Author Topic: The History of Rush v. Discography Thread: Epilogue  (Read 85470 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Orbert

  • Recovering Musician
  • EZBoard Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 19263
  • Gender: Male
  • In and around the lake
Re: The History of Rush v. Discography Thread, now featuring: Rush
« Reply #35 on: September 04, 2014, 05:07:48 PM »
Everybody talks about how they were clones of Led Zeppelin in the early days, but to this day, I don't really hear it.  Riff-based rock and roll, a singer who wails, and the ability to venture outside your basic three-chord blues structure don't make you a clone; you just have some things in common.  Any band worth a damn has all of these things.

It's funny; you need a certain amount of familiarity with both bands to hear the similarities, but if you're really familiar with both bands and their respective sounds, you hear the differences.  And at some point, the differences overshadow the similarities.  To me, they're very different bands.  And yes, I realize that Rush cite Led Zeppelin as an early influence.  They're still not that similar.

Anyway, I'm along for the ride.  I've been a Rush fan since Caress of Steel, and am looking forward to learning a little bit more about this band.

Offline KevShmev

  • EZBoard Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 41963
  • Gender: Male
Re: The History of Rush v. Discography Thread, now featuring: Rush
« Reply #36 on: September 04, 2014, 05:10:50 PM »
I kind of agree.  I mean, some of the riffs are very LZ-esque, and I still think "Here Again" is their attempt at a slow, bluesy LZ-like tune, but the one Rush book talks about how people at the time heard Working Man on the radio and wondered if it was the new Led Zeppelin song, and I'm always like, "How did people think that Geddy Lee sounded like Robert Plant?"  The difference in their voices is more than obvious, even at first on the surface.  Then again, it was the 70s, so God only knows how high everyone was. :lol :lol

Offline jingle.boy

  • I'm so ronery; so sad and ronery
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 44808
  • Gender: Male
  • DTF's resident deceased dictator
Re: The History of Rush v. Discography Thread, now featuring: Rush
« Reply #37 on: September 04, 2014, 09:43:42 PM »
Fun facts:

Early incarnations of the band had them under the monikers of Projection, Hadrian.
Geddy was actually the 2nd bass player for Rush, and was briefly kicked out of the band
Geddy formed a band called Ogilvle, then Judd before returning back to Rush
The band broke out from doing High School gigs starting in 1971, when the drinking age in Ontario was lowered from 21 to 18.
Rush's first record pressing was a cover of Buddy Holly's "Not Fade Away"
Between Rutsey and Peart, they had a temp drummer by the name of Jerry Fielding.
That's a word salad - and take it from me, I know word salad
I fear for the day when something happens on the right that is SO nuts that even Stadler says "That's crazy".
Quote from: Puppies_On_Acid
Remember the mark of a great vocalist is if TAC hates them with a special passion

Offline Lowdz

  • Posts: 10386
  • Gender: Male
Re: The History of Rush v. Discography Thread, now featuring: Rush
« Reply #38 on: September 05, 2014, 06:34:20 AM »
I'm still not 100% sold on Geddy's vocals despite being a fan of the band for 3-4 years, and on this album it's really grating IMHO. He would lower the register, and tone back the shrieks later on.


I would rather listen to his vocals on s/t versus anything Vapor Trails or after (and I actually really like the last 3 albums (not counting Feedback), I just can barely stand the change in vocal technique.)

and Before And After is definitely the underrated track from this album.  That is a kick-ass song once the full band picks up.  What You're Doing is the most overrated.

I'd agree about Geddy's voice. Things were better on CA but TFE, VT and S&A was painful.

Offline hefdaddy42

  • Et in Arcadia Ego
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 53126
  • Gender: Male
  • Postwhore Emeritus
Re: The History of Rush v. Discography Thread, now featuring: Rush
« Reply #39 on: September 05, 2014, 06:42:14 AM »
Everybody talks about how they were clones of Led Zeppelin in the early days, but to this day, I don't really hear it.  Riff-based rock and roll, a singer who wails, and the ability to venture outside your basic three-chord blues structure don't make you a clone; you just have some things in common.  Any band worth a damn has all of these things.
Yeah, but did any band at that time have all of these things?  There is a reason that people loved LZ so much; they really broke new ground.

