Neil Peart

[Zumba_Zumba]

Yes paradiddler, that was my first Rush concert. That video has been in bootleg circulation for almost 10 years. Like I posted earlier, Primus opened for them and the entire night was incredible.

Neil was very aggressive that night. They opened with Dreamline and the entire show just cranked forward. I was able to see his footwork and saw the foot trigger tambourine use during Nobody's Hero. When he unveiled the 3/4 waltz tribal pattern, it blew my mind. The palace was going nuts. I don't think a mass audience has ever seen that type of stuff before.

I have to say, the best solo I ever saw from him was during TFE at an ampitheatre down the road called Pine Knob (Now called Energy Povider for Neighborhood Homes Music Theatre). During the Momo dance party and then scars part, the entire crowd clapped along (all standing). When he was done, the crowd cheered for, I kid you not, 5 or so minutes. It was quite simply the greatest solo and show of homage to a long standing drum legend. Geddy and Alex came out clapping too and Geddy asked the crowd "how about that drummer guy?"

Wish that was on video.

[paradiddler]

Yes paradiddler, that was my first Rush concert. That video has been in bootleg circulation for almost 10 years. Like I posted earlier, Primus opened for them and the entire night was incredible.

Neil was very aggressive that night. They opened with Dreamline and the entire show just cranked forward. I was able to see his footwork and saw the foot trigger tambourine use during Nobody's Hero. When he unveiled the 3/4 waltz tribal pattern, it blew my mind. The palace was going nuts. I don't think a mass audience has ever seen that type of stuff before.

I have to say, the best solo I ever saw from him was during TFE at an ampitheatre down the road called Pine Knob (Now called Energy Povider for Neighborhood Homes Music Theatre). During the Momo dance party and then scars part, the entire crowd clapped along (all standing). When he was done, the crowd cheered for, I kid you not, 5 or so minutes. It was quite simply the greatest solo and show of homage to a long standing drum legend. Geddy and Alex came out clapping too and Geddy asked the crowd "how about that drummer guy?"

Wish that was on video.

Hi Zumba.

Great stuff from you! See, that's what irks me about the Different Stages solo. It just seems like he was off that night, and from what you're telling me, during the same tour he had one of his best performances! Maybe that one should have been included on Different Stages instead. You read my review of that performance yet?

Anyways, thanks for reading!

[CavGator]

The tambourine can be attached to a floor bracket that is played by a BD pedal. LP makes one Gajate Bracket I think. I have one and use it for that very reason (I play the tribal waltz part in my solo too). 35 bucks or so.

The RRHOF is getting slammed pretty hard here. I will say that Rush should be in there. But I have been there a couple of times. The section with Jimi Hendrix's childhood artwork and lyrics is mind blowing. The mini theatre also played never-before-seen footage of Jimi in concert. It was so incredibly powerful. I could only imagine what that was like in the first five rows in concert.

The section that had memorabilia from blues greats choked me up a bit. This is where it all started. These poor men had only their clothes on their backs, a guitar, an amp and a single suit case. They travelled town to town looking to play. The RRHOF may be far from perfect, but then again, when being judged by people that belong to a discussion forum, what is?

Zumba, the problem many of us prog rock lovers have against the R&R HoF is that they have a HUGE problem with us and our preferred genre. Rush is nothing more than the latest example of intentional exclusion. Dream Theater will be the next pariah.

According to Bill Bruford in his autobiography (who is better suited to comment on this than him?), the Powers That Be (Christgau, Marsh, Wenner and those influenced by Lester Bangs) convict progressive rock on three counts:

1. Generally, their lyrics are not political. Indeed, many do not HAVE lyrics (hence their hatred of jazz fusion);

2. They overemphasize what they consider high culture (classical music), rather than jazz, R&B and blues. In their eyes, proggers are attempting to "educate" the unwashed masses with higher quality music, which would make them elitists, and;

3. They were extremely successful commercially, in spite of the scathing reviews.

If a musician is considered a technical virtuoso, well trained and versed in the theory of music (can sight read, etc), they will be looked askance by those who measure a musician's credibility by:

a. Growing up on the wrong side of the tracks, thereby establishing street credibility;

b. Being angry and rebellious, thereby reflecting the desired political positions;

c. Working their way up the music ladder not through the church or university (formal training), but instead, through the garage (preferably after quitting high school), to the club scene, to the grind of the road, to major stardom. And then again, even reaching major stardom can be a burden. The Arbitors of Greatness tend to prefer the Iggy Pop/Ramones/Patti Smith model of commercial poverty, in favor of "artistic purity," as they would define it.

These frustrated musicians who became hack writers for the likes of Rolling Stone and Creem couldn't cut it with the axe, keyboard, kit, horn or mike, so they appoint themselves as the Gatekeepers of the Sanctuary, and will jealously guard their preferences. This is why artists are being inducted 2-3 times, and bands that couldn't open for the prog giants of yesterday and today are being inducted. They attempt to dismiss progressive rock as a pop fad, akin to the likes of the Spice Girls and Britney Spears.

This will change sooner or later. Yes, ELP, Genesis, King Crimson, Jethro Tull and Rush will eventually get in, I think, but if they don't let your heart not suffer. It will be a badge of honor NOT to get in if they retain their ridiculous criteria.

Remember, they waited until he died to finally induct Frank Zappa, probably the most influential musician, bandleader and arranger of the last 50 years. There are your standards.

[michael drums]

The tambourine can be attached to a floor bracket that is played by a BD pedal. LP makes one Gajate Bracket I think. I have one and use it for that very reason (I play the tribal waltz part in my solo too). 35 bucks or so.

The RRHOF is getting slammed pretty hard here. I will say that Rush should be in there. But I have been there a couple of times. The section with Jimi Hendrix's childhood artwork and lyrics is mind blowing. The mini theatre also played never-before-seen footage of Jimi in concert. It was so incredibly powerful. I could only imagine what that was like in the first five rows in concert.

The section that had memorabilia from blues greats choked me up a bit. This is where it all started. These poor men had only their clothes on their backs, a guitar, an amp and a single suit case. They travelled town to town looking to play. The RRHOF may be far from perfect, but then again, when being judged by people that belong to a discussion forum, what is?

Well, ZZ...

I call it like I see it. Whether it's on a discussion forum, in a newspaper, or in a magazine, I exercise my freedom of speech and WILL judge the criteria for election of the R&RHoF. If it's wrong...well, I'll say so.

I'm not saying that they don't have credible examples of who they HAVE elected, 'cause we all know that they are filled with many many worthy rock bands and acts that certainly deserve their place.

But to leave out a band like Rush, after what they've accomplished, well...I cry foul. And Rush isn't the only one either, as has been mentioned above. There are others that deserve it just as much.

Oops!

