Which Rush album mattered the least?

[ghostworks]

QUOTE (presto123 @ Jan 27 2012, 08:29 PM)

QUOTE (GeminiRising79 @ Jan 27 2012, 08:23 PM) This is easy- any album since '00 Wrong.....VT was one of the most important records of their career because we never thought we would see it. Rush were dead in the water so I'll never forget hearing the first songs from VT. +1

[They Bow Defeated]

QUOTE (Ovningskora @ Jan 27 2012, 07:48 PM)

>no working man = no rush. what can make you say that for sure? (a: nothing.) In a better world, they wouldn't have gotten signed with Rutsey, but Neil. We can go in the specifics of cause and effect and all that - how working man got them signed - how rutsey left because of the touring etc... But it's not hard at all to picture a different history where rutsey left due to another complication. Then, with neil then recruited, they recorded their first official album: Fly By Night! (the song FBN > WM btw.* oh, and though Best I Can has shitty lyrics, good thing it doesn't have shitty drumming!) (*editfix = FBN > WM as a radio song, was the point I was making) The debut matters least because it's pure shit and there's not a single song on there which did any good for the band within the band itself. They weren't Rush. Their "debut" album shouldn't exist. The songs it composes of should be among other old rush rares such as garden road, and.. I don't know, the rest of those shitty canadian zeppelin songs whatever they're named. So, it matters the least because it shouldn't even be considered a studio album of theirs, much like feedback.

Yikes! I sense much anger in you...

 

I dunno, I would still rather listen to the debut than most of Test For Echo or Roll The Bones. Like them or not, a lot of Rush's early staples came from the debut: Finding My Way, What You're Doing, In The Mood, Working Man.

 

Also, Working Man not only got Rush signed to Mercury (like you said), but jamming on Working Man with Neil later lead them to the jam section in By-Tor (as heard on Fifth Order of Angels).

 

So I would say Test For Echo matters the least, since for me it's a somewhat uninspired Counterparts 2.0, with only two real standout songs (Driven, Resist).

 

 

[danielmclark]

QUOTE (Ovningskora @ Jan 27 2012, 06:48 PM)

QUOTE (tangy @ Jan 27 2012, 03:44 PM) QUOTE (Ovningskora @ Jan 27 2012, 05:58 PM) The debut album because it's nothing like them at all and complete shit. Matters less than Feedback. &: CoS is a masterpiece. no working man = no rush.   how can the first be the least significant?   ps- its far from shit. >no working man = no rush.   what can make you say that for sure? (a: nothing.)     In a better world, they wouldn't have gotten signed with Rutsey, but Neil. We can go in the specifics of cause and effect and all that - how working man got them signed - how rutsey left because of the touring etc... But it's not hard at all to picture a different history where rutsey left due to another complication. Then, with neil then recruited, they recorded their first official album: Fly By Night! (the song FBN > WM btw. oh, and though Best I Can has shitty lyrics, good thing it doesn't have shitty drumming!)   The debut matters least because it's pure shit and there's not a single song on there which did any good for the band within the band itself.   They weren't Rush. Their "debut" album shouldn't exist. The songs it composes of should be among other old rush rares such as garden road, and.. I don't know, the rest of those shitty canadian zeppelin songs whatever they're named.   So, it matters the least because it shouldn't even be considered a studio album of theirs, much like feedback. That makes zero sense in the context of the thread. You don't like it, that's fine. I don't like it either, with the exception of Before and After, which I dig. But the question put to the forum was "Which Rush album mattered the least?" It is impossible to list the debut album as the one that mattered least because without the debut, there would be no Neil. The debut had to happen, it had to happen when it did or else Neil would never have joined (unless you believe in fate and destiny, which is a whole 'nother conversation).   Once the three of them are in place you can start talking about which album mattered least because there's always the possibility of another album after it... but hell, the last band Neil was in was more important to Rush than some of Rush's own albums because if that band hadn't ended the way it did, Neil would never have joined Rush.       Anyway, my vote goes to Test For Echo. After that, it's a toss-up between PoW and HYF. One of those two albums had to happen in order to get them to Presto, which was a turning point album. RTB would be third.   Basically, my "albums that matter" list includes everything up to Signals, maybe P/G. After that, you need one of the PoW/HYF albums, you need Presto. You need Vapor Trails. You need SNA.   Everything up to Signals is self-explanatory. CoS was nearly the end of it, but they needed that to take control and get to 2112. AFTK and Hemispheres established them further, and PeW and MP put them into the mainstream (or as close to it as they'd get). Signals was a turning point album, and I think that P/G was something they had to work through or else they would have folded. Presto was a turning point. Vapor Trails was a comeback album. SNA is a little less obvious and I wouldn't argue too hard in its favor, but I think without it they'd have no motivation to keep going. So that's something that matters, if the core of the question is "what matters most to the longevity and career of the band?"

