Talk:History of Rush - Misplaced Pages

Redirect page

Redirect to:

Talk:Rush (band)

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

This redirect does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Biography: Musicians

	Biography portal This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
	This redirect is supported by WikiProject Musicians.

Progressive Rock

This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Progressive Rock, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Progressive rock on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Progressive RockWikipedia:WikiProject Progressive RockTemplate:WikiProject Progressive RockProgressive rock

Rock music

This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Rock music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Rock music on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Rock musicWikipedia:WikiProject Rock musicTemplate:WikiProject Rock musicRock music

Canada: Ontario / Music

	Canada portal This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related
	Ontario portal This redirect is supported by WikiProject Ontario.
	This redirect is supported by WikiProject Canadian music.

This article was nominated for deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:

redirect, 23 August 2017, see discussion.
keep, 27 June 2008, see discussion.

Untitled

Generally a thorough recap of their career but I'm not sure I'd agree that "The Body Electric" was ever a staple of any radio station or format. I was a huge fan in the '80s and I can't remember the song played more than once or twice--and I certainly haven't heard it ever played in the last 18 years.

why is this not merged?

confusing and awkward to have the hisory of the band at another page. Joeyramoney 17:37, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

When the Rush article went through its FA process the history section was split because the main article was too big. In order to maintain FA status the main article has to be kept trimmed down and any suprefluous detail goes in this article. Wisdom89, KaptKos, admin Spangineer or admin BorgHunter can elaborate more on the FA procedure for the main article. Hope that helps. Anger22 17:51, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

IMHO the main article is better in its layout than other FAed band articles such as Pink Floyd, which is a great article and deserves to be FA, don't get me wrong, but it is basically the history of pink floyd with a few other bits added on, whereas Rush is a band article containing pretty much everything a band article should have(IMO), nicely sectionialised including but not overwhelmingly the band history, probably the only thing missing is a section on their visual style(hmm). Detail which would make the main article flabby can comfortably be added here. So I suppose its a matter of preference, I prefer the main article as it is with a nice concise history, maybe a bit more concise wouldn't hurt, and a sperarate verbose history of Rush along with other good supporting articles, having the complete history in the main article wouldn't break any rules but I wouldn't support it. --KaptKos 11:18, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

In my opinion the main page is too large and needs to be slimed down (Metnever)

I wholeheartedly disagree - if anything, the main article is lacking in content that details other aspects of the band. Wisdom89 20:30, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Geddy

I seem to remember it was Geddy's Yiddish Grandmother, not his mother, who pronounced "Gary" that way. Can anyone confirm? —Wrathchild 13:01, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

A quick search: Granmother: Mother: (since this is a transcript from an interview, I guess it wins)

contradiction

The lead paragraph indicates that Geddy Lee was part of the original line-up. However, the original line-up offered in the opening section does not include him. :) I'm a drive-by, not a Rush follower, and unsure how this should best be resolved. --Moonriddengirl 15:29, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that 'original' is used in two different senses. In the intro, it refers to the line-up of the first release, and in the body, to the first line-up ever. This should be clarified. ThuranX 03:50, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Members table deleted with Rush band members article

The following table was deleted from a redundant article. I'm also a drive-by, and don't know if Rush editors would agree this merits inclusion in History of Rush, but I thought it might be good to merge in.

concise version

This seems like a nice fit. http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Rush_%28band%29&diff=156189552&oldid=156189389#Band_members

including Hadrian and sundry

This one is controversial, see above. http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Rush_%28band%29&diff=prev&oldid=156176390#Band_members

/ edg ☺ ★ 16:15, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't think we need it. the tables are clumsy and large, and unnneeded in the branch article of a FA. The text version contextualizes the history better, and isn't an eyesore. There's simply no need for it, and this has been gone over before. ThuranX 16:29, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Okay. Thanks for replying. / edg ☺ ★ 16:36, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for asking. discussions help build consensus. ThuranX 20:04, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

The Periods of the Band

When looking at the grouping of albums, it occurred to me that the "periods" of the bands do not entirely mesh with the albums contained therein. For example, Caress of Steel and 2112 are clearly more "progressive" albums than Moving Pictures or Permanent waves, which, by the article's own admission, are more accessible and radio-friendly albums. While I know that the band themselves have considered the first 4 albums to be a "chapter" of their history, I don't think this 1976 view should be dispositive in deciding how the music should be grouped in 2010.

I would suggest moving Caress and 2112 into the Progressive section and giving Permanent Waves, Moving Pictures (and possibly Signals) into a new section entitled "Stadium Rock Era" or "Accessible Rock Era" or something similar. I know it is clean and symmetrical to have four albums per era, but it just doesn't fit with the descriptions of the albums and the type of music they were playing.LedRush (talk) 22:02, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Besides lengthy songs, I don't see what is remotely "progressive rock" about Caress of Steel and 2112. If we could compile a list of notable critics or journalists who ascribe this label to these albums, then perhaps it warrants a change. The easiest thing to do would be to do away with the "progressive rock era" heading altogether and leave the grouping as it is. Wisdom89 _{(_T / )} 04:11, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

From Misplaced Pages: The Oxford Companion to Music states that progressive rock bands "...explored extended musical structures which involved intricate instrumental patterns and textures and often esoteric subject matter." Additionally, the arrangements often incorporated elements drawn from classical, jazz, and world music. Instrumentals were common, while songs with lyrics were sometimes conceptual, abstract, or based in fantasy. Progressive rock bands sometimes used "concept albums that made unified statements, usually telling an epic story or tackling a grand overarching theme.""

Basically, Caress and 2112 match up very well this description, while Permanent Waves and Moving Pictures do not. Mere rebranding does not solve the problem of mismatching albums in groups. By the band's own admission, Permanent Waves was a deviation from their earlier conceptual records and Moving Pictures was another step along. The article itself, now, as written, backs this up. It says that Farewell and Hemispheres "saw the band pushing the prog rock envelope even further". Permanent Waves was a "change of direction" for the band and "During an interview in 1978, Lee stated that Rush felt they had taken the long-song format as far as they could or wanted" and that Moving Pictures continued the trend toward accessible music.

Also, I don't see why we would need a list of critics to subscribe to this label...I don't see any references to the current labels. And, as I've demonstrated above, the current article supports my views more than the current groupings.LedRush (talk) 05:42, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Categories: