PhilsFriendMatt Posted December 10, 2008 Share Posted December 10, 2008 I have found myself listening to the self titled album quite a bit lately and it got me wondering. What if John hadn't had to leave the band and therefor Neil had never joined. Not only would the drumming have been different but the lyrics also would have been since both of them are/were the main lyricists. While John gave us working man Neil has given us countless songs but he has also had much more time. I personally am not sure what the outcome would have been if Neil had never been given the oppurtunity to join. It may just be my current mood lately listening to the heavier rush of old lately and i'm in no way implying one or the other I am just wondering what anyone else thinks about this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glennb2112 Posted December 10, 2008 Share Posted December 10, 2008 rush probably would have produced 3 album max and then went off into the sunset. no way in hell they would have lasted this long without neil. IMO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowdog2112 Posted December 10, 2008 Share Posted December 10, 2008 Yeah, I really appreciate Rutsey's part in the band but it would have died fast. That's not to say that Neil carried the band on his own either, when he joined it just happened to create a near-perfect synergy between all three. After all, Geddy and Alex were a lot more successful without Neil than Neil was without them. R.I.P. John Rutsey. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alex Posted December 10, 2008 Share Posted December 10, 2008 QUOTE (glennb2112 @ Dec 9 2008, 08:43 PM) rush probably would have produced 3 album max and then went off into the sunset. no way in hell they would have lasted this long without neil. IMO True, true! I agree completely. The debut album was amazing for the band, no doubt about it. But the fact is Neil brought whole new elements to the band. And with Neil; Geddy and Alex found totaly different styles and abilities within themselves. With Rutsey I feel they would have made (as you said in your quote) about 3 or so more albums (that would have been probably very good) and then they would have drowned off and I probably would have never discovered them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Earthshine Posted December 10, 2008 Share Posted December 10, 2008 They would have made maybe one more album and that would have been it. They would all have "real jobs" now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeddyRulz Posted December 10, 2008 Share Posted December 10, 2008 QUOTE (glennb2112 @ Dec 9 2008, 08:43 PM) rush probably would have produced 3 album max and then went off into the sunset. no way in hell they would have lasted this long without neil. IMO Absolutely. Anyone who thinks otherwise just ain't thinking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowdog2112 Posted December 10, 2008 Share Posted December 10, 2008 Who in the world voted "would have been better"? Was that a joke? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MMCXII Posted December 10, 2008 Share Posted December 10, 2008 they would have gotten popular a lot sooner but then just died off. John wouldn't have lasted any way, he had a different vision for their future than Al and Ged I think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
different strings Posted December 10, 2008 Share Posted December 10, 2008 QUOTE (glennb2112 @ Dec 10 2008, 12:43 PM) rush probably would have produced 3 album max and then went off into the sunset. no way in hell they would have lasted this long without neil. IMO Yes I definitely feel that this would be the case. Neil arrived just as the band was moving forward. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
metaldad Posted December 10, 2008 Share Posted December 10, 2008 would have been a lot different Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrHands Posted December 10, 2008 Share Posted December 10, 2008 This forum would not exist...interpret that how you want. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
treeduck Posted December 10, 2008 Share Posted December 10, 2008 What if they'd got someone other than Neil after Rutsey left? Maybe there's a potential drumming/lyrics genius out there working in a garage who never got the opportunity. It's all idle speculation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mara Posted December 10, 2008 Share Posted December 10, 2008 They might have added a keyboardist. . . If perchance they HAD lasted this long with John, they'd no doubt have retired in May after his death, and the 2008 tour either would never have happened (presuming his health was already on the decline) or would have been cut short. Where would Neil have ended up, I wonder, had he not joined Rush? Hard to imagine he'd be running a tractor supply business. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-D-RocK- Posted December 10, 2008 Share Posted December 10, 2008 With Rutsey, the band's popularity would have ascended to stratospheric heights quite rapidly resulting in unchecked debauchery and decadence never before seen in rock and roll. This in turn would have resulted in the early and untimely demise of all three members, thus rendering Rush to the backroom closet of history. Neil surely would have achieved some level of success in the music industry before fading off into obscurity and becoming manager of Dalzeil Farm Equipment Co. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowdog2112 Posted December 10, 2008 Share Posted December 10, 2008 So far, 14% of the people who answered the poll say Rush would have been better with Rutsey instead of Neil. I just can't wrap my brain around that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mara Posted December 10, 2008 Share Posted December 10, 2008 QUOTE (snowdog2112 @ Dec 10 2008, 04:57 PM) So far, 14% of the people who answered the poll say Rush would have been better with Rutsey instead of Neil. I just can't wrap my brain around that. There are a few on this board who just flat-out cannot stand Peart. Their prerogative. