smoe.org mailing lists
ivan@stellysee.de
| From | erhoek@comcast.net |
| Subject | Peart plus |
| Date | Thu, 12 May 2005 18:37:12 +0000 |
[Part 1 text/plain (4.9 kilobytes)]
(View Text in a separate window)
Wow! Thanks,Gregory, for the recap on that Creem article. You did a commendable job of sharing some classic highlights there.
I wonder if Peart has a 29 piece kit like Nick in Freaks and Geeks.
-r
np..Planet of the Popboomerang 2.....most excellent comp of priceless odds and ends ...including 2 unreleased Blue Ash songs. Good one on ya ,Scotty,for putting this together.
> Date: Thu, 12 May 2005 06:17:09 -0700 (PDT)
> From: Hersh Forman <hiforman@yahoo.com>
> To: audities@smoe.org
> Subject: Re: Stones to tour ...
> Message-ID: <20050512131710.60697.qmail@web53007.mail.yahoo.com>
>
> You tryin' to say you like those songs???
>
>
> Who, me? Naaaah ...
>
> This is very reminiscent of one of my favorite pieces from the classic
> *CREEM* era of the late seventies. It was a J. Kordosh piece entitled,
> "Rush: But Why Are They In Such A Hurry?" It was screamingly funny, mostly
> because Kordosh was smart enough to let Neil Peart hoist himself upon his
> own petard; it was impossible after reading that article to see Peart as
> anything other than one of the most pretentious musicians on the planet
> (even by prog-rock standards, which is really saying something). It was so
> good that I can still remember large bits of the article to this day, even
> though I haven't read it in over twenty years. Keep that in mind as I
> attempt to reconstruct this from memory:
>
> The article starts off on the wrong foot in journalistic terms, because
> Kordosh can't get Geddy Lee to accede to an interview. Seems that the
> Gedster had taken offense to a *CREEM* joke piece in an earlier issue that'd
> had a composite rock-star character in it named "Geddy Lee Roth". Peart did
> agree to sit down with Kordosh on the record, and it soon becomes apparent
> in the article that this was mostly because Peart loved the sound of his own
> voice and had a heavy tendency to pedantic ranting. It also became clear
> that, if he had a sense of humor at all, even an electron microscope
> wouldn't have been able to detect it.
>
> Peart began the interview by excoriating Kordosh and his magazine for the
> "libelous and destructive slander" it had perpetrated upon his bass player
> and friend, and suggests in no uncertain terms that *CREEM* should either
> issue a printed apology to Geddy or close its doors in shame. He hints
> darkly that there would be serious repercussions for that particular piece
> of satire. Kordosh, wondering what exactly Rush intended to perpetrate upon
> his employer, asks him if there will be some sort of litigation involved.
> Peart's response, "Are we talking crimes or morals here?" leads Kordosh to
> suggest in the article that Peart, for all his speechifying, clearly spends
> a great deal of time talking out of his fundament.
>
> Moving on, Kordosh muses in his article that he had entered the interview
> puzzled as why Rush appeared so intent onstage upon not making any mistakes.
> "This struck me as strange, since their entire repertoire is a mistake unto
> itself." (The article is full of such snarky comments about Rush's music,
> another one being, "Geddy played -- excuse me, strapped on -- a Rickenbacker
> bass.") He asks Peart why Rush is so hell-bent upon recreating their studio
> material note-for-note onstage. "I mean, I've seen the Stones slop up songs
> beyond belief. I once saw Keith so stoned onstage that he went into the riff
> from "Brown Sugar" right in the middle of "Honky Tonk Women". It was pretty
> cool, actually. It sounded OK."
>
> "You don't like them," Peart says in response. Kordosh writes, "He didn't
> say it like it was a statement of disbelief. He said it like it was a
> command."
>
> "I think that they've written some good songs," replied Kordosh.
>
> "There's nothing to their music at all," insists Peart.
>
> "I think that they know how to connect with people musically," Kordosh
> retorts defensively.
>
> "That's because they're whores."
>
> "A strong word ... a very strong word."
>
> "Yes, but not necessarily a judgmental one. It all depends upon how you feel
> about prostitution. Are the Stones astute marketers? Yes. Do they place any
> intrinsic value upon what it is that they're playing? No."
>
> The article was full of such gems. Peart described the Who as "a bubblegum
> band" and later made some denigrating comment or other about Paul McCartney.
> Kordosh writes, "I didn't say anything in response, but it occurred to me
> that, however harsh a term one wanted to use to describe McCartney's
> mercenary tendencies, the bottom line was that he could write, sing, and
> play music better than Rush and the entire National Hockey League combined."
>
> Now, Hersh, it's not as though I'm saying you're an arrogant snob like Neil
> Peart. It's just that it's impossible for me to read your reply without
> thinking of that long-ago *CREEM* story about Rush in which Peart said much
> the same thing about the Stones as you just did ... only he was deadly
> serious.
>
>
> Gregory Sager
For assistance, please contact
the smoe.org administrators.