Which Rush album mattered the least?

[furie]

QUOTE (Rick N. Backer @ Jan 31 2012, 04:59 PM)

T4E. Actually, if I'm being honest, everything after HYF and before VT can make an argument it deserves this title.

Wow, even counterparts?

[SlyJeff]

Feedback is obvious. The fact that I can't even be certain if it should "count" for this discussion makes it the first choice.

 

However, barring Feedback I'd like to pick CoS. I don't know if they could've done 2112 without it, but in the fantasy in my head they could have.

[micgtr71]

Roll the Bones...

[Grover]

This is not based on how much I like an album:

 

Not Rush because it got the ball rolling and Fly By Night, while better, might not have.

 

Not Fly By Night because it was Neil's first and continued to build fans.

 

Not Caress of Steel because it set the stage for the angry statement of 2112.

 

Not A Farewell to Kings because their progressive era was advancing and they played with conviction.

 

Not Hemispheres because it was their progressive peak.

 

Not Permanent Waves because it's when they started to be more like themselves and not an ideal of progressive rock (even though Hemispheres may be my favourite album).

 

Moving Pictures because it was their commercial peak and some would say artistic peak.

 

Not Signals because it marked the start of the keyboard era.

 

Not Presto because it marked the start of the return to guitar-based rock and the canned backing vocals.

 

Not Counterparts because it was a stronger return to guitar based rock and had great production.

 

Not Test For Echo because it was Neil's first album after his re-inventing his drumming.

 

Not Vapor Trails because it was their return from tragedy.

 

This leaves:

 

Grace Under Pressure

Power Windows

Hold Your Fire

Roll The Bones

Feedback

Snakes & Arrows

 

My vote would be for Feedback (the only Rush album I never bought), but if you feel that experiment was significant for their career, I would go with Roll The Bones... but tomorrow might be different.

[furie]

QUOTE (Grover @ Feb 1 2012, 08:16 PM)

This is not based on how much I like an album: Not Rush because it got the ball rolling and Fly By Night, while better, might not have. Not Fly By Night because it was Neil's first and continued to build fans. Not Caress of Steel because it set the stage for the angry statement of 2112. Not A Farewell to Kings because their progressive era was advancing and they played with conviction. Not Hemispheres because it was their progressive peak. Not Permanent Waves because it's when they started to be more like themselves and not an ideal of progressive rock (even though Hemispheres may be my favourite album). Moving Pictures because it was their commercial peak and some would say artistic peak. Not Signals because it marked the start of the keyboard era. Not Presto because it marked the start of the return to guitar-based rock and the canned backing vocals. Not Counterparts because it was a stronger return to guitar based rock and had great production. Not Test For Echo because it was Neil's first album after his re-inventing his drumming. Not Vapor Trails because it was their return from tragedy. This leaves: Grace Under Pressure Power Windows Hold Your Fire Roll The Bones Feedback Snakes & Arrows My vote would be for Feedback (the only Rush album I never bought), but if you feel that experiment was significant for their career, I would go with Roll The Bones... but tomorrow might be different.

Wow! put a ton of thought into this.

 

After reading your analysis, I've changed my mind, and I'm going with Hold Your Fire.

[Stormtron]

GUP was important because it was their first album without Terry Brown. RTB, I strongly dislike, but it sold really well and that's always important to keep a band going.

[andrew28]

I'd say RTB or Counterparts, only because I've always had a hard time differentiating between the two. They're both ok/good albums, but neither one really stands out and songs from each album could easily fit on the other without really making much of a difference.

[GeddyRulz]

I'd go with either Roll the Bones or Test for Echo. Neither heralded much of a directional change, and neither came so long after their predecessor that they could be considered "anticipated comeback" albums.

[Tick]

Snakes And Arrows for me.

[rushgoober]

QUOTE (andrew28 @ Feb 2 2012, 09:55 AM)

I'd say RTB or Counterparts, only because I've always had a hard time differentiating between the two. They're both ok/good albums, but neither one really stands out and songs from each album could easily fit on the other without really making much of a difference.

