Rolling Stone does a Rush interview!

[gjbassist]

Exclusive Video: Rush Rock Madison Square Garden | Rolling Stone Culture | Video Blog | Music Entertainment Videos

What's this? Rolling Stone is doing a piece on Rush? What has the world come to?

Not that I have ever given a rip what RS thinks about my favorite band, but it is nice to see that they are finally getting a bit of much deserved positive attention from RS. Whats next, the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame?

I love the comments under the video!

[baalroo]

when I read this my first instinct was:

"in other news: People magazine does a Jennifer Aniston interview!"

... but then I realized that I have no idea what sort of articles are in Rolling Stone and just sort of assume that those two corporate entities would be two peas in a pod. Is that not the case?

[onionpuzzle]

thanks for the link

I am a Huge Rush fan (since late 70's) .....the worst part now is, "tell me something I don't know" Between the Documentary, Biography, Neil's books, pretty much everything has already been said about the band.

nice they are finally getting kudos, though.

[Oopsdabassist]

Aye Darren Reddick Posted it on Planet Rock's FB site yesterday, interviewer didn't seem that interested, and I think the boys knew it..ah well, nice to catch em chatting nonetheless.

[onionpuzzle]

Originally Posted by baalroo

when I read this my first instinct was:

"in other news: People magazine does a Jennifer Aniston interview!"

... but then I realized that I have no idea what sort of articles are in Rolling Stone and just sort of assume that those two corporate entities would be two peas in a pod. Is that not the case?

The very first Rush feature in Rolling Stone was the edition with Obama on the cover, if that is any indication.

RS has NEVER supported Rush, until recently.

[Musiclogic]

Originally Posted by baalroo

when I read this my first instinct was:

"in other news: People magazine does a Jennifer Aniston interview!"

... but then I realized that I have no idea what sort of articles are in Rolling Stone and just sort of assume that those two corporate entities would be two peas in a pod. Is that not the case?

^^^This idiot runs around the school parking lots with a fresh buzz shouting to protest taking showers and doing laundry as they are completely corporate driven.

Corporate entities? do you even.....nope, you said you were clueless, and did a fine job of exemplifying it.

I almost dreaded the interview, as the children that write for RS are usually so poorly prepped, or utterly clueless that it comes out like and edited of the above statement. I was surprised at some of the questions, but found the most humor in how Geddy and Alex toyed with brian, and he was clueless, much like the commentor above. The serious to absurd rotational banter is something those two have been doing for decades, yet these "reporters' still miss everything....LOL Fun piece to read.

[baalroo]

Originally Posted by Musiclogic

^^^This idiot runs around the school parking lots with a fresh buzz shouting to protest taking showers and doing laundry as they are completely corporate driven.

Corporate entities? do you even.....nope, you said you were clueless, and did a fine job of exemplifying it.

I almost dreaded the interview, as the children that write for RS are usually so poorly prepped, or utterly clueless that it comes out like and edited of the above statement. I was surprised at some of the questions, but found the most humor in how Geddy and Alex toyed with brian, and he was clueless, much like the commentor above. The serious to absurd rotational banter is something those two have been doing for decades, yet these "reporters' still miss everything....LOL Fun piece to read.

Ok, I don't think the hateful name calling is necessary, but if you don't think Rush is first and foremost a corporate brand at this point you're either willfully ignorant or being disingenuous. It's not an insult, it's just reality. I eat at fast food chains and shop at walmart, but I'm not gonna pretend like they're "mom n pops" just to make myself feel better about it. Have you SEEN a rush concert, or even just ever checked out the ticket prices? I mean, come on, get real. It's Cirque Du Soleil for the aging "rocker" crowd... which is cool with me, I think Cirque Du Soleil is pretty rad. If you're taking anything I'm saying as an insult, that's on you not me pal.

However, I am a bit impressed that they've never done a RS interview (until now), as you yourself have already agreed, that rag is about as relevant to modern music as people magazine is relevant to the daily lives of actual people.

[electracoyote]

I can think of a lot of popular bands that I'm not a fan of, but when you think of it in a more objective (not to mention mature) way, any band that has a mass appeal has done something right and deserves it's hard-earned dues and a little respect and positive recognition from the press.

Better late than never.

[MiniMoose234]

Originally Posted by baalroo

Ok, I don't think the hateful name calling is necessary, but if you don't think Rush is first and foremost a corporate brand at this point you're either willfully ignorant or being disingenuous. It's not an insult, it's just reality. I eat at fast food chains and shop at walmart, but I'm not gonna pretend like they're "mom n pops" just to make myself feel better about it. Have you SEEN a rush concert, or even just ever checked out the ticket prices? I mean, come on, get real. It's Cirque Du Soleil for the aging "rocker" crowd... which is cool with me, I think Cirque Du Soleil is pretty rad. If you're taking anything I'm saying as an insult, that's on you not me pal.

