Jump to content

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


Presto-digitation

Recommended Posts

I appreciate your view Presto-D...and yet another succinct and compelling post. NOTE: My development into a RUSH fan has been remarkably similar to what you've described as yours.

 

That said, the 70's era stuff is my clear favorite. I loved the epics. I loved listening to the boys stretching out with their respective instruments...even if it was the result of "development". By comparison, Neil's drumming is almost boring on those 80's albums...even though he personally would rather us forget everything the band did pre-1980.

 

I'll admit that the lyrics were sometimes convoluted mumbo jumbo, but the strength of the music makes it easy for me to forgive that shortcoming.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 281
  • Created
  • Last Reply
I jump all over the place...sometimes I listen to a lot of mid to late '80s stuff, and then I'm back listening to a '78 Hemispheres tour bootleg CD. And then I suddenly have a RTB kick. And then back to FBN for a week in the car. biggrin.gif
Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (jc4gd @ Mar 15 2009, 12:27 PM)
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

Well I didn't say it was worthless or largely ignorable, the 70s (80 in PeW's case). But that said, look which songs they often play from that era. They simply don't touch things like Necromancer, Lamneth, Jacob's Ladder, Cygnus or Hemispheres. They're playing the reasonable "song" lengths of Passage, Circumstances, The Trees, etc....and shortened versions of 2112, By-Tor, and Xanadu when they do go "epic."

 

But as I've said, I have a prejudice for the more melodic stuff over the epic songs for the most part....for the cohesion over the experimentation. I get that that was and remains extremely exciting for some...and by contrast the 80s and beyond seem more "tame" and "predictable." Maybe...but I'll argue those eras were still better. Lamneth may be tons more original than Bravado, but I'll take their well-crafted melody any day. It seems they will too.

 

I look at about HALF of the 70s material as growth stuff...things they had to explore before they really became good songwriters on a consistent level. There are indeed some timeless and great songs from that decade, true enough...but it was a band working its way towards something better.

 

Most bands look back on their early days with reverence and a sense of having reached a pinnacle..often early in a career. And while Rush certainly acknowledges the importance of the process and some of that material, you don't get a sense of their own deep satisfaction until you get into the 1980s. I think there's a reason they don't stay in one mode and there's also a reason they're in no hurry to return to it either. Of course that applies to the 80s keyboards too, so that doesn't speak solely of the 70s by any means. But I see why they got away from the big sweeping epics...and I'm glad they did. THeir music improved as a result of their decision to simplify...even if that meant being perceived as "predictable."

 

Actually had they kept doing big sweeping epics, that's what would've made them predictable. The very last thing a Rush fan in 76 would've expected is what you heard 10 or so years later, so I'm not sure I'd call the 80s predictable. Quite the contrary. Rush always zigs when you expect them to zag....

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (GeddyRulz @ Mar 14 2009, 11:18 PM)
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.

You're kinder to the new material LOL. What the heck does that mean? Am I being kinder to the old material for not slamming it, because the new material is better? I don't understand.

 

Also, you 70's fans don't get to have "Permanent Waves" because it was "close enough" or recorded in 79. The album was released in the 80's and clearly signaled a new sound for the band.

 

70's Rush is very overrated IMO. Rush & COS aren't even on my playlist. FBN is better, but still nothing great. Kings is their most overrated record IMO. I do like 2112 & Hemispheres, but PW & MP trump them tenfold.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I definitely agree weekly criminal. There was no way Geddy could keep that up, and I do think they made the right move. But like I said, energy wise I just view what they did from 2112-Kings just far beyond any rock band ive ever heard.

