Apologies for heretical content

[JARG]

Inspired by a discussion in SOCN.

[That One Guy]

Amazingly enough, my mom's friend throwing Snakes & Arrows on my iPod in 2008 is somehow what got me into Rush

 

It was mostly uphill from there as I explored the discography. Luckily, I didn't sample the first three albums until I was already a fan who couldn't be turned away. I did hear a random bar band play The Necromancer to 10 people once, though, which was weird.

Edited June 26, 2023 by That One Guy

[The Analog Cub]

Pre-2112 and the Rupert Hine years don't work for me.

 

The 90s/00s hard prog was my "new Rush" and I go back to all of it pretty regularly (okay maybe not most of T4E).

[zepphead]

Hold Your Fire & Presto would not have been a great place for me to start.

Fortunately I am an old codger and was already a fan in the '70s glory days! 

[treeduck]

I just voted for one, Presto.

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

HOLD YOUR FIRE

PRESTO

ROLL THE BONES

 

There's a song or two on each of those that would have initially grabbed my interest, but the rest of the album would have proved disappointing. Like, Show Don't Tell has a unique vibe, and if that was the first song I heard from them I'd be thinking, "This is cool, who are these guys?" Then after listening to the rest of Presto I'd be, "Oh...oh well."

 

[JARG]

20 minutes ago, 1-0-0-1-0-0-1 said:

HOLD YOUR FIRE

PRESTO

ROLL THE BONES

 

There's a song or two on each of those that would have initially grabbed my interest, but the rest of the album would have proved disappointing. Like, Show Don't Tell has a unique vibe, and if that was the first song I heard from them I'd be thinking, "This is cool, who are these guys?" Then after listening to the rest of Presto I'd be, "Oh...oh well."

 

 

Pretty much the same here. The thing is, I really like Presto...the way I listen to it is to think I'm listening to a pop band that was heavily influence by Rush.

[The Analog Cub]

HYF is the worst of the synth era but the drums are some of Neil's most inventive of the time so I can find lots of "I want to hear more of what they're capable of" even if the songs are mostly mediocre to bad. I find the album very interesting, albeit not good.

[Maverick]

Hold Your Fire

Presto

Roll the Bones

Test for Echo

 

HYF was the first new Rush to come out after I was a cemented fan.  I bought it, but it's never gotten a lot of spins, not when I had the back catalog that was so good. 

 

Presto was supposed to be a return to form, stripped down Rush, and it was, but again, not a lot of spins. 

 

RTB is the interesting one here.  I really liked it a lot when it came out.  The whole Chance theme was really appealing to me at the time, but after CP came out, RTB really fell by the wayside, and to this day I generally shun it.  I would even use Dreamline and Roll The Bones as bathroom break opportunities during the later concerts.  So did a lot of other people.

 

T4E never really grabbed me at all.  I've heard the term "Rush by numbers" to describe Rush's sometimes formulaic approach to writing songs, and to me that phenomenon is most present on this record.  Even my favorite song on the album, Time and Motion, is only my favorite  because it progressive hard rock Rush...by numbers.

[JARG]

29 minutes ago, Maverick said:

Hold Your Fire

Presto

Roll the Bones

Test for Echo

 

HYF was the first new Rush to come out after I was a cemented fan.  I bought it, but it's never gotten a lot of spins, not when I had the back catalog that was so good. 

 

Presto was supposed to be a return to form, stripped down Rush, and it was, but again, not a lot of spins. 

 

RTB is the interesting one here.  I really liked it a lot when it came out.  The whole Chance theme was really appealing to me at the time, but after CP came out, RTB really fell by the wayside, and to this day I generally shun it.  I would even use Dreamline and Roll The Bones as bathroom break opportunities during the later concerts.  So did a lot of other people.

 

T4E never really grabbed me at all.  I've heard the term "Rush by numbers" to describe Rush's sometimes formulaic approach to writing songs, and to me that phenomenon is most present on this record.  Even my favorite song on the album, Time and Motion, is only my favorite  because it progressive hard rock Rush...by numbers.

 

Time and Motion's only saving graces, in my opinion, are the lyrics and the abstract guitar solo.

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

48 minutes ago, Maverick said:

RTB is the interesting one here.  I really liked it a lot when it came out.  The whole Chance theme was really appealing to me at the time, but after CP came out, RTB really fell by the wayside, and to this day I generally shun it.  I would even use Dreamline and Roll The Bones as bathroom break opportunities during the later concerts.  So did a lot of other people.