Dude, I seriously disagree. RTB doesn't sound vastly different than Presto. It's not exactly a radical sounding Rush album, but Counterparts on the other hand was a very radical departure, containing some of their purest hard rock since perhaps their debut in places, while somewhat embracing the then popular grunge sound.

 

So feel free not to like the albums. I personally think CP is enormously better than RTB, but to say the songs are interchangeable seems pretty inaccurate to me.

[Silas Lang]

QUOTE (New World Kid @ Jan 29 2012, 02:27 PM)

Test for Echo - Freddie lessons end. Rush explores a Progressive feel again, in contrast to their straight-ahead Counterparts effort. Things get slightly more groovy.

I like this description. Like many, I initially considered saying Test For Echo but after further thought decided against it. It could have very well had a much bigger impact on their musical progression had they been allowed to naturally develop on to the next step. Parts of TFE feel like they were drifting slightly in a more instrumental and complex direction. By the time of VT, they had to restart again from scratch basically. So TFE matters to me as the last Rush before tragedy struck and derailed their natural musical evolution.

 

I'll go ahead and S&A (and it's not my least favorite album) simply because of the length of time after VT and they have little in common or much connection between the two. It'll be a similar sized gap between S&A and Clockwork Angles and CA seems to be shaping up as quite a difference (in a good way) from S&A. But really they all matter to me.

 

Aside from these two, the reasons given for any of the others make no sense to me.

 

 

[Rick N. Backer]

QUOTE (furie @ Feb 1 2012, 03:27 PM)

QUOTE (Rick N. Backer @ Jan 31 2012, 04:59 PM) T4E.  Actually, if I'm being honest, everything after HYF and before VT can make an argument it deserves this title. Wow, even counterparts? Yeah, I may have misspoke there. CP is better than the others.   I don't get S&A getting votes here. I think it's the most consistently solid album they'd done in 20 years.

[Dscrapre]

I'm going to say Roll the Bones even though I really like that album.

 

I'm not saying Test for Echo because it showed some forward momentum whereas most of RTB sounded like it could of been on Presto. Otherwise I would've picked T4E.

 

I don't know how anyone could ever say the debut was unimportant because everything has to start somewhere and if it wasn't for Working Man, we wouldn't have Rush.

[New Digital Man]

Looks like you're all wrong again!

[Rushian King]

Anything after Power Windows. Possibly Hold Your Fire but any other CD that has too much, i.e. filler, music.

[Dscrapre]

QUOTE (Rushian King @ Feb 3 2012, 09:09 PM)

Anything after Power Windows. Possibly Hold Your Fire but any other CD that has too much, i.e. filler, music.

I've always thought that CDs screwed up the quality of albums. Back when an album had 6-8 songs on it, it was pretty easy to make them all pretty good, but now with 12 songs per album it seems like more filler is necessary.

[Rushian King]

QUOTE (Dscrapre @ Feb 3 2012, 10:19 PM)

QUOTE (Rushian King @ Feb 3 2012, 09:09 PM) Anything after Power Windows. Possibly Hold Your Fire but any other CD that has too much, i.e. filler, music. I've always thought that CDs screwed up the quality of albums. Back when an album had 6-8 songs on it, it was pretty easy to make them all pretty good, but now with 12 songs per album it seems like more filler is necessary. Rush, or any artist, shouldn't feel the need to fill a CD just because they can. Ironically their longest album before HYF was COS at around 45 minutes. I wonder if Rush had tightened that album up to around 40 minutes would there be so many haters for it?   If the modern albums were all tightened to the 40 minute mark I'd have a much higher opinion of said albums. Too many songs feel stretched by a minute or so or are just not good enough to have been released as an individual song. Parts of a few songs could've been turned into one good epic song on each of the modern albums.

