Site indices

Previous Issue <-> Next Issue

Precedence: bulk
To: rush_mailing_list
Subject: 12/02/91 - The National Midnight Star #392

**   ____     __           ___ ____   ___        ___       **
**    /  /_/ /_     /\  / /__/  /  / /  / /\  / /__/ /     **
**   /  / / /__    /  \/ /  /  /  / /__/ /  \/ /  / /___   **
**                                                         **
**                    __            ___       ____         **
**        /\  /\   / /  \  /\  / / /  _  /__/  /           **
**       /  \/  \ / /___/ /  \/ / /___/ /  /  /            **
**                                                         **
**                  ____ ____  ___  ___                    **
**                 /__    /   /__/ /__/                    **
**                ____/  /   /  / /  \                     **

List posting/followup:
Administrative matters:

(Administrative postings to the posting address will be ignored!)


          The National Midnight Star, Number 392

                 Monday, 2 December 1991
Today's Topics:
             Canadian Musician Interview 10/91

[ Thanks to both Victor Kamutzki  and Lewis 
  Bernstein  for this!      :rush-mgr ]
(from the October 1991 issue of _Canadian_Musician_)
Rush is  doing it  again.   With the  band's 14th  studio album on the
racks and an impending tour, the multi-platinum trio is set to satisfy
its legions of devoted fans around the world.  Needless to say, a  lot
has been said  about Rush since  it released its  self-titled debut in
1974 and rocketed to international stardom in the '80s.  Much more can
be said, but it may be  better to give Geddy Lee, bassist,  vocalist &
keyboardist, a little breathing room.  Here's the interview, taped  in
Toronto in July  after the band  completed its latest  release, _Roll_
CM: You just finished a new record - how did it go for you?
GL: It was probably the fastest we've made a record in some time.   We
say we made the  record in 8 weeks,  but we spent 10  weeks rehearsing
and writing  so the  recording time  was quick  - that's  good because
that's usually the painful part.
CM: Neil Peart told me it  took a day and a  half to put down all  the
basic drums, which is incredible.
GL: We did the drums and bass tracks over a long weekend, so that  was
good.  It's nice to know you can do them quickly, but I don't think it
really amounts to anything.  The bottom line is what you end up  with,
whether it takes you a long weekend  or four weeks.  I don't think  it
matters, as long as you get what you're after.
CM: I've listened to  the record once.   To me it  sounds like a  very
joyous record,  especially the  opening track.   There's a  breath  of
GL: Yeah, our  intent was  to express  ourselves in  a kind of looser,
more hard rockin' way, so I guess we were fairly exuberant during  our
writing.  The chemistry  that went down was  very up, and I  hope that
would translate onto the vinyl.
CM: As a band you seem to have found some kind of hope for  continuing
- that  there's a  real purpose  for doing  it and  a renewed sense of
GL: Yeah, I'd say that's accurate.   There was definitely a  "clicking
in" of mental frame of mind between the three of us.  When you've been
in a band for as  long as we have -  and there haven't been very  many
bands that have been around as long  as we have - you go through  many
different frames of mind.  Sometimes the three of you are just not  in
sync.  You think  you are and you  act like you are  but you're really
not - I think sometimes that shows in the stuff you write and the  way
you behave on stage  and the way you  tour.  Other times  you're very,
very much of one mind.
    Fortunately  for  us  we're  really  at  home when we're writing -
that's the moment where the three of us are most happy and the most in
sync with each other.   This time we found  ourselves at home in  that
writing stage with  more of a  united purpose.   I don't know  if that
makes any sense to an outsider.  It's a subtle difference, but a  very
profound difference in the kind  of energy that you're willing  to put
into the project.
CM: Is that  perhaps one of  the reasons why  you think Rush  has held
together as long as it has?
GL: I think we've stayed together fo a lot of reasons.  One, we're all
pretty soft-spoken and  we don't have  a tendency to  blow up in  each
other's faces.  Good or bad,  I think that means if something's  going
on in the band and you're not happy about it, before you freak out you
think  about  it.   It's  just  our  nature.   We're  a  little   more
introspective  as  individuals  and  I  think  that  lends  itself  to
    On the other side of it  (away from the personal side), there's  a
very strong  musical vision  that is  always, or  almost always,  very
united.  So you get these three people that have had, say, six  months
off and have  gone through completely  different experiences on  their
own, and then you sit them down together and you think:  "My God,  how
are these three people going to decide on what to write; how are  they
going  to  have  any  point  of  reference  anymore?",  because  their
individual lives  are quite  different.   But time  and time again, we
want  to  do  the  same  kind   of  thing.   Our  musical  goals   are
frighteningly aligned.  I think those two factors are really the  only
factors that have kept us together for that long.
CM:  On  the  new  album  you've  once  again  used  Rupert  Hine as a
co-producer.   Why did  you use  him and  how is  he in sync with what
you're  trying   to  express?    What  are   his  strengths   and  his
contributions to the record?
GL: We had a very pleasant expreience on _Presto_ working with Rupert.
He  and  his  engineer  Stephen  W.  Taylor  are  professional,   very
congenial, extremely musical  and we found  things went very  smoothly
and very quickly.  It was an efficient process.
    I think we're fairly capable  of producing ourselves, but we  need
that extra little sounding board - that person who we can bounce ideas
off of and sometimes contribute with an idea that we would never  have
thought of.  But  for the basic writing  and arrangements on the  last
two  albums,  I  think  there's  been  very  little [difference], in a
fundamental  sense,  from  before  we  had  producer's input to after.
There's a confidence that the  songs that we're writing are  in fairly
good shape by the time the producer comes in.
    So the producer, for us, helps us with feel in terms of putting  a
record down and making sure that our fanatacism in terms of  tightness
and perfection does not overwhelm the song from feeling good.  I think
that's something  we've learned  from Rupert  to a  large degree and I
think that's probably, to my mind, his strongest influence on us  over
the past two records  - even though the  track may not be  100 percent
tight in  terms of  a microscopic  view, that's  not really the issue.
The issue is making the song feel good and making the performance feel
    I think we had a tendency to be almost sterile in the way we  went
about putting  together a  performance.   I mean  we were very adamant
about tightness  to the  millisecond between  bass, drums  and guitar.
Super, super, super tight - beyond, in some people's opinion,  anybody
else's ability to hear the difference.
    So I think he's brought more of a feel... helped us be more  aware
of when  a song  is feeling  good from  us.   It's created  a bit of a
looser vibe and I ike that a lot.  So, his overseeing the performances
going to  tape has  been very  helpful to  us and  his contribution in
terms of vocal arrangements and things like that, to me, are  Rupert's
    Both  [Hine  and  Taylor]  are  musicians  so  they  understand an
appreciate everything you're  doing regardless of  how complex it  is.
That helps cut  down a lot  of time and  wasted energy in  the studio.
They're a very musical-efficient  team and they complemented  over the
last two records the job that we had already done as co-producers.
CM: I find that  you're using the word  "efficient" quite a lot.   You
obviously live  by your  own rules,  because you've  been together for
this long and have done so much.  Efficiency must mean a great deal to
you and the rest of the band with the way you run things.
GL: Well, just in the fact that we've been a band that's been together
for a long time.  Time is  very important to us.  Personal time,  home
time, family time.
CM: And yet you've done so much.
GL: Yeah  we have,  but as  we progress,  and, I  hesitate to  use the
phrase,  as  we  get  older,  those  things are important.  When we're
together in a studio we want to make sure we're not wasting our  time.
We don't mind  working - we  like to work  and get down  to it, but we
don't  want  to  sit  around  the  studio  twiddling  our  thumbs  and
frittering away time when we  could be doing something else,  which at
that point could  be more important  to us.   So we want  to make sure
that there is a sense of of  efficiency and we are making the most  of
our hours there.
    When we were younger, we did albums in residential studios and  we
