Jump to content

70s Rush...it's just my opinion of course


Presto-digitation

Recommended Posts

With the release of Retrospectives Tres here last week or so, I've read a lot of what folks on various boards think about it...about not getting it, etc. Tons of thoughts. And one that pops up now and again got me to thinking really hard and that's where I've read "clearly this period marks the weakest era of the band" and that's certainly arguable. So I started thinking about the band and its discernable phases, mostly as it breaks down by each decade. And while I'm a late comer to the party, I didn't previously have a "favorite" era of the band. I simply jumped into the deep end of the Rush pool and found that not only wasn't I going to drown, I learned to swim quite well and that the water was fine...! I sat down and in the most anal ways possible, slowly got to know all aspects of the band...and IN CHRONOLOGICAL ORDER, thanks to the help of a friend and some CD burns. (I've since bought them all on my own, so as to hush the anti-pirate folks...of whom I'm one, really). While I knew quite well who Rush was, having grown up with them, I'd not paid attention. I found I liked this song and that song over the years, but simply and largely dismissed them on the whole as a band who was clearly talented, but not a band I cared to get into. Anyhow, that all changed....and that's been three years now where Rush has been mostly what I've listened to over that time and almost literally nothing else for the first year, crazy as that seems.

 

Now that doesn't make me the biggest fan in the world and it certainly doesn't make me an expert...and I certainly didn't live through the appreciation of 2112 or the enormous anticipation of Vapor Trails and "the return of Rush." I was almost pee-my-pants excited about Snakes & Arrows, but that's just because that was my first "new" Rush album...and not that it marked any historical significance. Still and all, I consider myself a Rush fan...just one stripped away of memories of listening to Hemispheres at my friend Bob's house in '78 or remembering where I was as I eagerly waited for Grace Under Pressure. I know the songs....I love most of them on some level or another....and there are very few moments or specifics about this band that really make me cringe.

 

So I thought about it a lot and in my worthless opinion, to me the 70s era of the band was the most underwhelming. The band spent much of the decade developing itself and to me each album gradually got stronger and stronger, for the most part anyhow. I still rank the band's first three releases as the bottom three albums, consider 2112 to be overrated on the whole -- despite its importance to the survival of the band -- and think the band didn't have a near homerun until Kings. Hemispheres improved on that, thanks to the title track being tons better than Cygnus on Kings. So finally in 1978 they had a pretty killer album from stem to stern....and much of what preceded that was developmental to me.

 

What the band lacked in the 70s wasn't eagerness or guts. But what they didn't have was scores of songwriting discipline, nor were they terribly adept at crafting a song from start to finish on a regular basis. By 1980 the songs were shorter, more concise...and the band was having to do more in less space. Their sound grew through the 80s and evolved, incorporating current trends in music and making it their own...much as a lot of the progressive rock they were doing in the 70s was what many musician-based bands were doing then. In the 80s and into the 90s they learned the craft of writing a five minute song, which is often more challenging and simply more difficult than sculpting a 15 minute epic with various unrelated parts mashed together. It was this kind of growth that allowed for such greatness as The Spirit Of Radio, Tom Sawyer...and ultimately things like Bravado and The Pass, songs so achingly melodic and lyrically insightful, songs far beyond what they could've done in 1976.

 

I don't know, I think this band has grown and evolved in great ways. I'm not even sure the band really came into its own until 1980. Peart prefers we just all forget things prior to Moving Pictures, but I think that leaves out the magnificent P. Waves, but I think on the whole I catch what he means and to a large degree, I agree. I think there have been brilliant moments and downright important entire albums....but I think the music continued to get better and better.

 

The 1980s are where Rush truly shined....from PeW to Presto and all the glory and variety in between. You can keep the Anthems of the world and revel in the convoluted mumbo-jumbo of CoS if that's your thing, and I don't mean to insult those records. But I'll take a nice slice of Power Windows to the entirety of Rush....the sonic and melodic brilliance of Hold Your Fire to CoS....the dark tones and bleak lyrics of Grace to 2112. This is where the band found their stride...and that continued to a large degree into the 90s and beyond, a time I think often gets dismissed as has-been or left-over Rush. I just don't think so, for what little that's worth.

