Jump to content

Alex confirms Rush is "basically done"


Wil1972
 Share

Recommended Posts

Wikipedia just changed their page on RUSH to say, "Rush WAS a Canadian prog Rock band..."

 

IT'S OFFICIAL, FOLKS!!!!

 

Should be "Rush WERE a Canadian prog rock band". They speak the Queen's English in Canada. Therefore I don't believe it ;)

 

A grammatical difference that I've never been able to tolerate. I will always say Rush was..... :laughing guy:

 

Rush is a collective noun functioning as a unit - "was" is correct. It depends on context. "Rush was in a dispute with the label" (functioning as a whole); "Rush were arguing about the set list" (as individual members)

 

Now I'll shaddap.

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

Wikipedia just changed their page on RUSH to say, "Rush WAS a Canadian prog Rock band..."

 

IT'S OFFICIAL, FOLKS!!!!

 

Should be "Rush WERE a Canadian prog rock band". They speak the Queen's English in Canada. Therefore I don't believe it ;)

 

A grammatical difference that I've never been able to tolerate. I will always say Rush was..... :laughing guy:

 

Rush is a collective noun functioning as a unit - "was" is correct. It depends on context. "Rush was in a dispute with the label" (functioning as a whole); "Rush were arguing about the set list" (as individual members)

 

Now I'll shaddap.

 

Good idea. ;)

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's the thing. The guys in RUSH have dabbled and experimented with drugs, but not to the extent that other acts have.

 

The other ones who took 'alcohol and drugs' to the extreme, either paid a price for it when they were young ('27 Club') or having severe health failures later on, which they passed on from.

 

With a lot of the 'baby boomer era' music acts who've passed on in 2016 and 2017, it puts life into perspective.

 

The guys (and especially Neil) probably had the foresight and premonition to know that it was time to stop after 40 years.

 

There's music acts that claim wanting to tour until they croak and/or die onstage.

 

Also, with reading news about key band members passing away midway through a tour on the bus, hotel room, or immediately after a tour etc. is kind of a let down to fans. The tour either is cancelled with refunds or the music act carries on with another newer member substituting.

 

Boston Drummer Sib Hashian, Yes bassist Chris Squire, Tom Petty, Scott Weiland, and Chris Cornell are some of the examples described in the above sentence.

 

I don't the guys in RUSH would want the above to happen for each of them.

 

This is silly. for each example you cite above, I can point to others going into their 70's: David Gilmour, Roger Waters, BB King, Yes, The Rolling Stones, Paul McCartney, The Dead, Camel, King Crimson, Billy Joel, Bruce Springsteen, Jimmy Buffet, etc, etc.

 

I threw BB in there because he went until he was almost 90. But everyone else in still alive, touring, and older than the Rush guys.

 

And by the way, both Alex and Ged have talked about going until someone dies.....moreso in interviews conducted in the last 10 years. The only reason they aren't doing SOMETHING is because Neil is done.

 

I agree it's unfortunate Ged n Al had to retire based on Neil's decision. It's disappointing they likely will not perform together again as a duo with guests.

 

Considering Petty's demise was directly linked to his decision to tour at an advanced age while injured and on serious meds, I have more respect for Neil's decision now. I only wish the fans got a full "two legs" of advance warning.

 

.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm shocked to see how well the forum is taking the final split up of Rush

 

Some of has have known since 2013. R40 was never supposed to happen but Neil gave it one last shot. Like him, I wasn't sad either but proud.

 

I'll be the first to admit that I've been spoiled by this band and I'm likely to have a different point of view than someone who has never seen them before or has become a fan in the last several years or whatever other circumstances there are.

What point of view do you have? I have been a fan for 40 years and Rush never failed to amaze me. I guess that i can be called a "fanboi" as I have pretty much zero complaints about anything that Rush did. I don't care about drop tuning or whatever...i don't care if Geddy sounds worse...i don't care if Alex or Neil missed a few more notes..Rush just brought me pure joy and excitement!
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The band has been part of my life since 1975! Besides family, there are not too many other things that have been with me for that long.

 

Same here. I’ve “known” them for 40 out of my 45 years. (Older brothers played them all the time in the mid-late 70s).

I’ve loved them for 36 of those years. And I assume I’ll continue to love them.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm shocked to see how well the forum is taking the final split up of Rush

 

Some of has have known since 2013. R40 was never supposed to happen but Neil gave it one last shot. Like him, I wasn't sad either but proud.

 

I'll be the first to admit that I've been spoiled by this band and I'm likely to have a different point of view than someone who has never seen them before or has become a fan in the last several years or whatever other circumstances there are.

 

What point of view do you have? I have been a fan for 40 years and Rush never failed to amaze me. I guess that i can be called a "fanboi" as I have pretty much zero complaints about anything that Rush did. I don't care about drop tuning or whatever...i don't care if Geddy sounds worse...i don't care if Alex or Neil missed a few more notes..Rush just brought me pure joy and excitement!

