haiku to Rush

this is a review of a rush album i posted on amazon.com:

Reviewer: contest sanity "matt varnell" (athens, ga usa) - See all my reviews
many people, particularly a few of my rush-crazed (which is a good thing) relatives (read: my uncle ronnie and my older cousin steve), will think that i'm nuts for calling this rush's best album.

well, that's what opinions are for, though, right?

of course, anyone who's not a fan of alternative/grunge IS NOT going to call "counterparts" their favorite rush album.

i am, however, an alternative/grunge fan.

my family members joke about rush's terrible choice of opening bands in 91 and 93 (primus and candlebox, respectively). my favorite is their dubbing of candlebox as "candleshoe."

but i like candlebox; i saw them in atlanta in 98 my first year of college. i also like primus and think claypool carries on the bass torch of geddy and the other prog-rock bass gods.

yet, it has never seemed to matter (at least to some) that the memebers of rush themselves are fans of alternative/grunge. this is evidenced not only by the choice of opening bands in 91/93 but also by geddy's choice to have matt cameron drum on "my favorite headache;" matt cameron, for those unaware, was the drummer for soundgarden and is currently the drummer for pearl jam. also, to throw back quickly to primus, les claypool makes a few appearances on "victor," alex lifeson's solo album.

so the connections between rush and seattle is there. and, musically speaking, never more so than on "counterparts." if you don't believe me, listen to "spoonman" by soundgarden right after examining "stick it out" and "cut to the chase." thus, "counterparts" is one of the best albums to start your rush collection if you're coming to them for the first time via grunge/alternative/90's rock radio

anyway, enough about the grunge connection, for that's not everyone's cup of tea.

why "counterparts" you say? how can that be rush's best album? well, for one, it is their return to a more organic, trio-based rock sound. of course, rush was never not a trio, but in the 80's the synth and various recorded sounds dang near became a fourth member. while that doesn't negate rush's greatness in the 80's, i personally prefer their rockier, heavier stuff. that's just me - i think metallica and megadeth were the true 80's, not peter gabriel and duran duran. thus, my favorite rush album cannot be from the 80's (although permanent waves might be my 2nd favorite rush record), nor can it be "roll the bones" (which is really an 80's record, despite its release date).

so let's move from there to their late 90's/2000's stuff. i love "test for echo." but i have two beefs that place it under "counterparts." one - alex is beginning to stop soloing like alex. i don't buy rush records to hear sonic youth guitar solos. not that such a sound is bad, but that's why i listen to nirvana. so while i do like the grungier rush exemplified in the mid 90's and 2000's, i don't like the fact that alex thought he had to stop soloing like he used to.

give and take, i guess. if i can get "driven" instead of "mystic rhythms," then i'll settle for grunge guitar solos. anyway, the presence of the "old alex" solos on "counterparts" means that, for me at least, it holds pride of place over "test for echo." (the same priciple also eliminates "vapor trails." and then "feedback" doesn't count b/c it's a cover album.)

secondly, and this is a more minor point, the instramental "limbo" on "echo" sucks tail in comparison to "leave that thing alone" from "counterparts." there is a reason why "leave that thing alone" became a staple "inning-change" tune for TBS braves broadcasts in the mid/late 90's.

so now let's move to the older and definitely more venerated parts of the canon. why is it that i pick "counterparts" over "hemispheres," which is my cousin steve's pick? well, to put it as succintly as possible: i get bored with that 1st track. call me a heretic, but the epic side 1 "hemispheres" ain't no "2112" - and i feel the same way about "the necromancer" and "the fountain of lamneth" on "caress of steel." thus, "caress" and "hemispheres" are x-ed as possibilities for rush's greatest album.

"rush" and "fly by night" are eliminated simply b/c rush had not yet emerged as its own band yet, still lingering in the shadow of zepplin and others.

which leaves me with "farewell to kings." and that would probably be a toss-up with "permanent waves" as to second place on my list. my reasons, other than the 80's argument, is again that i find parts of "xanadu" and "jacob's ladder" a little tedious and/or boring (the same holds true for "the camera eye" from "moving pictures.") in addition, if i have to pick filler-type material, i would choose "double agent" and "the speed of love" over "circumstances," "witch hunt," and "madrigal" every single day of the week.

lastly, and perhaps this is the clincher, "counterparts" has "everyday glory," which is one of my favorite rush songs and, without doubt in my book, neil peart's best lyric EVER. i end my review with his words, which are meaningful whether or not one likes rush's music:

"If the future's looking dark
We're the ones who have to shine
If there's no one in control
We're the ones who draw the line
Though we live in trying times-
We're the one's who have to try
Though we know that time has wings-
We're the one's who have to fly"

God bless to all - matt varnell