I mean, I think the LZ influence is fairly obvious on Rush's first album.  They just as obviously moved past that phase fairly quickly.
Hef is right on all things. Except for when I disagree with him. In which case he's probably still right.

Offline Orbert

  • Recovering Musician
  • EZBoard Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 19263
  • Gender: Male
  • In and around the lake
Re: The History of Rush v. Discography Thread, now featuring: Rush
« Reply #40 on: September 05, 2014, 07:25:07 AM »
Black Sabbath, Aerosmith, hell, even KISS was already around by then and trying new things.  The early-mid 70's were an amazing time; Rock was moving in all different directions.  Riffs instead of just power chords weren't unique to Led Zeppelin, everyone was busting out of the stock arrangements, and every lead singer was different.  I hear the Led Zeppelin influence, too, but my point is that I think far too much is made about how Rush was little more than a knockoff or clone.  If you can't hear the differences, or think Geddy sounds anything like Robert Plant, then you're just not listening.

Offline KevShmev

  • EZBoard Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 41963
  • Gender: Male
Re: The History of Rush v. Discography Thread, now featuring: Rush
« Reply #41 on: September 05, 2014, 07:55:18 AM »
Fun facts:

Early incarnations of the band had them under the monikers of Projection, Hadrian.
Geddy was actually the 2nd bass player for Rush, and was briefly kicked out of the band
Geddy formed a band called Ogilvle, then Judd before returning back to Rush
The band broke out from doing High School gigs starting in 1971, when the drinking age in Ontario was lowered from 21 to 18.
Rush's first record pressing was a cover of Buddy Holly's "Not Fade Away"
Between Rutsey and Peart, they had a temp drummer by the name of Jerry Fielding.

 :tup :tup

Offline hefdaddy42

  • Et in Arcadia Ego
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 53126
  • Gender: Male
  • Postwhore Emeritus
Re: The History of Rush v. Discography Thread, now featuring: Rush
« Reply #42 on: September 05, 2014, 07:58:29 AM »
I don't think that Geddy sounds like Robert Plant at all.

Geddy doesn't sound like anyone.

But that high-pitched wailing style wasn't being done popularly by very many other singers, so I get the comparison.

And Rush's first album doesn't sound anything like Black Sabbath, Aerosmith, and certainly not KISS.  But parts of it are very reminiscent of Zeppelin.  And they have said similar things themselves.

I mean, if you don't hear it, OK, but many people do.  That's why, as you said, "everybody talks about it."
Hef is right on all things. Except for when I disagree with him. In which case he's probably still right.

Offline Orbert

  • Recovering Musician
  • EZBoard Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 19263
  • Gender: Male
  • In and around the lake
Re: The History of Rush v. Discography Thread, now featuring: Rush
« Reply #43 on: September 05, 2014, 10:34:25 AM »
I didn't say they sound like Black Sabbath, Aerosmith, or KISS.  I said that riff-based rock, a singer who wails, and trying things other than basic three-chord blues are all things any good band does, and you asked whether anyone else at the time had all those attributes.  Those are three I thought of off the top of my head.

I also said that I hear the similarities between Rush and Led Zeppelin.  But more importantly, I hear the differences.


I can't tell if you're missing my points or just want to argue anyway.

Offline hefdaddy42

  • Et in Arcadia Ego
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 53126
  • Gender: Male
  • Postwhore Emeritus
Re: The History of Rush v. Discography Thread, now featuring: Rush
« Reply #44 on: September 05, 2014, 10:53:48 AM »
No, I don't "want to argue."  It's a discussion forum, I am discussing.   ???

If your point is that there are differences between Zep and Rush, then I'm not sure it's a point that needs to be made.  That's obvious.  But the popular comparison between the two is about the similarities, not the differences.

The only thing I was addressing was your original point about Rush being known as a "Zeppelin clone" and you not hearing it.  If you don't hear it, OK.  And you brought up other examples of bands who do some of the same things, but I pointed out that early Rush is never compared to them, only to Zeppelin.  So, not sure what to tell you.  If you don't hear it, you don't hear it.

We can certainly move on.
Hef is right on all things. Except for when I disagree with him. In which case he's probably still right.

Offline Orbert

  • Recovering Musician
  • EZBoard Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 19263
  • Gender: Male
  • In and around the lake
Re: The History of Rush v. Discography Thread, now featuring: Rush
« Reply #45 on: September 05, 2014, 11:30:29 AM »
Okay, I apologize for that.  There is a difference between argument and discussion.

