Was latter day RUSH better than the 1970s?

[King Postwhore]

Sometimes it's a period in the bands like that makes them feel differently on the album.  The band may have been in a bad place and when they look back that affects their views on a particular album.

[splent]

To me, The band always has a transitional album that sounds clunky before they hit their stride in the following album. Case in point:

Caress of Steel was their transitional album to their prog period.
Grace Under Pressure was their big dive into synth. Yes, Signals did thsi as well, but I think it incorporates more of their earlier sound than GUP.
Presto was their transition away from synth and more into hard/alt rock.
Vapor Trails was their transition back into music. Granted, this was mainly clunky due to the original mix, I loved the album way more once it was remastered.'

[LudwigVan]

I say no, but it's pretty close, which is a tribute to the overall quality of Rush's discography. 

My all-time favorite post-Moving Pictures album is Grace Under Pressure.  I can't really explain why I love it... nothing really stands out.  Maybe just something about the sound or overall tone of the album.

[red barchetta]

To me, The band always has a transitional album that sounds clunky before they hit their stride in the following album. Case in point:

Caress of Steel was their transitional album to their prog period.
Grace Under Pressure was their big dive into synth. Yes, Signals did thsi as well, but I think it incorporates more of their earlier sound than GUP.
Presto was their transition away from synth and more into hard/alt rock.
Vapor Trails was their transition back into music. Granted, this was mainly clunky due to the original mix, I loved the album way more once it was remastered.'

Very good comments splent. But imo it's really Signals that was the transitional album after their prog genius albums Farewell to kings, Hemispheres, Permanent waves and Moving pictures. The synths, the shorter songs, Geddy's voice toning down. You're totally right about the sound. Signals still had pretty much the sound of the previous albums. Alex guitar really changed after that as well as Neil starting playing electronic drums and Geddy putting away his Rick.

[KevShmev]

For whatever reason, Signals is the synth era ('82-'87) I listen to the least, by far.  Subdivisions and Losing It are two songs I listen to a ton, and The Analog Kid gets played a lot, as well, but the rest I do not revisit that often. Meanwhile, I can always listen to all of Power Windows, almost all of Hold Your Fire and most of Grace Under Pressure, with no problem.  The sound of Signals is just a bit bothersome, which probably doesn't help.

[TAC]

For whatever reason, Signals is the synth era ('82-'87) I listen to the least, by far.  Subdivisions and Losing It are two songs I listen to a ton, and The Analog Kid gets played a lot, as well, but the rest I do not revisit that often. Meanwhile, I can always listen to all of Power Windows, almost all of Hold Your Fire and most of Grace Under Pressure, with no problem.  The sound of Signals is just a bit bothersome, which probably doesn't help.

I'm the opposite. I probably listen to Signals the most. But it's pretty rare that I listen to a full synth era album anyway. But I do have a Signals through Hold Your Fire playlist that is spectacular. Even though, I consider myself not a fan of the Synth Era. But I think the reason the Synth Era has aged relatively well, is because what followed the synth era really isn't that good. I appreciate Presto for what it is. Stripped down. Love it. And Counterparts rocks for the most part. But aside from CA, to me, the bands' last 25 years have been disappointingly bad, both in terms of quality and quantity (Neil's tragedies notwithstanding


If Rush's first album was Roll the Bones, and the last 25 years WAS their career, they'd be nothing. Their hardcore fans, like most bands, are very forgiving.

[jjrock88]

Thats an interesting perspective Tim by saying that Rush would be nothing if their career started with Roll the Bones and ended with Clockwork Angels.  I can't see that having much impact either.

[KevShmev]

If Rush's first album was Roll the Bones, and the last 25 years WAS their career, they'd be nothing. Their hardcore fans, like most bands, are very forgiving.

That is an odd thing to say, though, since bands rarely take 5-6 years off after their third album and then come back with the same members.