 

T4E never really grabbed me at all.  I've heard the term "Rush by numbers" to describe Rush's sometimes formulaic approach to writing songs, and to me that phenomenon is most present on this record.  Even my favorite song on the album, Time and Motion, is only my favorite  because it progressive hard rock Rush...by numbers.

 

RTB suffered the same fate for me after CP came out. As a Rush fan who got into them in 1980 with PeW, there was a certain resignation with RTB, like, okay, this is what Rush is now -- they're this light-sounding pop-rock band with a Rush influence. It was easy to think that way when you looked at RTB, Presto, HYF and even PoW as a whole -- RTB was clearly a continuation of their journey away from their hard prog heyday. There wasn't much of a progression from Presto to RTB, and that's where the resignation came from for me.

 

CP was what RTB and maybe even Presto should have been -- a big f**k you to HYF and the keyboard era. It wasn't a return to hard prog, but it was organic-sounding with heavy guitars, bass and drums. A step in the right direction.

 

T4E grabbed me instantly because it was, at least sonically, a continuation of CP. The guitars were even heavier, and I loved it. At least, at first. The songs didn't hold up over time, though the title track, Driven and Time And Motion are still go-to listens.

[JARG]

13 minutes ago, 1-0-0-1-0-0-1 said:

 

RTB suffered the same fate for me after CP came out. As a Rush fan who got into them in 1980 with PeW, there was a certain resignation with RTB, like, okay, this is what Rush is now -- they're this light-sounding pop-rock band with a Rush influence. It was easy to think that way when you looked at RTB, Presto, HYF and even PoW as a whole -- RTB was clearly a continuation of their journey away from their hard prog heyday. There wasn't much of a progression from Presto to RTB, and that's where the resignation came from for me.

 

CP was what RTB and maybe even Presto should have been -- a big f**k you to HYF and the keyboard era. It wasn't a return to hard prog, but it was organic-sounding with heavy guitars, bass and drums. A step in the right direction.

 

T4E grabbed me instantly because it was, at least sonically, a continuation of CP. The guitars were even heavier, and I loved it. At least, at first. The songs didn't hold up over time, though the title track, Driven and Time And Motion are still go-to listens.

 

I remember when TFE came out, I and a guitarist buddy of mine were both initially disappointed with it. A few days later he sent me and email where he said, "dude, Lifeson is all over this record!"

 

Yes that's certainly true. There are lots and lots of guitar tracks on the record, but what's there isn't much to write home about, imo.

[treeduck]

28 minutes ago, 1-0-0-1-0-0-1 said:

 

RTB suffered the same fate for me after CP came out. As a Rush fan who got into them in 1980 with PeW, there was a certain resignation with RTB, like, okay, this is what Rush is now -- they're this light-sounding pop-rock band with a Rush influence. It was easy to think that way when you looked at RTB, Presto, HYF and even PoW as a whole -- RTB was clearly a continuation of their journey away from their hard prog heyday. There wasn't much of a progression from Presto to RTB, and that's where the resignation came from for me.

 

CP was what RTB and maybe even Presto should have been -- a big f**k you to HYF and the keyboard era. It wasn't a return to hard prog, but it was organic-sounding with heavy guitars, bass and drums. A step in the right direction.

 

T4E grabbed me instantly because it was, at least sonically, a continuation of CP. The guitars were even heavier, and I loved it. At least, at first. The songs didn't hold up over time, though the title track, Driven and Time And Motion are still go-to listens.

If VT, S&A and even Clockwork Angels had the production quality of T4E they'd be much more enjoyable to listen to.

 

Funnily enough I've never had a problem with Hold Your Fire, I've always liked it. The main problem I had was the band starting to look like ABC and Flock of Seagulls.

[Rick N. Backer]

37 minutes ago, 1-0-0-1-0-0-1 said:

 

RTB suffered the same fate for me after CP came out. As a Rush fan who got into them in 1980 with PeW, there was a certain resignation with RTB, like, okay, this is what Rush is now -- they're this light-sounding pop-rock band with a Rush influence. It was easy to think that way when you looked at RTB, Presto, HYF and even PoW as a whole -- RTB was clearly a continuation of their journey away from their hard prog heyday. There wasn't much of a progression from Presto to RTB, and that's where the resignation came from for me.

 

CP was what RTB and maybe even Presto should have been -- a big f**k you to HYF and the keyboard era. It wasn't a return to hard prog, but it was organic-sounding with heavy guitars, bass and drums. A step in the right direction.