But I hear the similarities.

Also, I can hear the similarities between Rush and Led Zeppelin.

Not only that, but as mentioned in at least two previous posts, I do hear the similarities between Rush and Led Zeppelin.


My point is that there is a difference between bands having similar attributes and bands being "clones".  People didn't say Rush sounded similar to Led Zeppelin, they said they were fucking clones.  Some people heard Rush and honestly thought they were hearing Led Zeppelin.  Seriously?

That's all I'm saying.

Offline hefdaddy42

  • Et in Arcadia Ego
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 53126
  • Gender: Male
  • Postwhore Emeritus
Re: The History of Rush v. Discography Thread, now featuring: Rush
« Reply #46 on: September 05, 2014, 11:34:37 AM »
OK.
Hef is right on all things. Except for when I disagree with him. In which case he's probably still right.

Offline Mladen

  • Posts: 15234
  • Gender: Male
Re: The History of Rush v. Discography Thread, now featuring: Rush
« Reply #47 on: September 05, 2014, 12:03:32 PM »
The debut is quite Zeppelin-esque in some places, but to say that they were copying Zeppelin is a bit extreme in my opinion.

Also, both :omg: and  :lol at Geddy being kicked out of the band in the early days.

Offline KevShmev

  • EZBoard Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 41963
  • Gender: Male
Re: The History of Rush v. Discography Thread, now featuring: Rush
« Reply #48 on: September 05, 2014, 12:07:17 PM »
Well, let's remember that when Geddy was kicked out, that was when they were still just a local band doing high schools and whatnot, and the member changes were fast and frequent.  It's not like he was kicked out once they actually saw some light at the end of the tunnel (that light being a possible recording contract).

Offline ReaperKK

  • Sweeter After Difficulty
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 17793
  • Gender: Male
Re: The History of Rush v. Discography Thread, now featuring: Rush
« Reply #49 on: September 05, 2014, 12:17:57 PM »
Why was he kicked out?

Offline KevShmev

  • EZBoard Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 41963
  • Gender: Male
Re: The History of Rush v. Discography Thread, now featuring: Rush
« Reply #50 on: September 05, 2014, 12:20:21 PM »
According to the Visions book, John Rutsey convinced the others to kick him out at the time.  That was in 1969.

Offline theseoafs

  • When the lights go down in the city, and the sun shines on the bayyyyy
  • Posts: 5573
  • Gender: Male
  • Hello! My name is Elder Price
Re: The History of Rush v. Discography Thread, now featuring: Rush
« Reply #51 on: September 05, 2014, 12:52:56 PM »
I'll definitely be following this thread. 

As for the self-titled.  The comparison to Zep has been made, which is fair since that's the kind of sound they were going for.  But I can't really say that I really listen to the debut at all, in spite of the fact that I enjoy Zeppelin's early records.  The album's just not awfully interesting -- the music is often uninspired, the lyrics aren't notable, and it gets samey really quickly.  There are flashes of brilliance, of course:  I always thought Finding My Way was pretty nifty, the opening of Before and After is beautiful, and Working Man is an undisputed classic and the best that this incarnation of Rush would have to offer.  But there's just as much filler (between Need Some Love, Take a Friend, In the Mood, What You're Doing, every part of Before and After that isn't the intro, and Here Again, despite how much I love slow bluesy rockers). 

One thing I really have to commend Rush for is never staying in one place.  Fly by Night would hint at a new proggier direction for them, which was of course integral to their future success.  If they had ignored that and just spat out a few rehashes of their debut, things would likely be totally different (in spite of how successful the debut was). 

Offline ReaperKK

  • Sweeter After Difficulty
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 17793
  • Gender: Male
Re: The History of Rush v. Discography Thread, now featuring: Rush
« Reply #52 on: September 05, 2014, 02:57:29 PM »
Listening to the debut right now. It's largely forgettable. It's not bad by any means, it's just middle of the road to me. The highlights of the album are the solo in "Here Again" and the main riff of "Working Man". I actually don't really like the middle part of working man, I always thought the song would be better if it was shorter.

Offline ?