[tangy]

QUOTE (Ovningskora @ Jan 27 2012, 07:48 PM)

QUOTE (tangy @ Jan 27 2012, 03:44 PM) QUOTE (Ovningskora @ Jan 27 2012, 05:58 PM) The debut album because it's nothing like them at all and complete shit. Matters less than Feedback. &: CoS is a masterpiece. no working man = no rush.   how can the first be the least significant?   ps- its far from shit. >no working man = no rush.   what can make you say that for sure? (a: nothing.)     In a better world, they wouldn't have gotten signed with Rutsey, but Neil. We can go in the specifics of cause and effect and all that - how working man got them signed - how rutsey left because of the touring etc... But it's not hard at all to picture a different history where rutsey left due to another complication. Then, with neil then recruited, they recorded their first official album: Fly By Night! (the song FBN > WM btw.* oh, and though Best I Can has shitty lyrics, good thing it doesn't have shitty drumming!)   (*editfix = FBN > WM as a radio song, was the point I was making)   The debut matters least because it's pure shit and there's not a single song on there which did any good for the band within the band itself.   They weren't Rush. Their "debut" album shouldn't exist. The songs it composes of should be among other old rush rares such as garden road, and.. I don't know, the rest of those shitty canadian zeppelin songs whatever they're named.   So, it matters the least because it shouldn't even be considered a studio album of theirs, much like feedback. what a load of horseshit.   give it a bit more thought.......

[Mr. Not]

QUOTE (They Bow Defeated @ Jan 27 2012, 05:40 PM)

QUOTE (Ovningskora @ Jan 27 2012, 07:48 PM) >no working man = no rush. what can make you say that for sure? (a: nothing.) In a better world, they wouldn't have gotten signed with Rutsey, but Neil. We can go in the specifics of cause and effect and all that - how working man got them signed - how rutsey left because of the touring etc... But it's not hard at all to picture a different history where rutsey left due to another complication. Then, with neil then recruited, they recorded their first official album: Fly By Night! (the song FBN > WM btw.* oh, and though Best I Can has shitty lyrics, good thing it doesn't have shitty drumming!) (*editfix = FBN > WM as a radio song, was the point I was making) The debut matters least because it's pure shit and there's not a single song on there which did any good for the band within the band itself. They weren't Rush. Their "debut" album shouldn't exist. The songs it composes of should be among other old rush rares such as garden road, and.. I don't know, the rest of those shitty canadian zeppelin songs whatever they're named. So, it matters the least because it shouldn't even be considered a studio album of theirs, much like feedback. Yikes! I sense much anger in you...   I dunno, I would still rather listen to the debut than most of Test For Echo or Roll The Bones. Like them or not, a lot of Rush's early staples came from the debut: Finding My Way, What You're Doing, In The Mood, Working Man.   Also, Working Man not only got Rush signed to Mercury (like you said), but jamming on Working Man with Neil later lead them to the jam section in By-Tor (as heard on Fifth Order of Angels).   So I would say Test For Echo matters the least, since for me it's a somewhat uninspired Counterparts 2.0, with only two real standout songs (Driven, Resist). Not so much anger as hatred towards a terrible album.   eh.

[Mr. Not]

QUOTE (tangy @ Jan 27 2012, 05:51 PM)

QUOTE (Ovningskora @ Jan 27 2012, 07:48 PM) QUOTE (tangy @ Jan 27 2012, 03:44 PM) QUOTE (Ovningskora @ Jan 27 2012, 05:58 PM) The debut album because it's nothing like them at all and complete shit. Matters less than Feedback. &: CoS is a masterpiece. no working man = no rush.   how can the first be the least significant?   ps- its far from shit. >no working man = no rush.   what can make you say that for sure? (a: nothing.)     In a better world, they wouldn't have gotten signed with Rutsey, but Neil. We can go in the specifics of cause and effect and all that - how working man got them signed - how rutsey left because of the touring etc... But it's not hard at all to picture a different history where rutsey left due to another complication. Then, with neil then recruited, they recorded their first official album: Fly By Night! (the song FBN > WM btw.* oh, and though Best I Can has shitty lyrics, good thing it doesn't have shitty drumming!)   (*editfix = FBN > WM as a radio song, was the point I was making)   The debut matters least because it's pure shit and there's not a single song on there which did any good for the band within the band itself.   They weren't Rush. Their "debut" album shouldn't exist. The songs it composes of should be among other old rush rares such as garden road, and.. I don't know, the rest of those shitty canadian zeppelin songs whatever they're named.   So, it matters the least because it shouldn't even be considered a studio album of theirs, much like feedback. what a load of horseshit.   give it a bit more thought....... Maybe you're the one who should, pal.