 

When you listen to all the world a stage, you hear a band that was essentially still trying to get to where they wanted to go. You can hear them fighting to get there. That raw emotion was lost in the 80s. It was killed by the synth era, the bands own success, and them maturing and family stuff. Still amazing albums in the 80s, but personally I love raw emotion in music, and I dont really hear it after Kings.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the band lost allot of balls to their music when they got heavy into synth. There was just no more energy in the songs. after GUP they sounded more like 80s pop then they did a rock band. Just not my taste of music. Nothing beats the hard rocking energy of the 70s albums and PeW,MP. Singals and GUP still had the energy of the 70s with the 80s sound. and thats probably why I like those albums. but after that its just a snoozfest.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess it boils down to the idea that what one finds of value in music as a whole, they'll also find of value in that one specific portion of Rush's catalog which they value above all others. I personally veer much more towards the kind of elaborate arranging which goes a large distance in displaying the individual aptitude of the musicians in this band...the type of intellectual and emotional intensity displayed most effectively on Rush's 70's recordings. The guys always said that they did all of their studio work to impress themselves first and foremost, and whether others liked the stuff, and they were able to make money at their craft was just icing on the cake.

 

I love Heavy Metal. I love Progressive Rock. These two things were merged quite effectively, and without precedence, to differing degrees on albums like Fly By Night, 2112 and Hemispheres. Then, when they took the Metalic-Prog-Rock thing as far as it could be taken, they found for themselves a nice middle ground where much of the heaviness and progressive nature of their former-selves was retained, but made much more concise and accessible to a larger constituency. That was exemplified with the masterful recordings, 'Permanent Waves' and 'Moving Pictures'...as much of a mirror image of one another as were Yes' Close To The Edge and Relayer.

 

Out of all the 70's Prog bands, Rush found the transition to the 80's music scene most effortless. Well, Genesis did as well, but for them it was much more of a change of focus to a different fanbase. For the most part, Rush's fans changed with them and accepted their evolution. And, this was made very easy on the listeners by the first two recordings the band put together in the new decade. Rush retained many of the elements that the fans found appealing about them from day one. They discarded very little. Some tempo shifts and instrumental passages were retired. But, in their place, memorable hooks of melody lines were introduced.

 

But, it's very unlikely that if a more radical departure in sound was undertaken at the onset of the 80's that the majority of the fanbase would have gone along for the ride. Rush continued to make this adjustment to the 1980's even more comfortable for their fans with the release of their next offering - Signals. We see the rise of more synths during this timeframe, and guitars taking more of a back seat. A new formula for the band is born here on Signals.

 

But, the difference from one recording to the next still always remains slight. Just like in nature, the change may be great over time, but not very discernable in the short term. The balance between synth and guitars tip further to the former on the next album - Grace Under Pressure. The guitar rhythms begin to emulate those of Andy Summers of The Police around this time too. In other words, the band becomes more and more 'Pop' as they move deeper into the 80's.

 

Even though Rush has continued to be the least radical of all the 70's Prog bands in the manner in which they transition from one release to the next, I'm still able to see a definite demarcation line here, during this era. And, this is the point along the Rush timeline where I bid farewell to the band, at least for a while. Grace Under Pressure lies right there on the precipice in between what I loved about the band and what I'm indifferent to.

 

I never overtly despised anything the band has ever done. I kinda just became indifferent to everything between Grace Under Pressure and Roll The Bones. This is the era of the band I grew up with too. So, you would think that I would be partial to it. But, I always thought that this stage in their evolution was characterized by a certain sterility, a detached coldness which was very unappealing to me. I was very into Led Zeppelin at the time, and the two directions in contrast seemed to be diametrically opposed. Whereas, Zep was very emotional, this era in Rush's catalog was almost devoid of emotional content. It was just too cold and mechanical for me. I even think this direction was eventually taken to its utmost extreme of ludicrousness with the Presto recording, which, might actually be the only Rush album that I overtly dislike.

 

But, I believe that the band was redeemed and set on a new and exceptionally good path with the Counterparts outing. This album might be the biggest and most noticeable jump in the Rush catalog since the Hemipsheres move into Permanent Waves. I loved this album when it came out and this recording will always remain amongst my few favourite from the band. And, Rush has continued on a bright, industrious path ever since. They still continue to put out great albums to this day. And, out of all the graduates from their specific class of Rock n' Roll royalty, I think that they are most deserving of yet another block of time in the studio.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think alot of this boils down to ones personal preference in music and also when they were introduced to the band.

