Would Rush have made it whitout all the albums before and including Moving Pictures?

[YYZumbi]

Let's just think about this...

 

Let's say that Rush first made their debut album, and then when Neil joined, their first album was Signals! They never did any of the other albums before that.

 

No Fly By Night, no Caress Of Steel, no 2112, no A Farewell To Kings, no Hemispheres, no Permanent Waves and no Moving Pictures!

 

 

Would Rush still be alive today or would they have failed whitout those 70's albums?

[Snyder80]

Would they have made it in the long run? I doubt it.

 

Would Signals be hailed as one of the best debut albums ever made? Yes.

[EagleMoon]

Hmm...I would almost say no. Things went downhill after Signals, and if they hadn't had all of the old material to play to keep them going in concert, then they would most likely have ended up as another band with a few good albums and that's it.

[bathory]

signals wouldn't have been made. that couldn't be ANY band's debut. it was allowed to be released because the big wigs trusted rush to do whatever after 2112, and especially after MP, cause they'd been bringin in the cash

[bathory]

ohh, you're saying if signals is the 2nd album? still wouldn't have happened, cause no one makes the leap from led zep covers to police covers overnight. or did they take an 8 year break after the debut and then release signals? still wouldn't have happened

[EagleMoon]

signals wouldn't have been made. that couldn't be ANY band's debut. it was allowed to be released because the big wigs trusted rush to do whatever after 2112, and especially after MP, cause they'd been bringin in the cash

 

He said debut after the first album, but I know what you mean. However they did pretty much what they wanted for Fly By Night and Caress of Steel.

[bathory]

and nah, without the stuff from 76-81, they would not have made it. even if the synth stuff was catchy enough to be a hit, they are still very ugly men and not good for mtv. although, genesis somehow got famous in the 80s so who knows...

[bathory]

signals wouldn't have been made. that couldn't be ANY band's debut. it was allowed to be released because the big wigs trusted rush to do whatever after 2112, and especially after MP, cause they'd been bringin in the cash

 

He said debut after the first album, but I know what you mean. However they did pretty much what they wanted for Fly By Night and Caress of Steel.

 

true, but what they wanted on fly by night happened to be all the rage in music at the time (zep-ish hard rock), and the record company was pissed and perplexed by caress and wanted rush to go back to plain zep-sounding stuff

[savagegrace26]

Signals wasn't that out there for an 80's album so it could definitely have been successful and they could've built a successful career from that especially since they wouldn't already have had a fanbase that had expectations for how they think the band should progress. Signals was catchy enough to carve a path of success.

 

It was out there for a Rush album.

Edited December 2, 2014 by savagegrace26

[bathory]

Signals wasn't that out there for an 80's album so it could definitely have been successful and they could've built a successful career from that especially since they wouldn't already have had a fanbase that had expectations for how they think the band should progress. Signals was catchy enough to carve a path of success.

 

It was out there for a Rush album.

 

to me, it sounds too "rush"-y to click with normal people, and too "normal" to click with the rush crowd.

[bluefox4000]

Considering Signals was the top of their hill creatively......if they started with that without all that classic stuff. Whew......that diminishes their status a lot,

 

Mick

[EagleMoon]

signals wouldn't have been made. that couldn't be ANY band's debut. it was allowed to be released because the big wigs trusted rush to do whatever after 2112, and especially after MP, cause they'd been bringin in the cash

 

He said debut after the first album, but I know what you mean. However they did pretty much what they wanted for Fly By Night and Caress of Steel.

 

true, but what they wanted on fly by night happened to be all the rage in music at the time (zep-ish hard rock), and the record company was pissed and perplexed by caress and wanted rush to go back to plain zep-sounding stuff

 

I wouldn't consider Fly By Night to be mainstream rock, or didn't at the time, though it wasn't as prog like CoS and albums after it.