  • Apparently the best username
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 11742
  • Gender: Male
  • Less=Moore, Even Less=Wilson
Re: The History of Rush v. Discography Thread, now featuring: Rush
« Reply #53 on: September 05, 2014, 11:58:33 PM »
I'd only heard Finding My Way and Working Man, so I just listened to the album in full for the first time. You can hear some hints of what they would do on the following albums, but the lack of Neil is obvious both musically and lyrically. I still think Working Man is a monster of a song and I loved the intro to Before and After, but most of the album is bluesy hard rock that I don't find very exciting.

Offline GentlemanofDread

  • The dreaded man
  • Posts: 684
  • Gender: Male
  • The One Who Help To Set The Sun
Re: The History of Rush v. Discography Thread, now featuring: Rush
« Reply #54 on: September 06, 2014, 06:35:04 AM »
It is a strong debut album though. The sound is there, but the drummer isn't the best they would get. Geddy's voice isn't something I can take well on this album.
i don't even like dt but i had keyboard and an ipad so what the fuck
Jordan is actually DT's tax advisor. He just happens to do their taxes on stage, that's why he has that iPad there.

Offline hefdaddy42

  • Et in Arcadia Ego
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 53126
  • Gender: Male
  • Postwhore Emeritus
Re: The History of Rush v. Discography Thread, now featuring: Rush
« Reply #55 on: September 06, 2014, 02:25:20 PM »
I love the debut album.
Hef is right on all things. Except for when I disagree with him. In which case he's probably still right.

Offline Mosh

  • For I have dined on honeydew!
  • Posts: 3846
  • Gender: Male
Re: The History of Rush v. Discography Thread, now featuring: Rush
« Reply #56 on: September 06, 2014, 04:07:55 PM »
There are definitely some similarities between this album and Led Zeppelin. But I hear more Blue Cheer in early Rush than Zeppelin. They even covered BC on that Feedback thing.
New Animal Soup scifi space opera for fans of Porcupine Tree, Mastodon, Iron Maiden: Chariots of the Gods

https://animalsoup.bandcamp.com/album/chariots-of-the-gods

Offline jammindude

  • Posts: 15296
  • Gender: Male
Re: The History of Rush v. Discography Thread, now featuring: Rush
« Reply #57 on: September 07, 2014, 06:34:28 PM »
LOVE the first album.   Even Take a Friend (which many people diss).    :metal :metal :metal
"Better the pride that resides in a citizen of the world.
Than the pride that divides when a colorful rag is unfurled." - Neil Peart

The Jammin Dude Show - https://www.youtube.com/user/jammindude

Offline KevShmev

  • EZBoard Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 41963
  • Gender: Male
Re: The History of Rush v. Discography Thread, now featuring: Fly by Night
« Reply #58 on: September 09, 2014, 12:06:30 PM »
So, with the departure of John Rutsey happening right after the recording of the first album, and the band in need of a new drummer for the upcoming shows, Alex and Geddy quickly got to auditioning drummers.  After a few that did nada for them, a fella named Neil Peart showed up one day.  During the audtion, they even jammed on a rhythm that eventually became Anthem.  While Alex wasn't sure if he was the guy for them, Geddy knew right away and convinced Alex that this Neil Peart character was their guy; after some apprehension, Alex agreed.  And with that, Neil Peart joined Rush in the summer of '74, establishing the lineup that still exists today!

Two weeks later, after getting money from the record company to buy new gear and all of the trinkets, they were on tour and off the races, heading into the studio at the beginning of '75 to record Fly by Night, which was released shortly thereafter.  Geddy had done most of the lyrics on the debut record, but had little urge to keep doing them.  Neal, meanwhile, was pretty well-read and liked experimenting with words and whatnot, so they convinced him to give it a try. They loved what he came up with, and with that, the band not only had a new drummer, but a new lyricist.  Neil even joked that he became the lyricist because "no one else wanted to do it." :lol

From the very start, the presence of Neil Peart is in your face, as he kills it during the Anthem intro, and then later melts your face off during the extended instrumental section of By-Tor and the Snow Dog.  While Rutsey's playing was solid on the first album, Peart's was immediately far better and enabled the band to do start getting a little out there with different time signatures and progressive ideas.  A song like By-Tor..., a very early Rush classic with the diehards, is a good example of them having new ideas of where they wanted to take their sound.  The title track, of course, is still somewhat of a classic rock mainstay, even if the band themselves aren't overly wild about it anymore.  Other favorites of mine are Making Memories and Beneath, Between and Behind, both of which rock and have some nice melodies.  In the End is another early fan favorite, although it has never been a favorite of mine.  I like it, but I don't love it.  Rivendell was an attempt at having a laid back acoustic number.  It misses the mark pretty badly, but at least it was an attempt at something different at the time.  To me, the obvious classics from this record are Anthem and By-Tor and the Snow Dog.  They stand up well when compared to songs from any Rush era.

