Talk:Rush (band)/Archive 3

Kiss has more consecutive gold albums?
Kiss' album, Music from "The Elder", didn't go gold or platinum according to Wikipedia. That means they have 12 consecutive gold albums to Rush's 24.LedRush (talk) 04:36, 2 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Just to reopen this...what is the above statement not true?LedRush (talk) 20:07, 9 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Buelher?LedRush (talk) 13:35, 10 October 2008 (UTC)


 * http://www.riaa.com/goldandplatinumdata.php?resultpage=1&table=SEARCH_RESULTS&action=&title=&artist=Kiss&format=&debutLP=&category=&sex=&releaseDate=&requestNo=&type=&level=&label=&company=&certificationDate=&awardDescription=&catalogNo=&aSex=&rec_id=&charField=&gold=&platinum=&multiPlat=&level2=&certDate=&album=&id=&after=&before=&startMonth=1&endMonth=1&startYear=1958&endYear=2008&sort=Artist&perPage=25


 * Note that the 1981 album was never certified gold.LedRush (talk) 13:46, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Good catch LedRush - thank you for making the change towards accuracy.  Wisdom89  ( T |undefined /  C ) 18:02, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

star on the hollywood walk of fame
Where is the best place for their recent honor?

http://www.eonline.com/uberblog/b143365_diaz_downey_jackman_flex_star_power.html?sid=rss_topstories

I was thinking of saying: "In 2009 Rush will be honored for their recording contributions with a star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame." at the end of the fourth paragraph. It could also be worked into the first sentence of the paragraph.LedRush (talk) 21:59, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


 * It's already been added to List of awards and nominations for Rush.  Wisdom89  ( T |undefined /  C ) 23:05, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

US TV?
Aren't they on TV tonight? The Colbert Report.LedRush (talk) 15:40, 16 July 2008 (UTC)


 * They are, and as it's their first appearance in decades, for a band of that level, it's notable. (unless it's a hoax, like the Salinger prank Colbert pulled before.) ThuranX (talk) 15:48, 16 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't know how notable this is in the context of about 40 years as a band. Even if I assume it's notable, it doesn't belong where you try to put it.  The article is organized quite well and has a good flow.  Could you try and conceive of a more approporiate spot and way of placing your language into the article?LedRush (talk) 16:24, 16 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Drive-by comment - IMO, good organisation and flow is excellent, but should not prevent relevant new material from being introduced. A good editor would find a way to reword it and make it fit. A "not so good" editor would simply just remove it, and take the easy way out. 142.68.129.140 (talk) 17:01, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Drive-by response - Reread what I said and then make an appropriate comment, please.LedRush (talk) 14:27, 17 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Given the article already mentions the mixed response of American audiences, I find it relevant. As it is a part of the most recent, and ongoing, tour, I find that placing it with that information makes more sense. ThuranX (talk) 16:36, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I think the TV performance will go fine at the end of the last paragraph in the Snakes & Arrows section. Mentioning something about the tour in it would help too. -Fnlayson (talk) 17:11, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Given the obtrusiveness of placing it essentially anywhere, I really don't see a point in keeping the statement. Honestly, I'm uncomfortable with disturbing the flow of the article with one of those infamous "by the way" or "matter of fact" statements. Every time Rush does something, does it have to go into the article?  Wisdom89  ( T |undefined /  C ) 18:31, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think this is "every time they do something." This is the first time they've appeared on American television since Don Kirshner's Rock Concert, for crying out loud. It's not as if they've been on Saturday Night Live every year or something.
 * I agree that if they have 5 more TV appearances starting tomorrow, we don't need to create an exhaustive listing of them. But I think this is extremely significant - The Colbert Report is one of the most popular TV shows among "young, hip" audiences, and the fact that a 35-year-old rock band was chosen to perform on the show... speaks, I think, to the timeless nature of their music and an enduring popularity. I have rewritten the lede of the sentence to point out that it comes near the conclusion of the tour - hopefully addressing the flow issue. FCYTravis (talk) 18:41, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Hmm allright then, but how about placing it within the reputation section (as that seems the most apt), but not as a lone sentence?  Wisdom89  ( T |undefined /  C ) 18:50, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, strike that, it's not that bad actually. I like the way it reads now.  Wisdom89  ( T |undefined /  C ) 18:52, 16 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Yep, that look good. It belongs and I'm glad it's been included. If anyone cares to pad the reference, this Associated Press/Google article would probably serve the purpose well. 142.68.129.140 (talk) 06:14, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

reason for TV mention?
Is there a REASON for the US TV mention in the latest articles (ie: the band refusing to do US tv, something they did in 1975 getting them nixed from tv etc.) or is it just that no one happened to ask them to come on their show for 30 years? Seems odd. They've had albums out, and I know I've heard them mentioned on late night shows like Conan before, so they must be relatively known down there. If there's a reason, it should be mentioned in the article. TheHYPO (talk) 12:53, 16 July 2008 (UTC)


 * there is. They're rarely invited, and rarely accept those few invitations. They were scheduled, then bumped from SNL once in the 1980's, and since then, they've pretty much ignored US TV. Further, they're really not too interested in it. Check some of the articles about last night's appearance; some explain that they just avoid that sort of media hoopla. In the future, please don't change headings, it confuses peopel who watch the edit summaries.ThuranX (talk) 17:35, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Tour Section
A few months ago, someone added a list of all Rush tours at the bottom of each Rush-related page, which I really appreciated as it made looking up setlists, dates, etc. very easy. Why was everything pre- Roll The Bones tour suddenly removed? It all seemed accurate to me... I'd really like to have those sections back.
 * They were all deleted per WP:AFD due to not being notable - the ones that remained were deemed noteworthy with significant enough outside sources/coverage.  Wisdom89  ( T |undefined /  C ) 23:29, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Philanthropy
Someone just added the following language to the article under the title "Tibet":


 * In 2008 the band participates in a music album called Songs for Tibet, together witha number of other celebrities as an initiative to support Tibet and the current Dalai Lama Tenzin Gyatso. Songs for Tibet is started by the Art of Peace Foundation from New York being supported by the NGO International Campaign for Tibet. The album appears at the same time as the start of the 2008 Summer Olympics in the People's Republic of China that celebrates its opening on August 8, since the album is emitted on August 5 via iTunes and will be made available from August 12 on in all music stores in the world. Since the People's Liberation Army invasion of Tibet (1950–1951), according to critics, Tibet is undergoing a widespread political, religious, and cultural oppression.

Would a section on their philanthropy (t-shirts for human rights, donations to Negro League Museum, Songs for Tibet) be a good idea for the article? I think that a brief description of the causes that they have passions for would be relevant to the article and to people who use this site. However, it would be better of the descriptions talk about the Band's involovements with the issue less than the issue itself. I would cut down the above language on "Songs for Tibet" to one sentence.LedRush (talk) 17:40, 24 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Absolutely, it would make fine addition to the article. Geddy's recent donation to the Negro League Museum coupled with Songs for Tibet are particularly notable. I was even aware of the latter to be honest. LedRush, what are you sources for t-shirts for human rights? Anything beyond forum postings, or the band's official website?  Wisdom89  ( T |undefined /  C ) 02:16, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I just saw them on the website, but after a search I found this http://www.cbc.ca/canada/manitoba/story/2008/05/28/rush-cmhr.html?ref=rss (though it's a different shirt) and http://www.winnipegfirst.ca/article/2008/05/29/rush_contribute_to_canadian_museum_for_human_rights (ditto). Is rush.com not enough?  It is verifiable...LedRush (talk) 02:41, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * No, I think it's enough, but the others help bolster it. Usually I like to see secondary sources before using primary. Good finds though. If you want to start a section, be my guest. The best placement for it would probably either be in the reputation section, or after the final section before the discography.  Wisdom89  ( T |undefined /  C ) 02:46, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I shortened the section a bit, but I don't think it's a good idea to erase my edit first and that start a talk. The information on Tibet is relevant, because most of the information is just in one long lemma title. And because of the situation in Tibet, Rush participates in this album, so it is an item here. The way it is now is completely relevant to this article after my opinion. Actually it is a little bit short in my taste. Davin7 (talk) 15:07, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I went to your talk page to encourage you to come back and try again with the input of everyone here, so I don't really think I didn't anything wrong by deleting the entry and discussing it. Anyway, I've changed your language a bit per our discussions here.  Thanks for brining "Songs for Tibet" and this idea to the article.LedRush (talk) 17:53, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * To stick to your vocabulary, I did some too. Davin7 (talk) 18:16, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * If you don't like what I did, you can talk about it. But you basically decided that human rights in canada and the negro leagues are unworthy of inclusion in the article, that the replacement of the section was bad, and that this article must remain your soapbox for causes against the Chinese gov't.  This is an article on Rush and the band should be the focus.  If you disagree with how the article shapes up, perhaps we can civilly discuss it and we can all come to a consensus.  I appreciate your passion for the project, but I would also appreciate it if we could follow the wikipedia guidelines in a more mature fashion.LedRush (talk) 18:45, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Don't start power play, please... you are deletative and don't act the same way as what you say (physically I will not be in the current days either, but I hope you will be sensitve) Davin7 (talk) 19:01, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you're accusing me of, but I wish you'd actually address some of the criticisms here rather than just revert to the same language that you've plastered on the board of every artist who contributed to the album. I guess I should be more specific in my criticism of your language so that you will address my concerns:

1. "Since the Invasion in Tibet, according to critics, Tibet is undergoing a widespread political, religious, and cultural oppression." This is uncited, is POV, and (most importantly) is unnecessary to include. This is not an article on Tibet and the alleged oppression by Chinese "invaders". The previous sentence already stated that the album is in suport of Tibet and the Dalai Lama...that should be enough for an article on Rush.