[savagegrace26]

signals wouldn't have been made. that couldn't be ANY band's debut. it was allowed to be released because the big wigs trusted rush to do whatever after 2112, and especially after MP, cause they'd been bringin in the cash

 

He said debut after the first album, but I know what you mean. However they did pretty much what they wanted for Fly By Night and Caress of Steel.

 

Well that would just be weird. So is he saying what if Signals was released in 1975? How would people react to that? Would Rush be electronic messiahs and have ushered in the 80's five years earlier? That would really f*ck up the timeline. Or would they have all been locked up in asylum? Or just flat-out failed and pursued their alternate careers as circus performers? Well Neil's natural drumming talent would probably have been recognized and maybe he would've joined another band, maybe OMD. This certainly would make for a good Twilight Zone episode.

[Snyder80]

Signals as a debut album in 1983 seems like it would have been f***ing huge.

[foghorn-leghorn]

I believe Signals was accesable enough to have been successful.

 

Would have required a strong marketing campaign though and exposure on MTV

or else how would any of us have heard it?

 

Had they been able to play it Live as well as they actually did after years of gigging, then they could have been a sensation.

 

Of course, the chances are future albums may have taken a different direction.The full artistic control they enjoy would have been essential

 

in defining the "Rush" sound.

 

Building such a loyal fanbase may also have been problematic. Who knows.

[Rutlefan]

If you framed it as if Rush had formed in '82, discarding pre-Peart debut idea, and that they were a band made up of already accomplished studio musicians having played for years in other bands, famous or not so famous, then Signals would be believable as debut album. It would be a critical if not commercial success (it would have done ok though not great), GUP would be seen as a strong follow-up but not as brilliant as the debut, and then they would have progressively sunk into irrelevance for years until a late career resurgence lifted them out of mainstream obscurity; through the '90s they would have been that "oh I remember them; they made some good stuff in the '80s" band, but now were just some old odd-looking dudes, really good with instruments, but out of touch with the Zeitgeist.

 

So, based on what came after Signals, but without MP and prior, they would be neither huge nor obscure, but a niche band with a small but loyal fan base, like if Asia had kept making albums for thirty years. Personally, outside of a few songs, I wouldn't have paid much attention while respecting their abilities, just like I've got nothing against Asia (I like the individuals in the band) but can't name a song apart from Heat of the Moment. I think that would be the common reaction even among people disposed to like their style.

Edited December 2, 2014 by Rutlefan

[LedRush]

and nah, without the stuff from 76-81, they would not have made it. even if the synth stuff was catchy enough to be a hit, they are still very ugly men and not good for mtv. although, genesis somehow got famous in the 80s so who knows...

 

Genesis got popular because Phil starting writing pop songs.

[LedRush]

Rush wouldn't have had the huge live shows to keep them relevant, or the built in record sales from the devoted. I doubt they could have survived in a label after Hold Your Fire, and it's likely they would have been dropped before that.

[lifeson90]

i've often wondered how i'd have turned out if i hadn't gone through my childhood/teens etc......................................................

 

probably pretty f*cked up to be honest

 

[bathory]

and nah, without the stuff from 76-81, they would not have made it. even if the synth stuff was catchy enough to be a hit, they are still very ugly men and not good for mtv. although, genesis somehow got famous in the 80s so who knows...

 

Genesis got popular because Phil starting writing pop songs.

 

I know, but it's still a little strange for a bunch of former prog-rock ugly men in their mid-30s to become MTV stars in the 80s. I guess it's because I don't like much 80s genesis, but I don't see what it was about 80s genesis that made it so much more popular than 80s yes or 80s rush. you could blame it on phil's charisma, I guess, but I think jon anderson has plenty of charisma, and no valley girls were listening to big generator.

[bathory]

Rush wouldn't have had the huge live shows to keep them relevant, or the built in record sales from the devoted. I doubt they could have survived in a label after Hold Your Fire, and it's likely they would have been dropped before that.

 

rush could've been playing small venues, which would be great, but I could also maybe see them as an opening act for the police or duran duran or something.

