Excerpt from 'Rush: Perspectives on Canadian Culture' (McGill University Press)

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

If you go by most stated theories re the cultural fusion that produced the pop musics of the 20th Century, (which this writer mainly agrees with btw, it is impossible for a Canadian band to affect the course of pop music in any significant way because there aren’t enough black people there. Occasionally some iconoclast or maverick or consolidation or refinement or blind alley or refraction may emerge but without a collective guilt-ridden past or a tortured birth the three-pronged struggle to realise one’s basest instincts while both achieving cultural significance and appearing superficially morally sound enough to appeal to an idealistic and naïve fan base is too easy to resolve purely through aesthetic or technical innovations rather than any moral struggle, the latter being necessary to engage any audience whose acquaintance with the procedural aspects of creation is more than tangential.
Though it seems scarcely believable now, at one time the Canadians looked equally toward Britain for cultural reassurance as toward the USA, particularly in the Eastern half of the country, and much like immigrants often preserve traditions in aspic while the mother country has moved on, standards of rock ‘performance’ were still being not only adhered to but seen as desirable there while they had long imploded in the US and the UK. Thus while widespread lack of identification with perceived hierarchical nature of the industry was fuelling the punk revolt in the UK, in Canada the prevailing mood was one of realisation, ‘graduation’ so to speak - a feeling that the local musical culture had finally achieved standards of instrumental competence and conceptual breadth to honourably coexist (‘competition’ being an un-Canadian notion) on a level with similarly-produced British product.
Brit product circa about 1968, that is.
The most widely successful Canadian rock product of this period were Rush, a trio whose methodology was a combination of Cream and the Who that emphasised the distanced, rational approach of the former with the pretensions to narrative and thematic coherence of the latter. The uniquely Canadian aspects of their presentation were, somewhat surprisingly, contributions from their drummer, namely, an obsessive-compulsive geometric reordering of the style of Keith Moon, and reams of lyrics derived from a SPECIFIC literary source, in this case Ayn Rand. (Though Rand is usually described and dismissed as an extreme right-wing libertarian wingnut – I wouldn’t know, I don’t read that shit – the main point I’m referring to is that being Canadian, Rush refer to a commonly-discussed [within the age demographic coinciding with Rush fans], easily-accessible introductory philosophy treatise concerned with its own definition of ‘reasonableness’, as opposed to the library of antinomian arcana that 60s’ ‘heads’ brandished as proof of their unorthodox and searching intellects.) Touring in such a way that would attract fans who for whatever socio-geographic reasons were behind the curve regarding the convolutions of pop tastemakers but left with a distinct entertainment vacuum by the demise or diversification of the earlier individual band models that had formed their tastes, Rush found a large and enthusiastic market for whom their technically impeccable instrumentation and ostensible engagement with philosophical themes provided a cost-effective entertainment experience as well as a surrogate for the earlier bands previously mentioned whose presence in the canon as representatives of the culmination of rock-as-art satisfied the tendencies toward self-improvement and self-definition common among concert-goers of the time who believed that their near-constant consumption of weed, reds and cheap wine expanded their minds but not in a way that would lead to further capitalist exploitation by that goddamned boss of theirs, not to mention their old man. That is, they could join a rock band and do pretty much whatever the fuck they wanted but it wouldn’t disturb their inner Protestant because playing the bassline to ‘Xanadu’ took as much work as being a goddamn mechanic and was equally complicated as math class so everybody calling you a dope-smoking lazy sack of shit could just shove it up their ass because if you handed them a bass and told them to play “La Villa Strangiato” that would shut them up in a goddamned second. And not only that but ‘Xanadu’ is based on Coleridge so when you tell me to do my goddamned homework instead of huffing nitrous – which I’m NOT, by the way ASSHOLE, that’s the RECORD PLAYER, and it’s not ‘nitrous’ which makes you do that it’s HELIUM as if you would know the goddamn difference anyway I bet you never even smoked ciggies as a kid, actually they probably weren’t even invented way back then – I AM doing my fucking homework, and if you’d just shut up and listen you’d see it’s actually an ANTI-DRUG poem because the guy ends up INSANE at the end because he’s on this really bad trip that seems to go on for about a thousand years like happened to me once and – whaddya mean it’s about ‘cunnilingus’?

― dave q, Sunday, 29 June 2003 18:41 (twenty-two years ago)

I saw this guy speak at an academic conference at NYU last summer--it was a pretty terrific paper, made me appreciate Rush a lot more than I had before. (Though not enough to become a fan, per se.)

― M Matos (M Matos), Sunday, 29 June 2003 19:01 (twenty-two years ago)

Elision never has seemed more wonderful.

