Rush, Rock Music, and the Middle Class: Dreaming in Middletown

6 “Scoffing at the Wise?”: Rush, Rock Criticism, and the Middlebrow

A ccording to conventional wisdom, Rush was never a critic’s band. The group’s biographers have frequently used the putative indifference and hostility of rock critics as a dramatic contrast with Rush’s commercial success and longevity.1 Rock journalists themselves have also associated Rush with an abiding lack of critical acclaim. As far back as 1977, Max Thaler in Circus magazine framed Rush’s then-recent breakthrough as “not bad for a band that had no critical respect for about four long years, despite ever-enlarging audiences and record-buying support. . . . Simply, Rush has never been appreciated by the critics, and none of their albums qualify as ‘critics’ choices.’ Their concerts are likewise either misconstrued or misjudged by most critics despite public reactions to the contrary.”2 In “Scoffing at the Wise?” Rush, Rock Criticism, and the Middlebrow 6 186 Rush, Rock Music, and the Middle Class 1980, Rolling Stone’s David Fricke began his review of Rush’s Permanent Waves by stating, “It’s easy to criticize what you don’t understand, which at least partly explains why Canadian power trio Rush have suffered so much at the hands of rock journalists since the band’s debut album in 1974.”3 And again in the mid-1990s, Bob Mack set up his double review of Rush’s Test for Echo and Porno for Pyro’s Good God’s Urge by observing how the critics beat up on Rush for its intellectually pretentious lyrics and Geddy Lee’s abrasive vocals while at the same time praising alternative rock groups like the Pyros for possessing exactly the same traits.4 Neil Peart once puzzled over the group’s reputation as “the band that’s always being dumped on,” noting that Rush managed to receive its share of positive press,5 and during my 2001 interview with Alex Lifeson, the guitarist noted, “I always thought we had a good relationship with the press.”6 In my research into Rush’s critical reception, I have found that, indeed, Rush’s reputation as “the band critics love to hate” is inflated and oversold. Across the group’s thirty-year career, Rush’s reception from Rolling Stone–type critics such as Michael Bloom, John Rockwell, Jon Pareles, and Michael Azzerad might be described as lukewarm, respectful of Rush’s technical virtues as musicians but critical of its songwriting and lyrics. Crushingly bad reviews were not unheard of, but reviews for other progressive rock bands like Genesis, Queen, or Emerson, Lake, and Palmer were frequently more scathing. Critics only occasionally used the stereotypical dismissal of heavy metal and progressive rock as “pretentious, yet stupid” to describe Rush, and a large number of reviewers regarded the band as one that aimed high even if it sometimes came up short. What is interesting is that in nearly every case, regardless of how good or bad the review was, critics writing for Rolling Stone and similar periodicals established a marked aesthetic distance from Rush and the rock genres they invoked. Even when reviews of Rush were good, such as those by David Fricke or Bob Mack, they tended to place Rush outside the critics’ sphere of “valid rock”; for better or worse, Rush’s image in the press was indelibly marked as noncanonical. Perceived critical dismissal has stoked outrage among Rush fans for some years. Rolling Stone, the highest-profile rock publication in North “Scoffing at the Wise?” 187 America, is the focus of a lot of Rush fan discontent, since its critics are key figures in nominating and inducting artists into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame in Cleveland. Rush has never received a nomination, and in 2000, critic David Wild confirmed that Rush lacked the acclaim necessary to make such an honor imminent. Moreover, Rush has never been featured on the cover of Rolling Stone, which traditionally ensures canonical status in the rock ’n’ roll firmament.7 One of the most popular Rush fan sites, The National Midnight Star, circulated a fan petition to get Rush inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame during the late 1990s; an angry thread emerged on The Rush Interactive Network in August 2000 calling for a boycott of Rolling Stone when that year’s nominees were announced. Fans bitter about Rolling Stone ignoring Rush are at least tacitly acknowledging the symbolic value of being the lead feature in this magazine. As discussed in chapter...