Jump to content

Rush: a guide to their best albums by Louder Magazine

RushFanForever

By RushFanForever,
in Rush

 Share

Recommended Posts

RushFanForever

RushFanForever

Posted
Posted (edited)

In relation to Segue Myles - Revisiting Every Rush Album In Order posts, Louder magazine has re-posted the following:

 

Rush: a guide to their best albums

 

This article originally appeared in Classic Rock #115 from February 2008.

 

Any thoughts?

 

There's a casual woman RUSH fan I know who discovered them because of me and prefers the Roll The Bones and Feedback albums.

Edited by RushFanForever
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
JARG

JARG

Posted
Posted

"It’s hard to believe that when Rush released their debut in 1974 everyone had them pegged as Led Zep copyists."

 

That sentence is missing a word.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
taurus

taurus

Posted
Posted
I think they got it essential correct. Those are the broad strokes. Rush was a band that started out pretty good and were getting better every record, reaching a plateau at MP/ESL. They were not content to copy themselves and release MP II and went in a different direction. Not so alien that we couldn't recognize them, just different enough. So while the 74-81 period was spent refining this hard rock/prog rock fusion. The 82-92 period was spent on exploring this hard rock/new wavish keyboard sound. After that they settled into hard rock but without the wild abandonment of earlier records like FBN or COS
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
goose

goose

Posted
Posted

In relation to Segue Myles - Revisiting Every Rush Album In Order posts, Louder magazine has re-posted the following:

 

Rush: a guide to their best albums

 

This article originally appeared in Classic Rock #115 from February 2008.

 

Any thoughts?

 

There's a casual woman RUSH fan I know who discovered them because of me and prefers the Roll The Bones and Feedback albums.

Two very accessible albums, with the former also being their most successful album, chart-wise.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
rftag

rftag

Posted
Posted (edited)

I think they got it essential correct. Those are the broad strokes. Rush was a band that started out pretty good and were getting better every record, reaching a plateau at MP/ESL. They were not content to copy themselves and release MP II and went in a different direction. Not so alien that we couldn't recognize them, just different enough. So while the 74-81 period was spent refining this hard rock/prog rock fusion. The 82-92 period was spent on exploring this hard rock/new wavish keyboard sound. After that they settled into hard rock but without the wild abandonment of earlier records like FBN or COS

 

I largely agree with your assessment of the article, but the article contains several dubious assertions, such as "The 82-92 period was spent on exploring this hard rock/new wavish keyboard sound."

 

I don't think there was anything that could be considered "hard rock" in this period, and this in my opinion is precisely what alienated a lot of their fans after MP.

 

The article does provide a reasonably accurate assessment of Rush's evolution however, and I find the author's decision to place the albums in categories of essential, superior, good, and avoid to be a better framework than simply ranking them all in a list from best to worst.

 

I just don't agree with many of his choices as to what albums belong in each category.

 

PeW for example, in my opinion at least, should most definitely be in the essential category.

 

I also got the impression from some things he says that he likes Rush but it isn't a band he actually followed closely (Signals is most decidedly NOT a continuation of MP; La Villa Strangiato is not 'techno rock"; there is nothing on Snakes and Arrows that sounds like MP; etc).

Edited by rftag
Link to comment
Share on other sites
rftag

rftag

Posted
Posted

Alex played keyboards on GUP, huh?

And Armor & Sword will remind you of a song from the Moving Pictures era?

Whaaaaaaa?.......

Alex played keyboards on GUP, huh?

And Armor & Sword will remind you of a song from the Moving Pictures era?

Whaaaaaaa?.......

 

Thank you for pointing out that it was Snakes and Arrows that he claimed had a track that sounds like MP; I had written RTB by mistake (I've corrected the error).

 

I have no idea why I initially wrote RTB instead of Snakes and Arrows. What possible Freudian slip may have been involved is a question I leave for psychiatrists to answer (I suspect it is simply that I'm pushing 50; my first 'senior moment'?).