See...I get a little off topic , too. :-|

Sorry 'bout that. Hope we can get back to the specific topic...The Professor! ;-)

[mattsmith]

This Hall of Fame discussion is interesting, but in all due respect seems beyond any prescribed formula or conspiracy based agenda.

One poster has stated that having hits was a requirement, whereas I can't recall the Sex Pistols or Miles Davis ever getting close, past SP's #93 US Billboard showing with Pretty Vacant, and Miles's Kind of Blue taking 40 years to go platinum.

Bruford cites their hatred for jazz fusion, but Miles, who spent the lion's share of his career as a mainstream jazz musician, got in not for things like Birth of the Cool or ESP, but for ground breaking jazz fusion like Bitches Brew, Jack Johnson and On the Corner.

Bruford also cites the necessity for anger and rebellion, yet the deserving Jethro Tull is not in, and covered the rebellion angle pretty well. Remenber the lyrics Jesus saves but he better save himself? That was probably very serious stuff in 1971.

Besides, even if there has been bias /that will most likely soon be rectified/, isn't it going to make more sense for ELP to get in first, since they were sort of the beginnings of that genre, the innovators if you will?

Interesting sidebar: Zappa made the Down Beat Jazz Hall of Fame a full decade before the Rock HOF got around to it.

In my opinion, I don't see bias against Rush as much as I see a random and haphazard voting criterion, that blows around in the wind, with no special purpose one way or the other. I also understand that's no way to run a railroad.

[CavGator]

Bruford cites their hatred for jazz fusion, but Miles, who spent the lion's share of his career as a mainstream jazz musician, got in not for things like Birth of the Cool or ESP, but for ground breaking jazz fusion like Bitches Brew, Jack Johnson and On the Corner.

I think Miles got in because of his pioneering efforts in the 1950s, as well as his influence. It was elected in SPITE of Bitches Brew and his foray into jazz fusion.

Bruford also cites the necessity for anger and rebellion, yet the deserving Jethro Tull is not in, and covered the rebellion angle pretty well. Remenber the lyrics Jesus saves but he better save himself? That was probably very serious stuff in 1971.

Actually, it was rather tame, compared to the hypercharged political lyrics of the day. Iconoclastic lyrics were rather passe. Indeed, if you read Jimmy Guterman's scathing 50 Worst Albums in Rock, he cites Aqualung as among the worst BECAUSE of what he perceived as infantile rants on religion, and Guterman is very, very much in the Bangs/Marsh/Christgau mold.

Besides, even if there has been bias /that will most likely soon be rectified/, isn't it going to make more sense for ELP to get in first, since they were sort of the beginnings of that genre, the innovators if you will?

When pigs fly.

Interesting sidebar: Zappa made the Down Beat Jazz Hall of Fame a full decade before the Rock HOF got around to it.

There is a reason for that.

In my opinion, I don't see bias against Rush as much as I see a random and haphazard voting criterion, that blows around in the wind, with no special purpose one way or the other. I also understand that's no way to run a railroad.

As far as progressive rock is concerned, the giants of the genre have LONG passed the 25-year barrier for their debut album, and only Pink Floyd (not really considered progressive rock, with their blues-based, plodding rhythm) is in. None of the others get as much as a sniff. In their day, however, they were as big as the Stones, Zeppelin, the Who and Elton John, by largely the SAME audience, as evidence by their platinum sales and stadium sellouts. The audience was not a mindless teeny bopper crowd. This drove the Powers That Be crazy!

IMO, Rush is painted with the same brush: In their eyes, Rush is hyper-talented, self-indulgent, malice free, and worst of all, very successful. I think their chance of induction is somewhat enhanced by the relative newness of the band (compared to the earlier giants of the genre).

Who knows, if Peart simply was content to keep the beat, rather than be melodic and creative, they might have gotten in by now. But then again, they wouldn't be Rush, either, would they?

I have no doubt that Geddy, Alex and Neil are crying about being snubbed -- all the way to the bank. They are no passing fad. They earned their money doing what they believed was right.

[mattsmith]

I think Miles got in because of his pioneering efforts in the 1950s, as well as his influence. It was elected in SPITE of Bitches Brew and his foray into jazz fusion..

It's a rock and roll hall of fame. Kind of Blue and Milestones doesn't make that happen. And if anyone still believed such a contention, all they had to do was view the Miles award ceremony where nothing but 70s styled fusion was played with a dash of Marcus Miller thrown in, while Herbie Hancock was there not to reintroduce the 2nd classic quintet, but to show his Miles related fusion influences. No, Miles Davis got into the rock and roll hall of fame because some of those 70s bands were among the most creative and influential rock configurations of their time. I am also aware that most don't get how Louie Armstrong qualified either, when his widespread popularization of Western African syncopation is the primary reason why rock vocalists /and everyone else from the past 100 years/ sings the way they do. His umbrella was too large to ignore.

Actually, it was rather tame, compared to the hypercharged political lyrics of the day. Iconoclastic lyrics were rather passe. Indeed, if you read Jimmy Guterman's scathing 50 Worst Albums in Rock, he cites Aqualung as among the worst BECAUSE of what he perceived as infantile rants on religion, and Guterman is very, very much in the Bangs/Marsh/Christgau mold...

You're obviously not from the American South, where even so called infantile religious lyrics are as confrontational as they come. Southerners have seen widespread political upheavel time and time again, but messing with the religious end can get you in a whale of hurt. Uneven urban critics like Guterman most certainly don't understand things like that. Besides, as many people over the years, have been laughing at Jimmy Guterman's overreaching assesments as have admired them. He's not exactly a poster child for the last word, that's for sure. Moreover, I would doubt that his vote influences no one else, that is if he still even has one.

When pigs fly...
If anything has been proven by this dialouge it is to prove that no one truly understands what those people are thinking. And yes, that works towards the detriment of Peart and company.

There is a reason for that..
Re: Zappa...Yeah I know. I am aware of few jazz musicians who don't at least have the complete Lather sessions.

As far as progressive rock is concerned, the giants of the genre have LONG passed the 25-year barrier for their debut album, and only Pink Floyd (not really considered progressive rock, with their blues-based, plodding rhythm) is in. None of the others get as much as a sniff. In their day, however, they were as big as the Stones, Zeppelin, the Who and Elton John, by largely the SAME audience, as evidence by their platinum sales and stadium sellouts. The audience was not a mindless teeny bopper crowd. This drove the Powers That Be crazy!

IMO, Rush is painted with the same brush: In their eyes, Rush is hyper-talented, self-indulgent, malice free, and worst of all, very successful. I think their chance of induction is somewhat enhanced by the relative newness of the band (compared to the earlier giants of the genre).

Who knows, if Peart simply was content to keep the beat, rather than be melodic and creative, they might have gotten in by now. But then again, they wouldn't be Rush, either, would they?