I agree with a lot of this.  But returning to JARG's question, for me Signals was the last great Rush album before CA.  I had only been a fan since PeW, and I loved Signals when it first came out.  Subdivisions, Chemistry, The Weapon and Losing It had more "in your face," synth, but only Chemistry was a lesser song.  By the time HYF came around, it seemed clear Rush was no longer the band I fell in love with.  Every new album they released starting with Presto had a lead track that when I heard it I thought, "Maybe they're back."  But the albums on the whole had too many songs that, if I didn't like the band already, wouldn't make me want to buy an album.  When Far Cry came out, I thought it was the best song I had heard from them in ages, and I like Snakes on the whole.  P/G is probably the start of the era when, had I not been fan already, because of the material that came before it, I would not consider myself a fan.

 

If that makes me less of a Rush fan, so be it.  Music is entertainment.  I personally don't really get the tendency of some to say, "I didn't like the album when I first heard it, but then I made myself listen to it 40 more times, and now I kind of like it."  To me that always seems like someone in a bad relationship trying to convince themselves they're happy.  If you don't like T4E then put on MP.

[Rush Didact]

I just chose Clockwork Angels.  It's a muddy, hookless, anti-melodic barrage of noise that my teenage self would have hated.  I still don't like it very much and have only listened to it because it's Rush and I feel obligated on some level.

 

Ironically, RTB was the album that made me a fan, so I have a somewhat different perspective than the majority responding to this poll, it seems.

[The Analog Cub]

1 hour ago, treeduck said:

If VT, S&A and even Clockwork Angels had the production quality of T4E they'd be much more enjoyable to listen to.

 

Funnily enough I've never had a problem with Hold Your Fire, I've always liked it. The main problem I had was the band starting to look like ABC and Flock of Seagulls.

 

Snakes I always thought had a great production. The songs themselves seem to have differing opinions around here but the album _sounds_ pretty good.

 

Clockwork is one of my favorites, but it's a little loud.

[Lurkst]

I don't think I can vote in this one 

 

The first Rush LP I owned was 2112, I quickly became obsessed with it. However I then purchased their new release, Power Windows. It was like I'd poured ketchup over a favourite dessert. 

However after some perseverance I grew to love it and soon everything in between. 

I reckon if I could entertain such radically different albums I wouldn't have had an issue being bitten by the bug, no matter the starting point into the band.

 

Edited June 27, 2023 by Lurkst

[Nova Carmina]

It's an interesting question, to think about the whole of the catalog relative to where you came in.

 

For me -- and I think several others have suggested something similar -- it's really less about the particular album and where I was as a listener and fan at the time. I fell in love with Rush in middle school/early high school, a time when most music fans are forming attachments and finding their ears, looking for that "thing" that sparks a groove, some curiosity, a desire to hear some more. 

 

I picked a couple of things I don't think 13-year-old me would have liked much, but that's based on a forty-year-old recollection. Part of me (the "holy Rush" part, I guess) wants to think that whatever I'd encountered would have been the ticket, whether it was Fly By Night or Clockwork Angels, and I'd have gone on from there, but since I loved GUP and was really disappointed by HYF,  that says as much about my evolution between 13 and 17 as it does about Rush.

 

As a fun thought experiment, could we answer the same question about a band that didn't go through phases like Rush did? I like AC/DC a lot, but would it have mattered if I'd heard Blow Up Your Video first or Flick of the Switch? Would Bon have made a kid a fan, but Brian would not have? I dunno.

 

It was right band meeting the right time of life. It's possible that at a different point in my life, even the greatest Rush wouldn't have moved me? But I do know that the Rush I love I listen to endlessly, and the Rush I never grew to love I barely remember exists (which is part of what is making Hi_Water's ranking so much fun, being reminded of those songs).

 

Cool question.

Edited June 27, 2023 by Nova Carmina

[Timbale]

I voted for 3 albums - Rush, Test For Echo and Snakes and Arrows.

 

I know Rush is beloved in its way...but for me I didn't hear that record until I knew most of their 70s and early 80s stuff, and so I could appreciate it as a kind of museum piece - a "this is where they came from and how far they've come" album.  I still feel that way about it - it's kind of a novelty album to me.  I have nostalgia for it, because I was a Rush freak and so of course listened to it tons of times anyway...but I will never pull it out to listen to it now unless it's "memory lane" time.  If it was my intro to the band, I would have found it too generic and boring.

