A by no means comprehensive or conclusive survey of a Canadian power trio who once upon a time (much less so now) got under the skins of more rock critics than any other rock or pop artist going.

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

– Creem, June 1981

“For the record, those three are drummer Neil Peart, who writes all the band’s lyrics and takes fewer solos than might be expected; guitarist Alex Lifeson, whose mile-a-minute buzzing is more numbing than exciting; and bassist, keyboardist and singer Geddy Lee, whose amazingly high-pitched wailing often sounds like Mr. Bill singing heavy metal. If only Mr. Sluggo had been on hand to give these guys a couple good whacks…”
– Steve Pond, review of Rush live in Los Angeles, Rolling Stone, 1980

Geddy Lee’s high-register vocal style has always been a signature of the band – and sometimes a focal point for criticism, especially during the early years of Rush’s career when Lee’s vocals were high-pitched, with a strong likeness to other singers like Robert Plant of Led Zeppelin. A review in the New York Times opined that Lee’s voice ‘suggests a munchkin giving a sermon.’ Although his voice has softened over the years, it is often described as a ‘wail.’ His instrumental abilities, on the other hand, are rarely criticized.
– Wikipedia entry on Rush

– Mark Coleman and Ernesto Lechner, The New Rolling Stone Album Guide, 2004

“Listen to recent records and/or live sets by Die Kreuzen and Discharge and Das Damen and Vertical Slit and F/1 and Uzi, not to mention I-don’t -know-how-many speed-death-indy-metal crews, and you get the idea that symphonic flourishes, intricate time changes, medieval metaphors, and seven-minute anthems have developed into a tradition of their own. These bands are, thankfully, a lot noisier and harder-edged than bombast-rocque used to be… They’ve even kinda made me appreciate Rush, always (thanx to Geddy Lee’s whipped-hound squeal) the one progresso conglom I couldn’t stomach: This summer I heard their way-fresh ‘Tom Sawyer’ in my Plymouth and thought it drilled holes through the Robert Palmers, Simple Minds, postprog Peter Gabriels (if ‘Sledgehammer’ is ‘funky’, I’m James Fucking Brown), Janet Jacksons, and Fab-T-Birds who by now all sound the same.”
– Chuck Eddy, review of The Proletariat‘s Rich Men Poor Men, Village Voice, Sep. ’86

Rush has stayed a three piece and developed musically through basic hard rock (‘Rush’), progressive hard rock (‘2112’), and progressive post rock (‘Hemispheres’), before rethinking their approach, adding keyboards to bassist/vocalist Geddy Lee’s duties and developing a new high tech, pop textured sound which nonetheless at its best reaches transcendence via an approach (at least once an album) that is harmolodic in all but name.
– Joe Carducci, Rock and the Pop Narcotic

“More than 40 years of activity has provided Rush with the opportunity for musical diversity across their discography. As with many bands known for experimentation, changes have inevitably resulted in dissent among critics and fans. The bulk of the band’s music has always included synthetic instruments in some form or another, and this is a great source of contention in the Rush camp, especially the band’s heavy reliance on synthesizers and keyboards during the 1980s…”
– Wikipedia entry on Rush

– Alan Niester rates Rush, Rolling Stone Record Guide, 1979

“This Canadian power trio, which boasts a vocalist who sounds like a cross between Donald Duck and Robert Plant, reached its pinnacle of success the day it was discovered by Circus magazine and turned into fanzine wall-decoration material.”
– Alan Niester, Rolling Stone Record Guide, 1979

A Farewell to Kings [Mercury, 1977]
The most obnoxious band currently making a killing on the zonked teen circuit. Not to be confused with Mahogany Rush, who at least spare us the reactionary gentility. More like Angel. Or Kansas. Or a power-trio Uriah Heep, with vocals revved up an octave. Or two. D
– Robert Christgau

“When Lars Ulrich, who slams skins for the band that recorded 1986’s most-rad rock’n’roll masterpiece, told me Metallica likes Rush and vice versa, I understood why: Geddy Lee is one of the few superstars left who still has the guts to be obnoxious. Suck-ass times like these sure make you appreciate the importance of high-quality trash.”
– Chuck Eddy, Village Voice, Sep. ’86

– Chuck Klosterman in foreword to Chuck Eddy‘s Rock and Roll Always Forgets

“I also think the renewed interest comes from the people in positions of power today at TV shows and at some of the journals. They’re in their 40s now and they grew up with the band and they’re finding that it resonates more with them than bands that rock critics have talked about in the past. There’s also the influence of the Internet and blogs as well, which have probably reduced the importance of critics.”
– Durrell Bowman, co-editor of Rush and Philosophy, quoted in 40 Years Later, Has Rush Won Out Over Rock Critics?

These three epitomize the modern suburban ethos in rock music (Canada being after all just one big suburb of the US). They are duly hated for this by all slumming elites. Rush are bright, well adjusted and earnest. They took music lessons and they practice their instruments because they believe in music — the art of it and the craft of it. In the cities musicians tend to get sidetracked by the scam of it.
– Joe Carducci, Rock and the Pop Narcotic

“Anti-rockism was always violently pro-pop, largely because we original campaigning anti-rockists had been given such a tough time at school for liking Bowie and Bolan and not ELP and Led Zep. The continuing demonstration and distribution of anti-rockist principles is for me further revenge on the 1977 Rush fan who used to think I was retarded because I preferred Richard Hell. And quite simply, for reasons you will now appreciate, Coldplay, however they disguise themselves, are as ridiculously rockist as Rush.”
– Paul Morley, “Rockism – it’s the new rockism,” Guardian, 2006