I have no doubt that Geddy, Alex and Neil are crying about being snubbed -- all the way to the bank. They are no passing fad. They earned their money doing what they believed was right.

Your assesments about the popularity of early prog rock seem to be dead on true, but I still don't observe the agendas some of the rest of you do. I would suspect in the next 2-3 years, there will be a kind of prog. rock induction scenario that will include ELP, Tull and Yes at the same ceremony. Another couple of years will follow, then you will see Rush.

And if pigs do fly, then hey, it's rock and roll.

[KlarkKent]

This Hall of Fame discussion is interesting, but in all due respect seems beyond any prescribed formula or conspiracy based agenda.

One poster has stated that having hits was a requirement, whereas I can't recall the Sex Pistols or Miles Davis ever getting close, past SP's #93 US Billboard showing with Pretty Vacant, and Miles's Kind of Blue taking 40 years to go platinum.


Actually, the Sex Pistols did have a major hit in "God Save the Queen" in May 1977, a single which sparked a lot of upheaval and social irritation. They released this song during Queen Elizabeth's Jubilee celebrations--something which the patriotic public took enormous offensive at--almost like giving the Royal Family a big, fat, blatant "V" sign. The song made it to number one on the New Musical Express charts in the UK, but the song was slighted at #2 on the official BBC UK Singles Chart. In fact, I think some printings of the BBC chart listings back then left the slot blank as a way to censor the band.

If you want to talk about blistering lyrics, then I agree with CavGator about his "tame" comment. Mattsmith makes a good point about the American South and religion, however; I lived there for a time and some people in the North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia corridor possess a religious attitude that dates back to the 1950s. Extremely conservative and, depending on your point of view, amazingly close minded.

Punks in England, though, really ruffled feathers--and followed not too far off of 1971. A lot of the English were angered by John Lydon's (aka Johnny Rotten) satire on the Royal Family ("God save the Queen/She ain't no human being/And there's no future in England's dreaming"), and he was even jumped and knifed by some National Front lads who took a racist pro-British/pro-white view of English life and were thus angered by Rotten's attack on the icon of Englishness.

I think a lot of lyrics coming out of the punk and post-punk scene in England were a lot more severe than Jethro Tull--they sort of took the political critique in some prog rock, like Tull, and raised the volume level well past 11. Think of Marxist/Christian-inspired The Housemartins, a very popular pop band from the North of England, who, in 1986, wrote in the song "Get Up Off Our Knees":

Famines will be famines, banquets will be banquets
Some spend winter in a palace, some spend it in blankets
Don’t wag your fingers at them and turn to walk away
Don’t shoot someone tomorrow that you can shoot today

Combine such lyrics with the ironic "Christmas Message" from the band printed in the sleeve of their London 0, Hull 4 album: "For too long the ruling class have enjoyed an extended New Years Eve Party, whilst we can only watch, faces pressed up against the glass. The Housemartins say: 'Don't try gate crashing a party full of bankers. Burn the house down!' Take Jesus - Take Marx - Take Hope."

Extremely controversial, particularly at the height of the Reagan/Thatcher era. This, of course, does not lessen or diminish the impact of Tull's lyric in 1971 (and if we want to talk 1971, then Kubrick's shocking A Clockwork Orange, which was in theatres in England then, would also be a good gauge of serious/alarming stuff), but the Pistols inspired a whole new era of charged criticism that can indeed make Jethro Tull and others look kittenishly tame.

(Another good example: Morrissey released the song "Margaret on the Guillotine" in 1987, a Smiths song that never made it to Strangeways Here We Come and so appeared on Moz's Viva Hate solo debut: a quiet melody that paints a shocking attack on Thatcher, which provoked a police raid of Morrissey's flat. Talk about art causing some serious problems and rattling the public/authorities.)

These are just some interesting examples, though sorry for the non sequitur--not exactly the topic of the thread. But Mattsmith's and CavGator's exchange on this particular issue was interesting.

Poor ol' Rush: never getting full respect. An old friend of mine used to be a roadie for Rush (in the mid-to-late 1970s) and knew the band very well. I remember him telling me stories about Neil Peart being a major bookworm, always off reading, and Peart and Alex also jamming on Zeppelin tunes for fun during rehearsals until Geddy would scold them. According to my friend, Geddy was a bit of an egomaniac--bit controlling, full of himself. Neil and Alex were the "nice ones."

[KlarkKent]

It's a rock and roll hall of fame. Kind of Blue and Milestones doesn't make that happen.

I don't know--have you heard Miles's quintet perform "So What" in Berlin in September 1964?? Tony Williams on drums at age 17, and this version of "So What" sounds like speed metal compared to the original release on Kind of Blue. Ha!

[Pavlos]

If anything has been proven by this dialouge it is to prove that no one truly understands what those people are thinking. And yes, that works towards the detriment of Peart and company.


I'm not going to pretend I totally know what they're thinking, but my guess is that the committee that dictates what the RRHoF does is purely motivated by doing what they think will bring money and attention to the hall, not by serving some higher purpose to honor the legacy of rock.

By staying within the commonly accepted boundaries defined by the genre of Rock & Roll they limit themselves to one segment of the buying public. But by branching out and including acts from Dance, Rap, Hip Hop, Jazz and Blues genres they will be able to suck more $$$$ from different portions of the general public that might otherwise not be interested in trekking to Cleveland to see the museum.

Of course this is now getting off topic and becoming a thread about why the R&RHoF sucks. I've been there and I found it only mildly interesting. I think pretty much everyone can agree Rush should be in their by this point in time.

Mojo Nixon's song "Rock & Roll Hall of Lame" nailed what they're all about pretty well, imo.

[mattsmith]

Actually, the Sex Pistols did have a major hit in "God Save the Queen" in May 1977, a single which sparked a lot of upheaval and social irritation. They released this song during Queen Elizabeth's Jubilee celebrations--something which the patriotic public took enormous offensive at--almost like giving the Royal Family a big, fat, blatant "V" sign. The song made it to number one on the New Musical Express charts in the UK, but the song was slighted at #2 on the official BBC UK Singles Chart. In fact, I think some printings of the BBC chart listings back then left the slot blank as a way to censor the band.
Yeah, I thought about God Save the Queen before I made my comment about hits. But as I tell my European friends all the time, hits over there mean very little in the bigger picture, because the world view of making it starts and stops with success in the US. And that has nothing to do with what's fair, that's just is what it is. In the bigger scheme of things a #2 hit in the UK only equates to having a hit in Texas. As for queen related controversies, that too is of no consequence in America where most of the HOF voters reside. Now if those guys had pulled that stunt with Princess Diana, then you would have had something. The American critics who have so much to do with HOF voting simply don't think Europe exists until it visits America. That's the way it's always been.[/QUOTE]

Mattsmith makes a good point about the American South and religion, however; I lived there for a time and some people in the North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia corridor possess a religious attitude that dates back to the 1950s. Extremely conservative and, depending on your point of view, amazingly close minded..

