Did 90s Rush hate 80s Rush?

[PurpleHayes]

By that I mean by the 90s (and as early as HYF in '87) Rush had ceased to be innovators admired by fellow musicians...and became followers instead.

 

HYF was an attempt to emulate the mid-tempo overproduced AOR dominant that time.

 

Presto seemed to be an attempt to sound more like new wave band The Fixx, who Rupert Hine produced.

 

RTB was a blatant attempt to sound 'modern' with that rapping skeleton.

 

CP was an attempt to break into the grunge market. And it's the only album I really like during this era since they actually took some risks.

 

And I don't know what TFE was but they clearly were running on fumes by this point and I even like HYF more than this one. That is saying a lot.

 

Sure, their early 80s stuff may have sounded like The Police...but the material they were writing was still very strong. Besides, emulating the Police isn't a bad thing.

Edited October 1 by PurpleHayes

[zepphead]

Looking at it another way ..... Did 70's fans hate 80's and 90's Rush??

Speaking purely for myself ...

80's : Yes, once they decided to sound like a cross between The Police and U2 .....bloodly awful!

90's : Pretty much yes.

[Timbale]

I don't know if I would say that 90s Rush hated 80s Rush - the Rush of the 90s was not ignoring material from Permanent Waves, Moving Pictures or Signals.  Quite the contrary.

 

But...I do think a narrative got built, a narrative that Beyond The Lighted Stage really solidified, that says that Rush lost their way in the mid to late 80s, and that the 90s through to 2002 was them "going back to their roots".  That as soon as the keyboards became a lead voice in the arrangements, everything went to hell.  For my ears, I'd listen to Power Windows over most of the grungy sludge on Clockwork Angels or T4E, but I digress.

 

Of course, as a big Rush fan, I was thrilled that there was a mostly definite documentary made about them...but I've always felt it was pretty obvious that the filmmakers had an agenda and a particular thesis to expound.  Their choice of talking heads, mostly hard rock/metal guys, underlines that.  Even Neil at some point in the film saying, so apologetically,  "sometimes we go too far, but we correct ourselves" or something like that, is kind of ridiculous to me.  Tai Shan is not "too far".  It's a song.  You can like it or not like it, but they're just a band making music - they can do whatever the f**K they want.

 

I think Rush was always a sponge, creatively, and although a lot of Roll The Bones to me now sounds like filler, I think they were continuing to search and progress at that time, even if the direction of some of that stuff doesn't thrill me.  

 

In that way, like the OP eluded to, I don't think Counterparts was necessarily the band "getting back to their roots".  I think it was them sponging up the current scene in rock.  I think the "they lost their way and found their way back" narrative is revisionist to a large extent.

[ytserush]

To the extent that they didn't want to be trapped behind keyboards and synths which took away from the enjoyment of playing on stage.....Yes. Once technology allowed them to do those parts more comfortably they weren't averse to going back to the ''80s live.with some rearrangements.

[Todem]

On 10/1/2025 at 3:54 PM, Timbale said:

I don't know if I would say that 90s Rush hated 80s Rush - the Rush of the 90s was not ignoring material from Permanent Waves, Moving Pictures or Signals.  Quite the contrary.

 

But...I do think a narrative got built, a narrative that Beyond The Lighted Stage really solidified, that says that Rush lost their way in the mid to late 80s, and that the 90s through to 2002 was them "going back to their roots".  That as soon as the keyboards became a lead voice in the arrangements, everything went to hell.  For my ears, I'd listen to Power Windows over most of the grungy sludge on Clockwork Angels or T4E, but I digress.

 

Of course, as a big Rush fan, I was thrilled that there was a mostly definite documentary made about them...but I've always felt it was pretty obvious that the filmmakers had an agenda and a particular thesis to expound.  Their choice of talking heads, mostly hard rock/metal guys, underlines that.  Even Neil at some point in the film saying, so apologetically,  "sometimes we go too far, but we correct ourselves" or something like that, is kind of ridiculous to me.  Tai Shan is not "too far".  It's a song.  You can like it or not like it, but they're just a band making music - they can do whatever the f**K they want.