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Sunday, 29 June 2003 20:46 (twenty-two years ago)

uniquely canadian presentation? there were plenty of similar u.s. bands at the same time that were doing the same late prog pop thing: boston, kansas, styx, elo, journey. sure rush were the most yes-like, and were the most pretentious lyrically. but didn't rush just have to wait longer than all of them? i think rush can't have formed long after genesis and yes itself. but the important thing about rush was, better than any other prog band except one, they adapted to new wave [such as on tom sawyer]. the band that trumped them was of course collins-led genesis...

― mig, Monday, 30 June 2003 22:52 (twenty-two years ago)

Huh? Rush had little to nothing in common with Boston, Kansas, Styx or ELO -- and I'm sure they can only have wished for more of their market share, at least at the time. As far as new wave, it wasn't "Tom Sawyer", or any of the songs from that record (which was really their last gasp as a part of a progressive rock legacy), but most of their succeeding stuff (Signals, Grace Under Pressure, Power Windows, etc). And even then, they weren't even close to New Wave, but rather just nearer an ideal balance of discipline, logic and volume. I think the excerpt above does make them seem like a very interesting band -- though like Matos, not really enough for me to go and listen to them again.

Still, it's at least time to relieve them of constant prog and prog-pop accusations. Rush were one of the few bands to have created a hybrid sound from the late 60s archetype of *big* rock. IMO, it's one of the reasons their fans are so dogmatic, and ceaselessly devoted.

― dleone (dleone), Monday, 30 June 2003 23:16 (twenty-two years ago)

Rush had little to nothing in common with ...

ya think? now, i may be way off here, but it seems like you think they were special or something. ultimately they were a band aping yes and zeppelin, and though as a kid i enjoyed 2112, farewell to kings, etc., i could tell even as a 15 year old [in 1988] that it was totally lacking in subtlety compared to fragile or lark's tongues or lamb lies down; it was a bit juvenile, a bit dwarfs dancing round stonehenge.
yes, they certainly were prog-pop. although they don't sound much on the surface like elo or styx, think about what classic radio sounds like: and in 1978, they all used the same dorky riffs, the kind you find on organ and fiddle in "point of no return". they sang stupid lyrics about pretentious crap, but knew that it was a bit false, and were looking for a pop pulse, and rush, along with genesis and yes and many others, even plant and page, eventually turned to new wave. rush were just about the first, and the coolest at prog-new-wave, i think. if you think they "weren't even close to new wave", i guess in some technical sense you're right - i doubt they had silly haircuts. but then, i guess i hear eminence front and call that new wave, too.

i don't know what you mean by talking about the archetype of big rock. i can't understand what it means, that there are a bunch of rabid rush fans who love rush because rush is one of the few bands to create a hybrid sound of big rock. i had assumed they love rush in part because rush keeps reliably touring without updating its sound too much, hasn't kicked out any members, they consider the band to be super-talented [well they are fairly technical players of course], and in part because of that whole sci fi fantasy appeal; there's a significant chunk of their fanbase i bet that is rabid about them because pink floyd became disappointing.

it's funny... i recall one time years ago on chalkhills, the xtc list i was on for a bit [this was in 96-97 i think], this rabid rush fan started talking about rush for little apparent reason... now, i guess i'm a rabid fall fan, and it's silly for me to look down on any other rabid fan of a band... i'm sure to a rush fan, the fall sound slightly retarded, hopelessly untalented, pretentious, etc.

anyway, i would be interested to hear what you say about rush: not prog pop, rush: never new wave, rush: late 60s big rock uniquely updated.

also, how can you seriously not want to hear them again if you suddenly find them interesting? do you know them well enough, or is it more an ennui thing?

― mig, Tuesday, 1 July 2003 01:41 (twenty-two years ago)

Yeah, I hate 2112. In fact, I hate most of Rush's records. Nevertheless, ELO and Styx sound to me like glitter-craved would-be pop stars, whereas Rush is far from it. "Dorky riffs"? "Stupid lyrics about pretentious crap"? As clearly as you describe them, I can't tell if you're dissing Rush, Andrew Lloyd Webber or The Eagles.

i don't know what you mean by talking about the archetype of big rock...i had assumed they love rush in part because rush keeps reliably touring without updating its sound too much, hasn't kicked out any members, they consider the band to be super-talented

I'm talking about the bands referenced in the excerpt above, Cream and The Who. Rush tours and has an identifiable sound, and is "talented" -- again, this could be applied to hundreds of bands. And Rush did kick out an original member.

how can you seriously not want to hear them again if you suddenly find them interesting?

I alread did that in high school. I listened to them all the time. I like the article above because not only does it make me care about a band I've long since stopped caring about, it actually makes them seem interesting -- but I'm hardly about to go buy all their music again.

