If Rush want to pack it in while they're still in top form, that's fine with me as that's how I would like to remember them. Not as something sub par.

 

What are your thoughts on Rush possibly calling it a day?

How's this?

For sure they are nowhere close to the status of a Yes, Tull or some other geezer groups trying to stretch out another 10yrs.

The musicianship of Rush is impressive to this day, there is not an ounce of lacking on their live shows, as  I stated on my R40 review. Geddy and Alex have stated several times they have no desire to be on stage trying to still do in 10 yrs what they are doing now....Thank God! The Rolling Stones and others are light years past their prime...sheesh!!

I think what Rush will do is cut down the touring by 70% as a minimum, they probably will still record new albums and those tours will be short and maybe not as grand, for sure they will not go across the pond anymore or hit South America, I suspect it will only be Canada/US and 5-8 major cities for 3 months on the road and done.

I don't foresee any live shows for at least 2-3 yrs....but actually retiring from recording as Rush I don't see that for maybe another 5yrs out. I think they have 2-3 albums left and probably some project stuff before calling it quits.

They have managed their careers probably better than any rock artist of the last 40-50yrs, the Rush machine is well run, they and Ray Daniels are very smart and I seriously doubt any of that will change for trying to eek out another 5yrs past their prime. For sure they don't need the money.......It's all about the music, although Alex says it's about the chicks .

  

At some point Neil will not be able to play for 3 hours and Alex will succumb to arthritis in his hands....Geddy seems to be the robot of the three.....The Duracell bunny!

But again, I seriously doubt Neil will just sit and let his body go to waste, he is an athlete and will keep training and working out....It's not easy riding a motor bike, need to be in shape for what he does.

Yea a show with 800-2000 is pretty nice but the power of 1,000's of fans is pretty amazing.

 

I agree with the latter, but for a rock singer who's well past 60, Glenn Hughes is something of a freak of nature.

And yes the rigors of what Neil puts his body thru to play like he does for 3 hours every other day for 6 months to a year is brutal. Just like Phil Collins can't even hold the drum stick and has back issues, I suspect Neil is feeling some of the same. I would guess Neil does a better job of keeping his body in shape than Phil did, but they still need to slow down or the train will come to a halt real quick.

Neil has been very public about his daughter Olivia and how he does not want to be absent from her childhood. Geddy and Alex have grandkids they want to spend time with....

I really do not think any of them want to quit playing live....they just don't want to go out on the road for 6 months to a year. I think 2-3 months on the road then home for 10 months is their plan.

As others stated, the day they decide to never record or play live will be thee saddest day in rock. 

I agree she is a machine...Gonna see her in September with Heart.

I'm glad my comment is bringing the replies I was hoping for.....I also think at 67 Klaus Meine is still hanging tough..dude has chops.

 

And yes, Tommy Shaw sounds great for a guy who's been in the biz as long as he...and Glenn Hughes goes all the way back to Trapeze, and earlier, to the '60s, with Finders Keepers, and he sounds fantastic!

 

Saga's Michael Sadler is another candidate, and he also has a 40-year-long career, and counting.

 

Ronnie James Dio (RIP) had a career longer than those guys (and girl), even...

I've seen them once recently on their R40 tour and thought that they still rocked. Even Geds voice was still on point. Neil, could use some rest. 

I don't like them.....I love Rush!  The music and who they are is much more than just liking a band or music....It's totally ok that you do not get them or like them. For example people adore and love Magma on this website, I don't get it nor like the music much....but I would never expand my feelings to call them garbage or some other word like that or call them imitators.

And really who is a band like Rush imitating to call them epigones?

Whatever..my positive comment is have a good day/evening.

This is true. To my knowledge, no one else sounded like Rush back then. By the band's own admission, their music was "weird". They had a large cult following and music critics, by and large, hated them. 

If by "streamlined", she means mainstream, Calling Rush that is laughable. Until recently, they have been the epitome of not streamlined, not mainstream.  

I may be biased as a Canadian, but Rush is mainstream. Sure, the critics gave them a fair share of criticism back in the day but look at the sales. 24 gold albums, 14 platinum, 3 multi-platinum. 80th best-selling artist of all time in the US. Every classic rock radio station in Canada will play Fly By Night, Working Man, Tom Sawyer or The Spirit of Radio on a weekly basis. They've been a commercial success ever since A Farewell To Kings came out. 

I'll ultimately have to agree with Friede on this one. As a prog band, Rush were old news. Sure, they stuck it to the execs with stuff like Lamneth and 2112, but North American record executives have got to be some of the most artistically closed-minded individuals on the planet, so that isn't saying much. And I'm sure that once Rush really started to sell in the late 70's, the record companies became a lot less reluctant to let them do their own thing. Commercially speaking, Rush were taking a different approach from their continental contemporaries but as far as "progginess" on a global scale, Rush never really developed anything new. Heavy prog was a thing long before Rush delved into it. I'm sure that if you took T2's It'll All Work Out In Boomland and raised the singer's voice a few octaves, it would be almost unmistakable for an early Rush project.

Now, as for what the thread is about (thoughts on Rush's retirement), I think that even with no more tour plans and very little possibility of new studio recordings, their legacy will still last well into the future. For Canadians, Rush will always be folk heroes. The good ol' boys from Toronto who laid down some high energy rock n' roll and made our morning commutes, road trips, and Saturday nights a heck of a lot more enjoyable. They'll go down in history as a legendary rock band - not a legendary prog band. 

Back in the day most bands called themselves a rock, pop or psychedelic band......Rush is a hard rock band that wrote stuff that was not popular a lot of times, was weird and for some did not make much sense, at times probably fit some kind of progressive definition, but not 100% of the time, not sure any band has done that...not even Yes, Genesis or Floyd...

Disclaimer: The quality of a group has little relation to how "weird" they are. I could say that Rush is the greatest band of all time, and it wouldn't contradict anything from the above paragraph. Being unpopular or experimental does not make a group good by default, nor does popularity and conventionality necessarily mean a group must be mediocre (although I find it's often the case). 

It seems the last time they came to Brazil was in 2010. I was 13 years old. I didn't even know what the hell prog rock is.

At least, one of unique shows i'm proud to have seen is Chris Squire with Yes (2013).

I've lost the Steven Wilson's show this year, though, his only show in Brazil. 

It's hard to know about prog rock concerts in this country...

There is no "standard of prog", that's why they call it progressive, a moving target.

I too hope to see them live again someday, not only is the music and musicianship great the show is a great experience.

ha ha! Very true

They may never tour again but I believe that they still have new music in them. That's what I want to hear. 

It's just snobby elitist attitudes on all sides. Rush fans get piled on because they are passionate about the band. Many of them feel like Rush's music is superior to pedestrian rock n roll. However, those that say that Rush's music is not sophisticated, or not "whatever label" they want to apply are displaying the same snobby elitist attitudes.

If someone says they don't like Rush, fine. You don't like what you don't like and that's okay, but trying to justify that dislike by putting down the band because they don't fit your own definition of what prog is, is silly.

Some people here have said that they don't consider Rush to be prog. I've only been here a short time compared to some and I've seen comments to that effect. Perhaps it's a minority. I don't know

As for the original OP, I tend to be skeptical of any group that carries on for decades. After a certain point, it's time to hang it up, form a new group that goes in a completely different direction. Play with new people. Anything but pump out roughly the same music endlessly (whether this applies to Rush, I have no idea).