 

Those that prefer 70's Rush more than likely prefer 70's rock music in general.

 

I don't like 70's rock music, therefore the early Rush stuff is least appealing to me. Also Ged's voice and the lyrics aren't as appealing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

for me the 70's up until GUP. great albums, the best they have done .imo. i for one never really listen to the late 80's or 90's albums. they just don't do it for me . i got into them in late 1980. i know people that stopped buying the albums after signals because of the change. i will always buy the stuff and go see them because i am a huge fan but the day's of getting the album and freaking out are over . a little too safe for me. i have been playing drums for about 29 years and the days of me sitting there with my jaw on the floor from the music are long gone.

1022.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (JPRushHed @ Mar 15 2009, 07:57 PM)
QUOTE (GeddyRulz @ Mar 14 2009, 11:18 PM)
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.

You're kinder to the new material LOL. What the heck does that mean? Am I being kinder to the old material for not slamming it, because the new material is better? I don't understand.

 

What's not to understand?

 

Look no further than the responses from "70s fans" here in this thread, and you'll see a lot of slamming against the 80s Synth stuff and beyond. I'm gentler in my criticism; I hear a lot of good stuff post-MP, and was excited about this Retro3 disc. I'm not jumping around saying the band sucked after MP the way other long-time fans do, hence "I'm kinder to the later material than most fans are." Pretty simple.

 

QUOTE
Also, you 70's fans don't get to have "Permanent Waves" because it was "close enough" or recorded in 79.  The album was released in the 80's and clearly signaled a new sound for the band.

 

I don't divide the albums by the strict "decades" method. Presto, released in late 1989, sounds like their 90s stuff. It's better to choose another method of dividing the various Rush "eras" other than "1974 until December 31, 1979," "January 1, 1980 until December 31, 1989," "January 1, 1990 until December 31, 1999," etc. Those are just DATES, and don't tell us much about the band's development during those times. Better to say "the progressive era," "the synth era," the "post-synth era," etc. (Or some such explanation of the development of their sound.) These "eras" cross strict adherence to "decades," a unit of scientific time, not artistic development.

 

Permanent Waves was an 80s album? Maybe date-wise, but does it sound as Pop-oriented and keyboard-heavy as Signals, GUP, PoW, and HYF???? no.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I will say I like all forms of Rush's music. Have nothing against 70s music in gernal at all...(probably most of what I listen to). I think I just get a little lost in all the love for the sweeping epics. It's simply something I don't share with many fans, some choice cuts aside. That's not to say I don't also love a good long song. I think the likes of Xanadu or Natural Science are amogst their best-ever songs...proof that I'm not just all about the 5-minute boil-and-serve pop hook. wink.gif

 

I guess I just think that sometimes they got lost up their own rear-ends with the progressive formula (I think they think so too, so I'll claim "good company" here as well)...and whilst that may have not stopped them from becoming very influential, I don't think it represents their signature sound. In fact, that represents such a small portion of their sound in the grand scheme of things, all things considered.

 

Everyone's entitled to an opinion, but I'd hardly consider their 80s (or 90s) material boring or muted...watered down or disinteresting...derivative or unoriginal. I think in many ways they became LESS predictable as they went along and their sound expanded and GREW, not shrank. It all comes down to tastes of course and that's fine....clearly I don't appreciate some aspects of the band that others adore. Even in the midst of a more pop-oriented and accessible Rush, the sound was still complex, richly layered and incredibly melodic...certainly not dumbed down or sugary. Certainly not simple and trite. Not paint-by-numbers.

 

No.

 

Perhaps I was a little short sighted and unfair to consider them underwhelming in the 70s....but I think the band seemed to be meandering at times. Just because it's 18 minutes and a full album side long doesn't make it good. It still needs to rise up to be a good and functioning song if it's to keep your interest. Sometimes they were...sometimes not so much.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm kind of envious of anyone who is just becoming a 2.gif fan now, with all the material he, or she has to discover. There was nothing like putting on a "new/old" 2.gif record that was part of their old catalog, or just released and hearing the material for the first time.