2. "Songs for Tibet is started by the Art of Peace Foundation from Washington DC." Completely off-topic. Again, this is an article about Rush.

3. "The album appears at the same time as the start of the 2008 Summer Olympics in the People's Republic of China that celebrates its opening on August 8, since the album is emitted on August 5 via iTunes and will be made available from August 12 on in all music stores in the world." Outside of some bad language, this is more of an advertisement for the album than adding any detail about Rush. If this were changed to something less of a sales pitch, I guess I wouldn't hate it, but I feel like the date could be incorporated into the first sentence (if it's needed at all).


 * I hope you will take these comments in as constructive suggestions and respond in kind.LedRush (talk) 19:35, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and cleaned it up abit. I agree with LedRush, some of the language was questionable, and the statements irrelevant to the purpose of the section. They have been removed.  Wisdom89  ( T |undefined /  C ) 22:22, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

John Rutsey
Does anyone know where I can get some more info on him? I've searched for interviews and bios through google and haven't come up with much. A small amount of it could add some color here, but more likely on the Rutsey article.LedRush (talk) 19:57, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The best place I know of is the power windows website with chapters of various biographies, , and . They are only fleeting mentions of him though. However, these are only partial transcripts. The actual purchased biographies might have more. I'll see if I can dig up more information.  Wisdom89  ( T |undefined /  C ) 20:50, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

ska, reggae, funk
Huh? This can't be right:

"while other more experimental songs such as 'Digital Man', 'The Weapon', and 'Chemistry' expanded the band's use of ska, reggae, and funk" 206.111.155.144 (talk) 19:53, 4 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, according to the official rush biography Visions, it is. Rush began to dabble with some reggae and funk rhythms beginning with Signals. However, when the citation was first added to the article, the full book was available online. Unfortunately, now it appears as though only the first chapter is accessible. Someone might have to purchase a used copy or find another source to back up those claims. Perhaps something by allmusic or rolling stone.  Wisdom89  ( T |undefined /  C ) 20:36, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Album article songs
I'm putting this here and on Portal_talk:Rush because I'm unsure where else to put it.

I haven't been regularly editing the Rush pages as long as others, please hear out a proposal. A number of articles for Rush albums (mostly those from the first half of the band's catalog) feature some sort of a discussion of the individual songs. I think it would be beneficial to expand upon this -- deciding on a standardized format to do so, and continuing to elaborate on songs from the remaining albums. While not every song merits its own wiki page, it's clear that the majority of Rush's songs have something to say. Most deserve even the briefest of descriptions, either in terms of their notoriety, musical or lyrical style, subject matter, or any other distinguishing characteristics.

I stress a standardize format simply because it helps readability and organization. A Farewell to Kings breaks up the album into individual sections for each song; Hemispheres breaks up the album into Sides, as they would be on vinyl; and Moving Pictures simply describes the songs in a single section, but with each song a separate paragraph. I think either the first or last way is preferable. Kings is more rigidly structured, but appears slightly overbearing -- which will probably become more pronounced for albums with 10+ tracks. Pictures sacrifices structure for an easier flow, however. The Rabbit42 (talk) 06:55, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Feedback not a studio album?
Is there a reason that Feedback is not a considered a studio album and thus not listed in the discography (other than the album is made up of covers, that is)?LedRush (talk) 16:30, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I think it is considered an EP (albeit a long one) which is why it wouldn't be listed with the studio albums.harlock_jds (talk) 16:36, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

But it is listed as a studio album on the Rush Discography page.LedRush (talk) 16:40, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Then one or the other is wrong. Personally i think it's a bit too long to really be considered an EP but i'll let one of the more regular editors comment on why it's considered an EP here. harlock_jds (talk) 22:09, 5 September 2008 (UTC). However it is clearly marked as an EP both there on the page of the album so i really don't knok what you are talking about.harlock_jds (talk) 22:12, 5 September 2008 (UTC)


 * It has to be be some type of studio album even if it is an EP. It is not a live recording. -Fnlayson (talk) 22:19, 5 September 2008 (UTC)


 * On the discography it is labeled as both an EP (which it is) and a studio album (which it also is). While it is listed as a different color than the other studio albums, it is under the list of Studio albums and also included in the total count of studio albums.LedRush (talk) 22:21, 5 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Since it is cover songs it should not be listed here with original studio albums, imo. The disc. page is fine. -Fnlayson (talk) 22:24, 5 September 2008 (UTC)


 * But section is called "studio albums", not "non-EP" or "non-original studio albums". As a Rush fan I wouldn't mind not having this article listed, but as an encyclopedia I feel that it belongs here.LedRush (talk) 22:31, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Even though this discussion seems to have stalled, I decided to include feedback in the list of Rush studio albums - it seems quite accurate and no harm can come from it. Afterall, the main distinction seems to be between live verse studio anyway.  Wisdom89  ( T |undefined /  C ) 21:05, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

R30
Would it be worth mentioning that the R30 tour ended up being shorter than originally intended? Alex's arrest cut some dates off the beginning of the tour. If the answer is yes, I'll figure out how to work that in. Mønster av Arktisk Vinter Kvelden (talk) 21:20, 3 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm reluctant only because it may be kinda obtrusive. I mean, I'm not sure how you'd mention it without having to expand on it a bit. I'm not against the idea though. In the end, it might be more appropriate for Lifeson's article, or maybe R30 tour.  Wisdom89  ( T |undefined /  C ) 21:52, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

That's true, I suppose. It's already in Lerxst's article, the only reason I mention it is because it had a direct bearing on the band. If I'm not mistaken, some of Sid Vicious' antics are included in the Sex Pistol's US tour section, although this is obviously different. I can definitely work it into the R30 tour, if it's not there already. Mønster av Arktisk Vinter Kvelden (talk) 23:33, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, let's give it a go - as I said, I'm not completely turned off by the idea. Let's see how it reads and then come back here and discuss.  Wisdom89  ( T |undefined /  C ) 00:18, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Progressive metal?
Should progressive metal be added to the genres in the infobox?--Marcus Brute (talk) 03:43, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Rush have never been a progressive metal band in their career? Wether B (talk) 03:47, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

The urge to identify Rush as progressive metal stems from the fact that they played an earlier incarnation of heavy metal and then started adding progressive trappings to their music. However, sandwiching the two terms isn't accurate since progressive metal is an altogether different subgenre.  Wisdom89  ( T |undefined /  C ) 21:01, 21 November 2008 (UTC)


 * according to wikipedia, Progressive metal is a fusion of heavy metal and progressive rock. [Alan Zhan] 69.236.174.27 (talk) 02:33, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Lyrics besides Peart
I remember reading somewhere that Geddy ended up writing most of the lyrics before Peart ever joined Rush. Rutsey was supposed to, but Geddy ended up throwing stuff together, and Alex wrote one song. In addition, Alex wrote the lyrics to Lessons (2112), and Geddy wrote Tears and Cinderella Man (2112 and A Farewell to Kings, respectively). As soon as I can find the interview again, I'll put it up, but I don't want unsourced material floating around the page, even if I know it's true. Mønster av Arktisk Vinter Kvelden (talk) 23:41, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, about time I did it huh? If you can make it fit better, feel free. Mønster av Arktisk Vinter Kvelden (talk) 15:39, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Exit...Stage Left tour?
Didn't Rush tour their live album? If so, this is notable, as bands don't go on separate tours to support a live album release. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Basilwhite (talk • contribs) 14:23, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Rush has gone on 20 or so tours, and I think it might be a little unwieldy to mention them all - in fact, many of the individual tour articles were deleted through AfD for being non-notable. If we mention the existence of Exit..Stage Left tour, then what about the "Moving Pictures warm-up tour" or the "Signals warm-up tour"? It starts to set a bad informational precedent.  Wisdom89  ( T |undefined /  C ) 14:54, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

New source/Interview:
From Heeb magazine: http://heebmagazine.com/articles/view/205 and http://heebmagazine.com/blog/view/1588. First the interview with Geddy Lee, then the extended interview. ThuranX (talk) 20:29, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Books and Scholarly Articles
I think these are useful subsections for an encyclopedia article, but I don't see how they are organized. Should the books and articles be listed chronologically, or alphabetically by author? Right now, it looks like they are listed randomly.

Also, the Peart books: "Ghost Rider" and "The Masked Rider" are not about Rush per se. They would make sense listed in the separate Neil Peart article, but maybe they should be trimmed out from this one.

Thoughts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Caper2112 (talk • contribs) 00:07, 8 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, that's all under the further reading section, which all of those are. Analysis of the cultural content of the lyrics, and so on is good further reading, as are books by or about the band. Most Rush books go far beyond being simple color-plate based band fluff books, and so I see no reason to remove any. As for the Peart books, they're pretty good at explaining his worldview in his worlds, and since he's the band lyricist, I can see the connections to the band as a whole too. ThuranX (talk) 02:26, 8 June 2009 (UTC)


 * They should be in alphabetical order by author. I formatted and fixed the books section.  Check it and fix the order on the articles if needed.  The Further reading section can have broad coverage.  It sort of a print version of the External links section. -Fnlayson (talk) 02:36, 8 June 2009 (UTC)


 * The books look much better. I've redone the Scholarly Articles to match. I replaced Bowman's unpublished "Textural Undercoding" conference paper with his published "Let Them All Make Their Own Music." There have been dozens of Rush conference papers; it's probably better to stick with published, peer-reviewed pieces. Caper2112

Pinnacle
Should the pinnacle be demarcated as "Signals" and not "Moving Pictures" ? Thad Riley (talk) 05:28, 2 July 2009 (UTC)


 * It's all subjective, but it's very hard to argue against "Moving Pictures" being more popular and successful than "Signals". 67.173.48.211 (talk) 06:31, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Politics?
I've often sensed Rush has a sublte socio-political message to send, perhaps best described as Libertarian. I'm NOT talking about songs like Subdivisions; the message there hits you over the head. I'm talking about Trees, Temples of Syrinx, etc.

