Jump to content

Talk:Rush (band)/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

Interview about entering the Hall of Fame

By Nick Patch, The Canadian Press at Canada.com published yesterday[1] which might be handy for future edits. 97.85.168.22 (talk) 09:23, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Improvements seem to be needed

This article, particularly the lower-half of it, seems to have a very strong pro-Rush bias. (You won't find a bigger Rush fan than I, but I check that at the door when I edit.) I'm not saying it needs more criticism or anything like that; it just needs to be toned down a bit, IMHO. As this is an FA, I didn't want to start tearing anything apart. I made a handful of edits to try to start tightening it up a bit. I welcome feedback (no pun intended) on my edits and suggestions for improvement. Joefromrandb (talk) 19:05, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Wrong descriptor for Ginger Baker

Ginger Baker very strongly denies in his recent documentary film " Beware of Mr Baker" and also in his book "Hellraiser" that he is or ever has been a rock drummer. His foundations are as a jazz drummer and to this day he is performing as a jazz drummer. Even when in bands like Cream and Blind Faith his style was far too complex and sophisticated to be classified as a rock drummer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.149.189.158 (talk) 07:50, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Wal-Mart and Rush

I am the only person who saw a Wal-Mart commerical on television during the Olympics with Rush's "Working Man" playing throughout, albeit in a much edited version, with a different, positive ending? Say it ain't say! -Teetotaler 19 February, 2014 —Preceding undated comment added 00:23, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Stylisation of Name

Would it be crazy to suggest that the article should perhaps state that in the same way that bands such as KISS are often all composed of capitalised words, Rush are no exception?

Post-progressive

The article for post-progressive lists Rush as a post-progressive band with a source. Would this justify adding post-progressive as a genre listed for Rush in this article? SomePersona (talk) 17:54, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Would it? SomePersona (talk) 01:03, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Rush can't simultaneously be Progressive and Post-Progressive. The band might span the occurrences of these two genres but I don't think they should be both. IMO that source is an opinion - and an incorrect one.Ckruschke (talk) 19:06, 16 October 2017 (UTC)Ckruschke

Heavy metal

I'm curious of what makes Rush a "heavy metal" band according to Wikipedia. I'm not against calling them that, but it just seems weird that they're being labelled a heavy metal band even though a majority of their albums are not. I checked here on Wikipedia, and I could only find three studio albums (Rush, Fly by Night, Vapor Trails) out of nineteen being classified as heavy metal (maybe four if you count the "progressive metal" listing on the 2112 article). SomePersona (talk) 03:08, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia repeats what is stated in reliable sources. Check the discussion section at top of page and do a search of the Archive pages (Search archives button near top of page). Rush and heavy metal has been discussed here many times. No need to repeat the same discussions. --Finlayson (talk) 14:47, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Rush (band). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:58, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Rush (band). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:50, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Rush (band). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:44, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

(Their Facebook page and things always have it stylised as four capital letters)

It is ruled out by the MOS, which explicitly says not to do this. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Trademarks.--SabreBD (talk) 08:15, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Regarding genres

I'd rather discuss the situation with the genres on the talk page before having an edit war. The reason that articles like the Eagles and Queen list only "Rock" as the genre is because there are so many different genres that the bands have been cited as, too many to fit into the infobox without it becoming cluttered. Also, these two bands aren't really associated with any specific subgenres, but rather with many. Rush, on the other hand, aren't sourced as anything other than prog rock, hard rock, and heavy metal, as the sources will tell you, whereas the Eagles have sources calling them rock, country rock, folk rock, soft rock, and hard rock, and Queen have sources calling them rock, hard rock, heavy metal, glam rock, progressive rock, and pop rock to name a few, and of course this number of genres is too high to include in the infobox, which is why only "rock" is listed. Rush are different. Poppermost2014 (talk) 17:24, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

I am fine with the three genres, which seem to sum up the bands styles well. However, I can also live with rock and more detail in the style section.--SabreBD (talk) 21:29, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
I agree with the original proposition - "Rock" is way too general for a band with such strong, prominent, consistent leanings to prog rock, hard rock, and metal, which are really the only genres that are properly sourced, so I don't see the problem here to be honest. Shikari 123 (talk) 16:59, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

