Rush was alive before Neil...why not after?

[GeminiRising79]

Discuss!!

[_hi_water._]

but... but... they still kicked ass

[JohnnyBlaze]

Because Geddy and Alex don’t want the band to be. The end.

[driventotheedge]

Because they weren't the same before Neil and wouldn't be the same after Neil. It wasn't as good before and wouldn't be as good after. Why purposely do something that will be a step below what you've done before unless for a money garb and that isn't Ged and Al.

Chemistry man. The whole is greater than the sum of the parts (e.g. John and Paul, Roger and Dave)

[zepphead]

Perhaps when time has healed things, Alex and Geddy will perform together again ......... just not as Rush. That would neither be cool nor appropriate.

[Lorraine]

Because Geddy's voice isn't quite what it used to be.

[Weatherman]

I would love to watch a reality TV series called "Looking for Another Neil".

It would follow Ged and Alex as they audition new drummers, then shake their heads sadly after every audition.

[Entre_Perpetuo]

Not this again.

 

It's over, and it's been over a lot longer than Neil was ill, I imagine. 40 years is a heck of a lot longer than most bands stick around, let alone with their classic lineup, and let alone anywhere near the peak of their powers. Rush gave us everything they had. If Ged and Al have more music to offer us, it won't be called Rush.

[1-0-0-1-0-0-1]

Because Geddy and Alex don’t want the band to be. The end.

 

The band played their last show five years ago. They were still playing well, but they were clearly nearing the end of their run (and what a run it was). Five years is a long time, especially at their age. I wouldn't even look for a one-off show from them at this point.

 

Besides, I'm pretty sure Gemini is trolling us with this topic, so we may as well bow out at this point.

[chemistry1973]

It's over probably.

 

But I have hope.

 

Musicians NEED to play.

[tangy]

Because they were a trio.

 

As such, Geddy and Alex can retire...

Ever notice how most of the older bands still at it have more then 3 members.

 

ZZ top being an exception.

 

How long ago did Jerry die and the current version of the dead still play huge venues.

[zepphead]

What Alex and Geddy need to do now is to spend more time curating the Rush 'vaults' and deliver us hungry fans super duper extras for upcoming anniversary editions - starting with Moving Pictures ...... a couple of full set soundboards please!!!!!

[bluefox4000]

Some times things need to just end.....it may suck too. then you'd all say Ged and Al are killing rush's legacy. they'd never win either way, lol

 

Mick

[Relayer2112]

The only thing I could possibly see is them doing a tribute concert to raise funds for cancer research. Have several drummer friends/colleagues of Neil's sit in for him as Rush goes through a greatest hits set.

 

I think that would be cool as hell and still respectful.

[zepphead]

The only thing I could possibly see is them doing a tribute concert to raise funds for cancer research. Have several drummer friends/colleagues of Neil's sit in for him as Rush goes through a greatest hits set.

 

I think that would be cool as hell and still respectful.

Then it would be Alex and Geddy going through a greatest hits set ...... not Rush.

[Weatherman]

Not this again.

 

It's over, and it's been over a lot longer than Neil was ill, I imagine. 40 years is a heck of a lot longer than most bands stick around, let alone with their classic lineup, and let alone anywhere near the peak of their powers. Rush gave us everything they had. If Ged and Al have more music to offer us, it won't be called Rush.

 

It's amazing to see a band like U2, which is still making great records (Songs of Experience) over 40 years after forming.

In their case, they've started leaning on a huge team of younger producers to bring them new ideas.

Bono and Edge also studied the Lennon/McCartney songbook in the late 00s, seeing it as more craft and less inspiration.

That new emphasis, plus zero shame in bringing in new collaborators, has kept them relevant.

I don't blame them one bit.

 

Other older bands have too much pride to bring in outside help, or relearn songwriting.

Rush, for example. It showed, unfortunately, in their songwriting the final 4 albums. I imagine that nobody here really disagrees.

Pearl Jam refuse to learn how to write songs in a new way, and as a result they've been in a slow nosedive for the last twenty years.

Rolling Stones have effectively given up songwriting. They've made exactly 2 new albums in the last 22 years.

 

If you're gonna stay together as a recording unit for decades, your way of working has to change at some point.

Otherwise, just go be a heritage act and play the outdoor sheds every summer like Jimmy Buffett.

Edited October 1, 2020 by Weatherman

[Mosher]

Rush before Neil wasn't really that interesting. A great band, to be sure, but not the same band by any means.

 

I look at the first album as if it came from Geddy and Alex's first band.

 

Now Neil's gone, and we're back to the original state- something that isn't really Rush.

 

Ultimately, though, they can do whatever they want. The fact I agree with them on this matter is nice for me, but irrelevant. Their band their choice. I don't want more music called 'Rush' without Neil- to me it would be a lie.

 

I would love more music from Alex and Geddy, though, however they wish to present it.

[GeddysMullet]

Not this again.

 

It's over, and it's been over a lot longer than Neil was ill, I imagine. 40 years is a heck of a lot longer than most bands stick around, let alone with their classic lineup, and let alone anywhere near the peak of their powers. Rush gave us everything they had. If Ged and Al have more music to offer us, it won't be called Rush.

 

It's amazing to see a band like U2, which is still making great records (Songs of Experience) over 40 years after forming.

In their case, they've started leaning on a huge team of younger producers to bring them new ideas.