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Segue Myles

Segue Myles

Posted
Posted

I think they got it essential correct. Those are the broad strokes. Rush was a band that started out pretty good and were getting better every record, reaching a plateau at MP/ESL. They were not content to copy themselves and release MP II and went in a different direction. Not so alien that we couldn't recognize them, just different enough. So while the 74-81 period was spent refining this hard rock/prog rock fusion. The 82-92 period was spent on exploring this hard rock/new wavish keyboard sound. After that they settled into hard rock but without the wild abandonment of earlier records like FBN or COS

 

I largely agree with your assessment of the article, but the article contains several dubious assertions, such as "The 82-92 period was spent on exploring this hard rock/new wavish keyboard sound."

 

I don't think there was anything that could be considered "hard rock" in this period, and this in my opinion is precisely what alienated a lot of their fans after MP.

 

The article does provide a reasonably accurate assessment of Rush's evolution however, and I find the author's decision to place the albums in categories of essential, superior, good, and avoid to be a better framework than simply ranking them all in a list from best to worst.

 

I just don't agree with many of his choices as to what albums belong in each category.

 

PeW for example, in my opinion at least, should most definitely be in the essential category.

 

I also got the impression from some things he says that he likes Rush but it isn't a band he actually followed closely (Signals is most decidedly NOT a continuation of MP; La Villa Strangiato is not 'techno rock"; there is nothing on Snakes and Arrows that sounds like MP; etc).

 

I have heard several people on this forum mention that Signals to then is like MP part 2. I lost definitely don't hear it myself. The two albums are completely different. One of them being undoubtedly a masterpiece for a start.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
J2112YYZ

J2112YYZ

Posted
Posted

Alex played keyboards on GUP, huh?

And Armor & Sword will remind you of a song from the Moving Pictures era?

Whaaaaaaa?.......

 

I love Armor and Sword but never got a Moving Pictures feel from it. Always felt it was more along the lines of 70s prog Rush with a modern sound.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
JARG

JARG

Posted
Posted

And Armor & Sword will remind you of a song from the Moving Pictures era?

Whaaaaaaa?.......

I think the production value of S&A is comparable to MP.

 

The hell?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
taurus

taurus

Posted
Posted

I have heard several people on this forum mention that Signals to then is like MP part 2. I lost definitely don't hear it myself. The two albums are completely different. One of them being undoubtedly a masterpiece for a start.

 

I'm with you - I don't hear Signals as MP II at all. A rather distinct departure, the one track that is the crossover, is Vital Signs. VS sounds like it could have been included with Signals and not sound out of place. It was like the band was giving us a sneak peak at what was in store.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
tangy

tangy

Posted
Posted

Hit and miss for me. AFTK is not superior IMO, and PeW belongs in essential. I wouldn't put PoW or RtB in the good, worth exploring, category. Certainly not over the debut, or FBN, or Vapor Trails.

 

To me aftk is the shit. So is perm waves.

 

Totally agree about your worth exploring picks.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
rftag

rftag

Posted
Posted (edited)

I have heard several people on this forum mention that Signals to then is like MP part 2. I lost definitely don't hear it myself. The two albums are completely different. One of them being undoubtedly a masterpiece for a start.

 

I'm with you - I don't hear Signals as MP II at all. A rather distinct departure, the one track that is the crossover, is Vital Signs. VS sounds like it could have been included with Signals and not sound out of place. It was like the band was giving us a sneak peak at what was in store.

 

Yeah, I've actually said the same thing on here before (i.e. that Vital Signs sounds like it could have been on Signals).

 

But nothing else on MP sounds anything like Signals. And there definitely isn't anything on Signals that sounds like MP.

 

In retrospect, knowing what was to follow MP, especially with it being the last track on MP, Vital Signs always struck me as a wink as to where they were headed.

 

Oddly enough however it was actually the first song they recorded for MP. I have no idea whether it was the last song written for MP however.

Edited by rftag
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...