FAR

There is quite a bit of uncited text in this Featured article; could someone brush up the article to FA standards to avoid the need for a Featured article review? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:22, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Fair point. Most of the text you have marked up does not seem very significant, so if it cannot be easily sourced (some of it is very specific, so I suspect it cannot, a legitimate alternative is just to delete the text. I will have a look if I can find some time.--SabreBD (talk) 16:38, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Do you have reliable sources that say Rush were heavy-metal band?

The directionality of genre section at talking page is incorrect. Their musical styles were influenced by British rock bands, for example, Led Zeppelin, The Who, Genesis, The Police, and U2 etc. American bands like Queensryche, Dreamtheater or Fates Warning are unrelated to this argument. If I say it, Rush were recommended to Foo Fighters and entered the "Rock'n'Roll Hall of Fame", while Metallica recommended Deep Purple to the Hall of Fame but was refused by critics. Alex Lifeson defined Rush as progressive rock band and prefers Yes, The Moody Blues and King Crimson. Do you have reliable sources that say Rush were heavy-metal band? Allmusic.com points out they were known as progressive rock band, since Neil Peart wrote all lyrics of their albums --Edvpj (talk) 02:43, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes lots. For example:
  • Michelle Phillipov, Death Metal and Music Criticism: Analysis at the Limits, p. xiii.
  • Christopher J. McDonald, Rush, Rock Music, and the Middle Class: Dreaming in Middletown, repeatedly points to them as heavy metal or quotes sources that saw them that way.
  • They appear on page 201 of William Phillips, Brian Cogan's, Encyclopedia of heavy metal music (2009) and page 214 of Daniel Bukszpan The Encyclopedia of Heavy Metal (2003)
  • They get two entries in Martin Popoff, The Top 500 Heavy Metal Songs of All Time (2002)
You may also like to check the archives where this point has been debated endlessly.--SabreBD (talk) 15:07, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
Rolling Stone magazine introduces Rush as one of the most beloved progressive rock bands ever. In a reader's poll titled "Your Favorite Progressive Rock Albums of All Time": 2112 ranked #2; Hemispheres ranked #8; Moving Pictures ranked #10. --Edvpj (talk) 23:31, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
That doesn't negate my answer to your question.--SabreBD (talk) 07:03, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
Your answer doesn't reflect the public more typical view. Encyclopedia of heavy metal music - another encyclopedia isn't an acceptable source. Michelle Phillipov, Christopher J. McDonald, Martin Popoff seem like the medley of minority opinion and POV determination. The concept style that Rush made each studio albums with unified theme songs lyrics and complicatedly artistic musical composition means that they were progressive rock band. They received six Grammy award nominations for Best Rock Instrumental Performance. Clockwork Angels won the Album Of The Year Award from Progressive Music Awards. --Edvpj (talk) 22:56, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
Rush is progressive rock because it doesn't follow standard song structures, includes eclectic and cryptic lyrics, have extended instrumental pieces or sections, and a wide range of sudden dynamic shifts. Rush is heavy metal (not progressive metal) because bands like... well... every metal band that exists today, consider Rush amongst their major influence. American bands such as Queensryche and Dreamtheater are two of those bands.[2] Other bands including: Metallica, Nine Inch Nails, Radiohead, Rage Against the Machine, Soundgarden, Tool and Pearl Jam have all bee quoted as being influenced by Rush. Despite the contradiction, heavy metal is lighter than metal, and is more akin to Black Sabbath, Iron Maiden, Motorhead, Megadeth, etc. Geddy Lee himself discusses this in an interview.[3] He is also listed at #13 by Hit Parader in their list of the top 100 heavy metal vocalists.[4]
Also, the book named Encyclopedia of heavy metal music is a perfectly acceptable reliable source, as are most professional encyclopedias (e.g. Britannica)
In summary, yes, plenty. Rush is not metal nor progressive metal, but they are progressive rock and heavy metal. - Floydian τ ¢ 00:38, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
Tertiary sources such as Encyclopedia Britannica couldn't be used in place of secondary sources for detailed discussion per WP:WPNOTRS. --Edvpj (talk) 04:17, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
The rest of that sentence says "... may be used to give overviews or summaries, but should not be used in place of secondary sources for detailed discussion". For the purposes of definition, and for a discussion like this, they are perfectly valid. The other sources cannot just be dismissed because you do not like them.--SabreBD (talk) 06:46, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