 

Test For Echo goes on the list because I think it's bland, by the numbers, and pretty much the only Rush album in their discography that I think is totally non-essential.  If it didn't exist, I just don't think it would change the trajectory of the band at all...which I don't think you can say for any of their other records.  It just feels pretty empty of inspiration..and if I'd heard it first it would not have made much of an impression.

 

Snakes & Arrows is tough, because I remember, like, a snippet somehow of Far Cry being on the internet before the record came out (on their website maybe?) and thinking, oh my, they're back to making some kick ass music.  And I think that opening song delivers.  But the rest of the album is a slog for me, a mid-tempo, all-the-songs-sound-the-same trudge.  If I'd heard it first it would have made little impression on me...save for that killer opener.

 

I think, unlike a bunch of people here, a lot of the 80s stuff WOULD have had me checking out the rest of their catalogue.  A record like Hold Your Fire to me is somewhat unique...a sort of progressive pop akin to what Yes and Genesis were up to at the time, which was stuff I liked.  I listened to hard rock like Sabbath and Zep at the time...but I also listened to Howard Jones, Talking Heads and Art Of Noise...and Rush's use of synths mixed with a kick ass rhythm section and an unusual lead guitarist was a very enticing  mixture to me.

[Rick N. Backer]

5 hours ago, Nova Carmina said:

It's an interesting question, to think about the whole of the catalog relative to where you came in.

 

For me -- and I think several others have suggested something similar -- it's really less about the particular album and where I was as a listener and fan at the time. I fell in love with Rush in middle school/early high school, a time when most music fans are forming attachments and finding their ears, looking for that "thing" that sparks a groove, some curiosity, a desire to hear some more. 

 

I picked a couple of things I don't think 13-year-old me would have liked much, but that's based on a forty-year-old recollection. Part of me (the "holy Rush" part, I guess) wants to think that whatever I'd encountered would have been the ticket, whether it was Fly By Night or Clockwork Angels, and I'd have gone on from there, but since I loved GUP and was really disappointed by HYF,  that says as much about my evolution between 13 and 17 as it does about Rush.

 

As a fun thought experiment, could we answer the same question about a band that didn't go through phases like Rush did? I like AC/DC a lot, but would it have mattered if I'd heard Blow Up Your Video first or Flick of the Switch? Would Bon have made a kid a fan, but Brian would not have? I dunno.

 

It was right band meeting the right time of life. It's possible that at a different point in my life, even the greatest Rush wouldn't have moved me? But I do know that the Rush I love I listen to endlessly, and the Rush I never grew to love I barely remember exists (which is part of what is making Hi_Water's ranking so much fun, being reminded of those songs).

 

Cool question.

I think this raises a really good point.  I turned 13 in 1980.  A lot of my favorite bands either broke around that time or released their signature album around that time.  Even in the case of a band like the Stones, whose heyday was really about 10 years earlier, I still personally love albums like Emotional Rescue and Tattoo You.  I doubt that's a coincidence.  Does it matter that Back in Black came out in 1980?  Probably.  I love High Voltage, but I discovered it because of Back in Black.  I discovered 2112 after falling in love with PeW.  Would I have discovered MP if the first album I heard was T4E?  Probably, but my view of the former would have been colored, negatively, by my view of the latter, instead of my love of the former making me more willing to give the latter a chance.

 

There's probably a good reason why, if a band didn't break until after 1992 (when I turned 25), or if none of its members were famous before then, I don't know a ton about them.  It's sort of the same reason I can tell you who won the World Series in 1990, but not 2 years ago.  Life changes as you get older.

[Vectorman]

I think probably nothing before or after the '80s would have drawn me in quite as effectively. I guess I'm an atypical Rush fan in that I was never really into hard rock as a genre before Rush and it's still not a large portion of my listening (I think Rush and Porcupine Tree are the only hard rock currently on my in-the-car music shuffle). Prior to developing an interest in Rush, from what I can remember, I think a lot of what I liked in my early teens was more synth-heavy. That being the case, 1985 was, I guess, a good point for me to board the train after reading that Keyboard Magazine interview with Geddy and listening to Grace Under Pressure probably 20 or 30 times that summer. My fascination with all the synth sounds and Geddy's keyboard setup was the initial hook, and once ensnared, I quickly developed an appreciation for the bass playing, the lyrical content and everything else.