To say the last 25 years have been disappointing shows a lack of perspective, IMO. How many bands, who did as many albums, had a 15th studio album as good as Counterparts?  Or a 19th studio album as good as Clockwork Angels? (I count CA as the 19th since Feedback is a covers album, not really a studio album).
 

[TAC]

Clockwork Angels is proof of how mediocre their last 25 years is. And while Counterparts is indeed a very good album, I certainly wouldn't call it a great album by any stretch.

[KevShmev]

Clockwork Angels is proof of how mediocre their last 25 years is. And while Counterparts is indeed a very good album, I certainly wouldn't call it a great album by any stretch.

What? I think it's an excellent album, and it seemed to get mostly glowing reviews.  I wish it sounded a little better (it suffers from the modern age muddy thing a bit), but the songwriting itself was their best since the early-mid 90s.

[TAC]

Clockwork Angels is proof of how mediocre their last 25 years is. And while Counterparts is indeed a very good album, I certainly wouldn't call it a great album by any stretch.

What? I think it's an excellent album, and it seemed to get mostly glowing reviews.  I wish it sounded a little better (it suffers from the modern age muddy thing a bit), but the songwriting itself was their best since the early-mid 90s.

No no no, you misunderstand. I think CA is excellent. I'm just saying that it shows that after decades went by, they still had the ability to make a great album. My question is...why didn't they? Why did it take so long to create something so excellent?

[KevShmev]

Oh, I gotcha. I misunderstood what you meant. All good.

To answer your question, it's not always that easy.  If it were, the best bands would release nothing but great albums, but it never works that way, especially later in life when most bands see a dip in making music of high quality consistently. 

Think about it: what rock band has ever made great albums consistently in their 3rd and/or 4th decade as a band? 

[King Postwhore]

Plus, their tastes may not all align all the time with your taste or your preference of what you love about them.

Most, bands that play 40 years evolve that lose some fans.

[TAC]

Think about it: what rock band has ever made great albums consistently in their 3rd and/or 4th decade as a band? 

Iron Maiden!


Don't mind me. I'm a bitter old Rush fan who was deserted at Signals. In my eyes, they've just never even come close to being as creative post Moving Pictures as the were pre. I'll grant them Power Windows and Clockwork Angels.
I heard Spirit Of Radio on the radio today. I mean, that is just pure excellence.

.... shows a lack of perspective, 
 

So yeah, there's that too. 

Plus, their tastes may not all align all the time with your taste or your preference of what you love about them.

Most, bands that play 40 years evolve that lose some fans.

Jesus, did the Bat Signal go out?
Who asked you?

[TAC]

So let me ask this? Did Rush purposely try and incorporate a Classic Era feel into Clockwork Angels, knowing that it could potentially be their final album?

[King Postwhore]

 

I just got on and went right to Rush.  Lol

[TAC]

I just got on and went right to Rush.  Lol

 

[KevShmev]

So let me ask this? Did Rush purposely try and incorporate a Classic Era feel into Clockwork Angels, knowing that it could potentially be their final album?

I doubt it.  From the way Geddy and Alex talked at the time, I didn't get the sense they thought it would be their last album. 

[TAC]

It is the ONLY album released after Moving Pictures where I felt any connection to the Classic Era.

[red barchetta]

For whatever reason, Signals is the synth era ('82-'87) I listen to the least, by far.  Subdivisions and Losing It are two songs I listen to a ton, and The Analog Kid gets played a lot, as well, but the rest I do not revisit that often. Meanwhile, I can always listen to all of Power Windows, almost all of Hold Your Fire and most of Grace Under Pressure, with no problem.  The sound of Signals is just a bit bothersome, which probably doesn't help.

About the sound of Signals: they all felt very unhappy about their playing, especially Neil. They even thought about calling it quit. Moving Pictures was a hard act to follow.