Bono and Edge also studied the Lennon/McCartney songbook in the late 00s, seeing it as more craft and less inspiration.

That new emphasis, plus zero shame in bringing in new collaborators, has kept them relevant.

I don't blame them one bit.

 

Other older bands have too much pride to bring in outside help, or relearn songwriting.

Rush, for example. It showed, unfortunately, in their songwriting the final 4 albums. I imagine that nobody here really disagrees.

Pearl Jam refuse to learn how to write songs in a new way, and as a result they've been in a slow nosedive for the last twenty years.

Rolling Stones have effectively given up songwriting. They've made exactly 2 new albums in the last 22 years.

 

If you're gonna stay together as a recording unit for decades, your way of working has to change at some point.

Otherwise, just go be a heritage act and play the outdoor sheds every summer like Jimmy Buffett.

 

I disagree vehemently.

[ST3V]

Not this again.

 

It's over, and it's been over a lot longer than Neil was ill, I imagine. 40 years is a heck of a lot longer than most bands stick around, let alone with their classic lineup, and let alone anywhere near the peak of their powers. Rush gave us everything they had. If Ged and Al have more music to offer us, it won't be called Rush.

 

Rush, for example. It showed, unfortunately, in their songwriting the final 4 albums. I imagine that nobody here really disagrees.

 

Well, you Imagine wrong.

[Jimbo66]

As much as it pains me that we’ll never hear another totally new release from the boys, or witness one of their shows, I would feel very disappointed if they did anything new as Rush. In fact, both Alex and Ged have always come over as pretty much always making right and honest decisions career wise in the past that I would be absolutely astonished if they did.

 

We should just be thankful and grateful that we happened to be on this earth at the same time as Rush, and enjoy the amazing catalogue of truly inspiring music that they left us with. No one can take that away.

[Entre_Perpetuo]

Not this again.

 

It's over, and it's been over a lot longer than Neil was ill, I imagine. 40 years is a heck of a lot longer than most bands stick around, let alone with their classic lineup, and let alone anywhere near the peak of their powers. Rush gave us everything they had. If Ged and Al have more music to offer us, it won't be called Rush.

 

It's amazing to see a band like U2, which is still making great records (Songs of Experience) over 40 years after forming.

In their case, they've started leaning on a huge team of younger producers to bring them new ideas.

Bono and Edge also studied the Lennon/McCartney songbook in the late 00s, seeing it as more craft and less inspiration.

That new emphasis, plus zero shame in bringing in new collaborators, has kept them relevant.

I don't blame them one bit.

 

Other older bands have too much pride to bring in outside help, or relearn songwriting.

Rush, for example. It showed, unfortunately, in their songwriting the final 4 albums. I imagine that nobody here really disagrees.

Pearl Jam refuse to learn how to write songs in a new way, and as a result they've been in a slow nosedive for the last twenty years.

Rolling Stones have effectively given up songwriting. They've made exactly 2 new albums in the last 22 years.

 

If you're gonna stay together as a recording unit for decades, your way of working has to change at some point.

Otherwise, just go be a heritage act and play the outdoor sheds every summer like Jimmy Buffett.

 

I'll take Rush's 00's output every day of the week over U2's. Not even close. I think on CA especially Rush refound whatever songwriting skills had drifted away since their golden age, but VT has a number of great songs as well, and SnA at least has Far Cry.

 

I don't think U2 has had a relevant song since Vertigo. Songs Of Innocence got some fake relevancy out of the whole iTunes mishap. Had that album been released normally it wouldn't have made any more impact than NLOTH or SOE did (which is to say not much compared to the heights of Achtung Baby and The Joshua Tree. I also don't think U2 have had a fresh idea since Pop, aside from some interesting experimentation on NLOTH which was so poorly received that they steered back away from it on SOI. If Bono andThe Edge studied Lennon and McCartney's songwriting they must not have gotten past Chapter 2. Not a single song on the last two albums I would take over Please Please Me.

 

I haven't heard much of Pearl Jam's post Vitalogy catalogue, but I haven't disliked what I have heard. I did listen to Lightning Bolt a lot when it came out and I really enjoyed most of it. Sirens is a great song.

 

The Stones are just on another level. By 1990 they already had more albums under their belt than most major rock bands will ever have. I'm not sure new music from them has ever been less necessary to their endurance as a live act and a rock icon.

[chemistry1973]

Crazy thought:

 

They COULD play to recorded live performances of the Professor.

 

Of course that would be WOEFULLY ill advised.

 

They did it with Zappa. I'm sure that was horrible.

[Entre_Perpetuo]

Crazy thought:

 

They COULD play to recorded live performances of the Professor.

 

Of course that would be WOEFULLY ill advised.

 

They did it with Zappa. I'm sure that was horrible.

 

Better idea. They could move on with their lives, making more music with each other if they want to but not calling it Rush out of respect for Neil's legacy.

[driventotheedge]

Because Geddy and Alex don’t want the band to be. The end.

 

The band played their last show five years ago. They were still playing well, but they were clearly nearing the end of their run (and what a run it was). Five years is a long time, especially at their age. I wouldn't even look for a one-off show from them at this point.

 

Besides, I'm pretty sure Gemini is trolling us with this topic, so we may as well bow out at this point.

Totally a troll job but still a subject worth talking about.

[Fridge]

Discuss!!

 

Mate, I've missed you!