Can anyone comment on this? Has it ever come up during band interviews? Exbuzz (talk) 16:35, 14 March 2008 (UTC)


 * We shouldn't discuss these things as if this were a general forum, however, if your intention is to include such things in the article, then we need to satisfy WP:V. However, I'm fairly certain nothing remotely reliable or worthy would be found. My understanding is that the band shies away from political stances, or at least revealing them.  Wisdom89  ( T |undefined /  C ) 18:33, 14 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Recently Peart described himself as a "liberal libertarian". I don't know how much of this would go into this article, though, and not the sub article on Peart.LedRush (talk) 16:34, 25 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Every time I hear talk about Rush and politics, people imply the band believes (or has believed) in right-wing economics and Ayn Rand's Objectivism. I'm wondering if people have refrained from mentioning that because it's just plain embarrassing and marginalized the band. I'm guessing it is, since most popular rock musicians (The Beatles, Rolling Stones, The Doors, Pink Floyd, Nirvana, etc.) tend to be liberal or social-democratic or anti-market rule left-libertarian minded (they don't object to progressively taxing the rich to support social programs that help workers and the poor, or they openly criticize big business & war as a means of solving disputes.) The same seems to go for Oingo-Boingo, which also has a wiki entry that has left out the bands political philosophy. Radical Mallard (talk) 21:59, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Heavy metal?
Ok when has rush been heavy metal??? none of the songs i here them sing are heavy metal. so maybe a link to a site that says and proves there heavy metal may convince me. but wtf? so far to me. there no where fucking close to metal. --JBrocksthehouse (talk) 09:18, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

This has bugged me for a long time too. I vote that the list of genres on the Rush page be edited down to simply read Progressive Rock, which they are. 62 Misfit (talk) 05:15, 2 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Only for a fraction of the band's career. It would be wildly misleading to remove the other genres.  Wisdom89  ( T |undefined /  C ) 05:45, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Are you saying that they were heavy metal for only a fraction of their career? Because to say that they were progressive for only a small part of their thirty-plus years as a band is, to me, wildly misleading. The only albums that even come close to metal are the first, Caress of Steel, and Vapor Trails. Have we all forgotten 2112 and YYZ, two of the more well-known prog-rock epics ever penned and performed by a hard rock band? I'll concede that they are and were hard rock in some facet throughout their career, but to call them a metal band, which places them in the same group as Black Sabbath, Fantomas, and Mayhem, is simply not right. While I understand that your judgment is rooted in fairness, I think that to call someone something they just aren't is inherently unfair. 62 Misfit (talk) 20:47, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * From a personal perspective, yes that is what I feel. On a different level, however, when this article ran though its featured article candidancy, a consensus formed with support from citations that Rush's debut and the few albums thereafter were rooted in early Heavy Metal, which is why this genre has not changed since. Finally, I am not disputing their progressive rock time period, my point was simply that these are the major genres the band has played with over the years. Rush are no longer Heavy Metal or Progressive Rock.  Wisdom89  ( T |undefined /  C ) 22:00, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. But it still seems to me that at least "progressive metal" makes more sense (though I can see that you were initially opposed to that use of the label from your statement below) for a band as non-mainstream and rooted in, well, progressivism as Rush. Here's a parable: To say that Kenny G and John Zorn are both jazz isn't saying a great deal, since Kenny G plays a very rudimentary, commercial form of jazz while John Zorn is about as avant-garde as you can get. Just as it is so much more clear (and fair to both of them) to say that Kenny is smooth and Zorn is avant, doesn't it make more sense to clarify that Rush are progressive metal rather than simply metal (which, again, throws them in with a wholly different bunch of artists who sound nothing like them). 62 Misfit (talk) 23:50, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * There is no mention in the article about the band being heavy metal and no citations to back it up. If none are added, I'll remove this from the infobox. Andrzejbanas (talk) 14:25, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * As no one has brought up supporting this, I'll remove it. Andrzejbanas (talk) 22:36, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Look what I found on the prog metal page: "Buckley, Peter (2003). The Rough Guide to Rock. London: Rough Guides. ISBN 1-85828-201-2." That book mentions Rush playing metal. 76.189.162.7 (talk) 04:12, 25 September 2010 (UTC)


 * They have always been pigeonholed as metal because they are from a time period where prog rock/glam rock overlapped with metal. The sort of metal of the 70's with the high pitched voices and long hair and effeminate yet masculine/butch guys and so on. (Cock rock?) Radical Mallard (talk) 22:04, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Genres for Rush
I've been a huge fan as like most people in this section but i have to say that rush cant be heavy metal, if you streched it, just maybe, some of thier Test For Echo or Vapor Trails can be considered but heavy metal is loud rough parts of music with loud screamed vocals and incredibly fast drums [note that the Prof is the best...] but i cant see how rush is Heavy Metal. Prog, Classic Rock and Hard Rock i understand but anything else, i just dont see, explain? black metal sludge metal thrash metal groove metal hair metal you get my point. And the genre you described would probably be death metal or metalcore --JBrocksthehouse (talk) 09:21, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * actually, heavy metal is a main genre of many sub genres of metal

And yes. These may be considered opinions. But genre, is an opinion to some. and to me, rush isnt heavy metal and heavy metal is the main term for all sub genres of metal. --JBrocksthehouse (talk) 09:23, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Rush is not Heavy metal, if you did a survey no would would consider them as such —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jheiser57 (talk • contribs) 02:51, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I think you could consider them that. Metal isn't just the screaming and Cookie Monster vocals (like most people consider metal, which is really thrash or death met.). For example, Van Halen is considered heavy metal. I don't think most people consider "Panama" to be in their defenition of heavy metal. But really it's all opinion, so we have to get the most reliable source for the genres. Crimsonraptor (talk) 16:53, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I am also a Rush fan. Why isn't classic rock (The Trees), alternative rock (Counterparts), pop rock (Where's My Thing?), and instrumental rock (YYZ) listed? 209.213.155.25 (talk) 17:38, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

HELP to keep FA level
External Check links The tool uses AI to classify links to three groups: Working links (White and Yellow), Broken links (Orange and Red), and Indeterminate (Green and Blue) ....Checklinks: Rush (band)

Every image should have alt text Images meant for readers who cannot see an image, such as blind readers and readers who use a text or mobile browser. It should summarize an image's appearance, and should not duplicate its caption. Every image should have alt text It should summarize an image's appearance, and should not duplicate its caption.

.....Alternative text

Hall of Fame
It's funny about the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame. I've never met a bassist or drummer who didn't listen to Rush. Maybe the Hall thinks Rock is only about guitarists? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.190.145.194 (talk) 16:36, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Battlescar/Touring/Tom Sawyer
I'm restoring the removal of this information. Sourced information should not simply be removed on editor opinion. Perhaps it would fit better in another section of the article? It is an interesting piece of information and a good collaborative chain of events that led to the creation of one of their biggest hits (for both bands). -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  τ ¢  19:31, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

R-30. Acropolis, Yanni 75.201.168.12 (talk) 11:28, January 9, 2010 (UTC)

Lucrezia Santini
The new Rush album compared to seventies music seems so unusual to me. The Pentagrams on the older albums seem to have enlightened others back then, and the song Working Angels is another interesting concept. Persons should see R-30 interviews, and listen to Mr. Lee's interview about musicians. This would be good for musicians and audiences alike. Working Man75.202.149.78 (talk) 19:52, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Show off. I take it this is the name of the to-be-released album? DFS (talk) 13:18, 14 December 2009 (UTC)


 * This isn't a forum, people. Let's just focus on changes/improvements to the article. Cheers!  Wisdom89  ( T |undefined /  C ) 19:13, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Portal
The portal has had a major upgrade in its look..I think we need to find a picture for the portal link.... Portal:Rush '''
 * Buzzzsherman (talk) 01:32, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Revision 336758619 by Tahamaki
Facebook.com is not a valid reference, which in turn, brings down the quality of this article. Do we revert, or do we replace the invalid reference with a fact-tag? -- WikHead (talk) 03:47, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Correct. Facebook is not a reliable source and, as such, I have reverted the edit. If another independent source with the quote/information is found, then it can be added. And just a minor point, there is no reason to sectionize small bits of information like this.  Wisdom89  ( T |undefined /  C ) 04:46, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * My thoughts exactly (all points). Thank you kindly :) -- WikHead (talk) 04:56, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

It appears that more than one IP is now adding similar (if not identical) info.  Wisdom89  ( T |undefined /  C ) 21:21, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The info, if correct, is actually pretty exciting "news" that would likely be of great interest to most readers in a well-placed/well-worded manner. It's too bad however (as we've discussed above), that it presently can't be based on something more solid than Facebook and/or blog posts. Then again, if and when good sources do become available, I can see this being a topic that's subject to a lot of rapid updating. Perhaps some discussion and early planning of the inclusion of Nineteenth Album is in order, as a means of helping to keep all interested contributors focused in a single direction. -- WikHead (talk) 13:22, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Good Work
I just wanted to say to the people working on this article that I think it looks great! I just bought Rush's greats hits from the ipod store and was rocking out and wanted to see what Wikipedia had to say about Rush. What a nice surprise to see that the Rush article is easy to read and liad out nice. Keep up the good work! --Mickey 1-13-2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.129.163.126 (talk) 16:59, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the kind words - if you ever want to help contribute to the article, you could always edit as an IP or create an accont. Cheers.  Wisdom89  ( T |undefined /  C ) 17:23, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Libertarian
Can we get rid of the subtle references to the bands alleged politics and libertarians influences on their lyrics. Neil is so for the only member to express his person politics and the songs that are said to be "libertarian" could just as easily be described as liberal or even atheistic. So far Lee and alex have never spoken about their politics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.98.64.15 (talk) 09:31, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * If you are referring to the lead it specifically says that some of the lyrics have libertarian themes. No more, no less. Given that Neil writes the lyrics, and this is stated, I don't see an issue.  Wisdom89  ( T |undefined /  C ) 12:38, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * And for the record, Geddy (especially) and Alex have acknowledged libertarian (which I don't believe most people think of politically) and Rand-ian leanings at some point in their lives. They have also mentioned that these are not the sum total of their beliefs.LedRush (talk) 16:49, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, their own views on their lyrics and ideas is not dispositive here. If others attribute these ideas to them to the point that it is notable, it can be included here.LedRush (talk) 16:53, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * If they have expressed such leanings, surely we could find sources to verify.  Wisdom89  ( T |undefined /  C ) 19:29, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I am not sure that the topic merits more inclusion in the article than already exists. If we want to write about Libertarianism and Rush, we could make a new article and use Dr. Horwitz's article on the topic from "Rush and Philosophy: Always Hopeful, Yet Discontent" as a basis.  I personally find it more interesting to explore not whether or not Rush or its members are libertarian, but what libertarians have found so compelling in Rush's works.  But, again, this is a topic for a different article.LedRush (talk) 21:20, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Here is a source for it.--Metallurgist (talk) 21:13, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