 

I think Rush was always a sponge, creatively, and although a lot of Roll The Bones to me now sounds like filler, I think they were continuing to search and progress at that time, even if the direction of some of that stuff doesn't thrill me.  

 

In that way, like the OP eluded to, I don't think Counterparts was necessarily the band "getting back to their roots".  I think it was them sponging up the current scene in rock.  I think the "they lost their way and found their way back" narrative is revisionist to a large extent.

I think you and I have the same wave length about music. 
 

I don’t think they lost their way in their minds creatively…..but sonically yes there were some mis-steps and really it was all about Alex’s role evolving from lead and out front in the 70’s and early 80’s to Signals which marked his diminished dominance “sonically” in the mix.

 

I happen to think some of Alex’s most brilliant moments on guitar were during the “synth” period. I was a fascinated new young guitarist myself when Signals dropped (12 years old where the f**k has time gone???).

 

The guitar work in The Analog Kid, Chemistry, Digital Man and the highly underrated The Weapon opened my ears to what can be done on guitar.

 

I cut my teeth in Permanent Waves and Moving Pictures and learning how to play watching and listening to Exit Stage Left a zillion times.

 

But when Signals, Grace Under Pressure and Power Windows came out I was mesmerized by his sonic left turn, approach and arpeggio rich rhythm work and soaring melodic solos in all those albums.

 

What’s wild to me is in Hold Your Fire which is always the whipping boy album of the “old guard” of Rush (yes you guys….who were the pioneer fans and god bless you dudes and gals) for me a Moving Pictures baby….was not jarring. It was fascinating.

 

His guitar work on Open Secrets, Prime Mover, Mission and Turn The Page is simply amazing. Highly textured and so in the pocket of everything going on around him with Neils bombastic and quite frankly maybe his finest drumming to date and Geddy’s lush synths and phenomenal bass lines. 
 

So that brings us to the 90’s

 

Alex was crying a shit ton and considered leaving (I don’t believe that for a second but we know he wanted to get back out in front of the mix) and he did on Presto and RTB. 
 

Creatively they were still strongly a progressive rock band and yeah pioneer fans vanished but us MP generation fans were right there at every tour soaking up the new stuff. 
 

Fast forward to Counterparts they finally got back to their Sonic roots…..but still writing new songs. And great ones at that. 
 

CA is filled with Homage to their 70’s and yes 80’s roots. 
 

I think the 90’s Rush loved the 80’s songs but did not like how the sonic approach aged as evidenced by the much tougher sounding renditions of their mid 80’s glory on the CA tour. My god that setlist is still my favorite to this day. It was fantastic hearing:

 

Subdivisions

The Analog Kid

The Big Money

Body Electric

Territories

Red Sector A

Grand Designs

The Manhattan Project

Middle Town Dreams

 

Yeah those are all insanely great songs and far better than their 90’s output. by a country mile. And they all sounded “tough” in that tour. 
 

No they didn’t hate 80’s Rush….they just moved on yet again…..progressing their songwriting and giving us gems like:

 

Show Don’t Tell

The Pass

Available Light

Dreamline

Bravado 

RTB

Face Up

Where’s My Thing

Ghost of a Chance

Animate

Cut to the Chase

Alien Shore

Double Agent

Leave That Thing Alone

Cold Fire

Everyday Glory

 

Lot’s of great material that still sounds relevant today. Much like their 80’s output. 

 

[rushfan88]

I like all decades of Rush for different reasons. Their sound was always progressing which kept them interesting. I would not say that Presto was an attempt to sound like a new wave band. On the contrary, I saw that album as an attempt for the guys to go back to their roots and sound like a 3 piece band again by ditching the synths. The trend continued on the next few albums as their sound started getting heavier again. This made for a nice distraction from grunge as I was not into all those bands sounding similar to each other. BORING! Rush became my college band in the 90's even though they had been around for 2 decades. For that I am thankful!

[JohnRogers]

80’s RUSH doesn’t even think about 90’s RUSH. 80’s RUSH looks in the mirror saying, “oh, yeah”, then sorts coke. 
 

70’s RUSH smokes a fat jay while sunning at the pool. 

[jacklifeson]

Dont know about that but they were always influenced by what was going on at the time.