were working 24 hours a day.  We'd work all night and we would spend a
long time making records and it was... it was the lifestyle.  It's not
any longer.  Now it is a way of getting our music on tape and we  want
to make sure we have a good time doing it, but we want to make sure it
gets done right and then we're out of there, onto the next thing.
CM: You're efficient in another way  - musically.  You're a trio  that
sounds  like  a  10-piece  band.   You  use  all  your  talents   very
efficiently.  Neil writes the words, you and Alex write the music, and
the way you put  it together sounds like  a gigantic rock orchestra  -
and there are only three of  you.  You're not adding people  - there's
never  been  a  fourth  member  of  Rush.   You've  sparsely used even
background vocalists.
GL: Yeah, we have been pretty self-sufficient over the years.  Whether
that's good or bad I guess only time will tell...
    We are  very much  a closed  circle -  it's just  the three of us.
Sometimes I think that's unhealthy.  When we can have somebody new  in
the  control  room  -  whether  it  be  a producer, engineer, keyboard
player, string  arranger, vocalist  - all  these things  help teach us
something.  And that is something I think that we probably did not  do
enough of in our earlier years.  As a result, I think that's why every
couple of records we seem to be changing producers.  Just for the sake
of moving on and learning more.  There's else somebody out there  that
can bring some fresh influence to the band.
CM: You're talking  about influences  now and  people influencing you.
How  much  do  you  listen  to  and get influenced by what's happening
outside of Rush musically?  You've seen popular music change radically
since you began.  How much do you let that affect what you're  putting
out right now?
GL: Right now there's very little influencing me in terms of rock.   I
don't listen to very much  contemporary music at the moment  - there's
just not very much that catches my  fancy.  I seem to be listening  to
old records and things that are very different from what I'm doing.  I
listen to classical records, I listen to Billie Holliday, I listen  to
Louis Armstrong:   all kinds of  stuff that really  has nothing to  do
with what I'm doing  at the moment, aside  from the rock bands  that I
really like  a lot,  like The  Cure, Simple  Minds, Talking  Heads - I
always have time for those bands.
    Nonetheless, there are different times  in our past where we  have
been very influenced by  what's going on.   It was the late  '70s when
bands like The Police - there was a heavily rhythmic influence on rock
and pop that we liked a lot and  we reacted to.  We wanted to be  part
of that movement and learn from [it].  That was a big influence on us.
    In the early  '70s when we  first started, we  were pretty heavily
influenced  by  a  lot  of  the  progressive  rock  bands like Yes and
Genesis.   So we  started off  being very  influenced and at different
times there are different kinds of music that do influence us.  But  I
think we're always  being influenced that  we listen to,  whether it's
contemporary or not.
    In one way or another, as a musician, you're always listening  and
you're  always  asking  the  same  questions  to  yourself  as  you're
listening to  a piece  of music.   So I  think it's  very hard  for an
active  musician  not  to  be  influenced  by  what he's listening to,
whether it be in an overt way or a very subtle way.  I think it always
goes down and  as I say  at the moment  there's no great  contemporary
influence, but there are probably 10 or 12 more subtle influences that
are affecting each one of us in our own way.
CM: I asked you  that question because  I noticed on  the title track,
_Roll_The_Bones_,  there's  quite  a  funky  groove to it and there's,
what appears to be,  a little bit   of rap in  the middle of  it.   So
I was wondering if  you were  stretching out  and exploring  that area
as it pertains to the success and the popularity of that musical  form
GL: Yeah.  I guess that track is something that was influenced by more
of the spoken word stuff that  is going on, although I can't  sit here
and say I'm  a fan of  rap.  I  like some rap  things, but a  lot of I
don't like.   I think  there's some  of it  that's really  well done -
there are  some clever  people out  there.   But it's  also not  a new
    People are talking about rap music like it's something new -  it's
not new at all.  It's been around for over a decade, if not always  in