 

I became a 2.gif fan in 1981 so anything before that and up to about 1989 was the period where I completely devoured the material. That was my discovery period for the band and I really didn't listen to much else. I was a full blown 2.gif nerd!!!!

 

I think I like the stuff from '74-89 most, because that was my discovery period. That was what I listened to when 2.gif was my life.

 

I think there is an emotional bond that comes from hearing new music from a band you love for the first time, or first 1000 times if it's a record you love.

 

For me, by the time RTB, T4E, CP and on the thrill wasn't gone, but some of the magic that comes with the discovery wasn't as strong, I didn't have that tight of an emotional bond with it. I still loved the band (hell I slept out to get tickets for both RTB and CP tickets) but there were other factors in life that drew me away from 2.gif somewhat.

 

To say there is a "weakest period" for a band that has so many sort time, and long time fans, as well as so much newer and older material might be a misnomer, and it should just be left as favorite, and the reasons why that period is a fans favorite is strictly up to the fan.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Man...I step away for the weekend, and we get awesomely massive thread of excellent points! This is definitely a great thread, and I'll try to add in some input, as it would be tough to go back and quote all of the various posts that I agree with. So...

 

First off, GeddyRulz mentioned, I think the same as in NOT separating Rush's eras by decades. To me, it goes like this:

 

Breakout Era - Rush / FBN / CoS / 2112

Progressive Era - AFTK / Hemispheres / PeW / MP

Synth Era - Signals / GUP / PoW / HYF

Pop-Rock Era - Presto / RTB / Counterparts / TFE

Hard-Rock Era - VT / S&A

 

Up until recently with the boys releasing so many live albums, I thought they really had it going nicely in terms of separating each of the eras by adding a live album inbetween. To me, each group of 4 albums symbolized each of the different eras/periods of RUSH.

 

EDIT: I did want to mention that in all honestly, while I've looked at this in terms of grouping them in 4's, I have a real tough time with the 3rd era. I do think that Presto and RTB are very "Pop-Rock", but I would almost couple CP and TFE in the next era, as I think they moved right into a more "Hard-Rock" approach, which moved into VT and S&A. I just wanted to add that in, as I always have trouble classifying this era as one particular sound.

 

Anything from RUSH - 2112 is really experimental. It was the band trying to breakout, and make a name for themselves. The debut started it all. FBN helped distinguish their sound with NEIL. CoS featured their first stab at side-long epics, which would become a staple for quite a few years. 2112 made them. It put RUSH on the map.

 

This makes up a lot of the "70's Era", and while there are some unbelivablely great pieces of music here, it has nothing on the era that followed it, which I called "Progressive".

 

AFTK / Hemispheres / PeW / MP = ABSOLUTE PERFECTION

 

Now, I know some people were discussing age, which I think may be partially true. I became a Rush fan in the fall/winter of 1997, which was just after the boys finished off their TFE tour. At that time, I was only 14. Years before that, I had heard MP and AFTK, but outside of Tom Sawyer and YYZ, nothing really stuck with me as I guess I was still too young.

 

Luckly in '97, I gave some of my uncle's albums another listen, and this time, it clicked. I finally heard something special. I received a copy of Chronicles that Christmas, and that started it off. It's true, I love the 90's stuff probably a lot more than a lot of people on this board, and maybe it's because I'm only 25 now. I don't think it's their best at all, but I still consider it a strong period, with lots of great moments.

 

However, with age aside or what era they discovered Rush, I would be willing to bet that the majority of people on this board would agree that all of the albums from AFTK - MP was Rush's strongest output. yes.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (EmotionDetector @ Mar 16 2009, 10:59 AM)
Man...I step away for the weekend, and we get awesomely massive thread of excellent points! This is definitely a great thread, and I'll try to add in some input, as it would be tough to go back and quote all of the various posts that I agree with. So...