 

You see the Big Picture. It's only rock & roll. It's just entertainment. Why waste time and energy obsessing or scrutinizing? :haz:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To be honest, I'm somewhat surprised that he is telling us they are done recording. I had already accepted the obvious fact that they would never tour again, but I really thought they'd give some new material a go. Neil not wanting to tour again is understandable, but I would think he'd have an interest in writing and still want to feed those creative juices. They obviously can still write great material as evidenced by CA.

 

So I clearly read that one wrong and Neil is truly done with music and Rush altogether. What a plucking bummer

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

To be honest, part of me feels kind of glad that they bowed out when they were somewhat healthy....I would have loved to see Rush live a second time, but I think that them retiring is a less painful than say, a few years down the road, one of them gets hooked on painkillers and then dies of an overdose....

 

More often than not R40 was a pretty painful watch on most nights (via periscope anyway. Saw three shows in person and the consistency wasn't what it had been.) But that's just my opinion.

 

Live, the show was great fun. The CD? It’s not a very good listen. It’s understandable. If you think Geddy sounds as good now as he did in 1981, you’re denigrating how great he was then.

 

Yeah. Tell me again how Geddy sounded as good on the R40 tour as he "ever" did.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zAgrF_ktb2c

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I will definitely miss them dearly.

 

Honestly though, most of me felt it was over in 2015, and even more so after the movie. Given Father Time, the difficulty of their music (especially as a 3 piece). and outside interests, it was a good time to bow out.

 

The recording idea always seemed highly unlikely, only because it's tremendous work for very little payoff. CA was a perfect capitulation.

 

Let's also not forget the stock market run over the last year. They would have less and less motivation.

 

A Farewell To Kings indeed.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Alex saying that Rush is finished is evidence enough to me that Rush will record a new album and tour again. Alex always gets his facts wrong when talking about what Rush is planning to do and what makes this any different?
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Alex saying that Rush is finished is evidence enough to me that Rush will record a new album and tour again. Alex always gets his facts wrong when talking about what Rush is planning to do and what makes this any different?

 

:LOL:

 

I said something about Lifeson giving incorrect info earlier in this thread or another thread maybe.

 

I do think Rush is done but not because of his quote. I had already thought they were. Anyway...

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Reading The Globe and Mail article with Alex in relation to the band, made me think of fellow Canadian Anne Murray (who also retired a few years back).

 

This article (also from The Globe and Mail) here will possibly have a RUSH related update to it in the near future.

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

Alex saying that Rush is finished is evidence enough to me that Rush will record a new album and tour again. Alex always gets his facts wrong when talking about what Rush is planning to do and what makes this any different?

 

:LOL:

 

I said something about Lifeson giving incorrect info earlier in this thread or another thread maybe.

 

I do think Rush is done but not because of his quote. I had already thought they were. Anyway...

Yeah, I think that they are done, also. Like I said earlier in this thread, I suspected the end was near after they released CA and Neil did an interview saying how he wanted to make CA the bands best album ever.
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Alex saying that Rush is finished is evidence enough to me that Rush will record a new album and tour again. Alex always gets his facts wrong when talking about what Rush is planning to do and what makes this any different?

 

:LOL:

 

I said something about Lifeson giving incorrect info earlier in this thread or another thread maybe.

 

I do think Rush is done but not because of his quote. I had already thought they were. Anyway...

Yeah, I think that they are done, also. Like I said earlier in this thread, I suspected the end was near after they released CA and Neil did an interview saying how he wanted to make CA the bands best album ever.

 

Neil is 65, and Alex & Geddy are 64. It's their time.

 

I don't think any of the "old-timer" bands who are still touring could do on stage what Rush did. Yeah, Charlie Watts can play until he's 80. He's been playing the same simple beat for nearly 60 years. He could never do what Neil did every night on stage.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The band has been part of my life since 1975! Besides family, there are not too many other things that have been with me for that long.

Exactly, except 1977 for me. I can certainly understand their being finished, but it makes me sad anyway. It's a mental adjustment I don't want to make. :(

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wikipedia just changed their page on RUSH to say, "Rush WAS a Canadian prog Rock band..."

 

IT'S OFFICIAL, FOLKS!!!!

 

Should be "Rush WERE a Canadian prog rock band". They speak the Queen's English in Canada. Therefore I don't believe it ;)

 

A grammatical difference that I've never been able to tolerate. I will always say Rush was..... :laughing guy:

 

Rush is a collective noun functioning as a unit - "was" is correct.

So, would you say "The Beatles was great"?
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wikipedia just changed their page on RUSH to say, "Rush WAS a Canadian prog Rock band..."

 

IT'S OFFICIAL, FOLKS!!!!