"the members of Rush were the biggest jerks"
Cherie Currie formerly of The Runaways said this. It's in this Youtube video "Jackie Fox recalled: "So we're out playing on stage and the guys from Rush came to watch. As if the contempt on their faces and the boos from their fans﻿ weren't bad enough, Cherie slipped and fell at one point during the set, and when I looked over, the guys in Rush were laughing at her. Of all the people I met while I was in the band, the members of Rush were the biggest jerks and in that moment exhibited the least class I have ever seen from a fellow musician." and to Jian Ghomeshi on CBC's Q, right here yesterday (Which came as a surprise to Jian, who interviewed the band not too long ago).  She says that Tom Petty and Cheap Trick were nice though. 205.189.194.252 (talk) 22:07, 31 March 2010 (UTC)


 * So? That's the opinion of one person and seems to be non-notable, i.e. fails WP:Notability. -Fnlayson (talk) 17:33, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I have to echo Fnlayson, it's completely out of place and reflects a single opinion from a single experience. How exactly is this notable enough to introduce into the article? Not to mention that it's completely disruptive to the flow. I'm sure there are thousands of people who might think Peart is an asshole, but do we just grab one random celebrity and mention it? And youtube is not reliable to boot.  Wisdom89  ( T |undefined /  C ) 18:20, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * And are you going to incorporate her opinion of Tom Petty and Cheap Trick into their respective articles?  Wisdom89  ( T |undefined /  C ) 18:22, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Again, it's not an opinion. She's describing what happened to her and her bandmates. Also it seems to be the kind of statement she has little to profit from. She doesn't seem to be (wholly) bitter--she praises Tom Petty and Cheap Trick. I doubt there's much money in making such a statement. As for notability, the Runaways have some. The film about them even has its own Wikipedia article: The Runaways (film). Google News seems to come up with more than a few results: "Neon Angel: A Memoir of a Runaway", Rush gives us this and "Cherie Currie" Rush gives us this.  Here's a page with a picture of both bands together.The Runaways meet Rush, along with  Joan Jett.  Joan Jett's WP article seems to be substantial--and perhaps making her notable, there would be more money in slagging Rush 20 years ago than now, so there seems to be more neutrality there.70.54.181.70 (talk) 18:24, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think anybody is disputing she feels this way, nor is anyone going to question her experience. The problem is simply why are we arbitrarily mentioning it? What substance does it bring?  Wisdom89  ( T |undefined /  C ) 18:26, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Oops. "Editting conflict." First I'll correct the spaces here.:-)70.54.181.70 (talk) 18:29, 1 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree w/ Fnlayson and Wisdom. Just because someone said such a thing does not make it significant enough for inclusion. Are there reliable, third party sources that show this quote had an significant impact that would merit coverage in an encyclopedia? If not, it should remain out. Even if it did have a significant impact, it would need to be weighed carefully. And even if deemed appropriate for inclusion, it is out of place in that part of the article. And in the reading of it as it sat, it feels like eating an apple and biting into a worm.  Dloh  cierekim  18:33, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Okay, that's better (the spacing). Why? Because I think it's relevant. Though I suppose if they said that "Rush were the greatest guys we've meet" I might not be as interested. (As for inclusion into the Cheap Trick and Tom Petty articles: I might if she specified; and if I was interested in the artists--as nice and good as they are, they are a fraction as good as Rush.) I'll have to figure that one out. As for full disclosure: I like Rush (my favourite albums are A Farewell to Kings, Hemispheres, and Moving Pictures). Allow me to go further. I think they are the greatest band to come from Canada (I'm Canadian); and in the "prog-rock" verses "punk" thing, I thought that prog-rock was unfairly dumped on, and punk not as well examined for its own pretensiveness. I first heard the allegation a few days ago from CBC's Q (the links to the show are mention in the first post of this section). I heard it on CBC radio here in Toronto. If memory serves me, Alex and Geddy had a pleasant interview with him a few days earlier; and when Currie said what she said, even Jian was taken a bit by surprise. So again, few of us have axes to grind with Rush (though I for one, take a more positive view about the suburbs--I understand Neil Peart lived in York Region in the early 80's :-). That said, I detect a bit of arrogance, and indeed pretense, in the prog-rock crowd. A few years ago CBC’s Definitely Not the Opera did one which included the voice of comic book guy. Perhaps prog-rockers’ dismissals were a defence for them days (and the slagging of [[Emerson, Lake & Palmer
 * ELP]] continues). However, I still can't help but wonder if there is a POV--an SPOV to be more exact--about the article about Rush. I mean they seem to be really great guys. Sick people touch them to be healed and they don't sleep well because it's hard to tuck in those angelic wings of theirs. So who is this washed-up Runaway to say otherwise? (If it happened, maybe they deserved it.) As for Youtube: in this case I would say it's relevant, for they (the former Runaways)say it themselves on Youtube. There's lots of stuff on Youtube: second-hand, third-hand, fourth hand, made-up stuff, etc; but when the persons who experienced it say it themselves, I figure that you can take it as a source. If Geddy Lee appeared on Youtube, and said that he like French's mustard on ham sandwiches, rather than dijon, one might question the notability of it, but unless Geddy has a reputation for lying (and he doesn't) I'd take it as face value, and where it might be relevant in WP, cite it.  Now perhaps, my edits might belong in the History of Rush article, or the biographies of the members--though in the latter case, Currie and Jett don't specify the members. In the interview with Jian, Geddy describe the ending of Rush (around Peart's tragedies), but it wouldn't end their friendship. The problem is, there's no WP article on The members of Rush or  The friendship of the members of Rush where I could edit this in. Also, again, this (allegedly) happened as they (Rush and the Runaways) all were playing at a show.  or maybe we could ignore this--maybe the commentary on the talk page is enough. Possibly put it in Wikinfo or other wikis. I await your comments. :-) 70.54.181.70 (talk) 19:31, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The question is, how does this information help the article? I agree with the others and believe that this one experience is not notable by itself.  If it established a pattern which developed into a widespread belief, that would be different.  This clearly doesn't rise to that level, nor does anyone, including the newspapers you cite, claim that it does.LedRush (talk) 20:07, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Newspapers? I'm thinking more of CBC radio. More work for the weekend. Hope you all have a nice one. :-) 70.54.181.70 (talk) 20:14, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok, news organizations. Whatever.  You could try addressing the points, though.
 * As an additional note, this one incident directly conflicts with the widespread view that Rush were a great band to open for (they don't have opening bands anymore). Candlebox, Max Webster, Primus and others are on record saying that they are either the best or among the best bands in terms of how they treat opening acts.  Why would we put in the one exception without including the rule.LedRush (talk) 20:18, 1 April 2010 (UTC)


 * (Another IP again). Good points. However, when I Googled "Kim Mitchell" "Rush are great" I get one hit on a related topic, and "Les Claypool" "Rush are great" got me five. (For a lark, I tried "The Runaways" "Rush are great" and strangely enough, I got one hit—something about the 100 best guitarists). Primus has  a good article—they compare well to the Runaways—the article and related articles may even be better;  Max Webster less so. Candlebox has a decent article for a band I’ve never heard of. With all due respect to Max Webster/Kim Mitchell, they weren’t and aren’t as famous as the Runaways; and Primus has yet to have a movie made of them, nor would I object to edits of Les Claypool praising Rush.  Perhaps, as I’ve mentioned, this might belong more in the History of Rush—lots of stuff about the band as persons. Again comments are appreciated.72.53.95.61 (talk) 03:33, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Candlebox: Platinum Albums: 1(4x)  Gold Albums: 1
 * Primus:   Platinum Albums: 2       Gold Albums: 4
 * Runaways: Platinum Albums: 0       Gold Albums: 0
 * Their views on Rush belong in their article, it anywhere at all.LedRush (talk) 14:48, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
 * According to Joan Jett's discography, she got 2 platinum records too. :-P  ( :-D)  Very well. I will check out the History of Rush article, and if it seems warranted, I'll edit there perhaps in a week.  In the meantime, here's Catherine Wheel's take on Spirit of Radio.  :-)  206.130.173.55 (talk) 18:33, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

ogg of "Far Cry"?
An ogg sample clip of a definitive song is conspicuously missing from the Snakes and Arrows section. I'm actually not versed in how to create those 30 second clips. Does anyone care to inform or take it upon themselves to do it?  Wisdom89  ( T |undefined /  C ) 03:34, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Moon records
Shouldn't moon records get a link to this article? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon_Records_%28Canada%29

I would add it, but I don't know how.Danny47906 (talk) 05:15, 8 April 2010 (UTC)


 * The Nash the Slash article mentions his own record company. Perhaps you can mention Moon records in the "The early years (1968–1976)" part of this article. This Moon records is new to me. Well done.  :-)  70.54.181.70 (talk) 13:58, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Just a FYI, Moon Records is already mentioned in the article during the first subsection in "History". Feel free to link to it.  Wisdom89  ( T |undefined /  C ) 16:09, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Indeed, the first mention of Moon records in the article is internalized--save for the template.206.130.174.42 (talk) 16:24, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I was talking about putting a link in the info-box... not in the actual article.Danny47906 (talk) 02:14, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Done. Cheers  Wisdom89  ( T |undefined /  C ) 03:17, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Rush has the ___ most consecutive ____ albums
Someone has recently edited the line "According to the RIAA, Rush's sales statistics also place them fourth behind The Beatles, The Rolling Stones and Aerosmith for the most consecutive gold or platinum albums by a rock band." In archive 3, I had argued for the inclusion of the sentence "According to the RIAA, Rush's sales statistics also place them second behind The Rolling Stones for the most consecutive gold or platinum studio albums by a rock band." The number is verifiable on the RIAA website and I have demonstrated its accuracy in the archive.

