In Reply to: Rabbit Ears..... posted by Todd Krieger on December 26, 2006 at 14:21:32:
Todd, are you having difficulty with sarcasm or hyperbole lately? I don't know, yr response to Finch in the Journey thread below is pretty odd, and all the more so since it seems you didn't realize that DUI was once again going overboard in taking a swipe at me in this thread because I actually think Ringo Starr was a better drummer than Neil Peart.Then this stuff about his being a role model, gee whiz. Never spoken ill of anything or anyone? Hey, this is not stuff I care much about, or I'd take the few seconds to see what a Google search would reveal. As it is, though, having seen two fairly recent threads that quote him, this is simply not true.
Nor is it worth making a big deal about. Worth referencing here? I suppose, with a fair amount of reluctance. But one man's role model, is another's humorless malcontent, whose talent just doesn't count for much when you factor in the enormous bug he seems to have lodged somewhere. And it makes sense when I hear his playing, quite frankly, though I was unaware of his feelings until fairly recently, but I did hear Rush for the first time nearly 30 years ago & have disliked them since.
That much of these little, piddling examples I'm serving up seem to be based on a disdain towards critics should, in all fairness, be mentioned. That someone who takes things as seriously as he apparently does would be affected by criticism from music writers makes sense, but, for Pete's sakes, this band has sold what...25 million records? Is there an arena in North America they can't sell out whenever they please? Call me moron, as has been done elsewhere in this thread, or whatever you like--but the bitterness that flows from this guy, considering the success he's enjoyed...well, I guess he hasn't enjoyed it too much, if what critics have to say has bothered him so much.
When KISS re-formed in 1996 to do their 1977 schtick on a tour that I don't think has even ended to this point, they were interviewed by a writer who they reminded had put them down in print at the time of the original tour, choosing instead to praise the band Television. They were able to laugh about it. This guy's just full of bile.
The following was quoted in a thread on another board last year, from Peart's book "Traveling Music:"
"In an unfortunate contradiction, progressive music was described by ignorant, biased critics as "pretentious", but what a confused value system that terminology represented. Seldom was there a more honest style of music, based on solid principles of musicianship, exploration, and fascination. It did not "pretend" youth, or adolescent passion, like so much pop music written by aging men and women with cynical formulas, and it did not "pretend" rebellion, like so much pop music written by leering mercenaries in motorcycle jackets and careful hairdos."
Defend & promote prog rock all you like, but it would behoove you to kindly acknowledge that if you wish to make a role model out of this guy, the idea that he's never disparaged anyone is not true. Meanwhile, if his definition of 'honesty' here is to be taken seriously...I don't know what the heck that has to do with music. Who he might be talking about is open to speculation, but it seems to me that he could well be referring to, oh, Motown, bubblegum, Philadelphia soul, or, if you wanted to take it to another level, people like Paul McCartney & the Rolling Stones (more on that later). Or you could interpret this to include the writers of standards, since many were not exactly spring chickens when applying their formulas to their pop music, but feigning indignance over this seems pointless, so I won't go there. However, there is the matter of the BRILL BUILDING, specifically Doc Pomus, who I would say pretty much qualifies as someone Peart's putting down here. And I say, who the f*ck is Peart to apply a criticism like that to someone like Doc Pomus?Someone some consider to be a role model, who's never spoken ill of...let's just say I'll take the 'dishonesty' inherent in this pop music Peart sees fit to belittle, because, don't ya know, prog's so...honest and all. Well, there I go, making a big deal out of it, which I already said wasn't worth it. Well, excuse me. Mr. 'By-Tor & the Snow Dog' putting down someone like Doc f*cking Pomus is something I find to be rather nauseating.
The other reference is pretty obvious. He don't like the Bruddas. Unfortunately, to use a term like 'mercenaries' and 'pretend' indicates that he doesn't know what the hell he's talking about. I'll leave it at that.
And I will say that, for better or worse, I like my role models to have some knowledge of the subject matter they choose to write about.
But then, while I have tremendous respect for the concept of taking things seriously, I also think it's important to not take one's self too seriously, and it certainly doesn't hurt to have a sense of humor. These are elements of music I consider to be far more important than technical virtuosity. I hear them in all the stuff Peart sees fit to speak ill of, but I don't hear them in Rush, and never have.
