Re: [MLUG - DISCUSSION] musicians

[Mike Miller <EMAIL:PROTECTED>]

On Thu, 3 Apr 2008, Vern Green wrote:

> There has been some serious arguments about Rush's influence in modern 
> rock music. No discussion that talks about the most successful groups 
> can be held without a mention of Rush in the discussion. This band has 
> essentially been the same three members, still going strong, still 
> selling out arenas and selling platnum albums after almost 30 years. 
> Aside from a short period of time when Niel Peart, the drummer, lost his 
> wife, this band has never had a hiatus.

Right, but it has been more than 30 years now.  We bought their first 
albums in about 1975.  We bought Caress of Steel first, then went back and 
bought the first two.  After that my brother was a lifelong Rush addict, 
an addiction that continues today.  It's almost a pathological obsession, 
but hey, we all have to do something.  He has every album and DVD and 
he'll even fly to California to watch them perform.  I'd be scared if I 
were them.  ;-)


> I here a lot of people talking about Cream and while I appreciate their 
> music, how can a band that lasted 2 years even be considered as one of 
> the greatest bands without at least acknowledging Rush?

There is no questioning Cream's influence.  Was Rush leading something or 
was Rush following something?  I don't think anyone will question their 
technical skill -- at least not on bass and drums, in fact they are 
probably considered the two best in rock on their instruments.  I think a 
lot of rock critics will see them as improving on a kind of music that was 
invented by others instead of being really innovative themselves.


> Rolling Stone is the worse with this sort of thing.

I think Rush should have one or two on the list, for sure, just because 
they are so amazingly good at what they do.

Mike

_______________________________________________
discussion mailing list
EMAIL:PROTECTED
http://mlug.missouri.edu/mailman/listinfo/discussion