However, regardless of that change, someone has recently tried to remove Aerosmith from the current language. I looked into it to see if the change had merits. Because the current language includes all albums, live would also count. Under this counting, Aerosmith has 19, with the first one not receiving Gold status being 2005's Rockin the Joint. Rush would have 20 with Vapor Trails breaking the streak.

If you include compilations, the situation gets murkier. Aerosmith's number drops to 18 (1995's Pandora's Toys) and Rush's drops to 11 (because of Retrospective I and Rush Through Time). If that European release isn't included, the number is 18.

Anyway, I think we need to clearly define what we are counting and edit accordingly. Is it:

1. Studio Albums 2. Studio and Live Albums 3. Studio, Live, and Compilation Albums

I personally would just talk about 1, but wouldn't hate 2. 3 is meaningless to me, though, as compilations offer no new materials of any kind.LedRush (talk) 15:44, 23 April 2010 (UTC)


 * According to the press release for the new tour: According to the RIAA, Rush's sales statistics place RUSH third after The Beatles and The Rolling Stones for the most consecutive gold or platinum studio albums by a rock band. http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/rush-time-machine-north-american-tour-2010-featuring-for-the-first-time-ever-moving-pictures-in-its-entirety-90202157.html


 * However, I would actually dispute the inclusion of the Beatles. I can't find a methodology which gives them more than Rush under any definition.  However, it is a verifiable source and at least better than what we have.LedRush (talk) 15:48, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * So which is the best metric: the one we have or the ones I've proposed?LedRush (talk) 20:10, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

For The Beatles, my only guess is that they're counting the slightly different US and UK versions of albums as separate studio albums. However, looking at their WP discography page, that doesn't give them the most consecutive either. 142.177.65.46 (talk) 21:52, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

The "eras" of the band
The following is the beginning of a discussion on the History of Rush article that is probably better held on this article:

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 / C) 04:11, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * From Wikipedia: 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."[3] 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)
 * Are there any thoughts on this before I attempt a change? I don't want to make changes just to have them reverted for reasons that could have been debated here first.LedRush (talk) 20:08, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Personally, I think that the 'progressive rock' label has become broad enough to include Pictures and Permanent Waves, as well. If you change, though, I'd rather lump 2112, Farewell and Hemispheres, as the 'most progressive' albums, together, and create an extra category for Permanent Waves and Pictures. The musical break between the more "classic rock" instrumentation of Pictures and the extensive use of keyboards on Signals seems to me more important than whether the earlier two can be classified as progressive in a stricter sense. Varana (talk) 09:08, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Just to reiterate, I still do not agree with LedRush's point of view in this matter. I'd rather not come to a conclusion of what constitutes Rush's progressive rock era based on a definition from Wikipedia, if for no other reason than it is too broad to determine what constitutes prog rock. Extended musical structures? Conceptual/abstract lyrics? Overarching themes? I can essentially use these descriptors for any one of Rush's albums. As far as "pushing the prog envelope further", there is no doubt that Caress and 2112 possess prog elements (and I think this is the point the article is attempting to make), but they are largely just hard rock albums with 1-2 protracted songs. Anyway, in order to circumvent the problem, I'd rather just abolish the titles altogether and just include dates for section headers.  Wisdom89  ( T |undefined /  C ) 11:08, 13 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I think it is a little disingenuous to say that the article is defining the progressive rock era based on a Wikipedia definition. The Rush article as currently written supports my proposed grouping, as I've discussed above.  The current headers have no sources (which I don't think they need to have, btw) but it would be easy to look to see how critics have categorized each album.


 * Caress of Steel: Allmusic says "it was Rush's first release that fully explored their prog rock side". Sputnikmusic says: "Rush, without warning, dove into the deep end of progressive music and released Caress of Steel."


 * 2112: Allmusic says: "Instead of choosing between prog rock or heavy rock, both styles are merged together to create an interesting and original approach." Amazon says: "2112 still stands as one of the great signposts of the prog-rock era."


 * There are many more sources which would describe both albums as progressive, but these should be enough for our purposes. Similarly, both our article and other sources describe Permanent Waves and Moving Pictures as departures from a progressive sound.  Changing the headings to time periods, in my opinion, does not affect this discussion much. We would still have to separate the time periods into groups which make sense.  I would think dividing by musical influence makes the most sense, but we could divide into periods of success (early years (through caress), moderate success (2112-hemispheres), on top of the world (permanent through signals), then ?). I'd rather stick with the current headings with the minor tweaks I've suggested.LedRush (talk) 16:15, 13 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Just an FYI, this discussion stinks of WP:SYNTH. Go by what the SECONDARY sources say, not the band themselves, as their opinions have changed throughout the years and are just that - opinions. If the main sources agree with four albums in the progressive era, than make it so. If, however, sources disagree or don't group all four into that era, than LedRush is right, and the latter two should be labelled as a transitional phase, much in the same way as Pink Floyd were between '69 and '71. -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  τ ¢  16:24, 13 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Virtually all sources I've seen categorize 2112 as prog rock (see above) and the majority I've seen call Caress of Steel progressive. However, few of the sources I've seen call the music of Permanent Waves progressive (allmusic says "By 1980's Permanent Waves, the modern sounds of new wave (the Police, Peter Gabriel, etc.) began to creep into Rush's sound, but the trio still kept their hard rock roots intact.", and few sources call Moving Pictures progressive (allmusic says "Not only is 1981's Moving Pictures Rush's best album, it is undeniably one of the greatest hard rock albums of all time. The new wave meets hard rock approach of Permanent Waves is honed to perfection" and the words progressive or prog don't show up in allmusic's reviews at all.  Of course, allmusic isn't the be-all and end-all, but it is instructive, and I feel, representative.LedRush (talk) 17:20, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I understand what you are saying LR, and I know there are critics etc.. who refer to COS and 2112 as "progressive". My point is simply the lines are blurry, and these little nifty titles or "eras" shouldn't really be in the article at all. I'd rather see most of them go, especially the "Progressive Rock" and "Returning to their Roots" era.  Wisdom89  ( T |undefined /  C ) 21:04, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Would anyone be adverse to simply having album titles with dates as section titles?  Wisdom89  ( T |undefined /  C ) 19:02, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Would each album get it's own section? If not, how would they be grouped? I am adverse to keeping the current groupings, regardless of title, for the reasons stated above (that the grouping don't make sense).LedRush (talk) 21:35, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * No, I meant keep the current grouping, but just eliminate the need the label them. Without the names, then it's simply a way of dividing the text without implication.  Wisdom89  ( T |undefined /  C ) 22:01, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * And be mindful that the current grouping is based on the four studio album per one live album chronology that the band adopted as a way of distinguishing time periods. Yes, I realize what the band does isn't official or binding at Wikipedia, but if we're just grouping things together, then it seems completely intuitive and logical.  Wisdom89  ( T |undefined /  C ) 23:42, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I was hoping someone else would weigh in here. I don't think substituting time periods for the current headings (without also shuffling the content) is either intuitive or logical.  The band has long dropped the 4 studio, 1 live chronology and it never was a good indication of where their music was...it was always an indication that they released a live album after a very successful studio one.  Regardless, I have devoted much time above to arguing against the current grouping and I doubt it will be useful for me to repeat it.  However, I will elaborate (and incorporate everything else by reference :).  The way I see it, we need to divide up the band's history by some measure.  The current division is by musical style.  As I have demonstrated, the grouping has inaccurately described the musical styles according to verifiable sources.  Merely saying we will divide by years doesn't change anything...we still have to have an organizing principle around which to make the divisions.  We could go by popularity (Rush-Caress is early, 2112-Hemispheres is first success, Permanent-Signals is top of the world, etc...).  Other bands can differentiate based on band members or large events...this seems like it's not an option for Rush.  So, other than musical style and popularity, how can we non-randomly divide the band's history?LedRush (talk) 15:13, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Every time I watch a Rush documentary and/or visit this page, it bothers me that we've gotten the groupings so far from what the band themselves say about their music and what the the RSs I find say about the music. We must change the titles at the very least. I also think it is best to change the groupings, but titles have to go because they are simple wrong by all metrics, whether in talking about the progressive era which doesn't include 2 progressive albums and does include two albums which aren't really progressive, and the the back to the roots era which is just a horrible, and not very accurate, name.LedRush (talk) 03:40, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Years Active
Should it say 1968-1997, 2001-present? Mrix1985 (talk) 23:52, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I think that could be true, as when Neil was journeying along on his motorcycle the band released no songs whatsoever. What does everybody eelse think? Crimsonraptor (talk) 20:11, 2 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Yep Neil hiatus does not count as years active. Anyway Rush rocks! --70.43.99.58 (talk) 17:30, 8 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Agree for the most part. But I think the years should cover the release of Different Stages in 1998. -fnlayson (talk) 17:49, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Lee and Lifeson were involved in the production.  Wisdom89  ( T |undefined /  C ) 19:54, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I believe it should be kept as is. Bands take a year off between albums all the time; Rush just happened to take three because of the personal issues in Neil's life. They never actually broke up during that period. &mdash;Deckiller (t-c-l) 00:44, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