 

If I had to rank them, I'd prioritize the 80s Rush as nearly flawless on the whole...the 90s and beyond next...and the much-loved "classic" era of Rush as the developmental state of the band, often brilliant but not terribly consistent and in some cases, downright smarting from the growing pains.

 

But then again, maybe there's just a prejudice in me to enjoy six good minutes over sweeping epics too. I always loved me a good melody, a strong and insightful lyric, and a bit of precision. To me, the 70s RUSH was the era with the least of those things I admire.

 

Anyone agree?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 281
  • Created
  • Last Reply
To me, 70's Rush is by far the best and most unique sounding period of their career (not to mention the most influential). My opinion of that will never change. Those albums paved the way for alot of bands/music today.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (WCFIELDS @ Mar 14 2009, 01:39 PM)
To me, 70's Rush is by far the best and most unique sounding period of their career (not to mention the most influential). My opinion of that will never change. Those albums paved the way for alot of bands/music today.

So you're saying you don't agree? wink.gif tongue.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

goodpost.gif

 

I would have to agree for the most part. The first 3 albums, though i love them to death, are not there greatest as far as songwriting. They were growing with each album and , yes, by Hemispheres it had all come together.

 

Hemispheres to Hold your fire , IMO, is the best Rush ever got. If i was to introduce a newbie to them, i would play them those 7 albums. Not Fly By Night or Caress, even though, again, they do kick major amounts of ass but ...they were still growing.

 

Neil stated that those albums are like drawings that you see kids put on the refrigerator, and i can see his point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (Presto-digitation @ Mar 14 2009, 12:40 PM)
QUOTE (WCFIELDS @ Mar 14 2009, 01:39 PM)
To me, 70's Rush is by far the best and most unique sounding period of their career (not to mention the most influential). My opinion of that will never change. Those albums paved the way for alot of bands/music today.

So you're saying you don't agree? wink.gif tongue.gif

Not really.......just my opinion. I respect yours..........

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The thing is, Rush has always had a type of sound that not many people could swallow. Songs like Tom Sawyer, Subdivisions, and Big Money got radio play but on the whole, not many people were that into them. Rush truly is one of those bands you either love or hate. You either "get them" or you don't. Those of us who "get it" want to share it with the rest of the world, but a lot of them just aren't ready for it. A lot of us seem to be acting like "evangelical" Rush fans... we want to convert the non-believers lol.

 

There's a reason pop-music is popular, because it's simple and catchy. It's easy to digest. It doesn't make you think. Rush is the complete opposite of that, and that's part of why we love them. Unfortunately that will also keep those mainstream "pop" audiences away.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think alot of the opinions on "best eras" depends on age/when you got into the band........The first Rush albums I ever heard were ATFK and Hemispheres, and to this day those are by far my favorites. I also really like 80's also, just not as much........
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would have to agree about the '80s - some of the best Rush ever, including Moving Pictures and Power Windows, two perfect albums. This decade is damned too often because of being keyboard-heavy - it's called evolution. If they kept playing the same as they did in 1978 in the '80s, they would have likely been forgotten about. They used new instruments, and kept the musicianship, which is part of why I see Power Windows as the pinnacle of Rush's music.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (WCFIELDS @ Mar 14 2009, 01:44 PM)
QUOTE (Presto-digitation @ Mar 14 2009, 12:40 PM)
QUOTE (WCFIELDS @ Mar 14 2009, 01:39 PM)
To me, 70's Rush is by far the best and most unique sounding period of their career (not to mention the most influential). My opinion of that will never change. Those albums paved the way for alot of bands/music today.

So you're saying you don't agree? wink.gif tongue.gif

Not really.......just my opinion. I respect yours..........

I respect yours too. I was just being funny. trink39.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (WCFIELDS @ Mar 14 2009, 02:59 PM)
I think alot of the opinions on "best eras" depends on age/when you got into the band........The first Rush albums I ever heard were ATFK and Hemispheres, and to this day those are by far my favorites. I also really like 80's also, just not as much........

