rftag

I think it was their best album since Signals. I don't think it's a great album but it was very ambitious and a great accomplishment for the band at that stage of their career. In retrospect (which seems really obvious now but wasn't at the time) there were a lot of hints in the album that they suspected it could be their last. Lyrically there's definitely a lot of swan song signalling.

Not sure how much activity is on this site these days, and considering the last post to this thread was about 8.5 years ago I doubt anyone will read it, but figured I'd respond anyway since this is a topic there is a lot of misinformation about (perhaps it would be more sympathetically described as "romanticization"). There are a lot of persistent myths about Rush, most of which seem intended to foster an idealized image of the band. One of them is the idea that they either never did any studio overdubbing on their live albums or only did a teeny weeny bit. This is absolutely false. They did a lot of studio work on their live albums, and put in a LOT of studio time on ESL in particular. Martin Popoff talks about this in his recent Rush biographical trilogy. The crowd sounds are enhanced and edited as well.

Vital Signs is definitely not heavy metal. Nothing on Moving Pictures is heavy metal.

If you look at advertisements for Rush albums from the 70s, they were explicitly marketed as heavy metal, and referred to as heavy metal in reviews. Like a lot of bands of their age, they have been strangely inconsistent so far as they described themselves. Until around Moving Pictures, the members of the band described themselves as heavy metal almost exclusively. But after that, it would vary. In Martin Popoff's new book (Driven: Rush in the 90s and In The End), Geddy gets into this and at one point says something to the effect of "We're not prog, we're not metal; if I had to say what category we are, we're a hard rock band" (that's an almost verbatim quote). Of course at another point, speaking from around 2004, he describes the band as "progressive metal", and indeed the book describes them as such in the intro. The problem here is that exactly what is considered metal has changed. A band has to be quite metal today in order to be considered heavy metal. But that wasn't always the case. On top of that, Rush's sound mellowed considerably over the years. In the 70s, at least through 2112, they were by contemporary standards not only metal but very metal. 2112 is very heavy for 1976. From Signals until Roll The Bones, they weren't even hard rock. There's a really interesting early interview from early in Rush's first US tour in '74, in Texas, in which Neil at one point says something like "Yeah, Sabbath is heavy like us but they are slow and plodding and we're high energy" or some such. Early Kiss and Queen, in my opinion, were metal. At least a lot of the tracks. Certainly for the time anyway. The early Aerosmith songs "Nobody's Fault" and "Round and Round" would be considered metal even by today's standards (if you aren't familiar with them check them out on YouTube - heavy shit). That said, I don't think any of the bands listed, including Rush, are heavy metal bands, but all have metal songs, and some were uncontroversially classified as metal in the 70s. Led Zeppelin and Deep Purple were considered heavy metal at one point also and so were Thin Lizzy. These days not so much. Black Sabbath still are but many of them are now just considered hard rock and that isn't just my opinion either. Some early Rush could be considered proto metal these days but that's as close at they get. The later stuff is heavy but considering what's out there now it's definitely not metal. If grunge and much nu metal isn't really considered true metal then there's not way Rush is either. I don't really disagree with you. I think we obsess too much on genre. There's similar debates about what is or isn't "rock" or "blues" or "punk" etc. Nobody debates whether or not Judas Priest is metal or not, but there's lots of Judas Priest songs that aren't metal. I think "metal" should be thought of more as a style or sound that can be applied to songs rather than bands. Hell, some of Greta Van Fleet's songs are arguably metal.

They’re taking Wofmother along for this reason I think. Yes, Wolfmother is opening. I have no idea who is in Wolfmother these days or what kind of music they're playing. They've had a lot of rotating members and style changes. At the height of their popularity they were sort of aping early 70s style Black Sabbath and dressing in Vietnam War era clothing. They had some good songs but the whole 1972 costume party thing was distracting.

I had tickets to see this in June, but it just got postponed once again to August.