It's fine just the way it is. Their years active are consecutive with no breaks during Peart's personal hiatus. Wiki libs (talk) 15:07, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Many dead links; at least one empty section

 * Dead links
 * The Neil Peart section is completely empty. This is not standard for an FA.
 * People always defend FA articles against threads like this, preferring to argue rather than work. Please work instead of arguing. Tks.  Locke's  Ghost  06:11, 18 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I have fixed all the identified dead links except one -- the Wayback Machine does not have an archive for that page. One of the reference sites (www.2112.net) changed their file layout a bit and added another directory layer - some of these I was able to fix, but others I had to use Wayback. RedWolf (talk) 19:08, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * This one dead link has to do with summer concert earnings, currently ref 107 from Rolling Stone. There is also a USA Today reference (106) for the same earnings but there is no mention of Rush on that page. It appears that USA Today blocks Wayback so there is no archive I can check to see if it appeared on an earlier version of this page. A replacement reference needs to be found or the paragraph will need to be deleted. RedWolf (talk) 18:43, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Lyrical Motifs
Something that has always irked me when Rush is discussed is the often used "science fiction lyrics" comment. In this article it states "lyrical motifs drawing heavily on science fiction, fantasy..." Of the 19 studio albums and over 120 songs, how many have had sci-fi or fantastical-inspired lyrics?? Very few, especially after 2112. Even 2112 which most people point to as evidence, is more philosophically thematic than sci-fi. That is, the Randian philosophy is soooo in your face that it overwhelms the sci-fi setting. Even so, "2112-the suite" is only half that album; the other half album of songs are NOT sci-fi songs at all. Of course it was a turning point album for them but it does not represent their entire oeuvre. Their lyrics are inspired from all sorts of subjects, I recommend the line using sci-fi and fantasy be deleted.Deriobamba (talk) 14:15, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

genres/styles
There is some reference to one of the styles of Rush is "heavy metal"?... or even if you've listened their albums --200.120.18.240 (talk) 17:55, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes there is many like -->A history of rock music 1951-2000 - By Piero Scaruffi..Moxy (talk) 18:01, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I think the point was that the IP wanted "heavy Metal" listed as a genre as there are many references to Rush's music being heavy metal.LedRush (talk) 18:37, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thats what i though to at first till i saw this. Moxy (talk) 20:01, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Interesting. This is why puctuation and basic grammar are important skills to have.LedRush (talk) 20:56, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * ROLF :) Moxy (talk) 04:17, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Look, in this biography, there is the hard rock period, the progressive rock era, "the synthesizer period", so, one of their genres is sythrock —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.161.225.235 (talk) 20:02, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

you make others see "Rush" like a heavy band, and it is not --Asd140 (talk) 05:08, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * On wikipedia, you must cite reliable sources for statements made in an article. We have many that say they are "hard rock" or "heavy metal", but I've not seen any that call them "synth rock".LedRush (talk) 12:35, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed, no refs. (I haven't even heard of "synthrock" before...Crimsonraptor &#124; (Contact me) Dumpster dive if you must 22:45, 9 February 2011 (UTC))
 * Synth Rock does not belong. And as for the heavy metal debate....yet again.....here is the quote taken directly from the introduction in the book "Visions-The Official Biography of RUSH" By Bill Banasiewicz published in 1988: "Over the course of 16 albums and thousands of concerts throughout the globe Rush have established themselves as the most popular heavy metal and progressive rock trio in the world. Their unique blend of power rock and intelligent lyrics has won them a following as devoted as any in rock." Nuff said. After years and years and years of this stupid debate...let it end now. Wiki libs (talk) 17:25, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Neil Peart Section is empty
The entire Neil Peart section is empty and someone needs to input information about him besides just a link to his main page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Furrface (talk • contribs)
 * Its divided into two subsections: Music and lyrics -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  τ ¢  20:11, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Instrument lists in Band members section
you don't need to list every damn instrument they play. for example. "12 string acoustic and electric guitars" ,"6 sting electric and acoustic rhythm guitars" and "classical guitar" should just be "Lead/rhythm guitars". things like "mellotron" should be listed as keyboards and who listed "sythn and bass pedals"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.121.138.158 (talk) 01:14, 16 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Fair points. I trimmed some of the secondary instruments and info. -Fnlayson (talk) 06:05, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Subsection titles (again)
So, as I've argued in the past, I believe that the subsection titles for "the progressive years" and "returning to their roots" are factually incorrect and unsupported by RSs. I've changed the History of Rush article to have different section title. They could use improvement, but they are at least no longer incorrect. I would like to sollicit opinions on how to improve the titles in that article, and change the ones in this article.LedRush (talk) 18:12, 25 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Those section labels seem fine [for here] but the use of "The". That should be avoided except for specific names/titles. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:59, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Would you support using those section labels here?LedRush (talk) 19:07, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, that was the point of my post. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:09, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I thought you were commenting on the first part of my question and not the second.LedRush (talk) 19:18, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Me too, I did not make that clear. Carrying those labels here seems fine. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:22, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Alex Lifeson
I was unable to find any references supportive of the following statement:

Despite his esteem, however, Lifeson is often regarded as being overshadowed by his bandmates because of Lee's on-stage multi-instrumental dexterity and Peart's status as a drummer.[94]

the link (94) also does not work (forbidden access).

Thank You K2msmith (talk) 18:22, 24 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I've removed the sentence. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 20:30, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Genres
Why wouldn't instrumental rock, pop rock, alternative rock, classical rock, or rap rock be included in the genre list?209.213.155.25 (talk) 22:10, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Or Christian rock?209.213.155.25 (talk) 22:13, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Pet rocks? ManfrenjenStJohn (talk) 06:12, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Jeff Jones
Jeff Jones was never in Rush. Geddy Lee, Alex Lifeson, and John Rutsey founded Rush. Hermanator1 (talk) 13:20, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * According to the official biography, he was.  Wisdom89  ( T |undefined /  C ) 14:48, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

No, it's not that Jeff Jones was never in Rush, he just was not a founding member. And what official biography? Did you watch the documentary made about the band (Rush: Behind the Lighted Stage)? It says Geddy Lee, Alex Lifeson, and John Rutsey were the founding members. For an extremely short period of time, Ray Danniels wanted Geddy Lee out of the band, and Jeff Jones was put in his place. They got Geddy Lee back right away though. So, Jeff Jones was not a founding member. This needs to be changed. Hermanator2000 (talk) 13:05, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Influence Section
In connection with the discussion above regarding the influnce Rush had on the progressive metal genre, I thought that a sourced statement of such could easily go into a section discussion the influences that Rush has had on other artists. I can't seem to find that section. If it's there, please see my earlier recommendation. If not, shouldn't we have one?LedRush (talk) 00:49, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree, a section detailing Rush's influences on other artists and genres seems to be conspicuously missing. That would be a fitting place for a statement about progressive metal - provided we can come up with multiple sources.  Wisdom89  ( T |undefined /  C ) 01:08, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * A section like that, of course, could balloon into something absolutely huge. It's not a bad idea... fairly common on Wikipedia too. But there should be some sort of agreed upon limitation of just how big it should be because, face it, the band is listed as a primary inspiration and influence by literally thousands of bands who are notable enough to have their own Wiki-page. Several other "bloated" sections found themselves split off into separate articles because they became too immense. Only later to be put on the AfD chopping block and either saved by the skin of their citations or, in some cases, lost completely (anyone remember "Rush in popular culture" article?) An influence section could easily grow into a fanboy magnet. The limit of its girth should be set it stone right here before beginning. Just a thought. Mr Pyles (talk) 02:16, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * We cannot set anything in stone here (consensus changes, blah blah blah), but I think an agreed upon current topic size is a good idea to prevent the types of issues you detail. I suggest approximately matching the length of the current "influences" section (i.e., about 5 lines).  The structure would be a general statement about their influences on musicians, bands and genres, followed by a list of only the most notable of said examples.LedRush (talk) 03:12, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I glad to see you guys compromising. I would be completely happy with this. Thankyou. --Jamcad01 (talk) 05:35, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Reference 78
How does this citation rate as reliable? 78 Thanks BigJoeRockHead (talk) 00:27, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The current footnote 78 is to a USA Today article. Considering that is a major US newspaper, I don't see how it would Not be considered a reliable source. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:23, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Consecutive gold albums (again)
I've noticed that we have the following sentence in the "sales" section:

"Over the course of their career, Rush has come to release 24 gold records and 14 platinum records (3 of which have gone multiplatinum),[104] placing them within the top 3 for the most consecutive gold albums by a rock band." In the archives, I had gone to the RIAA website and demonstrated that only The Rolling Stones have more consecutive gold studio albums. While we are technically correct by saying "top 3", why not just say 2nd?LedRush (talk) 20:08, 1 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Agree - "Top 3" implies third. Just say "...placing them second for the most consecutive...". Ckruschke (talk) 12:20, 4 June 2012 (UTC)Ckruschke