[red barchetta]

For whatever reason, Signals is the synth era ('82-'87) I listen to the least, by far.  Subdivisions and Losing It are two songs I listen to a ton, and The Analog Kid gets played a lot, as well, but the rest I do not revisit that often. Meanwhile, I can always listen to all of Power Windows, almost all of Hold Your Fire and most of Grace Under Pressure, with no problem.  The sound of Signals is just a bit bothersome, which probably doesn't help.

I'm the opposite. I probably listen to Signals the most. But it's pretty rare that I listen to a full synth era album anyway. But I do have a Signals through Hold Your Fire playlist that is spectacular. Even though, I consider myself not a fan of the Synth Era. But I think the reason the Synth Era has aged relatively well, is because what followed the synth era really isn't that good. I appreciate Presto for what it is. Stripped down. Love it. And Counterparts rocks for the most part. J'ai But aside from CA, to me, the bands' last 25 years have been disappointingly bad, both in terms of quality and quantity (Neil's tragedies notwithstanding

I think they have came up with many very good songs in the last 25 years. Just not as many and epic than the first 15 years. But they were still rocking their way pretty well and the last album is very good. If it's the last one, they are going strong.


If Rush's first album was Roll the Bones, and the last 25 years WAS their career, they'd be nothing. Their hardcore fans, like most bands, are very forgiving.

[red barchetta]

If Rush's first album was Roll the Bones, and the last 25 years WAS their career, they'd be nothing. Their hardcore fans, like most bands, are very forgiving.

That is an odd thing to say, though, since bands rarely take 5-6 years off after their third album and then come back with the same members.

To say the last 25 years have been disappointing shows a lack of perspective, IMO. How many bands, who did as many albums, had a 15th studio album as good as Counterparts?  Or a 19th studio album as good as Clockwork Angels? (I count CA as the 19th since Feedback is a covers album, not really a studio album).

Can't say it better.

[KevShmev]

For whatever reason, Signals is the synth era ('82-'87) I listen to the least, by far.  Subdivisions and Losing It are two songs I listen to a ton, and The Analog Kid gets played a lot, as well, but the rest I do not revisit that often. Meanwhile, I can always listen to all of Power Windows, almost all of Hold Your Fire and most of Grace Under Pressure, with no problem.  The sound of Signals is just a bit bothersome, which probably doesn't help.

About the sound of Signals: they all felt very unhappy about their playing, especially Neil. They even thought about calling it quit. Moving Pictures was a hard act to follow.

I don't remember them ever being unhappy with their playing; they were unhappy with the sound.  The guitars were pulled back in the mix, but the keyboards, which were supposed to be brought to the forefront, weren't brought up high enough, so it's kind of an odd sound, with neither instrument being high enough in the mix.  Subsequent remasters have helped it quite a bit, but it's still not what it could have been.  Grace Under Pressure did a much better job with it.

[red barchetta]

Clockwork Angels is proof of how mediocre their last 25 years is. And while Counterparts is indeed a very good album, I certainly wouldn't call it a great album by any stretch.

Mediocre, ah well ...

[red barchetta]

Clockwork Angels is proof of how mediocre their last 25 years is. And while Counterparts is indeed a very good album, I certainly wouldn't call it a great album by any stretch.

What? I think it's an excellent album, and it seemed to get mostly glowing reviews.  I wish it sounded a little better (it suffers from the modern age muddy thing a bit), but the songwriting itself was their best since the early-mid 90s.

[red barchetta]

For whatever reason, Signals is the synth era ('82-'87) I listen to the least, by far.  Subdivisions and Losing It are two songs I listen to a ton, and The Analog Kid gets played a lot, as well, but the rest I do not revisit that often. Meanwhile, I can always listen to all of Power Windows, almost all of Hold Your Fire and most of Grace Under Pressure, with no problem.  The sound of Signals is just a bit bothersome, which probably doesn't help.

About the sound of Signals: they all felt very unhappy about their playinNg, especially Neil. They even thought about calling it quit. Moving Pictures was a hard act to follow.

