RUSH IS A BAND

#2 - Posted 9/18/06 @4:41PM by broonskey [contact]

cool, thanks for this ed! d/l it now and will listen to it later.

ah, the benefits of the internet. i remember when all i got to listen to in way of rush interviews was rockline and soundbites on kshe95 (circa '91-'97). and you had to catch them when they were aired and try to tape it (or borrow an tape from a fellow rush nut friend who recorded it). i even remember calling into work to listen to the counterparts one. :P now you can just d/l an recent interview you missed (or even ones from ages past) via the internet and helpful folks. thanks again!

#4 - Posted 9/18/06 @4:50PM by Jay [contact]

This is an excellent interview.

Hearing Neil talking about the concert fans and churches is priceless.

Neil does sound great MITA. "Time will do its healing...."

#6 - Posted 9/19/06 @9:36AM by Ed [contact]

Upbeat and positive definitely. It's so good to hear Neil sounding like this again. And, after listening to this again, I think that his explanation of the "R30 dryers" is by far the most comprehensive description yet. Very interesting.

#8 - Posted 9/19/06 @1:08PM by Ed [contact]

Daryle, others have been experiencing the same problem. The file is housed at filelodge.com (not my site) and that site seems to be hit-or-miss as far as downloading stuff. When it gets bogged down, it seems to be cutting off people's downloads. All I can suggest is to try again. Most people seem to be able to download it. Also, if anyone out there wants to mirror a copy of the file, please do so- and let us know where it is.

#10 - Posted 9/19/06 @2:52PM by Chad [contact]

Nice interview. It's great to hear Neil out there talking to people and in such good spirits. It was also encouraging to hear him mention a "masterpiece" for the new album. I wonder if there is anything to read into there... (Long, extended track?!)

#12 - Posted 9/19/06 @7:15PM by broonskey [contact]

i uploaded the interview via rapidshare. if you haven't used rapidshare before to d/l just scroll down and click the "free" d/l button. you'll have to wait a minute or so (a timer will count down), and then type in a code, and then you can d/l it.


here's the link:

link

#14 - Posted 9/19/06 @10:53PM by broonskey [contact]

no problem ed. just hope people see this and can d/l it ok. thanks for being the source of this! it is a good interview. :)

#16 - Posted 9/22/06 @12:50AM by broonskey [contact]

i think it's just his monotone gibby. he just doesn't have any nuance or inflection to his voice and his delivery is bland.

i had an philosophy teacher who was notorious for being a bad lecturer, and he was. but he knew his shit, and even though his presentation of it was bad (he was in his 60's at the time i took his class and his head actually bobbled and was bowed, i.e. he talked to the floor a lot), his mastery of the material and his organization of it was very good, much better than the other younger, "sexier", better speaking and more charismatic teachers i had for other philosophy classes. but even though i love philosophy, i had a hard time staying focused during some of those classes, and the average student practically fell asleep. but i'll choose substance over style anyday. :)

i don't think neil is an "genuis" in the sense of having an i.q. of 150+. i have an i.q. in the 130's (and if you are into physics i expect you have around the same or better) and frankly am not too impressed with his overall knowledge of the world as it is conveyed in his books/interviews. i don't get the sense of him having broad and deep knowledge that i do when reading or hearing real intellectuals past or present. he seems to know much about a lot of things, but little of anything in great depth, at least of scholary pursuits (of course he knows the art of drumming in great depth). this is probably due to his eclectic reading, which, while not a bad thing, is no way to posses real substance and deep knowledge of, well, anything. his knowledge seems, in a word, shallow, yet somewhat broad, but never deep. it is as if he waded waist deep into many different subjects and then turned back and went on to another, while those that master the same subjects fully submerge and devote themselves to comprehensive study of them before going on to the next.

this is not to say he isn't an intelligent man; i think he is just as or more intelligent than i, just not as educated. that is, i, having studied philosophy VERY deeply (i majored in it) as well as knowing some areas of science, history, and literature well, when reading him get a sense of him having an incomprehensive or incomplete knowledge of too many areas with nothing known in great depth. you can tell he never had systematic and sustained formal higher education, college in other words, and any of my college educated friends who have read him agree, as well as my dad who was an english/literature professor for 32 years (he actually thinks he is an terrible writer, but that is another story, i think he is just an decent writer myself).

this said, i do think he is smart, witty, clever, humane, sensitive, intuitive, open-minded, introspective, and has a definite knack or talent for lyrical writting and drum playing. i wouldn't say he is an genuis of or in these things, but that he is very good at them is certain. but i don't think he could have become an professional scientist engineer, or philosopher; that is for those who have really high i.q.'s (higher than mine, though i may write a philosophy book someday and see how it goes) and will devote their lives to one topic, not flitter from one to the next like a curious, but mindless butterfly.

if he seems more educated than the average joe, it is not because he possesses supreme intelligence or is highly scholarly, only that the average person's (especially in america) intellectual peak is being able to read and comprehend time magazine, at best.

#18 - Posted 9/29/06 @10:19AM by Ripster [contact]

broonskey,
While I understand that a certain vernacular has developed for use in instant messaging and e-correspondence, I do not feel that it should supplant the use of proper grammar.It is interesting how many of those posting without lauding the extent of their education or IQ have the grace and courtesy to follow the rules of proper writing. I have always believed that written communication in any form is reflective of the individual doing the writing. Congratulations on your high degree of academic success, however I would suggest that you consider taking a few writing classes.
Sincerely, R. Hornburg II