Overall, I like this album quite a bit.  It retains the fire and youthful energy of the debut record, but with better playing, more diversity and better songs.  Considering where they were to go as the 70s moved along, this sounds like a natural progression from the debut, and sets up nicely where they went later that year...


Offline Orbert

  • Recovering Musician
  • EZBoard Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 19263
  • Gender: Male
  • In and around the lake
Re: The History of Rush v. Discography Thread, now featuring: Fly by Night
« Reply #59 on: September 09, 2014, 12:22:41 PM »
This one's a fave, from the early era and from any Rush era.  "Anthem" kicks my butt to this day, "By-Tor and the Snow Dog" is a great first attempt at an epic and a great song overall, and most of the other tracks are also pretty strong.  I've never slagged on "Rivendell" the way many do, perhaps because this was junior high for me and a lot of people were reading "The Lord of the Rings" books, so someone writing a song about Rivendell fit right in.  Sure, it was mellow.  It provided a nice contrast.

I love the names of the cities where the lyrics were written on the lyric sheet.  Lansing, MI -- my home town!

Offline Podaar

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 9934
  • Gender: Male
Re: The History of Rush v. Discography Thread, now featuring: Fly by Night
« Reply #60 on: September 09, 2014, 01:13:05 PM »
I also really like this album. Every song is great with the possible exception of Rivendell, yet it has its own charm. Strangely, the real highlight of this album, for me, is Making Memories. I think it's just really effective at presenting the lyrics and also, I'm a sucker for slide guitar.

I just love the dramatic and immediate impact that Neil had on the band's sound. Even when they're playing In The End, which could sit comfortably on the debut, the Peart flair is fully on display...and his lyrics on the whole album are so diverse and different. I remember hearing Geddy say that at first he really found the lyrics to be a mouthful to sing though.  :lol

Alex's guitar tone on this album takes on his trademark sound that I always loved so much. Somehow it can sound heavy on lower power cords but still have the higher notes ring out while working his favorite pick patterns. I've always admired guitarists who have unique, personal tones and Alex's is one of the real gems.

Speaking of tones, does anyone know how Geddy got the monster roar sounds on his bass during the battle section of By-Tor and the Snowdog?

Also, the production on this album should be mentioned. It's sound really stood out, back in the day, and still has a great expansive sound that I'd love to hear more of from modern bands.

Great album!
« Last Edit: September 11, 2014, 06:49:48 AM by Podaar »
"Owners of dogs will have noticed that, if you provide them with food and water and shelter and affection, they will think you are God. Whereas owners of cats are compelled to realize that, if you provide them with food and water and affection, they draw the conclusion that they are God.” — Christopher Hitchens

Offline Lowdz

  • Posts: 10386
  • Gender: Male
Re: The History of Rush v. Discography Thread, now featuring: Fly by Night
« Reply #61 on: September 09, 2014, 01:22:33 PM »
And we're off!!!
I really love this album. There are so many great moments - Anthem, BB&B, MM, By-tor. Like Kev I'm not as keen on Rivendell and In The End but they don't kill the album or anything.
By-Tor was a great taster of what was to come. Air drumming is essential whenever 70s Rush is played and this album started that off in grand style. I love the ensemble riff that shortens each time through, interspersed with the drum madness.
Alex is on fire too.
The lyrics got a good kick in the ass too, though I always found Rivendell a bit on the boring side.
Anyway, the beginning of Rush greatness.

Offline TAC

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 74515
  • Gender: Male
  • Arthritic Metal Horns
Re: The History of Rush v. Discography Thread, now featuring: Fly by Night
« Reply #62 on: September 09, 2014, 01:29:35 PM »
I love In The End, though the All The World's A Stage version is so much better than the studio.
would have thought the same thing but seeing the OP was TAC i immediately thought Maiden or DT related
Winger Theater Forums........or WTF.  ;D
TAC got a higher score than me in the electronic round? Honestly, can I just drop out now? :lol

Offline emtee

  • Posts: 2884
Re: The History of Rush v. Discography Thread, now featuring: Fly by Night
« Reply #63 on: September 09, 2014, 01:53:32 PM »
Never listen to the debut but love FBN.