― dleone (dleone), Tuesday, 1 July 2003 11:41 (twenty-two years ago)

I've never understood where this 'new wave' things come from, I think everyone (inexplicably) uses it to mean 'sounds a bit like The Police'

(btw - 'Signals' and 'Grace Under Pressure' vs the first 3 Robert Plant solo albums)

― dave q, Tuesday, 1 July 2003 17:11 (twenty-two years ago)

referenced in the excerpt above

haha - I actually held off reading this thread since Sunday cuz I wasn't in the mood to read any academic stuff. the yoke's on me.

mig, ELO were British, you knew that right? Lineage extending back into psychedelic swinging London? Also, I don't hear any comparison between Boston and Rush at all (ok lyrically "Making Memories" vs "Rock & Roll Band" maybe).

an obsessive-compulsive geometric reordering of the style of Keith Moon

This is probably the simplest and best description of Peart I've ever read.

And while I do hear even more Who affinities beyond, I don't really like the Cream comparison, in the same way I suppose dave and dleone dislike the "new wave" tag. The trio format provides a natural linkage, but were Cream all that distanced/rational? If Clapton had written more riffs that sounded like "Beneath, Between and Behind" or "Best I Can" I'd probably listen to my Cream records more often.

The Police thing has some legs. What's the effect that Lifeson uses on "Distant Early Warning" that Summers always uses? A chorus? The verses of that tune could be the Police. In fact, there may not be any black folk in Canada, but Rush's dalliance with reggae form is woefully absent from the literature! Why, there's the whole "for the words of the profits were written on the studio wall" part of "Spirit of Radio", there's "Vital Signs", there's "New World Man". Fuck they were all over that shit.

I was dying to hear Principle of Moments last weekend, but too drunk and lazy to find my boxed up copy of the lp. Robbie Blount = underrated guitar hero!

― Mr. Diamond (diamond), Tuesday, 1 July 2003 18:32 (twenty-two years ago)

ELO were British, you knew that right?
whoops, of course, i get confused because of the repeated cheap trick homages to the move, i guess. classic rock radio really warped my mind.

― mig, Tuesday, 1 July 2003 18:52 (twenty-two years ago)

dudes i hate to say it but noone really sounds like rush.

― amateurist (amateurist), Tuesday, 1 July 2003 19:11 (twenty-two years ago)

The last few sentences of that excerpt have got me on the verge of pissing my pants!

― nickalicious (nickalicious), Tuesday, 1 July 2003 19:29 (twenty-two years ago)

nine years pass...

if you’d just shut up and listen you’d see it’s actually an ANTI-DRUG poem because the guy ends up INSANE at the end

― j., Thursday, 26 July 2012 00:37 (thirteen years ago)

whatever happened to dave q

― thomp, Thursday, 26 July 2012 00:38 (thirteen years ago)

Who was the author of the original article?

― EveningStar (Sund4r), Thursday, 26 July 2012 02:02 (thirteen years ago)

― thomp, Thursday, 26 July 2012 02:07 (thirteen years ago)

This is a thread about an article (or book?) that was published by McGill University Press, right? Or was Dave the author? Either way, neither Google nor JSTOR turn up anything when I search for this title.

― EveningStar (Sund4r), Thursday, 26 July 2012 02:12 (thirteen years ago)

i wrote it.

― Porto for Pyros (The Cursed Return of the Dastardly Thermo Thinwall), Thursday, 26 July 2012 02:42 (thirteen years ago)

just kidding. i didn't even read it.

― Porto for Pyros (The Cursed Return of the Dastardly Thermo Thinwall), Thursday, 26 July 2012 02:43 (thirteen years ago)

...

― thomp, Thursday, 26 July 2012 02:52 (thirteen years ago)

god, whatever happened to dave q

― thomp, Thursday, 26 July 2012 02:52 (thirteen years ago)

ou sont les qs d'antan

― thomp, Thursday, 26 July 2012 02:53 (thirteen years ago)

haha - I actually held off reading this thread since Sunday cuz I wasn't in the mood to read any academic stuff. the yoke's on me.

OK, nm, I read through the OP more fully awake now, ha.

― EveningStar (Sund4r), Thursday, 26 July 2012 05:01 (thirteen years ago)

(I was originally curious because I know two different people who wrote dissertations on Rush!)

― EveningStar (Sund4r), Thursday, 26 July 2012 05:04 (thirteen years ago)

Was one of them interviewed on CBC Radio recently in a fairly disgraceful bit about Rush's new album?

― everything, Thursday, 26 July 2012 13:57 (thirteen years ago)

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.