I listened to and binned "Signals" - I haven't listened to any Rush album that was after MP!

Point is - Have they produced any tracks since that are longer than 5 minutes and are not POP!

On one hand, I totally understand where you're coming from; Rush became much more accessible during the 80s. However, hardcore early-Rush fans will tell you that "Permanent Waves" and "Moving Pictures" are pretty darn poppy themselves- they certainly featured the band's signature 'hits' and were quite different from my more-prog favorites (Hemispheres and A Farewell to Kings).

To be honest, the "Signals" and "Grace Under Pressure" albums have really grown on me over the years- I think they may be the most interesting period in the band's history, before they totally committed themselves to producing mainly shorter pop-rock songs (albiet IMAO unique and sometimes impressive ones).

I guess most Rush fans have a particular "jumped the shark" nominee. I used to think that they were bad from the moment they released "The Big Money", but again, the passage of time allowed me to enjoy "Roll the Bones" and even the uber-poppy "Time Stands Still". And I thought "Vapor Trails" was almost a comeback album (to before "Power Windows", if not quite to the days of "Xanadu").

My post-MP Rush albums are 'Power Windows', 'Hold Your Fire', and ' Test for Echo'. The first 2 reflect their finest hour during their techno-pop oriented era, since it recaptures much of the complexity of symphonic prog in many tunes (Marathon, Manhattan Project, Mission, Turn the Page). I also enjoy commercial tracks such as Big Money, Time Stand Still and Force Ten, since they are well crafted (besides catchy, of course). The latter also includes lots of complex passages and clever arrangements (Test for Echo, Driven, Time and Motion, Limbo), giving an air of exquisteness to the rough sound they already had achieved in the previous album 'Counterparts'; there is also this beautiful acoustic ballad titled Resist - nevermind the 6 minute stuff, it's a beautiful ballad, with some clever chord twists, and amazing sounds on dulcimer, acoustic guitars, and a delightful eerie guitar solo.  

Regards.

Point is - Have they produced any tracks since that are longer than 5 minutes and are not POP!

"One Little Victory" from Vapor Trails, an excellent album if you can get past the mix. Or rather, if you just buckle down and TAKE IT LIKE A MAN!

Seriously, it's a great album. Some excellents songs on there. "Freeze," "Nocturne" and "Earthshine" are stellar!

With the benefit of hindsight the likes of Power Windows and Hold Your Fire were definitely albums of their time and probably do not stand the test of time. Grace Under Pressure sounds more "proggy" but the production does it no favours. Presto, too, suffers from underwhelming production, and not enough good songs. Roll The Bones only has 3 quality tracks:Bravado, Dreamline and Ghost Of A Chance.The last 3 albums are all well up to scratch but are probably more "sophisticated hard rock" than they are prog.

Rush have changed, for better or for worse. This is the reason they are still here as a viable recording and touring outfit.

richardh wrote: Rush are not and never have been 'POP' (he says again).That descrription of Rush's music really gets under my skin.The nineties albums are excellent and 'Animate' is one of the greatest songs ever written.Prog is not just defined by how long the songs are.

Couldn't agree more!!

Rush are a rock band. They always have been. Their best album IMO was 'Moving Pictures' After that I would agree they never did anyting as good as that, but I dont feel they ever made anything that was bad or was POP!!!! Just because they stopped writing about Greek mythology, and Hobbits disn't mean they stopped being progressive.

I think 'Grace under pressure' 'Presto' and 'Counterparts' are their best post MP albums. I have yet to hear any 'POP' act play with the virtuosity and write with the intelligance that Rush always have, always avoiding lyrical cliche and soppy love ballards, pre and post MP. Rush are misunderstood by many.

Loved by many too

I think you may have to live with it getting under your skin, rh...perhaps a lotion of some sort would help? 

Sure, pop means boy bands and disposable divas, but it also means The Beatles, The Stones, AOR in the 70s, New Wave in the 80s, Grunge in the 90s, Frank Sinatra in the 50s, etc...to some people, all rock music is pop music (i.e., not jazz or classical...and I'll wager that to some old school classical fans, jazz is pop music too).

