous. Twilight Zone sounds a bit too silly sometimes, but I enjoy iy nonetheless... except that that ridiculously high pitched guitar note before the solo makes me cringe... Lessons is some of your 70's bouncy happy shiny nifty pop with neat acoustic guitars. And Tears... Woo, Tears is beautiful. And shows Geddy CAN do good work in the lyrics. When he's not trying to sound hip and cool on the debut. Yikes. I've once seen a comment on this album "If not for Tears, this album would be flawless." Now, this is scary. I think the grade of 7 (10) is apt.