• TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
    Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
    Join free Log in
    Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.

oh yeah Geddy doing his thing again

#161
Man, if we are to the point where *Geddy and Alex from RUSH* don't pass the Talkbass sniff test.....I don't know. Flabbergasting.

Not that they are going to go out as Rush w/o Neil, but if The Eagles still fill arenas without Glenn Frey, then Geddy and Alex will do just fine in whatever they do.

Also, if you think they shouldn't play because you're projecting some self imagined ownership of the band on them, that's a you problem....not a them problem.
 
  • Like
Reactions: corvette_br, Malak the Mad, Max Blasto and 5 others
#162
This isn't Rush, because it doesn't sound like Rush at all, to my ears. Danny Carey brings a totally different feel that changes the tune profoundly. I dig it, actually

That said, it is a memorial with and for the Hawkins family. Anything goes in terms of what brings them and the people in the room solace.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BrentSimons, Malak the Mad and BlueTalon
#163
I think that fans get jaded when bands splinter, then everyone tries to tour under some variation of the name.

Meanwhile "The Duke Ellington Orchestra" has continued, without controversy, for almost 50 years past the death of Duke Ellington...

I wonder what would happen if bands were to position a "fully sanctioned sequel" to continue on touring when they were (for whatever reason) no longer able?

Let's say that Geddy and Alex hooked up with Stewart Copeland and guests to tour as "Drag" (a nod to Rush, with plenty of options for humorous misunderstanding since they aren't in a "rush" any more).

What if they started rotating other players in, more and more often - until it was Alex, Geddy and Stewart playing occasional appearances at big shows or opening/closing night of the tour, etc?

If/when Alex's arthritis got to be prohibitive, he could ceremonially "drape the kimono" over their new guitarist, Geddy could hand-over the higher singing, etc.

That gives the fans the opportunity to see the music performed at a high-level by hand-selected successors, eases the rigors of touring for aging stars, and it keeps the crew gainfully employed.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SteveCS
#165
john_g said:
They were asked by Dave (and possibly) others to play to honor Taylor because Taylor was a huge Rush fan, and Geddy and Alex played with them once even while Neil was still alive. Knowing the feeling of losing a bandmate, and drummer, they obliged. Dont think they will be playing a residency in Vegas or anything doing Rush songs.
Click to expand...
Also, at that point Taylor was the first person since Neil joined the band to play with them. Geddy and Alex love the Foo family.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BrentSimons and BlueTalon
#166
groovaholic said:
I wonder what would happen if bands were to position a "fully sanctioned sequel" to continue on touring when they were (for whatever reason) no longer able?
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure we will find out with KISS. But for that matter, Foreigner often tours with zero original members (Mick Jones can't always tour due to health issues), as does Molly Hatchet. Granted, Foreigner and Molly Hatchet aren't Rush, but the point remains. Also, if you think the Stones continuing without Charlie Watts is any different than Rush (hypothetically) continuing without Neil, then that's on you for internalizing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jimmy Howe
#167
Harper said:
I'm pretty sure we will find out with KISS... Also, if you think the Stones continuing without Charlie Watts is any different than Rush (hypothetically) continuing without Neil, then that's on you for internalizing.
Click to expand...
I don't have any problem with any band continuing to tour, but I just might not feel terribly motivated to go see them.

I saw The Who a couple years ago and it was a killer show...but seeing The Who without The Ox was a bit like seeing The Red Hot Chili Peppers without Flea: The songs are still great songs, and decades of experience on stage make for a pretty airtight set - but to enjoy what you have, you need to set aside what you'd can't have.

Still, it's tough to reconcile something that's great in the now with the notion that it might have been greater in the past.

More fundamentally, I think that rock and roll is in danger of suffocating under its own weight.
The "originalists" out there want everything to stay the same - they want to see the same band members, even if those players aren't able to perform at that level any more. They want untouched vintage guitars, even if that means the guitar isn't one of the good ones that got played every night.