one form.  And there are songs, like "Territories", where we have used
a similar kind of thing, although it was never related to rap  because
it  wasn't  the  music  of  the  moment  - so we have used spoken word
sections before.
    This one is written  more from Neil's point  of view.  The  lyrics
were written very  much in concert  with contemporary rap  music:  the
way the words react against each other and the structures form more in
sympathy with what's going on in a contemporary rap way.  To a  degree
we are having fun with that.  We couldn't make up our minds really  if
we wanted to be influenced by rap or satirize it, so I think that song
kind of falls between the cracks and in the end I think it came out to
be neither, it came out to be something that is very much us.
CM: It definitely sounds like Rush.
GL: I guess  with the  three of  us it's  pretty hard  not to.  I mean
there are certain elements of our sound that are kind of inimitable at
this stage.
CM: You rely a lot on technology.  How much does the technology you're
using affect your  songwriting?  Is  there an experimental  element to
the technology that you use?
GL: Yeah.   It's definitely  experimental.   I think  technology has a
great  effect  on  what  we  do  -  less of an effect now than perhaps
records of the past.  The last two records were rebellion, in a sense,
against the technology that we kind of got locked into.
    With _Hold_Your_Fire_ and _Power_Windows_ we were _so_  technology
oriented.  We were really  after a marriage of synthesizer  technology
and hard  rock.   Those records  were experiments  in balance of those
two, and  that experiment  started with  _Signals_, really.   That was
the first major experiment.
    After _Signals_ was finished, we felt  it was kind  of a   failure
in   getting the   right balance.    With  _Grace_Under_Pressure_   we
still   felt   we   were   experimenting   with   that  balance;  with
"Subdivisions" we  felt   like we  leaned too  heavily  into keyboards
and ignored the guitar aspect  of it.  With _Grace_Under_Pressure_  we
felt felt we over-reacted too much the other way.
    With  _Power_Windows_  and  _Hold_Your_Fire_  we  felt  we kind of
achieved  the  balance.  So  because  we'd gone through literally four
records of trying to balance those two things out I think by the  time
we came  to write  _Presto_ and  this record  we didn't  want to  know
anything  about  being  restricted  to  a  concept.  We just wanted to
    As a writer I hesitated going to my keyboards, hesitated going  to
my  sequencers  -  always  thought  of  first writing from a vocal and
guitar point of  view.  So  if those four  albums were experiments  in
guitar/synthesizer balancing, then these last two records have been  a
bit of  a return  to our  fundamental -  I hesitate  to use, return to
basics, because  I don't  think we  ever do  have a  "back to  basics"
approach - trio attitude with the experimenting all done in the  vocal
    Melodically I think these last two albums are much different  than
something  we  could  have  done  four  or  five years ago.  The vocal
layering and the influence that  writing around a vocal melody  has on
the rest of the song has been really what these two records fo me have
been about as a writer, and I think the band as a whole.
CM: So  you're  feeling  fairly  stable  with  the balance that you've
manged to create.
GL: Yeah, I guess to wrap it  up correctly, the last two records  have
been freer attempts at writing - less confined.  There are  incredible
orchestration and textural possibilities when you're locked into using
sequencers  and  synthesizers.   It's  a  great  sonic  advantage, but
there's also an emotional and feel restriction when you get too locked
into that technology, so these two records (and particularly this one)
have been a bit of a revolt against that restriction to create a freer
sound with the band.
    We  will  use  [technology]  as  a  way  of enhancing our songs as
opposed  to  it  being  the  fundamental  song  itself.   And  this is
coordination with an interest in experimenting with vocal melodies and
layering - again a more organic approach to writing.
CM: How are you  going to reproduce  that vocal layering  and the much
more complex vocal stylings in a live situation?
GL: Well, a lot of that is very difficult.  You see, the freer we  get
in the studio  the more it  creates a hell-on-earth  onstage.  It  was
very  difficult  last  tour.   Obviously  Alex  has  to  be a lot more
involved in singing back-up, and  there's always the decision of  what