A common mistake. "...join your voices in a hellish chorus. Mark the precise nature of your fear." Rush is NOT metal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.20.75.134 (talk) 19:28, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Rush did not soften their sound?

In the "musical styles and influences" section, the article states:

"Rush wrote protracted songs with irregular and multiple time signatures combined with fantasy/science fiction-inspired lyrics; however, they did not soften their sound."

This is a clearly inaccurate statement. Rush most decidedly softened their sound, first in the 1970s with the release of "A Farewell To Kings", which was a lot less heavy than their preceding 4 albums, and then quite dramatically with the release of Signals in 1982 and the albums that followed for the rest of the decade, in which the hard rock sound of their 70s releases was replaced with a much softer keyboard centered, pop rock aesthetic.

Rush clearly softened their sound after 2112, though much of their material was still hard rock. But with the release of Signals in 1982 the band took a dramatic shift from guitar oriented music to a softer synth driven sound, in which the guitar was muted and played a secondary role.

The statement that they didn't soften their sound is simply inaccurate.

I am removing it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CannotFindAName (talk • contribs) 03:00, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Changes I made

Just thought I'd let you guys know of the changes I made to the article. All I did was add years next to the genres which show when they did that particular genre (so for Progressive rock, hard rock, heavy metal and post progressive it has a () that shows 1968-1980, 1990-present which shows when they did those genres) New wave and synthrock also complete with years were added in as well. If you guys have any objections to this, please let me know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jakob9999 (talk • contribs) 17:47, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

@Jakob9999: Please review the information I left on your talk page. cheers, - Mlpearc (open channel) 17:57, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Rush (band). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:26, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Rush (band). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:18, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Rush (band). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:59, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Further Reading Updates

The Further Reading section hadn't been updated in years. I added recent books and articles, and organized the books into categories. Caper2112 (talk) 16:42, 24 August 2017 (UTC)Caper2112

Archive of History subpage

Following the recent redirection of the History of Rush article to this article's History section, I copied the contents of that article into this subpage so that editors can compare it with this article and incorporate any content from there if it would be beneficial and appropriately sourced. Tonystewart14 (talk) 04:43, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Too bad nobody bothered to mentioned the History of Rush AfD discussion here. Shouldn't Talk:History of Rush redirect to this page as well? --Finlayson (talk) 16:31, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
@Fnlayson: Perhaps I should have, as I didn't realize there would be some interest on this rather dormant page, and the initial "snow keep" just seconds after posting the AfD caught me off guard. As far as that talk page, it's something I'm not familiar with, but you might ask the closing admin about it. In any case, I'd like to go through the archive page and compare it to the main one soon, and get a solid History section here. Tonystewart14 (talk) 05:03, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Rush and light metal

I’m adding light metal to the infobox with this reference: [1] Sixty Minute Limit (talk) 21:20, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "D.C. Star: Bright But Dull". Washington Post. Retrieved March 9, 2018.

Timeline

Worth having? This doesn't have the albums on it thus far Yellowxander (talk) 10:53, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Timeline

Question (roles?)

Because the line-up at the top of the page mentions "lyrics" alongside drums and percussion for Neil Peart, should it not include "music" alongside the instruments for Geddy Lee and Alex Lifeson? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:BC09:61B8:5400:DCC:ADD4:2B02 (talk) 19:35, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of Portal:Rush for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:Rush is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The page will be discussed at this MfD discussion page until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America1000 22:46, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Timeline Dissatisfaction

Hello editors, this discussion has come to the table in result of the revert of a recent edit to the timeline. The revert reasoning mentioned needing to discuss timeline changes first, yet editors have been changing it quite often without being reverted due to a prior requirement of discussion. Regardless, I definitely agree it should be discussed, as I feel this constant changing is starting to get a bit out of hand.