 

70s: Zep/Yes/Police

80s: New Wave/AOR

90s: RHCPs/Grunge

00s: Foo Fighters

 

They woudnt have survived without each step. 

[PurpleHayes]

80s Rush was certainly embarrassed by 70s Rush, at least by the time '87 rolled around and the HYF tour only included four songs from pre-1980, and three of them were in a truncated medley. I guess Neil was embarrassed by songs about getting sucked into a black hole and turning into some kind of deity, as this likely didn't play well at the parties he went to in the early 90s where he was the "straight minority." They didn't re-discover any of their love for those songs until the '97 'Evening With' format started.

 

Fortunately, the 'Evening With' format showed that Rush was embarrassed by their late 80s output which had resulted from their embarassment about their 70s output.

[Flame]

I think it’s possible (indeed, probable) that many posters are dramatically overestimating the degree to which [insert era of Rush] is “embarrassed” by [insert earlier/later era of Rush], and somehow forgetting that this band always, unfailingly, unflinchingly, unapologetically, followed its own path, trusted its own instincts, remained ever curious/creative/flexible to change. 
 

This propensity to re-invent itself unsurprisingly resulted in alienating, along the way, some fans who “expected one thing and got another,” but, at the end of the day, each and every tone shift in Rush’s long (and continuing) evolution was done with purpose, with integrity, with the fearless conviction that they and they alone called the shots and reserved the right to define who and what they were at any given time. 
 

Long may it be so…

[Union 5-3992]

On 11/30/2025 at 9:37 AM, jacklifeson said:

Dont know about that but they were always influenced by what was going on at the time.

 

70s: Zep/Yes/Police

80s: New Wave/AOR

90s: RHCPs/Grunge

00s: Foo Fighters

 

They woudnt have survived without each step. 

I'm with you on the first three decades but they sound nothing like the foo fighters in the 2000s. Though they do seem more influenced by world music and hard rock to some degree. I wouldn't be able to pinpoint any specific act because Rush still sounded somewhat unique then

[Union 5-3992]

Those 90s tours had plenty of 80s songs so they weren't too embarrassed by it. Hell even Clockwork Angels Tour was a massive love letter to that era

 

[invisible airwave]

This could be said for many acts transitioning into the 90s.  David Bowie, Neil Young and Bob Dylan come to mind.  80s glam was out.  90s grit was in with the grunge explosion and punk coming back thanks to Green Day and Offspring.

[PurpleHayes]

1 hour ago, invisible airwave said:

This could be said for many acts transitioning into the 90s.  David Bowie, Neil Young and Bob Dylan come to mind.  80s glam was out.  90s grit was in with the grunge explosion and punk coming back thanks to Green Day and Offspring.

 

Loverboy singer Mike Reno blamed Nirvana for destroying his career. The 90s were cruel to a lot of metal bands...Iron Maiden, Judas Priest, Motorhead, AC/DC, Ozzy, Anthrax, Megadeth, even Metallica suffered.

[Flame]

Neil Young; another perfect example of an artist that, like Rush, was/is boundlessly creative and willing to explore new approaches to music—caring not if these (at times, pretty radical) changes alienated fans, record labels, or critics.

And every different career stage was adopted with integrity; Neil earnestly believed in every fork in the road he took, and is still taking. Rush has followed that same road. 
 

To be a fan of either artist requires you to somewhat “just trust in them” and mentally “allow” them the freedom to drift off into genres you don’t like as much as their old stuff/new stuff, because exploring new avenues is clearly at their creative core. 
 

Obviously, one can favor one phase over another—I certainly did, with both Rush and Neil Young—but if you really believe in an artist, they deserve the benefit of the doubt when they depart from the same old same old. 

Edited December 2 by Flame

[78jazz]

On 11/30/2025 at 8:37 AM, jacklifeson said:

Dont know about that but they were always influenced by what was going on at the time.

 

70s: Zep/Yes/Police

80s: New Wave/AOR

90s: RHCPs/Grunge

00s: Foo Fighters

 

They woudnt have survived without each step. 

To my ears, The Anarchist sounds like weird Foo Fighters.