I was born in North Carolina and spent years there. I live in Georgia now. Try 1550s. I had a friend in middle school who had a 1970s era picture in his den of his high school aged mom burning Alice Cooper records at a church rally. And in Alabama and Mississippi its even more conservative than that. In the south, for a large number of people, protection of literal biblical interpretation comes before all things, including life itself.

I think a lot of lyrics coming out of the punk and post-punk scene in England were a lot more severe than Jethro Tull--they sort of took the political critique in some prog rock, like Tull, and raised the volume level well past 11.

Tull was also far more popular in their time. My parents claim that Aqualung was everywhere, whereas punk never really gained a foothold in farm country. As for Clockwork Orange, that was banned in the rural areas too.

I'm not going to pretend I totally know what they're thinking, but my guess is that the committee that dictates what the RRHoF does is purely motivated by doing what they think will bring money and attention to the hall, not by serving some higher purpose to honor the legacy of rock.

I think there is much to be said for this opinion. But if that's true then how is Rush being hurt? Apparently, there is this extremely vocal, if not rabid core group that make a lot of noise for these guys, Peart especially. A hundred or so Rush devotees could walk around the HOF building in Cleveland holding signs, and it would be on the MTV News in 10 minutes, followed by Stephen Colbert's inevitable parody.

By staying within the commonly accepted boundaries defined by the genre of Rock & Roll they limit themselves to one segment of the buying public. But by branching out and including acts from Dance, Rap, Hip Hop, Jazz and Blues genres they will be able to suck more $$$$ from different portions of the general public that might otherwise not be interested in trekking to Cleveland to see the museum..

Broad parameters also protect an ethical consideration more important than money. Keeping the parameters for induction broad is what helps get Rush inducted, not the other way around. You never want someone officially defining commonly accepted boundaries. Too much of that is nothing but personal opinion anyway, and is open to real predjudice and class warfare. Just think of all the groups who believe that nothing came before Elvis, the real stuff ended with the death of John Lennon, or that all rap is about nothing but shooting cops and slapping your mama.

Of course this is now getting off topic and becoming a thread about why the R&RHoF sucks. I've been there and I found it only mildly interesting. I think pretty much everyone can agree Rush should be in their by this point in time.


Threads get off direct topic all the time, and in this case I think it's fine since HOF induction tying into the Peart legacy, has been at the core of Peart related discussions for the past three years or more. We all know that Peart has few listeners with a middle ground opinion. Most either see him as an icon on the same level as Rich, Williams, Elvin Jones and Krupa, or can't believe how overrated he is. I've always thought the truth was somewhere in the middle, which may explain why this interesting Rush HOF drama continues to play out like it does.

And yeah that's an opinion too.

[DrumEatDrum]

Critism of the R&R HOF is not just Rush related.

best summed up by:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rock_and_Roll_Hall_of_Fame

The main criticism is that the nomination process is controlled by a few individuals who are not even musicians, such as founder Jann Wenner, former foundation director Suzan Evans, and writer Dave Marsh, reflecting their tastes rather than the views of the rock world as a whole.

A more detailed artilce here:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,1966,00.html

I am a veteran music journalist who spent two years on the Hall's nominating committee and saw from the inside some of the politics at work.

"I saw how artists were sometimes chosen for nomination because of their affiliations with the directors of the Hall and others were shot down without so much as a moment of consideration simply because some people in that room didn't like them personally or because an artist had bad blood with someone calling the shots.

"At one point Suzan Evans lamented the choices being made because there weren't enough big names that would sell tickets to the dinner. That was quickly remedied by dropping one of the doo-wop groups being considered in favor of a 'name' artist.

http://www.projo.com/music/content/lb_rock_hall_of_lame_12-17-07_K4893CI_v7.133fe6d.html
As for the nine nominees offered up earlier this year, which also included Donna Summer, Chic, Afrika Bambaataa and the Beastie Boys: “I couldn’t vote for any of ’em,” said Joel Selvin, longtime music writer at the San Francisco Chronicle and a former member of the Rock Hall of Fame nominating committee.

“It doesn’t matter who they elected,” Selvin said. “This thing has sunk to a shameful level of manipulation and behind-the-scenes chicanery. If it were a public institution — which it is — it would be held up for total ridicule.”


Not has Rush been left out, but so has Kiss (who've outsold most bands), Journey, The Moodly Blues, and a number of other high profile, successful and influencial rock bands, while someone like Madonna gets in, no problem.

It's one thing to over look a particular favorite, like Rush, but the list of questionable choices goes on, and HOF has done little to clear up the controversy that surrounds it, including repeated slammings from people who used to be involved in with the committee.

But to keep this on topic:
You gotta love the red kit:
http://www.matadorrecords.com/matablog/wp-content/uploads/2008/10/neil2.jpg

[Pavlos]

Critism of the R&R HOF is not just Rush related. .....

.....But to keep this on topic:
You gotta love the red kit:
http://www.matadorrecords.com/matablog/wp-content/uploads/2008/10/neil2.jpg

I agree on both counts. Someone want to start a "what's wrong with the R&RHoF?" thread?

And I always liked Neil's ludwig phase best. I thought they looked and sounded great.

[CavGator]

It's a rock and roll hall of fame. Kind of Blue and Milestones doesn't make that happen. And if anyone still believed such a contention, all they had to do was view the Miles award ceremony where nothing but 70s styled fusion was played with a dash of Marcus Miller thrown in, while Herbie Hancock was there not to reintroduce the 2nd classic quintet, but to show his Miles related fusion influences. No, Miles Davis got into the rock and roll hall of fame because some of those 70s bands were among the most creative and influential rock configurations of their time. I am also aware that most don't get how Louie Armstrong qualified either, when his widespread popularization of Western African syncopation is the primary reason why rock vocalists /and everyone else from the past 100 years/ sings the way they do. His umbrella was too large to ignore.

Well, if that was the case, then I am awaiting the induction of the Tony Williams Lifetime, Mahavishnu Orchestra, Return To Forever, Weather Report, etc. Miles was a pioneer.

You're obviously not from the American South, where even so called infantile religious lyrics are as confrontational as they come. Southerners have seen widespread political upheavel time and time again, but messing with the religious end can get you in a whale of hurt. Uneven urban critics like Guterman most certainly don't understand things like that. Besides, as many people over the years, have been laughing at Jimmy Guterman's overreaching assesments as have admired them. He's not exactly a poster child for the last word, that's for sure. Moreover, I would doubt that his vote influences no one else, that is if he still even has one.