If you look at advertisements for Rush albums from the 70s, they were explicitly marketed as heavy metal, and referred to as heavy metal in reviews. Like a lot of bands of their age, they have been strangely inconsistent so far as they described themselves. Until around Moving Pictures, the members of the band described themselves as heavy metal almost exclusively. But after that, it would vary. In Martin Popoff's new book (Driven: Rush in the 90s and In The End), Geddy gets into this and at one point says something to the effect of "We're not prog, we're not metal; if I had to say what category we are, we're a hard rock band" (that's an almost verbatim quote). Of course at another point, speaking from around 2004, he describes the band as "progressive metal", and indeed the book describes them as such in the intro. The problem here is that exactly what is considered metal has changed. A band has to be quite metal today in order to be considered heavy metal. But that wasn't always the case. On top of that, Rush's sound mellowed considerably over the years. In the 70s, at least through 2112, they were by contemporary standards not only metal but very metal. 2112 is very heavy for 1976. From Signals until Roll The Bones, they weren't even hard rock. There's a really interesting early interview from early in Rush's first US tour in '74, in Texas, in which Neil at one point says something like "Yeah, Sabbath is heavy like us but they are slow and plodding and we're high energy" or some such. Early Kiss and Queen, in my opinion, were metal. At least a lot of the tracks. Certainly for the time anyway. The early Aerosmith songs "Nobody's Fault" and "Round and Round" would be considered metal even by today's standards (if you aren't familiar with them check them out on YouTube - heavy shit). That said, I don't think any of the bands listed, including Rush, are heavy metal bands, but all have metal songs, and some were uncontroversially classified as metal in the 70s.

Words fail. So sorry to see you go Neil.

PeW is my favorite Rush album as well, but I actually think the one skip-over track on the album is "Different Strings". Not a horrible song but in the context of PeW in my opinion it's filler. It's noteworthy for being perhaps the only song Geddy wrote the lyrics for (I'm not aware of another but perhaps he wrote some lyrics for the debut album?).

So there's this new movie coming out, one night only, some time in August, which appears to be about the R40 tour but with commentary by Rush rock star fans and supposedly some nowhere else to be seen stuff, etc. I have to admit, I'm probably going to see it in the theater, because it's the next best thing to a Rush concert we are ever likely to see again. But, as much as I love Rush, I kinda feel like a tool doing it, because it's such an obvious cow milking cash grab. Thoughts?

Ida Mae was the opening act at my show also. Husband and wife from the UK.

My feint hope is that Geddy and Alex will indeed do something together at some point with a supporting tour, and do some Rush songs as part of it. Hopefully any new material they might produce will itself be worth the price of admission. That is the closest we will ever get to seeing 'Rush' again. But I don't consider it something likely to happen. I'm just glad they're enjoying their retirement and finding new ways to occupy themselves which they seem to be delighted with. Good for them.

No, I'm with you on this, They are awesome. I've bought tickets to another show. And Josh is great on stage. He has a great stage presence and seems like a really cool guy; you forget about the cheesy attire real quick. Still, I hope the wardrobe mistakes go away at some point. Soon, The other band members don't dress that way BTW.

Yeah. I have said the same thing elsewhere on this forum. It's the only thing I HATE about the band. It's like he's dressed up for a late 60's themed costume party.

White Snake? You obviously have not heard GVF. They sound about as much like White Snake as White Snake sounded like Jimi Hendrix.

There will be a new album this year apparently: https://www.nme.com/...ng-year-2440108 I don't think we'll really know if GVF will fulfill its apparent promise for a few years. If we're still talking about them in 3 years, they are the phenom they appear to have the potential to become. But it's 2019. To expect to see any band repeat the success pattern of a band like Led Zeppelin or Rush is naive, Things are too different now. I don't really care. I love the music they have made so far and I loved their live performance. So long as they keep doing that I will be satisfied with them. Now if they turn out to redefine what rock stardom is like in the 21st century that will be a really exciting thing to see. And if that is a thing that can happen this is the band most likely to do it.