[Pound of Obscure]

QUOTE (metaldad @ Jan 27 2012, 04:12 PM)

S & A

1+

[GeminiRising79]

QUOTE (presto123 @ Jan 27 2012, 08:29 PM)

QUOTE (GeminiRising79 @ Jan 27 2012, 08:23 PM) This is easy- any album since '00 Wrong.....VT was one of the most important records of their career because we never thought we would see it. Rush were dead in the water so I'll never forget hearing the first songs from VT. Not once did I ever think Rush was finished back then. It's, simply, just not part of their fibre to abandon their work. I had always known they'd return- it was really only a matter of time.   As far as VT goes, it was just another successive downward slide for them, imo.

[Tommy Sawyer]

QUOTE (Union 5-3992 @ Jan 27 2012, 05:44 PM)

It's a bit of a tie between Roll the Bones and Presto. They could be erased and I wouldn't even notice.

But without Presto, we would have no CP.

 

Just HYF.2, HYF.3 and HYF.4

 

 

 

 

 

And whoever is saying that the debut and COS don't matter are CRAZY.

 

Without Rush, there would be, well, no Rush.

 

And without COS, there would be no 2112.

 

Just COS.2

[danielmclark]

QUOTE (GeminiRising79 @ Jan 27 2012, 08:00 PM)

QUOTE (presto123 @ Jan 27 2012, 08:29 PM) QUOTE (GeminiRising79 @ Jan 27 2012, 08:23 PM) This is easy- any album since '00 Wrong.....VT was one of the most important records of their career because we never thought we would see it. Rush were dead in the water so I'll never forget hearing the first songs from VT. Not once did I ever think Rush was finished back then. It's, simply, just not part of their fibre to abandon their work. I had always known they'd return- it was really only a matter of time.   As far as VT goes, it was just another successive downward slide for them, imo. That's your opinion of the material, not of the importance of the album. There's a difference. If it had been your idea of Moving Pictures II, the best thing they'd ever put out, you wouldn't be in this thread saying it's an album that didn't matter.   It was the first album back after an extended hiatus due to the death of a family member - and yes, they've all said that the future of the band was in doubt. Doesn't matter how good or bad anyone thinks this one was, it matters, in the context of this thread, because it had to happen in order for them to continue to have a career.

[Mr. Not]

QUOTE (danielmclark @ Jan 27 2012, 05:50 PM)

QUOTE (Ovningskora @ Jan 27 2012, 06:48 PM) QUOTE (tangy @ Jan 27 2012, 03:44 PM) QUOTE (Ovningskora @ Jan 27 2012, 05:58 PM) The debut album because it's nothing like them at all and complete shit. Matters less than Feedback. &: CoS is a masterpiece. no working man = no rush.   how can the first be the least significant?   ps- its far from shit. >no working man = no rush.   what can make you say that for sure? (a: nothing.)     In a better world, they wouldn't have gotten signed with Rutsey, but Neil. We can go in the specifics of cause and effect and all that - how working man got them signed - how rutsey left because of the touring etc... But it's not hard at all to picture a different history where rutsey left due to another complication. Then, with neil then recruited, they recorded their first official album: Fly By Night! (the song FBN > WM btw. oh, and though Best I Can has shitty lyrics, good thing it doesn't have shitty drumming!)   The debut matters least because it's pure shit and there's not a single song on there which did any good for the band within the band itself.   They weren't Rush. Their "debut" album shouldn't exist. The songs it composes of should be among other old rush rares such as garden road, and.. I don't know, the rest of those shitty canadian zeppelin songs whatever they're named.   So, it matters the least because it shouldn't even be considered a studio album of theirs, much like feedback. That makes zero sense in the context of the thread. You don't like it, that's fine. I don't like it either, with the exception of Before and After, which I dig. But the question put to the forum was "Which Rush album mattered the least?" It is impossible to list the debut album as the one that mattered least because without the debut, there would be no Neil. The debut had to happen, it had to happen when it did or else Neil would never have joined (unless you believe in fate and destiny, which is a whole 'nother conversation).   Once the three of them are in place you can start talking about which album mattered least because there's always the possibility of another album after it... but hell, the last band Neil was in was more important to Rush than some of Rush's own albums because if that band hadn't ended the way it did, Neil would never have joined Rush.       Anyway, my vote goes to Test For Echo. After that, it's a toss-up between PoW and HYF. One of those two albums had to happen in order to get them to Presto, which was a turning point album. RTB would be third. I don't care for cause / effect, because it always brings us to the tedious "what if?" question   but I guess we're going there anyways!   Like "They Bow Defeated" said about the live jam in Working Man later developing into By-Tor... By Tor could have developed from a number of things... Or, a different, potentially better song, could have developed from just a jam section among the band! You see?