Matt, I was:

1. Born in Mobile, Alabama, in 1956;
2. Grew up in Pensacola, the belt buckle of the bible belt;
3. Went to segregated elementary schools and still remember separate restrooms and drinking fountains;
4. Lived in Pensacola during MLK's assassination;
5. Endured the violent race riots that followed;
6. Absolutely surrounded by Pentacostals who were indifferent to Aqualung. They were still to busy calling the Beatles evil and playing their records backwards to get satanic messages.

You are from the South, but you are also too young to remember when Aqualung came out. Take my word for it. It did not spark an outrage in the South.

Guterman is only one voice, but his voice absolutely reflects that of the others in his disdain for progressive rock. This was simply another vehicle for him to attack Tull. If it wasn't religion, it would be something else (he slammed Thick As a Brick as well).

Also, please note that I said GENERALLY in the previous post. I did not say universally. As in everything else, there are exceptions to the rule.

[Anne Beeche]

I'm still digging the drum tone in Power Windows and Hold Your Fire. That kick drum is simply awesome. Ludwig, right?

[DrumEatDrum]

I'm still digging the drum tone in Power Windows and Hold Your Fire. That kick drum is simply awesome. Ludwig, right?

On Power Windows, Neil still had the famoud red Tama kit.

For Hold Your Fire, he switched to Ludwig.

[paradiddler]

Hello all.

We have arrived! Neil Peart's #1 drum solo has been posted at TheParadiddler.com. Here's a link to the article:

Neil Peart Solo #1 (http://theparadiddler.com/2009/04/21/neil-peart-solo-number-one-snakes-and-arrows-2008/)

I hope you enjoyed the ranking. Let us all know what you think!

[supermac]

Been a big fan of Neil's for years and years, even though I mostly listen to other players these days.

For me, his best solo appeared on the Rush In Rio DVD, in terms of content, excitement and flow.

The Snakes and Arrow solo, which I saw live here on the UK, for me didn't hit the mark like some of his previous work.

Incidentally, a guy I work with recently ran me off a huge pile of Rush bootlegs which I more or less flicked through, but Neil's solo from the mid 80s (Grace Under Pressure Tour), and another from the early 90s (Presto tour) are worth checking out if you get the chance.

[Zumba_Zumba]

Paradiddler, thank you for writing your reviews. They are fun to read. I do have to respectfully disagree with the #1 though. His momo's party and the electronic stuff after was pretty weak. Even the waltz. Considering what Thomas Lang has done with electronics, it seems Neil would either not go there or at least have something comparable. The electronic stuff made zero sense to me at least. If a nobody like me finds it lacking then that is the least of Neil's worries ;)

THere are some great bootlegs out there. I heard one from Roll the Bones. Neil started on the electronic kit which he stated in his Anatomy dvd that he never did that. That solo was killer. The drum sound was the best I ever heard from him. On Freewill for the band solo section, he dropped a stick during the ride pattern (WAY faster live) and he was just playing the dotted eighth bass/snare. After retrieving another stick, he just lays in with fury. That bootleg sort of immortalized Neil for me.

[michael drums]

Hello all.

We have arrived! Neil Peart's #1 drum solo has been posted at TheParadiddler.com. Here's a link to the article:

Neil Peart Solo #1 (http://theparadiddler.com/2009/04/21/neil-peart-solo-number-one-snakes-and-arrows-2008/)

I hope you enjoyed the ranking. Let us all know what you think!

Sorry, Omar. But...

I will ALWAYS and forever be partial to the Exit: Stage Left solo in YYZ. Loved the live recording of that with his Tamas. It's my all-time favorite of his recorded solos, and I'm not about to change my choice any time in the next 2 or 3 lifetimes. ;-)

But, I do want to convey my appreciation to you for your continued postings of your NP solo series, here on DW.

Thank You very much!

michael drums :-)

[pbm2112]

Guy's and girls - I have a gig coming up and am struggling with the first drum solo in YYZ. I just can't figure it out... it sort of sounds like triplets rolling down the toms, but with an accent just before he moves on to the next tom? It's a classic Peart lick, there's loads of it in The Weapon too. If anyone can help me I'd really appreciate it. I LOVE that fill and have a month to nail it!!! THANKS!!

http://i165.photobucket.com/albums/u48/pbm2112/PFFLYER-1.jpg

[paradiddler]

Guy's and girls - I have a gig coming up and am struggling with the first drum solo in YYZ. I just can't figure it out... it sort of sounds like triplets rolling down the toms, but with an accent just before he moves on to the next tom? It's a classic Peart lick, there's loads of it in The Weapon too. If anyone can help me I'd really appreciate it. I LOVE that fill and have a month to nail it!!! THANKS!!

http://i165.photobucket.com/albums/u48/pbm2112/PFFLYER-1.jpg

Pbm,

That gig sounds like it's gonna be a blast! Wish I could be there, but alas, I'm all the way in Atlanta, GA, quite the ways from you! Anyhow, I believe I have the explanation on the fill you're having trouble with.

You're thinking triplets, but it's actually the single stroke four rudiment! He starts on the snare, then, as you know, goes down each tom until he hits the crash (you know that part, I'm sure). On the snare, the dynamics for each stroke is about the same - same volume for each stroke. But on each tom going down, each of the four strokes crescendos, the next note louder than the previous one, with the fourth stroke being the loudest. What makes the roll sound so smooth as Neil transitions to the next tom is that as soon as he hits the fourth stroke the loudest, he's already striking the next tom softly to begin the next single stroke four crescendo. Of course, this is happening very fast, which is why it sounds so smooth.

So the short of it is that it's a single stroke four rudiment, first stroke softest, last stroke loudest, next tom first stroke softest, last stroke loudest, and so on. If done right (that is, the way Neil makes it sound!), when you're on the lowest tom it should sound very impactful and loud as you strike that last note of the single stroke four, then crashing at the end.

Hopefully I explained it ok. Give it a shot, play it out, and let us know if it sounds right to you. I'm really curious!

I invite anybody who thinks I'm wrong to correct me (or those who think I'm right to confirm me!), but I think (strongly) that this is what Neil plays on that section of YYZ.

Have fun!

[paradiddler]

Paradiddler, thank you for writing your reviews. They are fun to read. I do have to respectfully disagree with the #1 though. His momo's party and the electronic stuff after was pretty weak. Even the waltz. Considering what Thomas Lang has done with electronics, it seems Neil would either not go there or at least have something comparable. The electronic stuff made zero sense to me at least. If a nobody like me finds it lacking then that is the least of Neil's worries ;)

THere are some great bootlegs out there. I heard one from Roll the Bones. Neil started on the electronic kit which he stated in his Anatomy dvd that he never did that. That solo was killer. The drum sound was the best I ever heard from him. On Freewill for the band solo section, he dropped a stick during the ride pattern (WAY faster live) and he was just playing the dotted eighth bass/snare. After retrieving another stick, he just lays in with fury. That bootleg sort of immortalized Neil for me.