If you equate 'pop' with 'disposable', then sure- Rush never surrendered to commercialism or watered down their songs for 'the kids'...but I was thinking of the term as connoting a more broadly accessible sound, and you'd be hard pressed to argue that "2112" is just as broadly accessible as "Presto", for instance...

Prog_Bassist wrote: RUSH ARE HAVE NEVER BEEN "POP".

I can't argue with that...your name wouldn't happen to be andrea, would it?

James Lee wrote: richardh - you don't think the term "pop"  applies to "Time Stands Still" or "Roll the Bones"?

NO!

They lyrics are far too intelligent.'Roll the Bones' is a wonderfull song.Lumping it in with 'pop' stuff is not right IMO. 'Time Stands Still' is excellent too.

'Time stand still' is a very emotional song. Its underated and ignored by progheads or some old school Rush fans because it was a single and has a happy tune. The song itself is really quite melancholic, and shows an emotionally honest side to Rush, that many think is missing in their music. How wrong they are

richardh wrote: James Lee wrote: richardh - you don't think the term "pop"  applies to "Time Stands Still" or "Roll the Bones"? NO! They lyrics are far too intelligent.'Roll the Bones' is a wonderfull song.Lumping it in with 'pop' stuff is not right IMO. 'Time Stands Still' is excellent too.

Ok, fair enough. Just to aggravate the discussion (in the friendliest possible way)...wouldn't you call Elvis Costello, Leonard Cohen, or Morrissey "pop"?

You see where I'm going with this

rush signals is among their best albums.

power windows has one of their best guitar solos sound and nervous bass playing.

grace has excellent melodic solos, although the overall sound is, like signals, more flat.

they began to decline from hold your fire, although it is still a decent album.

James Lee wrote: richardh wrote: James Lee wrote: richardh - you don't think the term "pop"  applies to "Time Stands Still" or "Roll the Bones"? NO! They lyrics are far too intelligent.'Roll the Bones' is a wonderfull song.Lumping it in with 'pop' stuff is not right IMO. 'Time Stands Still' is excellent too. Ok, fair enough. Just to aggravate the discussion (in the friendliest possible way)...wouldn't you call Elvis Costello, Leonard Cohen, or Morrissey "pop"? You see where I'm going with this

No I wouldn't.They are serious musicians.I wouldn't call them 'pop'.Perhaps we  are just arguing over definitions of the word 'pop'.To me 'Pop' is Britney Spears and the like.Machine manufactured brainless music.'Pop' as a term is terribly insulting in my book.Hence my aggravation in it's use to describe anything Rush has done.Hope that's clear now! 

Calling Rush Pop is like saying that they've gone out of their way to appeal to more people. This obviously could'nt be more from the truth. I don't get how anyone can say this, it's like you're saying "well they're songs arent that long anymore, they must be slacking off, trying to be as popular as possible while not caring as much about the music itself" which, and i'm sure most Rush fans can agree, is anti-everything Rush has ever believed in and gunned for as a band. If there is some rule about song length being the factor of calling a band pop, then i'd like to see it. But since this is all matter of opinion, I guess that's irrelevant. I just don't get it.

Pop music , schmock music, semantics.

I dont see the argument here!

yeah we've gone too far off course, especially since I'm on your side of the "Rush never jumped the shark" debate. 

just want to reiterate that when a band's music becomes more generally accessible, it doesn't necessarily mean they've 'sold out' or even 'gone pop' in richardh's definition. Sometimes it just means that they've learned how to express themselves better, and that's all I'm implying when I say that later Rush is more comparatively pop-sounding than their earlier works. Any honest evaluation of the music in our collections will show that there is music that will most likely appeal to a smaller audience and music that lends itself to broader appreciation. It's not like I'm accusing Rush of becoming a boy band!

You gotta admit, Alex did play up the 'pretty boy' thing during the first half of the 80s...

Going on looks alone, he almost could have joined Duran Duran for a while there!