First off, GeddyRulz mentioned, I think the same as in NOT separating Rush's eras by decades. To me, it goes like this:

Breakout Era - Rush / FBN / CoS / 2112
Progressive Era - AFTK / Hemispheres / PeW / MP
Synth Era - Signals / GUP / PoW / HYF
Pop-Rock Era - Presto / RTB / Counterparts / TFE
Hard-Rock Era - VT / S&A

Up until recently with the boys releasing so many live albums, I thought they really had it going nicely in terms of separating each of the eras by adding a live album inbetween. To me, each group of 4 albums symbolized each of the different eras/periods of RUSH.

EDIT: I did want to mention that in all honestly, while I've looked at this in terms of grouping them in 4's, I have a real tough time with the 3rd era. I do think that Presto and RTB are very "Pop-Rock", but I would almost couple CP and TFE in the next era, as I think they moved right into a more "Hard-Rock" approach, which moved into VT and S&A. I just wanted to add that in, as I always have trouble classifying this era as one particular sound.

Anything from RUSH - 2112 is really experimental. It was the band trying to breakout, and make a name for themselves. The debut started it all. FBN helped distinguish their sound with NEIL. CoS featured their first stab at side-long epics, which would become a staple for quite a few years. 2112 made them. It put RUSH on the map.

This makes up a lot of the "70's Era", and while there are some unbelivablely great pieces of music here, it has nothing on the era that followed it, which I called "Progressive".

AFTK / Hemispheres / PeW / MP = ABSOLUTE PERFECTION

Now, I know some people were discussing age, which I think may be partially true. I became a Rush fan in the fall/winter of 1997, which was just after the boys finished off their TFE tour. At that time, I was only 14. Years before that, I had heard MP and AFTK, but outside of Tom Sawyer and YYZ, nothing really stuck with me as I guess I was still too young.

Luckly in '97, I gave some of my uncle's albums another listen, and this time, it clicked. I finally heard something special. I received a copy of Chronicles that Christmas, and that started it off. It's true, I love the 90's stuff probably a lot more than a lot of people on this board, and maybe it's because I'm only 25 now. I don't think it's their best at all, but I still consider it a strong period, with lots of great moments.

However, with age aside or what era they discovered Rush, I would be willing to bet that the majority of people on this board would agree that all of the albums from AFTK - MP was Rush's strongest output. yes.gif

goodpost.gif

 

All great, including the part about "absolute perfection" - AFTK thru MP.

 

Permanent Waves and Moving Pictures, in particular, exemplify the Rush sound, IMO. The absolute pinnacle of greatness; all other Rush is compared to that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (EmotionDetector @ Mar 16 2009, 10:59 AM)


AFTK / Hemispheres / PeW / MP = ABSOLUTE PERFECTION

amen to that

1022.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I love everything from CoS to HYF. VT rocks too. When I was younger I was more into the 80s material because I just liked 80s sounding music more in general. Now I'm more into metal and classic rock and prefer the 70s stuff.....even though Subdivisions is my favorite song ever. Go figure.

 

I don't even really think about Rush eras anymore. I just know that they have a shitload of albums and I only dislike three of them. I can't say that about any other band. If I had to pick their peak though, I'd say AFTK, Hemispheres, and PeW were it. Those three albums are perfection.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (JPRushHed @ Mar 16 2009, 02:32 PM)
GeddyRulz -"I'm not jumping around saying the band sucked after MP"

And I'm not jumping around saying the band sucked prior to Permanent Waves"

I'm still confused what your point is.

b_sigh.gif How difficult is this?????

 

I'm not saying everything after MP sucks. MANY LONGTIME FANS WOULD SAY THAT. Ergo, I'm kinder to the later material than most.

 

Get it???????

 

I was merely defending my earlier statement, that I'm kinder to the later material than most. (Which you "didn't understand," so I explained it.) This is very very simple to understand; how well do you do with deep Neil Peart lyrics?

 

 

 

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...