However, I am a bit impressed that they've never done a RS interview (until now), as you yourself have already agreed, that rag is about as relevant to modern music as people magazine is relevant to the daily lives of actual people.

I'm 16, and seeing Rush after seeing Cirque Du Soleil next Friday. And I agree, they've got their corporate thing, but they've got some more integrity than a lot of others musically and as people. But what do I know.

[chuck norriss]

NICE
rolling stone is still around?

[hrodbert696]

Geez, that kid is a Rolling Stone SENIOR writer? Who's on the junior staff? I guess that someone over there forgot that RS is supposed to have a vendetta against interesting music, and let this one slip through. Whodathunkit?

Originally Posted by baalroo

Ok, I don't think the hateful name calling is necessary, but if you don't think Rush is first and foremost a corporate brand at this point you're either willfully ignorant or being disingenuous. It's not an insult, it's just reality. I eat at fast food chains and shop at walmart, but I'm not gonna pretend like they're "mom n pops" just to make myself feel better about it. Have you SEEN a rush concert, or even just ever checked out the ticket prices? I mean, come on, get real. It's Cirque Du Soleil for the aging "rocker" crowd... which is cool with me, I think Cirque Du Soleil is pretty rad. If you're taking anything I'm saying as an insult, that's on you not me pal.

I'm trying to figure out what this category of "corporate band" is that you have in mind. Any band that plays out and gets paid is a corporation, at least informally, and if it's actually signing any contracts, it is so legally. It's just a matter of scale, and scale is a matter of the size of audience. If a band finds an audience, yes, it's going to play big venues, charge for tickets (because audiences consider them worth it), and need a lot of crew and support staff to make it all happen. Does any of that mean the music is any better or any worse? If not, then why the *** does it matter to slap a label like "corporate" on them? They're reaping the benefits of their success, and more power to them. Big money concerts or not, Rush is not in the same category as the pre-programmed, formulaic teen-idol acts that get crammed down the public's throat by producers.

[baalroo]

Originally Posted by hrodbert696

Geez, that kid is a Rolling Stone SENIOR writer? Who's on the junior staff? I guess that someone over there forgot that RS is supposed to have a vendetta against interesting music, and let this one slip through. Whodathunkit?



I'm trying to figure out what this category of "corporate band" is that you have in mind. Any band that plays out and gets paid is a corporation, at least informally, and if it's actually signing any contracts, it is so legally. It's just a matter of scale, and scale is a matter of the size of audience. If a band finds an audience, yes, it's going to play big venues, charge for tickets (because audiences consider them worth it), and need a lot of crew and support staff to make it all happen. Does any of that mean the music is any better or any worse? If not, then why the *** does it matter to slap a label like "corporate" on them? They're reaping the benefits of their success, and more power to them. Big money concerts or not, Rush is not in the same category as the pre-programmed, formulaic teen-idol acts that get crammed down the public's throat by producers.

It doesn't matter to slap a label like "corporate" on them, it's just descriptive. They ARE very large, have a lot of crew and support staff, and charge alot for tickets and when that is the case, usually you will see them in magazines like Rolling Stone. Why? For a few reasons...

First, Rolling Stone is loaded to the gills with untalented visionless writers (of all ages) who simply write about and interview the most obvious people possible in the most obvious way possible.

Second, any band that has to sustain such a large and demanding corporate structure needs all the press they can get, especially with the sort of audience who would pay $80 for a laser light show and think a magazine like Rolling Stone is worth reading.

My statements are intended as a slight on Rolling Stone, because I think their music reporting is TERRIBLE... even though honestly I haven't actually read one in years, it's just been soo bad for soo long why bother when you've got the internet, right?

I have no ill will towards Rush or their fans though. I think they're a mediocre band for sure, but that's really just my own subjective opinion and taste. They certainly are a cut above most of their peers, I think it says a lot that they're still writing and attempting to be relevant rather than just touring around as a tribute band to themselves like a lot of other "aging" rock groups.

I thought I was pretty clear in my original post in saying that I was surprised that they aren't in Rolling Stone all the time, and then asking for clarification as to what makes the story interesting. I can't help it if I consider it my responsibility to try and make my posts as entertaining for others to read as possible, it's just the natural performer in me!

[Rickengeezer]

Originally Posted by baalroo

I have no ill will towards Rush or their fans though. I think they're a mediocre band for sure, but that's really just my own subjective opinion and taste. They certainly are a cut above most of their peers, I think it says a lot that they're still writing and attempting to be relevant rather than just touring around as a tribute band to themselves like a lot of other "aging" rock groups.

