So I had this funny experience just now. A friend of mine was discussing an article about science overreaching its bounds and some people's need to contain nature as part of environmentalism. The article itself was rather dry, so, as is my wont, my mind drifted to Rush, and in this case, obviously, their song "Natural Science." So I quoted "Like the Rush lyric, 'Science, like nature, must also be tamed, with a view towards its preservation.'"
He said: "Can I quote 'Stonehenge' from Spinal Tap now?"
I laughed and said, "Yes, I know. Some people make fun of Neil Peart's lyrics, think they're a bit overintellectual.."
He then interrupted: "Wait... you were serious? That's a real lyric?"
I played him 5:28 to 5:40 of the song, and he said "I hear it."
"So... do they have footnotes in the coda?"
I know a lot of people have problems with Peart's lyrics, but I don't understand why, really. Is it just because he tries to be thoughtful? I mean, it's got to be better than Hagar-ish "Baby, baby, baby..." There was a recent discussion about how "SALESMEN!" was some kind of indicator of how lame Rush was. But you take one clever lyric out of context and you condemn a band that at least tried to examine the human condition and the world, with songs like "Territories" or "Witch Hunt."
What do people here think? I admit, I get defensive about Rush's lyrics a little (especially when confronted by people who think he's still parroting Ayn Rand) but I'll try to step back and be even-handed. Honest.
Bookmarks