 

Should be "Rush WERE a Canadian prog rock band". They speak the Queen's English in Canada. Therefore I don't believe it ;)

 

A grammatical difference that I've never been able to tolerate. I will always say Rush was..... :laughing guy:

 

Rush is a collective noun functioning as a unit - "was" is correct.

 

So, would you say "The Beatles was great"?

 

Rush is a singular collective band name, like Yes, Soundgarden, Jethro Tull, etc. Yes was great (until they sold out). ;)

But plural band names, like The Beatles, The Police, The Rolling Stones, etc. should use were. The Beatles were great.

 

I remember buying an AC/DC album long ago and reading on the back: AC/DC are....Bon Scott, Angus Young, etc.... I took a double take and thought, "That is just wrong. AC/DC IS Bon Scott, Angus Young......" :D

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wikipedia just changed their page on RUSH to say, "Rush WAS a Canadian prog Rock band..."

 

IT'S OFFICIAL, FOLKS!!!!

 

Should be "Rush WERE a Canadian prog rock band". They speak the Queen's English in Canada. Therefore I don't believe it ;)

 

A grammatical difference that I've never been able to tolerate. I will always say Rush was..... :laughing guy:

 

Rush is a collective noun functioning as a unit - "was" is correct.

 

So, would you say "The Beatles was great"?

 

Rush is a singular collective band name, like Yes, Soundgarden, Jethro Tull, etc. Yes was great (until they sold out). ;)

But plural band names, like The Beatles, The Police, The Rolling Stones, etc. should use were. The Beatles were great.

 

I remember buying an AC/DC album long ago and reading on the back: AC/DC are....Bon Scott, Angus Young, etc.... I took a double take and thought, "That is just wrong. AC/DC IS Bon Scott, Angus Young......" :D

This post were good.
  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wikipedia just changed their page on RUSH to say, "Rush WAS a Canadian prog Rock band..."

 

IT'S OFFICIAL, FOLKS!!!!

 

Should be "Rush WERE a Canadian prog rock band". They speak the Queen's English in Canada. Therefore I don't believe it ;)

 

A grammatical difference that I've never been able to tolerate. I will always say Rush was..... :laughing guy:

 

Rush is a collective noun functioning as a unit - "was" is correct.

 

So, would you say "The Beatles was great"?

 

Rush is a singular collective band name, like Yes, Soundgarden, Jethro Tull, etc. Yes was great (until they sold out). ;)

But plural band names, like The Beatles, The Police, The Rolling Stones, etc. should use were. The Beatles were great.

 

I remember buying an AC/DC album long ago and reading on the back: AC/DC are....Bon Scott, Angus Young, etc.... I took a double take and thought, "That is just wrong. AC/DC IS Bon Scott, Angus Young......" :D

I think I get it. For the record, I think "The Beatles" are a great name for a band. Edited by goose
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Alex saying that Rush is finished is evidence enough to me that Rush will record a new album and tour again. Alex always gets his facts wrong when talking about what Rush is planning to do and what makes this any different?

 

:LOL:

 

I said something about Lifeson giving incorrect info earlier in this thread or another thread maybe.

 

I do think Rush is done but not because of his quote. I had already thought they were. Anyway...

Yeah, I think that they are done, also. Like I said earlier in this thread, I suspected the end was near after they released CA and Neil did an interview saying how he wanted to make CA the bands best album ever.

 

Neil is 65, and Alex & Geddy are 64. It's their time.

 

I don't think any of the "old-timer" bands who are still touring could do on stage what Rush did. Yeah, Charlie Watts can play until he's 80. He's been playing the same simple beat for nearly 60 years. He could never do what Neil did every night on stage.

Charlie Watts couldn't do what Neil did on stage for ten seconds.
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Alex saying that Rush is finished is evidence enough to me that Rush will record a new album and tour again. Alex always gets his facts wrong when talking about what Rush is planning to do and what makes this any different?

 

:LOL:

 

I said something about Lifeson giving incorrect info earlier in this thread or another thread maybe.

 

I do think Rush is done but not because of his quote. I had already thought they were. Anyway...

Yeah, I think that they are done, also. Like I said earlier in this thread, I suspected the end was near after they released CA and Neil did an interview saying how he wanted to make CA the bands best album ever.

 

Neil is 65, and Alex & Geddy are 64. It's their time.

 

I don't think any of the "old-timer" bands who are still touring could do on stage what Rush did. Yeah, Charlie Watts can play until he's 80. He's been playing the same simple beat for nearly 60 years. He could never do what Neil did every night on stage.

Charlie Watts couldn't do what Neil did on stage for ten seconds.

 

Hahahaha!

 

Neil couldn't do what Charlie could do on stage for 21.12 seconds!!

 

Charlie can swing!

 

Neil can not!

  • Like 4
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

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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