 * The source cited for this claim, a press release dated April 8, 2010, does not meet Wikipedia requirements for verifiability because its content mirrors the language of this article prior to that date and is an obvious case of circular sourcing. Further, the source incorrectly attributes this claim as "according to the RIAA." The RIAA says no such thing. The RIAA does have an "Artist Tallies" page on its web site where it lists the number of gold, platinum and multi-platinum album awards by artist. According to that list, Rush is tied for 15th in number of gold albums with 24. Three qualifiers, "consecutive", "rock" and "band" are therefore required to make the claim of 2nd or 3rd true. This appears to be original research and synthesis since the claim is well beyond what the source says and is not a routine calculation. Also, the term "consecutive" is ambiguous. Does it mean albums released sequentially that eventually went gold (not necessarily consecutively) or does it mean consecutive gold awards? Piriczki (talk) 16:12, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd take a look at the archives as this topic has come up a few times.LedRush (talk) 16:17, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, I found a discussion at Talk:Rush (band)/Archive 2 but it only confirms that original research and sythesis was employed. It does not address the issue of circular sourcing. Piriczki (talk) 16:37, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, the others on the threads felt that counting was not OR or SYNTH.LedRush (talk) 16:39, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Now don't say that. I didn't comment on the article - which I did not look up - all I commented on was your suggestion for a proposed textual change. If the article is bogus, then the text should probably be dumped. Ckruschke (talk) 16:05, 6 June 2012 (UTC)Ckruschke
 * I think there is a misunderstanding. I meant that the past discussions concluded that counting was not OR or SYNTH, not your comment on this thread.  Also, the sources for the statements are the band's management and the RIAA.  I don't see how they're bogus.  I actually missed the sourcing in the lede, and if RSs say that the number is 3, I doubt that a quick fact check on the RIAA is enough to overcome that.LedRush (talk) 16:14, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Lakeside Park Origin
The song "Lakeside Park" refers to a park in Port Dalhousie on the shores of Lake Ontario. The song reminisces about spending time there when they were younger. Lifeguards disappeared from Lakeside park for many years as pollution levels are too high. They placed a sign saying "swim at own risk" on the lifeguard chair. This does not prevent hundreds of people from braving the waters on hot humid days every summer. The carousel continues to operate for a nostalgic 5 cents per ride. It is located a 5 minute drive from where Neil Peart went to school at Lakeport High School in St. Catharines. Neil Peart's locker number was 2112. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.0.15.46 (talk) 23:50, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Concert tours
i see alot of band pages where theres a section dedicated to a list of all their tours. And i think that a band as big as rush should have this section, so im just curious as to why it isnt listed. Because i could probaly add it in myself but i'm not sure if theres a reason its not here in the first place Davidravenski (talk) 21:25, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I do see that there are a number of such articles at Category:Rush (band) concert tours. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:16, 15 June 2012 (UTC)


 * One thing to remember is that this would require constant maintenance as dates are added/subtracted, tours end, and new ones are started. My suggestion is to leave it alone and allow fans to find this info on the band's web page or the various ticket sites. Ckruschke (talk) 19:21, 19 June 2012 (UTC)Ckruschke

Most played song
I don't know about in the rest of the world, but in the UK, Tom Sawyer is rarely played on radio or TV - Spirit of Radio however is very much a mainstream hit, and is played frequently across many different themes of station.

I saw Rush many times in late 70's early 80's always enjoyed them, and met all the band, plus many of the road crew mentioned on the sleeve liners, at Manchester Apollo. Interesting how Neil Peart seems to have turned out to be the big name. My money would have been on Alex Lifeson, but who cares. Just a shame they got sucked into all that Ayn Rand crap. 90.223.158.163 (talk) 20:40, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Genre
Why can't Progressive Metal Be part of the genre? It's definitely heavy metal and progressive rock so why can't it be combined?58.179.143.14 (talk) 10:08, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Essentially because Progressive Metal is not Progressive rock + Heavy metal music, but a specific genre that arose in the 1980s with bands like Queensryche and Dream Theater (see the Allmusic entry at ). No doubt Rush were an influence, but not part of the genre.-- SabreBD  (talk)  13:29, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay then can we at least mention that some songs were Proto Prog Metal and they are highly influential on the genre. Jamcad01 (talk) 06:37, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Although your statement is fundamentally sound; and, I am a huge fan of Rush, Queensryche, and Dream Theater; I would list Fates Warning as opposed to Dream Theater, as they pre-date them by a couple of years. BigJoeRockHead (talk) 19:50, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The vital thing here is to have a reliable source. The citation of a quote from Buckley 2003 actually implies the reverse of what you are claiming, not that they were producing a mixture of heavy metal and prog rock, but they were moving off to something new and away from those genres. There are two other points here: first, that the role of this article is not to support the case for prog metal, but to deal with the subject of the band in a balanced and neutral way. The second is that there is a sentence in the lead which says: that they influenced "progressive metal bands such as Dream Theater and Symphony X", which seems to cover exactly what you want to say.-- SabreBD  (talk)  19:10, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Can we at least add Prog Metal to "Bastille Day", "Anthem", "By-Tor and Snow Dog", "2112", "The Fountain of Lamneth" and "Something for Nothing"? Jamcad01 (talk) 06:05, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Do you have reliable sources that say they are prog-metal?-- SabreBD  (talk)  16:24, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Rush songs such as "Bastille Day", "Anthem", "By-Tor and Snow Dog", "2112", "The Fountain of Lamneth" and "Something for Nothing" have been cited as some of the earliest examples of progressive metal. Copied straight from the Wikpedia page on Progressive Metal. (Sorry that the source can't be viewed. View it on the Wikipedia page on Progressive Metal. Jamcad01 (talk) 07:07, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Since Wikipedia cannot be a source for itself what matters is what the source says, do you (or anyone) have access to a copy so that we can make a judgement?-- SabreBD  (talk)  23:55, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * http://books.google.com/books?id=rAn-s2oWjQIC&pg=PA190&dq=Rush+progressive+metal&lr=#v=onepage&q=Rush%20progressive%20metal&f=false Progressive rock reconsidered by Durrell S. Brown. This is a published source so it should be reliable. Jamcad01 (talk) 07:10, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
 * That link just goes to the book cover for me (this can vary from different pcs), so I have no idea from that what it says. Do you have access to a copy?-- SabreBD  (talk)  07:50, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't mean to throw cold water on this, but even if the book says that Rush had some prog metal songs, who cares? This seems like a case of WP:Undue.  I would think in order to make the info box, we would need a bunch of reliable sources.  Now, if you wanted to mention in the body of the article that the author of this book has called Rush (or certain of Rush's songs) prog metal, that would be more than ok.
 * Its true that just because there is evidence does not mean it is notable enough to go in. It is unlikely that listing individual songs is going to fit into this article, which is about Rush not prog metal.-- SabreBD  (talk)  16:30, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
 * What? I meant to add it to the articles of the songs themselves. Jamcad01 (talk) 07:10, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
 * In that case it would be best to find the sources first and then probably take it to the talkpages of the individual articles.-- SabreBD  (talk)  08:04, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

There are a number of problems with these attempts to categorize Rush as progressive metal. I'll name two. First off, this is precisely a case of undo weight. Certainly not all references are created equal, and passing mentions from a solitary or even a handful of authors does not warrant the inclusion of this genre into the info box. It's simply not notable. Secondly, it's also an incredibly specious argument to suggest that this description is accurate based on the fact that Rush was at one time "progressive" and played early "metal". Combining these terms is erroneous.  Wisdom89  ( T |undefined /  C ) 17:46, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Mr. Jamcad has also now taken it upon himself to add "progressive metal" to individual albums using the same dubious source and invalid logic found here. This is just not appropriate.  Wisdom89  ( T |undefined /  C ) 17:48, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Just wondering what is wrong with my "Metal: A Headbangers Journey" Source? I don't understand why you guys think it is so unreliable. Also since when was Allmusic a reliable source? Jamcad01 (talk) 09:05, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
 * A DVD is not sufficient for the assertion that some authors refer to Rush as progressive metal. First, which authors? Who are they? In what context is the assertion made? Is it merely historical? Contemporary progressive metal is a very specific genre. Ideally, the sources should be easily assessable to those who visit Wikipedia so they can be fact checked - published written secondary sources (news prints, journals etc..) are desirable.  Wisdom89  ( T |undefined /  C ) 04:30, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree that mentioning Rush as progressive metal may be undue weight and unless a consensus forms here that states that it should be mentioned then it should be left out. ⋙–Berean–Hunter—►  15:21, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm only mentioning that some authors label them as such. In this case it is Sam Dunn. Have a look at this wikipedia page and tell me what you guys think of it.--Jamcad01 (talk) 05:57, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Also I changed the source to look like this: "Sam Dunn, Metal : A Headbanger's Journey, Sam Dunn, 2005."--Jamcad01 (talk) 06:00, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I should also mention that he is the same person that directed "Rush: Beyond The Lighted Stage"--Jamcad01 (talk) 06:32, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay. That is one author's view. How many other authors (reliable sources) have this same view? ⋙–Berean–Hun<b style="color:#00C">ter—►</b>  01:18, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * First off, another Wikipedia entry cannot be used as a reference, even if used in conjunction with something else. Secondly, all this proves is that early Rush was merely influential in the development of the genre - not that they are part of it. This has never been in dispute. However, there is a huge difference between the two.  Wisdom89  ( T |undefined /  C ) 01:24, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not using the Wikipedia page as a reference. I'm just using it to show you guys the source that is being used as a reference. It says Rush ARE Progressive Metal, not just influential. Also how about we change the sentence to "leading to at least one author labeling them as progressive metal."--Jamcad01 (talk) 02:02, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * No, that is why we have WP:UNDUE. <b style="color:#00C">⋙–Ber</b><b style="color:#66f">ean–Hun</b><b style="color:#00C">ter—►</b>  19:49, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I think the balance of opinion is that, although this one filmaker defines them as prog metal, this is a bit idiosyncratic and that it would give undue weight to include this in the article.-- SabreBD  (talk)  20:01, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Arguing to include a brief statement about what a single author says is non-notable and epitomizes undue weight. It's starting to become patently obvious that Mr. Jamcad has a fundamental misapprehension of what progressive metal is and possesses a preconception about Rush that he is attempting to cream data to conform to. You don't start with an assertion and then mold data or cherry pick bits of information to support it.  Wisdom89  ( T |undefined /  C ) 20:05, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh for god's sake, Mr Wisdom. Will you please explain what the difference is between a band like Rush and a band like Dream Theater? "Progressive metal blended elements of heavy metal and progressive rock music, taking the loud "aggression",[1] amplified electric guitar-driven sound of the former, with the more experimental, complex and "pseudo-classical" compositions of the latter." That is the definition of Progressive metal according to Allmusic. Please explain how this doesn't apply to Rush? Also it was originally the source itself that led me to believe Rush are Progressive Metal. "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint." My source is a reliable source and I am merely mentioning the fact that at least one person thinks it's notable. I should also mention that in the documentary he directed, that states Rush were progressive metal, one of the people he interviews is Geddy Lee. So I'm pretty sure he would be happy if Rush were stated as being Progressive Metal. --Jamcad01 (talk) 06:30, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
 * "Now, if you wanted to mention in the body of the article that the author of this book has called Rush (or certain of Rush's songs) prog metal, that would be more than ok." If you look near the top of this topic you'll see that this person said it would be ok for me to mention that one author has said that Rush are Progressive Metal. That is what I'm trying to do right now. --Jamcad01 (talk) 06:33, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Right. You seem to be missing the fundamentals here. You will be needing more than one source bearing one opinion. Why don't you try finding where the band members themselves may have described their music? What have they labeled their own music? That would certainly lend more weight and be likely to gain acceptance here. As it stands now, you have not made a compelling argument and gained consensus.