[Tommy Sawyer]

QUOTE (danielmclark @ Jan 27 2012, 09:04 PM)

QUOTE (GeminiRising79 @ Jan 27 2012, 08:00 PM) QUOTE (presto123 @ Jan 27 2012, 08:29 PM) QUOTE (GeminiRising79 @ Jan 27 2012, 08:23 PM) This is easy- any album since '00 Wrong.....VT was one of the most important records of their career because we never thought we would see it. Rush were dead in the water so I'll never forget hearing the first songs from VT. Not once did I ever think Rush was finished back then. It's, simply, just not part of their fibre to abandon their work. I had always known they'd return- it was really only a matter of time.   As far as VT goes, it was just another successive downward slide for them, imo. That's your opinion of the material, not of the importance of the album. There's a difference. If it had been your idea of Moving Pictures II, the best thing they'd ever put out, you wouldn't be in this thread saying it's an album that didn't matter.   It was the first album back after an extended hiatus due to the death of a family member - and yes, they've all said that the future of the band was in doubt. Doesn't matter how good or bad anyone thinks this one was, it matters, in the context of this thread, because it had to happen in order for them to continue to have a career. That's why both the debut, Caress of Steel, Presto are so important.   No matter what you think of them, without them, some major things in the Rush history would never have happened.   Namely, Neil Peart, 2112, and Counterparts respectively.

[Mr. Not]

The Rush Debut album established this:

We're a band named Rush, we're a rock band.

 

 

 

[Tommy Sawyer]

QUOTE (Ovningskora @ Jan 27 2012, 09:07 PM)

The Rush Debut album established this: We're a band named Rush, we're a rock band.

Exactly.

 

No debut = no Rush.

[tangy]

QUOTE (Ovningskora @ Jan 27 2012, 08:56 PM)

QUOTE (tangy @ Jan 27 2012, 05:51 PM) QUOTE (Ovningskora @ Jan 27 2012, 07:48 PM) QUOTE (tangy @ Jan 27 2012, 03:44 PM) QUOTE (Ovningskora @ Jan 27 2012, 05:58 PM) The debut album because it's nothing like them at all and complete shit. Matters less than Feedback. &: CoS is a masterpiece. no working man = no rush.   how can the first be the least significant?   ps- its far from shit. >no working man = no rush.   what can make you say that for sure? (a: nothing.)     In a better world, they wouldn't have gotten signed with Rutsey, but Neil. We can go in the specifics of cause and effect and all that - how working man got them signed - how rutsey left because of the touring etc... But it's not hard at all to picture a different history where rutsey left due to another complication. Then, with neil then recruited, they recorded their first official album: Fly By Night! (the song FBN > WM btw.* oh, and though Best I Can has shitty lyrics, good thing it doesn't have shitty drumming!)   (*editfix = FBN > WM as a radio song, was the point I was making)   The debut matters least because it's pure shit and there's not a single song on there which did any good for the band within the band itself.   They weren't Rush. Their "debut" album shouldn't exist. The songs it composes of should be among other old rush rares such as garden road, and.. I don't know, the rest of those shitty canadian zeppelin songs whatever they're named.   So, it matters the least because it shouldn't even be considered a studio album of theirs, much like feedback. what a load of horseshit.   give it a bit more thought....... Maybe you're the one who should, pal. if the debut mattered least or was the least significant why is it that working man was one of the highlights of the last tour and DVD?   sorry bro, you are going to have try a little harder...........

[apetersvt]

For me, Presto matters the least (besides Feeeback, but I won't count that). TFE would be my second choice.

 

The debut album certainly mattered for obvious reasons. If it weren't for that, they would have played the Ontario bar scene for a few more years and then got 'real jobs'.

 

COS is easily one of the most important albums they ever made. As stated on the Colbert Report, by the time they were done with The Fountain Of Lamneth, they influenced themselves.

 

Without the exploratory epic nature of COS, there would certainly be no 2112. Without 2112, Neil would probably be running a tractor supply store today.