Hey Zumba,

I know the exact bootleg you're talking about. Yes, that solo is incredible, and I wish it got published. Yeah, I think Neil got angry that he dropped his stick, but we're all glad he did 'cause that lick he played right after was killer.

I'll have to disagree with you though on the #1 solo, although I see what you're saying. Heck, nobody's Thomas Lang in that regard, so Neil can only do what's within the context of the solo he's trying to create. To me, his solos are as creative as anybody's, even if he's not as speedy as others. I did find the electronics stuff most creative, different than anything he's done.

Anyways, it's all good! Glad you enjoyed the articles. Drum on!

[Loui]

That solo from Roll the Bones is Neil Peart in essence.

[andSometimesY]

Of course Neil isn't the most technically proficient drummer on the planet, but he is a worthy inspiration. The man has chops, speed, and creativity. He was the reason I started playing drums. I think that the wave of drummers influenced by someone like Peart will turn out a lot better than those influenced by Barker or Jordison, so I don't understand the Peart bashing.

[pbm2112]

Of course Neil isn't the most technically proficient drummer on the planet, but he is a worthy inspiration. The man has chops, speed, and creativity. He was the reason I started playing drums. I think that the wave of drummers influenced by someone like Peart will turn out a lot better than those influenced by Barker or Jordison, so I don't understand the Peart bashing.

I guess this get's to the heart of what is wrong with some players these days - it's all about faster, harder, and if you can't do JoJo Mayer push/pull to 350bpm you ain't worth sh*t!!! BUT WHAT ABOUT THE MUSIC?

Neil Peart's a great drummer, but his GENIUS is in the parts he creates for the songs; how he builds from one section to another throughout a song with detail and logic, not to mention how what he plays works with the other instruments. I've been learning many of his parts beat for beat (well as close as I can get) for a gig, and the more I listen, the more the shape and intent behind the parts astounds me. Maybe he's just doing a lot of it on intuition, but then in some ways that's even more impressive.

I always think the sign of a great musician - the thing we aspire to but so rarely achieve - is that someone can hear us play and know it is us. That's not about how fast you can play - BB King can do that with one note! It's very hard for drummers in rock music to assert that kind of character, and the fact that Neil Peart has a distinct approach (well, up to when they got too inspired by The Police post Moving Pictures) is another testament to his greatness.

http://i165.photobucket.com/albums/u48/pbm2112/PFFLYER-1.jpg

[andSometimesY]

Excellent post, pbm. There is almost always a difference between whomever my favorite drummer is at the time and the drummer that I think is the best at the instrument. My favorite may not be the very best, but the things he plays flow so perfectly with the music that if you aren't listening for drums, you will forget they are there. I call music that flows together like that "transcendental" music, because it transcends the senses (at least my senses).

P.S. pbm, does the singer for that Rush show you are doing sound anything like Geddy? That would be a tough find if so. Will anyone be recording the show? It sounds really interesting and I would come if I was close enough.

[paradiddler]

Excellent post, pbm. There is almost always a difference between whomever my favorite drummer is at the time and the drummer that I think is the best at the instrument. My favorite may not be the very best, but the things he plays flow so perfectly with the music that if you aren't listening for drums, you will forget they are there. I call music that flows together like that "transcendental" music, because it transcends the senses (at least my senses).

P.S. pbm, does the singer for that Rush show you are doing sound anything like Geddy? That would be a tough find if so. Will anyone be recording the show? It sounds really interesting and I would come if I was close enough.

Hi andSometimesY,

Great username, by the way! You may find interesting a couple of articles I wrote regarding the 'best drummer' title:

The Best Drummer In the World Is... (http://theparadiddler.com/2008/10/05/the-best-drummer-in-the-world-is/)
The Reference Drummer (http://theparadiddler.com/2008/08/27/the-reference-drummer/)

They're very much in line with what you're saying (hence I agree with you!). Hope you find them interesting.

[pbm2112]

Excellent post, pbm. There is almost always a difference between whomever my favorite drummer is at the time and the drummer that I think is the best at the instrument. My favorite may not be the very best, but the things he plays flow so perfectly with the music that if you aren't listening for drums, you will forget they are there. I call music that flows together like that "transcendental" music, because it transcends the senses (at least my senses).

P.S. pbm, does the singer for that Rush show you are doing sound anything like Geddy? That would be a tough find if so. Will anyone be recording the show? It sounds really interesting and I would come if I was close enough.

I totally agree - the best drummer for the music and for the instrument can be two very different people. The White Stripes with Thomas Lang would be awful. But I wouldn't go to see a Meg White drum clinic.

With regards the gig - the singer's pretty damn good, it's a big ask of anyone and nobody sounds like Geddy - it's amazing we've found him! But we aren't setting ourselves up as Rush 2, we are just some pretty musical fans of the band playing music we love for people that want to hear these songs loud and live. We will record it and get a myspace page together - I'll let you know.
http://i165.photobucket.com/albums/u48/pbm2112/PFFLYER-1.jpg

[paradiddler]

Hi guys (and gals!).

Recently on DrumChannel.com, Doane Perry, Neil Peart, and Terry Bozzio sat down for a chat and jam session, and it was most interesting! I wrote about the highlights and the points I thought were most worthy of note in my latest article on my web site:

Perry, Peart, and Bozzio: Pearls of Drumming Wisdom (http://theparadiddler.com/2009/07/07/perry-peart-and-bozzio-pearls-of-drumming-wisdom/)

Some cool insight, and some really cool pictures! Check it out; I hope you enjoy it!

[DrumEatDrum]

Hi guys (and gals!).

Recently on DrumChannel.com, Doane Perry, Neil Peart, and Terry Bozzio sat down for a chat and jam session, and it was most interesting! I wrote about the highlights and the points I thought were most worthy of note in my latest article on my web site:

Perry, Peart, and Bozzio: Pearls of Drumming Wisdom (http://theparadiddler.com/2009/07/07/perry-peart-and-bozzio-pearls-of-drumming-wisdom/)

Some cool insight, and some really cool pictures! Check it out; I hope you enjoy it!

Dang, never in a million years would I think I'd see video of Neil Peart playing Terry Bozzio's kit!

WOW.

[paradiddler]

Guy's and girls - I have a gig coming up and am struggling with the first drum solo in YYZ. I just can't figure it out... it sort of sounds like triplets rolling down the toms, but with an accent just before he moves on to the next tom? It's a classic Peart lick, there's loads of it in The Weapon too. If anyone can help me I'd really appreciate it. I LOVE that fill and have a month to nail it!!! THANKS!!

http://i165.photobucket.com/albums/u48/pbm2112/PFFLYER-1.jpg

pbm!

Just wondering how the gig went. Did it happen? How was your rendition of YYZ? I hope there are some videos!