I had not spun All The World's A Stage for quite some time and did so a few days ago (good timing for this thread) and was
reminded how heavy they were at times. We can all have a debate about what's heavy and what is or isn't metal but
Anthem is heavy as hell by any definition.

Offline Mosh

  • For I have dined on honeydew!
  • Posts: 3846
  • Gender: Male
Re: The History of Rush v. Discography Thread, now featuring: Fly by Night
« Reply #64 on: September 10, 2014, 04:35:45 PM »
Any love for Beneath, Between, and Behind? One of my favorite 70s Rush tracks. It has a sort of charm that they lost after this album, but still sounds proggy/sophisticated.

Great album overall. The only song I don't like is Best I Can, which sounds like a leftover from the debut. Although it really destroys every song from that album, as does everything else on FBN.  :metal
New Animal Soup scifi space opera for fans of Porcupine Tree, Mastodon, Iron Maiden: Chariots of the Gods

https://animalsoup.bandcamp.com/album/chariots-of-the-gods

Offline King Postwhore

  • Couch Potato
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 59424
  • Gender: Male
  • Take that Beethoven, you deaf bastard!!
Re: The History of Rush v. Discography Thread, now featuring: Fly by Night
« Reply #65 on: September 10, 2014, 04:51:40 PM »
My favorite early rush album.  Neil adds such a different dimension to them.  BTW Mosh, since you brought up Best I Can, it was the first song I learned on guitar from my guitar teacher. :metal    Rhythm guitar of course.
I don't like country music, but I don't mean to denigrate those who do. And for the people who like country music, denigrate means 'put down'.” - Bob Newhart
So wait, we're spelling it wrong and king is spelling it right? What is going on here? :lol -- BlobVanDam
"Oh, I am definitely a jackass!" - TAC

Offline jjrock88

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 14917
  • Gender: Male
Re: The History of Rush v. Discography Thread, now featuring: Fly by Night
« Reply #66 on: September 10, 2014, 05:21:22 PM »
Great disc and an upgrade from the debut for sure. Anthem and By Tor are absolute classics!

Offline Mosh

  • For I have dined on honeydew!
  • Posts: 3846
  • Gender: Male
Re: The History of Rush v. Discography Thread, now featuring: Fly by Night
« Reply #67 on: September 10, 2014, 07:32:50 PM »
My favorite early rush album.  Neil adds such a different dimension to them.  BTW Mosh, since you brought up Best I Can, it was the first song I learned on guitar from my guitar teacher. :metal    Rhythm guitar of course.
  :metal
I remember getting my teacher to teach me the Red Barchetta a long time ago. I didn't know how guitar harmonics worked so that intro would really blow my mind.
That was the first Rush song I ever learned.

I actually just listened to the Fly By Night album and maybe I was a little too harsh on Best I Can. It's still my least favorite song, but it's still a huge step up from what they were doing on the debut.
New Animal Soup scifi space opera for fans of Porcupine Tree, Mastodon, Iron Maiden: Chariots of the Gods

https://animalsoup.bandcamp.com/album/chariots-of-the-gods

Online Zydar

  • Creep With Tonality
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 19263
  • Gender: Male
Re: The History of Rush v. Discography Thread, now featuring: Fly by Night
« Reply #68 on: September 11, 2014, 12:35:42 AM »
My favourite of the two they released under 1975. Neil Peart makes his presence known right away with Anthem (both musically and lyrically). The high points for me is Anthem, Beneath Between & Behind, and the title track.
Zydar is my new hero.  I just laughed so hard I nearly shat.

Offline ?

  • Apparently the best username
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 11742
  • Gender: Male
  • Less=Moore, Even Less=Wilson
Re: The History of Rush v. Discography Thread, now featuring: Fly by Night
« Reply #69 on: September 11, 2014, 03:34:20 AM »
I probably listen to this less than any other Rush album (besides the debut, which I don't own), even though I have a FBN hoodie. :lol Anthem and By-Tor are awesome, but the rest of the album doesn't do much for me. You can already hear Neil's influence, but most of the songs are still fairly straightforward rock.