 

 

[Mr. Not]

QUOTE (Tommy Sawyer @ Jan 27 2012, 06:13 PM)

QUOTE (Ovningskora @ Jan 27 2012, 09:07 PM) The Rush Debut album established this: We're a band named Rush, we're a rock band. Exactly.   No debut = no Rush. Again, no. Come on people, think. You can't know any of this for fact.

Edited January 28, 2012 by Ovningskora

[danielmclark]

QUOTE (Ovningskora @ Jan 27 2012, 08:50 PM)

QUOTE (Tommy Sawyer @ Jan 27 2012, 06:13 PM) QUOTE (Ovningskora @ Jan 27 2012, 09:07 PM) The Rush Debut album established this: We're a band named Rush, we're a rock band. Exactly.   No debut = no Rush. Again, no. Come on people, think. You can't know any of this for fact.         Yes, you can. Unless you believe in destiny or fate, the debut album had to happen at the time that it happened and it had to lead to Rutsey leaving or else, no Neil.   Neil was on one path, Geddy and Alex another. They intersected only because the debut album happened when and the way it did.

[Good,bad,andrush]

Grace under pressure or power windows.

 

Love those to death but really...think about it, if one of them never happened it wouldn't have made a difference. Same with RtB but to a lesser extent I think. I'm not too sure about Test for Echo.

[Mr. Not]

QUOTE (danielmclark @ Jan 27 2012, 07:18 PM)

QUOTE (Ovningskora @ Jan 27 2012, 08:50 PM) QUOTE (Tommy Sawyer @ Jan 27 2012, 06:13 PM) QUOTE (Ovningskora @ Jan 27 2012, 09:07 PM) The Rush Debut album established this: We're a band named Rush, we're a rock band. Exactly.   No debut = no Rush. Again, no. Come on people, think. You can't know any of this for fact.         Yes, you can. Unless you believe in destiny or fate, the debut album had to happen at the time that it happened and it had to lead to Rutsey leaving or else, no Neil.   Neil was on one path, Geddy and Alex another. They intersected only because the debut album happened when and the way it did. I believe in chance, while it may be unlikely it wouldn't of been impossible.

[analog guy]

Test for Echo.

 

I guess in an evolutionary context, it probably signals the album that showed the least amount of progress in their development as musicians and songwriters. It is their worst album lyrically and is mediocre musically and doesn't really show any kind of new ground broken from Counterparts.

 

The one thing I will give it is that the production is excellent. It is recorded and mixed really well.... certainly better than what came after.

 

I always lament that Vapor Trails didn't sound sonically like T4E and Counterparts, because it would have been a really awesome record.

Edited January 28, 2012 by analog guy

[GeddyLeeFender]

S & A but without Resist TFE would win easily..with time S & A

[eshine]

Test For Echo

[presto123]

QUOTE (analog guy @ Jan 28 2012, 02:35 AM)

Test for Echo. I guess in an evolutionary context, it probably signals the album that showed the least amount of progress in their development as musicians and songwriters. It is their worst album lyrically and is mediocre musically and doesn't really show any kind of new ground broken from Counterparts. The one thing I will give it is that the production is excellent. It is recorded and mixed really well.... certainly better than what came after. I always lament that Vapor Trails didn't sound sonically like T4E and Counterparts, because it would have been a really awesome record.

T4E was still a step down production wise from Counterparts. Too bad Rush didn't use caveman on more than one record because he really nailed it. The production is stellar on that record.

[rushgoober]

This was a very tough one to figure, and of course my answer is entirely subjective, as I couldn't rightly choose an album I thought was great.

 

As I see it, every album from the first one through HYF moved the band ahead, sometimes subtly, sometimes dramatically, and they all contained great music, so they were all significant.

 

Presto I considered a let down lyrically, but as far as I'm concerned that DID matter - it mattered because it was their first real stumble. Roll the Bones was their chance at redemption, and it was another stumble, so that mattered as well. CP was significant because it was their return to form, them proving they could still make a great album. I guess I'll vote for T4E, since that was where I really fully decided they had lost their way, to an even greater degree than after RTB. Also, at that point it had been three years and Rush just didn't seem as relevant anymore. Their days of making a dependably great album every year or year and a half seemed long gone.

 

I was very tempted to say VT, since it's my least favorite, but I could argue it was one of their most important, a return to action after devastating tragedy, and 6 full years later following up their worst to that point. The fact that it was much worse than T4E doesn't mean that it mattered the least. If anything, I saw it as their worst failure. By that point, the success of their tours (VT and R30) was really due to their legacy and historical significance, not because their new music was drawing in droves of new fans

 

S&A was a great return to form again for me, so I could hardly vote for that.

 

Yep, Test For Echo wins the prize.