parts to sequence  and what parts  to use backing  sampling and things
like that.  So it's a very difficult thing and I'm not quite sure  how
we're going to achieve it for the next tour, although last tour we got
quite a good balance between Alex and electronics helping us out.
    There were certain things on the last tour that were very  heavily
animated so  there were  moments where  soundtrack on  film took  over
certain moments of our songs and  we'd come back in afterwards.   It's
kind of a  mixed media thing.   Because we're so  heavily involved  in
using sampling  and sequencing  machines and  audio visual  stuff it's
very much a combination of  technology and human beings on  stage when
you go to a Rush show.  It's  a marriage of the two.  And all  of that
fuss is just to avoid adding another person onstage.
    There's nothing  that we  use onstage  that's triggered  by anyone
else, because there's this kind of unwritten code that if we're  going
to use a sampled piece or a sequenced piece it has to be triggered  by
us, which is  why we have  this elaborate foot  pedal setup.   Nothing
happens without some connection to performance for us.  So you have to
be there and if you have a small rhythmic sequence that's going to  be
playing, somebody has to trigger it at the right time - it's more of a
choreography of technology.
    You've got to be there at the right time, you've got to trigger it
in time, you've  got to add  that element of  performance, and if  you
screw up you  can't use the  part, so no  matter how complex  our show
gets in the use of technology, we make sure that there has to be  that
element of human error that makes the difference.  You have to be able
to trigger it.  It has to be connected to us in some way.
CM: It seems like you're making it very difficult for yourselves  when
it could be done a lot easier.  You say it's an unwritten rule in  the
band, but...
GL: Yeah.  It could be a lot easier with another person.  And I  don't
know why...  We  talked...  Before the  last tour we had  very serious
talks about adding another member.
CM: Just for the tour?
GL: Just for the  tour, yeah -  not in the  band.  But  we came to the
conclusion that our fans would rather see us use technology to try  to
pull it off than have somebody else on the stage.  And I really  think
that that was the main reason why we opted to try to do it  ourselves.
We figured that  people who have  been coming to  see us for  15 years
would  rather  see  us  up  there  fighting  our  way through the show
than hiring  somebody else.   We figured  that technology  was a  more
acceptable answer than not being a three-piece.
CM: You  mentioned  your  marriage  between  technology  and the human
element.  How  much do the  visual aspects come  in?  Do  you get very
involved in that personally?
GL: Yeah, very involved.   Personally I have a  lot of input into  the
film portions  of our  show.   In the  past, lighting  effects and all
those things have always been left  to our lighting designer.  But  as
far as the use of animation - that's something I'm very interested in.
I'm pretty proud of the kinds of animation we've put together over the
last few years because we've  used some very talented artists  in town
here and I think we've achieved some really unique pieces of work that
I think stand up.   And it's an area  that I'm very interested  in and
have a lot of fun doing.
CM: And you also have a lot of personal input into the videos that you 
put out as well.
GL: Well, I  have as  much as  will fit.   Sometimes we  work with the
director; sometimes we let  them do the job  because they have a  very
strong sense of where the project  should go; other times you have  to
put in a lot more; and sometimes you want to put more in, so it really
    I figure that some of  our videos have been very  successful, some
of them haven't.  It's never a completely satisfying experience for me
because there  are so  many limitations.   It's such  a strange thing,
this video -  it's gotta be  too practical to  be considered really  a
piece of art, although you can be very artful about doing it.
    It's  basically  a  commercial  for  your song.  There's something
about that that  really kind of  turns me off  from the word  go.  And
depending on  the director  you're using,  you know  they usually have
very little feel for the music itself and that kind of bothers me.  So
it's very rare that we've used the same director twice.
CM: We were talking a little bit  about influences before.  I want  to
do a little extension of that:  Rush seems to be in a certain niche in
the musical sphere that no-one has been able to duplicate.
GL: Or want to?  (laughter)
CM: I don't know about that...  You have a lot of fans and you're very
popular not only in Canada, but also on the international scene.   You
must have come across many instances where someone will come up to you
and say, "You've really done a lot for me in my musical career and one
of your records  changed my life.   It made me  decide to do  this and
this."  How do you react to something like that?
GL: It's a difficult thing to react to in any real way because  you're
gratified that what  you've done has  had some effect  on that person,
although  the  intention  was  not  to  change  their  life  - just to
entertain them.
    The fact that they've  taken something you;ve done  very seriously
is kind of a double-edged sword.  You're complimented that, but at the
same  time  you  can't  let  it  go  beyond  that  kind of compliment.
Otherwise you start thinking of yourself in much too serious a  light.
Like, "what I'm doing affects someone's life."
    You can't think  like that because  it affects the  way you write.
It allows part of  your ego to become  awkwardly large.  It's  not for
any great reason to  be a humble guy,  it's just that the  more out of
proportion your  ego gets,  the harder  it is  to do  a good  job; the
harder it is for you to be  in touch with what it is about  your music
that  works  and  doesn't  work.   Likewise  what  it  is  about  your
personality that  is happening  or not  happening.   So to  take those
kind of compliments  too seriously I  think damages your  ego.  People
say it pumps you up, but I think that's wrong.  I don't think it helps
you in any way as  a person, and I think  it can have a very  negative
effect on you as a writer.
CM: Perhaps you'd also have a  sense of responsibility.  It  would tag
you; you might think:  "Oh, I'm responsible for that."  It might  make
you feel uneasy.
GL: Yeah that's true.  You want  to feel the freedom of being  able to
do what you want.   A complaint that I get  a lot from fans is:   "Why
don't you do this record again...  how come you don't sound more  like
_Moving_Pictures_  or  _2112_,  or  how  come  you  don't  play   like
_Hemispheres_ any more??"
    It's very  hard to  explain that  thing -  you kind  of have to be
making records or writing music for a long time to understand it.   It
just doesn't come out.  You've got other things that interest you  and
you want to keep challenging yourself, but it's not this big  decision
to keep challenging yourself.  It's  a very natural thing.  You  go in
the studio and you just start  writing.  We get together, and  we just
start writing.  So what you end up  with has a lot to do with who  you
are at that point in time.  So you cannot sit there and go, "OK, let's
write _Moving_Pictures_  all over  again -  let's go  back in  time 10
years and see if we can capture that feel".
    That would be  somehow dishonest to  everything you've done  since
then and it would feel like you were just going through the motions  -
and you  cannot stay  a band  for very  long if  you're just trying to
capitalize on some  successful moment moment  you've had in  your past
and build your future on your past.
    It's all stepping stones.  I  still like to think that we  haven't
made the best record  we can make.   I still like to  think that we're
looking for that real fabulous combination of performance and  writing
and feeling that will make a  timeless record.  But I don't  think you
can do that by looking over your shoulder.
CM: Despite your personal philosophy on making records and the changes
you've made, you've  managed to maintain  a sound which  is distinctly
GL: I think that's because it comes from your hands.  A lot of  people
are afraid to change  producers.  We used  to be like this.   We said,
"Well, we can't change producers because our sound will change."   And
then suddenly you change producers;  your sound changes a little  bit,
but it doesn't really change - the heart of it is still the same.
    Here we are, four or five producers past Terry Brown, and we still
sound like Rush.   Well, why is  that?  That's  'cause we _are_  Rush,
because  the  combination  of  the  three  of us working together, our
fingers on  our instruments,  has a  particular sound  that you really
can't erase.  Our views of music and our style of writing are so  much
_us_ that I don't think you can squash that - you really can't take it
away from us.
    It's  just  the  way  we  are  -  it's  the way we sound.  I think
musicians have to  have a lot  of confidence in  themselves - if  they
have a sound  to call their  own they shouldn't  be afraid of  working
with other people or  be afraid anyone can  take that sound away  from
them as  long as  they have  a strong  sense of  where they're at as a
writer and as a musician.  I don't think they should be scared of that
kind of change because their sound comes from their fingers - it comes
from their way of thinking.
Sidebar:  "Neil Peart On..."
    There's a  running joke  about us  doing solo  albums," Neil Peart
says cheerfully.  "Lucky there's only three of us."
    As Rush's lyricist and percussionist, Peart is privy to one of the
most popular and longest  running rock icon bands  in the world -  but
you wouldn't know it to talk to him on the phone.
    "We work  under a  kinda superstition  - an  element of  change is
critical for us.  We feel there's no sense of guarantee at all," Peart
says, referring to his many years  of hard work and dedication to  the
precarious craft of musicianship.
    "As  a  young   musician  you're  used   to  disillusionment   and
disappointment.  You're disillusioned and disappointed so many  times;
even when  I had  a chance  to join  this band...   I never thought it
would turn out this way."
    "This way", as Peart  describes it, is pretty  much on the top  of
the heap in terms of Rush's musical success.
    "I always think of Rush widely spread on musical influences - from
African,  to  hard  rock,  to  Toronto  R&B.   There  are  no areas of
    Then there is Peart's  personal contribution  to the  art of  rock
drumming,  something  not  to  be  trifled  with  as he has earned the
respect and admiration of his peers and fans around the world.
    "I don't need to practise every  day any more.  After 25  years it
doesn't go away.  If I leave  drumming for a few months I sit  down at
the same level I left at; I just have to build up the calices again."
    Pulling his  weight not  only as  an extremely  effective drummer,
Peart has  also been  Rush's wordsmith  practically since  the day  he
joined the band.
    "Lyric  writing  is  as  technical  as  drumming is, and should be
approached with purpose  and discipline," Peart  says.  "I'll  sit and
stare and  a blank  sheet of  paper for  three days  if that's what it
    "I have  long discussions  with Geddy  about which  type of lyrics
work and which don't.   I'm very sensitive to  where the vocalist  may
be, and if I want to punch up or drop out.
    "I realize that sometimes the  lyrics are secondary.  Lyrics  used
to be so  good and so  finely crafted in  the '30s and  '40s - no  one
would put out second rate lyrics.  Then the '50s came out with  things
like 'Be-bop a-lula'.  A sense  of craft and care is not  definable...
I please myself with structure, but realize that it doesn't matter."
    With  the  release  of  _Roll_The_Bones_  and  a massive tour just
around the corner,  Peart is, as  he surely has  been during his  long
association with  Rush, genuinely  enthusiastic about  what the future
    "We're driving full bore; we've moved our plans way up.  You  have
to create  your own  challenge; make  it dangerous;  keep it exciting.
You can't let the excitement go away.
    "We've learned not to take  anything for granted.  We  don't know,
but we can _hope_.  That's something you can't allow to die."


To submit material to The National Midnight Star, send mail to:

For administrative matters (subscription, unsubscription, changes, and 
questions), send mail to:    or

There is now anonymous ftp access available on Syrinx.  The network
address to ftp to is:       or

When you've connected, userid is "anonymous", password is .
Once you've successfully logged on, change directory (cd) to 'rush'.

There is also a mail server available (for those unable or unwilling to
ftp).  For more info, send email with the subject line of HELP to:

These requests are processed nightly.  Use a subject line of MESSAGE to
send a note to the server keeper or to deposit a file into the archive.

The contents of The National Midnight Star are solely the opinions and 
comments of the individual authors, and do not necessarily reflect the 
opinions of the authors' management, or the mailing list management.

Copyright The Rush Fans Mailing List, 1991.

Editor, The National Midnight Star
(Rush Fans Mailing List)

End of The National Midnight Star Number 392

Previous Issue <-> Next Issue