Perhaps I just haven't heard the right recordings. But I gave up long ago. And I can't say I ever cared much, either. People obviously like this band, which I can't say I understand, but let them enjoy whatever it is they enjoy.
I disliked Peart's playing for decades before I read anything much about him. I'm more interested in music than analysis of musicians as human beings based on their music, but it is telling that his playing always struck me as that of an uptight, humorless curmudgeon. So I have to say that reading these things was hardly shocking. That I like the music of plenty of folks who come off, in one way or another, like truly loathsome individuals (which is a far more harsh assessment than I'd direct at Peart based on any of this), is something that sometimes bothers me, but in only rare exceptions to the point of letting it spill over into my assessment of the music. Hey, he could be the nicest guy in the whole world, who knows, though he doesn't exactly come across as warm & fuzzy. His music is so distasteful to me that it'd matter little if he were friggin' Gandhi.
The time spent on this subject, which interests me far less than it would appear, well, this has been going on for years now. If you guys want to change my mind, you're going to have to direct me to a recording that contains elements of music that I happen to like. I have yet to hear this in any Rush recording I've ever heard (first 10 or so albums, some of Live In Rio, some of Replay). Perhaps a moment or two here or there, and immediately overshadowed by what it is that they do 99.9% of the time. I can say with some confidence that it's not likely that my mind will change much.
I can also say with no small certainty that I have no interest whatsoever in trying to change anybody's minds who actually like this stuff. In fact, woodyjeff was posting about something he likes, and it's a shame that this thread went in the direction it did, but the guy who posts about memorabilia, equipment, divorce settlements, how many dozen bootlegs he owns, and snide remarks disparaging certain musicians in bands he claims to love...yet refers to me as a fanatic, somehow felt it necessary to draw this out.
Yawn.
I'll mercifully end this with an excerpt from an interview contained in a 1981 piece that I'll post in its entirety to the chap who so nicely called me a moron. As for you, you should well know that I'm not the only one who has disparaged Peart on this website, and you should well remember that on several occasions you saw fit to mock one of my posts in which I suggested that a certain aspect of a certain band's music involved a drumming skill that I speculated Peart could not easily summon the restraint to execute successfully without lapsing into what it is that he does, which I specifically characterize as something you seem to have a problem with, something I call 'overplaying.' So, here's Peart, role model, speaking ill of a band I can only surmise he has little musical respect for, the Rolling Stones.
Anyone still reading is free to draw their own conclusions and make their own judgments.
CREEM: ``Do you feel guilty at all about making as much money as you do compared to other people who work every bit as hard as you do?''
I equivocated.PEART: ``Uh, no; on the contrary. There's no amount of money that could pay you back for what you go through doing what we do.''
CREEM: ``What about other people?''
PEART: ``Which other people?''
CREEM: ``You know, the ones that work for a living.''
PEART: ``It's not really the same. I mean, I have done ordinary jobs.
You can't go out in from of 10,000 people and make a fool of yourself.
It's really not the same as going to work in a factory every day,
I'm sorry,'' he said, addending his nervous-tic laughter.CREEM: ``But I've heard the Stones slop up some songs beyond belief -- I mean, _the Stones_ -- I heard Keith Richard come in on a chorus of `Honky Tonk Women' where there was no chorus! It was OK.''
PEART: ``They're the people who laugh at their audience,'' explained the patient Peart.
CREEM: ``The Stones?''
PEART: ``Sure they do. You don't think they're good, do you?'' This wasn't a question; it was a statement.
CREEM: ``I think they've written a good song or two.''
PEART: ``You can't say they're good musicians,'' countered Peart, who was evidently talking about some other Stones than the ones I've been
listening to.CREEM: ``They're good musicians. They're astute songwriters.''
PEART: ``Astute? In other words, clever marketing strategists.''
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- Oh, but he's so Talented, and all... - J 15:29:28 12/27/06 (2)
- Revelation..... - Todd Krieger 09:13:04 12/28/06 (1)
- Excuse me - J 09:38:18 12/28/06 (0)