I took great exception to Katherine Turman's two-star review of Rush's new album, "Counterparts" (Nov. 7). She basically dis(miss)es the band by asserting it's on autopilot, having found the formula for "slick yet edgy melodies" and so on. I wonder if we listened to the same record.
The truth of the matter is that Rush is one of the few bands that continue to grow with each recording. No two Rush recordings are interchangeable, as Turman asserts. As for the "spacey" lyrics, perhaps she's blown away by the fact that they are intelligent and eloquent--an entire record without the word baby !
I have read Calendar for more than 10 years and have seen many reviews of Rush's albums. After reading Turman's review, I must ask: Do you keep a file of reviews for Rush and simply regurgitate them for each album?
Rush has enjoyed close to 20 years of success despite such reviews. In fact, many of today's bands cite Rush as a major influence on their musical development (Primus, to name one). Do you actually believe that Pearl Jam or Nirvana would even exist if it was not for bands like Rush that rode out the electronic wave of the '80s and stuck to using real drums and guitars?
DANIEL HOWARD BERGER