And I disagree about Rush being HUGE. They were never huge.
How old were you in 1981?
Also, define "huge."
2 years old. Does it matter?
Sure does. It impacts your credibility. You weren't old enough to understand what was and wasn't "huge."
For me HUGE means a mass popularity. Rush never had a mass popularity.
You've just taken one "weasel word" and replaced it another. You seem to be a big fan of weasel words, which strikes me as odd since I know English isn't your first language. In any event, this is why you frequently get backlash over things you write.
They were never one of the biggest rock bands. You just can't deny it.
Sure I can. I can deny it as easily as you can say it, and I'm confident that I can come up with more coherent arguments than you can.
For example, compare Rush's success to U2's. You can say that U2 have/had a mass popularity, because they can fill stadiums, they sold 175 million records worldwide and they had a lot of top 10 hits on the charts, but you can't say the same about Rush.
Ok, now we're getting somewhere because you're finally using facts. I agree that it is beyond dispute that Rush, at the height of its popularity, was not as "huge" as U2 at the height of its popularity. We can compare album sales, chart performance and chart performance objectively, and U2 will always come out on top. THAT is not credibly deniable.
HOWEVER, unless you are defining "huge" to mean "at least as successful and popular as U2, it is still possible to say that Rush was "huge." Moreover, if that's your definition of "huge," then Van Halen wasn't "huge" either.