[Strangelove]

Here is a really good chronology of Neil's equipment:

http://andrewolson.com/Neil_Peart/neil_drumkits.htm

[MainDragDrums]

I don't want to come across like a salesman on a forum, but I know that most Neil Peart fans would be interested to see this kit, even if not to bid on it. My store is putting up Neil's original Rush kit for sale on ebay starting on this coming Sunday. This is the kit that was on the cover of All the World's a Stage, used to record 2112 etc.. The photos we're using are pretty awesome, and this kit is such a cool thing to see for Neil fans. If you want to bid on it, fine, but if you're a serious about Mr. Peart it's just plain cool to check out. The drums have been in our store for months and people have ben coming in and just bugging out.

[MikeM]

Got any pics you can post?

[MainDragDrums]

http://i642.photobucket.com/albums/uu141/J84466/TJH_2203.jpg

[\m/]

Here is a really good chronology of Neil's equipment:

http://andrewolson.com/Neil_Peart/neil_drumkits.htm

Yeah, I found that link, too, through Google.

I like his earlier kits a lot better than his newer ones. Having all of the unusual percussion instruments as physically part of his kit, in my opinion, looks way cooler than having it all in trigger pads and electronics. The best kits are from A Farewell to Kings to Grace Under Pressure.

http://i642.photobucket.com/albums/uu141/J84466/TJH_2203.jpg

Awesome!

[Pavlos]

Looks like the kit sold for over $25k. Now that's a cool piece of memorabilia.

[alparrott]

Not strictly drumming related, but certainly Neil related. Rush.com and Rushisaband.com are reporting the birth of Olivia Louise Peart to father Neil and mother Carrie.

Quote:
August 24, 2009
The RUSH family congratulates Neil and his wife Carrie on the birth of their healthy, beautiful daughter Olivia Louise Peart.

Congrats to the parents.

[aydee]

Not strictly drumming related,...

Now if he had fathered triplets, that woulda been something...

[BrewBillfold]

Didn't read the whole thread, and it may be far beyond this discussion by now, but on the issue of playing things "note for note" live, it's simply a matter of taste. Some people like to hear things played "note for note", just like the records, live, and some people do not. I'm in the "do not" category. I like Neil's playing a lot, but when I go to a concert, I want to hear something different than the records. It's not a matter of improvisation, necessarily, but at least evolution. There's not a right answer. It's just a different preference.

Also, unless I were making a TON of money doing it, I wouldn't want to be in a band that did things note-for-note live. Once I play or record something, I don't want to study it so I can recreate it. I don't mind still playing those songs, but I want to move on and keep developing them, so that years later, they're transformed into something very different. If someone wants to hear what we played or recorded years ago, they should put on the record.

[michael drums]

Didn't read the whole thread, and it may be far beyond this discussion by now, but on the issue of playing things "note for note" live, it's simply a matter of taste. Some people like to hear things played "note for note", just like the records, live, and some people do not. I'm in the "do not" category. I like Neil's playing a lot, but when I go to a concert, I want to hear something different than the records. It's not a matter of improvisation, necessarily, but at least evolution. There's not a right answer. It's just a different preference.

Also, unless I were making a TON of money doing it, I wouldn't want to be in a band that did things note-for-note live. Once I play or record something, I don't want to study it so I can recreate it. I don't mind still playing those songs, but I want to move on and keep developing them, so that years later, they're transformed into something very different. If someone wants to hear what we played or recorded years ago, they should put on the record.

Hey BB!

You make a great case for the improv/evolution side. I can understand where you're coming from. It's nice to hear a song evolve and change to get a different perspective of how it was originally intended.

Though, I have to disagree when it comes to Rush. I DO wanna hear the song(s) played the same live as it/they was/were recorded. That's what makes Rush such a great band, and Neil Peart such a fantastic drummer.

Their recordings are so pristine, you HAVE to admire that they can pull off the songs live, and appreciate their commitment to the music. Sort of like a masterpiece painting in a museum. You wouldn't want to have someone redo it and change it to look differently, would you?

To hear and see the song "Natural Science" live now, the way it was recorded back in 1979/1980 is an amazing feat, if you ask me.

That's what impresses me about NP. His commitment to the "masterpiece"

[Mediocrefunkybeat]

Sort of like a masterpiece painting in a museum. You wouldn't want to have someone redo it and change it to look differently, would you?

Personally, yes. A masterpiece is a masterpiece, but a re-interpretation of a masterpiece creates potential for another one.

[LinearDrummer]

Didn't read the whole thread, and it may be far beyond this discussion by now, but on the issue of playing things "note for note" live, it's simply a matter of taste. Some people like to hear things played "note for note", just like the records, live, and some people do not. I'm in the "do not" category. I like Neil's playing a lot, but when I go to a concert, I want to hear something different than the records. It's not a matter of improvisation, necessarily, but at least evolution. There's not a right answer. It's just a different preference.



I would agree but there is something about Rush for me that is the exception.

Its like Neil's signature fills are so recognizable as part of the songs that changing them would be like changing a chord/key/lyrics live. Like the intro to Sprit of the Radio, Tom Sawyer breakdown, the end of Limelight and so on.

Maybe it would be nice to see Neil play a more open improvisational drum solo tho.

[michael drums]

Personally, yes. A masterpiece is a masterpiece, but a re-interpretation of a masterpiece creates potential for another one.

Nah. Have to disagree. No one would want to change a Picasso, a van Gogh, a Renior, or a DaVinci. That would be ridiculous.

"Works of art" are that for what they are. Changing them doesn't increase the beauty of them.

They don't need a "re-interpretation".

[michael drums]

I would agree but there is something about Rush for me that is the exception.

Its like Neil's signature fills are so recognizable as part of the songs that changing them would be like changing a chord/key/lyrics live. Like the intro to Sprit of the Radio, Tom Sawyer breakdown, the end of Limelight and so on.

Maybe it would be nice to see Neil play a more open improvisational drum solo tho.

Oh yes, LD. Neil talks quite often about "not" wanting to play the same solo exactly the same in each show. He's quite adamant about how he doesn't want to be too repetitious with his solos. He does "improv" his concert solos as much as he can.

[Mediocrefunkybeat]

Nah. Have to disagree. No one would want to change a Picasso, a van Gogh, a Renior, or a DaVinci. That would be ridiculous.

"Works of art" are that for what they are. Changing them doesn't increase the beauty of them.

They don't need a "re-interpretation".

Picasso re-defined works he'd done in a career as a more realistic painter to create the masterpieces. Ergo, re-interpretation. The same is true of Renoir, DaVinci and Van Gogh. These are all re-interpretations of other works. Music isn't a static art either, unlike painting. Would you ask Van Gogh to re-paint the same picture every night for thirty years? Of course not.