The problem is that philosophy keeps the clubhouse doors locked - and we desperately need the next generation to see performing live music as something that they could do and want to do.

But many of the replies in this thread show that exclusionary thinking is running rampant right now.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Malak the Mad, Max Blasto, SteveCS and 1 other person
#168
groovaholic said:
More fundamentally, I think that rock and roll is in danger of suffocating under its own weight.
The "originalists" out there want everything to stay the same - they want to see the same band members, even if those players aren't able to perform at that level any more. They want untouched vintage guitars, even if that means the guitar isn't one of the good ones that got played every night.

The problem is that philosophy keeps the clubhouse doors locked - and we desperately need the next generation to see performing live music as something that they could do and want to do.

But many of the replies in this thread show that exclusionary thinking is running rampant right now.
Click to expand...

Well, sadly(?), it probably won't matter for much longer. For better or worse, rock music isn't the center of the music culture anymore and hasn't been for a long time now.
 
#169
What a weird thread.

The way I see it, they had a few choices when Dave called to ask them about doing this show.

Choice #1 was to say no, we can't do it, we don't want to play old material anymore even though we know that Taylor, the honoree, was a big fan of it.

#2 would be to say yes, but we'll play something neither Taylor nor anyone else in the audience has ever heard.

#3 - say yes and play the music that Taylor would be familiar with.

This does not seem like a high-level decision to me.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BrentSimons, BlueTalon, Hot Rats and 1 other person
#170
Les Fret said:
I have the same feelings about other classic bands who continue forever after one of the key members of the band died, like The Who and especially Queen. Why continue?
Click to expand...
Oh, maybe it's what they really love to do. Those guys don't look ready for their rocking chairs just yet, this is what they've done their whole lives, their buddy dies and now we're taking away their right to play their own music, too. Yikes.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BrentSimons, Malak the Mad, BadJazz and 2 others
#173
groovaholic said:
...
problem is that philosophy keeps the clubhouse doors locked - and we desperately need the next generation to see performing live music as something that they could do and want to do.
...
Click to expand...

Possibly the closest to any statement of relevant fact in the entire thread. Contemporary bands and musicians don't get a look in when 60-year-old blues bands are still headlining the major festivals. Promoters and sponsors are no less complicit.
Nothing wrong with having a slot on the bill, but maybe it's time for festivals to have some kind of 'Vintage', 'Classic' or 'Historic' side-stage, and pass the "main stage headliner" baton on to current bands/acts.
YMMV
 
Last edited:
#174
LBS-bass said:
Oh, maybe it's what they really love to do. Those guys don't look ready for their rocking chairs just yet, this is what they've done their whole lives, their buddy dies and now we're taking away their right to play their own music, too. Yikes.
Click to expand...

Fan opinions are apparently more divided on this than I thought but I hope Geddy and Alex do whatever makes them happy. They are pushing 70 and that is more like 80+ after decades of living the Rock and Roll life. No guarantees at this point. They look good, can play, and still have energy on stage.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Malak the Mad and BlueTalon
#175
SteveCS said:
Nothing wrong with having a slot on the bill, but maybe it's time for festivals to have some kind of 'Vintage', 'Classic' or 'Historic' side-stage, and pass the "main stage headliner" baton on to current bands/acts.
YMMV
Click to expand...

They are in the business of selling tickets. How many rock bands started in the last 20 years are playing stadiums or even arenas? Coachella finally got away from it, but for the longest time even they had a McCartney or a Roger Waters or an AC/DC as headliner. Now they mainly have pop acts because kids, largely, don't care about rock music.
 
#177
I would like to see Geddy to go to create some new material. Rush is done making new songs. Geddy probably has some more music in him. I think what would keep him from doing that is he is a perfectionist and would want to be the one performing it and touring it. He made clear he doesn't want to tour.

Geddy took care of himself, and could still sing to the end of touring. Some singers lost it, and still tour county fairs.

Geddy can still play bass. I would love for him to mentor a younger band with talent that needs refinement.

I am glad he is not doing the Ringo Star thing.
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back