I think you've nailed it with your first sentence.

 

And I am much like Presto-digitation, as having discovered the band at a point where there was lots of back-catalog material to discover. Personally I feel fortunate to have really gotten into the band far into their career. Sure when I was about 12 in 1981, I was really into Moving Pictures. But that doesn't mean I was into RUSH. That didn't happen until 10 years later when Roll The Bones was released. It was from that point backward when I was truly able to discover what this band was all about. And I think that is a good thing, personally. I didn't have to wait years for the next release. I could buy multiple albums in a single day and have 30 songs to be introduced to all at once. Rush came at me like a tidal wave, and I loved it all.

 

So again, with all this era-waring constantly going on - I feel very fortunate that those eras all hit me at once, and it was ALL amazing to me. I can play a song from any album and not worry about a time period or era.

 

Counterparts was the first 'new' Rush release I was eagerly anticipating, and I was blown away. With each release since, I've not been disappointed. Granted, it took a long time for me to get into VT - but that was because of the sound quality blocking the genius of the songs (I know... I'm slow). But they eventually came through.

 

For me, the only 'growing pains' album I think exists for the band is COS. And even that shines through as pure genius, which is so often overlooked. Fly By Night, in my opinion, is a rockin' masterpiece which I hold so dear to me as one of the greatest albums of its time... by any band. But maybe that's just me. As for their debut album... this is a record that sits amongst the greatest debut releases from the most legendary bands in the business. It's that good.

 

I never had a problem with eras. I had trouble getting into certain albums. COS and GUP were the two that I resisted the longer. YEARS, in fact. They sat on shelves collecting dust. I only bought them to complete the collection, and I never though anything good of them. Believe me that's changed. WOW has that opinion changed for me.

 

But this is WHY Rush is my favorite band. It's because even on their so-called "weakest" efforts, I have found kick ass music that I can get into.

 

btw - excellent write-up, PD. There are things I can definitely relate to in what you've had to say. But we do differ somewhat in how we rate the earlier albums. trink39.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You make very strong,well thought out arguments and I was just about to buy in when I remembered something.

 

There are times when I can appreciate the developmental work for what it is,times when song structure and lyrical precision aren't what I'm looking for.Moments when I long for raw and powerful imperfection.And while I'm as high as you on the 80's and 90's era releases,There is a time when nothing other than the convoluted mumbo-jumbo of CoS will do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I got into Rush when S&A was released. So I had the benefit of listening to all their back catalog. I always knew Rush from 'Tom sawyer' and 'Spirit of the radio' but my good friend got me into them and I became a fan almost instantly. I first listened to 'Moving Pictures' and PeW. From there I listened to all the pre- MP albums. I loved them all. and I still view that as Rush's strongest period. did they have good albums after MP? sure Signals and GUP are great. PW is a great album, I hate the album but I can still recognize it as a good album. but anything after that just sounds stale to me. I like ROCK music. from PW and onward Rush got soft and stale. sure to some people it might have sounded 'fresh' because they were 'evolving' but to me they got stale. Im not saying every album has to be METAL 1022.gif !! but to me 'Rush'-'Signals' was Rush's most influential and best stretch of albums.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

When Rush stopped flexing their chops and tried to prove they weren't self-indulgent and could craft clever, 5 minute pop/rock tunes then I became less interested. For me the brilliance runs from Kings - HYF, a succession of near perfect albums. Before and after has been hit and miss, with mostly miss for me moving on from Presto.

 

I still remember in my dorm room putting on Presto with so much anticipation and then being so disappointed for the next 6 months with that sackless, uninspiring piece of fluff. Yeah, a few catchy tunes but nothing that I would go out of my way to buy if it wasn't Rush on the cover. Same for RTB...dreadful piece of crap.

 

There's tons of bands that can make pop tunes but nobody can make a GUP or Hemispheres but Rush.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (Xanadu93 @ Mar 14 2009, 02:00 PM)
I would have to agree about the '80s - some of the best Rush ever, including Moving Pictures and Power Windows, two perfect albums. This decade is damned too often because of being keyboard-heavy - it's called evolution. If they kept playing the same as they did in 1978 in the '80s, they would have likely been forgotten about. They used new instruments, and kept the musicianship, which is part of why I see Power Windows as the pinnacle of Rush's music.