Edited February 4, 2012 by Rushian King

[Dscrapre]

QUOTE (Rushian King @ Feb 3 2012, 08:33 PM)

QUOTE (Dscrapre @ Feb 3 2012, 10:19 PM) QUOTE (Rushian King @ Feb 3 2012, 09:09 PM) Anything after Power Windows. Possibly Hold Your Fire but any other CD that has too much, i.e. filler, music. I've always thought that CDs screwed up the quality of albums. Back when an album had 6-8 songs on it, it was pretty easy to make them all pretty good, but now with 12 songs per album it seems like more filler is necessary. Rush, or any artist, shouldn't feel the need to fill a CD just because they can. Ironically their longest album before HYF was COS at around 45 minutes. I wonder if Rush had tightened that album up to around 40 minutes would there be so many haters for it?   If the modern albums were all tightened to the 40 minute mark I'd have a much higher opinion of said albums. Too many songs feel stretched by a minute or so or are just not good enough to have been released as an individual song. Parts of a few songs could've been turned into one good epic song on each of the modern albums.   I completely agree.   If Virtuality was cut in half, that song would be in my regular playlist.

[Rushian King]

QUOTE (Dscrapre @ Feb 3 2012, 11:22 PM)

QUOTE (Rushian King @ Feb 3 2012, 08:33 PM) QUOTE (Dscrapre @ Feb 3 2012, 10:19 PM) QUOTE (Rushian King @ Feb 3 2012, 09:09 PM) Anything after Power Windows. Possibly Hold Your Fire but any other CD that has too much, i.e. filler, music. I've always thought that CDs screwed up the quality of albums. Back when an album had 6-8 songs on it, it was pretty easy to make them all pretty good, but now with 12 songs per album it seems like more filler is necessary. Rush, or any artist, shouldn't feel the need to fill a CD just because they can. Ironically their longest album before HYF was COS at around 45 minutes. I wonder if Rush had tightened that album up to around 40 minutes would there be so many haters for it?   If the modern albums were all tightened to the 40 minute mark I'd have a much higher opinion of said albums. Too many songs feel stretched by a minute or so or are just not good enough to have been released as an individual song. Parts of a few songs could've been turned into one good epic song on each of the modern albums.   I completely agree.   If Virtuality was cut in half, that song would be in my regular playlist. I think Big Money was the first song that I felt like it was stretched. Quite a few since.

[Presto-a RUSH fan!]

I don't even think I can answer this in the context the OP asks. I think each played a roll in the next, making each important. If they wouldn't have experimented with keyboards, well then so many things change and so on. Each album has it's own "weight" at least to me.

 

Now if you asked which mattered least to me personally? Damn that is hard, but I'd have to say the debut album. Because honestly, if it weren't for Neil, RUSH would have been a completely different band all together. Not saying they wouldn't have been good or even great, but all together different. So if I had to give one album back, and never have it, it would be the debut. And I like it, but there is no Neil!

[Dscrapre]

QUOTE (Presto-a RUSH fan! @ Feb 4 2012, 01:52 AM)

I don't even think I can answer this in the context the OP asks. I think each played a roll in the next, making each important. If they wouldn't have experimented with keyboards, well then so many things change and so on. Each album has it's own "weight" at least to me. Now if you asked which mattered least to me personally? Damn that is hard, but I'd have to say the debut album. Because honestly, if it weren't for Neil, RUSH would have been a completely different band all together. Not saying they wouldn't have been good or even great, but all together different. So if I had to give one album back, and never have it, it would be the debut. And I like it, but there is no Neil!

The thing about that, if the debut wouldn't have happened then working man would've never been made. That was their break through hit in Cleveland. If it wasn't for that, they wouldn't have gone on tour, they wouldn't have needed to find a new drummer, and they never would've net Neil. There would be no Rush without the debut.

 

Oh, now I see what you meant. Never mind.

[LyndseyG]

QUOTE (Presto-a RUSH fan! @ Feb 4 2012, 08:52 AM)

I don't even think I can answer this in the context the OP asks. I think each played a roll in the next, making each important. If they wouldn't have experimented with keyboards, well then so many things change and so on. Each album has it's own "weight" at least to me.

^^ This.

[IChoseFreeWill]

Maybe Roll the Bones? I cannot think of any songs in it that stand out a lot. At least Test for Echo has Driven...and Dog Years! And Caress of Steel has Bastille Day.

[Nick66]

Easy, Test for Echo.

 

Feedback really doesn't count.