Do you not like Judas Priest? I have no problem with Judas Priest. But the people they invited to this almost certainly would have. Old corporate suits primarily. It would have been hilarious however. It being GVF was more or less just as funny. The corporate booker was almost certainly expecting it to be a play or ballet or something.

I heard about Great Van Fleet only recently. I was in Atlanta on business and someone at my company bought tickets to whatever was playing at the famous old Art Deco Fox Theater in Atlanta (probably assuming it would be a travelling version of a Broadway play or something). As it turned out it was Greta Van Fleet. [Note: Good thing this wasn't a few days earlier or it would've been Judas Priest).] I gotta say, I thought they were awesome. I know I will probably get a lot of hate on here for saying so, based on the few comments about them that I have had time to read, but that's OK. To each their own etc. The guy has amazing pipes. Zeppelin ripoffs? I can definitely see why some would make that claim (the kid sounds EXACTLY like Robert Plant on some songs). I don't care. Their music is really, really good in my opinion. A helluva lot better than anything else out there. I DO hate the fact that the lead singer dresses up in a sort of late 1960s themed party costume. But that's the only thing about the band that irked me (the other band members don't do that so far as I can tell). Their songs are really good. The guy has amazing pipes. The musicianship is excellent (at least for a band whose average age is perhaps 21). And as much as I HATE HATE HATE HATE his 60's themed costume party attire, I have to say, on stage, the lead singer has a really good stage presence that wins you over quickly. He just seems like such a damn nice guy (remind you of anyone?). I loved the show, and felt compelled to download their "Anthem Of The Peaceful Army" album and LOVE it. This is my honest opinion. Feel free to pile on. As far as the Rush comparisons go, YES, I can definitely see why some might hear that. But it's the Rush of the debut album and perhaps Fly By Night (both unpopular Rush albums which I personally love). But it's very subtle. His voice sounds kinda sorta early 70s Geddy here and there but without hearing the suggestion first I don't think I would've noticed it.

His hairline is composed of plugs. His crown is bald (he wore a wig to cover it up in live shows). I'm kinda curious as to why a person of his stature and success and age would be concerned about his hair loss Everyone knows Neil is bald but he wears that ridiculous dashiki to cover it up (maybe it's not a dashiki - I vaguely recall a former post in which someone said that the vaguely Afrocentric hat he wears is not a dashiki) but he whatever it is he wears a vaguely Afrocentric looking thing on his head to cover his baldness. Geddy appears to have retained a full head of hair. All that said Alex looks great for his age.

Are we supposed to buy this twice too? I didn't even buy it when it was new. I can wait for it to appear on Google "Good Books", and even then I'm not sure I'd be compelled to read it. This "Buy this again!" thing is getting annoying. I have no interest in buying anniversary additions of albums. If someone gives one to me for free, I might listen to it.

This isn't the first time Chris Cuomo has quoted Rush on CNN; he's obviously a fan, which is cool.

I never regarded Circumstances as a top tier tune. It's always been pretty much a skip over track for me, though it's a decent song and I love the French lyrics. I love Hemispheres, but always regarded "Cygnus X-1: Book 2" as good as it is, as a relatively weak sidelong epic. It's a great song but pales in the inevitable comparison to the sidelength epic of 2112. I love the concept but it isn't anywhere near as grabbing or special as 2112 in my opinion. La Villa Strangiato and The Trees are the best songs here in my opinion. It still is a great representation of the classic Rush sound but it's centerpiece, the sidelong sequel to Cygnus X-1, lacks the magic of 2112.

Cuomo did quote the line as Geddy sang it ("If you choose not to decide you still have made a choice"), though for some reason in the lyrics printed on the album that line reads "If you choose not to decide you cannot have made a choice".

I figure she wasn't a looker otherwise I assume you would have asked for her number and the story would get more interesting.