I originally restructured the timeline about a month ago. It was previously a PNG file with both inaccurate and missing information. It definitely needed updated information, and with a proper timeline, not a PNG. Since then several productive edits to it have been made by other editors. Of course, no one seems to have issue with these changes. Yet there are seemingly disagreements among several of us about one thing in particular, that being which colors should be used.

Foremost, is there any relatively new guideline I may have missed that says, eg. "certain colors must be used" or a "uniformity of colors between every musical artist's timelines", etc? If not, then consistently changing colors without a given reason, assuming perhaps because someone does not particularly like it, is not really warranted. The only reason I have on multiple occasions gone back and either reverted or modified previous edits to the timeline, as stated in all of my edit reasons, is that similar colors, or subtle variations, are not very visible when together. In this particular case, blue and purple. We have Geddy Lee with the colors blue for bass and purple for keyboards. It is simply not visible unless you are really looking for it, especially with the red bar for vocals down the middle. A wiki is for information, so if the average page visitor is likely to not notice the subtle color differences, then the information is not presented properly or efficiently.

When I make edits like these I try my best to think of what is optimal for everyone. In this case, when I'd been trying to make optimal visibility with yellow, and in result it kept being changed back to purple, I figured something may be wrong. I figured perhaps having the keyboards as yellow was ugly or jarring, understandable. A warranted edit? Maybe not, but I can totally understand it. So I decided on skyblue in my last edit, less jarring yet visible, then it was reverted for needing to be discussed. I couldn't figure a better color combo at this point if that isn't satisfactory enough. This page has been my reference for usable colors: http://ploticus.sourceforge.net/doc/color.html

That's where I stand, if my edit descriptions didn't explain well enough what I am trying to accomplish. We need to come to a consensus for an optimal coloration so these edits can calm down. An edit war over colors is petty, but it is almost getting to that point, so honestly this discussion is probably needed as requested. Lord Gorbachev (talk) 21:26, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Edit by 220.245.139.90 5 August 2019‎ - "Neil Peart: Deleted citation from shitty magazine"

I believe this: "In 2007, he was placed second on Blender magazine's list of the "40 Worst Lyricists In Rock" should be re-added as it leads into the AllMusic sentence. Without it, the AllMusic sentence feels out of place. There was no reason to remove it in the first place. If it is not re-added, the AllMusic sentence should be removed as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BigJoeRockHead (talk • contribs) 00:44, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

This should be cited to the Blender magazine issue not an fansite/website copy, imo. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:04, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
Agreed. Also, I have reinstated it as I found the basis for its removal questionable.  Wisdom89 ♦talk 15:19, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
I updated the citation. BigJoeRockHead (talk) 02:22, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

1989–2002: Return to guitar-oriented sound, hiatus - Sentence replacement

Recommend replacing the following sentence "In early 2001, he announced to his bandmates he was ready to once again enter the studio and get back into the business of making music" with the following "In January of 2001, Neil Peart, Geddy Lee, and Alex Lifeson finally came together to see if they could reassemble what had once been a great band. According to Neil, "We laid out no parameters, no goals, no limitations, only that we would take a relaxed, civilized approach to the project." The trio worked diligently, methodically writing and recording new material. After a year of starts and stops and hits and misses, the trio emerged with seventy four minutes of music, making up the material found on their latest offering, Vapor Trails.[1]. I also found this reference (Miller, William F. (2002) Neil Peart: The Fire Returns. In: Modern Drummer, Vol. 26, No. 9, pp. 58-69.), but I've never cited a mag/book before, so not too sure how to do it. BigJoeRockHead (talk) 13:23, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Miller, William (September 1, 2002). "Neil Peart: The Fire Returns". 2112.net. Retrieved January 18, 2020.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rush_(band)/Archive_4&oldid=1083532652"