[LedRush]

and nah, without the stuff from 76-81, they would not have made it. even if the synth stuff was catchy enough to be a hit, they are still very ugly men and not good for mtv. although, genesis somehow got famous in the 80s so who knows...

 

Genesis got popular because Phil starting writing pop songs.

 

I know, but it's still a little strange for a bunch of former prog-rock ugly men in their mid-30s to become MTV stars in the 80s. I guess it's because I don't like much 80s genesis, but I don't see what it was about 80s genesis that made it so much more popular than 80s yes or 80s rush. you could blame it on phil's charisma, I guess, but I think jon anderson has plenty of charisma, and no valley girls were listening to big generator.

 

MP was extremely popular, despite being complex, heavy and thoughtful. After Signals, Rush got into the synths and lost a huge section of their fans, while failing to write songs that were radio friendly. What are you going to play off of GuP on the radio to get the masses excited? Genesis songs were not usually complex or heavy in those times, and Genesis was never as big as solo Phil. Also, Phil was a ballad writing machine...Rush...not so much. His popular stuff was mostly ballads and dancy pop songs. Rush don't play that game.

[Lorraine]

Signals would have made them a flash in the eighties rock pan in terms of success. But it wouldn't have been enough to keep them going, especially with the albums that came after Signals. Today, maybe they would still be around as an opening band at concerts.

[bathory]

signals wouldn't have been made. that couldn't be ANY band's debut. it was allowed to be released because the big wigs trusted rush to do whatever after 2112, and especially after MP, cause they'd been bringin in the cash

 

He said debut after the first album, but I know what you mean. However they did pretty much what they wanted for Fly By Night and Caress of Steel.

 

true, but what they wanted on fly by night happened to be all the rage in music at the time (zep-ish hard rock), and the record company was pissed and perplexed by caress and wanted rush to go back to plain zep-sounding stuff

 

I wouldn't consider Fly By Night to be mainstream rock, or didn't at the time, though it wasn't as prog like CoS and albums after it.

 

I mean, it's not exactly mainstream. bad company or foghat or aerosmith could not have written lyrics like beneath, between, behind and by-tor, and, to my knowledge, no rock band had ever done a song about ayn rand's philosophy. but the music itself, especially on songs like the title track and best I can, to me, has a lot in common with the popular hard rock of the time.

[bathory]

and nah, without the stuff from 76-81, they would not have made it. even if the synth stuff was catchy enough to be a hit, they are still very ugly men and not good for mtv. although, genesis somehow got famous in the 80s so who knows...

 

Genesis got popular because Phil starting writing pop songs.

 

I know, but it's still a little strange for a bunch of former prog-rock ugly men in their mid-30s to become MTV stars in the 80s. I guess it's because I don't like much 80s genesis, but I don't see what it was about 80s genesis that made it so much more popular than 80s yes or 80s rush. you could blame it on phil's charisma, I guess, but I think jon anderson has plenty of charisma, and no valley girls were listening to big generator.

 

MP was extremely popular, despite being complex, heavy and thoughtful. After Signals, Rush got into the synths and lost a huge section of their fans, while failing to write songs that were radio friendly. What are you going to play off of GuP on the radio to get the masses excited? Genesis songs were not usually complex or heavy in those times, and Genesis was never as big as solo Phil. Also, Phil was a ballad writing machine...Rush...not so much. His popular stuff was mostly ballads and dancy pop songs. Rush don't play that game.

 

you're telling me you cant disco dance to red sector a? you can't do the robot to territories or red lenses? and I bet patrick bateman would run on the treadmill to marathon! :D

 

I do agree that rush were still too rush-y to get as popular as genesis, but some of the 80s genesis tunes like abacab and domino sounded fairly complex for 80s pop (I am only assuming these songs were popular because I still hear them on the radio today, I wasn't around back in the day so I have no idea if these were actually big compared to solo phil, or in too deep, or invisible touch). I could see big money and time stand still maybe being hits if geddy was a sexy man.