Thread: Neil Peart
View Single Post
Old 04-04-2009, 11:49 PM
CavGator CavGator is offline
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 41
Default Re: Neil Peart

Originally Posted by Zumba_Zumba View Post
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.
Reply With Quote