 

I still like the PoW/HYF-era best in terms of Geddy's bass playing. Really digged the more hyper, funky, inventive lines he fired off on almost every song. I felt like bass parts that really jumped out and grabbed you were never as plentiful on any albums that followed.

[Union 5-3992]

I'll one-up the heresy. It's hard to say because I only had heard Working Man and Far Cry a few times before I decided to give the band a chance. By playing their discography on shuffle.... It led me to like a bit of stuff off GUP, CP, and Permanent Waves all around the same time. That's actually how I went about discovering oddball favorites by most bands I was into at the time. It didn't occur to my 13-year old self that I should treat entire albums as their own piece. That came once I started actually buying music. 

[Rush Didact]

2 hours ago, Vectorman said:

I think probably nothing before or after the '80s would have drawn me in quite as effectively. I guess I'm an atypical Rush fan in that I was never really into hard rock as a genre before Rush and it's still not a large portion of my listening (I think Rush and Porcupine Tree are the only hard rock currently on my in-the-car music shuffle). Prior to developing an interest in Rush, from what I can remember, I think a lot of what I liked in my early teens was more synth-heavy. That being the case, 1985 was, I guess, a good point for me to board the train after reading that Keyboard Magazine interview with Geddy and listening to Grace Under Pressure probably 20 or 30 times that summer. My fascination with all the synth sounds and Geddy's keyboard setup was the initial hook, and once ensnared, I quickly developed an appreciation for the bass playing, the lyrical content and everything else.

 

I still like the PoW/HYF-era best in terms of Geddy's bass playing. Really digged the more hyper, funky, inventive lines he fired off on almost every song. I felt like bass parts that really jumped out and grabbed you were never as plentiful on any albums that followed.

 

I could say the same things.  My other listening is mostly jazz, folk and funk these days, stuff like Pentangle and Bert Jansch, Nick Drake, Joni Mitchell, George Benson, etc., mixed in with the classic rock I grew up with.  Hard rock was never a big part of my listening even as a teenager - Rush is probably the heaviest band in my collection, aside from the Smashing Pumpkins and a single Propagandhi album.

[Alex’s Amazing Arpeggios]

10 hours ago, Nova Carmina said:

It's an interesting question, to think about the whole of the catalog relative to where you came in.

 

For me -- and I think several others have suggested something similar -- it's really less about the particular album and where I was as a listener and fan at the time. I fell in love with Rush in middle school/early high school, a time when most music fans are forming attachments and finding their ears, looking for that "thing" that sparks a groove, some curiosity, a desire to hear some more. 

 

I picked a couple of things I don't think 13-year-old me would have liked much, but that's based on a forty-year-old recollection. Part of me (the "holy Rush" part, I guess) wants to think that whatever I'd encountered would have been the ticket, whether it was Fly By Night or Clockwork Angels, and I'd have gone on from there, but since I loved GUP and was really disappointed by HYF,  that says as much about my evolution between 13 and 17 as it does about Rush.

 

As a fun thought experiment, could we answer the same question about a band that didn't go through phases like Rush did? I like AC/DC a lot, but would it have mattered if I'd heard Blow Up Your Video first or Flick of the Switch? Would Bon have made a kid a fan, but Brian would not have? I dunno.

 

It was right band meeting the right time of life. It's possible that at a different point in my life, even the greatest Rush wouldn't have moved me? But I do know that the Rush I love I listen to endlessly, and the Rush I never grew to love I barely remember exists (which is part of what is making Hi_Water's ranking so much fun, being reminded of those songs).

 

Cool question.

[Alex’s Amazing Arpeggios]

5 hours ago, Rick N. Backer said:

I think this raises a really good point.  I turned 13 in 1980.  A lot of my favorite bands either broke around that time or released their signature album around that time.  Even in the case of a band like the Stones, whose heyday was really about 10 years earlier, I still personally love albums like Emotional Rescue and Tattoo You.  I doubt that's a coincidence.  Does it matter that Back in Black came out in 1980?  Probably.  I love High Voltage, but I discovered it because of Back in Black.  I discovered 2112 after falling in love with PeW.  Would I have discovered MP if the first album I heard was T4E?  Probably, but my view of the former would have been colored, negatively, by my view of the latter, instead of my love of the former making me more willing to give the latter a chance.

 

There's probably a good reason why, if a band didn't break until after 1992 (when I turned 25), or if none of its members were famous before then, I don't know a ton about them.  It's sort of the same reason I can tell you who won the World Series in 1990, but not 2 years ago.  Life changes as you get older.