I don't remember them ever being unhappy with their playing; they were unhappy with the sound.  The guitars were pulled back in the mix, but the keyboards, which were supposed to be brought to the forefront, weren't brought up high enough, so it's kind of an odd sound, with neither instrument being high enough in the mix.  Subsequent remasters have helped it quite a bit, but it's still not what it could have been.  Grace Under Pressure did a much better job with it.

I have a collection of scrap books, collecting any thing I could find in newspapers or magazines and yes I have an article about them saying they were not happy about Signals production that much and not happy about their playing. I think that in a way, they were a bit lost during that transition album. I don't recall if it was the same producer during Signals than the previous albums but I think yes and they changed for the next album

[red barchetta]

Clockwork Angels is proof of how mediocre their last 25 years is. And while Counterparts is indeed a very good album, I certainly wouldn't call it a great album by any stretch.

Mediocre, ah well ...

Ok I understand your point of view. I think they came up with some very good songs but no great album since Signals.

[gazinwales]

Yes Signals was the last album that Terry Brown produced for the band.

[Jester]

Fan might be to strong a word for me when it comes to Rush.  I found things to like, but it was always more my friends and musical *idols* telling me I should love them more than my own personal connection.  But the albums, went to the concert when my friends invited me, but I never counted down the day to their new release (or even knew it was out sometimes).

I find a lot more to like with early Rush than latter day Rush.  So there's the casual *fan's* perspective.

[KevShmev]

As a kind of a reference to TAC's earlier point about how Rush would be nothing if there last 25 years was the only point of their career, while the classic era has the vast majority of their best stuff, if that was their only stuff, I doubt they'd be my favorite band.  More specifically, while 1974-1981 was awesome for them, I can safely say that had they called it quits after Moving Pictures, while they'd still one of my favorite bands, they wouldn't be my number 1 favorite. 

[TAC]

Clockwork Angels is proof of how mediocre their last 25 years is. And while Counterparts is indeed a very good album, I certainly wouldn't call it a great album by any stretch.

Mediocre, ah well ...

I think you made the same mistake Kev made, or maybe I wasn't clear. I think CA IS Excellent.

As a kind of a reference to TAC's earlier point about how Rush would be nothing if there last 25 years was the only point of their career, while the classic era has the vast majority of their best stuff, if that was their only stuff, I doubt they'd be my favorite band.  More specifically, while 1974-1981 was awesome for them, I can safely say that had they called it quits after Moving Pictures, while they'd still one of my favorite bands, they wouldn't be my number 1 favorite. 

Ok, "nothing" might be kind of strong, but where would they rank if Presto or RTB was their first album? That was my point. Suffice to say, their 80's material, though I'm not a huge fan, deserves the respect it gets.

[KevShmev]

Imagine the reaction when Counterparts came out, if it had been their 3rd album after Presto and Roll the Bones!  The uptick in heaviness and balls, in the production alone, would have blown people away.

[TAC]

After kind of ignoring Rush through the 80's, I went to see the HYF tour with a buddy. Michael Schenker was opening so it was a no brainer. Anyway, that show was so awesome, I went completely on a Rush kick.
Presto came out next and I greeted it with open arms. It was more laid back, but I loved the feel. I still love that album. (So much better then what QR did with HITNF). Anyway, I thought RTB was quite weak, but Counterparts was very good.

[KevShmev]

A buddy of mine, who is in his early 50s and has been a Rush fan since the late 70s, has seen Rush every time they have been to St. Louis (which used to be 2-3 times per tour) since then except on the Hold Your Fire tour; he wasn't wild about that album when it came out. He came around to really liking the synth era - he's almost as big a fan of Power Windows as I am - but at the time, it was a shock to the system and he had a tough dealing with it, from what he told me (I didn't know him till the early 90s).  Ironically, he and his brother (whom I was friends with first) helped get me into Rush by showing me the A Show of Hands concert on VHS.

[LudwigVan]

Hold Your Fire is their weakest synth-era album. The songs are okay, but the overall album's got no balls.