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhilsFriendMatt Posted December 10, 2008 Author Share Posted December 10, 2008 QUOTE (Mara @ Dec 10 2008, 04:59 PM) QUOTE (snowdog2112 @ Dec 10 2008, 04:57 PM) So far, 14% of the people who answered the poll say Rush would have been better with Rutsey instead of Neil. I just can't wrap my brain around that. There are a few on this board who just flat-out cannot stand Peart. Their prerogative. I was honestly stuck at this. Its almost two different types of music. I think they would still have been great with rutsey just like they are with neil. Some people seem upset though that some people say they would be better. Im not saying they would be better or worse im thinking more along the lines of different. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowdog2112 Posted December 10, 2008 Share Posted December 10, 2008 QUOTE Some people seem upset though that some people say they would be better. Im not saying they would be better or worse im thinking more along the lines of different. I'm not upset at all, just shocked. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Necromancer Posted December 10, 2008 Share Posted December 10, 2008 QUOTE (GeddyRulz @ Dec 10 2008, 01:59 AM) QUOTE (glennb2112 @ Dec 9 2008, 08:43 PM) rush probably would have produced 3 album max and then went off into the sunset. no way in hell they would have lasted this long without neil. IMO Absolutely. Anyone who thinks otherwise just ain't thinking. Geddy and Al's solo work has proven that they are competent. The band would have probably achieved MORE mainstream success without the asshole antics of Neil and that's just fact. Al and Geds got screwed out of the rock and roll mega stardom they deserve because of the attitude of Neil. I would have begged Rutsey to come back if I was them. The debut is one of the best debuts in rock history. They would have only gotten better. While I love what they've done with Neil... saying that they'd be nothing without him is ridiculous. The band is Geds and Al. Neil is a drummer. They had a competent drummer and would have been phenomenal if he'd stayed. Just maybe not as huge with the never-got-laid D&D nerds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Finbar Posted December 10, 2008 Share Posted December 10, 2008 The Rush that would've been and the legendary Rush that is are two different things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rushman14 Posted December 10, 2008 Share Posted December 10, 2008 QUOTE (Necromancer @ Dec 10 2008, 04:26 PM) QUOTE (GeddyRulz @ Dec 10 2008, 01:59 AM) QUOTE (glennb2112 @ Dec 9 2008, 08:43 PM) rush probably would have produced 3 album max and then went off into the sunset. no way in hell they would have lasted this long without neil. IMO Absolutely. Anyone who thinks otherwise just ain't thinking. Geddy and Al's solo work has proven that they are competent. The band would have probably achieved MORE mainstream success without the asshole antics of Neil and that's just fact. Al and Geds got screwed out of the rock and roll mega stardom they deserve because of the attitude of Neil. I would have begged Rutsey to come back if I was them. The debut is one of the best debuts in rock history. They would have only gotten better. While I love what they've done with Neil... saying that they'd be nothing without him is ridiculous. The band is Geds and Al. Neil is a drummer. They had a competent drummer and would have been phenomenal if he'd stayed. Just maybe not as huge with the never-got-laid D&D nerds. if I may get ridiculous for a second, Rush would have never been as successful as they are without Neil. Period. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ReRushed Posted December 10, 2008 Share Posted December 10, 2008 Didn't John Rutsey leave Rush on his own accord? Neil is essential to Rush's success. When I was a pimply faced 15 year old reading my Batman comics and The Hobbit, I worshiped Neil Peart. He was a GOD! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mfratt Posted December 11, 2008 Share Posted December 11, 2008 Neil revolutionized the band, and made them into the perfect "tripod" of a band. Between his drumming and his lyrics, he made the band what we know it as today. The debut album was good. Amazing, in fact, for a couple of 20 year old guys from Toronto getting together and recording some music, but that album was trying to be too Zeppelin-esque. Had they continued that style, they would have just been another Zep-knock off band, maybe had a few relative hits here and there, and probably disappeared into oblivion before the turn of the 80's. Infusing Peart's DNA into the group helped to bring about their own identity, give them their own sound, and make them what we know and love today. Thats not to mention Peart's pure badassery on the drums Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
derekwall77 Posted December 11, 2008 Share Posted December 11, 2008 Rutsey was the mutt's nuts. Neil is an arse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fridge Posted December 11, 2008 Share Posted December 11, 2008 QUOTE (Necromancer @ Dec 10 2008, 11:26 PM) QUOTE (GeddyRulz @ Dec 10 2008, 01:59 AM) QUOTE (glennb2112 @ Dec 9 2008, 08:43 PM) rush probably would have produced 3 album max and then went off into the sunset. no way in hell they would have lasted this long without neil. IMO Absolutely. Anyone who thinks otherwise just ain't thinking. Geddy and Al's solo work has proven that they are competent. The band would have probably achieved MORE mainstream success without the asshole antics of Neil and that's just fact. Al and Geds got screwed out of the rock and roll mega stardom they deserve because of the attitude of Neil. I would have begged Rutsey to come back if I was them. The debut is one of the best debuts in rock history. They would have only gotten better. While I love what they've done with Neil... saying that they'd be nothing without him is ridiculous. The band is Geds and Al. Neil is a drummer. They had a competent drummer and would have been phenomenal if he'd stayed. Just maybe not as huge with the never-got-laid D&D nerds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.