 * Allmusic isn't a reliable source. Also, no one needs to counter an argument which is failing in the first place. "Also it was originally the source itself that led me to believe Rush are Progressive Metal." -- right, so perhaps you need to accept that the source may be wrong or at the very best (lacking bolstering opinions from RSs) a tiny sliver of a single opinion. This isn't worth mentioning. Without additional sources to strengthen your argument, you have lost your point. <b style="color:#00C">⋙–Ber</b><b style="color:#66f">ean–Hun</b><b style="color:#00C">ter—►</b>  16:59, 21 December 2011 (UTC)


 * As a long time listener to Rush, I personally would never consider them to be in the Progressive Metal category. However, they are one of the most influential bands to the genre. Rush paved the way for the true Progressive Metal bands of the 80's; Queensryche, Fates Warning, and Dream Theater. I think this discussion is great; it's what makes Wikipedia so great. Over the years, I've read and read and read about this very topic; and, I've never personally come across any interviews with any band member categorizing themselves as Progressive Metal. At times, I've even read that they don't really consider themselves Progressive. I'll through this into the fray. "Well, I certainly identify with Progressive Rock and I certainly don't mind RUSH being labeled as a Progressive Rock group. I have always felt I was more accurately a Hard Rock musician." - Geddy Lee The Consummate Geddy Lee Interview http://www.globalbass.com/archives/dec2000/geddy_lee.htm BigJoeRockHead (talk) 20:36, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Fine how about this:
 * "They have been cited as an influence by various musical artists, including Metallica,[1] Primus,[2] Rage Against the Machine[2] and The Smashing Pumpkins.[2] Their mixture of progressive rock and heavy metal has been a big influence on progressive metal, influencing bands such as Dream Theater[1] and Symphony X.[3]"--Jamcad01 (talk) 23:23, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I will add this in 72 hours if no one opposes. --Jamcad01 (talk) 06:25, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The problem remains that we can only post what is in the sources, the one source that works (for Dream Theater) says nothing about being an influence on progressive metal, just on metalheads. Also please read WP:OR for why we cannot say progressive metal = x, I think Rush = x, therefore Rush are progressive metal.-- SabreBD  (talk)  08:55, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
 * There are heaps of sources saying Rush have a mixture of Heavy Metal and Progressive Rock. --Jamcad01 (talk) 19:09, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

The article went through extensive discussion during Featured Article build up and the 3 genres agreed on, and still the best fitting, are the 3 currently in the box. They are not and have never been a progressive metal band. Heavy metal applies easily. And their songwriting was influenced by progressive rock in as far as they dabbled with fantasy lyrical themes and has extended song length which showcased their musicianship. But all of this music was still just hard rock and heavy metal in its core styling. Progressive metal, or any additional genre, should never be added to the box. Mr Pyles (talk) 13:36, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Could you please read the whole discussion before commenting? Thanks. --Jamcad01 (talk) 21:42, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
 * In this current discussion I need only read the comments of respected veteran editors like Wisdom89 and SabreBD to get a real gist of the conversation. The only reason this page is a Featured Article is because of the hard work of Wisdom89. He knows his Rush. And, more importantly, he knows the rules and guidelines of Wikipedia and knows what it takes to make a trustworthy encyclopedia page. The other comments from single-purpose accounts, socks and IPs are irrelevant here since they seem to want to push personal POV and fanboyisms over fact. Nothing should ever jeopardize the FA status of this page. Like a childish genre war would do. Especially one started with the goal of adding false information... like progressive metal... to the page. Mr Pyles (talk) 23:13, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Please read Ownership_of_articles. I'm simply trying to compromise and add this to the opening paragraph: "They have been cited as an influence by various musical artists, including Metallica,[1] Primus,[2] Rage Against the Machine[2] and The Smashing Pumpkins.[2] Their mixture of progressive rock and heavy metal has been a big influence on progressive metal, influencing bands such as Dream Theater[1] and Symphony X.[3]" --Jamcad01 (talk) 23:19, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Also stop singling out editors. --Jamcad01 (talk) 23:20, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

I can single out an editor if I wish... a dedicated editor like Wisdom89 puts his personal opinions aside when editing Wikipedia... and when it comes to Rush... if he puts a valid statement, back up by fact, against a proposed edit... he is to be respected. lso note... from your earlier comment.... There would not be a doom metal genre without Black Sabbath... but Black Sabbath have never played/recorded any doom metal. There likely would not be a thrash metal genre without Motorhead... even though they have never played thrash metal themselves. Influence on a genre... and playing a genre are not the same thing. And cannot be used to support an argument or edit which is not prop'd by valid citations. Mr Pyles (talk) 23:32, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh for gods sake I added Hard Rock to Black Sabbath. Someone else added Doom Metal. Stop saying I'm to blame for everything. --Jamcad01 (talk) 23:35, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

I never said you added doom metal to Black Sabbath... I simply pointed an edit like that out as an example. I had you idea you had made that error. And if you added hard rock to that page, well, you are forgiven... I think the regular editors of that page can all abide by WP:AGF that you won't do it again. As for this page... edit history, discussion (many) and solid consensus based on citations supports keeping the page as is... no additions... no deletions. Hope that helps. Have a happy new year. Mr Pyles (talk) 23:55, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
 * So you're effectively saying that this page should stay exactly the same. Wikipedia is about adding and improving articles to keep it up to date & making it better in general. --Jamcad01 (talk) 08:16, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
 * ...but you aren't improving anything. <b style="color:#00C">⋙–Ber</b><b style="color:#66f">ean–Hun</b><b style="color:#00C">ter—►</b>  15:13, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
 * That is your opinion and I am simply trying to say they were INFLUENTIAL on the genre not that they are themselves. --Jamcad01 (talk) 23:39, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

After reading this entire thread, it is quite evident that Jamcad01 is a voice in the wilderness and every other editor has disagreed for one reason or another with the addition of Progressive Metal as a genre for Rush music. Why is this discussion still continuing? Is it really necessary to start a new thread for people to vote to corroborate the obvious? Ckruschke (talk) 14:17, 28 December 2011 (UTC)Ckruschke


 * It is over. Jamcad's hearing problem is getting to be disruptive. He has lost the argument so things will likely take the turn of ignore, revert, block. Genre warring is unwelcome on Wikipedia. Time to ignore. <b style="color:#00C">⋙–Ber</b><b style="color:#66f">ean–Hun</b><b style="color:#00C">ter—►</b>  15:13, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
 * And with that solid/clarifying statement... the gavel drops. Thank you Berean Hunter! Happy New Year to all. Mr Pyles (talk) 17:27, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh for Gods Sake. I'm trying to compromise by saying that they were INFLUENTIAL on the movement by adding this to the opening paragraph: "Their mixture of heavy metal and progressive rock has been highly influential on the Progressive metal genre, influencing bands such as Dream Theater and Symphony X." I am not trying to add it to the infobox anymore. --Jamcad01 (talk) 23:39, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm a little uncomfortable with just adding a standalone statement to the lead as its purpose is to provide a summary of the main body text. Moreover, we can't synthesize/make a concluding statement (i.e. that Rush was influential on the entire genre) based on single bits of information (i.e. that they influenced Dream Theater and Symphony X).  Wisdom89  ( T |undefined /  C ) 00:08, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I know this is synth, but Cliff Burnstein did call Rush both progressive and metal (but not progressive metal) in "Beyong the Lighted Stage". I think Rush is clearly not progressive metal, and no sources seem to either.  However, it does seem to make sense to say how they've influenced the genre if we can get the cites to back it up (and then it would go in the main article, not the lead).LedRush (talk) 00:57, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

I know people are probably sick of me now but there is one more source I found: Mean Deviation: Four Decades of Progressive Heavy Metal By Jeff Wagner, Steven Wilson — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamcad01 (talk • contribs) 06:26, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * So, with all that said, should the second sentence in the second paragraph, "Rush's music style has changed over the years beginning with blues-inspired heavy metal, then encompassing progressive rock and a period with heavy use of synthesizers."; wouldn't it be more accurate to say "hard rock" instead of "heavy metal"? Bobespirit2112 (talk) 01:54, 18 July 2014 (UTC)