Actually, your comment that Rush are "attempting to be relevant" sounds like you could write for RS; send them an application! What exactly is "relevant" music? RS would argue that it is whatever RS writes about. RS for many decades has been a fashion magazine, not a music magazine. Rush and anything remotely prog-related hasn't been "fashionable" in years, hence little discussion in RS, which perceives this music as irrelevant.

There are probably a variety of different dimensions of music that appeal to me (and Rush isn't that high on most of them), but neither "relevance" or Jann Wenner's tastes are among them.

[baalroo]

Originally Posted by Rickengeezer

Actually, your comment that Rush are "attempting to be relevant" sounds like you could write for RS; send them an application! What exactly is "relevant" music? RS would argue that it is whatever RS writes about. RS for many decades has been a fashion magazine, not a music magazine. Rush and anything remotely prog-related hasn't been "fashionable" in years, hence little discussion in RS, which perceives this music as irrelevant.

There are probably a variety of different dimensions of music that appeal to me (and Rush isn't that high on most of them), but neither "relevance" or Jann Wenner's tastes are among them.

That is a good point and I will think on it a bit, but I think either you are misunderstanding my meaning or I am miscommunicating in an attempt to keep things short. When I said "attempting to be relevant" I was comparing them in my mind to many of their contemporaries like The Rolling Stones (as a fitting example) who seem to have no interest in actually creating art, but rather simply tour about playing 40 year old songs in what amounts to a tribute show to themselves.

In my mind there is a major difference between the idea of deeming things as "relevant" or "not relevant," and the concept of a band "attempting to be relevant." They are two different things IMO. The former has to do with, as you say, fashion. The latter has to do with expression and art. Whether Rush is relevant or not is not for me to decide, nor is it really worth discussing due to the subjective and fickle nature of such a concept... it has no bearing on the music anyhow, it's just fashion.

So, I guess the culprit is my lack of ability to express myself with the written word as succinctly as I would like. Then again, I'm not a writer, I'm a musician... and that's probably where the root of the problem with a mag like RS lies. Writers trying to understand music, and musicians trying to write.

[Rickengeezer]

Originally Posted by baalroo

When I said "attempting to be relevant" I was comparing them in my mind to many of their contemporaries like The Rolling Stones (as a fitting example) who seem to have no interest in actually creating art, but rather simply tour about playing 40 year old songs in what amounts to a tribute show to themselves.

Fair enough, although I probably am more likely to cut these "self-tributes" more slack; I am still interested to see if they might have a different take on the music they created some time back. Probably not at a hundred bucks a ticket, though, although maybe I'd buy the DVD. On the other hand, if Miles Davis & John Coltrane suddenly popped out of the ground to play another rendition of "So What", or Beethoven popped out to conduct his 9th Symphony, I'd love to attend and I probably wouldn't be thinking "oh, another Gil Evans cover band" or "geez, this guy hasn't produced anything relevant in over 200 years"!

[baalroo]

Originally Posted by Rickengeezer

Fair enough, although I probably am more likely to cut these "self-tributes" more slack; I am still interested to see if they might have a different take on the music they created some time back. Probably not at a hundred bucks a ticket, though, although maybe I'd buy the DVD. On the other hand, if Miles Davis & John Coltrane suddenly popped out of the ground to play another rendition of "So What", or Beethoven popped out to conduct his 9th Symphony, I'd love to attend and I probably wouldn't be thinking "oh, another Gil Evans cover band" or "geez, this guy hasn't produced anything relevant in over 200 years"!

I don't think that's a fair analogy. If Davis & Coltrane were still alive and playing the same version of So What that they were playing 30 years ago I would be just as disinterested in them as I am in the stones. If they just appeared out of nowhere and picked up where they left off, that would be a completely different story... I would be there in a heartbeat. I would be even MORE interested in a resurrected Davis & Coltrane after they had some time to take in some of the "advances" in music since their deaths. I imagine they would take many inspirations and within a few years would be doing things they had never done before and likely experimenting with incorporating elements from genres that didn't even exist in their time.

For me, music (and art in general) is about expression and communication. If you go 30 years without having a give and take conversation musically with your artistic peers then what you are expressing loses "relevance." So, maybe another way of stating my case is that I consider "relevance" as the flipside of "stagnation." If you're moving forward you are relevant, if you are staying in the same place then you are not. Does that help clarify my meaning at all?

[SactoBass]

The dweebie interviewer in that RS clip is almost a carbon copy of this well-known interview:

YouTube - Chris Farley interviews Paul McCartney