– Letter to Rolling Stone, 1982

“The first thing you notice about Rush, according to one observer, is that they’re not as gross-looking as Bachman-Turner Overdrive and they have a somewhat lower thud weight than most other Canadian bands. True enough –Canuck rockers do seem to have some sort of an uglier-than-thou competition going among themselves along with a tendency to pounce on unsuspecting ears like a carnivorous dumptruck.”
– Rick Johnson, “Pebbles & Bam-Bam in Alphaville,” Creem, March ’76 (full article here and here)

Rush has no sense of humor and are ugly as sin and, therefore, their videos have not fared as well [as ZZ Top’s]. Nor do their lyrics revolve around pop concerns (cars, girls, cool), and so although they have made similarly effective production and arrangement concessions to current pop tastes they have not entered the pop market big time. They may have done more than most to help maintain the general mainstream rock market though.
– Joe Carducci, Rock and the Pop Narcotic

“Rush is to the late Seventies what Grand Funk was to the early Seventies — the power boogie band for the 16 magazine graduating class.”
– Alan Niester, Rolling Stone Record Guide, 1979

“I see a lot of threads running through your lyrics, but one I can’t pick up on is humor. Is there a reason for this? Is there something I’m missing??”

“I’m not a comedian. I’m a musician and a lyricist… I’m not interested in being a humorist.”

Well, you and me and [Rick] Johnson makes three, Neil, old pal. Knowing a good thing, I pressed on: “Do you see rock music as being funny in any way?”

“Mmm,” mulled the author of “By-Tor And The Snow Dog.” “Some people I think, are -‘witty’- put it that way,” he said, pronouncing ‘witty’ in an exaggerated sissy tone.

“It’s just that this – what I would call a lack of humor – is what let you guys in for a lot of criticism,” I offered.

“No, no. You see, you’re dealing with cynical, jaded critics here, who in a lot of cases, are frustrated musicians. The people who have given us the ‘humorless’ tag are the frustrated, jaded people…cynical…who think that the only thing that’s good is what’s funny and off-color.”

– J. Kordosh interviews N. Peart (“Rush: But Why Are They in Such a Hurry?” Creem, June 1981 — article available here)

“In one way, Rush is a lot like Shaun Cassidy, Teddy Pendergrass and Super Vixens: its audience is “made up almost entirely of one sex. In Rush’s case, it’s nearly all males — or more precisely, judging from this crowd, nearly all sixteen-year-old males with long hair, faint mustaches and adrenaline to burn.”
– Steve Pond, review of Rush live in Los Angeles, Rolling Stone, 1980

I suspect rock criticism is stuck in a 1960s counter-culture, Bob Dylan kind of world and might never catch up to the cultural shift around the band. But it might not matter, because the role of professional criticism will become less and less important culturally over the next decade or so as the Internet, blogs, and discussion networks become more ascendant. In a sense, what people are saying now is that, because there is so much more attention on them [two academic books, a documentary, guest appearances on popular shows], the band has kind of won out over the rock critics. In any case, in five or 10 years, will anyone care what Rolling Stone thought of them? Even now, when rock critics interview the band they’re surprised at how disarming and quite friendly and pleasant they are. They’re taken aback that the band can be so serious and have such structures and complexities while actually being pretty self-effacing about themselves.
– Durrell Bowman, quoted in 40 Years Later, Has Rush Won Out Over Rock Critics?

– Creem, March 1976

“Their lyrics (by Neil Peart, drummer since the second album) may be dumb a lot but they’re earnest and offer a right wing populism which is at least counter to official rock culture doctrine. Another thing in their favor is that they have probably never received a good review in their lives. Nevertheless, along with ZZ Top, they remain the class of the enduring ’70s bands. Their latest album indicates a second wind.”
– Joe Carducci, Rock and the Pop Narcotic

Rush?

Yes, Rush. Not the movie or the B.A.D. II song. Certainly not “Rush Rush” by Paula Abdul or “Rush Street” by Richard Marx. And not even Frank Marino and Mahogany Rush. Just plain ol’ eternally unfashionable, the-guy-with-a-high-voice-singing-scary-songs Rush.

So what in God’s name is it doing in SPIN, a publication nominally devoted to alternative music? Well, I could go on about how Rush really is an alternative for lots of suburban loners, at least in the context of classic-rock overkill. About how it is the ultimate punk band for people who thought punk was bogus. But basically the bottom line is this: Even though you may think Rush is uncool, it’s influenced a lot of the bands and artists that you probably think are cool.
– Bob Mack, Confessions of a Rush Fan, SPIN, March 1992

– Rush LPs rated in The New Rolling Stone Album Guide, 2004 (Mark Coleman and Ernesto Lechner)

So what will people argue about now that Rush have been voted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame? Don’t worry – Rush fans can just move on to debating why their heroes are deprived of knighthoods or the Nobel Prize in economics. Rush fans love to argue. And Rush obviously like it that way.
– Rob Sheffield, review of “deluxe edition” of 2112, Rolling Stone, February 2013

“If the critics suddenly accepted Rush and inducted them into the Hall of Fame, as a fan I would feel a little disoriented. Rock criticism developed around social consciousness, Bob Dylan, the jam-oriented Grateful Dead, smart singer-songwriters. Rush was never any of those things, and the harsh critical reception, the feeling that this is something the mainstream doesn’t get, has been part of the Rush lore from the beginning. If critics suddenly turned around and started valuing the band, I’d be like, huh, that’s a big change.”
– Chris McDonald, “Are Rock Critics Planning to Disorient Rush Fans?,” 2011