Suddenly, I am obsessed with the following song:

I don't know that the lyrics really do much for me. I'm not really from the suburbs, more a small city next to a large one, and access to the large one was a miles walk away. So it could be this:

Or this:

I don't think of myself as a Rush fan, though I did own a copy of Moving Pictures, which is basically a necessity for anyone who has ever played drums. Anyone? Well, yes. Even if you are like me and consider the perfect drum kit to be a four-piece Gretsch or Slingerland from the mid-1960s with a pair of hi-hats, an 18" ride on the left and a 20" ride on the right, close, or even highly-distracted, attention to the above shows that Mr. Peart really has his shit together when it comes to hi-hat/ride/snare/kick interaction. The excess surrounding him is genre-driven, the basics are universal.

Related but different. Something I've wanted to discuss forever but don't know where to start: bands that critics hate that people love that are actually as intelligent as the critics who hate them. Sabbath and Zeppelin got their due, obviously. Rush sort of gets it now, but more in the sense of, "hey, they are still around; respect!"; likewise Depeche Mode. Smashing Pumpkins? If people can accept Geddy's voice, then certainly Billy's too. As a fan I reckon that that concept album is what killed them. It's not that they couldn't escape their ambition. Rather, their concept, or, really, Billy's concept of what ambition should realize was just wrong. There's a really, really, really good album amidst the b-sides of Mellon Collie, but usually one goes "back to basics" after the massive concept album. I wonder what would have happened had they gone the other way…

And just because:

Lastly, why don't you tell me about bands you love that critics hate?

No comments: