July 17, 2010
Baroness Versus Rush: Beards and Undescended Testicles
3:05 AM | Posted by
jenniy
Chronic Youth describes itself as a celebration of the brutal culture with much attention paid to more hardcore forms of music. I wasn't really surprised when I found the contest rules to simply say:
How to Win?
Email info@chronicyouth.com and tell us why Baroness is or isn’t better than Rush. The dude or chick with the best answer wins this motherfucker. Word.
Submit your response by July 15, 2010 and Relapse will send the poster to your house or place of business or wherever.
I was immediately intrigued by the possibilities of such an essay. I assumed at the time, wrongly, that such an answer required thought and research laid out in an essay style format, but there I go letting my tits and estrogen do my thinking for me again. However, at the time, I immediately set out to work considering the two bands, listening to songs of both, asking opinions of others and putting together my ideas. Eventually, with the help of a couple j's in my editing pocket, I ended up with the following answer:
Baroness versus Rush is an impossible debate. It’s not really an apples to oranges comparison but more like a new hybrid apple-pear combination fruit versus a red delicious apple.
In such a debate, some are assuredly going to argue for Rush because of their contributions to progressive rock and their long standing place in rock history. Both are sound arguments. We’re talking about a band which is third in line for consecutive albums reaching gold and platinum status outnumbered only by the Beatles and the Rolling Stones. Some will also argue for Rush because of their outstanding musical abilities especially with Neil Peart being considered one of the greatest drummers of all time. No doubt, though, after more than 3 decades of playing, these guys have continued to grow musically cementing their legendary status.
Baroness fans, on the other hand, are likely to mention the band’s unique, indefinable sound which seems to encompass elements of sludge, doom, progressive metal, blues, Southern rock, and more. Some will also point out that Baroness has created quite a presence in a relatively short amount of time, at least in the underground scene. And, they have considering their growing popularity after only releasing their first 3 song EP in 2004. With only 2 full length albums under their belt, the band has created quite a stir.
The validity of arguments on both sides is what makes this a difficult choice. Baroness versus Rush. Rush versus Baroness. This is the equivalent of a superhero debate for comic book nerds. Superman is a faster than a speeding bullet, more powerful than a locomotive alien and he can kick any superhero’s ass. Oh yeah? Well, Spiderman’s internal struggle was much deeper therefore making him the stronger of the two with a sense of mystery and he’s wicked cool so he’ll get laid way more than Superman and still kick his ass. Who really wins in the realm of comics and saving the day? Both have some pretty decent qualities but really, is there a right answer to the question? It’s similar here, but hardpressed for an answer, I have to go with Baroness. For me, this choice comes down to love for music on the purest of levels--Baroness moves me on levels Rush will never reach and I’d be willing to bet a lot of Baroness fans and fans of sludge, doom, stoner, progressive metal, etc are going to feel the same. (Although, it might be fun to overhear a bar conversation on who would kick who’s ass out of Allen Blickle and Neil Peart.)
Rush gets my head bobbing in time to the rhythm but Baroness reaches in deep, pulling me a little higher. Can I soar on the Wailing Wintry Wind? Perhaps. Just seconds into Tower Falls, Red Sky, Isak….hit the 31 second mark of O’Appalachia and whatever state my reality has existed in is automatically improved. I’ve seen Baroness live. Just once. It was the Blue Record release at the Jinx, the bar in Savannah in whose basement the band actually used to practice. It was an emotionally charged experience for those guys--celebrating their second album where they actually started out--and one look around me made it clear that a good number of my peers were feeling the intensity. We were all existing on a higher level than when we walked through the doors of that bar and by the time the evening was over, we had something we’d carry with us for quite a long time, etched in memory.
For my generation, Baroness wins. The lyrics are ambiguous without the preachiness, pretentiousness, or fantastical elements often found in Peart’s songs. John Baizley’s vocals rumble across our ear drums with none of Geddy Lee’s high pitched, someone’s-got-me-by-the-balls style. No one’s ever heard Baizley and mistakenly thought it was “badass for a chic to be in that band.” The musical talent of Baroness isn’t lacking and the potential to reach the technically gifted levels of Rush is evident. Baroness may not have the decades behind the legendary Canadian prog rockers or the platinum and gold album sales, but the time put in and the money made doesn’t really tell us who is better.
Simply put, Rush ain’t Baroness. Period.
The winner was announced today. I never once really considered the idea that I'd win. I was just curious how my own essay would compare to the winner's more than anything. I looked forward to a well constructed, humorous critique of the bands I would largely enjoy and be able to use to improve my own writing style when reviewing a band or music. He had this to say:
Rush raped my mom and she couldnt even feel it. Weak. Baroness wrecked her.
So, out of this experience I learned that Chronic Youth really doesn't give a shit about music. In fact, as long as you have an unoriginal, not-even-worth-a-guffaw dick joke and have yet to exit a state of pubescent thinking requiring complex thought and lack of scatological humor, you can rule the world. Thanks guys!!! You just made my life a hell of a lot easier. Now I don't actually have to think to make it through the day.
xoxo
oh and just in case any of you would like to hear what I'm talking about....here's a quick mix list. Enjoy.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 Comments:
Unfortunately I knew exactly where this was headed and just felt worse and worse for you as you kept going giving a real answer to the same idiotic question that very stupid people like to ask about music:
Is this band better than this band?
And why do they ask this question? So they can babble on about how much better the band they like is than a band they think is lame. I knew it as soon as I saw Rush and thought, "There's no reason to compare these bands except for Rush being an easy target."
I dig Rush. Rush is also an acquired taste. They are technical musicians and as such their music doesn't really grab you on an emotional level. From what I've heard from Baroness (mostly from your links) they are not unskilled but their drive, their core is on an emotional level. Power vs. finesse.
Both bands are worth listening to. Comparing them to each other, especially in terms of who is better, is more or less an exercise in futility. Your effort was impressive but in the end you realize the answer to that question lies in the listener, not in the band. So there is no absolute answer. Rush is not Baroness. Liking one more doesn't lessen the other.
The winning "essay" is simply what they were looking for. An insult to a band and style of music that offends their limited sensibilities of what is good.
If the rules say liking Baroness means I can't listen to Rush anymore, then I'll be happy to continue breaking the rules. Both are worth listening to in my humble opinion.
The only good answer to a question like "Who's better, the Beatles or the Stones?" is to slap the person who asked it across the face as hard as you can. Maybe you'll wake them up a little so they can realize that good music is good music.
Post a Comment