Agreed 100%. smile.gif

 

If they kept playing the same style they would vanish. People would likely say, "It's been done before. Meh." They would vanish.

 

And besides...

 

Everybody got to elevate from the norm

 

wink.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

PD,

 

I must say, I love every era. However the main reason for this reply is to commend you on a very well thought out and insightful post. As you are a relatively new listener of the band, it is really really great to see such enthusiasm and dedication to understanding what it is about the music that moves you and that you are passionate enough to put it out there. IMO, that makes you as much of a true "fan" as someone like me who started listening in '74.

 

Good on ya bro'. Keep it up! trink39.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My two favorite Rush albums were released on the first day of the 1980s and in 1981, but I still pretty much have to say "70s" when picking a decade. Those two albums (PeW in 1980, MP in 1981) belong in the 70s, IMO. (Likewise, I think Presto, in late 1989, is a 90s album!)

 

There's everything up to MP and there's everything after, and I'll pick the former everytime. yes.gif

 

Sure there were great songs and even great ALBUMS in the 80s and beyond, but not consistently. The 80s albums might've all been excellent if they weren't also experimenting so heavily with the keyboards at the same time.

 

Listen, I'm kinder to the later material than most fans are... but STILL have to pick the earlier stuff.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

70s is my favorite era.

 

I'll agree with you that the songwriting has gotten better and they can now craft the 'perfect' 5 minute song. But, that's boring to me. So predictable. I prefer going out on a limb and taking chances. I've been a fan for about 20 years so I can't really recall listening to the epics for the first time (although I do remember my first time listening to Rush other than the radio stuff. It was the ATWAS 2112 and thinking this is the coolest shit I've ever heard). I could only imagine hearing one of the epics for the first time and trying to figure out what the hell the band is going to do next; as opposed to verse, chorus, verse, chorus, bridge, guitar solo, verse, chorus, and maybe a repeat of chorus. That' also why my favorite 3 songs from S&A are the instrumentals because they are somewhat unpredictable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Great post as usual P-D. I tend to agree with most of what you said but I also find that I tend to just get myself into moods where I want a certain Rush sound and not so much whether its 70's "epics" or 80s "synth" etc. I had a recent dive into Hemispheres that lasted a few weeks only to find my copy of VT in the back seat and then proceed to wear VT out for a solid month.

 

I'd probably average out listening more to post 80's than 70's era Rush. But that doesnt mean I have a strong preference

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well I respectfully disagree about the 70s. To me what I heard on those albums is a band unlike anything I had ever heard. A hungry band with a lot of fire in them. An energy far beyond anything that came in the 80s onwards. Geddys singing was just insane. When he lowered his voice to me the quality just dropped right off a cliff. He is not a good mid-low key singer at all. He cant hold a smooth note, just doesnt have great control like he did in the upper ranges.

 

The writing got a lot more tame and quiet after te 70s, which is great that they were able to change, but I still think the 70s were their best time. I love hearing young energetic bands.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I also have to not agree...........I don't see Rush that way. I've enjoyed their music more or less equally over the years. Does not matter what decade, Rush has always been Rush. There are seasons for us all and so it is with great bands...........

 

I think some factors to our opinions could be what year one started listening to Rush.

 

 

In the S&A tour they played a good percentage of 70's songs. (Possibly, Permanent Waves, released January 1980, could also be considered 70's Rush. About 4 songs from that album were played during S&A tour)..........that's a lot of "underwhelming" music to keep playing in the late 00's. cool.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (shaun3701 @ Mar 14 2009, 01:52 PM)
The thing is, Rush has always had a type of sound that not many people could swallow. Songs like Tom Sawyer, Subdivisions, and Big Money got radio play but on the whole, not many people were that into them.

Here is SF bay, probally the most aired radio Rush song used to be Working Man even in recent years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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