The Rush appreciation thread

Blacksword wrote: Mortte wrote: Blacksword wrote: Mortte wrote: ^If they had continued in same kind of albums as "Hemispheres", I don´t believe they would have become as successful. "Permanent Waves" went into more pop direction, there really is something same as "the Police". So Rush did same thing as Genesis, Jethro Tull, Yes and Pink Floyd (in the Gilmour revival), those all become more part of the eighties sound. Although I think Moving Pictures & Signals are better albums than those other bands eighties albums (Jethro´s A is also quite good, eighties sounding progalbum), King Crimson was the only prog band that could modernize it sound with dignity. But I am not saying all those bands albums that I mentioned were totally bad. Of all the 70's prog bands Rush were the only one who went into the 80's with any dignity and without loss of integrity IMO. Permanent Waves to GUP was a run of albums which far exceeded anything by Yes, Floyd, Tull, KC or Genesis in terms of quality, for that era, IMO. So what´s you´re opinion about KC eighties albums? They´re really not my big favourites, but I think they´re only eighties progband albums without any or really little AOR-quality (well maybe there is some in Three of a Perfect). Of course there isn´t lots of AOR in Moving Pictures, but anyway "Limelight" & "the Camera Eye" & "Vital Signs" are sounding what´s coming next specially after "Signals". I like 80's KC, but those three albums are not a patch on their 70's efforts IMO, whereas early 80's Rush albums hold up well against their 70's albums, and are better than the 'chapter 1' albums, in terms of musicianship, maturity of song writing and originality.

Well, to me "Rush-ship" started to sink straight after Hemispheres. Permanent & Moving are not bad albums, but they have same taste as many other prog bands those times, like they are headed just for "adults". Although I am not also big fan of those eighties KC-albums, they still sound much fresher & more interesting to me than any other old progband albums at same time. KC kind of "slough" itself, it´s sounding almost different band. What I try to say is that although they´re not my big faves, I really respect them. I think Jethro also succeeded same way in "A", but after that they also started sound "updated" progband.

Catcher10 wrote: AFlowerKingCrimson wrote: So lot's of mixed signals about whether or not they were played on the radio before 1980(or at least how much). I guess maybe it depends on where you lived? Not sure but check this out. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3J3IBhYGohQ Edit: Ok, I see they were referring to Canada which is kind of strange considering they were from Canada. I wouldn't expect them to have less airplay in their home country than in the US but I guess that's how it was. Well I am certain they were on the radio well before 1980. I grew up in SoCal and listening to KMET which was a huge player of prog and lesser known bands. SoCal was a radio market large enough to support Rush, Genesis and the like that was not common hard rock like Aerosmith, LZ, Journey.....So I think the city you might have been in could be a reason. My family moved to New Orleans in 1980 and an eventual friend in my new neighborhood had all Rush albums on LP and cassette. Rush was pretty big in NO.......they were on the radio there too early on. I've seen that YT before, but heck in the course of their career I still don't think they got massive airplay

I thought Power Windows was a great album song wise although a bit 'plastic' sounding. Hold Your Fire and Presto are my least favourite Rush albums until they got back on track with Roll The Bones. The synths were fast disappearing and the hard rock style returned.

Mortte wrote: richardh wrote: I thought Power Windows was a great album song wise although a bit 'plastic' sounding. Hold Your Fire and Presto are my least favourite Rush albums until they got back on track with Roll The Bones. The synths were fast disappearing and the hard rock style returned. I lost my interest totally in Roll the Bones. Presto & Power Windows are OK albums, Hold Your Fire really mediocre.

Cristi wrote: I don't know why but the post Test for Echo albums that I rarely listen to. I don't know why, they're not bad at all.

Cristi wrote: I don't know why but I rarely listen to the post test for Echo albums. I don't know why, they're not bad at all.

I only saw them live twice. The first time in 1980 on the PeW tour at the Manchester Apollo when I was 16, the second time on the Clockwork Angels tour in 2013 at the Manchester Arena. I loved Rush up to Power Windows and I really didn't like the poppy nature of the songs and missed the long pieces. I did buy HYF, but I got half way through Force Ten and sacked it off. I still have that vinyl and only played it  through fully a few weeks ago. I returned to Rush when CA came out and revisited all the albums I'd missed from HYF. My highlight from that lot is Vapor Trails - I know a lot of Rush fans dislike that album (the lack of guitar solos maybe the reason), but I love it, notably Secret Touch, which is one of my favourite Rush songs. Of course I own all the vinyl up to HYF, but have since bought' Sectors 1, 2 and 3 and have all the concerts on Blu-ray (at least 2 of each due to the R40 boxset), as well as other DVDs (even ESL on VHS somewhere lol)

^ Argo. If your house was on fire and you could only save five rush cd's from the blaze...bet none of them would be from the 80's or later...

Argo2112 wrote: ^ Well if you count Moving Picture & Permanent waves as 80's ( both released in 1980) you would be wrong. Also, even though Power Windows is considered one of their more pop albums I like it a lot.

AFlowerKingCrimson wrote: Cristi wrote: I don't know why but the post Test for Echo albums that I rarely listen to. I don't know why, they're not bad at all. They are the ones I am the least familiar with(especially vapor trails)which is why I have been listening to them lately.