[michael drums]

Picasso re-defined works he'd done in a career as a more realistic painter to create the masterpieces. Ergo, re-interpretation. The same is true of Renoir, DaVinci and Van Gogh. These are all re-interpretations of other works. Music isn't a static art either, unlike painting. Would you ask Van Gogh to re-paint the same picture every night for thirty years? Of course not.

Yes. But the "finished" work is what makes the piece. And what Neil Peart records on a particular Rush song, is the "finished" work. To hear him play his master"piece" live, is the genius of his playing.

Like going to see a great artists' painting in a museum. You don't want to see a different "interpretation" of his/her specific painting each time you see it. It's a work-of-art for it's "finished" artistry. At the risk of repeating myself, of course.

[Mediocrefunkybeat]

Music is never finished. That's why I said it's not a static art. Records are static, but that does not mean that the work is finished. If you heard Thom Yorke playing his 'Eraser' material live, they are complete re-works of the album tracks - just to name one example. Records are often derided by non-musical artists as being a horribly static form of something that is ultimately fluid.

[michael drums]

Music is never finished. That's why I said it's not a static art. Records are static, but that does not mean that the work is finished. If you heard Thom Yorke playing his 'Eraser' material live, they are complete re-works of the album tracks - just to name one example. Records are often derided by non-musical artists as being a horribly static form of something that is ultimately fluid.

Well, it's just like everything else. It's all "opinion". I'm a huge Rush fan. You're probably not. So we will have different takes on this. But I'm not a fan of "re-working" songs/albums that don't need it.

And Rush has a ton of these.

[SickRick]

Michael, I know you are an uber-fan of NP and Rush which is fine. I don't want to mess with that - it's your personal taste.

But just one bit food for thought: If you went to a Rush concert and NP actually did play things differently from the records, including grooves and fills. Do you as the NP fan that you are honestly think that would have been a worse concert for that reason, even if NP would have played the new stuff in his very own vibe (perfect execution, trademark grooves/fills but maybe played a little different or at different spots)? Or would you maybe walk out of that concert thinking it was the greatest event ever because it surprised you and moved you in a different way than you had expected it?

I have the slight impression that you've become such an extreme fan of NP and (probably due to many discussions on the internet) maybe a bit overly defensive, so when it comes to any kind of discussion about him, you automatically stand behind what Neil does. I guess that if Neil was famous for delivering perfect studio tracks but changing these live with his sense of moments, you'd now be defending that against people who would say: "I'd prefer him to play everything exactly like it is recorded".

This is really not meant to pick on you, just as I said: Food for thought.

One more point: I honestly don't think you can compare painting to musicmaking. You could probably compare action-painting (where the act of painting itself becomes the piece of art) to the act of making music and compare a finished, static painting to a recording. But comparing a static painting to an act of making music doesn't really work in my book.

Lastly, to throw in my own two cents: I am not a fan of a 1:1 reproduction of music on stage - I could instead just listen to a record instead. I prefer "revisiting" songs live... you know: Play all the things that are important to the song (which will really force you to think about what actually is important to a particular song and of course I know that in the case of Rush, many people will say "every note on the record played by Neil is important to the song") but leave maybe a little room to surprise the audience or even to surprise yourself on stage. I'd say that most of my favourite moments in concerts (both on stage and in the audience) were these moments, were things happen that no one would have expected to happen.


Anyway, interesting points in this thread.

[Strangelove]

I think all this discussion of changing up composition in concerts is pretty senseless myself. A lot of guitarists are guilty of this as well. Is David Gilmour a lesser guitarist than Jimmy Page for playing Comfortably Numb note for note with the album? Page would never do that. As for drummers, Neil is one of the best and thats all that needs to be said. There's a lot of drummers with the "artistic expression" to vary every night that still absolutely suck in comparison to Mr Peart, so what difference does it really make?

[OMCHAVARIUM]

Definitly One of the legend in Progressive Drumming....
I really like his newest Kit... The Snakes & Arrows kit....

http://www.andrewolson.com/Neil_Peart/snakesarrows/tour/images/img8.jpg

[DrumEatDrum]

An article I came across.

Neil discussing Rush may release new songs, but not an album, and Neil recording a new version of "The Hockey Theme"

http://jam.canoe.ca/Music/2010/01/13/12452396-cp.html?cid=rssentertainmentmusic
Click the link for the whole article,

A few excerpts:

suddenly albums don't mean anything," Peart told The Canadian Press in a telephone interview from his home in California.

"We're thinking of writing and recording a few songs and maybe releasing them, and playing them live, and then going back and doing some more later.


Peart was similarly forward-thinking when it came time to record a new version of "The Hockey Theme," the iconic song that has opened broadcasts of "Hockey Night in Canada" for 40 years.

Peart's version will debut on TSN during Thursday's broadcast of the Toronto-Philadelphia game and will then be used for the rest of the season by the network.

After being "blown away" by the invitation to recreate the classic tune, Peart decided on his approach: a "drum solo with horns."

[Ian Williams]

Mr. Peart is a true '' Genius''. I do like his style and respect his achievements as a musician, but I find his playing way too technical for my taste.

[MikeM]

I've seen Rush 5 times and I've always spotted areas where he's thought of something he liked better than when he recorded it, and then changed it.

Somewhere on the net, I found a piece of audio of Rush playing Limelight before NP finished writing his drum part and definitely before it was recorded for Moving Pictures. It was radically different. I like what he settled on better, but it does make the point that any part can be revisited at anytime and improvements made - even for Neil Peart.

[supermac]

Worth a look




http://www.rushisaband.com/display.php?id=2054

[Pavlos]

Looks like Neil has another new kit with a hockey theme. Too cool.

And here's an article about his version of the HNIC theme being on itunes with a portion of proceeds going to NHL Hockey fights cancer.

http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=306925

[Strangelove]

Somewhere on the net, I found a piece of audio of Rush playing Limelight before NP finished writing his drum part and definitely before it was recorded for Moving Pictures. It was radically different. I like what he settled on better, but it does make the point that any part can be revisited at anytime and improvements made - even for Neil Peart.

What I really like about NP is that he reminds me of an athlete who is never satisfied until he pushes himself to his physical best everytime. He sculpts his segments very methodically, and pushes himself to do one better than the last time he played it. I think he serves as a real role model for all younger drummers as to what hard work and alot of practice yields.

[MikeM]

Somewhere on the net, I found a piece of audio of Rush playing Limelight before NP finished writing his drum part and definitely before it was recorded for Moving Pictures. It was radically different. I like what he settled on better, but it does make the point that any part can be revisited at anytime and improvements made - even for Neil Peart.
I found that clip. (http://www.musicintheabstract.org/rush-oddities/audio/limelight-pre-release.mp3) Sometimes I get so used to hearing him playing a song a certain way that I lose sight of all the ideas he must've tried and discarded during the writing process.

[Drums101]

He's pretty good, but never thought that much of him.